On October 18

On this day in ...
... 1907, as we've posted, was concluded the 2d International Peace Conference that, as also posted, had convened in June at The Hague. What we've not mentioned, however, is that this conference ended with the adoption not just of Hague IV, the treaty mentioned in our 2007 post, but rather with the adoption of 13 treaties on a variety of laws-of-war issues. Today we focus on Hague I, entitled Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. It provided in Article 2:

In case of serious disagreement or dispute, before an appeal to arms, the Contracting Powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers.

As explained at EISIL, an online research service provided by the American Society of International Law, the 1907 treaty came about in an effort by which a similar 1899 treaty

that established the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was expanded and opened to a greater number of signatories, including Latin American states.

The Philippines became a member just last month, having acceded to the 1907 treaty on July 14, 2010.

(Prior October 18 posts are here, here, and here.)

On June 15, ...

... 1907 (100 years ago today), 44 states came together at the Hague for the Second International Peace Conference, convened by Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands (left) at the urging of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Among the issues to be discussed at the conference, which would continue through October 15, was establishment of a mechanism for peaceful settlement of disputes.
... 1992 (15 years ago today), the U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Alvarez-Machain that the fact that U.S. law enforcement agents had effected the U.S. court appearance of a Mexican physician by means of a cross-border kidnapping did not bar his prosecution on federal criminal charges. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for a majority that because the U.S.-Mexico extradition treaty did not forbid forcible abduction, it did not prohibit it, and, moreover, that the method of securing presence at trial did not offend constitutional due process. Dissenting on both scores, Justice John Paul Stevens also argued that the act was contrary to international law. The case drew formal objections not only from Mexico, but also from the United States' neighbor to the north, Canada.