"In the full assurance that what the Storting here requests will be an
unqualified benefit to our people, it is hereby submitted that your
Majesty should take the necessary steps indicated."
A similar resolution was very near being voted by the DANISH FOLKETING
in 1875. The proposition as brought forward was, May 13th, unanimously
recommended by the committee in charge, but on account of the
dissolution of the House two days later, could not be acted upon.
Several years ago a petition was circulated in the various districts
of Denmark, by which Parliament was urged to co-operate as early
as possible in bringing about a permanent Scandinavian treaty of
arbitration.
In such a treaty, binding in the first instance for thirty years,
the petition affirms that the three northern kingdoms will have an
efficient moral support when there is occasion to withstand the
efforts of the great powers to entice or to threaten any of them to
take part in war as allies on one side or the other. Such a treaty
will, therefore, in great measure serve to preserve the neutrality of
the northern kingdoms, and thereby their lasting independence.
This petition was dealt with in the Folketing, March 27th, 1888. After
a short discussion, the following motion of F. Bajer was passed by
fifty votes against sixteen.
"Since the Folketing agrees with the wish expressed in the petition,
provided it is shared by the other States without whom it cannot be
carried out, the House passes on to the order of the day."
In his little paper: _On the Prevention of War by Arbitration_, F.
Bajer writes:
"It may certainly be granted, that a little State like Denmark cannot
well work at the creation of a European tribunal of arbitration,
so far as that means setting itself at the head of a movement for
inviting the other European States to a Congress by which its creation
shall be adopted.
"But a little State like Denmark can always do something in the
direction of arbitration between States. It can bring the matter a
practical step forward by applying first to the other small States,
especially to the neighbour States of Sweden and Norway, and proposing
to them that mutual disputes shall in future, as far as possible, be
settled by arbitration when other means have failed. The relations
between the three northern kingdoms are indeed now so friendly that a
war between them can hardly be thought of for a moment. But--as was
said in confirmation of the resolution in the first northern Peace
Meeting, respecting a permanent arbitration treaty between the three
kingdoms--they have carried on many bloody internecine wars, which
have only benefited their powerful neighbours, but have been in the
highest degree injurious to themselves; and the possibility of war
between the three northern kingdoms is not excluded so long as they
are not simultaneously neutralized, or in some other way engaged to
carry out a common foreign policy. It is no longer ago than 1873
that the so-called "pilots' war" in Oeresund caused much bad blood
among relatives on both sides of the sound. That that was settled
authoritatively by the mutual declaration of the 14th of August is
due to circumstances on whose continuance for the future it is not
possible to reckon. Had a strained relation at the same time obtained
between one or more of the great powers within or without the Baltic
ports, and had these endeavoured to sow discord between the coast
powers, that they might fish in the troubled waters, and feather
their own nests by getting these small states as their allies; and
if one power had got Denmark, but its enemy got Sweden-Norway as an
ally--a new northern fratricidal war would have broken out. Even if
such a future possibility cannot be entirely eradicated by a mutual
arbitration treaty amongst the northern nations, a new guarantee for
peace would be secured." (Bluntschli's expression.) "For the small
northern kingdoms would by such a treaty acquire an excellent moral
support when it came to withstanding the attempt of the great powers
to entice or threaten them into taking part in wars as their allies.
Such a participation is always a dangerous game, because, as history
shows, the small States lose rather than gain. The small States are
used as counters for the great ones to play with."
At this point we may remark, that as far back as 1848, the same year
that the Peace Congress was held in Brussels, Feb. 2nd, a treaty (the
Guadaloupe-Hidalgo Treaty) was concluded between the United States of
America and Mexico, containing a clause that a committee of arbitration
shall settle, not only such differences as may arise directly
concerning that treaty, but also shall, as the highest authority,
adjudicate as far as possible all disputes which may arise between the
high contracting States.[3]
SWITZERLAND concluded, July 20th, 1864, a similar treaty with the
HAWAIAN ISLANDS, and on October 30th with SAN SALVADOR.[4]
Siam, whose monarch has given many proofs of sympathy for Oskar II.,
concluded a similar treaty, May 18th, 1868, with the UNITED KINGDOMS,
and also with BELGIUM, Aug. 29th of the same year.[5] The CENTRAL and
SOUTH AMERICAN REPUBLICS, HONDURAS, and THE UNITED STATES OF COLOMBIA
did the same when on April 10th, 1882, they signed an arbitration
treaty between themselves.[6]
Since that time this vigorous idea has grown into the CENTRAL AND SOUTH
AMERICAN ARBITRATION LEAGUE, and is now making good way towards being
applied to the whole of America.
