A further question, suggested by the present political position, is whether all the political treaties which were concluded at the beginning of the last century under quite other conditions—­in fact, under a different conception of what constitutes a State—­can, or ought to be, permanently observed.  When Belgium was proclaimed neutral, no one contemplated that she would lay claim to a large and valuable region of Africa.  It may well be asked whether the acquisition of such territory is not ipso facto a breach of neutrality, for a State from which—­theoretically at least—­all danger of war has been removed, has no right to enter into political competition with the other States.  This argument is the more justifiable because it may safely be assumed that, in event of a war of Germany against France and England, the two last mentioned States would try to unite their forces in Belgium.  Lastly, the neutrality of the Congo State [E] must be termed more than problematic, since Belgium claims the right to cede or sell it to a non-neutral country.  The conception of permanent neutrality is entirely contrary to the essential nature of the State, which can only attain its highest moral aims in competition with other States.  Its complete development presupposes such competition.

[Footnote E:  The Congo State was proclaimed neutral, but without guarantees, by Acts of February 26, 1885.]

Again, the principle that no State can ever interfere in the internal affairs of another State is repugnant to the highest rights of the State.  This principle is, of course, very variously interpreted, and powerful States have never refrained from a higher-handed interference in the internal affairs of smaller ones.  We daily witness instances of such conduct.  Indeed, England quite lately attempted to interfere in the private affairs of Germany, not formally or by diplomatic methods, but none the less in point of fact, on the subject of our naval preparations.  It is, however, accepted as a principle of international intercourse that between the States of one and the same political system a strict non-interference in home affairs should be observed.  The unqualified recognition of this principle and its application to political intercourse under all conditions involves serious difficulties.  It is the doctrine of the Liberals, which was first preached in France in 1830, and of which the English Ministry of Lord Palmerston availed themselves for their own purpose.  Equally false is the doctrine of unrestricted intervention, as promulgated by the States of the Holy Alliance at Troppau in 1820.  No fixed principles for international politics can be laid down.