The Hague Tribunal and Peace
MUCH surprise and disappointment are felt by many persons in this country over the recent decision of The Hague Tribunal touching the Venezuelan claims. That this great arbitration tribunal, from the establishment of which so much was hoped for the world’s peace, should set a premium on warlike measures for collecting debts as compared with peaceful ones, is a fact which casts grave doubt on the dependence which is to be placed on this famous international court as an ally of peace. The Church Standard (Episcopal) expresses its opinion on the subject as follows, quoting also from the New York Times:— Neither in matter nor in method has the recent decision of The Hague Tribunal for the arbitration of international disputes justified the sanguine hopes of those by whom its establishment was hailed as a triumph of peace and justice. The untimely and indecent delivery by its acting president, the Russian minister of justice, of a violent tirade on the merits of the dispute between his country and Japan, gave little evidence of a judicial temper, and the substance of the decision, giving to Germany and Great Britain a preference among the creditors of Venezuela, on the express ground that those powers had resorted to violent measures, while the others had preferred to await the peaceful award of an international court of arbitration, has the effect of putting a premium on the use of force, and a discount of disadvantage on the method of arbitration. So regarded, this decision, however else it may be justified, is the most extraordinary piece of self-stultification that any court has ever yet been known to put upon itself. A prominent official in Washington is reported to have pronounced the decision to be “a premium on violence;” and the New York Times comments on it as follows:— “The decision of The Hague Court actually confers a reward of merit upon three powerful European nations for going to war with a weak little Spanish-American republic, torn by civil convulsions, to collect money claims and damages which had never been subjected to any impartial examination. The court says, in effect, that, by blockading the ports of Venezuela, sinking her gunboats and bombarding her land defenses, these three powers followed a course so meritorious as compared with the United States, France, Mexico, Spain, and other claimant powers that they are entitled to preferential treatment over the other creditors. Of course, this is a direct encouragement to European powers to unite in a blockading adventure as often as they claim to have money due them from Spanish-American republics.” Evidently “peace and safety” are not likely to be established in the world by “peace” tribunals.