The World Court

THE WORLD COURT By J. M. Sjodahl Now that the Permanent Court of International Justice has ob- tained recognition by our government, through action of the U. S. Senate in harmony with public opinion, a brief statement concerning the Court may be of interest. The principle underlying a world court is very old. We find it embodied in the Amphictyonic Council of the Greeks, centuries be- fore our era, which was a league of tribes, at first for religious purposes but later for the maintenance of certain intertribal political rights. Thus, the Amphictyony of Delphi consisted of twelve tribes, not to say nations, with their colonies. Their representatives, two from each tribe, with full voting power, and deputies who might speak but not vote, met twice a year. They sought to mitigate the horrors of war by an agreement not to destroy any city of the League, nor to cut off its water supply during war, and they bound themselves to observe certain intertribal principles of right, and to unite in punishing any member of the League that should violate the agreements. This re- markable association of tribes might have developed into a brother- hood of nations, had not the Roman militarism prevailed against Greek culture, as the Prophet Daniel says of the "fourth beast," that it should do: 'And [it] shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces." (Dan. 7:23.) In modern times the principle of international justice instead of war has been advocated by such men as Erasmus, the great Biblical scholar, Grotius, Emanuel Kant, Henry IV, of France, and others. In 1832 the senate of Massachusetts adopted a resolution favoring some mode of amicable adjustment of international disputes, and that has ever been the American ideal. In 1898, when European militarism was felt as an intolerable burden, the Russian government invited the great powers to a conference on "mediation and voluntary arbitration." The representatives of most of the powers came to that congress, which convened at the Hague in 1899, with doubts as to the possibility of obtaining any results, but the American delegates were instructed by the Secretary of State, John Hay, to propose a plan for an international tribunal. This was thought to represent the sentiment of the United States at that time, as it, no doubt, did. Very little was accomplished at the first conference at the Hague, but a beginning had been made to prepare the way for the Prince of Peace. A second congress was held at the Hague in 1907. At that time, Elihu Root was secretary of state, and his instructions to the

474 IMPROVEMENT ERA American delegates were to endeavor to bring about "a development of the Hague Tribunal into a permanent tribunal composed of judges who are judicial officers and nothing else, who are paid adequate salaries, who have no other occupation, and who will devote their entire time to the trial and decision of international causes by judicial methods." From which it is clear that the American government al- most twenty years ago went on record as favoring a court of inter- national justice. The Hague congress "recommended" the adoption of that project, and the intention was to take the matter up at a third Hague conference in 1915, but, alas! then the world war held the stage, and no room was found for the Prince of Peace. The first part of the Versailles peace treaty, which, by the way, was rejected by the United States, contains what is known as the Covenant of the League of Nations. The organic constituents of this League are three: the Assembly, the Council and the permanent Secretariat. The World Court is not a part of the League in the same sense as the three institutions just mentioned. It is not, in the same sense, enacted by the Covenant. But article XVI of the Covenant provides for the establishment of a court. That article reads: "The Council shall formulate and submit to the members of the League for adoption plans for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice. The Court shall be competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international character which the parties thereto submit to it. The Court may also give an ad- visory opinion upon any dispute or question referred to it by the Council or by the Assembly." Pursuant to this provision, the Council on Feb. 13, 1920, ap- pointed a committee of jurists to formulate a plan of organization. One of the eleven members of this committee was Elihu Root, our former distinguished Secretary of State. The other members were jurists of equally high standing. The plan drafted was examined by the Council, at its meeting July 30-Aug. 4, 1920, submitted to the interested governments and approved by the Council at Brussels, Oct. 20-29, and by the Assembly at Geneva, Dec. 13, 1920. The draft was then appended to a protocol, which was submitted to the various nations for ratification. Ratifications came in promptly from forty-eight nations, and the Assembly and Council, on Sept. 14-15, 1921, selected eleven judges and four deputy judges, and thus the dream of ages became a reality: the rising on the still smouldering ruins left by the war flames, a Per- manent Court of International Justice. Hans Max Huber, then president of the Swiss republic, was made the president of the court. One of the members is John Bassett Moore, a distinguished American jurist. On Feb. 24, 1923, President Harding transmitted to the U. S. Senate a message in which he sought the advice and consent of that body to ratify the protocol, with certain reservations.

THE WORLD COURT 475 On Dec. 17, 1925, the Senate began the consideration of the .resolution, and on Jan. 27, 1926, it was passed by the overwhelming majority of 76 to 17. It was an entirely non-partisan vote, 40 Republicans and 36 Democrats voting in the affirmative, and 14 Re- publicans, 2 Democrats and 1 Farmer-Labor party, in the negative. The court has rendered some important services in the form of judgments and legal opinions. One of the most notable is, perhaps the dispute between Great Britain and Turkey concerning the boundary line between Turkey and the British mandate Irak. The Court gave the opinion that the Council had jurisdiction, and the Council, after thorough investigation, sustained the contention of Great Britain. In the dispute between Greece and Turkey regarding the in- clusion of the patriarch of Constantinople among the Greek nationals to be deported, Greece appealed to the League of Nations, whereupon Turkey withdrew the documents relative to expulsion of members of the Holy Synod. Negotiations concerning the matter were resumed between Greece and Turkey, and the matter was settled. The very existence of the Court is a factor for peace. It is, as President Coolidge recently has said, a judicial and not a political institution. The members are selected for their ability and integrity. None of them represents any one country, politically, but everyone of them represents justice and equity in controversies between nations, as our own courts do, in controversies between individuals. It is a safe institution, destined to do for the great family of nations in the world what the Supreme Court of the United States is doing for the family of States. It is the great American ideal applied to world- questions for the furtherance of civilization, and making possible the coming of the kingdom of the Prince of Peace. Since the passing of the World Court resolution by the U. S. Senate, opponents have announced their intention of launching a campaign, with the object in view of electing a sufficient number of anti-administration senators to reconsider the resolution and reverse the decision. As part of this campaign, a Washington lawyer, Mr. Benjamin Catchings, on Feb. 8, 1926, began proceedings in the U. S. Supreme Court, asking for permission "to file suit requiring Secretary Kellog to show cause why he should not be restrained from con- summating this country's entrance into the world tribunal." His con- tention is that the action taken by the Senate is "unconstitutional" — a contention which seems to reflect on the intelligence of all who were on the affirmative side, including President Coolidge and all who, in this matter, followed his lead, and among these were both our Utah senators. It is to be hoped the U. S. Supreme Court will take the matter up. A decision on a ruling by that authority would set the controversy at rest among all but those who, like the distinguished gentleman that was thrown out of heaven, have made up their minds to fight for their cause, right or wrong.