The Project Gutenberg eBook of

International Law. A Treatise. Volume 1 (of 2)

, by L. Oppenheim
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at
https://www.gutenberg.org/license. If you are not located in the United
States, you’ll have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: International Law. A Treatise. Volume 1 (of 2)

Subtitle: Peace. Second Edition

Author: L. Oppenheim

Release Date: October 16, 2012 [EBook #41046]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at

http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously
made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ***

INTERNATIONAL LAW
A TREATISE
 VOL. I.

PEACE
SECOND EDITION

BY

L. OPPENHEIM, M.A., LL.D.

WHEWELL PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE UNIVERSITY

OF CAMBRIDGE MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
HONORARY MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF JURISPRUDENCE
AT MADRID

LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.

39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA
1912
All rights reserved

TO

EDWARD ARTHUR WHITTUCK

WHOSE SYMPATHY AND ENCOURAGEMENT
HAVE ACCOMPANIED THE PROGRESS OF THIS WORK
FROM ITS INCEPTION TO ITS CLOSE

Transcriber's Note: Original spelling variations have not been

standardized. Links have been provided to the second volume of
this work, see International Law. A Treatise. Vol. II--War And
Neutrality. Second Edition, by Lassa Oppenheim, M.A., LL.D.,
gutenberg ebooks 41047. Although we verify the correctness of
these links at the time of posting, these links may not work, for
various reasons, for various people, at various times.
 PREFACE
TO THE SECOND EDITION

The course of events since 1905, when this work first made its
appearance, and the results of further research have necessitated not only
the thorough revision of the former text and the rewriting of some of its
parts, but also the discussion of a number of new topics. But while the new
matter which has been incorporated has added considerably to the length of
the work—the additions to the bibliography, text, and notes amounting to
nearly a quarter of the former work—this second edition is not less
convenient in size than its predecessor. By rearranging the matter on the
page, using a line extra on each, and a greater number of words on a line, by
setting the bibliography and notes in smaller type, and by omitting the
Appendix, it has been found possible to print the text of this new edition on
626 pages, as compared with 594 pages of the first edition.
The system being elastic it was possible to place most of the additional
matter within the same sections and under the same headings as before.
Some of the points treated are, however, so entirely new that it was
necessary to deal with them under separate headings, and within separate
sections. The reader will easily distinguish them, since, to avoid disturbing
the arrangement of topics, these new sections have been inserted between
the old ones, and numbered as the sections preceding them, but with the
addition of the letters a, b, &c. The more important of these new sections
are the following: § 178a (concerning the Utilisation of the Flow of Rivers);
§§ 287a and 287b (concerning Wireless Telegraphy on the Open Sea); §§
287c and 287d (concerning Mines and Tunnels in the Subsoil of the Sea
bed); § 446a (concerning the Casa Blanca incident); §§ 476a and 476b
(concerning the International Prize Court and the suggested International
Court of Justice); §§ 568a and 568b (concerning the Conventions of the
Second Hague Peace Conference, and the Declaration of London); § 576a
(concerning Pseudo-Guarantees). Only towards the end of the volume has
this mode of dealing with the new topics been departed from. As the
chapter treating of Unions, the last of the volume, had to be entirely
rearranged and rewritten, and a new chapter on Commercial Treaties
inserted, the old arrangement comes to an end with § 577; and §§ 578 to
596 of this new edition present an arrangement of topics which differs from
that of the former edition.
I venture to hope that this edition will be received as favourably as was
its predecessor. My aim, as always, has been to put the matter as clearly as
possible before the reader, and nowhere have I forgotten that I am writing
as a teacher for students. It is a matter of great satisfaction to me that the
prophetic warnings of some otherwise very sympathetic reviewers that a
comprehensive treatise on International Law in two volumes would never
be read by young students have proved mistaken. The numerous letters
which I have received from students, not only in this country but also in
America, Japan, France, and Italy, show that I was not wrong when, in the
preface to the former edition, I described the work as an elementary book
for those beginning to study the subject. Many years of teaching have
confirmed me in the conviction that those who approach the study of
International Law should at the outset be brought face to face with its
complicated problems, and should at once acquire a thorough understanding
of the wide scope of the subject. If writers and lecturers who aim at this
goal will but make efforts to use the clearest language and an elementary
method of explanation, they will attain success in spite of the difficulty of
the problems and the wide range of topics to be considered.
I owe thanks to many reviewers and readers who have drawn my
attention to mistakes and misprints in the first edition, and I am especially
indebted to Mr. C. J. B. Hurst, C.B., Assistant Legal Adviser to the Foreign
Office, to Mr. E. S. Roscoe, Admiralty Registrar of the High Court, and to
Messrs. F. Ritchie and G. E. P. Hertslet of the Foreign Office who gave me
valuable information on certain points while I was preparing the manuscript
for this edition. And I must likewise most gratefully mention Miss B. M.
Rutter and Mr. C. F. Pond who have assisted me in reading the proofs and
have prepared the table of cases and the exhaustive alphabetical index.
L. OPPENHEIM.
WHEWELL HOUSE,
CAMBRIDGE,
November 1, 1911.
 ABBREVIATIONS
OF TITLES OF BOOKS, ETC., QUOTED IN THE TEXT

The books referred to in the bibliography and notes are, as a rule, quoted
with their full titles and the date of their publication. But certain books and
periodicals which are very often referred to throughout this work are quoted
in an abbreviated form, as follows:—
A.J. = The American Journal of International Law.
Annuaire = Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International.
Bluntschli = Bluntschli, Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staaten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt,
3rd ed. (1878).
Bonfils = Bonfils, Manuel De Droit International Public, 5th ed. by Fauchille (1908).
Bulmerincq = Bulmerincq, Das Völkerrecht (1887).
Calvo = Calvo, Le Droit International etc., 5th ed. 6 vols. (1896).
Despagnet = Despagnet, Cours De Droit International Public, 4th ed. by de Boeck (1910).
Field = Field, Outlines of an International Code (1872).
Fiore = Fiore, Nouveau Droit International Public, deuxième édition, traduite de l'Italien et annotée
par Antoine, 3 vols. (1885).
Fiore, Code = Fiore, Le Droit International Codifié, nouvelle édition, traduite de l'Italien par Antoine
(1911).
Gareis = Gareis, Institutionen des Völkerrechts, 2nd ed. (1910).
Grotius = Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625).
Hall = Hall, A Treatise on International Law, 4th ed. (1895).
Halleck = Halleck, International Law, 3rd English ed. by Sir Sherston Baker, 2 vols. (1893).
Hartmann = Hartmann, Institutionen des praktischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten (1874).
Heffter = Heffter, Das Europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart, 8th ed. by Geffcken (1888).
Heilborn, System = Heilborn, Das System des Völkerrechts entwickelt aus den völkerrechtlichen
Begriffen (1896).
Holland, Studies = Holland, Studies in International Law (1898).
Holland, Jurisprudence = Holland, The Elements of Jurisprudence, 6th ed. (1893).
Holtzendorff = Holtzendorff, Handbuch des Völkerrechts, 4 vols. (1885-1889).
Klüber = Klüber, Europäisches Völkerrecht, 2nd ed. by Morstadt (1851).
Lawrence = Lawrence, The Principles of International Law, 4th ed. (1910).
Lawrence, Essays = Lawrence, Essays on some Disputed Questions of Modern International Law
(1884).
Liszt = Liszt, Das Völkerrecht, 6th ed. (1910).
Lorimer = Lorimer, The Institutes of International Law, 2 vols. (1883-1884).
Maine = Maine, International Law, 2nd ed. (1894).
Manning = Manning, Commentaries on the Law of Nations, new ed. by Sheldon Amos (1875).
Martens = Martens, Völkerrecht, German translation of the Russian original in 2 vols. (1883).
Martens, G. F. = G. F. Martens, Précis Du Droit Des Gens Moderne De L'Europe, nouvelle éd. par
Vergé, 2 vols. (1858)
Martens, R. }
Martens, N.R. }
Martens, N.S. }
Martens, N.R.G. }
Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. }
Martens. N.R.G. 3rd Ser. } These are the abbreviated quotations of the different parts of Martens,
Recueil de Traités (see p. 102 of this volume), which are in common use.
Martens, Causes Célèbres = Martens, Causes Célèbres Du Droit Des Gens, 5 vols., 2nd ed. (1858-
1861).
Mérignhac = Mérignhac, Traité De Droit Public International, vol. i. (1905), vol. ii. (1907).
Moore = Moore, A Digest of International Law, 8 vols., Washington (1906).
Nys = Nys, Le Droit International, 3 vols. (1904-1906).
Perels = Perels, Das internationale öffentliche Seerecht der Gegenwart, 2nd ed. (1903).
Phillimore = Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law, 4 vols. 3rd ed. (1879-1888).
Piedelièvre = Piedelièvre, Précis De Droit International Public, 2 vols. (1894-1895).
Pradier-Fodéré = Pradier-Fodéré, Traité De Droit International Public, 8 vols. (1885-1906).
Pufendorf = Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae et Gentium (1672).
Rivier = Rivier, Principes Du Droit Des Gens, 2 vols. (1896).
R.I. = Revue De Droit International Et De Législation Comparée.
R.G. = Revue Général De Droit International Public.
Taylor = Taylor, A Treatise on International Public Law (1901).
Testa = Testa, Le Droit Public International Maritime, traduction du Portugais par Boutiron (1886).
Twiss = Twiss, The Law of Nations, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (1884, 1875).
Ullmann = Ullmann, Völkerrecht, 2nd ed. (1908).
Vattel = Vattel, Le Droit Des Gens, 4 books in 2 vols., nouvelle éd. (Neuchâtel, 1773).
Walker = Walker, A Manual of Public International Law (1895).
Walker, History = Walker, A History of the Law of Nations, vol. i. (1899).
Walker, Science = Walker, The Science of International Law (1893).
Westlake = Westlake, International Law, 2 vols. (1904-1907).
Westlake, Chapters = Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law (1894).
Wharton = Wharton, A Digest of the International Law of the United States, 3 vols. (1886).
Wheaton = Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 8th American ed. by Dana (1866).
Z.V. = Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht und Bundesstaatsrecht.
 CASES CITED
Aegi, § 437, p. 496
Ambrose Light, the, § 273 note 2; § 276, p. 345 note 1
Amelia Island, § 132, p. 186
Anderson, John, § 147, p. 205 note 1
Anna, the, § 234, p. 301
Aubespine, L', § 387, p. 459

Bartram v. Robertson, § 580, p. 611 note 1

Bass, de, § 387, p. 459
Beckert, Wilhelm, § 402, p. 474
Belgenland, the, § 265, p. 335 note 3
Belle-Isle, Maréchal de, § 398, p. 471
Boisset, M., § 163, p. 220
Botiller v. Dominguez, § 546, p. 578 note 2
Brooke, Sir James, § 209, p. 282 note 2
Brunswick, Duke of, v. King of Hanover, § 353, p. 433

Canning, George, and the Russian Ambassador, § 481, p. 532

Canning, Sir Stratford, § 375, p. 451
Caroline, the, § 133, p. 187; § 444, p. 501; § 446, p. 501
Casa Blanca, § 446a, p. 502; § 476, p. 521
Castioni, Ex parte, § 334, p. 415 note 4
Cellamare, Prince, § 388, p. 459
Cespedes, the, § 273, p. 343, note 1
Charkieh, the, § 91, p. 144 note 1; § 450, p. 507 note 1
Charlton, Porter, § 330, p. 408
Chartered Mercantile Bank of India v. Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co., § 265, p. 335 note 2
Cherokee Tobacco, the, § 546, p. 578 note 2
Constitution, the, § 450, p. 507 note 1
Cook v. Sprigg, § 82, p. 129 note 4
Costa Rica Packet, the, § 162, p. 217
Cutting, § 147, p. 205

Danish Fleet, the, § 131, p. 186

De Jager v. The Attorney-General for Natal, § 317, p. 394
De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, § 115, p. 169 note 2
Delagoa Bay, § 247, p. 313
Dogger Bank, § 163, p. 219 note 2
Dubois, § 392, p. 465

Exchange, the, § 450, p. 507 note 1

Fonds pieux des Californias, § 476, p. 521

Franconia, the, § 25, p. 29

Gallatin, § 403, p. 474 note 1

Germany, Great Britain, and Italy v. Venezuela, § 476, p. 521
Germany, France, and Great Britain v. Japan, § 476, p. 521
Gore and Pinkney, § 458, p. 513
Guébriant, Madame de, § 370, p. 447
Gurney, § 402, p. 473 note 2
Gyllenburg, § 388, p. 459

Haggerty, § 427, p. 489

Hall v. Campbell, § 240, p. 306 note 1
Hellfeld v. Russian Government, § 115, p. 169 note 4
Huascar, the, § 273, p. 342
Huus v. New York and Porto Rico Steamship Co., § 579, p. 609 note 1

Indian Chief, the, § 434, p. 494 note 1

Ionian Ships, § 93, p. 146 note 1
Isabella, Queen of Spain, § 351, p. 432

Jacquin, § 335, p. 416

Jager. See De Jager
Jassy, the, § 450, p. 507 note 1
Johann Friederich, the, § 265, p. 335 note 2; § 271, p. 339 note 1

Kalkstein, § 390, p. 464

Keiley, § 375, p. 450
Koszta, Martin, § 313, p. 388 note 1

Lebanon, the. See Vaderland

L'Aubespine. See Aubespine

McLeod, § 133, p. 187 note 2; § 446, p. 501

Macartney v. Garbutt, § 375, p. 450 note 2; § 394, p. 467 note 1
Magdalena Steam Navigation Co. v. Martin, § 391, p. 465 note 2
Maori King, the, § 261, p. 331 note 1
Mendoza, § 387, p. 459
Meunier, In re, § 334, p. 415 note 4; § 338, p. 418 note 3
Monaldeschi, § 348, p. 431 note 1
Montagnini, § 106, p. 160 note 1; § 386, p. 458 note 1; § 411, p. 478 note 2
Montezuma, the, § 273, p. 343 note 1
Monti, Marquis de, § 400, p. 472
Moray Firth, § 191, p. 263 note 3. See also Mortensen v. Peters
Mortensen v. Peters, § 22, p. 28 note 1; § 192, p. 264 note 2
Muscat Dhows, the, § 295, p. 372 note 2; § 476, p. 521
Musgrove v. Chun Teeong Toy, § 141, p. 200 note 1

