Asregardsthecostofmaintainingtheecclesiasticalestablishment，forsimilarreasonsthismustbederivednotfromthepublicfundsofthestate，butfromthesectionofthepeoplewhoprofesstheparticularfaithofthechurch;andthusonlyoughtittofallasaburdenonthecommunity。
　　D。TheRightofAssigningOfficesandDignitiesintheState。
　　Therightofthesupremeauthorityinthestatealsoincludes：
　　1。Thedistributionofoffices，aspublicandpaidemployments;
　　2。Theconferringofdignities，asunpaiddistinctionsofrank，foundedmerelyonhonour，butestablishingagradationofhigherandlowerordersinthepoliticalscale;thelatter，althoughfreeinthemselves，beingunderobligationdeterminedbythepubliclawtoobeytheformersofarastheyarealsoentitledtocommand;
　　3。Besidestheserelativelybeneficentrights，thesupremepowerinthestateisalsoinvestedwiththerightofadministeringpunishment。
　　Asregardsciviloffices，thequestionarisesastowhetherthesovereignhastheright，afterbestowinganofficeonanindividual，totakeitagainawayathismerepleasure，withoutanycrimehavingbeencommittedbytheholderoftheoffice。Isay，"No。"Forwhattheunitedwillofthepeoplewouldneverresolve，regardingtheircivilofficers，cannot（constitutionally）bedeterminedbythesovereignregardingthem。Thepeoplehavetobearthecostincurredbytheappointmentofanofficial，andundoubtedlyitmustbetheirwillthatanyoneinofficeshouldbecompletelycompetentforitsduties。Butsuchcompetencycanonlybeacquiredbyalongpreparationandtraining，andthisprocesswouldnecessarilyoccupythetimethatwouldberequiredforacquiringthemeansofsupportbyadifferentoccupation。Arbitraryandfrequentchangeswouldtherefore，asarule，havetheeffectoffillingofficeswithfunctionarieswhohavenotacquiredtheskillrequiredfortheirduties，andwhosejudgementshadnotattainedmaturitybypractice。
　　Allthisiscontrarytothepurposeofthestate。Andbesidesitisrequisiteintheinterestofthepeoplethatitshouldbepossibleforeveryindividualtorisefromalowerofficetothehigheroffices，astheselatterwouldotherwisefallintoincompetenthands，andthatcompetentofficialsgenerallyshouldhavesomeguaranteeoflife—longprovision。
　　Civildignitiesincludenotonlysuchasareconnectedwithapublicoffice，butalsothosewhichmakethepossessorsofthem，withoutanyaccompanyingservicestothestate，membersofahigherclassorrank。Thelatterconstitutethenobility，whosemembersaredistinguishedfromthecommoncitizenswhoformthemassofthepeople。Therankofthenobilityisinheritedbymaledescendants;andtheseagaincommunicateittowiveswhoarenotnoblyborn。Femaledescendantsofnoblefamilies，however，donotcommunicatetheirranktohusbandswhoarenotofnoblebirth，buttheydescendthemselvesintothecommoncivilstatusofthepeople。Thisbeingso，thequestionthenemergesastowhetherthesovereignhastherighttofoundahereditaryrankandclass，intermediatebetweenhimselfandtheothercitizens？Theimportofthisquestiondoesnotturnonwhetheritisconformabletotheprudenceofthesovereign，fromregardtohisownandthepeople’sinterests，tohavesuchaninstitution;butwhetheritisinaccordancewiththerightofthepeoplethattheyshouldhaveaclassofpersonsabovethem，who，whilebeingsubjectslikethemselves，areyetbornastheircommanders，oratleastasprivilegedsuperiors？Theanswertothisquestion，asinpreviousinstances，istobederivedfromtheprinciplethat"whatthepeople，asconstitutingthewholemassofthesubjects，couldnotdetermineregardingthemselvesandtheirassociatedcitizens，cannotbeconstitutionallydeterminedbythesovereignregardingthepeople。"
　　Nowahereditarynobilityisarankwhichtakesprecedenceofmeritandishopedforwithoutanygoodreason—athingoftheimaginationwithoutgenuinereality。Forifanancestorhadmerit，hecouldnottransmitittohisposterity，buttheymustalwaysacquireitforthemselves。Naturehasinfactnotsoarrangedthatthetalentandwillwhichgiverisetomeritinthestate，arehereditary。Andbecauseitcannotbesupposedofanyindividualthathewillthrowawayhisfreedom，itisimpossiblethatthecommonwillofallthepeopleshouldagreetosuchagroundlessprerogative，andhencethesovereigncannotmakeitvalid。Itmayhappen，however，thatsuchananomalyasthatofsubjectswhowouldbemorethancitizens，inthemannerofbornofficials，orhereditaryprofessors，hasslippedintothemechanismofgovernmentinoldentimes，asinthecaseofthefeudalsystem，whichwasalmostentirelyorganizedwithreferencetowar。Undersuchcircumstances，thestatecannotdealotherwisewiththiserrorofawronglyinstitutedrankinitsmidst，thanbytheremedyofagradualextinctionthroughhereditarypositionsbeingleftunfilledastheyfallvacant。Thestatehasthereforetherightprovisorilytoletadignityintitlecontinue，untilthepublicopinionmaturesonthesubject。Andthiswillthuspassfromthethreefolddivisionintosovereign，nobles，andpeople，tothetwofoldandonlynaturaldivisionintosovereignandpeople。
　　Noindividualinthestatecanindeedbeentirelywithoutdignity;
　　forhehasatleastthatofbeingacitizen，exceptwhenhehaslosthiscivilstatusbyacrime。Asacriminalheisstillmaintainedinlife，butheismadethemereinstrumentofthewillofanother，whetheritbethestateoraparticularcitizen。Inthelatterposition，inwhichhecouldonlybeplacedbyajuridicaljudgement，hewouldpracticallybecomeaslave，andwouldbelongasproperty（dominium）toanother，whowouldbenotmerelyhismaster（herus）
　　buthisowner（dominus）。Suchanownerwouldbeentitledtoexchangeoralienatehimasathing，tousehimatwillexceptforshamefulpurposes，andtodisposeofhispowers，butnotofhislifeandmembers。Noonecanbindhimselftosuchaconditionofdependence，ashewouldtherebyceasetobeaperson，anditisonlyasapersonthathecanmakeacontract。Itmay，however，appearthatonemanmaybindhimselftoanotherbyacontractofhire，todischargeacertainservicethatispermissibleinitskind，butisleftentirelyundeterminedasregardsitsmeasureoramount;andthatasreceivingwagesorboardorprotectioninreturn，hethusbecomesonlyaservantsubjecttothewillofamaster（subditus）andnotaslave（servus）。Butthisisanillusion。Forifmastersareentitledtousethepowersofsuchsubjectsatwill，theymayexhaustthesepowers—ashasbeendoneinthecaseofNegroesintheSugarIsland—
　　andtheymaythusreducetheirservantstodespairanddeath。Butthiswouldimplythattheyhadactuallygiventhemselvesawaytotheirmastersasproperty;which，inthecaseofpersons，isimpossible。A
　　personcan，therefore，onlycontracttoperformworkthatisdefinedbothinqualityandquantity，eitherasaday—labourerorasadomiciledsubject。Inthelattercasehemayenterintoacontractofleasefortheuseofthelandofasuperior，givingadefiniterentorannualreturnforitsutilizationbyhimself，orhemaycontractforhisserviceasalabourerupontheland。Buthedoesnottherebymakehimselfaslave，orabondsman，oraserfattachedtothesoil（glebaeadscriptus），ashewouldthusdivesthimselfofhispersonality;hecanonlyenterintoatemporaryoratmostaheritablelease。Andevenifbycommittingacrimehehaspersonallybecomesubjectedtoanother，thissubject—conditiondoesnotbecomehereditary;forhehasonlybroughtituponhimselfbyhisownwrongdoing。Neithercanonewhohasbeenbegottenbyaslavebeclaimedaspropertyonthegroundofthecostofhisrearing，becausesuchrearingisanabsolutedutynaturallyincumbentuponparents;andincasetheparentsbeslaves，itdevolvesupontheirmastersorowners，who，inundertakingthepossessionofsuchsubjects，havealsomadethemselvesresponsiblefortheperformanceoftheirduties。
　　E。TheRightofPunishingandofPardoning。
　　I。TheRightofPunishing。
　　Therightofadministeringpunishmentistherightofthesovereignasthesupremepowertoinflictpainuponasubjectonaccountofacrimecommittedbyhim。Theheadofthestatecannotthereforebepunished;buthissupremacymaybewithdrawnfromhim。
