matter at issue to the International Council and after the expiration
of the specified time, be precluded from taking any action, even to
the point of going to war, in defense of its own honor or interests,
as regards any issues which are not justiciable within the definition
laid down by these Articles, and which affect either its independent
sovereignty or its territorial integrity, or require any change in its
internal laws, and with regard to which no settlement acceptable to
itself has been arrived at.
THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL
5. The International Council shall be a continuously existing
deliberative and legislative body composed of representatives of the
Constituent States, to be appointed in such manner, for such periods and
under such conditions as may in each case from time to time be determined
by the several States.
Each of the eight Great Powers—viz., Austria-Hungary, the British
Empire, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States of
America—may appoint five representatives. Each of the other Constituent
States may appoint two representatives.
_Different Sittings of the Council_
6. The International Council shall sit either as a Council of all the
Constituent States, hereinafter called the Council sitting as a whole,
or as the Council of the eight Great Powers, or as the Council of the
States other than the eight Great Powers, or as the Council for America,
or as the Council for Europe, each such sitting being restricted to the
representatives of the States thus indicated.
There shall stand referred to the Council of the eight Great Powers
any question arising between any two or more of such Powers, and also
any other question in which any of such Powers formally claims to be
concerned, and requests to have so referred.
There shall also stand referred to the Council of the eight Great Powers,
for consideration and ratification, or for reference back in order that
they may be reconsidered, the proceedings of the Council for America, the
Council for Europe, and the Council of the States other than the eight
Great Powers.
There shall stand referred to the Council for Europe any question arising
between two or more independent Sovereign States of Europe, and not
directly affecting any independent Sovereign States not represented in
that Council, provided that none of the Independent Sovereign States not
so represented formally claims to be concerned in such question, and
provided that none of the eight Great Powers formally claims to have
it referred to the Council of the eight great Powers or to the Council
sitting as a whole.
There shall stand referred to the Council for America any question
arising between two or more independent Sovereign States of America,
not directly affecting any independent Sovereign State not represented
in that Council, provided that none of the independent Sovereign States
not so represented formally claims to be concerned in such question, and
provided that none of the eight Great Powers formally claims to have
it referred to the Council of the eight Great Powers or to the Council
sitting as a whole.
There shall stand referred to the Council for the States other than the
eight Great Powers any question between two or more of such States,
not directly affecting any of the eight Great Powers and which none of
the eight Great Powers formally claims to have referred to the Council
sitting as a whole.
The Council shall sit as a whole for—
(_a_) General legislation and any question not standing
referred to the Council of the eight Great Powers, the Council
of the States other than the eight Great Powers, the Council
for Europe or the Council for America respectively;
(_b_) The appointment and all questions relating to the
conditions of office, functions and powers of the International
Secretariat, and of the President and other officers of the
International Council;
(_c_) The settlement of Standing Orders, and all questions
relating to procedure and verification of powers;
(_d_) The financial affairs of the International Council and
International High Court, the allocation of the cost among the
Constituent States, and the issue of precepts upon the several
Constituent States for the shares due from them;
(_e_) The admission of independent Sovereign States as
Constituent States; and
(_f_) Any proposal to alter any of these Articles, and the
making of such an alteration.
_Membership of the Council and Voting_
7. All the Constituent States shall have equal rights to participation in
the deliberations of the International Council. Any Constituent State may
submit to the International Council sitting as a whole any proposal for
any alteration of International Law, or for making an enactment of new
law; and also (subject to the provisions of these Articles with regard
to the submission of justiciable issues to the International High Court)
may bring before the Council any question, dispute or difference arising
between it and any other Constituent State.
When the International Council is sitting as the Council of the eight
Great Powers or as the Council of the States other than the eight Great
Powers each of the States represented therein shall have one vote only.
When the International Council is sitting as a whole or as the Council
for Europe or as the Council for America, the number of votes to be given
on behalf of each State shall be as follows:
As agreed to by the Hague Conference, the relative position of the States
works out into the following scale of votes:
Austria-Hungary, the British Empire, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United
States of America 20 votes each
Spain 12 ”
The Netherlands 9 ”
Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Norway, Portugal,
Sweden, China, Roumania, Turkey 6 ” ”
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico 4 ” ”
Switzerland, Bulgaria, Persia 3 ” ”
Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, Serbia, Siam 2 ” ”
The other Constituent States 1 vote ”
_Legislation Subject to Ratification_
8. It shall be within the competence of the International Council to
codify and declare the International Law existing between the several
independent Sovereign States of the world; and any such codifying
enactment, when and in so far as ratified by the Constituent States,
shall be applied and enforced by the International High Court.
It shall also be within the competence of the International Council from
time to time, by specific enactment, to amend International Law, whether
or not this has been codified; and any such enactment when and in so
far as ratified by the several Constituent States shall be applied and
enforced by the International High Court.
Whenever any Constituent State notifies its refusal to ratify as a whole
any enactment made by the International Council, it shall at the same
time notify its ratification of such part or parts of such enactment
as it will consent to be bound by; and the International Council shall
thereupon reenact the parts so ratified by all the Constituent States,
and declare such enactment to have been so ratified, and such enactment
shall thereupon be applied and enforced by the International High Court.
When any enactment of the International Council making any new general
rule of law has been ratified wholly or in part by any two or more
Constituent States, but not by all the Constituent States, it shall,
so far as ratified, be deemed to be binding on the ratifying State or
States, but only in respect of the relations of such State or States with
any other ratifying State or States; and it shall be applied and enforced
accordingly by the International High Court.
_Non-Justiciable Issues_
9. When any question, difference or dispute arising between two or more
Constituent States is not justiciable as defined in these Articles, and
is not promptly brought to an amicable settlement, and is of such a
character that it might ultimately endanger friendly relations between
such States, it shall be the duty of each party to the matter at issue,
irrespective of any action taken or not taken by any other party, to
submit the question, difference or dispute to the International Council
with a view to a satisfactory settlement being arrived at. The Council
may itself invite the parties to lay any such question, difference or
dispute before the Council, or the Council may itself take any such
matter at issue into its own consideration.
The Constituent States hereby severally agree and bind themselves under
no circumstances to address to any other Constituent State an ultimatum
or anything in the nature of a threat of forcible reprisals or naval or
military operations, or actually to commence hostilities against such
State, or to violate its territory, or to attack its ships, otherwise
than by way of repelling and defeating a forcible attack actually made
by naval or military force, before a matter in dispute, if not of a
justiciable character as defined in these Articles, has been submitted to
or taken into consideration by the International Council as aforesaid for
investigation, modification and report, and during a period of one year
from the date of such submission or consideration.
The International Council may appoint a Permanent Board of Conciliators
for dealing with all such questions, differences or disputes as they
arise, and may constitute the Board either on the nomination of the
several Constituent States or otherwise, in such manner, upon such
conditions and for such term or terms as the Council may decide.
When any question, difference or dispute, not of a justiciable character
as defined in these Articles, is submitted to or taken into consideration
by the International Council as aforesaid, the Council shall, with the
least possible delay, take action, either (1) by referring the matter
at issue to the Permanent Board of Conciliators, or (2) by appointing a
Special Committee, whether exclusively of the Council or otherwise, to
enquire into the matter and report, or (3) by appointing a Commission of
Enquiry to investigate the matter and report, or (4) by itself taking the
matter into consideration.
The Constituent States hereby agree and bind themselves, whether or
not they are parties to any such matter at issue, to give all possible
facilities to the International Council, to the Permanent Board of
Conciliators, to any Committee or Commission of Enquiry appointed by
either of them, and to any duly accredited officer of any of these
bodies, for the successful discharge of their duties.
When any matter at issue is referred to the Board of Conciliation, or to
a Special Committee, or to a Commission of Enquiry, such Board, Committee
or Commission shall, if at any time during its proceedings it succeeds
in bringing about an agreement between the parties upon the matter at
issue, immediately report such agreement to the International Council;
but, if no such agreement be reached, such Board, Committee or Commission
shall, so soon as it has finished its enquiries, and in any case within
six months, make a report to the International Council, stating the facts
of the case and making any recommendations for a decision that are deemed
expedient.
When a report is made to the International Council by any such Board,
Committee or Commission that an agreement has been arrived at between the
parties, the Council shall embody such agreement, with a recital of its
terms, in a resolution of the Council.
When any other report is made to the Council by any such Board, Committee
or Commission, or when the Council itself has taken the matter at issue
into consideration, the Council shall, after taking all the facts into
consideration, and within a period of three months, come to a decision
on the subject, and shall embody such decision in a resolution of the
Council. Such resolution shall, if necessary, be arrived at by voting,
and shall be published, together with any report on the subject, in the
Official Gazette.
A resolution of the Council embodying a decision settling a matter at
issue between Constituent States shall be obligatory and binding on all
the Constituent States, including all the parties to the matter at issue,
if either it is passed unanimously by all the members of the Council
present and voting; or where the proposed enactment does not affect the
independent sovereignty or the territorial integrity, nor require any
change in the internal laws of any State, and where such enactment shall
have been assented to by a three-fourths majority of the votes given by
the representatives present and voting.
_The International Secretariat_
10. There shall be an International Secretariat, with an office
permanently open for business, with such a staff as the International
Council may from time to time determine.
