« ПретходнаНастави »
that the organization of the Council of the League of Nations and its control by preponderance of power will not make for a surrender of those areas in international life which should be governed by law. There is no doubt much to be made of this objection; but, having regard to the actualities of present international life, as the world is left as the result of the World War, political questions remain uppermost.
We should be blind to assert that the immediate results of the war have been the recovery of a larger area of strictly legal control. The peace settlement, in so far as it is a settlement, is, after all, a political settlement out of which political questions have arisen and will continue to arise. With reference to many of them, it would seem that no court could be created that in the near future could successfully adjudicate upon some of the larger problems which have already proceeded out of the treaties of peace. Having in mind the nature of the peace settlement, it follows that if the law of nations is to exist, it must rest upon the foundations made by the settlement. The consideration of the vitally important questions, all of them political, has so far been undertaken by the Supreme Allied Council or by a smaller group representing those nations immediately responsible for the victory and for the terms of settlement. Until these matters growing out of the treaties are settled, one cannot be assured of any very great advance in the adoption of purely legal rules of action among states. The fragments of the old Russian Empire, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Turkey, Greece, cannot be considered at the present time as factors in the development of international law. The mind of the world is still too much concentrated upon those fundamentally political questions which have resulted from the war to have any common ideas either for the development of international law by means of new law-making treaties, or for the codification of the law of peace as it existed prior to August of 1914. In that month, in a way, the old international law came to an end, for the invasion of Belgium and the retribution which is being exacted for that invasion and its results give a new and solider basis for international law than the world had ever before afforded.
Gladstone remarked, when the neutrality of Belgium was threatened in 1870, that the foundation of the public law of Europe lay in treaty faith. Bethmann-Hollweg admitted in the Reichstag, in August, 1914, that Germany was committing a supreme offense against the law of nations by violating the treaty for the neutralization of Belgium, but he claimed that necessity demanded it, and therefore even the violation was justified. The position of Germany today is the answer to that contention. The foundation of international law is the doctrine of pacta servanda; that treaties are to be respected and lived up to; that without recognition of the binding character of international obligations, legally as well as morally, there can be no international society in any juristic sense. But along with this idea there is the other, that international society has the right and duty to express itself with reference to the nature of treaties that are thus to be preserved. A treaty that is secret, which aims at the detriment or destruction of other states, is an act essentially anti-social in nature, and in some way the world should be protected against it. No provision of the Covenant of the League of Nations more correctly expresses the better aspirations of modern international life than that which requires that treaties, in order to be respected, shall be made public.
An international organization has come to be essential to the existence of international law. It is not so much the business of international law to prepare a code for war, as it is to determine the rights and obligations of states in time of peace. Controversies between states will not cease any more than controversies between individuals within the state have disappeared. For a long time to come those controversies which are dangerous to the peace of the world are likely to be political and non-justiciable. Nevertheless, as order proceeds, as it must proceed, out of the present chaos, as interdependence goes forward among nations, further areas of international life are to be recovered from policy to law. The causes of war lie deep in political controversies. The occasions of war are frequently found in the violation of recognized legal right and duty.
Not underestimating the necessity of organization for the purpose of settling controversies of the first type, the need of an organization for the judicial settlement of international disputes, upon the basis of legal rights and duties by an international court of justice, is no less evident. By its very nature, an international court of justice will lack the dramatic qualities of an Allied Council or the Council of a League of Nations. Nevertheless, as an expression of the quiet and abiding convictions of international life, it may be a very potent factor in recovering the sense as well as the conscience of mankind. Founded upon treaty agreement, it will furnish the necessary basis for the modern structure of international law. In international organization there must be an embodiment, an expression, not merely of the aspirations of the few-it must be in immediate contact with the actualities of international life. The international law of the future, deriving a renewed vigor on the basis of international agreement from the creation of an international court of justice, must seek to interpret the actualities of international life, for in that way mainly, if not solely, can it become the “expression of the organized opinion of mankind.”
GREEK INTERSTATE ASSOCIATIONS AND THE LEAGUE OF
By A. E. R. BOAK
Professor of Ancient History, University of Michigan
The political achievements of the Greek people are so manifold and so important that any student of modern politics naturally is tempted to turn to ancient Greece to find the origin of, or parallels to, recent developments in his own field. And so there are not wanting those who would see in certain unions or associations of Greek states anticipations of the ideas which are incorporated in the newly constituted League of Nations. However, the view that any close parallel to the League of Nations existed in the ancient Greek world is due, I believe, to a misinterpretation or idealization of the character and aims of these ancient associations. Accordingly, in the present article I shall try to give a survey of the chief types of interstate associations that arose in ancient Greece, besides suggesting certain changes in their current English nomenclature, which is apt to mislead the casual reader as to their true character.
When the Greeks made their way into the lower part of the Balkan peninsula which we now call Greece, they came in large racial groups, each distinguished by its ethnic name Arcadians, Achæans, Bæotians, Thessalians, and so forth. Each of these ethne, if we may employ this convenient Greek term (corresponding to the German stamm), was itself composed of a number of smaller groups, which we call peoples or tribes. The ethnos constituted a religious as well as a loosely-knit political unit; it was the primitive Greek state, consisting of an association of larger and smaller kinsman groups.
