Abstract as per original application
(English/Chinese): |
The nature of the movement that led to the commencement of the 1899 Hague Peace Conference that created the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) has been described as obscure (Grant & Temperley 1952 at 581-82). This project will clarify the nature of that movement, not only to fill a gap in the literature but also to better understand whether this event that started reliance on law in resolving international disputes has its roots in elitism or majoritarianism, which arguably would add to the legitimacy of international dispute settlement. This will be done by focusing on, inter alia, the 1898-1899 conference proceedings and diplomatic correspondence of France, Germany, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States like never before.
Some commentators see the commencement of the conference and the PCA's creation as arising out of an aristocratic movement to unify European states, not out of the more universal, grassroots peace movement that tried to replace war with law and the application of law through international arbitration (Caron 2000 at 5-6; Tyron 1916 at 513-15). Peace activist James Tryon eloquently explained the distinction between these two peace movements: While European states were busy concluding the Holy Alliance and other alliances among themselves to try to bring peace to Europe, “the desire for peace was [being] cultivated by another kind of Holy Alliance far more consistent in its methods than the first,” which was a global Holy Alliance of “the goodly company of thoughtful men and women who saw the folly of war and educated public opinion against it” (Tryon 1911 at 359). Some commentators have assumed the influence of the grassroots movement on the conference and the PCA’s creation without recognizing the possibility that there was a competing elitist movement that equally could have been the influence (Roberts 2001 at 201); van den Dungen 1995 at 17). From the perspective of that time, one would have expected for these two events to mark the apex of the aristocratic movement, given how Tsar Nicholas of Russia called the conference, aristocratic states had relied on arbitration to a large degree prior to this point, and aristocrats and those under the aristocratic order were among the plurality at the conference. This project will explore the impact of these two movements on the creation of the PCA.
1899年海牙和平会议的召开成功设立了常设仲裁法院（PCA），然而这场和平运动的本质却始终处于不为学界所清楚探知的状态（Grant & Tempeley 1952 at 581-82）。该项目旨在阐明该运动的本质。其意义不仅仅为了填补现有研究的空白且为了更好地理解这一首次依靠法律手段解决国际争端的事件是否源于精英主义或多数主义。该项目将有助于提高国际争端解决的合法性。为此，该项目将前所未有的将自1898至1899年法国、德国、荷兰、英国和美国的会议记录和外交信函做为重点研究对象。
部分评论家认为1899海牙和平会议的召开及常设仲裁法院的设立缘起于统一欧洲的贵族运动，而非源于更具普遍性的，试图以法律取代代替战争并通过适用法律的国际仲裁的草根和平运动 (Caron 2000 at 5-6; Tyron 1916 at 513-15)。和平活动人士James Tryon反复解释了这两类和平运动的区别：当欧洲国家忙于缔结神圣同盟，其他联盟也试图将和平带至欧洲的同时，另一种其方法更为一致的，由考虑周全的，见识到战争的愚蠢并教育公众反对战争的男女们所组成的全球神圣同盟兴起了(Tryon 1911 at 359)。虽然部分评论家假设了草根运动对于1899海牙和平会议的召开及常设仲裁法院的影响，一个同样能对此造成影响的精英运动的可能性却没有被充分认知 (Roberts 2001 at 201; van den Dungen 1995 at 17)。 从当时的角度来看，鉴于俄国沙皇如何称呼1899和平会议，这两个件事（1899海牙和平会议的召开及常设仲裁法院的设立）标志着欧洲贵族运动的巅峰。贵族国家于1899年之前就在很大的程度上依赖仲裁解决争端，且贵族及贵族秩序下的人在该和平会议中占多数。该项目旨在于探究1899和平运动及1899海牙和平会议对于设立常设仲裁法院的影响。
|
