ant amount of power, including as a factor intelligent coöperation, are humanly supreme in that they can enforce their collective will throughout the earth. That dominant body of individuals possesses the World Sovereignty and is itself the World Sovereign.

If the opinions of those writers, who maintain that the state possesses the sovereignty or that the state is preëxistent to sovereignty, are accepted as correct, any discussion of World Sovereignty prior to the actual organization of the entire human race into a universal political state would be illogical; but, following the conclusions reached in the preceding series of Notes, that there is a sovereign before there is a state, that the organization of a state is an act of sovereignty, and that the existence of a community is conclusive evidence of the existence therein of superior physical force, i.e., of sovereignty, the very conception of a World Community compels the recognition of a World Sovereign and of World Sovereignty.

THE IDEA OF A WORLD STATE

The first positive and direct expression of World Sovereignty must of necessity be the organization of a World State, which presumably will be of a federal character for two reasons, first, because the world is already divided into organized groups of individuals forming political states, and, second, because the federal state is the most highly developed political organism of modern civilization. The idea of a World State is not new; in fact prior to Grotius the idea was general; but under the artificial sovereignty of the Middle Ages it was substantially an impossibility. Today, however, based upon a higher conception of sovereign authority and a more enlightened code of political ethics, the idea is gathering new force.

Bluntschli says:

It will take many centuries to realize the Universal State. But the longing for such an organized community of all nations has already revealed itself from time to time in the previous history of the world. Civilized Europe has already fixed her eye more firmly on this high aim. . . . Meanwhile unconquerable time itself works on unceasingly bringing the nations nearer to one another, and awaking the universal consciousness of the community of mankind; and this is the natural preparation for a common organization of the world. . . . Only in the universal empire will the true human state be revealed, and in it international law will attain a higher form and an assured existence. To the universal empire the particular states are related, as the nations to humanity."

In the last sentence quoted the idea of the writer that the "universal empire' will have a federal organization is brought out, but, since he gives the state precedence of sovereignty, he could not logically consider World Sovereignty as existing until the World State is in esse. Accepting the conclusions reached in the previous Notes that sovereignty is coëxistent with the community, and that the state is one of the manifestations of sovereignty, it is impossible to recognize the Community of Mankind without acknowledging the existence of World Sovereignty.

2 Bluntschli, Theory of the State, 3d Edition, pp. 26, 31, 32.

INDEPENDENCE OF STATES

This sovereignty, which as yet lacks positive and direct expression, may be seen by a survey, from the broader point of view, which has been assumed of the external sovereignty of a state. Independence is the outward manifestation of such sovereignty. As was said in the Note upon Independence,3 real sovereignty in a state must possess that attribute. This assertion needs no further proof of its correctness than the statement. When sovereignty is viewed from within the State, it is easy to understand and evident in the various phenomena of society; but, when two or more states, each with an independent sovereign, come into opposition so that the wills of their sovereigns do not harmonize, and each sovereign attempts to be independent and to exercise exclusive sovereignty, the state of affairs resulting is paradoxical, for manifestly two supreme authorities cannot exist within the same sphere.

Take, for example, the specific instance of two states territorially contiguous, one of which is physically stronger than the other and could, if it so willed and was not prevented by other states, destroy the sovereignty of its weaker neighbor by depriving it of independence. In the instance given, is not the weaker state dependent upon the volition of the more powerful for its independence? Or, if the more powerful is restrained from aggression by the fear that other states might intervene, is not the weaker state dependent upon the combined physical force of these other states for its independence? Can there be such a thing as dependent independence? Under such conditions, what becomes of the reality of the independence of the sovereign of the weaker state, and what becomes of the reality of its sovereignty?

The answers to these questions are obvious. The idea is thus stated by Bluntschli: "If a state is compelled to recognize the political superiority of another it loses its sovereignty and becomes subjected to the sovereignty of the latter" (Bluntschli, p. 506). And again: "If a state were responsible for the exercise of its sovereignty to another state, its sovereignty would thereby be limited” (Ibid., p. 509). The conclusion is that, no matter how real sovereignty in a state may be when viewed from the standpoint of the state itself, it is not 3 This JOURNAL, Vol. 1, p. 297.

