CONQUEST (from OF. conqueste. Fr. con que•te, Sp., Port., It. eonauista, from ML. eon quista, conquest, from Lat. conquirerc, to pro cure, from con-, together + qiurrere, to seek). The forcible extension of sovereignty by one State over the territory of another as the result of suc cessful war. Though it is denied by advocates of natural justice that this carries with it inher ent rights of appropriation in territory, and destruction of national life. conquest has been one of the strongest agencies in molding civiliza tion, and, in its influence upon the relationship of nations, it belongs to the realm of interim tional law as well as to that of history.
Nilitary conquest is developed from mere occupation of territory when the victorious State exercises continuously sovereign powers over the section affected, and such conquest is deemed to be completed in the legal sense by the conqueror's signifying by some formal act his intention of adding it to his dominions, such as the publica tion of a diplomatic circular or a proclamation of annexation. The conditions justifying such acquisition and insuring immunity from inter ference by other States are: (1) A situation where, in order to redress a wrong or in self protection, it becomes necessary to strip an aggressor of a portion of his territory. (2) The completion by treaty of the title which possession by conquest has given. (3) A general acquies cence in the act of the conqueror by neutral States. The changes in the map of Europe wrought by Napoleon's conquests and annexa tions were not accepted by the nations affected, and, by the Congress of Vienna, a return to the original conditions was made.
Title by conquest is, in principle, to be distin guished from title by cession, by the fact that, whether ratified by treaty or not, title by con quest rests avowedly on force, whereas the ces sion of territory is, in theory at least, always a voluntary act on the part of the ceding power. the acquisition of Porto Rico by the United States, as the result of the late war with Spain, was due to its conquest by the military and naval forces of the United States, while the acquisition of the Philippine Islands was dis guised as a voluntary cession thereof by Spain.
Indeed, it is usual for conquering nations in modern times to require as a condition of peace that the defeated nation shall recognize the title of the former to the conquered territory by a treaty of cession. The title is then. in legal theory, referred to the oession, rather than to the act of conquest upon which it is really based.
Unless otherwise defined by treaty, the fol lowing rules govern the status of property and of the inhabitants of conquered territory: All public property passes to the conqueror abso lutely. Except in the ease of rebellion, private property rights remain undisturbed, and the conqueror is bound to make laws to insure the enjoyment of such rights, appropriate to the new political system imposed. Political laws and sys tems, being based upon reciprocal relations be tween citizens and the body politic. are destroyed, and, in the absence of treaty stipulations, politi cal and civil rights of the inhabitants depend upon the provisions of the new regime. Absolute allegiance is due the conqueror. and, on bare con quest, lie may forbid emigration from the country, but not in case of cession. Municipal laws regu lating the private relations of individuals are not abrogated, however, but continue in force by the implied acquiescence of the new sovereign, until superseded by new enactments.
Difficult problems arise in determining the con flicting claims caused by the temporary exercise of sovereign powers by a conqueror. A famous example is Hesse-Cassel, overrun by Napoleon's troops in 1S06. and later annexed by him to the Kingdom of Westphalia. When the Elector re turned under the Treaty of Vienna, he refused to respect payments made by the public debtors and the sale of the Crown lands by Jerome Bona parte. After passing before several tribunals, it was finally decided that the Elector's reinstate meat was not a continuation of his former sov ereignty, and that the acts of the conqueror were valid. Consult: Lawrence, Principles of Interna tional Late (London and New York, 1897), and also the authorities referred to under INTERNA