Social Civics

The Contact of Nations.—In all ages the nations of the world have been brought into relations with one another. During the early centuries their contact was not very close, as a rule, because differences in race, religion, and language, together with the lack of facilities for travel and transportation served to keep the people apart. But the Phoenicians, the Greeks, and the Romans all traded with their neighbors, and this trade, which began around the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, gradually widened east and west. After the fall of the Roman empire chaos reigned over the greater part of Europe; commerce declined, and incessant warfare prevented the growth of friendly intercourse among the people of different religions. These were the so-called Dark Ages, in which travel was fraught with danger and trade was at the mercy of bandits. Gradually, however, intercourse between different regions revived and expanded. The highways and waterways became safe again. Nations were once more brought into friendly relationships. During the past three or four hundred years this intercourse of nation with nation has been steadily becoming more extensive, broken only from time to time by the waging of wars. The steamship, the railroads, the automobile, the telegraph, and the telephone have all served to reduce distances and bring the various parts of the world closer together.

International Rules and Customs.—Just as social and economic relations among men gave rise to customs and usages which everyone now obeys for the common good, so the growth of intercourse among the nations brought into existence, little by little, a body of usages and rules which guide them in their relations with one another. Even the Greeks and Romans recognized the necessity of some such rules to prevent misunderstandings. Since ancient times these usages, rules, and agreements have been gradually becoming more definite until they now form that body of jurisprudence which is known as International Law. In a strict sense international law is not law at all; its rules have not emanated from any definite source such as parliament or a legislature, and there are no courts with power to enforce its provisions.^[283] Some of its rules are of long standing custom; others have come into effect as the result of agreements among nations. The provision that the ambassador is exempt from the jurisdiction of the state to which he goes is very old,—as old as the Achaean League. It is an ancient custom, now called law. On the other hand the rule that a blockade of enemy ports is not valid unless maintained by an adequate force is a relatively modern rule and rests upon international agreement.

International Law.—International law may therefore be defined as that body of usages and rules which the civilized nations of the world are accustomed to observe in their dealings with one another. These rules and usages relate to a great many things. |The laws of war.| They provide for friendly communication between nations in time of peace by means of ambassadors and other diplomatic envoys. International law declares the high seas to be free to all, but stipulates that a country may exercise jurisdiction over its adjacent seas for a distance of one marine league from the shore. The usages and rules of international law also provide for the protection of aliens, the collection of debts, the carrying on of trade, and many other questions which arise between nations at peace.

When nations are at war they are called belligerents, and the rules of international law restrict the ways in which war may be carried on. They forbid a belligerent to put poison in wells, or to bombard undefended towns, or to kill prisoners of war. It is quite true that these so-called “laws of war” are sometimes set at naught in the heat of conflict, and it is also true that when a nation violates them there is no regular redress; but the rules are well established and the public opinion of the world always condemns any country which indulges in barbarities contrary to the rules of war.

Nations which are not at war when war is going on are called neutrals. Their rights as neutrals are defined and their duties as neutrals are prescribed by the rules of international law. Neutrals are permitted to carry on trade with belligerents subject to two limitations, namely that their ships must not try to enter any blockaded port and must not carry contraband of war. Contraband of war includes weapons, munitions, military supplies, and any other merchandise which a belligerent can use directly or indirectly in carrying on the war. The citizens of neutral states are also debarred from serving in the armed forces of belligerents.

International law, in short, deals with a great variety of matters which arise in peace, including emigration and travel, trade, naturalization, diplomatic intercourse, the extradition of criminals, treaties, and so forth, as well as with questions which arise during war such as blockades, captures at sea, the rules of land warfare, and the rights of neutrals. It is considered by the United States to be a part of the law of the land, and its rules are enforced within American territory by the federal courts.

The Control of Foreign Relations.—All relations with foreign countries are under the control of the national government. No state of the Union can make any treaty, or declare war, or enter into an alliance, or send ambassadors abroad. No state, moreover, may maintain ships of war in time of peace or armed forces except as provided in the constitution. War can be declared by Congress alone. These provisions are wisely inserted in the national constitution, for if every state were permitted to deal independently with foreign countries, we should get into endless complications and difficulties. But in spite of the fact that no state can make a treaty or have any formal diplomatic negotiations with a foreign country it is nevertheless true that a state can and sometimes does create a situation which requires diplomatic action on the part of the national government. Prolonged negotiations between the American and Japanese governments have had to be carried on, for example, as the result of California’s having restricted the privileges of Japanese citizens in that state (see p. 32). So, also, although the constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war, the President through his command of the army and navy can bring about a situation which leaves Congress no choice whatsoever. On one occasion President Roosevelt threatened that if German warships did not leave the coast of Venezuela within forty-eight hours, he would send the American fleet there. Had the German ships remained and a conflict ensued, the action of Congress in declaring war would have become a mere formality.

