of preparing a full plan for its realisation. However that may be, my proposal concerning a number of Councils of Conciliation has the advantage that non-justiciable disputes would in each case be investigated and reported on by conciliators who have once for all been appointed by the States in dispute and who therefore possess their confidence. On the other hand, the proposed Permanent Council of Conciliation would guarantee to the Great Powers that important influence which is due to them on account of the fact that they would be chiefly concerned in case economic, military, or naval measures had to be resorted to against a recalcitrant member of the League.

XII. Having discussed International Mediation by International Councils of Conciliation, I must now turn to two questions which I have hitherto purposely omitted, although in the eyes of many people they stand in the forefront of interest, namely, firstly, disarmament as a consequence of the peaceable settlement of disputes by an International Court of Justice and International Councils of Conciliation, and, secondly, the question of the surrender of sovereignty which it is asserted is involved by the entrance of any State into the proposed League of Nations.

Now as regards disarmament, I have deliberately abstained from mentioning it hitherto, although it is certainly a question of the greatest importance. The reason for my abstention is a very simple one. I have always maintained that disarmament can neither diminish the number of wars nor abolish :

war altogether, but that, if the number of wars diminishes or if war be abolished altogether, disarmament will follow. There is no doubt that when once the new League of Nations is in being, war will occur much more rarely than hitherto. For this reason disarmament will ipso facto follow the establishment of a League of Nations, and the details of such disarmament are matters which will soon be solved when once the new League has become a reality. Yet I must emphasise the fact that disarmament is not identical with the total abolition of armies and navies. The possibility must always be kept in view that one or more members of the League will be recalcitrant, and that then the other members must unite their forces against them. And there must likewise be kept in view the possibility of a war between two members of the League on account of a political dispute in which mediation by the International Councils of Conciliation was unsuccessful. Be that as it may, it is certain that in time disarmament can take place to a very great extent, and it is quite probable that large standing armies based on conscription might everywhere be abolished and be replaced by militia.

XIII. Let me now turn to the question of sovereignty. Is the assertion really true that States renounce their sovereignty by entering into the League? The answer depends entirely upon the conception of sovereignty with which one starts. If sovereignty were absolutely unfettered liberty of action, a loss of sovereignty would certainly be involved by membership of the League, because

every member submits to the obligation never to resort to arms on account of a judicial dispute, and in case of a political dispute to resort to arms only after having given an opportunity of mediation to an International Council of Conciliation. But in fact sovereignty does not mean absolutely boundless liberty of action; and moreover sovereignty has at no time been a conception upon the contents of which there has been general agreement.

6

The term 'sovereignty' was introduced into political science by Bodin in his celebrated work ‘De la République,' which appeared in 1577. Before that time, the word souverain was used in France for any political or other authority which was not subordinate to any higher authority; for instance, the highest Courts were called cours souveraines. Now Bodin gave quite a new meaning to the old term. Being under the influence and in favour of the policy of centralisation initiated by Louis XI of France (1461-1483), the founder of French absolutism, Bodin defines sovereignty as the absolute and perpetual power within a a State.' However, even Bodin was far from considering sovereignty to give absolutely unfettered freedom of action, for he conceded that sovereignty was restricted by the commandments of God and by the rules of the Law of Nature. Be that as it may, this conception of sovereignty once introduced was universally accepted; but at the same time the meaning of the term became immediately a bone of contention between the schools of publicists. And it is to be taken into consideration that the science of politics

has learnt to distinguish between sovereignty of the State and sovereignty of the agents who exercise the sovereign powers of the State. According to the modern view sovereignty is a natural attribute of every independent State as a State; and neither the monarch, nor Parliament, nor the people can possess any sovereignty of their own. The sovereignty of a monarch, or of a Parliament, or of the whole people is not an original attribute of their own, but derives from the sovereignty of the State which is governed by them. It is outside the scope of this lecture to give you a history of the conception of sovereignty, it suffices to state the undeniable fact that from the time when the term was first introduced into political science until the present day there has never been unanimity with regard to its meaning, except that it is a synonym for independence of all earthly authority.

Now, do you believe that the independence of a State is really infringed because it agrees never to make war on account of a judicial dispute, and in case of a political dispute not to resort to arms before having given opportunity of mediation to International Councils of Conciliation? Independence is not boundless liberty of a State to do what it likes, without any restriction whatever. The mere fact that there is an International Law in existence restricts the unbounded liberty of action of every civilised State, because every State is prohibited from interfering with the affairs of every other State. The fact is that the independence of every State finds its limitation in the independence of every

other State. And it is generally admitted that a State can through conventions-such as a treaty of alliance or of neutrality or others-enter into many obligations which more or less restrict its liberty of action. Independence is a question of degree, and, therefore, it is also a question of degree whether or no the independence of a State is vitally encroached upon by a certain restriction. In my opinion the independence of a State is as little infringed by an agreement to submit all its judicial disputes to the judgment of a Court and not to resort to arms for a settlement, as the liberty of a citizen is infringed because in a modern State he can no longer resort to arms on account of a dispute with a fellow citizen but must submit it to the judgment of the Court.

And even if it were otherwise, if the entrance of a State into the new League of Nations did involve an infringement of its sovereignty and independence, humanity need not grieve over it. The Prussian conception of the State as an end in itself and of the authority of the State as something above everything else and divine-a conception which found support in the philosophy of Hegel and his followers-is adverse to the ideal of democracy and constitutional government Just as Henri IV

of France said La France vaut bien une messe," we may well say 'La paix du monde vaut bien la perte de l'indépendance de l'état.'

XIV. I have come to the end of this course of lectures, but before we part I should like, in conclusion, to touch upon touch upon a question which has