Plans to Establish an International Parliament
for the Prevention of Conflicts
in the Future.
The year after a great war is naturally a period for talk of permanent
peace. The dove still coos, the ravages of conflict are still apparent,
the folly of an appeal to arms is evident in economic conditions. And so,
this summer, there has been more than the usual attention to plans for the
prevention of war in the future. Indeed, the time does seem ripe for the
establishment of an international parliament.
Among the addresses at the recent session of the Lake Mohonk Conference
was one by Judge W.L. Penfield, who said concerning the plan upon which
peace advocates are now agreed:
The institution of a parliament competent to legislate in
the international sphere, as the United States Congress is
within the Federal sphere, would undoubtedly present some
most difficult political problems, yet it would hardly be
more difficult for a body of jurists and statesmen to define
the bounds of authority of the international parliament than
it was for the framers of the Federal constitution to define
and distribute the powers of the Federal government.
Under existing political conditions the creation of an
international parliament clothed with the power of direct
legislation does not appear to be presently feasible. But it
is the unexpected that happens, as, for example, who would
have dared foretell five years ago the convocation of the
Russian Duma?
The Hague Conference as a Basis.
The call of an international parliament cannot be set down
as wholly improbable, and the way to that goal lies through
the more frequent calls and assemblages of The Hague
conference and by committing to it the task of codifying in
the form of treaties the leading branches of international
law. One of the subjects of its deliberations will be the
reciprocal rights and duties of neutrals and belligerents.
A more serious difficulty will arise in agreeing upon some
criterion to determine when articles of dual utility, for
war or peace, may be treated by a belligerent as absolutely
contraband of war.
There is the further question of the prize courts and of the
arrest and seizure by a belligerent's cruisers of neutral
ships and cargoes.
We may expect that another and kindred question will come
before the conference--the question of the immunity from
capture at sea of all non-contraband private property,
whether owned by the citizens or subjects of neutral or
belligerent states.
The Limits of Hospitality.
Another important subject which is likely to attract the
attention of the conference is the question of the
privileges and the limits of hospitality, of temporary
anchorage and asylum, and of the supply and repair of
belligerent war-ships in neutral ports.
It is understood that the subject which has been suggested
for the consideration of the conference is the question of
opening hostilities without previous declaration of war. It
is extremely doubtful whether the conference will attempt to
formulate any rule on so difficult a subject, and one so
intimately connected with the necessities of strategy.
There will be little objection, I imagine, to the view that
no government ought to use force to compel another
government to pay its public securities, its bonds, or other
national obligations which foreigners have voluntarily
purchased or subscribed to and taken.
But it is nearly certain that there will be a division of
opinion on the question whether any inflexible rule should
be laid down with respect to cases of individual foreigners
who have invested large sums of money in the development of
the natural resources of a country, under contract with its
government to do so, if the latter should then flagrantly
violate the contract and despoil them of the fruits of their
enterprises.
The experience had with the practical workings of The Hague
Tribunal suggests the desirability of certain amendments of
the convention of July 29, 1899, such as that only
disinterested arbitrators shall be eligible to seats on the
tribunal; that the arbitration of questions of a judicial
nature and of those concerning the interpretation and
execution of treaties shall be compulsory; that the medieval
idea that a sense of national honor, aside from the rights
of self-defense, can justify resort to war in any case shall
be abandoned, and, workable and in every way admirable as it
now is--when we consider its substance and the circumstances
of its formation--that the time is now ripe for the revision
and recasting of the convention of July 29, 1899.
Whether an international parliament can prevent war without the assistance
of an international police is another story.