Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

OUTLINE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

International Law treats of the rights of nations and individuals arising from the conduct of states to each other; and of the rights of individuals as affected by the municipal laws of different nations. The former division is called Public International Law; the latter, Private International Law, or the Conflict of Laws.

Public International Law.

Most of the rules of Public International Law have been derived from the Roman law, the doctrine of expediency, the influence of public opinion, and the good, old rule that "might is right." Nations although nominally equal, being in reality unequal both in power and material resources, have different interests. What might answer the purpose of a powerful nation might not be equally advantageous for a weak nation. For these reasons we find many of the rules of Public International Law are exceedingly contradictory. Indeed, on some questions of Public International Law there are no rules, and in those cases the principles which should prevail, must be determined by each particular nation. Thus the question whether a mail steamer, like the Trent, is liable to be taken into a prize court for adjudication has never been judicially determined. If the principle of public convenience in the rapid transmission of mails is to decide the question, the Trent was properly allowed to pursue her voyage after the seizure of the Southern Commissioners. Whether the emissaries of a rebel government before their arrival at the country to which they are accredited,

can, to evade capture, transfer themselves, and their despatches from a vessel of the rebel government to a vessel of the neutral nation, so as not to be liable to be stopped on their passage by the cruisers of the national government is another question, which remains to be judicially decided. If the interest of all neutral nations to maintain their neutrality is to decide the question, then such emissaries are liable to be stopped. Unfortunately, many of the questions of Public International Law run counter to national pride or national interest. On these occasions, we need not be surprised that passion usurps the place of argument, and might of right. Numerous instances of the truth of this observation will occur to every one acquainted with the history of Public International Law. The facility of communication between different countries, the influence of the press, and the extension of education, all lead however to the hope that national pride or national interest will not for the future be the principle on which many questions of International Law are decided. Let the uniform rule of Public International Law be justice between nation and nation, and then we have a principle which will solve all doubts, and remove all difficulties. But let one act of national injustice, such as the partition-of Poland, be overlooked by the other nations, and it will be a thorn in their side until justice be done.

The requisites of a nation is one of the first questions discussed by Public International Law, and these are said to be a government, a code of laws, a national treasury, the consent and agreement of the citizens, and the observance of treaties of peace and alliance. Grotius, 2. 3. c. 3, sec. 1. The definition implies that the state is sovereign, or independent of the control of every other state. There may be however, states that are not sovereign, and in that case they are not recognised as nations by the sovereign states. Thus the claim of the states styling themselves "The Confederate States of America" to be recognised as a nation is preposterous, so long as

portions of the territory claimed by them are occupied by the authorities of the United States. Most of the questions of Public International Law occur in time of war, but there are many which arise during a state of peace. While a state of peace exists between any particular nations, their rights are usually defined by treaty. Where no treaty exists or it has expired, the principal questions of discussion relate to the right to trade, the navigation of rivers or inland waters, the boundaries of states, the right of fishing, the jurisdiction over adjoining seas, and the right of a nation possessing only the upper parts of a navigable river to descend to the sea. On these subjects the practice of nations is not uniform. That every nation is bound to grant a passage for lawful purposes, through a country to the people of other states; that the surrender of fugitive criminals is not justifiable, unless it be in pursuance of a treaty obligation by the state, where the criminal is apprehended; that ambassadors are subject to the laws of the country only by which they are sent; and that consuls are responsible to the civil and criminal laws of the country in which they reside, are however uniform rules with nearly all nations.

During a state of war between any particular nations, all other nations not engaged in the contest as allies, or principals, are called neutrals. A state of war may exist between a nation and any part of its dominions, or between two independent nations. The former is usually termed a civil war. Where the civil war "involves a contest for the sovereignty, other states may remain indifferent spectators of the controversy, still continuing to treat the ancient government as sovereign, and the government de facto as a society, entitled to the rights of war against its enemy; or may espouse the cause of the party which they believe to have justice on its side. In the first case, the foreign state fulfils all its obligations under the law of nations; and neither party has any right to complain so long as it maintains an impartial neutrality." Wheaton's Elements of International Law, 6th edition, p. 32.

As however, assistance is generally granted conformably to the law of nations in cases of revolt, where rulers have violated the social compact, there seems no reason why assistance should not be uniformly granted to rulers where subjects revolt without having justice on Were this principle to prevail among nations, we would not again behold a civil war, like that between the United States and the Confederate States, originating from sheer disappointment at the result of the election of the head of the government.

their side.

Where a war breaks out between two sovereign nations, a formal declaration of war is sometimes made. In other cases, the recal of the ambassador is considered tantamount to a declaration of war, or at least, to a cessation of friendly relations. Private debts are rarely, if ever, confiscated on an outbreak of war, but their recovery at law is suspended until the return of peace. In modern times public debts are never

confiscated.

No trade can take place between the subjects of two countries at war, except by special licence. All contracts made during the war are absolutely void. The only exception to this strict and rigorous rule of international jurisprudence is the case of ransom bills, where not prohibited by local law, and bills drawn by prisoners of war for their own subsistence. Not only the subjects of the countries at war, but also foreigners may acquire a hostile character by the following circumstances: Possessions in the territory of the enemy.

Residence there for the purposes of trade.

A permanent residence there for any other purpose. Continuance of, or entrance into a commercial partnership there during the war.

Trading in those branches of commerce confined in time of peace, to the subjects of the enemy.

Sailing under the flag and pass of the enemy.

These circumstances in general only give rise to the hostile character, when property is captured at sea, for with property or private individuals on land belligerents rarely interfere. These circumstances will

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »