"Or, aujourd'hui Nul ne peut plus vivre pour lui Seul, loin des autres. Tout ce qui est d'autrui devient aussitôt nôtre; -EMILE VERHAEREN, L'Angleterre. "Remota justitia, quid regna nisi magna latrocinia?" ST. AUGUSTINE, De Civitate Dei. THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES CHAPTER I INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY Introductory-Mediaval Unity-Modern System of Sovereign States - International Law-Its Nature and Sanction Its Limited Content Its Ambiguity-Treaties - International Commissions and Unions — Conferences and Congresses THE present world-wide war, both in its outbreak and in its devastating course, has forcibly driven into the minds of most thinking men the firm conviction that the existing system of international relations is out of harmony with the fundamental facts of modern life. In all quarters where the problems of the present and future torment the soul and perplex the mind of man there is the keenest of realizations that western civilization will in the future continue to be grievously imperilled unless some measures be devised to limit at least, if not entirely to eliminate, recourse to the ordeal by battle in the adjustment of interstate disputes. Some considerable measure of good will probably come from the holocaust. Presumably, the future boundaries 3 of Europe will be determined more in consonance with the wishes of those most directly interested than was the custom of a past when strategic considerations and dynastic interests played an unfortunately large part in the disposition of voiceless peoples. Subject nations, exploited politically and economically by dominant races, seem to be on the verge of emancipation and are looking forward to complete independence or to the guaranteed assurance of full opportunities for self-expression under a system of federal autonomy. The spirit of nationality is again working with that of democracy. Russia has already burst the fetters of autocracy, and the leaven of liberalism is not only working in a Prussianized Germany, but it is also quickening the democratic impulse in those countries that stand pre-eminently as the champions of freedom. Some of these anticipated benefits, possibly the most far-reaching ones such as the democratization of Russia, the unification of the British Empire, and the final healing of the breach between the two great branches of the English-speaking people if they be realized, cannot be attributed to the war, which will merely have hastened the course of already progressing movements. Their consummation was dependent upon different factors. But other expected advantages, such as the re-unification and re-establishment of the Polish nation in an autonomous state, the dismemberment of Austria-Hungary or its reorganization so that the suppressed Slav nationalities may be freed from Magyar and Austro-German oppres sion, the emancipation of the Armenians from the murderous Turkish yoke, could not have been effected except by force of arms under the existing international dispensation. Provided the lesson of the present agony be indelibly seared in the heart and mind of future ages, the coming generations will be able to lead a fuller and a freer life. In a measure the war has not only purified the peoples who have met the onslaught against the fundamental principles of western civilization,1 but it may also chasten the spirit of the militaristic aggressor as soon as defeat has afforded the leisure for reflection. There is every prospect that the selfishness, materialism, and class-feelings so prevalent in all present-day communities will be markedly lessened by the intimate association of all ranks and classes in unmeasured sacrifices for a high purpose and by the resulting orientation of the mind and spirit towards quite other than predominantly self-regarding aims. The war may prove to be a turning point in the world's history. If it result in the definitive vindication of the democratic concepts of liberty and law, future generations will probably somewhat overlook the evil from which the good has sprung. But for the portion of living mankind subjected to its destructive blast, the war is an almost unqualified evil of most momentous dimensions. No matter what be the exact military outcome, even if right fully prevail against might, the war cannot but cause misery in almost equal measure to both vanquished and victor. If it be only by such self-immolation that western civilization can be purged of the evils of military aggression then the outlook is indeed dark. Civilization is bankrupt if free peoples can preserve their liberties only at such heavy cost. The supreme good that can come out of the war is the complete demonstration of its baleful nature and the consequent determination of free peoples to devise effective means of preventing in the future a recurrence of the evil even if as a result a measure of their cherished, but somewhat illusory, independence of action should have to be sacrificed. In the great intellectual travail engendered by this well-nigh universal abhorrence of the present dominion of force throughout the world, there is one point of almost complete agreement. It is generally recognized that, apart from the distinct condemnation that unequivocally attaches itself to those whose imperious will to power either thwarted all efforts toward peaceful composition or welcomed the arbitrament of force, the war is a direct outcome of the prevailing international anarchy and of the current selfish nationalism that is intimately connected with this lack of organization. That such a calamity was at all possible is due both to an actual condition and to a closely related state of mind. All states are in varying degrees infected with the self-regarding nationalism of the day. No one is quite free from it. The stress ordinarily placed upon so-called national interests with its almost inevitable concomitant, the tendency to disregard the conflicting rights of other states, the |