International Law is to nations what the National Constitution is to
our coëqual States: it is the rule by which they are governed. As among
us every State and also every citizen has an interest in upholding the
National Constitution, so has every nation and also every citizen an
interest in upholding International Law. As well disobey the former
as the latter. You cannot do so in either case without disturbing the
foundations of peace and tranquillity. To insist upon the recognition
of International Law is to uphold civilization in one of its essential
securities. To vindicate International Law is a constant duty, which is
most eminent according to the rights in jeopardy.
Foremost among admitted principles of International Law is the axiom,
that all nations are equal, without distinction of population, size, or
power. Nor does International Law know any distinction of color. As a
natural consequence, whatever is the rule for one is the rule for all;
nor can we do to a thinly-peopled, small, weak, or black nation what
we would not do to a populous, large, strong, or white nation,--nor
what that nation might not do to us. “Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you,” is the plain law for all nations, as for all men.
The equality of nations is the first principle of International Law,
as the equality of men is the first principle in our Declaration of
Independence; and you may as well assail the one as the other. As all
men are equal before the Law, so are all nations.
This simple statement is enough; but since this commanding principle
has been practically set aside in the operations of our Navy, I proceed
to show how it is illustrated by the authorities.
The equality of nations, like the equality of men, was recognized
tardily, under the growing influence of civilization. Not to the
earlier writers, not even to the wonderful Grotius, whose instinct for
truth was so divine, do we repair for the elucidation of this undoubted
rule. Our Swiss teacher, Vattel, prompted, perhaps, by the experience
of his own country, surrounded by more powerful neighbors, was the
first to make it stand forth in its present character. His words, which
are as remarkable for picturesque force as for juridical accuracy,
state the whole case:--
“Nations composed of men, and considered as so many free
persons living together in the state of Nature, are naturally
equal, and inherit from Nature the same obligations and
rights. Power or weakness does not in this respect produce
any difference. A dwarf is as much a man as a giant; a small
republic is no less a sovereign state than the most powerful
kingdom. By a necessary consequence of that equality, whatever
is lawful for one nation is equally lawful for any other, and
whatever is unjustifiable in the one is equally so in the
other.”[67]
Later authorities have followed this statement, with some slight
variety of expression, but with no diminution of its force. One of the
earliest to reproduce it was Sir William Scott, in one of his masterly
judgments, lending to it the vivid beauty of his style:--
“A fundamental principle of Public Law is the perfect equality
and entire independence of all distinct states. Relative
magnitude creates no distinction of right; relative imbecility,
whether permanent or casual, gives no additional right to the
more powerful neighbor; and any advantage seized upon that
ground is mere usurpation. This is the great foundation of
Public Law, which it mainly concerns the peace of mankind,
both in their politic and private capacities, to preserve
inviolate.”[68]