“Sovereignty [continues Klüber[69]] in this extended sense consists in the ensemble of rights belonging to a state, independent as regards its object. It comprises, first, the entire independence of the state in the face of foreign nations; second, legitimate power of the Government or of the authority which the purpose of the state demands.”
The same author says[70]:
“Sovereignty is acquired by a state either at its foundation or when it separates itself legitimately from the dependence under which it was. To be valid, it does not need to be recognised or guaranteed by any foreign power whatever, provided its possession is not faulty (vicieuse).”
It is useless to multiply extracts. The principles summarised by Klüber on the sovereignty, the independence, and the equality of states, from the legal point of view, are equally professed by all authors. We will limit ourselves to the following: Heffter, par. 15, 16, pp. 32-34; par. 23, pp. 42, 43; par. 26, 27, pp. 47-49. Wheaton, vol. i., pp. 32, 43. Vattel, lib. i., chap. i., sec. 4. W. E. Hall, International Law, par. 2, 4, pp. 16-20; par. 6-8, pp. 34-37; par. 9, 10, pp. 39-42. Calvo, Droit international, par. 39-41, pp. 143-147.
Tribes inhabiting determined territory, represented by their chiefs, form, therefore, independent states.
From this the first consequence is that the territories which they occupy are not things without masters (res nullius), and cannot be occupied by other states. It is only territories without master, that is to say, upon which no sovereign power is yet established, that can be the object of occupation.
As regards the right of occupation, see the following authors:
“Christian people cannot rightfully take possession of lands which savages already really occupy,” says George Frederick von Marten.[71]
Klüber[72] says: “A state can acquire things which belong to no one (res nullius) by occupation (original), and the goods of others by means of conventions (derivative occupation) ... In order that the occupation may be legitimate, the thing itself should be susceptible of exclusive property and belong to no one. (A) The state should have the intention of acquiring the property thereof.”
In the note (A) the author says: “Property thus is acquired rightfully by an occupation without flaw; it is preserved by continuous possession. In consequence no nation is authorised, no matter what its pretensions, especially if of a higher degree of culture, to seize upon the property of another nation. It cannot even take it from savages or nomads.”