from the brotherhood of nations for ever, or to say plainly, “I declare what my professors and schoolmasters have for half a century had to teach to be false; the doctrines of Treitschke and of his disciple von Bernhardi are anathema; it is infamous to adopt the statement of the German writer that ’It is of no importance to me whether an action is just or unjust,’ or that ’If I am powerful enough to perform any deed, then I am justified in doing it.’  I renounce such leaders and teachers and all their words and works, so that I will not follow or be led by them.”  It may be urged that the recantation might not be sincere, but it would discredit the authority of those who attempt to revive the damnable doctrines.[2]

The great difficulty, of course, arises as to the means of enforcing the agreement against war, of finding some proper and effective sanction to secure its observance.  It may be well to note that throughout this discussion the word sanction is used in the strict legal sense, meaning some definite penalty or punishment to be inflicted on a wrong-doer.  It is the existence of such a “sanction” which is the clearest way of enforcing obedience, and gives a rule of conduct the force of law.

Two definite proposals are made in Lord Parker’s scheme. (1) “If an act of war be committed against any member of the League, the Council is to notify it, and thereupon every member should (a) break off diplomatic relations with the nation guilty of such act; (b) prohibit and take effective steps to prevent all trade and commerce between itself and the guilty party; (c) place an embargo upon all ships and property of the guilty nation found in its territorial waters or within its territories.”

A very similar suggestion, though not quite so definite, was made by the present writer in an article on “Sanction in International Law,” which appeared in the Italian Journal “Scientia” in 1916.  “The nations might agree that any belligerent which wilfully violates or invades neutral territory shall be treated as a moral leper.  Without actually going to war they should cease to have dealings with the invader, forbid all intercourse of their subjects with the country which violates the neutral territory.”

For the sake of brevity this may be called the “economic boycott,” but it is really very much more than simply economic pressure.  It is a common habit in political discussions to confuse very different things, to which the same name is given, and the term “economic boycott” is being used to cover three proposals of very different character. (a) It may mean a permanent exclusion of Germany from the markets of the world to punish its people for supporting the crimes of its rulers and incidentally to secure for ourselves a valuable extension of trade by reason of the exclusion of a rival. (b) It may mean a temporary measure to insure that agreed terms of peace are observed by those who disregard “mere