We have heard much in the past of strategic frontiers. A great deal of ability and learning have been devoted toward the problem of making frontiers available for attack or for defence. It is perhaps true, as some critics appear to think, that the development of war in the air and of chemical warfare has made questions of strategic frontiers in general less important than heretofore. Perhaps that is so. I suggest, however, that even if it is so, that same ability and learning may be able to find in a combination of the ideas of demilitarized zones and international supervision a real solution of the problems arising from these new methods and discoveries; and, as I have pointed out, there is a very ancient human feeling behind this whole idea of peaceful places, on which popular support for such a programme may be based. [1] Articles 42 to 44. [2] A. J. I. L. Supplement 1923, Vol. XVII, p. 1. [3] A. J. I. L., Vol. XVIII, January, 1924, pp. 58, 63. [4] Annex F, p. 263. {103} CHAPTER XVIII. SECURITY AND THE PROTOCOL. For me to discuss the bearing of the Protocol of Geneva upon the security of States means that I go outside my brief. No technical juristic reasoning is applicable to a feeling which lies at the heart of national sentiments, sentiments of patriotism and of devotion to country, which are as deep rooted in the souls of millions as are the love of family and the belief in religion. This matter of security is in verity a matter of national feeling, a state of mind in the truest sense. For no human agency, no belief, no will, outside of the country concerned, can alter or affect it. Ourselves alone must say, we and our rulers, whether or not we are in fact secure--if we say yes, that is enough; but if we say no, it is not for any one else to question, much less for any one else to seek to argue the matter. So I shall merely seek to state the theory of the Protocol in regard to this matter of security. That theory is this: if the nations of the world will agree to outlaw war, if they will agree to substitute law for force, to settle by pacific means all disputes among them, if they will agree to unite against any people which so agrees but then betrays humanity by tearing up its own agreement, then we may develop intra-nationally a belief in security, a confidence in a settled order, a hope for the future, which will slowly but inevitably disarm the forces for war and lift the curtain on a new day. Such is the theory of the Protocol of Geneva. {104} CHAPTER XIX. INTERPRETATION OF THE PROTOCOL. Article 20 of the Protocol provides that any dispute as to its interpretation shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice. No provision similar to this is to be found in the Covenant.