Nereide, the, § 21, p. 26 note 2

Nikitschenkow, § 390, p. 463
Nillins, § 330, p. 407
North Atlantic Coast Fisheries, § 191, p. 262 note 1; § 205, p. 276 note 2; § 458, p. 513 note 1; §
476, p. 522
Norway v. Sweden, § 476, p. 522

Orinoco Steamship Co., § 476, p. 522

Paladini, § 330, p. 408

Panther, the, § 163, p. 219
Paquette Habana, the, § 21, p. 26 note 2
Parkinson v. Potter, § 394, p. 467 note 1
Parlement Belge, the, § 450, p. 507 note
Platen-Hallermund, § 240, p. 306
Porteña, the, § 273, p. 343 note 1
Pouble, Cirilo, § 147, p. 205 note 1
Prioleau v. United States, § 82, p. 129 note 1; § 115, p. 169 note 3

Reg. v. Cunningham, § 194, p. 266 note 2

Republic of Bolivia v. The Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co., § 272, p. 341 note 1
Republic of Mexico v. Francisco de Arrangoiz, § 115, p. 169 note 1
Ripperda, Duke of, § 390, p. 461
Ross, Bishop, § 362, p. 443 note 1

Sà, Don Pantaleon, § 404, p. 475

Sackville, Lord, § 383, p. 455 note 1
Santa Lucia, § 247, p. 313
Sapphire, the, § 115, p. 169 note 1
Savarkar, § 332, p. 410; § 476, p. 522
Schnaebélé, § 456, p. 511
Scotia, the, § 21, p. 26 note 2
Shenandoah, the, § 273, p. 343
Soulé, § 398, p. 470
Springer, § 390, p. 461
Strathclyde, the. See Franconia, the
Sully, § 396, p. 468
Sun Yat Sen, § 390, p. 464

Taylor v. Best, § 391, p. 465 note 2

Tourville, § 330, p. 407

United States v. Repentigny, § 240, p. 306 note 1

United States v. Prioleau, § 82, p. 129 note 1; § 115, p. 169 note 3
United States v. Smith, § 21, p. 26 note 2
United States v. Venezuela, § 476, p. 522
United States v. Wagner, § 115, p. 169 note 1

Vaderland, the, § 287b, p. 357

Vavasseur v. Krupp, § 115, p. 169 note 2
Vexaincourt, § 163, p. 219
Virginius, the, § 133, p. 187 note 2

Waddington, Carlo, § 404, p. 475

Washburne, § 399, p. 471
West Rand Central Mining Co. v. The King, § 21, p. 26 note 2; § 82, p. 129 note 4
William, King of Holland, § 350, p. 432
Whitney v. Robertson, § 546, p. 578 note 2; § 580, p. 611 note 1
Wrech, Baron de, § 391, p. 465
 CONTENTS
OF
THE FIRST VOLUME

INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I
FOUNDATION OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

I. The Law of Nations as Law

SECT. PAGE
1. Conception of the Law of Nations 3
2. Legal Force of the Law of Nations contested 4
3. Characteristics of Rules of Law 6
4. Law-giving authority not essential for the existence of Law 6
5. Definition and Three Essential Conditions of Law 8
6. Law not to be identified with Municipal Law 9
7. The "Family of Nations" a Community 9
8. The "Family of Nations" a Community with Rules of Conduct 11
9. External Power for the enforcement of Rules of International Conduct 13
10. Practice recognises Law of Nations as Law 14

II. Basis of the Law of Nations

11. Common Consent the Basis of Law 15
12. Common Consent of the Family of Nations the Basis of International Law 16
13. States the Subjects of the Law of Nations 19
14. Equality an Inference from the Basis of International Law 20

III. Sources of the Law of Nations

15. Source in Contradistinction to Cause 20
16. The Two Sources of International Law 21
17. Custom in Contradistinction to Usage 22
18. Treaties as Source of International Law 23
19. Factors influencing the Growth of International Law 24

IV. Relations between International and Municipal Law

20. Essential Difference between International and Municipal Law 25
21. Law of Nations never per se Municipal Law 26
22. Certain Rules of Municipal Law necessitated or interdicted 27
23. Presumption against conflicts between International and Municipal Law 28
24. Presumption of Existence of certain necessary Municipal Rules 28
25. Presumption of the Existence of certain Municipal Rules in Conformity with Rights granted by
the Law of Nations 28

V. Dominion of the Law of Nations

26. Range of Dominion of International Law controversial 30
27. Three Conditions of Membership of the Family of Nations 31
28. Present Range of Dominion of the Law of Nations 32
29. Treatment of States outside the Family of Nations 34

VI. Codification of the Law of Nations

30. Movement in Favour of Codification 35
31. Work of the First Hague Peace Conference 37
32. Work of the Second Hague Peace Conference and the Naval Conference of London 38
33. Value of Codification of International Law contested 40
34. Merits of Codification in general 40
35. Merits of Codification of International Law 42
36. How Codification could be realised 44

CHAPTER II
DEVELOPMENT AND SCIENCE OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

I. Development of the Law of Nations before Grotius

37. No Law of Nations in Antiquity 45
38. The Jews 46
39. The Greeks 49
40. The Romans 50
41. No need for a Law of Nations during the Middle Ages 53
42. The Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries 54

II. Development of the Law of Nations after Grotius

43. The time of Grotius 59
44. The period 1648-1721 61
45. The period 1721-1789 64
46. The period 1789-1815 64
47. The period 1815-1856 66
48. The period 1856-1874 69
49. The period 1874-1899 71
50. The Twentieth Century 74
51. Six Lessons of the History of the Law of Nations 80

III. The Science of the Law of Nations

52. Forerunners of Grotius 83
53. Grotius 85
54. Zouche 88
55. The Naturalists 89
56. The Positivists 90
57. The Grotians 92
58. Treatises of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries 94
59. The Science of the Law of Nations in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, as represented by
Treatises 98
60. Collection of Treatises 102
61. Bibliographies 103
62. Periodicals 103

PART I
THE SUBJECTS OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

CHAPTER I
INTERNATIONAL PERSONS

I. Sovereign States as International Persons

63. Real and apparent International Persons 107
64. Conception of the State 108
65. Not-full Sovereign States 109
66. Divisibility of Sovereignty contested 110
67. Meaning of Sovereignty in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries 111
68. Meaning of Sovereignty in the Eighteenth Century 112
69. Meaning of Sovereignty in the Nineteenth Century 113
70. Result of the Controversy regarding Sovereignty 115

II. Recognition of States as International Persons

71. Recognition a condition of Membership of the Family of Nations 116
72. Mode of Recognition 117
73. Recognition under Conditions 118
74. Recognition Timely and Precipitate 119
75. State Recognition in contradistinction to other Recognitions 120
III. Changes in the Condition of International Persons
76. Important in contradistinction to Indifferent Changes 121
77. Changes not affecting States as International Persons 122
78. Changes affecting States as International Persons 123
79. Extinction of International Persons 124

IV. Succession of International Persons

80. Common Doctrine regarding Succession of International Persons 125
81. How far Succession actually takes place 127
82. Succession in consequence of Absorption 127
83. Succession in consequence of Dismemberment 130
84. Succession in case of Separation or Cession 131

V. Composite International Persons

85. Real and apparent Composite International Persons 132
86. States in Personal Union 133
87. States in Real Union 134
88. Confederated States (Staatenbund) 135
89. Federal States (Bundesstaaten) 136

VI. Vassal States

90. The Union between Suzerain and Vassal State 140
91. International position of Vassal States 141

VII. States under Protectorate

92. Conception of Protectorate 144
93. International position of States under Protectorate 145
94. Protectorates outside the Family of Nations 146

VIII. Neutralised States

95. Conception of Neutralised States 147
96. Act and Condition of Neutralisation 148
97. International position of Neutralised States 149
98. Switzerland 151
99. Belgium 152
100. Luxemburg 152
101. The former Congo Free State 153

IX. Non-Christian States

102. No essential difference between Christian and other States 154
103. International position of non-Christian States except Turkey and Japan 155

X. The Holy See

104. The former Papal States 157
105. The Italian Law of Guaranty 158
106. International position of the Holy See and the Pope 159
107. Violation of the Holy See and the Pope 161

XI. International Persons of the Present Day

108. European States 162
109. American States 163
110. African States 164
111. Asiatic States 164

CHAPTER II
POSITION OF THE STATES WITHIN THE FAMILY OF NATIONS

I. International Personality
112. The so-called Fundamental Rights 165
113. International Personality a Body of Qualities 166
114. Other Characteristics of the position of the States within the Family of Nations 167

II. Equality, Rank, and Titles

115. Legal Equality of States 168
116. Political Hegemony of Great Powers 170
117. Rank of States 171
118. The Alternat 173
119. Titles of States 173

III. Dignity
120. Dignity a Quality 174
121. Consequences of the Dignity of States 175
122. Maritime Ceremonials 176

IV. Independence and Territorial and Personal Supremacy

123. Independence and Territorial as well as Personal Supremacy as Aspects of Sovereignty 177
124. Consequences of Independence and Territorial and Personal Supremacy 178
125. Violations of Independence and Territorial and Personal Supremacy 179
126. Restrictions upon Independence 180
127. Restrictions upon Territorial Supremacy 182
128. Restrictions upon Personal Supremacy 183

V. Self-preservation
129. Self-preservation an excuse for violations 184
130. What acts of self-preservation are excused 185
131. Case of the Danish Fleet (1807) 186
132. Case of Amelia Island 186
133. Case of the Caroline 187

VI. Intervention
134. Conception and Character of Intervention 188
135. Intervention by Right 189
136. Admissibility of Intervention in default of Right 193
137. Intervention in the interest of Humanity 194
138. Intervention de facto a Matter of Policy 195
139. The Monroe Doctrine 196
140. Merits of the Monroe Doctrine 198

VII. Intercourse
141. Intercourse a presupposition of International Personality 199
142. Consequences of Intercourse as a presupposition of International Personality 200

VIII. Jurisdiction
143. Jurisdiction important for the position of the States within the Family of Nations 201
144. Restrictions upon Territorial Jurisdiction. 202
145. Jurisdiction over Citizens abroad 202
146. Jurisdiction on the Open Sea 203
147. Criminal Jurisdiction over Foreigners in Foreign States 203

CHAPTER III
RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES

I. On State Responsibility in General

148. Nature of State Responsibility 206
149. Original and Vicarious State Responsibility 207
150. Essential Difference between Original and Vicarious Responsibility 208

II. State Responsibility for International Delinquencies

151. Conception of International Delinquencies 209
152. Subjects of International Delinquencies 210
153. State Organs able to commit International Delinquencies 211
154. No International Delinquency without Malice or culpable Negligence 212
155. Objects of International Delinquencies 212
156. Legal consequences of International Delinquencies 213

III. State Responsibility for Acts of State Organs

157. Responsibility varies with Organs concerned 214
158. Internationally injurious Acts of Heads of States 214
159. Internationally injurious Acts of Members of Governments 215
160. Internationally injurious Acts of Diplomatic Envoys 215
161. Internationally injurious Attitudes of Parliaments 216
162. Internationally injurious Acts of Judicial Functionaries 216
163. Internationally injurious Acts of administrative Officials and Military and Naval Forces 218

IV. State Responsibility for Acts of Private Persons

164. Vicarious in contradistinction to Original State Responsibility for Acts of Private Persons 221
165. Vicarious responsibility for Acts of Private Persons relative only 222
166. Municipal Law for Offences against Foreign States 222
167. Responsibility for Acts of Insurgents and Rioters 222

PART II
THE OBJECTS OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

CHAPTER I
STATE TERRITORY

I. On State Territory in General

168. Conception of State Territory 229
169. Different kinds of Territory 230
170. Importance of State Territory 231
171. One Territory, one State 231

II. The different Parts of State Territory

172. Real and Fictional Parts of Territory 235
173. Territorial Subsoil 235
174. Territorial Atmosphere 236
175. Inalienability of Parts of Territory 238

III. Rivers
176. Rivers State Property of Riparian States 239
177. Navigation on National, Boundary, and not-National Rivers 240
178. Navigation on International Rivers 241
178a. Utilisation of the Flow of Rivers 243

IV. Lakes and Land-locked Seas

179. Lakes and Land-locked Seas State Property of Riparian States 245
180. So-called International Lakes and Land-locked Seas 246
181. The Black Sea 247

V. Canals
182. Canals State Property of Riparian States 248
183. The Suez Canal 249
184. The Panama Canal 251

VI. Maritime Belt

185. State Property of Maritime Belt contested 255
186. Breadth of Maritime Belt 256
187. Fisheries, Cabotage, Police, and Maritime Ceremonials within the Belt 257
188. Navigation within the Belt 258
189. Jurisdiction within the Belt 260
190. Zone for Revenue and Sanitary Laws 261

VII. Gulfs and Bays

191. Territorial Gulfs and Bays 262
192. Non-territorial Gulfs and Bays 263
193. Navigation and Fishery in Territorial Gulfs and Bays 265

VIII. Straits
194. What Straits are Territorial 265
195. Navigation, Fishery, and Jurisdiction in Straits 266
196. The former Sound Dues 267
197. The Bosphorus and Dardanelles 268

IX. Boundaries of State Territory

198. Natural and Artificial Boundaries 270
199. Boundary Waters 270
200. Boundary Mountains 272
201. Boundary Disputes 272
202. Natural Boundaries sensu politico 273
X. State Servitudes
203. Conception of State Servitudes 273
204. Subjects of State Servitudes 276
205. Object of State Servitudes 276
206. Different kinds of State Servitudes 278
207. Validity of State Servitudes 279
208. Extinction of State Servitudes 280

XI. Modes of acquiring State Territory

209. Who can acquire State Territory? 281
210. Former Doctrine concerning Acquisition of Territory 282
211. What Modes of Acquisition of Territory there are 283
212. Original and derivative Modes of Acquisition 284

