CHAPTER II. OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NATIONS IN A STATE OF Equality pendence of Nations. (1) Of Intervention, and of Recognition'. A VIEW of the external rights and duties of nations in peace will lead us to examine the grounds of national independence, the extent of territorial jurisdiction, the rights of embassy and of commercial intercourse. In the whole range of the matter discussed in public and Inde International Law no proposition has been more explicitly announced or more implicitly accepted than this: that nations are equal in respect to each other, and entitled to claim equal consideration for their rights, whatever their relative dimensions or strength may be, or however they may differ in government, religion, or manners. Intervention or Interference. As a necessary consequence of this equality it follows not only that each nation has a right to govern itself as it thinks proper, but that no one nation is entitled to dictate to another a form of government or religion or a course of internal policy; nor is any state entitled to take cognizance or notice of the domestic administration of another state, or of what passes within it between the Government and its own subjects. The Spaniards, as Vattel observes, violated all rule of right when they set up a tribunal of their own to judge the Inca of Peru according to their laws. Had he broken the law of nations in respect to [1 Vattel, Bk. II. c. 4; Martens' Précis du Droit des Gens, Tome I. Liv. iv. c. 1; Klüber, Droit des Gens, I. p. ii. c. ii.; Schmalz, Livre v. c. iv.; Heffter, §§ 27 and 31; Gerard de Rayneval, Tome 1. Liv. ii. c. 1; Phillimore, International Law, Vol. 1. pt. 3; Wheaton on International Law, by W. B. Lawrence, Vol. 1. pt. 2. cc. 1, 2 and 3; Calvo, T. 1. Livre iii. §§ 90—132, and Bluntschli, §§ 474-480. tion gene rally. them they would have had a right to punish him, but Intervenwhen they undertook to judge of the merits of his own interior administration and to try and punish him for acts committed in the course of it, they were guilty of the grossest injustice. [Whatever value in other respects the histories of the two great nations of antiquity, Greece and Rome, may have, they possess little or none by way of illustration of International Law; and certainly to no part of International Law does this remark apply so exactly as to the present topic, viz. the equality and independence of nations. Among the Greeks the right of one state to interfere in the internal concerns of another seems never to have been questioned,-whilst the policy of the ancient Romans was to lose no chance of turning the contentions of other nations to their own advantage, by an interference in which the pretence that they were taking part with the oppressed against the oppressor was but a cloak to their real object, viz. conquest and dominion'. In this way they dissolved the Achæan league and destroyed the last vestige of Grecian freedom, having, after the defeat of Philip and the conquest of Macedon, made a pretentious proclamation of independence, and a specious gift of liberty franchises and laws to Greece, which they seized the earliest opportunity to set at nought.] But it is unnecessary to ransack ancient history for instances of unwarrantable and flagrant violation of the independence of nations. Abundant examples can be found in the history of our own times. The interference of Russia, Prussia, and Austria in the internal affairs of Poland, first dismembering it of large portions of its territory and then finally overturning its constitution and destroying its existence as an independent power, was an aggravated abuse of national right. There were several cases prior to or contemporary with the most violent periods of the French revolution, which were unjustifiable invasions of the right of independent nations to prescribe their own forms of government and to deal in their discretion with their own domestic concerns. Of these instances two of the most memorable are the invasion of Holland by a Prussian corps in 1787, and of France by 1 Niebuhr's Lectures, Vol. II. p. 150, Bohn's edition, 1852. 2 Livy, Lib. xxxiii. cc. 32, 33. rally. Interven the Prussian army in 1792, whilst the wars that were tion gene- fomented or declared against all monarchical forms of government by the French rulers during the earlier stages of the revolution, and the inflammatory language of their decrees, [at once attest the intemperate nature of that revolution and the contempt of republican France for the soundest principles of International Law. Nor were these evil examples confined to the turbulent times of revolution or to democratic governments. Indeed, so numerous have been the instances of intervention and interference among the great European nations on various pretexts, that we shall be justified not only in enumerating the principal interventions that have taken place between the year 1818 and the present time, but in examining somewhat closely the subject of intervention or interference and interposition. And here it is well to bear in mind the distinct meaning of these expressions, for much of the Interven vagueness and confusion that have been imported into discussions connected with this subject may be traced to the want of precision in its terminology. By Intervention then, or Interference, for the terms are synonymous in the limited signification we are about to give them, is meant an actual forcible interference (whether by arms or by a hostile attitude only short of armed force) in the internal affairs of another state'; and by Interposition, which, as we shall shew by and by, is not Intervention so much as war, is meant the taking part by one state in a quarrel between two portions of another state or between two other