substantial agreement in foreign policy, their united authority may be exerted with a view to constrain less powerful states to follow a particular line of conduct; and they may, by the influence which they are able to bring to bear, compel a particular state to do, or refrain from doing, a particular thing: as to refrain from declaring war, or to bring a particular war to a close, upon certain conditions, or even to bring about certain constitutional changes or internal reforms. The leading states of Europe constitute such a primacy, and their agreement upon a particular line of policy is called the Concert of Europe. This concerted action may be exercised, informally through their respective foreign offices, by diplomatic agencies, or, formally, in congresses or conferences, in a manner presently to be described. The establishment of the kingdom of Greece in 1832, the establishment of a Danish prince upon the Greek throne, upon the abdication of King Otho in 1862, the foundation of the kingdom of Belgium in 1839, and the attempts made, at various times within the present century, to obtain constitutional reforms in Turkey, are examples of such concerted action.'

Spheres of Influence. The term "spheres of influence" applies to portions of territory lying within certain well-defined boundaries, and occupied by uncivilized races, within each of which the influence of a particular European state is paramount. The practice of establishing spheres of influence, which is of very recent origin, amounts, in fact, to a distribution of uncivilized territory among the principal states of Europe by treaties defining the boundaries of the areas within. which their influence shall be supreme. These treaties, in the preparation of which the people of the distributed territory are not consulted, contain stipulations binding the states which are parties to their operation to refrain from extending the influence of one state within the sphere, or territorial area, allotted to another. As against

'Lawrence, Essays on Modern International Law, second ed. chap. v. pp. 208-234; Westlake, pp. 92-101.

third powers, not parties to

"Westlake, pp. 187-189; Lawrence, Int. Law, §§ 95, 101, 103, 104; vol. xx. Revue de Droit Int. pp. 5–35.

the treaty of distribution, these agreements are, of course, inoperative. How extensive the influence exerted in a particular case shall be, the form and manner of its exercise, whether by the state itself, acting through recognized governmental agencies, or by the interposition of commercial companies, and the question whether it shall ripen into a protectorate, or become a dependency of the predominant state, are matters which are left to the determination of the state whose influence is predominant in a particular territory.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE

The political principle which has become generally known as the Monroe Doctrine has never been regarded, or even suggested, as a rule of international law. Like the principle of the European Balance of Power, however, it concerns more than a single state in its operation and has been made the subject of diplomatic intercourse, and is, for that reason, entitled to a place in a work professing to treat of the relations of sovereign states and of their intercourse with each other.'

During the period of the Napoleonic wars, Spain was deeply engaged in European affairs and her dependencies in America took this occasion to assert their independence, which was accomplished, in most cases, without serious resistance on the part of the mother-country. After a proper time had elapsed in each case the United States recognized their independence, and, although Spain continued to regard them as dependencies, it was found to be impossible to reduce them to submission without the assistance of other European powers.

When the Emperor Napoleon was overthrown in 1815, the sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and Prussia entered into a league at Paris, called the Holy Alliance, to which France became a party at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818. England,

'The Monroe Doctrine has for its objects the maintenance of peace on the western continent and the preservation of the American states in their integrity. In this respect it bears a relation to the states of

America in some respects resembling that borne by the principle of the Balance of Power to the states of Europe, and has the same claim to consideration from the point of view of international law.

although invited to accede to the convention, declined to become a member of the alliance, or to participate in its acts or deliberations. Although the ostensible purpose of the agreement was to secure the subordination of politics to the maxims of Christianity, its real purpose is now known to have been to afford support to European governments in the suppression of revolutionary uprisings and to repress agitation in behalf of liberal reforms. In pursuance of this purpose a reactionary government was established in Naples; somewhat later it supported France in an armed intervention in Spain, as a result of which a republican government which had been established there was overthrown and the absolute government restored to power. It was then proposed to overthrow the republican institutions which had been established in the Spanish American states and to restore them to their former position as European dependencies. This policy was strongly opposed by Great Britain who declared "that she would consider any intervention, by force or menace, in the affairs of these states, as a reason for recognizing them without delay." The English prime-minister, Mr. Canning, brought the matter to the attention of the United States Government, and suggested that suitable steps be taken to prevent such intervention in American affairs.

After consulting Jefferson, Madison, John Quincy Adams, and other leading statesmen of the time, President Monroe embodied the following statements in his annual message to Congress in December, 1823: "The occasion has been judged proper for asserting as a principle, in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power." Else

For the text of this agreement, see Alison's Life of Lord Castlereagh, vol. iii. p. 66; see also Lawrence, Essays on Modern International Law, second ed. p. 215, note.

'I Phillimore, § 405; Dana's Wheaton, § 67, note 36; Woolsey, §§ 46-48; Creasy, § 124.

"I Dig. Int. Law, § 57; Rush, I Residence at the Court of London.

where in the same message he states: "We owe it therefore to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and these powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies and dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have on great consideration and just principles acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or in any other manner controlling their destiny, than as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States."'

These declarations, which have become known as the "Monroe Doctrine," have never received express legislative sanction, and, therefore, do not constitute a part of the municipal law of the United States. Nor, in a similar sense, are they rules of international law.' They have been frequently cited, however, by the Executive, as an expression of the permanent foreign policy of the United States, and have received the support of the political departments of the government and the approval of the American people.'

The declaration in respect to colonization proceeded upon

1 President Monroe's Message of December 2, 1823, Annual Register, lxv.

2 It should be borne in mind that the declarations known as the Monroe Doctrine have never received the sanction of an act or resolution of Congress, and for that reason form no part of the municipal law of the United States; nor do they have any of that authority which European governments attach to a royal ordinance. They are, in fact, only the declarations of an existing administration of what its own policy would be, and what it thinks should ever be

F

the assumption that every part of the territory upon the American continent formed a part of, or was embraced in, the territorial limits of some then existing state, and that, as a consequence, no territory remained in the western hemisphere which could be made the subject of occupation, or colonization, without invading the territory of a sovereign state. Such an attempt to plant colonies in any portion of the western hemisphere would, therefore, be met and resisted by the state whose territories were invaded, and the European power making the attempt might, or might not, incur the disapprobation, or active opposition, of the United States. The question whether the United States would interfere, or refrain from interference, in a case of attempted colonization, is one which would be determined by that government in accordance with the peculiar circumstances of the case.'

The doctrine has never been interpreted to mean, however, that the United States would lend its aid in every case of dispute between a Spanish American republic and a European state. Nor has it been regarded as a dormant treaty of alliance, to come into operation upon the occurrence of war between an American state and a European power, to which the United States is bound to become a party against its judg ment, or in opposition to its will; it is only when something in the nature of coercion has been undertaken, when some attempt has been made on the part of a European power "to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere," or when there has been "interposition for the purpose of oppressing an American republic" that a case calling for interference may be said to arise.

Case of Yucatan. This is illustrated by the case of Yuca

1 Two years later, at the suggestion of some of the Spanish American states, a congress was called at Panama to take into consideration the means of carrying the Monroe Doctrine into effect. The United States Government sent two representatives to this con

gress, but declined to commit itself to any particular line of policy, or to accept, in advance, any conclusions which might be adopted, or favored, by the conference.See the Panama Congress of 1826, vol. iv. of the Int. Amer. Conf. of 1890.