XII. Cession
213. Conception of Cession of State Territory 285
214. Subjects of Cession 285
215. Object of Cession 286
216. Form of Cession 286
217. Tradition of the ceded Territory 288
218. Veto of third Powers 289
219. Plebiscite and Option 289

XIII. Occupation
220. Conception of Occupation 291
221. Object of Occupation 292
222. Occupation how effected 292
223. Inchoate Title of Discovery 294
224. Notification of Occupation to other Powers 294
225. Extent of Occupation 295
226. Protectorate as Precursor of Occupation 296
227. Spheres of influence 297
228. Consequences of Occupation 298

XIV. Accretion
229. Conception of Accretion 299
230. Different kinds of Accretion 299
231. Artificial formations 299
232. Alluvions 300
233. Deltas 300
234. New-born Islands 301
235. Abandoned River-beds 302

XV. Subjugation
236. Conception of Conquest and of Subjugation 302
237. Subjugation in Contradistinction to Occupation 303
238. Justification of Subjugation as a Mode of Acquisition 304
239. Subjugation of the whole or of a part of Enemy Territory 304
240. Consequences of Subjugation 305
241. Veto of third Powers 307

XVI. Prescription
242. Conception of Prescription 308
243. Prescription how effected 309

XVII. Loss of State Territory

244. Six modes of losing State Territory 311
245. Operation of Nature 312
246. Revolt 312
247. Dereliction 313

CHAPTER II
THE OPEN SEA

I. Rise of the Freedom of the Open Sea

248. Former Claims to Control over the Sea 315
249. Practical Expression of claims to Maritime Sovereignty 317
250. Grotius's Attack on Maritime Sovereignty 318
251. Gradual recognition of the Freedom of the Open Sea 319

II. Conception of the Open Sea

252. Discrimination between Open Sea and Territorial Waters 321
253. Clear Instances of Parts of the Open Sea 322

III. The Freedom of the Open Sea

254. Meaning of the Term "Freedom of the Open Sea" 323
255. Legal Provisions for the Open Sea 324
256. Freedom of the Open Sea and War 325
257. Navigation and ceremonials on the Open Sea 326
258. Claim of States to Maritime Flag 326
259. Rationale for the Freedom of the Open Sea 327

IV. Jurisdiction on the Open Sea

260. Jurisdiction on the Open Sea mainly connected with Flag 329
261. Claim of Vessels to sail under a certain Flag 329
262. Ship Papers 331
263. Names of Vessels 332
264. Territorial Quality of Vessels on the Open Sea 332
265. Safety of Traffic on the Open Sea 333
266. Powers of Men-of-war over Merchantmen of all Nations 335
267. How Verification of Flag is effected 337
268. How Visit is effected 337
269. How Search is effected 338
270. How Arrest is effected 338
271. Shipwreck and Distress on the Open Sea 339

V. Piracy
272. Conception of Piracy 340
273. Private Ships as Subjects of Piracy 341
274. Mutinous Crew and Passengers as Subjects of Piracy 343
275. Object of Piracy 344
276. Piracy, how effected 344
277. Where Piracy can be committed 345
278. Jurisdiction over Pirates and their Punishment 345
279. Pirata non mutat dominium 346
280. Piracy according to Municipal Law 347

VI. Fisheries in the Open Sea

281. Fisheries in the Open Sea free to all Nations 348
282. Fisheries in the North Sea 349
283. Bumboats in the North Sea 351
284. Seal Fisheries in Behring Sea 351
285. Fisheries around the Faröe Islands and Iceland 353

VII. Telegraph Cables in the Open Sea

286. Telegraph Cables in the Open Sea admitted 353
287. International Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables 354

VIII. Wireless Telegraphy on the Open Sea

287a. Radiotelegraphy between Ships and the Shore 355
287b. Radiotelegraphy between Ships at Sea 356

IX. The Subsoil beneath the Sea Bed

287c. Five Rules concerning the Subsoil beneath the Sea Bed 357
287d. The Proposed Channel Tunnel 359

CHAPTER III
INDIVIDUALS

I. Position of Individuals in International Law

288. Importance of Individuals to the Law of Nations 362
289. Individuals never Subjects of the Law of Nations 362
290. Individuals Objects of the Law of Nations 365
291. Nationality the Link between Individuals and the Law of Nations 366
292. The Law of Nations and the Rights of Mankind 367

II. Nationality
293. Conception of Nationality 369
294. Function of Nationality 370
295. So-called Protégés and de facto Subjects 371
296. Nationality and Emigration 373

III. Modes of Acquiring and Losing Nationality

297. Five Modes of Acquisition of Nationality 374
298. Acquisition of Nationality by Birth 375
299. Acquisition of Nationality through Naturalisation 375
300. Acquisition of Nationality through Redintegration 376
301. Acquisition of Nationality through Subjugation and Cession 377
302. Seven Modes of losing Nationality 377

IV. Naturalisation in Especial

303. Conception and Importance of Naturalisation 379
304. Object of Naturalisation 380
305. Conditions of Naturalisation 380
306. Effect of Naturalisation upon previous Citizenship 381
307. Naturalisation in Great Britain 382

V. Double and Absent Nationality

308. Possibility of Double and Absent Nationality 383
309. How Double Nationality occurs 384
310. Position of Individuals with Double Nationality 385
311. How Absent Nationality occurs 387
312. Position of Individuals destitute of Nationality 387
313. Redress against Difficulties arising from Double and Absent Nationality 388

VI. Reception of Aliens and Right of Asylum

314. No Obligation to admit Aliens 390
315. Reception of Aliens under conditions 392
316. So-called Right of Asylum 392

VII. Position of Aliens after Reception

317. Aliens subjected to Territorial Supremacy 393
318. Aliens in Eastern Countries 395
319. Aliens under the Protection of their Home State 395
320. Protection to be afforded to Aliens' Persons and Property 397
321. How far Aliens can be treated according to Discretion 397
322. Departure from the Foreign Country 398

VIII. Expulsion of Aliens

323. Competence to expel Aliens 399
324. Just Causes of Expulsion of Aliens 400
325. Expulsion how effected 402
326. Reconduction in Contradistinction to Expulsion 402

IX. Extradition
327. Extradition no legal duty 403
328. Extradition Treaties how arisen 404
329. Municipal Extradition Laws 405
330. Object of Extradition 407
331. Extraditable Crimes 408
332. Effectuation and Condition of Extradition 409

X. Principle of Non-Extradition of Political Criminals

333. How Non-extradition of Political Criminals became the Rule 411
334. Difficulty concerning the Conception of Political Crime 414
335. The so-called Belgian Attentat Clause 416
336. The Russian Project of 1881 416
337. The Swiss Solution of the Problem in 1892 417
338. Rationale for the Principle of Non-extradition of Political Criminals 418
339. How to avoid Misapplication of the Principle of Non-extradition of Political Criminals 420
340. Reactionary Extradition Treaties 422

PART III
ORGANS OF THE STATES FOR THEIR INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS

CHAPTER I
HEADS OF STATES AND FOREIGN OFFICES

I. Position of Heads of States according to International Law

341. Necessity of a Head for every State 425
342. Recognition of Heads of States 425
343. Competence of Heads of States 426
344. Heads of States Objects of the Law of Nations 427
345. Honours and Privileges of Heads of States 428

II. Monarchs
346. Sovereignty of Monarchs 428
347. Consideration due to Monarchs at home 429
348. Consideration due to Monarchs abroad 429
349. The Retinue of Monarchs abroad 431
350. Monarchs travelling incognito 431
351. Deposed and Abdicated Monarchs 432
352. Regents 432
353. Monarchs in the service or subjects of Foreign Powers 432

III. Presidents of Republics

354. Presidents not Sovereigns 433
355. Position of Presidents in general 434
356. Position of Presidents abroad 434

IV. Foreign Offices

357. Position of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs 435

CHAPTER II
DIPLOMATIC ENVOYS

I. The Institution of Legation

358. Development of Legations 437
359. Diplomacy 438
II. Right of Legation
360. Conception of Right of Legation 440
361. What States possess the Right of Legation 441
362. Right of Legation by whom exercised 442

III. Kinds and Classes of Diplomatic Envoys

363. Envoys Ceremonial and Political 443
364. Classes of Diplomatic Envoys 443
365. Ambassadors 444
366. Ministers Plenipotentiary and Envoys Extraordinary 445
367. Ministers Resident 445
368. Chargés d'Affaires 445
369. The Diplomatic Corps 446

IV. Appointment of Diplomatic Envoys

370. Person and Qualification of the Envoy 446
371. Letter of Credence, Full Powers, Passports 447
372. Combined Legations 448
373. Appointment of several Envoys 448

V. Reception of Diplomatic Envoys [Pg xxviii]

374. Duty to receive Diplomatic Envoys 449
375. Refusal to receive a certain Individual 450
376. Mode and Solemnity of Reception 451
377. Reception of Envoys to Congresses and Conferences 452

VI. Functions of Diplomatic Envoys

378. On Diplomatic Functions in general 453
379. Negotiation 453
380. Observation 454
381. Protection 454
382. Miscellaneous Functions 454
383. Envoys not to interfere in Internal Politics 455

VII. Position of Diplomatic Envoys

384. Diplomatic Envoys objects of International Law 455
385. Privileges due to Diplomatic Envoys 456

VIII. Inviolability of Diplomatic Envoys

386. Protection due to Diplomatic Envoys 457
387. Exemption from Criminal Jurisdiction 458
388. Limitation of Inviolability 459

IX. Exterritoriality of Diplomatic Envoys

389. Reason and Fictional Character of Exterritoriality 460
390. Immunity of Domicile 461
391. Exemption from Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction 464
392. Exemption from Subpœna as witness 465
393. Exemption from Police 466
394. Exemption from Taxes and the like 467
395. Right of Chapel 467
396. Self-jurisdiction 468

X. Position of Diplomatic Envoys as regards Third States

397. Possible Cases 469
398. Envoy travelling through Territory of third State 469
399. Envoy found by Belligerent on occupied Enemy Territory 471
400. Envoy interfering with affairs of a third State 472

XI. The Retinue of Diplomatic Envoys

401. Different Classes of Members of Retinue 472
402. Privileges of Members of Legation 473
403. Privileges of Private Servants 474
404. Privileges of Family of Envoy 474
405. Privileges of Couriers of Envoy 475

XII. Termination of Diplomatic Mission

406. Termination in contradistinction to Suspension 476
407. Accomplishment of Object of Mission 476
408. Expiration of Letter of Credence 477
409. Recall 477
410. Promotion to a higher Class 478
411. Delivery of Passports 478
412. Request for Passports 478
413. Outbreak of War 479
414. Constitutional Changes 479
415. Revolutionary Changes of Government 479
416. Extinction of sending or receiving State 480
417. Death of Envoy 480
 CHAPTER III
CONSULS

I. The Institution of Consuls

418. Development of the Institution of Consuls 482
419. General Character of Consuls 484

II. Consular Organisation

420. Different kinds of Consuls 485
421. Consular Districts 485
422. Different classes of Consuls 486
423. Consuls subordinate to Diplomatic Envoys 487

III. Appointment of Consuls

424. Qualification of Candidates 487
425. No State obliged to admit Consuls 488
426. What kind of States can appoint Consuls 488
427. Mode of Appointment and of Admittance 489
428. Appointment of Consuls includes Recognition 489

IV. Functions of Consuls

429. On Consular Functions in general 490
430. Fosterage of Commerce and Industry 491
431. Supervision of Navigation 491
432. Protection 492
433. Notarial Functions 492

V. Position and Privileges of Consuls

434. Position 493
435. Consular Privileges 494

VI. Termination of Consular Office

436. Undoubted Causes of Termination 496
437. Doubtful Causes of Termination 496
438. Change in the Headship of States no cause of Termination 496

VII. Consuls in non-Christian States

439. Position of Consuls in non-Christian States 497
440. Consular Jurisdiction in non-Christian States 498
441. International Courts in Egypt 498
442. Exceptional Character of Consuls in non-Christian States 499

CHAPTER IV
MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES

I. Armed Forces on Foreign Territory

443. Armed Forces State Organs 500
444. Occasions for Armed Forces abroad 500
445. Position of Armed Forces abroad 501
446. Case of McLeod 501
446a. The Casa Blanca incident 502

II. Men-of-war in Foreign Waters

447. Men-of-war State Organs 504
448. Proof of Character as Men-of-war 505
449. Occasions for Men-of-war abroad 505
450. Position of Men-of-war in foreign waters 506
451. Position of Crew when on Land abroad 508

III. Agents without Diplomatic or Consular Character

452. Agents lacking diplomatic or consular character 509
453. Public Political Agents 509
454. Secret Political Agents 510
455. Spies 510
456. Commissaries 511
457. Bearers of Despatches 511

IV. International Commissions

458. Permanent in Contradistinction to Temporary Commissions 512
459. Commissions in the interest of Navigation 513
460. Commissions in the interest of Sanitation 515
461. Commissions in the interest of Foreign Creditors 515
462. Permanent Commission concerning Sugar 515

V. International Offices
463. Character of International Offices 515
464. International Telegraph Offices 516
465. International Post Office 516
466. International Office of Weights and Measures 516
467. International Office for the Protection of Works of Literature and Art and of Industrial
Property 516
467a. The Pan-American Union 517
468. Maritime Office at Zanzibar and Bureau Spécial at Brussels 517
469. International Office of Customs Tariffs 517
470. Central Office of International Transports 517
471. Permanent Office of the Sugar Convention 517
471a. Agricultural Institute 518
471b. International Health Office 518

VI. The International Court of Arbitration

472. Organisation of Court in General 518
473. The Permanent Council 518
474. The International Bureau 519
475. The Court of Arbitration 519
476. The Deciding Tribunal 520

VII. The International Prize Court and the proposed International Court
of Justice
476a. The International Prize Court 522
476b. The proposed International Court of Justice 524

PART IV
INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS

CHAPTER I
ON INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN GENERAL

I. Negotiation
477. Conception of Negotiation 529
478. Parties to Negotiation 529
479. Purpose of Negotiation 530
480. Negotiations by whom conducted 531
481. Form of Negotiation 531
482. End and Effect of Negotiation 532

