§§540, 541 State Acts Causing Damage. PRELIMINARY. $540. An independent state will obtain redress in international life by setting in motion the international factors of conduct.' Selfinterest and inherited prejudice act automatically. Public opinion, custom, precedent, will be referred to, or pressure applied by act of the state. There is no way to actually determine when the force of public opinion, precedent and custom ends, and the pressure proceeding from a state begins. We, therefore, can only distinguish certain recognizable external manifestations of the operation of these factors. It is obvious that the means of redress are insufficient, that a state may often fail to obtain satisfaction, and that in many instances the wicked will prevail and the innocent suffer. So, also, the means of redress may be resorted to for mere selfish purposes without any previous act causing damages. That is, the state acting may proceed in order to constrain the conduct of the other state in a respect not regulated by the international factors of conduct. The same phenomenon is frequently apparent in municipal life. We have therefore inadequacy of remedy in many cases and abuse of remedy in others. STATE ACTS CAUSING DAMAGE. $541. It is also clear from the discussion which has preceded what are the interests of a state, and how those interests may be damaged by the act of another state. It is possible, therefore, by These are: (a) self interest, (b) inherited prejudice, (c) public opinion, (d), custom-precedent, (e) pressure from one or more states. See $105, ante. "Self-help and intervention on the part of other States which sympathize with the wronged one are the means by which the rules of the Law of Nations can be and actually are enforced; 1 Oppenheim, Int. I., 2 ed. (1912) 13. Twiss, War, 2 ed. (1875) 4, 5, advances the notion that a state is bound to maintain its right [interest] and seek satisfaction for a wrong under penalty of forfeiting its character of an independent political body, because an open submission between equal powers is almost always attributed to cowardice or weakness and seldom fails to subject the injured party to further wrongs of a more atrocious character. That' states have a so called right of redressing themselves; Twiss, War, 2 ed. (1875). 3, 4; Woolsey, Int. L., 6 ed. (1897) 17. 3 Twiss, War, 2 ed. (1875) 19. These have already been classified. See $104, ante. As follows: (1) Acts of interference in territorial supremacy of another state-(a) Form of government; (b) Seizure of territory-invasion of jurisdiction; (c) Relations with its members; (d) Interference in dispute between two or more other states. Acts of violation of immunity of an ambassador. (3) Acts of violation of. terms of a treaty. (4) Acts of violation of interest of an alien within borders. (2) Legal and Political Differences. $542 confining our attention to such classification, to say in any given case whether or not there has been in fact a damage to a state interest, and thereby draw some kind of a line which will determine whether it is proper for a state to invoke any remedy of self-redress. The difficulty is that states have applied force, that is, invoked the remedy of international law for ulterior selfish motives where there is no damage to a state interest. As there is no political power competent to pass judgment in such matters, such cases cannot be prevented in the present state of international development. It has also been pointed out that in municipal life the power of the state is necessary to curb individuals from damaging the interest of another in those cases where there is sufficient material advantage to the wrong-door to induce the act of damage and the other factors are not sufficiently strong to prevent it. The same principle applies in international affairs. Cases will arise where the self-interest of a state is actually or is deemed by that state to be of such a nature that force must be applied against another state. No principle, no wish, no idea of morality, nor any pressure of public opinion can ever restrain such act of force. It is only by a superior political power that independent states can be curbed. LEGAL AND POLITICAL DIFferences. $542. An attempt has been made to classify disputes between states as political and legal. The rules laid down by the writers as to the measure of redress appropriate to each difference, are purely theoretical and without material value, as each independent state may, and in fact does, resort to such measures in any particular case as it sees fit. It is admitted by one writer that the distinction is correct in theory but cannot be clearly drawn in practice. Even from the theoretical point of view we are confronted with the ambiguity of the word "law" which vitiates the distinction unless we clearly define the sense in which that word is used." If we assume that the 2 Oppenheim, Int. L., 2 ed. (1912) 3, 4, where he says that a legal difference arises from acts for which states have to bear responsibility, whereas, political differences are the result of conflict of political interests. When he uses the phrase "have to bear responsibility" he begs the question, and as sumes that there is an external political power competent to exert such compulsion, which power does not exist in fact, and there can be no legal difference in such case in the sense in which the word "legal" is used in municipal law unless there is such a power. In the municipal law the distinction |