Avoid disaster and horror
The idea of a peace conference traces back to a circular issued on August 12, 1898, by the head of the Russian Empire’s Foreign Ministry, Count Muravyov. The document argued that heavy military spending erodes a people’s moral fiber and physical strength, draining labor and capital in a relentless arms race. It warned that immense sums go toward lethal inventions that might seem cutting edge today but could lose value as new discoveries arrive tomorrow. The authors urged the world to halt the arms race to prevent the greatest catastrophe in human history.
The circular suggested that if the trend continued, a catastrophe beyond the grasp of conventional thought could be unleashed. It is said that Nicholas II asked Muravyov to approach foreign governments with a proposal for a peace conference that could illuminate a brighter century ahead.
High ideals or a diplomatic move
Nicholas II’s push for peace carried pragmatic reasoning. By the late 19th century, Russia lagged behind Western powers such as Britain, Germany, France, and the United States in economic development and technology. The arms race consumed a sizable portion of the state budget, and even the Russian navy trailed behind British and German fleets. Financial ministers from the 1880s onward warned that such sprawling, inefficient spending clashed with the needs of growth and modernization.
Ivan Bliokh’s study The Future War and Its Economic Consequences left a lasting impression. The book argued that advances in firepower would push warfare toward fortified, positional battles, turning conflicts into attritional struggles that could unleash famine, disease, and social upheaval.
The era’s mindset mattered as well. A chivalrous culture toward combat framed war as undesirable, even when unavoidable. While the August circular carried idealistic and diplomatic overtones, it was not a naïve attempt to mask Russia’s vulnerabilities. Rather, it reflected a sincere belief that a peace conference could influence events for the better.
Mixed reaction to the idea of Russia
Initial Western responses to Russia’s peace initiative were mixed. Some radical left groups, including leaders of the Socialist International, cast Russia as an imperial power chasing predation rather than genuine disarmament. Kaiser Wilhelm II doubted Russia’s resources and worried about Europe’s balance of power, sensing potential gains from conflict or new colonies. Yet even within Germany, pacifist and reformist strands supported dialogue and restraint.
By early 1899, discussions and efforts to mobilize support for a conference gained momentum. A sentiment emerged praising the proposal as a retreat from excessive military spending and a chance to avert a looming catastrophe affecting the entire world. The Austrian writer and future Nobel laureate Bertha von Suttner would later reflect on the idea, underscoring the appeal of reducing arms expenditure and pursuing a path toward preventive peace (citation: Muravyov circular and contemporaneous debates).
Several states welcomed the prospect of trimming military budgets. Less affluent nations, including parts of Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, felt strained by the arms race and longed for relief. The peace initiative eventually moved toward the Netherlands, a neutral party striving to maintain stability. The conference opened on May 18, 1899, coinciding with the birthday of Nicholas II, and brought together delegates from major powers such as Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, France, Britain, the United States, Japan, and China, with Ivan Bliokh among the Russian participants (citation: historical records of the forum).
The foundation of international justice
During the proceedings, international lawyers outlined three main pathways to preventing wars: building goodwill agreements, using intermediaries, and resorting to arbitration. Debates also explored the possibility of a moratorium on escalating military spending and restrictions on the development of advanced weapons. Although pacifist hopes for disarmament did not materialize, the discussions contributed to a broader shift in thinking about limits on armament and the role of dialogue in shaping policy.
Overall, the conference did not achieve the sweeping budget reductions it sought. Yet it yielded concrete gains, including a ban on certain explosive projectiles and a formal move to curb the use of more destructive ordnance in specific contexts. The effort also laid the groundwork for a permanent arbitration framework in The Hague, which would later become a cornerstone of modern international justice. The court’s roots trace back to those early discussions, and today its chamber sits beside the International Court of Justice in The Hague (citation: historical summaries of the conference outcomes).
In the end, the event spurred a broader legal and diplomatic movement. It demonstrated that nations could pursue safety and stability through dialogue, negotiated rules, and shared institutions, even if initial ambitions remained only partially met. The peace conference stands as a landmark moment in the long arc toward international norms and dispute resolution mechanisms that continue to shape global relations today (citation: archival records of the era).