is difficult to find anywhere a wide survey of historical instances and an attempt to refer them to principles, laudable or blameworthy. Yet this deficiency in the treatment of a great subject is hardly to be wondered at. We can generally deduce the rules of International Law from the practice of states; but in this case it is impossible to do anything of the kind. Not only have different states acted on different principles, but the action of the same state at one time has been irreconcilable with its action at another. On this subject history speaks with a medley of discordant voices, and the facts of international intercourse give no clue to the rules of International Law. We might, indeed, deem that the search for rules of any kind was hopeless, were it not that it is possible to deduce certain clear and unmistakable precepts from principles admitted on all sides. No one doubts the existence of the right of independence, or the duty of self-preservation, and from these we are able by a process of deduction to obtain what we are in search of. § 76. cessity of self Every state is bound to respect the independence of its neighbors as a fundamental principle of International Law; but a regard for its own safety is still more Intervention · fundamental, and, if the two principles clash, based on the neit naturally and properly acts upon the latter. preservation. The doctrine that self-preservation, or the preservation of what is more precious even than life, overrides ordinary rules, is in no way peculiar to the law of nations. In every civilized state homicide is a crime of the greatest magnitude; yet a woman who slays a man in defence of her honor is accounted blameless. It is universally true that the law of the land protects property; yet in the case of actual invasion military authorities are allowed to destroy property, if such destruction is necessary for the performance of warlike operations against an enemy in the field. By apply ing the principle which underlies these instances to the case of intervention, we obtain the rule that Intervention to ward off imminent danger to the intervening power is justifiable. But we must note carefully that the danger must be direct and immediate, not contingent and remote, and, moreover, it must be sufficiently important in itself to justify the expenditure of blood and treasure in order to repel it. The mere fear that something done by a neighboring state to-day may possibly be dangerous to us in the future if that state should happen to become hostile, is no just ground of intervention. If it were, nations might always be at war to-day to prevent war fifty years hence! Further, the cause which justifies intervention must be important enough to justify war. Governments constantly submit to small inconveniences rather than resort to hostilities; and an evil which is not sufficiently grave to warrant a recourse to the terrible arbitrament of battle is not sufficiently grave to warrant intervention. Intervention right. § 77. We have seen how the duty of self-preservation may override the duty of respect for a neighbor's freedom of action. It must now be pointed out that this is not based on treaty- the only exception to the general principle of non-intervention. States constantly enter into agreements which modify their rights and duties as defined by International Law; and we cannot say that treaty stipulations of any kind are forbidden by it, though it is easy to find agreements which are condemned by enlightened morality. We must, therefore, lay down the further rule that Intervention in pursuance of a right to intervene given by treaty is technically justifiable. We ought, however, to add that treaties which give such a right are almost always unwise, and are found afterwards to involve the signatory powers in difficulties from which they cannot escape without loss of honor or dignity. § 78. Intervention based on protection of another state intervention. The last exception to the ordinary rule is based upon the principle that a state may lawfully interpose to prevent illegal action on the part of other states. War to rebut the aggressions of an unscrupulous neighbor is the most just and necessary of all against illegal wars. Intervention to prevent an unscrupulous neighbor from aggressive interference in the concerns of a third power is the most unselfish of all interventions. If a state may without blame defend its own integrity and honor, it may defend the menaced integrity and honor of a friend and be accounted no violator of the law of nations. tain, therefore, a third and last rule, which is that We ob Intervention to prevent or terminate the illegal intervention of another state is justifiable. But we must distinguish here between justification as between the states concerned and justification as between the intervening government and its subjects. The former may be complete, while the latter is wofully lacking. A power which spent its strength in redressing the wrongs of other powers, and imposed thereby on its own people burdens and sacrifices out of all proportion to the good it effected by its enterprises, would neglect its first duty and lay itself open to grave blame in spite of the purity of its intentions. § 79. Interventions on The rules we have just laid down cover every case in which intervention is legal. With regard to the second and third of them, the justification is little more than technical. It is only when a state intervenes to preserve itself from some grave and imminent danger that we can regard its action as grounds of interventions to humanity and stop persecutions. beyond the scope of criticism. In the opinion of some writers interventions undertaken on the ground of humanity and interventions for the purpose of putting a stop to religious persecutions are also legal. But we cannot venture to bring them within the ordinary rules of International Law. It certainly does not lay down that cruelty on the part of a government renders it liable to be deprived of its freedom of action, nor does it impose upon states the obligation of preventing either ordinary barbarity on the part of their neighbors, or that special kind of inhumanity which takes the form of religious persecution. At the same time, it will not condemn such interventions if they are undertaken with a single eye to the object in view and without ulterior considerations of self-interest and ambition. Should the cruelty be so long continued and so revolting that the best instincts of human nature are outraged by it, and should an opportunity arise for bringing it to an end and removing its cause without adding fuel to the flame of the contest, there is nothing in the law of nations which will condemn as a wrong-doer the state which steps forward and undertakes the necessary intervention. Each case must be judged on its own merits. There is a great difference between declaring a national act to be legal, and therefore part of the order under which states have consented to live, and allowing it to be morally blameless as an exception to ordinary rules. I have no right to enter my neighbor's garden without his consent; but if I saw a child of his robbed and ill-treated in it by a tramp, I should throw ceremony to the winds and rush to the rescue without waiting to ask for permission. In the same way, a state may, in a great emergency, set aside every-day restraints; and neither in its case nor in the corresponding case of the individual will blame be incurred. But, nevertheless, the ordinary rule is good for ordinary cases, which, after all, make up at least ninety-nine hundredths of life. To say that it is no rule because it may laudably be ignored once or twice in a generation, is to overturn order in an attempt to exalt virtue. An intervention to put a stop to barbarous and abominable cruelty is "a high act of policy above and beyond the domain of law." It is destitute of technical legality, but it may be morally right and even praiseworthy to a high degree. $ 80. Grounds of intervention put for ward on various occasions. We are now in a position to consider the grounds of intervention which have been put forward from time to time by states. The history of wars and diplomatic transactions shows that rulers have been much too eager to meddle with the concerns of their neighbors, and ambitious powers have often seized upon colorable pretexts for controlling the destiny of weaker states. We will attempt to classify interventions under various heads, giving instances of each, and applying the principles we have adopted to a consideration of their legality. § 81. Protection from imminent danger has been frequently put forth as a justification for interference; and, if the plea is good in fact, it is undoubtedly sound in law. Protection from Thus, when in 1804 the British Ministry dis- imminent danger. covered that Spain had entered into arrangements to assist France, then at war with England, and was preparing a naval armament in the harbor of Ferrol, they were justified in remonstrating strongly and in commencing hostilities when their remonstrances were disregarded.2 Another instance is furnished by the conduct of Austria in 1813. At the close of the armistice granted by Napoleon after the battle of Bautzen, it joined Russia and Prussia against France, the reason being that the French Emperor had rejected its offers of mediation on the basis of reasonable concessions on his part, and had brought up the army of Italy 1 Historicus, Letters on Some Questions of International Law, I. |