The Washington times., 1915-12-29
REIoN OF Law, OR anarchy


No man in the world is better
postured to discuss the international
consequences of the war than Elihu
Root. His attitude is tnat of de-
tachment and calm consideration.
He knows his theme; knows the diff
ficulties and the possibilities of the
effort to establish reign of inter
national law; knows the attitudes
of many governments toward it&
Just a little while ago the idea
Of parliament of man seemed but
the fantastic vision OF poetic
dreamer. Today the world recog-
nizes that after this conflict there
must almost inevitably be either in
ternational law, strong and en-
forceable, or international anarchy.
Which shall it be?
If international anarchy shall win
the war, it will undertake to inn
pose international tyranny on the
countries. There will be revolt
against such terms, and chaos will
result. If on the other hand the
supporters of order and law shall
prevail they may be expected to
take steps that will insure the
future against militarism running
amuck in this world.
The menace OF unbridled ambition
coupled with unrestrained audacity
and unlimited privilege to build the
machinery of conquest, has been
proved. The world has been shown
small enough and feeble enough to
face a very crisis in it's civilization
because little group of megalo-
maniacs conceived their destiny to
rule a universe. 1t would have
seemed preposterous a few years
ago; today the world trembles lest
it may be realized.
Mr.. Root rightly insists that
there can be but one protection
against such a menace; and that -
the rule of world-law backed by
world-power consolidated and con-
trolled sufficiently to insure that the
crime shall never again be dared.
Mr.. Root states the case thus:
The war began by a denial on the
part of very great power that
treaties are obligatory when II is no
longer for the interest of either of
the parties 10 observe them. The
denial was followed by action sup"
ported by approximately one-half the
military power of Europe, and Is ap.
parently approved by a great number
of learne dstujentS and teachers or
international law. citizens OF the
countries supporting the view.
This situation naturally raises the
question whether eNecutory treaties
will continue to be made II they are
not to be binding, and requires con-
sideration of q system of law under
which no conventional obligations are
recognized. The particular treaty
which was thus set aside was declara.
tory Of the general rule of interna-
tional law respecting the inviolabilitV
of neutral territory, and the action
which ignored the treaty also avow-
edly violated the rule of law, and the
defense is that for such a violation
of the law the present interest of the
sovereign state is justification.
When this war Is ended the
civilized world will have to determine
whether what we call international
law is to be continued as a mere code
of etiquette or is to be real body OF
laws imposing obligations much more
definite and inevitable than they have
been heretofore. 1t must be one thing
or the other. Vague and un.
certain as the future must be, there
Is some reason to think that after
the terrible experience through which
civilization Is passing there will be a
tendency to strengthen rather than
abandon the law of nations.
Yes, there is "some reason to
think" that after the var there will
lie a tendency to strengthen the law
Of nations. There is exactly as
much reason to think thai will hap
pen, as there is to think that the
powers which are fighting for the
overthrow Of militarisn and ter
rorism will prevail. Just SO much
and no more,