In early times the basis of jurisdiction is the existence and the constant assertion of physical power over the parties to the action, but as civilization advances the mere existence of such power tends to make its exercise less and less essential. If this is true, it must be because there is something in civilization itself which diminishes the necessity for a resort to actual force in sustaining the judgments of courts. And it is quite clear that civilization does supply an element which is theoretically capable of entirely supplanting the exercise of force in the assertion of jurisdiction. This is respect for law. If the parties to the action desire to obey the law, a mere determination by the court of their reciprocal rights and duties is enough. No sheriff with his writ of injunction or execution need shake the mailed fist of the State in the faces of the litigants. The judgment of the court merely directs the will of the parties, and the performance of duty becomes the automatic consequence of the declaration of right. It is not to be assumed that the peaceful acquiescence of the highly civilized man in the legal findings of the court implies any loss of power in the court itself. Quite the contrary. The greater the ease with which the court's findings impose themselves on litigants, the more the real power of the court is demonstrated. But the force behind the finding of the court has become a latent instead of an active force. This transition is possible, however, only when the existence of the force is so well recognized and so clearly understood that no one would think it worth while to put it to the test. The entire cessation of actual coercive measures on the part of the court would therefore mark, not the disappearance, but the perfection of the rule of force.
Sunderland, Edson R. "A Modern Evolution in Remedial Rights—The Declaratory Judgment." Mich. L. Rev. 16 (1917): 69-89.