FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   >>  
o coincide with the boundaries of states has very few exceptions. This principle, however, does not decide how the relations between states are to be regulated, or how a conflict of interests between rival states is to be decided. At present, every great state claims absolute sovereignty, not only in regard to its internal affairs but also in regard to its external actions. This claim to absolute sovereignty leads it into conflict with similar claims on the part of other great states. Such conflicts at present can only be decided by war or diplomacy, and diplomacy is in essence nothing but the threat of war. There is no more justification for the claim to absolute sovereignty on the part of a state than there would be for a similar claim on the part of an individual. The claim to absolute sovereignty is, in effect, a claim that all external affairs are to be regulated purely by force, and that when two nations or groups of nations are interested in a question, the decision shall depend solely upon which of them is, or is believed to be, the stronger. This is nothing but primitive anarchy, "the war of all against all," which Hobbes asserted to be the original state of mankind. There cannot be secure peace in the world, or any decision of international questions according to international law, until states are willing to part with their absolute sovereignty as regards their external relations, and to leave the decision in such matters to some international instrument of government.[5] An international government will have to be legislative as well as judicial. It is not enough that there should be a Hague tribunal, deciding matters according to some already existing system of international law; it is necessary also that there should be a body capable of enacting international law, and this body will have to have the power of transferring territory from one state to another, when it is persuaded that adequate grounds exist for such a transference. Friends of peace will make a mistake if they unduly glorify the _status quo_. Some nations grow, while others dwindle; the population of an area may change its character by emigration and immigration. There is no good reason why states should resent changes in their boundaries under such conditions, and if no international authority has power to make changes of this kind, the temptations to war will sometimes become irresistible. [5] For detailed scheme of inter
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   >>  



Top keywords:

international

 

states

 

sovereignty

 
absolute
 
external
 

nations

 

decision

 

relations

 

claims

 
regulated

boundaries

 

matters

 

government

 
diplomacy
 

present

 

decided

 

similar

 

affairs

 
regard
 

conflict


system

 
territory
 

enacting

 
capable
 

transferring

 

scheme

 

resent

 

irresistible

 

deciding

 

temptations


tribunal

 

existing

 

persuaded

 

change

 

character

 

status

 

population

 

authority

 

detailed

 

dwindle


emigration

 
immigration
 

transference

 

grounds

 
reason
 

judicial

 

adequate

 

Friends

 

unduly

 
glorify