Charles G. Fenwick

The Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace

It has been said that the progress of law is marked by the extent to which men, or groups of men, are able to find a basis of common interest transcend ing their mutual differences. To a considerable extent we have succeeded in working out a basis of agreement in the domestic arrangements of constitu tional law, although it is clear that even here we have not yet come to a final understanding. But it is in the realm of international relations that men have failed to find that basis of common interest which is essential to the existence of law, and their failure has been attended with the most tragic results. History tells us that the subordination of conflicting interests to a higher law has been at all times a difficult task. My earliest lessons in international law were from my professor of Greek who eloquently described the attainments of the city-states of Ancient Greece in the fields of literature and art, and who then went on to point out that they were unable to find a basis of common interest within their Hellenic circle that could lead them to act in concert against the barbarian invader. For like reasons the members of the Holy Roman Empire permitted the noble ideal of European unity to give way to the dynastic rivalries of kings and princes. At the opening of the twentieth century, in spite of unparalleled progress in their domestic constitutional government, the Great Powers preferred to be rivals rather than cooperators in the promotion of their general welfare, and in so doing they allowed Europe to drift into the most unnecessary and most destructive war of modern times. And in this year of grace, or it may be disgrace, of 1937, the dominant Powers of the community of nations, instead of concentrating their efforts to promote the great body of moral and material interests which they have in common, are preparing once more to use force to further their individual national de sires, in spite of the fact that in so doing they are almost certain to destroy common interests of far greater value than the particular object of their immediate concern. Happily the outlook is not so dark at all points of the political compass. If a tragic situation confronts us when we look east or west the scene is brighter when we turn our eyes to the south. If the States of Europe and the Far East seem unable to formulate principles of common action in the interest of the general welfare, the American Republics have been more fortu nate in their efforts. Doubtless it may be said that their problem was a less difficult one; their common interests were more obvious; their mutual differ ences less acute. Yet for all that we may take encouragement from the fact that a new chapter has been begun in the history of the American continent. The statesmen of the American Republics have found it possible to look be yond the interests of the day to the more permanent and enduring values of

Lima Conference in Relation to World Peace

T HE Lima Conference met under the shadow of grave conditions in Europe. It met under the shadow of events going back beyond the three months preceding it, events of the past five years, events that cannot be rivaled in history without going back a hundred years-treaties broken, international law defied, territories taken, violence committed-a record such as those of us who go back to the years of 1920 and had then the vision of a better world would scarcely have believed could happen in our lifetime. It was natural that those events in Europe should affect the delegates at Lima. It was natural that a conference meeting primarily to consider American affairs should from hour to hour, certainly from day to day, look abroad and wonder what would be the effect of the things they did at Lima upon the world situation. For me, at least, that was the case far more than at Buenos Aires two years before. I sensed the constant realization on the part of the delegates that what they were doing there must to some extent serve as an example to the world, that the principles they were laying down and the policies they were determining must be thought of in the light of the wider world situation upon which the peace of this hemisphere must necessarily depend. Let us classify the accomplishments of the Conference under three heads and see what was done at Lima, and then examine how what was there done may throw light upon the needs of the world at large.

Closing the Loopholes in Arbitration Treaties

IT must be somewhat puzzling to the i. ordinary layman interested in international affairs, but not initiated into the technicalities of international law, to find that all of the arbitration treaties which the United States has entered into have one loophole or another of escape from the obligation to arbitrate. The reaction of the average citizen to the press reports that an arbitration treaty has been entered into is naturally to expect that a real obligation has been assumed. When, therefore, he finds that a treaty, such as the arbitration treaty of 1908, makes specific exception of matters relating to the honor and vital interests of the contracting parties, he is somewhat taken aback. The agreement to arbitrate, it would seem, makes exception of the very subjects about which nations would be likely to have a serious dispute. Thus the loophole in the obligation to arbitrate appears to be larger than the obligation itself.

The Need of a Law Regulating Economic Competition between Nations

IT is a commonplace of domestic politics that the important problems of statesmanship do not any longer relate to the organization of the government under which we live, but rather relate to the economic interests of the community. No statesman at the present day is greatly concerned about the number of representatives in Congress, about the terms of the members, the order of business followed, or the date for meeting of Congress. Public men are now interested in problems arising out of the conflict between group and group, the economic rivalry of class and class, capital versus labor, the producer versus the consumer, the industrialist versus the farmer. Such are the

Constructive Peace Proposals

Constructive Peace Proposals. The literature of international politics is becoming more and more marked by serious contributions to the political and economic foundations of a permanent international peace. Many of these contributions are from the pens of practical statesmen as well as university scholars, and by contrast with distinctly pacifist appeals they aim at a practical and scientific study of the underlying problems of world peace. A rough classification of the various proposals would place them in two distinct groups: those dealing with the political basis of international peace, which involves the question of nationalities, the rearrangement of European boundaries, federation versus the complete independence of related groups, international cooperation to secure the welfare of backward states, and a league of nations to give to all the peace and security which is beyond the reach of the individual state; secondly, those dealing with the economic basis of international peace, which involves the question of the freedom of the seas, the abolition of commercial restrictions upon navigable rivers, the unobstructed use of special ports and harbors and of railways leading from inland states to the sea, the problem of preferential tariffs between colonies and the mother country, freedom of opportunity in the development of backward countries, and other questions associated with them. In many cases it is not possible to separate the two groups of political and economic problems of readjustment; for on the one hand the economic issue is frequently found to be the underlying motive of political action, and on the other hand there are cases in which the political issue in its ideal form attempts to run counter to sound economic policy and must be held in restraint by it. The Problem of Nationalities. Assuming the possibility at the close of the war of a settlement of the complex problem of nationalities along constructive lines, what is to be the standard by which the claims of social groups for recognition as separate state units are to be judged? What constitutes a nation? And when this has been determined the