principally the objective one, form the ground of the prosecutions for slander and libel; and a large part of private feuds arise from their violation. The honor or reputation of a state is equally its right; and the injury done by violations of this right will seem very great, when we consider the multitudes who suffer in their feelings from a national insult, and the influence of the loss of a good name upon intercourse with other states, as well as upon that self-respect which is an important element in national character. Regard for national reputation, too, increases with refinement and with closeness of communication. The Fejees or the Hottentots care little how the world regards them, but the opinion of civilized nations is highly valued by all those states which are now foremost in human affairs. Without such a value set on reputation, fear of censure could not exist, which is one of the ultimate bulwarks of international law. $ 19. 2. Right of re 2. The right of redress exists in the case of individuals, although it would seem that a person cannot with justice be his own judge and redress himself. dress. Hence the need of courts and arbitrations in society, which, by their impartiality, knowledge of law and evidence, and habits of judging, approach, as nearly as finite beings can, to the decisions of absolute truth. Societies or states must have not only the right of redress, but of redressing themselves; the former, as being just and necessary for the protection of all rights; the latter, because they have no natural superior,—because in fact they are vicars of God within a certain sphere. It may be said that thus they become judges in their own causes. This is true, although not in the same sense, nor with the same violation of justice, as when private persons redress themselves; for the proceedings of states are more deliberate, and for the most part the same body within the state is not at once the injured and the redressing party. It may be said also that an impartial court selected from other nations would be more just, and ought to decide in international disputes. This might be desirable, but it does not appear that nations are for that reason bound to abstain from redressing wrongs. The private person has a natural superior in the state to which he is bound to submit; but God has established no such natural superior over nations. Redress what? Redress consists in comp sation for injury inflicted, and for its consequences. The right therefore ceases when the injured party is placed in as good a situation as before. Mingled up in the same concrete with the act Goes along with of redress, there may be an act of self-protection self-protection. against future injury. A nation may have shown such a disposition to do wrong, that another may demand security as well as indemnity; and this security may proceed, for any thing that appears, even to the length of destroying the wrong-doing state's existence. right of punishing other states ? § 20, a. 3. Grotius held that a state has the right to punish injuries, 3. Has a state the committed not only against itself and its subjects, but also against others over whom it has no guardianship. "Sciendum quoque est," he says (II. 20, § 40) “reges et qui par regibus jus obtinent, jus habere pœnas poscendi non tantum ob injurias in se aut subditos suos commissas, sed et ob eas quæ ipsos peculiariter non tangunt, sed in quibusvis personis jus naturæ aut gentium inımaniter violant.' This right he derives from a similar right of individuals in a state of nature, which they gave up to society. He adds, that it is more praiseworthy to punish injuries done to others than to ourselves, inasmuch as we are then less likely to be partial. Few, if any, we suppose, would now undertake to defend the explanation here given by Grotius, of the state's right to punish; and the extent which he gives to the right seems equally objectionable. There must be a certain sphere for each state, certain bounds within which its functions are intended to act, for otherwise the territorial divisions of the earth would have no meaning. In regard to the right of punishing in any case outside of the bounds of the state there may be rational doubts. Admitting, as we are very ready to do, that this is one of the powers of the state over its subjects, we can by no means infer that the state may punish those who are not its subjects, but its equals. And yet, practically, it is impossible to separate that moral indignation which expresses itself in punishment from the spirit of elf-redress for wrongs. As for a state's having the vocation to go forth, beating down wickedness, like Hercules, all over the world, it is enough to say, that such a principle, if carried out, would destroy the independence of states, justify the nations in taking sides in regard to all national acts, and lead to universal war. And yet extreme cases of outrage may be conceived of, where a burning desire to help the weak abroad, or to punish the oppressor, ought hardly to be disobeyed. § 20, b. state to general The inquiry whether a state has a right to punish beyond its own limits, leads us to the more general and practi- Relations of cally important inquiry, whether a state is bound justice. to aid other states in the maintenance of general justice, that is, of what it considers to be justice. The prevalent view seems to be that, outside of its own territory, including its ships on the high seas, and beyond its