It shall be the duty of the International Secretariat to make all
necessary communications on behalf of the International Council to
States or individuals; to place before the President to bring before
the Council any matter of which it should have cognizance; to organize
and conduct any enquiries or investigations ordered by the Council; to
maintain an accurate record of the proceedings of the Council; to make
authentic translations of the resolutions and enactments of the Council,
the report of the proceedings, and other documents, and to communicate
them officially to all the Constituent States; and to publish for sale an
_Official Gazette_ and such other works as the Council may from time to
time direct.
Subject to any regulations that may be made by the International Council,
the International Secretariat shall take charge of and be responsible
for (_a_) the funds belonging to or in the custody of the International
Council and the International High Court; (_b_) the collection of all
receipts due to either of them; and (_c_) the making of all authorized
payments.
THE INTERNATIONAL HIGH COURT
11. The International High Court shall be a permanent judicial tribunal,
consisting of fifteen Judges, to be appointed as hereinafter provided.
Subject to these Articles it shall, by a majority of Judges sitting and
voting, control its own proceedings, determine its sessions and place of
meeting, settle its own procedure, and appoint its own officers. It may,
if thought fit, elect one of its members to be President of the Court for
such term and with such functions as it may decide. Its members shall
receive an annual stipend of ——, whilst if a President is elected he
shall receive an additional sum of ——. The Court shall hear and decide
with absolute independence the issues brought before it in conformity
with these Articles; and shall in each case pronounce, by a majority
of votes, a single judgment of the Court as a whole, which shall be
expressed in separate reasoned statements by each of the Judges sitting
and acting in the case. The sessions of the Court shall be held, if so
ordered, notwithstanding the existence of a vacancy or of vacancies among
the Judges; and the proceedings of the Court shall be valid, and the
decision of a majority of the Judges sitting and acting shall be of full
force, notwithstanding the existence of any vacancy or vacancies or of
the absence of any Judge or Judges.
_The Judges of the Court_
12. The Judges of the International High Court shall be appointed for
a term of five years by the International Council sitting as a whole,
in accordance with the following scheme: Each of the Constituent
States shall be formally invited to nominate one candidate, who need
not necessarily be a citizen or a resident of the State by which he is
nominated. The eight candidates severally nominated by the eight Great
Powers shall thereupon be appointed Judges by the International Council
sitting as the Council of the eight Great Powers. The remaining seven
Judges shall be appointed by the International Council sitting as a
whole, after selection by exhaustive ballot from among the candidates
nominated by the Constituent States other than the eight Great Powers. On
the occurrence of a vacancy among the Judges nominated by the eight Great
Powers, the State which had nominated the Judge whose seat has become
vacant shall be invited to nominate his successor, and the candidate
so nominated shall thereupon be appointed by the International Council
sitting as the Council of the eight Great Powers. On the occurrence of
a vacancy among the other Judges, each of the Constituent States other
than the eight Great Powers shall be invited to nominate a candidate to
fill the vacancy; and the International Council sitting as a whole shall,
by exhaustive ballot, choose from among the candidates so nominated the
person to be appointed.
A Judge of the International High Court shall not be liable to any legal
proceedings in any tribunal in any State, and shall not be subjected to
any disciplinary action by any Government, in respect of anything said
or done by him in his capacity as Judge; and shall not during his term
of office be deprived of any part of the emoluments or privileges of
his office. A Judge of the International High Court may be removed from
office by a resolution of the International Council sitting as a whole,
carried by a three-fourths majority.
_The Court Open Only to State Governments_
13. The International High Court shall deal only with justiciable
questions, as defined in these Articles, at issue between the national
Governments of independent Sovereign Sates, and shall not entertain
any application from or on behalf of an individual person, or any
group or organization of persons, or any company, or any subordinate
administration, or any State not independent and Sovereign. The
International High Court may, if it thinks fit, deal with a suit brought
by a Constituent State against an independent Sovereign State which is
not a Constituent State; or with a suit between two or more such States.
_Justiciable Issues_
14. The justiciable questions with which the International High Court
shall be competent to deal shall be exclusively those falling within one
or other of the following classes, viz.:
(_a_) Any question of fact which, if established, would be a
cause of action within the competence of the Court;
(_b_) Any question as to the interpretation or application
of any international treaty or agreement duly registered as
provided in these Articles, or of International Law, or of
any enactment of the International Council; together with any
alleged breach or contravention thereof;
(_c_) Any question as to the responsibility or blame attaching
to any independent Sovereign State for any of the acts,
negligences or defaults of its national or local Government
officers, agents or representatives, occasioning loss or
damage to a State other than their own, whether to any of the
citizens, companies or subordinate administrations of such
State, or to its national Government; and as to the reparation
to be made, and the compensation to be paid, for such loss or
damage;
(_d_) Any question as to the title, by agreement, prescription,
or occupation, to the sovereignty of any place or district;
(_e_) Any question as to the demarcation of any part of any
national boundary;
(_f_) Any question as to the reparation to be made, or the
amount of compensation to be paid, in cases in which the
principle of indemnity has been recognized or admitted by all
the parties;
(_g_) Any question as to the recovery of contract debts
claimed from the Government of an independent Sovereign State
by the Government of another independent Sovereign State, as
being due to any of its citizens, companies or subordinate
administrations, or to itself;
(_h_) Any question which may be submitted to the Court by
express agreement between all the parties to the case.
The question of whether or not an issue is justiciable within the meaning
of these Articles shall be determined solely by the International
High Court, which may determine such a question whether or not formal
objection is taken by any of the litigants.
If any State, being a party to any action in the International High
Court, objects that any point at issue is not a justiciable question as
herein defined, the objection shall be considered by the Court; and the
Court shall, whether or not the objecting State enters an appearance, or
argues the matter, pronounce upon the objection, and either set it aside
or declare it well founded.
It shall be within the competence of the International High Court, with
regard to any justiciable question in respect of which it may be invoked
by one or more of the parties, summarily to enjoin any State, whether or
not a party to the case, to refrain from taking any specified positive
action or to discontinue any specified positive action already begun,
or to cause to be discontinued any specified positive action begun by
any person, company or subordinate administration within or belonging to
such State, which in the judgment of the Court is designed or intended,
or may reasonably be expected to change the _status quo_ with regard to
the question at issue before the Court, or seriously to injure any of the
parties to the case. Any such injunction of the International High Court
shall be binding, and shall be enforceable, in the same way as a judgment
of the Court, in the manner hereinafter described.
_Immediate Publicity for All Treaties, Existing and Future_
15. No treaty or agreement between two or more independent Sovereign
States shall be deemed to confer any right to invoke the International
High Court, or shall be treated as valid, or be in any way recognized
by the International Council or the International High Court, or
shall be held to confer any rights, to impose any obligations, or to
change the status or legal rights of any person, company, subordinate
administration, district or State, unless a duly authenticated copy of
such Treaty or Agreement has been deposited by one or all of the States
that are parties to it, in the Registry of the International High Court,
within twelve months from the date of these Articles, in accordance
with any rules that may from time to time be made by the Court for this
purpose; or in the case of a Treaty or Agreement hereafter made, within
three months from the date of such Treaty or Agreement.
It shall be the duty of the officer in charge of the Registry
immediately after deposit to allow the duly accredited representative
of any Constituent State to inspect and copy any Treaty or Agreement
so deposited; and promptly to communicate a copy to the International
Secretariat for publication in the _Official Gazette_.
_Undertaking to Submit All Justiciable Questions to the International
High Court_
16. The Constituent States severally undertake and agree to submit to
the International High Court for trial and judgment every question,
difference or dispute coming within the definition of a justiciable
question as laid down by these Articles that may arise between themselves
and any other independent Sovereign State or States; and at all times to
abstain, in respect of such questions, from anything in the nature of an
ultimatum; from any threat to take unfriendly or aggressive action of any
kind with a view to redressing the alleged grievance or punishing the
alleged wrongdoing; and from any violation of the territory of any other
State or attack on the ships of such State or other military or naval
operations, or other action leading or likely to lead to war.
_Enforcement of the Decrees of the Court_
17. When in any case upon which judgment is given by the International
High Court, the Court finds that any of the parties to the case has,
by act, negligence, or default, committed any breach of international
obligation, whether arising by Treaty or Agreement, or by International
Law, or by enactment of the International Council in accordance with
these Articles, the Court may simply declare that one or other litigant
State is in default, and leave such State voluntarily to make reparation;
or the Court may, in the alternative, itself direct reparation to be
made or compensation to be paid for such wrong, and may assess damages
or compensation, and may, either by way of addition to damages or
compensation, or as an alternative, impose a pecuniary fine upon the
State declared in default, hereinafter called the recalcitrant State;
and may require compliance with its decree within a specified time under
penalty of a pecuniary fine, and may prescribe the application of any
such damages, compensation, or fine.
