Doing Justice to Others 23En glish usually implies. Th e relation of small states to large ones was com-
pared by Mencius to the relationship of teacher to disciple, rather than as
sovereign to subject. Th is ethos of deference and hierarchy, of interconnec-
tion and noblesse oblige, was most clearly in evidence in the various leagues
of states described previously.
Confucianism did not have a monopoly on Chinese thought. One of the
alternative schools of thought was that of Mozi (or Mo- tzu or Mo ti), who
may be regarded as a dissident Confucian. Nothing certain is known of his
personal life, save that he came from the state of Song. Since his writing
predated that of Mencius, he has a claim to being the very fi rst writer in his-
tory to touch on international- law questions. Th e Mohists were more noted
than the Confucians as outspoken opponents of aggressive or off ensive war,
which Mozi condemned as a crime. But Mohism did not endorse absolute
pacifi sm. It accepted the justice of war waged in self- defense. In fact, Mozi
himself is said to have been an expert in the technology and tactics of siege
warfare— with the intention of assisting small states to repel attacks by large
ones. He was also imbued with the spirit of collective security, favoring the
rendering of assistance to small countries that are attacked by aggressors.
Mohists were even or ga nized along military lines, possibly somewhat in the
manner of the crusading orders of medieval Christendom. Th ere was an ac-
count of a grand master of a Mohist or ga ni za tion contracting with a local
lord to take on the defense of his city. It is noteworthy, too, that Mozi care-
fully distinguished aggressive war from punitive war and did not disapprove
of war that was designed to punish or counteract wrongful conduct.
In the sphere of government and public aff airs, the principal rival school
of thought to Confucianism was legalism. A core feature of legalist thought
was the insistence that law is entirely a conscious human creation, designed
for the eff ective implementation of governmental policies. Th e legalists had
no regard for tradition or custom, affi rming that an eff ective ruler should be
prepared to engage in the ruthless extirpation of past practices if they were
found to interfere with the eff ectiveness of his rule. All law was held to be
instrumental in character (i.e., designed for the attainment of specifi c ends
determined by the ruler). Each sovereign, moreover, was regarded as being
free to institute what ever law and to develop what ever policies he saw fi t.
Legalism must therefore be understood as referring not to the rule of law
per se, but instead to the idea that law is an instrument of state sovereignty