but generally and permanently. The former political nationality of the individuals would here be in continual conflict with their new domicile, and the evil would be irremediable even by their nationalisation, because it would be they who had absorbed the State into which they had migrated, not the State which had absorbed them. We should there have a population which really continued to belong to one State, governed by the municipal law of another, we should have a Danish province, we shall say, which, by perfectly legitimate means had become German, still governed by Danish law. Now, so long as there is no international legislature, judicature, or executive, by which such an anomaly can be corrected, the direct application of force by the social and industrial conqueror to the vindication of rights thus existing, but the recognition of which national jealousy withholds, I regard as falling clearly within the province of correctional, and as such, jural war. If freedom is to be vindicated and national progress is not to be impeded, war for these purposes is justified by necessity. The higher object of bringing positive law into conformity with fact, and with natural law as the exponent of fact, overrides the lower object of respecting the integrity of a recognised State; and in the absence of other factors for its vindication, this higher object justifies war. So far as Germany confined her action in 1864 to this object, it fell within the law of nations. The opposite was the case, however, the moment that this object was extended to the acquisition either of territory or of seaports still in the industrial possession of a Danish population. Such an acquisition was anti-jural,—it was an act of international robbery—and

was justly stigmatised in Earl Russell's despatch of 20th August 1864.

(A) A recognising State cannot jurally assert by war the liberty of acquiring new rights by industrial means within the territories of a recognised State.

The recognition of a State implies the recognition of its capacity to manage its affairs, and to avail itself of its resources. During the subsistence of recognition, therefore, the recognised State is the judge, without appeal, of the forms of industry which may or may not be carried on within its borders, whether by natives or by foreigners. Should it adopt a policy obstructive to foreign enterprise and native prosperity alike,—such, for example, as imposing prohibitive duties, closing its ports or rivers, preventing the working of mines, the construction of railways, or the like, the only jural remedy consists in diplomatic remonstrance and the ultimate withdrawal of recognition. Beyond the limits of the positive law of nations, as determined by the doctrine of recognition, the question whether war may or may not be undertaken for such a purpose, in accordance with natural law, is a question of fact which turns mainly on the capacities present or prospective of the existing inhabitants of the territory. The rights and duties of the more advanced portions of mankind, in such circumstances, do not admit of any abstract or general determination. All that can be said in principle is, that at the point at which the rights and duties of recognition cease, the rights and duties of guardianship begin; and that the assertion of these rights and duties, if need be, falls within the objects of jural war in the

sense which natural law attaches to it. That such wars can rarely be necessary for self-preservation-e.g., by the extension of the food-supply of a manufacturing country — is nothing to the purpose. Unless we are to separate jurisprudence from ethics altogether, we must accept the duty, not of self-preservation alone, but of cosmopolitan development, as the measure of national obligation. Colonisation, and the reclamation of barbarians and savages, if possible in point of fact, are duties morally and jurally inevitable; and where circumstances demand the application of physical force, they fall within necessary objects of war. On this ground the wars against China and Japan, to compel these countries to open their ports, may be defended. Till the whole world is divided into recognised States, the maintenance of forces like those now maintained by England in India, and by Russia in Central Asia, though for purposes inconsistent with the relations which subsist between recognised and recognising States, will be justified by the higher, but not less real necessity, of discharging the duties which they owe to subject and protected races.

It is conceivable, of course, that these forces should be controlled, not by individual States, but by a central authority, emanating from the whole body of recognised and recognising States, and that the process of civilisation should thus become the common task of civilised mankind. The unanimity with which the abolition of slavery has been undertaken, seems to render something like common action in the performance of more fruitful enterprises a less unrealisable conception than it at first appears. That a country like Central Africa, the

moment that it is explored, should be divided amongst separate European nations, and the process of its development be arrested by the mutual jealousies which will inevitably spring up between them, seems a very undesirable arrangement. Yet the only alternative which the present international organisation, or disorganisation, of Europe affords, is the recognition of the "integrity and independence" which Central Africa has enjoyed since it was first peopled.

In this direction the international jurist will watch with interest and sympathy the efforts of the King of the Belgians to confer on the regions watered by the Congo, something approaching to a neutral character, by the action of what is called the Comité International.1

CHAPTER V.

OF THE SPECIAL ENDS OR OBJECTS OF WAR.

Of war for the assertion of subjective freedom.

Assuming as the result of our previous discussion that the sole object of war is freedom, we have now to inquire into the effects of this limitation. We have seen 2 that the fact of separate State existence confers on the State thus existing

1 Les Français, les Anglais et le Comité International sur le Congo, par Émile de Laveleye. 1883. M. Moynier had already called the attention of the Institute to the subject on the occasion of its meeting at Paris in 1878 (Annuaire 1879-80, vol. i. p. 155); and has just done so again at its meeting at Munich in September 1883.

Ante, vol. i. p. 103.

the right to international recognition. This fact will always become known first to the State itself. The knowledge, or conscious recognition of this fact, or even the conscientious belief in it, on the part of a separate political community, justifies that community in asserting it, if need be, by force.1 A State whose right to recognition is denied, thus finds itself at once in an abnormal relation towards the denying State or States; and this abnormal relation, if otherwise irremovable, it may jurally seek to remove by war. States do not live or expand in vacuo; and an effort undertaken for the sole purpose of self-assertion may assume the characteristics of a war of self-defence, of intervention, or even of jural aggression. As an abnormal relation, the rights which it confers are limited by the jural necessity in which they originated; and its only jural object being freedom, it ceases to be jural the moment that its effect is to limit the proximate freedom of the State by which it is waged, of neutral States, or even of the opposite belligerent, to a greater extent than it promotes the ultimate freedom of one or all of them. A war of vengeance for injuries done or imagined, or of suspicion of injuries anticipated, or of jealousy of the development of a rival Power, is thus anti-jural just as much as a war of mere covetousness, fanaticism, or sentimentalism.

In the abstract all this is plain, and will be undisputed by

1 It is on the ground of the sincerity with which a community holds this belief, which, though it may prove ultimately to be mistaken, does not appear irrational, that the rights of belligerency may be recognised by neutral States as existing in a claimant for freedom, whilst political recognition is still withheld. It was in this position, as we have seen (ante, vol. i. p. 142 et seq.), that the Southern States of America stood to the European Powers during their conflict with the North.