In the event of non-compliance with any decision or decree or injunction
of the International High Court, or of non-payment of the damages,
compensation, or fine within the time specified for such payment, the
Court may decree execution, and may call upon the Constituent States,
or upon some or any of them, to put in operation, after duly published
notice, for such period and under such conditions as may be arranged, any
or all of the following sanctions—viz.:
(_a_) To lay an embargo on any or all ships within the
jurisdiction of such Constituent State or States registered as
belonging to the recalcitrant State;
(_b_) To prohibit any lending of capital or other moneys to
the citizens, companies, or subordinate administrations of the
recalcitrant State, or to its national Government;
(_c_) To prohibit the issue or dealing in or quotation on the
Stock Exchange or in the press of any new loans, debentures,
shares, notes or securities of any kind by any of the citizens,
companies or subordinate administrations of the recalcitrant
State, or of its national Government;
(_d_) To prohibit all postal, telegraphic, telephonic and
wireless communication with the recalcitrant State;
(_e_) To prohibit the payment of any debts due to the citizens,
companies or subordinate administrations of the recalcitrant
State, or to its national Government; and, if thought fit, to
direct that payment of such debts shall be made only to one or
other of the Constituent Governments, which shall give a good
and legally valid discharge for the same, and shall account for
the net proceeds thereof to the International High Court;
(_f_) To prohibit all imports, or certain specified imports,
coming from the recalcitrant State, or originating within it;
(_g_) To prohibit all exports, or certain specified exports
consigned directly to the recalcitrant State, or destined for
it;
(_h_) To prohibit all passenger traffic (other than the exit
of foreigners), whether by ship, railway, canal or road, to or
from the recalcitrant State;
(_i_) To prohibit the entrance into any port of the Constituent
States of any of the ships registered as belonging to the
recalcitrant State, except so far as may be necessary for any
of them to seek safety, in which case such ship or ships shall
be interned;
(_j_) To declare and enforce a decree of complete non-intercourse
with the recalcitrant State, including all the above-mentioned
measures of partial non-intercourse;
(_k_) To levy a special export duty on all goods destined for
the recalcitrant State, accounting for the net proceeds to the
International High Court;
(_l_) To furnish a contingent of war-ships to maintain a
combined blockade of one or more of the ports, or of the whole
coastline of the recalcitrant State.
The International High Court shall arrange for all the expenses incurred
in putting in force the above sanctions, including any compensation
for loss thereby incurred by any citizens, companies, subordinate
administrations or national Governments of any of the Constituent
States other than the recalcitrant State, to be raised by a levy on all
the Constituent States in such proportions as may be decided by the
International Council; and for the eventual recovery of the total sum by
way of additional penalty from the recalcitrant State.
When on any decree or decision or injunction of the International High
Court execution is ordered, or when any sanction or other measure ordered
by the Court is directed to be put in operation against any Constituent
State, it shall be an offense against the comity of nations for the State
against which such decree, decision, injunction or execution has been
pronounced or ordered, or against which any sanction or other measure
is directed to be enforced, to declare war, or to take any naval or
military action, or to violate the territory or attack the ships of any
other State or to commit any other act of aggression against any or all
of the States so acting under the order of the Court; and all the other
Constituent States shall be bound, and do hereby pledge themselves, to
make common cause with the State or States so attacked, and to use naval
and military force to protect such State or States, and to enforce the
orders of the International High Court, by any warlike operations that
may for the purpose be deemed necessary.
[See _New Statesman_, special supplement, July 17, 1915,
for program, with notes and queries, here omitted.]
INDEPENDENT LABOR PARTY
Annual Conference, Norwich, April 5 and 6, 1915.
[Sidenote: Independent Labor Party.]
_Drafted Resolutions_:
This Conference calls upon the workers to guard against allowing elements
to enter the peace settlement which would be a pretext and excuse for
future devastating wars; in order that the peace may be just and
lasting, the Conference demands:
1. That the people concerned shall give consent before there is transfer
of territory:
2. No future treaty, agreement or understanding be entered into without
the knowledge of the people and the consent of Parliament, and machinery
to be created for the democratic control of foreign policy:
3. Drastic all-round reduction of armaments, by international agreement,
together with the nationalization of the manufacture of armaments, and
the national control of the export of armaments, by one country to
another:
4. British foreign policy to be directed in future toward establishing
a federation of the nations, and the setting up of an International
Council, whose decisions shall be public, together with the establishment
of courts for the interpretation and enforcement of treaties and
International Law.
5. This Conference is of opinion that an International Arbitration Court
should be established, with power, as an alternative to war, to enforce
its decisions by declaring a postal, commercial, transport and financial
boycott against any dissenting nation.
6. This Conference is of opinion that no war should be declared without
the consent of Parliament.
7. Recognizing that a permanent peace must be based upon mutual
confidence and goodwill between the nations, which can only be shown
effectively by the abandonment of all material preparations for war, this
Conference urges the abolition of armaments, the disbanding of military
and naval forces, and the prohibition of the manufacture and import or
export of munitions of war.
NATIONAL PEACE COUNCIL: FEDERATION OF BRITISH PEACE SOCIETIES
[Sidenote: National Peace Council.]
1. Establishment of an international peace commission such as those
already established between the United States and certain other Powers.
2. Peace commission to extend its functions to include both those of a
commission of inquiry and of a permanent Hague court of arbitration.
3. Formation of a permanent Congress of Nations composed of delegates
appointed by the Parliaments, to settle important international affairs
which might give rise to war; further elaboration by the Congress of the
Hague Conventions regulating the conduct and methods of warfare.
4. No territorial change without consent of the population involved.
5. Foreign policies and treaties subject to parliamentary control.
6. Armament question to be put before Congress of Nations.
7. Congress to seek to remove obstacles to freedom of trade.
WOMEN’S MOVEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTIVE PEACE
London
_Object_: to organize public union and to bring its pressure to bear upon
the Governments of the world to the furtherance of the following ends:
PROPOSITIONS
1. The reinforcement of the Democracies of the world by the inclusion
of the mother-half of the human race into the ranks of articulate
citizenship.
2. The creation of some constitutional machinery, where none at present
exists, by which the Democracies may exercise some control over foreign
policy.
3. That all treaties and alliances on the part of any Democratic nation
shall be ratified by the representatives of the people.
4. That the manufacture of armaments shall be nationalized and that the
export of ammunition from one country to another shall be vetoed.
5. That the allies shall be held to their slogan that this is a war to
end war.
6. That at the conclusion of peace no province shall be transferred
from one Government to another without the consent of the population
concerned; that this consent shall be obtained by plebiscite and that
women, who have suffered equally with men, shall be included in the
plebiscite.
7. That women as well as men should be sent as representatives of their
nation to the Hague Conference.
8. That the Democracies shall press for some kind of international
agreement by which all the nations shall put themselves at the back of
any one lawabiding nation that is aggressively attacked, or of any small
country that is menaced by a stronger Power.
9. That the idea be brought to the front and the possibility discussed
of the formation of an European Senate composed of representatives of
every European nation. That this Senate exist for the discussion of
international concerns and in this way a means may be constructed whereby
nations can seek to obtain what is necessary to the development of their
national life by bargain and by exchange, instead of by secret treachery
or open slaughter and loot.
SUGGESTED ADDENDA
That the Hague Conference which regulates the rules of war is based upon
a pernicious principle in that it treats as natural the existence of
war, and only aims to prune off some features regarded as objectionable,
instead of trying to render war impossible.
AUSTRALIAN PEACE ALLIANCE
[Sidenote: Australian Peace Alliance.]
1. The establishment of an effective and permanent international
arbitration court elected on a democratic basis, including women
delegates.
2. The setting up of adequate machinery for ensuring democratic control
of foreign policy.
3. The general reduction of armaments and the nationalization of their
manufacture.
4. The organization of the trades unions and workers’ associations, with
a definite view of ending war.
5. The termination of the present war at the earliest possible moment,
and the following principles to govern the terms of peace:
(I.) No Province or Territory in any part of the world shall be
transferred from one Government to another without the consent
by plebiscite of the population of such Province.
(II.) No treaty, arrangement or undertaking shall be entered
upon in the name of Great Britain without the sanction of
Parliament. Adequate machinery for ensuring democratic control
of foreign policy shall be created.
(III.) The foreign policy of Great Britain shall not be aimed
at creating Alliances for the purpose of maintaining the
“Balance of Power,” but shall be directed to the establishment
of a concert of Europe and the setting up of an international
council, whose deliberations and decisions shall be public.
(IV.) Great Britain shall propose as part of the peace
settlement a plan for the drastic reduction of armaments by the
consent of all the belligerent Powers, and to facilitate that
policy shall attempt to secure the general nationalization of
the manufacture of armaments and the prohibition of the export
of armaments by one country to another.
(V.) The universal abolition of conscription or compulsory
military training.
MR. CHARLES RODEN BUXTON ON PEACE TERMS
[Sidenote: Charles Roden Buxton.]
1. Total evacuation by Germany of Belgium, France, Poland and Baltic
provinces, and by Germany and Austria of Serbia.
2. No indemnity, of course, from Great Britain, but compensation to
Belgium by Germany for damage done.
3. The special demands of France against Germany, of Italy and Serbia
against Austria, and of Russia against Turkey to be agreed upon with
Great Britain by the States concerned. This country to use its influence
to secure that such demands are in harmony with the principle of
nationality.
4. Germany’s right to a colonial empire to be recognized, though
not necessarily to exactly the same territories as those previously
possessed.
POINTS FOR A CONFERENCE
The following points might be referred to a conference representing
neutral and belligerent States:
_a._ The repartition of Africa, with a view to more convenient frontiers
and to the interests of the native population.
_b._ The question of equal economic opportunities, including the open
door, in all colonial possessions.