　　Anytransgressionofthepubliclawwhichmakeshimwhocommitsitincapableofbeingacitizen，constitutesacrime，eithersimplyasaprivatecrime（crimen），oralsoasapubliccrime（crimenpublicum）。
　　Privatecrimesaredealtwithbyacivilcourt;publiccrimesbyacriminalcourt。Embezzlementorspeculationofmoneyorgoodsentrustedintrade，fraudinpurchaseorsale，ifdonebeforetheeyesofthepartywhosuffers，areprivatecrimes。Ontheotherhand，coiningfalsemoneyorforgingbillsofexchange，theft，robbery，etc。，arepubliccrimes，becausethecommonwealth，andnotmerelysomeparticularindividual，isendangeredthereby。Suchcrimesmaybedividedintothoseofabasecharacter（indolisabjectae）andthoseofaviolentcharacter（indolisviolentiae）。
　　Judicialorjuridicalpunishment（poenaforensis）istobedistinguishedfromnaturalpunishment（poenanaturalis），inwhichcrimeasvicepunishesitself，anddoesnotassuchcomewithinthecognizanceofthelegislator。juridicalpunishmentcanneverbeadministeredmerelyasameansforpromotinganothergoodeitherwithregardtothecriminalhimselfortocivilsociety，butmustinallcasesbeimposedonlybecausetheindividualonwhomitisinflictedhascommittedacrime。Foronemanoughtnevertobedealtwithmerelyasameanssubservienttothepurposeofanother，norbemixedupwiththesubjectsofrealright。Againstsuchtreatmenthisinbornpersonalityhasarighttoprotecthim，evenalthoughhemaybecondemnedtolosehiscivilpersonality。Hemustfirstbefoundguiltyandpunishable，beforetherecanbeanythoughtofdrawingfromhispunishmentanybenefitforhimselforhisfellow—citizens。Thepenallawisacategoricalimperative;andwoetohimwhocreepsthroughtheserpent—windingsofutilitarianismtodiscoversomeadvantagethatmaydischargehimfromthejusticeofpunishment，orevenfromtheduemeasureofit，accordingtothePharisaicmaxim："Itisbetterthatonemanshoulddiethanthatthewholepeopleshouldperish。"Forifjusticeandrighteousnessperish，humanlifewouldnolongerhaveanyvalueintheworld。What，then，istobesaidofsuchaproposalastokeepacriminalalivewhohasbeencondemnedtodeath，onhisbeinggiventounderstandthat，ifheagreedtocertaindangerousexperimentsbeingperformeduponhim，hewouldbeallowedtosurviveifhecamehappilythroughthem？Itisarguedthatphysiciansmightthusobtainnewinformationthatwouldbeofvaluetothecommonweal。Butacourtofjusticewouldrepudiatewithscornanyproposalofthiskindifmadetoitbythemedicalfaculty;forjusticewouldceasetobejustice，ifitwerebarteredawayforanyconsiderationwhatever。
　　Butwhatisthemodeandmeasureofpunishmentwhichpublicjusticetakesasitsprincipleandstandard？Itisjusttheprincipleofequality，bywhichthepointerofthescaleofjusticeismadetoinclinenomoretotheonesidethantheother。Itmayberenderedbysayingthattheundeservedevilwhichanyonecommitsonanotheristoberegardedasperpetratedonhimself。Henceitmaybesaid："Ifyouslanderanother，youslanderyourself;ifyoustealfromanother，youstealfromyourself;ifyoustrikeanother，youstrikeyourself;ifyoukillanother，youkillyourself。"Thisistherightofretaliation（justalionis）;and，properlyunderstood，itistheonlyprinciplewhichinregulatingapubliccourt，asdistinguishedfrommereprivatejudgement，candefinitelyassignboththequalityandthequantityofajustpenalty。Allotherstandardsarewaveringanduncertain;andonaccountofotherconsiderationsinvolvedinthem，theycontainnoprincipleconformabletothesentenceofpureandstrictjustice。Itmayappear，however，thatdifferenceofsocialstatuswouldnotadmittheapplicationoftheprincipleofretaliation，whichisthatof"likewithlike。"Butalthoughtheapplicationmaynotinallcasesbepossibleaccordingtotheletter，yetasregardstheeffectitmayalwaysbeattainedinpractice，bydueregardbeinggiventothedispositionandsentimentofthepartiesinthehighersocialsphere。Thusapecuniarypenaltyonaccountofaverbalinjurymayhavenodirectproportiontotheinjusticeofslander;foronewhoiswealthymaybeabletoindulgehimselfinthisoffenceforhisowngratification。Yettheattackcommittedonthehonourofthepartyaggrievedmayhaveitsequivalentinthepaininflictedupontheprideoftheaggressor，especiallyifheiscondemnedbythejudgementofthecourt，notonlytoretractandapologize，buttosubmittosomemeanerordeal，askissingthehandoftheinjuredperson。Inlikemanner，ifamanofthehighestrankhasviolentlyassaultedaninnocentcitizenofthelowerorders，hemaybecondemnednotonlytoapologizebuttoundergoasolitaryandpainfulimprisonment，whereby，inadditiontothediscomfortendured，thevanityoftheoffenderwouldbepainfullyaffected，andtheveryshameofhispositionwouldconstituteanadequateretaliationaftertheprincipleof"likewithlike。"Buthowthenwouldwerenderthestatement："Ifyoustealfromanother，youstealfromyourself？"Inthisway，thatwhoeverstealsanythingmakesthepropertyofallinsecure;hethereforerobshimselfofallsecurityinproperty，accordingtotherightofretaliation。Suchaonehasnothing，andcanacquirenothing，buthehasthewilltolive;andthisisonlypossiblebyotherssupportinghim。Butasthestateshouldnotdothisgratuitously，hemustforthispurposeyieldhispowerstothestatetobeusedinpenallabour;andthushefallsforatime，oritmaybeforlife，intoaconditionofslavery。Butwhoeverhascommittedmurder，mustdie。Thereis，inthiscase，nojuridicalsubstituteorsurrogate，thatcanbegivenortakenforthesatisfactionofjustice。Thereisnolikenessorproportionbetweenlife，howeverpainful，anddeath;andthereforethereisnoequalitybetweenthecrimeofmurderandtheretaliationofitbutwhatisjudiciallyaccomplishedbytheexecutionofthecriminal。
　　Hisdeath，however，mustbekeptfreefromallmaltreatmentthatwouldmakethehumanitysufferinginhispersonloathsomeorabominable。
　　Evenifacivilsocietyresolvedtodissolveitselfwiththeconsentofallitsmembers—asmightbesupposedinthecaseofapeopleinhabitinganislandresolvingtoseparateandscatterthemselvesthroughoutthewholeworld—thelastmurdererlyingintheprisonoughttobeexecutedbeforetheresolutionwascarriedout。Thisoughttobedoneinorderthateveryonemayrealizethedesertofhisdeeds，andthatblood—guiltinessmaynotremainuponthepeople;forotherwisetheymightallberegardedasparticipatorsinthemurderasapublicviolationofjustice。
　　Theequalizationofpunishmentwithcrimeisthereforeonlypossiblebythecognitionofthejudgeextendingeventothepenaltyofdeath，accordingtotherightofretaliation。Thisismanifestfromthefactthatitisonlythusthatasentencecanbepronouncedoverallcriminalsproportionatetotheirinternalwickedness;asmaybeseenbyconsideringthecasewhenthepunishmentofdeathhastobeinflicted，notonaccountofamurder，butonaccountofapoliticalcrimethatcanonlybepunishedcapitally。Ahypotheticalcase，foundedonhistory，willillustratethis。InthelastScottishrebelliontherewerevariousparticipatorsinit—suchasBalmerinoandothers—whobelievedthatintakingpartintherebelliontheywereonlydischargingtheirdutytothehouseofStuart;buttherewerealsootherswhowereanimatedonlybyprivatemotivesandinterests。Now，supposethatthejudgementofthesupremecourtregardingthemhadbeenthis：thateveryoneshouldhavelibertytochoosebetweenthepunishmentofdeathorpenalservitudeforlife。Inviewofsuchanalternative，Isaythatthemanofhonourwouldchoosedeath，andtheknavewouldchooseservitude。Thiswouldbetheeffectoftheirhumannatureasitis;forthehonourablemanvalueshishonourmorehighlythanevenlifeitself，whereasaknaveregardsalife，althoughcoveredwithshame，asbetterinhiseyesthannottobe。Theformeris，withoutgainsaying，lessguiltythantheother;andtheycanonlybeproportionatelypunishedbydeathbeinginflictedequallyuponthemboth;yettotheoneitisamildpunishmentwhenhisnoblertemperamentistakenintoaccount，whereasitisahardpunishmenttotheotherinviewofhisbasertemperament。But，ontheotherhand，weretheyallequallycondemnedtopenalservitudeforlife，thehonourablemanwouldbetooseverelypunished，whiletheother，onaccountofhisbasenessofnature，wouldbetoomildlypunished。Inthejudgementtobepronouncedoveranumberofcriminalsunitedinsuchaconspiracy，thebestequalizerofpunishmentandcrimeintheformofpublicjusticeisdeath。Andbesidesallthis，ithasneverbeenheardofthatacriminalcondemnedtodeathonaccountofamurderhascomplainedthatthesentenceinflictedonhimmorethanwasrightandjust;andanyonewouldtreathimwithscornifheexpressedhimselftothiseffectagainstit。Otherwiseitwouldbenecessarytoadmitthat，althoughwrongandinjusticearenotdonetothecriminalbythelaw，yetthelegislativepowerisnotentitledtoadministerthismodeofpunishment;andifitdidso，itwouldbeincontradictionwithitself。
