346 Between Yesterday and Tomorrow (1914– )
Th e other case was considerably less dramatic— but arguably of more last-
ing signifi cance. It took place not in the streets and towns of the Ruhr, but in
the marbled hallways and paneled courtroom of the Peace Palace in Th e
Hague. Th is was the new- fangled way of enforcing international law. At the
newly established World Court, Germany was being accused of violating its
obligations under the Versailles Treaty by refusing passage through the Kiel
Canal to a ship named the Wimbledon. At the time, the Wimbledon was
carry ing war supplies to Poland, for use in that country’s ongoing confl ict
with Rus sia. On this occasion, there was no armed response by the off ended
Allied powers. Instead, they brought a lawsuit against Germany— the very
fi rst contentious case to appear on the World Court’s docket. In August
1923, Germany was held liable and assessed damages to France of some
140,000 francs (French nationals having been the charterers of the ship).
In certain respects, it is fi t and proper that the Wimbledon case has made
so little impression on historians or general readers. Legal pro cesses work
more smoothly when they are kept well away from the shrill cries of parti-
sans and the frenzied indignations of a vengeful press and outraged public.
If all disputes could be resolved in the hushed calm of courtrooms rather
than the swirling world of po liti cal cut- and- thrust, then civilization could
be said to have taken a giant and noble forward stride.
Th e post– World War I era was a time when the world dared to dream that
such a giant step could actually be taken— and was even in the very pro cess
of being taken. Even amid the shock and disillusionment of the war time
years, there had been glimmerings of hope from international lawyers— a
band of famously hardened optimists. Th e German lawyer Franz von Liszt
expressed cautious confi dence that the end of the confl ict would bring not
merely an armistice, but “a lasting peace,” in which a “new international
law” would off er stronger safeguards to peace than had previously been the
case.
To some extent, this optimism was borne out. Images of the interwar pe-
riod have it as a time of failure, vindictiveness, disillusion, and Depression.
Th ese features were certainly not lacking. From the standpoint of interna-
tional law, however, it was an era of hope, innovation, creativity— and sharp
controversy. It was an im mensely rich period, both in practice and in doc-
trine, animated by a conscious awareness of new ground being broken, new
structures built, and new territory explored. International law and its prac-