_c._ The discussion and definition of immunity from capture of goods
other than contraband and the modification of commercial blockade,
whether by submarine warfare or otherwise.
_d._ As a condition of the preceding point the question of equal,
comprehensive, and effective guarantees against future war on land as
well as on sea; binding Germany as well as other nations, including
ourselves.
BRAILSFORD ON A PEACE BY SATISFACTION
[Sidenote: H. N. Brailsford.]
A peace in which neither side could dictate the settlement might aim
either at general frustration or general satisfaction. A sullen peace, in
which each side used up the remnants of its military strength to veto the
claims of the adversary, would be of all peaces the worst, for it would
leave standing all the old causes of unrest. This war came about because
Europe had evolved in peace no machinery by which demands for large and
necessary changes could be met without war. Each people postponed its
larger ambitions until war should come, and the knowledge of each that
only war offered a chance of satisfaction made our universal strife.
The claims of the Entente Powers for certain satisfactions for the
principle of nationality, are to us familiar and sympathetic. It must be
realized that the German demand for economic expansion is deeply rooted,
and in the modern world inevitable. For Manchuria, Morocco, Egypt and
Tripoli, the Entente Powers made, or were ready to make war. The German
craving for “a place in the sun” may be condemned by those of us who have
opposed Imperialism at home, but the ruling classes cannot consistently
censure it. For twenty years past, the unsolved problem for European
statecraft was to find an outlet for these tremendous German energies,
to cut a canal in which the broad river could flow without floods. The
peace of Europe will never be secure until this passion for Imperial work
overseas, which is to-day the strongest ambition in Germany, finds its
useful satisfaction. The forges are there. If they cannot make rails,
they will make cannon.
The formula of an enduring peace must be to remove all the causes of
strife in Europe, and we shall succeed only if we can satisfy the enemy’s
legitimate claims while we secure justice for our friends. The general
idea must be, win from him the largest recognition of the idea of
nationality, while conceding to him the economic opportunities which he
requires. The more, by the ordinary working of barter that we concede,
the more shall we obtain. Let us attempt to sketch what the main lines of
such an exchange might be.
(A)—ACTS OF RESTORATION
1.—Belgium must be restored, Serbia re-instated, and French territory
evacuated.
2.—The German colonies must either be restored, or equivalent territories
provided.
(B)—CLAIMS OF NATIONALITY
3.—The ideal solution for Poland, in a political sense, would be
independence. But could a land-locked State, between three great military
empires, ever be secure? The Poles, themselves, are not averse to the
idea of their re-union as a State within the Austrian Empire. If they
had the same status as Hungary, they would be internally independent.
But if Europe consented to allow this accession of territory to Austria,
conditions might be laid down. It might be stipulated that a like status
should be given to Bohemia, and to the Serbo-Croats of Croatia, Bosnia
and Dalmatia. Thus Austria would become a quintuple Federal Empire
(Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Poland, Jugoslavia), and one of the main
problems of the war, the liberation of the Western Slavs, would be
satisfactorily solved.
In return for this extension of territory Austria might be required to
cede the Eastern (Ruthenian) part of Galicia to Russia, and the Trentino
to Italy.
4.—The chief difficulty lies in Alsace-Lorraine. Let us make the bold
claim that it must be restored to France (or such parts of it as desire
this change). What can we offer as a _quid pro quo_? The following
economic concessions suggest themselves (5, 6, and 7).
(C)—ECONOMIC CLAIMS
5.—That Germany be allowed to complete that closer economic union
with her Allies, and especially Austria, which seems to be her chief
objective. We cannot prevent the creation of “Mid-Europe” as an economic
unity, but we might reply to it by a boycott. An amiable regulation of
tariff questions is a necessity for peace.
6.—We might further agree not to oppose such economic expansion (railway
and irrigation schemes) in Turkey as Germany can arrange. Turkey would
become a German economic sphere, but there must be guarantees for the
fair treatment of the trade in goods of other Powers.
7.—A general measure by which all Powers renounced differential tariffs
in their tropical colonies would ease the struggle for territory. France
would be reluctant to agree to this, but the condition is that she
secures Alsace.
(D)—OTHER ISSUES
8.—The greater part of Macedonia, in accordance with the principle of
nationality, must go to Bulgaria.
9.—Russia might acquire the Armenian provinces of Turkey. It lies
with us to accord her an ice-free port on the Persian Gulf. A Russian
protectorate over Persia might in the end be less fatal to Persian
nationalism than the present partition and condominium.
10.—Finally, the whole bargain must rest upon Germany’s assent to some
scheme of permanent conciliation and the reduction of armaments, and upon
our consent to consider a revision of certain usages of sea-warfare.
_H. N. Brailsford._
PEACE PROPOSALS AND PROGRAMS
4. GERMANY
GERMAN AND AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN SOCIALISTS
Vienna, April 12-13, 1915.
[Sidenote: Socialists of Central Powers.]
1. Development of the international arbitration courts.
2. Recognition of the right of every people to determine its own destiny.
3. All treaties to be under democratic parliamentary control.
4. International agreement to limit armament with general disarmament as
the ultimate goal.
BUND NEUES VATERLAND
[Sidenote: Bund Neues Vaterland.]
1. Development of international organization.
2. Further development of international law by future Hague conferences.
3. No annexation.
4. No secret treaties.
5. Open door. Freedom of the seas.
MANIFESTO OF THE “DEUTSCHE FRIEDENSGESELLSCHAFT”
[Sidenote: German Peace Society.]
Notwithstanding the prohibition of the Government, demands for annexation
are being more or less publicly advocated. Six large agricultural
associations go especially far in these ideas; indeed for one petition
signatures are collected among those who because of “their rank and
education consider themselves the spiritual leaders of public opinion.”
This movement has evidently the support of important circles. The worst
of this is that those demands are known to the neutrals and to hostile
countries, who make them the foundation of their accusations of German
desires of conquest. Besides they kindle ill-feeling against Germany, as
the Government and the whole German nation are held responsible for all
this.
There is no doubt that the Imperial Government is unjustly accused in
this respect, whatever may be her attitude towards other questions.
Should such tendencies be publicly criticized, then the world would soon
see that the greater part of the German nation is strongly opposed to
them.
The prohibition to discuss the aims of the war, which is strictly
maintained with respect to ourselves, prevents us from criticizing
this question thoroughly; and from organizing our opposition to such
tendencies.
So far we have gladly obeyed the order not to discuss these questions.
After our experience, however, of the way in which this prohibition and
the above-mentioned agitation are exploited abroad to the detriment of
German interests, we think it our duty to appeal to the Government to
grant “free speech to a free nation.”
Until this has been granted, the German Peace Association can do no more
than utter a general protest against the danger of such annexation ideas.
When such ideas are considered the aim of war, the war will be prolonged
indefinitely, for months, perhaps for years. Their realization would not
strengthen, but weaken Germany, abroad as well as at home, in peace and
in future wars. A new war would be inevitable shortly after such a peace.
The German Peace Association and all friends of the people desire that
the military supremacy of the Central Powers, which we hope will decide
the peace, shall be turned towards the consolidation of Germany’s
position in the world, towards the development of the economical and
national forces of the German nation. But they hope also, that the coming
peace may contain the elements of a durable peace and lay the foundation
for a lasting community of justice and culture between the nations, which
must be restored after the peace, howsoever bitter their hostility may be
at present. The association is convinced that a sensible consideration of
the vital interests of the German nation will prevail over empty phrases
and private interests, when the conditions of peace shall be drawn up.
L. QUIDDE,
O. UMFRID,
Stuttgart.
MANIFESTO BY 88 GERMAN PROFESSORS AND STATESMEN
[Sidenote: Manifesto of Professors and Statesmen.]
_Germany has not entered upon this war with the idea of conquering
foreign territory_, but in order to defend her existence, her internal
unity, and her culture, which were threatened by a hostile coalition.
When peace shall be discussed, those objects alone should be Germany’s
care. Some petitions laid before Your Excellency go against them: so
we consider it our duty energetically to resist such endeavors and to
declare publicly that we think their realization a political error,
which may produce dangerous consequences, and not a strengthening but an
ominous weakening of the German Empire.
_Practically we lay down the principle that annexation or conquest
of nations, which so far have been politically independent, is not
advisable._ The German Empire is the result of the idea of national
unity, of national kinship. Foreign elements have been amalgamated only
slowly and incompletely; so we object to events, persons or tendencies
which may be easily influenced one way or another, disturbing the leading
principles of the creation of our Empire, and destroying the character of
our national State.
Of course we cannot allow a territory which we should evacuate according
to our conditions of the peace to become a stronghold for our enemies,
we cannot allow the adversaries of Germany to settle there. There should
not be any possibility of the hostile feelings of the inhabitants
revealing themselves in hostile actions, which might threaten the peace
and security of our border-provinces. Such dangers can be averted and we
trust that suitable and effective measures will be chosen and applied
to accomplish this. _But those measures should not after all lead to
annexation in any form._
With our whole nation we share the conviction that this war will end in
a complete victory of Germany. All those heroic deeds, those endless
sacrifices and labors, all this military glory and all the sorrow borne
in mute heroism, entitle Germany to a price of victory corresponding—as
far as that is possible—to what she has sacrificed.
