Exploring International Justice: Insights from the 1899 Peace Conference

English version || Portuguese version

Key Takeaways

• This article examines international justice and the pedagogical approach of the University of London’s International Courts course regarding public international law. Both Caron and J.G. Merrills are recognized as seminal figures in the field, having made substantial contributions to the scholarly study of international law.
• It highlights David D. Caron’s analysis of the 1899 Hague Peace Conference, emphasizing the intrinsic nexus between ethics and jurisprudence. Caron’s scholarship provides a critical framework for reflecting on global peace in the context of contemporary conflicts, such as the Russo-Ukrainian War.
• Furthermore, E.H. Carr’s discourse on the role of ethics within legal practice is central to understanding the inherent limitations of international justice.
• Russian diplomat Nelidov’s opening address at the Second Hague Peace Conference of 1907 is frequently cited for its poignant tone of disillusionment regarding the capacity of an international judiciary to facilitate global peace

When I commenced my Master’s degree at the University of London, my introductory course was International Courts and Tribunals. The curriculum is structured into modules that examine International Justice through the lens of Public International Law, offering only a tangential look at the private or commercial dimensions of international adjudication—specifically those instances where the State, in its capacity as a Sovereign entity, is not a party to the dispute.

Within the sphere of Public International Justice—where the State acts as a primary litigant and where grave matters of global peace and security are at stake—the first article I read, and by which I was deeply captivated, was “War and International Adjudication: Reflections on the 1899 Peace Conference“ by David D. Caron (2000). Numerous institutions have disseminated this seminal piece specialised in International Law (see, for instance, the American Journal of International Law, 94 AJIL 4, 2000).

Caron’s profound historical, ethical, and legal analysis of the intra muros aspects of the 1899 First Peace Conference transcends a mere historical survey of the modern origins of International Justice. Instead, it offers a timeless perspective on world peace as an “increasingly utopian theory,” set against the backdrop of war as an “increasingly recurrent practice” worldwide.

The untimely passing of David D. Caron has, regrettably, left a significant ethical and legal void in the international community. He surely stands alongside another titan of the field, J.G. Merrills, author of countless influential works. Perhaps his most distinguished contribution is International Dispute Settlement (Cambridge); its 6th edition was updated by Professor Eric de Brabandere of Leiden University, in collaboration with Merrills’ son, John Merrills. Due to its exceptional technical depth, it remains a work for constant study and reflection.

Furthermore, in “War and International Adjudication,” Caron’s central importance of ethics is evident from the outset. He introduces the text by citing a robust synthesis of Law and Ethics by the British diplomat and philosopher E.H. Carr: “(…) But here we must observe the recurrence of a paradox… Where practice is least ethical, theory becomes most utopian.”

The current Russia-Ukraine conflict and the geopolitical tensions involving the United States and Venezuela serve as modern echoes of the systemic failures of the 1899 and 1907 Peace Conferences. Notably, the planned Third Peace Conference was aborted due to the outbreak of World War I in 1914.

Sensing this “invincible incapacity” of International Justice to preserve peace or avert war, the Russian diplomat Alexander Ivanovich Nelidov, shortly before his death, caused a stir at the opening of the Second Peace Conference. Speaking with a candour that bypassed traditional protocol, he remarked:

“(…) We should not be discouraged from dreaming of the ideal of universal peace and the brotherhood of peoples, considering that the essential condition of all progress is the pursuit of an ideal toward which we always strive without ever reaching. However, we must not be too ambitious. (…) Let us begin to work courageously, our path lit by the bright star of universal peace which we shall never reach, but which will always guide us.” — Nelidov: Opening Address of the 2nd Peace Conference, The Hague, 1907.