No Great Power can resist concerted action of all others or form any partial coalition capable of challenging entire Commonwealth. In fact, how did such a coalition come about?

Among stronger allies? We have proven that such alliances are short-lived.

It is not difficult to see from list presented to us that it can never be reconciled with traditional policies of any great power, or with interests inherent in their respective positions. Between one large country and several small ones, and then other large ones supported by Federation, such an alliance would immediately break.

It is obvious that Grand Coalition, always armed and united, will easily prevent and crush in advance any partisan and rebellious coalition that might disturb peace and public order in Europe. Look at cohesion of German Institute despite its imperfect discipline and sharp disparities among its members.

No prince, not even most powerful, would dare to expose his ban in blatant violation of laws of Empire, unless he really had good reason to believe that Wu The Empire will never have courage to take serious action against those responsible. That is why I think it proves that once European Parliament is established there will be no fear of revolt and that any possible abuse is unlikely to interfere with purposes for which it was created.

It remains to be seen whether proposed federation actually achieves these goals. To answer this question, let's look at motives for which princes usually take up arms.

These motives are:either to conquer, to protect oneself from aggression, to weaken an overpowered neighbor, to preserve his right from attack, to resolve differences despite friendly negotiations, or, finally, to fulfill some kind of contract of obligation.

There is no reason or pretext for war that cannot be attributed to one or another of these six names. It is clear that none of six will support New Order I have proposed.

As for first, idea of ​​conquest will have to be abandoned, since it is absolutely impossible to realize them. The invader will surely find that he is blocked from way by forces greater than himself. He can't afford anything and risks losing everything he has.

An ambitious prince who wants to expand his domain across Europe relies on two weapons. He first secures a powerful ally and then tries to catch him when enemy is taken by surprise. However, under new conditions, no special alliance can exist before general alliance,because general alliance is stronger and will always exist.

Since there is no longer any excuse for being armed, no prince can be immediately detected, stopped and punished by an armed Federation. Again is what destroys hope of conquest and at same time frees him from fear of being attacked.

And, according to all Europe, his domains were not only as fiercely guarded as property of citizens in a well-ordered community, but stronger than when he was theirs and only defender is more confident. Exactly in same proportion as all of Europe, and stronger than any of his princes alone could have done.

Third, he has no reason to fear his fellow man and no more reason to want to weaken him. When there is no chance of success in such an undertaking, he will not be tempted to try. As regards protection of his rights, I will begin by pointing out that Article III of Federation will set aside a number of petty claims and vague claims.

This item permanently resolves all their conflicting rights. According to same article, we have a clear principle for dealing with all claims and justifications that may be made in future. Each will be decided in Congress. It might be added that if my rights are violated, I must defend them with same weapon.

Without a congressional injunction against his attackers, they cannot be attacked by force, and then I must defend them by force of arms. For claims for personal injury, negligence and damages. Here, in brief, are all disagreements that may arise between two sovereigns. The same states that have a duty to protect their rights are also bound to satisfy their claims.

As for last one, problem resolves itself. I no longer fear any attackers, I no longer need defensive treaties. And since no treaty can be as strong and trustworthy as a treaty guaranteed by Greater Commonwealth, any other treaty is useless, illegal and therefore invalid.

For all these reasons, once formed, it is impossible to sow seeds of war among its members. Our goal, lasting peace, cannot be fully achieved by proposed system. Now it remains to resolve one more question, question of interests of parties.

Because everyone knows that public interest is powerless to suppress private interest. To prove that peace as a general principle is better than war is to encourage him against war, showing means of securing a lasting peace to him who has personal reasons for preferring war to peace.

In fact, we will be told: You are depriving your sovereign of right to administer justice for yourself. That is precious right to your sympathy. You are taking away power that made you great at expense of your neighbors.

You are forcing them to abandon obsolete requirements, value of which depends on their obscurity and which grows with each increase in power. They love to inspire awe in world's marches of power and terror, and their pride in conquest is their chief source of glory.

In a word, you impose justice and peace on them. How are you going to compensate for these cruel deprivations?

Responding to Abbé of St. Pierre, real glory of princes lies in their service to society and happiness of their subjects, and that they care most about earning a good name, which is Bestowed by sage in full proportion to good that ruler has done in world.