The question now is, whether the VALUE OF PEACE TREATIES, in general
or in particular, which are established between mutually distant small
States can be estimated as highly as the good intention of their
creation, which is habitually acknowledged to be good? Are they
something to be depended upon? Will they be carried into effect?
That depends in the first place upon what is meant by peace treaties.
If reference is made to certain international settlements which the
conquered, with hatred in their hearts, bleeding, upon their knees were
FORCED to accept, we may at once grant that they imply no security
for peace, but, on the contrary, are a fresh source of warlike
complications.
Thus, for example, the conclusion of peace which France was FORCED to
sign at Versailles, Feb. 26th, 1871, and by which Alsace-Lorraine was
torn from France, became a volcano which now for nineteen years has
held the nations in suspense and unrest, and still threatens to ruin
Europe.
Neither would it be advisable to set much store on such obligations as
the Western Powers undertook in the agreement which goes by the name
of the NOVEMBER TREATY, to help us to defend the northern part of our
peninsula against Russia; because a guaranteed neutrality implies in
reality more danger than safety, if the guarantee is not mutual; that
is, in this instance, if our eastern neighbour is not included in the
guarantee; which is so far from being the case that the treaty, on the
contrary, is a source of menace and distrust to him.[7]
With respect to certain treaties of alliance, whose object is to
collect THE GREATEST POSSIBLE NUMBER OF BAYONETS as a mutual security
against other powers, who, on their side, seek to protect themselves
by uniting their forces, nobody can see in them anything else than a
guarantee for an armed peace, which, by the necessity of its nature,
leads to war.
If, on the contrary, by peace treaties are meant such international
contracts as are NOT WRITTEN IN BLOOD; such as relate to trade and
commerce, industry, art, science and so on, it would be in vain to seek
for a single instance of the breach of contract, either on the side of
the weaker or the stronger.
Neither can any example in our time be pointed to of open violation of
the rights of a small country in its quality of an independent State,
as long as these rights have stood under the mutual guarantee of the
great powers.
As evidence to the contrary, the London treaty of May 8th, 1853, has
been adduced, which was intended to secure Denmark's neutrality; the
Treaty of Paris, April 14th, 1856, respecting the Black Sea; and the
fifth article of the Peace of Prague in 1866. But here the fault lies
in a misunderstanding.
What the Treaty of London established was not the indivisibility of
Denmark, but of the Dano-German monarchy. The German territory was to
be fast linked to the Danish. This was admitted, as a principle, by the
treaty to be fitting and right, but the treaty contained no trace of
stipulations as to guarantee.
With respect to Russia's breach of treaty of the stipulations as to
her banishment from the Black Sea as a military power,[8] it must
be remembered that the representatives of the powers, and of Russia
also, on January 17th, 1871, signed a protocol, whereby it was
settled as an essential axiom in international law, that no power can
absolve itself from the obligations which are entered into by treaty
without the consent of the contracting parties. Therefore Russia
openly acknowledged that her declaration of not choosing to abide
by the injunctions stipulated for in the Treaty of Paris respecting
the Black Sea, was precipitate, and that, consequently, the treaty
was permanently in force until it was formally abrogated. This took
place in the new treaty of March 3rd, of the same year. Besides, here
comes in what was said above about the value of such treaties as are
concluded after brute force has determined the issue. And this not only
was the case in the Black Sea stipulations, but also with respect to
the unfulfilled promises of article 5 of the Treaty of Prague, whereby
the Danish people was to be given the opportunity for a plebiscite in
determining upon their reunion with Denmark. As to the peace treaties
between the lesser States, which certainly have important trade
relations one with another, but which, on account of their mutually
distant position, cannot reasonably be expected to go to war with each
other, it is true that one cannot in general attribute any special
importance to them. Nothing is gained by over-estimating their value.
But they deserve to be brought forward as enrichments of international
law and guide-posts for other States. And that the small States need
not wait until the great ones are ready to unite appears just as much
in accordance with the nature of the case as with the interests of
their own well-being.
Calvo, undeniably the first authority in these matters, emphasizes
as a significant fact, that no single example can be pointed to in
which States, after their mutual disputes have been referred to the
consideration or judgment of arbitrators, have sought to _withdraw from
the operation_ of the decision. And according to Henry Richard and
other authorities, by allowing international questions to be settled by
arbitration, at least in sixty-seven instances, disputes of a menacing
character have been averted.
