Chapter III: Section 1: Friendly Measures

Of the letters which follow, the first was suggested by a
petition presented in October, 1899, to the President of the
United States, asking him to use his good offices to terminate
the war in South Africa; the second by discussions as to the
advisability of employing, for the first time, an International
Commission of Enquiry, for the purpose of ascertaining the
facts of the lamentable attack perpetrated by the Russian fleet
upon British fishing vessels off the Dogger Bank, on October
21, 1905. The Commission sat from January 19 to February 25,
1905, and its report was the means of terminating a period of
great tension in the relations of the two Powers concerned (see
_Parl. Paper_, Russia, 1905, No. 3): this letter deals also
with Arbitration, under The Hague Convention of 1899.

It may be worth while here to point out that besides direct
negotiation between the Powers concerned, four friendly methods
for the settlement of questions at issue between them are now
recognised, _viz_ (1) Good offices and mediation of third
Powers; (2) "Special mediation"; (3) "International Commissions
of Enquiry"; (4) Arbitration. All four were recommended by The
Hague Convention of 1899 "For the Peaceful Settlement of
International Disputes" (by which, indeed, (2) and (3) were
first suggested), as also by the amended re-issue of that
convention in 1907. It must be noticed that resort to any of
these methods is entirely discretionary, so far as any rule of
International Law is concerned; all efforts to render it
universally and unconditionally obligatory having, perhaps
fortunately, hitherto failed.

It remains to be seen how far the settlement of international
controversies has been facilitated by the establishment of a
"League of Nations" (to which reference is made in the
concluding letters of this chapter), and, in particular, by the
plan for the establishment of a "Permanent Court of
International Justice," formulated by the League, in pursuance
of Art. 14 of the Treaty of Versailles, and submitted to its
members in December, 1920.

THE PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Sir,--It seems that a respectably, though perhaps thoughtlessly signed petition was on Thursday presented to President McKinley, urging him to offer his good offices to bring to an end the war now being waged in South Africa. From the _New York World_ cablegram, it would appear that the President was requested to take this step "in accordance with Art. 3 of the protocol of the Peace Conference at The Hague." The reference intended is doubtless to the _Convention pour le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux_, prepared at the Conference [of 1899], Art. 3 of which is to the following effect:--

"Les Puissances signataires jugent utile qu'une ou plusieurs
Puissances étrangères au conflit offrent de leur propre
initiative, en tant que les circonstances s'y prêtent, leurs
bons offices ou leur médiation aux États en conflit.

"Le droit d'offrir les bons offices ou la médiation appartient
aux Puissances étrangères au conflit, même pendant le cours
des hostilités.

"L'exercice de ce droit ne peut jamais être considéré par
l'une ou l'autre des parties en litige comme un acte peu
amical."

Several remarks are suggested by the presentation of this petition:--

(1) One might suppose from the glib reference here and elsewhere made to The Hague Convention, that this convention is already in force, whereas it is [1899], in the case of most, if not all, of the Powers represented at the conference, a mere unratified draft, under the consideration of the respective Governments.

(2) The article, if it were in force, would impose no duty of offering good offices, but amounts merely to the expression of opinion that an offer of good offices is a useful and unobjectionable proceeding, in suitable cases (_en tant que les circonstances s'y prêtent_). It cannot for a moment be supposed that the President would consider that an opportunity of the kind contemplated was offered by the war in South Africa.

(3) One would like to know at what date, if at all, the Prime Minister of the British colony of the Cape was pleased, as is alleged, to follow the lead of the Presidents of the two Boer Republics in bestowing his grateful approval upon the petition in question.

Your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND. Oxford, October 28 (1899).

_Par._ 2 (1).--The Convention of 1899 was ratified by Great
Britain, on September 4, 1900; and between that year and 1907
practically all civilised Powers ratified or acceded to it. It
is now, for almost all Powers, superseded by The Hague
Convention, No. i. of 1907, which, reproduces Art. 3 of the
older Convention, inserting, however, after the word "utile,"
the words "et désirable."

_Ib._ (2).--On March 6, 1900, the two Boer Republics proposed
that peace should be made on terms which included the
recognition of their independence. Great Britain having, on
March 11, declared such recognition to be inadmissible, the
European Powers which were requested to use their good offices
to bring this about declined so to intervene. The President of
the United States, however, in a note delivered in London on
March 13, went so far as to "express an earnest hope that a way
to bring about peace might be found," and to say that he would
aid "in any friendly manner to bring about so happy a result."
Lord Salisbury, on the following day, while thanking the United
States Government, replied that "H.M. Government does not
propose to accept the intervention of any Power in the South
African War." Similar replies to similar offers had been made
both by France and Prussia in 1870, and by the United States in
1898.

