and other wrongs for which the state, as itself the wrongdoer, is immediately responsible. The difference which is made in practice is in no sense obligatory; and it is open to governments to consider each case by itself, and to act as seems well to them on its merits." 1 1 Hall, p. 276. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER IX INDEPENDENCE 39. MANNER OF EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT. 40. EUROPEAN BALANCE OF POWER. 41. MONROE DOCTRINE AND AMERICAN POLICIES. (a) The Monroe Doctrine. (1) Reservation made by the United States in regard to the Monroe Doctrine. (2) A policy of the United States, not a principle of international law. (3) Extent to which it has been recognized. (b) Other American policies. (1) Early congresses of South American states. (2) Pan-American Conferences, their aims and results. (3) Certain principles observed only in the western hemisphere. 42. NON-INTERVENTION. 43. PRACTICE IN REGARD TO INTERVENTION. (a) Intervention for self-preservation. (b) Intervention to prevent illegal acts. (d) Other grounds of intervention. (1) To carry out treaty stipulations. (2) To preserve the balance of power. (3) On the grounds of humanity. (4) To act as mediator in time of civil war. (5) On the ground of financial transactions. (e) Intervention justifiable only on ground of self-preservation. CHAPTER IX INDEPENDENCE 39. Manner of Exercise of the Right Strictly, there can be no limitation or restriction of independence, for it is a recognized principle that independence must be absolute and inalienable. In fact, every state voluntarily accepts either formally by treaty or tacitly by practice, many conditions which restrain it in the exercise of its powers. The independence of the state is not thereby violated, since the restraint is exercised by the state itself, and is not an act of external control. The number of these restraints which states voluntarily assume is continually increasing, owing to the closer relations of humanity. The exercise of the right of independence involves the privilege of making treaties, alliances, contracts, and municipal laws, so far as these do not violate international law or the right of independence as possessed by other states. A state may go to war to maintain its independence. The international rights of a state are in general closely related to the right of independence, and derive force from this relationship. 40. European Balance of Power Undoubtedly the idea of establishing a relationship among "neighboring states more or less connected with one another, by virtue of which no one among them can injure the independence or essential rights of another without meeting with effectual resistance on some side and consequently exposing itself to danger" 1 is not a modern idea. Ancient states united to prevent the growth of some neighboring power to such magnitude as would threaten their independence.2 From the beginning of the modern period of international law, Peace of Westphalia (1648), the idea of maintaining an equilibrium among the powers of Europe has had great influence, and until the latter part of the nineteenth century was regarded as one of the fundamental principles of European international practice. Many treaties aim to preserve this balance among the European powers, and the words "balance" and "equilibrium" often appear.3 The Treaty of Utrecht in its provision between Spain and Great Britain, July 13, 1713, gives as its object ad firmandam stabiliendamque pacem ac tranquillitatem christiani orbis justo potentiæ equilibro. The idea that independence was to be preserved by some balance of power reappears in successive treaties. This idea of the balance of power has led to most diverse action. Unjust rulers have made it the cloak for action entirely outside the sanction of international law. Many times it has "served as the pretext for a quarrel, and repeatedly made hostilities general which would otherwise have been shut up within a comparatively small area." 4 The feeling that the balance of power was a necessary policy for the preservation of European states, led to the idea that states should be constrained to certain lines of action, which would prevent, in many cases, normal growth. Frequently the independence of a state was violated to anticipate an action which might disturb the European equilibrium. The partitions of Poland show a violation of the principles of international law for the sake of giving equal compensation to the parties to it. The doctrine of the balance of power is not a principle of 1 Von Gentz, "Fragments upon the Balance of Power in Europe," 1806. 2 Hume, "Essays," VII. 3 Nys, "Origines," pp. 165 ff. Bernard, "Lectures on Diplomacy," 98. international law, but merely a maxim of European political practice pretending to state the means of maintaining the independence of European states.1 41. Monroe Doctrine and American Policies The Monroe (a) Another maxim of political action is that which has become known as the "Monroe Doctrine." 2 While enunciated by a single state, it had in view the maintenance of the independence of the states of the American continent. For many years after the Revolutionary War the opinion prevailed that Europe viewed with disfavor the growth of the American republic. The Holy Alliance, formed on the downfall of Napoleon, was followed by several congresses of European powers, at one of which, held at Verona in 1822, the subject of helping Spain recover her revolting colonies in America was discussed. This led to the declaration of President Monroe in his message of December 2, 1823, that there should be (1) no more European colonies on these continents, (2) no extension of the European political system to any portion of this hemisphere, (3) no European interposition in the affairs of the Spanish-American republics. This doctrine has been repeatedly affirmed by the United States, and in some instances very liberally interpreted. It in no way embodies a principle of international law, though the European and other states may regard it as expressing the attitude of the United States upon the points covered, and if desirous of avoiding friction, govern themselves accordingly. The United States, in signing the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes in 1899, made the following reservation: "Nothing contained in this convention shall be so construed as to require the United 1 Tucker, "Monroe Doctrine," 4. For documentary material, see 6 Moore, §§ 927-969. |