The League of Nations and Its Problems: Three Lectures

What is Internationalism?

Internationalism is the conviction that all the civilised States form one Community throughout the world in spite of the various factors which separate the nations from one another; the conviction that the interests of all the nations and States are indissolubly interknitted, and that, therefore, the Family of Nations must establish international institutions for the purpose of guaranteeing a more general and a more lasting peace than existed in former times. Internationalism had made great strides during the second part of the nineteenth century on account of the enormous development of international commerce and international communication favoured by railways, the steamship, the telegraph, and a great many scientific discoveries and technical inventions. But what a disturbing and destroying factor war really is, had not become fully apparent till the present war, because this is a world war which interferes almost as much with the welfare of neutrals as with the welfare of belligerents. It has become apparent during the present war that the discoveries and developments of science and technology, which had done so much during the second half of the nineteenth century for the material welfare of the human race during peace, were likewise at the disposal of belligerents for an enormous, and hitherto unthought-of, destruction of life and wealth. It is for this reason that in the camp of friend and foe, among neutrals as well as among belligerents, the conviction has become universal that the conditions of international life prevailing before the outbreak of the World War must be altered; that international institutions must be established which will make the outbreak of war, if not impossible, at any rate only an exceptional possibility. The demand for a new League of Nations has thus arisen and peremptorily requires fulfilment.

VIII. However, in considering the demand for a new League of Nations, it is necessary to avoid confusing nations with States. It should always be remembered that, when we speak of a League of Nations, we do not really mean a League of Nations but a League of States. It is true that there are many States in existence which in the main are made up of one nation, although fractions of other nations may be comprised in them. But it is equally true that there are some States in existence which include members of several nations. Take as an example Switzerland which, although only a very small State, nevertheless comprises three national elements, namely German, French, and Italian. Another example is the British Empire, which is a world empire and comprises a number of different nations.

That leads me to the question: What is a nation?

A nation must not be confounded with a race. A nation is a product of historical development, whereas a race is a product of natural growth. One speaks of a nation when a complex body of human beings is united by living in the same land, by the same language, the same literature, the same historical traditions, and the same general views of life. All nations are a mixture of several diverse racial elements which in the course of historical development have to a certain extent been united by force of circumstances. The Swiss as a people are politically a nation, although the component parts of the population of Switzerland are of different national characters and even speak different languages. Historical development in general, and in many cases force in particular, have played a great part in the blending of diverse racial elements into nations; just as they have played a great part in the building up of States. The demand that every nation should have a separate State of its own—the ideal of the so-called national State—appears very late in history; it is a product of the last two centuries, and it was not till the second half of the nineteenth century that the so-called principle of nationality made its appearance and gained great influence. It may well be doubted whether each nation, be it ever so small, will succeed in establishing a separate State of its own, although where national consciousness becomes overwhelmingly strong, it will probably in every case succeed in time either in establishing a State of its own, or at any rate in gaining autonomy. Be that as it may, it is a question for the future; so much is certain, what is intended now to be realised, is not a League of Nations, but a League of States, although it is called a League of Nations.

IX. However, no League of Nations is possible unless the Central Powers, and Germany in especial, are utterly defeated during the World War, and that for two reasons.

One reason is that a great alteration of the map of Europe is an absolutely necessary condition for the satisfactory working of a League of Nations. Unless an independent Poland be established; unless the problem of Alsace-Lorraine be solved; unless the Trentino be handed over to Italy; unless the Yugo-Slavs be united with Servia; unless the Czecho-Slovaks be freed from the Austrian yoke; and unless the problem of Turkey and the Turkish Straits be solved, no lasting peace can be expected in Europe, even if a League of Nations be established.

The other reason is that, unless Germany be utterly defeated, the spirit of militarism, which is not compatible with a League of Nations, will remain a menace to the world.

