5. Prohibition of import and export of produce as between the former and the latter.

6. Blockade of the rebel state. And finally, as a last resort, 7. The employment of armed force.

The American Hamilton Holt enumerates, as means of concerted action' in addition to public opinion, 'economic pressure and 'force'. He questions whether the tying up of intercourse or economic pressure would be sufficient to enforce observance of the principles of a league. There is agreement that if a nation were absolutely cut off from all intercourse with the rest of the world it would be compelled to yield. If all credit, all loans, and all trade were stopped, if even letters and telegrams were held up, no nation could endure such strangling isolation, and would quickly come to its senses. But Holt is of the opinion that although such pressure would doubtless be a powerful force in international life and would doubtless be sufficient in many cases to enforce the rule of law, still there were reasons for believing that it would not always suffice-for one reason because physical pressure would always be stronger than economic, because the resistance of the interests effected will be at least as great against an economic boycott as against war, and they will be constantly striving to break it down, whereas war once declared silences opposition'. Also because of practical difficulties, for how are the enforcing Powers to divide the pressure among themselves? This would always be more difficult in the case of economic pressure than of military. Recourse would therefore have to be taken to the application of force as ultima ratio. Root has correctly remarked :

Many states have grown so great that there is no Power capable of imposing punishment upon them except the power of collective civilization outside that state... and the only possibility of establishing real restraint by law seems to remain to give effect to the undoubted will of the vast majority of mankind.

Holt asks whether eventually some members of the league might not avail themselves of economic and others of military pressure, but he regards this as of doubtful expediency. There would have to be a distinction made between stages where economic pressure was proper and those that demanded military pressure. Certainly, under certain circumstances, the economic pressure could have no time at all [within which to operate]. But in the course of time not only compulsory use of the international law procedure 1 Hamilton Holt, Concerted Action,' in the Recueil de Rapports, vol. ii, p. 14.

could be enforced, but perhaps also the execution of judicial decisions. For the present Holt regards the former as sufficient. As to the question whether the league should also use its concerted powers against such nations as are not in the league but who attack one of its members, Holt would make this dependent upon the relation of the forces within and without the league. The matter would not dare to be pushed so far that leagues opposed to one another would be formed, for that would merely be a return to the old system of two groups of powers.1 Holt, in conclusion, is of the opinion that the basis of a league of peace and its sanctions might be limited to some few basic principles. The working out of the same, however, would be a great task for statecraft. The question might be raised whether the time is ripe for this, but at any rate people are now thinking of this matter and the idea can never again be killed.

The American Herbert S. Houston likewise discusses Economic Pressure and World Peace. He emphasizes the fact that the American chambers of commerce, when they accepted the programme of the League to Enforce Peace, thereby placed economic coercive measures in the foreground, and that the Executive Committee of the League has accepted the proposal. The new element in the present proposals is that of force, but through the present war the world has become so convinced of the value of peace that it has been found worth while even to fight for it; and if it be said that this in turn again would mean war, the answer would have to be given that such a war, waged as a last resource, would be a war to enforce peace, to preserve the integrity and authority of the world court to carry out a programme of international law and righteousness. Moreover, if it were used as a coercive measure, the powerful force of international trade would in most cases suffice to bring a nation to reason even without the application of military force. How would such a coercive force have to be conceived? To the international

1 President Wilson has also, in his message to the Senate of January 22, 1917, rightly emphasized: It will be absolutely necessary that a force be created as a guarantor of the permanency of the settlement, so much greater than the force of any nation now engaged or any alliance hitherto formed or projected that no nation, no probable combination of nations, could face or withstand it. If the peace presently to be made is to endure, it must be a peace made secure by the organized major force of mankind.'

2 Herbert S. Houston, in Recueil de Rapports, vol. ii, p. 27. Cf. also the same in Publication Number 26 of the League to Enforce Peace.

forces that would have to be reckoned with belong, primarily, money which has gold as its common basis. Credit, on the basis of gold, is international. Trade, on the basis of money and credit, is international. Likewise the network of agencies that uses money, credit, and trade is international. Banks, cables, mails, and means of communication are all international forces. They are common to all nations and independent of race, language, religion, culture, government, or other human limitations. This makes them a most efficacious force, if the court were reinforced by economic pressure. Through commerce the nations are united by a thousand bonds and are dependent on each other to such an extent that already there is talk of establishing an international clearing house'. This could be made a powerful means of exerting economic pressure. Houston then cites several examples from history to show how already economic pressure, for example, the withholding of loaned moneys, has actually operated to prevent war. If individual powers can exert such a pressure, how much more effectual might be such pressure through the concerted action of the powers. A nation acting contrary to its will would put itself beyond the pale of law. Why should not the other nations at once declare an embargo of nonintercourse against such a lawless nation by refusing to buy from or sell to it or have any relations whatsoever with the same? Such a coercive measure would have the advantage of operating from within and of affecting the war chest. It would be possible to fight with money and credit that back the bullets instead of with bullets. The world would have to use the power of commerce which is at its disposal for the protection of civilization. It would only be necessary to declare an economic embargo against an attacking nation. True it is, of course, that such economic pressure would also work injury to the nations applying it, but this injury would be far less than that of war, and if war could be averted there would be no injury. A war between other nations is also the greater injury from a purely economic standpoint. Why, therefore, should commerce, which has brought the world so close together, not be used to protect the world from the wounds of war? All international forces, art, science, religion, trade, &c., that unite mankind, ought also to contribute to the protection of mankind through the preservation of peace on the basis of justice.

