By Efi Efthymiou
The second day of the conference organized by the Church of Greece and the World Council of Churches opened with speeches by Evangelical Lutheran Bishop Jonas Jonson of the Church of Sweden and Professor of International Law at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Miltiadis Sariyannidis.
In his address, Bishop Jonson emphasized the historical significance of the centenary of the Stockholm Conference held in 1925.
He recalled how, on August 19, 1925, a remarkable procession of Anglican, Lutheran, and Orthodox bishops, church presidents, clergy—and even a Patriarch—entered the medieval cathedral adjacent to the Royal Palace in Stockholm’s Old Town.
The Church was filled with over 600 representatives from 37 countries. Among them, the most senior figure was the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, Photios, while the youngest delegate was Willem Visser ’t Hooft, who would later become the first General Secretary of the World Council of Churches.
“Today we ask ourselves what made this particular conference important. What makes us still remember what happened in Stockholm one hundred years ago?” Bishop Johnson said.
As he stated in response, “The backdrop of the Stockholm conference was neither foreign missions nor the world of students, but the growing concern for social justice and world peace among Western church leaders, theologians, parliamentarians and pacifists which had been growing since the 1890’s. The economic inequality, child labor, depravation and misery among the working class was alarming. The economic inequality, child labor, depravation and misery among the working class was alarming. Charity alone could not solve the problem, commonly shorthanded as ”the social question”.
Many Christians studied the roots of injustice and poverty, expressed solidarity with workers, and supported labour movements and trade unions. Alternatives to atheistic Marxist socialism were organized, such as the Social Christian Union in England, the National-Sozialer Verein in Germany, and Le Christianisme Social in France.
Another concern that eventually led to Stockholm was the deterioration of relations between the dominant powers in Europe, and the rapidly escalating arms race, particularly between Germany and Great Britain.
As an act of peacekeeping, Christians of different nations organized programs for extensive mutual visits in order to build friendly relations between the peoples. These efforts involved hundreds of participants, including members of parliament, bishops and academics.”
The six overall themes proposed for the conference were: The general obligation of the Church in light of God’s plan for the world, the Church and economic and industrial problems, The Church and social and moral problems, the Church and international relations, the Church and education, ways and means to promote cooperation between churches and for their closer connection at the federal level.
The Stockholm conference, Bishop Jonson said, produced few joint decisions and guiding resolutions. He added: “Yet it was highly successful in creating conditions for a reconstruction of the ecumenical movement as a church-based and therefore lasting organization. The participants remembered the friendly, creative and deeply spiritual atmosphere at Stockholm, and the Christian fellowship prevailing all through the conference, transcending bitter denominational and national antagonisms. All wise people thought it impossible that the conference would succeed. The very fact that it did was, according to most participants, its most important achievement.”
“The royal family, ambassadors in diplomatic uniform, ministers of government, and ordinary parishioners found their seats while thousands of spectators crowded the streets to get a glimpse of the remarkable event,” he said.
Eighty accredited journalists and photographers covered every aspect of the meeting.
“What makes us still remember what happened in Stockholm one hundred years ago?” he asked.
Europe had seen empires tumble, he noted. “The First World War had been a primal catastrophe fundamentally changing the world geopolitically, socially, and spiritually,” he said. “A ruthless war between Christian nations had forever changed human history.”
Delegates had a mandate to speak for their churches and thus make them involved in the ecumenical movement.
“The committed participation of Orthodox bishops was of particular significance,” he said. “Without them, the conference would have been nothing but yet another sectarian Protestant event.”
For the key visionary of the Stockholm conference, Archbishop of Uppsala Nathan Söderblom, churches were all different, but this was no obstacle for practical cooperation.
“In his understanding, the churches were already one in the Spirit inasmuch as they were grounded in Jesus Christ,” said Jonson. “Unity did not need to be created so much as recognized.”
Participants remembered the friendly, creative, and deeply spiritual atmosphere at Stockholm, and the Christian fellowship prevailing all through the conference, transcending bitter denominational and national antagonisms.
“Life and Work moved Christian ethics from a matter of individual concern to that of communal responsibility,” said Jonson. “In doing so, it challenged both unrestrained capitalism and socialist disdain for individual rights.”
Looking at the Stockholm conference and its context today, similarities with our own time are evident, said Jonson. “The delegates to Stockholm faced the realities of their time and responded, some of them in a truly prophetic manner,” he said. “Without illusions, they sought to protect a fragile peace by supporting still immature institutions like the Court of Justice and the League of Nations.”
