CHAPTER I INTERNATIONAL PERSONS
I SOVEREIGN STATES AS INTERNATIONAL PERSONS
Vattel, I. §§ 1-12—Hall, § 1—Lawrence, § 42—Phillimore, I. §§ 61-69—Twiss, I. §§ 1-11—Taylor, § 117—Walker, § 1—Westlake, I. pp. 1-5, 20-21—Wheaton, §§ 16-21—Ullmann, § 19—Heffter, § 15—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 5-11—Bonfils, Nos. 160-164—Despagnet, Nos. 69-74—Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 43-81—Nys, I. pp. 329-356—Rivier, I. § 3—Calvo, I. §§ 39-41—Fiore, I. Nos. 305-309, and Code, Nos. 51-77—Martens, I. §§ 53-54—Mérignhac, I. pp. 114-231, and II. pp. 5, 154-221—Moore, I. § 3.
Real and apparent International Persons.
§ 63. The conception of International Persons is derived from the conception of the Law of Nations. As this law is the body of rules which the civilised States consider legally binding in their intercourse, every State which belongs to the civilised States, and is, therefore, a member of the Family of Nations, is an International Person. Sovereign States exclusively are International Persons—i.e. subjects of International Law. There are, however, as will be seen, full and not-full Sovereign States. Full Sovereign States are perfect, not-full Sovereign States are imperfect International Persons, for not-full Sovereign States are for some parts only subjects of International Law.
In contradistinction to Sovereign States which are real, there are also apparent, but not real, International Persons—namely, Confederations of States, insurgents recognised as a belligerent Power in a civil war, and the Holy See. All these are not, as will be seen,[87] real subjects of International Law, but in some points are treated as though they were International Persons, without thereby becoming members of the Family of Nations.
[87] See below, § [88] (Confederations of States), § [106] (Holy See), and [vol. II. §§ 59] and [76] (Insurgents).
It must be specially mentioned that the character of a subject of the Law of Nations and of an International Person can be attributed neither to monarchs, diplomatic envoys, private individuals, or churches, nor to chartered companies, nations, or races after the loss of their State (as, for instance, the Jews or the Poles), and organised wandering tribes.[88]
[88] Most jurists agree with this opinion, but there are some who disagree. Thus, for instance, Heffter (§ 48) claims for monarchs the character of subjects of the Law of Nations; Lawrence (§ 42) claims that character for corporations; and Westlake, Chapters, p. 2, and Fiore, Code, Nos. 51, 61-64, claim it for individuals. The matter will be discussed below in §§ [288], [290], [344], [384].
Conception of the State.
§ 64. A State proper—in contradistinction to so-called Colonial States—is in existence when a people is settled in a country under its own Sovereign Government. The conditions which must obtain for the existence of a State are therefore four:
There must, first, be a people. A people is an aggregate of individuals of both sexes who live together as a community in spite of the fact that they may belong to different races or creeds, or be of different colour.
There must, secondly, be a country in which the people has settled down. A wandering people, such as the Jews were whilst in the desert for forty years before their conquest of the Holy Land, is not a State. But it matters not whether the country is small or large; it may consist, as with City States, of one town only.
There must, thirdly, be a Government—that is, one or more persons who are the representatives of the people and rule according to the law of the land. An anarchistic community is not a State.
There must, fourthly and lastly, be a Sovereign Government. Sovereignty is supreme authority, an authority which is independent of any other earthly authority. Sovereignty in the strict and narrowest sense of the term includes, therefore, independence all round, within and without the borders of the country.
Not-full Sovereign States.
§ 65. A State in its normal appearance does possess independence all round and therefore full sovereignty. Yet there are States in existence which certainly do not possess full sovereignty, and are therefore named not-full Sovereign States. All States which are under the suzerainty or under the protectorate of another State or are member States of a so-called Federal State, belong to this group. All of them possess supreme authority and independence with regard to a part of the tasks of a State, whereas with regard to another part they are under the authority of another State. Hence it is that the question is disputed whether such not-full Sovereign States can be International Persons and subjects of the Law of Nations at all.[89]
[89] The question will be discussed again below, §§ [89], [91], [93], with regard to each kind of not-full Sovereign States. The object of discussion here is the question whether such States can be considered as International Persons at all. Westlake, I. p. 21, answers it affirmatively by stating: "It is not necessary for a State to be independent in order to be a State of International Law."
That they cannot be full, perfect, and normal subjects of International Law there is no doubt. But it is wrong to maintain that they can have no international position whatever and can never be members of the Family of Nations at all. If we look at the matter as it really stands, we observe that they actually often enjoy in many points the rights and fulfil in other points the duties of International Persons. They often send and receive diplomatic envoys or at least consuls. They often conclude commercial or other international treaties. Their monarchs enjoy the privileges which according to the Law of Nations the Municipal Laws of the different States must grant to the monarchs of foreign States. No other explanation of these and similar facts can be given except that these not-full Sovereign States are in some way or another International Persons and subjects of International Law. Such imperfect International Personality is, of course, an anomaly; but the very existence of States without full sovereignty is an anomaly in itself. And history teaches that States without full sovereignty have no durability, since they either gain in time full sovereignty or disappear totally as separate States and become mere provinces of other States. So anomalous are these not-full Sovereign States that no hard-and-fast general rule can be laid down with regard to their position within the Family of Nations, since everything depends upon the special case. What may be said in general concerning all the States without full sovereignty is that their position within the Family of Nations, if any, is always more or less overshadowed by other States. But their partial character of International Persons comes clearly to light when they are compared with so-called Colonial States, such as the Dominion of Canada or the Commonwealth of Australia. Colonial States have no international position[90] whatever; they are, from the standpoint of the Law of Nations, nothing else than colonial portions of the mother-country, although they enjoy perfect self-government, and may therefore in a sense be called States. The deciding factor is that their Governor, who has a veto, is appointed by the mother-country, and that the Parliament of the mother-country could withdraw self-government from its Colonial States and legislate directly for them.
[90] Therefore treaties concluded by Canada with foreign States are not Canadian treaties, but treaties concluded by Great Britain for Canada. Should Colonial States ever acquire the right to conclude treaties directly with foreign States without the consent of the mother-country, they would become internationally part-sovereign and thereby obtain a certain international position.
Divisibility of Sovereignty contested.
§ 66. The distinction between States full Sovereign and not-full Sovereign is based upon the opinion that sovereignty is divisible, so that the powers connected with sovereignty need not necessarily be united in one hand. But many jurists deny the divisibility of sovereignty and maintain that a State is either sovereign or not. They deny that sovereignty is a characteristic of every State and of the membership of the Family of Nations. It is therefore necessary to face the conception of sovereignty more closely. And it will be seen that there exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon.[91]
[91] The literature upon sovereignty is extensive. The following authors give a survey of the opinions of the different writers:—Dock,"Der Souveränitäts-begriff von Bodin bis zu Friedrich dem Grossen," 1897; Merriam, "History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau," 1900; Rehm, "Allgemeine Staatslehre," 1899, §§ 10-16. See also Maine, "Early Institutions," pp. 342-400.
Meaning of Sovereignty in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.
§ 67. The term Sovereignty was introduced into political science by Bodin in his celebrated work, "De la république," which appeared in 1577. Before Bodin, at the end of the Middle Ages, the word souverain[92] was used in France for an authority, political or other, which had no other authority above itself. Thus the highest courts were called Cours Souverains. Bodin, however, gave quite a new meaning to the old conception. Being under the influence and in favour of the policy of centralisation initiated by Louis XI. of France (1461-1483), the founder of French absolutism, he defined sovereignty as "the absolute and perpetual power within a State." Such power is the supreme power within a State without any restriction whatever except the Commandments of God and the Law of Nature. No constitution can limit sovereignty, which is an attribute of the king in a monarchy and of the people in a democracy. A Sovereign is above positive law. A contract only is binding upon the Sovereign, because the Law of Nature commands that a contract shall be binding.[93]
[92] Souverain is derived either from the Latin superanus or from suprema potestas.
[93] See Bodin, "De la république," I. c. 8.
The conception of sovereignty thus introduced was at once accepted by writers on politics of the sixteenth century, but the majority of these writers taught that sovereignty could be restricted by a constitution and by positive law. Thus at once a somewhat weaker conception of sovereignty than that of Bodin made its appearance. On the other hand, in the seventeenth century, Hobbes went even beyond Bodin, maintaining[94] that a Sovereign was not bound by anything and had a right over everything, even over religion. Whereas a good many publicists followed Hobbes, others, especially Pufendorf, denied, in contradistinction to Hobbes, that sovereignty includes omnipotence. According to Pufendorf, sovereignty is the supreme power in a State, but not absolute power, and sovereignty may well be constitutionally restricted.[95] Yet in spite of all the differences in defining sovereignty, all authors of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries agree that sovereignty is indivisible and contains the centralisation of all power in the hands of the Sovereign, whether a monarch or the people itself in a republic. Yet the way for another conception of sovereignty is prepared by Locke, whose "Two Treatises on Government" appeared in 1689, and paved the way for the doctrine that the State itself is the original Sovereign, and that all supreme powers of the Government are derived from this sovereignty of the State.
[94] See Hobbes, "De cive," c. 6, §§ 12-15.
[95] See Pufendorf, "De jure naturae et gentium," VII. c. 6, §§ 1-13.
Meaning of Sovereignty in the Eighteenth Century.
§ 68. In the eighteenth century matters changed again. The fact that the several hundred reigning princes of the member-States of the German Empire had practically, although not theoretically, become more or less independent since the Westphalian Peace enforced the necessity upon publicists to recognise a distinction between an absolute, perfect, full sovereignty, on the one hand, and, on the other, a relative, imperfect, not-full or half-sovereignty. Absolute and full sovereignty was attributed to those monarchs who enjoyed an unqualified independence within and without their States. Relative and not-full sovereignty, or half-sovereignty, was attributed to those monarchs who were, in various points of internal or foreign affairs of State, more or less dependent upon other monarchs. By this distinction the divisibility of sovereignty was recognised. And when in 1787 the United States of America turned from a Confederation of States into a Federal State, the division of sovereignty between the Sovereign Federal State and the Sovereign member-States appeared. But it cannot be maintained that divisibility of sovereignty was universally recognised in the eighteenth century. It suffices to mention Rousseau, whose "Contrat Social" appeared in 1762 and defended again the indivisibility of sovereignty. Rousseau's conception of sovereignty is essentially that of Hobbes, since it contains absolute supreme power, but he differs from Hobbes in so far as, according to Rousseau, sovereignty belongs to the people only and exclusively, is inalienable, and therefore cannot be transferred from the people to any organ of the State.
Meaning of Sovereignty in the Nineteenth Century.
§ 69. During the nineteenth century three different factors of great practical importance have exercised their influence on the history of the conception of sovereignty.
The first factor is that, with the exception of Russia, all civilised Christian monarchies during this period turned into constitutional monarchies. Thus identification of sovereignty with absolutism belongs practically to the past, and the fact was during the nineteenth century generally recognised that a sovereign monarch may well be restricted in the exercise of his powers by a Constitution and positive law.
The second factor is, that the example of a Federal State set by the United States has been followed by Switzerland, Germany, and others. The Constitution of Switzerland as well as that of Germany declares decidedly that the member-States of the Federal State remain Sovereign States, thus indirectly recognising the divisibility of sovereignty between the member-States and the Federal State according to different matters.
