I have dwelt on this aspect of the Geneva arbitration because it putsin what appears to me a striking light the disadvantages which attend theseexpedients for settling international disputesthrough their being invariablybrought into action merely ad hocA true court of quasi-justicelike acourt of municipal justicewould be sure to consider the effect of a givendecision on the whole branch of law which it administersThe defecthowever,appears to me to be one for which it would not be altogether impossible tofind a remedyManyindeedof the innovations which have been proposedfor the cure of palpable infirmities in the application of our InternationalJurisprudence to facts seem to have but small chance of adoptionat anyrate in a society of nations like that in which we livethrough the magnitudeof the sacrifices which they would impose on particular communitiesButno appreciable sacrifice would have to be made by the single or corporatesovereigns of the civilised world if they were to agree to constitute a singlepermanent courtor boardor assemblage of arbitratorswho should act asreferees in any questions which any community or communities should chooseto submit to themSuch a court would not be free from the infirmity whichafflicts all such additions to the international systemIt would have noforce at its backBut I think it would be better constitutedI think itwould be more free from prejudiceand would soon be recognised as freer,than the present occasional adjudicatorsAnd I think it could be bettertrusted to adjust its awards to the entire body of international principles,distinctionsand rulesSuch a tribunal as I have describeda courtboard,or commission of arbitratorshaving a certain degree of permanencemighthave all the advantages which I have described for it -it might be betterconstituted for its purpose than are the bodies which are now trusted toconduct arbitrationsits awards might be better considered with regard totheir effect on the entirety of the Law of Nationsand it might be employedmore freely as a body of referees on critical questions which are now leftto themselves for want of any authority to which their consideration mightbe committedBut still it would not be a true court of justiceIt wouldshare the characteristicin modern eyes the weaknessof all InternationalLawthat it cannot command the assistance of forceIts rules have no sanction.
It cannot punish the breach of its rules or the violation of an internationaldutyIt is true that a defiance of the Law of Nations sometimes draws downupon the offender a very serious sanctionthough it is indirectFew sovereignsor states remain unmoved by the disapprobation which an open breach of internationalobligation provokes disapprobation now rapidly diffused over the whole civilisedworld by the telegraph and the pressNothing could be more satisfactorythan the outburst of indignation which occurred in 1870when the RussianGovernment took advantage of the difficulties in which Europe was placedby the war between Germany and Franceto repudiate the restrictions underwhich Russia lay in respect of naval action in the Black Sea through theprovisions of the Treaty of Parisrestrictions whichit must be confessed,were not wholly reasonableThe Russian Government had to abandon its position;and at a Conference of the representatives of Powers who had been signatoriesof the Treaty of Parisit was declared that 'it is an essential principleof the Law of Nations that no Power can liberate itself from the engagementof a treatynor modify the stipulations thereofunless with the consentof the contracting Powers by means of an amicable engagement.It is truethat this assertion of the virtual perpetuity of treaties (to which an exceptionmust be introducedsave by the effect of warcontains a principle whichis not without a danger of its ownBut the receded principle is that whichwas laid down at the ConferenceThe truth is that an offender against theobligations of International Law is at present seriously weakened by thedisapprobation he incursNobody knew this better than Napoleon Bonaparte,whonext perhaps to Frederick the Greatwas the most perfidious sovereignin modern historywhen he persistently endeavoured through his officialscribes to fasten on this country the name of 'perfidious Albion.'
But after all qualifications have been allowedthe denial to InternationalLaw of that auxiliary force which is commanded by all municipal lawandby every municipal tribunalis a most lamentable disadvantageThe systemowes to it every sort of infirmityIts efficiency and its improvement arealike hinderedAnd in the last resortwhen two or more disputant Powershave wrought themselves to such a heat of passion that they are determinedto fightthe rest of the civilised worldthough persuaded that the contestis unnecessary and persuaded that its contagion will spreadhasin thepresent state of international relationsno popover of forbidding or punishing the armed attacks of one state on anotherThe great majority of thoseentitled to have an opinion may condemn the threatened warbut there isno officer of the Law of Nations to interfere with the headlong combatants.
The amount of force which is at the disposal of what is called the commonwealthof nations collectively is immense and practically irresistiblebut it isbadly distributed and not well directedand it is too often impotentnotonly for the promotion of goodbut for the prevention of acknowledged evil.
