|
|
|
vhvt |
freedom for thinking and creation |
The Nobel Peace Prize |
|
|
The Nobel Peace Prize 1902Toast by Jørgen Gunnarsson Løvland, Chairman of the Nobel Committee, on May 16, 1904* Dear Mr. Ducommun, when the Committee of the Norwegian Parliament was asked to honor and reward the work of peace, our thoughts immediately turned to the men who have done this work during the long difficult years when it was received with a shaking of heads and a shrugging of shoulders, with apathy, if not with contempt. It was quite natural, then, that three of the first Nobel prizewinners should be Swiss1. Your country, Sir, has, in difficult times not so long ago that the older people here cannot remember them, been a place of refuge, an asylum, not only for political refugees, for persecuted fighters for freedom, and for reformers, but also for misunderstood and persecuted ideas of freedom and progress. Thus the idea of peace, humanity, justice, and brotherhood among nations has in your country above all others found sympathy and active support. What we must never forget is this: You Swiss, with your sense of life's realities, have a special gift for taking ideas from the realm of dreams and turning them into realities. The Swiss were the people who founded the Red Cross2, and it is two Swiss who now lead two important branches of the peace movement, the parliamentary branch and the popular branch3. In you, Sir, we greet the leader of the latter, the untiring and skillful director of the Bern Peace Bureau and therefore head of the united work of all the peace societies of the world. The peace societies, whose activities comprise what I have called the popular peace movement, cannot be esteemed too highly. They have participated in the preparation of the ground and in the sowing of the seed which is now showing healthy growth. They have contributed to the creation of the sentiments, feelings, and ideas which shape national opinion and move parliaments, governments, and heads of state to espouse our cause and to achieve our goal. We offer our homage and our thanks to you and to the peace societies for all that has been thought, written, said, and above all urged in the cause of peace under your leadership. We are still at the beginning, despite all the progress that has been made. There seems to be no end to what still has to be done. We need, and always shall need, sustained and ever increasing work. I shall therefore conclude by expressing the wish that for many years to come we may have the benefit of your great heart, your experience, your knowledge and practical ability, and, not least, your untiring energy at the head of the Peace Bureau in Bern. To the health of Mr. Ducommun! Long may he live! * Mr. Løvland, also at this time
minister of public works, offered this speech as a toast to the laureate at
the banquet given in his honor on May 16, 1904, the day of the laureate's
Nobel address. It is given here in lieu of the usual presentation speech
since there is no text or record of such a speech for either the
announcement ceremony in 1902 or the occasion of the laureate's address in
1904. This translation is based on the text in German, the language in which
Mr. Løvland spoke, printed in the Oslo Aftenposten on May 17, 1904. * * * The Nobel Peace Prize 1902Toast by Jørgen Gunnarsson Løvland, Chairman of the Nobel Committee, at the Nobel Institute on July 18, 1906* I have the honor to propose the health of our Swiss guest, the Nobel laureate Dr. Albert Gobat. You all know that in his capacity as head of the Interparliamentary Bureau in Bern, he has, ever since the Bureau's founding, directed the activities of the Interparliamentary Union. During this time the Union has grown considerably and is now one of the major factors in international politics. The fact that it has energetically and yet prudently attacked the problems of the present day is due mainly to its eminently practical administration (I was going to say its Swiss administration). There has always been a governmental diplomatic service, and I am delighted to welcome some of its eminent representatives here. Dr. Gobat himself is in the service of a new type of diplomacy - parliamentary diplomacy. Far from finding himself in opposition, he has already demonstrated that these two kinds of diplomatic service can and do exist in cordial cooperation. In congratulating Dr. Gobat for the results he has achieved, we also extend our sincere good wishes for the future of his work and we particularly wish him success in the important conference soon to be held in London1. * Mr. Løvland, also at this time
foreign minister of Norway, introduced Dr. Gobat when the laureate made his
speech at the Nobel Institute on July 18, 1906. Since there is no text of
his introductory remarks, however, and since there was apparently no
presentation speech at the award ceremony itself on December 10, 1902, this
brief speech, delivered as a toast by Mr. Løvland at his banquet for Dr.
Gobat that evening, is given here instead. The translation is based on the
text in French, the language in which Mr. Løvland spoke, published in the
Oslo Aftenposten on July 19, 1906.
Élie Ducommun – BiographyÉlie Ducommun (February 19,
1833-December 7, 1906), Swiss journalist, eloquent lecturer, business
executive, steadfast advocate of peace, was born in Geneva, the son of a
clock maker whose original home was in Neuchâtel. Early in his boyhood he
gave evidence of his capacity to make the most of his remarkable talent and
intelligence by intense application.
