A League of Nations to Enforce World Peace

A League of Nations to Enforce World

Peace

By Clarence Baird, Instructor in History and Government, Ricks Academy

One hundred and thirty years ago there was held a conven-

tion at Independence Hall, Philadelphia, for the purpose of

devising some system whereby the liberty gained from George

III would be perpetuated to posterity. The success of the mem-

bers of that convention is attested by the results of their efforts.

They planned broadly and built well; and later generations

have maintained and developed the structure of constitutional

government here commenced.

On June 15, 1915, there assembled at that same historic

spot, in the Quaker City, another group of men who commenced

a work that may surpass in beneficial results those obtained

from the work of 1787. These modern patriots declared that

the time has come "to devise and to create a working union of

sovereign nations to establish peace among themselves and to

guarantee it by all known and available sanctions."

Acting directly upon this declaration, the convention pro-

ceeded to organize the American division of The League to En-

force Peace; the purpose of which is set forth in the following

proposals :

First: All justifiable questions arising between the signatory powers,

not settled by negotiations, shall, subject to the limitations of treaties, be

submitted to a judicial tribunal for hearing and judgment, both upon the

merits and upon any issue as to its jurisdiction of the question.

Second: All other questions arising between the signatories and not

settled by negotiations, shall be submitted to a council of conciliation for

hearing, consideration and recommendation.

Third: The signatory powers shall jointly use forthwith both their

economic and military forces against any one of their number that goes to

war, or commits acts of hostility against another of the signatories before

any question arising shall be submitted as provided in the foregoing.

Fourth: Conferences between the signatory powers shall be held from

time to time to formulate and codify rules of international law, which, unless

some signatory shall signify its dissent within a stated period, shall there-

after govern in the decisions of the judicial tribunal mentioned in Article

One.

The government of the United States has been asked to sub-

scribe to this plan, and to assist in making it effective between

all the great world powers. It is urged that such a plan will

put an end to international strife and institute the rule of law

500 IMPROVEMENT ERA

for the rule of passion. It is hoped that by putting this plan

into operation (and it is urged that it can be made operative),

more devotion to the cause of international patriotism and

honor will be procured; that the hearts of mankind shall beat

in greater unity and the feeling of international brotherhood

shall pervade the universe of struggling men.

The civilized world has now reached the point where a

definite decision must be made and definite plans formulated

which shall determine whether that which we call international

law shall be considered as a mere code of etiquette or is to be

a body of real laws, imposing obligations much more definite

and inevitable than has been the case heretofore. We must

choose between these two alternatives. There is no middle

ground.

Which shall it be? Can the human race readjust and bring

permanent peace out of the present terrible upheaval? The

cool historian and the pessimistic philosopher say "No." "There

have always been wars; therefore, there always will be," reason

these individuals, and they point to the present war to buttress

their arguments. They maintain that the fighting instinct is

inherent in man, that human nature is unchangeable, hence war

is inevitable.

We who hold an ideal of peace before us meet this pessi-

mistic philosophy with an emphatic denial of every one of its

positions. We deny that the world moves in a circle; that

tomorrow reproduces yesterday; that human nature is unchange-

able; and that what has been must always be.

The world of men is moving forward from an earlier and

savage stage to a future and truly civilized condition. His-

torically, man has evolved from a lower condition, passing

through various stages of barbarism, to his present semi-civ-

ilized, semi-Christianized status. The history of the develop-

ment of society discloses four stages in the evolution of the

modern state: First, kinship was the sole bond, and indi-

vidual retaliation was unchecked. Then it was deemed ad-

vantageous to organize into tribes where certain restrictions were

placed upon individual liberty of redress. The tribes later be-

came organized into larger units called nations, where courts of

law existed, but individuals still settled differences outside the

courts. The methods used were ordeals, wager of strength,

wager of law, and the like. The fourth and last step consists

in the elimination of all private retaliation, and the settlement

of all private disputes in the courts of law. This has now been

accomplished within the forty-six modern civilized states.

Nations, in their sovereign relations, are in the same stage

of development today that individuals were, in their private

relations, six or eight centuries ago. The world has already

A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE WORLD PEACE 501

achieved peace and justice, through law and organization, as

between individuals, hamlets, towns, and even states, within the

civilized nations; but within the realm of international relations

we are still in a primitive condition. The problem of interna-

tional peace is that of finding ways and means for accomplish-

ing between the nations what has already been accomplished

within the nations.

A mere alliance of the powers is insufficient. Concerts

of Europe, alliances, ententes, skilful balances of power, all

ultimately lead to war. Conciliation, good-will, love of peace,

human sympathy, all are ineffectual without institutions

through which they can act. Only the possibility of establish-

ing real restraint by law, administered and enforced through

some international organization, seems to remain to give effect

to the will of the vast majority of mankind.

