At the end of the nineteenth century, the states’-system saw off a challenge from international lawyers and peace advocates who sought saw arbitration as a means to constrain raison d’etat and state discretion over the decision to go to war. While there is no evidence that statesmen engaged in a vast conspiracy, the statements and actions of diplomats from all the great powers demonstrate a consistent pattern of opposition to arbitration, restricting its application prior to, at, and after the Hague Conferences. In so doing, they worked to create the appearance of meeting public demand for an alternative to war. It is no surprise, therefore, that arbitration was never a meaningful part of international relations and can hardly be blamed for the descent into war in 1914.

中文翻译：

---

驯服仲裁：从海牙到战争的国家人，律师和和平倡导者

十九世纪末，各州的体系摆脱了国际律师和和平倡导者的挑战，他们寻求将仲裁视为限制存在的理由和国家对战争决定的自由裁量权的一种手段。尽管没有证据表明政治家参与了一个大阴谋，但所有大国的外交官的言论和行动都显示出一贯反对仲裁的模式，限制了在海牙会议之前，之后和之后的适用。通过这样做，他们努力创造出满足公众对战争替代品需求的外观。因此，毫不奇怪的是，仲裁从来都不是国际关系中有意义的一部分，并且几乎不应该将其归咎于1914年战争。