determining whether a particular cause of offence is, or is not, sufficient to justify war, is strictly internal in character, and concerns the offended state alone. With the government of that state rests the entire legal and moral responsibility of decision. The efficient check upon a nation in this respect must be found in international public opinion rather than in international law.'

Responsibility for a Resort to War. While it is technically true that a violation or denial of a perfect right is regarded as a just cause for war, it is true only because no other remedy is provided for the violation, by a state, of a rule of international law. As there is no authority above a sovereign state to which it can appeal, it is of necessity compelled to redress, by its own means, any injuries that it may receive from another state. But it by no means follows that every denial of a perfect right results in war, even when justice has been demanded and refused. Those in whose hands the government is must consider whether the injury that has been received is sufficient, in amount or importance, to counterbalance the evils that are involved in a resort to war. The chance of success must be considered, as well as the ability of the state to bear the burden of long-continued hostilities.

Moral Considerations Involved. Certain moral considerations are also involved in the decision, the responsibility for which no government can evade. "If reparation can otherwise be obtained, a nation has no necessary, and therefore no just, cause for war: if there be no probability of obtaining it by arms, a government cannot, with justice to their own nation, embark it in war; and if the evils of resistance should appear, on the whole, greater than those of submission, wise rulers. will consider an abstinence from a pernicious exercise of right as a sacred duty to their own subjects, and a debt which every people owes to the great commonwealth of mankind,

1 Vattel, liv. iii. chap. iii. §§ 24-50; I Halleck, pp. 439-442; II Ferguson, § 172; III Phillimore, pp. 57-76; Woolsey, $$ 115, 116; IV Calvo, §§

1863-1898; Bluntschli, §§ 515-521; II Twiss, § 29; II Lorimer, chap. x.; Klüber, § 237; Manning, pp. 131140.

of which they and their enemies are alike members. A war is just against a wrong-doer when reparation for wrong cannot otherwise be obtained; but it is then only conformable to all the principles of morality when it is not likely to expose the nation by whom it is levied to greater evils than it professes to avert, and when it does not inflict on the nation which has done the wrong sufferings altogether disproportionate to the extent of the injury. When the rulers of a nation are required to determine a question of peace or war, the bare justice of their case against the wrong-doer never can be the sole, and is not always the chief, matter on which they are morally bound to exercise a conscientious deliberation. Prudence in conducting the affairs of their subjects is in them a part of justice."'

Classification of Wars. Wars are classified according to the point of view from which they are examined or discussed. They are classified according to their causes into wars of opinion, religious wars, wars of independence, of conquest, or subjugation. In a military sense they are offensive or defensive. In a political sense they are classified into external and internal wars. Internal wars are further subdivided into: Ist. Civil wars, in which the belligerent parties are distributed over a large part of the territory of a state, the object being to secure a change of government or laws, but not at the expense of national unity; 2d. Rebellions or insurrections, in which a portion of the population of a state rises against the central government, sometimes with the design of securing a separation from it, sometimes with a view to resist the execution of harsh or oppressive laws, or measures of administration.'

The Belligerent Parties. The states which are parties to a particular war are called belligerents. Their operations must be carried on in accordance with certain accepted usages, which are sanctioned by all nations under the name of the Laws of War. Whenever a state occupies the position of a belligerent, it is vested with all the rights, and charged with all the obligations, incident to a state of war. The parties to an internal war are also called belligerents. They acquire belligerent rights so soon as the central government decides to resort to warlike methods in order to quell the insurrection. The recognition of such rights by the central government, or by foreign powers, in no way involves the recognition of the rebellious government as a separate political organization. It only implies that the laws of war are to prevail in the military operations undertaken for the purpose of suppressing the re

an act of treason is an act of war. When participated in by a few persons, it is dealt with by the civil authorities, and the offenders are tried and punished by the courts of the state having jurisdiction of the offence; when participated in by such numbers of persons as to make it impossible for the duly constituted civil authorities to deal with it, the military power of the state is employed in its suppression, and, in the interest of humanity, what are called "belligerent rights" are usually accorded to the insurgents, and the operations undertaken with a view to quell the insurrection are carried on in conformity to the rules of civilized warfare. The granting of belligerent rights, however, does not impair the right of the central government to try those who have participated in the insurrection for treason, or for such other offences as may have been committed by them during the period of active hostilities. See also I Halleck, pp. 454-473; Vattel, liv. iii. ch. i. S$ 1-5; Hall, § 5. The United