There must be a definite and comprehensive confederation,

wherein there is a real organization, having sufficient power to

make regulations, apply the same to cases that may arise be-

tween the various peoples comprising international groups, and

having sufficient power to command obedience. The jurisdic-

tion of this organization must extend to all cases arising be-

tween these various groups; especially those cases involving the

so-called "vital interests" and "national honor." In private life,

if a man refused to appear in court because he thought his cause

a vital one, but should decide to settle his troubles by personal

force, society would immediately brand him as an outlaw and

menace, and would proceed to place him where he would be

rendered harmless. So should it be in international life. If

we are to have international peace, there must be some inter-

national organization which can summon international offend-

ers, adjudicate their differences, and see that they abide by the

decision rendered.

History furnishes examples where this result has been ob-

tained on a smaller scale than that demanded at the present

time, and such examples are valuable as precedents and path-

finders. Witness the formation of the United States of America

— a federation of thirteen comparatively sovereign states, whose

interests were no more in common, or whose people had no

greater incentive directing them in the formation of one central

government than have the inhabitants of the present nations in

maintaining international peace. The people of the thirteen

colonies were no closer commercially, politically, socially or in-

tellectually, in 1787, than are the people of the civilized world,

in 1918.

In 1787 the thirteen colonies were essentially independent

units, so far as a political superiority was concerned; but they

were far from independent when commerce, common interests,

502 IMPROVEMENT ERA

and a desire for mutual advancement were concerned. To in-

sure domestic prosperity and to perpetuate their hard-won in-

dependence of a tyrannical king it was decided that certain

rights would be relinquished by each colony and vested in the

central government, which should be given exclusive control of

these powers. The constitution of the United States was the

result. This gave the central government entire control over for-

eign affairs, domestic questions that pertained to all the colonies,

and all questions of war and peace. The colonies, or states, as

they now became, were expressly prohibited from entering into

alliances with foreign nations, engaging in war with each other

or foreign powers, or interfering with the federal government

in the exercise of its delegated powers.

To insure obedience to the mandates of the federal gov-

ernment the states were bound to come to its assistance in case

of necessity, with their military and economic forces; and in

case of national danger the forces of all were at the disposal of

the central government. At the same time the rights of the

respective states were carefully safeguarded and protected from

the federal government, or from each other.

Has this confederation of essentially sovereign nations been

successful? If so, why cannot the same principles be incorpo-

rated into our international life? What is there to prevent the

formation of an international organization having control of

those problems of an international nature, adjusting all ques-

tions arising between national groups, and leaving to the various

nations control of affairs pertaining only to them? All inter-

national groups should pledge their economic and military

strength to see that this organization has proper respect and

obedience, as all states in our federal government are bound to

stand behind the central government.

This plan is not impossible, if the people of the earth will

lay aside their so-called patriotism and adopt the principles of

internationalism. What the world needs today is not less devo-

tion to the cause of national patriotism, but more devotion to

the ideal of international patriotism; not so much individual

and national ethics as international and inter-human ethics.

When the human race is willing to consider all mankind as

members of one great world family then we shall see the end

of war and international strife, and not until then.

The principles of the League to Enforce Peace have recently

been sanctioned by the world's leading statesmen. On January

5, 1918, Mr. George, in speaking before a labor convention in

England, said: "After all, war is a relic of barbarism, and just

as law has succeeded violence as a means of settling disputes

between individuals, so we believe that it is destined ultimately

to take the place of war in the settlement of controversies between

A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE WORLD PEACE 503

nations." "For these and other similar reasons we are confi-

dent that a great attempt must be made to establish, by some

international organization, an alternative to war as a means of

settling international disputes."

Three days after the English premier had delivered the

above sentiments, President Wilson in speaking before Congress

stated among other things that "A general association of na-

tions must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose

of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and

territorial integrity to great and small states." The same prin-

ciples have been recently sanctioned by representatives of Rus-

sia and the Central Powers. While there is some difference as

to the actual machinery to be devised for the purpose of put-

ting into execution the principles of the League to Enforce

Peace, the general plan has met with approval, and this is the

all important thing.

It seems logical that the outcome of national federaliza-

tion should be international federalization. First was the clan,

then the tribe, then the nation, in their early developments,

and lastly the great federal state. Why cannot the develop-

ment be carried one step farther and give the world interna-

tional fellowship? When such has been accomplished, and it

will be accomplished, law may be substituted for force; reason,

for passion; investigation and judicial decision, for war; man-

kind shall have but one purpose, justice shall reign supreme,

and the "kindly earth shall slumber, lapped in universal law."

Rexburg, Idaho.