I shall not here give a detailed account of all these instances, but
only with the greatest conciseness refer to some of them.
In 1794 a contest between England and the United States of America
respecting St. Croix river was settled by arbitration; in 1803
France was in the same way condemned to pay 18 million francs to the
United States of America for unlawful seizure of vessels; in 1818 a
threatening dispute between Spain and the United States of America was
settled by arbitration, and a contention between these and England was
arranged by the Emperor of Russia, who was chosen as arbitrator, etc.
The best known of such disputes was the so-called Alabama question,
which threatened a desolating world-war. This affair sprang out of the
North American civil war 1861-65. The Southern States had privateers
built in England, among which the _Alabama_ especially wrought great
mischief to the Northerners. The Government of the Union considered
that England had broken her neutrality in allowing the equipment of
the privateer, and requested compensation.
A bitter feeling grew up and war appeared inevitable. But on January
24th, 1869, an agreement was happily entered into, which, with fresh
negotiations, led to the Washington treaty, May 8th, 1871. In harmony
with this the dispute was referred for settlement to a Court of
Arbitration consisting of five members, of which England and the United
States each chose one, and the neutral states of Italy, Switzerland,
and Brazil, likewise each chose one. These five met on December 15th,
1871, as a tribunal of arbitration, at Geneva, and delivered their
judgment on September 14th following (four votes against England's
one), that the English Government had made a breach in its duty
as a neutral power with respect to some of the privateers under
consideration, and therefore England would have to pay an indemnity of
15-1/2 million dollars to the United States.[9]
England bowed to the award and fulfilled her duty.
In the same way the powerful insular kingdom voluntarily submitted
to settlement in the weary contention regarding the possession of
Delagoa Bay and the surrounding region on the east coast of Africa. The
dispute was entrusted for settlement, in 1874, to the President of the
French Republic, MacMahon, and he decided in July, 1875, in favour of
Portugal. That the new contention between these two States, which for
some time now has excited an inflammable spirit, not only in Portugal,
but in other countries as well, will be arranged in the same friendly
manner, there is but little doubt.
The claim of Portugal is much older than that of England. Its special
ground is the discovery of the coast which was made by Portuguese
mariners three hundred years ago. The Portuguese urge, that since
the coast is theirs, they have a right to go as far inland as they
choose and place the country thus entered under their dominion. They
say further, that they have made a treaty with a native ruler over a
kingdom which stretches far inland, and that ruined fortresses are
still to be found which show that they once had this distant region
in possession. To this assertion Lord Salisbury answers, that where
ruined fortresses are found they only testify to fallen dominion. The
English Government could not recognise Portugal's construction of the
contested question; according to that construction the question would
virtually turn upon the possession of Shireland and Mashonaland (the
inland country north and south of the Zambesi). It denied Portugal's
claim to this territory as so entirely groundless that it could not
enter into such a question; but has on the other hand made a peremptory
claim, arising from Portugal's violence towards the natives who are
under England's protection, for dishonour to the English flag, and for
other international offences, etc.
The right of possession of the regions in question can no longer
be regarded as doubtful, since Portugal had set aside the general
international axiom, that the claim for possession according to
colonial usage can only be held valid when colonization is actually
carried out to the furtherance of civilization and public safety.
Portugal's assertion that the signatories of the Congo Act would be
the right adjudicators of the question was denied, upon the ground
that Portugal had delayed to make her claim valid when Nyassaland was
declared to belong to the sphere of England's interests. On July 1st,
1889, the Under-secretary, Sir James Fergusson, in the Lower House,
explained that the Portuguese Government had been informed that they
would be held answerable for all loss which Englishmen might suffer
by the annulling of the Delagoa railway convention. The same day Lord
Salisbury informed the Upper House that the English Government would
send three war-ships to Delagoa Bay, to be ready in case of need.
Portugal's conduct was, in his opinion, unjustifiable.
Then came the noble lord's ultimatum, with the demand that Portugal
should recall all Portuguese officers and troops from the territory
which stands under the sovereignty of England or lies within the sphere
of England's interests, and give an answer within twenty-four hours;
otherwise England would be compelled to break off her relations with
Portugal. This threatening manner of procedure, by which a weaker
nation was humbled by superior power, roused bad blood in Portugal and
was sharply censured in many parts of Europe; yes, even in England,
and in Parliament, in the press, and at many great public meetings.
