77/e' Future of International Law. from the fact that it tends to the sub stitution of reason for force in the settle ment of the differences and controversies that may arise among them. But in this very settlement, precedents are estab lished and rules are laid down which, by en larging the scope and giving definiteness to the doctrines of International Law, streng then in many respects the position of the weaker nations and place them more nearly on a plane of equality with their powerful neighbors, for every advance in the development of law and in its orderly admin istration, even though many of those affected by it have no part or influence in making it, tends to secure in a higher degree the rights of all, and the securing of rights is the promoting of equality. The Monroe Doctrine, a rigid insistence on which is so necessary to keep the United States free from the entanglements and com plications of European politics, is but a mat ter of policy; it is outside of International Law, not a part of it, and the necessity for its existence will grow less as the administration of the Law of Nations becomes of a more complete and binding character. This is shown in the very origin of the so-called doc trine and in every case where there has been actual call or need for its application. The establishment of The Hague tribunal was. perhaps, the most promising attempt to substitute reason in the place of force in in ternational relations since the appearance of the De Jure Belli ac Pacts. By the joint act of the great nations of the earth a perma nent court was established where their dis putes might be settled according to the dic tates of justice and humanity instead of be ing submitted to the barbarous arbitrament of war. To quote the words of Secretary Hay in his letter of instructions to the dele gates representing the United States: "The duty of sovereign -States to promote inter national justice by all wise and effective means is only secondary to the fundamental
325
necessity of preserving their own existence. Next in importance to their independence is the great fact of their interdependence. Nothing can secure from human government and for the authority of law which it repre sents so deep a respect and so firm a loyalty as the spectacle of sovereign and independ ent States, whose duty it is to prescribe rules of justice and impose penalties upon the law less, bowing with reverence before the august supremacy of those principles of right which give ro law its eternal foundation." Unfortunately, the result of this attempt to promote the reign of peace and justice has been, in the main, a great disappointment. Of the many questions, some of them of vital importance, that have arisen between nations since 1899, but two, and those of lesser moment, have been submitted to this tribunal. The causes of this neglect are not far to seek Every intelligent person will agree with Secretary Hay in his estimate of the ad vantages to mankind that might flow from this great international court; but as the present system of administration of our mu nicipal law is the growth of centuries, so there must be many more stages in the evo lution of present international conditions and relations before the promises of The Hague Tribunal can be realized. Despotism is better than anarchy. Law emanating from and imposed by superior physical force is better than no law at all. But there comes a time in the evolution of law when physical force ceases to be con structive, when it must give way to ultimate principles of right and justice if this evolution is to continue. International Law has reached this stage, and the building up of greater and greater armies and navies is as hostile to its further development as the arming of man against man or of family against family would be hostile to the devel opment of our present municipal law. To the militant nation that is superior in
