three centuries of subjection to Spanish monopoly, were only too eager to seize the occasion to buy freely in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest.

Spain, however, was loath to surrender these colonies and the lucrative business with them; but when, in 1820, she was preparing an expedition to suppress the war for independence in America, a serious revolution broke out within her own borders and quickly spread over into Italy. It looked for a time as if the whole settlement, which had been reached by the powers at Vienna in 1815 after the downfall of Napoleon, would be undone by revolutionary violence. Anticipating such a danger, Austria, Prussia, England, and Russia had formed a: alliance in 1815 for the express purpose of maintaining the re stored Bourbon king in France and preventing a renewed distur ance of the peace of Europe. In order to effect their ends, the powers agreed to hold periodical meetings for the purpose reviewing their interests and taking such measures as shoul deemed necessary for the preservation of public order.

Shortly before this agreement was reached, the monarch. Austria, Prussia, and Russia, on the suggestion of the Alexander I, had formed a sort of a pious alliance, accordi which the three rulers were to view one another as brothe "delegates of Providence to govern three branches of th family," and to base their policies "upon the sublime which are taught by the eternal religion of God our Savi This agreement was known as "The Holy Alliance" which was afterwards quite indiscriminately applied to ** bined powers of Europe in their efforts to maintain the se of Vienna.

As soon as the revolution of 1820 broke out in Spain nich, the astute Austrian diplomat, invited Russia France, and England to unite in suppressing the devel "revolt and crime." In 1822, the representatives of the met at Verona to discuss their common interests and what should be done with Spain. At this Congress i powers, except England, were anxious to devise a plan

1 For this remarkable document, seebinson and Be

Modern European History, Vol. I, p. 384: the European situation, see Robinson Europe, Vol. I, p. 357

=

337

ch

rly

ther

e for

of just bitions

ean that,

n power to l ordinarily any Latin

the United States w. International governing the relaf war rules which the statutes of various dicial tribunals, in the iters, and finally in the

law as merely a body of it will by any nation. It tive authority or judicial ernational law by punishing any legists to deny even the g the intercourse of nations, nction beyond the mere volunns. This view overlooks the us than those of mere material 's and necessities of each nation Il-defined rules in the conduct of ies. The domestic law of every ated, notwithstanding the sanction

For instance, American citizens the customs laws in spite of the penfor the offence; but the United States arbitrarily a British merchant vessel

land, declared (in 1895) that, while the United States did not intend to help relieve any Latin-American state from its obligations under international law, and did not intend to prevent any European government, directly interested, from enforcing such obligations or inflicting punishment for a breach of them, it would not permit any European country or combination of countries to "forcibly deprive an American state of the right and power of self-government and of shaping for itself its own political fortunes and destinies." The strong stand taken by President Cleveland in this interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine kindled the war spirit; but fortunately the dispute was peaceably settled by arbitration. Again, in 1901, when Germany was about to bring force to bear upon Venezuela for the satisfaction of claims, President Roosevelt declared: "the Monroe Doctrine is a declaration that there must be no territorial aggrandizement by any non-American power at the expense of any American power on American soil. . . . We do not guarantee any state against punishment, if it misconducts itself, provided that punishment does not take the form of the aquisition of territory by any nonAmerican power."

1

Alongside this interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine as "the principle of the limitation of European power and influence in the western hemisphere" 1 has come a correlative doctrine that the United States must accept, to some degree, responsibility for the conduct of the Latin-American countries which are to be defended against European aggrandizement. This correlative principle President Roosevelt announced in 1904: "If a nation shows that it knows how to act with decency in industrial and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, then it need fear no interference from the United States. Brutal wrong-doing or impotence which results in the general loosening of the ties of civilized society may finally require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the western hemisphere the United States cannot ignore its duty." This same view was taken by President Taft in his message of 1909: "With the changed circumstances of the United States and the republics to the south of us, most of which have great natural resources, 1J. B. Moore, American Diplomacy, p. 162.

2

2

Moore, op. cit., p. 165. See above, p. 197, for the Santo Domingo affair illustrating this point.

stable government, and progressive ideals, the apprehension which gave rise to the Monroe Doctrine may be said to have nearly disappeared, and neither the doctrine as it exists nor any other doctrine of American policy should be permitted to operate for the perpetuation of irresponsible government, the escape of just obligations or the insidious allegation of dominating ambitions on the part of the United States."

In other words, the Monroe Doctrine seems to mean that, while the United States will not permit any European power to seize new dominions in the western hemisphere, it will ordinarily allow all powers to safeguard property rights in any LatinAmerican country.

International Law and Peace

In common with the other civilized nations the United States recognizes international law as a part of its law. International law is a vast complex of rules and regulations governing the relations of nations in time of peace and in time of war - rules which are to be found in treaties and agreements, the statutes of various countries, the doctrines laid down by high judicial tribunals, in the principles enunciated by authoritative writers, and finally in the recognized practices of nations.

It is a mistake to regard international law as merely a body of amiable theories that may be broken at will by any nation. It is true that there is no world executive authority or judicial tribunal to enforce the practices of international law by punishing offending nations; and this has led many legists to deny even the name of "law" to the rules governing the intercourse of nations, on the ground that they have no sanction beyond the mere voluntary approval of individual nations. This view overlooks the fact that there are other sanctions than those of mere material force and that the very interests and necessities of each nation compel it to observe certain well-defined rules in the conduct of its business with other countries. The domestic law of every nation is constantly being violated, notwithstanding the sanction of force upon which it rests. For instance, American citizens often violate with impunity the customs laws in spite of the penalties which may be imposed for the offence; but the United States would not think of seizing arbitrarily a British merchant vessel

Ꮓ

in the harbor of New York and thus run the risk not only of serious commercial loss, but also of a costly war.

It is impossible, of course, in a treatise of this character to go into the content of international law at any length, but some notion of the principles which it embodies seems necessary to give definiteness and reality to the statement that international law is not a collection of theories and moral principles, but a substantial body of rules and regulations applicable to the conduct of intercourse between states. In international law we find laid down the principles defining what may be regarded as an independent state (which is the "person" or "subject" of international law); the fundamental rights and duties of states; the methods by which new states come into existence and are recognized; the character of the property of a state; methods of acquiring property; the territorial waters of a state; the privileges and immunities of diplomatic agents; the jurisdiction of a state over aliens within its borders; piracy; grounds and conditions upon which one state may interfere in the affairs of other states; principles of expatriation and naturalization; the making and abrogating of treaties; arbitration, mediation, and acts mitigating the rigors of war. These matters are treated under that branch of international law known as the law of peace.

Even the practices of war are regulated by well-accepted rules. The law of war, for example, governs such topics as the declaration of war, non-combatants, privateering, the prisoners of war and their treatment, the instruments of war and bombardment of towns, and the use of explosives; the effect of war upon the property of belligerent states, their subjects and the subjects of neutral states; the effect of military occupation upon property on land; the rights and duties of neutrals; contraband of war; blockade; right of search; and prize courts.

On all of these topics of international law definite information is to be secured from decisions of courts, treaties, statutes, official documents, and authoritative writers; and while a variety of opinions may be entertained by the legists of different nations, it must be remembered that lawyers and courts are by no means always agreed as to what the domestic law is on any particular point.1

'The student will do well to refer at this point to the monumental collection of material on international law prepared by Professor J. B. Moore,