withdrew altogether at Verona in 1822. At Aix-la-Chapelle (1818) the Powers declared for the first time that it was their "unalterable determination never to swerve from the strictest observance of the principles of the law of nations, either in their relations with one another or with other states.' In pursuance of their policy of intervention a principle to which England never assented they held a series of congresses (1818-22) 6 which authorized interventions in Naples, Piedmont, and Spain.

"45

The Monroe Doctrine

When, however, it was proposed to extend this system to the Spanish colonies in America which had achieved their independence, the President of the United States, acting upon a hint from the great British statesman Canning, interposed and promulgated the famous Monroe Doctrine in his annual message to Congress of December 2, 1823. He declared that "we should consider any attempt on their part (i. e., of the Allied Powers) to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety." He added:

With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European Power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by

Carlsbad Decrees which had struck such a severe blow at freedom in Germany. It declared that the "States which had undergone a change of government due to revolution, the results of which threaten other States, ipso facto, cease to be members of the European Alliance, and remain excluded from it until their situation gives guaranties for legal order and stability."

For the text of the Carlsbad Decrees and Troppau Protocol, see Univ. of Pa. Trans, and Reprints, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 16-24. For good accounts, see Phillips, pp. 73 and 96; and Hazen, 59-60.

45 For the text of this declaration, see Nys on Le Concert European in 2 Etudes, P. 27.

46 It is to the work of these congresses and the system represented by them that the term "Holy Alliance" has been usually applied.

any European Power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.47

The promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine, which was followed by the recognition of the independence of the Latin American states by England, definitely added to the society of nations the leading states of South America and Mexico.48

were

The system and principles of the so-called "Holy Alliance finally overthrown by the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 which, though followed by a period of reaction, eventually substituted the principles of nationality, democracy and constitutional rule for those of legitimacy and absolutism.

The Declaration of Paris of 1856

The next important step in the development of international law was taken at the close of the Crimean War in 1856. Not only was

47 2 Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 218.

In another part of this same message (p. 209), Monroe also declared that "the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European Powers." This part of the message was directed primarily against the encroachments of Russia in the Northwest.

Perhaps the best and most inclusive statement of the American policy is contained in a letter by Jefferson to Monroe, dated October 24, 1823: "Our first maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe. Our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle in cis-Atlantic affairs."

On the Monroe Doctrine, see especially Dana's note 36 to Wheaton's Int. Law; Barral de Montferrat, De Monroe à Roosevelt (1905); Beaumarchais, La Doctrine de Monroe (1898); Edginton, The Monroe Doctrine (1904); Ford in 7 Am. Histor. Rev., 676-96; Henderson in American Diplomatic Questions (1901), Pt. IV; Moore in American Diplomacy, ch. 6; 6 Moore's Digest, ch. 20; Petin, Les Etats Unis et la Doctrine de Monroe (1900); Reddaway. The Monroe Doctrine (1898); Snow, Am. Diplomacy, Pt. II; Turner, Rise of the New West, in 14 Am. Nation Series, ch. 12. A good appreciation of the Monroe Doctrine is also contained in Moulin's excellent work on La Doctrine de Drago (1909). For a good select bibliography, see Hart, Manuel, pp. 61-62 and 246-48.

48 Their recognition by the United States took place in the spring of 1822: by England early in 1825. See Paxson, The Independence of the South American Republics (1903).

Turkey expressly admitted to theoretical full standing as a member of the society of nations, but the Congress of Paris issued the following epoch-making declaration of leading principles of maritime international law: 49

1) Privateering is and remains abolished.

2) The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war.

3) Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag.

4) Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective; that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of an enemy.

