If he who has wronged me cannot be persuaded to make restitution, I apply to the court,--that is, to _legal_ force,--to compel him to do me justice.

So nations ought to resort to _military force_ only when all other means fail to prevent aggression and injury.
But war often fails to procure redress of grievances, or to prevent repeated and continued aggression.
So does a resort to civil force; but such a resort is none the less proper and just on that account.
But in war the innocent party is sometimes the sufferer, while the guilty triumph.
So it often is in civil life: God, for some wise purpose, sometimes permits the wicked to triumph for a season.
But in all wars one party must be in the wrong, and frequently the war is unjust on both sides.
So in suits at law, one party is necessarily wrong, and frequently both resort to the civil tribunals in hopes of attaining unrighteous ends.
But nations do not resort to tribunals, like individuals, to settle their differences.
For the reason that it is believed a tribunal of this character--a congress of nations, as it has been called,--would be more productive of evil than of good.

By such an arrangement the old and powerful European monarchies would acquire the authority to interfere in the domestic affairs of the weaker powers.

We see the effects of establishing such a tribunal in the so-called Holy Alliance, whose influence is regarded by the friends of liberty as little less dangerous than the Holy Inquisition.

Moreover, such a tribunal would not prevent war, for military force would still be resorted to to enforce its decisions.