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.