CHAPTER IX

INDEPENDENCE AND INTERDEPENDENCE

39. Manner of Exercise of the Right

WHILE according to early theory there could be no limitation or restriction of independence, because it was a recognized principle that independence must be absolute and inalienable, yet in reality interdependence rather than independence is becoming the rule among states. In fact, every state, in order that it may live at peace in the family of nations, voluntarily accepts either formally by treaty or tacitly by practice, many conditions which restrain it in the exercise of its powers. The independence of the state is not thereby violated, since the restraint is exercised by the state itself, and is not an act of external political control. The number of these restraints which states voluntarily assume is continually increasing, owing to the closer relations of humanity. The provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations, 1919, and the action of the League Assembly show increasing international coöperation.

The exercise of the right of independence involves the privilege of making treaties, alliances, contracts, and municipal laws, so far as these do not violate international law or the right of independence as possessed by other states. A state may go to war to maintain its independence.

40. European Balance of Power

Undoubtedly the idea of establishing a relationship of interdependence among "neighboring states more or less connected with one another, by virtue of which no one among them can injure the independence or essential rights of another without

Ancient

meeting with effectual resistance on some side and consequently exposing itself to danger "1 is not a modern idea. states united to prevent the growth of some neighboring power to such magnitude as would threaten their independence." From the beginning of the modern period of international law, Peace of Westphalia (1648), the idea of maintaining an equilibrium among the powers of Europe has had great influence and until the latter part of the nineteenth century was regarded as one of the fundamental principles of European international practice. Many treaties aim to preserve this balance among the European powers, and the words "balance" and "equilibrium" often appear.3 The Treaty of Utrecht in its provision between Spain and Great Britain, July 13, 1713, gives as its object ad firmandam stabiliendamque pacem ac tranquillitatem christiani orbis justo potentiae equilibro. The idea that independence was to be preserved by some balance of power reappears in successive treaties. This plea of the balance of power has led to most diverse action. Unjust rulers have made it the cloak for action entirely outside the sanction of international law. Many times it has "served as the pretext for a quarrel, and repeatedly made hostilities general which would otherwise have been shut up within a comparatively small area." 4 The feeling that the balance of power was a necessary policy for the preservation of European states, led to the idea that states should be constrained to certain lines of action, which would prevent, in many cases, normal growth. Frequently the independence of a state was violated to anticipate an action which might disturb the European equilibrium. The partitions of Poland in the eighteenth century show a violation of the principles of international law for the sake of giving equal compensation to the parties to it.

1 Von Gentz, Fragments upon the Balance of Power in Europe," 1806. 2 Hume," Essays," VII.

Nys, " Origines," pp. 165 ff.

The doctrine of the balance of power is not a principle of international law, but merely a maxim of European political practice pretending to state the means of maintaining the independence of European states.1

41. Monroe Doctrine and American Policies

The Monroe
Doctrine.

(a) Another maxim of political action is that which has become known as the "Monroe Doctrine." 2 While enunciated by a single state, it had in view the maintenance of the independence of the states of the American continent. For many years after the Revolutionary War the opinion prevailed that Europe viewed with disfavor the growth of the American republic. The Holy Alliance, formed on the downfall of Napoleon, was followed by several congresses of European powers, at one of which, held at Verona in 1822, the subject of helping Spain recover her revolting colonies in America was discussed. This led to the declaration of President Monroe in his message of December 2, 1823, that there should be (1) no more European colonies on these continents, (2) no extension of the European political system to any portion of this hemisphere, (3) no European interposition in the affairs of the Spanish-American republics. This doctrine has been repeatedly affirmed by the United States, and in some instances very liberally interpreted. It in no way embodies a principle of international law, though the European and other states may regard it as expressing the attitude of the United States upon the points covered, and if desirous of avoiding friction, govern themselves accordingly.

(1) The United States, in signing the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes in 1899, made the following reservation: "Nothing contained in this con

1 Tucker," Monroe Doctrine," 4.

2 Hart, "Monroe Doctrine"; Kraus, "Die Monroedoktrin." For documentary material, see 6 Moore, §§ 927-969.

vention shall be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the political question of any foreign state; nor shall anything contained in the said convention be construed to imply a relinquishment by the United States of America of its traditional attitude towards purely American questions." In ratifying on April 2, 1908, this same convention as revised at the Second Hague Conference in 1907, the Senate of the United States made the same reservation.

Reservation made by the United States in regard to the Monroe Doctrine.

A policy of the
United States,

not a principle
of international

law.

(2) If the Monroe Doctrine were a principle of international law, the United States would not be justified in changing its attitude upon the doctrine, but probably it would not be seriously maintained that the United States might not enunciate another policy setting aside the Monroe Doctrine. Reddaway well says, "that it produced its desired effect as an act of policy, but in no way modified the Law of Nations." 2 (3) The doctrine has always failed of direct legislative indorsement in the United States. At times it has been strenuously opposed by European powers. That it has been recognized, however, to a certain extent, appears by the course of events. It was in 1895 applied in the case of the intervention by the United States in the dispute over the 'Hart, "The Monroe Doctrine," pp. 349 ff.

Extent to which it has been

recognized.

2

4

3

The Monroe Doctrine," VI.

President Roosevelt in his message of December 3, 1901, said: "The Monroe Doctrine should be the cardinal feature of the foreign policy of all the nations of the two Americas, as it is of the United States . . . . 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 acquisition of territory by any non-American power."

boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana. Arbitration settled this difficulty. In 1902, after use of force to collect claims against Venezuela, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy disavowing intention to acquire territory, submitted to arbitration.2 Article 21 of the Treaty of Versailles recognizes the Monroe Doctrine as a regional understanding "for securing the maintenance of peace."

Proposed Extension.

(4) Before the Senate, January 22, 1917, President Wilson proposed the adoption of the Monroe Doctrine as "the doctrine of the world; that no nation seek to extend its polity over any other nation or people, but that every people should be left free to determine its own polity."

(b) Other American policies have gradually been developed in the western hemisphere. The proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine emphasized the growth of the feeling that Other American the states of America had interests peculiarly American. The American states which had so recently broken from European allegiance soon began their endeavor to unite for common action on American matters.

policies.

(1) A congress of American states was called at Panama in 1826.3 This Congress of Panama did not realize the hopes which had been entertained by some upon the possibility of

Early congresses of South American states.

developing a distinctively American policy. It had, however, among its objects the promotion of peace and union of American nations. In 1831, another similar congress was called. Five South American states met at Lima in 1847. During the next forty years there were several congresses called with the idea of bringing the South American states into closer union and with

1 Ann. Cycl. (1895), p. 741; (1896), p. 804; (1899), p. 845, also U. S. For. Rel. 1896.

U. S. For. Rel. 1903, pp. 417 ff.; 542 ff.; 601 ff.; U. S. For. Rel. 1904, p. 509.

American State Papers, 5 For. Rel., 839-905.