4 In this and in subsequent places where the sovereignty and independence of a state are spoken of, the phrases are used for the sake of brevity. In all such cases it should be understood that the sovereignty and independence of the sovereign of the state are intended.

5 "According to the definition of an independent political society which is stated or supposed by Hobbes in his excellent treatises on government, a society is not a society political and independent, unless it can maintain its independence, against attacks from without, by its own intrinsic or unaided strength. But if power to maintain its independence by its own intrinsic strength be a character or essential property of an independent political society, the name will scarcely apply to any existing society, or to any of the past societies which occur in the history of mankind. The weaker of such actual societies as are deemed political and independent, owe their precarious independence to positive international morality, and to the mutual fears or jealousies of stronger communities. The most powerful of such actual societies as are deemed political and independent, could hardly maintain its independence, by its own intrinsic strength, against an extensive conspiracy of other independent nations." (Austin, Principles of Jurisprudence, 5th Edition, London, 1885, p. 187.)

real in fact but artificial unless the sovereign of that particular state possesses the physical force which, if exercised, can compel obedience from all mankind throughout the world. Doubtless the sovereign of the Persian, the Macedonian, or the Roman Empire, as each in its turn attained the zenith of its glory and might, may have reasonably claimed real sovereignty even in the broader sense and maintained the claim against the united strength of all other peoples; but in later centuries the Saracens, Charlemagne, and Bonaparte attempted and failed to establish an empire and obtain universal sovereignty. In the past one hundred years no state has become so powerful as to hope, much less has had the temerity to assert, that it could hold its sovereignty supreme and independent against a coalition embracing the other states of the world.

ARTIFICIAL CHARACTER OF SOVEREIGNTY IN A STATE

It is evident from the foregoing that the sovereignty in every modern state lacks the essential of real sovereignty, namely independence. Sovereignty, as it exists in a state, stands in much the same relation to the supreme might of the world that civil liberty stands in relation to the sovereign power in a state. From the broader point of view, therefore, the sovereignty in a state is dependent upon the collective physical force of mankind, or rather upon the collective will of those, whether considered as political groups or as individuals, who possess the preponderance of such force, and who are because of such possession actually independent. In the case of this dominant body all the essential qualities and attributes of real sovereignty are present, but it is unorganized, undetermined, and necessarily variable, composed of a multitude of individuals who are members of numerous states and offset against one another by race, national allegiance, and other differences. But what individuals and what states enter into the composition of this sovereign body are equally uncertain from the fact that this World Sovereignty has never been directly exercised by the possessors or by an agent directly authorized by them to carry out their sovereign will.

The artificial character of the sovereignty in a state when compared with the reality of World Sovereignty, while demonstrable by abstract reasoning, may be also proved by reference to concrete facts.

History furnishes numerous instances of the loss and restoration of sovereignty in a state-lost through the exercise of physical force external to the state and superior to that within the state, and against the will of the sovereign of the state; and restored by the voluntary act of the possessor of the superior external force or under the coercive influence of other external forces, and not by the physical might within the state itself. Such evidence is conclusive of the fact that the sovereignty in a state is artificial and that the independence of its sovereign, though asserted by it and acknowledged by other states, is not real and self-maintained.

To illustrate the force of this evidence, a few examples will suffice.

An event in recent history belonging to this particular class of proof was the result of the Franco-German War in 1871. After French sovereignty and independence had been swept away by the victorious armies of Germany, the sovereignty and independence were restored by the conquerors in exchange for

the undertaking of the French Government to pay a large war indemnity and the cession of Alsace-Lorraine. This restoration was the voluntary act of the possessor of a physical force proven by actual demonstration to be superior to any such force within the French state. Clearly the sovereignty and independence of the latter rested for their continuance upon the will of the victor, or possibly upon the fear of Germany that continued possession would arouse the hostility of other European Powers. In either case, French sovereignty and independence lacked reality and were manifestly artificial.