1. Nobel: The Man and His Prizes (Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 1962), pp. 547-548. This autobiography/biography was written at the time of the award and later published in the book series Les Prix Nobel/Nobel Lectures. The information is sometimes updated with an addendum submitted by the Laureate. To cite this document, always state the source as shown above. Élie Ducommun – Nobel LectureNobel Lecture*, May 16, 1904 The Futility of War Demonstrated by HistoryWar, we are told, shapes character; it resolves the major questions of international politics, consolidates nations, and indeed, constitutes the principal factor in the progress of civilization through its successive stages. Since all assertions must be carefully examined in order to benefit from what they may contain, let us consult together, if you will, - the annals of history to see what war has managed to resolve and consolidate from the earliest times to the present day. This examination will enlighten us concerning the civilizing role which war may have played in the world. The first theatre of war which history records is the vast expanse of territory comprising Greece and western Asia. In that area, at frequent intervals, there took place repeated migrations of armed tribes or hordes whose only thought was to acquire lands where they might first found tiny monarchies, and then empires. Law and reason were unknown: force was everything, and its abuse checked civilization at every turn by accustoming ignorant peoples to bend their heads before the saber. To this category of warlike operations whose sole motive was plunder, belong, in chronological order, the expedition of the Argonauts in 1260 B.C., the capture of Troy by the Greeks in 1184 B.C., and later, the migration of the Ionians and the Dorians. Nothing remained of all these expeditions a few years later except the spectacle of devastation and of ruins whose traces had not even disappeared before some new disaster supervened. These "Dark Ages" saw, among other things, the foundation of the kingdom of Macedonia by the Argive Caranus.1 Since much revolves around this unfortunate Macedonian, I ask you to bear with me if I depart from the chronological order of this study in order to follow the harrowing story of the Macedonian martyrology. In the fourth century B.C., Philip of Macedonia2, an ambitious princeling, subdued the Greeks, who were no less rapacious than himself, and war ravaged lands whose inhabitants had no reason to slaughter one another. Philip's son, the conqueror Alexander - called "Great", no doubt because of his large-scale massacres - once more subjugated the Greeks, and then vanquished the Persians. With his death, however, the image of war which he had molded from blood and mire disintegrated, and from the ruins of his former empire, now weakened to the point of anemia, were formed the kingdoms of Macedonia and Egypt.3 Poor Macedonia who aspired to become queen of the world! Thirty years later she was ravaged by the Gauls, then by the Romans, and the Middle Ages found her under the heel of the Turk. Today in the anguish of a slow agony, her imploring arms reach out in supplication to Europe4. Did war, at any stage of her miserable existence, consolidate the political institutions of the Macedonia of Alexander the Great, improve the lot of her peoples, or set her on the road to civilization? Let us retrace our steps and see what became of other kingdoms which lived by the rule of force - the kingdom of the Medes and the kingdom of the Persians, for example. About 600 B.C., the kingdom of the Medes conquered Assyria, which had been reduced to a pitiful state by the depredations of armed bands; but fifty years later Media was conquered by the Persians, who also seized Assyria and Egypt. More rivers of blood, more cities in flame, more ruins! Yet all this came to nothing, for after the Persian War, which lasted for fifty-one years, the king of Persia, Xerxes5, had been defeated by the Greeks, and Philip of Macedonia in his turn destroyed their monarchy, without in any way assuring the future of his dynasty or the supremacy of his nation. Again, war had created nothing, consolidated nothing; it had served merely to abase human nature and plunge nations into anarchy. Ancient Greece is rightly said to have scattered the shadows of these evil times with the light of her arts and literature. True, but far from owing her high degree of civilization to the insistence that might makes right, she became a source of light only when she had repelled the external invasions and renounced the civil wars which threatened to destroy the works of her geniuses. It cannot be said too often that it was to the ultimate establishment of peace that ancient Greece owed her glory and her prosperity. What can be said of the kingdom of Thrace, set up by the Gauls who had ravaged Macedonia, or of the kingdoms of Pontus, of Bythnia, of Pergamum and of Syria, founded by adventurers after the battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C.? Not the slightest trace is left of these nations which, born in pillage, died in blood. And what of the Roman Empire? Let us indeed talk of Rome, which for centuries brought ruin to every state then known and which flung at all mankind the challenge of the "civis Romanus": Surrender or die! How well its legions, who made and unmade emperors, knew how to introduce civilization to the vast lands they overran! You will say perhaps that the ancient Romans, possessing at home a level of culture unknown to the rest of the human race, carried it with them to whatever part of the world they went. Wrong! People were tired of the ancient anarchy that had dominated their world, and at its end their longing for peace and security was manifest everywhere. But the bloody victories of the Roman emperors continually thwarted this awakening without offering to the vanquished in return even the smallest particle of their much vaunted civilization. The vanquished became no more than wretched slaves. In support of militaristic ideas, people often cite the example of certain Roman lands whose populations, being far from any of the numerous theatres of war, lapsed into decadence. The fact in itself is true, but the corruption of the foremost families of these lands was precisely a result of the wars of conquest which had led to the loss of their homeland's independence. The conqueror had bent them under his yoke, and its weight crushed any sense of dignity which could have inspired them to rebel. Under