and those states of international intercourse which lie between war and peace; as to the relation into which it brings the belligerent parties, its usages and laws on land and sea, especially those which affect property taken on the latter, and lastly its suspension and final termination. Then in another chapter, the rights and obligations of neutrals will be treated of, as affected by the relations of the belligerents.

§ 115.

War, and a

what?

War may be defined to be an interruption of a state of peace for the purpose of attempting to procure good or prevent evil by force; and a just war is an attempt just war, to obtain justice or prevent injustice by force, or, in other words to bring back an injuring party to a right state of mind and conduct by the infliction of deserved evil. A justifiable war, again, is only one that is waged in the last resort, when peaceful means have failed to procure redress, or when self-defense calls for it. We have no right to redress our wrongs in a way of violence, involving harm to others, when peaceful methods of obtaining justice would be successful.

By justice, however, we intend not justice objective, but as it appears to a party concerned, or, at least, as it is who is to claimed to exist. From the independence of nations it judge? results that each has a right to hold and make good its own view of right in its own affairs. When a quarrel arises between two states, others are not to interfere (comp. § 20 a) because their views of the right in the case differ from those of a party concerned; or at least they are not to do this unless the injustice of the war is flagrant and its principle dangerous to the general welfare of nations. If a nation, however, should undertake a war with no pretext of right, other states may not only remonstrate, but use force to put down such wickedness. It may be said that as individuals ought not to judge in their own cause, so nations ought to submit their differences to third parties and abide by the issue. It would doubtless be desirable, if resort were more frequently had to arbitration before the last remedy of

Are nations bound to submit their differences to arbitrators?

des

wrongs were used, and probably, as the world grows better, this practice will more and more prevail. (Comp. §§ 225, 227.) But in the past a multitude of aggressions have occurred which could not be so prevented, which needed to be repelled by the speediest means; nor have the intelligence and probity of men been such that good arbitrators could always be found. This question, however, relates to duty, and does not affect the justice of a war which a nation should undertake on grounds which approved themselves to its own unaided judgment. (Comp. § 19.)

A state bound by treaty to assist another in the event of war, must of course judge whether the casus fœderis exists, and is also bound to pass judgment on the nature of the war, since no treaty can sanction in

Ought an ally to judge.

justice.

Rightfulin general.

§ 116.

The rightfulness of war, that is of some wars, will be clear when we consider that to states, by the divine conness of war stitution of society, belong the obligations of protecting themselves and their people, as well as the right of redress, and even, perhaps, that of punishment. (§ 20 a.) To resist injury, to obtain justice, to give wholesome lessons to wrong-doers for the future, are prerogatives deputed by the Divine King of the world to organized society, which, when exercised aright, cultivate the moral faculty, and raise the tone of judging throughout mankind. War is a dreadful thing when evil suffered or inflicted is considered; and yet war has sometimes been the restorer of national virtue, which had nearly perished under the influence of selfish, luxurious peace. A war may be waged to defend any right which a state is bound to protect, or to redress wrong, or to prevent may war be apprehended injury. And (1) a state may go to war to defend its sovereignty and independence, that is, its political life, and its territory. This reason for war is analogous to the individual's right of self-preservation, and of defending his house when attacked.

For what

undertaken?

(2.) The state being bound to protect the individual in

habitant in all his rights, is his only defender against foreign violence, and may redress his wrongs even by war. But here it is reasonable to consider the extent of the injury, and the greatness of the evil which the remedy may involve. A state may forbear to redress its own public wrongs, much more the smaller ones of individuals.

(3.) A state may engage in war to obtain satisfaction for violations of its honor, as for insults to its flag or its ambassadors, or its good name. We have seen (§ 18), that a state has a right of reputation, that this right is extremely important, and that infractions of it cannot fail to arouse a deep sense of wrong in a high-minded people. Redress, therefore, is here as just and natural as suits for libel or slander between individuals. It is plain, however, that every small want of comity or petty insult does not warrant hostile measures, though it may call for remonstrance.

(4.) Violations of those rights which nations concede to one another by treaty may call for the redress of war. A contract is broken, a contract to pay money for instance and there is no court before which the party doing the injury can be summoned.

(5.) The prevention of intended injury is a ground of war. This indeed is a case of self-defense, only the injury must be not remote nor constructive but fairly inferable from the preparations and intentions of the other party. The injury, again, which is to be prevented may not be aimed directly against a particular state, but may affect the equilibrium of a system of states. Thus the ambition of a leading state, it is now held, may, by disturbing the balance of power in Europe, provoke the interference of others upon the same continent. (Comp. §§ 43, 44.)