What is militarism? It is that conception of the State which bases the power of the State, its influence, its progress, and its development exclusively on military force. The consequence is that war becomes part of the settled policy of a militarist State; the acquisition of further territory and population by conquest is continually before the eyes of such a Government; and the condition of peace is only a shorter or longer interval between periods of war. A military State submits to International Law only so long as it serves its interests, but violates International Law, and particularly International Law concerning war, wherever and whenever this law stands in the way of its military aims. The whole history of Prussia exemplifies this. Now in a League of Nations peace must be the normal condition. If war occurs at all within such a League, it can only be an exceptional phase and must be only for the purpose of re-establishing peace. It is true a League of Nations will not be able entirely to dispense with military force, yet such force appears only in the background as an ultima ratio to be applied against such Power as refuses to submit its disagreements with other members of the League either to an International Court of Justice or an International Council of Conciliation.

X. Be that as it may, in a sense the League of Nations has already started its career, because twenty-five States are united on the one side and are fighting this war in vindication of International Law. These States are—I enumerate them chronologically as they entered into the war:—Russia (the Bolsheviks have made peace, but in fact one may still enumerate Russia as a belligerent), France, Belgium, Great Britain, Servia, Montenegro, Japan, San Marino, Portugal, Italy, Roumania, the United States, Cuba, Panama, Greece, Siam, Liberia, China, Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Haiti, Honduras. Besides these twenty-five States which are at war with the Central Powers, the following four States, without having declared war, have broken off diplomatic relations with Germany, namely: Bolivia, San Domingo, Peru, Uruguay.

Now there may be said to be about fifty civilised States in existence. Of these, as I have just pointed out, twenty-five are fighting against the Central Powers, four have broken off relations with Germany, the Central Powers themselves are four in number, with the consequence that thirty-three of the fifty States are implicated in the war. Only the seventeen remaining States are neutral, namely: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Spain, Lichtenstein, and Monaco in Europe; Mexico, Salvador, Colombia, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay in America; and Persia in Asia.

It may be taken for granted that all the neutral States, and all the States fighting on the side of the Allies, and also the four States which, although they are not fighting on the side of the Allies, have broken off relations with Germany, are prepared to enter into a League of Nations.

But what about the Central Powers, and Germany in especial? I shall discuss in my next lecture the question whether the Central Powers are to become members of the League. To-day it must suffice to say that, when once utterly defeated, they will be only too glad to be received as members. On the other hand, if they were excluded, the world would again be divided into two rival camps, just as before the war the Triple Alliance was faced by the Entente. No disarmament would be possible, and with regard to every other matter progress would be equally impossible. Therefore the Central Powers must become members of a League of Nations for such a League to be of any great use, which postulates as a sine qua non that Germany must be utterly defeated in the present war. If she were victorious, or if peace were concluded with an undefeated Germany, the world would not be ripe for a League of Nations because militarism would not have been exterminated.

XI. I have hitherto discussed the League of Nations only in a general way, without mentioning that there is no unanimity concerning its aims or concerning the details of its organisation. Many people think that it would be possible to do away with war for ever, and they therefore demand a World State, a Federal State comprising all the single States of the world on the pattern of the United States of America. And for this reason the demand is raised not only for an International Court and for an International Council of Conciliation, but also for an International Government, an International Parliament, and an International Army and Navy,—a so-called International Police.

I believe that these demands go much too far and are impossible of realisation. A Federal State comprising all the single States of the whole civilised world is a Utopia, and an International Army and Navy would be a danger to the peace of the world.

Why is a World State not possible, at any rate not in our time?

No one has ever thought that a World State in the form of one single State with one single Government would be possible. Those who plead for a World State plead for it in the form of a Federal State comprising all the single States of the world on the pattern of the United States of America. But even this modified ideal is not, in my opinion, realisable at present. Why not? To realise this ideal there would be required a Federal Government, and a Federal Parliament; and the Federal Government would have to possess strong powers to enforce its demands. A powerless Federal Government would be worse than no government at all. But how is it possible to establish at present a powerful Federal Government over the whole world? How is it possible to establish a Federal World Parliament?

