applying force is the facility with which a government may make use of it as an excuse to cloak some extra-juridical, and hence purely political, design. This difficulty has led governments of good intention to call upon other governments to join with them in substituting joint intervention in place of their own independent action, because joint action is less likely to be for the purpose of abuse.

In the regulation of recent international difficulties there have been numerous instances of this collective action, as for example the action of the powers in China, 1901.

In the Austro-Servian dispute it was the peace power which Austria claimed the right to exercise in regard to Servia; but as her situation made it seem very probable that

stir up opposition and confirm the ignorant and the transgressors in their evil course. As a result of the war now in progress, the most rational supporters of this policy have modified their opinion, without giving up their belief in the necessity of an active propaganda for the peaceful settlement of international difficulties and the avoidance of all causes of strife. Many of these pacifists now believe that international peace can be secured only through the establishment of an international court backed up by an armed force supplied by the independent states. The advocates of this view fall into other errors almost as serious as those of the former non-resistance pacifists whom they replace. The organization of such an international force in the form generally proposed is entirely impracticable.

In the first place, it could hardly be made sufficiently powerful to impose its will without opposition upon the strongest states. A country like the United States would not, in the case of a fundamental question where its conscience was thoroughly aroused, yield to any organized force, though it were the combined armament of three great European powers. The mere anticipation that force will be applied stirs up passions which will yield only before an irresistible force, and such an irresistible force as exists in municipal affairs cannot at present be considered as a practical basis for the police force of an international organization. The states would fear that it might become a veritable international Prætorian guard. Even if we admit that such a force might be constituted, of sufficient strength to impose the decisions of the permanent international court upon all the world, international politics would center round the securing of the appointment of officers who, in the employment of the force under their control, would show a partiality for the partisans of certain opinions. For the present, the safest course to pursue is to establish a permanent international court, and leave the enforcing of its decrees to the public opinion of the world. In the last analysis, public opinion is always the force which exacts compliance with the decrees of every tribunal. (See John Bassett Moore: Opening Address at the 21st Lake Mohonk Arbitration Conference, 1915.)

her action would not be strictly limited to this function, but would cover a political purpose as well, the less interested powers came forward with various proposals, hoping to set in motion collective action for the proper application to Servia of the peace power. Austria and Germany, however, denied the right of the other states to interest themselves in the dispute. They thought that, since the other powers recognized that Servia was at fault, Austria should be allowed a perfectly free hand to impose upon Servia conditions which would guarantee for the future due respect for the rights of the Dual Monarchy. This stand would have been logical if Servia had been within the Austrian sphere of influence, as Austria seemed to believe should be the case.

9. Germany's nationalistic conception

While the coöperating empires were elaborating this vast machine of international control to protect the interests of civilization and maintain the peace of the world, Germany, having lately achieved her national unity, looked to the national state as the be-all and end-all of political achievement. This arrested conception of political philosophy has had important practical effects. It has made the Germans feel very bitter because all of the great German emigration of the past became absorbed in other political units and was lost as a factor in their national influence. Another serious consequence has been that, while the rest of the world is thinking in terms of international coöperation,1 Germany is actuated by ideals of national aggrandizement. The American mind can hardly understand how a German can look upon it as a benefit that heroic little Belgium should be destroyed, even though the German Empire prosper thereby. From the international point of view they are both useful administrative divisions or agents of

1 Cf. the arguments of the Athenians in their discussion with the Melians, Documents, post, chap. XIII.

humanity. On the other hand, if Germany had absorbed Turkey, enlightened opinion in England and elsewhere would quickly have agreed that she was merely taking up the administrative burden of the world and acting for the general good.

The political ideals of Germany and those which we have traced in the formation of the super-empire, being opposed, soon came into conflict. The rest of the world was not willing to turn back the hand of progress and return to the old ideas which they had left behind. Were the growing pains of the Venezuela Message, of the Fashoda incident, of the Dogger Bank to be so soon forgotten? They could not, if they would, have stemmed the onward march of a more perfect political organization on the basis of the supremacy of international over national laws.