The third and most important factor is, that the science of politics has learned to distinguish between sovereignty of the State and sovereignty of the organ which exercises the powers of the State. The majority of publicists teach henceforth that neither the monarch, nor Parliament, nor the people is originally Sovereign in a State, but the State itself. Sovereignty, we say nowadays, is a natural attribute of every State as a State. But a State, as a Juristic Person, wants organs to exercise its powers. The organ or organs which exercise for the State powers connected with sovereignty are said to be sovereign themselves, yet it is obvious that this sovereignty of the organ is derived from the sovereignty of the State. And it is likewise obvious that the sovereignty of a State may be exercised by the combined action of several organs, as, for instance, in Great Britain, King and Parliament are the joint administrators of the sovereignty of the State. And it is, thirdly, obvious that a State can, as regards certain matters, have its sovereignty exercised by one organ and as regards other matters by another organ.
In spite of this condition of things, the old controversy regarding divisibility of sovereignty has by no means died out. It acquired a fresh stimulus, on the one hand, through Switzerland and Germany turning into Federal States, and, on the other, through the conflict between the United States of America and her Southern member-States. The theory of the concurrent sovereignty of the Federal State and its member-States, as defended by "The Federalist" (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay) in 1787, was in Germany taken up by Waitz,[96] whom numerous publicists followed. The theory of the indivisibility of sovereignty was defended by Calhoun,[97] and many European publicists followed him in time.
[96] Politik, 1862.
[97] A Disquisition on Government, 1851.
Result of the Controversy regarding Sovereignty.
§ 70. From the foregoing sketch of the history of the conception of sovereignty it becomes apparent that there is not and never was unanimity regarding this conception. It is therefore no wonder that the endeavour has been made to eliminate the conception of sovereignty from the science of politics altogether, and likewise to eliminate sovereignty as a necessary characteristic of statehood, so that States with and without sovereignty would in consequence be distinguishable. It is a fact that sovereignty is a term used without any well-recognised meaning except that of supreme authority. Under these circumstances those who do not want to interfere in a mere scholastic controversy must cling to the facts of life and the practical, though abnormal and illogical, condition of affairs. As there can be no doubt about the fact that there are semi-independent States in existence, it may well be maintained that sovereignty is divisible.
II RECOGNITION OF STATES AS INTERNATIONAL PERSONS
Hall, §§ 2 and 26—Lawrence, §§ 44-47—Phillimore, II. §§ 10-23—Taylor, §§ 153-160—Walker, § 1—Westlake, I. pp. 49-58—Wheaton, § 27—Moore, §§ 27-75—Bluntschli, §§ 28-38—Hartmann, § 11—Heffter, § 23—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 18-33—Liszt, § 5—Ullmann, §§ 29-30—Bonfils, Nos. 195-213—Despagnet, Nos. 79-85—Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 136-145—Nys, I. pp. 69-115—Mérignhac, I. pp. 320-329—Rivier, I. § 3—Calvo, I. §§ 87-98—Fiore, I. Nos. 311-320, and Code, Nos. 160-177—Martens, I. §§ 63-64—Le Normand, "La reconnaissance internationale et ses diverses applications" (1899).
Recognition a condition of Membership of the Family of Nations.
§ 71. As the basis of the Law of Nations is the common consent of the civilised States, statehood alone does not include membership of the Family of Nations. There are States in existence, although their number decreases gradually, which are not, or not fully, members of that family, because their civilisation, if any, does not enable them and their subjects to act in conformity with the principles of International Law. Those States which are members are either original members because the Law of Nations grew up gradually between them through custom and treaties, or they are members which have been recognised by the body of members already in existence when they were born.[98] For every State that is not already, but wants to be, a member, recognition is therefore necessary. A State is and becomes an International Person through recognition only and exclusively.
[98] See above, §§ [27] and [28].
Many writers do not agree with this opinion. They maintain that, if a new civilised State comes into existence either by breaking off from an existing recognised State, as Belgium did in 1831, or otherwise, such new State enters of right into the Family of Nations and becomes of right an International Person.[99] They do not deny that practically such recognition is necessary to enable every new State to enter into official intercourse with other States. Yet they assert that theoretically every new State becomes a member of the Family of Nations ipso facto by its rising into existence, and that recognition supplies only the necessary evidence for this fact.
[99] See, for instance, Hall, §§ 2 and 26; Ullmann, § 29; Gareis, p. 64; Rivier, I. p. 57.
If the real facts of international life are taken into consideration, this opinion cannot stand. It is a rule of International Law that no new State has a right towards other States to be recognised by them, and that no State has the duty to recognise a new State. It is generally agreed that a new State before its recognition cannot claim any right which a member of the Family of Nations has towards other members. It can, therefore, not be seen what the function of recognition could be if a State entered at its birth really of right into the membership of the Family of Nations. There is no doubt that statehood itself is independent of recognition. International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.
Mode of Recognition.
§ 72. Recognition is the act through which it becomes apparent that an old State is ready to deal with a new State as an International Person and a member of the Family of Nations. Recognition is given either expressly or tacitly. If a new State asks formally for recognition and receives it in a formal declaration of any kind, it receives express recognition. On the other hand, recognition is tacitly and indirectly given when an old State enters officially into intercourse with the new, be it by sending or receiving a diplomatic envoy,[100] or by concluding a treaty, or by any other act through which it becomes apparent that the new State is actually treated as an International Person.
[100] Whether the sending of a consul includes recognition is discussed below, § 428.
But no new State has by International Law a right to demand recognition, although practically such recognition cannot in the long run be withheld, because without it there is no possibility of entering into intercourse with the new State. The interests of the old States must suffer quite as much as those of the new State, if recognition is for any length of time refused, and practically these interests in time enforce either express or tacit recognition. History nevertheless records many cases of deferred recognition,[101] and, apart from other proof, it becomes thereby apparent that the granting or the denial of recognition is not a matter of International Law but of international policy.
[101] See the cases enumerated by Rivier, I. p. 58.
It must be specially mentioned that recognition by one State is not at all binding upon other States, so that they must follow suit. But in practice such an example, if set by one or more Great Powers and at a time when the new State is really established on a sound basis, will make many other States at a later period give their recognition too.
Recognition under Conditions.
§ 73. Recognition will as a rule be given without any conditions whatever, provided the new State is safely and permanently established. Since, however, the granting of recognition is a matter of policy, and not of law, nothing prevents an old State from making the recognition of a new State dependent upon the latter fulfilling certain conditions. Thus the Powers assembled at the Berlin Congress in 1878 recognised Bulgaria, Montenegro, Servia, and Roumania under the condition only that these States did not[102] impose any religious disabilities on any of their subjects.[103] The meaning of such conditional recognition is not that recognition can be withdrawn in case the condition is not complied with. The nature of the thing makes recognition, if once given, incapable of withdrawal. But conditional recognition, if accepted by the new State, imposes the internationally legal duty upon such State of complying with the condition; failing which a right of intervention is given to the other party for the purpose of making the recognised State comply with the imposed condition.
[102] This condition contains a restriction on the personal supremacy of the respective States. See below, § [128].
[103] See arts. 5, 25, 35, and 44 of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878, in Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. III. p. 449.
Recognition timely and precipitate.
§ 74. Recognition is of special importance in those cases where a new State tries to establish itself by breaking off from an existing State in the course of a revolution. And here the question is material whether a new State has really already safely and permanently established itself or only makes efforts to this end without having already succeeded. That in every case of civil war a foreign State can recognise the insurgents as a belligerent Power if they succeed in keeping a part of the country in their hands and set up a Government of their own, there is no doubt. But between this recognition as a belligerent Power and the recognition of these insurgents and their part of the country as a new State, there is a broad and deep gulf. And the question is precisely at what exact time recognition of a new State may be given instead of the recognition as a belligerent Power. For an untimely and precipitate recognition as a new State is a violation of the dignity[104] of the mother-State, to which the latter need not patiently submit.
[104] It is frequently maintained that such untimely recognition contains an intervention. But this is not correct, since intervention is (see below, § [134]) dictatorial interference in the affairs of another State. The question of recognition of the belligerency of insurgents is exhaustively treated by Westlake, I. pp. 50-57.
In spite of the importance of the question, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as regards the time when it can be said that a State created by revolution has established itself safely and permanently. The characteristic of such safe and permanent establishment may be found either in the fact that the revolutionary State has utterly defeated the mother-State, or that the mother-State has ceased to make efforts to subdue the revolutionary State, or even that the mother-State, in spite of its efforts, is apparently incapable of bringing the revolutionary back under its sway.[105] Of course, as soon as the mother-State itself recognises the new State, there is no reason for other States to withhold any longer their recognition, although they have even then no legal obligation to grant it.
[105] When, in 1903, Panama fell away from Colombia, the United States immediately recognised the new Republic as an independent State. For the motives of this quick action, see Moore, I. § 344, pp. 46 and following.
The breaking off of the American States from their European mother-States furnishes many illustrative examples. Thus the recognition of the United States by France in 1778 was precipitate. But when in 1782 England herself recognised the independence of the United States, other States could accord recognition too without giving offence to England. Again, when the South American colonies of Spain declared their independence in 1810, no Power recognised the new States for many years. When, however, it became apparent that Spain, although she still kept up her claims, was not able to restore her sway, the United States recognised the new States in 1822, and England followed the example in 1824 and 1825.[106]
[106] See Gibbs, "Recognition: a Chapter from the History of the North American and South American States" (1863), and Moore, I. §§ 28-36.
State Recognition in contradistinction to other Recognitions.
§ 75. Recognition of a new State must not be confounded with other recognitions. Recognition of insurgents as a belligerent Power has already been mentioned. Besides this, recognition of a change in the form of the government or of change in the title of an old State is a matter of importance. But the granting or refusing of these recognitions has nothing to do with recognition of the State itself. If a foreign State refuses the recognition of a change in the form of the government of an old State, the latter does not thereby lose its recognition as an International Person, although no official intercourse is henceforth possible between the two States as long as recognition is not given either expressly or tacitly. And if recognition of a new title[107] of an old State is refused, the only consequence is that such State cannot claim any privileges connected with the new title.
III CHANGES IN THE CONDITION OF INTERNATIONAL PERSONS
Grotius, II. c. 9, §§ 5-13—Pufendorf, VIII. c. 12—Vattel, I. § 11—Hall, § 2—Halleck, I. pp. 89-92—Phillimore, I. §§ 124-137—Taylor, § 163—Westlake, I. pp. 58-66—Wheaton, §§ 28-32—Moore, I. §§ 76-79—Bluntschli, §§ 39-53—Hartmann, §§ 12-13—Heffter, § 24—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 21-23—Liszt, § 5—Ullmann, §§ 31 and 35—Bonfils, Nos. 214-215—Despagnet, Nos. 86-89—Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 146-157—Nys, I. pp. 399-401—Rivier, I. § 3—Calvo, I. §§ 81-106—Fiore, I. Nos. 321-331, and Code, Nos. 119-141—Martens, I. §§ 65-69.
Important in contradistinction to Indifferent Changes.
§ 76. The existence of International Persons is exposed to the flow of things and times. There is a constant and gradual change in their citizens through deaths and births, emigration, and immigration. There is a frequent change in those individuals who are at the head of the States, and there is sometimes a change in the form of their governments, or in their dynasties if they are monarchies. There are sometimes changes in their territories through loss or increase of parts thereof, and there are sometimes changes regarding their independence through partial or total loss of the same. Several of these and other changes in the condition and appearance of International Persons are indifferent to International Law, although they may be of great importance for the inner development of the States concerned and directly or indirectly for international policy. Those changes, on the other hand, which are, or may be, of importance to International Law must be divided into three groups according to their influence upon the character of the State concerned as an International Person. For some of these changes affect a State as an International Person, others do not; again, others extinguish a State as an International Person altogether.
Changes not affecting States as International Persons.