How Foreign Relations are Conducted.—The conduct of foreign relations rests with the President, whose right-hand man in such matters is the Secretary of State. But the President’s discretion is limited by the fact that all appointments require confirmation by the Senate and all treaties must be approved in that body by a two-thirds vote before they become valid. For this reason, the President usually finds it advisable to keep in touch with the leaders of the Senate while he is handling foreign affairs of importance. He is under no legal obligation to do this, but it is politically expedient. Failure to do it has on occasions led the Senate to reject agreements which the President has concluded after prolonged negotiations.^[284] |The Department of State.| The Department of State is the President’s immediate agency in the conduct of all diplomatic intercourse, and is so recognized by all foreign governments. It is through this department that all official correspondence with other governments is carried on. The Secretary of State is often called the “premier” of the cabinet, but the function of leadership and the ultimate responsibility for the cabinet’s work rests with the President. In handling the details of foreign relations the State Department is assisted by a body of officials who constitute the diplomatic service.

The Diplomatic Service.—It is the custom of every civilized country to send and receive diplomatic officials. The United States sends a representative to every important foreign capital; in return, every foreign country maintains a diplomatic agent in Washington. In the case of the most important countries these representatives are given the rank and title of ambassador. |Ambassadors and ministers.| There is an American ambassador stationed at Paris; a French ambassador at Washington. In the case of less important countries the diplomatic representatives are usually given the rank and title of minister. There is an American minister at Copenhagen; a Danish minister at Washington. The difference between ambassadors and ministers is in rank, title, and salary; there is no important difference in their functions. When an ambassador or minister is absent, the diplomatic official who is left in charge is called a chargé d’affaires. If some special negotiations are to be carried on, a country may send an envoy, or an “envoy extraordinary”, as he is called.^[285] Each ambassador or minister is assisted by one or more secretaries and a force of clerks.

Diplomatic officials, whether ambassadors or ministers, have the duty of serving as channels of official communication between their own government and the government to which they are accredited. They act always in accordance with instructions sent to them from home. If a foreign government has any communication to make to the government of the United States, it addresses itself either to the American diplomatic representative at its own capital, or to its own diplomatic representative at Washington. In either case the diplomatic representative presents the communication, orally or in writing, to the Secretary of State. The heads of nations, whether presidents, kings, or emperors, sometimes communicate with each other by personal letter; but important matters are not usually handled in that way.^[286]

In addition to forwarding communications the members of the diplomatic service have various other duties. An ambassador or minister is expected to keep his own government well informed concerning all that is going on at the foreign capital where he is stationed. He renders any necessary assistance to American citizens who may become involved in difficulties or danger. He represents his own country on all occasions of ceremony and has many social duties to perform. These duties are prescribed by the usages of the diplomatic service and are the same at all national capitals. Finally, he co-operates with the consuls of his own country and does what he can to make their work more effective.^[287]

All American ambassadors, ministers, and other diplomatic officials are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. In European countries it is the custom for young and capable men to enter the lower ranks of diplomatic service and work up, step by step, to the higher posts. But although lower posts in the diplomatic service of the United States are filled by competitive examination, the higher positions are usually given to men who have had no previous diplomatic experience. Men whom the President selects as ambassadors or ministers are, as a rule, drawn from civil life, and their appointments are often looked upon as rewards for political service. This does not mean, however, that they fail to make capable ambassadors or ministers, despite the lack of experience; on the contrary, the system has worked astonishingly well on the whole. This is because men of marked ability and distinction in civil life are usually selected by the President for the more important diplomatic posts. Among the list of those who have served as American ambassadors to Great Britain one finds the names of Charles Francis Adams, James Russell Lowell, John Hay, and Joseph H. Choate. Among the notable American diplomats during the earlier years of the World War were James W. Gerard at Berlin, Henry Morgenthau at Constantinople, Brand Whitlock at Brussels, and Paul S. Reinsch at Pekin.

