The term 'sovereignty' was introduced into political science by Bodin in his celebrated work 'De la République,' which appeared in 1577. Before that time, the word souverain was used in France for any political or other authority which was not subordinate to any higher authority; for instance, the highest Courts were called cours souveraines. Now Bodin gave quite a new meaning to the old term. Being under the influence and in favour of the policy of centralisation initiated by Louis XI of France (1461-1483), the founder of French absolutism, Bodin defines sovereignty as the 'absolute and perpetual power within a State.' However, even Bodin was far from considering sovereignty to give absolutely unfettered freedom of action, for he conceded that sovereignty was restricted by the commandments of God and by the rules of the Law of Nature. Be that as it may, this conception of sovereignty once introduced was universally accepted; but at the same time the meaning of the term became immediately a bone of contention between the schools of publicists. And it is to be taken into consideration that the science of politics has learnt to distinguish between sovereignty of the State and sovereignty of the agents who exercise the sovereign powers of the State. According to the modern view sovereignty is a natural attribute of every independent State as a State; and neither the monarch, nor Parliament, nor the people can possess any sovereignty of their own. The sovereignty of a monarch, or of a Parliament, or of the whole people is not an original attribute of their own, but derives from the sovereignty of the State which is governed by them. It is outside the scope of this lecture to give you a history of the conception of sovereignty, it suffices to state the undeniable fact that from the time when the term was first introduced into political science until the present day there has never been unanimity with regard to its meaning, except that it is a synonym for independence of all earthly authority.

Now, do you believe that the independence of a State is really infringed because it agrees never to make war on account of a judicial dispute, and in case of a political dispute not to resort to arms before having given opportunity of mediation to International Councils of Conciliation? Independence is not boundless liberty of a State to do what it likes, without any restriction whatever. The mere fact that there is an International Law in existence restricts the unbounded liberty of action of every civilised State, because every State is prohibited from interfering with the affairs of every other State. The fact is that the independence of every State finds its limitation in the independence of every other State. And it is generally admitted that a State can through conventions—such as a treaty of alliance or of neutrality or others—enter into many obligations which more or less restrict its liberty of action. Independence is a question of degree, and, therefore, it is also a question of degree whether or no the independence of a State is vitally encroached upon by a certain restriction. In my opinion the independence of a State is as little infringed by an agreement to submit all its judicial disputes to the judgment of a Court and not to resort to arms for a settlement, as the liberty of a citizen is infringed because in a modern State he can no longer resort to arms on account of a dispute with a fellow citizen but must submit it to the judgment of the Court.

And even if it were otherwise, if the entrance of a State into the new League of Nations did involve an infringement of its sovereignty and independence, humanity need not grieve over it. The Prussian conception of the State as an end in itself and of the authority of the State as something above everything else and divine—a conception which found support in the philosophy of Hegel and his followers—is adverse to the ideal of democracy and constitutional government. Just as Henri IV of France said 'La France vaut bien une messe,' we may well say 'La paix du monde vaut bien la perte de l'indépendance de l'état.'

XIV. I have come to the end of this course of lectures, but before we part I should like, in conclusion, to touch upon a question which has frequently been put with regard to the proposal of a new League of Nations:—Can it really be expected that, in case of a great conflict of interests, all the members of the League will faithfully carry out their engagements? Will the new League stand the strain of such conflicts as shake the very existence of States and Nations? Will the League really stand the test of History?

History teaches that many a State has entered into engagements with the intention of faithfully carrying them out, but, when a grave conflict arose, matters assumed a different aspect, with the consequence that the engagements remained unfulfilled. Will it be different in the future? Can the Powers which enter into the League of Nations trust to the security which it promises? Can they be prepared to disarm, although there is no guarantee that, when grave conflicts of vital interests arise, all the members of the League will faithfully stand by their engagements?

These are questions which it is difficult to answer because no one can look into the future. We can only say that, if really constitutional and democratic government all the world over makes international politics honest and reliable and excludes secret treaties, all the chances are that the members of the League will see that their true interests and their lasting welfare are intimately connected with the necessity of fulfilling the obligations to which they have submitted by their entrance into the League. The upheaval created by the present World War, the many millions of lives sacrificed, and the enormous economic losses suffered during these years of war, not only by the belligerents but also by all neutrals, will be remembered for many generations to come. It would therefore seem to be certain that, while the memory of these losses in lives and wealth lasts, all the members of the League will faithfully carry out the obligations connected with the membership of the League into which they enter for the purpose of avoiding such a disaster as, like a bolt from the blue, fell upon mankind by the outbreak of the present war. On the other hand, I will not deny that no one can guarantee the future; that conflicts may arise which will shake the foundations of the League of Nations; that the League may fall to pieces; and that a disaster like the present may again visit mankind. Our generation can only do its best for the future, and it must be left to succeeding generations to perpetuate the work initiated by us.

INDEX