The highest price will be the proudly acquired knowledge that Germany
need not fear a world full of enemies, and the unprecedented display
of strength she has shown before all the nations of the earth and the
generations yet to come.
The German nation can only conclude a peace which assures the foundations
of the strategical wants, of the political and economic interests of the
country and the unimpeded development of its strength and its energy
at home and on the free seas. We trust that with the help of the bodies
indicated by the Constitution Your Excellency may succeed in obtaining
such a peace resolutely, while we are in the zenith of our military
successes.
PROPOSALS OF SOUTH GERMAN SOCIAL DEMOCRATS
[Sidenote: South German Social Democrats.]
1 a. Restitution of status quo ante, or
1 b. Plebiscite in disputed territories (Alsace-Lorraine, Schleswig,
Poland, Baltic Provinces, Finland, Trentino). International possession of
Bosphorus, Dardanelles, Suez Canal, Gibraltar, and Kiel Canal.
2. No indemnifications.
3. Confederacy of all European States.
4. Limitations of armies and navies. People’s army for defense only.
5. Alliance of all against aggression.
6. International Parliaments and permanent international committees in
place of diplomacy.
7. International police. International law-courts for minor international
offenses.
8. Guarantees of democratic government: equality of electoral district,
ten-year redistribution, proportional representation, payment of members.
PEACE AIMS OF GERMAN SOCIALISTS: CONFERENCE OF PARTY’S MEMBERS IN
REICHSTAG WITH MEMBERS OF PARTY COMMITTEE.
(Reported in New York _Times_, August 26, 1915.)
[Sidenote: Socialist Joint Committee.]
1. Peace must be a permanent one, leading the nations to closer relations.
2. Germany’s opponents must not be permitted to acquire any German
territory.
3. “Most favored nation” clauses should be introduced into peace terms
with all belligerents.
4. Tariff walls should be removed.
5. So far as possible, freedom of the seas should be established, the
right of capture abolished, and the straits, important for the world’s
commerce, should be internationalized.
6. Austria and Turkey should not be weakened.
7. Annexations of foreign territories violate the rights of peoples to
self-rule, and weaken internal strength and harmony in the German nation.
Therefore, all plans of short-sighted politicians favoring conquest are
opposed.
8. Finally, the party demands the establishment of an international court
to which all future conflicts of nations shall be submitted.
THE GERMAN SOCIALISTS’ PEACE MANIFESTO
[Sidenote: German Socialists.]
The manifesto was published June 26, 1915, in the form of a full page
advertisement in the Berlin _Vorwaerts_. The paper was promptly suspended
but not until its message had crossed the German frontier. The New York
_Times_ publishes a translation in full as follows:
“For nearly a year the world has been devastated by the fury of war.
Hundreds of thousands of human lives have been cut off in their prime,
works of incalculable value to civilization have been destroyed, and
there has been an appalling weakening of human forces. Millions of
mothers, wives, and children are weeping for their lost sons, husbands
and fathers. Want and hardship heighten the misery now oppressing the
nations. Must this terrible drama, which has no precedent in the history
of the world, go on indefinitely?
“The Socialist Party foresaw this world catastrophe and predicted it.
It has consistently fought, therefore, against the policies of imperial
expansion and against the fatal competition in armaments, which in the
last instance is the cause of this war. It has worked unceasingly for
a good understanding among the nations, for the cause of our common
civilization, and for the welfare of mankind. When last year threatening
war clouds were gathering on the horizon the German Socialists up to the
very last moment bent all their energies to preserving peace. But, to the
misfortune of mankind, they were unable to avert the catastrophe.
“Then when the Czar’s Cossacks came across the border, pillaging and
burning, the Socialists made good the promise that had been given by
their leaders—they put themselves at the service of the Fatherland
and voted the means for its defense. They not only did their duty in
defending Germany’s national independence, but they worked with all their
might to safeguard its internal interests in the matter of food supplies,
in relieving the needy, and in protecting the working classes against
avaricious tradesmen and narrow-minded bureaucrats.
“Faithfully observing the obligations which all Socialist parties are
bound to respect, the German Socialist Party, from the very first days of
this awful tragedy, has striven to further the cause of a speedy peace.
When the first war loan was voted, in August, 1914, the Socialist group
in the Reichstag, through its spokesman, Herr Haase, said: ‘We demand
that as soon as guarantees of national safety are secured and the enemy
shows an inclination to make peace, the war be brought to an end on
conditions admitting of friendly relations with neighboring nations.’
“This demand, which was accompanied by an expression disapproving any
policy of conquest, was repeated when the new war loan was voted on
December 2. On May 29, after Italy had intervened, the statement was
made in the Reichstag in behalf of the Socialist Party that the desire
for peace was increasing and that the Socialists wanted no policy of
conquest. At a meeting in Vienna on April 12 and 13 representatives
of the German and Austro-Hungarian Socialist Parties again adopted a
resolution in favor of peace. But the German Socialists have not been
content with such measures. In spite of opposition and suspicion,
they have striven for a renewal of international relations with the
Social-Democrats of all countries, and when the executive committee
of the international Socialist organization made a proposal to hold a
meeting at The Hague to discuss the possibility of peace negotiations,
the German Socialist leaders agreed, under condition that the French
Socialist Party participate. All efforts at an international agreement,
however, were thwarted by the attitude of the French Socialists.
“We recognize with satisfaction that in England, as well as in France,
there are Socialists who are working for peace. That cannot blind us
to the deplorable fact that the majority of the Socialists, both in
England and France, favor continuing the war until Germany is completely
conquered.
“The Socialists in the Reichstag and the official leaders of the
Socialist Party have constantly and unitedly fought against a policy of
conquests and annexation. We protest again with all possible emphasis
against all efforts looking to the annexation of foreign territory and
the oppression of other peoples—measures now demanded by the great
business organizations and influential political leaders. The mere fact
that such efforts are being made tends to postpone the day of peace,
which the whole public is now so earnestly awaiting.
“The people want no conquest of land, they want peace. If the war is not
to go on indefinitely until all the nations are completely exhausted,
some one of the Powers involved must stretch out the hand of peace. Upon
Germany, which has successfully defended itself against superior forces,
and which has frustrated the plan to bring it to starvation, rests the
duty of taking the first steps toward peace. In the name of humanity and
civilization, and recognizing the favorable military position which our
brave troops have won, we urge the Government to try to end the struggle.
We expect of our fellow Socialists in other belligerent countries that
they will make the same demand upon their own governments.”
GERMAN PROPOSALS FOR PEACE
Letter of Dr. Bernhard Dernburg to American Newspapers, April 18, 1915.
[Sidenote: Dr. Dernburg.]
1. The peace must be of a permanent nature.
2. The world is one interlocking family of nations. World dominion is
possible only with dominion on high seas. All the seas and narrows must
be neutralized permanently by common and effective agreement guaranteed
by all the Powers.
3. The free sea is useless without free cables. Cables must be jointly
owned by the interested nations, with a world mail-system. Customs duties
must be equal for all exports and imports, for whatever destination and
from whatever source. Preferential tariffs with colonies are the basis of
world-empire, and must not be permitted.
4. International law should be codified, with guarantees to save all
neutrals from implication in wars in which they do not wish to take part.
5. A natural commercial relationship between Germany and Belgium must be
established in workable form.
6. Germany should be permitted industrial expansion in such foreign parts
as need or wish for development.
Dr. Dernburg’s Speech at City Club, Cleveland, May 8, 1915.
1. Asks recognition of the truth that strong nations showing great
vitality and large increase are entitled to enough soil, air and water to
maintain and advance their growing population. The lack of such proper
adjustment of the conditions of the European Powers during the last fifty
years has been one of the primary causes for unrest in Europe, and one of
the principal dangers to the peace of the world.
2. Since no readjustment of the kind can take place in Europe on national
lines, it is necessary to seek the solution, first, by the apportioning
of all uncivilized parts of the globe, that is, by a readjustment of
colonial possessions, then by the creation of spheres of influence and
non-interference with nations who are willing to take and to concede
such spheres; further, by an open door and equal opportunity policy all
over the globe; and finally, by the neutralization of all the seas and
narrows, cables and overseas mails of the world. This readjustment must
be sanctioned by a simple and codified international law, safeguarded
so that it cannot be broken without putting the infractor outside the
pale of international relationships, not only with the party attacked,
but also with all the parties remaining neutral. England must give up
her rule of the seas, which must be placed definitely in the hands of
all the Powers of the world. World trade must be free and all colonies
neutralized. The decision whether there is to be a free and neutralized
sea or a Chinese wall will also be decisive regarding the fate of
Belgium. If the sea remains fortified, there can be no choice for Germany
except to have her own sea fortresses as well, and since the only way of
getting out into the high sea would be by way of Belgium, there would
be no possibility of Germany’s considering the return of Belgium to its
former status.
PROF. DR. L. QUIDDE ON REAL GUARANTEES FOR A DURABLE PEACE
[Sidenote: Prof. Dr. L. Quidde.]
I. _The annexation of Belgium would prolong the war indefinitely._
II. _The strength of the German Empire would decrease instead of increase
by the annexation of Belgium, in times of peace as well as during the
war._
_The annexation of Belgium would destroy every outlook of a better
understanding between Germany and her present enemies, after the war.