the domination of the conqueror, their choice lay between fighting wars for the glory and profit of Rome or becoming shameless lackeys of the master without hope of ever enjoying again the rewards of remunerative labor. It is certainly true that if ever a colossal and persevering effort was made to build a world empire, it was made by ancient Rome, which drowned whole kingdoms in the blood of the people over many generations. Yet what is left now of this absolute power, this monstrous creation, this crowning achievement of war? After the Punic Wars, the destruction of Carthage, and the conquests of Spain and of Gallia Narbonensis, there followed, as if by way of expiation, the degradation of the Roman Empire by the barbarian invasions. In the fifth century A.D., the Alans, Suevians, and Vandals invaded Italy, Gaul, and Spain. The Visigoths and Burgundians, in their turn, settled in Gaul and the Saxons in Great Britain. Then, toward the middle of the next century, the Heruls put an end to the Western Empire. The Heruls were subsequently overrun by the Ostrogoths, whose own monarchy was soon afterwards destroyed by the Emperor Justinian 6. And as the din of battle fades away, the work of civilization must start all over again in a world of physical and moral chaos. This, then, is what is known as the ennobling and civilizing influence of war through the ages! No sooner had the human family begun to recover its balance, to emerge timidly from the ruins, than new wars came to plunge it back into the morass. The inexorable law of the strongest or of the most brazen reasserted itself in the seventh and eighth centuries with the appearance of the Saracen armies who seized Chaldea, Phoenicia, Palestine, Egypt, Cyprus, Rhodes, and a part of Spain. Then, since once again wars of conquest were doomed to achieve nothing permanent, the Saracens were in their turn defeated at Poitiers by Charles Martel7 in 732. Half a century later, Charlemagne8 crushed the Lombard empire in Italy and the empire of the Avars in Pannonia (Hungary), overran Spain as far as the Ebro River, and conquered all of Germania. A powerful empire was founded on the debris of monarchies and peoples. Would it now be possible to recuperate and take up again the thread of civilization which had been broken for so many centuries by bloody struggles of no lasting consequence? Alas no! The so-called civilized world entered the eleventh century to find that the Furies of war once more awaited it in the form, on the one hand, of the first war between England and France under Philip I in 10879 and on the other, the First Crusade in 1096. The hatred fomented by the first hostilities between England and France lasted for more than eight centuries; provinces were lost, retaken, and lost again, but to what useful end? In 1415 Henry V of England was proclaimed King of France10. In 1450 the English were expelled from French territory. In 1755 a new Anglo-French war broke out; this was followed by war at sea in 1778 which lasted until 178311 when the Peace of Versailles brought a momentary halt to hostilities. These, however, were soon resumed with renewed vigor, continuing throughout the period of the Republic and the Empire. Are we to pretend that such persistent hatred serves the cause of civilization and restores order where disorder prevailed in international relations? The detailed history of these wars gives us proof of the contrary. And the Crusades? That absurd epic, which originated in 1096, declared its aim to be the deliverance of the lands of the Holy Sepulchre from the Turks. There were seven Crusades, which cut down the flower of Europe's nobility and annihilated innumerable poor serfs for a period of more than 150 years until 127012. At this time the Greeks, having thrown off the Crusaders, revived the Eastern Empire, and eleven years later, the Turkish Empire came into being. The Crusades, it is claimed, brought to the people of the East the civilization of the West. It is more probable that they bestowed upon the West the vices of the East. In any case, it is certain that the peoples of Europe who had taken part in the Crusades were even more ignorant at the end of these distant expeditions than when they had first heard the cry of Peter the Hermits: "God wills it! God wills it!"13 Moreover, to gain some idea of the sort of civilization spread abroad among nations by these great and entirely fruitless wars, it is enough to refer to the state of anarchy prevailing, for example, in France, where the habitual contempt for law led inevitably to armed strife, province against province, town against town, castle against castle; and always, the peasant was the victim sacrificed to the sins of his noble masters. The dismal night of the Middle Ages is so familiar to us that we need not dwell on its era of violence and human retrogression. This chaotic period, the product of bloody contests whose sole, though unavowed, purpose was spoliation, shows well enough that war can lead only to war and never to progress or civilization. Let us now go into the history of the formation of the modem state where we will find war once more the evil genie of misery and injustice at every stage of development. The year 1618 saw the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War, waged by the German States, Austria, Sweden, and France under the pretext of religion. Massacre, pillage, the burning of villages and of whole lands, famine and demoralization - such is the sinister record of over a quarter of a century's folly. After the population of Germany had been decimated, a peace was signed in Westphalia which did no more than reaffirm the original state of affairs except for granting some concessions to princes who did not even know how to preserve them. It was certainly not worth the trouble of tearing one another apart for thirty years just to arrive at the conclusion that nobody knew for what or for whom he had been fighting. The lesson learned would seem to have been forceful enough to persuade everybody, from then on, to devote himself to establishing the permanent peace so badly needed. However, the waves stirred up by the storm were not so easily calmed, and the end of the seventeenth century was marked by a series of intrigues and truces which continued to the middle of the eighteenth, alternating with periods of so-called general peace which, even then, allowed few people to breathe freely. We certainly cannot claim that civilization made no progress at all in the course of the centuries following