The period since 1856

The half century beginning with the Declaration of Paris in 1856 and ending with the London Conference in 1909 has seen greater progress in the direction of internationalism and more successful attempts to improve and codify international law than any other in history, or perhaps more than all previous half-centuries combined. It has been a period of congresses and conferences,50 of international unions and associations with definite organs in the shape of com

49 The Declaration of Paris was signed on April 16, 1856, by all the Powers represented at the Congress, viz., England, France, Austria, Russia, Sardinia, Turkey, and Prussia. The states not represented at the Congress were invited to sign, and most of them did so before the end of the year. Japan signed in 1886. The United States, Spain, Mexico and a few minor states held out, but all have in practice observed the rules of the Declaration. Spain gave notice of her adhesion at the Hague Conference of 1907. The objection of the United States was based upon the idea that inasmuch as we did not possess a large navy, the right to fit out privateers must be retained until the capture of private enemy property at sea is abolished. Inasmuch as this condition no longer holds and all the maritime Powers have observed the rules laid down by the Declaration of Paris for at least fifty years, there is no longer any reason for denying or doubting their validity as international law.

On the Declaration of Paris, see especially Dana's note to Wheaton; and Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences (1909), 1–4.

50 All real distinction between the words Congress and Conferences, if such ever existed, seems to have been lost.

missions and bureaus which are rapidly developing a sort of international legislation and an international administrative law.

Although the principle of nationality won its greatest triumphs during this period in the achievement of Italian and German unity (1859-70), it seems that the spirit of nationality is being modified or supplemented by that of internationalism, and that the older conceptions of sovereignty and independence are yielding to ideals of interdependence.

Codification of the law of nations

The first important step towards the codification of the laws of land warfare was taken in 1863 when our government published the "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field" prepared by Dr. Francis Lieber.51 In 1864 there was concluded, on the initiative of Switzerland, the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in War.52 This convention, which provided for neutralization of persons and things connected with the care of the sick and wounded, was signed by nearly all civilized Powers. By the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868 many states renounced, in case of war between themselves, the use of any "projectile of less weight than 400 grammes (about 14 ounces) which is explosive, or is charged with fulminating or inflammable substances." 53

51 The Instructions are printed as an Appendix in Scott's Texts of the Hague Conferences, and as an Appendix in Wilson's International Law.

52 For the text of the Geneva Convention (including the Additional Articles of 1868), see Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences, 8-17; Whittuck, Int. Doc., 3-9; or 1 SUPPLEMENT to this JOURNAL (1907), 90–95. But the Additional Articles failed of ratification. The convention resulted from an agitation aroused by the indefatigable labors of M. Moynier and the publication of a book entitled Un Souvenir de Solferino by M. Dunant, a Swiss philanthropist, who had witnessed the terrible sufferings of the wounded in that battle (1859).

53 This was based on the principle that the only legitimate object of war "is to weaken the military force of the enemy; that for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men; that this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable." See preamble of the Declaration in Higgins, 6; Whittuck, 10.

The London Conference of 1871

54

In 1871 the Conference of London 5+ solemnly proclaimed "that it is an essential principle of the law of nations that no Power can liberate itself from the engagements of a treaty, or modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting Powers by means of an amicable agreement." But it is very doubtful whether, stated in this absolute form, the above declaration is a principle of international law.

The Brussels Conference of 1874

In 1874 the Brussels Conference 55 presented the world with a code of warfare which, although it failed of ratification, obtained great authority and was generally observed. It was largely based on the American "Instructions" and became in its turn the model for the Hague code of 1899.

The West African Conference

The next important conference was that of the West African Conference which met in 1884-5 to decide certain questions concerning the Congo Free State, whose independence it recognized. This conference, at which the United States was represented, stipulated for freedom of trade and travel within the Congo basin; agreed to "strive for the suppression of slavery, and especially of the negro slave

54 This conference was attended by representatives of the same Powers which had signed the Treaty of Paris of 1856 — an agreement which Russia had violated by reestablishing her maritime arsenal on the Black Sea upon the outbreak of the Franco-German War of 1870.

55 For the text of the Code of the Brussels Conference, see Higgins, 273–80; Wilson and Tucker, Int. Law, 384-94 (Appendix III); SUPPLEMENT to this JOURNAL (1907), 96-103; or Scott, Texts of the Two Hague Conferences.

The Brussels Conference was attended by delegates from fifteen European states. Owing to a misunderstanding, the United States was not represented. The Latin American states were not invited, and several delegates from South American states were refused admission. See Nys in 2 Etudes, 39-40. On the Brussels Conference, see espec. Holland, Studies, 59-78; and F. de Martens, La Paix et la Guerre (1901), 73-132.