II. Congresses and Conferences

483. Conception of Congresses and Conferences 533
484. Parties to Congresses and Conferences 534
485. Procedure at Congresses and Conferences 535

III. Transactions besides Negotiation

486. Different kinds of Transaction 536
487. Declaration 536
488. Notification 537
489. Protest 538
490. Renunciation 539

CHAPTER II
TREATIES

I. Character and Function of Treaties

491. Conception of Treaties 540
492. Different kinds of Treaties 540
493. Binding Force of Treaties 541

II. Parties to Treaties

494. The Treaty-making Power 543
495. Treaty-making Power exercised by Heads of States 544
496. Minor Functionaries exercising Treaty-making Power 545
497. Constitutional Restrictions 545
498. Mutual Consent of the Contracting Parties 546
499. Freedom of Action of Consenting Representatives 547
500. Delusion and Error in Contracting Parties 547

III. Objects of Treaties

501. Objects in general of Treaties 548
502. Obligations of Contracting Parties only can be Object 548
503. An Obligation inconsistent with other Obligations cannot be an Object 549
504. Object must be physically possible 549
505. Immoral Obligations 549
506. Illegal Obligations 550

IV. Form and Parts of Treaties

507. No necessary Form of Treaties 550
508. Acts, Conventions, Declarations 551
509. Parts of Treaties 552

V. Ratification of Treaties
510. Conception and Function of Ratification 553
511. Rationale for the Institution of Ratification 554
512. Ratification regularly, but not absolutely, necessary 554
513. Length of Time for Ratification 555
514. Refusal of Ratification 556
515. Form of Ratification 557
516. Ratification by whom effected 558
517. Ratification cannot be partial and conditional 559
518. Effect of Ratification 561

VI. Effect of Treaties [Pg xxxiii]

519. Effect of Treaties upon Contracting Parties 561
520. Effect of Treaties upon the Subjects of the Parties 562
521. Effect of Changes in Government upon Treaties 562
522. Effect of Treaties upon Third States 563

VII. Means of Securing Performance of Treaties

523. What means have been in use 565
524. Oaths 565
525. Hostages 566
526. Pledge 566
527. Occupation of Territory 566
528. Guarantee 567

VIII. Participation of Third States in Treaties

529. Interest and Participation to be distinguished 567
530. Good Offices and Mediation 568
531. Intervention 568
532. Accession 568
533. Adhesion 569

IX. Expiration and Dissolution of Treaties

534. Expiration and Dissolution in Contradistinction to Fulfilment 570
535. Expiration through Expiration of Time 570
536. Expiration through Resolutive Condition 571
537. Mutual Consent 571
538. Withdrawal by Notice 571
539. Vital Change of Circumstances 572

X. Voidance of Treaties
540. Grounds of Voidance 576
541. Extinction of one of the two Contracting Parties 576
542. Impossibility of Execution 577
543. Realisation of Purpose of Treaty other than by Fulfilment 577
544. Extinction of such Object as was concerned in a Treaty 577

XI. Cancellation of Treaties

545. Grounds of Cancellation 578
546. Inconsistency with subsequent International Law 578
547. Violation by one of the Contracting Parties 579
548. Subsequent Change of Status of one of the Contracting Parties 579
549. War 580

XII. Renewal, Reconfirmation, and Redintegration of Treaties

550. Renewal of Treaties 580
551. Reconfirmation 581
552. Redintegration 581

XIII. Interpretation of Treaties

553. Authentic Interpretation, and the Compromise Clause 582
554. Rules of Interpretation which recommend themselves 583

CHAPTER III
IMPORTANT GROUPS OF TREATIES

I. Important Law-making Treaties

555. Important Law-making Treaties a product of the Nineteenth Century 587
556. Final Act of the Vienna Congress 588
557. Protocol of the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle 588
558. Treaty of London of 1831 588
559. Declaration of Paris 588
560. Geneva Convention 589
561. Treaty of London of 1867 589
562. Declaration of St. Petersburg 590
563. Treaty of Berlin of 1878 590
564. General Act of the Congo Conference 590
565. Treaty of Constantinople of 1888 591
566. General Act of the Brussels Anti-Slavery Conference 591
567. Two Declarations of the First Hague Peace Conference 591
568. Treaty of Washington of 1901 592
568a. Conventions and Declaration of the Second Hague Peace Conference 592
568b. The Declaration of London 595
II. Alliances
569. Conception of Alliances 595
570. Parties to Alliances 597
571. Different kinds of Alliances 597
572. Conditions of Alliances 598
573. Casus Fœderis 599

III. Treaties of Guarantee and of Protection

574. Conception and Objects of Guarantee Treaties 599
575. Effect of Treaties of Guarantee 600
576. Effect of Collective Guarantee 601
576a. Pseudo-Guarantees 602
577. Treaties of Protection 604

IV. Commercial Treaties

578. Commercial Treaties in General 605
579. Meaning of Coasting-trade in Commercial Treaties 606
580. Meaning of Most-favoured-nation Clause 610

V. Unions Concerning Common Non-Political Interests

581. Object of the Unions 612
582. Post and Telegraphs 613
583. Transport and Communication 614
584. Copyright 615
585. Commerce and Industry 616
586. Agriculture 617
587. Welfare of Working Classes 618
588. Weights, Measures, Coinage 619
589. Official Publications 620
590. Sanitation 620
591. Pharmacopœia 622
592. Humanity 622
593. Preservation of Animal World 623
594. Private International Law 623
595. American Republics 624
596. Science 625

INDEX 627
 INTRODUCTION
FOUNDATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE
LAW OF NATIONS

CHAPTER I
FOUNDATION OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

I
THE LAW OF NATIONS AS LAW

Hall, pp. 14-16—Maine, pp. 50-53—Lawrence, §§ 1-3, and Essays, pp. 1-36—Phillimore, I.
§§ 1-12—Twiss, I. §§ 104-5—Taylor, § 2—Moore, I. §§ 1-2—Westlake, I. pp. 1-13—
Walker, History, I. §§ 1-8—Halleck, I. pp. 46-55—Ullmann, §§ 2-4—Heffter, §§ 1-5—
Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, I. pp. 19-26—Nys, I. pp. 133-43—Rivier, I. § 1—Bonfils,
Nos. 26-31—Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 1-24—Mérignhac, I. pp. 5-28—Martens, I. §§ 1-5—
Fiore, I. Nos. 186-208, and Code, Nos. 1-26—Higgins, "The Binding Force of International
Law" (1910)—Pollock in The Law Quarterly Review, XVIII. (1902), pp. 418-428—Scott in
A.J. I. (1907), pp. 831-865—Willoughby and Root in A.J. II. (1908), pp. 357-365 and 451-
457.

Conception of the Law of Nations.

§ 1. Law of Nations or International Law (Droit des gens, Völkerrecht) is
the name for the body of customary and conventional rules which are
considered legally[1] binding by civilised States in their intercourse with
each other. Such part of these rules as is binding upon all the civilised States
without exception is called universal International Law,[2] in
contradistinction to particular International Law, which is binding on two
or a few States only. But it is also necessary to distinguish general
International Law. This name must be given to the body of such rules as are
binding upon a great many States, including leading Powers. General
International Law, as, for instance, the Declaration of Paris of 1856, has a
tendency to become universal International Law.
[1] In contradistinction to mere usages and to rules of so-called International Comity, see below
§§ 9 and 19.
[2] The best example of universal International Law is the law connected with legation.
 International Law in the meaning of the term as used in modern times did
not exist during antiquity and the first part of the Middle Ages. It is in its
origin essentially a product of Christian civilisation, and began gradually to
grow from the second half of the Middle Ages. But it owes its existence as a
systematised body of rules to the Dutch jurist and statesman Hugo Grotius,
whose work, "De Jure Belli ac Pacis libri III.," appeared in 1625 and
became the foundation of all later development.
The Law of Nations is a law for the intercourse of States with one
another, not a law for individuals. As, however, there cannot be a sovereign
authority above the several sovereign States, the Law of Nations is a law
between, not above, the several States, and is, therefore, since Bentham,
also called "International Law."
Since the distinction of Bentham between International Law public and
private has been generally accepted, it is necessary to emphasise that only
the so-called public International Law, which is identical with the Law of
Nations, is International Law, whereas the so-called private International
Law is not. The latter concerns such matters as fall at the same time under
the jurisdiction of two or more different States. And as the Municipal Laws
of different States are frequently in conflict with each other respecting such
matters, jurists belonging to different countries endeavour to find a body of
principles according to which such conflicts can be avoided.

Legal Force of the Law of Nations contested.

§ 2. Almost from the beginning of the science of the Law of Nations the
question has been discussed whether the rules of International Law are
legally binding. Hobbes[3] already and Pufendorf[4] had answered the
question in the negative. And during the nineteenth century Austin[5] and his
followers take up the same attitude. They define law as a body of rules for
human conduct set and enforced by a sovereign political authority. If indeed
this definition of law be correct, the Law of Nations cannot be called law.
For International Law is a body of rules governing the relations of
Sovereign States between one another. And there is not and cannot be a
sovereign political authority above the Sovereign States which could
enforce such rules. However, this definition of law is not correct. It covers
only the written or statute law within a State, that part of the Municipal Law
which is expressly made by statutes of Parliament in a constitutional State
or by some other sovereign authority in a non-constitutional State. It does
not cover that part of Municipal Law which is termed unwritten or
customary law. There is, in fact, no community and no State in the world
which could exist with written law only. Everywhere there is customary law
in existence besides the written law. This customary law was never
expressly enacted by any law-giving body, or it would not be merely
customary law. Those who define law as rules set and enforced by a
sovereign political authority do not deny the existence of customary law.
But they maintain that the customary law has the character of law only
through the indirect recognition on the part of the State which is to be found
in the fact that courts of justice apply the customary in the same way as the
written law, and that the State does not prevent them from doing so. This is,
however, nothing else than a fiction. Courts of justice having no law-giving
power could not recognise unwritten rules as law if these rules were not law
before that recognition, and States recognise unwritten rules as law only
because courts of justice do so.
[3] De Cive, XIV. 4.
[4] De Jure Naturæ et Gentium, II. c. iii. § 22.
[5] Lectures on Jurisprudence, VI.

Characteristics of Rules of Law.

§ 3. For the purpose of finding a correct definition of law it is
indispensable to compare morality and law with each other, for both lay
down rules, and to a great extent the same rules, for human conduct. Now
the characteristic of rules of morality is that they apply to conscience, and
to conscience only. An act loses all value before the tribunal of morality, if
it was not done out of free will and conscientiousness, but was enforced by
some external power or was done out of some consideration which lies
without the boundaries of conscience. Thus, a man who gives money to the
hospitals in order that his name shall come before the public does not act
morally, and his deed is not a moral one, though it appears to be one
outwardly. On the other hand, the characteristic of rules of law is that they
shall eventually be enforced by external power.[6] Rules of law apply, of
course, to conscience quite as much as rules of morality. But the latter
require to be enforced by the internal power of conscience only, whereas the
former require to be enforced by some external power. When, to give an
illustrative example, morality commands you to pay your debts, it hopes
that your conscience will make you pay them. On the other hand, if the law
gives the same command, it hopes that, if the conscience has not sufficient
power to make you pay your debts, the fact that, if you will not pay, the
bailiff will come into your house, will do so.
[6]
Westlake, Chapters, p. 12, seems to make the same distinction between rules of law and of
morality, and Twiss, I. § 105, adopts it expressis verbis.

Law-giving Authority not essential for the Existence of Law.

§ 4. If these are the characteristic signs of morality and of law, we are
justified in stating the principle: A rule is a rule of morality, if by common
consent of the community it applies to conscience and to conscience only;
whereas, on the other hand, a rule is a rule of law, if by common consent of
the community it shall eventually be enforced by external power. Without
some kind both of morality and law, no community has ever existed or
could possibly exist. But there need not be, at least not among primitive
communities, a law-giving authority within a community. Just as the rules
of morality are growing through the influence of many different factors, so
the law can grow without being expressly laid down and set by a law-giving
authority. Wherever we have an opportunity of observing a primitive
community, we find that some of its rules for human conduct apply to
conscience only, whereas others shall by common consent of the
community be enforced; the former are rules of morality only, whereas the
latter are rules of law. For the existence of law neither a law-giving
authority nor courts of justice are essential. Whenever a question of law
arises in a primitive community, it is the community itself and not a court
which decides it. Of course, when a community is growing out of the
primitive condition of its existence and becomes gradually so enlarged that
it turns into a State in the sense proper of the term, the necessities of life
and altered circumstances of existence do not allow the community itself
any longer to do anything and everything. And the law can now no longer
be left entirely in the hands of the different factors which make it grow
gradually from case to case. A law-giving authority is now just as much
wanted as a governing authority. It is for this reason that we find in every
State a Legislature, which makes laws, and courts of justice, which
administer them.
However, if we ask whence does the power of the legislature to make
laws come, there is no other answer than this: From the common consent of
the community. Thus, in Great Britain, Parliament is the law-making body
by common consent. An Act of Parliament is law, because the common
consent of Great Britain is behind it. That Parliament has law-making
authority is law itself, but unwritten and customary law. Thus the very
important fact comes to light that all statute or written law is based on
unwritten law in so far as the power of Parliament to make Statute Law is
given to Parliament by unwritten law. It is the common consent of the
British people that Parliament shall have the power of making rules which
shall be enforced by external power. But besides the statute laws made by
Parliament there exist and are constantly growing other laws, unwritten or
customary, which are day by day recognised through courts of justice.
Definition and three Essential Conditions of Law.
§ 5. On the basis of the results of these previous investigations we are
now able to give a definition of law. We may say that law is a body of rules
for human conduct within a community which by common consent of this
community shall be enforced by external power.
The essential conditions of the existence of law are, therefore, threefold.
There must, first, be a community. There must, secondly, be a body of rules
for human conduct within that community. And there must, thirdly, be a
common consent of that community that these rules shall be enforced by
external power. It is not an essential condition either that such rules of
conduct must be written rules, or that there should be a law-making
authority or a law-administering court within the community concerned.
And it is evident that, if we find this definition of law correct, and accept
these three essential conditions of law, the existence of law is not limited to
the State community only, but is to be found everywhere where there is a
community. The best example of the existence of law outside the State is
the law of the Roman Catholic Church, the so-called Canon Law. This
Church is an organised community whose members are dispersed over the
whole surface of the earth. They consider themselves bound by the rules of
the Canon Law, although there is no sovereign political authority that sets
and enforces those rules, the Pope and the bishops and priests being a
religious authority only. But there is an external power through which the
rules of the Canon Law are enforced—namely, the punishments of the
Canon Law, such as excommunication, refusal of sacraments, and the like.
And the rules of the Canon Law are in this way enforced by common
consent of the whole Roman Catholic community.
 Law not to be identified with Municipal Law.
§ 6. But it must be emphasised that, if there is law to be found in every
community, law in this meaning must not be identified with the law of
States, the so-called Municipal Law,[7] just as the conception of State must
not be identified with the conception of community. The conception of
community is a wider one than the conception of State. A State is a
community, but not every community is a State. Likewise the conception of
law pure and simple is a wider one than that of Municipal Law. Municipal
Law is law, but not every law is Municipal Law, as, for instance, the Canon
Law is not. Municipal Law is a narrower conception than law pure and
simple. The body of rules which is called the Law of Nations might,
therefore, be law in the strict sense of the term, although it might not
possess the characteristics of Municipal Law. To make sure whether the
Law of Nations is or is not law, we have to inquire whether the three
essential conditions of the existence of law are to be found in the Law of
Nations.
[7] Throughout this work the term "Municipal Law" is made use of in the sense of national or
State law in contradistinction to International Law.