the Dark Ages. Wars, however frequent and destructive they may be, have never been able to kill entirely the intellectual and moral sense which raises man above the beast. The spirit of discovery and the need for solidarity as a prime condition of personal well-being had not been lost in the debris of kingdoms made and unmade by war. Great inventions and important discoveries had broadened the scope of productive activity, first of individuals and then of groups, and mankind was beginning to seek protection against an arbitrary use of violence that served only ignorance and oppression. The relative calm of the second half of the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth centuries nurtured this tendency, allowing it to grow - timidly at first among the enlightened - and to spread later among the masses. The concept of justice was emerging, escaping from the shackles of violence. The Republic which succeeded the Bourbon monarchy in France had to wage wars in order to assert the right of the people to establish for themselves a political regime which would support their chosen internal policy. So it was that the clamor of war finally confused France to the point of making her forget that her role was a defensive one. Militarism reappeared, more ruthless than ever, bringing about the terrible era of the Napoleonic Wars and a reversion to barbarism in full contradition of the great principles proclaimed by the Revolution of 1789. There are those who maintain that the war which followed for twenty unbroken years, spreading to every corner of Europe, had the merit of circulating modern ideas even though presented to various peoples on the bayonets of the French grenadiers; who maintain, in short, that the frequent massacres, the sacking of cities and towns, and the crushing of the defeated had this time been the true agents of civilization. This is a flagrant misconception to be found in extravagantly chauvinistic history books. The principles of the French Revolution would have forced their way into the consciousness of nations more surely and more quickly during peace and prosperity than they could ever have done in an atmosphere of hatred and defiance which encouraged excesses of unwarranted violence. It is a fact that the end of the wars of the first Empire found populations, that of France above all, drained of manpower and resources of every kind. After dreaming of world domination, leading her armies to the farthest frontiers of Europe, and serving the whims of a despot, France now had to give up a part of her own territory and, under monarchs set on the throne from without, begin the toilsome climb from the depths of the abyss into which militarism had hurled her. The other countries in Europe, mutilated and devastated by twenty years of war, did not, in the midst of their ruins, seem to appreciate very much the lessons in civilization which were supposedly imparted to them along with the grapeshot. Beyond doubt the people would have accepted these modem ideas of law and justice more willingly and more quickly if they had peaceably discovered their source instead of discovering it while watching their fields laid waste, their homes burned, and their young men killed. Let no one refer to the sword of Napoleon I as the instrument of progress and civilization! Some will object perhaps that I have so far spoken only of wars of conquest and will ask me what I think about the wars of independence which broke out in Europe after the Restoration of 1815; no doubt they will demand comment particularly about the intervention on behalf of the Greeks in 1827 and about the aid given by France in 1860 to Italy in her struggle to resist Austrian domination. Such a question would not embarrass me. The struggles of races and nations to regain their independence are the products of earlier violations of right, which constitute provocation in the eyes of the passive nations. Had the latter not, in the first place, been deprived of their autonomy, been oppressed and cut off from lands to which they had a natural affinity, their people would not have resorted to force in order to rectify an original abuse of force. The Greek war of independence, for example, was no more than the conclusion of an earlier war of conquest; the same is true of every other uprising of a people demanding their right to independence. These calls to arms are for the purpose of reestablishing the natural order of affairs as it was before its violation by foreign invasions in an era when force superseded law; they are simply the result of these invasions and of the oppressive measures taken to assure their continued effect. These wars would not have occurred, nor would these situations themselves have arisen, if a regime of international justice such as that advocated by the friends of peace had been established rather than repressed for over two thousand years by the apologists of war. What can we say of other wars of our time which did not have the liberation of oppressed peoples as their primary objective? Fomented by diplomatic intrigues or by private speculation, these intermittent reversions to primitive brutality have produced nothing, apart from the spilling of blood, except the creation of a state of anarchy in international relations and the foundation for future conflicts. In 1855, France, England, and the Piedmont seized Sebastopol in order to weaken Russia and strengthen Turkey14. Now, these same powers are allying themselves with Russia in an effort to impose their will on the Sultan with respect to the internal administration of his states15. The French expedition to Mexico in 1861 cost the French 800 million francs and exacted untold material wealth and manpower from the Mexicans, only to end in the disaster at Querétaro which erased all traces of the empire on whose throne the French army had placed the Archduke Maximilian16. The invasion of Schleswig-Holstein by Austria and Prussia in 1864 had, by 1866, resulted in mutual recrimination between the two who had conspired together in this act of violence, thereby appointing themselves the sole judges of their own cause. Austria, humiliated at Sadowa, later joined hands with Prussia again to form the Triple Alliance17, which now is scarcely worth the paper it is written on. Again in Europe, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 was concluded by the Treaty of San Stefano, which the Treaty of Berlin later nullified and which was even less well disposed to the claims of the Balkan peoples. As for the Spanish-American