Constitutional Government within the several States has to grapple with many difficulties, and these difficulties would be more numerous, greater, and much more complicated within a Federal World State. We need democracy and constitutional Government in every single State, and this can only be realised by party Government and elections of Parliament at short intervals. The waves of party strife rise high within the several States; no sooner is one party in, than the other party looks out for an opening into which a wedge can be pushed to turn the Government out. In normal times this works on the whole quite well within the borders of the several States, because the interests concerned are not so widely opposed to one another that the several parties cannot alternatively govern. But when it comes to applying the same system of Government to a Federal World State, the interests at stake are too divergent. The East and the West, the South and the North, the interests of maritime States and land-locked States, the ideals and interests of industrial and agricultural States, and many other contrasts, are too great for it to be possible to govern a Federal World State by the same institutions as a State of ordinary size and composition.

The British World Empire may be taken as an example to show that it is impossible for one single central Government to govern a number of States with somewhat divergent interests. We all know that the British Empire comprising the United Kingdom and the so-called independent dominions, namely Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, is kept together not really by the powers of the British Government but by the good will of the component parts. The Government of the United Kingdom could not keep the Empire together by force, could not compel by force one of the independent dominions to submit to a demand, in case it refused to comply. The interests of the several component parts of the British Empire are so divergent that no central Government could keep them together against their will. Now what applies to the British Empire, which is to a great extent bound together by the same language, the same literature, and the same Law, would apply much more to a Federal State comprising the whole of the world: such a Federal State, so far as we can see, is impossible.

XII. But what about an International Army and Navy?

It is hardly worth while to say much about them. Those who propose the establishment of an International Army and Navy presuppose that the national armies and navies would be abolished so that the world Government would have the power, with the help of the International Army and Navy, at any moment to crush any attempt of a recalcitrant member of the Federal World State to avoid its duties. This International Army and Navy would be the most powerful instrument of force which the world has ever seen, because every attempt to resist it would be futile. And the Commander of the International Army and the Commander of the International Navy would be men holding in their hands the greatest power that can be imagined.

The old question therefore arises: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? which I should like here to translate freely by: Who will keep in order those who are to keep the world in order? A League of Nations which can only be kept together by a powerful International Army and Navy, is a contradiction in itself; for the independence and equality of the member States of the League would soon disappear. It is a fact—I make this statement although I am sure it will be violently contradicted—that, just as hitherto, so within a League of Nations some kind of Balance of Power only can guarantee the independence and equality of the smaller States. For the Community of Power, on which the League of Nations must rest, would at once disappear if one or two members of the League became so powerful that they could disregard the combined power of the other members. Every scheme of this movement must therefore see to it that no member of the League is more armed than is necessary considering the extent of its territory and other factors concerned. But be that as it may, an International Army and Navy is practically impossible, just as a Federal World State is impossible.

XIII. Yet while a Federal World State is impossible, a League of Nations is not, provided such league gives itself a constitution, not of a state-like character, but one sui generis. What can be done is this: the hitherto unorganised Family of Nations can organise itself on simple lines so as to secure, on the one hand, the absolute independence of every State, and, on the other hand, the peaceful co-existence of all the States.

It is possible, in my opinion, to establish an International Court of Justice before which the several States engage to appear in case a conflict arises between two or more of them which can be judicially settled, that is, can be settled by a rule of law. There is as little reason why two or more States should go to war on account of a conflict which can be settled upon the basis of law, as there is for two private individuals to resort to arms in case of a dispute between them which can be decided by a Court of Law.

Again, although there will frequently arise between States conflicts of a political character which cannot be settled on the basis of a rule of law, there is no reason why, when the States in conflict cannot settle them by diplomatic negotiation, they should resort to arms, before bringing the conflict before some Council of Conciliation and giving the latter an opportunity of investigating the matter and proposing a fair compromise.

