The old idea of the independence of the State, mingled with that of sovereignty, prestige, and honor, and exaggerated by false patriotism, although limited more and more by conditions of civilization, is one of the main obstacles to the development of international organization and government.
The habit of holding conferences or congresses would get the people to expect international government and insist on it, and any country would hesitate long before refusing to agree to a conference.
The idea that sovereignty is destroyed because a nation is not absolutely independent belongs to the old régime, when many modern means of communication did not exist. In those days of comparative isolation there was reason for much independence, but now countries are so closely connected, as we have seen, that their independence and sovereignty are necessarily limited, while their interdependence has increased to such an extent that what benefits or injures one benefits or injures the other. Thus it is to the advantage of each State to give up some of its sovereignty, just as it is for the individual to give up some of his freedom to the community for privileges much greater than the loss of his so-called independence. It is well known how the States of our Union have gradually yielded more and more of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. Thus sovereignty decreases according to our law of the interdependence of States.
CAUSE OF WAR NOT NECESSARILY ECONOMIC.
It is frequently asserted that after all the main cause of most wars is rivalry in trade and commercial friction; in short, it is economic. But it is a curious fact that commerce and industry are the most insistent on international rules or law to reduce all friction to a minimum, for peaceful trading is a general benefit to all concerned.
It might be stated in this connection that in historical and political as well as physical science there is no one cause of anything, but a chain of causes; for the more we study the world, the closer we find it related; nothing is nor can be really alone. When we single out a cause we mean the predominant one, and which is the strongest link in the chain of causes becomes a matter of opinion, owing to our limited knowledge of international psychology.
Commercial systems of the world have brought nations closer together, but political relations have remained much the same; that is, the advances in diplomacy have been very few in comparison with the growth of economic relations which makes for peace rather than war.
NO INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT; NO LASTING PEACE.
That the lack of international government means international anarchy may be illustrated by some recent events. Owing to the struggle of Serbia for expansion, Austria feared the seizure of its own territory and loss of some of its population, and so refused to accept mediation, because the Hapsburg monarchy being reported declining, she must counteract this impression by showing vigorous action. The success of Austria would be regarded by Russia as a threat to herself, but a defeat of Austria by Russia would be a defeat for Germany, and a German defeat for Russia and France would be regarded as a defeat for England. Thus the lack of any international government or organization made cooperation for peace almost, if not quite, impossible. England might have said to herself, among other reasons, "If I stay out of the war, Germany may overrun France and Belgium, resulting in a union of the French and German Navies, but we are an island, and it would not do to risk the danger of such a combination."
Frontier questions have perhaps been the main cause of more wars in history than anything else. But in the course of events such questions have come to be settled without resort to force, which is a change from national to international government.