Germany was at a parting of the ways, and had to choose between two courses. Either she could bend her policy toward the conservation of her resources, frankly recognizing the inevitable consequences of her geographical situation, which handicapped her in the rôle of a world state, or she could branch out into a policy of search after prestige, with the consequent modification of her situation. If she decided upon the first course, the corollaries would have been to attempt to reach some agreement with France to heal the still open wound of Alsace-Lorraine, and, instead of resisting their expansion, to support England and France in all action tending to affirm and solidify their established control over their extensive dominions. To this end she would have stood with England for a most rigid adherence to the binding force of treaties, and she would have coöperated with England, France, and the United States in the gradual and reasonable extension of obligatory arbitration and the rapid improvement of the procedure of international relations. She would have reverted to that ancient treaty negotiated by her King Frederick the Great and the philosopher Franklin to make

inviolate private property at sea. The strengthening of the ties between the great empires would have made it possible for Germany to bring to bear a strong influence for the "open door" and the lowering of tariffs throughout the world.

However, Germany gave her decision for the opposite course, and determined to create for herself a larger "place in the sun." Especially she aspired to acquire part of the colonies preempted by the empires earlier on the field. With such aims it was natural that she should oppose every tendency which strengthened the status quo. She went as far as possible in denying the binding force of international law in general.1 She was unwilling to see international obligatory arbitration embrace the relations of all the states, and she did everything to enhance the respect for might as the foundation of right to hold. She pushed her armaments, and commenced building a great navy, to protect her world-wide commerce. By refusing to work for the adoption of a rule establishing the inviolability of private property at sea, the German Government accepted the responsibility for leaving the vast German merchant fleets at the mercy of the chance of war. The only object was to stimulate enthusiasm for an extensive naval equipment and to make it possible to strike England's weakest

1 Of course the diplomatic representatives of Germany have not stultified themselves by proclaiming such a theory, but in Germany we find much support for the thoroughly untenable and elsewhere discredited theory of Kriegsraison, according to which the laws of war may be set aside in the case of military necessity. A recent illustration of this peculiar nationalistic myopia is found in an article by the distinguished German professor of international law, Dr. Niemeyer, of Kiel University, whose article is translated in the Michigan Law Review for January, 1915. He maintains that the 1839 treaty for the neutralization of Belgium must yield before this Kriegsraison.

Germany admits the existence of rules of international law, but has in general resisted the development of institutions for their effective enforcement. The result of this policy would be to leave the international law rights of the weak at the mercy of the strong, and to make the strong judge in his own case. We should have, as a consequence of this system, as many different systems of international law as there were powerful states, which shows the reductio ad absurdum of the German contention.

spot. Germany hoped to be able in case of war to threaten England's communications and food supply.

In this pursuit of prestige and national expansion, Germany was anxious to acquire new territories, but as she came late into the field, there was very little left for her to glean. Wherever she turned she found some European power well established; and since she had no thought of being barred by this preemption of the face of the earth, she had to consider where best she could secure the land she coveted. There were several possibilities. She would have preferred, of course, to avoid a conflict with England, and at first turned her thoughts in other directions. There was the great basin of the Congo; but England and France preferred that the King of Belgium should retain its control, rather than have Germany thrust in between them. To have seized the Dutch possessions would again have involved England. From all of South America Germany was shut out by the Monroe Doctrine unless she would do battle with the United States. Accordingly, she directed her attention toward the possessions of the Sublime Porte, and with the help of her able ambassador at Constantinople, the late Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, was able to acquire and maintain an ascendancy over the Turk. It is much to be regretted that the opposition which the other powers were able to exercise at Constantinople was successful in thwarting the development of her plans. This caused Germany to look toward Morocco. Thence she had to withdraw before the combined opposition of England and France. These various checks to Germany's diplomatic policy embittered her citizens and produced a state of mind largely instrumental in influencing her Government to take the uncompromising attitude which was the immediate cause of the war.

Germany, like the vigorous organism that she is, felt the life throb in her veins, a consciousness of strength to do. Her superabundant vitality was evident through her