Pax mundi. Arnoldson Klas Pontus

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ the Afghanistan boundary question, which was happily solved by the friendliness on both sides of the Russian and English Governments. The whole world followed for a while that dispute with anxiety and disquietude. The press unhappily, as usual, employed its influence in stirring up the national passions in both countries. But before it had gone too far, fortunately the feelings were quieted by the public being reminded that both England and Russia had taken part in the resolution of the Paris Congress, which declared that when any serious dispute arose between any of the contracting powers, it should be referred to the mediation of a friendly power. Upon this ground the English Government proposed to the Russian that the "dispute should be referred to the ruler of a friendly State, to be adjusted in a manner consistent with the dignity of both lands." This proposal was accepted, but did not come into practice. It was not needed. The Afghanistan boundary commission itself carried out its duties to a successful issue.

      Still later many smaller international disputes have been solved by arbitration; for instance: —

      Between Italy and Colombia in South America, respecting Italian subjects who had suffered loss through the last revolution in Colombia, in which Spain as arbitrator decided in favour of Italy.

      Between Brazil and Argentina respecting their boundaries, a dispute in which both parties appealed for a settlement to the President of the United States of America, and which was adjusted by him.

      Between the United States of North America and Denmark, in which the latter was, by the chosen arbitrator, the English Ambassador at Athens, Sir Edward Monson, after long delay freed from the obligation to pay compensation to the Americans, because the Danish authorities had fired at an American ship which in 1854 was escaping out of the harbour of St. Thomas, and which was suspected of carrying supplies to Venezuela, at that time in insurrection.

      In conclusion it can be urged, —

      That France and Holland agreed to have the boundary between their possessions in Guiana determined by arbitration.13

      That the international committee which met in Washington to arrange the impending fishery question between Great Britain, Canada and the United States, decided to recommend the creation of a permanent tribunal of arbitration for adjusting future disputes respecting these relations; also:

      That the council of the Swiss Confederation, at the combined request of Portugal and of the Congo State Government has undertaken to arbitrate the possible disputes which may arise respecting the regulation of boundaries amongst their African territories.

      Besides these and other instances which I am acquainted with, many others have certainly taken place, though attracting less attention.

      The idea of arbitration goes peacefully and quietly forward, and the world therefore takes little notice of it.

      It is quite otherwise with the crash of war, whose external show of greatness and glory, and whose inward hatred and crime, are desolating the happiness of the nations and are accompanied by distress and gloom.

      The one is a fearful hurricane which rends the mountains and breaks in pieces the rocks.

      The other is the still small voice, mightier than the devastating storm, since it speaks to us in the name of everlasting righteousness, because it is the voice of God.

      NEUTRALITY

      Side by side with the idea of arbitration, another pacific idea, already powerful, is pressing forward, and growing into an International Law, namely, the Law of Neutrality.

      He is neutral, who neither takes part for, nor against, in a dispute. Neutrality is the impartial position which is not associated with either party. The State is called neutral which neither takes part in a war itself, nor in time of war sides with any of the warring parties.

      In ancient times neutrality was not understood as a national right. Neither the Greek nor the Latin language has any word to express the idea. In the days when Roman policy was seeking to drag all the nations of the earth into its net, the Romans saw in other peoples only tributaries who had been subdued by their armies, subject nations who had submitted to the Roman yoke, allies who were compelled to join in their policy of conquest, or lastly enemies, who sooner or later would have to bow before their victorious legions. Neutral States there were none.

      The centuries immediately following the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire were filled with constant strife. This continued long before the refining power which exists in the heart of Christianity began to show itself in the foreign relations of States.

      The foundations of modern Europe were laid in war.

      During the Crusades the whole of our continent was under arms. The struggle against the "infidel" was not simply a contest between one State and another, it was also a contest between Christian Europe and Mohammedan Asia. To be neutral in such a struggle would, according to the judgment of the time, have been equivalent to denying the faith. Within the European States, feudalism exerted no less a hindrance to the embodiment of the principle of neutrality. It would have been thought the gravest crime to loosen the bond of military service which compelled vassals to support with arms the cause of their feudal lords. It was only with the close of the age of feudalism, when Europe began to separate into three or four great monarchies, that neutrality in politics became a means of preserving the balance.

      In later times increasing communication and trade have above all contributed to the development of neutral laws. Without the sanction of these, a naval war between two great nations would have made any maritime trade all but impossible. Down to the close of the last century, however, neutral rights were dependent either on national statutes or on special treaties concluded between one State and another. The law only gained certain international importance towards the close of the eighteenth century through the neutral alliances which from time to time were contracted between States.

      In the period between 1780 and 1856 the subject gained an entrance by degrees among all maritime nations except England, who, independent of it, and always relying on her own strength, continuously sought to maintain unlimited domination at sea.

      In 1854-56 begins, so far as neutrality is concerned, a new era of international law.

      From this time the opposition which England raised to the practical application of neutrality in naval war may be regarded as having broken down. On the 30th of March, 1854, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Drouyn de Lhuys, published a communication, including, amongst other things, that the neutral flag during the then begun (Crimean) war, should be regarded as a protection for all neutral and hostile private property, except contraband of war. The same day the English Government gave forth in the London Gazette a similar declaration, and on April 19th of the same year the Russian Government notified in the Official Gazette of St. Petersburg that Russia would, during that war, act upon the same rules as the Allied powers.

      Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

      Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

      Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

      Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного СКАЧАТЬ