* In fact, the State is a law unto itself.  Weak nations have not
     the same right to live as powerful and vigorous nations. (P. 34.)

  * Any action in favor of collective humanity outside the limits
     of the State and nationality is impossible. (P. 25.)

* * * * *

A Doctrine 2,200 Years Old.

These are startling propositions, though propounded as practically axiomatic.  They are not new, for twenty-two centuries ago the sophist Thrasymachus in Plato’s “Republic” argued—­Socrates refuting him—­that justice is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger; might is right.

     [Note.—­Plato laid down that the end for which the State exists is
     justice.]

The most startling among them are (1) denial that there are any duties owed by the State to humanity, except that of imposing its own superior civilization upon as large a part of humanity as possible, and (2) denial of the duty of observing treaties which are only so much paper to modern German writers.

The State is a much more tremendous entity than it is to Englishmen or Americans; it is the supreme power, with a sort of mystic sanctity—­a power conceived of, as it were, self-created; a force altogether distinct from and superior to the persons who compose it.  But a State is, after all, only so many individuals organized under a Government.  It is no wiser, no more righteous than the human beings of whom at consists, and whom it sets up to govern it.  If it is right for persons united as citizens into a State to rob and murder for their collective advantage by their collective power, why should it be wicked for citizens, as individuals, to do so?  Does their moral responsibility cease when and because they act together?  Most legal systems hold that there are acts which one man may lawfully do which become unlawful if done by a number of men conspiring together; but now it would seem that what would be a crime in persons as individuals, is high policy for those persons united in a State.  Has the State, then, no morality, no responsibility?  Is there no such thing as a common humanity?  Are there no duties owed to it?  Is there none of that “decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” which the framers of the Declaration of Independence recognized?  No sense that even the greatest States are amenable to the sentiment of the civilized world?

How Weaker States Are Affected.

Let us see how these doctrines affect smaller and weaker States which have hitherto lived in comparative security beside great powers.  They will be absolutely at the mercy of the stronger, even if protected by treaties guaranteeing their neutrality and independence.  They will not be safe, for treaty obligations are worthless “when they do not correspond to facts,” i.e., when the strong power finds that they stand in its way its interests are paramount.