NATIONS.
In view• of the fact that the League of Nations has not begun to function completely, it is obvious that its relation to the small nations can only be inferred from the sections of the Covenant which relate &reedy to this matter and from the interpretative discussions of the pubject by leading publicists. It will readily be apparent that die most fundamental relation of the League to the problem of the small na tional states which have been recently created or extensively increased in territory is its con tributions to the lessening of the probability of more wars resulting from the emergence of a greater number of national states. To bring into being more politically independent nations than have hitherto existed, without at the same time malting provision for reducing the prob ability of war arising out of their mutual dis putes, would be but an invitation to a recurrence of the interminable warfare which accompatued the rise of the national dynastic states of the 16th and 17th centuries. The probable causes of an increase of warfare arising from the addition to the number of independent states are chiefly disputes of a general nature between states, and quarrels among them .or with greater states over matters connected with their boundaries. The League endeavors to re duce the probability of wars among all states, including the smaller states, which would arise out of general causes for open conflict by the provisions of Article VIII of the Covenant, providing for the reduction of armaments, and by Articles XI-XVII which endeavor to substi tute the arbitration of disputes for the cruder method of adjustment through armed conflict. The reduction of friction which would inevi tably arise over boundary disputes is met by the provisions of the much discussed and equally misunderstood and misinterpreted (Article X,0 to the effect that (the members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against ex ternal aggression the territonal integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League?) If this article is enforced, .as it must be if the League possesses any vitality whatever, the small states will be protected from the aggression of the larger states and of combinations of smaller states which desire to acquire their territory or terminate their polit ical independence. No such policy as that con templated by the Central Powers toward Serbia in 1914 would be possible if Article X were ef fectively enforced. It has been frequently
argued that the obvious injustices in the redis tribution of territory among the small states at the Peace Conference make it undesirable that the existing boundaries be maintained and that the perpetuation of the settlement arranged at Pans would be unwise and unjust. In view of the fact that the present adjustment was the best that could be had under the circumstances and that its immediate disruption would bring a vastly greater disaster than is involved in the existing minor injustices, it would seem that.the guaranteeing of the present arrangement against forcible violation is one of the most indis pensable policies which could be devised in the interests of the advancement of peace. It is generally agreed by the authori tative interpreters of Article X that it does not mean that the present arran nt must remain permanent and inflexibreeven in the face of voluntary desire to readjust bound aries. Some even maintain that it would be possible for the League to alter the boundaries at any time it seemed desirable, but it would also appear that the large majority required for effective action in any such procedure would protect any small state against arbitrary inter ference with its existing and desired boundaries. One of the obviously desirable modes of future peaceable readjustment of boundaries by the League is the encouragement of voluntary and mutually beneficial unions among the small states which would increase their economic power and resources and harmonize with the admitted tendency of political evolution to pro duce large political entities, though care should be taken not to promote the formation of larger states of a distinctly antagonistic character. Again, in light of the consideration that these small states existed as a whole or in part as oppressed minorities within greater states be fore the war, it is plain that they should not be allowed after their own emancipation to pro ceed to a similar oppression of lesser national minorities within their boundaries. While there is no specific guaranty of the rights of minori ties included in the Covenant of the League, this important matter is provided for in the various treaties of peace arranged by the Paris Conference, which specifically. and often in great detail stipulate the protection of minori ties, and which will be enforced by the League if it becomes opemtive.