The official establishment of an ambassador is called an embassy; that of a minister is known as a legation. |The immunities of diplomats.| An embassy or a legation is exempt from local jurisdiction; it cannot be searched by the police, and the officials connected with it are exempt from arrest except for very serious crimes. A country cannot, according to international usages, decline to receive a diplomatic official from any other country, but it can, and sometimes does, object to receiving some particular individual as ambassador or minister on the ground that he is persona non grata. Similarly a country may request that any diplomatic official who has been sent to it shall be recalled by his own government and such requests have occasionally been made.^[288]

In addition to diplomatic officials the United States sends and receives consuls. The consular service is concerned with commercial rather than diplomatic relations; hence the consuls are stationed, for the most part, at ports of entry. The functions of consuls are closely related to the development of American foreign trade and they have been described in an earlier chapter (p. 373).

Secret and Open Diplomacy.—The traditional policy of the diplomatic service in all countries has been to do its work in secret. To some extent this has been necessary, because of the nature of the negotiations carried on. |Why secrecy is deemed essential.| There are times, of course, when the publication of what is going on in the way of negotiations between different countries would lead to serious misunderstandings and might cause the negotiations to be broken off altogether. It is natural, for example, that each government, when it begins negotiations on any question, should ask a good deal more than it expects to obtain. Only as the discussion proceeds through the channels of diplomacy does each country give way a little and in the end they reach an agreement. Now, if these negotiations had to be carried on before the eyes of the whole world an agreement would be very difficult because no government likes to back down, even slightly, from its original demands.

So secrecy is in some cases necessary. But there has been too much of it in the past. Many important matters have been withheld from public knowledge even after the negotiations have been finished, and pledges have been made by rulers without informing their people. |The experience of Europe.| It was because of secret diplomacy that the various European countries, prior to 1914, became enmeshed in a maze of intrigues and semi-secret alliances which drew them steadily toward the brink of war.^[289] The United States, happily, has had very little experience with secret diplomacy. Every treaty or agreement must be submitted to the Senate and when so submitted it cannot be kept secret. Nothing can be kept secret after it is laid for discussion before a body of ninety-six men, at least it cannot remain secret very long. |The American tradition of open diplomacy.| The Senate, moreover, has always insisted on making these agreements public, although the discussions may be held behind closed doors. One of the reasons why the government of the United States has acquired a good reputation for frankness and sincerity in its relations with other countries is to be found in this avoidance of secrecy in international agreements. This policy should never be abandoned.

Treaties.—A treaty is a formal agreement made between two or more countries and binding upon each. There are many kinds of treaties, including treaties of peace, treaties of alliance, treaties providing for reciprocity in trade, for the mutual surrender of fugitive criminals, postal treaties, treaties of arbitration, and so on. |How treaties are made.| There are three stages in the making of a treaty, namely, the negotiation, the signature, and the ratification. The negotiations are usually carried on through members of the diplomatic service, but in the case of important treaties it is customary to appoint special envoys for the purpose. When all details have been agreed upon the treaty is engrossed on parchment and signed by the official representatives of the respective countries. But it does not go into effect until it is ratified and, so far as the United States is concerned, this ratification cannot take place until the treaty has been approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.^[290]

Whenever a treaty has been concluded on behalf of the United States, therefore, it is transmitted by the President to the presiding officer of the Senate by whom it is referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. This committee, in due course, makes its report to the Senate whereupon a discussion takes place. |The power of the Senate over treaties.| When the discussion is finished the Senate votes to give or withhold its assent. If it acts favorably, the President notifies the other government and the treaty becomes effective; if the Senate rejects the treaty, it fails to go into force. The Senate, strictly speaking, cannot amend any treaty, but it may ask the President, and through him the other government, to accept certain changes. As a rule the Senate has ratified treaties without amendment but it has sometimes insisted on alterations, and on some notable occasions it has rejected treaties altogether.^[291]

American Foreign Policy.—When Washington finished his second term as President in 1796, he delivered to his countrymen a Farewell Address in which he gave them some sound advice. Among other things he pointed out that the primary interests of America were very remote from those of Europe and advised that the United States should “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world”. Not long afterwards Jefferson reiterated this principle and urged that the policy of America should aim at “honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”. This attitude of Washington and Jefferson embodied the best interests of the United States in the early days of the Republic and undoubtedly reflected the sentiment of the people. In keeping with this principle of “political isolation” the United States remained neutral during the European wars which followed the French Revolution and strenuously endeavored to avoid taking sides in the struggle between England and France. The United States government, in 1807, went so far as to shut off all trade with both these warring countries. But in 1812, the continued violation of America’s rights as a neutral exhausted the patience of the people. These rights were violated by France and England alike; the English violations, however, were the ones which stirred up the greatest amount of popular resentment. So the United States engaged in war with England for the maintenance of the principles of neutrality.

