understanding between nations upon which peace depends." In view of these provisions Francis Lieber could not write in a war code today, that " the law of nations allows every sovereign government to make war upon another sovereign state." The theory of absolute and unlimited sovereignty of nations must be so far modified as to make it fall into harmony with the actual relationship between nations as it is established by the Covenant. The members limit their sovereignty in regard to making war. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that any action of intervention is taken by the League acting as a unit. If it intervenes at all, it will do so only when a condition arises which falls within the category of matters which the members have agreed in advance that the League might act upon.

Neutrality. The second of President Wilson's fourteen points declared that there must be "absolute freedom of the seas in peace or war except as they may be closed by international action." This conception was formed before the League of Nations had been much discussed; it contemplated the world in the old condition when there was no concerted action and each nation acted for itself. Upon arriving at Paris, however, President Wilson himself admitted that he would have to throw overboard this point because under the League there would be no neutrality.2 Not the question of freedom of the seas alone, but those concomitant questions such as contraband and continuous voyage are affected by the abolition in certain cases of neutrality. The essential condition necessary for freedom of

1 U. S. Army, General Orders, No. 100 (1863), Art. 67.

2 G. S. Adam (London Times-Public Ledger Cable Service), Boston Evening Transcript, Feb. 26, 1919: "President Wilson recently remarked to a group of American journalists, that when he placed the question of the freedom of the seas among the fourteen points it never struck him that under the League there would be no neutrals and that consequently the question of neutral rights would not arise."

the seas is the allowing of private property to move on the seas in time of war as in time of peace. This of course involves the question of contraband. By Article XVI of the Covenant the members agree that they will "mutually support one another in resisting any special measures aimed at one of their number by the covenant-breaking member and to afford passage through their territory to the forces of any members of the League which are coöperating to protect the covenants of the League." This means that freedom of passage will be given in territorial waters as well as over land. No question as to landing at neutral ports in the course of a continuous voyage, or of the violation of neutral territory by the passage of belligerent troops, would arise. Each member of the League has, by agreeing to Article XVI, surrendered its right to remain neutral, in so far, at least, as economic, financial and trade sanctions are concerned. It must abide by its agreement to employ these sanctions. The military, naval and air forces are furnished by each member at discretion, but neutrality is destroyed by the use of the other sanctions.

It is seen by this examination that certain attributes of sovereignty formerly possessed by each member of the League as it stood aloof from all others, have been voluntarily transferred or delegated to the organs of the League. The most important of these are: the right of conquest; the right to make war at will; and the right in all cases to remain neutral. The general change effected by the Covenant is thus expressed by Dr. Quincy Wright, a leading younger student of international law:

66

'... The Covenant when put into operation will modify international law, though less in its specific rules than in certain assumptions upon which they have heretofore been supposed to rest.

"By accepting the league, states recognize that their existence depends upon the general maintenance of law, and consequently that they must prefer the claim of that law for defense, as against the lure of an immediate national profit. Thus, though international law will continue to aim at preserving the independence and autonomy of states, it must assume its own preservation is more important. It follows that international law can no longer be conceived by text writers as a series of deductions from an assumed fundamental right of states to exist.' The responsibility of states to assure the existence of the law will have to be conceived as even more fundamental. . . .

The Covenant recognizes that states cannot survive where sovereignty can override the law. As the price of existence, states must accept definite responsibilities for the maintenance of law. Should this conception, about to be formally accepted, become instinctive in our civilization, the time might come when the chapters on war and neutrality, which overburden textbooks on the law of nations, could be relegated to historical appendices.” 1

The peculiar status of Switzerland as a permanent neutral is continued under the League. The Versailles Treaty (Article 435) recognizes that the new régime established by the League of Nations creates a situation in which the old guarantees in Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Paris, 1815, and Article 92, paragraph 1, of the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna "are no longer consistent with present conditions." Note is taken of the agreement reached between the French and the Swiss Governments "for the abrogation of the stipulations relating to this zone [Savoy] which are and remain abrogated."

1 "Effects of the League of Nations Covenant," American Pol. Sci. Review, Nov., 1919, pp. 556, 557, 565.

But "the high contracting parties recognize the guarantees stipulated by the treaties of 1815, and especially by the Act of 20th November, 1815, in favor of Switzerland, the said guarantees constituting international obligations for the maintenance of peace. . . .” 1

Switzerland made clear that she understands that the signatories to the Versailles Treaty supersede the signatories to the treaties of 1815, as guarantors of the neutralized zones. In a note to the French Government, May 5, 1919, which is incorporated into the annex to Article 435 of the treaty, the Swiss Federal Council declared that "the assent given by the Swiss Government to the abrogation of the above-mentioned stipulations presupposes, in conformity with the text adopted, the recognition of the guarantees formulated in favor of Switzerland by the treaties of 1815 and particularly by the declaration of 20th November, 1815." 3

1 Versailles Treaty, Article 435.

2 Italics mine.

In acceding to the League Switzerland agreed to employ the economic sanction required in Article XVI.

CHAPTER IX

THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS

THE League of Nations establishes the central authority that was lacking in the structure of The Hague. The Covenant provides that the Council of the League shall recommend what action shall be taken to give effect to arbitral awards and unanimous (excluding disputants) reports by the Council itself.

66

As early as 1910, Mr. Roosevelt suggested some such arrangement as that actually adopted in the Covenant. It would be a master stroke," he said, "if those great powers honestly bent on peace would form a League of Peace, not only to keep the peace among themselves, but to prevent, by force if necessary, its being broken by others. The supreme difficulty in connection with developing the peace work of The Hague arises from the lack of any executive power, to enforce the decrees of the courts." No less forcefully has Mr. Root expressed a similar conviction.

66

Laws," he said, "to be obeyed to be obeyed must have sanctions behind them; that is to say, violations of them must be followed by punishment." After referring to force as a sanction he describes the potency of public opinion because "of the terrible consequences which come upon a nation that finds itself without respect or honor in the world and deprived of the confidence and good-will necessary to the maintenance of intercourse." 2

1 Nobel Peace Prize address, Christiania, Norway, May 5, 1910.

* Presidential address, "The Outlook for International Law," delivered before the American Society of International Law, Washington, Dec. 28, 1915.