§ 77. A State remains one and the same International Person in spite of changes in its headship, in its dynasty, in its form, in its rank and title, and in its territory. These changes cannot be said to be indifferent to International Law. Although strictly no notification to and recognition by foreign Powers are necessary, according to the Law of Nations, in case of a change in the headship of a State or in its entire dynasty, or if a monarchy becomes a republic or vice versa, no official intercourse is possible between the Powers refusing recognition and the State concerned. Although, further, a State can assume any title it likes, it cannot claim the privileges of rank connected with a title if foreign States refuse recognition. And although, thirdly, a State can dispose according to discretion of parts of its territory and acquire as much territory as it likes, foreign Powers may intervene for the purpose of maintaining a balance of power or on account of other vital interests.
But whatever may be the importance of such changes, they neither affect a State as an International Person, nor affect the personal identity of the States concerned. France, for instance, has retained her personal identity from the time the Law of Nations came into existence until the present day, although she acquired and lost parts of her territory, changed her dynasty, was a kingdom, a republic, an empire, again a kingdom, again a republic, again an empire, and is now, finally as it seems, a republic. All her international rights and duties as an International Person remained the very same throughout the centuries in spite of these important changes in her condition and appearance. Even such loss of territory as occasions the reduction of a Great Power to a small Power, or such increase of territory and strength as turns a small State into a Great Power, does not affect a State as an International Person. Thus, although through the events of the years 1859-1861 Sardinia acquired the whole territory of the Italian Peninsula and turned into the Great Power of Italy, she remained one and the same International Person.
Changes affecting States as International Persons.
§ 78. Changes which affect States as International Persons are of different character.
(1) As in a Real Union the member-States of the union, although fully independent, make one International Person,[108] two States which hitherto were separate International Persons are affected in that character by entering into a Real Union. For through that change they appear henceforth together as one and the same International Person. And should this union be dissolved, the member-States are again affected, for they now become again separate International Persons.
[108] See below, § [87], where the character of the Real Union is fully discussed.
(2) Other changes affecting States as International Persons are such changes as involve a partial loss of independence on the part of the States concerned. Many restrictions may be imposed upon States without interfering with their independence proper,[109] but certain restrictions involve inevitably a partial loss of independence. Thus if a hitherto independent State comes under the suzerainty of another State and becomes thereby a half-Sovereign State, its character as an International Person is affected. The same is valid with regard to a hitherto independent State which comes under the protectorate of another State. Again, if several hitherto independent States enter into a Federal State, they transfer a part of their sovereignty to the Federal State and become thereby part-Sovereign States. On the other hand, if a vassal State or a State under protectorate is freed from the suzerainty or protectorate, it is thereby affected as an International Person, because it turns now into a full Sovereign State. And the same is valid with regard to a member-State of a Federal State which leaves the union and gains the condition of a full Sovereign State.
[109] See below, §§ [126]-127, where the different kinds of these restrictions are discussed.
(3) States which become permanently neutralised are thereby also affected in their character as International Persons, although their independence remains untouched. But permanent neutralisation alters the condition of a State so much that it thereby becomes an International Person of a particular kind.
Extinction of International Persons.
§ 79. A State ceases to be an International Person when it ceases to exist. Theoretically such extinction of International Persons is possible through emigration or the perishing of the whole population of a State, or through a permanent anarchy within a State. But it is evident that such cases will hardly ever occur in fact. Practical cases of extinction of States are: Merger of one State into another, annexation after conquest in war, breaking up of a State into several States, and breaking up of a State into parts which are annexed by surrounding States.
By voluntarily merging into another State, a State loses all its independence and becomes a mere part of another. In this way the Duchy of Courland merged in 1795 into Russia, the two Principalities of Hohenzollern-Hechingen and Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen in 1850 into Prussia, the Congo Free State in 1908 into Belgium, and Korea in 1910 into Japan. And the same is the case if a State is subjugated by another. In this way the Orange Free State and the South African Republic were absorbed by Great Britain in 1901. An example of the breaking up of a State into different States is the division of the Swiss canton of Basle into Basel-Stadt and Basel-Land in 1833. And an example of the breaking up of a State into parts which are annexed by surrounding States, is the absorption of Poland by Russia, Austria, and Prussia in 1795.
IV SUCCESSION OF INTERNATIONAL PERSONS
Grotius, II. c. 9 and 10—Pufendorf, VIII. c. 12—Hall, §§ 27-29—Phillimore, I. § 137—Lawrence, § 49—Halleck, I. pp. 89-92—Taylor, §§ 164-168—Westlake, I. pp. 68-83—Wharton, I. § 5—Moore, I. §§ 92-99—Wheaton, §§ 28-32—Bluntschli, §§ 47-50—Hartmann, § 12—Heffter, § 25—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 33-47—Liszt, § 23—Ullmann, § 32—Bonfils, Nos. 216-233—Despagnet, Nos. 89-102—Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 156-163—Nys, I. pp. 399-401—Rivier, I. § 3, pp. 69-75 and p. 438—Calvo, I. §§ 99-103—Fiore, I. Nos. 349-366—Martens, I. § 67—Appleton, "Des effets des annexions sur les dettes de l'état démembré ou annexé" (1895)—Huber, "Die Staatensuccession" (1898)—Keith, "The Theory of State Succession, with special reference to English and Colonial Law" (1907)—Cavaglieri, "La dottrina della successione di stato a stato, &c." (1910)—Richards in The Law Magazine and Review, XXVIII. (1903), pp. 129-141—Keith in Z.V. III. (1909), pp. 618-648—Hershey in A.J. V. (1911), pp. 285-297.
[110] The following text treats only of the broad outlines of the subject, as the practice of the States has hardly settled more than general principles. Details must be studied in Huber, "Die Staatensuccession" (1898), and Keith, "The Theory of State Succession, &c." (1907); the latter writer's analysis of cases in Z.V. III. (1909), pp. 618-648, is likewise very important.
Common Doctrine regarding Succession of International Persons.
§ 80. Although there is no unanimity among the writers on International Law with regard to the so-called succession of International Persons, nevertheless the following common doctrine can be stated to exist.
A succession of International Persons occurs when one or more International Persons take the place of another International Person, in consequence of certain changes in the latter's condition.
Universal succession takes place when one International Person is absorbed by another, either through subjugation or through voluntary merger. And universal succession further takes place when a State breaks up into parts which either become separate International Persons of their own or are annexed by surrounding International Persons.
Partial succession takes place, first, when a part of the territory of an International Person breaks off in a revolt and by winning its independence becomes itself an International Person; secondly, when one International Person acquires a part of the territory of another through cession; thirdly, when a hitherto full Sovereign State loses part of its independence through entering into a Federal State, or coming under suzerainty or under a protectorate, or when a hitherto not-full Sovereign State becomes full Sovereign; fourthly, when an International Person becomes a member of a Real Union or vice versa.
Nobody ever maintained that on the successor devolve all the rights and duties of his predecessor. But after stating that a succession takes place, the respective writers try to educe the consequences and to make out what rights and duties do, and what do not, devolve.
Several writers,[111] however, contest the common doctrine and maintain that a succession of International Persons never takes place. Their argument is that the rights and duties of an International Person disappear with the extinguished Person or become modified according to the modifications an International Person undergoes through losing part of its sovereignty.
[111] See Gareis, pp. 66-70, who discusses the matter with great clearness, and Liszt, § 23.
How far Succession actually takes place.
§ 81. If the real facts of life are taken into consideration, the common doctrine cannot be upheld. To say that succession takes place in such and such cases and to make out afterwards what rights and duties devolve, shows a wrong method of dealing with the problem. It is certain that no general succession takes place according to the Law of Nations. With the extinction of an International Person disappear its rights and duties as a person. But it is equally wrong to maintain that no succession whatever occurs. For nobody doubts that certain rights and duties actually and really devolve upon an International Person from its predecessor. And since this devolution takes place through the very fact of one International Person following another in the possession of State territory, there is no doubt that, as far as these devolving rights and duties are concerned, a succession of one International Person to the rights and duties of another really does take place. But no general rule can be laid down concerning all the cases in which a succession takes place. These cases must be discussed singly.
Succession in consequence of Absorption.
§ 82. When a State merges voluntarily into another State—as, for instance, Korea in 1910 did into Japan—or when a State is subjugated by another State, the latter remains one and the same International Person and the former becomes totally extinct as an International Person. No succession takes place, therefore, with regard to rights and duties of the extinct State arising either from the character of the latter as an International Person or from its purely political treaties. Thus treaties of alliance or of arbitration or of neutrality or of any other political nature fall to the ground with the extinction of the State which concluded them. They are personal treaties, and they naturally, legally, and necessarily presuppose the existence of the contracting State. But it is controversial whether treaties of commerce, extradition, and the like, of the extinct State remain valid and therefore a succession takes place. The majority of writers correctly, I think, answer the question in the negative, because such treaties, although they are non-political in a sense, possess some prominent political traits.[112]
[112] On the whole question concerning the extinction of treaties in consequence of the absorption of a State by another, see Moore, V. § 773, and below, § [548]. When, in 1910, Korea merged into Japan, the latter published a Declaration—see Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. IV. p. 26—containing the following articles with regard to the treaty obligations of the extinct State of Korea:—
1. Treaties hitherto concluded by Korea with foreign Powers ceasing to be operative, Japan's existing treaties will, so far as practicable, be applied to Korea. Foreigners resident in Korea will, so far as conditions permit, enjoy the same rights and immunities as in Japan proper, and the protection of their legally acquired rights subject in all cases to the jurisdiction of Japan. The Imperial Government of Japan is ready to consent that the jurisdiction in respect of the cases actually pending in any foreign Consular Court in Korea at the time the Treaty of Annexation takes effect shall remain in such Court until final decision.
2. Independently of any conventional engagements formerly existing on the subject, the Imperial Government of Japan will for a period of ten years levy upon goods imported into Korea from foreign countries or exported from Korea to foreign countries and upon foreign vessels entering any of the open ports of Korea the same import or export duties and the same tonnage dues as under the existing schedules. The same import or export duties and tonnage dues as those to be levied upon the aforesaid goods and vessels will also for a period of ten years be applied in respect of goods imported into Korea from Japan or exported from Korea to Japan and Japanese vessels entering any of the open ports of Korea.
3. The Imperial Government of Japan will also permit for a period of ten years vessels under flags of the Powers having treaties with Japan to engage in the coasting trade between the open ports of Korea and between those ports and any open port of Japan.
4. The existing open ports of Korea, with the exemption of Masampo, will be continued as open ports, and in addition Shiwiju will be newly opened so that vessels, foreign as well as Japanese, will there be admitted and goods may be imported into and exported from these ports.
A real succession takes place, however, first, with regard to such international rights and duties of the extinct State as are locally connected with its land, rivers, main roads, railways, and the like. According to the principle res transit cum suo onere, treaties of the extinct State concerning boundary lines, repairing of main roads, navigation on rivers, and the like, remain valid, and all rights and duties arising from such treaties of the extinct State devolve on the absorbing State.
A real succession, secondly, takes place with regard to the fiscal property and the fiscal funds of the extinct State. They both accrue to the absorbing State ipso facto by the absorption of the extinct State.[113] But the debts[114] of the extinct State must, on the other hand, also be taken over by the absorbing State.[115] The private creditor of an extinct State certainly acquires no right[116] by International Law against the absorbing State, since the Law of Nations is a law between States only and exclusively. But if he is a foreigner, the right of protection due to his home State enables the latter to exercise pressure upon the absorbing State for the purpose of making it fulfil its international duty to take over the debts of the extinct State. Some jurists[117] go so far as to maintain that the succeeding State must take over the debts of the extinct State, even when they are higher than the value of the accrued fiscal property and fiscal funds. But I doubt whether in such cases the practice of the States would follow that opinion. On the other hand, a State which has subjugated another would be compelled[118] to take over even such obligations as have been incurred by the annexed State for the immediate purpose of the war which led to its subjugation.[119]
[113] This was recognised by the High Court of Justice in 1866 in the case of the United States v. Prioleau. See Scott, "Cases on International Law" (1902), p. 85.