A similar example of conquest and restoration was presented in the war between the United States and Mexico. The military forces of the United States overthrew the Mexican Government and acquired the sovereignty of the republic, but it was voluntarily restored upon Mexico agreeing to certain conditions. Mexico could not have secured such restoration by its own power. Mexican sovereignty was, therefore, dependent upon the will of the conquerors; and, since it was dependent and not independent, it was artificial.

Another class of historical evidence, cumulative but not identical with the preceding, is that which is presented by the existence of such states as Belgium and Luxemburg, which have sovereigns apparently independent and supreme, because the sovereigns of the great European Powers by mutual agreement permit such independence upon the express understanding that in case of wars between the guarantors these states shall remain neutral.

None of these neutralized states possesses in itself sufficient physical force to maintain even for a brief period its sovereignty and independence in case it should be attacked by one of its powerful neighbors. They rely upon the jealousies existing between the surrounding nations to preserve their political and territorial integrity. Clearly the sovereignty in a state of this sort depends upon the collective will of foreign sovereigns, or upon their several sovereign wills acting separately but harmoniously to secure the same end.

Further evidence of the same character is derived from the political status of certain of the Balkan States and Hawaii prior to its annexation to the United States. It would be irrational to claim that in any one of these so-called independent states there is a sovereign capable of maintaining independence solely through the possession and exercise of physical force. It is evident from their history and from their present condition that such states exist as distinct selfgoverning communities solely because other states, whose political and commercial interests are involved, cannot agree that any of their number should extend its dominion over the territory of the lesser states and absorb its sovereignty over their people.

Similar proof may be seen in the present international condition of Turkey and China, whose helplessness among the nations has been long a recognized political fact, though it may not continue in the future.

The Turkish Empire, differing so widely in its governmental system, moral standard, and religious belief from the Christian nations of Europe, which are vastly more powerful than it is, continues as a so-called sovereign and independent state because of the rivalries of the European Powers, which view with distrust and disfavor any manifestation by one of their own number of an intent The Turkish Empire, differing so widely in its governmental system, moral

to deprive the Ottomans of their sovereignty. Concerted action by the civilized Powers has become the established policy of Europe in dealing with Turkey.

The present physical weakness of China in spite of its immense population and great resources was demonstrated a few years ago during the Boxer outbreak. When at the close of that extraordinary event the Imperial Government was reestablished and Chinese sovereignty was restored by the victorious allies, that sovereignty was clearly dependent upon the consent of the various Powers, whose forces occupied Peking. That they voluntarily surrendered the sovereignty to the Chinese was because they preferred that it should be retained within the Chinese state rather than that it should be held by one or more of their own number who would become thereby dominant in the Far East. Again selfish interests are shown to be the controlling factor in maintaining the political independence of a state physically weak.

In fact, the conflicting ambitions and mutual suspicions of powerful nations, neutralizing each other and forming a constant menace to the covetous and aggressive, keep in equilibrium the political condition of the world, becoming thus the uncertain preservers and guardians of helpless states. The European international doctrine of the Balance of Power and the American national policy of the Monroe Doctrine are practical manifestations resulting from this universal spirit of international distrust, which is so potent a factor in the politics of the world.

From these illustrations it is apparent how artificial are the sovereignty and independence which are assigned by international usage to a state, feeble and powerless though it be to repel the hostile act of any one of the great national states of the world.

As has been said, no single state, however vast its resources and population, could under existing conditions successfully withstand the combined and organized opposition of the rest of the states in the world, any more than one individual member of a modern state could maintain his absolute liberty against the collective will of his fellow members. In each case superior physical strength is lacking to the individual state or person, and without superior physical strength the result cannot be accomplished.

It may be said then that every state, whether strong or weak, whether great or small, whether rich or poor, whether civilized or barbarous, is in a sense a protectorate, a ward of the other states of the world, holding its political powers of them and responsible to them for its international conduct. In a word, every state is a member of the Community of Nations, wherein resides World Sovereignty, and which in the fullness of time will become, through the positive expression of that sovereignty, an organized political union, a Federal World State.

EQUALITY OF NATIONS

Having reached this point in the discussion, and having seen that a bond of interdependence makes of the states of the world something more than a mere collection of separate and independent units, each moving irresponsibly in its own distinct sphere; having seen that they in fact form an embryonic