Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

The Evolution of a Permanent International Judiciary

Bibliographic Data

ID9549839
AuthorsJames Brown Scott (0000-0002-0679-7474, corresponding author)
Year1912
Volume6
Issue2
Pages316-358
Publication date1912-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Journal of International Law (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0002-9300 • E-ISSN: 2161-7953
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/2187456
OpenAlexW2318626289
LanguageEN
Citations received2

In his instructions to the American delegation to the Second Hague Conference, Secretary of State Root pointed out as the weakness of the present system of arbitration the prevalence of diplomatic ideals instead of purely judicial ideals in practice and procedure, and stated it as his opinion that the creation of a truly permanent international court composed of professional judges, who should act under a sense of judicial as distinguished from diplomatic responsibility, would increase the confidence of nations in arbitration and render the recourse to this method of settling international disputes much more frequent. Secretary Root’s statement is so important in itself, the reasoning is so clear and unanswerable, the proposal to establish a permanent international court of justice so cleancut and precise, and the details which he specifies so simple and apparently self-evident, that I shall quote and comment briefly upon this passage in the instructions. “There can be no doubt,” he says, “that the principal objection to arbitration rests not upon the unwillingness of nations to submit their controversies to impartial arbitration, but upon an apprehension that the arbitrations to which they submit may not be impartial. It has been a very general practice for arbitrators to act, not as judges deciding questions of fact and law upon the record before them, under a sense of judicial responsibility, but as negotiators effecting settlements of the questions brought before them in accordance with the traditions and usages and subject to all the considerations and influences which affect diplomatic agents. The two methods are radically different, proceed upon different standards of honorable obligation, and frequently lead to widely differing results. It very frequently happens that a nation which would be very willing to submit its differences to an impartial judicial determination is unwilling to subject them to this kind of diplomatic process.”

Apprehension · Arbitration · Delegation · Economic Justice · International arbitration · Political science · Principal (computer security · Sociology · State (computer science · Subject (documents · International Arbitration and Investment Law · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Psychology

  • Law Against Empire, or Law for Empire? – American Imagination and the International Legal Order in the Twentieth Century

    Seiko Mimaki•The Journal of Imperial &…•2021

  • Appraising a Century of Scholarship in the American Journal of International Law

    Open Access•David J Bederman•American Journal of International…•2006

Unique citing works2
Citations per year0,1
Citation span2006 - 2021 (16)
Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 2

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae