pretext. The struggle having started, international law undertakes to prescribe rules regulating the conduct of it, much as the now discarded code of private warfare regulated duelling. The warring nations have a fixed character as belligerents, and are accorded the right to interfere with the business of their non-combatant neighbors in many ways on the ground of military necessity. Neutral nations must submit to have their commerce restricted in order that the combatants may carry on the struggle. The Hague Conventions and the Declaration of London, to which all the leading nations taking part in the great war were parties, gave definiteness and binding force so far as international agreement can do so, to the laws regulating warfare on sea and land, yet it would be difficult to point out any important provision in these Conventions that has not been violated, not only once but many times during the struggle.

Until very recent times the growth of governments and governmental agencies stopped at the supreme power in the nation, and such agencies as it saw fit to establish in foreign countries by permission of their local governments. This growth has usually centered around the military combination through which mastery at home is maintained and the enforcement of rights or claims against other states is made. In historical accounts of the rise of states military organization and achievement hold first place. Patriotism is a virtue almost universally lauded. It is generally regarded as ending in devotion to the interests of ones own country, and many appear to think that its merit is enhanced by hatred of a nation or race with which the nation comes in conflict in the advancement of its apparent material interests. Yet it is not difficult to perceive that in a country like the United States patriotism has a far different meaning from what it had in a little Greek city state. Here the city, whether a little country town or the great metropolis, is of minor importance, and never thought of as the object of patriotic devotion. With the increase of business and social intercourse state boundaries have become of minor importance, and, when we consider that the people of the United States have gathered in from all na

tions and races on the earth, and that some of our fellow citizens are closely related to the people of all other nations, it becomes evident that our concern for others cannot stop even at the boundaries of the nation. Our citizens travel and have business dealings in every nation, and we are therefore directly interested in the peace, good order, and welfare of the people in all parts of the earth. We have just been drawn into the greatest war of all time because the right of our people to cross the sea with their goods was ruthlessly invaded under a claim of belligerent right. Thus we find that true patriotism calls for more than devotion to our own country, and makes the welfare of the whole world the object of our care. The community of states, like a community of persons, has its common interests. As it regards international relations, the theory of ultimate and absolute sovereignty in the nation is palpably false, as clearly so as the claim of sovereignty in each member of the small community would be. Manifestly the right of each is restricted by the corresponding right of each other. There is the same need of laws agreed upon, published, and understood for the government of nations in their dealings with each other that there is for municipal law governing the relations of individuals. How shall such laws gain expression, how shall they be given sanction? Manifestly by the general consensus of all the peoples, for we know of no higher test of the justice of laws than the judgment of all the people whom they affect.

Though many writers on the subject of international law express their views concerning the justice and injustice of the rules they discuss, no writer asserts that all the rules which he regards as recognized law are just or nearly so. His criticisms of the rules which are regarded as law are generally designed to induce the modification of them or the adoption of better ones. By this process of discussing the merits and` demerits of prevailing doctrines and practices much has been done to educate the world and induce rulers to advance their standards of conduct to a nearer approximation to ethical principles. This process of evolving law by the reasoning of publicists is slow and uncertain, and is so recognized by the/

writers themselves. Grotius recognized the need of some more authoritative expression of it. He says "It would be useful, and indeed it is almost necessary, that certain congresses of Christian Powers should be held, in which controversies which arise among some of them may be decided by others who are not interested; and in which measures may be taken to compel parties to accept peace on equitable terms." The Congress he suggests it will be observed is not so much. for the purpose of establishing rules governing the relations of states as of settling particular controversies between them. Vattel speaks of congresses for like purposes. Legislation by representative bodies was not carried on to such an extent in their time as of late. We shall consider hereafter in detail the Conventions adopted by the representatives of many nations, which may quite fairly be classed as pieces of internation legislation. These will show how rapidly the nations are coming to recognize the fact that ultimate earthly sovereignty lies outside the boundaries of any nation.