[114] See Moore, I. § 97, and Appleton, "Des effets des annexions de territoires sur les dettes, &c." (1895).
[115] This is almost generally recognised by writers on International Law and the practice of the States. (See Huber, op. cit. pp. 156 and 282, note 449.) The Report of the Transvaal Concessions Commission (see British State Papers, South Africa, 1901, Cd. 623), although it declares (p. 7), that "it is clear that a State which has annexed another is not legally bound by any contracts made by the State which has ceased to exist," nevertheless agrees that "the modern usage of nations has tended in the acknowledgment of such contracts." It may, however, safely be maintained that not a usage, but a real rule of International Law, based on custom, is in existence with regard to this point. (See Hall, § 29, and Westlake in The Law Quarterly Review, XVII. (1901), pp. 392-401, XXXI. (1905), p. 335, and now Westlake, I. pp. 74-82.)
[116] This is the real portent of the judgment in the case of Cook v. Sprigg, L.R. (1899), A.C. 572, and in the case of the West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. v. The King (1905), 2 K.B. 391. In so far as the latter judgment denies the existence of a rule of International Law that compels a subjugator to pay the debts of the subjugated State, its arguments are in no wise decisive. An International Court would recognise such a rule.
[117] See Martens, I. § 67; Heffter, § 25; Huber, op. cit. p. 158.
[118] See the Report of the Transvaal Concession Commission, p. 9, which maintains the contrary. Westlake (I. p. 78) adopts the reasoning of this report, but his arguments are not decisive. The lending of money to a belligerent under ordinary mercantile conditions—see Barclay in The Law Quarterly Review, XXI. (1905), p. 307—is not prohibited by International Law, although the carriage of such funds in cash on neutral vessels to the enemy falls under the category of carriage of contraband, and can be punished by the belligerents. (See below, Vol. II. § [352].)
[119] The question how far concessions granted by a subjugated State to a private individual or to a company must be upheld by the subjugating State, is difficult to answer in its generality. The merits of each case would seem to have to be taken into consideration. See Westlake, I. p. 82; Moore, I. § 98; Gidel, "Des effets de l'annexion sur les concessions" (1904).
The case of a Federal State arising—like the German Empire in 1871—above a number of several hitherto full Sovereign States also presents, with regard to many points, a case of State succession.[120] However, no hard-and-fast rules can be laid down concerning it, since everything depends upon the question whether the Federal State is one which—like all those of America—totally absorbs all international relations of the member-States, or whether it absorbs—like the German Empire and Switzerland—these relations to a greater extent only.[121]
[120] See Huber, op. cit. pp. 163-169, and Keith, op. cit. pp. 92-98.
Succession in consequence of Dismemberment.
§ 83. When a State breaks up into fragments which themselves become States and International Persons, or which are annexed by surrounding States, it becomes extinct as an International Person, and the same rules are valid as regards the case of absorption of one State by another. A difficulty is, however, created when the territory of the extinct State is absorbed by several States. Succession actually takes place here too, first, with regard to the international rights and duties locally connected with those parts of the territory which the respective States have absorbed. Succession takes place, secondly, with regard to the fiscal property and the fiscal funds which each of the several absorbing States finds on the part of the territory it absorbs. And the debts of the extinct State must be taken over. But the case is complicated through the fact that there are several successors to the fiscal property and funds, and the only rule which can be laid down is that proportionate parts of the debts must be taken over by the different successors.
When—as in the case of Sweden-Norway in 1905—a Real Union[122] is dissolved and the members become International Persons of their own, a succession likewise takes place. All treaties concluded by the Union devolve upon the former members, except those which were concluded by the Union for one member only—e.g. by Sweden-Norway for Norway—and which, therefore, devolve upon such former member only, and, further, except those which concerned the very Union and lose all meaning by its dissolution.
Succession in case of Separation or Cession.
§ 84. When in consequence of war or otherwise one State cedes a part of its territory to another, or when a part of the territory of a State breaks off and becomes a State and an International Person of its own, succession takes place with regard to such international rights and duties of the predecessor as are locally connected with the part of the territory ceded or broken off, and with regard to the fiscal property found on that part of the territory. It would only be just, if the successor had to take over a corresponding part of the debt of its predecessor, but no rule of International Law concerning this point can be said to exist, although many treaties have stipulated a devolution of a part of the debt of the predecessor upon the successor.[123] Thus, for instance, arts. 9, 33, 42 of the Treaty of Berlin[124] of 1878 stipulate that Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Servia should take over a part of the Turkish debt. On the other hand, the United States refused, after the cession of Cuba in 1898, to take over from Spain the so-called Cuban debt—that is, the debt which was settled by Spain on Cuba before the war.[125] Spain argued that it was not intended to transfer to the United States a proportional part of the debt of Spain, but only such debt as attached individually to the island of Cuba. The United States, however, met this argument by the correct assertion that the debt concerned was not one incurred by Cuba, but by Spain, and settled by her on Cuba.
[123] Many writers, however, maintain that there is such a rule of International Law. See Huber, op. cit. Nos. 125-135 and 205, where the respective treaties are enumerated.
[124] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. III. p. 449.
[125] See Moore, III. § 97, pp. 351-385.
V COMPOSITE INTERNATIONAL PERSONS
Pufendorf, VII. c. 5—Hall, § 4—Westlake, I. pp. 31-37—Phillimore, I. §§ 71-74, 102-105—Twiss, I. §§ 37-60—Halleck, I. pp. 70-74—Taylor, §§ 120-130—Wheaton, §§ 39-51—Moore, I. §§ 6-11—Hartmann, § 70—Heffter, §§ 20-21—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 118-141—Liszt, § 6—Ullmann, §§ 20-24—Bonfils, Nos. 165-174—Despagnet, Nos. 109-126—Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 117-123—Mérignhac, II. pp. 6-42—Nys, I. pp. 367-378—Rivier, I. §§ 5-6—Calvo, I. §§ 44-61—Fiore, I. Nos. 335-339, and Code, Nos. 96-104—Martens, I. §§ 56-59—Pufendorf, "De systematibus civitatum" (1675)—Jellinek, "Die Lehre von den Staatenverbindungen" (1882)—Borel, "Etude sur la souveraineté de l'Etat fédératif" (1886)—Brie, "Theorie der Staatenverbindungen" (1886)—Hart, "Introduction to the Study of Federal Government" in "Harvard Historical Monographs," 1891 (includes an excellent bibliography)—Le Fur, "Etat fédéral et confédération d'Etats" (1896)—Moll, "Der Bundesstaatsbegriff in den Vereinigten Staaten von America" (1905)—Ebers, "Die Lehre vom Staatenbunde" (1910).
Real and apparent Composite International Persons.
§ 85. International Persons are as a rule single Sovereign States. In such single States there is one central political authority as Government which represents the State, within its borders as well as without in the international intercourse with other International Persons. Such single States may be called simple International Persons. And a State remains a simple International Person, although it may grant so much internal independence to outlying parts of its territory that these parts become in a sense States themselves. Great Britain is a simple International Person, although the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, are now States of their own, because Great Britain is alone Sovereign and represents exclusively the British Empire within the Family of Nations.
Historical events, however, have created, in addition to the simple International Persons, composite International Persons. A composite International Person is in existence when two or more Sovereign States are linked together in such a way that they take up their position within the Family of Nations either exclusively or at least to a great extent as one single International Person. History has produced two different kinds of such composite International Persons—namely, Real Unions and Federal States. In contradistinction to Real Unions and Federal States, a so-called Personal Union and the union of so-called Confederated States are not International Persons.[126]
[126] I cannot agree with Westlake (I. p. 37) that "the space which some writers devote to the distinctions between the different kinds of union between States" is "disproportioned ... to their international importance." Very important questions are connected with these distinctions. The question, for instance, whether a diplomatic envoy sent by Bavaria to this country must be granted the privileges due to a foreign diplomatic envoy depends upon the question whether Bavaria is an International Person in spite of her being a member-State of the German Empire.
States in Personal Union.
§ 86. A Personal Union is in existence when two Sovereign States and separate International Persons are linked together through the accidental fact that they have the same individual as monarch. Thus a Personal Union existed from 1714 to 1837 between Great Britain and Hanover, from 1815 to 1890 between the Netherlands and Luxemburg, and from 1885 to 1908 between Belgium and the former Congo Free State. At present there is no Personal Union in existence. A Personal Union is not, and is in no point treated as though it were, an International Person, and its two Sovereign member-States remain separate International Persons. Theoretically it is even possible that they make war against each other, although practically this will never occur. If, as sometimes happens, they are represented by one and the same individual as diplomatic envoy, such individual is the envoy of both States at the same time, but not the envoy of the Personal Union.
States in Real Union.
§ 87. A Real Union[127] is in existence when two Sovereign States are by an international treaty, recognised by other Powers, linked together for ever under the same monarch, so that they make one and the same International Person. A Real Union is not itself a State, but merely a union of two full Sovereign States which together make one single but composite International Person. They form a compound Power, and are by the treaty of union prevented from making war against each other. On the other hand, they cannot make war separately against a foreign Power, nor can war be made against one of them separately. They can enter into separate treaties of commerce, extradition, and the like, but it is always the Union which concludes such treaties for the separate States, as they separately are not International Persons. It is, for instance, Austria-Hungary which concludes an international treaty of extradition between Hungary and a foreign Power. The only Real Union at present in existence outside the German Empire[128] is that of Austria-Hungary, that of Sweden-Norway having been dissolved in 1905.
[127] See Blüthgen in Z.V. I. (1906), pp. 237-263.
[128] There is a Real Union between Saxe-Coburg and Saxe-Gotha within the German Empire.
Austria-Hungary became a Real Union in 1723. In 1849, Hungary was united with Austria, but in 1867 Hungary became again a separate Sovereign State and the Real Union was re-established. Their army, navy, and foreign ministry are united. The Emperor-King declares war, makes peace, concludes alliances and other treaties, and sends and receives the same diplomatic envoys for both States.
Sweden-Norway became a Real Union[129] in 1814. The King could declare war, make peace, conclude alliances and other treaties, and send and receive the same diplomatic envoys for both States. The Foreign Secretary of Sweden managed at the same time the foreign affairs of Norway. Both States had, however, in spite of the fact that they made one and the same International Person, different commercial and naval flags. The Union was peacefully dissolved by the Treaty of Karlstad of October 26, 1905. Norway became a separate kingdom, the independence and integrity of which is guaranteed by Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia by the Treaty of Christiania of November 2, 1907.[130]
[129] This is not universally recognised. Phillimore, I. § 74, maintains that there was a Personal Union between Sweden and Norway, and Twiss, I. § 40, calls it a Federal Union.
[130] See above, § [50], p. 75.
Confederated States (Staatenbund).