It would make almost the whole rest of the world remain our enemies
and would call forth a coalition of all against one. Germany need not
foster illusions in this respect, if she only considers the effect of
the invasion into Belgium upon public opinion throughout the world,
especially in those neutral countries who were originally Germany’s
friends._
_He who wishes to annex Belgium must have the courage to face the fact
that annexation will make the whole world our enemy for an indefinite
space of time and will completely isolate Germany politically, so far as
the feelings of the nations are to bring about such isolation._
III. _The annexation of Belgium is bound to bring about a new war._
It is evident that neither England nor France can allow Belgium to
be annexed by Germany as long as they do not wish to be annihilated
themselves. Especially England would have to prepare retaliation with
all the force that she can display, and it would be easy enough for her
to find allies to support her. One may differ vastly on the subject
of annexation, its advantages and drawbacks, but one cannot deny that
durable peace and annexation of Belgium are two things absolutely
incompatible.
Finally Prof. Quidde asks how it will be possible to make a durable peace
which at the same time guarantees the welfare of Germany. This will be
first of all a general removal of the causes that have led to the war,
followed by a thorough reorganization of Europe on lines offering a
better security for peace.
The first essentials for that reorganization are the “open-door” and the
“free sea,” which will have to be guaranteed by international treaties.
One of the best grounded charges against International Law is, that
International Law is in many cases so hopelessly rudimentary that the
lack of precision forms a temptation to violate it. It is necessary
that a strong agitation for the development, perfection and sanction of
International Law should result from the experiences, the causes and the
course of this war.
ED. BERNSTEIN ON PEACE TERMS
I
[Sidenote: Ed. Bernstein.]
It is the vital interest of the majority of the German nation, that
the present war should end by a peace treaty which, as to the rights
and the relations of the nations, is in conformity with the principles
laid down in the program of the German Social-Democrat Party and in the
resolutions adopted by their party-meetings and by the International
Social-Democratic Congresses.
Only a peace based on these principles will result in renewing the
friendly relations between Germany and the nations she is now at war
with, as soon and as thoroughly as possible.
II
The supreme principle, insisted upon in the program and the resolutions
of the Social-Democratic Party is the right of peoples to decide their
own fate, within the limits of international law.
The German Socialists consider it their duty to defend this principle
by all available means against any attack from any side whatsoever. No
nation or part of a nation having so far enjoyed national independence,
may be deprived of this right or see it impaired; no territory may be
annexed, when the annexation would deprive the inhabitants of that right.
The Social-Democratic Party do not admit the right of conquest of one
nation over any other.
III
In the case of countries of European civilization, which have lived
under foreign rule, no territorial changes shall take place without a
referendum being taken of the inhabitants. This referendum should be
arranged and supervised by representatives of neutral States, so as to
insure perfect freedom in voting. Any inhabitant, who is of age and has
lived in the country for at least a year before the outbreak of the war,
shall have the right to vote.
In the interests of peace, all peoples of European civilization living
under foreign rule in sufficient numbers to form a community in the
international Concert, shall obtain political independence.
When a sufficient number out of subject peoples incorporated by force in
one State, desire to belong to another, they shall be given the right to
decide by vote as to which State they will belong.
IV
Transfer of territory outside of Europe shall only take place under such
conditions, as guarantee that the legal and material conditions of such
native population shall not be injured.
V
Nations can only be safeguarded against a renewal of war or wars of
retaliation by developing and strengthening international law.
In this respect the following means should be emphasized:
_a._ Development of the Hague Conference into a Permanent International
Conference for the Codification of International Law and for
International Arbitration. Concentration of the various Hague
institutions into a permanent international court, suitably divided into
branch courts.
_b._ All States to bring those differences they cannot themselves
peaceably solve, before the Court of Justice to be instituted by the
Hague Conference, where they will be settled either by mutual agreement,
conciliation or arbitration.
_c._ All signatory States to refrain from war or warlike measures till
the Court of Justice has examined the cause of war and till all attempts
to settle the difference in a peaceful manner, have proved useless. Any
State or Union resorting to hostilities contrary to these rules to be
treated as an enemy by all the others.
_d._ The Parliaments to decide about war and peace. Secret treaties to be
abolished.
_e._ Development of International Law relating to the conduct of war
and the protection of the civil population. Abolition of the right of
capture at sea and of the right to levy war-contributions. No hostages
to be taken. Abolition of the system of reprisals against inhabitants
of an invaded country for acts of self-defense or defense of other
non-combatants. Permanent committees to watch the actions of belligerents
in occupied territories and the treatment of prisoners of war and of
civil prisoners interned in the enemy’s country.
_f._ Internationalization of transcontinental railways and of all
waterways connecting seas or lakes surrounded by different countries,
with the ocean.
_g._ Adoption of the principle of the Open Door for all Colonies,
Protectorates and for every territory which lies in the sphere of
influence of an European State.
_h._ These principles to be inserted into the constitutions of the Powers.
BELGIUM
Whereas, Art. 2 already excludes any forcible annexation of Belgian
territory or any attack on the independence of Belgium by another State,
Germany has moreover invaded Belgium, overpowered its army and occupied
its territory without any provocation from the side of Belgium and as
the Chancellor has himself admitted violating the neutrality of Belgium
in defiance of the law of nations. Germany having thus made her way
into Belgium to satisfy her own designs, beat down the resistance of
the army and occupied the country by force, Germany is therefore bound
in honor to evacuate Belgium immediately on the conclusion of peace, in
accordance with the solemn declaration, made on August 4, 1914, by the
German Ambassador, Prince Lichnowsky, to the English Secretary of State,
Sir Edward Grey, and to pay a full and ample indemnity to the people of
Belgium for the material and moral injury which they have suffered.
PEACE PROPOSALS AND PROGRAMS
5. FRANCE
FRENCH GENERAL CONFEDERATION OF LABOR
[Sidenote: C. G. T.]
1. Federation of nations.
2. Compulsory arbitration of international disputes.
3. Independence of nationalities. Right of all peoples to dispose of
themselves to be safeguarded.
4. Suppression of secret diplomacy.
5. End of competitive armament.
6. Conference of organized labor forces of the world at same time as
conference of diplomats.
PEACE PROPOSALS AND PROGRAMS
6. SWITZERLAND
RESOLUTIONS OF SWISS PEACE SOCIETY
At Annual Meeting, May 17, 1915.
[Sidenote: Swiss Peace Society.]
1. The avoidance of any annexation or territorial changes which are in
opposition to the interests and wishes of a population; a guarantee of
religious liberty, free speech and equality before the law, for the
minority.
2. The creation of a permanent organization in which all European States
shall be equally represented, for the purpose of safeguarding the order,
peace and safety of our portion of the earth.
3. The development of an international law organization by continual
Hague Conferences.
SWISS COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRINCIPLES OF A DURABLE TREATY OF
PEACE
_President_: Prof. Otto Nippold, Bern.
[Sidenote: Swiss Committee for Study of Peace.]
1. Participation of neutral nations in the settlement.
2. Prohibition of secret treaties and agreements between nations.
3. Participation of popular representative bodies in control of foreign
policy.
4. No annexation except after plebiscite of populations concerned.
5. Limitation of armaments to point of mere protection.
6. Manufacture of armaments to become State monopoly.
7. The States which participate in the settlement are to mutually
guarantee each other’s territories.
8. Since the best guarantee for the preservation of world peace lies
in the creation of international law and custom, arbitration must be
substituted for war.
9. Disputed regions of the earth should be neutralized.
10. Free trade in all colonies.
PEACE PROPOSALS AND PROGRAMS
7. HOLLAND
NEDERLANDSCHE ANTI-OORLOG RAAD
The Hague
Founded on the 8th of October, 1914
[Sidenote: Dutch Anti-War Council.]
The Council is of opinion that the following principles are indispensable
to attain a lasting peace:
1. Concert of the Powers instead of mutually opposed Alliances;
2. Limitation of armaments by international regulations;
3. Influence of the different Parliaments on the peace-treaty;
4. Avoidance of the dangers engendered by annexation or by transfer of
territory against the will of the population;
5. Removal of the obstructions to commerce or at least of difference in
treatment of the various nations in colonies and settlements, according
to international regulations.
6. New endeavors to promote compulsory arbitration and compulsory inquiry
of international differences.
DIFFERENTIAL NEUTRALITY FOR AMERICA
One would prefer to think otherwise, but the truth probably is that the
future peace of the world, and the nature of international organization
depends a good deal less upon definitely conceived plans like that of
the League to Enforce Peace (however admirable and desirable it may be
to promote definite projects of that kind) than upon the nature of the
foreign policy which each nation individually pursues. Disagreements
between nations arise generally in situations in which both sides
honestly believe themselves to be in the right. Most nations are honestly
in favor of peace in general, and would go to The Hague and assist in
drawing up plans to maintain it; yet each may be persisting in a line of
conduct which, in its own view entirely defensive and defensible, appears
to another unwarrantably aggressive. And when that is the case paper
arrangements for avoiding conflict are apt to break down.
So the most practical question for each of us for some time is likely
to be this: what will be the effect of our own country’s conduct in its
relations with other countries, upon the future peace and international
condition of the world? Or, to put the question in another form: What can
our country _do_, irrespective of what others may do, to contribute to a
more orderly international condition, saner world politics?
America is of course concerned in the present war whether she will or no.
