seems most fitted to achieve the end. It may even be said that the universal and lasting establishment of Peace constitutes not a part only, but the whole final purpose and end, of the Science of Right as viewed within the limits of Reason. But there is need of caution as to the time and the means of action. We must take care lest by proceeding precipitately and in a revolutionary manner we destroy the existing defective constitution at the incalculable cost of annihilating, for some indefinite time, the whole foundation of law on which Society rests. But if we proceed by gradual reform, and are guided by certain clear and fixed principles, we may lead by continuous approximation to the highest political good: we may be led to Perpetual Peace.[1]
The teaching of Rousseau and the teaching of Kant, partly inspired by Rousseau, on this subject are in agreement in the essentials. One of the subtlest of intellects and one of the strongest agree that there can be no lasting security for right among nations, and no hope of Perpetual Peace, unless a supra-national disposition can be engendered and fostered that shall prevail over national inherited sentiment. This inherited sentiment is in itself good; without it there cannot be a nation. But this national sense of right and interest must be brought to subserve an international right and to contribute to the interest of all. There must be a League of Nations, and in that Federation the smaller States must be given adequate and, it may be, generous representation. The guardianship of the rights and interests of the smaller States must be a cherished function of such a League; the touchstone of its success will, to no small extent, be found in how it discharges that function. In its very nature such a League is supra-national; especially in the motive of its origin it is supra-national. The nations are in the League less as nations than as members of
- ↑ § 61 and the conclusion of Rechtslehre.
