Political science, like all other branches of social science, has, in the past century, become increasingly inductive in method. Attempts to deduce conclusions regarding the details of political organization and practice by speculative thought concerning the nature of man, of liberty, of authority, of society, and so on, have now largely ceased. In their place we have efforts to collect as much data as possible concerning actual forms of state organization and governmental methods, and efforts to analyze that data and discover therein the main lines of causation and the fundamental principles of politics.

This is all a matter of common knowledge. It is, moreover, a change which most of us regard with approval. The reason for calling attention to it here, therefore, is principally to point out its effect upon the study of the international field by political scientists.

There are several consequences which flow from the placing of political science upon the basis of inductive method. The consequence of which we think most frequently is that of rendering our conclusions more certain and secure, and of reducing as much as possible the element of subjective personal judgment therein.

Our present task is one of definition. We are students of political science in its international phase, and we use history as a means. We operate in a marginal area that overlaps two fields, government as that term is usually understood, and the history of international affairs. How shall we bound this marginal area, what are its relations to those other two, more familiar conceptions?

We are forced to this study by the World War. Modern history has had an immemse expansion for the reason that a tremendous political event has taken place and the world must know why it happened, the causes as well as the occasions and events. A voluminous literature is appearing on the doings and motives of Great Powers, on the rise of nationalities and their crude strivings, on the remapping of state boundaries, and the development of spheres of economic influence. We welcome, for instance, Mr. Gibbons' recent book on World Politics, a clear and useful summary of the recent history of certain political entities called world powers and their policies. It is the story as he calls it of “the struggle of European nations for world power.” The struggle is there. More power to him in his description of the contestants and the contest. But we view all this as only preparatory for our task.

One of the most difficult problems of modern political science is that of sovereignty. The commonly accepted theory contains many elements that seem to be in obvious contradiction to our ideals of democracy; some of them do not fit into the present-day conception of state and government, while others are plain remnants of feudalism and autocracy. One should keep in mind, however, that it is not only a purely theoretical problem closely associated with the general idea of the state, but that it is also an eminently practical one, as it necessarily involves the political question of limitations on the state's powers. Those limitations are of equal importance internally, in the relations between state and citizen, and externally, in the domain of international law.

As often happens in cases where political questions are involved, the theory of sovereignty has two extreme wings of proponents. On the one hand there are theorists who defend an all-powerful state and make of the idea of sovereignty the emblem and symbol of the all-powerful state authority. On the other hand, there have appeared recently many writers, who believe that dangers lurk in the views of the first-mentioned school and who are loath to admit that any power, state or personal, may be unlimited; they distrust the theory of sovereignty, because of its association with unlimited power; consequently, they deny the existence of sovereignty altogether, asserting that it has no place whatever in the modern theory of the state.

On September 13, 1921, the Swiss Social-Democratic party filed an initiative petition for an amendment to the consitution, signed by 87,535 citizens, the required number being 50,000. The amendment thus proposed provided for the levy of a tax or special assessment upon property holdings in excess of 80,000 francs, the rates on personal holdings rising from 8 per cent upon the first 50,000 francs to 60 per cent upon amounts over 3,000,000 francs. Cantons and communes were to receive each 20 per cent of the amount yielded by the tax within their borders, the remaining 60 per cent going to the federation. The purpose of the tax, as officially stated, was to enable the public authorities to meet the obligations imposed by their social policies, particularly in such matters as old age, invalidity, and other forms of social insurance.

Following the lead of other recently created nations of Europe, Latvia has promulgated a constitution. This new republic came into the world of nations on November 18,1918, when it proclaimed its independence, although its government was not formally recognized by the United States until July 27, 1922. One year previous to this, on September 22, 1921, Latvia became a member of the League of Nations. After the independence of Latvia had been proclaimed, a constituent assembly was convened, and it was this body which drew up the new constitution. It was adopted February 15, 1922, and became law on June 30. Elections under the new organic law were held October 7 and 8, and the newly elected parliament met November 7 of the same year.

It would not be difficult to find in the political development of the Czechoslovak nation instances of the influence of American political principles, and a careful study of the subject would soon produce large results. This is quite natural in the case of a nation which is counted among those having the highest intellectual development in Europe, which has an old political tradition but at the same time has been badly oppressed by the Habsburg régime, and which is a nation sending every year a comparatively large number of emigrants and political refugees to America, a large proportion of whom continue to carry on a lively intercourse with their fatherland and even return in after years to their homes in the old country.