States, in the enforcement of their constitutional rights against armed insurrection, have all the powers, not only of a sovereign, but also of the most favored belligerent.-Lamar vs. Browne, 92 U. S. 187. A revolutionary party, like a foreign belligerent power, is supreme over the country it conquers, as far and as long as its arms can carry and maintain it; and when the former government resumes its possession of the territory it cannot call the citizens or subjects of a third nation to account for obeying the authority which was temporarily supreme.-IX Opin. Att.-Gen. p. 140. Although it has been doubted whether a mere body of rebellious men can claim all the rights of a separate power on the high seas, without absolute or qualified recognition from foreign governments, there is no authority for a doubt that the parties to a civil war have the right to conduct it with all the incidents of lawful war within the territory to which they both belong.-Ibid.

bellion, enforcing the laws, and restoring the supremacy of the national government.

Neutrals the Status of Neutrality. All states in the civilized world, which do not become parties to an existing waras belligerents or allies-are placed by the declaration of war, or the outbreak of hostilities, in a peculiar status of non-interference, hereafter to be explained, called neutrality. These non-participating states are called neutrals, and their subjects are known as neutral subjects; the peculiar immunities which become operative in their behalf, in respect to hostile operations, are called neutral rights, and the obligations in respect to non-interference, with which such states become charged at the outbreak of war, are known as neutral duties.'

It will thus be seen that the status of belligerency is occupied by the states which are the immediate parties to an existing war; the status of neutrality, on the other hand, is occupied by those states which refrain from participating in the war, either as belligerents or allies. The status of neutrality is thus seen to be involuntary, in that it results from the mere fact that war exists between two or more states, with all of which the neutral is at peace. It becomes operative at the declaration of war, or at the outbreak of hostilities; and is made known, or publicly assumed, by a formal proclamation, issued by the neutral state, in which the fact of war is recognized and its subjects are warned to refrain from participating in its operations.

Recognition of Belligerency in Internal Wars. It has been seen that belligerent rights are acquired by the states that are parties to a particular conflict at the declaration of war, or, in the event of there being no formal declaration, at the outbreak of hostilities; at the same moment the rights and obligations of neutral states become operative. In respect to internal wars, however, the case is not quite the same. The central government is engaged in the suppression of a domestic insurrection, and, in virtue of its independence, it is entitled

For a more complete discussion of the neutral relation, see the

chapter entitled "Neutrality." See also II Ortolan, pp. 77-83.

to an immunity from interference in so doing. It is only when the insurrectionary movement has attained such form and proportions that the central government has been compelled to resort to military force in its suppression-until, indeed, there is something to recognize that the matter assumes international importance.

The question of according or withholding rights of belligerency in respect to the insurgent subjects of a foreign power is one which every sovereign state determines for itself, in view of the particular facts in each case. As to what conditions must be fulfilled to warrant such recognition of belligerency, it may be said that the conflict must be one amounting to public war; the mere existence of contending armed bodies, who come into occasional conflicts, not constituting a state of public war in the sense in which that term is here used. The insurrectionary movement must have been participated in by a considerable portion of the population of the state; the relative strength of the parties must be such as to give some assurance of success of the cause of the insurgents; they must have proved their ability to maintain themselves in certain well-defined limits of territory, and must have established, and must be prepared to maintain, such governmental institutions as will enable them to enter into diplomatic intercourse with the states whose recognition is sought.' If the belligerency of the insurgents be recognized before the conditions above described. have been fulfilled, it may properly be regarded as a cause of offence by the state within whose territories the insurrection is in progress. If, on the other hand, it be delayed too long, it is

I Dig. Int. Law, § 69; Dana's Wheaton, § 23, note; Woolsey, §§ 40, 180; Bluntschli, §§ 28-38; 33 Albany Law Journal, p. 125; I Halleck, pp. 68-72; Boyd's Wheaton, § 27; Hall, pp. 31-42; the Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheaton, 337; vol. ii. Revue de Droit International, pp. 452-485.

2 The United States complained -it must be admitted without good

or sufficient reason-at the recognition of the belligerency of the Confederate States. This seems strange, as the Federal Government had already accorded belligerent rights to the insurgents by its avowed determination to attempt the suppression of the rebellion by a resort to the use of its land and naval forces, and by its conduct of the military operations in accord