　　Howevermanytheymaybewhohavecommittedamurder，orhaveevencommandedit，oractedasartandpartinit，theyoughtalltosufferdeath;forsojusticewillsit，inaccordancewiththeideaofthejuridicalpower，asfoundedontheuniversallawsofreason。Butthenumberoftheaccomplices（correi）insuchadeedmighthappentobesogreatthatthestate，inresolvingtobewithoutsuchcriminals，wouldbeindangerofsoonalsobeingdeprivedofsubjects。Butitwillnotthusdissolveitself，neithermustitreturntothemuchworseconditionofnature，inwhichtherewouldbenoexternaljustice。Nor，aboveall，shoulditdeadenthesensibilitiesofthepeoplebythespectacleofjusticebeingexhibitedinthemerecarnageofaslaughteringbench。Insuchcircumstancesthesovereignmustalwaysbeallowedtohaveitinhispowertotakethepartofthejudgeuponhimselfasacaseofnecessity—andtodeliverajudgementwhich，insteadofthepenaltyofdeath，shallassignsomeotherpunishmenttothecriminalsandtherebypreserveamultitudeofthepeople。Thepenaltyofdeportationisrelevantinthisconnection。Suchaformofjudgementcannotbecarriedoutaccordingtoapubliclaw，butonlybyanauthoritativeactoftheroyalprerogative，anditmayonlybeappliedasanactofgraceinindividualcases。
　　Againstthesedoctrines，theMarquisBeccariahasgivenforthadifferentview。Movedbythecompassionatesentimentalityofahumanefeeling，hehasassertedthatallcapitalpunishmentiswronginitselfandunjust。Hehasputforwardthisviewonthegroundthatthepenaltyofdeathcouldnotbecontainedintheoriginalcivilcontract;for，inthatcase，everyoneofthepeoplewouldhavehadtoconsenttolosehislifeifbemurderedanyofhisfellowcitizens。
　　But，itisargued，suchaconsentisimpossible，becausenoonecanthusdisposeofhisownlife。Allthisismeresophistryandperversionofright。Nooneundergoespunishmentbecausehehaswilledtobepunished，butbecausehehaswilledapunishableaction;foritisinfactnopunishmentwhenanyoneexperienceswhathewills，anditisimpossibleforanyonetowilltobepunished。Tosay，"I
　　willtobepunished，ifImurderanyone，"canmeannothingmorethan，"Isubmitmyselfalongwithalltheothercitizenstothelaws";andifthereareanycriminalsamongthepeople，theselawswillincludepenallaws。Theindividualwho，asaco—legislator，enactspenallawcannotpossiblybethesamepersonwho，asasubject，ispunishedaccordingtothelaw;for，quacriminal，hecannotpossiblyberegardedashavingavoiceinthelegislation，thelegislatorbeingrationallyviewedasjustandholy。Ifanyone，then，enactapenallawagainsthimselfasacriminal，itmustbethepurejuridicallylaw—givingreason（homonoumenon），whichsubjectshimasonecapableofcrime，andconsequentlyasanotherperson（homophenomenon），alongwithalltheothersinthecivilunion，tothispenallaw。Inotherwords，itisnotthepeopletakendistributively，butthetribunalofpublicjustice，asdistinctfromthecriminal，thatprescribescapitalpunishment;anditisnottobeviewedasifthesocialcontractcontainedthepromiseofalltheindividualstoallowthemselvestobepunished，thusdisposingofthemselvesandtheirlives。Foriftherighttopunishmustbegroundeduponapromiseofthewrongdoer，wherebyheistoberegardedasbeingwillingtobepunished，itoughtalsotobelefttohimtofindhimselfdeservingofthepunishment;andthecriminalwouldthusbehisownjudge。Thechieferror（protonpseudos）ofthissophistryconsistsinregardingthejudgementofthecriminalhimself，necessarilydeterminedbyhisreason，thatheisunderobligationtoundergothelossofhislife，asajudgementthatmustbegroundedonaresolutionofhiswilltotakeitawayhimself;andthustheexecutionoftherightinquestionisrepresentedasunitedinoneandthesamepersonwiththeadjudicationoftheright。
　　Thereare，however，twocrimesworthyofdeath，inrespectofwhichitstillremainsdoubtfulwhetherthelegislaturehavetherighttodealwiththemcapitally。Itisthesentimentofhonourthatinducestheirperpetration。Theoneoriginatesinaregardforwomanlyhonour，theotherinaregardformilitaryhonour;andinbothcasesthereisagenuinefeelingofhonourincumbentontheindividualsasaduty。Theformeristhecrimeofmaternalinfanticide（infanticidiummaternale）;thelatteristhecrimeofkillingafellow—soldierinaduel（commilitonicidium）。Nowlegislationcannottakeawaytheshameofanillegitimatebirth，norwipeoffthestainattachingfromasuspicionofcowardice，toanofficerwhodoesnotresistanactthatwouldbringhimintocontempt，byaneffortofhisownthatissuperiortothefearofdeath。Henceitappearsthat，insuchcircumstances，theindividualsconcernedareremittedtothestateofnature;andtheiractsinbothcasesmustbecalledhomicide，andnotmurder，whichinvolvesevilintent（homicidiumdolosum）。Inallinstancestheactsareundoubtedlypunishable;buttheycannotbepunishedbythesupremepowerwithdeath。Anillegitimatechildcomesintotheworldoutsideofthelawwhichproperlyregulatesmarriage，anditisthusbornbeyondthepaleorconstitutionalprotectionofthelaw。Suchachildisintroduced，asitwere，likeprohibitedgoods，intothecommonwealth，andasithasnolegalrighttoexistenceinthisway，itsdestructionmightalsobeignored;
　　norcantheshameofthemother，whenherunmarriedconfinementisknown，beremovedbyanylegalordinance。Asubordinateofficer，again，onwhomaninsultisinflicted，seeshimselfcompelledbythepublicopinionofhisassociatestoobtainsatisfaction;and，asinthestateofnature，thepunishmentoftheoffendercanonlybeeffectedbyaduel，inwhichhisownlifeisexposedtodanger，andnotbymeansofthelawinacourtofjustice。Theduelisthereforeadoptedasthemeansofdemonstratinghiscourageasthatcharacteristicuponwhichthehonourofhisprofessionessentiallyrests;andthisisdoneevenifitshouldissueinthekillingofhisadversary。Butassucharesulttakesplacepubliclyandundertheconsentofbothparties，althoughitmaybedoneunwillingly，itcannotproperlybecalledmurder（homicidiumdolosum）。Whatthenistherightinbothcasesasrelatingtocriminaljustice？Penaljusticeishereinfactbroughtintogreatstraits，havingapparentlyeithertodeclarethenotionofhonour，whichiscertainlynomerefancyhere，to’benothingintheeyeofthelaw，ortoexemptthecrimefromitsduepunishment;andthusitwouldbecomeeitherremissorcruel。Theknotthustiedistoberesolvedinthefollowingway。
　　Thecategoricalimperativeofpenaljustice，thatthekillingofanypersoncontrarytothelawmustbepunishedwithdeath，remainsinforce;butthelegislationitselfandthecivilconstitutiongenerally，solongastheyarestillbarbarousandincomplete，areatfault。Andthisisthereasonwhythesubjectivemotive—principlesofhonouramongthepeopledonotcoincidewiththestandardswhichareobjectivelyconformabletoanotherpurpose;sothatthepublicjusticeissuingfromthestatebecomesinjusticerelativelytothatwhichisupheldamongthepeoplethemselves。