She may, by her material resources in supplies, ammunition, credit, be
largely influencing its decision. As part of the problem of protecting
her own rights, incidentally menaced by the operations of the war, she
has taken very solemnly a certain position in international affairs.
She has declared, for instance, that she stands irrevocably for the
protection of innocent non-combatant life at sea in war time. She would
undoubtedly stand as decisively for certain lesser rights of trade and
free communication on the seas as well (in the past she has gone to war
in their defense) but for the fact that doing so against one belligerent
would aid the cause of the other guilty of still greater offenses.
And if we look beneath diplomatically expressed claims into unofficial,
but unmistakably expressed public opinion, we find America standing
strongly for certain other rules of life between nations—the right of
each nation to national existence for instance—like those violated in the
invasion of Belgium.
Is America really serious in the stand thus made? Or is she going to avow
by her future policy, if not in words, that she will take no real risk
nor assume any real obligation in support of the principles she has been
maintaining diplomatically and by her clearly expressed public opinion.
Is she going to submit lamely, to the indignities and violation of right
involved in the massacre of her innocent non-combatant citizens at sea?
I put the question in that form because it is generally a rhetorical
prelude to the demand for warlike action. And yet the American who is
moved by his country’s dignity and right to have thought this thing out,
as well as to have become angry about it, knows that warlike action is
perhaps the very last thing—though it may be the last thing—which the
situation calls for; and that warlike action alone would be a betrayal
of his country’s highest interests in the matter. If America is really
serious she must prepare herself—in public opinion, in political
education—for action of a different kind: for the abandonment of certain
traditions about freedom from entangling alliances, for the assumption of
risks and obligations which to most Americans is to ask a great deal more
than the mere act of going to war.
Why will war of itself not suffice?
Suppose this country goes to war, over, for instance, the submarine
issue; and is finally entirely successful, so far as defeating Germany
is concerned. How do we then know that America has got what she has been
fighting for? Our demands at the end of the war will be that American
rights at sea shall be respected; that, most particularly, non-combatants
shall not be drowned by attacks on merchantmen. Very good. Germany gives
us her promise. She has given it before. How do we know that it will be
kept—either by her or any other nation that in a future war may find a
ruthless use of the submarine the only weapon left to it against a power
commanding the sea? Can we hope that if we show now that we are ready to
fight “at the drop of the hat,” in future a hard-pressed belligerent will
be overawed by the great American navy? Then why is not the belligerent
we now propose to deal with held in check by the combined navies of Great
Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Japan and Portugal? Again, when we have
that promise at the end of our victorious war how do we know that it will
be kept, that we shall have got what we have been fighting for?
And what of the American case against the Allies? Is America now to
surrender rights upon which she has insisted ever since she became an
independent State and which she once fought a war and twice very nearly
came to war to defend? Is America, in fighting Germany to make the
British Order in Council the basis of future sea law, so that when say
Japan goes to war with some other nation America will have to submit to
Japanese control of her trade and communication with neutral States—even
to mail and banking correspondence—as she now submits to British control?
It is quite obvious that American claims have this difference from those
of the Allies: they, in so far as they are territorial can at the peace
be satisfied on the spot. America’s cannot. Hers depend absolutely upon
the establishment, after the war, of a different and better international
order; upon agreement as to what shall constitute international law and
some method of ensuring its observance.
Now has it not become evident that the present German-American situation
contains the elements of a great opportunity for America: not only of
putting an end to a situation humiliating for herself but of creating
a new state of world affairs out of which might grow—would almost
inevitably grow—the restoration of general peace on conditions that
civilization could accept?
But that result is certainly conditional on one thing: that American
diplomacy is great enough to make precedent, to be dangerously honest
to the point of dropping diplomatic make-believe and breaking with
diplomatic usage.
Germany says in effect that she will make military sacrifices for the
purpose of respecting American neutral right, if America on her side
will reciprocally fulfil neutral obligation by insisting on the military
sacrifice from _both_ belligerents; so that American rights are not made
a means of handicapping one party as against the other; are not invoked
in what Germany regards as so one-sided a fashion as to become an arm for
the use of one belligerent against the other.
Now it is quite within precedent, right and usage, to reply, as in the
past, to such a demand by diplomatic punctilio: “America cannot discuss
the behavior of one belligerent with the other,” and so forth and so
forth. The American government could make excellent debating points and
be diplomatically entirely correct.
But suppose, instead, it were undiplomatically honest and unprecedentedly
bold and said bluntly what every one knows to be the truth: that because
of the slowly acquired American conviction of the badness of the German
cause—the danger to civilization and ourselves which this country has
come to believe inherent in that cause—it is impossible for America to
enforce the law—or what America holds to be the law—sharply against
England, to take any action which would seriously add to the chances of
German victory; to be, in other words, really neutral. Suppose America
bold and honest enough to avow the quite simple obvious truth that we are
not indifferent as to the outcome of the war and that in the long run
our conduct won’t be guided as though we were; that so long as we have
reason to believe German policy a menace it will encounter in one form or
another (not excluding necessarily even the military form) our active or
latent opposition.
And then, suppose that on top of that impossibly bold and honest
stand this country were further to announce that it can only act
effectively for the sea law Germany desires, and otherwise withdraw its
opposition, if Germany is prepared to reassure us as to her cause by
stating definitely that the terms upon which she is prepared to discuss
peace include such things as the evacuation of Belgium and France and
indemnification for damage done; the acceptance of the international
principles involved in the American claims; recognition of the absolute
right to existence of all States great and small; readiness to enter,
at least to the extent that others are ready, into European or world
arrangements for the guarantee of that right and the mutual discussion
and limitation of armaments; together with such minor details as
agreement to the appointment of an international commission to enquire
into the violation of the laws of war on land and sea and the punishment
of the individuals convicted by that commission.
Once convinced that Germany stands for a policy such as peace on those
terms would imply, America could on her side (so this impossibly honest
diplomacy might make plain) stand effectively for the freedom of the sea
as against England if needs be at least to the extent of upholding the
Declaration of London; could assure Germany that this country would never
be reckoned among her enemies, but on the contrary would co-operate with
her in defense of that equality of commercial opportunity in the world of
which Germany accuses her enemies of trying to deprive her.
Such a “Declaration of America’s International Position” as that which I
am here imagining would, in more precise terms, be about as follows:
1. Though America since the outbreak of the war has done
everything possible to observe the form of neutrality which
international practise had heretofore imposed upon States not
actively participating in a war, the circumstances of the
present conflict have shown that the future protection of her
own particular interests are so identified with the maintenance
of certain general rules of international intercourse that in
all future wars she will differentiate in her treatment of
the combatants. Thus in no case will American resources be
available for the military purposes of a belligerent who had
entered upon a war refusing to submit his case to enquiry and
the necessary delay, and to adhere to certain rules necessary
for the safeguarding of innocent non-combatant life.
The United States could not in consequence feel that her
relations with Germany could be placed upon a really sound
foundation of friendly cooperation until that country had
(a) accepted the international principles (as for instance the
sanctity of non-combatant life) involved in the American claims
and the further principle that their violation is an unfriendly
act towards America whether American life and property are
concerned or not;
(b) undertaken to evacuate Belgium, France and Serbia and
indemnify Belgium for damage done;
(c) agreed to the appointment of an international commission of
inquiry into the violation of the rights of non-combatants on
land and sea, with authority to assess damages, and to payment
of any damages in which Germany may be cast, and to punishment
of individuals convicted of offenses against the laws of war.
On the acceptance of these terms by Germany, America would undertake:
A. Not to furnish military or naval aid to Germany’s enemies in
this war.
B. To become one of the guarantors of the integrity of Belgium.
C. In the event of the creation of new buffer States, to assist
in the maintenance of their inviolability by refusing to allow
American citizens to furnish their invader with supplies of
any nature: by the application, that is, of the principle of
differential neutrality above indicated.
D. To accord to German citizens in protectorates subject
to American control, commercial access on equal terms
with American citizens and to support by the differential
neutrality already indicated the policy of the open door in
all protectorates and non-self-governing territories. That
is to say America would undertake not to furnish military or
naval aid to any power or group of powers that refused to apply
the principle of the open door in their protectorates, and to
prohibit the export of supplies or munitions to such powers in
their military operations.
E. To join, _pari passu_, with other powers in any arrangement
for enforcing the submission of international disputes to
enquiry.
Now whatever followed that announcement America and the world would
gain. If Germany refused she would by that prove that she was still
unchastened, not ready to surrender or modify her policy of world
hegemony. America then knows that her fears are justified. She is
definitely warned of a fact which sooner or later she will have to face
if it is really a fact. And it is obviously far better that it should
become patent to America (and the world) now, than later (after a
possibly patched up peace). Indeed, on grounds simply of sheer national
security America should attempt by some such means to establish now, when
Germany is relatively helpless so far as damaging us is concerned, where
she stands, what America faces. It would enable her to make her future
policy definite and objective.
But suppose Germany, realizing at last that it is impossible to maintain
a national policy which during the next generation or two will have to
meet not only the opposition of the Western democracies of Europe and the
potential forces of Russia, but all that North America might during the
next generation develop into, accepts? What if the German government were
pushed by the best elements of the German people to take the opportunity
thus so publicly offered for putting themselves right with the world and
starting afresh on a more workable basis?
