in the reconstruction of international society is to continue the work of the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 and 1907, particularly the meeting of such a conference at stated intervals for the gradual and progressive codification of international law. But we must at all costs avoid in the future the error committed by these conferences, the attempt to make all institutions and all legal rules of universal application, without distinguishing, as is often necessary, between groups of countries, schools, or continents. They regarded it as a settled principle that the lack of uniformity and universality of institutions and legal rules encouraged individualism, and no real society of nations could exist. At these conferences the fact became evident that all countries do not understand all legal rules in the same way; and instead of bringing out these divergent conceptions, classifying them, and grouping the different countries under the systems which they each followed, they attempted an absolute unification of theories by making compromises with the different opinions and by forming what was called a media sententia. This aim, apparently so satisfactory, was not attained; many States did not ratify these Conventions and when any serious controversy arises, espe

cially at the present time, each reverts to its former theories and ideas, and the so-called uniformity exists on paper only.

A different course must be followed in future. Obviously in many matters there are universal rules, sanctioned by the consent of all States,

but in many others no such agreement exists, and the present war, if, on the one hand, it has unified the theories of the countries of the same group, has, on the other, brought out many divergencies between the two groups. Our task is then to seek out and to show the diversity of theories or of rules on every subject. Thus we shall know whether or not a rule is really universal, and if not, what are the various theories that exist and what countries hold them. There will be no danger in this, and in any case it will be preferable to the present system where differences exist which we try to hide, wishing to give the impression that every rule has the unanimous consent of all the States. When the diversity of doctrines has been brought out, relations between States will be based upon these divergent systems; that is to say, each will take into consideration-as it does at present, but more easily than at present-the conceptions of the others; and it will hereafter be the task of time and of circumstances to find the true uniformity and universality of legal rules.

THE

HE chief effect of Mr. Wilson's policy is not going to be felt during this war, but in the future. At the beginning of his administration he emphasized the fact that in a democracy public opinion was a bigger factor than armies and navies. If all Europe emerges from this war as democratic as seems possible now one can see that Mr. Wilson has already laid the foundation for future international relations between free people and republican forms of governments. This war has defeated itself. It is doubtful whether there ever will be another world war because the opinion of all civilized people is mobilized against war. After one has seen what war is like, one is against not only war itself but the things which bring about war. This great war was made possible because Europe has been expecting and preparing for it ever since 1870 and because the governments of Europe did not take either the people or their neighbors into their confidence. President Wilson tried to show while he was president that the people should be fully informed regarding all steps taken by the Government. In England where the press has had such a

tussle to keep from being curbed by

an autocratic censorship the world has learned new lessons in publicity. The old policy of keeping from the public unpleasant information has been thrown overboard in Great Britain because it was found that it harmed the very foundations of democracy.

International relations in the future will, to a great extent, be moulded along the lines of Mr. Wilson's policies during this war. Diplomacy will be based upon a full discussion of all international issues. The object of diplomacy will be to reach an understanding to prevent wars, not to avoid them at the eleventh hour. Just as enlightened society tries to prevent murder so will civilized nations in the future try to prevent wars.

Mr. Wilson expressed his faith in this new development in international affairs by saying that "the opinion of the world is the mistress of the world."

The important concern to-day is: How can this world opinion be moulded into a world power?

Opinion cannot be codified like law because it is often the vanguard of

FOR

OR more than a century, the subject of international organization has been discussed. It has, within the past two decades, had the earnest attention of two international conferences, whose conclusions have been registered in negative resolutions and in affirmative acts evidenced by international conventions, and whose published proceedings and debates afford a sound basis for study and constructive inference.

A survey of this long process of consideration and action shows that it has always been realized, in a general way, that the fundamental question to be determined, before any real, permanent and effective international organization can be effected, is, whether the international body which must inevitably be instituted as the agency through which the

This article has been prepared in response to a request by the Editor of this magazine for "a condensed statement of the proposal made" by the author in a paper on "International Legislation and Administration," read by him May 29, 1917, at the National Conference on the Foreign Relations of the United States, held at Long Beach, N. Y., under the auspices of the New York Academy of Political Science. (See Proceedings of the Conference, Vol. I, pp. 86-53). In that address an "International Directorate" was proposed and outlined. In pursuance of the request, the author has made this article an exposition of this proposed international institution, rather than a literal abstract of that paper; giving the considerations advanced in the original paper regarding the proper structure, operation and probable beneficial effect of an international directive body, and also adding other considerations which have been evoked by criticism and discussion.

society of nations expresses itself, ought to be endowed with power to use physical force against the nations, or not. The experiences of the great war, by compelling public attention to the psychical as well as the physical phenomena incident to the actions and relationships of human societies, have stimulated and clarified the public perception of the facts and needs of the society of nations. It now seems possible to state the issue in a scientific form, and by the application of the established methods of scientific inquiry, to reach a conclusion on this issue which will appeal to the common conscience and intellect as being sound and correct.

As a suggestion towards the scientific statement of the issue, the following is offered:

All human societies fall within two great and permanent classes. Those in which the members empower the society to use both the collective conciliative and physical force of the society to accomplish its ends, which are called societies of the state form, constitute one class: all other societies, which use only conciliative force to accomplish the ends of the society, constitute the other class. To this second class no generic name has been given by established usage, but, for present purposes, they will be described as societies of the cooperative form. The agency by which a society of the state form expresses itself is called generically a govern

ment. The agency by which a society of the cooperative form expresses itself has as yet received no generic name, by established and authoritative usage; but, in view of the common use of the word directorate to describe generically the agency by which our business and social societies express themselves, and in view of the appropriateness of the word from its derivation, the word directorate is, for present purposes, adopted for this purpose.

The fundamental issue in international organization may, if the above statement is accepted as correct, be thus stated-Ought the society of nations to be organized as a state, and thus under an international government, or as a cooperative society, and thus under an international directorate?

If the society of nations were to be organized as a state, there would be instituted an international government, which, like all other governments, would be endowed with the power to use the collective conciliative force of the society by means of institutions and processes of persuasion and conciliation, and would also be endowed with the power to use the collective physical force of the society through institutions and processes of armament-an international army, navy and police, and the paraphernalia incident to them.

If the society of nations were to be organized as a cooperative society, there would be instituted, as in all societies other than those of the state form, an international directorate, which, like a government, would be

endowed with power to use the collective conciliative force of the society by means of institutions and processes of persuasion and conciliation, but which would differ from a government in that it would not be endowed with the power to use the collective physical force of the society.

More specifically, the issue is: In the accomplishment of the object for which the society of nations exists,— namely, the maintenance of international order and progress,-which is likely to be the more effective and safe, an international government or an international directorate?

So far as this issue can be said to be settled by the action of international conferences in the past, it is settled in favor of an international directorate. The Russian circular which led to the calling of the first Hague Conference proposed two methods of improving international organization-limitation of national armaments by international agreement, and extension of international persuasive and conciliative processes by international agreement. Limitation of national armaments by international agreement involved the consideration of two plans-self-renunciation of armament by the nations, or the conveyance by the nations to an international government of an exclusive power of armament. debates on this subject disclosed that armament was something incapable of mensuration or limitation, each national armament being the product of the collective emotions of the nation operating upon all its physical resources as potential armament;

The