§ 88. Confederated States (Staatenbund) are a number of full Sovereign States linked together for the maintenance of their external and internal independence by a recognised international treaty into a union with organs of its own, which are vested with a certain power over the member-States, but not over the citizens of these States. Such a union of Confederated States is not any more itself a State than a Real Union is; it is merely an International Confederation of States, a society of international character, since the member-States remain full Sovereign States and separate International Persons. Consequently, the union of Confederated States is not an International Person, although it is for some parts so treated on account of its representing the compound power of the full Sovereign member-States. The chief and sometimes the only organ of the union is a Diet, where the member-States are represented by diplomatic envoys. The power vested in the Diet is an International Power which does not in the least affect the full sovereignty of the member-States. That power is essentially nothing else than the right of the body of the members to make war against such a member as will not submit to those commandments of the Diet which are in accordance with the Treaty of Confederation, war between the member-States being prohibited in all other cases.
History has shown that Confederated States represent an organisation which in the long run gives very little satisfaction. It is for that reason that the three important unions of Confederated States of modern times—namely, the United States of America, the German, and the Swiss Confederation—have turned into unions of Federal States. Notable historic Confederations are those of the Netherlands from 1580 to 1795, the United States of America from 1778 to 1787, Germany from 1815 to 1866, Switzerland from 1291 to 1798 and from 1815 to 1848, and the Confederation of the Rhine (Rheinbund) from 1806 to 1813. At present there is no union of Confederated States. The last in existence, the major Republic of Central America,[131] which comprised the three full Sovereign States of Honduras, Nicaragua, and San Salvador, and was established in 1895, came to an end in 1898.
[131] See N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXII. pp. 276-292.
Federal States (Bundesstaaten).
§ 89. A Federal State[132] is a perpetual union of several Sovereign States which has organs of its own and is invested with power, not only over the member-States, but also over their citizens. The union is based, first, on an international treaty of the member-States, and, secondly, on a subsequently accepted constitution of the Federal State. A Federal State is said to be a real State side by side with its member-States because its organs have a direct power over the citizens of those member-States. This power was established by American[133] jurists of the eighteenth century as a characteristic distinction of a Federal State from Confederated States, and Kent as well as Story, the two later authorities on the Constitutional Law of the United States, adopted this distinction, which is indeed kept up until to-day by the majority of writers on politics. Now if a Federal State is recognised as a State of its own, side by side with its member-States, it is evident that sovereignty must be divided between the Federal State on the one hand, and, on the other, the member-States. This division is made in this way, that the competence over one part of the objects for which a State is in existence is handed over to the Federal State, whereas the competence over the other part remains with the member-States. Within its competence the Federal State can make laws which bind the citizens of the member-States directly without any interference of these member-States. On the other hand, the member-States are totally independent as far as their competence reaches.
[132] The distinction between Confederated States and a Federal State is not at all universally recognised, and the terminology is consequently not at all the same with all writers on International Law.
[133] When in 1787 the draft of the new Constitution of the United States, which had hitherto been Confederated States only, was under consideration by the Congress at Philadelphia, three members of the Congress—namely, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—made up their minds to write newspaper articles on the draft Constitution with the intention of enlightening the nation which had to vote for the draft. For this purpose they divided the different points among themselves and treated them separately. All these articles, which were not signed with the names of their authors, appeared under the common title "The Federalist." They were later on collected into book-form and have been edited several times. It is especially Nos. 15 and 16 of "The Federalist" which establish the difference between Confederated States and a Federal State in the way mentioned in the text above.
For International Law this division of competence is only of interest in so far as it concerns competence in international matters. Since it is always the Federal State which is competent to declare war, make peace, conclude treaties of alliance and other political treaties, and send and receive diplomatic envoys, whereas no member-State can of itself declare war against a foreign State, make peace, conclude alliances and other political treaties, the Federal State, if recognised, is certainly an International Person of its own, with all the rights and duties of a sovereign member of the Family of Nations. On the other hand, the international position of the member-States is not so clear. It is frequently maintained that they have totally lost their position within the Family of Nations. But this opinion cannot stand if compared with the actual facts. Thus, the member-States of the Federal State of Germany have retained their competence to send and receive diplomatic envoys, not only in intercourse with one another, but also with foreign States. Further, the reigning monarchs of these member-States are still treated by the practice of the States as heads of Sovereign States, a fact without legal basis if these States were no longer International Persons. Thirdly, the member-States of Germany as well as of Switzerland have retained their competence to conclude international treaties between themselves without the consent of the Federal State, and they have also retained the competence to conclude international treaties with foreign States as regards matters of minor interest. If these facts[134] are taken into consideration, one is obliged to acknowledge that the member-States of a Federal State can be International Persons in a degree. Full subjects of International Law, International Persons with all the rights and duties regularly connected with the membership of the Family of Nations, they certainly cannot be. Their position, if any, within this circle is overshadowed by their Federal State, they are part-Sovereign States, and they are, consequently, International Persons for some parts only.
[134] See Riess, "Auswärtige Hoheitsrechte der deutschen Einzelstaaten"(1905).
But it happens frequently that a Federal State assumes in every way the external representation of its member-States, so that, so far as international relations are concerned, the member-States do not make an appearance at all. This is the case with the United States of America and all those other American Federal States whose Constitution is formed according to the model of that of the United States. Here the member-States are sovereign too, but only with regard to internal[135] affairs. All their external sovereignty being absorbed by the Federal State, it is certainly a fact that they are not International Persons at all so long as this condition of things lasts.
[135] The Courts of the United States of America have always upheld the theory that the United States are sovereign as to all powers of government actually surrendered, whereas each member-State is sovereign as to all powers reserved. See Merriam, "History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau" (1900), p. 163.
This being so, two classes of Federal States must be distinguished[136] according to whether their member-States are or are not International Persons, although Federal States are in any case composite International Persons. And whenever a Federal State comes into existence which leaves the member-States for some parts International Persons, the recognition granted to it by foreign States must include their readiness to recognise for the future, on the one hand, the body of the member-States, the Federal State, as one composite International Person regarding all important matters, and, on the other hand, the single member-States as International Persons with regard to less important matters and side by side with the Federal State. That such a condition of things is abnormal and illogical cannot be denied, but the very existence of a Federal State side by side the member-States is quite as abnormal and illogical.
[136] This distinction is of the greatest importance and ought to be accepted by the writers on the science of politics.
The Federal States in existence are the following:—The United States of America since 1787, Switzerland since 1848, Germany since 1871, Mexico since 1857, Argentina since 1860, Brazil since 1891, Venezuela since 1893.
VI VASSAL STATES
Hall, § 4—Westlake, I. pp. 25-27—Lawrence, § 39—Phillimore, I. §§ 85-99—Twiss, I. §§ 22-36, 61-73—Taylor, §§ 140-144—Wheaton, § 37—Moore, I. § 13—Bluntschli, §§ 76-77—Hartmann, § 16—Heffter, §§ 19 and 22—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 98-117—Liszt, § 6—Ullmann, § 25—Gareis, § 15—Bonfils, Nos. 188-190—Despagnet, Nos. 127-129—Mérignhac, I. pp. 201-218—Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 109-112—Nys, I. pp. 357-364—Rivier, I. § 4—Calvo, I. §§ 66-72—Fiore, I. No. 341, and Code, Nos. 105-110—Martens, I. §§ 60-61—Stubbs, "Suzerainty" (1884)—Baty, "International Law in South Africa" (1900), pp. 48-68—Boghitchévitch, "Halbsouveränität" (1903).
The Union between Suzerain and Vassal State.
§ 90. The union and the relations between a Suzerain and its Vassal State create much difficulty in the science of the Law of Nations. As both are separate States, a union of States they certainly make, but it would be wrong to say that the Suzerain State is, like the Real Union of States or the Federal State, a composite International Person. And it would be equally wrong to maintain either that a Vassal State cannot be in any way a separate International Person of its own, or that it is an International Person of the same kind as any other State. What makes the matter so complicated, is the fact that a general rule regarding the relation between the suzerain and vassal, and, further, regarding the position, if any, of the vassal within the Family of Nations, cannot be laid down, as everything depends upon the special case. What can and must be said is that there are some States in existence which, although they are independent of another State as regards their internal affairs, are as regards their international affairs either absolutely or for the most part dependent upon another State. They are called half-Sovereign[137] States because they are sovereign within their borders but not without. The full Sovereign State upon which such half-Sovereign States are either absolutely or for the most part internationally dependent, is called the Suzerain State.
[137] In contradistinction to the States which are under suzerainty or protectorate, and which are commonly called half-Sovereign States, I call member-States of a Federal State part-Sovereign States.
Suzerainty is a term which originally was used for the relation between the feudal lord and his vassal; the lord was said to be the suzerain of the vassal, and at that time suzerainty was a term of Constitutional Law only. With the disappearance of the feudal system, suzerainty of this kind likewise disappeared. Modern suzerainty contains only a few rights of the Suzerain State over the Vassal State which can be called constitutional rights. The rights of the Suzerain State over the Vassal are principally international rights, of whatever they may consist. Suzerainty is by no means sovereignty. If it were, the Vassal State could not be Sovereign in its domestic affairs and could never have any international relations whatever of its own. And why should suzerainty be distinguished from sovereignty if it be a term synonymous with sovereignty? One may correctly maintain that suzerainty is a kind of international guardianship, since the Vassal State is either absolutely or mainly represented internationally by the Suzerain State.
International Position of Vassal States.
§ 91. The fact that the relation between the suzerain and the vassal always depends upon the special case, excludes the possibility of laying down a general rule as regards the position of Vassal States within the Family of Nations. It is certain that a Vassal State as such need not have any position whatever within the Family of Nations. In every case in which a Vassal State has absolutely no relations whatever with other States, since the suzerain absorbs these relations entirely, such vassal remains nevertheless a half-Sovereign State on account of its internal independence, but it has no position whatever within the Family of Nations, and consequently is for no part whatever an International Person and a subject of International Law. This is the position of the Indian Vassal States of Great Britain, which have no international relations whatever either between themselves or with foreign States.[138] Yet instances can be given which demonstrate that Vassal States can have some small and subordinate position within that family, and that they must in consequence thereof in some few points be considered as International Persons. Thus Egypt can conclude commercial and postal treaties with foreign States without the consent of suzerain Turkey, and Bulgaria could, while she was under Turkish Suzerainty, conclude treaties regarding railways, post, and the like. Thus, further, Egypt can send and receive consuls as diplomatic agents, and so could Bulgaria while she was a Turkish Vassal State. Thus, thirdly, the former South African Republic, although in the opinion of Great Britain under her suzerainty, could conclude all kinds of treaties with other States, provided Great Britain did not interpose a veto within six months after receiving a copy of the draft treaty, and was absolutely independent in concluding treaties with the neighbouring Orange Free State. Again, Egypt possesses, since 1898, together with Great Britain condominium[139] over the Soudan, which means that they exercise conjointly sovereignty over this territory. Although Vassal States have not the right to make war independently of their suzerain, Bulgaria, at the time a Vassal State, nevertheless fought a war against the full-Sovereign Servia in 1885, and Egypt conquered the Soudan conjointly with Great Britain in 1898.
[138] See Westlake, Chapters, pp. 211-219; Westlake, I. pp. 41-43, and again Westlake in The Law Quarterly Review, XXVI. (1910), pp. 312-319.—See also Lee-Warner, "The Native States of India" (1910), pp. 254-279.
How could all these and other facts be explained, if Vassal States could never for some small part be International Persons?
Side by side with these facts stand, of course, other facts which show that for the most part the Vassal State, even if it has some small position of its own within the Family of Nations, is considered a mere portion of the Suzerain State. Thus all international treaties concluded by the Suzerain State are ipso facto concluded for the vassal, if an exception is not expressly mentioned or self-evident. Thus, again, war of the suzerain is ipso facto war of the vassal. Thus, thirdly, the suzerain bears within certain limits a responsibility for actions of the Vassal State.
