the South American countries, in Louisiana, in Quebec, and in South Africa, until a large portion of the world is governed by law whose principles and practices are determined in accordance with those of the Roman Code of Justinian. Thus, by means of a highly organized and efficient empire, and by means of the system of law embodied in the Corpus Juris Civilis, Rome has profoundly influenced the political institutions of modern times.

Feudalism.-As the political control of Rome weakened and the uncultured tribes of the north overran southern Europe, a condition of political anarchy prevailed, in which the restraining influence of the Church and the power wielded by the great barons alone tended to preserve a semblance of peace and order. It is not surprising that the peacefully inclined and intellectually minded of this period entered the monasteries, which were protected from the rigors and hardships of political turmoil and perpetual warfare. Neither were the lawlessness and strife which were indulged in by the pirates and marauders and encouraged by the barons in preying one upon the other conducive to the development of commerce and industry or to the establishment of a settled political order.

The Teutonic tribes from the north did not have any fixed form of political organization. The tribe, as in early Greece and Rome, was the unit of political control, and at times these tribes united to form temporary confederacies.. Among the political contributions of the Teutons were (a) recognition of the great importance of the individual, with emphasis upon his rights and privileges as opposed to the control of the state; (b) a new type of popular assembly with the beginning of the modern representative idea; (c) a self-developing law, later systematized in the Teutonic codes and in the growth of the common law of England. As the tribes began to occupy a territory with fixed geographical boundaries and to live in accordance with established laws, the medieval state was formed. Out of this condition of political chaos of the early middle

ages evolved the mediæval king or monarch. By combining the powers wielded by the emperors in Rome and some of the authority exercised for many centuries by the popes and bishops, the kings managed gradually to suppress feudal disorder and anarchy, and to create therefrom a power strong enough to establish unity. In this manner were laid the foundations of the mediæval state. When the idea of the personal relation of the Teuton to his chief became blended with the Roman concept of control over a particular portion of land, the tribal lord was changed into the territorial sovereign, who asserted and maintained political and economic control by means of a military caste. The subject population went into the monasteries or became serfs attached to the land, the latter being exploited by the knights and soldiers. This transformation of tribal lords into territorial sovereigns was accomplished first in France and England, and was gradually completed in the other countries of western Europe.

For a long time, the idea of a universal dominion, such as that wielded by Rome, continued to hold sway over men's minds. After the Roman Empire disintegrated, the Catholic Church, under the direction of the Papacy, appropriated the idea of a unifying power, and aimed to hold Europe together under an ecclesiastical dominion. "The Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church were, according to medieval theory, two aspects of a single Christian monarchy whose mission it was to shelter beneath its wings all the nations of the earth." With the expanding powers of the Church and its system of canon law, the rising monarchs came into clash with the popes and their representatives until by warfare and civil strife the kings established themselves as supreme in political and in religious matters. Nevertheless, the mediæval world-empire lived on as an idea until the beginning of the nineteenth century. But, by rendering the states politically independent, the Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, temporarily ended the effort to create a world state. "That

peace set the final seal on the disintegration of the worldempire at once of pope and emperor, and made possible the complete realization of the doctrine of Grotius, the doctrine of the sovereignty of states."1

THE NATIONAL STATE

The national state had its origin in the strife for supremacy among the barons. Some forged ahead of others and by means of war, intrigue, negotiations, and every device known to selfishness and adventure managed to strengthen their power and to establish, under the title of king, their dominion over large areas. As the champion of the rising spirit of racial unity, the monarchs appeared as the protectors of the rights of the lower classes against the grasping powers of the manorial lords.

Since the downfall of feudalism, political development in Western Europe has come by means of and through the agency of the national state. Through wars and resulting conquests, through diplomacy often based on cunning and trickery, and through peaceful expansion along commercial and industrial lines, the earth's surface has been almost entirely appropriated and settled by a small group of such national states. For a long time it was thought that it was better to use force and trickery than to deal openly and aboveboard, and that the prince or ruler need not be scrupulous about fulfilling his promises when it was found convenient not to do so. In the state, the law of self-preservation prevailed and no scruples of honesty or right were to be regarded when self-interest dictated otherwise. In the course of time, however, settled customs and practices grew up in the exchange of and in the conduct of diplomats, in the reciprocal rights and privileges granted to citizens, and even in the rules and regulations which were supposed to be followed in the conduct of warfare. These rules and regulations have grown into a generally 1T. A. Walker, The Science of International Law (London, 1893), p. 57.

accepted body of customs which form the basis for modern diplomacy and international relations.

The modern state is built on the concept of nationalism, which assumes that each state is sovereign—that is, independent of every other state. Nationalism is based primarily on two concepts. The first is comprised in the notion of benevolent despotism whereby a people aims to gain territory and extend its dominions for the purpose of political control and economic domination. Such domination in the conduct of the affairs of modern times is known as commercial imperialism. The second concept is the outgrowth of the self-consciousness of people who are more or less homogeneous in blood, language, religion, and custom. This concept is represented to-day in the doctrine of the self-determination of nations. Current opinion usually accepts the nation as the best and highest possible development in the political world. In the words of a noted exponent of this theory, "nature has decreed that the struggle for survival shall be in groups. The national group is the only one suited to cope with conditions."1 One of the fundamental principles of nationalism is that each state regards itself and its ideals as superior and thinks that it has a peculiarly important mission to perform. Each state believes that its highest duty is to survive and to spread the ideas and ideals which are regarded as its peculiar heritage.

Modern national states are conceived as involving certain essential rights and duties. The first right is that of existence-i.e., the right of self-preservation and defense. This right is the basic principle of state existence, and justifies the taking of such measures as may seem necessary for the safety and defense of the state itself and for the preservation and integrity of its territory. To this right is attached a corresponding duty to respect the existence and the rights of other states. The second right is that of 1 Cf. Karl Pearson quoted in Edward Krehbiel, Nationalism, War, and Society (The Macmillan Company, 1916), chap. i.

sovereignty or independence. This right, so far as external relations are concerned, is subject to many limitations as a result of comity, agreement, and treaties on international affairs. Such limitations are especially important in semisovereign states, neutralized states, or states under some form of protectorate.

The following rights are based upon that of sovereignty and independence:1

1. To establish, maintain, and change the form of government. This involves the right of revolution.

2. To enter into treaties and alliances.

3. To make and change laws and to see to their administration.

4. To exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territory, subject to certain exceptions applicable to foreign sovereigns, diplomatic agents, and public ships.

These rights imply certain duties, such as the duty of nonintervention in the affairs of other nations and the duty to respect the rules and customs of international law. Forcible intervention, which was rather common in the former relations of states, is now usually condemned and is no longer justifiable, unless in cases where crimes have been committed or where international interests of great importance are endangered.

The third right of a national state is equality before the law. As expressed in the terse words of Chief-Justice Marshall, "Russia and Geneva have equal rights. It results from this equality that no one can rightfully impose a rule on another. Each legislates for itself, but its legislation can operate on itself alone." While, as a matter of fact, states like individuals are not equal, and though great states wield much greater power and influence in international affairs than do smaller states and often disregard the rights of the weak and smaller states, neverthe

In the preparation of this summary of the rights of states, we are indebted to A. S. Hershey, The Essentials of Public International Law (The Macmillan Company, 1912), chap. ix.

2 The Antelope (1825), 10 Wheaton, 65 at 122.