Word: courting
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1890-1899
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...have shown that a court with such a jurisdiction and such a composition as I have outlined is a perfectly safe extension of the principle of arbitration. The gentlemen are in favor of the principle of arbitration. They must therefore be in favor of such a permanent court of arbitration unless they can point out specific dangers in the idea of a permanent court, in its jurisdiction or in its composition. Otherwise they stand convicted of refusing to accept the logical result of their own position...
...great guarantee in the system proposed by the affirmative is lacking, furthermore, in impartiality in the matter of judges who are to decide the jurisdiction? If the nations themselves, then their scheme is practically the present special system. Who is to decide principles upon which the decision of the court is to be based? Would the decisions of this court be any more likely to be enforced than now? No. We have now an agreement to abide by decisions in particular cases. Under their system we would have a vague agreement to abide by decisions at some future time which...
...third Harvard speaker, W. B. Parker, re-enforced the point that the strength of the court was its limitation...
...project is eminently practical; it offers three positive and lasting advantages. The permanent court would have the machinery for settling disputes ready in advance. The second advantage is that the very existence of the court composed of the most eminent jurists of the Anglo-Saxon race and invested with the honor and authority of the two greatest nations of the age must powerfully affect the imagination of the people. Here are two advantages which the negative have not been able to deny. With the permanent court you cannot help getting them; without the court you cannot get them...
...third advantage is that a court like this could not fail to have a great and beneficial influence upon international law. Temporary courts are not only by their nature incapable of laying down principles but by varying and uncertain decisions may even multiply causes of dispute, but the permanent court is bound to lay down principles...