War over the possession of Cuba, or the war in the Transvaal, or the combined expedition against China, or the present Russo-Japanese War - all these are too recent18 for us to be able to draw any conclusions. One thing, however, is certain, and that is that they have contributed appreciably to the discrediting of war. I leave to the militarists the difficult task of trying to explain to us how these wars have served to shape character or to promote the progress of civilization, or to achieve the reign of justice on earth. So far, they have not come forward with the explanation. In concluding my historical survey, I invite the attention of those who wish to devote some serious study to the relationships between war and the moral and material development of mankind. One question often asked of pacifists is: Granted that war is an evil, what can you find to put in its place when an amicable solution becomes impossible? The treaties of arbitration concluded in the past few years19 provide an answer to this question by showing with what ease, given goodwill on both sides, international disputes can be ironed out and eliminated as cruel preoccupations of our times. The Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes' signed at The Hague in 1899 by twenty-six nations offers a solution to international conflicts by a method unknown in the ancient world, in the Middle Ages, or even in modem history, a method of settling quarrels between nations without bloodshed. The method is not yet perfect, it is true, but it is an expression of what we were hoping for in bettering the conditions which gave it birth. Let it become a duty to apply its provisions in every case possible, and the friends of peace will be satisfied with this beginning. Later, after some experience has been gained, it will be perfected, and the human conscience, at last awakened, will regard it as the cornerstone of the structure of law and justice which will preside over international relations in the future. Under the influence of the ideas which have sprung up in opposition to the abuse of force represented by war, several nations, including some of the most important ones, have recently signed treaties agreeing to submit to arbitration at the Court of The Hague any differences which may arise between them. We have welcomed the signing of such treaties between France and Great Britain, between France and Italy, between Great Britain and Italy, between France and Spain, and between The Netherlands and Denmark. Other similar conventions are being drafted by most of the European nations. This is a true sign of the times and, for once, the militaristic mind will be hard put to plunge mankind again into the follies of the past.20 That is not all: France and England, taking advantage of the security given them by their treaty of permanent arbitration, have just concluded an agreement with respect to all the colonial questions that might have become a source of friction or dispute between them; namely, those of Egypt, Morocco, Siam, Newfoundland, etc. Let us admit that if all the other signatory nations of the Hague Convention were to draw up arbitration treaties between each other, and then were to settle points that might possibly constitute a source of conflict, there would no longer be any need to declare peace: it would exist ipso facto. No longer would the reign of peace be subject to the perpetual contradictions of war, for it would rest on the unassailable bedrock of justice, of law, and of the solidarity of peoples! * The laureate, having been granted permission to give his Nobel lecture later than the Statutes ordinarily allowed, delivered this speech on the evening of May 16, 1904, at seven o'clock in the Hals Brothers Concert Hall in Oslo. The translation is based on the French text in Les Prix Nobel en 1902, a text that is virtually identical to the holograph original in the Archives of the International Peace Bureau, UN Library, Geneva. 1. Caranus founded the Argive dynasty in Macedonia about the middle of the eighth century B.C. 2. Philip II (382-336 B.C.), king of Macedonia (359-336 B.C.). 3. Alexander (III) the Great (356-323 B.C.), king of Macedonia (336-323 B.C.). 4. At the time of the laureate's lecture, insurrection in Turkish-ruled Macedonia - long the prey of raids by rival Serbian, Greek, and Bulgarian revolutionaries - had resulted in intervention by the powers, who were now engaged in argument with the Turkish government over details of a reform program for Macedonia. 5. Xerxes I (519-465 B.C.), king of Persia (486-465 B.C.). 6. Justinian (I) the Great (483-565), Byzantine emperor (527-565). 7. Charles Martel (688?-741), called the Hammer, Frankish ruler of Austrasia (715- 741). 8. Charlemagne (742-814), king of the Franks (768-814), first emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (800-814). 9. William (I) the Conqueror (1027?-1087), king of England (1066-1087), attacked Philip I (1052-1108), king of France (1060-1108) in the Vexin in 1087. 10. Henry V (1387-1422), king of England (1413-1422), defeated the French at Agincourt in 1415 and by the Treaty of Troyes (1420) was designated regent of France and heir to the throne. 11. The Seven Years War (1755-1763) resulted in the loss of most of the French colonial empire; from 1778 to 1783 France joined the Americans against England in the American War of Independence. 12. Some historians identify a total of nine Crusades undertaken between 1096 and 1272, a period of 176 years. The text in Les Prix Nobel reads "durant plus de 250 ans". 13. Peter the Hermit (c. 1050-1115), French monk and preacher; led one section of the First Crusade. 14. In the course of the Crimean War (1853-1856). 15. As in Macedonia, for example. See fn. 3, p. 18. 16. Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph (1832-1867), Austrian archduke and brother of the Austrian emperor. 17. The alliance of Germany and Austria in 1879 became the Triple Alliance when Italy joined in 1882. 18. Spanish American War (April-December, 1898); Boer War (1899-1902); Boxer Rebellion (1899-1900) against foreigners in China was put down by composite forces of all the major powers; Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). 19. The Les Prix Nobel text reads: "Les traités d'arbitrage conclus de ces demiéres annees..."; the holograph original reads: "Les heureux événements de ces demiéres annees...". 20. For detailed discussion of this Convention, see the Nobel lectures of laureates Albert Gobat and Louis Renault, pp. 31-35; 155-158.