The Belgian pacifist, Paul Otlet, likewise discusses Concerted Measures to be taken by the States.1 He, too, has his eyes fixed on economic as well as military measures. Among the former he demands all measures capable of being made to strike at the economic interests of a state'.

The delinquent state would then be put outside the law of nations by a sort of ban isolating it from the world; its frontiers would be absolutely closed against the transit of persons, goods, correspondence or communication, aerial, telegraphic, or radiographic; all foreign goods, whether they belonged to the state or to its nationals, would be sequestered and an embargo proclaimed against all those subject to the jurisdiction of the state which is held to be an enemy of humanity. The embargo would be against vessels, cars, and locomotives; every purchase or sale, every recovery of sums of money, every act of borrowing would be forbidden. Eventually, all the subjects of the state would be conducted to its frontiers or interned in concentration camps. It does not seem that the efficaciousness of such measures, taken simultaneously and compulsorily by all the states, can be doubted.

In reference to military measures Otlet demands that the national armies be required to put certain contingents for the international army at the disposal of the Council of the States'. Moreover, these measures would have to be able to take on any of the forms that circumstances might require, or that might result from the declaration of a state of international war!' Otlet has as appendix to his discussions the 'project for international government' reprinted below,2 to which the reader is referred.

In a work which has just appeared the Chinese Tchéou-Weï has likewise discussed the sanctions.3 He writes thus about the 'international rebellion':

Each time, after every appeal and every other resource has been exhausted, a state. . . refuses, expressly or tacitly, to apply or to execute the laws and judgements issuing legally from the league of nations, when this recalcitrant state has been a principal or a third party interfering with international justice, if after being summoned and put in suit, it still persists in its refusal, it will be declared a rebel state by the international tribunal, which has pronounced judgement upon it. This tribunal will, at the same time, pronounce one or several judicial restraints against the rebel. . .

1 Paul Otlet, in the Recueil de Rapports, vol. ii, p. 98.

2 Translator's note: [For Otlet's Project, see p. 226 et seq. of Nippold's Die Gestaltung des Völkerrechts nach dem Weltkriege. It is omitted in this translation.]

3Tchéou-Wei: Essai sur l'organisation juridique de la société internationale, 1917, pp. 74, 141 ff.

Tchéou-Weï demands, before all else, 'that institutions for the application of international justice be established'.

The following restraints could be applied separately, simultaneously, or even all at once, by the international tribunal according to the circumstances, needs, and exigencies of the instance, and the real vital force of the states and nations against which the restraints were to be executed. We will enumerate them in the order of the seriousness of the measures.

1. General cessation by the other states of the commerce and the industry of war with the rebel state.

2. Temporary exclusion of the rebel state from one or all the existing international unions.

3. Stoppage of payment of credits due the rebel state by all other states. 4. Partial economic isolation of the rebel state,1

5. Temporary suppression of political, civil, commercial rights, &c., granted to those under the jurisdiction of the rebel state.

6. General breaking of diplomatic relations with the rebel state.

7. Exclusion of legislators, judges, superior officers, and administrative agents, officers of every rank, &c., of the rebel state from the public service of the world league until it submitted to international laws and judgements.

8. Complete economic isolation of the rebel state. A general boycott, the rebel state being held to indemnify the other states for all injuries and damages caused by such act.

9. General pacific blockade of the rebel state by the other states in its terrestrial, maritime, fluvial, and aerial domains.

10. Temporary or perpetual cancellation, by a judgement issuing from an international tribunal, of all the advantages of every sort and kind granted to the rebel state by the other states, in the treaties or conventions concluded between them, no matter what their date or purpose.

11. Attachment, seizure, sequestration, embargo, &c., by the other states, of all goods belonging to the rebel state and those subject to its jurisdictions, with a view to their preservation or as security, indemnity, or for purposes of legal or judicial confiscation.

12. Nullification by law (absolute and radical nullification) of all the advantages of every sort and kind obtained by the rebel state over one or more states in violation of international laws and judgements; treaties and conventions concluded by violence (threats of war, war) shall be void without notice.2. . .

1 This sanction is to consist primarily of the following:

1. Closing of the financial markets by all states.

2. Cancellation or suspension of loans already contracted for abroad by the rebel state.

3. Stoppage of certain categories of trade.

4. Closing of certain measures of communication.

2 The author remarks: 'We affirm here, by this essentially juridical restraint, the supremacy of law over force; the postulate right excels might' is on this occasion at least true and indubitable; arms and armies threaten, kill, seize everything, obtain everything by the desire of the stronger; one thing alone soars over them, rules them, disturbs them... it is law... this juridical supremacy we make known by this twelfth judicial restraint.'