Urging the necessity of religious attitudes between social and political groups may seem to be a counsel of perfection when it is remembered that intra-group relations, except in the circle of the family and in small religious fellowships, have never been able to profit by their aid. Society in general has usually contented itself with the expedient of composing social friction and arbitrating dispute by apportioning the relative guilt and innocence of the disputants through a presumably impartial judicatory which enforces its decisions upon the belligerents, however irreconcilable or obstreperous they may be. But the fact is that such a method is both easier and more effective in a society composed of individuals than in a society of groups. In an ordinary national society the impartiality of the court is guaranteed by a society of thousands and even millions of individuals who are supposed not to be biased in favor of one or the other litigants; and the parties to a controversy are therefore more inclined to accept the verdict of a court. Furthermore the society which supports the judicial tribunal is so powerful compared to whatever political or physical strength the litigants possess that it is able to enforce the awards of the latter however recalcitrant the disputants may be. But the society of nations is too small, judged by the number of its member nations, to function with absolute impartiality in any major dispute. Judicial action is therefore immediately less effective. It is to be noted that courts are less serviceable instruments of social conciliation even within nations when they deal with large economic and social groups such as unions and trusts or when the issue involves basic economic problems; and the reason for this is that the parties to a litigation represent so large a part of the total community that the unbiased character of the court is not as readily assumed and ought not be taken for granted. Tradition and social custom usually bias the court in favor of one or the other litigants, generally the one most firmly established in the traditional organization of the society. In the case of nations it is obvious that for some time to come an international court must confine itself mainly to petty disputes among powerful nations and to the real disputes of the petty nations, from whose perspective the large nations may represent an impartial international society.[16] Even at best no formal conciliation can heal wounds such as were made by the World War if nations cannot develop the capacity for repentance and mercy and learn how to restrain both the proud and the vindictive passions which are the natural products of unreflective social life.