The press ridiculed the conference as a boring waste of time that produced meaningless and “illusory” agreements.60 The diplomatic results of the conference were indeed meager, but its larger implications for legitimizing the demand for peace were significant. Peace advocates took the conference seriously and were present at the Hague, lobbying government delegates and providing information to governments and the press. The conference gave greater credibility to the cause of peace and international conflict resolution. The hope for a more pacific world was “in the air,” Passy observed, and the conference contributed to a “gradual growth of the spirit of peace.”
The final declaration of the Hague conference proved to be deeply disappointing, however. It included promises by the assembled nations to resolve conflicts peacefully, but these were hedged with loopholes that preserved national sovereignty and the right to wage war. A Permanent Court of Arbitration was created, but it was entirely voluntary, consisting merely of a college of experienced arbitrators who would be available for countries in the event of disputes. Agreements were reached to strengthen the Geneva Conventions, which beginning in the 1860s set rules governing the treatment of prisoners and the protection of noncombatants during wartime. Otherwise the conference produced only pious platitudes: nothing about arms reduction, and no binding commitment to arbitration and the mediation of disputes. The delegates pledged to convene another international conference, but no date was set.
It was not until 1907 that the second Hague Peace Conference was held. Peace supporters again played an important role in building support for the conference and advancing their agenda. Their primary goal was to strengthen the arbitration tribunal established at the first Hague conference. The Interparliamentary Union that gathered in London in 1906 developed a detailed proposal for presentation at the second Hague conference. The plan took the form of a model treaty for mandatory arbitration. It identified an array of issues not touching on matters of vital national security that could be referred automatically to the Permanent Court of Arbitration without governmental review. The delegates hoped that this plan for obligatory referral of noncontroversial issues would make arbitration more palatable to governments and pave the way for eventual acceptance of more complete arbitration procedures.
Peace advocates initially had high hopes for the second Hague Peace Conference. The number of countries in attendance increased from twentysix to forty-four. The diplomats stayed in session for four months, nearly twice as long as previously. Peace activists were again present, lobbying the delegates and members of the press to promote their agenda. The proposal for obligatory arbitration was indeed a major topic of consideration at the conference, but despite the pleadings of peace advocates the assembled governments balked. The diplomats agreed to restructure the Permanent Court, but they did not accept proposals for automatic referral. More sweeping proposals for a binding arbitration treaty were also rejected. The conference did not even agree on further steps toward reforming the rules of war. Once again peace supporters were disappointed in their hopes of winning governmental approval of binding arbitration procedures.
The Hague Peace Conference
