The World Court

The World Court

The World Court

The World Court


We are amazingly fond, in these days, of differentiating between what we so loosely call "domestic questions" and "foreign questions." We vociferously urge the solution of the former, and appear indifferent to the latter.


A prominent United States Senator said to me not long ago, "I am more interested in the tax problem than I am in The World Court."

"Why?" I asked.

"Because the one is a domestic question vitally concerning my constituents, and the other is not," he answered.

"Which one is domestic?" I ventured.

"Which?" he repeated in astonishment. "Why the tax problem, of course. The World Court certainly is not."

"Why not?" I persisted. "I mean The World Court."

"Why, man, it is foreign," he exclaimed.

"I don't quite see that," I ventured back. "The World Court was essentially our idea. We proclaimed it for years: we argued for it: we labored for it and finally it was worked out, very largely, by the best American brains. It is of American origination: it came into the world consciousness because of American intiative: it is American in its conception and American in its reflection of our strong national belief in courts of justice. Just wherein is it foreign? If The World Court were to sit in Washington instead of at The Hague, would you call it foreign? Because an institution deals with world-problems do we say it is foreign and exclude the United States, remembering that we said to the world: We will show you what we mean by a World . . .

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.