At one of these meetings, composed of 700 workmen delegates from
various parts of England and 130 Members of Parliament, in quality
of vice-presidents, it was unanimously resolved to protest against
Lord Salisbury's conduct as at variance with the dignity of the
British nation; and to request that the dispute should be settled by
arbitration--so much the rather, as the more certain one is of being
in the right, the more confidently can one's cause be placed in the
hands of an impartial tribunal. Later on the English Government,
together with the North American virtually resolved on this expedient
for solving, the difficulties relating to Delagoa Bay. Portugal made
difficulties and delays, but at length declared herself willing to
enter into a proposal for arbitration.[10] All three States were now
united in asking the Government of Switzerland to choose three of her
most distinguished jurist officials as arbitration judges.
At the time when the first Anglo-Portuguese contest was settled by the
President of the French Republic there occurred a second example of
both importance and interest. For many years there had been a menacing
boundary dispute between Italy and Switzerland, just a little seed of
quarrel, such as formerly always broke out into bloody strife, since
according to the traditions of national honour not an inch of a patch
of ground must be given up except at the sword's point. But the two
kingdoms decided to commend the case to an arbitrator, viz., the United
States minister in Rome, P. Marsh, who, after a careful study of the
claims of the contending parties, declared judgment in favour of Italy,
and so the contention was adjusted.
Two DANGEROUS DISPUTES, which in 1874-75 and 1880 threatened an
outbreak of war between CHINA and JAPAN, but were happily solved by
arbitration, might be named, but for fear of being prolix I dare not go
more particularly into them, instructive as they are.
The first arose as a result of a murder of some Japanese on the island
of Formosa, and was settled by the English minister in Pekin, who was
chosen by both parties as arbitrator, who decided that China should
give Japan in redress a large sum of money, which was done.[11]
The second of these disputes concerned the sovereignty of the Liu
Kiu Islands, and was adjusted by a compromise brought about by
ex-president Grant, who in a conversation with the Chinese Minister
uttered these memorable words: "An arbitration between two nations
will never satisfy both nations alike; but it always satisfies the
conscience of humanity."[12]
Not to be tedious, I pass over here many other remarkable instances in
which war and lesser misfortunes have been averted by arbitration; and
will now name further only some of the latest date.
In 1887 a lengthened dispute about boundaries between CHILI and the
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC was adjusted by arbitration, through the mediation
of the United States Ministers in the two countries. After a complete
and precise fixing of the boundary line, an agreement was added: That
the Straits of Magellan shall for ever be neutralized; free passage
shall be secured to ships of all nations, and the erection of forts or
other military works on either of its shores shall be forbidden.
Fresh in the memory is the passionate quarrel between SPAIN and GERMANY
about the CAROLINE ISLANDS. That was submitted, on Prince Bismarck's
proposal, to Pope Leo XIII. for settlement, and was adjusted by him.
Most people now living remember the AFGHANISTAN BOUNDARY question,
which was happily solved by the friendliness on both sides of the
RUSSIAN AND ENGLISH Governments. The whole world followed for a while
that dispute with anxiety and disquietude. The press unhappily, as
usual, employed its influence in stirring up the national passions
in both countries. But before it had gone too far, fortunately the
feelings were quieted by the public being reminded that both England
and Russia had taken part in the resolution of the Paris Congress,
which declared that when any serious dispute arose between any of
the contracting powers, it should be referred to the mediation of a
friendly power. Upon this ground the English Government proposed to the
Russian that the "dispute should be referred to the ruler of a friendly
State, to be adjusted in a manner consistent with the dignity of both
lands." This proposal was accepted, but did not come into practice. It
was not needed. The Afghanistan boundary commission itself carried out
its duties to a successful issue.
Still later many smaller INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES have been solved by
arbitration; for instance:--
Between ITALY and COLOMBIA in South America, respecting Italian
subjects who had suffered loss through the last revolution in Colombia,
in which Spain as arbitrator decided in favour of Italy.
Between BRAZIL and ARGENTINA respecting their boundaries, a dispute in
which both parties appealed for a settlement to the President of the
United States of America, and which was adjusted by him.
Between the UNITED STATES of North America and DENMARK, in which the
latter was, by the chosen arbitrator, the English Ambassador at Athens,
Sir Edward Monson, after long delay freed from the obligation to pay
compensation to the Americans, because the Danish authorities had fired
at an American ship which in 1854 was escaping out of the harbour of
St. Thomas, and which was suspected of carrying supplies to Venezuela,
at that time in insurrection.