Albert Gobat – Nobel LectureNobel Lecture*, July 18, 1906 The Development of the Hague Conventions of July 29, 1899It will soon be seven years since the ninth Interparliamentary Conference1 met here in your capital city. It was a notable assembly whose participants will long remember the magnificent hospitality of Norway. Some time before that meeting the official representatives of the majority of European, American, and Asian powers had gathered at The Hague to discuss the most important questions affecting the law of nations; and on the fourth of August, just as our deliberations here were nearing their close, we received word of the actions taken by the Hague Conference2. Our assembly was the first to acclaim this great work, and several of our speakers paid it handsome tribute not far from here in the Chamber of the Norwegian Parliament. No one will deny that this first general congress of world powers was brought about by the efforts of the Interparliamentary Union. It is therefore hardly surprising that the Union should not only submit the resolutions of the Hague Conference to exhaustive discussion, but should also work for the convocation of a second conference. At our request, President Roosevelt has been kind enough to assume the initiative in this matter3. You must agree, then, that it would be difficult for one who has been secretary-general of the Interparliamentary Union for the past fifteen years and who has in this capacity been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, to select a more appropriate or topical subject than the work of the Hague Conference. This great assembly of nations drew up three international conventions4. Today I shall confine myself to only one of these, that concerning the pacific settlement of international disputes. It can be divided into two parts: preservation of general peace, and international arbitration. To keep the peace! What a noble and magnificent idea! How many hopes are stirred by the thought that this greatest of all ideals - the maintenance of peace - should be the objective of an international convention bearing the signatures of most of the nations of the world! How sad to relate, then, that it is precisely this part of the Hague Convention of July 29, 1899, which to date has been applied least. For it has averted neither the Boer War nor the Russo-Japanese Wars5, not to speak of colonial wars. For the purpose of preserving general peace, the Convention established procedures for making offers of good offices and for mediation. The first entails an offer made by one or several nations, in the event of imminent war or during the course of actual war, to intercede between the belligerents in an effort to effect conciliation - a very useful procedure and one easily carried out, for all that is required is a diplomatic note. And since, under the terms of the Hague Convention, neither the offer of good offices nor its rejection can be considered an unfriendly act, all powers, especially those favorably disposed to one or the other of the adversaries, should be only too anxious to offer their services. It is highly probable that in most cases war could be avoided or ended. For discussions allow passion to subside; and to persuade alienated neighbors, or at least one of them, to listen to the voice of a conciliator, is a step in the direction of peace. If we examine the Hague Convention carefully, we see that it considers the offer of good offices a duty of every nation. In other words, such offers should be made whenever a dispute becomes critical and threatens to explode into war. Article 27 is very clear on this point. Now not only have nations failed in this obligation, but, worse still, when at the beginning of the war between Russia and Japan, the President of the United States6 was said to be on the point of offering his good offices, the government-inspired Russian press declared that any such act would be regarded as unfriendly. Thus, in this one instance a double violation of the Convention took place: first, by the failure of any nation to offer its good offices, and second, by the Russian government's semiofficial declaration that such an offer would be looked upon as an unfriendly act. But the Convention had already been violated previously, only a few months after the Hague Conference. No government, no head of state made any attempt to avert or arrest the Boer War. Civilization and morality have not yet influenced nations to consider inviolable a promise or agreement, solemnly signed and sealed, when it becomes part of international law. Ordinary citizens are obliged and, if need be, compelled by force to meet their commitments. But let higher obligations of an international order be involved, and governments repudiate them, more often than not with a disdainful shrug of the shoulders. We can, however, record one very honorable exception: President Roosevelt, in spite of everything, persisted in offering his good offices to the Russians and Japanese. Neither party chose to condemn the offer as an unfriendly act. Exhausted by a terrible war, both accepted, and peace was concluded7 under the folds of the star-spangled banner. President Roosevelt was the first head of state to apply the rules of the Hague Convention concerning the preservation of general peace. Honor and glory to this eminent statesman! Since the procedure of offering good offices can effectively contribute to the maintenance of peace, and since the powers seem reluctant to use it voluntarily, there should be a way of organizing it so that it may be applied in all cases. Good offices may be either offered or required. An offer is preferable, but it should not have to depend purely and simply on chance; nor should indifference, false pride, fear, or secret satisfaction at the sight of two nations tearing each other apart prevent this sacred obligation from being exercised in all its dignity. By the organization of good offices I mean the establishment of a convention under the terms of which the powers obliged to offer them would be designated for each individual case. The signatories of the Hague Convention could be arranged in groups of two or three, the individual groups being nominated in advance to act in given contingencies; in other words, every possible conflict would be covered by a group of states, of whom at least one would be obliged to offer its good offices. Since the number of warlike powers is fortunately limited, it is no difficult matter to determine what possibilities of war exist. The adoption of such a system would mean that hostilities could never break out without the adversaries first having been exhorted to listen to the voice of conciliation. The second method contained in the Hague Convention for preserving peace is that of mediation. There is a subtle distinction between this method and the one just outlined: whereas good offices are intended primarily to assure preliminary conciliation, the mediating power may go so far as to propose terms of settlement. Everything I have just said about good offices holds true in the case of mediation. Here again, it is a great pity that the Conference, after devoting five articles to it, stopped halfway and did not make mediation compulsory. It should have been stipulated that the conflicting parties must, before opening hostilities, call upon one or more friendly powers to mediate in the dispute. Compulsory mediation was provided for in the Declaration of Paris of 1856; the seven