The "Family of Nations" a Community.

§ 7. As the first condition is the existence of a community, the question
arises, whether an international community exists whose law could be the
Law of Nations. Before this question can be answered, the conception of
community must be defined. A community may be said to be the body of a
number of individuals more or less bound together through such common
interests as create a constant and manifold intercourse between the single
individuals. This definition of community covers not only a community of
individual men, but also a community of individual communities such as
individual States. A Confederation of States is a community of States. But
is there a universal international community of all individual States in
existence? This question is decidedly to be answered in the affirmative as
far as the States of the civilised world are concerned. Innumerable are the
interests which knit all the individual civilised States together and which
create constant intercourse between these States as well as between their
subjects. As the civilised States are, with only a few exceptions, Christian
States, there are already religious ideas which wind a band around them.
There are, further, science and art, which are by their nature to a great
extent international, and which create a constant exchange of ideas and
opinions between the subjects of the several States. Of the greatest
importance are, however, agriculture, industry, and trade. It is totally
impossible even for the largest empire to produce everything its subjects
want. Therefore, the productions of agriculture and industry must be
exchanged by the several States, and it is for this reason that international
trade is an unequalled factor for the welfare of every civilised State. Even in
antiquity, when every State tried to be a world in itself, States did not and
could not exist without some sort of international trade. It is international
trade which has created navigation on the high seas and on the rivers
flowing through different States. It is, again, international trade which has
called into existence the nets of railways which cover the continents, the
international postal and telegraphic arrangements, and the Transatlantic
telegraphic cables.[8]
[8] See Fried, "Das internationale Leben der Gegenwart" (1908), where the innumerable
interests are grouped and discussed which knit the civilised world together.
The manifold interests which knit all the civilised States together and
create a constant intercourse between one another, have long since brought
about the necessity that these States should have one or more official
representatives living abroad. Thus we find everywhere foreign envoys and
consuls. They are the agents who make possible the current stream of
transactions between the Governments of the different States. A number of
International Offices, International Bureaux, International Commissions
have been permanently appointed for the administration of international
business, a permanent Court of Arbitration has been, and an International
Prize Court will soon be, established at the Hague. And from time to time
special international conferences and congresses of delegates of the
different States are convoked for discussing and settling matters
international. Though the individual States are sovereign and independent
of each other, though there is no international Government above the
national ones, though there is no central political authority to which the
different States are subjected, yet there is something mightier than all the
powerful separating factors: namely, the common interests. And these
common interests and the necessary intercourse which serves these
interests, unite the separate States into an indivisible community. For many
hundreds of years this community has been called "Family of Nations" or
"Society of Nations."

The "Family of Nations" a Community with Rules of Conduct.

 § 8. Thus the first essential condition for the existence of law is a reality.
The single States make altogether a body of States, a community of
individual States. But the second condition cannot be denied either. For
hundreds of years more and more rules have grown up for the conduct of
the States between each other. These rules are to a great extent customary
rules. But side by side with these customary and unwritten rules more and
more written rules are daily created by international agreements, such as the
Declaration of Paris of 1856, the Hague Rules concerning land warfare of
1899 and 1907, and the like. The so-called Law of Nations is nothing else
than a body of customary and conventional rules regulating the conduct of
the individual States with each other. Just as out of tribal communities
which were in no way connected with each other arose the State, so the
Family of Nations arose out of the different States which were in no way
connected with each other. But whereas the State is a settled institution,
firmly established and completely organised, the Family of Nations is still
in the beginning of its development. A settled institution and firmly
established it certainly is, but it entirely lacks at present any organisation
whatever. Such an organisation is, however, gradually growing into
existence before our eyes. The permanent Court of Arbitration created by
the First Hague Peace Conference, and the International Prize Court
proposed by the Second Hague Peace Conference, are the first small traces
of a future organisation. The next step forward will be that the Hague Peace
Conferences will meet automatically within certain periods of time, without
being summoned by one of the Powers. A second step forward will be the
agreement on the part of the Powers upon fixed rules of procedure for the
future Hague Peace Conferences. As soon as these two steps forward are
really made, the nucleus of an organisation of the Family of Nations will be
in existence, and out of this nucleus will grow in time a more powerful
organisation, the ultimate characteristic features of which cannot at present
be foreseen.[9]
[9] See Oppenheim, "Die Zukunft des Völkerrechts" (1911), passim.

External Power for the Enforcement of Rules of International Conduct.

§ 9. But how do matters stand concerning the third essential condition for
the existence of law? Is there a common consent of the community of States
that the rules of international conduct shall be enforced by external power?
There cannot be the slightest doubt that this question must be affirmatively
answered, although there is no central authority to enforce those rules. The
heads of the civilised States, their Governments, their Parliaments, and
public opinion of the whole of civilised humanity, agree and consent that
the body of rules of international conduct which is called the Law of
Nations shall be enforced by external power, in contradistinction to rules of
international morality and courtesy, which are left to the consideration of
the conscience of nations. And in the necessary absence of a central
authority for the enforcement of the rules of the Law of Nations, the States
have to take the law into their own hands. Self-help and intervention on the
part of other States which sympathise with the wronged one are the means
by which the rules of the Law of Nations can be[10] and actually are
enforced. It is true that these means have many disadvantages, but they are
means which have the character of external power. Compared with
Municipal Law and the means at disposal for its enforcement, the Law of
Nations is certainly the weaker of the two. A law is the stronger, the more
guarantees are given that it can and will be enforced. Thus, the law of a
State which is governed by an uncorrupt Government and the courts of
which are not venal is stronger than the law of a State which has a corrupt
Government and venal judges. It is inevitable that the Law of Nations must
be a weaker law than Municipal Law, as there is not and cannot be an
international Government above the national ones which could enforce the
rules of International Law in the same way as a national Government
enforces the rules of its Municipal Law. But a weak law is nevertheless still
law, and the Law of Nations is by no means so weak a law as it sometimes
seems to be.[11]
[10] See below, § 135, concerning intervention by right.
[11]Those who deny to International Law the character of law because they identify the
conception of law in general with that of Municipal Law and because they cannot see any law
outside the State, confound cause and effect. Originally law was not a product of the State, but the
State was a product of law. The right of the State to make law is based upon the rule of law that
the State is competent to make law.

Practice recognises Law of Nations as Law.

§ 10. The fact is that theorists only are divided concerning the character
of the Law of Nations as real law. In practice International Law is
constantly recognised as law. The Governments and Parliaments of the
different States are of opinion that they are legally, not morally only, bound
by the Law of Nations, although they cannot be forced to go before a court
in case they are accused of having violated it. Likewise, public opinion of
all civilised States considers every State legally bound to comply with the
rules of the Law of Nations, not taking notice of the opinion of those
theorists who maintain that the Law of Nations does not bear the character
of real law. And the several States not only recognise the rules of
International Law as legally binding in innumerable treaties, but emphasise
every day the fact that there is a law between themselves. They moreover
recognise this law by their Municipal Laws ordering their officials, their
civil and criminal courts, and their subjects to take up such an attitude as is
in conformity with the duties imposed upon their Sovereign by the Law of
Nations. If a violation of the Law of Nations occurs on the part of an
individual State, public opinion of the civilised world, as well as the
Governments of other States, stigmatise such violation as a violation of law
pure and simple. And countless treaties concerning trade, navigation, post,
telegraph, copyright, extradition, and many other objects exist between
civilised States, which treaties, resting entirely on the existence of a law
between the States, presuppose such a law, and contribute by their very
existence to its development and growth.
Violations of this law are certainly frequent. But the offenders always try
to prove that their acts do not contain a violation, and that they have a right
to act as they do according to the Law of Nations, or at least that no rule of
the Law of Nations is against their acts. Has a State ever confessed that it
was going to break the Law of Nations or that it ever did so? The fact is that
States, in breaking the Law of Nations, never deny its existence, but
recognise its existence through the endeavour to interpret the Law of
Nations in a way favourable to their act. And there is an ever-growing
tendency to bring disputed questions of International Law as well as
international differences in general before international courts. The
permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague established in 1899, and the
International Prize Court proposed at the Hague according to a convention
of 1907, are the first promising fruits of this tendency.

II
BASIS OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

Common Consent the Basis of Law.

 § 11. If law is, as defined above (§ 5), a body of rules for human conduct
within a community which by common consent of this community shall be
enforced through external power, common consent is the basis of all law.
What, now, does the term "common consent" mean? If it meant that all the
individuals who are members of a community must at every moment of
their existence expressly consent to every point of law, such common
consent would never be a fact. The individuals, who are the members of a
community, are successively born into it, grow into it together with the
growth of their intellect during adolescence, and die away successively to
make room for others. The community remains unaltered, although a
constant change takes place in its members. "Common consent" can
therefore only mean the express or tacit consent of such an overwhelming
majority of the members that those who dissent are of no importance
whatever, and disappear totally from the view of one who looks for the will
of the community as an entity in contradistinction to the wills of its single
members. The question as to whether there be such a common consent in a
special case, is not a question of theory, but of fact only. It is a matter of
observation and appreciation, and not of logical and mathematical decision,
just as is the well-known question, how many grains make a heap? Those
legal rules which come down from ancestors to their descendants remain
law so long only as they are supported by common consent of these
descendants. New rules can only become law if they find common consent
on the part of those who constitute the community at the time. It is for that
reason that custom is at the background of all law, whether written or
unwritten.
Common Consent of the Family of Nations the Basis of International Law.
§ 12. What has been stated with regard to law pure and simple applies
also to the Law of Nations. However, the community for which this Law of
Nations is authoritative consists not of individual human beings, but of
individual States. And whereas in communities consisting of individual
human beings there is a constant and gradual change of the members
through birth, death, emigration, and immigration, the Family of Nations is
a community within which no such constant change takes place, although
now and then a member disappears and a new member steps in. The
members of the Family of Nations are therefore not born into that
community and they do not grow into it. New members are simply received
into it through express or tacit recognition. It is therefore necessary to
scrutinise more closely the common consent of the States which is the basis
of the Law of Nations.
The customary rules of this law have grown up by common consent of
the States—that is, the different States have acted in such a manner as
includes their tacit consent to these rules. As far as the process of the
growth of a usage and its turning into a custom can be traced back,
customary rules of the Law of Nations came into existence in the following
way. The intercourse of States with each other necessitated some rules of
international conduct. Single usages, therefore, gradually grew up, the
different States acting in the same or in a similar way when an occasion
arose. As some rules of international conduct were from the end of the
Middle Ages urgently wanted, the theory of the Law of Nations prepared
the ground for their growth by constructing certain rules on the basis of
religious, moral, rational, and historical reflections. Hugo Grotius's work,
"De Jure Belli ac Pacis libri III." (1625), offered a systematised body of
rules, which recommended themselves so much to the needs and wants of
the time that they became the basis of the development following. Without
the conviction of the Governments and of public opinion of the civilised
States that there ought to be legally binding rules for international conduct,
on the one hand, and, on the other hand, without the pressure exercised
upon the States by their interests and the necessity for the growth of such
rules, the latter would never have grown up. When afterwards, especially in
the nineteenth century, it became apparent that customs and usages alone
were not sufficient or not sufficiently clear, new rules were created through
law-making treaties being concluded which laid down rules for future
international conduct. Thus conventional rules gradually grew up side by
side with customary rules.
New States which came into existence and were through express or tacit
recognition admitted into the Family of Nations thereby consented to the
body of rules for international conduct in force at the time of their
admittance. It is therefore not necessary to prove for every single rule of
International Law that every single member of the Family of Nations
consented to it. No single State can say on its admittance into the Family of
Nations that it desires to be subjected to such and such a rule of
International Law, and not to others. The admittance includes the duty to
submit to all the rules in force, with the sole exception of those which, such
as the rules of the Geneva Convention for instance, are specially stipulated
for such States only as have concluded, or later on acceded to, a certain
international treaty creating the rules concerned.
On the other hand, no State which is a member of the Family of Nations
can at some time or another declare that it will in future no longer submit to
a certain recognised rule of the Law of Nations. The body of the rules of
this law can be altered by common consent only, not by a unilateral
declaration on the part of one State. This applies not only to customary
rules, but also to such conventional rules as have been called into existence
through a law-making treaty for the purpose of creating a permanent mode
of future international conduct without a right of the signatory powers to
give notice of withdrawal. It would, for instance, be a violation of
International Law on the part of a signatory Power of the Declaration of
Paris of 1856 to declare that it would cease to be a party. But it must be
emphasised that this does not apply to such conventional rules as are
stipulated by a law-making treaty which expressly reserves the right to the
signatory Powers to give notice.
States the Subjects of the Law of Nations.
§ 13. Since the Law of Nations is based on the common consent of
individual States, and not of individual human beings, States solely and
exclusively are the subjects of International Law. This means that the Law
of Nations is a law for the international conduct of States, and not of their
citizens. Subjects of the rights and duties arising from the Law of Nations
are States solely and exclusively. An individual human being, such as a
king or an ambassador for example, is never directly a subject of
International Law. Therefore, all rights which might necessarily have to be
granted to an individual human being according to the Law of Nations are
not international rights, but rights granted by Municipal Law in accordance
with a duty imposed upon the respective State by International Law.
Likewise, all duties which might necessarily have to be imposed upon
individual human beings according to the Law of Nations are not
international duties, but duties imposed by Municipal Law in accordance
with a right granted to or a duty imposed upon the respective State by
International Law. Thus the privileges of an ambassador are granted to him
by the Municipal Law of the State to which he is accredited, but such State
has the duty to grant these privileges according to International Law. Thus,
further, the duties incumbent upon officials and subjects of neutral States in
time of war are imposed upon them by the Municipal Law of their home
States, but these States have, according to International Law, the duty of
imposing the respective duties upon their officials and citizens.[12]
[12] The importance of the fact that subjects of the Law of Nations are States exclusively is so
great that I consider it necessary to emphasise it again and again throughout this work. See, for
instance, below, §§ 289, 344, 384. It should, however, already be mentioned here that this
assertion is even nowadays still sometimes contradicted; see, for instance, Kaufmann, "Die
Rechtskraft des Internationalen Rechts" (1899), passim; Rehm in Z.V. I. (1907), p. 53; and Diena
in R.G. XVI. pp. 57-76.

