Standard of Civilisation in International Law and Colonial History
For centuries, the concept of civilisation served as more than just a cultural descriptor; it functioned as a powerful legal and political tool. While the term historically lacked a singular, precise definition, it evolved during the eighteenth century to encompass notions of politeness, police, and civility. Following the French Revolution, the idea gained significant traction in France and Britain, representing both a continuous process of improvement and an attained state of superiority.
This attained condition became a source of national pride, used to highlight European dominance in economic, technological, sociopolitical, intellectual, and artistic spheres. In this context, civilisation acted as a general counter-concept to barbarism, creating a hierarchy that justified the global order of the time.
[ไม่มีภาพประกอบ]
European Colonial Thought and Global Hierarchy
During the era of European colonialism, the world was broadly categorized into three distinct groups: savage, barbarian, and civilised peoples. This classification was not merely social but was embedded in the legal theories of the time.
Defining the Tiers of Humanity
The philosopher Montesquieu described savage peoples as small, scattered nations—typically hunters—who were unable to unite. In contrast, barbarians were viewed as small nations, typically pastoralists, who possessed the ability to unite. By the 19th century, many international lawyers believed that "semi-civilised" or "uncivilised" nations could eventually transition into civilised ones through Westernisation.
Jurist James Lorimer further formalized this by describing humanity as existing in three concentric spheres: civilised, barbarous, and savage. Lorimer argued that savages lacked the capacity for municipal organisation beyond the most rudimentary levels. He used this logic to justify the French conquest of Algeria in 1830, claiming that the Barbary states of North Africa did not merit recognition because they lacked the will and power to reciprocate such recognition.
The "Family of Nations"
International lawyers of the 19th century often categorized the Ottoman Empire, China, Japan, and Siam as semi-civilised. Lassa Oppenheim noted that these nations existed partially within and partially outside the "Family of Nations." However, the criteria for entry remained vague. Scholars eventually recognized that the "standard of civilisation" was an elusive cultural marker rather than a concrete legal standard.
Japanese scholar Tsurataro Senga pointed out that these definitions were rooted in subjective European worldviews, heavily reinforced by Orientalism—the biased Western depiction of Eastern cultures.
The Decline of the Standard of Civilisation
The shift away from cultural prerequisites for statehood began in the early 20th century, driven by the rise of non-European political power and a move toward objective legal criteria.
The Montevideo Convention of 1933
A pivotal moment occurred at the 1933 Montevideo Convention, where Latin American nations rejected the standard of civilisation. Having fought for independence from European empires, these states established statehood based on four objective criteria:
- A permanent population
- A defined territory
- A functioning government
- The capacity to enter into relations with other states
The Impact of World War II
Leading up to World War II, legal experts like Georg Schwarzenberger argued that the standard of civilisation had vanished and that states were legally obligated to recognize all governments, regardless of their perceived level of civilisation. The principle was further discredited during World War II, as the widespread use of nuclear weapons, war crimes, and violations of international law were perpetrated by the very nations that claimed to be the pinnacle of the civilised world.
[ไม่มีภาพประกอบ]
Key Facts
- Colonial Classification: The world was historically divided into savage (hunters), barbarian (pastoralists), and civilised peoples.
- Legal Justification: The standard of civilisation was used to justify colonial conquests, such as the French takeover of Algeria in 1830.
- Subjectivity: The "Family of Nations" was based on subjective European worldviews and Orientalism rather than achievable legal standards.
- Montevideo Convention: Shifted statehood recognition from cultural markers to objective criteria (population, territory, government, and diplomatic capacity).
- Moral Collapse: The atrocities of World War II severely undermined the claim that Western nations held a superior moral or civilised standard.
| Era/Framework | Basis for Recognition | Key Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| 19th Century Colonial Law | Standard of Civilisation | Subjective, cultural, based on Westernisation and "civility." |
| Montevideo Convention (1933) | Objective Criteria | Population, territory, government, and diplomatic capacity. |
| Modern Era | Legal Sovereignty | General recognition, though some are labeled as failed or rogue states. |
Present-day Perspectives
While the formal legal "standard of civilisation" has been discarded, remnants of the concept persist in modern political discourse. Certain regions or governments may still be marginalized or denied respect through labels such as failed states, rogue states, or pariahs.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the "standard of civilisation"?
It was a 19th-century legal and cultural benchmark used by European powers to determine which non-European societies were "civilised" enough to be recognized as sovereign states and members of the "Family of Nations."
How did Montesquieu distinguish between savages and barbarians?
Montesquieu defined savages as small, scattered hunting nations unable to unite, while barbarians were small pastoral nations that possessed the ability to unite.
Why was the Montevideo Convention significant?
The 1933 convention was crucial because it replaced subjective cultural requirements for statehood with objective criteria, such as having a permanent population and a defined territory, thereby rejecting European cultural superiority.
Which nations were considered "semi-civilised" in the 19th century?
International lawyers of the time often cited the Ottoman Empire, China, Japan, and Siam as examples of semi-civilised nations.
What led to the final decline of this principle?
The decline was driven by the independence of Latin American nations, the rise of non-European states, and the hypocrisy revealed during World War II, where "civilised" nations committed massive war crimes and used nuclear weapons.