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！
kind； which if defeated in one country would be unsuccessful everywhere else； and if once unsuccessful； would be so for ever。
8。 A particular Case in which the defensive Force of a State is inferior to the offensive。 It was a saying of the Lord of Coucy to King Charles V that the English are never weaker； nor more easily overcome； than in their own country。 The same was observed of the Romans； the same of the Carthaginians； and the same will happen to every power that sends armies to distant countries； in order to reunite by discipline and military force those who are divided among themselves by political or civil interests。 The state finds itself weakened by the disorder that still continues； and more so by the remedy。
The Lord of Coucy's maxim is an exception to the general rule； which disapproves of wars against distant countries。 And this exception confirms likewise the rule because it takes place only with regard to those by whom such wars are undertaken。
9。 Of the relative Force of States。 All grandeur； force； and power are relative。 Care therefore must be taken that in endeavouring to increase the real grandeur； the relative be not diminished。
During the reign of Louis XIV France was at its highest pitch of relative grandeur。 Germany had not yet produced such powerful princes as have since appeared in that country。 Italy was in the same case。 England and Scotland were not yet formed into one united kingdom。 Aragon was not joined to Castile： the distant branches of the Spanish monarchy were weakened by it； and weakened it in their turn； and Muscovy was as little known in Europe as Crim Tartary。
10。 Of the Weakness of neighbouring States。 Whensoever a state lies contiguous to another that happens to be in its decline； the former ought to take particular care not to precipitate the ruin of the latter； because this is the happiest situation imaginable； nothing being so convenient as for one prince to be near another； who receives for him all the rebuffs and insults of fortune。 And it seldom happens that by subduing such a state the real power of the conqueror is as much increased as the relative is diminished。
______
1。 It is composed of about fifty different republics； all different from one another。 M。 Janisson； State of the United Provinces。
2。 Civil liberty； goods； wives； children； temples； and even burying…places。
3。 Strabo； xiv。
4。 Ibid。
5。 Ibid。
Book X。 Of Laws in the Relation They Bear to Offensive Force
1。 Of offensive Force。 Offensive force is regulated by the law of nations； which is the political law of each country considered in its relation to every other。
2。 Of War。 The life of governments is like that of man。 The latter has a right to kill in case of natural defence： the former have a right to wage war for their own preservation。
In the case of natural defence I have a right to kill； because my life is in respect to me what the life of my antagonist is to him： in the same manner a state wages war because its preservation is like that of any other being。
With individuals the right of natural defence does not imply a necessity of attacking。 Instead of attacking they need only have recourse to proper tribunals。 They cannot therefore exercise this right of defence but in sudden cases； when immediate death would be the consequence of waiting for the assistance of the law。 But with states the right of natural defence carries along with it sometimes the necessity of attacking； as for instance； when one nation sees that a continuance of peace will enable another to destroy her； and that to attack that nation instantly is the only way to prevent her own destruction。
Thence it follows that petty states have oftener a right to declare war than great ones； because they are oftener in the case of being afraid of destruction。
The right of war； therefore； is derived from necessity and strict justice。 If those who direct the conscience or councils of princes do not abide by this maxim； the consequence is dreadful： when they proceed on arbitrary principles of glory； convenience； and utility； torrents of blood must overspread the earth。
But； above all； let them not plead such an idle pretext as the glory of the prince： his glory is nothing but pride； it is a passion； and not a legitimate right。
It is true the fame of his power might increase the strength of his government； but it might be equally increased by the reputation of his justice。
3。 Of the Right of Conquest。 From the right of war comes that of conquest； which is the consequence of that right； and ought therefore to follow its spirit。
The right the conqueror has over a conquered people is directed by four sorts of laws： the law of nature； which makes everything tend to the preservation of the species； the law of natural reason； which teaches us to do to others what we would have done to ourselves； the law that forms political societies； whose duration nature has not limited； and； in fine； the law derived from the nature of the thing itself。 Conquest is an acquisition； and carries with it the spirit of preservation and use； not of destruction。
The inhabitants of a conquered country are treated by the conqueror in one of the four following ways： Either he continues to rule them according to their own laws； and assumes to himself only the exercise of the political and civil government； or he gives them new political and civil government； or he destroys and disperses the society； or； in fine； he exterminates the people。
The first way is conformable to the law of nations now followed； the fourth is more agreeable to the law of nations followed by the Romans： in respect to which I leave the reader to judge how far we have improved upon the ancients。 We must give due commendations to our modern refinements in reason； religion； philosophy； and manners。
The authors of our public law； guided by ancient histories； without confining themselves to cases of strict necessity； have fallen into very great errors。 They have adopted tyrannical and arbitrary principles； by supposing the conquerors to be invested with I know not what right to kill： thence they have drawn consequences as terrible as the very principle； and established maxims which the conquerors themselves； when possessed of the least grain of sense； never presumed to follow。 It is a plain case that when the conquest is completed； the conqueror has no longer a right to kill； because he has no longer the plea of natural defence and self…preservation。
What has led them into this mistake is； that they imagined a conqueror had a right to destroy the state； whence they inferred that he had a right to destroy the men that compose it： a wrong consequence from a false principle。 For from the destruction of the state it does not at all follow that the people who compose it ought to be also destroyed。 The state is the association of men； and not the men themselves； the citizen may perish； and the man remain。
From the right of killing in the case of conquest； politicians have drawn that of reducing to slavery a consequence as ill…grounded as the principle。
There is no such thing as a right of reducing people to slavery； save when it becomes neces