INTERVENTION* AND NON-INTERVENTION. 105
ence. But it would seem that the time has not yet come for any genera', iiiliciently explicit to be the basis of law, as to the principles on which the exceptions are to be based. It is something that it is recognized, with increasing clearness, that These cases not Intervention must always specially justify itself on R ' d ' the ground of exceptional circumstances, and that the legal right of Intervention is, at best, only an exceptional right being, as it is, in derogation of the primary and universal right of independence, which is essential to the very nature of a Sovereign State. This is, undoubtedly, one of the topics on which it is desirable that the language of International Law should be made more nid unmistakable. In this aspect, the subject may have to be referred to again. In the mean time it appears that In- ternational Law recognizes a legal right of Intervention, and in- dicates limits to this right, but affords a very dim and flickering for the guidance of an honest and law-abiding Guv. rn- 111. nt, desirous of informing itself beforehand as to whether it will be legally justified or not in forcibly interposing in any which presents itself. re are en- vor, in which Intervention, either Legal duty of i" the internal affairs of a Foreign State or in a di-puto bi-twe.-n two States, is, or might l>e held to be, an inexoral ! luty, and, therefore, to inch; right. So far as a duty of Intervention in the internal affairs of a Foreign State goes, the dreumstamvs in whirh Intervention In affairs such a diitv could an-e ;nv becoming rarer i tat, day. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive the < encc of Midi eiremii-tanees, except in t! .hieh, in ; D up t> the time of the Treaty .f Vienna, con- stantly occurred, of two or more States coinbinin.ir t^, HUT by maintain a part'p ular dynasty or form of Go, Tumuit, 5*