COMMISSIONS OF ENQUIRY AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION

Sir,--It is just now [1904] especially desirable that the purport of those provisions of The Hague Convention "for the peaceful settlement of international controversies" which deal with "international commissions of enquiry" should be clearly understood. It is probably also desirable that a more correct idea should be formed of the effect of that convention, as a whole, than seems to be generally prevalent. You may, therefore, perhaps, allow me to say a few words upon each of these topics.

Art. 9 of the convention contains an expression of opinion to the effect that recourse to an international commission of enquiry into disputed questions of fact would be useful. This recommendation is, however, restricted to "controversies in which neither honour nor essential interests are involved," and is further limited by the phrase "so far as circumstances permit." Two points are here deserving of notice.

In the first place, neither "the honour and vital interests clause," as seems to be supposed by your correspondent Mr. Schidrowitz, nor the clause as to circumstances permitting, is in any way modified by the article which follows. Art. 10 does not enlarge the scope of Art. 9, but merely indicates the procedure to be followed by Powers desirous of acting under it. In the second place, it is wholly unimportant whether or no the scope of Art. 9 is enlarged by Art. 10. The entire liberty of the Powers to make any arrangement which may seem good to them for clearing up their differences is neither given, nor impaired, by the articles in question, to which the good sense of the Conference declined to attach any such obligatory force as had been proposed by Russia. It may well be that disputant Powers may at any time choose to agree to employ the machinery suggested by those articles, or something resembling it, in cases of a far more serious kind than those to which alone the convention ventured to make its recommendation applicable; and this is the course which seems to have been followed by the Powers interested with reference to the recent lamentable occurrence in the North Sea.

As to the convention as a whole, it is important to bear in mind that, differing in this respect from the two other conventions concluded at The Hague, it is of a non-obligatory character, except in so far as it provides for the establishment of a permanent tribunal at The Hague, to which, however, no Power is bound to resort. It resembles not so much a treaty as a collection of "pious wishes" (_voeux_), such as those which were also adopted at The Hague. The operative phrases of most usual occurrence in the convention are, accordingly, such as "jugent utile"; "sont d'accord pour recommander"; "est reconnu comme le moyen le plus efficace"; "se réservent de conclure des accords nouveaux, en vue d'étendre l'arbitrage obligatoire à tous les cas qu'elles jugeront possible de lui soumettre."

It is a matter for rejoicing that, in accordance with the suggestion contained in the phrase last quoted, so many treaties, of which that between Great Britain and Portugal is the most recent, have been entered into for referring to The Hague tribunal "differences of a juridical nature, or such as relate to the interpretation of treaties; on condition that they do not involve either the vital interests or the independence or honour of the two contracting States." Such treaties, conforming as they all do to one carefully defined type, may be productive of much good. They testify to, and may promote, a very widely spread _entente cordiale_, they enhance the prestige of the tribunal of The Hague, and they assure the reference to that tribunal of certain classes of questions which might otherwise give rise to international complications. Beyond this it would surely be unwise to proceed. It is beginning to be realised that what are called "general" treaties of arbitration, by which States would bind themselves beforehand to submit to external decision questions which might involve high political issues, will not be made between Powers of the first importance; also, that such treaties, if made, would be more likely to lead to fresh misunderstandings than to secure the peaceful settlement of disputed questions.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND. Oxford, November 21 (1904).

_Pars._ 1-3.--The topic of "Commissions of Enquiry," which
occupied Arts. 9-13 of the Convention of 1899 "For the Peaceful
Settlement of International Disputes," is more fully dealt with
in Arts. 9-36 of the Convention as amended in 1907.

_Par._ 4.--The amended Convention, as a whole, is still, like
its predecessor, purely facultative. The Russian proposal to
make resort to arbitration universally obligatory in a list of
specified cases, unless when the "vital interests or national
honour" of States might be involved, though negatived in 1899,
was renewed in 1907, in different forms, by several Powers,
which eventually concurred in supporting the
Anglo-Portuguese-American proposal, according to which,
differences of a juridical character, and especially those
relating to the interpretation of treaties, are to be submitted
to arbitration, unless they affect the vital interests,
independence, or honour, of the States concerned, or the
interests of third States; while all differences as to the
interpretation of treaties relating to a scheduled list of
topics, or as to the amount of damages payable, where liability
to some extent is undisputed, are to be so submitted without
any such reservation. This proposal was accepted by thirty-two
Powers, but as nine Powers opposed it, and three abstained from
voting, it failed to become a convention. The delegates to the
Conference of 1907 went, however, so far as to include in their
"Final Act" a statement to the effect that they were unanimous:
(1) "in recognising the principle of obligatory arbitration";
(2) "in declaring that certain differences, and, in particular,
such as relate to the interpretation and application of the
provisions of International Conventions, are suitable for being
submitted to obligatory arbitration, without any reservations."