　　II。TheRightofPardoning。
　　Therightofpardoning（jusaggratiandi），viewedinrelationtothecriminal，istherightofmitigatingorentirelyremittinghispunishment。Onthesideofthesovereignthisisthemostdelicateofallrights，asitmaybeexercisedsoastosetforththesplendourofhisdignity，andyetsoastodoagreatwrongbyit。Itoughtnottobeexercisedinapplicationtothecrimesofthesubjectsagainsteachother;forexemptionfrompunishment（impunitascriminis）
　　wouldbethegreatestwrongthatcouldbedonetothem。Itisonlyanoccasionofsomeformoftreason（crimenlaesaemajestatis），asalesionagainsthimself，thatthesovereignshouldmakeuseofthisright。Anditshouldnotbeexercisedeveninthisconnection，ifthesafetyofthepeoplewouldbeendangeredbyremittingsuchpunishment。Thisrightistheonlyonewhichproperlydeservesthenameofa"rightofmajesty。"
　　50。JuridicalRelationsoftheCitizentohisCountryandtoOtherCountries。Emigration;Immigration;Banishment;
　　Exile。
　　Thelandorterritorywhoseinhabitants—invirtueofitspoliticalconstitutionandwithoutthenecessaryinterventionofaspecialjuridicalact—are，bybirth，fellow—citizensofoneandthesamecommonwealth，iscalledtheircountryorfatherland。Aforeigncountryisoneinwhichtheywouldnotpossessthiscondition，butwouldbelivingabroad。Ifacountryabroadformpartoftheterritoryunderthesamegovernmentasathome，itconstitutesaprovince，accordingtotheRomanusageoftheterm。Itdoesnotconstituteanincorporatedportionoftheempire（imperii）soastobetheabodeofequalfellow—citizens，butisonlyapossessionofthegovernment，likealowerhouse;anditmustthereforehonourthedomainoftherulingstateasthe"mothercountry"（regiodomina）。
　　1。Asubject，evenregardedasacitizen，hastherightofemigration;forthestatecannotretainhimasifhewereitsproperty。Buthemayonlycarryawaywithhimhismoveablesasdistinguishedfromhisfixedpossessions。However，heisentitledtosellhisimmovableproperty，andtakethevalueofitinmoneywithhim。
　　2。Thesupremepower，asmasterofthecountry，hastherighttofavourimmigrationandthesettlementofstrangersandcolonists。Thiswillholdevenalthoughthenativesofthecountrymaybeunfavourablydisposedtoit，iftheirprivatepropertyinthesoilisnotdiminishedorinterferedwith。
　　3。Inthecaseofasubjectwhohascommittedacrimethatrendersallsocietyofhisfellow—citizenswithhimprejudicialtothestate，thesupremepowerhasalsotherightofinflictingbanishmenttoacountryabroad。Bysuchdeportation，hedoesnotacquireanyshareintherightsofcitizensoftheterritorytowhichheisbanished。
　　4。Thesupremepowerhasalsotherightofimposingexilegenerally（jusexilii），bywhichacitizenissentabroadintothewideworldasthe"out—land。"Andbecausethesupremeauthoritythuswithdrawsalllegalprotectionfromthecitizen，thisamountstomakinghiman"outlaw"withintheterritoryofhisowncountry。
　　51。TheThreeFormsoftheState：Autocracy;
　　Aristocracy;Democracy。
　　Thethreepowersinthestate，involvedintheconceptionofapublicgovernmentgenerally（respublicalatiusdicta），areonlysomanyrelationsoftheunitedwillofthepeoplewhichemanatesfromtheapriorireason;andviewedassuchitistheobjectivepracticalrealizationofthepureideaofasupremeheadofthestate。
　　Thissupremeheadisthesovereign;butconceivedonlyasarepresentationofthewholepeople，theideastillrequiresphysicalembodimentinaperson，whomayexhibitthesupremepowerofthestateandbringtheideaactivelytobearuponthepopularwill。Therelationofthesupremepowertothepeopleisconceivableinthreedifferentforms：eitheroneinthestaterulesoverall;orsome，unitedinrelationofequalitywitheachother，ruleoveralltheothers;oralltogetherruleovereachandallindividually，includingthemselves。Theformofthestateisthereforeeitherautocratic，oraristocratic，ordemocratic。Theexpressionmonarchicisnotsosuitableasautocraticfortheconceptionhereintended;foramonarchisonewhohasthehighestpower，anautocratisonewhohasallpower，sothatthislatteristhesovereign，whereastheformermerelyrepresentsthesovereignty。
　　Itisevidentthatanautocracyisthesimplestformofgovernmentinthestate，beingconstitutedbytherelationofone，asking，tothepeople，sothatthereisoneonlywhoisthelawgiver。Anaristocracy，asaformofgovernment，is，however，compoundedoftheunionoftworelations：thatofthenoblesinrelationtooneanotherasthelawgivers，therebyconstitutingthesovereignty，andthatofthissovereignpowertothepeople。Ademocracy，again，isthemostcomplexofalltheformsofthestate，forithastobeginbyunitingthewillofallsoastoformapeople;andthenithastoappointasovereignoverthiscommonunion，whichsovereignisnootherthantheunitedwillitself。Theconsiderationofthewaysinwhichtheseformsareadulteratedbytheintrusionofviolentandillegitimateusurpersofpower，asinoligarchyandochlocracy，aswellasthediscussionofthesocalledmixedconstitutions，maybepassedoverhereasnotessential，andasleadingintotoomuchdetail。
　　Asregardstheadministrationofrightinthestate，itmaybesaidthatthesimplestmodeisalsothebest;butasregardsitsbearingonrightitself，itisalsothemostdangerousforthepeople，inviewofthedespotismtowhichsimplicityofadministrationsonaturallygivesrise。Itisundoubtedlyarationalmaximtoaimatsimplificationinthemachinerywhichistounitethepeopleundercompulsorylaws，andthiswouldbesecuredwereallthepeopletobepassiveandtoobeyonlyonepersonoverthem;butthemethodwouldnotgivesubjectswhowerealsocitizensofthestate。Itissometimessaidthatthepeopleshouldbesatisfiedwiththereflectionthatmonarchy，regardedasanautocracy，isthebestpoliticalconstitution，ifthemonarchisgood，thatis，ifbehasthejudgementaswellasthewilltodoright。Butthisisamereevasionandbelongstothecommonclassofwisetautologicalphrases。Itonlyamountstosayingthat"thebestconstitutionisthatbywhichthesupremeadministratorofthestateismadethebestruler";thatis，thatthebestconstitutionisthebest！
　　52。HistoricalOriginandChanges。
　　APureRepublic。RepresentativeGovernment。
　　Itisvaintoinquireintothehistoricaloriginofthepoliticalmechanism;foritisnolongerpossibletodiscoverhistoricallythepointoftimeatwhichcivilsocietytookitsbeginning。Savagesdonotdrawupadocumentaryrecordoftheirhavingsubmittedthemselvestolaw;anditmaybeinferredfromthenatureofuncivilizedmenthattheymusthavesetoutfromastateofviolence。Toprosecutesuchaninquiryintheintentionoffindingapretextforalteringtheexistingconstitutionbyviolenceisnolessthanpenal。Forsuchamodeofalterationwouldamounttorevolution，thatcouldonlybecarriedoutbyaninsurrectionofthepeople，andnotbyconstitutionalmodesoflegislation。Butinsurrectionagainstanalreadyexistingconstitution，isanoverthrowofallcivilandjuridicalrelations，andofrightgenerally;andhenceitisnotamerealterationofthecivilconstitution，butadissolutionofit。Itwouldthusformamodeoftransitiontoabetterconstitutionbypalingenesisandnotbymeremetamorphosis;anditwouldrequireanewsocialcontract，uponwhichtheformeroriginalcontract，asthenannulled，wouldhavenoinfluence。
　　Itmust，however，bepossibleforthesovereigntochangetheexistingconstitution，ifitisnotactuallyconsistentwiththeideaoftheoriginalcontract。Indoingsoitisessentialtogiveexistencetothatformofgovernmentwhichwillproperlyconstitutethepeopleintoastate。Suchachangecannotbemadebythestatedeliberatelyalteringitsconstitutionfromoneofthethreeformstooneoftheothertwo。Forexample，politicalchangesshouldnotbecarriedoutbythearistocratscombiningtosubjectthemselvestoanautocracy，orresolvingtofuseallintoademocracy，orconversely;asifitdependedonthearbitrarychoiceandlikingofthesovereignwhatconstitutionhemayimposeonthepeople。For，evenifassovereignheresolvedtoaltertheconstitutionintoademocracy，hemightbedoingwrongtothepeople，becausetheymightholdsuchaconstitutioninabhorrence，andregardeitheroftheothertwoasmoresuitabletotheminthecircumstances。
