Manley O. Hudson '07, Bemis Professor of international Law, has written a special article on the World Court for the Yale Daily News. The recent charges made by Professor Edwin M. Borchard of the Yale Law School are dealt with at length, and Professor Hudson emphasizes the importance of America's entrance into the World Court.

Parts of Professor Hudson's article in the Yale Daily News are herewith reprinted.

I am led to address myself to this question by an article which has recently appeared by my learned friend and colleague, Professor Edwin M. Borchard of the Yale Law School. In the CRIMSON, his article was given the caption "Question of Joining World Court is of Trivial Importance," and while he might disavow such a conclusion the general emphasis of what he wrote was certainly in that direction.

I think we would do well to go over the situation to see just how important the World Court is in the international life of our time. A second enquiry may be, how important is it that the United States should give the Court its support? Now I think we need not exaggerate in answering either question. It can only be unfortunate that some people, notably President Harding, have greatly over-stated the significance of the Court. That has been true also of the League of Nations, and I find myself frequently trying to overcome the discouragement of people to whom the League was wildly oversold in the hey-days of the war.

Court Not Substitute for War

The World Court has a distinct relation to the problem of peace, as I view it. Do not understand me to say that it has ever prevented a war, or that it ever will. That I do not know. I do not see how anyone can say, one way or another. It is perfectly true, as Mr. Borchard suggested, that the usual questions which the World Court may handle are not likely to be those which may lead to war. In the main, they will be legal questions about which nations will disagree, which may even contribute to friction, but which would seldom be inclined to lead to war. The larger political differences which occupy headlines, which give us the scares, which feed the fire-eaters, will not often be susceptible of statement in terms of a legal question. So let us agree at once, that the World Court is not a certain substitute for war.

Yet our problem of peace is not a matter of finding some cure-all for war. We do not seek a nostrum. We cannot look for a panacea. But we must develop a process of dealing with situations as they arise by some orderly method. We must do what we can, albeit our powers may be limited, to build a law and legal institutions to which nations may appeal instead of allowing their differences to fester, to smart and to drag them apart. We must do this, at any rate, if we want our international society to be orderly and peaceful.

World Court Essential to Order

Now, what is the place of the World Court in the picture? Just this--it is a clear essential of any system of international law and order. It is a necessary agency for developing international law. It is a valuable aid to the Council of the League of Nations in handling international disputes. It is an ever-ready help in time of trouble to harassed statesmen who are pressed by inflamed opinion and who desire some way out, some forum to go to, some talking point to put forward.

I am free to say that I should have far less hope for a significant product of the Court's functioning if we did not have also the League of Nations. For instance, the Court may give advisory opinions requested by the Council of the League of Nations. Senator Borah has been opposing this function, and apparently wants the United States to say that they must be abolished. Why? Because they don't work well? He does not say that. Indeed, I do not see how any informed student could say it. The fact that the United States Supreme Court does not give advisory opinions has led some people to shy at the practice.

Advisory Function Useful

What would happen to our efforts if every country insisted on making a World Court follow the practice of its own Supreme Court? Senator Borah says that this advisory function reduces the Court to the position of a legal advisor to the Council and subjects it to political influence. I have searched the record of the four years' work and the eighteen cases already handled and I have not found the slightest foundation for such a statement. The Council has its own legal advisers. I myself have served in the legal section of its Secretariat, and I know something of how its work is done. But in four years, it has asked the Court for advisory opinions only in cases of actual disputes, and in each instance the Court has acted precisely as it would have done in a contested case.

In my judgement this advisory function makes the Court far more useful than it would be without it. It is far less subject to Mr. Borchard's criticism that it only deals with things that do not matter. I think it would be robbed of fully half of its capacity for service if it were deprived of this power. I see no objection to President Coolidge's suggestion that the United States state that it will not be bound by advisory opinions. That would be true anyway. No state is bound. They are advisory. But I hope the Senate will not go beyond this.

Now for the second question: is it important that the United States give its support to the Court? First, I must say that it is less important today than when President Harding and Secretary Hughes proposed this almost three years ago. For during this interim the Court has got on its feel. It has succeeded in entrenching itself. It has won prestige and confidence among the lawyers of all countries. It has acquitted itself well. It has found itself. Its future new seems secure. It does not lack cases, it does not lack friends, it does not lack funds. Forty-eight other nations have built it, have nurtured it, have given proof of their intention to keep it going. That was not true in February, 1923, when President Harding asked the Senate's advice and consent.

U. S. Cast Away Golden Opportunity