NON-INTERVENTION AMONG NATIONS, THE PRINCIPLE OF. G25 



olutious is burning near us, and threatens our 

 own houses. To this objection it is replied 

 that a less unfit comparison would be to say 

 that, in your neighbor's house, they have be- 

 gun to lead a licentious and disorderly life; 

 much different, at all events, from your own. 

 You at once perceive that you have no reason 

 and no right whatever to intrude upon your 

 neighbor, and compel him to change his mor- 

 als and his ways of life, since he works no 

 injury or loss to your property ; does not asso- 

 ciate with your children, for the purpose of 

 seducing and corrupting them ; does not, in a 

 word, trespass on that limit within which the 

 private liberty of citizens is maintained co-ex- 

 istently. In fact, some aver that those changes 

 and revolutions, on account of which the au- 

 tonomy of states is broken up, are a destructive 

 and devouring fire ; whereas others deny it, 

 and consider it a better metaphor to say that 

 political changes and revolutions must be 

 likened rather to those vehement but mo- 

 mentary remedies by the means of which na- 

 ture cleanses, transforms, embellishes, and re- 

 ordains its works. 



INTERVENTION WHEN ASKED FOR. To the 

 question whether the intervention when asked 

 by the state itself is just and lawful, it is said 

 in reply that many writers have acknowledged 

 it to be just in a certain manner. But apart 

 from this consideration it is urged aa neces- 

 sary, in the first place, to see whether the in- 

 tervention is asked for by the general will of 

 the state, or by the governing power, or by 

 the people respectively; for, when govern- 

 ment and people unite to request the inter- 

 vention of a foreign state, they perpetrate an 

 injustice, because they abdicate their own in- 

 dependence and sovereignty. The general will 

 is that which ought to prevail, and an appeal 

 to foreign mediation is unnecessary for accom- 

 plishing its ends. If the intervention is called 

 for by a people against their sovereign, it is 

 equally unjust. A people that is pressed down 

 by a tyrannic government rebels, and a civil 

 war ensues, in which each of the opposite 

 parties has a supreme power and a standing 

 army; is there a necessity of recognizing in 

 them the character of belligerents, and of in- 

 tervening in favor of either ? To this question 

 it is said, in reply, that if the principle of na- 

 tionality is involved in the case that is, if the 

 contestants are of distinct nationalities the 

 intervention is just and holy; but if the case 

 presents the spectacle of a truly civil war be- 

 tween citizens of one and the same nation, the 

 i intervention is unjust and wrong. Upon this 

 question international science is divided. G-ro- 

 tius, Vattel, Heffter, and Phillimore admit the 

 intervention. The Italian school denies it. 

 They say that foreign intervention is useless, 

 because, to decide upon internal affairs, be- 

 longs to the people ; and as civil contests are 

 confined to internal affairs, all intermeddling 

 with them must be abstained from; that one 

 of the contending parties will win which has 

 VOL. xxn. 40 A 



the greater strength and number of adher- 

 ents. Neither is intervention in favor of the 

 people against a tyrant just; for the army, 

 which defends the king, is nothing else than 

 the armed nation, and when the people justly 

 rebel the soldiers will of course fraternize with 

 the insurgents. It is impossible to suppose 

 that a man, in order blindly to follow the com- 

 mands of his superior, will unsheath his sword, 

 and push it against the breast of his father, or 

 brother, or son. 



VIEWS OF NATIONALITY. Where the prin- 

 ciple of nationality is involved, it is above 

 admitted that the intervention would be just 

 and holy. This admission undoubtedly follows 

 from the special views entertained of the sub- 

 ject of nationality, and upon them is principal- 

 ly based the division which separates the Ital- 

 ian school from other writers. Some notice 

 of these views should here be taken. It has 

 been said by the distinguished Carutti that 

 "the ill use of nationalities is the most enor- 

 mous crime man has perpetrated on earth. 

 In the eyes of those who look sharply into the 

 past, slavery and the so-called castes are noth- 

 ing but the consequence of the conquests of 

 nations over nations. The generations who 

 succeeded to the first invaders have received 

 their ancestors' inheritance and maintained 

 that servitude of individuals which had been 

 originally imposed on the conquered people as 

 a means of domineering over them. National 

 personality is as much sacred as the individual, 

 and the dominion of one nation over another 

 nation is to the same extent iniquitous as the 

 dominion of one man over another man; 

 neither long possession, nor compacts, nor ben- 

 efits conferred can justify it."* The chief ob- 

 jection urged against the principle of nation- 

 ality, to the end of denying it, has been brought 

 by those who declared that it was a thing of 

 difficult determination. It is said, in reply, 

 that there are certain characters which, not- 

 withstanding their imperfections, do yet con- 

 stitute nationality. Not to speak of race, 

 which embraces many nationalities, we have 

 the language, which is the most potent factor 

 of nationality; wherefore Fichte's saying is 

 asserted to be always true " the tongue is the 

 nation." Some exceptions to the contrary 

 notwithstanding, peoples who speak the same 

 language have a feeling of their common origin, 

 a feeling of brotherhood and affection, because 

 language is the most powerful bond that unites 

 men among themselves. History, manners, 

 laws, religion, and territory are potent means 

 of constituting nationality. But the greatest 

 force of cohesion which becomes the most 

 potent factor of nationality, and which joins 

 again all the separate and dispersed parts of a 

 nation, is the sentiment of political consoli- 

 dation, and the consciousness of nationality 

 which has been set down as a basis of this prin- 

 ciple by Mancini, to whom has been ascribed 

 the honor of having reformed " the internation- 

 * "De principii del ^^ governolibero^"TibTiii, cap. i. 



