Dissident Voices 283this connection, he gave extended attention to the question of whether hu-
manitarian intervention should be allowed. His conclusion was fi rmly nega-
tive. “Th e self- rule of States,” he pronounced, “is sacred and inviolable.”
Nonetheless, Mamiani did allow for two marginal exceptions to the oth-
erwise strict rule of nonintervention, plus one important caveat. Th e fi rst
exception was counterintervention. Like Mill, he conceded the lawfulness of
action taken to neutralize intervention by some other state. Th e second
exception was that intervention is permissible if its purpose is to assist a
subjugated people in throwing off a foreign yoke. Th e important caveat
was Mamiani’s insistence that aid given by one portion of a people to assist
their fellow nationals does not count as intervention— and is therefore out-
side the scope of the nonintervention principle. Th e reason is that, by defi ni-
tion, the two groups are actually the same people.
Support for the nationality doctrine from the liberal camp was readily
forthcoming. Th is was natural, in view of the support of liberals for govern-
ment by consent of the people. “Nationality,” said Mill, “is desirable, as a
means to the attainment of liberty.” He contended that, “[w]here the senti-
ment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting
all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a gov-
ernment to themselves apart.” He regarded this as a straightforward appli-
cation of the basic liberal principle that “the question of government ought
to be decided by the governed.”
Also compatible with liberalism was the nationality school’s vision of a
peaceful and harmonious world. According to this thesis, a nation that suc-
ceeded in establishing itself as a state— that is, succeeded in uniting all of its
members into a single state— could have no motivation for further expan-
sion at the expense of other states or nationalities. It therefore held out the
delicious prospect of bringing international rivalry to a natural halt. Unfor-
tunately, the conditions required to make this dream come true were daunt-
ing. Somehow or other, the seemingly impossible feat of giving every nation-
state its collective heart’s desire would need to be achieved. But this could
happen only if every state in the world was somehow forced into a monoeth-
nic, mononational mold. How this was to be accomplished without a great
deal of confusion— and probably violence— was not very apparent.