Evening star., 1923-04-28

back to the question whether or not
we desire a permanent court, with the
| continuous service of judges, with APP
propriate judicial standards, instead
| of temporary arbitral tribunals
| question to the affirmative answer OF
| which we have long been committed
(5) Further, it is objected that no
provision is made for the enforce
| ment of the decisions of the court
There are those who desire to see an
International armed force to compel
the carrying out of decisions Those
who make this demand generally as
| sumo that there will be substantial
unity among those furnishing the
armed force so that IT, can be used
But when there is such international
| unity the power of public opinion is
| at it's maximum and there is the least
\ need for force, while in the absence
| of such unity the armed force is
| likely to remain unused.
| The truth is that the decisions OF
! the court will have the most solemn
sanction that it is practicable to OBJ
! tam. when nations agree to submit
a dispute to tribunal and to abide
| by the decision it's observance is a
| point Of international honor of the
j highest sort. You can really have nc
| better sanction than this. and the OBJ
! legation is one which will be all the
! more keenly felt when the decision
J is not simply that of temporary
! arbitral tribunal, but of a permanent
nations of the world. II you desire
! to improve the authority of Judicial
| determinations of international dis
| puteS, you can best effect this object
| by improving the reputation for inn
/ partiality and for disinterested judi
! cial consideration of the tribunal that
decides them.
Why Revive Controversy.
(6) An objection of a different char
| acter is that the United States should
Internationally support the court, and
therefore, apparently, that the sug-
gested conditions should be with
drawn. This objection simply means
that the United States should enter
! the league of nations. as the objcc
tlon assumes, in accordance with the
fact. that the proposed support of the
court does not involve entry into the
league. But why, in supporting an
institution which embodies n cherish =
| ed ideal of the American people.
should we revive the controversy over
| the league? Why should we not sup
port the court as a judicial body "
IN giving this support. however, il is
important that we should reserve the
right to participate in the election Of
Judges, that we should protect our
selves against amendment Of the
statute without our consent, and that
We should provide for the determine =
I tion by Congress of the amount to he
paid as our share of the expenses.
The stipulated conditions are appro- =
Pirate to the purpose.
L CD Another objection is that the
British Empire has six votes in the
assembly of the league in the cleo
| ton OF judges, because the dominionS
and other constituent parts of the
empire are members of the assembly.
II must be remembered. however, that
there are fifty-two votes in the as
senbly. The admission to member
snip of these parts of the British En-
pire has been a recognition Of the
aspiration of the peoples composing
| them. and this has not been found an
insuperable obstacle to the support
of the court by other powers. And it
would be difficult to find Il sound rca-
son for objection on the part OF the
United States to this increase on natu-
raj grounds in the voting strength h
of the peoples who have been de lel-
oped under the influence OF tnglo-
Saxon Jurisprudence.
Moreover. under the proposed con-
dltion the United States will not only
participate in the election by the as
sembly, but also in the election by
the council, and in the counCil the
British Empire has but one vote.
We are far better protected by tins
arrangement than by one which
would have all states vote toget her
on exactly the same footing and
where the smallest nation would cast
the same vote as the United States.
The arrangement for our particina-
tiOn in the voting for the jud yes by
the council is really a stronger IrG-
lection to the interests Of tn" lnited
States than has hitherto been Su2-
gested in any plan for a permanent
court. The question should also be
considered in the light of the nature
of the action that is involved. 1t is
practically impossible. under the
scheme that has been adopted. for the
British Empire, or for any combina-
tion. TO secure an election of judges
III aid of a particular political inter-
est. Such an effort would die still
horn, because of the necessity for q,
concurrent choice by both groups of
nations in the manner that has been
devised.
Acute World Need.
Finally. il is hardly necessary to
say that am in entire sympathy with
efforts to codify international law
and to provide conventions for Its
Improvement. I believe in confer
ences for that purpose. We have
already made some progress in this
direction through the recent comIniS-
sion of 1urists which sat at The
Hague TO suggest notifications in the
laws of war which are made ncces-
sary by new agencies of warfare-a
commission established under q reso-
luton adopted at the conference on
limitation of armament. However.
the process of codifying. clarifying
and improving international law is
necessarily a slow one. and if we wait
for satisfactory body of law before
we have a permanent court a genera
tion will pass before ii is established
Meanwhile let US supply appropriate
means for the application of the law
we have. The two projects are rot in
consistent: the one can exist along
with the other.
But we have an acute world need.
We shall make no progress toward