states, whether by or without invitation; and of each of these two operations we shall have instances in the following narrative. Distinction between tion or Interference and Inter position. Congress of Aix-laChapelle. We begin with the year 1818, because that year saw at Aix-la-Chapelle the foundation of an overpowering alliance between the five great European States, constituting, as Mr Wheaton observes, a sort of superintending authority over the international affairs of Europe, and established with the intention of introducing a perpetual system of intervention. "The close alliance of the monarchs who became parties to the political system established in 1815," says the declaration of the five powers, "affords Europe the most sacred pledge of its 1 Speech of Earl Russell at Blairgowrie, see Times, Sept. 28, tion gene rally. future tranquillity;" "the sovereigns engage to be obser- Intervenvant of the great principles they profess to recognize as the foundation of their compact, in the various conferences which may from time to time be held either between themselves or their respective ministers; whether the conferences in question be devoted to a common deliberation upon their own affairs, or whether they concern matters in which other governments shall have formally requested their mediation, the same disposition which is to guide their own deliberations and govern their own diplomatic transactions shall also preside at these conferences, and have for its constant object the general peace and tranquillity of the world'." tion in Spain, The events of nearly half a century have put an interpretation on these words, and shew us how far Europe has had cause to rejoice over this sacred pledge of its future tranquillity-how far the deliberations of the great powers have had for their constant object the general peace of Europe, and how many of these powers have waited for the formal request of mediation before venturing to interfere in the affairs of their neighbours. The first fruits of this pacific policy were soon produced. Two years after the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, an oppor- Revolutunity was given for testing its principles. On the restoration of the Spanish monarchy, after the fall of Napo- 1820. leon, a Constitution had been framed by the Cortes and laid before the king. This Constitution he rejected, as one that not merely limited his position, but reduced him to a state of dependence upon the Cortes. Not content, however, with the rejection of the Constitution, and with the dissolution of the body by which it was framed, Ferdinand proceeded to the utmost length of despotism, and reigned for six years with absolute authority, supported by an Inquisition, the Jesuits, and a restricted press. But so unbearable and odious became his tyranny, that various attempts were made to restrain it-attempts that at last, by the aid of an insurrectionary party in the Spanish army, were crowned with a temporary success. The spirit of revolution, which is catching, soon spread to a country that from years of trouble, bad government, and frequent changes, was ripe for revolt. Naples had not 1 British and Foreign State Papers, 1818-19, Vol. vi. p. 18; Annual Register for 1819, Appendix, p. 135. tion. Revolution in Naples, 1820. The de spatch of the Three Powers, 1821. Interven long before the period we are speaking of been united to the kingdom of Sicily', but discontented with the Constitution imposed upon them, and eager for a more liberal form of government, the people rose against the crown. A military revolution broke out at Naples, extorting from the king the acceptance of the Spanish Constitution and a united Parliament for Naples and Sicily. Alarmed lest the revolutionary doctrine thus started in Naples should be productive of mischief to Austrian domination, Metternich put in practice the principles announced at Aix-laChapelle, and, summoning the five powers to council, a Congress was held first at Troppau, and afterwards at Laybach, the result of which was a circular despatch from Austria, Prussia, and Russia, justifying their proceedings on the ground of the existence of a vast conspiracy against all established power and conceded rights in Europe, and announcing their intention to oppose all pretended reforms produced by revolution, and to protect the peace of Europe against the horrors of universal anarchy and fanatical innovation3. The answer of the British Government to this despatch, dated the 10th of January, 1821, was a strong dissent from the general principles adopted at Troppau and Laybach. It declared the system of measures proposed to be in direct repugnance to the fundamental laws of Great Britain, and the principles on which those measures rested to be such as could not be safely admitted as a system of International Law, leading, if adopted, to more frequent and extensive interference in the internal transactions of states than was reconcileable with the efficient authority and dignity of independent sovereigns; and then were added these emphatic words: "That no government was more prepared than their own, 'to uphold the right of any state or states to interfere where their own security or essential interests were 1 In 1806 after the invasion of Naples by the French, Joseph Bonaparte being made king in 1808, the crown of Naples and Sicily was conferred on Murat. By the treaty of Vienna, 1735, Naples and the Sicilies together with the Stati degli Presidi had been surrendered by Austria to Spain as a secundogeniture in favour of Don Carlos. 2 British and Foreign State Papers, 1820-21, Vol. VIII. pp. 1128-1205; Annual Register for 1820, Part 11. Appendix to Chron. pr. 723-746; Annual Register for 1821, Chap. XII. 3 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 1128. |