They are therefore justified in allying themselves against such a state and its measures. "No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of State" For what is there to authorize it to do so?The offense, perhaps, which a state gives to the subjects of another state?Tags: Six Stages Of Development Of Critical ThinkingDoublespeak Essay TopicsElements Of Research ProposalBusiness Plan Pro Serial NumberThesis On Social Networking EffectsDrugs Essay ConclusionElectronic Thesis Dissertation DatabaseNasty Gal Business Plan
But between states no punitive war (bellum ) is conceivable, because there is no relation between them of master and servant.
It follows that a war of extermination, in which the destruction of both parties and of all justice can result, would permit perpetual peace only in the vast burial ground of the human race.
Therefore, such a war and the use of all means leading to it must be absolutely forbidden.
But that the means cited do inevitably lead to it is clear from the fact that these infernal arts, vile in themselves, when once used would not long be confined to the sphere of war. In this, one employs the infamy of others (which can never be entirely eradicated) only to encourage its persistence even into the state of peace, to the undoing of the very spirit of peace.
But if, in consequence of enlightened concepts of statecraft, the glory of the state is placed in its continual aggrandizement by whatever means, my conclusion will appear merely academic and pedantic. "No Independent States, Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of ).
It is a society of men whom no one else has any right to command or to dispose except the state itself. But to incorporate it into another state, like a graft, is to destroy its existence as a moral person, reducing it to a thing; such incorporation thus contradicts the idea of the original contract without which no right over a people can be conceived.1 Everyone knows to what dangers Europe, the only part of the world where this manner of acquisition is known, has been brought, even down to the most recent times, by the presumption that states could espouse one another; it is in part a new kind of industry for gaining ascendancy by means of family alliances and without expenditure of forces, and in part a way of extending one's domain.But it would be quite different if a state, by internal rebellion, should fall into two parts, each of which pretended to be a separate state making claim to the whole.To lend assistance to one of these cannot be considered an interference in the constitution of the other state (for it is then in a state of anarchy But so long as the internal dissension has not come to this critical point, such interference by foreign powers would infringe on the rights of an independent people struggling with its internal disease; hence it would itself be an offense and would render the autonomy of all states insecure. "No State Shall, ) in the Opposing State" These are dishonorable stratagems.By this the author desires formally and emphatically to deprecate herewith any malevolent interpretation which might be placed on his words.CONTAINING THE PRELIMINARY ARTICLES FOR PERPETUAL PEACE AMONG STATES 1.PERPETUAL PEACE Whether this satirical inscription on a Dutch innkeeper's sign upon which a burial ground was painted had for its object mankind in general, or the rulers of states in particular, who are insatiable of war, or merely the philosophers who dream this sweet dream, it is not for us to decide.But one condition the author of this essay wishes to lay down.For some confidence in the character of the enemy must remain even in the midst of war, as otherwise no peace could be concluded and the hostilities would degenerate into a war of extermination (bellum ).War, however, is only the sad recourse in the state of nature (where there is no tribunal which could judge with the force of law) by which each state asserts its right by violence and in which neither party can be adjudged unjust (for that would presuppose a juridical decision); in lieu of such a decision, the issue of the conflict (as if given by a so-called "judgment of God") decides on which side justice lies.When one or both parties to a treaty of peace, being too exhausted to continue warring with each other, make a tacit reservation () in regard to old claims to be elaborated only at some more favorable opportunity in the future, the treaty is made in bad faith, and we have an artifice worthy of the casuistry of a Jesuit.Considered by itself, it is beneath the dignity of a sovereign, just as the readiness to indulge in this kind of reasoning is unworthy of the dignity of his minister.