International Law and Justice Working Papers - IILJ

of legitimacy but as their dynasties were “not grown together with the people” but “only wanted
to rule”, the mere legitimacy they held did neither safeguard power nor enable to regain it. They
were not “part of the people”, not representing it. 124
Already Napoleon I lacked intimate
relationship (inniges Verhältnis) to its people. 125 The most deplorable thing about him was that
he was striving towards universal monarchy – but this was also the reason why this once feared
ruler had to fail and became a “powerless prisoner in St. Helena”. 126
It was then only seemingly incoherent that Bulmerincq also found an opportunity to express
himself about the new constitution of Germany - although it had found its criticizers among
scholars of South Germany (such as von Mohl), it was a “reasonable compromise” implemented
by a “non- doctrinal homme d’Etat”. 127
And yet there was more to be added about the rulers of France: “Statesmen have repeatedly tried
to switch attention from dissatisfactory domestic circumstances to glorious wars and this has
especially been the politics of the Bonapartes – but they never were representatives of
international law. (…) Their victories did not increase their prestige as subjects of international
law; Napoleon I was only feared, never respected and Napoleon III issued almost unnoticed
demands to the creation of a universal congress. As he experienced his last failure, the one of
Sedan, the world felt relieved from a nightmare and even France breathed freely, France that is
now again pushed by Bonapartism and begins to forget Sedan. France that would entangle itself
in the Bonapartian revenge nets could only deserve political disrespect.” 128
124 P. 7.
125 P. 11.
126 P. 11-12.
127 Praxis, Theorie, p. 13.
128 P. 22.