Second Treatise Of Civil Government, XVI - XVII

XVI (Of Conquest) - It is thought that the role of government is to wage war and conquer neighboring lands.  This is not so.  For starters, a government that conquers a people can never set up a legitimate ruling legislator, for they would surely act without the consent of the newly governed.

But in the case of a nation that wins a war lawfully against an aggressor, what are the obligations?  The conquerer gains no more authority over his own people than before-- no aggrandizement allowed.  Over the conquered people, he has no authority if they did not participate nor acquiesce in the aggression-- an illegal war perpetrated by leaders can't be assumed to be through the consent of the people.  It is true that the conquerer has a right to property to repair the injustice done to him.  But this right does not extend to depriving women and children of the property they inherit from their-- even their wicked-- husbands and fathers.  In these cases the men never had the power to risk their wives' and children's property to begin with, so it cannot be forfeited.

The conquerer does not have the right to impose a new system of government without the consent of the people, either.  It is true that they must impose some restrictions, to ensure justice for their own injury.  But this imposition has no force on the children in that nation, who retain the natural right to establish, through their own consent, their own system of government upon coming of age.  To prevent this is its own injustice.

XVII (Of Usurpation) - Domestic usurpation of governmental authority is simply conquest writ small.  If the usurper try to also change the form of government, we can add tyranny to his crimes.  This is because, in consenting to the government, implicit in that consent is the people's right to determine which members of society will wield the power they have ceded.  Any actions taken by a usurper do not have the force of law, until that time as the usurper actually wins the consent of the people.

------------------------

How does this discussion of the laws of conquest inform the Israel-Palestine situation?  Is Israel's occupation of the West Bank unlawful because the new generation of Palestinians has the right to self-determined government?  Or are they still acting against the previous generation of aggressors?  How does the continued strife, if perpetuated by the rising generation, affect Israel's obligations to them?

Sudden question: Was Woodrow Wilson' wife a usurper?  Was Elanor Roosevelt?  Or do these circumstances fall under the "prerogative" exception retained by the executive?  (But how does a non-executive invoke prerogative power?)