SECTION III.

OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION.

AMONG political remedies for War, either apprehended or existing, the friendly Intervention or aid of States, not directly concerned in the dispute properly, occupies a high place. To many, indeed, this sort of remedy appears the most hopeful of all, and one of immediate applicability; and an enumeration of recently successful cases of friendly Intervention, or judicial aid, no doubt seems to give colour to these hopes. But it has already been explained that War is the last expression of every other malady which disturbs the relations of States, and that it can only be removed by a series of remedial processes which address themselves to all these maladies at once. Nevertheless, the function of friendly service on the part of other States, whether taking a diplomatic form or not, deservedly ranks high among the agencies for keeping War at a distance, and finally, perhaps, providing a substitute for it.

It is not necessary, in this place, to say much about that form of friendly Intervention which is known as Mediation. Its true

Arbitration.

character is well understood, from the close analogy presented in the circumstances of private life. Its success must always depend on the known integrity and disinterestedness of the mediating State, and the higher the reputation of a State for public honesty and impartiality, the more likely are its services to be put in requisition for this purpose. But the success of Mediation must depend upon the alleged grounds of dispute being the real grounds, and, therefore, upon the existence of a certain amount of genuineness and honesty of purpose in the Governments of the States which are verging on War, or already actually engaged in it. It thus appears that the province of Mediation will become larger and larger as national and international morality improves, and the desire of general Peace becomes everywhere more urgent and sincere. Any single State of conspicuous integrity, and still more, any group of two or three States, fortified by a strong, intelligent, and conscientious diplomatic service, may thus confer inestimable benefits in averting, at an early stage, the possibilities of War.

But the form of friendly Intervention on which public attention has been especially fixed of late, is that known by the name of Arbitration. The essential elements of Arbitration consist in-(1) An agreement on the

part of States having a matter, or several matters, in dispute, to refer the decision of them to a tribunal, believed to be impartial, and constituted in such a way as the terms of the agreement specify, and to abide by its judgment; and in-(2) Consent on the part of the person, persons, or States, nominated for the tribunal, to conduct the inquiry and to deliver judgment.

Precise

definition of points in

essential to

On the mere face of this description, it is obvious that there are certain conditions which must be satisfied in order to render Arbitration even so much as possible. In the first place, dispute the matter in dispute must in itself admit of Arbitration. being formulated in such a way as to be made a matter of judicial decision, as distinguished from an equitable arrangement or adjustment of political claims. Of course, the terms of the reference may be large and indefinite, and considerable powers may be given to the Arbitrators of adjusting claims, even of an indeterminate kind, and making compensatory settlements of a variety of sorts. But the claims, however indeterminate, must be included in precise language, and the limits of the capacity of the Arbitrators must be strictly defined. This condition points to the obvious suitability of Arbitration to all cases in which the dispute relates to a matter of unsettled law, or to controverted matters of fact, or to the

suitable for Arbitration.

correct interpretation to be placed on a Treaty

or other legal document, or to the fixing of a Cases obviously boundary line, or to the amount and kind of compensation due for an admitted wrong, or to monetary claims on the part of a State against another State, or of a citizen of one State against another State. In all such matters as these, in which the mere statement of the ground of dispute indicates a readiness to accept a conciliatory solution of it, if such can be found compatible with national selfrespect, the field for the friendly offices of other States in forming, or assisting to form, tribunals of Arbitration, is almost illimitable ; and it is likely enough increased recourse will be had to this mode of reducing international difficulties, as its value becomes better recognised, and the greater complication of the relations between State and State multiplies occasions of possible disagreement.

But there are other cases of dispute which are far more formidable than those just alluded to, and yet which involve elements of such a refined or incalculable kind that, on the face of it, the settlement often seems to set at defiance the capacity of the best constituted tribunal exercising powers of the most elastic and equitably adjustive kind. These cases of dispute are, as often as not, kept secret by means of a plausible insistence on other more

palpable grounds, which are, however, constantly shifted, as a fresh turn in the course of diplomatic negotiation seems to suggest.

The abnormal cases which, on the face of them, seem, for one reason or other, far less adapted for a tribunal of Arbitration than those previously mentioned, belong usually to one or other of the following classes. Either a State believes that the action, or menaced action, of another State is such as seriously to menace its own independence, or even its national existence; or it believes such action is hostile or fatal to some scheme of policy which it has, for reasons sufficient to itself, deliberately adopted and long perseveringly adhered to; or it believes some act of another State, or some imputation cast on itself, to be injurious to what it designates as its own

national honour," and to call not only for instant repudiation but, possibly, for condign punishment. The question is, whether cases of dispute belonging to these several classes can be looked upon as fulfilling the conditions which the possibility of reference to Arbitration demands.

As to the first class of cases, in which the independence or existence of a State is believed to be menaced, it is evident that the terms here used are so wide and indefinite as to afford, in almost any conceivable case, a