If the foregoing observations are of any value, it consists in noting and emphasizing the crucial fact that individualism as the essence of the relations between states must be regarded as largely modified by what may be termed internationalism. State independence as the basis of international law has become radically qualified by state interdependence. The importance of the change not merely in theoretical but in practical consequences may be readily tested. In seeking for the ideal condition of international relations, the paramount object is the prevention of war-is international peace. But the greater the interdependence of any two states, the more each relies upon the other for the essentials of well-being, the more intimately their respective peoples are bound together by social and commercial ties, the less likely they are to engage in war and the more likely they are to provide against it in advance by arbitration agreements and all other appropriate preventive measures. Further, any would-be belligerents not only stand to each other in relations of mutual dependence, but each of them stands in similar relations to other civilized states who will be sufferers by war as well as the actual combatants themselves. Hence comes an outside pressure upon such belligerents to settle their quarrel without fighting—a pressure which will be powerful in all cases and is irresistible in many even after hostilities have become imminent. But the potency of these interdependent relations of states by no means delays showing itself until a warlike crisis is actually at hand. It leads the wise and patriotic statesmen of all countries to unite their best energies in conceiving plans and devising machinery through which the entire body of civilized states shall use its influence to disperse war clouds almost automatically and as fast as they rise above the horizon. The Hague conference of 1899 did much in that direction by facilitating international arbitration and making mediation between angry states rather a friendly courtesy than a piece of officious impertinence. Other like conferences may be expected to make substantial progress in the same direction and the advent of the time when "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" is by no means to be put down as among the dreams of poets or the visions of seers. The interdependent relations of states, constantly increasing in number and closeness and strength, are constantly making war increasingly difficult, impracticable and repulsive. They are steadily bringing nearer and making more imperative agreements between the civilized states of the world, by which war, already branded as the worst possible violation of the dictates of common sense and sound morals, shall also be a crime in the sight of international law and as such be both preventable and punishable by all the forces which organized civilization may be able to command. RICHARD OLNEY. BOARD OF EDITORS OF THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY, State University of Iowa. ROBERT LANSING, Watertown, N. Y. JOHN BASSETT MOORE, Columbia University. DAVID J. HILL, The Hague, European Editor. Managing Editor JAMES BROWN SCOTT, George Washington University. EDITORIAL COMMENT THE SECOND PEACE CONFERENCE OF THE HAGUE The second Hague peace conference is no longer a matter of speculation, it is now a certainty. Invitations have been issued to and accepted by the recognized states of the world, and chosen representatives of these states will meet at the Hague on the afternoon of June 15, 1907. The first conference was looked upon as an experiment and many there were who shook their heads in doubt. It did not wholly justify the hopes of its friends and well-wishers. It did not produce a general disarmament, neither did it succeed in limiting armaments nor in placing a limit upon the expenditures necessary to preserve peace by force. It did, however, discuss these great problems and relegated them, unsolved though they were, to the consideration of a future and perhaps more favorable conference. They are in the nature of unfinished business and will doubtless be considered and treated as such. If war was not abolished and the era of universal peace ushered in, a serious and successful attempt was made to give definiteness and consistency to the laws of war on land, and to the sick and wounded upon the seas there were extended the humane principles of the Red Cross, which principles have done so much to mitigate the horrors incident to warfare. The crowning work of the conference was, however, the establishment of a tribunal to which litigant nations might resort for the peaceful and judicial settlement of difficulties which, if unsettled, might justify in the minds of some an appeal to the sword. If war cannot be abolished, unnecessary suffering should be eliminated, and difficulties between nations which might easily lead to war may be settled by the resort to a tribunal clothed with the power to examine the facts and on the facts as found to give redress. The first conference showed the possibility of discussing in the abstract questions of international importance. Great as was its service, it was but a first and conscious step in the line of progress. For the actual work accomplished by the conference of 1899 reference is made to the supplement in which the French and English text of the final act is given preceded by documents necessary to its intelligent understanding. The first conference looked forward at no distant date to a second meeting of the nations. As Europe seemed unwilling to take the initiative, President Roosevelt on October 21, 1904, gave