to intimidate it. It had to choose between a continuance of the degrading tutelage it had been under since 1809, and the striking of a manly blow for political emancipation. It chose the latter, intervened in the great struggle, and assisted in the liberation of Europe from the intolerable tyranny of Napoleon. Its national independence and the integrity of its territory was at stake, and there can be no doubt that its conduct was in accordance with the strictest rules of International Law on the subject of intervention. § 82. Statesmen have sometimes endeavored to justify an intervention on the ground that it was necessary in order to ward off the illegal intervention of another power. Protection of another state from illegal intervention. The best example of this in recent history is the British expedition to Portugal in 1826.2 The lawful and constitutional Queen, Donna Maria, was an infant; and the Regency found themselves involved in a struggle with her uncle, Don Miguel, who had put himself at the head of the absolutist party, and was opposed to the constitutional charter. Ferdinand VII. of Spain sympathized with Miguel, and allowed Spanish territory to be used as a secure base of operations for the expeditions of the Portuguese pretender, though he had promised the British Government not to interfere in the struggle.3 Mr. Canning, who was then Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, was careful to disclaim any intention of interfering in the internal affairs of Portugal. He declared that when the British troops landed in the country "nothing would be done by them to enforce the establishment of the constitution, but they must take care that nothing was done by others to prevent it from being fairly carried into effect."4 Other 1 Fyffe, Modern Europe, I., 490–496. 2 Wheaton, History of the Law of Nations, Pt. IV., § 24. 3 Annual Register for 1826, pp. 191-205, 310–344. Speech in House of Commons, Dec. 11, 1826. reasons for the intervention were put forward, but the main contention that it was entered upon to prevent the illegal interference of Spain was a sufficient technical justification. It was, however, little more. There can be no doubt that Great Britain did ardently desire the success of the constitutional cause and the exclusion of Spanish influence from the Portuguese kingdom. There would have been no intervention had Donna Maria been an absolute ruler, and Don Miguel a champion of freedom. § 83. Treaty-right. Numerous treaties of guarantee have been entered into by civilized powers, and though they are not so frequent in modern times as they used to be a century or two centuries ago, they are quite numerous enough to involve states in many difficulties which they would have escaped had they preserved their freedom of action. Sometimes intervention is asked for under such treaties from a government unwilling to give it; sometimes it is thrust, in accordance with their provisions, upon communities unwilling to receive it. The Republic of Columbia has several times appealed for aid to the United States to protect the railway across the Isthmus of Panama from the attacks of insurgents, and has based its requests upon the treaty of 1846. By the thirty-fifth article of this treaty the United States guaranteed the "perfect neutrality" of the isthmus, and Columbia's "rights of sovereignty and property" over it. But though the Government of Washington has sometimes sent a force to Panama, it has always denied that it was under any obligation to Columbia to defend the route across the isthmus against local insurrection, and maintained that its guarantee refers only to the case of attack from foreign powers. We need not go back very far in modern history to discover instances in Europe where 1 Treaties of the United States, pp. 208, 1275. states have been glad to find some loophole of escape from guarantees unwisely entered into not long before. On April 15, 1856, England, France and Austria guaranteed "jointly and severally the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire." When the great war between Russia and Turkey broke out in 1877 the late Earl Derby, who at that time held the seals of the English foreign office, contended that Great Britain was not obliged to interfere under it for the protection of Turkey, unless France and Austria resolved to do so and formally called upon her to assist them. It would be easy to multiply instances. Indeed, almost the only case in recent times where prompt and efficacious measures have been taken in pursuance of a guarantee is to be found in the conduct of Great Britain when the neutrality of Belgium was threatened in 1870 during the Franco-Prussian war. She immediately concluded two conventions, — one between herself, Belgium, and Prussia, and the other between herself, Belgium, and France. The first stipulated that, in case France violated Belgian integrity and neutrality, Great Britain would join her forces with those of Belgium and Prussia to repel the attack. The second contained exactly similar stipulations mutatis mutandis, to meet the case of an attack by Prussia.2 These vigorous methods attained their object. Belgium was left unmolested by both the belligerents and the British guarantee of her neutrality contained in the treaties of 1831 and 1839 shown to be a living reality. Obvious considerations of policy dictated the action of the English Ministry on this occasion. would probably have been what it was had no previous guarantee existed. States would do well to shun such perilous expedients, which do but tide over an immediate difficulty by storing up trouble for future time. But, nevertheless, when a treaty of guarantee exists, it is impossible to 1 Holland, European Concert in the Eastern Question, pp. 259, 260. 2 Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, III., 1886-1891. 8 Wheaton, History of Law of Nations, Pt. IV., It say that the power which acts on it is technically a lawbreaker. And this is true of that most objectionable class of treaty which guarantees a particular form of government in a state, or the succession to the throne to a particular family, and thus gives to the guaranteeing power the right to interfere in the internal concerns of its neighbor. There is the right, however much we may dislike it. We may visit with the severest moral condemnation the state which insists on acting upon it; but we cannot brand the action as illegal. The ethical level of the actor may be that of the money-lender who ruins a poor man by exacting the last farthing of the two or three hundred per cent due to him. under an improvident bond; but, like the money-lender, he has the letter of the law on his side. The only kind of guarantees not open to objection seem to be those entered into by the collective body of states, or by the leading powers acting on their behalf, for the purpose of neutralizing a territory or a water-way under the public law of the civilized world. § 84. Request of one of struggle. Intervention at the request of one of the parties to a civil war is not uncommon. A recent instance occurred in 1849, when, at the request of the Austrian Government, Russia came to its assistance in its struggle the parties to the with the Hungarian insurgents. The fact that the intervening power is asked to interfere by one of the belligerents is often put forward as a sufficient justification. for its action, and there are not wanting writers who argue in support of this view. Some publicists deny the legality of intervention at the request of rebels, but are disposed to look more favorably upon intervention at the request of established governments.1 Others hold that foreign powers may assist the party which appears to them to have justice on its side. Both views are examples of that loose mode of 1 e.g. Woolsey, International Law, § 42. 2 e.g. Vattel, Droit des Gens, II., § 56. thinking which mistakes moral preferences for legal principles. Any intervention in an internal struggle is an attempt to prevent the people of a state from settling their own affairs in their own way, and, as such, a gross violation of national independence. The request of one of the parties cannot alter the quality of the act, and render legal that which without it would be contrary to the fundamental principles of the law. It makes no difference whether the invitation comes from the established authorities or from rebels. In neither case can an incitement to do wrong render the act done in consequence of it lawful and right. Preservation of the Balance of Power. § 85. From the middle of the seventeenth century till recent times, it was an undoubted maxim of European diplomacy that what was called the Balance of Power must be preserved at all risks. The courts and cabinets of the Old World were dominated by the idea that the chief states of Europe ought to possess such a nicely proportioned share of power that no one of them should be able to greatly outweigh the others in influence and authority. It was held that a sort of international equilibrium of forces had been established, and that any state which attempted to destroy its nice adjustments might be attacked by others whose relative importance would be diminished if it were permitted to carry out its projects. For a long time this doctrine was accounted axiomatic. It had only to be stated to be accepted. To preserve the Balance of Power, states kept up standing armies,1 entered into wearisome negotiations and waged incessant wars. But of late years it has fallen into disrepute, and those who still 1 See Preamble to the old British Mutiny Act: "And whereas it is adjudged necessary by His Majesty and this present Parliament that a Body of Forces should be continued for the Safety of the United Kingdom, the Defence of the Possessions of His Majesty's Crown, and the Preservation of the Balance of Power in Europe." |