페이지 이미지

plan of joint action by the United States and Great Britain, by which the latter power would be allied to the republics of America in opposition to the monarchies of Europe, but Monroe preferred to take a strictly American stand, relying on the assistance of Great Britain in case the Holy Alliance should then undertake to intervene in South America. The transportation of troops from Europe to America was then a far more difficult task than it now is. Communication could only be had across the ocean by ships. The telegraph had not yet been invented. Great Britain, then as now, dominated the ocean. With its aid there was no doubt of the ability of America to defend itself. On the other hand it would have been nothing short of madness for the United States even in alliance with Great Britain, the South American States, and Switzerland, to have undertaken to wage war for democracy on continental Europe.

The great war just ended has witnessed the invasion of Europe by the democracies of America, Asia, Australia, and Africa, and the utter destruction of all the remaining dynasties that had formed the Holy Alliance. The United States transported an army of more than two million men across the Atlantic in less than a year, with all its needed supplies and equipment, with the aid of British shipping. It has also furnished food to all the allied nations. It is now confronted with the problem of making an enduring peace by which it will be made secure against the recurrence of such conditions as drew it into this great struggle. There is no powerful military despotism left in Europe, Asia, or Africa, but there is a vast territory in central and eastern Europe and northern Asia throughout which the people are striving to establish free institutions. They are now divided into many discordant factions, with conditions throughout Germany and much of Russia very similar to those prevailing in France after the revolution. Western Europe, which had established governments accountable to the people, comes out of the war victorious, but with many frightful scars from it. Without the aid the Allies received from America in supplies and men it appears reasonably certain that the Central Powers would have succeeded in extending their military despotisms in all directions. The

spirit of the Monroe doctrine was invoked when the United States entered the war. It must now be applied to preserve the fruits of a victory won at such fearful cost, especially to the popular governments of Europe. This spirit and the practical wisdom of Monroe and Jefferson clearly call for a larger application of the doctrine which was announced in behalf of free government in America. Military despotism must not be allowed to come back in any part of the world to work havoc at the command of any ruthless ruler. The allied nations fought for the avowed purpose of making the world safe for democracy, and there can be no doubt that the announcement of this purpose contributed materially to their success. At the conclusion of the war the victorious nations which sit at the peace table to arrange the terms of peace include the republics of the United States, France, Portugal, Brazil, Cuba and China, and the constitutional monarchies of Great Britain, Belgium, Italy, and Japan, whose governments are almost as popular in character as those of the republics. These nations, and the smaller ones associated with them, entered into a great league in fact, if not in name, by which they overthrew the governments which brought on the war. They have now formed a league to maintain the fruits of their victory. The combinations of nations forming this league is vastly more powerful than the whole force of America with Great Britain added in the time of Monroe. This combination is not now confronted by any great monarchical combination. Its difficulties are merely those of applying the fundamental principles of freedom and representative government to all the nations of the world. Manifestly the first danger to be provided against is that of the reorganization of a great military machine like that of Germany at the commencement of the war. This can only be done through a supervising force established by the league to prohibit great military combinations. Very clearly this force must be representative of and accountable to the free people who establish it. It must itself be subject to law and to the popular governments it represents. must act in strict accordance with the benign principles of Monroe and Jefferson and shield the weak against the aggressions of the strong nations. It is still necessary, as a matter


