The Dominion. THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1935. THE RULE OF LAW

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 90, 10 January 1935, Page 8

The Dominion. THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1935. THE RULE OF LAW

“Britain’s foreign policy,” says Mr. Anthony Eden in a s P e^ fs reported to-day, “is no, longer based on the balance of power, , on the League of Nations and the maintenance of a collec ivepeace system involving the abolition of the rule of force m favour of rule of law.” To what extent this pronouncement by aßn si Cabinet Minister, who has gained much distinction m c p lomacy can be regarded as indicative of the definite withdrawal o Britain’ from European war entanglements it is at present to say If words mean anything Mr. Eden’s remarks can only oc interpreted as an intimation to Europe that participationnn gro F or alliances is no part of Britain’s foreign policy. It is the Lea uc or nothing. The point of interest at the moment, howevei sM . Eden’s reference to the supersession of the rule of foice by the ° f 1 Toward that ideal the world is - definitely inclined though PJ o g in its direction may seem halting, if not, at tunes almost fut e. is the underlying principle of the League of Nations, of collects rfon “ international disputes. But though the the signing of the Peace Treaty after the Great \\ ar, the of the rule of law has struggled for centuries to claim the attention and support of mankind. As far back as 1625. Grotius; an eminent jurist in his time, published his notable work, De The rule of law, he argued, was common to all mankind, being th. dictate of right reason, pointing out a moral guilt or lectitucc be inherent in any action, on account of its agreement 01 disagreem i with our rational or social nature; and, consequently, such an act i either forbidden or enjoined by God, the author of N atuie ' , international rule of law, however, was for a long time a son - vague term, and it has taken generations of thought, and of legaj controversy, to, give it any kind of precision. Sir Diomas Holland (1835-1926), who was Professor of International Law at Oxfo I. is on record as declaring that the international rule of lawt wa, “the vanishing point of jurisprudence, since it tacks any amtei disputed questions save public opinion.” Lord Chief Justice Co le more precisely, remarked that, “Law implies a lawgiver and a tribum., capable of enforcing it and coercing its transgressors but there is no common lawgiver to sovereign States, and no tubunal has Ji c -power to bind them by decree and coerce them if they transgress. The nations, moved by the force of public opinion, have advanced from that point, but not very far. The rule of law, so far as i concerns the individual and his community, is the expression of public opinion. With the weight of that public opinion behind its opeiatioi, it is able to say that the individual cannot take the aw into Ins own hands. But it is comparatively not so long ago that men cained pistols and swords in order to be able to defend themselves, and they were only induced to surrender this privilege on the assuiance tluu the forces of the Law would guarantee them safety for themselves and security for their possessions. In other words, the rule ot law acquired its'real ascendancy from its powers of coercion, and H orn the fact that the majority of the public was prepared to support it injts operation against the enemies of society. So far as each single nation is concerned, it is securely established. , • Is it as firmly entrenched as an article of international order and discipline? Experience has shown that it is not so. That shotnd ultimately become a recognised and inviolate instrument of inteinational justice .and peace depends upon international pu >’c opinion, and the consolidation of that, , the ultimate authority for the rule of law among nations, is less a subject ioi treaties than for the education of peoples. It is true that the League of Nations is fortified in terms of the Covenant by sanctions which may be invoked for the coercion, of an offending nation, but in the present state of international public opinion it would be hopeless even to attempt to enforce, them. Mr. Edens statement is therefore to be welcomed as an indication of Britain s exemplaiy preparedness to accept the principle of collective action, and to work toward the ideal that the rule of law shall ultimately prevail over the rule of force.