The principle of legitimacy in the international system of the Vienna

There were no such issues at the Congress of Vienna, which would not cause disputes among its members. What to do with the state borders, has changed several times in the past years? Some members of Congress advocated a return to the borders of 1792. But against this mind largest state, the anti-French coalition members, including Russia, Prussia, Austria, who were counting on a territorial reward for their contribution to the defeat of Napoleonic France. Britain, seized during the war with Napoleon Bonaparte part of the colonies of France and her allied countries, not in a hurry to return to their former owners.

Headache caused the participants of the Congress and the German question. For centuries, the established order in Europe assumed the existence of the Holy Roman Empire of the German people, which included some of the state enjoyed extensive rights. Their independence was a kind of guarantee against excessive strengthening of the Habsburg monarchy as well as France. Whether it was necessary in order to maintain balance in Europe to recover the Holy Roman Empire was abolished by Napoleon in 1806? The question of the political structure of Europe was closely associated with the general question of the legacy of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Empire. How to deal with changes which have been implemented by the French in the annexed territories and countries dependent on them? Many monarchs, especially the Emperor of Austria, Prussia and Spanish kings, showed overt rejection of that heritage. They believed that it would be best to return Europe to the social relations that existed before 1789.

In order to find a mutually acceptable compromise, members of the Vienna Congress needed some kind of common approach to deal with these various problems. They are very handy theory of legitimacy or legality (Latin lex - the law), put forward a number of European conservative thinkers in the years of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. A significant contribution to its development have made a British politician and writer Edmund Burke, French religious writers and philosophers, Joseph de Maistre and de Bonald, and the German writer Friedrich Gentz, who was an adviser of Metternich. All of them negative attitude to the revolutionary and Napoleonic reforms, placing them in the destruction of the blame for sustainable, time-honored tradition and social order. Hence, they believed, all the misfortunes that have brought a revolution the people of Europe - civil unrest, foreign wars, the corruption of manners, etc. Conservative thinkers have urged people to get back to time-tested values ​​- religion and the church, the monarchical structure of the state, birth order. However, they recognized the need for certain concessions to the "spirit of the time."

The discussions among the participants of the congress there has been a twofold interpretation of the principle of legitimacy - the historical and legal. Moreover, the same government officials, depending on the subject under discussion, and self-interest have used it to one, then another of his interpretation. From the point of view of the historical interpretation of legitimacy, the main criterion validity, legality of certain public establishments, borders, and so is their antiquity. So, for example, it was believed that the dynasty of the Bourbons in France has more right to the throne than the Bonaparte dynasty, because it is ancient. Borders that existed in 1789 had a greater force than those which arose as a result of the revolutionary and Napoleonic conquests and annexations. Accordingly, more fair, correct and declared the laws by which the people lived in ancient times, and all sorts of innovations - erroneous and even criminal.

However, most European governments realized that a full refund to the institutions that existed before 1789, would have been an impossible task. After all, in Europe, a whole generation of people who did not know and did not want to return to the "old order" as the company became known as the pre-revolutionary era. Current laws and the existing borders were perceived by him as usual, normal living conditions. But most importantly - on the basis of developed property, dynastic, political relations, which have been neglected is dangerous: it would hurt the interests of powerful forces, and led to their opposition.

Moreover, a full refund orders up to 1789 was not the intention of the monarchs themselves. Some of them not only out of the Napoleonic wars without significant losses, but even managed to buy something, and now did not want to part with these acquisitions. For example, the kings of Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg wanted to retain his title bestowed upon him by Napoleon. In addition, the winners of Napoleonic France firmly expected to be rewarded for their contribution to the victory. Therefore, declaring themselves supporters of legitimacy, many monarchs gave this concept quite different - a legal interpretation. They called that the legal order based primarily on the universally recognized international treaties.

The notion that the contract between the states is a kind of law of international life, was by no means new. More Peace of Westphalia in 1648 gave an example of what such treaties recognized by most European countries, can serve as a basis for international order for a long time. However, the Westphalian system of international relations was held not so much on agreements between states, not so much on their compliance with the rules of law, but rather on spontaneously formed in the middle of the XVII century. balance of power.

Dynastic wars of the second half of the first half of the XVII-XVIII century. testified how imperfect it was still legal consciousness of people of that time. In international relations still prevailed the worship of power. As soon as the agreement comes into conflict with the dynastic or other vital interests of states as the government without any remorse as they broke does not mean anything, "a scrap of paper." So in 1700 he entered the French King Louis XIV century case of ownerless Spanish Succession. So did the Prussian King Frederick II, unleashed in the 1740 war of the Austrian Succession.

The Congress of Vienna attempted to raise the profile and importance of international treaties which were to form the basis of a new European order. This procedure was designed to eliminate the possibility of a repetition of wars between the major European states, threatening troubles and all other countries. By the creation of an order sought, above all, the largest state in Europe, in particular, the Allied Powers, who bore on his shoulders the burden of wars with revolutionary and Napoleonic France. While not denying the presence of each state's own interests and goals they want to defend these interests and goals clothed in a form acceptable to all negotiations, mutual interests and the conclusion of the universally recognized treaties. Violators of this order, they were ready to use force.

The interest of European states in the creation of a lasting international order precluding serious upheaval and war, is easily explained. They did not want another war, and were afraid of her, because the experience of recent history convinced them: wars are a breeding ground for revolution. The fear of any kind of social upheaval won the militancy of European monarchs, for a long time they hit the desire for military glory, forced them to carry out a peaceful foreign policy.

In general, the theory of legitimacy in any of its interpretation justified the pursuit of monarchs and statesmen gathered in Vienna, to create sustainable international order based on clear rules and principles of the relationship between them. The principle of legitimacy was the basis established by the end of the Napoleonic wars of the international order, commonly referred to as the Vienna.

Date: 2015-12-11; view: 831