CHAPTER X.

WANT OF AN INTERNATIONAL NATION.

How, I shall probably continue to be asked, as Dr Bluntschli1 has asked me, can there be an international government, when there is no international people to govern? How can there be an international legislature, judicature, and executive, when there is not a single international man? To this objection the answer is obvious. If there is not an international man, neither is there a national man. So long as there are two nations in the world, every citizen of each of them must eo ipso be an international man, and cannot eo ipso be only an international man. In order that he may be either national or international, he must be both; and must be governed, or must govern himself, in both capacities. If there were an international population, in the sense of persons who belonged to no existing nation, they would form another nation, which would either become a claimant for international recognition, or else would remain outside the sphere of internationality altogether. Denationalised internationality is as much a contradiction in terms as denationalised nationality. An international government, as such, can consequently be in no other hands than those of the representatives of separate nations. To cosmopolitans, if we had them, its object would be un1 Kleine Schriften, p. 293

intelligible. It was for this reason that the Romans had no international law.

But the difficulty is not got rid of by this negative answer. Though international functions cannot be performed, except by nationals and for nationals, it does not follow that they can be performed by them or for them. An international government may be impossible, on the ground that as international duties and interests are inseparable from national duties and interests, international government may be inseparable from national government. To this, again, the answer is, that separate national government is not found to be impossible on the ground that national duties and interests are inseparable from international duties and interests. If the impossibility of isolation does not exclude separate national organisations, why should it exclude a separate international organisation? If intercourse be inevitable, and there be no separate international agencies, it must be possible to such joint agencies as national and international life supply. In proposing that separate international functions should be intrusted to an international body composed of national elements, we are conforming, moreover, to existing arrangements, and in so far the question is solved for us already. The diplomatists who conduct the everyday intercourse of States, and who, on special occasions, meet in congresses and conferences, are neither more nor less national than the members of the international government which we seek to establish. That the international agents whom we desiderate would represent the legislative as well as the executive departments of States, whilst existing diplomatists represent only the executive departments of States, makes no difference in this respect.

Farther, one of the most important and valuable results which we should anticipate from the establishment of a separate international government, would be the training of a class of officials in each State devoted to international affairs, and capable of regarding them apart from national prejudices and those traditions of exclusive self-interest which are often dignified with the name of patriotism. International politics is a branch of political activity which, except to the very limited extent to which it is overtaken by diplomatists, has hitherto been intrusted to occasional volunteers from the national ranks. No one has embraced it as the business of his life. Under the arrangement which we propose, the cosmopolitan service would become the most ambitious career in which young men of talent could engage; it would appeal to the imagination far beyond either diplomacy or the Indian civil service, and would speedily be embraced by those who were most gifted by nature and most favoured by fortune. Moreover, as the diminution of warlike expenditure would provide means for renumerating international officials on the most liberal scale, there can be little doubt that its judicial as well as its political appointments would be eagerly sought after, and would attract the highest ability. That the scheme, if once understood, would be embraced with enthusiasm by the members of the legal profession everywhere, is an anticipation for the realisation of which we have to look no higher than to their sense of self-interest. It is not a new nation but a new profession that we want, corresponding to the new interests and duties which result from the recognition of the interdependence of States. So far one can see one's way.

CHAPTER XI.

WANT OF AN INTERNATIONAL LOCALITY.

1

By way of obviating this difficulty I formerly suggested that Constantinople, which, in consequence of the political incapacity of the Turks and other historical causes, had become res nullius gentis, should be declared to be res omnium gentium -the commune forum of nations, and the centre of international life. Since this suggestion was made, the national claims of Greece have come more prominently into view, and there now seems to be a possibility of this branch of the Eastern question receiving a solution which would not have the effect of giving a preponderating position to any one of the great Powers. Believing, as I do, that the progress of humanity, and the cause of international organisation, as one of the main factors of that progress, demand a wider and more equal distribution of international power than at present exists, I have rejoiced at the political resuscitation of Italy, and shall rejoice still more should Greece and Spain succeed in reasserting their position as first-rate Powers.

But even if the national aspirations of the Greeks should receive the fullest realisation which the ethnological conditions of Eastern Europe and Western Asia render possible, would it not be still a question whether nature and history have not

1 "Denationalisation of Constantinople, and its devotion to international purposes."-Introductory Lecture, 1876-77.

pointed out for Constantinople and its immediate surroundings another destiny than that of becoming the capital of Greece and the centre of Greek nationality? If we put aside the resurrection of the Eastern Empire in Greek hands as a project which is finally excluded by the growth of the Slavonic element, would not Athens fully serve the purposes of a capital to any separate Greek kingdom which could possibly arise? Would it not continue to be true that the cosmopolitan character which nature seems to have stamped on Constantinople has assigned to her a function which must continue to be unique? The key of Europe to Asia, and of Asia to Europe, always strong, and by modern appliances capable of being rendered wellnigh impregnable, whether by land or by sea, its possession by a strong Power would be a menace to the freedom both of the East and of the West; whilst, in the hands of a weak Power, as Greece, to all appearance must continue to be, the possibility of its seizure by a coup-de-main must render it a perpetual source of international distrust. If we add to these considerations the extraordinary mixture of races by which it is inhabited, and the vehement antipathies which hold them asunder, the possibility of its ever assuming a national character seems permanently excluded. The wretchedness of its present condition is a matter of universal admission, and yet, unless a rôle can be found for it, new as yet in the history of nations, that condition must remain substantially unchanged. On these grounds it appears to me that the difficulty which Dr Bluntschli sees in maintaining a denationalised centre of international life is pretty fairly balanced, in the case of Constantinople, by the still greater difficulty of nationalising