both of right and of policy, to allow the people of each country to regulate their domestic affairs in accordance with their own views. The nations must be free, but this freedom must not extend even to preparation for aggression on their neighbors. Heretofore international law has been utterly impotent as a means of preserving the peace of the world. It is for the League of Nations to make its rules just, and to see that they are enforced against any member of the family of nations that would attempt to do what the Holy Alliance wished to do in the days of Monroe. It is not the Monroe doctrine that stands in the way of a successful league of nations, but the lack of affirmative principles in international law concerning the relations of nations. International law has never definitely sanctioned aggressive war, but it has interposed no obstacle to it. It has accorded to each nation, no matter how organized, the right to determine for itself for what cause and when it would go to war. So long as this doctrine prevails, there can be no assurance of peace. International law, to be worthy the name, must be law which binds nations in their corporate capacity. Order is heaven's first law, and order does not exist on earth when nations are permitted to and do go to war. No matter what question of international relation may arise, there may be, there should be, a rule of law to settle it. Such rules, in order to be accepted and enforced, must commend themselves to the general sense of right of the people of all nations. In order to be sure of accordance with this general opinion it is manifestly necessary that a body representing all the free nations formulate them. International law has never said to a sovereign nation, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not rob, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods, but only when you do these awful crimes you shall, if you conveniently cán, do them under a few restrictions and limitations designed to mitigate their barbarities. It must be made to enforce on nations the fundamental principles underlying all municipal codes dealing with crime. It must deny to each and every nation, as an attribute of its sovereignty, the right to go to war. It must afford a practical means for the enforcement of the rights of a nation, without referring the remedy to the primitive law of the savage, self-help.



Though much has been accomplished in the improvement of international relations by separate treaties affecting only two or a very few nations, these have been found inadequate to fill the requirements of modern commercial and social intercourse. The ever-growing web of complicated relations involving the people of many nations, the increasing dependence of densely peopled manufacturing states on distant lands for food supplies, and of the agricultural states on them for a market for their products and supplies of clothing, implements and other manufactured articles, render more general agreements an imperative necessity. It has been perceived that the highest welfare of each nation is dependent in very large measure on friendship and commerce with many others. The full measure of benefit from commercial intercourse can only be attained under conditions of permanent peace.

Most of the old treaties were made either to combine for war or to fix the terms of its termination. Treaties of peace have disposed of the particular controversies involved in the wars which they terminated, and many of them have been observed and carried out in good faith by both parties for long periods, but changing conditions have presented new questions and new combinations out of which leaders imbued with ancient hatred or ambition have been able to extract pretexts for war.

It is now apparent that peace must be secured by better and more general guaranties than treaties between two hostile nations or combinations of hostile nations.

Of late many questions of general concern to all nations have been taken up by diplomatic conferences at which many nations have been represented. A very prominent purpose has been to bring about international agreements for the mitigation of the horrors of war, and for reducing the numbers of

wars by arbitration of differences and by conciliation. Other general international interests, however, have been deemed of sufficient importance to be considered in general conferences and as subjects of treaties to which the adherence of all the nations of the earth has been invited. One of the earliest and most important of these conferences was held at Geneva for the purpose of obtaining a general agreement for the protection of the sick and wounded in war and of those employed in caring for them. The convention adopted and signed at the conference met with almost universal approval and it remained in force until superseded by the Geneva Convention of 1906, which will be found in full in its order. As this was the first of the great general welfare conventions to become generally adopted by the nations it is given here in full.

GENEVA CONVENTION, 1864 In 1864 a Convention of representatives of twelve European Powers was held at Geneva, Switzerland, to consider the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in time of war, at which a convention was agreed upon and signed on August 22, 1864, providing as follows:

Article I. Ambulances and Military hospitals shall be acknowledged to be neuter, and, as such, shall be protected and respected by belligerents so long as any sick or wounded may be therein.

Such neutrality shall cease if the ambulances or hospitals should be held by a military force.

Art. II. Persons employed in Hospitals and Ambulances, comprising the staff for superintendence, medical service, administration, transport of wounded, as well as chaplains, shall participate in the benefit of neutrality, whilst so employed, and so long as there remain any wounded to bring in or to succor.

Art. III. The persons designated in the preceding article may, even after occupation by the enemy, continue to fulfill their duties in the hospital or ambulance, which they serve, or may withdraw in order to rejoin the corps to which they belong.

Under such circumstances, when these persons shall cease from their functions, they shall be delivered by the occupying army to the outposts of the enemy.

Art. IV. As the equipment of military hospitals remains subject to the

« 이전계속 »