(6.) In some rare cases a great and flagrant wrong committed by another nation, against religion for instance or liberty, may justify hostile interference on the part of those who are not immediately affected. (§ 51.) And this, not only because the wrong, if allowed, may threaten all states, but also because the better feelings of nations impel them to help the injured.

§ 117.

Kinds of

sive and de

Wars may be waged against foreign states in the same political system, or nations out of the pale of Christian war; offen- civilization, against savages, against pirates, or by fensive war. the parts of a state against each other. Of the most of these, after the first, international law has usually but a word to say. Wars, again, have been divided into defensive and offensive. This distinction is of no very great importance, since, as we have seen, the two may differ less in essence than in form, and, as it respects form, the one runs into the other. A wronged nation, or one fearing sudden wrong, may be the first to attack, and that is perhaps its best defense. Moreover, offensive wars, however apt to be unjust, have usually some pretext of justice to urge in their favor, which nations, except in extreme cases, must respect, unless every nation is to become a judge and a party.

Measures for

§ 118.

Nations have sometimes resorted to measures for obtaining redress, which have a hostile character and yet fall redress fall short of actual war. Embargo, retorsion, and reprisal are of this description.

ing short of

war.

1. An embargo (from the Spanish and Portuguese embargar, to hinder or detain, the root of which is the same Embargo. as that of bar, barricade), is, in its special sense, a detention of vessels in a port, whether they be national or foreign, whether for the purpose of employing them and their crews in a naval expedition, as was formerly practiced,1 or for

1 The practice referred to here of detaining foreign vessels for the public service has been exalted into a right, which the French call le droit d'Angarie. The origin of this word is to be sought in the old Persian (see Herodotus, 8, 98, and Bähr's note), which applied &yyapos, ¿yyapńïov (Herodot.), to the system of public posts, or couriers (comp. the book of Esther, viii., 14). It naturally came to denote compulsory service in carrying messages; a sense which belongs to the root in the New Testament. Then in lower and in Medieval Latin it denoted in the forms angaria, angariæ, a post-station—the furnishing of cattle or wagons, as for an official or the senior burdens in general imposed on land or persons stated times when burdens or ducs were rendered — any compulsion or vexation.

political purposes, or by way of reprisals. A civil embargo may be laid for the purpose of national welfare or safety, as for the protection of commercial vessels against the rules of belligerent powers which would expose them to capture. Such was the measure adopted by the United States in December, 1807, which detained in port all vessels except those which had a public commission, and those that were already laden or should sail in ballast. The right to adopt such a measure of temporary non-intercourse is undoubted. Great Britain, although injured by the act, acknowledged that it afforded to foreign nations no ground of complaint. And yet, in the half century since that event, uninterrupted intercourse has come to be regarded almost as an absolute right, and the injuries inflicted in such a way on friendly states would cause them to protest with energy or to retaliate.

A hostile embargo is a kind of reprisals by one nation upon vessels within its ports belonging to another nation Hostile emwith which a difference exists, for the purpose of bargo. forcing it to do justice. If this measure should be followed by war, the vessels are regarded as captured, if by peace, they are restored. "This species of reprisal, says Kent (i., 61), “is laid down in the books as a lawful measure according to the usage of nations, but it is often reprobated, and cannot well be distinguished from the practice of seizing property found in the territory upon the declaration of war." Although such a measure might bring an adversary to terms, and prevent war, yet its resemblance to robbery, occurring, as it does, in the midst of peace, and its contrariety to the rules according to As a so-called right, this deduction of meanings shows that it flowed out of feudal claims and usages, which, like the right of purveyance, are now obsolete. If ever justifiable, it can be defended only on the ground of extreme necessity, though having a certain sanction from usage. "If the reason of the thing," says Phillimore (iii., p. 51, ed. 2), “and the paramount principle of national independence be duly considered, it can only be excused and perhaps scarcely justified by that clear and overwhelming necessity, which would compel an individual to seize his neighbor's horse or weapon to defend his own life." Of course, full compensation was due to the foreigner, when his "horses of the sea" were so treated. (Comp. Hautefeuille, iv., 439 et seq.) The Prussians appealed to this right in defense of their sinking six British vessels in the Seine in the late French war (1871.)