　　Theformsofthestateareonlytheletter（littera）oftheoriginalconstitutioninthecivilunion;andtheymaythereforeremainsolongastheyareconsidered，fromancientandlonghabit（andthereforeonlysubjectively），tobenecessarytothemachineryofthepoliticalconstitution。Butthespiritofthatoriginalcontract（animapactioriginarii）containsandimposestheobligationontheconstitutingpowertomakethemodeofthegovernmentconformabletoitsidea;and，ifthiscannotbeeffectedatonce，tochangeitgraduallyandcontinuouslytillitharmonizeinitsworkingwiththeonlyrightfulconstitution，whichisthatofapurerepublic。Thustheoldempiricalandstatutoryforms，whichserveonlytoeffectthepoliticalsubjectionofthepeople，willberesolvedintotheoriginalandrationalformswhichalonetakefreedomastheirprinciple，andevenastheconditionofallcompulsionandconstraint。Compulsionisinfactrequisitefortherealizationofajuridicalconstitution，accordingtotheproperideaofthestate;anditwillleadatlasttotherealizationofthatidea，evenaccordingtotheletter。Thisistheonlyenduringpoliticalconstitution，asinitthelawisitselfsovereign，andisnolongerattachedtoaparticularperson。Thisistheultimateendofallpublicright，andthestateinwhicheverycitizencanhavewhatishisownperemptorilyassignedtohim。Butsolongastheformofthestatehastoberepresented，accordingtotheletter，bymanydifferentmoralpersonsinvestedwiththesupremepower，therecanonlybeaprovisoryinternalright，andnotanabsolutelyjuridicalstateofcivilsociety。
　　Everytruerepublicisandcanonlybeconstitutedbyarepresentativesystemofthepeople。Sucharepresentativesystemisinstitutedinnameofthepeople，andisconstitutedbyallthecitizensbeingunitedtogether，inorder，bymeansoftheirdeputies，toprotectandsecuretheirrights。Butassoonasasupremeheadofthestateinperson—beitasking，ornobility，orthewholebodyofthepeopleinademocraticunion—becomesalsorepresentative，theunitedpeoplethendoesnotmerelyrepresentthesovereignty;buttheyarethemselvessovereign。Itisinthepeoplethatthesupremepoweroriginallyresides，anditisaccordinglyfromthispowerthatalltherightsofindividualcitizensasmeresubjects，andespeciallyasofficialsofthestate，mustbederived。
　　Whenthesovereigntyofthepeoplethemselvesisthusrealized，therepublicisestablished;anditisnolongernecessarytogiveupthereinsofgovernmentintothehandsofthosebywhomtheyhavebeenhithertoheld，especiallyastheymightagaindestroyallthenewinstitutionsbytheirarbitraryandabsolutewill。
　　Itwasthereforeagreaterrorinjudgementonthepartofapowerfulrulerinourtime，whenhetriedtoextricatehimselffromtheembarrassmentarisingfromgreatpublicdebts，bytransferringthisburdentothepeople，andleavingthemtoundertakeanddistributethemamongthemselvesastheymightbestthinkfit。Itthusbecamenaturalthatthelegislativepower，notonlyinrespectofthetaxationofthesubjects，butinrespectofthegovernment，shouldcomeintothehandsofthepeople。Itwasrequisitethattheyshouldbeabletopreventtheincurringofnewdebtsbyextravaganceorwar;andinconsequence，thesupremepowerofthemonarchentirelydisappeared，notbybeingmerelysuspended，butbypassingoverinfacttothepeople，towhoselegislativewillthepropertyofeverysubjectthusbecamesubjected。Norcanitbesaidthatatacitandyetobligatorypromisemustbeassumedashaving，undersuchcircumstances，beengivenbythenationalassembly，nottoconstitutethemselvesintoasovereignty，butonlytoadministertheaffairsofthesovereignforthetime，andafterthiswasdonetodeliverthereinsofthegovernmentagainintothemonarch’shands。
　　Suchasupposedcontractwouldbenullandvoid。Therightofthesupremelegislationinthecommonwealthisnotanalienableright，butisthemostpersonalofallrights。Whoeverpossessesitcanonlydisposebythecollectivewillofthepeople，inrespectofthepeople;hecannotdisposeinrespectofthecollectivewillitself，whichistheultimatefoundationofallpubliccontracts。A
　　contract，bywhichthepeoplewouldbeboundtogivebacktheirauthorityagain，wouldnotbeconsistentwiththeirpositionasalegislativepower，andyetitwouldbemadebindinguponthepeople;
　　which，ontheprinciplethat"Noonecanservetwomasters，"isacontradiction。
　　II。TheRightofNationsandInternationalLaw。
　　（JusGentium）。
　　53。NatureandDivisionoftheRightofNations。
　　Theindividuals，whomakeupapeople，mayberegardedasnativesofthecountrysprungbynaturaldescentfromacommonancestry（congeniti），althoughthismaynotholdentirelytrueindetail。
　　Again，theymaybeviewedaccordingtotheintellectualandjuridicalrelation，asbornofacommonpoliticalmother，therepublic，sothattheyconstitute，asitwere，apublicfamilyornation（gens，natio）whosemembersareallrelatedtoeachotherascitizensofthestate。Asmembersofastate，theydonotmixwiththosewholivebesidetheminthestateofnature，consideringsuchtobeignoble。Yetthesesavages，onaccountofthelawlessfreedomtheyhavechosen，regardthemselvesassuperiortocivilizedpeoples;andtheyconstitutetribesandevenraces，butnotstates。
　　Thepublicrightofstates（juspublicumcivitatum），intheirrelationstooneanother，iswhatwehavetoconsiderunderthedesignationofthe"rightofnations。"Whereverastate，viewedasamoralperson，actsinrelationtoanotherexistingintheconditionofnaturalfreedom，andconsequentlyinastateofcontinualwar，suchrighttakesitrise。
　　Therightofnationsinrelationtothestateofwarmaybedividedinto：1。therightofgoingtowar;2。rightduringwar;and3。rightafterwar，theobjectofwhichistoconstrainthenationsmutuallytopassfromthisstateofwarandtofoundacommonconstitutionestablishingperpetualpeace。Thedifferencebetweentherightofindividualmenorfamiliesasrelatedtoeachotherinthestateofnature，andtherightofthenationsamongthemselves，consistsinthis，thatintherightofnationswehavetoconsidernotmerelyarelationofonestatetoanotherasawhole，butalsotherelationoftheindividualpersonsinonestatetotheindividualsofanotherstate，aswellastothatstateasawhole。Thisdifference，however，betweentherightofnationsandtherightofindividualsinthemerestateofnature，requirestobedeterminedbyelementswhichcaneasilybededucedfromtheconceptionofthelatter。
　　54。ElementsoftheRightofNations。
　　Theelementsoftherightofnationsareasfollows：
　　1。States，viewedasnations，intheirexternalrelationstooneanother—likelawlesssavages—arenaturallyinanon—juridicalcondition;
　　2。Thisnaturalconditionisastateofwarinwhichtherightofthestrongerprevails;andalthoughitmaynotinfactbealwaysfoundasastateofactualwarandincessanthostility，andalthoughnorealwrongisdonetoanyonetherein，yettheconditioniswronginitselfinthehighestdegree，andthenationswhichformstatescontiguoustoeachotherareboundmutuallytopassoutofit;
　　3。Anallianceofnations，inaccordancewiththeideaofanoriginalsocialcontract，isnecessarytoprotecteachotheragainstexternalaggressionandattack，butnotinvolvinginterferencewiththeirseveralinternaldifficultiesanddisputes;
　　4。Thismutualconnectionbyalliancemustdispensewithadistinctsovereignpower，suchasissetupinthecivilconstitution;
　　itcanonlytaketheformofafederation，whichassuchmayberevokedonanyoccasion，andmustconsequentlyberenewedfromtimetotime。
　　Thisisthereforearightwhichcomesinasanaccessory（insubsidium）ofanotheroriginalright，inordertopreventthenationsfromfallingfromrightandlapsingintothestateofactualwarwitheachother。Itthusissuesintheideaofafoedusamphictyonum。