contracting parties8 undertook to refer to mediation any dispute arising from the implementation of the agreement. Compulsory mediation was also provided for in the draft treaty of arbitration drawn up by the United States and Great Britain in 18979. These two examples alone give abundant proof that mediation can feasibly be incorporated on a compulsory basis in the Hague Convention. In acceding to this rule of mediation no power would in any way be abrogating its rights to another. For mediation is simply an attempt at conciliation like that which is insisted upon by many civil codes before a case can be taken to court. The mediator's proposals are not a judgment but a simple, friendly presentation. The sovereignty of the states involved remains completely intact, and it would really take a peculiarly obstinate government, devoid of all moral sense and concern for intellectual values, to reject mediation in the face of impending war. The state ruled by such a government would place itself beyond the precincts of civilization. Compulsory arbitration is a practical instrument of pacification and, as such, it can and should be enacted by the Hague Conference. By laying down the procedure and the rules for arbitration, by placing a permanent court of arbitration at the disposal of conflicting powers, the Conference has no more than made a start upon its task in the realm of international justice. All of this is discretionary and left to the goodwill of nations. What is more, the powers seem to be in no hurry to rally to the idea of general treaties of arbitration, for only three have concluded such treaties to date: Denmark, The Netherlands, and Italy10. It will be a long while yet, unfortunately, before the military powers recognize the principle accepted thousands of years ago in relations between individuals: that nations are obliged to submit their controversies to the processes of law. In this sphere of arbitration treaties, the Hague Conference could introduce a ruling that certain categories of international disputes should be submitted to arbitration. In my opinion this is the most that can be hoped for at present - I repeat, in the sphere of arbitration treaties. It is likely that the fourteenth Interparliamentary Conference, which is to meet next week in London, will express this opinion11. Under such circumstances, military powers will still have too many opportunities and too many pretexts to unleash the horrors of war. This is what compulsory mediation could prevent. And even if this very simple and logical method were not accepted, then another possibility would still remain: compulsory contractual mediation, whereby nations having incomplete treaties of arbitration would be compelled to insert into these treaties the following clause which the United States and Great Britain had adopted in their draft treaty of 1897: "In the event a dispute arises which is not subject to arbitration under the terms of the present treaty, the contracting parties undertake to request the mediation of one or several friendly powers." This formula would make an outbreak of war impossible without some attempt at conciliation having been made first. Now this is crucial. For it is hardly tenable that, once mediation has been accepted, agreement should not finally be reached. Peace negotiations between Japan and Russia were fraught with so many difficulties that success appeared to be out of the question; yet the voice of President Roosevelt prevailed in the end. Let us restate the principal
conclusions we have reached so far. We must: I should now like to consider the Hague Conference as an international political institution. Before dispersing, the members of that first general congress of civilized states resolved to meet again at some future date. This is in effect the implication of the Final Act of the Conference, which stipulated that three questions12 be referred for examination to a subsequent conference, and furthermore that the governments concerned should study the question of limiting armed forces and that of the types and calibers of firearms, with a view to reaching agreement. This mention of agreement clearly presupposes a discussion of these problems at another conference. Thus the nations represented at the Conference of 1899, and those who later acceded, affirmed in principle that similar gatherings would be convened in the future. Certainly, one cannot dispute the fact that they are deliberative assemblies, since the first Hague Conference has yielded three important international conventions, a permanent court of arbitration, and an administrative council. We can, therefore, truly say that there is in existence an international political organization whose object is the regulation of common international problems. But this is neither the first nor the only such organization. The international offices for postal (Universal Postal Union) and telegraph services, for railways, and for the protection of intellectual properties are also international political organizations, created to serve particular interests common to the whole of the civilized world. I cite these offices situated in Bern to illustrate how general conferences of states can give rise to the establishment of international political institutions equipped with administrative machinery that function for the benefit of humanity in the same way that public authorities in our civilized states function. Let us for a moment consider the Hague Conference from this point of view. You may perhaps have heard of the proposal submitted last year by the American Group to the Interparliamentary Conference at Brussels, that the latter should organize a kind of world parliament13. However alluring the picture of an amphictyonic council embracing all civilized nations may be, I do not believe that our efforts should be directed toward this end, an end whose realization can scarcely be glimpsed even in some dim and distant future. In any case, the Hague Conference can offer to mankind, to civilization, and to justice the same services that an international parliament could offer. And since it already exists, there is no need to create it. What is necessary is to perfect its organization and to ensure its ability to function properly. In the first place the Conference must be convened. The best method of assuring this is to have it meet at regular intervals. Let it take place every three or every five years. There is no fear of an empty agenda! Nations are linked by so many conventions, agreements, understandings, so many practices and interests that these common concerns alone could fill the program of an entire conference. Second, the Conference must be arranged in such a way that it can function effectively. For this reason neither the program of the Conference nor its decisions should be subject to unanimous approval. If the majority decides that a question be placed on the agenda, then it should be discussed regardless of any opposition. I grant you that, for the time being, resolutions would be binding only on nations who voted in their favor. But let the future attend to making them universally binding, and let us be satisfied if we reach the point where it will be impossible for one state to thwart the discussion of a question by obstruction or systematic opposition. Finally, the Conference must be
equipped with an administrative organization. This is absolutely vital for
any Areopagus which disbands after completing its work but which is to