Equality an Inference from the Basis of International Law.

§ 14. Since the Law of Nations is based on the common consent of States
as sovereign communities, the member States of the Family of Nations are
equal to each other as subjects of International Law. States are by their
nature certainly not equal as regards power, extent, constitution, and the
like. But as members of the community of nations they are equals, whatever
differences between them may otherwise exist. This is a consequence of
their sovereignty and of the fact that the Law of Nations is a law between,
not above, the States.[13]
[13] See below, §§ 115-116, where the legal equality of States in contradistinction to their
political inequality is discussed, and where it will also be shown that not-full Sovereign States are
not equals of full-Sovereign States.

III
SOURCES OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

Hall, pp. 5-14—Maine, pp. 1-25—Lawrence, §§ 61-66—Phillimore, I. §§ 17-33—Twiss, I. §§

82-103—Taylor, §§ 30-36—Westlake, I. pp. 14-19—Wheaton, § 15—Halleck, I. pp. 55-64
—Ullmann, §§ 8-9—Heffter, § 3—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, I. pp. 79-158—Rivier, I. §
2—Nys, I. pp. 144-165—Bonfils, Nos. 45-63—Despagnet, Nos. 58-63—Pradier-Fodéré, I.
Nos. 24-35—Mérignhac, I. pp. 79-113—Martens, I. § 43—Fiore, I. Nos. 224-238—Calvo,
I. §§ 27-38—Bergbohm, "Staatsverträge und Gesetze als Quellen des Völkerrechts" (1877)
—Jellinek, "Die rechtliche Natur der Staatsverträge" (1880)—Cavaglieri, "La consuetudine
giuridica internazionale" (1907).

Source in Contradistinction to Cause.

§ 15. The different writers on the Law of Nations disagree widely with
regard to kinds and numbers of sources of this law. The fact is that the term
"source of law" is made use of in different meanings by the different writers
on International Law, as on law in general. It seems to me that most writers
confound the conception of "source" with that of "cause," and through this
mistake come to a standpoint from which certain factors which influence
the growth of International Law appear as sources of rules of the Law of
Nations. This mistake can be avoided by going back to the meaning of the
term "source" in general. Source means a spring or well, and has to be
defined as the rising from the ground of a stream of water. When we see a
stream of water and want to know whence it comes, we follow the stream
upwards until we come to the spot where it rises naturally from the ground.
On that spot, we say, is the source of the stream of water. We know very
well that this source is not the cause of the existence of the stream of water.
Source signifies only the natural rising of water from a certain spot of the
ground, whatever natural causes there may be for that rising. If we apply the
conception of source in this meaning to the term "source of law," the
confusion of source with cause cannot arise. Just as we see streams of water
running over the surface of the earth, so we see, as it were, streams of rules
running over the area of law. And if we want to know whence these rules
come, we have to follow these streams upwards until we come to their
beginning. Where we find that such rules rise into existence, there is the
source of them. Of course, rules of law do not rise from a spot on the
ground as water does; they rise from facts in the historical development of a
community. Thus in Great Britain a good many rules of law rise every year
from Acts of Parliament. "Source of Law" is therefore the name for an
historical fact out of which rules of conduct rise into existence and legal
force.
The two Sources of International Law.
§ 16. As the basis of the Law of Nations is the common consent of the
member States of the Family of Nations, it is evident that there must exist,
and can only exist, as many sources of International Law as there are facts
through which such common consent can possibly come into existence. Of
such facts there are only two. A State, just as an individual, may give its
consent either directly by an express declaration or tacitly by conduct which
it would not follow in case it did not consent. The sources of International
Law are therefore twofold—namely: (1) express consent, which is given
when States conclude a treaty stipulating certain rules for the future
international conduct of the parties; (2) tacit consent, which is given
through States having adopted the custom of submitting to certain rules of
international conduct. Treaties and custom are, therefore, exclusively the
sources of the Law of Nations.
Custom in Contradistinction to Usage.
§ 17. Custom is the older and the original source of International Law in
particular as well as of law in general. Custom must not be confounded with
usage. In everyday life and language both terms are used synonymously, but
in the language of the jurist they have two distinctly different meanings.
Jurists speak of a custom, when a clear and continuous habit of doing
certain actions has grown up under the ægis of the conviction that these
actions are legally necessary or legally right. On the other hand, jurists
speak of a usage, when a habit of doing certain actions has grown up
without there being the conviction of their legal character. Thus the term
"custom" is in juristic language a narrower conception than the term
"usage," as a given course of conduct may be usual without being
customary. Certain conduct of States concerning their international relations
may therefore be usual without being the outcome of customary
International Law.
As usages have a tendency to become custom, the question presents
itself, at what time a usage turns into a custom. This question is one of fact,
not of theory. All that theory can point out is this: Wherever and as soon as
a frequently adopted international conduct of States is considered legally
necessary or legally right, the rule which may be abstracted from such
conduct, is a rule of customary International Law.
Treaties as Source of International Law.
§ 18. Treaties are the second source of International Law, and a source
which has of late become of the greatest importance. As treaties may be
concluded for innumerable purposes,[14] it is necessary to emphasise that
such treaties only are a source of International Law as either stipulate new
rules for future international conduct or confirm, define, or abolish existing
customary or conventional rules. Such treaties must be called law-making
treaties. Since the Family of Nations is not a State-like community, there is
no central authority which could make law for it in a similar way as
Parliaments make law by statutes within the States. The only way in which
International Law can be made by a deliberate act, in contradistinction to
custom, is that the members of the Family of Nations conclude treaties in
which certain rules for their future conduct are stipulated. Of course, such
law-making treaties create law for the contracting parties solely. Their law
is universal International Law then only, when all the members of the
Family of Nations are parties to them. Many law-making treaties are
concluded by a few States only, so that the law which they create is
particular International Law. On the other hand, there have been many law-
making treaties concluded which contain general International Law,
because the majority of States, including leading Powers, are parties to
them. General International Law has a tendency to become universal
because such States as hitherto did not consent to it will in future either
expressly give their consent or recognise the respective rules tacitly through
custom.[15] But it must be emphasised that, whereas custom is the original
source of International Law, treaties are a source the power of which
derives from custom. For the fact that treaties can stipulate rules of
international conduct at all is based on the customary rule of the Law of
Nations, that treaties are binding upon the contracting parties.[16]
 [14] See below, § 492.
[15] Law-making treaties of world-wide importance are enumerated below, §§ 556-568b.
[16] See below, § 493.

Factors influencing the Growth of International Law.

§ 19. Thus custom and treaties are the two exclusive sources of the Law
of Nations. When writers on International Law frequently enumerate other
sources besides custom and treaties, they confound the term "source" with
that of "cause" by calling sources of International Law such factors as
influence the gradual growth of new rules of International Law without,
however, being the historical facts from which these rules receive their legal
force. Important factors of this kind are: Opinions of famous writers[17] on
International Law, decisions of prize courts, arbitral awards,[18] instructions
issued by the different States for the guidance of their diplomatic and other
organs, State Papers concerning foreign politics, certain Municipal Laws,
decisions of Municipal Courts.[19] All these and other factors may influence
the growth of International Law either by creating usages which gradually
turn into custom, or by inducing the members of the Family of Nations to
conclude such treaties as stipulate legal rules for future international
conduct.
[17] See Oppenheim in A.J. II. (1908), pp. 344-348.
[18] See Oppenheim in A.J. II. (1908), pp. 341-344.
[19] See Oppenheim in A.J. II. (1908), pp. 336-341.

A factor of a special kind which also influences the growth of

International Law is the so-called Comity (Comitas Gentium, Convenance
et Courtoisie Internationale, Staatengunst). In their intercourse with one
another, States do observe not only legally binding rules and such rules as
have the character of usages, but also rules of politeness, convenience, and
goodwill. Such rules of international conduct are not rules of law, but of
comity. The Comity of Nations is certainly not a source of International
Law, as it is distinctly the contrast to the Law of Nations. But there can be
no doubt that many a rule which formerly was a rule of International
Comity only is nowadays a rule of International Law. And it is certainly to
be expected that this development will go on in future also, and that thereby
many a rule of present International Comity will in future become one of
International Law.[20]
[20] The matter is ably discussed in Stoerk, "Völkerrecht und Völkercourtoisie" (1908).
 Not to be confounded with the rules of Comity are the rules of morality
which ought to apply to the intercourse of States as much as to the
intercourse of individuals.

IV
RELATIONS BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL AND MUNICIPAL LAW

Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, I. pp. 49-53, 117-120—Nys, I. pp. 185-189—Taylor, § 103—

Holland, Studies, pp. 176-200—Kaufmann, "Die Rechtskraft des internationalen Rechts"
(1899)—Triepel, "Völkerrecht und Landesrecht" (1899)—Anzilotti, "Il diritto
internazionale nei giudizi interni" (1905)—Kohler in Z.V. II. (1908), pp. 209-230.

Essential Difference between International and Municipal Law.

§ 20. The Law of Nations and the Municipal Law of the single States are
essentially different from each other. They differ, first, as regards their
sources. Sources of Municipal Law are custom grown up within the
boundaries of the respective State and statutes enacted by the law-giving
authority. Sources of International Law are custom grown up within the
Family of Nations and law-making treaties concluded by the members of
that family.
The Law of Nations and Municipal Law differ, secondly, regarding the
relations they regulate. Municipal Law regulates relations between the
individuals under the sway of the respective State and the relations between
this State and the respective individuals. International Law, on the other
hand, regulates relations between the member States of the Family of
Nations.
The Law of Nations and Municipal Law differ, thirdly, with regard to the
substance of their law: whereas Municipal Law is a law of a Sovereign over
individuals subjected to his sway, the Law of Nations is a law not above,
but between Sovereign States, and therefore a weaker law.[21]
[21] See above, § 9.

Law of Nations never per se Municipal Law.

§ 21. If the Law of Nations and Municipal Law differ as demonstrated,
the Law of Nations can neither as a body nor in parts be per se a part of
Municipal Law. Just as Municipal Law lacks the power of altering or
creating rules of International Law, so the latter lacks absolutely the power
of altering or creating rules of Municipal Law. If, according to the
Municipal Law of an individual State, the Law of Nations as a body or in
parts is considered the law of the land, this can only be so either by
municipal custom or by statute, and then the respective rules of the Law of
Nations have by adoption[22] become at the same time rules of Municipal
Law. Wherever and whenever such total or partial adoption has not taken
place, municipal courts cannot be considered to be bound by International
Law, because it has, per se, no power over municipal courts.[23] And if it
happens that a rule of Municipal Law is in indubitable conflict with a rule
of the Law of Nations, municipal courts must apply the former. If, on the
other hand, a rule of the Law of Nations regulates a fact without conflicting
with, but without expressly or tacitly having been adopted by Municipal
Law, municipal courts cannot apply such rule of the Law of Nations.
[22] This has been done by the United States. See The Nereide, 9 Cranch, 388; United States v.
Smith, 5 Wheaton, 153; The Scotia, 14 Wallace, 170; The Paquette Habana, 175 United States,
677. See also Taylor, § 103, and Scott in A.J.I. (1908), pp. 852-865. As regards Great Britain, see
Blackstone, IV. ch. 5, and Westlake in The Law Quarterly Review, XXII. (1906), pp. 14-26; see
also the case of the West Rand Central Mining Co. v. The King (1905), 2 K. B. 391.
[23] This ought to be generally recognised, but, in fact, is not; says, for instance, Kohler in Z.V.
II.(1908), p. 210:—"... das Völkerrecht ist ein überstaatliches Recht, das der Gesetzgebung des
einzelnen Staates nicht unterworfen ist und von den Richtern ohne weiteres respectirt werden
muss: das Völkerrecht steht über dem staatlichen Recht."

Certain Rules of Municipal Law necessitated or interdicted.

