not sufficient time to prevent the imminent invasion of her territory through application to the United States Government.1 VI INTERVENTION Vattel, II. $$ 54-62-Hall, $$ 88-95-Westlake, I. pp. 304-308- tion and vention. § 134. Intervention is dictatorial interference by a ConcepState in the affairs of another State for the purpose character of maintaining or altering the actual condition of of Interthings. Such intervention can take place by right or without a right, but it always concerns the external independence or the territorial or personal supremacy of the respective State, and the whole matter is there fore of great importance for the position of the States within the Family of Nations. That intervention is as a rule forbidden by the Law of Nations which protects the International Personality of the States, there is no doubt. On the other hand, there is just as little doubt that this rule has exceptions, for there are interventions which take place by right, and there are others which, although they do not take place by right, are nevertheless admitted by the Law of Nations and are excused in spite of the violation of the Personality of the respective States they involve. Intervention can take place in the external as well I as as in the internal affairs of a State. It concerns in the first case the external independence, and in the second either the territorial or the personal supremacy. But it must be emphasised that intervention proper is always dictatorial interference, not interference pure and simple.2 Therefore intervention must neither be confounded with good offices, nor with mediation, nor with intercession, nor with cooperation, because none of these imply a dictatorial interference. Good offices is the name for such acts of friendly Powers interfering in a conflict between two other States as tend to call negotiations into existence for the peaceable settlement of the conflict, and mediation is the name for the direct conduct on the part of a friendly Power of such negotiations.3 Intercession is the name for the interference consisting in friendly advice given or friendly offers made with regard to the domestic affairs of another State. The so-called doctrine of nonintervention as defended by some Italian writers (see Fiore, I. No. 565), who deny that intervention is ever justifiable, is a political doctrine without any legal basis whatever. 2 Many writers constantly commit this confusion. 3 See below, vol. II. § 9. And, lastly, co-operation is the appellation of such interference as consists in help and assistance lent by one State to another at the latter's request for the purpose of suppressing an internal revolution. Thus, for example, Russia sent troops in 1849, at the request of Austria, into Hungary to assist Austria in suppressing the Hungarian revolt. ་ tion by § 135. It is apparent that such interventions as Interventake place by right must be distinguished from Right. others. Wherever there is no right to intervention, although it may be admissible and excused, an intervention violates either the external independence or the territorial or the personal supremacy, But if an intervention takes place by right, it never contains such a violation, because the right of intervention is always based on a legal restriction upon the independence or territorial or personal supremacy of the State concerned, and because the latter is in duty bound to submit to the intervention. Now a State may have a right of intervention against another State for several grounds. Thus the Suzerain State has a right to intervene in many affairs of the vassal, and the State which holds a protectorate has a right to intervene in all the external affairs of the protected State. Thus, secondly, the right of protection over its citizens abroad, which a State holds, may cause an intervention by right to which the other party is legally bound to submit. Thus, thirdly, if a State which is restricted by an international treaty in its internal independence or its territorial or personal supremacy, does not comply with the restrictions concerned, the other party or parties have a right to intervene. Thus, fourthly, if an external affair of a State is at the same time by right an affair of another State, the latter has a right to intervene in case the former deals with that affair unilaterally.1 Thus, fifthly, if a State in time of peace or war violates those principles of the Law of Nations which are universally recognised, other States have a right to intervene and to make the delinquent submit to the respective principles.2 The question is disputed whether a State that has guaranteed by treaty the form of government of a State or the reign of a certain dynasty over the same has a right to intervene in case of change of form of government or of dynasty. In strict law this question is, I think, to be answered in the affirmative,3 provided the respective treaty of guaranty was concluded between the respective States, and not between their monarchs. And this question has nothing to do with the policy of intervention in the interest of legitimacy adopted in the nineteenth century after the downfall of Napoleon I. by the Powers of the Holy Alliance. 1 The events of 1878 provide an illustrative example. Russia had concluded the preliminary Peace of San Stefano with defeated Turkey; Great Britain protested because the conditions of this peace were inconsistent with the treaty of Paris of 1856 and the convention of London of 1871, and Russia agreed to the meeting of the Congress of Berlin for the purpose of arranging matters. Had Russia persisted in carrying out the preliminary peace, Great Britain as well as other signatory Powers of the Treaty of Paris and the Convention of London doubt. less possessed a right of intervention. 2 This is universally recognised. If, for instance, a State undertook to extend its jurisdiction over the merchantmen of another State on the high seas, not only would this be an affair between the two States concerned, but all other States would have a right to intervene because the freedom of the open sea is a universally recognised principle. 3 Hall (93) decides the question in the negative. I do not see the reason why a State should not be able to undertake the obligation to retain a certain form of government or dynasty. That historical events can justify such State in considering itself no longer bound by such treaty according to the principle rebus sic stantibus (see below, § 539) is another matter. tion in Right. Admissi§ 136. In contradistinction to intervention by bility of right, there are other interventions which must be Intervenconsidered admissible, although they violate the default of independence or the territorial or personal supremacy of the State concerned, and although such State has by no means any legal duty to submit patiently and suffer the intervention. Of such interventions in default of right there are two kinds generally admitted and excused-namely, such as are necessary in self-preservation and such as are in the interest of the balance of power. (1) As regards interventions for the purpose of self-preservation, it is obvious that, if any necessary violation committed in self-preservation of the International Personality of other States is, as shown above (§ 130), excused, such violation must also be excused as is contained in an intervention. And it matters not whether such an intervention exercised in self-preservation is provoked by an actual or imminent intervention on the part of a third State, or by some other incident. (2) As regards intervention in the interest of the balance of power, it is likewise obvious that it must be excused. An equilibrium between the members of the Family of Nations is an indispensable condition of the very existence of International Law. If the States could not keep one another in check, all Law of Nations would soon disappear, as, naturally, an over-powerful State would tend to act according to discretion instead of according to law. Since the Westphalian Peace of 1648 the principle of balance of power has played a preponderant part in the history of Europe. It found express recognition in 1713 in the Treaty of Peace of Utrecht, it was the guiding star at the Vienna Congress in 1815 when |