While as between nations international law has been without adequate sanction and mainly dependent on its inherent moral force and the consensus of world opinion for its observance, within each of the leading nations it has been given definite and binding form in many particulars among its people by legislative enactments and the judicial decisions of its courts which become binding in the particular case and precedents for like cases at home and abroad. Cases involving the same question have been presented to the courts of many nations, and where all concur in maintaining the same rule it may fairly be regarded as the settled law. Great numbers of such cases have been considered by the courts of the leading countries, but unfortunately there is still much diversity of opinion among them on many questions, and no tribunal exists that has power to harmonize differences or correct errors. Each of the great nations has its court of last resort, vested with power to review and reverse the rulings of lower courts which are not in accordance with its views of the law. In this 5 Grotius, De Jure, B. 2, Ch. 23, § X, Art. 4.

6 Vattel, 278.

manner the law is made uniform within the nation, but this uniformity cannot be enforced beyond its boundaries.

AMBASSADORS AND DIPLOMATIC AGENTS

Ambassadors both in peace and in war were employed by the ancients, but only for special missions to transact particular business intrusted to them. Ministers resident at the court of a foreign power are not mentioned in ancient history. Though the Athenians and Spartans put the ambassadors of Darius, who came to demand earth and water in token of his supremacy, to death, the Spartans afterward acknowledged that in doing so they had committed a heinous crime. The general rule was that while on their missions the persons of ambassadors were inviolable and they were entitled to hospitable treatment even by enemies. When the particular business was concluded their mission was ended and they returned to their home country.

The modern system of ambassadors resident at the seat of government of the foreign state developed in the 16th and 17th centuries. Ambassadors were at first regarded with distrust by some nations as being in fact spies, but the practice of sending and receiving them became firmly established after the peace of Westphalia. Their legal status is now quite definitely fixed by the law of nations and very generally respected.

The governmental agencies through which international dealings are carried on are now well defined and very similar in all nations. Each government has a department of foreign relations at the head of which is a minister, variously named, who is a member of the cabinet. In the United States the Secretary of State is at the head of the department of foreign affairs. In the cabinets of most European states there is a member called the Minister of Foreign Affairs. All dealings with foreign nations are ordinarily carried on through the department of Foregn Affairs. The executive head of each nation appoints such diplomatic officers to represent it at the 7 Herod, VIII, 136. Theuc. Lib. II-67. Code of Manu, Ch. 7-63-64. 81 Kent, 15. Taylor, Sec. 274.

I

seats of government of other nations as it sees fit. The larger nations all make such appointments to each of the other principal nations. Some of the smaller ones do not maintain a general system of foreign embassies. Diplomatic officers have been given rank and classification in the following order: I. Ambassadors, Papal Legates or Nuncios.

2. Envoys, Ministers and other agents accredited to sovereigns.

3. Ministers resident accredited to sovereigns.

4. Charges d' Affaires accredited to the minister of foreign affairs. The distinctions between these classes relate to diplomatic precedence and etiquette rather than to essential powers or rights under international law.10 The appointment of diplomatic officers is made by the sovereign or executive head of the government. In the United States it is made by the President, confirmed by the Senate.

Ambassadors and other diplomatic agents are absolutely free from allegiance to the nation to which they are accredited, and are not subject to its laws or the jurisdiction of its courts. Their persons are inviolable." These immunities are declared by statute in England1 and the United States.13 The immunity continues for a reasonable time after his recall or dismissal. The privileges and immunities of an ambassador extend to his family and the members of his official household.1 The equipage, property and house of the ambassador are entitled to the same immunity as his person.

14

While each nation is free to appoint such persons as it sees fit as its representatives at a foreign capital, the government to which they are accredited is not bound to receive them if they are personally obnoxious. To decline to receive an ambassador on the ground that he is persona non grata is not re

15 U. S. v. Benner, 24 Fed. Cases 14,568. Taylor v. Best, 14 C. B. 20.