Page:Harper's New Monthly Magazine - v109.djvu/614

566 denced by the six stout volumes which contain the reports of the arbitrations to which the United States has been a party.

It should be remembered, however, that while arbitration is a convenient, and in many cases a highly satisfactory, way of terminating international controversies, there are limits to its application. A resort to arbitration implies a belief on the part of each of the litigant states that a legal rather than a sentimental question is involved; more than this, each nation is convinced that an impartial tribunal will accept its view as the correct one. Some differences which have recently been adjusted by a resort to arbitration illustrate this phase of the subject. In the Alaskan and Venezuelan boundary disputes, which were, in fact, controverted claims to the ownership of territory, each power was confident of the validity of its title, and felt reasonably sure that a disinterested tribunal would decide in its favor. A full hearing was had in each case, and a decision was reached with which the interested states professed themselves satisfied.

The cases of the Baltimore and the Maine are examples of disputes which do not readily lend themselves to arbitral adjustment. In both cases considerable public sentiment was aroused; in the Baltimore incident time, distance, and skilful diplomacy operated to bring about a suspension of judgment, and the matter was finally settled without a resort to force. In the Maine case war was inevitable so soon as it became apparent that the destruction of the ship was due to an exterior explosion, and the final offer of Spain to refer the matter to arbitration was dismissed without serious consideration.

When a dispute grows out of the fact that each of the interested states is scheming to do something which is in itself a violation of international law, as to acquire territory from a third state, to diminish its independence, or to obtain undue influence in its purely internal affairs, a tribunal of arbitration is of course without jurisdiction. Nor can national aspirations or antipathies be successfully dealt with by a board of arbitration. And the same thing is true of controversies arising out of the competition for foreign markets which is so characteristic of the commercial and industrial development of recent times.

The outlook for the rules of war which have been undergoing constant modification during the last half-century is now an entirely hopeful one; especially is this true of those which relate to the instruments which may be used in war, and the burdens which may be imposed upon the non-combatant inhabitants of occupied territory. The humane provisions of the Geneva Convention are now beginning to bear fruit in the costly and extensive preparations which are everywhere being made for the care and treatment of the sick and wounded, and in the trained and highly organized cooperation of the auxiliary Red Cross associations, whose activity measures the interest shown the world over in the relief of suffering humanity, which is by no means restricted to a time of war. The medical and surgical equipment of the Japanese army during its brief war with China compared favorably with the best of the sanitary services of Europe, and it has since undergone such development in the direction of efficiency as to give it the very first rank among the armies of the world. One of the most important resolutions of the Hague Conference embodied a suggestion that the government of Switzerland should take the initiative in calling a convention of delegates to revise the original Geneva rules in the direction of greater liberality and humanity. Very considerable ameliorations in the treatment, identification, and employment of prisoners of war formed a part of the very satisfactory work of the Hague Conference of 1900.

It is truer to-day than ever before that peace, not war, is the normal condition of mankind. The millennium will come when mankind is ready for it; and its coming will be hastened by the development of a sane and well-grounded public opinion in respect to the rights and duties of states who are parties to the law of nations. Such a public opinion will not tolerate hysteria; it will stand for independent development, and will be slow to favor interference in the affairs of a neighbor; but its influence will be felt as a stimulating force in the conduct of international affairs.