　　55。RightofGoingtoWarasrelatedtotheSubjectsoftheState。
　　Wehavethentoconsider，inthefirstplace，theoriginalrightoffreestatestogotowarwitheachotherasbeingstillinastateofnature，butasexercisingthisrightinordertoestablishsomeconditionofsocietyapproachingthejuridicalAnd，firstofall，thequestionarisesastowhatrightthestatehasinrelationtoitsownsubjects，tousetheminordertomakewaragainstotherstates，toemploytheirpropertyandeventheirlivesforthispurpose，oratleasttoexposethemtohazardanddanger;andallthisinsuchawaythatitdoesnotdependupontheirownpersonaljudgementwhethertheywillmarchintothefieldofwarornot，butthesupremecommandofthesovereignclaimstosettleanddisposeofthemthus。
　　Thisrightappearscapableofbeingeasilyestablished。Itmaybegroundedupontherightwhicheveryonehastodowithwhatishisownashewill。Whateveronehasmadesubstantiallyforhimself，heholdsashisincontestableproperty。Thefollowing，then，issuchadeductionasamerejuristwouldputforward。
　　Therearevariousnaturalproductsinacountrywhich，asregardsthenumberandquantityinwhichtheyexist，mustbeconsideredasspeciallyproduced（artefacta）bytheworkofthestate;forthecountrywouldnotyieldthemtosuchextentwereitnotundertheconstitutionofthestateanditsregularadministrativegovernment，oriftheinhabitantswerestilllivinginthestateofnature。Sheep，cattle，domesticfowlthemostusefuloftheirkind—swine，andsuchlike，wouldeitherbeusedupasnecessaryfoodordestroyedbybeastsofpreyinthedistrictinwhichIlive，sothattheywouldentirelydisappear，orbefoundinveryscantsupplies，wereitnotforthegovernmentsecuringtotheinhabitantstheiracquisitionsandproperty。Thisholdslikewiseofthepopulationitself，asweseeinthecaseoftheAmericandeserts;andevenwerethegreatestindustryappliedinthoseregions—whichisnotyetdone—theremightbebutascantypopulation。Theinhabitantsofanycountrywouldbebutsparselysownhereandtherewereitnotfortheprotectionofgovernment;becausewithoutittheycouldnotspreadthemselveswiththeirhouseholdsuponaterritorywhichwasalwaysindangerofbeingdevastatedbyenemiesorbywildbeastsofprey;andfurther，sogreatamultitudeofmenasnowliveinanyonecountrycouldnototherwiseobtainsufficientmeansofsupport。Hence，asitcanbesaidofvegetablegrowths，suchaspotatoes，aswellasofdomesticatedanimals，thatbecausetheabundanceinwhichtheyarefoundisaproductofhumanlabour，theymaybeused，destroyed，andconsumedbyman;soitseemsthatitmaybesaidofthesovereign，asthesupremepowerinthestate，thathehastherighttoleadhissubjects，asbeingforthemostpartproductionsofhisown，towar，asifitweretothechase，andeventomarchthemtothefieldofbattle，asifitwereonapleasureexcursion。
　　Thisprincipleofrightmaybesupposedtofloatdimlybeforethemindofthemonarch，anditcertainlyholdstrueatleastoftheloweranimalswhichmaybecomethepropertyofman。Butsuchaprinciplewillnotatallapplytomen，especiallywhenviewedascitizenswhomustberegardedasmembersofthestate，withashareinthelegislation，andnotmerelyasmeansforothersbutasendsinthemselves。Assuchtheymustgivetheirfreeconsent，throughtheirrepresentatives，notonlytothecarryingonofwargenerally，buttoeveryseparatedeclarationofwar;anditisonlyunderthislimitingconditionthatthestatehasarighttodemandtheirservicesinundertakingssofullofdanger。
　　Wewouldthereforededucethisrightratherfromthedutyofthesovereigntothepeoplethanconversely。Underthisrelation，thepeoplemustberegardedashavinggiventheirsanction;and，havingtherightofvoting，theymaybeconsidered，althoughthuspassiveinreferencetothemselvesindividually，tobeactiveinsofarastheyrepresentthesovereigntyitself。
　　56。RightofGoingtoWarinrelationtoHostileStates。
　　Viewedasinthestateofnature，therightofnationstogotowarandtocarryonhostilitiesisthelegitimatewaybywhichtheyprosecutetheirrightsbytheirownpowerwhentheyregardthemselvesasinjured;andthisisdonebecauseinthatstatethemethodofajuridicalprocess，althoughtheonlyonepropertosettlesuchdisputes，cannotbeadopted。
　　Thethreateningofwaristobedistinguishedfromtheactiveinjuryofafirstaggression，whichagainisdistinguishedfromthegeneraloutbreakofhostilities。Athreatormenacemaybegivenbytheactivepreparationofarmaments，uponwhicharightofprevention（juspraeventionis）isfoundedontheotherside，ormerelybytheformidableincreaseofthepowerofanotherstate（potestastremenda）byacquisitionofterritory。Lesionofalesspowerfulcountrymaybeinvolvedmerelyintheconditionofamorepowerfulneighbourpriortoanyactionatall;andinthestateofnatureanattackundersuchcircumstanceswouldbewarrantable。Thisinternationalrelationisthefoundationoftherightofequilibrium，orofthe"balanceofpower，"amongallthestatesthatareinactivecontiguitytoeachother。
　　Therighttogotowarisconstitutedbyanyovertactofinjury。
　　Thisincludesanyarbitraryretaliationoractofreprisal（retorsio）asasatisfactiontakenbyonepeopleforanoffencecommittedbyanother，withoutanyattemptbeingmadetoobtainreparationinapeacefulway。Suchanactofretaliationwouldbesimilarinkindtoanoutbreakofhostilitieswithoutapreviousdeclarationofwar。Forifthereistobeanyrightatallduringthestateofwar，somethinganalogoustoacontractmustbeassumed，involvingacceptanceonthesideofthedeclarationontheother，andamountingtothefactthattheybothwilltoseektheirrightinthisway。
　　57。RightduringWar。
　　Thedeterminationofwhatconstitutesrightinwar，isthemostdifficultproblemoftherightofnationsandinternationallaw。Itisverydifficulteventoformaconceptionofsucharight，ortothinkofanylawinthislawlessstatewithoutfallingintoacontradiction。Interarmasilentleges。*Itmustthenbejusttherighttocarryonwaraccordingtosuchprinciplesasrenderitalwaysstillpossibletopassoutofthatnaturalconditionofthestatesintheirexternalrelationstoeachother，andtoenterintoaconditionofright。
　　*["Inthemidstofarmsthelawsaresilent。"Cicero。]
　　Nowarofindependentstatesagainsteachothercanrightlybeawarofpunishment（bellumpunitivum）。Forpunishmentisonlyinplaceundertherelationofasuperior（imperantis）toasubject（subditum）;
　　andthisisnottherelationofthestatestooneanother。Neithercananinternationalwarbe"awarofextermination"（belluminternicinum），noreven"awarofsubjugation"（bellumsubjugatorium）;
　　forthiswouldissueinthemoralextinctionofastatebyitspeoplebeingeitherfusedintoonemasswiththeconqueringstate，orbeingreducedtoslavery。Notthatthisnecessarymeansofattainingtoaconditionofpeaceisitselfcontradictorytotherightofastate;butbecausetheideaoftherightofnationsincludesmerelytheconceptionofanantagonismthatisinaccordancewithprinciplesofexternalfreedom，inorderthatthestatemaymaintainwhatisproperlyitsown，butnotthatitmayacquireaconditionwhich，fromtheaggrandizementofitspower，mightbecomethreateningtootherstates。
　　Defensivemeasuresandmeansofallkindsareallowabletoastatethatisforcedtowar，exceptsuchasbytheirusewouldmakethesubjectsusingthemunfittobecitizens;forthestatewouldthusmakeitselfunfittoberegardedasapersoncapableofparticipatinginequalrightsintheinternationalrelationsaccordingtotherightofnations。Amongtheseforbiddenmeansaretobereckonedtheappointmentofsubjectstoactasspies，orengagingsubjectsorevenstrangerstoactasassassins，orpoisoners（inwhichclassmightwellbeincludedthesocalledsharpshooterswholurkinambushforindividuals），orevenemployingagentstospreadfalsenews。Inaword，itisforbiddentouseanysuchmalignantandperfidiousmeansaswoulddestroytheconfidencewhichwouldberequisitetoestablishalastingpeacethereafter。
