6o INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PEACE 



the British Government, before proceeding to extremities, to exercise this " mediating 

 influence." It is obvious that the very object of the clause was to prevent the creation 

 of fails accomplis by such actions as Italy's aggression. 



These violations of treaties can only be considered by themselves as tending to set 

 back the progress of law and order in the civilised world. The sanctity of treaties is 

 the very foundation of international morals, and any violation of them is a shock to that 

 fabric of mutual trust and consideration which has been built up in the course of a cen- 

 tury, and which forms at present the public law of the civilised world a law governing 

 not only the relations of states with one another, but safeguarding security in the 

 international dealings and intercourse of their respective citizens. 



The case of the Panama Canal, again, is one of particular interest between Great 

 Britain and the United States. Under the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of November 18, 

 1901 it is provided that " the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce 

 and of war of all nations ... on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no 

 discrimination against any such nation, or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the condi- 

 tions or charges of traffic or otherwise." By the Panama Canal Act of 1912, passed by 

 the United States Congress, such a discrimination however was distinctly made. Sec. 

 5 provided that " no tolls shall be levied upon vessels engaged in the coastwise trade of 

 the United States," and the American coastwise trade is restricted to American vessels. 

 This departure from the terms of the treaty was supported in the United States on the 

 alleged ground that the circumstances under which the treaty was concluded had under- 

 gone an essential change, in other words, though not specifically stated, that the rule 

 of rebus sic stantibus applied. President Taft's Memorandum, in reply to the British 

 diplomatic note protesting against the Panama Canal Act, set out not only that " the 

 canal is being constructed by the United States wholly at its own cost, upon territory 

 ceded to it by the Republic of Panama for that purpose," but that, as " the treaty leaves 

 all nations desiring to use the canal with full right to deal with their own vessels as they 

 see fit, the United States would only be discriminating against itself if it were to recognise 

 the soundness of the British contention." It is unnecessary here to discuss a situation 

 which at the time of writing was open to more than one mode of friendly settlement; all 

 that need be said is that, in the ordinary course, such a case would be an entirely proper 

 one to be submitted to arbitration. 



///. Open-door Policy. 



The " open-door " policy which tends to prevail wherever it is possible to safeguard 

 the general interest of mankind against the encroachments of individual states, was 

 re-enunciated in the Franco-German agreement of November 4, 1911. In Article 4 of 

 that agreement " the French Government " declared that, " firmly attached to the 

 principle of free trade in Morocco," it would not lend itself " to any inequality either in 

 the establishment of customs duties, dues or other taxes or in the establishment of trans- 

 port tariffs by railway, river and any other way and in general in any matter affecting 

 transit." The treaty contains further restrictions to prevent preferences being given 

 under colour of weights and measures, rebates or any other method by which French or 

 any other subjects might obtain an advantage over those of any other state. 



Another interesting and significant application of the same principle is provided by 

 the agreement of August n, 1910 between Sweden, Norway and Russia with reference 

 to the status of Spitzbergen. On February 25, 1909, at the instance of the Norwegian 

 Government, a conference met at Christiania to discuss the position which had arisen 

 out of the discovery of mining resources on the island. The states invited to the confer- 

 ence were Sweden, Russia, Great Britain, Germany, France and the United States. 

 The capital invested in Spitzbergen coal-mining was of Norwegian, British and American 

 origin, but Norway claimed prior rights owing to the preponderating share of Norwegians 

 in the Spitzbergen fisheries. Sweden claimed a prior right on account of her scientific 

 expeditions to the country, which had practically made industrial exploitation there 

 possible. In 1871 the Swedo-Norwegian Government proposed to annex the island. 