Twenty-three years later, in 1948, the World Council of Churches, merging Faith and Order and Life and Work, was constituted at the 1st WCC Assembly in Amsterdam.
“Within the present structures of the World Council of Churches, the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs remains an essential heritage of Stockholm 1925,” Jonson said. “Strong and binding multilateral structures are indispensable in the world of today.”
He also underscored that the obligation of the WCC Commission of the Churches on International Affairs remains to strengthen such structures and to promote international law.
“The time for God’s peace is now,” he concluded.
The delegates to Stockholm faced the realities of their time and responded, some of them in a truly prophetic manner. Without illusions, they sought to protect a fragile peace by supporting still immature institutions like the Court of Justice and the League of Nations.
Twenty-three years later, in 1948, the World Council of Churches merging Faith and Order and Life and Work was constituted at its first assmebly in Amsterdam. Within the present structures of the World Council, the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs remains an essential heritage of Stockholm 1925.
Strong and binding multilateral structures are indispensable in the world of today. For the CCIA the obligation remains to strengthen such structures and to promote international law. The time for God’s peace is now.”
Μ. Sarigiannidis: Humanity has not learned from the mistakes of the past
Professor of International Law at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Miltiadis Sarigiannidis, stressed for his part that humanity has gone through extreme periods without learning from the mistakes of the past, the fallacies, the high expectations or even the grandiose strategies that aspired to create a new or better world. He said: “Put it in the legal/political jargon, although there has been always a quest for change, for a shift of the paradigm, or the establishment of a new world order, this was hardly a peaceful option; wars, revolutions and best intentions that finally paved the road to dehumanized destinations.”
The question “what is international law” does not have a simple and concise answer, explains Mr. Sariyannidis. He said: “This is because there are always individual questions that arise that are all-encompassing and form a complex and constantly evolving legal reality.” “The questions that have been raised for years around the archaic question ‘what is international law’ are therefore relevant to (a) the very nature of international law, (b) its scope, (c) the field of its application, (d) the subjects it regulates, (e) the authors of its application, and (f) the reasons for compliance with it.
International law is the subject of daily reference and interpretation by a wide variety of users. There are users who invoke it either simplistically for the purpose of information (e.g. mass media), or more elaborately in order to serve or justify their interests (e.g. states when making decisions on their foreign policy).
In any case, both scholarly and popular references to international law very often share common concerns and quests. They record the existence or non-existence, sufficiency or insufficiency, compliance or disobedience, sanction or impunity attributed to a set of rules and principles that create rights and obligations assumed in the international environment.”
Professor Sarigiannidis underlined that in the 20th century the use of armed force by states was brought under the regulatory framework of Article 2 § 4 of the UN Charter, thus allowing two ‘exceptions’.” He added: “The right to legitimate defence when preceded by an armed attack and the authorization of the use of armed force by the Security Council when it diagnoses a threat to international peace, a breach of peace or an act of aggression. Despite these exceptions, states both unilaterally and collectively engage in the use of armed force for more reasons.
Armed reprisals, intervention to protect nationals abroad, humanitarian intervention, intervention in defence of democracy and self-determination, are all reasons why states mobilise their military power and engage in conflict. Almost all of these reasons depart from legality, putting international law under pressure. Similarly, the debate around pre-emptive strikes and preventive self-defence fragments the general prohibition on the use of armed force and highlights the problems of compliance with international law when states choose to use force to resolve their disputes.
The question of compliance with the rules and principles of international law is a classic area of criticism. This is where the absence of a central authority equipped with effective coercive powers, as is the case in domestic legal orders, becomes more pronounced. Similarly, the decisive and enduring role of states becomes apparent, especially when they choose to ignore international law. After all, the lack of compliance with the rules and principles of international law is not a phenomenon that is found only in the foreign policy of powerful states.
Despite cases of disobedience and indifference, compliance by international actors, and particularly by states, with the rules and principles of international law is not the exception. On the contrary, it is the normality that characterizes international society/community and strengthens symbiotic institutions and rules, so that we can now envision an international law of solidarity and not just cooperation. In a particularly salient way, Henkin observed that ‘almost all nations observe almost all the principles of international law and almost all their obligations almost all the time’.
However, the following question reasonably arises: if the international environment is anarchic and decentralized, and lacks hierarchical structures or a central authority to ensure the implementation of international law, why do states and other non-state actors prefer to comply with it?”