§ 22. If Municipal Courts cannot apply unadopted rules of the Law of
Nations, and must apply even such rules of Municipal Law as conflict with
the Law of Nations, it is evident that the several States, in order to fulfil
their international obligations, are compelled to possess certain rules, and
are prevented from having certain other rules as part of their Municipal
Law. It is not necessary to enumerate all the rules of Municipal Law which
a State must possess, and all those rules it is prevented from having. It
suffices to give some illustrative examples. Thus, on the one hand, the
Municipal Law of every State, for instance, is compelled to possess rules
granting the necessary privileges to foreign diplomatic envoys, protecting
the life and liberty of foreign citizens residing on its territory, threatening
punishment for certain acts committed on its territory in violation of a
foreign State. On the other hand, the Municipal Law of every State is
prevented by the Law of Nations from having rules, for instance, conflicting
with the freedom of the high seas, or prohibiting the innocent passage of
foreign merchantmen through its maritime belt, or refusing justice to
foreign residents with regard to injuries committed on its territory to their
lives, liberty, and property by its own citizens. If a State does nevertheless
possess such rules of Municipal Law as it is prevented from having by the
Law of Nations, or if it does not possess such Municipal rules as it is
compelled to have by the Law of Nations, it violates an international legal
duty, but its courts[24] cannot by themselves alter the Municipal Law to meet
the requirements of the Law of Nations.
[24]
This became quite apparent in the Moray Firth case (Mortensen v. Peters)—see below, §
192—in which the Court had to apply British Municipal Law.

Presumption against conflicts between International and Municipal Law.

§ 23. However, although Municipal Courts must apply Municipal Law
even if conflicting with the Law of Nations, there is a presumption against
the existence of such a conflict. As the Law of Nations is based upon the
common consent of the different States, it is improbable that a civilised
State would intentionally enact a rule conflicting with the Law of Nations.
A part of Municipal Law, which ostensibly seems to conflict with the Law
of Nations, must, therefore, if possible, always be so interpreted as
essentially not containing such conflict.
Presumption of Existence of certain necessary Municipal Rules.
§ 24. In case of a gap in the statutes of a civilised State regarding certain
rules necessitated by the Law of Nations, such rules ought to be presumed
by the Courts to have been tacitly adopted by such Municipal Law. It may
be taken for granted that a State which is a member of the Family of
Nations does not intentionally want its Municipal Law to be deficient in
such rules. If, for instance, the Municipal Law of a State does not by a
statute grant the necessary privileges to diplomatic envoys, the courts ought
to presume that such privileges are tacitly granted.

Presumption of the Existence of certain Municipal Rules in Conformity with Rights granted by the
Law of Nations.
§ 25. There is no doubt that a State need not make use of all the rights it
has by the Law of Nations, and that, consequently, every State can by its
laws expressly renounce the whole or partial use of such rights, provided
always it is ready to fulfil such duties, if any, as are connected with these
rights. However, when no such renunciation has taken place, Municipal
Courts ought, in case the interests of justice demand it, to presume that their
Sovereign has tacitly consented to make use of such rights. If, for instance,
the Municipal Law of a State does not by a statute extend its jurisdiction
over its maritime belt, its courts ought to presume that, since by the Law of
Nations the jurisdiction of a State does extend over its maritime belt, their
Sovereign has tacitly consented to that wider range of its jurisdiction.
A remarkable case illustrating this happened in this country in 1876. The
German vessel Franconia, while passing through the British maritime belt
within three miles of Dover, negligently ran into the British vessel
Strathclyde, and sank her. As a passenger on board the latter was thereby
drowned, the commander of the Franconia, the German Keyn, was indicted
at the Central Criminal Court and found guilty of manslaughter. The Court
for Crown Cases Reserved, however, to which the Central Criminal Court
referred the question of jurisdiction, held by a majority of one judge that,
according to the law of the land, English courts had no jurisdiction over
crimes committed in the English maritime belt. Keyn was therefore not
punished.[25] To provide for future cases of like kind, Parliament passed, in
1878, the "Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act."[26]
[25] L.R. 2 Ex. Div. 63. See Phillimore, I. § 198 B; Maine, pp. 39-45. See also below, § 189,
where the controversy is discussed whether a littoral State has jurisdiction over foreign vessels
that merely pass through its maritime belt.
[26] 41 and 42 Vict. c. 73.

V
DOMINION OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

Lawrence, § 44—Phillimore, I. §§ 27-33—Twiss, I. § 62—Taylor, §§ 61-64—Westlake, I. p.

40—Bluntschli, §§ 1-16—Heffter, § 7—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, I. pp. 13-18—Nys, I.
pp. 116-132—Rivier, I. § 1—Bonfils, Nos. 40-45—Despagnet, Nos. 51-53—Martens, I. §
41—Fiore, Code, Nos. 38-43—Ullmann, § 10—Nippold in Z.V. II. (1908), pp. 441-443—
Cavaglieri in R.G. XVIII. (1911), pp. 259-292.

Range of Dominion of International Law controversial.

§ 26. Dominion of the Law of Nations is the name given to the area
within which International Law is applicable—that is, those States between
which International Law finds validity. The range of the dominion of the
Law of Nations is controversial, two extreme opinions concerning this
dominion being opposed. Some publicists[27] maintain that the dominion of
the Law of Nations extends as far as humanity itself, that every State,
whether Christian or non-Christian, civilised or uncivilised, is a subject of
International Law. On the other hand, several jurists[28] teach that the
dominion of the Law of Nations extends only as far as Christian
civilisation, and that Christian States only are subjects of International Law.
Neither of these opinions would seem to be in conformity with the facts of
the present international life and the basis of the Law of Nations. There is
no doubt that the Law of Nations is a product of Christian civilisation. It
originally arose between the States of Christendom only, and for hundreds
of years was confined to these States. Between Christian and Mohammedan
nations a condition of perpetual enmity prevailed in former centuries. And
no constant intercourse existed in former times between Christian and
Buddhistic States. But from about the beginning of the nineteenth century
matters gradually changed. A condition of perpetual enmity between whole
groups of nations exists no longer either in theory or in practice. And
although there is still a broad and deep gulf between Christian civilisation
and others, many interests, which knit Christian States together, knit
likewise some non-Christian and Christian States.
[27] See, for instance, Bluntschli, § 8, and Fiore, Code, No. 38.
[28] See, for instance, Martens, § 41.

Three Conditions of Membership of the Family of Nations.

§ 27. Thus the membership of the Family of Nations has of late
necessarily been increased, and the range of the dominion of the Law of
Nations has extended beyond its original limits. This extension has taken
place in conformity with the basis of the Law of Nations. As this basis is
the common consent of the civilised States, there are three conditions for
the admission of new members into the circle of the Family of Nations. A
State to be admitted must, first, be a civilised State which is in constant
intercourse with members of the Family of Nations. Such State must,
secondly, expressly or tacitly consent to be bound for its future international
conduct by the rules of International Law. And, thirdly, those States which
have hitherto formed the Family of Nations must expressly or tacitly
consent to the reception of the new member.
The last two conditions are so obvious that they need no comment.
Regarding the first condition, however, it must be emphasised that not
particularly Christian civilisation, but civilisation of such kind only is
conditioned as to enable the State concerned and its subjects to understand
and to act in conformity with the principles of the Law of Nations. These
principles cannot be applied to a State which is not able to apply them on its
own part to other States. On the other hand, they can well be applied to a
State which is able and willing to apply them to other States, provided a
constant intercourse has grown up between it and other States. The fact is
that the Christian States have been of late compelled by pressing
circumstances to receive several non-Christian States into the community of
States which are subjects of International Law.
Present range of Dominion of the Law of Nations.
§ 28. The present range of the dominion of International Law is a product
of historical development within which epochs are distinguishable marked
by successive entrances of various States into the Family of Nations.
(1) The old Christian States of Western Europe are the original members
of the Family of Nations, because the Law of Nations grew up gradually
between them through custom and treaties. Whenever afterwards a new
Christian State made its appearance in Europe, it was received into the
charmed circle by the old members of the Family of Nations. It is for this
reason that this law was in former times frequently called "European Law
of Nations." But this name has nowadays historical value only, as it has
been changed into "Law of Nations," or "International Law" pure and
simple.
(2) The next group of States which entered into the Family of Nations is
the body of Christian States which grew up outside Europe. All the
American[29] States which arose out of colonies of European States belong
to this group. And it must be emphasised that the United States of America
have largely contributed to the growth of the rules of International Law. The
two Christian Negro Republics of Liberia in West Africa and of Haiti on the
island of San Domingo belong to this group.
[29]
But it ought not to be maintained that there is—in contradistinction to the European—an
American International Law in existence; see, however, Alvarez, "Le Droit International
Américain" (1910), and again Alvarez in A.J. III. (1909), pp. 269-353.
(3) With the reception of the Turkish Empire into the Family of Nations
International Law ceased to be a law between Christian States solely. This
reception has expressly taken place through Article 7 of the Peace Treaty of
Paris of 1856, in which the five Great European Powers of the time,
namely, France, Austria, England, Prussia, and Russia, and besides those
Sardinia, the nucleus of the future Great Power Italy, expressly "déclarent la
Sublime Porte admise à participer aux avantages du droit public et du
concert européens." Since that time Turkey has on the whole endeavoured
in time of peace and war to act in conformity with the rules of International
Law, and she has, on the other hand, been treated[30] accordingly by the
Christian States. No general congress has taken place since 1856 to which
Turkey has not been invited to send her delegates.
[30] There is no doubt that Turkey, in spite of having been received into the Family of Nations,
has nevertheless hitherto been in an anomalous position as a member of that family, owing to the
fact that her civilisation has not yet reached the level of that of the Western States. It is for this
reason that the so-called Capitulations are still in force and that other anomalies still prevail, but
their disappearance is only a question of time.
(4) Another non-Christian member of the Family of Nations is Japan. A
generation ago one might have doubted whether Japan was a real and full
member of that family, but since the end of the nineteenth century no doubt
is any longer justified. Through marvellous efforts, Japan has become not
only a modern State, but an influential Power. Since her war with China in
1895, she must be considered one of the Great Powers that lead the Family
of Nations.
(5) The position of such States as Persia, Siam, China, Morocco,
Abyssinia, and the like, is doubtful. These States are certainly civilised
States, and Abyssinia is even a Christian State. However, their civilisation
has not yet reached that condition which is necessary to enable their
Governments and their population in every respect to understand and to
carry out the command of the rules of International Law. On the other hand,
international intercourse has widely arisen between these States and the
States of the so-called Western civilisation. Many treaties have been
concluded with them, and there is full diplomatic intercourse between them
and the Western States. China, Persia, and Siam have even taken part in the
Hague Peace Conferences. All of them make efforts to educate their
populations, to introduce modern institutions, and thereby to raise their
civilisation to the level of that of the Western. They will certainly succeed
in this respect in the near future. But as yet they have not accomplished this
task, and consequently they are not yet able to be received into the Family
of Nations as full members. Although they are, as will be shown below (§
103), for some parts within the circle of the Family of Nations, they remain
for other parts outside. But the example of Japan can show them that it
depends entirely upon their own efforts to be received as full members into
that family.
(6) It must be mentioned that a State of quite a unique character, the
former Congo Free State,[31] was, since the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885,
a member of the Family of Nations. But it lost its membership in 1908
when it merged in Belgium by cession.
[31] See below, § 101.

Treatment of States outside the Family of Nations.

§ 29. The Law of Nations as a law between States based on the common
consent of the members of the Family of Nations naturally does not contain
any rules concerning the intercourse with and treatment of such States as
are outside that circle. That this intercourse and treatment ought to be
regulated by the principles of Christian morality is obvious. But actually a
practice frequently prevails which is not only contrary to Christian morality,
but arbitrary and barbarous. Be that as it may, it is discretion, and not
International Law, according to which the members of the Family of
Nations deal with such States as still remain outside that family. But the
United States of America apply, as far as possible, the rules of International
Law to their relations with the Red Indians.

VI
CODIFICATION OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, I. pp. 136-152—Ullmann, § 11—Despagnet, Nos. 67-68—

Bonfils, Nos. 1713-1727—Mérignhac, I. pp. 26-28—Nys, I. pp. 166-183—Rivier, I. § 2—
Fiore, I. Nos. 124-127—Martens, I. § 44—Holland, Studies, pp. 78-95—Bergbohm,
"Staatsverträge und Gesetze als Quellen des Völkerrechts" (1877), pp. 44-77—Bulmerincq,
"Praxis, Theorie, und Codification des Völkerrechts" (1874), pp. 167-192—Roszkowski in
R.I. XXI. (1889), p. 520—Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, IV.
(1910), pp. 208-227.

Movement in Favour of Codification.

