Evening Post. SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 1717. INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES

Evening Post, Volume XCIII, Issue 89, 14 April 1917, Page 4

Evening Post. SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 1717. INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES

'Though Loid-'Bryce.'has-neady-neaiohed. His* eightieth.- yean, his public activities appear -to jshow" "but? Httler»abatemenfc. and, his latestserviceis.aischemefoKaiLeagne; ■of'Nafions-.to-preFent'-war. TOtefsscheme*! 'is said-to be bolderl than that -of the. -Eeague'to Enforce.Peace.wMdh'h&s'beeiiby ex-President Taft and ap-.. proved .by President Wilson, but the •cabled report does not providte sufficient c for a final judgment oiratsi merits. ■Lord Bryce is, however, not the kind, of., 'man, to claim finality for a proposal, dealing with a.- subject of'such magni-' tude:and. complexity. .His scheme, like, any other that can be reasonably eug-.' ,gested in- the present stage ■ of' inter-. national • evolution, is provisional and, tantatJTe; and: he»expresses the modes±\ ftiope that it " may fpave .iflxe •■ way. for; discussion on how to deter aggressive GoTennnents from vrss-^or toanake>"wai leas probable." The*essence of Tiord'' .Bryee's proposal is to apply fco~ international afiairs the-same* dtral procedure which New Zealand established long. ago. for the settlement or prevention of indosHrial disputes. >He suggests the- creation -of-a. judicial tribunal and a .conciliation tribunal to^whichdisputesbetween nations .shall be referred, questions which are un- • suitable" for legal' treatment being re-' served for»the latter. The .reference- of disputes > to.one or other of these.tri•'burials would be obligatory upon tlhe signatory Powers; but with regard to what in New Zealand's industrial legislation is a vital distinction between' tho two 'kinds of tribunal the scheme speaks "with an uncertain sound. -

"The scheme contemplates,""" we are told, "although it does- not definitely -enjoinl, the use of common force to carry itsdecisions into effect." This dubious , statement seems "hardly consistent with.. what follows —viz., that 1 "the • signatories! 'would be required not to -declare war orprepare fou hostilities for a definite period alter the tribunal makes itsl award, otherwise the League would col.loctively act against the aggrasnoj'." Unlass the Lsagus-was prepared: .to. iaks.aotio»>

of this kind, the decisions of its-tribunals would have no more power behind them 1 than The Hague Tribunal has exercised hitherto. The decisions would speak to a, nationtendowed- with-a conscience and a regard- for morality and international law, but would leave an aggressive Power as free to disregard them as •Germany has to disregard the Belgian 'Treaty and" every law, humane or- divine, that stood between her and the realisation of her ambitions. In the admir-able-supplement which Mr. Balfour supplied to the joint reply of the Allies to President Wilson's Peace Note, he argued that no stable system of international relations could be built on foundations which were hopelessly defective. A peace made; now would, he said, perpetuate the conditions-which had made the present calamities possible—viz., "the existence of a great Power consumed with the hist of domination, in the midsfc of a community of nations ill prepared for defence, plentifully supplied indeed with international laws, but with no machinery for enforcing them." The decrees of- an international tribunal which had no armed force at its back would have no more terror for Germany than any other scraps-of paper.

An objection to Lord Bryce's scheme which is less- easily met is of a more fundamental character. Is there any; reasonable- prospect of success along the lines of arbitration and conciliation? ,A>-scheme based upon these< lines isneces.«arily concerned with the mutual rights "and liabilities of its signatories, it may be-accepted for certain that, having practically declared war against the whole world and provoked the hostility even of those Powers which did not darel :-to take the field against her, Germany 'would refuse to join a combination in which her enemies would always command a majority. A scheme for the settlement of international disputes from which the most dangerous disputant would be excluded would be deprived of its chief raison d'etre. And even among the less aggressive and less unscrupulous Powers the scope of arbitration- and conciliation i* by no means unrestricted. Mr. Roosevelt has always maintained that the United States should never agree to refer to arbitration any, matter in which the national honour was at stake, and though he has on that account been accused of Jingoism and of hostility t<> Great Britain, there are many less bellicose spirits on both sides -of the Atlantic who take the same view. A nation cannot any more than an individual submit every; issue to arbitration.

It is interesting io find that the volume of essays and addresses published by the Fight for Right Movement, to which the opening address is contributed by Lord Bryce himself, contains a strong ■exposure of the insufficiency of arbitration from the pen of an equally strenuous opponent of militarism. "Arbitration 1," says Mr. Philip Kerr, editor of the Round Table, and one of Mr. Lloyd j George's secretaries, "is in itself an i inadequate method of dealing with international disputes. If works well enough, in'-.minor matters, such as the j interpretation of treaties, or in disputes over the rights of individuals. But.it cannot suffice in matters of first-class importance. Should weagree, for instance, to refer the size of our fleet to The Hague tribunal, or could we reasonably expect Germany to do the came with her army? Would America refer to an Arbitral Court her Monroe doctrine, or Japan m the British Dominions the difficult problems connected with immigration? lam certain they would not. And they -would be right not to do so, for these and similar international questions which occasion "war-axe not judicial questions; they, are political questions, and they must be settled by political means." Lord Bryce might perhaps reply that these issues would be for the conciliation tribunal, reserving the judi--<cial questions for the more forensic methods of arbitration. Even so, the dual procedure would be far from a panacea. But as paving the way for a discussion of the best means of preventing a repetition of the calamity which is now desolating. JSurope and impoverishing th» -wliolw swoiM, Lord Bryce's scheme--/ should, as .he-modestly suggests, proves ofservice.