-jG TRANSACTIONS, I9OI-2 



the latter Slavic, Finnish and Tartar peoples. Again the Jews 

 are a nation at large. "Nothing," says Leroy-Beanli^n (i), 



can be more false thr\ 11 this conception. The whole of lii-:tory contradicts it, and the 

 present even more than the past We mu-t not confuse the firee region-! of the su 1 - 

 rounding social medium, the Society, with its spontaneous movement, ever creating 

 new combinations with an inexhaustible fertility ; we must not, I say, confuse this 

 with that apparatus of force and coercion which is call'-d the State 



And yet it is not easy to define the actual, concrete State 

 as distinguished from a Nation or a People. Possibly I would 

 satisfy the critical instinct of the political scientist if I were 

 to declare that the State is simply the embodiment of govern- 

 mental powers. But I will not make myself clear to the 

 averag-- lay mind unless I formulate the criteria, or rather the 

 phenomena, of the State. 



In the first place, then, it, will be seen that the State mani- 

 fests itself as the organization of a People for the establish- 

 ment of Government, — if the organization be not for this great 

 political end then it will have no greater status in Interna- 

 tional law than a combination of men for commercial pur- 

 poses, such as a joint-stock company, or for religious purposes, 

 such as an incorporated church. Secondly, it will be seen that 

 a State always exists within definite geographical boundaries. 

 Thirdly, it is to be noted that it must possess an organ of 

 Government capable of making and enforcing law within the 

 community — for, as Austin (2) puts it, "in order that a given 

 Socittv may form a Society political, the generality or bulk of 

 its members must habitually obey a superior determinate as 

 well as common." x'Vnd fourthly and last, it will be observed 

 that a ' simple' State — by this the publicists mean an inde- 

 pendent State — must not only be supreme within its own 

 borders but must also noL be subject to any extra-territorial 

 control. Let me add, by the way, that in this last category 

 there inheres a very adequate test of tlie essential difference 

 between a People and a State, above alluded to. The People 

 resident within certain geograpical boundaries of the civilized 



(1) The Modern State, c. iv., p. oO 



(2) Prov. Juris. Det. I Lect. VI p 221 