Under modern conditions of civilisation the whole world suffers in case war breaks out between even only two States, and for this reason it is advisable that the rest of the world should unite and oppose such State as would resort to arms without having submitted its case to an International Court of Justice or an International Council of Conciliation.

XIV. In my opinion the aims of a League of Nations should therefore be three:

The first aim should be to prevent the outbreak of war altogether on account of so-called judicial disputes, that is disputes which can be settled on the basis of a rule of law. For this reason the League should stipulate that every State must submit all judicial disputes without exception to an International Court of Justice and must abide by the judgment of such Court.

The second aim should be to prevent the sudden outbreak of war on account of a political dispute and to insist on an opportunity for mediation. For this reason the League should stipulate that every State, previous to resorting to arms over a political dispute, must submit it to an International Council of Conciliation and must at any rate listen to the advice of such Council.

The third aim should be to provide a sanction for the enforcement of the two rules just mentioned. For this reason the League should stipulate that all the member States of the League must unite their economic, military, and naval forces against such member or members as would resort to arms either on account of a judicial dispute which ought to have been settled by an International Court of Justice, or on account of a political dispute without previously having submitted it to an International Council of Conciliation and listened to the latter's advice.

These should be, in my opinion, the three aims of a League of Nations and the three rules necessary for the realisation of these aims. However, it is not so easy to realise them, and it is therefore necessary to face and solve four problems: There is, firstly, the problem of the Organisation of the League; secondly, the problem of Legislation within the League; thirdly, the problem of Administration of Justice within the League; and fourthly, the problem of Mediation within the League—four problems which I shall discuss in the two following lectures.

I have only named three aims and four problems because I have in my mind those aims which are the nearest and those problems which are the most pressing and the most urgent. The range of vision of the League of Nations, when once established, will no doubt gradually become wider and wider; new aims will arise and new problems will demand solution, but all such possible future aims and future problems are outside the scope of these lectures.

Second Lecture

ORGANISATION AND LEGISLATION OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

SYNOPSIS

I. The Community of civilised States, the at present existing League of Nations, is a community without any organisation, although there are plenty of legal rules for the intercourse of the several States one with another.

II. The position of the Great Powers within the Community of States is a mere political fact not based on Law.

III. The pacifistic demand for a Federal World State in order to make the abolition of war a possibility.

IV. Every attempt at organising the desired new League of Nations must start from, and keep intact, the independence and equality of the several States, with the consequence that the establishment of a central political authority above the sovereign States is an impossibility.

V. The development of an organisation of the Community of States began before the outbreak of the World War and is to be found in the establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague by the First Hague Peace Conference of 1899. But more steps will be necessary to turn the hitherto unorganised Community of States into an organised League of Nations.

VI. The organisation of the desired new League of Nations should start from the beginning made by the Hague Peace Conferences, and the League should therefore include all the independent civilised States.

VII. The objection to the reception of the Central Powers, and of Germany especially, into the League.

VIII. The objection to the reception of the minor transoceanic States into the League.

IX. The seven principles which ought to be accepted with regard to the organisation of the new League of Nations.

X. The organisation of the League of Nations is not an end in itself but only a means of attaining three objects, the first of which is International Legislation. The meaning of the term 'International Legislation' in contradistinction to Municipal Legislation. International Legislation in the past and in the future.

XI. The difficulty in the way of International Legislation on account of the language question.

XII. The difficulty created by the conflicting national interests of the several States.

XIII. The difficulty caused by the fact that International Statutes cannot be created by a majority vote of the States. The difference between universal and general International Law offers a way out.

XIV. The difficulty created by the fact that there are as yet no universally recognised rules concerning interpretation and construction of International Statutes and ordinary conventions. The notorious Article 23(h) of the Hague Regulations concerning Land Warfare.

THE LECTURE