Basic HTML Version
counsel (who usually accompanies
me on international trips) , through–
out the entire building, and we four
were photographed together by a
Court photographer.
You are reading a magazine of
understanding. lt's vital that you
understand the reasons for wars -
of a world filled with violence - and
tha t you understand what mankind
is doing to try to bring peace. Have
these sincere and dedicated schol–
ars, who advocate the rule of inter–
nationa l law, finally come up with
the real solution to humanity's
greatest problem?
For six thousand years, national
leaders and world leaders have been
striving for world peace. Yet wars
and violence increase! Why? We
need lo understand.
Five-and-a-half decades ago, we
carne to the first WORLD WAR. The
blood of tens of thousands streamed
through the muddy trenches of the
Somme and Verdun. The voices of
milüons said, ''This kind of slaugh–
ter has got to stop!" Voices ofworld
leaders proclaimed:
"This is the war
to end al/ wars!"
Mill ions really
believed
war had al
lasl become so terrifying no one
would ever dare s la rt anolher.
When the Armistice carne, Novem–
ber 11, 19 18, much of lhe world
really believed war, at last, had
come to an end FOREVER! 1 was liv–
ing in Chicago. My wife and I were
caught in the wild, frenzied, hi–
larious, victory-crazed celebration,
with millions crowding into Chi–
cago's loop. We were carrying our
six-month-old first child, trying to
elbow our way through the shout–
ing, crushing mobs from my office to
an eleva ted train. Toro bits of pages
from thousands of telephone direc–
tories were floating down from sky–
scraper windows like a hea vy
snowfall.
Oh joyous, happy day! There
would never be anotber war! PEACE,
AT LAST!
Oh yeah?
The world has suffered through
more than lOO wars since then, in–
cluding the still greater, more hor-
6
rible World War 11. Now we have
nuclear weapons. Now we have
weapons so powerful lhey can blast
all humanity off lhe earth! Now
again, tbe world is saying: "No one
would
dare
start a nuclear war!"
Yes, it's time we understand! Hu–
manity cannol afford a nuclear war!
But can it be prevented? Can the
World Court prevent it? Or the
United Nalions?
Look back through hislory.
Making war ha s been one of
mankind's chief preoccupations.
Since the beginning of recorded his–
tory - by computer calculation -
there have been nearly 15,000 wars.
And all through those centuries and
millenniums, men have been striv–
ing for peace!
Whether we have war or peace,
there has to be a CAUSE. To prevent
war, we need to find lhe way to stop
it - to cause
it
to stop. To have
peace, we need lo find the way lhat
will cause peace. Sound simple?
There really rs a way that will cause
world peace!
Leaders have tried to find a way
to settle international disputes, de–
signs and needs peaceably. Tbere
simply has to be a way! It's a matter
of survival!
So our advocates of international
law reason this way: Wilhin nations,
laws have been crea ted to preserve
the social order in peace and stabil–
ity. These laws establish norms of
conduct for persons within the na–
tions. Police enforce them, and
courts interpret lhem and lry viola–
tors.
Carry il furlher: When disputes
(why not be honesl and call them
"conflicts of interest''?) a rise be–
tween states or provinces within a
nation, they normally take their
controversy to a high national court
for decision.
One step further: This has led
many to ask, "Why couldn' l we ere–
ate such a sys tem in the
inter–
national
sphere to preserve world
peace and stability? Why couldn' l
laws be established setting norms of
conduct for
nations?
Why couldn't
nations bring their controversies to
a
world
courl for resolution ra lher
than going lo war over them?"
It
seemed a noble idea. Former
Prime Minister Clement Attlee of
Britain said: "Sorne rule of inter–
national law in the world is neces–
sary if we are not to perish."
But, as Justice Singh has stressed
in addressing our student bodies,
law without force is impotent, and
force without law is anarchy. In the
World Court we have law, but with–
oul force. So, at this point in bistory,
the achievement of a rule of inter–
national law seems a long way otn
And with nuclear warh ea ds
poised, ready to erase all. humanity
off the earth, we don't have that
kind of time available.
Justice Singh told me that a t the
time of my visit, no nation, lO his
knowledge, had ever yet refused lo
comply with a decision of the World
Court. But since then, France and
lceland have refused to heed World
Court injunctions. France refused to
call off its decision to test an
H–
bomb in the Pacific. This was not a
case in which France was one of the
parties submitting its controversy to
the Court. The Court acted on its
own in this case. Normally, the
Court considers only cases sub–
mitted lo it by two or more nations
voluntari ly. The same situation oc–
curred in the case of Iceland, whose
representatives declined to appear
in a case involving the limits of ter–
ritorial waters.
But why is this potential of rule
by international law not being real–
ized? Why do we have, in the World
Courl, international law withoul
force?
Look, for a moment, at devel–
opments of the recent past, leading
to the establishment of the present
World Court.
Actually, it all began in the 16th
century. A body of internationallaw
- defined as the body of rules, prin–
cipies and standards generally ob–
served and regarded as binding by
nations in tbeir relations with one
another - began to take shape.
Sorne of these rules developed
through long years of custom.
PLAIN TRUTH December 1973