THE REALPOLITIKER AND THE IDEALPOLITIKER
Mr. David Jayne Hill, former American Ambassador to Germany, says, in a recent magazine article, that there are two antagonistic schools of thought regarding the application of moral principles to international affairs: First, the Realpolitiker, who hold that international rights have no other basis than superior strength—in brief, that Might makes Right. Second, the Idealpolitiker, who desire to place the entire international system upon the basis of strictly moral conceptions.
It is generally recognized by publicists that as a matter of fact there is at present no enforceable international law. There are certain rules for the conduct of war set up, but no means of enforcing them. And as for the matter of declaring war, there is absolutely no recognized restraint. One nation may declare war against another for revenge, for conquest, for subjugation, or for the purpose of restraining and crippling its trade. In short, international law as it exists to-day is nothing more than a system of ethics or public opinion. Public opinion often makes its influence felt in a nation, and may become enacted into enforceable laws. But there is no means of enforcing ethics as between nations, and any nation which feels itself strong enough to do so, may defy world opinion.
An international tribunal for Judicial Settlement, which we might call a World Supreme Court, established by the consent and coöperation of the great powers, could gradually erect a body of international law that would be both ideal and real. This is the only way in which international law will ever come to have any actual, positive, binding force.