so that I will not follow or be led by them." It may be urged that the
recantation might not be sincere, but it would discredit the authority
of those who attempt to revive the damnable doctrines.[2]

The great difficulty, of course, arises as to the means of enforcing the
agreement against war, of finding some proper and effective sanction to
secure its observance. It may be well to note that throughout this
discussion the word sanction is used in the strict legal sense, meaning
some definite penalty or punishment to be inflicted on a wrong-doer. It
is the existence of such a "sanction" which is the clearest way of
enforcing obedience, and gives a rule of conduct the force of law.

Two definite proposals are made in Lord Parker's scheme. (1) "If an act
of war be committed against any member of the League, the Council is to
notify it, and thereupon every member should (_a_) break off diplomatic
relations with the nation guilty of such act; (_b_) prohibit and take
effective steps to prevent all trade and commerce between itself and the
guilty party; (_c_) place an embargo upon all ships and property of the
guilty nation found in its territorial waters or within its
territories."

A very similar suggestion, though not quite so definite, was made by the
present writer in an article on "Sanction in International Law," which
appeared in the Italian Journal "Scientia" in 1916. "The nations might
agree that any belligerent which wilfully violates or invades neutral
territory shall be treated as a moral leper. Without actually going to
war they should cease to have dealings with the invader, forbid all
intercourse of their subjects with the country which violates the
neutral territory."