1 PEACEFUL CHANGE OR WAR? 71which appeared in 1937 as follows: The Problem of Peaceful Change in
the Pacific Area: A Study of the Work of the Institute of Pacific Relations
and its Bearing on the Problem of Peaceful Change. From its inception,
as Angus noted, the IPR had inquired into the ‘demands for the resto-
ration of sovereign rights’ which had been ‘impaired’ and demands ‘for
changes which would give new rights to certain states, and correspond-
ingly diminish the existing rights of others.’ According to Angus, ‘[m]ost
of the claims of the Chinese...[fell]...into the former category’ whereas
‘most of the Japanese claims [fell] into the latter.’^218 At the same time as
he further noted, the IPR’s exploration of the theme of peaceful change
had not been confined to an examination of particular demands but had
broached a much broader question: ‘whether the rights of nations may
not, in the future, be standardised at something much less than national
sovereignty, either by the creation of some over-riding political organiza-
tion, or by the recognition that there is such a thing as abuse of a right
giving rise to some sort of equitable claim against the country guilty of
the abuse.’^219
Inquiries into particular demands for change on the part of certain
states in the Pacific and the discussion of the more general question of
the application of the ethical standard to the conduct of international
affairs, Angus pointed out, were pursued by the IPR because its mem-
bers considered international war to be an abomination and thus hoped
that means could be found by which disputes in the Pacific region could
be settled peacefully. Indeed, he stated that ‘for many the belief that
informed discussion will facilitate the peaceful adjustment of apparently
conflicting interests...[was]...the main reason for membership in the
Institute.’^220
Angus pointed out that in addressing the question of peaceful adjust-
ments to the status quo, the IPR had mainly focussed on the possibility
of the kinds of changes on which reasonable actors might be expected
to agree. It had not, he added, given the same attention to cases in
which actors behave unreasonably, by which he largely meant cases in
which demands for change are accompanied by the suggestion of force.
(^218) Henry Forbes Angus, The Problem of Peaceful Change in the Pacific Area: A Study
of the Work of the Institute of Pacific Relations and Its Bearing on the Problem of Peaceful
Change (London: Oxford University Press, 1937), 3–4.
(^219) Ibid., 4.
(^220) Ibid., 9–10.