_Par._ 5.--The Convention between France and Great Britain,
concluded on October 14, 1903, for five years, and renewed in
1908, and again in 1913, for a like period, by which the
parties agree to submit to The Hague tribunal any differences
which may arise between them, on condition "that they do not
involve either the vital interests, or the independence, or
honour of the two contracting States, and that they do not
affect the interests of a third Power," has served as a model
or "common form," for a very large number of conventions to the
same effect, entered into between one State and another. The
Convention of April 11, 1908, between Great Britain and the
United States is substantially of this type.

But see now the three letters which follow.

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Sir,--The League is unquestionably "a brave design." Sympathy with its objects and some hope that they may be realised have induced myself, as, doubtless many others, to abstain from criticising the way in which the topic has been handled by the representatives of the victorious Powers. Recent discussions seem, however, to render such reticence no longer desirable.

It begins to be recognised that, as some of us have all along held to be the case, a serious mistake was made by the Paris delegates when they combined in one and the same document provisions needed for putting an end to an existing state of war with other provisions aiming at the creation in the future of a new supernational society. Two matters so wholly incongruous in character should surely have been dealt with separately. Whether it is now too late to attempt a remedy for the consequences of this unfortunate combination is a question which can be answered only by the diplomatists whose business it is to be intimately in touch with the susceptibilities of the various nations concerned. In the meantime, however, on the assumption that this state of things is productive of regrettable results, I may perhaps venture to indicate, recommending their adoption, the steps which appear to be required for the reformation of the Treaty as drafted. My suggestions would run as follows:--

(1) Subtract from the Treaty of Versailles, Parts I. and XIII., the former constituting a League of Nations, the latter, in pursuance of a recital that universal peace "can be established only if it is based upon social justice," wholly occupied with a sufficiently ambitious scheme for the regulation by the League of all questions relating to "Labour" which may arise within its jurisdiction.

(2) Let Part I., with Part XIII. annexed, constitute a new and independent Treaty; to be, as such, submitted to the Powers for further consideration. (The opportunity might be taken of ridding it of all references to a system of "mandates," which might very probably lead to jealousies and misunderstandings.)

(3) Parts II. to XII., XIV., and XV. would then constitute the real Treaty of Peace, in which it would, however, be necessary in the numerous articles attributing functions, for the most part of a temporary character, the "League of Nations," to substitute for any mention of the League words descriptive of some other authority, yet to be created, such as, for instance, "a Commission to be constituted by the principal Allied and Associated Powers."

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND. Oxford, December 16 (1919).

Sir,--Let me assure Lord Robert Cecil that I am perfectly serious in giving expression to a long-felt wish that the Treaty of Peace could be relieved of articles relating exclusively to an as yet to be created League of Nations, and in proceeding to indicate the steps that must be taken if this reform is to be effected.

It can hardly be necessary also to assure Lord Robert that I am fully aware of the formidable, though perhaps not insuperable, difficulties which would beset any efforts to carry out my suggestions. He may have inferred so much from my letter of the 16th, in which, treating the question whether it is now too late to attempt a remedy for the existing state of things as beyond the competence of an outsider, I describe it as one which can be answered "only by the diplomatists whose business it is to be intimately in touch with the susceptibilities of the various nations concerned."

On a point of detail, I am surprised that Lord Robert is unwilling that the contents of Part XIII. should be removed to their natural context, on the ground that the Labour organisation might be annoyed if this were done. I am, however, confident that the organisation is too intelligent not to see that it would lose nothing if the articles in which it is interested were made an integral part of a Convention constituting a League of Nations; the League being already solely charged with giving effect to the articles in question.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND. Oxford, December 20 (1919).

Sir,--Professor Alison Phillips is not quite accurate in attributing to me a belief that the task of amending the Treaty of Versailles is "not beyond the powers of competent diplomatists." No such belief is expressed in my letter of December 16, in which I was careful to admit that the question, "whether it is now too late to attempt" the reform which appears to me to be desirable is one "which can be answered only by the diplomatists."

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND. Oxford, January 5 (1920).

* * * * *