Under these circumstances it is generally admitted that the conception of suzerainty lacks juridical precision, and experience teaches that Vassal States do not remain half-Sovereign for long. They either shake off suzerainty, as Roumania, Servia, and Montenegro did in 1878, and Bulgaria[140] did in 1908, or they lose their half-Sovereignty through annexation, as in the case of the South African Republic in 1901, or through merger, as when the half-Sovereign Seignory of Kniephausen in Germany merged in 1854 into its suzerain Oldenburg.
[140] As regards the position of Bulgaria while she was a Vassal State under Turkish suzerainty, see Holland, "The European Concert in the Eastern Question" (1885), pp. 277-307, and Nédjmidin, "Völkerrechtliche Entwicklung Bulgariens" (1908).
Vassal States of importance which are for some parts International Persons are, at present, Egypt,[141] and Crete.[142] They are both under Turkish suzerainty, although Egypt is actually under the administration of Great Britain. Samos,[143] which some writers consider a Vassal State under Turkish suzerainty, is not half-Sovereign, but enjoys autonomy to a vast degree.
[141] See Holland, "The European Concert in the Eastern Question" (1885), pp. 89-205; Grünau, "Die staats- und völkerrechtliche Stellung Aegyptens" (1903); Cocheris, "Situation internationale de l'Egypte et du Soudan" (1903); Freycinet, "La question d'Egypte" (1905); Moret in R.J. XIV. (1907), pp. 405-416; Lamba in R.G. XVII. (1910), pp. 36-55. In the case of the "Charkieh," 1873, L.R. 4 Adm. and Eccl. 59, the Court refused to acknowledge the half-sovereignty of Egypt; see Phillimore, I. § 99.
[142] See Streit in R.G. X. (1903), pp. 399-417.
[143] See Albrecht in Z.V. I. (1907), pp. 56-112.
VII STATES UNDER PROTECTORATE
Hall, §§ 4 and 38*—Westlake, I. pp. 22-24—Lawrence, § 39—Phillimore, I. 75-82—Twiss, I. §§ 22-36—Taylor, §§ 134-139—Wheaton, §§ 34-36—Moore, I. § 14—Bluntschli, § 78—Hartmann, § 9—Heffter, §§ 19 and 22—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 98-117—Gareis, § 15—Liszt, § 6—Ullmann, § 26—Bonfils, Nos. 176-187—Despagnet, Nos. 130-136—Mérignhac, II. pp. 180-220—Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 94-108—Nys, I. pp. 364-366—Rivier, I. § 4—Calvo, I. §§ 62-65—Fiore, I. § 341, and Code, Nos. 111-118—Martens, I. §§ 60-61—Pillet in R.G. II. (1895), pp. 583-608—Heilborn, "Das völkerrechtliche Protectorat" (1891)—Engelhardt, "Les Protectorats, &c." (1896)—Gairal, "Le protectorat international" (1896)—Despagnet, "Essai sur les protectorats" (1896)—Boghitchévitch, "Halbsouveränität" (1903).
Conception of Protectorate.
§ 92. Legally and materially different from suzerainty is the relation of protectorate between two States. It happens that a weak State surrenders itself by treaty into the protection of a strong and mighty State in such a way that it transfers the management[144] of all its more important[145] international affairs to the protecting State. Through such treaty an international union is called into existence between the two States, and the relation between them is called protectorate. The protecting State is internationally the superior of the protected State, the latter has with the loss of the management of its more important international affairs lost its full sovereignty and is henceforth only a half-Sovereign State. Protectorate is, however, a conception which, just like suzerainty, lacks exact juristic precision,[146] as its real meaning depends very much upon the special case. Generally speaking, protectorate may, again like suzerainty, be called a kind of international guardianship.
[144] A treaty of protectorate must not be confounded with a treaty of protection in which one or more strong States promise to protect a weak State without absorbing the international relations of the latter.
[145] That the admittance of Consuls belongs to these affairs became apparent in 1906, when Russia, after some hesitation, finally agreed upon Japan, and not Korea, granting the exequatur to the Consul-general appointed by Russia for Korea, which was then a State under Japanese protectorate. See below, § [427].
[146] It is therefore of great importance that the parties should make quite clear the meaning of a clause which is supposed to stipulate a protectorate. Thus art. 17 of the Treaty of Friendship and Commerce between Italy and Abyssinia, signed at Uccialli on May 2, 1889—see Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XVIII. p. 697—was interpreted by Italy as establishing a protectorate over Abyssinia, but the latter refused to recognise it.
International position of States under Protectorate.
§ 93. The position of a State under protectorate within the Family of Nations cannot be defined by a general rule, since it is the treaty of protectorate which indirectly specialises it by enumerating the reciprocal rights and duties of the protecting and the protected State. Each case must therefore be treated according to its own merits. Thus the question whether the protected State can conclude certain international treaties and can send and receive diplomatic envoys, as well as other questions, must be decided according to the terms of the individual treaty of protectorate. In any case, recognition of the protectorate on the part of third States is necessary to enable the superior State to represent the protected State internationally. But it is characteristic of the protectorate, in contradistinction to suzerainty, that the protected State always has and retains for some parts a position of its own within the Family of Nations, and that it is always for some parts an International Person and a subject of International Law. It is never in any respect considered a mere portion of the superior State. It is, therefore, not necessarily a party in a war[147] of the superior State against a third, and treaties concluded by the superior State are not ipso facto concluded for the protected State. And, lastly, it can at the same time be under the protectorate of two different States, which, of course, must exercise the protectorate conjointly.
[147] This was recognised by the English Prize Courts during the Crimean War with regard to the Ionian Islands, which were then still under British protectorate; see the case of the Ionian Ships, 2 Spinks 212, and Phillimore, I. § 77.
In Europe there are at present only two very small States under protectorate—namely, the republic of Andorra, under the joint protectorate of France and Spain,[148] and the republic of San Marino, an enclosure of Italy, which was formerly under the protectorate of the Papal States and is now under that of Italy. The Principality of Monaco, which was under the protectorate, first of Spain until 1693, afterwards of France until 1815, and then of Sardinia, has now, through custom, become a full-Sovereign State, since Italy has never[149] exercised the protectorate. The Ionian Islands, which were under British protectorate from 1815, merged into the Kingdom of Greece in 1863.
[148] This protectorate is exercised for Spain by the Bishop of Urgel. As regards the international position of Andorra, see Vilar, "L'Andorre" (1905).
[149] This is a clear case of desuetudo.
Protectorates outside the Family of Nations.
§ 94. Outside Europe there are numerous States under the protectorate of European States, but all of them are non-Christian States of such a civilisation as would not admit them to full membership of the Family of Nations, apart from the protectorate under which they are now. And it may therefore be questioned whether they have any real position within the Family of Nations at all. As the protectorate over them is recognised by third States, the latter are legally prevented from exercising any political influence in these protected States, and, failing special treaty rights, they have no right to interfere if the protecting State annexes the protected State and makes it a mere colony of its own, as, for instance, France did with Madagascar in 1896. Protectorates of this kind are actually nothing else than the first step to annexation.[150] Since they are based on treaties with real States, they cannot in every way be compared with the so-called protectorates over African tribes which European States acquire through a treaty with the chiefs of these tribes, and by which the respective territory is preserved for future occupation on the part of the so-called protector.[151] But actually they always lead to annexation, if the protected State does not succeed in shaking off by force the protectorate, as Abyssinia did in 1896 when she shook off the pretended Italian protectorate.
[150] Examples of such non-Christian States under protectorate are Zanzibar under Great Britain and Tunis under France.
[151] See below, § [226], and Perrinjaquet in R.G. XVI. (1909), pp. 316-367.
VIII NEUTRALISED STATES
Westlake, I. pp. 27-30—Lawrence, §§ 43 and 225—Taylor, § 133—Moore, I. § 12—Bluntschli, § 745—Heffter, § 145—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 643-646—Gareis, § 15—Liszt, § 6—Ullmann, § 27—Bonfils, Nos. 348-369—Despagnet, Nos. 137-146—Mérignhac, II. pp. 56-65—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 1001-1015—Nys, I. pp. 379-398—Rivier, I. § 7—Calvo, IV. §§ 2596-2610—Piccioni's "Essai sur la neutralité perpétuelle" (2nd ed. 1902)—Regnault, "Des effets de la neutralité perpétuelle" (1898)—Tswettcoff, "De la situation juridique des états neutralisés" (1895)—Morand in R.G. I. (1894), pp. 522-537—Hagerup in R.G. XII. (1909), pp. 577-602—Nys in R.I. 2nd Ser. II. (1900), pp. 468-583, III. (1901), p. 15—Westlake in R.I. 2nd Ser. III. (1901), pp. 389-397—Winslow in A.J. II. (1908), pp. 366-386—Wicker in A.J. V. (1911), pp. 639-654.
Conception of Neutralised States.
§ 95. A neutralised State is a State whose independence and integrity are for all the future guaranteed by an international convention of the Powers, under the condition that such State binds itself never to take up arms against any other State except for defence against attack, and never to enter into such international obligations as could indirectly drag it into war. The reason why a State asks or consents to become neutralised is that it is a weak State and does not want an active part in international politics, being exclusively devoted to peaceable developments of welfare. The reason why the Powers neutralise a weak State may be a different one in different cases. The chief reasons have been hitherto the balance of power in Europe and the interest in keeping up a weak State as a so-called Buffer-State between the territories of Great Powers.
Not to be confounded with neutralisation of States is neutralisation of parts of States,[152] of rivers, canals, and the like, which has the effect that war cannot there be made and prepared.
[152] See below, [Vol. II. § 72.]
Act and Condition of Neutralisation.
§ 96. Without thereby becoming a neutralised State, every State can conclude a treaty with another State and undertake the obligation to remain neutral if such other State enters upon war. The act through which a State becomes a neutralised State for all the future is always an international treaty of the Powers between themselves and between the State concerned, by which treaty the Powers guarantee collectively the independence and integrity of the latter State. If all the Great Powers do not take part in the treaty, those which do not take part in it must at least give their tacit consent by taking up an attitude which shows that they agree to the neutralisation, although they do not guarantee it. In guaranteeing the permanent neutrality of a State the contracting Powers enter into the obligation not to violate on their part the independence of the neutral State and to prevent other States from such violation. But the neutral State becomes, apart from the guaranty, in no way dependent upon the guarantors, and the latter gain no influence whatever over the neutral State in matters which have nothing to do with the guaranty.
The condition of the neutralisation is that the neutralised State abstains from any hostile action, and further from any international engagement which could indirectly[153] drag it into hostilities against any other State. And it follows from the neutralisation that the neutralised State can, apart from frontier regulations, neither cede a part of its territory nor acquire new parts of territory without the consent of the Powers.[154]
[153] It was, therefore, impossible for Belgium, which was a party to the treaty that neutralised Luxemburg in 1867, to take part in the guarantee of this neutralisation. See article 2 of the Treaty of London of May 11, 1867: "sous la sanction de la garantie collective des puissances signataires, à l'exception de la Belgique, qui est elle-même un état neutre."
[154] This is a much discussed and very controverted point. See Descamps, "La Neutralité de la Belgique" (1902), pp. 508-527; Fauchille in R.G. II. (1895), pp. 400-439; Westlake in R.I. 2nd Ser. III. (1901), p. 396; Graux in R.I. 2nd Ser. VII. (1905), pp. 33-52; Rivier, I. p. 172. See also below, § [215].
International position of Neutralised States.
