PROPOSALS FOR A LEAGUE OF PEACE. 29 1 



national law, which, unless some signatory shall signify its 

 dissent within a stated period, shall thereafter govern in the 

 decisions of the Judicial Tribunal mentioned in iVrticle i." 



The programme of the English Society is very similar to 

 this, with one important difference, which is this: The American 

 League proposes only to use armed force against any one of the 

 signatory Powers, if such Power goes to war before the ques- 

 tion in dispute shall have been submitted to the Judicial Tribunal 

 or to a Council of Conciliation. It does not contemplate or 

 authorize the use of force in order to compel the acceptance or 

 observance of the judgment of the Tribunal or the Council. 

 There mav l)e good reasons for this. I have never heard of the 

 judgment of an International Arbitration Court being flouted,, 

 and it may be thought by the promoters of the League that the 

 reasoned judgment of the highest Judicial Tribunal in the world, 

 registering, as it were, the judgment of mankind, will carry such 

 overwhelming weight and authority as to ensure observance. 

 The British Society, however, goes a step further. It binds the 

 signatory Powers to accept, and. if necessary, enforce, the judg- 

 ments of the Judicial Tribunal, but not the awards of the 

 Council of Inquiry and Conciliation. 



It is necessary, therefore, to bear clearly in mind the dif- 

 ference between the Judicial Tribunal and the Council of 

 Enquiry and Conciliation, and the different sorts of cases which 

 would be referred to them. The former would deal with what 

 are termed justiciable disputes — that is, disputes which arise out 

 of divergent interpretations of International Law or of the 

 various treaties made Ijetween nations. The latter would deal 

 with what are termed non-justiciable questions — that is, ques- 

 tions not covered by treaties or by International Law ; such ques- 

 tions, for example, as the exclusion of Japanese or Chinese 

 immigrants from Australia or America. Such questions are. of 

 course, much more inflammable than justiciable questions, and 

 it is just these which would test most severely the influence and 

 atithority of a League of Peace. 



It should be emphasized that the pressure which might be 

 exercised by the League on any recalcitrant nation which re- 

 fused to abide by the decisions of the Judicial Tribunal need 

 not necessarily take the shape of armed force. The ]:)rohibition 

 of jxDStal and telegraphic communication ; the proliibition of 

 banking and stock exchange transactions in connection with 

 such State ; the prohibition of certain specified imports to, or 

 exports from, the recalcitrant State ; the laying of an embargo 

 on all ships within the jurisdiction of such State ; the payment 

 of all debts due to the citizens or to the Government of such 

 State to some duly constituted International Bureau until such 

 time as a settlement had been arrived at — these and many other 

 measures might be taken, and so render armed intervention un- 

 necessary. But such intervention is an emergency Avhich would 

 have to be provided for and would take the form of an Inter- 

 national Police force, acting, of course, not in the interests of any 



