友情提示:如果本网页打开太慢或显示不完整,请尝试鼠标右键“刷新”本网页!阅读过程发现任何错误请告诉我们,谢谢!! 报告错误
九色书籍 返回本书目录 我的书架 我的书签 TXT全本下载 进入书吧 加入书签

the science of right-第32章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页,按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页,按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部!
————未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!




legislative power; and yet it would be made binding upon the people;

which; on the principle that 〃No one can serve two masters;〃 is a

contradiction。



        II。 The Right of Nations and International Law。

                       (Jus Gentium)。

        53。 Nature and Division of the Right of Nations。



  The individuals; who make up a people; may be regarded as natives of

the country sprung by natural descent from a common ancestry

(congeniti); although this may not hold entirely true in detail。

Again; they may be viewed according to the intellectual and

juridical relation; as born of a common political mother; the

republic; so that they constitute; as it were; a public family or

nation (gens; natio) whose members are all related to each other as

citizens of the state。 As members of a state; they do not mix with

those who live beside them in the state of nature; considering such to

be ignoble。 Yet these savages; on account of the lawless freedom

they have chosen; regard themselves as superior to civilized

peoples; and they constitute tribes and even races; but not states。

The public right of states (jus publicum civitatum); in their

relations to one another; is what we have to consider under the

designation of the 〃right of nations。〃 Wherever a state; viewed as a

moral person; acts in relation to another existing in the condition of

natural freedom; and consequently in a state of continual war; such

right takes it rise。

  The right of nations in relation to the state of war may be

divided into: 1。 the right of going to war; 2。 right during war; and

3。 right after war; the object of which is to constrain the nations

mutually to pass from this state of war and to found a common

constitution establishing perpetual peace。 The difference between

the right of individual men or families as related to each other in

the state of nature; and the right of the nations among themselves;

consists in this; that in the right of nations we have to consider not

merely a relation of one state to another as a whole; but also the

relation of the individual persons in one state to the individuals

of another state; as well as to that state as a whole。 This

difference; however; between the right of nations and the right of

individuals in the mere state of nature; requires to be determined

by elements which can easily be deduced from the conception of the

latter。



             54。 Elements of the Right of Nations。



  The elements of the right of nations are as follows:

  1。 States; viewed as nations; in their external relations to one

another… like lawless savages… are naturally in a non…juridical

condition;

  2。 This natural condition is a state of war in which the right of

the stronger prevails; and although it may not in fact be always found

as a state of actual war and incessant hostility; and although no real

wrong is done to any one therein; yet the condition is wrong in itself

in the highest degree; and the nations which form states contiguous to

each other are bound mutually to pass out of it;

  3。 An alliance of nations; in accordance with the idea of an

original social contract; is necessary to protect each other against

external aggression and attack; but not involving interference with

their several internal difficulties and disputes;

  4。 This mutual connection by alliance must dispense with a

distinct sovereign power; such as is set up in the civil constitution;

it can only take the form of a federation; which as such may be

revoked on any occasion; and must consequently be renewed from time to

time。

  This is therefore a right which comes in as an accessory (in

subsidium) of another original right; in order to prevent the

nations from falling from right and lapsing into the state of actual

war with each other。 It thus issues in the idea of a foedus

amphictyonum。



         55。 Right of Going to War as related to the

                   Subjects of the State。



  We have then to consider; in the first place; the original right

of free states to go to war with each other as being still in a

state of nature; but as exercising this right in order to establish

some condition of society approaching the juridical And; first of all;

the question arises as to what right the state has in relation to

its own subjects; to use them in order to make war against other

states; to employ their property and even their lives for this

purpose; or at least to expose them to hazard and danger; and all this

in such a way that it does not depend upon their own personal

judgement whether they will march into the field of war or not; but

the supreme command of the sovereign claims to settle and dispose of

them thus。

  This right appears capable of being easily established。 It may be

grounded upon the right which every one has to do with what is his own

as he will。 Whatever one has made substantially for himself; he

holds as his incontestable property。 The following; then; is such a

deduction as a mere jurist would put forward。

  There are various natural products in a country which; as regards

the number and quantity in which they exist; must be considered as

specially produced (artefacta) by the work of the state; for the

country would not yield them to such extent were it not under the

constitution of the state and its regular administrative government;

or if the inhabitants were still living in the state of nature。 Sheep;

cattle; domestic fowl the most useful of their kind… swine; and such

like; would either be used up as necessary food or destroyed by beasts

of prey in the district in which I live; so that they would entirely

disappear; or be found in very scant supplies; were it not for the

government securing to the inhabitants their acquisitions and

property。 This holds likewise of the population itself; as we see in

the case of the American deserts; and even were the greatest

industry applied in those regions… which is not yet done… there

might be but a scanty population。 The inhabitants of any country would

be but sparsely sown here and there were it not for the protection

of government; because without it they could not spread themselves

with their households upon a territory which was always in danger of

being devastated by enemies or by wild beasts of prey; and further; so

great a multitude of men as now live in any one country could not

otherwise obtain sufficient means of support。 Hence; as it can be said

of vegetable growths; such as potatoes; as well as of domesticated

animals; that because the abundance in which they are found is a

product of human labour; they may be used; destroyed; and consumed

by man; so it seems that it may be said of the sovereign; as the

supreme power in the state; that he has the right to lead his

subjects; as being for the most part productions of his own; to war;

as if it were to the chase; and even to march them to the field of

battle; as if it were on a pleasure excursion。

  This principle of right may be supposed to float dimly before the

mind of the monarch; and it certainly holds true at least of the lower

animals which may become the property of man。 But such a principle

will not at all apply to men; especially when viewed as citizens who

must be regarded as members of the state; with a share in the

legislation; and not merely as means for others but as ends in

themselves。 As such they must give their free consent; through their

representatives; not only to the carrying on of war generally; but

to every separate declaration of war; and it is only under this

limiting condition that the state has a right to demand their services

in undertakings so full of danger。

  We would therefore deduce this right rather from the duty of the

sovereign to the people than conversely。 Under this relation; the

people must be regarded as having given their sanction; and; having

the right of voting; they may be considered; although thus passive

in reference to themselves individually; to be active in so far as

they represent the sovereignty itself。



              56。 Right of Going to War in relation

                        to Hostile States。



  Viewed as in the state of nature; the right of nations to go to

war and to carry on hostilities is the legitimate way by which they

prosecute their rights by their own power when they regard

themselves as injured; and this is done because in that state the

method of a juridical process; although the only one proper to

settle such disputes; cannot be adopted。

  The threatening of war is to be distinguished from the active injury

of a first aggression; which again is distinguished from the general

outbreak of hostilities。 A threat or menace may be given by the active

preparation of armaments; upon which a right of prevention (jus

praeventionis) is founded on the other side; or merely by the

formidable increase of the power of another state (potestas

tremenda) by a
返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0
未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!
温馨提示: 温看小说的同时发表评论,说出自己的看法和其它小伙伴们分享也不错哦!发表书评还可以获得积分和经验奖励,认真写原创书评 被采纳为精评可以获得大量金币、积分和经验奖励哦!