NATIONALITY, PRINCIPLE OF. - The origin of the p. of n. is linked to that of contemporary nationalism. Sprouting from the trunk of agnostic rationalism, after a certain period of incubation, during which it was warmed by romantic sentimentalism, it was explicitly formulated by the Italian nationalist school, which sought in the Risorgimento the justification for the movements for national unity.
According to the theory sketched by Mancini and shared by Mamiani, only in the nation would the sole form of social life be realized, corresponding to the laws of nature established by God, whereas the plurinational State, or one that in any way does not coincide with the boundaries of the n., would be an artificial and arbitrary entity. In this way there was introduced into the theory of the State the concept, until then unknown, of the perfect natural identity between nation and State. This concept offered the springboard for leaping to international law and for modeling the doctrine on the constitution of the society of peoples according to the criterion of the n. Developing, in fact, the principle that only nations are natural social entities and that the State cannot remain distinct from the nation, it was deduced that international society had to be considered as a collectivity composed of nation-States, to which alone juridical personality in the relevant order ought to be recognized.
On the concepts referred to was founded the supposed innate right of every n., or fraction thereof, to rise to the perfection of a political entity and to enter into struggle with the artificial entity of the State, in order to conquer full independence, if it did not possess it, or to gather around the same national center the scattered members of the n., so as to make political frontiers coincide with the ethnic group. In the affirmation of this right consists properly the core of the p. of n.
At the present time it is a historical memory. Both Catholic doctrine and common juridical doctrine have abandoned it as lacking in substance, for reasons intrinsic to the theory and for extrinsic reasons.
Once the principle of the natural identity between nation (v.) and State is demonstrated to be false, the whole theoretical scaffolding on which the right of the n. to constitute itself as an independent State rested is ruined. If the State is a natural formation in the same way as the nation, indeed more imperiously required by the exigencies of human life, nothing forbids that the latter may live within it in political unity. Moreover, belonging to a determined political organism creates duties of subjection, loyalty and obedience, for the attainment of the common good, to which one must submit, as long as the competent authority does not prejudice, by its oppressive action, the being of the n. and its culture.
It has further been pointed out that, since the nation does not postulate for itself a central power and a juridical order, for its existence and for the attainment of its educational ends, it cannot be considered as a subject of international society, which, according to the most common doctrine, is composed predominantly of States. The observation, however, exact in its foundation, does not seem so today in its conclusion. Since international society has widened its frameworks, with the admission of subjects that do not have the quality of an independent State, nothing would forbid admitting the nation as well.
More to the point, on the other hand, is the observation on the impossibility of applying the criterion of the n. for the international order, both because the criterion is vague and fluid in content, like the very concept of nation, and because objectively not all national fractions are capable of carrying on an independent political life, nor do economic, commercial, geographic, frontier and strategic reasons always permit the separation of peoples according to belonging to the different national nuclei, so often intermixed, particularly in border regions, as to render impossible the concession of political independence.
In the p. of n. there is nonetheless contained a soul of truth, and this consists in the exigency that the rights of the n. be respected on the part of the State, and that in territorial divisions account be taken of the just aspirations of peoples, according to the express teaching of Benedict XV and of Pius XII. V. AUTODECISION.
Bibliography2 works
Antonio Messineo