International Peace Conference that it is expedient Chapter V to record in an international Agreement the principles of equity and right upon which repose the security of States and the welfare of peoples:

Being desirous of concluding a Convention to this effect, having appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, to wit: [here follow the names].

TITLE I. ON THE MAINTENANCE OF GENERAL PEACE

ARTICLE 1. With a view to obviate, as far as The mainpossible, recourse to force in the relations between tenance of general peace. States, the Signatory Powers agree to use their best efforts to insure the peaceable adjustment of international differences.

This article, which is simply a general indication and declaration of purposes, is intentionally drawn so as to commit the Signatory Powers to the employment of their best efforts" to insure, "as far as possible," the peaceful adjustment of any international differences, without respect to the question as to whether these latter may arise between Signatory Powers, or between a Signatory Power and a NonSignatory Power, or between Non-Signatory Powers only. All the following provisions of the treaty regarding the application of any of the detailed regulations are carefully restricted in their application to differences between two or more Signatory Powers, and the employment of any one of the means suggested is restricted to cases "where circumstances permit."

The care will be noted with which the idea of the

Chapter V

Respect for sovereignty once established.

Good offices and mediation.

Declaration of
Paris.

complete sovereignty of each State, regardless of its size or power, has been safeguarded, provided only that this status has once been admitted, and that it is not itself the subject of controversy. While therefore the provisions of this article undoubtedly open the door to the employment of the best efforts of any or all of the Signatory Powers, to insure the peaceful adjustment of any or all international differences, even between two semi-civilized or savage States, the article could not be used as a cover for any effort to interfere in any struggle wherein the complete sovereignty or independence of either party is the real object at stake.

TITLE II. ON GOOD OFFICES AND MEDIATION

ARTICLE 2. In case of a serious disagreement or conflict, before an appeal to arms, the Signatory Powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances will allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers.

This article reaffirms the principles of the Declaration of Paris of 1856, as follows:

"The Plenipotentiaries in the name of their Governments express the solemn wish that States between whom a serious disagreement arises, may, before an appeal to arms, have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices of a friendly Power."

The use of good offices and mediation finds its general justification in the ties which bind together the international society of civilized States, and is,

for the

moreover, designed to discredit the use of armed con- Chapter V flicts as a means of settling international differences, in the general interest of humanity and peace. The incalculable damage which modern war may easily Justification inflict even upon States which are strangers to the conflict itself, make the employment of good offices and mediation more necessary than ever before, whether for the prevention or settlement of armed conflicts.

articles.

between good

There is a nominal difference only, between good Difference offices and mediation, and practically both of these offices and means of action are distinguished less by their intrin- mediation. sic quality, than by the extent to which they contribute toward a friendly understanding. In other words, good offices constitute a mild and more general form of mediation. Very often mediation follows the extending of good offices, and a third Power which has begun to reëstablish relations between the Powers in conflict is requested to participate in the further negotiations: sometimes even to conduct them. Diplomatic usage therefore makes no real distinction between good offices and mediation, the present treaty in using both expressions looks simply toward a conciliatory interposition.

mediation.

The great advantage of mediation, when compared Advantage of to other means calculated to settle international conflicts, is, above all, the remarkable elasticity of its action, and the possibility which it affords of adapting itself to particular circumstances in each given case. Addressing itself to the free consent of the parties, mediation by no means threatens the principle of

N

Chapter V

mediation.

their sovereignty any more than the liberty or indeAdvantage of pendence of States. It acts by influencing their free will, without in the least impairing it, or even throwing doubt upon it. By the very fact that good offices and mediation must proceed in the most friendly and courteous manner, and can never exceed the bounds of conciliatory advice, they offer the double advantage of first, leaving entirely intact the independence of the Powers addressed, and secondly, of being entirely available, not only for conflicts of right, but also for those of interest, thus adding materially to the resources available for the preservation of peace. It would seem that this instrument of ordinary diplomatic practice, handled with tact and skill, and directed by a sincere desire to serve the cause of peace, is destined to play in the future a striking and beneficial rôle. At the same time it must be confessed that up to this time mediation has played one of the most modest parts in the settlement of international controversies, and this fact will appear most clearly from the history of recent conflicts. the reason is sought, it will be found that the question of mediation is usually put in a manner which is as unsatisfactory in theory as it is in the practice of International Law.

Former agree

ments unsatisfactory.

If

The treaty of Paris and the Protocol of the Congress of Paris, as well as the treaty regarding the Congo, signed in Berlin in 1885, all impose the obligation upon the parties in conflict of "having recourse to the mediation of one or more neutral Powers." This character of mediation, most irregular in theory, has

the further disadvantage of being quite unattainable Chapter V in practice. The request for mediation necessarily presupposes a preliminary agreement between the interested States on the subject of the necessity for it, and of the existence of the proper occasion. Such an agreement is hardly ever possible in the excitement of a controversy between diametrically opposing interests. At all events, it is out of the question to make the recourse to mediation obligatory for the States whose interests are at stake, for the reason that the very request presupposes an agreement of the parties concerned regarding the choice of the mediator. If, nevertheless, treaties impose such a duty upon States in case of controversy, they generally remain a dead letter, for no treaty can oblige States in dispute to limit their choice to such or such a mediator. These facts are proven by the entire history of international relations since the time of the Congress of Paris of 1856. During this period there have been several cases when neutral States, on the basis of Article 23 of the Congress of Paris, have proposed their mediation or good offices to States in conflict, but there has not been a single case when Mediation has any States in conflict have addressed to neutrals a voked. request for mediation. In 1898, during the controversy between France and Great Britain, concerning Fashoda, neither one nor the other of these Powers dreamed of having recourse to the provisions established by the Conference of Berlin in 1885, and requesting the mediation of a third Power. Other and similar examples could easily be cited.

not been in