§ 97. Since a neutralised State is under the obligation not to make war against any other State, except when attacked, and not to conclude treaties of alliance, guaranty, and the like, it is frequently maintained that neutralised States are part-Sovereign only and not International Persons of the same position within the Family of Nations as other States. This opinion has, however, no basis if the real facts and conditions of the neutralisation are taken into consideration. If sovereignty is nothing else than supreme authority, a neutralised State is as fully Sovereign as any not neutralised State. It is entirely independent outside as well as inside its borders, since independence does not at all mean boundless liberty of action.[155] Nobody maintains that the guaranteed protection of the independence and integrity of the neutralised State places this State under the protectorate or any other kind of authority of the guarantors. And the condition of the neutralisation to abstain from war, treaties of alliance, and the like, contains restrictions which do in no way destroy the full sovereignty of the neutralised State. Such condition has the consequence only that the neutralised State exposes itself to an intervention by right, and loses the guaranteed protection in case it commits hostilities against another State, enters into a treaty of alliance, and the like. Just as a not-neutralised State which has concluded treaties of arbitration with other States to settle all conflicts between one another by arbitration has not lost part of its sovereignty because it has thereby to abstain from arms, so a neutralised State has not lost part of its sovereignty through entering into the obligation to abstain from hostilities and treaties of alliance. This becomes quite apparent when it is taken into consideration that a neutralised State not only can conclude treaties of all kinds, except treaties of alliance, guarantee, and the like, but can also have an army and navy[156] and can build fortresses, as long as this is done with the purpose of preparing defence only. Neutralisation does not even exercise an influence upon the rank of a State. Belgium, Switzerland, and Luxemburg are States with royal honours and do not rank behind Great Britain or any other of the guarantors of their neutralisation. Nor is it denied that neutralised States, in spite of their weakness and comparative unimportance, can nevertheless play an important part within the Family of Nations. Although she has no voice where history is made by the sword, Switzerland has exercised great influence with regard to several points of progress in International Law. Thus the Geneva Convention owes its existence to the initiative of Switzerland. The fact that a permanently neutralised State is in many questions a disinterested party makes such State fit to take the initiative where action by a Great Power would create suspicion and reservedness on the part of other Powers.
[156] The case of Luxemburg, which became neutralised under the condition not to keep an armed force with the exception of a police, is an anomaly.
But neutralised States are and must always be an exception. The Family and the Law of Nations could not be what they are if ever the number of neutralised States should be much increased. It is neither in the interest of the Law of Nations, nor in that of humanity, that all the small States should become neutralised, as thereby the political influence of the few Great Powers would become still greater than it already is. The neutralised States still in existence—namely, Switzerland, Belgium, and Luxemburg—are a product of the nineteenth century only, and it remains to be seen whether neutralisation can stand the test of history.[157]
[157] The fate of the Republic of Cracow, which was created an independent State under the joint protection of Austria, Prussia, and Russia by the Vienna Congress in 1815, and permanently neutralised, but which was annexed by Austria in 1846 (see Nys, I. pp. 383-385), cannot be quoted as an example that neutralised States have no durability. This annexation was only the last act in the drama of the absorption of Poland by her neighbours. As regards the former Congo Free State, see below, § [101].
Switzerland.
§ 98. The Swiss Confederation,[158] which was recognised by the Westphalian Peace of 1648, has pursued a traditional policy of neutrality since that time. During the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, however, she did not succeed in keeping up her neutrality. French intervention brought about in 1803 a new Constitution, according to which the single cantons ceased to be independent States and Switzerland turned from a Confederation of States into the simple State of the Helvetic Republic, which was, moreover, through a treaty of alliance linked to France. It was not till 1813 that Switzerland became again a Confederation of States, and not till 1815 that she succeeded in becoming permanently neutralised. On March 20, 1815, at the Congress at Vienna, Great Britain, Austria, France, Portugal, Prussia, Spain, and Russia signed the declaration in which the permanent neutrality of Switzerland was recognised and collectively guaranteed, and on May 27, 1815, Switzerland acceded to this declaration. Article 84 of the Act of the Vienna Congress confirmed this declaration, and an Act, dated November 20, 1815, of the Powers assembled at Paris after the final defeat of Napoleon recognised it again.[159] Since that time Switzerland has always succeeded in keeping up her neutrality. She has built fortresses and organised a strong army for that purpose, and in January 1871, during the Franco-German War, she disarmed a French army of more than 80,000 men who had taken refuge on her territory, and guarded them till after the war.
[158] See Schweizer, "Geschichte der schweizerischen Neutralität," 2 vols. (1895).
[159] See Martens, N.R. II. pp. 157, 173, 419, 740.
Belgium.
§ 99. Belgium[160] became neutralised from the moment she was recognised as an independent State in 1831. The Treaty of London, signed on November 15, 1831, by Great Britain, Austria, Belgium, France, Prussia, and Russia, stipulates in its article 7 at the same time the independence and the permanent neutrality of Belgium, and in its article 25 the guaranty of the signatory five Great Powers.[161] And the guaranty was renewed in article 1 of the Treaty of London of April 19, 1839,[162] to which the same Powers are parties, and which is the final treaty concerning the separation of Belgium from the Netherlands.
[160] See Descamps, "La Neutralité de la Belgique" (1902).
[161] See Martens, N.R. XI. pp. 394 and 404.
[162] See Martens, N.R. XVI. p. 790.
Belgium has, just like Switzerland, also succeeded in keeping up her neutrality. She, too, has built fortresses and possesses a strong army.
Luxemburg.
§ 100. The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg[163] was since 1815 in personal union with the Netherlands, but at the same time a member of the Germanic Confederation, and Prussia had since 1856 the right to keep troops in the fortress of Luxemburg. In 1866 the Germanic Confederation came to an end, and Napoleon III. made efforts to acquire Luxemburg by purchase from the King of Holland, who was at the same time Grand Duke of Luxemburg. As Prussia objected to this, it seemed advisable to the Powers to neutralise Luxemburg. A Conference met in London, at which Great Britain, Austria, Belgium, France, Holland and Luxemburg, Italy, Prussia, and Russia were represented, and on May 11, 1867, a treaty was signed for the purpose of the neutralisation, which is stipulated and collectively guaranteed by all the signatory Powers, Belgium as a neutralised State herself excepted, by article 2.[164]
[163] See Wompach, "Le Luxembourg neutre" (1900).
[164] See Martens, N.R.G. XVIII. p. 448.
The neutralisation took place, however, under the abnormal condition that Luxemburg is not allowed to keep any armed force, with the exception of a police for the maintenance of safety and order, nor to possess any fortresses. Under these circumstances Luxemburg herself can do nothing for the defence of her neutrality, as Belgium and Switzerland can.
The former Congo Free State.
§ 101. The former Congo Free State,[165] which was recognised as an independent State by the Berlin Congo Conference[166] of 1884-1885, was a permanently neutralised State from 1885-1908, but its neutralisation was imperfect in so far as it was not guaranteed by the Powers. This fact is explained by the circumstances under which the Congo Free State attained its neutralisation. Article 10 of the General Act of the Congo Conference of Berlin stipulates that the signatory Powers shall respect the neutrality of any territory within the Congo district, provided the Power then or hereafter in possession of the territory proclaims its neutrality. Accordingly, when the Congo Free State was recognised by the Congress of Berlin, the King of the Belgians, as the sovereign of the Congo State, declared[167] it permanently neutral, and this declaration was notified to and recognised by the Powers. Since the Congo Conference did not guarantee the neutrality of the territories within the Congo district, the neutralisation of the Congo Free State was not guaranteed either. In 1908[168] the Congo Free State merged by cession into Belgium.
[165] Moynier, "La fondation de l'État indépendant du Congo" (1887); Hall, § 26; Westlake, I. p., 30; Navez, "Essai historique sur l'État Indépendant du Congo," Vol. I. (1905); Reeves in A.J. III. (1909), pp. 99-118.
[166] See Protocol 9 of that Conference in Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. X. p. 353.
[167] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XVI. p. 585.
[168] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. pp. 101, 106, 109, and Delpech and Marcaggi in R.G. XVIII. (1911), pp. 105-163. The question is doubtful, whether the guarantee of the neutrality of Belgium extends now to territory of the former Congo Free State ipso facto by its merger into Belgium.
IX NON-CHRISTIAN STATES
Westlake, I. p. 40—Phillimore, I. §§ 27-33—Bluntschli, §§ 1-16—Heffter, § 7—Gareis, § 10—Rivier, I. pp. 13-18—Bonfils, No. 40—Martens, § 41—Nys, I. pp. 122-125—Westlake, Chapters, pp. 114-143.
No essential difference between Christian and other States.
§ 102. It will be remembered from the previous discussion of the dominion[169] of the Law of Nations that this dominion extends beyond the Christian and includes now the Mahometan State of Turkey and the Buddhistic State of Japan. As all full-Sovereign International Persons are equal to one another, no essential difference exists within the Family of Nations between Christian and non-Christian States. That foreigners residing in Turkey are still under the exclusive jurisdiction of their consuls, is an anomaly based on a restriction on territorial supremacy arising partly from custom and partly from treaties. If Turkey could ever succeed, as Japan did, in introducing such reforms as would create confidence in the impartiality of her Courts of Justice, this restriction would certainly be abolished.
International position of non-Christian States except Turkey and Japan.
§ 103. Doubtful is the position of all non-Christian States except Turkey and Japan, such as China, Morocco, Siam, Persia, and further Abyssinia, although the latter is a Christian State, and although China, Persia, and Siam took part in the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907. Their civilisation is essentially so different from that of the Christian States that international intercourse with them of the same kind as between Christian States has been hitherto impossible. And neither their governments nor their populations are at present able to fully understand the Law of Nations and to take up an attitude which is in conformity with all the rules of this law. There should be no doubt that these States are not International Persons of the same kind and the same position within the Family of Nations as Christian States. But it is equally wrong to maintain that they are absolutely outside the Family of Nations, and are for no part International Persons. Since they send and receive diplomatic envoys and conclude international treaties, the opinion is justified that such States are International Persons only in some respects—namely, those in which they have expressly or tacitly been received into the Family of Nations. When Christian States begin such intercourse with these non-Christian States as to send diplomatic envoys to them and receive their diplomatic envoys, and when they enter into treaty obligations with them, they indirectly declare that they are ready to recognise them for these parts as International Persons and subjects of the Law of Nations. But for other parts such non-Christian States remain as yet outside the circle of the Family of Nations, especially with regard to war, and they are for those parts treated by the Christian Powers according to discretion. This condition of things will, however, not last very long. It may be expected that with the progress of civilisation these States will become sooner or later International Persons in the full sense of the term. They are at present in a state of transition, and some of them are the subjects of international arrangements of great political importance. Thus by the Treaty of London of December 13, 1906, Great Britain, France, and Italy agree to co-operate in maintaining the independence and integrity of Abyssinia,[170] and the General Act of the Conference of Algeciras of April 7, 1906,[171] signed by Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Spain, the United States of America, France, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Russia, Sweden, and Morocco herself, endeavours to suppress anarchy in Morocco and to introduce reforms in its internal administration. This Act,[172] which recognises, on the one hand, the independence and integrity of Morocco, and, on the other, equal commercial facilities in that country for all nations, contains:—(1) A Declaration concerning the organisation of the Moroccan police; (2) Regulations concerning the detection and suppression of the illicit trade in arms; (3) An Act of concession for a Moorish State Bank; (4) A Declaration concerning an improved yield of the taxes and the creation of new sources of revenue; (5) Regulations respecting customs and the suppression of fraud and smuggling; (6) A Declaration concerning the public services and public works.
[170] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXV. p. 556.
[171] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXIV. p. 238.
[172] It has been mentioned above, p. [76], that the Moroccan question has been reopened, and that fresh negotiations are taking place for its settlement.
