THE LAW OF NATIONS.*
Dn. TRAVERS TWISS has added a valuable contribution to the litera- ture of International Law. Though not offering much which can be
considered original except in the way of illustrations drawn from the complications of our own day, his book is a digest at once of the principles to which international law appeals, and of the treatises and decisions on the subject to which the civilized world have agreed to pay respect. The relations of nations to each other in war, the most interesting, because the most practical portion of this branch of jurisprudence, are reserved for a second volume, but the first is, never- theless, complete in itself. It defines clearly all the principles upon which the system of international relations is held to rest, and enables the student acquainted with history to comprehend at once how far the reported action of any state diverges from the system to which Europe has agreed to adhere. For it must never be forgotten that, however ancient some of the precedents to which it appeals, and however variable some of the principles on which it is based, the Law of Nations means in reality nothing but the law by which the European family and its offshoots have an-reed to be bound. It has never been applied either to the monarchies of Asia, or the tribes who misuse the remainder of the world, and, indeed, could not be. There is no common basis of thought on which to erect a code. Europe, for instance, holds as a fundamental principle that war is a judicial process, intended either to resist an aggression or to assert a right. Islam, on the other hand —including in that word every division of the Mahomedan world— accepts war with the Infidel as its normal position, modified only by treaty, by the payment of tribute, or by the armistices circumstances may render imperative. The ruler of Egypt, for example, would be justified by his law in attacking the king of Abyssinia without de- mand made, or wrong endured, in order to extend the dominions of the True Believers. Savage tribes, on the other hand, refuse to ac- cept any principle at all, except perhaps in some few instances, that a treaty formally made ought to be observed till it is exceedingly advantageous to break it. To such races no code is applicable, and Europe has always implicitly, if not avowedly, considered them exempt from the obligations and advantages of the code. In proof of this assertion we might adduce with Dr. Twiss the formal admission of the Ottoman Empire in 1856 within the pale of public law; but there is one even stronger and familiar to all Englishmen: this is the righ0 of settlement claimed by all Europe in countries where the inhabit- ants are too few or too savage to employ their lands or defend their independence. Nothing can be more opposed to the law of nations
* 79at Lam of Nations. By Travers Twigs, D.C.L., &c. Longman. an& CO.
than this practice, which is, nevertheless, an admitted right. Eng- land, for example, on the international system, has a distinct right to occupy Papua, as a great island half used by the savages who own it; but the right would not extend to a seizure of Sardinia on precisely the same grounds. The law, in fact, is European only, and it is a carious evidence of its utility that princes, when attacking nations beyond the pale, still endeavour to convince themselves and their rivals that they are acting within the international code. Thus, the Emperor of the French is justified, legally, in attacking Cochin-China for the distinct purpose of conquest ; but he still bases his invasion on obsolete treaty rights and unendurable wrongs suffered by French missionaries. The second of these is by the strictest code a just cause of war, which, as Dr. Twiss shows, must be either resistance to pro- bable aggression, or punishment for an endured wrong. The law, then, is European, and based upon a European principle, viz. the positive right of every separate sovereign community to de- fend, retain, and act on its perfect independence. That theory has been acted on throughout giehistory of the world, but Europe alone has made it effective by an indispensable corollary forgotten by the ancient world. This is the often discussed principle of the Balance of Power. The right to perfect independence is of very little value if the independence of the weak can be menaced with impunity by the strong. Greece had as good a right to her independence after Rome conquered her as before, but the independence was gone nevertheless. The law existed, but there was no police to enforce its execution. To provide against this contingency Europe, after the treaty of Osnabruck, adopted a new principle, the right of the collec- tive civilized world to prevent any single state becoming so powerful as to render the Law of Nations practically inoperative. It was so rendered by the French Empire, and the successive coalitions against Napoleon were all therefore justifiable, even though he had not attacked each member of the union. It may be said that this rule is simply an expansion of the natural right of any nation in danger to
i form alliances, but it s not so. The principle goes much further, extending to the willing absorption of one state in another. Sup- pose Italy, for instance, wearied out with oppression, and perceiving no other outlet of escape, had voluntarily demanded an. integral union with France. Here no oppression is practised, no wrong done, no direct injury sustained by any other country. Yet the law of nations, like the common sense of mankind, declares that to prevent such a result by force of arms is a justifiable exercise of power. Dr. Twiss scarcely puts the right in its strongest light, but his exposition of the law is still most unmistakable:
"Two or more nations have a right to unite themselves into one independent political lotdy, so as to become one nation, provided the views by which they are actuated be not prejudicial to other nations. But if each of the nations in ques- tion be able separately and without assistance to govern and support itself, and to defend itself from insult and aggression, it may be reasonably presumed that the object of their union is to obtain dominion over their neighbours, and on oc- casions where it is impossible or too dangerous to wait for an absolute certainty, other nations will be justified in acting on a reasonable presumption, and may forthwith have recourse to measures of self-defence. On these grounds, Vettel maintains that the nations of Europe would have been justified in combining together against Louis XIV. of France, if he had attempted to unite the ma narcby of Spain to that of France; for to have tamely suffered a union of the two monarchies in the person of a prince who hed already given proofs of impe- rious pride and insatiable ambition, 'would have been, according to all the rules of human probability, equivalent to surrendering the rest of Europe into servi- tude, or at least would have rendered the condition of each European State too critical and precarious to be endurable by independent political bodies. The spfety, therefore, of the other nations of Europe would have justified them in opposing by anticipation such a formidable accession to the power of so ambitious a prince."
