NAZIONALITÀ, PRINCIPIO di. — The origin of the p. of n. is connected with 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 of 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 corresponding to the laws of nature established by God be realized, whereas the multinational 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, the concept—until then unknown—of the perfect natural identity between nation and State was introduced into the theory of the State. This concept provided the springboard for moving to international law and modeling the doctrine concerning the constitution of the society of nations according to the criterion of the n. Indeed, by developing 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 regarded as a collectivity composed of nation-States, to which alone legal personality ought to be recognized within the relevant legal order.
On the basis of these concepts 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 conflict with the artificial entity of the State, in order to achieve 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. The nucleus of the p. of n. properly consists in the assertion of this right.
At the present time it is a historical memory. Catholic doctrine as well as the common juridical doctrine have abandoned it as lacking substance, for reasons intrinsic to the theory and for extrinsic reasons.
Once the principle nation (v.) and State had been shown to be false, the entire theoretical structure on which the right of the n. to constitute itself as an independent State rested collapsed. If the State is a natural formation in the same way as the nation—indeed, one more imperatively demanded by the requirements of human life—nothing prevents the latter from living within it in political unity. Moreover, belonging to a particular political organism creates duties of subjection, loyalty, and obedience, for the attainment of the common good, to which one must submit until the competent authority, through its oppressive action, prejudices the existence of the n. and its culture.
It has also been pointed out that, since the nation does not in itself postulate a central power and a juridical order for its existence and the attainment of its educational ends, it cannot be regarded as a subject of international society, which, according to the most common doctrine, is composed predominantly of States. The observation, however correct in its foundation, does not today appear equally so in its conclusion. Since international society has broadened its framework by admitting subjects that do not possess the quality of an independent State, there would be nothing to prevent the nation from being admitted as well.
More pertinent, instead, is the observation concerning the impossibility of applying the criterion of the n. to 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 conducting an independent political life; nor do economic, commercial, geographical, boundary, and strategic considerations always permit peoples to be separated according to their belonging to different national groups, which are often so intermingled, particularly in border regions, as to make the granting of political independence impossible.
The p. of n. nonetheless contains a core of truth, consisting in the requirement that the rights of the n. be respected by the State, and that, in territorial divi-
sions, account be taken of the peoples’ legitimate aspirations, according to the explicit teaching of Benedict XV and Pius XII. V. AUTODECISION.