LAW AND FORCE
Sut,—Mr. Harold Nicolson's remarks on the relations of law and force are timely and valuable. But do they go far enough? I believe that a fundamental confusion of thought here has underlain our policy and ideo- logy in the between-war years. Law is not the antithesis of force; because all law is based on force, and a law which is not and cannot be enforced ceases to be a law. The antithesis of law is anarchy. The state of anarchy in international relations which is expressed not cnly by wars but by all forms of national armament, has always existed; but it is more absolute now than ever before owing to the development of modern nationalist States and tremendous concentration of power in the hands of their rulers.
The problem we have to solve—the immensely difficult problem—is how we are to establish an international law which can and will be en- forced on individual sovereign States. The first step to that end must be a firm, sure and lasting understanding between the four great progressive Powers—the U.S.A., U.S.S.R., China and ourselves. I believe that the last step will be a "change of heart" in the rulers and ruled of those nations which we may with equal propriety call the aggressors or the "have nots." For us the motto "live and let live" is not enough: it leads only to disaster. We have to believe in our destiny as being, with our partners, law-givers to the world, and act accordingly.—I am, &c., R.A.F. Station, Shinfield, Reading.
ADRIAN COATES.
Previous page