own relations with other states, a state has nothing to do with the interests of justice in the world. Thus laws of extradition and private international law are thought to originate merely in comity. (§§ 69, 79.) Thus, too, crimes committed by its own citizens abroad, it is not bound to notice after their return home. Thus, again, contraband trade is held not to begin within the neutral's borders, and outside of them, as on the high seas, concerns the belligerent alone. (§ 178, note.) And again, when a nation commits a gross crime against another, third parties are not generally held to be bound to interfere. This is the most received, and may be called the narrow and selfish view. On the other hand, the broad view, that a state must aid in getting justice done everywhere, if its aid be invoked, and even without that preliminary, would occasion more violence than could thus be prevented. Such a proceeding, too, would be unjust, as overruling the judgments of the lawful authority. But there is a middle ground on which the theory of international obligation can be rationally placed. (1.) As already said in § 20 a, the interests of justice require that the state, like every moral person, shall have its special sphere of action, within which it may not be invaded, except in extreme and outrageous cases,—which cases are contemplated by the actual law of nations. (§§ 42, 50, 112, end.) (2.) Every moral being, much more the state which is a member of a community of nations, is interested in the prevalence of justice everywhere, and is the only asylum of it when attacked,-is bound to aid in maintaining justice even outside of its own sphere, if this aid can be so rendered as to violate no higher and more permanent rules of justice. (3.) In those cases where another state either invokes or does not object to its aid, a state, if its own judgment is clear on the right of the case, may lend its assistance. (4.) When this aid to foreign justice can be rendered within its own territory the obligation is clear, and thus the extradition of criminals, contrary to what is usually taught, and to the opinion expressed in the first edition of this work, cannot, with propriety, be refused in certain cases. (§ 79.) (5.) Private international law must have its origin in justice and not in comity, so that nations, if they can only find out what the principles of justice here are, ought to adopt them. (6.) Some questions, as whether a state is bound to aid foreign customhouse laws by preventing smuggling, and how far a neutral ought to prevent contraband trade of its subjects and from its ports, are beset with special difficulties. Of the latter we shall speak, § 178, note. Of the former, we may say that a tariff may be unreasonable and deleterious to the interests of other states and thus unjust: it cannot be expected that aid can be given in such a case. But where a tariff is admitted to be reasonable, since it is a necessity and is rightfully imposed, to break such laws by smuggling is immoral, and a nation ought to restrain its people from so doing. In such cases the neglect of justice avenges itself by the lawlessness of those who are trained up in the flagitious trade.* * Comp. R. v. Mohl in a monograph in his Staatr, Völkerr. u. Politik, vol. 1. § 21. 4. Natural justice knows nothing of a right of conquest in the broad sense of that term, that is, of mere su- 4. Is there any perior force, carrying with it the license to appro- right of conquest? priate territory, or destroy national life. Yet, in fact, nations. accept, if they do not justify, such a right of conquest. The reasons for this are, in general, derived from the rule, that it is officious and impossible for nations to sit as judges over each other's conduct, or, in other words, from the independence of nations. (§ 37, § 111.). But more particularly (1.) in the exercise of the right of redress it may be necessary to strip a wrong-doer of a portion of his territory; or in the exercise of the right of self-protection, and, possibly, of punishment, it may be lawful to deprive him of the means of doing evil. (2.) The spirit of conquest generally urges one of these pleas in its defence, over the validity of which, as we have said, nations may not sit in judgment. (3.) Treaties generally perfect the title which possession or conquest begins. (4.) When a settled state of things follows a conquest, it is usually acquiesced in, because, as has been seen, if nations repaired each other's wrongs, the way would be open for perpetual war. Thus international law acknowledges the fact of conquest after it has become a permanent fact in the world's history, and in some degree, the right also. Yet the mere fact of having occupied territory or subjugated its inhabitants, can be no sufficient ground in justice, even in a just war, for the exercise of the right of conquest. Redress and punishment ought not to exceed due limits, nor ought self-protection to demand an exorbitant amount of security. In accordance with this the spirit of conquest is regarded by the nations as the spirit of robbery, and as hostility to the human race. This is shown by their combinations to resist it, as in the wars against Louis XIV and Napoleon; by their protests against acquisitions regarded as unjust, and against alliances formed for the injury of weak states; by the pretexts with which aggressors seek to shield themselves from the condemnation of the world; and by the occasional consent of vic |