　　Itispermissibleinwartoimposeexactionsandcontributionsuponaconqueredenemy;butitisnotlegitimatetoplunderthepeopleinthewayofforciblydeprivingindividualsoftheirproperty。Forthiswouldberobbery，seeingitwasnottheconqueredpeoplebutthestateunderwhosegovernmenttheywereplacedthatcarriedonthewarbymeansofthem。Allexactionsshouldberaisedbyregularrequisition，andreceiptsoughttobegivenforthem，inorderthatwhenpeaceisrestoredtheburdenimposedonthecountryortheprovincemaybeproportionatelyborne。
　　58。RightafterWar。
　　Therightthatfollowsafterwar，beginsatthemomentofthetreatyofpeaceandreferstotheconsequencesofthewar。Theconquerorlaysdowntheconditionsunderwhichhewillagreewiththeconqueredpowertoformtheconclusionofpeace。Treatiesaredrawnup;notindeedaccordingtoanyrightthatitpertainstohimtoprotect，onaccountofanallegedlesionbyhisopponent，butastakingthisquestionuponhimself，hebasestherighttodecideituponhisownpower。Hencetheconquerormaynotdemandrestitutionofthecostofthewar;becausehewouldthenhavetodeclarethewarofhisopponenttobeunjust。Andevenalthoughheshouldadoptsuchanargument，heisnotentitledtoapplyit;becausehewouldhavetodeclarethewartobepunitive，andhewouldthusinturninflictaninjury。Tothisrightbelongsalsotheexchangeofprisoners，whichistobecarriedoutwithoutransomandwithoutregardtoequalityofnumbers。
　　Neithertheconqueredstatenoritssubjectslosetheirpoliticallibertybyconquestofthecountry，soasthattheformershouldbedegradedtoacolony，orthelattertoslaves;forotherwiseitwouldhavebeenapenalwar，whichiscontradictoryinitself。A
　　colonyoraprovinceisconstitutedbyapeoplewhichhasitsownconstitution，legislation，andterritory，wherepersonsbelongingtoanotherstatearemerelystrangers，butwhichisneverthelesssubjecttothesupremeexecutivepowerofanotherstate。Thisotherstateiscalledthemother—country。Itisruledasadaughter，buthasatthesametimeitsownformofgovernment，asinaseparateparliamentunderthepresidencyofaviceroy（civitashybrida）。SuchwasAthensinrelationtodifferentislands;andsuchisatpresent（1796）therelationofGreatBritaintoIreland。
　　Stilllesscanslaverybededucedasarightfulinstitution，fromtheconquestofapeopleinwar;forthiswouldassumethatthewarwasofapunitivenature。Andleastofallcanabasisbefoundinwarforahereditaryslavery，whichisabsurdinitself，sinceguiltcannotbeinheritedfromthecriminalityofanother。
　　Further，thatanamnestyisinvolvedintheconclusionofatreatyofpeaceisalreadyimpliedintheveryideaofapeace。
　　59。TheRightsofPeace。
　　Therightsofpeaceare：
　　1。Therighttobeinpeacewhenwarisintheneighbourhood，ortherightofneutrality。
　　2。Therighttohavepeacesecuredsothatitmaycontinuewhenithasbeenconcluded，thatis，therightofguarantee。
　　3。Therightoftheseveralstatestoenterintoamutualalliance，soastodefendthemselvesincommonagainstallexternaloreveninternalattacks。Thisrightoffederation，however，doesnotextendtotheformationofanyleagueforexternalaggressionorinternalaggrandizement。
　　60。RightasagainstanUnjustEnemy。
　　Therightofastateagainstanunjustenemyhasnolimits，atleastinrespectofqualityasdistinguishedfromquantityordegree。Inotherwords，theinjuredstatemayuse—not，indeedanymeans，butyet—allthosemeansthatarepermissibleandinreasonablemeasureinsofarastheyareinitspower，inordertoassertitsrighttowhatisitsown。Butwhatthenisanunjustenemyaccordingtotheconceptionsoftherightofnations，when，asholdsgenerallyofthestateofnature，everystateisjudgeinitsowncause？Itisonewhosepubliclyexpressedwill，whetherinwordordeed，betraysamaximwhich，ifitweretakenasauniversalrule，wouldmakeastateofpeaceamongthenationsimpossible，andwouldnecessarilyperpetuatethestateofnature。Suchistheviolationofpublictreaties，withregardtowhichitmaybeassumedthatanysuchviolationconcernsallnationsbythreateningtheirfreedom，andthattheyarethussummonedtouniteagainstsuchawrongandtotakeawaythepowerofcommittingit。Butthisdoesnotincludetherighttopartitionandappropriatethecountry，soastomakeastateasitweredisappearfromtheearth;forthiswouldbeaninjusticetothepeopleofthatstate，whocannotlosetheiroriginalrighttouniteintoacommonwealth，andtoadoptsuchanewconstitutionasbyitsnaturewouldbeunfavourabletotheinclinationforwar。
　　Further，itmaybesaidthattheexpression"anunjustenemyinthestateofnature"ispleonastic;forthestateofnatureisitselfastateofinjustice。AjustenemywouldbeonetowhomIwoulddowronginofferingresistance;butsuchaonewouldreallynotbemyenemy。
　　61。PerpetualPeaceandaPermanentCongressofNations。
　　Thenaturalstateofnationsaswellasofindividualmenisastatewhichitisadutytopassoutof，inordertoenterintoalegalstate。Hence，beforethistransitionoccurs，alltherightofnationsandalltheexternalpropertyofstatesacquirableormaintainablebywararemerelyprovisory;andtheycanonlybecomeperemptoryinauniversalunionofstatesanalogoustothatbywhichanationbecomesastate。Itisthusonlythatarealstateofpeacecouldbeestablished。Butwiththetoogreatextensionofsuchaunionofstatesovervastregions，anygovernmentofit，andconsequentlytheprotectionofitsindividualmembers，mustatlastbecomeimpossible;andthusamultitudeofsuchcorporationswouldagainbringroundastateofwar。Hencetheperpetualpeace，whichistheultimateendofalltherightofnations，becomesinfactanimpracticableidea。Thepoliticalprinciples，however，whichaimatsuchanend，andwhichenjointheformationofsuchunionsamongthestatesasmaypromoteacontinuousapproximationtoaperpetualpeace，arenotimpracticable;theyareaspracticableasthisapproximationitself，whichisapracticalprobleminvolvingaduty，andfoundedupontherightofindividualmenandstates。
　　Suchaunionofstates，inordertomaintainpeace，maybecalledapermanentcongressofnations;anditisfreetoeveryneighbouringstatetojoininit。Aunionofthiskind，sofaratleastasregardstheformalitiesoftherightofnationsinrespectofthepreservationofpeace，waspresentedinthefirsthalfofthiscentury，intheAssemblyoftheStates—GeneralattheHague。InthisAssemblymostoftheEuropeancourts，andeventhesmallestrepublics，broughtforwardtheircomplaintsaboutthehostilitieswhichwerecarriedonbytheoneagainsttheother。ThusthewholeofEuropeappearedlikeasinglefederatedstate，acceptedasumpirebytheseveralnationsintheirpublicdifferences。Butinplaceofthisagreement，therightofnationsafterwardssurvivedonlyinbooks;
　　itdisappearedfromthecabinets，or，afterforcehadbeenalreadyused，itwasrelegatedintheformoftheoreticaldeductionstotheobscurityofarchives。
　　Bysuchacongressisheremeantonlyavoluntarycombinationofdifferentstatesthatwouldbedissolubleatanytime，andnotsuchaunionasisembodiedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica，foundeduponapoliticalconstitution，andthereforeindissoluble。Itisonlybyacongressofthiskindthattheideaofapublicrightofnationscanbeestablished，andthatthesettlementoftheirdifferencesbythemodeofacivilprocess，andnotbythebarbarousmeansofwar，canberealized。
　　III。TheUniversalRightofMankind。
　　（JusCosmopoliticum）
　　62。NatureandConditionsofCosmopoliticalRight。
