Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

have to deal with several powers, whose councils may be divided. They know, that International Law will be a farce after the war as much as it has been during it, and that their "interests" will only be considered if they happen to be identical with those of the mightiest combination of large Powers. They know, also, that if any of them, after a successful war, were to become at all powerful, the next war would be waged with the object of again reducing them, as their increased power would mean a threat to some neighbour somewhere. We need not give examples; history abounds in them. We do not mean to say that large States have always been wrong, or that they have been wrong at all. As long as there is no binding International Law, no International Law that can assert itself by united power, every State will act with supreme indifference to any ethical conceptions. There are, of course, a great many varieties of States, as in the past, all more or less dangerous to others and to their own subjects. There is, for instance, the State with the "historical mission"; the hard-working State that wants markets; the prolific State, which requires colonies; the State which is the Sole Proprietor of "Cultur"; the State, which yearnstomake alle other States "free"; the dynastie State, which ruins itself in order to keep some imperial family in power; the State, which expects to be swallowed up by some powerful neighbour ; the querulant State, constantly arming in fear