reassemble at a later date. Such an organization presents no problems. As
proof of this, I cite the international offices in Bern already mentioned;
these are precisely administrative organs that function on behalf of the
states forming the international unions charged with postal and telegraph
services, railways, and the protection of literary and artistic works. It is
scarcely to be expected that the member nations of the Hague Conference will
immediately establish, on a similar scale, an office of international
political affairs. But it is certainly possible to guarantee at least the
continuity of the Hague Conference as an institution, both in terms of its
existence and of its work. Among the duties which could be referred to such
an administrative organ I mention the following: The organization in question could be set up in a variety of ways. The Office (president and secretaries) of the Conference, or a committee appointed by it, or a special administrative body such as the International Bureau instituted by the Convention of July 29, 1899 (Art. 22) - any of these could easily handle the assignments involved, especially the last named. For the two cases are highly analogous. Since the International Court of Arbitration is not in fact permanent because it sits only when its decisions are sought, a permanent office14 has been attached to it. By the same token, a similar office could be set up for the benefit of the Conference itself, which would be meeting only every three or five years. But I do not wish to impose any longer on your kind attention. What I have said represents the thoughts of a practical politician. It is true that I am not one of those who laugh at utopias. The utopia of today can become the reality of tomorrow. Utopias are conceived by optimistic logic which regards constant social and political progress as the ultimate goal of human endeavor; pessimism would plunge a hopeless mankind into a fresh cataclysm. But though I take my place in the crowded ranks of the optimists, I draw a distinction between the aims which can be realized immediately and those for which we are not yet ready. Today one thing is certain: thanks to the marvellous inventions and discoveries of our era, the human spirit has finally awakened a social order long dormant: the solidarity of nations. This solidarity, spurred on by an irrepressible force to assert itself, must be protected in the exercise of its rights and duties. May the Hague Conference be its instrument! May the Conference act as its shield against the modern barbarians who would menace it. Civilization can justly rejoice in possessing in it an institution capable of advancing the aspirations and ideals of mankind. Let us wish this important Conference, so long and so impatiently awaited, every success and prosperity. May the second assembly and those which follow - upholders of the law and custodians of man's happiness - develop, perfect, and consummate the great work so auspiciously - begun! *Having requested and received an extension of time in which to discharge his obligation as a laureate, Dr. Gobat delivered his Nobel lecture three and a half years after receiving the prize. According to the Oslo Morgenbladet for July 19, 1906, he did so in German after being introduced by Mr. Løvland, chairman of the Nobel Committee, at the Nobel Institute in Oslo on July 18, 1906. The Morgenbladet remarks that many people attended even though it was the middle of summer. The French text, the only one available, on which this translation is based is taken from Les Prix Nobel en 1902: Supplément (Stockholm, 1907). 1. Meeting of the Interparliamentary Union, founded in 1888 through Passy and Cremer (peace laureates for 1901 and 1903) and composed of members of parliaments from various nations. The primary objective of the Union at this time was to promote, via governmental channels, the principle of solving international disputes by arbitration; it also studied other problems related to international law and to peace in general. For a good brief account of the Union and its relations with the universal peace congresses, see F.S.L. Lyons, Internationalism in Europe 1815-1914 (Leyden: A.W. Sythoff, 1963), pp. 325-330. 2. The Hague Conference of 1899 approved three conventions, three declarations, one resolution, and six voeux or recommendations. 3. See biography, p. 40. 4. The three international conventions were: I. Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes. II. Convention with respect to the laws and customs of war on land. III. Convention for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of August 22, 1864. 5. Boer War (1899-1902); Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). 6. President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1906. 7. By the Treaty of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, signed September 5, 1905. 8. The Declaration of Paris, an agreement concerning rules of maritime warfare, was issued by the Congress of Paris which negotiated the Treaty of Paris after the Crimean War; the contracting parties were Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey. 9. Signed by Secretary of State Richard Olney and British Ambassador Julian Pauncefote but not ratified by the United States Senate; the treaty was significant because it stated terms on which two nations might henceforth deal with each other. 10. Numerous specific treaties of arbitration had been concluded between various powers since 1899. But only Denmark, The Netherlands, Italy, and later Portugal were, up to the time of the 1907 Conference, willing to bind themselves to submit practically all disputes to arbitration. 11. The Conference adopted a model arbitration treaty for powers that did not consider themselves in a position to submit all international disputes to arbitration. 12. The three dealt with the rights and duties of neutrals, the inviolability of private property in naval warfare, and the bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by naval forces. 13. For this proposal, see Union interparlementaire: Résolutions des conférences et decisions principales du conseil by Christian L. Lange (Brussels: Misch & Thron, 1911), pp. 93-94. 14. This Bureau, established by Article 22 of Convention I, served the Court as a record office, as a channel of communication on court meetings, as administrator, and as depository of documents relative to actions by special tribunals.
Albert Gobat – BiographyCharles Albert Gobat (May 21, 1843-March 16,
1914) was born at Tramelan, Switzerland, the son of a Protestant pastor and
the nephew of Samuel Gobat, a missionary who became bishop of Jerusalem. A
brilliant student, he studied at the Universities of
Basel,
Heidelberg,
Bern, and Paris, taking his doctorate in
law, summa cum laude, from Heidelberg in 1867.
1. Roosevelt responded affirmatively to this request and shortly thereafter had Secretary of State Hay issue a circular to the other nations. For various reasons, however, the credit for convening the Conference of 1907 is legitimately ascribed to Czar Nicholas II of Russia. This autobiography/biography was written at the time of the award and later published in the book series Les Prix Nobel/Nobel Lectures. The information is sometimes updated with an addendum submitted by the Laureate. To cite this document, always state the source as shown above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
97-
The Nobel Peace Prize 1901
|
1/2 of the prize 