Grotius’ writings emerged at a time when the medieval order of ecclesiastical authority was giving way to the Reformation and the rise of the modern nation state in Europe. In the absence of the supranational moral guidance provided by the Church, emerging nations lacked common standards to regulate political relations with one another. Grotius developed a set of principles, based on religious teachings, which sought to place moral constraints on when and how military force could be used. His system was founded on the concept of natural law, the assumption that right reason can deduce laws to regulate the interaction of peoples in society. He developed a secular variant of the medieval doctrine of a law above nations. He argued that the supreme law of states is to maintain peace, and that this could be achieved by respecting and preserving the individual sovereignty of each nation.
Over the centuries the Grotian principle of state sovereignty faced many challenges. The growing interdependence of nations, the rise of global commerce, the development of international humanitarianism, global environmental concerns – all contributed to the development of a new concept of sovereignty, which political scientist Joseph Nye has termed the sovereignty of peoples not merely of states. The narrow insistence on absolute state sovereignty became less relevant in an increasingly globalized world threatened by transnational dangers. The principle of protection against external aggression remained an important guarantee of peace, but it was no longer considered absolute. A movement emerged to assert the higher principle of international law. Multilateral institutions developed to enhance transnational cooperation and promote the common interest of nations.
As the movement for international law developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries two distinct tendencies emerged. Conservative internationalists recognized the need for greater cooperation among nations, but they insisted on preserving state sovereignty and were skeptical of proposals for binding arbitration and permanent international institutions. They favored ad hoc rather than institutionalized cooperation. Some believed that the spread of Western or democratic values could exert a “civilizing” influence on “backward” peoples. Andrew Carnegie envisioned a future in which the English-speaking nations would lead others toward a cooperative order based on Anglo-American political principles. Britain, the United States, Japan, and other major powers spoke of their global and regional “responsibilities,”as internationalism shaded into imperialism and attempts at military and economic domination. Some internationalist groups, such as the LNU in Britain, were vigorously pro-imperial and denied any contradiction between the creation of an international organization and the maintenance of empire.
Progressives developed a very different concept of internationalism. They advocated binding legal arrangements and permanent international institutions to resolve conflict and prevent war. They espoused principles of universal participation, equality of status, humanitarianism, and selfdetermination for all nations and colonized peoples. The progressive agendac sought to place constraints on the right of states to wage war, while strengthening international organizations and multilateral mechanisms for resolving conflicts.4 Progressives also favored greater international efforts to promote economic opportunity and reduce the conditions of poverty and exploitation that many believed were root causes of war. They opposed imperialism and rejected the presumed right of great powers to intervene militarily in the affairs of other nations. They were willing to support the use of sanctions and even military force to defend against aggression, but only if such action was authorized by a council of nations and/or international courts, as part of a collective security system designed to preserve peace and prevent major war.
Internationalism and Global Pacifist Ideals
