Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/434

406

HE United States is asked to recognize the Cuban insurgents as belligerents. To do this is a serious step, involving grave international consequences; such a step must not be taken as a mere holiday pastime, in gayety of heart at the appearance of a new popular uprising; if it is to be taken, it must be with the utmost care, and with a knowledge of its legal bearings and of its consequences. I propose in this paper to state the considerations, legal and otherwise, which govern the recognition of belligerency in every case; and afterwards to apply the principles thus stated to the case of Cuba.

It is necessary at the outset to distinguish three similar things: intervention, recognition of independence, and recognition of belligerency. Intervention is an actual interference in the affairs of a friendly nation, sometimes thought to be justifiable, but not usually consistent with our national policy of neutrality. Recognition of independence is the reception of a new nation into the family of nations, on the ground that it has in fact established itself as a separate and independent political body. Recognition of belligerency does not admit the belligerent into the family of nations, or even acknowledge its actual existence as a state, but only that it claims to be a state and is de facto making war as such. In our Revolution, France intervened, taking part in the war between us and England. We recognized the independence of the South American republics after they had conclusively proved their separation in fact from Spain. England and France recognized the belligerency of the Confederate States, but steadily refused to recognize or deal with them as an independent nation.