in the public and private relations of men but he can only ascribe this order to the forces which rule the physical world, to the "law of the stronger." Might is right. This conclusion is frankly accepted by many modern writers. It is the necessary consequence of a materialistic theory of human evolution. (See n. 53.) READINGS. For proofs of the existence of God see The Existence of God, by Mgr. Moyes (Sands & Co., 6d.) ; Natural Theology, by Bernard Boedder, S.J. (Longmans, 6s. 6d.); The Existence of God, by R. Clarke, S.J. (C.T.S., 6d.); God or Chaos, by R. Kane, S.J. (Washbourne, 5s.); Theism, by Dr. Flint (Blackwood, 7s. 6d.). Also the following penny pamphlets published by the Catholic Truth Society: Agnosticism, by John Gerard, S.J.; Why I believe in God, by A. E. Proctor; What Men of Science say about God and Religion, by the same. For the authority of the natural law see Moral Philosophy, by Joseph Rickaby, S.J. (Longmans, 5s.); Why should I be Moral? by Ernest Hull, S.J. (Sands and Co., 6d.). II. The Exaggerated Importance given to "Positive Methods" by Modern Students of International Law 12. Many modern writers wish to limit international law to the actual usages and agreements found between nations. They say that it is concerned with what has been and what is, and not with what ought to be. Their method is historical and inductive. This tendency to exaggerate the importance of positive law to the exclusion or at least to the prejudice of natural law is found in various degrees among modern writers. Thus we have: (1) Those who deny the existence of natural law and hence, if they admit a real international law at all, confine it to positive law (e.g. Materialists, Hobbes). (2) Those who admit the existence of a natural law for individuals but not for States (e.g. Bernhardi, Lasson, above quoted). (3) Those who contend that the same law of morality does not apply to individuals and States (e.g. Lord Lytton, quoted above). (4) Those who admit the existence and influence of the natural law in international relationships, but deny that it enters into the science of international law properly so called, or unduly limit its part therein-for reasons which will be discussed presently (e.g. a large number of modern writers on international law). Thus it would not be fair to put in the same class all who exaggerate the importance of positive methods. Some of them are staunch upholders of the moral law: some are not. With regard to the first three groups of writers we have seen: (1) that without natural law there could be no positive law (n. 8); (2) that the relations between States are regulated by natural law (nn. 7-9); (3) which is the same law as that which regulates the relations between individuals (n. 7). As against the fourth group we claim that the natural law forms a constituent and important part of international law. This is proved as follows: (a) From the Unscientific Character of Purely Positive Methods. If there is to be a genuine science of international law, it must include the natural law. A purely positive method "almost takes away scientific character from the subject matter to which it is applied. If international law were not made up of rules for which reasons could be given, satisfactory to man's intellectual and moral nature; if it were not built on principles of right; it would be even less of a science than is the code which governs the actions of polite society.' (b) From the Overwhelming Testimony of Man kind. This (positive) philosophy of law writes Theodore Meyer, S.J." is, alas! very widespread in Germany to-day," " and its advocates are found in all countries. Yet it is contrary to the main stream of European thought for many centuries. It is condemned by leading authorities to-day, and it is meeting with an increasing measure of opposition from enlightened democracies. Two Objections: (1) The Law of Nature is too vague and controvertible to form any part of international science. Those who believe in it differ greatly as to the character and commands of the so-called Law of Nature."3 Answer. Foolish things have been said about the Law of Nature as about everything else. But its general character has been always recognized, and Catholic philosophers in the course of centuries have built up an elaborate and scientific system of it. As to its alleged vagueness, we admit that it needs to be supplemented by positive law. Yet it supplies main principles, the authority of which cannot be questioned and the importance of which cannot be exaggerated. The apparent 1 Woolsey, International Law, p. 13. differences found in the writings of responsible authors are mainly differences of division and arrangement. (See n. 23.) The universal moral law, says Sir Edward Creasy,1 supplies the general principles of Right and Justice which form so important a part of the Law of Nations: It supplies us, moreover, with principles of interpretation, by which we may decipher the meaning which ought to be given to the numerous difficult passages of positive law. It imbues the jurist with the spirit in which positive law should be studied. It shows the legislator and the statesman what ideals of excellence should be aimed at as models when positive law is altered or supplemented. (2) The natural law is not a matter of practical politics. "States generally appeal in their controversies, not to innate principles and absolute rights, but to rules which can be proved to have been acted upon previously in similar circumstances by all or most civilized nations." 2 Answer. States do, in important matters, ultimately appeal to the natural law-to " innate principles and absolute rights." This is at the back of their appeal to custom-for custom illustrates the natural law. In defending the neutrality of Belgium, England did not say, "I find that it has been the custom of civilized nations to observe treaties, therefore I will observe this treaty" The appeal was to the eternal law of keeping faith. Note that by purely positive methods we could never arrive at the conclusion "treaties must be kept." We could not even arrive at the conclusion I treaties have always been kept "-for sometimes they have not. 1 First Platform of International Law, pp. 30, 31. A method which can only tell us that “ treaties have sometimes been kept" will not suffice for the founding of an international law likely to commend itself to the normal man. Yet we must not go to the other extreme and undervalue positive methods in the study of international law. Just as the practice of good men gives us guidance in ethics, so the practice of good statesmen gives us guidance in international law. Again, it is absolutely necessary to supplement the general dictates of the natural law by precise provisions. For the sources of international law, see any of the manuals on the subject. III. A Mistaken Appeal to History 13. Others who wish to reduce all international law to positive law argue as follows. Highly cultivated peoples before the time of Christ, such as the Greeks and the Romans, knew nothing in theory or practice about international morality. To the ancient Greek every non-Greek or barbarian was an enemy, and almost any effective means of conquering him was admitted. Again, the Greeks, who sought to treat every variety of human knowledge scientifically, never made any attempt to establish a science of international law. It is only after the Christian religion had become widespread and taken deep root that we find Christian philosophers and theologians laying the foundations of a science of international morality. In doing so they appeal chiefly to the positive law of Christ and not to any natural law discoverable by human reason. Hence international law is seen to be positive law after all. Answer. It is quite true that the obligations of international morality were recognized and practised more perfectly after the time of Christ |