WILLARD N. HOGAN. International Conflict and Collective Security. Pp. vi, 202. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1955. $3.50
| Author | Frank M. Russell |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271625630400123 |
| Date | 01 March 1956 |
| Published date | 01 March 1956 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
150
the
surrender
of
customs
and
excises.
At
first
granted
upon
a
fairly
equitable
per
capita
basis,
uneven
growth
of
the
provinces
in
population
and
wealth
made
the
original
plan
obsolete,
but
failure
to
agree
upon
a
general
philosophy
of
subsidies
to
meet
new
conditions
encouraged
political
bicker-
ing
among
the
provinces.
Indirect
meth-
ods
of
subsidy
and
evasion
of
restrictions
in
the
British
North
America
Act
have
re-
sulted.
Recently,
income,
corporation,
and
succession
taxes
have
been
&dquo;rented&dquo;
from
the
provinces
according
to
a
plan
that
gives
each
province
a
choice
among
several
meth-
ods
of
compensation.
Quebec
has
not
yet
come
in
under
the
plan.
In
the
United
States,
direct
subsidies
would
contradict
the
theory
of
local
au-
tonomy,
but
indirect
methods
have
not
been
uncommon.
Grants-in-aid,
when
com-
pared
with
the
incidence
of
federal
taxa-
tion,
tend
to
favor
the
poorer
states.
Re-
cently,
a
more
direct
approach
to
subsidies,
in
a
relaxation
of
the
matching
principle
for
states
of
low
income,
has
appeared
in
the
National
School
Lunch
Act
and
the
Hospital
Construction
Act.
The
book
might
have
been
more
read-
able
if
the
complete
story
for
each
coun-
try
could
have
been
told
separately,
but
the
presentation
of
a
large
research
product
in
a
complex
subject
necessarily
involves
difficulties
in
organization.
There
is
a
brief
section
on
the
newer
federations
par-
ticularly
India,
Nigeria,
British
Central
Africa,
and
the
proposed
British
West
In-
dian
federation.
W.
REED
WEST
George
Washington
University
WILLARD
N.
HOGAN.
International
Con-
flict
and
Collective
Security.
Pp.
vi,
202.
Lexington:
University
of
Kentucky
Press,
1955.
$3.50.
This
is
a
painstaking
case
study
in
for-
mat,
technique,
and
scope
suggestive
of
a
doctoral
dissertation,
of
what
the
author
calls
the
&dquo;principle
of
concern&dquo;
in
inter-
national
relations.
War
between
or
among
any
nations
is
regarded
as
affecting
all,
and
when
one
attacks
another
it
is
guilty
of
an
offense
against
all.
The
author
points
out
that
this
&dquo;principle&dquo;
was
first
incorporated
into
international
organization
in
Article
11
of
the
League
of
Nations
Covenant
which
declared
war
or
the
threat
of
war
&dquo;a
matter
of
concern&dquo;
to
all
of
the
mem-
bers
of
the
League.
The
problem
of
the
adequate
imple-
mentation
of
this
&dquo;principle&dquo;
so
that
ag-
gressors
may
be
restrained
or
punished,
and
peace
preserved
or
restored
has
as
yet
proved
insoluble
in
a
world
of
sovereign
states
in
which
fear
and
ambition,
rather
than
universally
accepted
legal
principles
and
a
fundamental
political
consensus,
de-
termine
the
conduct
of
these
states.
The
presumption
of
political
change
only
by
peaceful
means
is
directly
expressed
or
in-
heres
in
the
League
Covenant,
in
the
Pact
of
Paris,
and
the
United
Nations,
as
well
as
in
other
formal
international
undertak-
ings ;
but
flagrant
aggression
and
hot
and
cold
wars
still
keep
the
world
in
turmoil.
Fleeting
hopes
for
a
better
order
of
things
were
at
one
time
expressed
in
the
phrase
the
&dquo;spirit
of
Lucamo.&dquo;
More
recently
the
&dquo;spirit
of
Geneva&dquo;
is
even
more
rapidly
dissolving
despite
the
threat
of
a
nuclear
war
of
annihilation.
However,
the
author
does
not
permit
himself
to
be
deflected
by
a
sense
of
tragedy
from
the
prosaic,
but
useful
task
of
portraying
and
analyzing
the
instru-
ments
and
procedures
of
pacific
settlement
which
have
been
devised
since
the
First
World
War.
Likewise
he
records
the
con-
flicting
points
of
view
of
nations
whose
history,
political
predilections,
geographic
conditions,
and
economic
circumstances
present
formidable
obstacles
to
the
imple-
mentation
of
the
&dquo;principle
of
concern,&dquo;
or
even
to
universal
acceptance
of
its
va-
lidity.
In
the
concluding
pages
the
author
dis-
cusses
briefly
the
opponents
of
a
collective
security
system
such
as
that
provided
in
the
United
Nations
Charter.
These
in-
clude
the
isolationists
and
neutralists
who
&dquo;reject
the
basic
validity
of
the
principle
of
concern&dquo;;
(p.
181)
the
world
govern-
ment
advocates
whose
position
is
regarded
as
unrealistic
since
&dquo;the
prerequisites
and
conditions
for
an
effective
world
govern-
ment
are
not
presently
available&dquo;;
(p.
182)
and
the
critics
such
as
Hans
Morgenthau
who
find
the
&dquo;concept
of
collective
se-
curity
...
in
principle
unworkable&dquo;
(p.
To continue reading
Request your trial