resulted in at least one great international charter for the prevention
of the further degradation of African aborigines, viz. the
General Act of Brussels of 1885. A vigorous outcry has also
been raised against the methods of the government of the Congo
State. But the agitation ought not to be confined to this part
of Central Africa. Other governments are also in fault. In fact,
the contact of the European with Central Africa has, throughout,
with few exceptions, been one of barbarous practice quite inconsistent
with the principles which Christian missionaries have been
sent to teach the African native.
In the case of European enterprise in Asia, the “good old rule” has had still less justification. The action taken for the repression of the Boxer movement in China, like previous European incursions, had no essential characteristic distinguishing it from the expeditions of the Northmen described by Mallet in the above-quoted passage. The Japanese took part in the “Boxer” expedition, and the example of respect for native right and of orderly self-restraint they set has been universally acknowledged. But the lesson is one of greater significance than one of comparative ethics. The rise of the power of Japan and her obvious determination to constitute herself the champion of the races of eastern Asia has widened the scope of International Law, and we may now regard China as henceforth under the protection of the same principles as European states.
The three chief principles of interstate intercourse, those, in fact, on which International Law is based are:—
1. Recognition of each other’s existence and integrity as states.
2. Recognition of each other’s independence.
3. Recognition of equality, one with another, of all independent states.
As regards the first of these principles see State. From the principle of independence it follows that every state has a right to change its form of government and to enjoy the free exercise of its internal energies. This is subject only to the limitation that in the exercise of thisChief principles. right other states or their subjects shall not be molested or otherwise suffer. The equality of all independent states entitles them to respect by other states of all the forms of ceremonial and to the same treatment by others, where their interests are identical, whether they are strong or weak. This principle has often been violated, but it is, nevertheless, acknowledged wherever possible, as in diplomatic conferences relating to all matters of an economic, hygienic, industrial or social character. Even at the Conference of Algeciras, though the powers immediately concerned from a political point of view were only Great Britain, France, Germany and Spain, the following were also represented as having economic interests in Morocco, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Russia, Belgium, Holland, Portugal and Sweden.
Ships on the high sea being regarded as detached portions of the national territory, there is also the derived principle of the freedom of the high sea, of the independence and equality upon it of the ships of all nations, subject only to due respect being paid to the independence and equality ofHigh sea. all others and to such conventional restrictions as states may impose upon themselves (see Territorial Waters). This principle is re-enunciated in the preamble to the Convention of 1907 on the laying of automatic submarine contact mines (see Peace Conferences).
The Hague Conventions are based on these principles, to which there is a tendency to add another, viz. the right to arbitration in certain cases. This principle is set out more or less tentatively, it is true, but it is being completed by separate treaties of compulsory arbitrationThe right to arbitration. in connexion with the cases referred to. It is enunciated in the following article of the Convention of 1907 for the pacific settlement of International disputes:—
“In questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of International Conventions, arbitration is recognized by the contracting powers as the most effective, and, at the same time, the most equitable means of arranging disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle. Consequently, it is desirable that, in disputes regarding the above-mentioned questions, the contracting powers should, if need be, have recourse to arbitration, in so far as circumstances permit” (Art. 28).
The principle of arbitration has also been adopted in reference to the recovery of contract debts under the following article of the “Convention respecting the limitation of the employment of force for the recovery of contract debts”:—
“The contracting powers agree not to have recourse to armed force for the recovery of contract debts claimed from the government of one country by the government of another country as being due to its subjects or citizens. This undertaking is, however, not applicable when the debtor state refuses or neglects to reply to an offer of arbitration, or, after accepting the offer, renders the settlement of the Compromis impossible, or, after the arbitration, fails to comply with the award” (Art. 1).
The codification of International Law itself, begun at the Hague and London Conferences, is an admission of the binding character of the primary principles set out above.
One of the chief tendencies of contemporary reform is also to restrict the effect of fictions and reduce rights to the limits of their practical application. Between two alternatives, the one to assert rights which cannot possibly be maintained by force such as claims to dominion overRestriction of effect of fictions. portions of the high sea (see High Sea, Territorial Waters), “paper blockades” (see Blockade) and fictitious occupations of territory (see Occupation), and the other to require actual physical assertion, a medium course is growing up, viz. that of recognizing potential assertion, that is assertion limited to physical possibilities.[1] With the aid of the Institute of International Law, the International Law Association and other reforming agencies (see Peace), expert opinion in these matters is becoming homogeneous throughout the civilized world, and the ground is being prepared for a clearer understanding of these fundamental principles by the statesmen and state officials who have to apply them in practice.
Bibliography.—The following are works on international law, diplomacy and treaty relations, from the beginning of the 19th century until 1910. Many of the older authors have been omitted to permit the inclusion of more recent writers.
Alcorta, Tratado de derecho internacional (Buenos Aires, 1878); D. Anzilotti, Teoria generale della responsabilità dello Stato nel diritto internazionale (Florence, 1902); Arendt, Le Droit public et la neutralité de la Belgique (Brussels, 1845); Nagao Ariga, La Guerre russo-japonaise, au point de vue continental et le droit international (Paris, 1908), La Guerre sino-japonaise au point de vue du droit international (Paris, 1896); Sir Sherston Baker, First Steps in International Law (London, 1899); Barboux, Jurisprudence du conseil des prises pendant la guerre franco-allemande (1872); Sir T. Barclay, Problems of International Practice and Diplomacy (London, 1907); T. Baty, International Law (London, 1909); Bello, Principios de derecho internacional, 2nd ed. by Silva (Madrid, 1884); Norman Bentwich, The Law of Private Property in War with a Chapter on Conquest (London, 1907); Bergbohm, Staats-Verträge und-Gesetze als Quellen des Völkerrechts (Leipzig, 1877); T. M. Bernard, Four Lectures on Subjects connected with Diplomacy (London, 1868); Bluntschli, Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staaten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt (Nördlingen, 1868), trans. into French by Lardy (Le Droit international codifié) (Paris, 2nd ed., 1874), Die Bedeutung und die Fortschritte des modernen Völkerrechts (2nd ed., Berlin, 1873); De Boeck, Le Droit de la propriété ennemie privée sous pavillon ennemi (Paris, 1882); Henri Bonfils, Manuel de droit international public (1894, 4th ed., by Fauchille, 1904); Percy Bordwell, The Law of War between Belligerents—a History and Commentary (Chicago, 1908); Bornemann, Forelaesninger over den positive folkeret (Copenhagen, 1866); Brusa, Del modierno diritto internazionale pubblico (Florence, 1876); De Burgh, Elements of Maritime International Law (London, 1868); Aug. von Bulmerincq, Praxis, Theorie und Codification des Völkerrechts (Leipzig, 1874), Das Völkerrecht (1887); Montagu Burrows, History of the Foreign Policy of Great Britain (London, 1897); Charles Henry Butler, The Treaty-making Power of the United States (2 vols., New York, 1902); Carlos Calvo, Le Droit international (5th ed., 6 vols., Paris, 1896); Cauchy, Le Droit maritime international considéré dans ses origines et ses rapports avec les progrès de la civilisation (2 vols., Paris, 1862), Du respect de la propriété privée dans la guerre maritime (Paris, 1866); Carnazza-Amari, Trattato di diritto internazionale de pace (2 vols., 1867–1875); Pitt Cobbett, Cases and Opinions on International Law and various points of English Law connected therewith (London, 1st ed. 1885,
- ↑ We have seen this in the progress made in the three instances given above at the Congress of Paris (1856), the Conference of Berlin (1878) and the Hague Conference of 1907.
