tration of
Justice by International Courts.

IV. The necessity for a Court of Appeal above the International
Court of First Instance.

V. The difficulties connected with the setting up of International
Courts of Justice.

VI. Details of a scheme which recommends itself because it
distinguishes between the Court as a whole and the several Benches
which would be called upon to decide the cases.

VII. The advantages of the recommended scheme.

VIII. A necessary provision for so-called complex cases of dispute.

IX. A necessary provision with regard to the notorious clause _rebus
sic stantibus_.

X. The two starting points for a satisfactory proposal concerning
International Mediation by International Councils of Conciliation.
Article 8 of the Hague Convention concerning Pacific Settlement of
International disputes. The Permanent International Commissions of
the Bryan Peace Treaties.

XI. Details of a scheme which recommends itself for the
establishment of International Councils of Conciliation.

XII. The question of disarmament.

XIII. The assertion that States renounce their sovereignty by
entering into the League.

XIV. Conclusion: Can it be expected that, in case of a great
conflict of interests, all the members of the League will faithfully
carry out their engagements?

THE LECTURE

I. My last lecture dealt with the organisation of a League of Nations
and International Legislation by the League. To-day I want to draw your
attention to International Administration of Justice and International
Mediation within the League.

I begin with International Administration of Justice which, of course,
is a question of International Courts of Justice. Hitherto, although
International Legislation has been to some extent in existence, no
International Courts have been established before which States in
dispute have been compelled to appear. Now there is no doubt that
International Legislation loses in value if there are no arrangements
for International Administration of Justice by independent and permanent
International Courts. Yet it is incorrect to assert, although it is
frequently done, that one may not speak of legislation and a law created
by legislation without the existence of Courts to administer such law.

Why is this assertion incorrect? Because the function of Courts is to
decide _controversial_ quest