Justice Among Nations (Paperback)

FIRST MERTTENS LECTURE ON WAR AND PEACE JUSTICE AMONG NATIONS BY HORACE G. ALEXANDER, M. A. LECTURER ON INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS AT WOODBROOKE, SBLLY OAK, BIRMINGHAM Published ly Leonard Virginia Woolf at The Hogarth Press, 52 Tavistock Square, London W. C. i 1927 Printed in Great Britain by NEIIX Co., LTD., EDINBURGH, PREFATORY NOTE THE Merttens Peace Lectures were founded in 1926 by Frederick Merttens of Rugby. They are delivered annually and circulated in book form. JUSTICE AMONG NATIONS THE thesis of my lecture Is this Much of the evil we suffer in the world to-day arises from a false conception of the nature of justice. I want to consider, then, what justice really is what is its value for us in the modern world and, especi ally, how it can be applied to our international problems. I. THE IDEA OF JUSTICE Justice would seem to be one of those terms that are applicable only in a state of society in which men are conscious of their social relation ships, and give thought to them. It is, in fact, a concept of political philosophy and of political science, and it can hardly be said to exist outside these bounds. I do not propose, at any rate, to consider how universally or how variably the idea of justice may lurk in the minds of primi tive peoples, but to confine myself to what we commonly regard as civilised society. The classic discussion of justice is in Platos Republic. There let us begin our modern dis cussion. At the beginning of the dialogue we are given a definition of justice that is attributed to Simonides The restoration to each of what is 7 JUSTICE AMONG NATIONS due to him. 55 Socrates finds this a fair definition, but much depends on the word due. Is it just to dogood to good men and evil to bad men Socrates thinks not, for the latter process will only make the bad men worse. He utterly re jects the view of the cynical Thrasyrnachus, that justice is a fine name given by the strong to their coercion of the weak and, responding to the appeal of Glaucon and Adeimantus, he tries to show that the practice of justice, even when unrecognised, gives truer happiness than a mere reputation for justice. In attempting to prove this, Socrates comes back to the view that justice is to be found in a community where those best fitted to rule, those who understand best and care most for the good of the community, are entrusted with authority, where all other members of the community perform the functions for which they are best suited, and where all have their essential needs satisfied. Justice is established, in fact, in a harmonious community and the most important element in such a community must be the philo sophic rulers who, knowing that wisdom is more to be desired than honour or wealth, find their happiness in serving the community, without looking for any reward other than what they find in their work, but with the added hope of gratitude from men and the assurance of peace after death. Socrates, in effect, seems to put great emphasis on the active side of the original definition, and little on the passive. The important thing is that the rulers, or Guardians, should have the knowledge 8 JUSTICE AMONG NATIONS and will to serve the community, not that every member of the community should have the right to insist on being served. We shall not find justice by demanding what we conceive to be our due but by devoting ourselves to restoring to others what isdue to them. Turning from Greece to Judaea, we find that some of the Hebrew prophets had almost the same thought of justice. The word translated right eousness in the Old and New Testaments is, in the Greek text, the same word that is elsewhere commonly translated as justice. It is a word suggesting conformity to Gods law. Whereas Plato was thinking chiefly in terms of human society a harmony of man with man the pro phets of Israel put first the thought of harmony between man and God. But they were in no sense otherworldly...