6. Among the provisions of international law, we naturally start from those which grow out of the essence of the individual state. The rights of the state, as such, may be comprised under the term sovereignty, or be divided into sovereignty, independence, and equality, by which latter term is in tended equality of rights. Sovereignty and independence are two sides of the same pro perty, and equality of rights necessarily be. longs to sovereign states, whatever be their size or constitution ; for no reason can be as signed why all states, as they have the same powers and destination in the system of things, should not have identically the same rights. States are thus, as far as other states are concerned, masters over themselves and over their subjects, free to make such changes in their laws and constitutions as they may choose, and yet incapable by any change, whether it be union, or separation, or what ever else, of escaping existing obligations. With regard to every state, international law only asks whether it be such in reality, whe ther it actually is invested with the proper ties of a state. With forms of government international law has nothing to do. All forms of government, under which a state can discharge its obligations and duties to others, are, so far as this code is concerned, equally legitimate.
7. Thus, the rule of non-intervention in the affairs of other states is a well-settled princi ple of international In the European system, however, there is an acknowledged exception to this rule, and also a claim on the part of certain states to a still wider de parture from the rule of non-intervention, which other states have not as yet admitted.
It is conceded that any political action of any state or states which seriously threatens the existence or safety of others, any disturb ance of the balance of power, may be resisted and put down. This must be regarded as an application of the primary principle of self preservation to the affairs of nations.
But when certain states claim a right to interfere in the internal affairs of others in order to suppress constitutional movements and the action of a people without its own sphere, this is as yet an unauthorized ground of interference. The plea here is, on the part of those states which have asserted such a right, especially of Austria, Prussia, Russia, and at times of France, that internal revo lutions are the result of wide-spread conspi• racier, and if successful anywhere are fatal to the peace and prosperity of all absolute or non-constitutional governments. The right, if admitted, would destroy by an interna tional law all power of the people in any state over their government, and would place the smaller states under the tutelage of two or three of the larger. England has always
protested against this enlargement of the right of interference, and France has esta blished more than one revolutionary govern ment in spite of it.
S. In the notion of sovereignty is involved paramount exclusive jurisdiction within a certain territory. As to the definition of ter ritory, international law is tolerably clear. Beside the land and water included within the line of boundary separating one state from another, it regards as territory the coast-water to the distance of a marine league, and the portions of sea within lines drawn between headlands not very remote, or, in other words, those parts of the sea which are closely con nected with a particular country when it needs to defend itself against attack and its laws are exposed to violation. The high sea., on the other hand, is free, and so is every avenue from one part of the sea to another, which is necessary for the intercourse of the world. It has been held that rivers are ex clusively under the jurisdiction of countries through which they flow, so that the dwellers on their upper waters have no absolute right of passage to and from the sea ; butprac tically, at present, all the rivers which divide or run through different states are free for all those who live upon them, if not for all mankind. It has been claimed that ships are territory ; but it is safer to say that they are under the jurisdiction of their own state until they come within that of another state. By comity, public vessels are exempt from foreign jurisdiction, whether in foreign ports or elsewhere.
9. The relations of a state to aliens, espe cially within its borders, come next under review. Here it cannot be affirmed that a state is obligated, in strict right, to .admit foreigners into or to allow them transit across its territory, or even to hold intercourse with them. All this may be its duty and per haps, when its territory affords trio only con venient pathway to the rest of the world or its commodities are necessary to others of mankind, transit and intercourse may be en forced. But, aside from these extreme cases, intercourse is only a duty, and not definable with precision, as is shown by the endless varieties of commercial treaties. It can only be said that the practice of Christian states is growing more and more liberal, both as regards admitting foreigners into their terri tories and to the enjoyment of those rights of person and property which the natives possess, and as regards domiciliating them. or even incorporating them, afterwards, if they desire it, into the body politic. See