The project for a lasting peace is noblest idea ever conceived. If carried out, it will be overlaid with its immortal glory, and such a plan will not only serve people more than any other plan, but will bring highest honor to sovereign. It is only ideal free from blood, curses and tears.

In a word, a sure way for a sovereign to rise above highest levels. The Common King group works for benefit of society. Leave this language, which mocks author and his project in all European parliaments, to irresponsible preachers. But let's never join in protest against arguments he embodies.

And, whatever truth about virtues of princes, let's focus only on their interests. All great powers of Europe have rights or claims against each other. By nature of case, these rights can never be definitively adjusted.

Because there is no common and unchanging standard of merit, and these rights are often based on facts that are disputed or of dubious interpretation. The resulting quarrel can no longer be resolved without an appeal or in absence of any recognized judge. Besides,every prince will shamelessly look back when opportunity presents itself.

Because assignment was forcibly taken from him by treaty by a powerful state or after an unsuccessful war. Therefore, it would be wrong to think only about what we ask of others and forget about these requirements. They have us, and while in reality one side has no more equity than other, both sides are equally capable of obtaining means to enforce their claims.

By directly using wealth as an arbiter, actual value obtained will not be related to possible future benefits of either sage, even if opportunities of both parties are equal. And rich man who risked everything to double his fortune was blamed by whole world.

However, we have shown that in projects of self-aggrandizement, opportunities are never equal, and even under current order, aggressor will always find his enemy stronger than himself.

The inevitable conclusion is that stronger has no incentive to bet, weaker has no hope of throwing, and both parties will find their advantage in giving up what they want to win in order to To make sure they have something.

Think of waste of people, waste of money, waste of power in any form, weariness of any nation from most successful wars. Comparing these failures to the resulting profit, we find that we usually lose what we thought we would gain.

Conquerors are always weakened by war and can only console themselves with thought that vanquished are still weaker than themselves. Even this advantage is more appearance than reality.

Because power gained by enemy was lost in presence of neutral, neutral didn't change itself, but relative to us, neutral is stronger than us because of all power we've lost.

If not all kings have rid themselves of frenzy of conquest, then at least wisest of them seem to be beginning to realize that sometimes they are worth more than they are worth.

We do not need to dwell on thousands of differences that only distract us from our goal, but in general we can say that sovereign, expanding his possessions, loses in process as much as he gains many new ones. of his old subjects, who would only weaken him by their expansion. Because, having a large territory to protect, he does not have more soldiers to protect it.

However, it is well known that since fighting is taking place today, smallest proportion of casualties are on battlefield. Of course, this is a loss that everyone sees and feels. But throughout kingdom there were losses greater and more irreparable than those who died.

Because of those who were not born, Because of increased taxes, Because of cessation of trade, Because of barren fields , Due to ignoring their farm. Evil, which at first no one sees, eventually seems cruel. The king is then surprised to find that he is so weak, which is result of making himself so strong.

There is one more thing that makes conquest less profitable than before. The kings finally learned secret to doubling or tripling their power, not only without increasing their territories, but perhaps even shrinking them, following wise example of Hadrian. The secret is that kings are only as strong as their subjects.

From what I just said, countries with smaller territories are actually stronger, given that both countries have same number of inhabitants. Secondly, through good laws, through wise discipline, through a broad economic policy.

A wise monarch is sure to increase his power without putting himself in danger. By doing more useful work, he wins at expense of his fellow men.

It can be objected that I proved too much. If things are as I say, everyone is clearly interested in avoiding war and preserving peace, then peace should arise by itself and last forever, and Federation is not required .

However, given the current situation, that would be very bad. Indeed, it would be much better if everyone remained at peace. But as long as there is no guarantee of safety, one has no guarantee that he will avoid war.

Seeks to start a war when it is in his own interests, and thus deter a neighbor who will not fail to prevent an attack at any moment, which is in his interests.

Therefore, many wars, even offensive ones, are unjust in nature, and more precautions are taken to protect attacker's own property than to seize someone else's property. No matter how beneficial it is in theory to obey dictates of public spirit.

Of course, these directives are politically and even morally fatal for those who insist on their observance by whole world, while no one thinks to observe them.

Links:

Civil history of Kingdom of Naples

Chronology of modern history and public law

"Origin of classification"