That very point is the one which at any moment may become one of the highest interest to all Europe. The absorption of French Switzerland, or of the Rhine frontier, by the vote of the people, into France, would raise it in all its breadth.
Intimately connected with this question is another, which every day assumes a more practical shape, viz, the limit to this right of confederate action. The independence of a nation may be threatened, and very frequently is threatened, by a danger distinct from the hostility of a single Power. Europe may essay what no single nation could venture to attempt. Europe collectively has, in practice, come to be represented by the five first-class Powers ; and, partly from this circumstance, partly from the extreme influence each country begins to exercise upon all others, there has arisen among continental statesmen a tendency to push the authority of collected Europe to very great lengths—to turn a Congress into a sort of Areopagus. Louis Napoleon in particular has shown a strong disposition to carry international law to an extent destructive of independence. In 1856 he denounced, before a European Congress, the freedom of the Belgian press, a matter wholly apart from the ordinary route of diplomatic action. In 1861 he affirmed that Congress had the right to alienate Syria from the Sultan. Both demands were resisted by England, as opposed to international law, and, without doubt, on sound grounds. The theory of the Balance of Power, and the executive actioh of Europe in carrying out that theory, are both in- tended to secure the independence and internal sovereignty of the European nations. Any act tending to the employment of that executive authority towards the restriction of independence is illegal, and may be resisted. It matters nothing even if the internal action of the state tends directly to increase its external power :
"Tire internal development of the resources of a country, although the increase of its population and wealth is the surest means of augmenting its power, has never yet been considered a just cause of alarm to other nations, for such aug- mentation is in perfect accordance with the moral end of a nation's being. and, being gradual, is not suggestive of any evil intention towards others. In the same way the settlement of colonies in distant lands, and the acquisition of de- pendencies in remote quarters of the world, have been regarded as legitimate *The Constable of the TOWer : an Historical Romance. By William harrison aims- means of eiternal development, which a nation may pursue without giving to worth. In three volumes. Chapman and HalL other nations just cause of apprehension for their own safety,. It would be contrary to morality for nations to combine for the purpose of retarding the innocent growth of the power of a State, which owing to the superior merits of its political institutions, or through the enlightened guidance of wise rulers, is enabled to advance more rapidly in the career of civilization than its neighbours, and, as a consequence of such advance, to attain to greater material prosperity. The usage of nations in this respect accords with the dictates of right reason."
In time to come it may be even more essential to limit this right of joint action than it once was to extend it. The ancient tendency to independence carried to lawlessness has disappeared, and has been replaced by another towards a centralized authority which, under colour of establishing law and order, and promoting civilization, would reduce all nations to a dull and decaying uniformity. • The value of a work like this is, perhaps, most easily tested by applying it to questions which have already arisen. Two such have been much discussed: the right of Italy to a recognition of her in- dependence, and the treaty position of the Slave States should their rebellion succeed. Upon one of these Dr. Twiss is tolerably dis- tinct :
"It is the quality of independence for the first time asserted on behalf of a State which requires recognition on the part of other nations, not the increased or diminished extent of its territorial possessions. A State may indeed notify to other States airy important additions to its territorial limits, which it may have acquired either by occupation or by cession, bat such notifications are matters of courtesy for mutual convenience, and the announcement of the fact of any such acquisition is not obligatory upon the State which makes it. Thus the United States of North America might have annexed the territory of Texas, and might have thought fit to notify to other nations the addition of a new State to the Union, but the question of right was complete upon the admission of Texas into the Union under a resolution of Congress, and the annexation required no recogni- tion from third parties to give it effect. On the other hand the transformation of the ancient kingdom of New Spain into the several independent Republics of Central America required recognition from other Powers, before it could be regarded as internationally complete, as the result of that transformation was to give birth to new independent political bodies."
The kingdom of Sardinia, therefore, might have expanded itself over the entire peninsula without requiring the formal recognition of Europe, but the kingdom of Italy is a new Power, and requires a distinct acknowledgment from all states with which it intends to maintain amicable relations. On the other question, a student who derived his knowledge solely from this work might still find room for argument and hesitation. Dr. Twiss explains the law thus : "The international life of a State is not determined by an internal revolution, whereby the supreme power of the State is transferred from one portion of the body politic to another portion. A State does not enjoy any international rights by reason of its peculiar internal organization, and it therefore does not forfeit any such right by a modification of its internal constitution, neither can it thereby discharge itself from any of its obligations towards other nations. Pend- ing a revolution, the ordinary relations of a State towards other States may be interrupted owing to the suspended action of the supreme power of the State, and its temporary inability to direct the will of the entire community. But the interruption of ordinary international intercourse is an abnormal state of things, which ceases immediately upon the restoration of internal order within the State, and if the revolution fails, the status ante revives: if, on the other hand, the revolution proves successful, the government de facto succeeds to the rights and obligations of its predecessor in all international matters, and intercourse is resumed with other nations on that understanding."
But that decision refers only to States in which a revolutionary government succeeds to an ancient form, not to States which have separated into two. As a matter of fact, the extreme inconvenience of abolishing all treaties would induce North and South equally to maintain their engagements intact, and in the latest precedent, thb separation of Belgium from Holland, that course was pursued; but. there is no proof that they are bound to do so.
Previous page