voice to the universal desire of this country that a second conference might assemble in order to take up and advance the work so auspiciously inaugurated by the conference of 1899. The late John Hay as secretary of state, issued the following circular to the representatives of the United States accredited to each of the governments signatory to the acts of the Hague conference SIR: The peace conference which assembled at the Hague on May 18, 1899, marked an epoch in the history of nations. Called by his majesty the emperor of Russia to discuss the problems of the maintenance of general peace, the regulation of the operations of war, and the lessening of the burdens which preparedness for eventual war entails upon modern peoples, its labors resulted in the acceptance by the signatory powers of conventions for the peaceful adjustment of international difficulties by arbitration, and for certain humane amendments to the laws and customs of war by land and sea. A great work was thus accomplished by the conference while other phases of the general subject were left to discussion by another conference in the near future, such as questions affecting the rights and duties of neutrals, the inviolability of private property in naval warfare, and the bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force. Among the movements which prepared the minds of governments for an accord in the direction of assured peace among men, a high place may fittingly be given to that set on foot by the Interparliamentary Union. From its origin in the suggestions of a member of the British house of commons, in 1888, it developed until its membership includes large numbers of delegates from the parliaments of the principal nations, pledged to exert their influence toward the conclusion of treaties of arbitration between nations and toward the accomplishment of peace. Its annual conferences have notably advanced the high purposes it sought to realize. Not only have many international treaties of arbitration been concluded, but, in the conference held in Holland in 1894, the memorable declaration in favor of a permanent court of arbitration was a forerunner of the most important achievement of the peace conference of the Hague in 1899. The annual conference of the Interparliamentary Union was held this year at St. Louis, in appropriate connection with the World's Fair. Its deliberations were marked by the same noble devotion to the cause of peace and to the welfare of humanity which had inspired its former meetings. By the unanimous vote of delegates, active or retired members of the American congress and of every parliament in Europe with two exceptions, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Enlightened public opinion and modern civilization alike demand that differences between nations should be adjudicated and settled in the same manner as disputes between individuals are adjudicated, namely, by the arbitrament of courts in accordance with recognized principles of law, this conference requests the several governments of the world to send delegates to an international conference to be held at a time and place to be agreed upon by them for the purpose of considering: 1. The question for the consideration of which the conference at the Hague expressed a wish that a future conference be called. 2. The negotiation of arbitration treaties between the nations represented at the conference to be convened. 3. The advisability of establishing an international congress to convene periodically for the discussion of international questions. And this conference respectfully and cordially requests the president of the United States to invite all the nations to send representatives to such a conference On the twenty-fourth of September, ultimo, these resolutions were presented to the president by a numerous deputation of the Interparliamentary Union. The president accepted the charge offered to him, feeling it to be most appropriate that the executive of the nation which had welcomed the conference to its hospitality should give voice to its impressive utterances in a cause which the American government and people hold dear. He announced that he would at an early day invite the other nations, parties to the Hague conventions, to reassemble with a view to pushing forward toward completion the work already begun at the Hague, by considering the questions which the first conference had left unsettled with the express provision that there should be a second conference. In accepting this trust, the president was not unmindful of the fact, so vividly brought home to all the world, that a great war is now in progress. He recalled the circumstances that at the time when, on August 24, 1898, his majesty the emperor of Russia sent forth his invitation to the nations to meet in the interests of peace, the United States and Spain had merely halted, in their struggle, to devise terms of peace. While at the present moment no armistice between the armies now contending is in sight, the fact of an existing war is no reason why the nations should relax the efforts they have so successfully made hitherto toward the adoption of rules of conduct which may make more remote the chances of future wars between them. In 1899 the conference of the Hague dealt solely with the larger general problems which confront all nations, and assumed no function of intervention or suggestion in the settlement of the terms of peace between the United States and Spain. It might be the same with a reassembled conference at the present time. Its efforts would naturally lie in the direction of further codification of the universal |