If that happened—which after all is the most probable thing of
all—America, without striking a blow, would have secured from Germany
the main thing for which the Western democracies are now fighting. Not
only would she have laid the foundation for the future protection of her
own sea rights in the only way in which finally they can be protected—by
an international law that is a reality because rooted in a real
international order—but she would have helped win the battle of democracy
by bringing about a discussion of terms before the democratic nations
have bled themselves white.
Never in history had a nation such an opportunity. But to take it means
breaking with routine, employing a new method, a new manner; great
governmental boldness, great political honesty. And all that is, perhaps,
too much to ask.
But that is no reason why we should not face the fact that on those
conditions the opportunity is there. Nor why those most responsible for
the direction of American public opinion should not help the nation to
realize it.
NORMAN ANGELL.
INDEX
Algeciras, 30.
Alliances, 135 ff, 144, 166;
prohibited, 94, 250, 266.
Alsace-Lorraine, autonomy of, 245, 260.
American School Peace League, program of, 267.
Angell, Norman, 33, 34, 82, 326.
Annexation, 76, 249, 306, 308, 311, 316, 322, 325.
Arbitration, 249, 251, 254, 262, 271, 306, 324;
compulsory, 262, 322, 325.
Armaments, export of, 266;
limitation of, 99, 124, 246, 248, 249, 250, 256, 262, 265, 266,
267, 271, 276, 277, 297, 300, 301, 306, 310, 322, 323, 325;
national manufacture of, 102 ff, 250, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 271,
277, 299, 300, 301, 324.
Armed Peace, 121.
Australian Peace Alliance, program of, 300.
Autonomy, 249, 254, 262, 275, 306, 318, 322.
Backward peoples, 22.
Balance of Power, 94 ff, 124, 265, 277, 301.
Bauer, Otto, 35.
Belgium, restoration of, 245, 260, 262, 274, 301, 320;
indemnity, 321;
and Germany, 58, 316, 320.
Berlin Conference of 1885, 29.
Bernstein, Ed., 317.
Bosphorus, neutralization of, 245.
Boycott, economic, 155, 174 ff, 186.
Brailsford, H. N., 302.
Bund Neues Vaterland, program of, 306.
Butler, Nicholas Murray, 275.
Buxton, Charles Roden, 301.
Capital, export of, 14, 21, 256.
Causes of war, 3, 5, 109, 265, 268.
Central “human betterment bureau,” 196.
Central Organization for a Durable Peace, program of, 247.
Chamber of Commerce of U. S., program of, 276.
Charte Mondiale, 248.
Citizen Army, 310.
Coercion, international, 130, 133, 134, 155, 160, 174, 184, 251, 255,
264, 270, 276, 293.
Concert of nations, 98, 106, 267, 268, 322, 325.
Commercial privilege as cause of war, 5.
Commission on International Migration, World, 196.
Concessions, 24.
Conference of organized labor, 322.
Conservation Commission, World, 195.
Constantinople, neutralization of, 274.
Consular Service, World, 194.
Council of Investigation and Conciliation, 128, 248, 249, 264, 276,
285, 298.
Council of States, 225, 249.
Court of International Justice, 248, 249, 264, 265, 271, 276, 297,
300, 311, 319.
Dardanelles, neutralization of, 245.
David Starr Jordan, program of, 273.
Democracy, political, 310; industrial, 272, 300.
Democratic Control of foreign policy, 89 ff, 109, 245, 248, 249, 250,
251, 254, 255, 257, 262, 266, 268, 271, 277, 297, 298, 299,
300, 306, 319, 323, 325.
Dernburg, Dr. Bernhard, 314.
Deutsche Friedensgesellschaft, program of, 306.
Dickinson, G. Lowes, 82.
Diplomacy, 22, 67 ff;
secret, 90, 245, 261, 262, 322.
Drago Doctrine, 19.
Dutch Anti-War Council, program of, 325.
Economic Imperialism, 7, 15 ff, 23 ff, 35.
Education, reform of, 249, 257.
Fabian Society, program of, 186, 278.
Far East, commission to study problems of, 269.
Federation of nations, 106, 114, 172, 203, 265, 267, 268, 271, 310,
322, 323, 325.
Ford, Henry, 243.
Foreign policy, democratic control of, 245, 248, 249, 250, 251, 254,
255, 257, 262, 266, 268, 271, 277, 297, 298, 299, 300, 306,
319, 323, 325.
Freedom of nationalities, 50, 249, 254, 262, 275, 306, 318, 322.
Freedom of the seas, 7, 10, 245, 248, 256, 274, 306.
Freedom of trade, 6, 11, 250, 265, 274, 298, 311, 314, 315, 324, 325.
General Confederation of Labor, program of, 322.
German policy, 111 ff.
Great Britain, as example of federalism, 114, 228.
Great Society, the, 222.
Guarantees, 57, 60, 245, 270, 324.
Hague Conference, 150, 248, 256, 270, 323.
Haase, 312.
Imperialism, 7, 15, 23, 35, 110.
Indemnities, 271, 310, 321.
Industrial democracy, 272, 300.
International Congress of Women, program of, 250.
International Bureau of Peace, program of, 249.
International Council, 277, 278, 280.
International Government, 18, 31, 64, 120, 179 ff, 246, 249, 256,
265, 271, 274, 278, 299, 310.
International High Court, 186, 278, 288.
Independent Labor Party, program of, 33, 296.
International law, 221 ff, 264, 265, 268, 276, 306, 314, 319, 320,
323.
International Parliament, 161, 249.
International Peace Commission, 298.
International organization, 29, 194, 276, 306.
International police force, 152, 181, 249, 264, 265, 268, 271, 310.
International Secretariat, 278, 287.
Justiciable issues, 290.
Kautsky, Karl, 40.
Language, guarantee of, 248.
League of Peace, 78, 79, 85, 120, 131, 135 ff, 143 ff, 165, 169, 270.
League to Enforce Peace, 148, 160, 264.
Like-mindedness, 193.
Loans for war, prohibition of, 186, 267.
Mediation, continuous, 243, 254.
Militarism, 123.
Military service, 109, 152, 266, 301.
Minorities, rights of, 61, 249, 275.
Monetary System, World, 197.
“Most favored nation,” 311.
Nationality, 47, 192, 217;
freedom of, 249, 254, 262, 275, 306, 318, 322;
respect for, 254, 267.
National Peace Convention, program of, 264.
National Peace Council, program of, 298.
Naturalization, 269.
Neutral Conference for Continuous Mediation, program of, 243.
Neutralization of straits and canals, 10, 265, 271, 310, 311, 314,
315, 320;
of disputed regions, 324;
of Constantinople, 274;
of colonies, 315.
Neutral States in peace negotiations, 249, 268, 269, 323.
Non-intercourse, 265.
“Open Door,” the, 4, 250, 306, 320 (see Freedom of trade).
Patriotism, 217 ff.
Pacifism, 164.
Peaceful penetration, 23.
Permanent Credit Bureau, 20.
Persia, guarantees for, 60.
Philadelphia Conference of League to Enforce Peace, 170.
Plebiscite in transferred territory, 76, 87, 244, 247, 249, 251, 254,
266, 267, 271, 277, 297, 298, 299, 300, 310, 318, 323.
Preparedness, 269.
Poland, autonomy of, 245, 260.
Press, reform of, 74, 249.
“Principle of the Commonwealth,” 227.
Private property at sea, 265.
Publicity organization, World, 197.
Quidde, Dr. L., 316.
Reform Club of New York, memorandum, 4, 10.
Religious liberty, 248.
Rights-of-way, economic, 60.
Scandinavia, guarantees for, 60.
Serbia, autonomy of, 245.
Slovene Unit, guarantees for, 60.
Small States, security of, 77, 143, 274, 275.
Socialism, 35, 272.
Socialists, allied nations, program, 259;
German and Austro-Hungarian, program, 306;
South-German, program, 310;
German party, program, 310, 311;
neutral nations, program, 261;
American party, program, 271;
and imperialism, 33, 38.
Social organization, forms of, 189.
“Spheres of influence,” 15, 83.
State, theory of the, 70.
Status quo ante, 310.
Straits, neutralization of, 245, 265.
Suffrage, universal adult, 266;
woman, 249, 251, 254, 255, 257, 268, 271, 298.
Swiss Committee for Study of a Durable Peace, program, 323.
Swiss Peace Society, program, 323.
Switzerland, example of federalism, 114.
Tariff restrictions, 6, 82.
Trade as cause of war, 9.
Trades unions, organized against war, 300.
Transfer of territory, 76, 87, 244, 247, 249, 251, 254, 266, 267,
271, 275, 277, 297, 298, 299, 300.
Treaties, secret, 245, 248, 249, 250, 257, 306, 323.
Union of Democratic Control, program, 33, 86 ff, 277.
Union of International Associations, program of, 248.
United States, example of federalism, 114, 228.
Vorwaerts, 36.
Walling, Wm. English, 39.
West African Conference, 29.
Women, as delegates to peace conference, 251, 258, 259;
Committee for Constructive Peace, program, 259;
International Congress of, 250;
suffrage, 249, 251, 254, 255, 257, 268, 271, 298.
Women’s Peace Party, program of, 33, 268.
World Congress, 246, 298.
World Peace Foundation, program of, 266.