Page images
PDF
EPUB

lighthouses, libraries, museums, etc. The right of eminent domain as a domestic right may also vest in the state. While from the point of view of international law, a state has the right of property over all territorial and non-territorial possessions within its limits as against other states, yet the effect of this right is somewhat modified by the fact of public or private ownership, particularly as regards the laws of war, neutrality, and intercourse.

§ 35. Intercourse In early periods of history intercourse among states was very limited and sometimes even prohibited. At the present time the necessities of state existence presuppose, in international law, the recognition of the right of intercourse in order that state business may be transacted. The principles upon which this intercourse is carried on are well established, and form the basis of diplomatic practice.

CHAPTER VIII

EXISTENCE

36. APPLICATION OF THE RIGHT IN GENERAL. 37. EXTENSION OF The Right to SUBJECTS OF THE STATE.

§ 36. Application of the Right

Besides the general rights of independence, equality, jurisdiction, property, and intercourse, the right of existence in its exercise may lead to certain acts for which the general principles of international law do not provide rules. 1

(a) In face of actual dangers immediately threatening its existence, a state may take such measures as are necessary for self-preservation, even though not sanctioned by international law. Such measures, however, must be from “ a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation,” and further “must be limited by that necessity and kept clearly within it.”2 The wide discussion of the case of the Virginius involved the principle of the limits of the right of self-defense.3

i Hall, $ 83, p. 281. 2 " Caroline," 1 Whart., § 50 C; 2 ibid., § 224. See Appendix,

p. 434.

8 3 Whart., § 327, p. 147. Snow's Cases, $ 179.

(6) The right to act in a manner which international law does not sanction or denies, even though it may be strictly to preserve the existence of the state so acting, cannot be upheld as freeing it from responsibility for such acts, and these acts may be regarded as hostile by states affected by them.

(c) As the domestic acts of a state are not within the province of international law, a state has the right to administer its internal affairs in such manner as it may determine fit to secure and further its existence. It may adopt any form of government; may plan for its growth by developing its resources, by encouraging immigration; may strengthen defenses and forces ; may regulate trade, commerce, and travel. While acts of this character may work injury to other states, they are not in general just grounds for war, but may properly be met by like acts on the part of other states.

§ 37. Extension of the Right to Subjects of the State

As the subjects of a state are necessary for its existence, the right of self-preservation has been held to justify certain acts of states to secure to their subjects in their relations with foreign states such rights as the foreign states would accord to their own subjects under similar circumstances. That a local tribunal within a purely domestic division of a state cannot secure to foreigners rights to which they are entitled, in no way frees that state, whose sovereignty extends over such domestic division, from responsibility for violation of the foreigner's right. International law recognizes only the personality of the sovereign political unity, and cannot cognize the administrative and other subdivisions. Italy assumed a correct position in holding the United States government responsible for the murder of Italian subjects while in custody of officers of the State of Louisiana in 1891.1 Hall says, “States possess a right of protecting their subjects abroad which is correlative to their responsibility in respect of injuries inflicted upon foreigners within their dominions.” 2 “Fundamentally, however, there is no difference in principle between wrongs inflicted by breach of a monetary agreement and other wrongs for which the state, as itself the wrong-doer, 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.” 3 1 U. S. For. Rel. 1891, pp. 628–658.

2 $ 87, p. 291. 8 Hall, $ 87, p. 294.

CHAPTER IX

INDEPENDENCE

38. MANNER OF EXERCISE.
39. BALANCE OF POWER.
40. MONROE DOCTRINE.
41. NON-INTERVENTION.
42. PRACTICE IN REGARD TO INTERVENTION.

(a) For self-preservation.
(6) To prevent illegal acts.
(c) By general sanction.
(d) Other grounds.

(1) Treaty stipulations.
(2) Balance of power.
(3) Humanity.
(4) Civil war.

(5) Financial.
(e) Conclusion.

§ 38. 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

« PreviousContinue »