294 WRIGHT— POWER TO MEET RESPONSIBILITIES. 



employ its powers to the fullest extent to perform all acts, which 

 are specifically required by treaty, agreement, contract, or the oper- 

 ation of international law, but also that organs exist with powers 

 sufificient to assure a full performance. For acts of government 

 organs, the responsibility of the nation is met if all organs confine 

 their exercises of power within the limits of international law and 

 treaty. For acts or omissions of individuals, the responsibility of 

 the nation is met if all organs employ " due diligence " to enforce 

 order and the observance of international law and treaty by persons 

 within their jurisdiction. The present responsibility can be met 

 only if organs exist competent and willing to execute specific obli- 

 gations. 



136. Performance of Obligations by the States. 



The states cannot perform national obligations. They cannot 

 themselves contract treaty or political obligations with foreign na- 

 tions. They may enter into contract with foreign individuals, or 

 nations, as by sale of bonds or other securities,'^ but a failure to 

 pay these would not involve a national responsibility so long as the 

 -foreign bondholder has as favorable an opportunity to collect as 

 ■.the domestic.^ Some of the states have established courts of claims 

 in which they may be sued, though the general principle of the 

 non-suability of sovereigns applies to them.^ While under the Xlth 

 amendment states cannot be sued by foreign individuals in the fed- 

 eral courts, there seems to be no constitutional bar to such a suit 

 by foreign states. National statutes, how^ever, have not provided 

 for such a jurisdiction and commentators doubt whether it could be 

 exercised.* 



In case of mob violence in the states we have seen that the 

 national government is responsible for a lack of due diligence, and 



1 Infra, sec. 157. 



2 Supra, sec. 89, pars. 2, 3. 



3Willoughby, op. ctt., p. 1105; Wright, Enforcement of Int. Law, p. 103. 



4 Willoughby, op. cit., p. 1060. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (5 Pet. i, 

 1831) jurisdiction was refused on the ground that the Cherokees were not a 

 foreign nation, thus implying that if they had been jurisdiction would have 