The Monroe Doctrine.—Being resolved not to meddle in the political affairs of Europe so long as American rights were not infringed, the United States felt in a position to insist, at the appropriate time, that Europe should refrain from interference in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. |Origin of the doctrine.| The occasion for announcing this principle of “hands off” came in 1823. During the years preceding this date the Spanish colonies in Central and South America had revolted. They declared their independence of Spain and drove out the Spanish authorities, setting up in each case a republican form of government. Spain naturally desired to retain her sovereignty over these territories and sought assistance of other European countries for that purpose. There appeared to be a possibility that France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia—a combination known as the Holy Alliance—would join with Spain in the subjugation of the revolted South American territories. The government at Washington became alarmed over the possibilities of large military and naval forces being sent across the Atlantic by a coalition of monarchial countries, believing that this would not only be a blow to the republican form of rule but a serious danger to the United States as well. President James Monroe accordingly authorized the issue of a declaration setting forth the interest of the United States in the matter.^[292]

The salient passages in this declaration are as follows:

This doctrine has remained the cornerstone of American policy with reference to the countries of Central and South America for one hundred years. |Its application.| On several occasions it has been invoked to protect these countries against armed pressure. During the Civil War, for example, the French government sent an army to Mexico and maintained an imperial administration there in defiance of the Mexican people. While the conflict between North and South continued the government of the United States was unable to take any firm action in this matter, but in 1866 France was requested to withdraw her troops from Mexico, which she did. Again, in 1895, President Cleveland informed the government of Great Britain that the United States would support Venezuela against any attempt to settle a boundary dispute otherwise than by arbitration.

The Monroe Doctrine is not a part of international law. It is not even a law of the United States. It never received the approval of the Senate, which is supposed to be a check upon the President in deciding the permanent features of American foreign policy. Its validity has never been formally recognized either by the countries of Europe or by the states of South America whom the doctrine immediately concerns.^[293] Its maintenance rests upon the vigilance and strength of the United States. In guarding the smaller states of the New World against European aggression the United States is taking what the American people regard as an essential measure of self-protection.

Is the Monroe Doctrine Obsolete?—We are sometimes told nowadays that the Monroe Doctrine is behind the times, that we have outgrown it, and ought to give it up.^[294] When the doctrine was announced, a hundred years ago, the states of South America were too weak to defend themselves; the various countries of Continental Europe were governed despotically and maintained large standing armies. The states of Central and South America, likewise, were at that time glad to have American protection. But now, we are told, all this is changed. The Spanish-American states are strong and able to look out for themselves. They do not want our guardianship. The nations of Continental Europe, moreover, are no longer despotisms but republics and limited monarchies. They have enough problems to keep them employed for the next generation without interfering in the affairs of the New Hemisphere. So it has been suggested that the doctrine be given up, particularly as no one knows exactly what it means at the present day.^[295] But the doctrine is deeply imbedded in the diplomatic traditions of the American people and there is nothing to be gained by giving it up unless the situation becomes very different from what it is today.

American Contributions to International Law.—The United States has rendered signal service in making the rules and usages of international law more enlightened and more humane. |1. Neutral rights.| At all times the American government has been a champion of neutral rights and particularly has insisted upon liberal rules concerning neutral commerce on the high seas. |2. Laws of war.| It has lent its influence to the movement for making the laws of war more human and for prohibiting all practices which needlessly endanger the lives of non-combatants. It has stood for freedom of trade and the “open door”. |3. Arbitration.| Among the nations of the world the United States has been foremost in the advocacy and use of arbitration as a means of settling international disputes. In keeping with this policy arbitration treaties have been concluded between the United States and twenty other countries, each treaty providing that all disputed questions, of whatsoever nature, shall be submitted to arbitration if they cannot be adjusted by diplomatic negotiation, and that no resort to war shall in any event take place until after the processes of arbitration have been exhausted. |4. Recent contributions.| At the Peace Conference which assembled in 1919 after the close of the World War, moreover, it was the United States that first put forward in definite form the plan for a League of Nations. And in 1921 it was the United States which took the initiative in calling the international conference which arranged for a great reduction in naval armaments.

Charles A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 315-341; Ibid., Readings in American Government and Politics, pp. 291-307;

Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 540-573;

A. B. Hart, Actual Government, pp. 430-445;

John W. Foster, The Practice of Diplomacy, especially pp. 34-54;

P. S. Reinsch, Readings in American Federal Government, pp. 651-682;

E. S. Corwin, The President’s Control of Foreign Relations, passim;

Gaillard Hunt, The Department of State.

