ognized.
It is just among the old champions of the arbitral decision of
international disputes that the most violent opposition is raised to the
erection of a real court of justice for international law causes. In
such a court they see a great danger for the future. The fact that
arbitration has a tendency to furnish rather a decision which is as far
as possible satisfactory to both parties than one which is based on
naked law, is just the respect which, in the eyes of many, gives it a
higher value than a real court possesses. Not _jural_ but _peaceable_
settlement of disputes is the motto of these men; they do not desiderate
justice in the sense of existing law, but equity such as contents both
parties. And they gain support and approval from those who see in the
law of nations rather a diplomatic than a legal branch of knowledge, and
who therefore resist the upbuilding of the law of nations on the
foundation of firmer, more precise, and more sharply defined rules on
the analogy of the municipal law of states. These persons range
themselves against an international court because such a court would
apply the rules of the law of nations to disputed cases in the same way
in which the courts of a state apply the rules of municipal law to
disputed cases arising within the state; they prefer diplomatic or, at
any rate, arbitral settlement of disputes between states to the purely
legal decision thereof. They also contend that an international court
without an international power of execution is an absurdity.

[Sidenote: A real international court does not endanger the peaceable
settlement of disputes.]

60. This last objection has already been dealt with above (paragraph
55), where it is shown that a judicial award as an authoritative
declaration of the legitimate character of an act or claim has, in and
for itself, nothing to do with the governmental execution of the award.
But as to the fear that the erection of an international court might
endanger the peaceable settlement of disputes and the development of
international arbitration, that is certainly groundless. The contrary is
the case, as is shown by the fact that the happy movement towards the
erection of an international court was initiated by the United States of
North America. This country, which since its entry into the
international community of states has more than any other championed the
idea of the arbitral adjustment of disputes, and has in practice put it