Chapter V Offer of mediation not favored heretofore. Mediation to terminate a war. As to the obligation of neutral States to offer their mediation to States in conflict, so far as it has not been defined by treaties, it has never been recognized or observed. In fact, so far as any such duty is concerned, many writers on International Law not only affirm that neutral States are not so obliged, but, more than that, they almost deny their right to offer their mediation to States in conflict. Bluntschli and Heffter regarded mediation as dangerous and harmful meddling. Hautefeuille and Galiani advised States ordinarily to abstain from mediation, for fear of alienating, without any reason, the sympathies of one or the other parties to the conflict. Numerous examples of serious disagreements might be cited, which resulted in war, but which never suggested to neutral Powers an attempt at mediation; yet such an effort, especially in cases where it could be made simultaneously by several Powers, might have averted wars, the consequences of which have been incalculable for all the States constituting international society. In many cases the proposition of mediation has been made so late, and in such uncertain terms, that it could no longer prevent a declaration of war. It was thus, for instance, that the French Government in 1870 refused the good offices of Great Britain at the outbreak of the conflict between France and Germany. Mediation is often proposed, not with the object of preventing, but with that of terminating a war. Several recent wars- those between Austria and Prussia in 1866, between Chile, Peru, and Bolivia Chapter V in 1882, and between Greece and Turkey in 1897, besides some others, were terminated through the mediation of neutral Powers. Had the same Powers shown half the energy in attempting to prevent these conflicts, it is fair to assume that, at least in the two latter cases, the outbreak of hostilities might have been averted. established as In view of all these facts, it was but natural Mediation that the Conference should have established media- a permanent tion as a permanent institution. The principle of institution. isolation which hitherto has almost dominated the political existence of every nation, must hereafter give way to a close solidarity of interests and a common participation in the moral and material benefits of civilization. Modern States cannot remain indifferent to international conflicts, no matter where they may arise, and who may be the parties. Under present conditions, war, though between two States only, must be regarded as an international evil, which should be prevented wherever possible, by international means. founded with It must not, however, be understood that the good offices of other Powers are unreservedly recognized Not to be conas an every-day method of appeasing ordinary diplo- meddling. matic differences. The language used is "In case of serious disagreements or conflicts, before an appeal to arms.' Outside of these comparatively narrow limits, the offer of good offices or mediation would constitute simple meddling, without justification and not without danger. Chapter V The restriction "as far as circumstances will allow." In the discussion of this article in the Comité d'Examen, the use of the words "as far as circumstances will allow" was objected to upon the ground that such a limitation practically defeated the object of the article. M. Asser of Holland pointed out that an obligation which naturally had no sanction to enforce it, would seem to have become invalidated entirely with the addition of such a general clause, but the Committee shared the views expressed by M. Bourgeois of France, that the article was at best a very general statement of principle, the application of which, to the most diverse states of fact it was impossible to foresee. It seemed prudent to avoid making it absolute and thus incur an opposition which might be fatal to the entire Convention. An attempt was made to have the qualifying phrase read "so far as exceptional circumstances may not prevent," but finally it was decided that the safest and most satisfactory expression was that of the text. ARTICLE 3. Independently of this recourse, the Signatory Powers consider it to be useful, that one or more Powers who are strangers to the dispute should, on their own initiative, and as far as circumstances will allow, offer their good offices or mediation to the States at variance. The right to offer good offices or mediation belongs to Powers who are strangers to the dispute, even during the course of hostilities. The exercise of this right shall never be considered by one or the other of the parties to the contest as an unfriendly act. good Chapter V The The offer of good offices tion. The subject of this article-the offer of offices and mediation-is most important. right to make this offer has hitherto, with few excep- and mediations noted above under Article 2, been regarded as inherent in every State in the interests of humanity at large, and by virtue of Article 27 of the present Convention, it must hereafter also be regarded in the light of a duty, based upon facts and conditions agreed upon by the society of civilized nations. The power to offer good offices is inherent in the independence and sovereignty of States, inasmuch as it is identical in most cases with the right of watching and protecting their own individual interests. The necessary safeguard is to be found, not in denying the existence of this right or in discouraging its exercise, but in the recognition of the corresponding right on the part of other independent nations to refuse the offer. M. Veljkovitch offered an amendment to the 1A perfect example of the tender of good offices, as distinguished from mediation, may be found in the action of the American Government in answer to the petition of the South African Republics in March, 1900, although the correspondence in this case is characterized by an inaccurate use of the word “intervention,” in the original request of the Republics. The Secretary of State communicated the request to the British Government, by way of friendly good offices, adding that the President "hoped that a way to bring about peace may be found," and saying that "he would be glad to aid in any friendly manner to promote so happy a result." In reply, the British Government thanked the President for the friendly interest shown by him," adding that "Her Majesty's Government cannot accept the intervention of any other Power"-the word "intervention" being of necessity used, although "good offices" was really meant. The general effort of the European Powers to avert the SpanishAmerican War of 1898 may also be cited in this connection, though Chapter V offer. Article recognizing the right to refuse the offer of Refusal of the good offices and mediation in terms, and stating that a refusal should not be considered as an unfriendly act. Although the correctness of his point of view was fully recognized, the Committee on Arbitration did not deem it wise or necessary to provide for such an eventuality in the very text of the Convention. The importance of the spontaneous offer of good offices and mediation on the part of a third Power will be recognized, when the difficulty is realized with which States, in controversy, or after the exchange of severe diplomatic notes, can ever be brought to an agreement regarding a joint recourse to some mediating Power. Unfortunately such an attempt has hitherto been surrounded by so many obstacles, that Powers who are most sincerely desirous of helping to safeguard the interests of peace are driven to content themselves with complete inaction. Under these circumstances, it seems most important to recognize in advance, and without ambiguity, in a Convention expressing the judgment of all, the exact status in International Law of useful efforts in this direction. In this manner, mutual good will is encouraged, and estrangement, by reason of an offer in the interests of peace, will be avoided. The limitation in the Article "so far as circumstances may allow" again indicates that there is no intention to encourage inopportune intervention. In other words, a precise definition is more difficult in that case. |