frain from disturbing the existing boundaries within a certain sphere named therein.1

There are occasions also where states are obliged to submit. to certain restrictions due to peculiar conditions that are imposed by the victor at the end of a successful war, or sometimes without the actual use of force by a single great power, or by a combination of powers for what is considered the general good of all concerned. Pertinent cases of this kind can be found in the history of the Napoleonic wars when Prussia was restricted to a standing army of 40,000 men; another later case is that of Russia, which was forbidden to create military and naval arsenals or a fleet in the Black Sea. Both of these restrictions are now removed, and it is not uninteresting to note that both were evaded before their formal removal.

In a more constant manner there has been and still exists a predominance assumed by the great powers of Europe over the affairs of that continent looking to the settlement of matters which might lead to war. This is generally known as the concert of European powers and has been of service to mankind by the prevention of actual warfare and by the settlement of vexed questions. The success of this combination of the great powers with the powers concerned in the late Balkan wars seems to have been less marked than in other times.

The attitude of the United States toward certain powers in the West Indies and Central America has had a certain similarity. An occasional yielding on the part of these states and of the European nationalities concerning them does not deprive them of their rights of legal independence and equality under international law. This exercise of authorities in both cases falls short of what is known as armed or threatened intervention, which is a display or threat of force upon an unwilling state. This subject of intervention will now be taken up as a topic bearing directly upon both the independence and equality of states.

1 Supplement to A. J. I. L., vol. I, p. 425, and vol. II, p. 270.

61. Intervention.-The two elements that enter into intervention are the exhibition of actual force, naked or veiled, on the part of the intervening country and the want of consent on the part of the other country affected. The only circumstance under which intervention can be considered a legal right or obligation is when it is exercised in accordance with a guarantee under a treaty or other mutual agreement; this exercise of a treaty right may be, of course, with or without the momentary consent or willingness of the other party to the treaty.

There are other cases where there is moral justification for intervention by one or more nations. These are cases of intervention upon the ground of humanity; they cannot be called legally right, but they may be morally justifiable and even commendable. They come under what "Historicus" calls " a high act of policy above and beyond the domain of law." A case in point was the intervention of the great powers of Europe in regard to the persecution and murder of Christians in Asia Minor in 1860.

Interventions in order to preserve the balance of power in Europe were until recent times considered admissible and at times just. It can no longer be considered as justifiable—and in Europe, at least, is not practised-and, as Westlake remarks, "the natural growth of a nation in power, and even the menace of its armaments in a fair proportion to its population and wealth and to the interests which it has to defend, must be looked on without jealousy and without any attempt to check it by those nations which by an inferiority of character or situation are destined to a decline in relative power."2

The growth by increase of territory is not quite the same question. It is a matter of legitimate interest to all of the states of Europe in their present crowded condition. The system, or concert, of European nations, certainly, in regard to

1 Historicus, "Letters on Some Questions of Int. Law."

2 Westlake's "Int. Law," I, pp. 303, 304.

southeastern Europe, considers the matter within their scope, though events prove not always within their authority to regulate. As to its fading authority, Lawrence says that in the past "it distributed provinces and rounded off the boundaries of kingdoms without regard to the wishes of the populations and their affinities of race, religion, and sentiment. It repressed popular movements when they interfered with its calculations. Italian unity and German unity were achieved in spite of it; and it is bound to lose influence as the wishes of peoples become more and more a necessary element in the calculations of rulers."1

The question of intervention can then be called a matter of state policy rather than one of international law, except that, as a general rule, when practised it is a violation of the right of independence so far as this is an inherent right of a sovereign

state.

It may be of interest to briefly recount recent events in our own history which properly come under the head of intervention.

The first, chronologically, was the effort upon the part of the United States to prevent the continuance of the interference by France with the political independence of Mexico. France by force of arms established the Archduke Maximilian of Austria as Emperor of Mexico during our Civil War, when the attention of the country was engaged in the struggle for the preservation of the Union. In 1865, when the Civil War was over, our government informed the French Government that their treatment of Mexico was regarded as injurious and menacing to republican institutions, and an American army was massed on the Rio Grande under General Sheridan. As a result, Napoleon III withdrew his forces from Mexico and the empire of Maximilian came to an end.

In 1898 the President of the United States in a special message declared that the intervention of the United States in the

1 Lawrence's "Principles," 4th ed., p. 132.

affairs of Cuba, then in insurrection against Spain, would be justified on the grounds of humanity and of protection to our citizens and to our commerce as well as removing a constant menace to our peace. As a result, action by Congress followed which brought on the war with Spain.

In June, 1900, on account of the Boxer movement, unprecedented disturbances arose in China directed largely against all foreign life and property. These disturbances grew until all of the foreign legations at Peking were besieged and attacked by forces acting under orders from the imperial officials. Foreigners elsewhere, especially missionaries, were tortured and murdered and other outrages were committed. An international expedition which included an American detachment was formed and raised the siege of the legations and took possession of Peking after overcoming the resistance of the Chinese troops, the imperial household having fled.

This joint intervention was explained by Secretary Hay as being necessary to open communication with Peking to rescue our officials and with the purpose of affording all possible protection everywhere in China to American life and property and to guard all legitimate American interests.

In November, 1903, the United States intervened to prevent the suppression by Colombia of the local revolution of Panama by preventing the landing of Colombian forces on the Isthmus and the consequent bombardment of the town of Panama. Justification for this intervention was claimed to be found in our treaty rights, our national interests and safety, and in the interests of collective civilization.

In 1906 the United States intervened in Cuba, in accordance with our treaty rights and guarantees, on account of the disorders arising upon the island before and after the resignation of President Palma. After the establishment of peace and good government in 1909 the United States evacuated the island and self-government was resumed.

In closing this subject it may be well to repeat what many

writers upon the subject have said: that any nation feeling it desirable or necessary to interfere with or intervene in the affairs of another state must do so with a military and naval force sufficiently strong to make it clearly understood to the family of nations, as well as to the state concerned, that its voice must be attended to and its requests heeded.

There may be a previous stage of diplomatic intercourse consisting of advice and reproof alone; in this case it is important to consider the weighty words of Westlake, one of the most learned as well as one of the most able writers upon the subject. He says: "It only remains to observe that the tender of advice to a foreign government, even about the internal affairs of its state, is not intervention, and violates no right, though it is generally injudicious. Statesmen must remember that though governments and states are different, and it is to states that the rights given by international law belong, yet it is governments that they have to live with and whose susceptibilities they will, therefore, find it needful to consult."1

Still another word can be said as to the legal equality, so closely linked to the independence, of states before closing this discussion. "Russia and Geneva have equal rights," said Chief Justice Marshall in 1825. But it is hard to realize that Salvador and the United States are even legally upon an equality. In fact, it must be recognized as a material fact that states, like individuals, exercise power in proportion to their influence, strength, and riches.2

62. The Right of Self-Preservation.-A sovereign state having attained a recognition of its existence and independence with the concomitant of legal equality has naturally the right of preserving that existence; in other words, there is an underlying principle or right of self-preservation.

As a matter of fact, it is rarely that the preservation of the 1 Westlake's "Int. Law," I, pp. 307, 308.

2 Moore's "Digest," I, p. 63.