conception of the State as employed in constitutional law, from its conception as implicit in international law, with the result that certain technical terms, such as "law" and "sovereignty" have been made to do service in both fields, whereas the ideas which they have connoted in the two domains have been by no means the same. It is the fact that there has been this confusion of ideas and misuse of terms that has led the author, in the present treatise, to endeavor to give to the concepts of public law a greater precision than, in the past, they have ordinarily received. In order to do this, it will be found that it has been necessary to give to certain terms commonly employed by the political scientist meanings somewhat more restricted than those that are usually attached to them. But, in order that accurate thinking may be had, this could not be avoided.

Idea and Concept of the State. It is to be observed that the abstract juristic conception which will be given to the State, being one of purely legal significance, is not that notion which is sometimes termed by German writers the Staatsidee. Thus, for example, Brie, in his Theorie der Staatenverbindungen uses the term to express the ideally perfect State, that is, one possessing and itself directly exercising all the powers that properly belong to a State, rather than the general or universal idea of the State as we have above described it. He says: "Concrete States are ever more or less incomplete pictures of the Staatsidee, in that they do not themselves possess and exercise all the powers that logically belong to them."1

Professor Burgess likewise makes a distinction between what he calls the "Idea" and the "Concept" of the State. He says: "The idea of the State is the State perfect and complete. The concept of the State is the State developing and approaching perfection. From the standpoint 1 Op. cit., p. 6.

of the idea, the State is mankind viewed as an organized unit . . . From the standpoint of the concept, it is a particular portion of mankind viewed as an organized unit. From the standpoint of the idea the territorial basis of the State is the world, and the principle of unity is humanity. From the standpoint of the concept, again, the territorial basis of the State is a particular portion of the earth's surface, and the principle of unity is that particular phase of human nature and of human need, which, at any particular stage in the development of that nature, is predominant and commanding. The former is the real state of the perfect future. The latter is the real State of the past, the present, and the imperfect future." 2

Bluntschli, also, says: "The conception (Begriff) of the State has to do with the nature and essential characteristics of actual States. The idea (Idee) of the State presents a picture, in the splendor of imaginary perfection, of the State as not yet realized, but to be striven for." Continuing, Bluntschli goes on to declare that the Idee of the State is the World State.

Whatever difference of meaning there may be to the Germans between Begriff and Idee, the terms conception and idea do not, in English, mark the distinction between the actual and the ideal. Whether or not one be a product of the understanding and the other of reason, neither, in our tongue, is synonymous with the ideal. Furthermore, both Bluntschli and Burgess assume, without attempt at proof, that a universal State is the ideal to be striven for. As a matter of fact this may be denied, and even these writers would, it is imagined, admit that universality, desirable though they may think it to be, is but one of the many qualities that would be required

Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law, vol. I, p. 49. 'The Theory of the State (Eng. transl.), p. 15.

in a perfectly organized and administered State. Surely they would not consider ideal a universal State whose rulers are unenlightened, corrupt, and oppressive to those whom they govern.

CHAPTER III

THE VALUE OF JURISTIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Complexity of Modern Political Conditions. The description which has been given of the sphere and aim of analytical political philosophy has been sufficient to indicate, in general, the value of the results which may be obtained from its pursuit. It but remains to refer to the peculiar need which political scientists have for this analytical inquiry as a preparation for scientific discussion because of the unfortunate fact that political science lacks a characteristic nomenclature. Instead of employing terms which are peculiar to itself, and, therefore without other connotations, political science is obliged to rely in very large measure upon terms which are in popular, and therefore unscientific, use. For this reason it is indispensable to precise political thinking that, when these terms are used, a clear understanding should be had as to the exact meanings attached to them. This need is one which, rather than decreasing, is constantly increasing by reason of the growing complexity of political relations whether regarded from the national or international point of view. With the development of constitutional forms of government operating under written instruments of government, with the growth of more or less autonomous local administrative or governmental organs, with the recognition of spheres of private rights of life, liberty, and property which are not open to legislative or executive control, and with the growth of the activities of government, the complexity of con

stitutional jurisprudence is increased, with a resulting necessity for clearly and finely drawn distinctions, which, under more autocratic forms, such as absolute monarchy, do not need to be made.

So, similarly, in the field of international politics, modern times have witnessed the development of complex relations, which, for their juristic analysis demand the utmost exactness in the use of terms, and the most accurate employment of the processes of deductive reasoning.

At the same time that the principles of international law, through the practice of nations and the efforts of commentators, have been rendered fairly definite and systematized, and the formal rights and duties of sovereign States toward one another have thus, in the main, been made evident, the application of these principles and the determination in concrete cases of these rights and duties, have been made more difficult than before by the great increase in the complexity of constitutional and international relations which has marked the last century, and, especially, the last quarter of it. Instead of a family of nations composed of members completely autonomous in fact, as well as in name, we find nations, severally sovereign in name and theory, in some instances associated in the closest of constitutional bonds, and, in others, surrendering up the enjoyment of their international rights in whole or in part to alien powers. In some cases, indeed, this surrender has extended to the exercise of domestic powers as well. In the middle ages, the feudal state was the prevailing type, and, in the early modern age, the absolute monarchy. At the present time, however, we find many instances of the composite or federated form. In Europe we have the federal states of Germany and Switzerland, and, until 1918, the dual empire-kingdom of Austria-Hungary. Australia and