THE SANCTITY OF INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS. [To THE EDITOR OF THE
" SPECTATOR."' SIR,—In a pause during our recent retreat it is refreshing to get the Spectator of March 23rd, and to read the article on "The Sanctity of International Contracts." But I cannot help feeling that the practical measures suggested beg the question. Briefly, there is no provision made against the nation which is determined to make war at all costs. The essence of success in attack is sur- prise, and no nation which was determined to attack its neighbours would dream of giving deliberate notice of its intentions. In August, 1914, Germany was bound by treaty not to violate the neutrality of Belgium; ,and can we suppose that any future treaty would compel her, or any other nation who might later adopt her poisonous theories of State morality, to submit to an ordinance which would limit her freedom to attack suddenly and decisively, or that, once her mind was made up, she would publish her in- tentions to the world, and then wait a year before putting them into execution? Arbitration was available before this war; the economic boycott, though never previously employed, must cer- tainly have been foreseen by Germany as a possible weapon of the Allies. But the deterrent effect of these was precisely nil. To Ger- many arbitration as a means of gain was inferior to force of arms, and the possibility of the economic boycott was only an incentive to making her people as self-supporting as possible. And so it always will be so long as the German conceptions of morality among nations exist.
Further, if an aggressive nation, prepared for war, is deterred by a "year of cool reflection," what of her intended victims? Will their zeal increase? Will they instantly undertake the prepara- tions necessary for modern warfare, dislocate their industries, enlarge their armies and fleets, and put their people on rations? For a year is little time enough in which to prepare for war, and against a nation that is bent on war no threats or suggestions will avail which are not backed by superior force. A nation that con- trols Germany, Austria, Russia, and the Balkans can face the prospect of being sent to Coventry with considerable calm.
The whole thing comes to this : two forces only will compel nations to observe international obligations. One is the force of moral considerations; the other is the force of arms. The former is clearly the finer and the more compelling, but also the more precarious, because of man's natural tendency to violence; the latter, in the form of compulsory disarmament, save for purposes of police work, domestic and international, is the only force likely to be effective in the immediate future.—I am, Sir, Sc., R. H. B.E.F., France.
Previous page