Many of these ethne were broken up into smaller units in the course of the successive Greek migrations; others met a like fate after the final settlement of the Greeks in their historic abodes. This later dissolution of the ethnic associations was due in some cases to the rise of the poleis or city-states, in others to the development of independent rural communes, within the territory settled by the larger groups. However, although the ethne thus came to lose their original political significance, they regularly remained as religious associations, in which city-states or rural communes were united for the maintenance of their ancestral, ethnic cults. In many cases the states which had a common ethnic bond maintained some sort of a political as well as a religious alliance, and later, as we shall see, the ethnos came to form the background of a new form of political association.
On the eastern coast of Greece city-states arose at a very early date upon the sites of towns of the Minoan epoch, and this type of political organization was carried by the Greeks to the islands of the Ægean Sea and the western coast of Asia Minor. It spread farther with the establishment of Greek colonies along the shores of the Mediterranean and Black Seas during the great period of expansion which began about the middle of the eighth century B.C. The result was that the Greek world was divided into hundreds of small sovereign states, some of them rural communes, but the great majority city-states, the presence of which made the history of Greece resemble that of the modern world rather than that of any modern nation, and also gave opportunity for the development of all forms of interstate associations.
The polis or city-state came to be the characteristic type of Greek state and was the determining factor in the political as well as the cultural development of the Greek peoples. From the primitive tribal associations the polis inherited the conception of the state as a union of persons of common descent participating in a common cult. This conception fostered in each community an attitude of jealous exclusiveness towards its neighbors. The ideal of the city-state came to be self-sufficiency in the economic as well as in the political sense. Politically, this was expressed in a passionate devotion to freedom in foreign relations (eleutheria) and the right of each state to determine its own constitution (autonomia). However, in fact, the city-states were rarely, if ever, economically self-sustaining, and, in spite of their passion for their own political independence, they did not display the same regard for the freedom of their neighbors. Their foreign relations were usually determined by materialistic or imperialistic aims. And out of the welter of common and conflicting interests which consequently developed among the Greek states themselves or between them and their barbarian neighbors, arose the various forms of interstate relations which I now propose to examine.
Since we are only concerned at present with such relations as led to associations or unions of a more or less permanent character, involving the surrender of certain of the sovereign rights of the contracting parties in their international relations, we may pass over the peculiarly Greek institution of proxenia, and likewise the special treaties between states which aimed to secure commercial or legal advantages for their respective citizens, or even to provide for the peaceful settlement of interstate disputes. However, in passing, we should note that the practice of settling such differences by arbitration was well established and frequently resorted to.
1 For a more detailed account of this transformation of the earlier ethnic groups, see Francotte, La Polis grecque, pp. 96-105; B, Keil, Griechische Staatsaltertümer, in Gercke and Norden's Einleitung, iii, pp. 299-311; H. Swoboda, in Hermann's Lehrbuch der griechischen Staatsaltert mer, iii, pp. 3-15.
The interstate relationships which remain for our consideration might be either religious or political. A religious association of states was called either an amphictyony or a koinon. As far as we can see, there was no essential difference implied in the use of one or other of these terms, for an amphictyony is merely an association of "dwellers around” or neighbors, and a koinon is simply a “commune” or joint association, which might be either religious or political in character. But, although neither the word amphictyony or koinon in itself gives any clue as to the nature of these associations, it is clear that the joint maintenance of some particular cult was the raison d'être of each. The members of a religious league either might be states associated in the maintenance of the ancestral cult of the ethnos to which they belonged, or they might be peoples or communities which lacked this racial bond.
The famous Delphic Amphictyony is the only one of the religious leagues whose organization is known in any detail. Its members were twelve of the Greek ethnic groups, such as the Ionians and Dorians; a fact which places the origin of the Amphictyony prior to the disruption of these hordes and the rise of the sovereign city-states. The religious center of this league was at first the shrine of Artemis at Thermopylæ and later that of Apollo at Delphi. The policy of the Amphictyony was determined by a council in which each of the associated peoples had two votes, although in historic times the city-states of Athens and Thebes had acquired a permanent right to one of the votes of the ethne to which they belonged, the Ionians and the Bæotians respectively. The character and purpose of the Delphic Amphictyony is revealed in the words of the oath taken annually by the delegates sent to the council by the several peoples. They swore “not to raze to the ground any city belonging to members of the Amphictyony, nor shut it off from running water either in war or in peace; and, if any member transgresses these provisions, to proceed against him and destroy his cities; and, if anyone plunders the property of the god, or agrees upon, or plots anything against the sacred treasures, to take vengeance upon him with hand and foot and voice and full military force." (Æschines, ii, 115.) From this it is clear that the Delphic Amphictyony was an association for religious and not for political purposes. It is true that it insisted upon certain humane observances in war waged among members of the league, but it did not aim to prevent war even between them, probably because war was regarded as a perfectly normal condition. The Amphictyony was not active politically in the cause of Greek independence nor in the settlement of disputes among Greek states. However, it was at times exploited in the interest of the political ambi