X THE HOLY SEE
Hall, § 98—Westlake, I. pp. 37-39—Phillimore, I. §§ 278-440—Twiss, I. §§ 206-207—Taylor, §§ 277, 278, 282—Wharton, I. § 70, p. 546—Moore, I. § 18—Bluntschli, § 172—Heffter, §§ 40-41—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 151-222—Gareis, § 13—Liszt, § 5—Ullmann, § 28—Bonfils, Nos. 370-396—Despagnet, Nos. 147-164—Mérignhac, II. pp. 119-153—Nys, II. pp. 297-324—Rivier, I. § 8—Fiore, I. Nos. 520, 521—Martens, I. § 84—Fiore, "Della condizione giuridica internazionale della chiesa e del Papa" (1887)—Bombard, "Le Pape et le droit des gens" (1888)—Imbart-Latour, "La papauté en droit international" (1893)—Olivart, "Le Pape, les états de l'église et l'Italie" (1897)—Chrétien in R.G. VI. (1899), pp. 281-291—Bompart in R.G. VII. (1900), pp. 369-387—Higgins in The Journal of the Society for Comparative Legislation, New Series, IX. (1907), pp. 252-264.
The former Papal States.
§ 104. When the Law of Nations began to grow up among the States of Christendom, the Pope was the monarch of one of those States—namely, the so-called Papal States. This State owed its existence to Pepin-le-Bref and his son Charlemagne, who established it in gratitude to the Popes Stephen III. and Adrian I., who crowned them as Kings of the Franks. It remained in the hands of the Popes till 1798, when it became a republic for about three years. In 1801 the former order of things was re-established, but in 1809 it became a part of the Napoleonic Empire. In 1814 it was re-established, and remained in existence till 1870, when it was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy. Throughout the existence of the Papal States, the Popes were monarchs and, as such, equals of all other monarchs. Their position was, however, even then anomalous, as their influence and the privileges granted to them by the different States were due, not alone to their being monarchs of a State, but to their being the head of the Roman Catholic Church. But this anomaly did not create any real difficulty, since the privileges granted to the Popes existed within the province of precedence only.
The Italian Law of Guaranty.
§ 105. When, in 1870, Italy annexed the Papal States and made Rome her capital, she had to undertake the task of creating a position for the Holy See and the Pope which was consonant with the importance of the latter to the Roman Catholic Church. It seemed impossible that the Pope should become an ordinary Italian subject and that the Holy See should be an institution under the territorial supremacy of Italy. For many reasons no alteration was desirable in the administration by the Holy See of the affairs of the Roman Catholic Church or in the position of the Pope as the inviolable head of that Church. To meet the case the Italian Parliament passed an Act regarding the guaranties granted to the Pope and the Holy See, which is commonly called the "Law of Guaranty." According to this the position of the Pope and the Holy See is in Italy as follows:—
The person of the Pope is sacred and inviolable (article 1), although he is subjected to the Civil Courts of Italy.[173] An offence against his person is to be punished in the same way as an offence against the King of Italy (article 2). He enjoys all the honours of a sovereign, retains the privileges of precedence conceded to him by Roman Catholic monarchs, has the right to keep an armed body-guard of the same strength as before the annexation for the safety of his person and of his palaces (article 3), and receives an allowance of 3,225,000 francs (article 4). The Vatican, the seat of the Holy See, and the palaces where a conclave for the election of a new Pope or where an Oecumenical Council meets, are inviolable, and no Italian official is allowed to enter them without consent of the Holy See (articles 5-8). The Pope is absolutely free in performing all the functions connected with his mission as head of the Roman Catholic Church, and so are his officials (articles 9 and 10). The Pope has the right to send and to receive envoys, who enjoy all the privileges of the diplomatic envoys sent and received by Italy (article 11). The freedom of communication between the Pope and the entire Roman Catholic world is recognised, and the Pope has therefore the right to a post and telegraph office of his own in the Vatican or any other place of residence and to appoint his own post-office clerks (article 12). And, lastly, the colleges and other institutions of the Pope for the education of priests in Rome and the environments remain under his exclusive supervision, without any interference on the part of the Italian authorities.
[173] See Bonfils, No. 379.
No Pope has as yet recognised this Italian Law of Guaranty, nor had foreign States an opportunity of giving their express consent to the position of the Pope in Italy created by that law. But practically foreign States as well as the Popes themselves, although the latter have never ceased to protest against the condition of things created by the annexation of the Papal States, have made use of the provisions[174] of that law. Several foreign States send side by side with their diplomatic envoys accredited to Italy special envoys to the Pope, and the latter sends envoys to several foreign States.
[174] But the Popes have hitherto never accepted the allowance provided by the Law of Guaranty.
International position of the Holy See and the Pope.
§ 106. The Law of Guaranty is not International but Italian Municipal Law, and the members of the Family of Nations have hitherto not made any special arrangements with regard to the International position of the Holy See and the Pope. And, further, there can be no doubt that since the extinction of the Papal States the Pope is no longer a monarch whose sovereignty is derived from his position as the head of a State. For these reasons many writers[175] maintain that the Holy See and the Pope have no longer any international position whatever according to the Law of Nations, since States only and exclusively are International Persons. But if the facts of international life and the actual condition of things in every-day practice are taken into consideration, this opinion has no basis to stand upon. Although the Holy See is not a State, the envoys sent by her to foreign States are treated by the latter on the same footing with diplomatic envoys as regards exterritoriality, inviolability, and ceremonial privileges, and those foreign States which send envoys to the Holy See claim for them from Italy all the privileges and the position of diplomatic envoys. Further, although the Pope is no longer the head of a State, the privileges due to the head of a monarchical State are still granted to him by foreign States. Of course, through this treatment the Holy See does not acquire the character of an International Person, nor does the Pope thereby acquire the character of a head of a monarchical State. But for some points the Holy See is actually treated as though she were an International Person, and the Pope is treated actually in every point as though he were the head of a monarchical State. It must therefore be maintained that by custom, by tacit consent of the members of the Family of Nations, the Holy See has a quasi international position. This position allows her to claim against all the States treatment on some points as though she were an International Person, and further to claim treatment of the Pope in every point as though he were the head of a monarchical State. But it must be emphasised that, although the envoys sent and received by the Holy See must be treated as diplomatic envoys,[176] they are not such in fact, for they are not agents for international affairs of States, but exclusively agents for the affairs of the Roman Catholic Church. And it must further be emphasised that the Holy See cannot conclude international treaties or claim a vote at international congresses and conferences. The so-called Concordats—that is, treaties between the Holy See and States with regard to matters of the Roman Catholic Church—are not international treaties, although analogous treatment is usually given to them. Even formerly, when the Pope was the head of a State, such Concordats were not concluded with the Papal States, but with the Holy See and the Pope as representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.
[175] Westlake, I. p. 38, now joins the ranks of these writers.
[176] The case of Montagnini, which occurred in December 1906, cannot be quoted against this assertion, for Montagnini was not at the time a person enjoying diplomatic privileges. Diplomatic relations between France and the Holy See had come to an end in 1905 by France recalling her envoy at the Vatican and at the same time sending the passports to Lorenzelli, the Papal Nuncio in Paris. Montagnini, who remained at the nunciature in Paris, did not possess any diplomatic character after the departure of the Nuncio. Neither his arrest and his expulsion in December 1906, nor the seizure of his papers at the nunciature amounted therefore to an international delinquency on the part of the French Government. The papers left by the former Papal Nuncio Lorenzelli were not touched and remained in the archives of the former nunciature until the Austrian ambassador in Paris, in February 1907, asked the French Foreign Office to transfer them to him for the purpose of handing them on to the Holy See. It must be specially mentioned that the seizure of his papers and the arrest and expulsion of Montagnini took place because he conspired against the French Government by encouraging the clergy to refuse obedience to French laws. And it must further be mentioned that Lorenzelli, when he left the nunciature, did not, contrary to all precedent, place the archives of the nunciature under seals and confide them to the protection of another diplomatic envoy in Paris. Details of the case are to be found in R.I. 2nd Ser. IX. (1907), pp. 60-66, and R.G. XIV. (1907), pp. 175-186.
Violation of the Holy See and the Pope.
§ 107. Since the Holy See has no power whatever to protect herself and the person of the Pope against violations, the question as to the protection of the Holy See and the person of the Pope arises. I believe that, since the present international position of the Holy See rests on the tacit consent of the members of the Family of Nations, many a Roman Catholic Power would raise its voice in case Italy or any other State should violate the Holy See or the person of the Pope, and an intervention for the purpose of protecting either of them would have the character of an intervention by right. Italy herself would certainly make such a violation by a foreign Power her own affair, although she has no more than any other Power the legal duty to do so, and although she is not responsible to other Powers for violations of the Personality of the latter by the Holy See and the Pope.
XI INTERNATIONAL PERSONS OF THE PRESENT DAY
European States.
§ 108. All the seventy-four European States are, of course, members of the Family of Nations. They are the following:
Great Powers are:
Austria-Hungary.
Great Britain.
France.
Italy.
Germany.
Russia.
Smaller States are:
Bulgaria.
Denmark.
Greece.
Holland.
Montenegro.
Norway.
Portugal.
Roumania.
Servia.
Spain.
Sweden.
Turkey.
Very small, but nevertheless full-Sovereign, States are:
Monaco and Lichtenstein.
Neutralised States are:
Switzerland, Belgium, and Luxemburg.
Half-Sovereign States are:
Andorra (under the protectorate of France and Spain).
San Marino (under the protectorate of Italy).
Crete (under the suzerainty of Turkey).
(a) Member-States of Germany:
Kingdoms: Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Würtemberg.
Grand-Duchies: Baden, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg.
Dukedoms: Anhalt, Brunswick, Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Saxe-Meiningen, Saxe-Weimar.
Principalities: Reuss Elder Line, Reuss Younger Line, Lippe, Schaumburg-Lippe, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, Schwarzburg-Sondershausen Waldeck.
Free Towns are: Bremen, Lübeck, Hamburg.
(b) Member-States of Switzerland:
Zurich, Berne, Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden (ob und nid dem Wald), Glarus, Zug, Fribourg, Soleure, Basle (Stadt und Landschaft), Schaffhausen, Appenzell (beider Rhoden), St. Gall, Grisons, Aargau, Thurgau, Tessin, Vaud, Valais, Neuchâtel, Geneva.
American States.
§ 109. In America there are twenty-one States which are members of the Family of Nations, but it must be emphasised that the member-States of the five Federal States on the American continent, although they are part-Sovereign, have no footing within the Family of Nations, because the American Federal States, in contradistinction to Switzerland and Germany, absorb all possible international relations of their member-States.
In North America there are:
The United States of America.
In Central America there are:
Costa Rica.
Cuba.
San Domingo.
Guatemala.
Hayti.
Honduras.
Nicaragua.
Panama (since 1903).
San Salvador.
In South America there are:
The United States of Argentina.
Bolivia.
The United States of Brazil.
Chili.
Colombia.
Ecuador.
Paraguay.
Peru.
Uruguay.
The United States of Venezuela.
African States.
§ 110. In Africa the Negro Republic of Liberia is the only real and full member of the Family of Nations. Egypt and Tunis are half-Sovereign, the one under Turkish suzerainty, the other under French protectorate. Morocco and Abyssinia are both full-Sovereign States, but for some parts only within the Family of Nations. The Soudan has an exceptional position; being under the condominium of Great Britain and Egypt, a footing of its own within the Family of Nations the Soudan certainly has not.
Asiatic States.
§ 111. In Asia only Japan is a full and real member of the Family of Nations. Persia, China, Siam, Tibet, and Afghanistan are for some parts only within that family.