1. The Monroe Doctrine. Is it obsolete? The international situation during the years 1815-1823. The Holy Alliance, its organization and aims. Spain in America. The revolt of the Spanish Colonies. Preliminaries of the declaration. Canning’s suggestion. Scope of the doctrine as announced. Subsequent applications and extensions. The French in Mexico. The Venezuela controversy. Present scope of the doctrine. Attitude of Europe toward it. Attitude of the Spanish-American states. Its value for the future. Conclusion. References: Hiram Bingham, The Monroe Doctrine: An Obsolete Shibboleth, pp. 3-55; A. B. Hart, The Monroe Doctrine, pp. 55-83, and passim; A. C. Coolidge, The United States as a World Power, pp. 95-120; C. H. Sherrill, Modernizing the Monroe Doctrine, pp. 64-76; C. L. Jones, Caribbean Interests of the United States, pp. 323-351; J. H. Latané, The United States and Spanish America, pp. 292-334; D. C. Gilman, James Monroe (American Statesmen Series, Standard Library Edition), pp. 156-174; Theodore Roosevelt, American Ideals, pp. 220-237; Cyclopedia of American Government, Vol. II, pp. 456-468; Dexter Perkins, “Europe, Spanish America, and the Monroe Doctrine” in American Historical Review (January, 1922).

2. The diplomatic service and how it can be improved. References: J. W. Foster, The Practice of Diplomacy, pp. 34-54; John A. Fairlie, National Administration, pp. 77-91; E. Van Dyne, Our Foreign Service, pp. 45-113; Cyclopedia of American Government, Vol. I, pp. 593-595; P. S. Reinsch, Readings on American Federal Government, pp. 651-658; 675-682.

3. The chief rules of international law; how can their enforcement be ensured? References: G. B. Davis, Elements of International Law, pp. 19-30; T. J. Lawrence, Principles of International Law, pp. 119-138; G. G. Wilson and G. F. Tucker, International Law (7th ed.), pp. 44-60; A. S. Hershey, The Essentials of International Public Law, pp. 143-169; A. H. Snow, The American Philosophy of Government, pp. 113-154; 267-283. See also the General References to Chapter XXX.

1. The rights and duties of neutrals. G. B. Davis, Elements of International Law, pp. 376-395 (Rights of Neutrals); pp. 396-445 (Duties of Neutrals).

2. The privileges of diplomats. J. W. Foster, The Practice of Diplomacy, pp. 159-174.

3. How treaties are made. G. B. Davis, Elements of International Law, pp. 223-249.

4. The power of the Senate in relation to treaties. Ralston Hayden, The Senate and Treaties, especially pp. 169-195; J. W. Foster, The Practice of Diplomacy, pp. 262-283.

5. The Venezuelan controversy. Grover Cleveland, Presidential Problems, pp. 173-281.

6. Arbitration as a method of settling International disputes. R. L. Jones, International Arbitration as a Substitute for War between Nations, pp. 218-269; J. W. Foster, Arbitration and The Hague Court, pp. 39-57; J. B. Moore, American Diplomacy, pp. 200-222.

7. The Hague Conferences. G. B. Davis, Elements of International Law, pp. 258-263; 519-524; 525.

8. The proposed codification of international law. A. H. Snow, The American Philosophy of Government, pp. 395-418.

1. What is international law? Is it properly a system of law? Explain the sense in which you use the term law in the following expressions: law of gravitation; law of the land; law of supply and demand; law of fashion.

2. Look up and explain the following terms: belligerent, contraband, unneutral service, filibustering, blockade, three-mile limit, diplomatic immunity.

3. Make a list of (a) the rights of neutrals; (b) the duties of neutrals, and show how each right involves a duty.

4. Draw up, in the form of a diary, a day’s happenings in the American embassy at Tokyo, putting down at least six things done by the ambassador during the day.

5. Explain what is meant by secret diplomacy. To what extent has the United States avoided it and why?

6. Give an account (from your studies in American History) of some important treaty to which the United States was a party. Tell how it was negotiated, signed, and ratified.

7. Is the principle set forth by Washington and Jefferson concerning the true policy of the United States in foreign affairs applicable at the present time?

8. Are the following statements true of the United States today:

(a) “In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part.”

(b) “With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered”?

9. What is meant by the saying that “the covenant of the League of Nations does not destroy the Monroe Doctrine but extends it to the whole world”? Is that statement correct?

10. What seems to you to be the most important among American contributions to international law?

1. All members of the diplomatic service, including ambassadors, should be chosen under civil service rules.

2. A majority vote in the Senate should be made sufficient for the ratification of treaties.

3. It would be a violation of the Monroe Doctrine if Great Britain were to sell the island of Jamaica to Germany.