The Washington herald., 1916-01-04
The Future Of international Law.

do. that there should be an international police for
the preservation of peace in the world, and those
who maintain at least actas II they maintained
that beIligerent necessities must in all cases be
paramount neutral rights. enjoy common
basis upon which they set their respective argu-
ments. In the past occasions arose where neutral
nations were permitted to perform certain acts
even though those acts might be inimical to the
interests of some bellgerent long before neutral
ity as a status was recognized. This was matter
Of convenience. 1t was easier to let a powerful
noncombatant have his own way than to annoy
And because the human mind has natural ten
dency to order and an inherent respect for prece-
dent these occasions of neutrality" began to be
limited to well-dehned conditions of fact. 1t still
remained question to be decided in each
between the begerent and the neutral, whether
the former would recognize any rights of the
latter, but If the recognition extended it gen
orally covered MISUNDERSTOOD field of activity
And gradually the recognition itself came to be
taken for granted and the right to be neutral on
principle and to exercise certain other rights in
pursuance of such neutrality considered as
having existed at all times
All this in theory. In actual practice the will
ingness of the noncombatant to fight for the main
tainance of what he assumed to be his rights re-
manned the criterion not only of the extent of
those rights but of their very existence. In the
case of the belligeren the other hand, perform
ance never lived up to principle. For the princi-
pie usually established in times of peace, while
its inconvenience remained to be discovered by
the belligerent broke out again
I..a
bled man walking in a slippery place. 1t pro-
gressed a yard in time of peace and fell back two
feet in time of war. At the commencement of the
present war it had not progressed very far Only
the international lawyers know how little has been
done by any but the English speaking countries,
the only countries whose judicial systems
founded upon precedent, to establish a scientific
body of rules to govern international relations in
time of war. And in the present war the basic
conflict between the claims of neutrals and bellger-
ents has been renewed with its customary sharp
ness. New conditions have arisen which the
trails maintain must not be allowed to curta any
of their existing privileges, while the belligerents
claim that the existing rules must be extended to
meet the conditions, to the end that their
operations shat not be nterfered with. And in
the last analysis the whole argument revolves
about the question of whether nation has a right
to be neutral. F.....
In debating this question it mu:. be admitted
that the belgerent has the best of thu argument
though one would naturally expect the reverse to
be the case. The reason is that the begerent's
necessity is nearly always the greater. He says
in effect, 81 fighting for my life. 1t will pay
me better to have you openly enlisted in the ranks
of my enemies than that under cover of neutrality
you should insist upon doing acts injurious to me
that l could prevent you from doing if you were
an enemy" The only answer that the neutral can
make to this argument is, 81 will fight you to es-
tsblish my right to do this and that" To which
the beligerent will reply, "Very we'll. Fight on
whichever side you choose. But in doing you
prove my point, which is that belligerency is the
natural condition neutrality the artificial and the
latter must always give way to the former"
An excellent illustration of this phase of the
situation is offered by the present war. If the
United States were determined to compel Great
Britain to lift her blockade of Germany to the
extent Of making war on her if necessary and on
the ground that this country is being discrimi-
mated against in favor of Sweden and Norway,
whose trade with Germany the allies cannot pre-
will declare war on Norway and Sweden" And
to the Scandinavian countries she would say "I'm
sorry have to declare you, but the
United States insists upon it. However, we will
not actually undertake any hostile action against
you beyond exercising the right (Which we are
already exercising, but. according to the United
States, illegally of stopping shipment of goods
through your ports to Germany" What could the
United States do then? We, could hardly demand
OF Britain that she wage really active war against
the Scandinavian countries. Nor could we any
longer insist that the blockade of Germany is H.
legal We could, of course, demand a cessation
of the blockade in any event, but that would simply
be entering the war for our own selfish ends.
This illustration shows rather clearly that the
willingness of neurals to get into the fight is the
real basis of any rights they may claim, and is the