INTERNATIONAL LAW

Waikato Independent, Volume XL, Issue 3668, 15 February 1940, Page 5

INTERNATIONAL LAW

WHAT DEMOCRACIES ARE FIGHTING FOR NO WAY OF ENFORCEMENT During the coming months, and. possibly years, we shall probably hear a good deal about international law. It may, therefore, be useful to discuss the essential differences between what is known as municipal law, and the so-called laws of nations, writes Lord Davies in “The Observer” (London). The former are the codes which govern the relationships of individuals, or groups, in any civilised countries. In democratic countries the laws are made or altered by Parliament, interpreted and administered by the courts and enforced by the police, supported, if necessary, by the military forces. In totalitarian countries, laws are decreed by the dictators and theii satellites, who also control the judges and police. Peaceful Procedure But it will be noted that under both these systems—democracy and tyranny—there exist a peaceful procedure for effecting changes in the law and the means of enforcing it. When, however, we come to the international sphere, both these attributes of law are almost nonexistent. There is no International Parliament, or omnipotent dictator to change the public law in order that it may conform to the new requirements of the international community. It is true that sovereign States can revise treaties by negotiations, but if these end in a deadlock the result is usually a war. Therefore, what is described as international law is riot law at all; it is merely a set of rule?, customs, pacts and treaties, which the sovereign' States either invoke or repudiate, just as it happetis to suit their purpose. It follows that the rule of law implies the creation of some super-authority which is equipped with the appropriate institutions for effecting peaceful changes in the law, and also for upholding it. As we have seen, in the case of municipal law, this can only be done either by imposing the law from above—i.e., a tyranny or dictatorship—or by a system of representative government a Parliament or Congress. Common Interest In the international sphere the corresponding systems are Imperialism and Federalism. The most conspicuous example of the former is the Roman Empire, whose rule extended over the whole of the known world at that time, and imposed peace upow the nations under its sway for about five centuries. Our rule in India is a more recent example, where law and order has been maintained for more than 100 years.

On the other hand, federation is a free and voluntary association of States who, recognising the vital common interest of justice and peace, combine together'io-form a Federal Government, allowirtg each individual State to retain . its identity. v ; ''" ■ • ;.v- ■ Naturally, the powers entrusted to the Federal authority or retained by ihe States’ Governments, vary in different cases. Examples will readily occur to us, the most important being the United States of America. Then there are Canada, representing a union of English and French speaking peoples; Switzerland, a federation of German, French and Italian cantons; and in more recent years, the Union of South Africa and the Commonwealth of Australia. Both these systems—lmperialism and Federalism —can, of course, establish a rule of law. The former rests upon the insecure foundation of force—one State imposes its will upon, the others. Today Hitlerism is one of the worst and most odious N forrns of Imperialisi% that mankind h?s ever known, because it is founded upon terrorism and the suppression of every vestige of liberty. The rulers of Germany imagine they are superior to everyone else, and that other nations should only be allowed to exist as hewers of wood and drawers of water. Words of Penn Therefore, this war is a between Federalism and Imperialism, between Freedom and slavery. If Germany should win—which* God forbid!—the liberties of every country would be destroyed and Hitler would become the undisputed master of Europe. The Gestapo, supported by German garrisons, would do its dirty work in every European capital, and a public law —intolerant, harsh and cruel—-

would go forth from Berlin. On the other hand, if the peoples of Europe are to live at peace, if wars ; recurring at short intervals are to be prevented, and if the rule of laws is to be firmly established on the basis of equity and justice, then the alternative to Hitlerism is not a return to the power politics of sovereign . States, such as we have , witnessed during the past few years, but a federation—or what that distinguished French statesman, M. Briaitd, described as the United States of Europe, Then, in the words of William Penn—“ The great fish can po longer eat up the little ones, and each sovereignty is equally defended from injuries and disabled from, committing them.” International law instead of being a farce, will then, like municipal. law, have become a reality, regulating peacefully the lives and relationships of nations.