　　Therationalideaofauniversal，peaceful，ifnotyetfriendly，unionofallthenationsupontheearththatmaycomeintoactiverelationswitheachother，isajuridicalprinciple，asdistinguishedfromphilanthropicorethicalprinciples。Naturehasenclosedthemaltogetherwithindefiniteboundaries，invirtueofthesphericalformoftheirabodeasaglobusterraqueus;andthepossessionofthesoiluponwhichaninhabitantoftheearthmaylivecanonlyberegardedaspossessionofapartofalimitedwholeand，consequently，asaparttowhicheveryonehasoriginallyaright。Henceallnationsoriginallyholdacommunityofthesoil，butnotajuridicalcommunityofpossession（communio），norconsequentlyoftheuseorproprietorshipofthesoil，butonlyofapossiblephysicalintercourse（commercium）bymeansofit。Inotherwords，theyareplacedinsuchthoroughgoingrelationsofeachtoalltherestthattheymayclaimtoenterintointercoursewithoneanother，andtheyhavearighttomakeanattemptinthisdirection，whileaforeignnationwouldnotbeentitledtotreatthemonthisaccountasenemies。Thisright，insofarasitrelatestoapossibleunionofallnations，inrespectofcertainlawsuniversallyregulatingtheirintercoursewitheachother，maybecalled"cosmopoliticalright"（juscosmopoliticum）。
　　Itmayappearthatseasputnationsoutofallcommunionwitheachother。Butthisisnotso;forbymeansofcommerce，seasformthehappiestnaturalprovisionfortheirintercourse。Andthemorethereareofneighbouringcoastlands，asinthecaseoftheMediterraneanSea，thisintercoursebecomesthemoreanimated。Andhencecommunicationswithsuchlands，especiallywheretherearesettlementsuponthemconnectedwiththemothercountriesgivingoccasionforsuchcommunications，bringitaboutthatevilandviolencecommittedinoneplaceofourglobearefeltinall。Suchpossibleabusecannot，however，annultherightofmanasacitizenoftheworldtoattempttoenterintocommunionwithallothers，andforthispurposetovisitalltheregionsoftheearth，althoughthisdoesnotconstitutearightofsettlementupontheterritoryofanotherpeople（jusincolatus），forwhichaspecialcontractisrequired。
　　Butthequestionisraisedastowhether，inthecaseofnewlydiscoveredcountries，apeoplemayclaimtherighttosettle（accolatus），andtooccupypossessionsintheneighbourhoodofanotherpeoplethathasalreadysettledinthatregion;andtodothiswithouttheirconsent。
　　Sucharightisindubitable，ifthenewsettlementtakesplaceatsuchadistancefromtheseatoftheformerthatneitherwouldrestrictorinjuretheotherintheuseoftheirterritory。Butinthecaseofnomadicpeoples，ortribesofshepherdsandhunters（suchastheHottentots，theTungusi，andmostoftheAmericanIndians），whosesupportisderivedfromwidedeserttracts，suchoccupationshouldnevertakeplacebyforce，butonlybycontract;andanysuchcontractoughtnevertotakeadvantageoftheignoranceoftheoriginaldwellersinregardtothecessionoftheirlands。Yetitiscommonlyallegedthatsuchactsofviolentappropriationmaybejustifiedassubservingthegeneralgoodoftheworld。Itappearsasifsufficientlyjustifyinggroundswerefurnishedforthem，partlybyreferencetothecivilizationofbarbarouspeoples（asbyapretextofthiskindevenBuschingtriestoexcusethebloodyintroductionoftheChristianreligionintoGermany），andpartlybyfoundinguponthenecessityofpurgingone’sowncountryfromdepravedcriminals，andthehopeoftheirimprovementorthatoftheirposterity，inanothercontinentlikeNewHolland。Butalltheseallegedgoodpurposescannotwashoutthestainofinjusticeinthemeansemployedtoattainthem。Itmaybeobjectedthat，hadsuchscrupulousnessaboutmakingabeginninginfoundingalegalstatewithforcebeenalwaysmaintained，thewholeearthwouldstillhavebeeninastateoflawlessness。Butsuchanobjectionwouldaslittleannultheconditionsofrightinquestionasthepretextofthepoliticalrevolutionariesthat，whenaconstitutionhasbecomedegenerate，itbelongstothepeopletotransformitbyforce。Thiswouldamountgenerallytobeingunjustonceandforall，inorderthereaftertofoundjusticethemoresurely，andtomakeitflourish。
　　CONCLUSION
　　Conclusion。
　　Ifonecannotprovethatathingis，hemaytrytoprovethatitisnot。Andifhesucceedsindoingneither（asoftenoccurs），hemaystillaskwhetheritisinhisinteresttoacceptoneorotherofthealternativeshypothetically，fromthetheoreticalorthepracticalpointofview。Inotherwords，ahypothesismaybeacceptedeitherinordertoexplainacertainphenomenon（asinastronomytoaccountfortheretrogressionandstationarinessoftheplanets），orinordertoattainacertainend，whichagainmaybeeitherpragmatic，asbelongingmerelytothesphereofart，ormoral，asinvolvingapurposewhichitisadutytoadoptasamaximofaction。Nowitisevidentthattheassumption（suppositio）ofthepracticabilityofsuchanend，thoughpresentedmerelyasatheoreticalandproblematicaljudgement，mayberegardedasconstitutingaduty;andhenceitissoregardedinthiscase。Foralthoughtheremaybenopositiveobligationtobelieveinsuchanend，yeteveniftherewerenottheleasttheoreticalprobabilityofactionbeingcarriedoutinaccordancewithit，solongasitsimpossibilitycannotbedemonstrated，therestillremainsadutyincumbentuponuswithregardtoit。
　　Now，asamatteroffact，themorallypracticalreasonutterswithinusitsirrevocableveto：Thereshallbenowar。Sothereoughttobenowar，neitherbetweenmeandyouintheconditionofnature，norbetweenusasmembersofstateswhich，althoughinternallyinaconditionoflaw，arestillexternallyintheirrelationtoeachotherinaconditionoflawlessness;forthisisnotthewaybywhichanyoneshouldprosecutehisright。Hencethequestionnolongerisastowhetherperpetualpeaceisarealthingornotarealthing，orastowhetherwemaynotbedeceivingourselveswhenweadopttheformeralternative，butwemustactonthesuppositionofitsbeingreal。Wemustworkforwhatmayperhapsnotberealized，andestablishthatconstitutionwhichyetseemsbestadaptedtobringitabout（mayhaprepublicanisminallstates，togetherandseparately）。Andthuswemayputanendtotheevilofwars，whichhavebeenthechiefinterestoftheinternalarrangementsofallthestateswithoutexception。Andalthoughtherealizationofthispurposemayalwaysremainbutapiouswish，yetwedocertainlynotdeceiveourselvesinadoptingthemaximofactionthatwillguideusinworkingincessantlyforit;foritisadutytodothis。Tosupposethatthemorallawwithinusisitselfdeceptive，wouldbesufficienttoexcitethehorriblewishrathertobedeprivedofallreasonthantoliveundersuchdeception，andeventoseeoneself，accordingtosuchprinciples，degradedliketheloweranimalstothelevelofthemechanicalplayofnature。
　　Itmaybesaidthattheuniversalandlastingestablishmentofpeaceconstitutesnotmerelyapart，butthewholefinalpurposeandendofthescienceofrightasviewedwithinthelimitsofreason。Thestateofpeaceistheonlyconditionofthemineandthinethatissecuredandguaranteedbylawsintherelationshipofmenlivinginnumberscontiguoustoeachother，andwhoarethuscombinedinaconstitutionwhoseruleisderivednotfromthemereexperienceofthosewhohavefounditthebestasanormalguideforothers，butwhichmustbetakenbythereasonapriorifromtheidealofajuridicalunionofmenunderpubliclawsgenerally。Forallparticularexamplesorinstances，beingableonlytofurnishillustrationbutnotproof，aredeceptive，andatalleventsrequireametaphysictoestablishthembyitsnecessaryprinciples。Andthisisconcededindirectlyevenbythosewhoturnmetaphysicsintoridicule，whentheysay，astheyoftendo："Thebestconstitutionisthatinwhichnotmenbutlawsexercisethepower。"Forwhatcanbemoremetaphysicallysublimeinitsownwaythanthisveryideaoftheirs，whichaccordingtotheirownassertionhas，notwithstanding，themostobjectivereality？Thismaybeeasilyshownbyreferencetoactualinstances。Anditisthisveryidea，whichalonecanbecarriedoutpractically，ifitisnotforcedoninarevolutionaryandsuddenwaybyviolentoverthrowoftheexistingdefectiveconstitution;forthiswouldproduceforthetimethemomentaryannihilationofthewholejuridicalstateofsociety。Butiftheideaiscarriedforwardbygradualreformandinaccordancewithfixedprinciples，itmayleadbyacontinuousapproximationtothehighestpoliticalgood，andtoperpetualpeace。