§ 30. The lack of precision which is natural to a large number of the rules
of the Law of Nations on account of its slow and gradual growth has
created a movement for its codification. The idea of a codification of the
Law of Nations in its totality arose at the end of the eighteenth century. It
was Bentham who first suggested such a codification. He did not, however,
propose codification of the existing positive Law of Nations, but thought of
a utopian International Law which could be the basis of an everlasting
peace between the civilised States.[32]
[32]See Bentham's Works, ed. Bowring, VIII. p. 537; Nys, in The Law Quarterly Review, XI.
(1885), pp. 226-231.
Another utopian project is due to the French Convention, which resolved
in 1792 to create a Declaration of the Rights of Nations as a pendant to the
Declaration of the Rights of Mankind of 1789. For this purpose the Abbé
Grégoire was charged with the drafting of such a declaration. In 1795, Abbé
Grégoire produced a draft of twenty-one articles, which, however, was
rejected by the Convention, and the matter dropped.[33]
[33]See Rivier, I. p. 40, where the full text of these twenty-one articles is given. They did not
contain a real code, but certain principles only.
It was not until 1861 that a real attempt was made to show the possibility
of a codification. This was done by an Austrian jurist, Alfons von Domin-
Petrushevecz, who published in that year at Leipzig a "Précis d'un Code de
Droit International."
In 1862, the Russian Professor Katschenowsky brought an essay before
the Juridical Society of London (Papers II. 1863) arguing the necessity of a
codification of International Law.
In 1863, Professor Francis Lieber, of the Columbia College, New York,
drafted the Laws of War in a body of rules which the United States
published during the Civil War for the guidance of her army.[34]
[34] See below, vol. II. § 68.
In 1868, Bluntschli, the celebrated Swiss interpreter of the Law of
Nations, published "Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staaten als
Rechtsbuch dargestellt." This draft code has been translated into the French,
Greek, Spanish, and Russian languages, and the Chinese Government
produced an official Chinese translation as a guide for Chinese officials.
In 1872, the great Italian politician and jurist Mancini raised his voice in
favour of codification of the Law of Nations in his able essay "Vocazione
del nostro secolo per la riforma e codificazione del diritto delle genti."
Likewise in 1872 appeared at New York David Dudley Field's "Draft
Outlines of an International Code."
In 1873 the Institute of International Law was founded at Ghent in
Belgium. This association of jurists of all nations meets periodically, and
has produced a number of drafts concerning various parts of International
Law, and in especial a Draft Code of the Law of War on Land (1880).
Likewise in 1873 was founded the Association for the Reform and
Codification of the Law of Nations, which also meets periodically and
which styles itself now the International Law Association.
In 1874 the Emperor Alexander II. of Russia took the initiative in
assembling an international conference at Brussels for the purpose of
discussing a draft code of the Law of Nations concerning land warfare. At
this conference jurists, diplomatists, and military men were united as
delegates of the invited States, and they agreed upon a body of sixty articles
which goes under the name of The Declaration of Brussels. But the Powers
have never ratified these articles.
In 1880 the Institute of International Law published its "Manuel des Lois
de la Guerre sur Terre."
In 1887 Leone Levi published his "International Law with Materials for a
Code of International Law."
In 1890 the Italian jurist Fiore published his "Il diritto internazionale
codificato e sua sanzione giuridica," of which a fourth edition appeared in
1911.
In 1906 E. Duplessix published his "La loi des Nations. Projet
d'institution d'une autorité nationale, législative, administrative, judiciaire.
Projet de Code de Droit international public."
In 1911 Jerome Internoscia published his "New Code of International
Law" in English, French, and Italian.
Work of the first Hague Peace Conference.
§ 31. At the end of the nineteenth century, in 1899, the so-called Peace
Conference at the Hague, convened on the personal initiative of the
Emperor Nicholas II. of Russia, has shown the possibility that parts of the
Law of Nations may well be codified. Apart from three Declarations of
minor value and of the convention concerning the adaptation of the Geneva
Convention to naval warfare, this conference has succeeded in producing
two important conventions which may well be called codes—namely, first,
the "Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes," and,
secondly, the "Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on
Land." The great practical importance of the first-named convention is now
being realised, as the Permanent Court of Arbitration has in a number of
cases already successfully given its award. Nor can the great practical value
of the second-named convention be denied. Although the latter contains,
even in the amended form given to it by the second Hague Peace
Conference of 1907, many gaps, which must be filled up by the customary
Law of Nations, and although it is not a masterpiece of codification, it
represents a model, the very existence of which teaches that codification of
parts of the Law of Nations is practicable, provided the Powers are inclined
to come to an understanding. The first Hague Peace Conference has
therefore made an epoch in the history of International Law.
Work of the second Hague Peace Conference and the Naval Conference of London.
§ 32. Shortly after the Hague Peace Conference of 1899, the United
States of America took a step with regard to sea warfare similar to that
taken by her in 1863 with regard to land warfare. She published on June 27,
1900, a body of rules for the use of her navy under the title "The Laws and
Usages of War at Sea"—the so-called "United States Naval War Code"—
which was drafted by Captain Charles H. Stockton, of the United States
Navy.
Although, on February 4, 1904, this code was by authority of the
President of the United States withdrawn it provided the starting-point of a
movement for codification of maritime International Law. No complete
Naval War Code agreed upon by the Powers has as yet made its appearance,
but the second Hague Peace Conference of 1907 and the Naval Conference
of London of 1908-9 have produced a number of law-making treaties which
represent codifications of several parts of maritime International Law.
The second Hague Peace Conference met in 1907 and produced not less
than thirteen conventions and one declaration. This declaration prohibits the
discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons and takes the place of
a corresponding declaration of the first Hague Peace Conference. And three
of the thirteen conventions, namely that for the pacific settlement of
international disputes, that concerning the laws and customs of war on land,
and that concerning the adaptation of the principles of the Geneva
Convention to maritime war, likewise take the place of three corresponding
conventions of the first Hague Peace Conference. But the other ten
conventions are entirely new and concern: the limitation of the employment
of force for the recovery of contract debts, the opening of hostilities, the
rights and duties of neutral Powers and persons in war on land, the status of
enemy merchant ships at the outbreak of hostilities, the conversion of
merchant ships into war ships, the laying of automatic submarine contact
mines, bombardments by naval forces in time of war, restrictions on the
exercise of the right of capture in maritime war, the establishment of a Prize
Court, the rights and duties of neutral Powers in maritime war.
The Naval Conference of London which met in November 1908, and sat
till February 1909, produced the Declaration of London, the most important
law-making treaty as yet concluded. Its nine chapters deal with: blockade,
contraband, unneutral service, destruction of neutral prizes, transfer to a
neutral flag, enemy character, convoy, resistance to search, compensation.
The Declaration of London, when ratified, will make the establishment of
an International Prize Court possible.
Value of Codification of International Law contested.
§ 33. In spite of the movement in favour of codification of the Law of
Nations, there are many eminent jurists who oppose such codification. They
argue that codification would never be possible on account of differences of
languages and of technical juridical terms. They assert that codification
would cut off the organic growth and future development of International
Law. They postulate the existence of a permanent International Court with
power of executing its verdicts as an indispensable condition, since without
such a court no uniform interpretation of controversial parts of a code could
be possible. Lastly, they maintain that the Law of Nations is not yet at
present, and will not be for a long time to come, ripe for codification. Those
jurists, on the other hand, who are in favour of codification argue that the
customary Law of Nations to a great extent lacks precision and certainty,
that writers on International Law differ in many points regarding its rules,
and that, consequently, there is no broad and certain basis for the practice of
the States to stand upon.
Merits of Codification in general.
§ 34. I am decidedly not a blind and enthusiastic admirer of codification
in general. It cannot be maintained that codification is everywhere, at all
times, and under all circumstances opportune. Codification certainly
interferes with the so-called organic growth of the law through usage into
custom. It is true that a law, once codified, cannot so easily adapt itself to
the individual merits of particular cases which come under it. It is further a
fact, which cannot be denied, that together with codification there
frequently enters into courts of justice and into the area of juridical
literature a hair-splitting tendency and an interpretation of the law which
often clings more to the letter and the word of the law than to its spirit and
its principles. And it is not at all a fact that codification does away with
controversies altogether. Codification certainly clears up many questions of
law which have been hitherto debatable, but it creates at the same time new
controversies. And, lastly, all jurists know very well that the art of
legislation is still in its infancy and not at all highly developed. The hands
of legislators are very often clumsy, and legislation often does more harm
than good. Yet, on the other hand, the fact must be recognised that history
has given its verdict in favour of codification. There is no civilised State in
existence whose Municipal Law is not to a greater or lesser extent codified.
The growth of the law through custom goes on very slowly and gradually,
very often too slowly to be able to meet the demands of the interests at
stake. New interests and new inventions very often spring up with which
customary law cannot deal. Circumstances and conditions frequently
change so suddenly that the ends of justice are not met by the existing
customary law of a State. Thus, legislation, which is, of course, always
partial codification, becomes often a necessity in the face of which all
hesitation and scruple must vanish. Whatever may be the disadvantages of
codification, there comes a time in the development of every civilised State
when it can no longer be avoided. And great are the advantages of
codification, especially of a codification that embraces a large part of the
law. Many controversies are done away with. The science of Law receives a
fresh stimulus. A more uniform spirit enters into the law of the country.
New conditions and circumstances of life become legally recognised.
Mortifying principles and branches are cut off with one stroke. A great deal
of fresh and healthy blood is brought into the arteries of the body of the law
in its totality. If codification is carefully planned and prepared, if it is
imbued with true and healthy conservatism, many disadvantages can be
avoided. And interpretation on the part of good judges can deal with many a
fault that codification has made. If the worst comes to the worst, there is
always a Parliament or another law-giving authority of the land to mend
through further legislation the faults of previous codification.
 Merits of Codification of International Law.
§ 35. But do these arguments in favour of codification in general also
apply to codification of the Law of Nations? I have no doubt that they do
more or less. If some of these arguments have no force in view of the
special circumstances of the existence of International Law and of the
peculiarities of the Family of Nations, there are other arguments which take
their place.
When opponents maintain that codification would never be practicable
on account of differences of language and of technical juridical terms, I
answer that this difficulty is only as great an obstacle in the way of
codification as it is in the way of contracting international treaties. The fact
that such treaties are concluded every day shows that difficulties which
arise out of differences of language and of technical juridical terms are not
at all insuperable.
Of more weight than this is the next argument of opponents, that
codification of the Law of Nations would cut off its organic growth and
future development. It cannot be denied that codification always interferes
with the growth of customary law, although the assertion is not justified that
codification does cut off such growth. But this disadvantage can be met by
periodical revisions of the code and by its gradual increase and
improvement through enactment of additional and amending rules
according to the wants and needs of the days to come.
When opponents postulate an international court with power of executing
its verdicts as an indispensable condition of codification, I answer that the
non-existence of such a court is quite as much or as little an argument
against codification as against the very existence of International Law. If
there is a Law of Nations in existence in spite of the non-existence of an
international court to guarantee its realisation, I cannot see why the non-
existence of such a court should be an obstacle to codifying the very same
Law of Nations. It may indeed be maintained that codification is all the
more necessary as such an international court does not exist. For
codification of the Law of Nations and the solemn recognition of a code by
a universal law-making international treaty would give more precision,
certainty, and weight to the rules of the Law of Nations than they have now
in their unwritten condition. And a uniform interpretation of a code is now,
since the first Hague Peace Conference has instituted a Permanent Court of
Arbitration, and since the second Peace Conference has resolved upon the
establishment of an International Prize Court, much more realisable than in
former times, although these courts will never have the power of executing
their verdicts.
But is the Law of Nations ripe for codification? I readily admit that there
are certain parts of that law which would offer the greatest difficulty, and
which therefore had better remain untouched for the present. But there are
other parts, and I think that they constitute the greater portion of the Law of
Nations, which are certainly ripe for codification. There can be no doubt
that, whatever can be said against codification of the whole of the Law of
Nations, partial codification is possible and comparatively easy. The work
done by the Institute of International Law, and published in the "Annuaire
de l'Institut de Droit International," gives evidence of it. And the number
and importance of the law-making treaties produced by the Hague Peace
Conferences and the Maritime Conference of London, 1908-9, should leave
no doubt as to the feasibility of such partial codification.
 How Codification could be realised.
§ 36. However, although possible, codification could hardly be realised at
once. The difficulties, though not insuperable, are so great that it would take
the work of perhaps a generation of able jurists to prepare draft codes for
those parts of International Law which may be considered ripe for
codification. The only way in which such draft codes could be prepared
consists in the appointment on the part of the Powers of an international
committee composed of a sufficient number of able jurists, whose task
would be the preparation of the drafts. Public opinion of the whole civilised
world would, I am sure, watch the work of these men with the greatest
interest, and the Parliaments of the civilised States would gladly vote the
comparatively small sums of money necessary for the costs of the work.
But in proposing codification it is necessary to emphasise that it does not
necessarily involve a reconstruction of the present international order and a
recasting of the whole system of International Law as it at present stands.
Naturally, a codification would in many points mean not only an addition to
the rules at present recognised, but also the repeal, alteration, and
reconstruction of some of these rules. Yet, however this may be, I do not
believe that a codification ought to be or could be undertaken which would
revolutionise the present international order and put the whole system of
International Law on a new basis. The codification which I have in view is
one that would embody the existing rules of International Law together with
such modifications and additions as are necessitated by the conditions of the
age and the very fact of codification being taken in hand. If International
Law, as at present recognised, is once codified, nothing prevents reformers
from making proposals which could be realised by successive codification.

CHAPTER II
DEVELOPMENT AND SCIENCE OF THE LAW OF
NATIONS

I
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF NATIONS BEFORE GROTIUS
 Lawrence, §§ 20-29—Manning, pp. 8-20—Halleck, I. pp. 1-11—Walker, History, I. pp. 30-
137—Taylor, §§ 6-29—Ullmann, §§ 12-14—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, I, pp. 159-386
—Nys, I. pp. 1-18—Martens, I. §§ 8-20—Fiore, I. Nos. 3-31—Calvo, I. pp. 1-32—Bonfils,
Nos. 71-86—Despagnet, Nos. 1-19—Mérignhac, I. pp. 38-43—Laurent, "Histoire du Droit
des Gens," &c., 14 vols. (2nd ed. 1861-1868)—Ward, "Enquiry into the Foundation and
History of the Law of Nations," 2 vols. (1795)—Osenbrüggen, "De Jure Belli ac Pacis
Romanorum" (1876)—Müller-Jochmus, "Geschichte des Völkerrechts im Alterthum"
(1848)—Hosack, "Rise and Growth of the Law of Nations" (1883), pp. 1-226—Nys, "Le
Droit de la Guerre et les Précurseurs de Grotius" (1882) and "Les Origines du Droit
International" (1894)—Hill, "History of Diplomacy in the International Development of
Europe," vol. I. (1905) and vol. II. (1906)—Cybichowski, "Das antike Völkerrecht" (1907)
—Phillipson, "The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome," 2 vols.
(1910)—Strupp, "Urkunden zur Geschichte des Völkerrechts," 2 vols. (1911).

No Law of Nations in antiquity.

§ 37. International Law as a law between Sovereign and equal States
based on the common consent of these States is a product of modern
Christian civilisation, and may be said to be hardly four hundred years old.
However, the roots of this law go very far back into history. Such roots are
to be found in the rules and usages which were observed by the different
nations of antiquity with regard to their external relations. But it is well
known that the conception of a Family of Nations did not arise in the
mental horizon of the ancient world. Each nation had its own religion and
gods, its own language, law, and morality. International interests of
sufficient vigour to wind a band around all the civilised States, bring them
nearer to each other, and knit them together into a community of nations,
did not spring up in antiquity. On the other hand, however, no nation could
avoid coming into contact with other nations. War was waged and peace
concluded. Treaties were agreed upon. Occasionally ambassadors were sent
and received. International trade sprang up. Political partisans whose cause
was lost often fled their country and took refuge in another. And, just as in
our days, criminals often fled their country for the purpose of escaping
punishment.
Such more or less frequent and constant contact of different nations with
one another could not exist without giving rise to certain fairly congruent
rules and usages to be observed with regard to external relations. These
rules and usages were considered under the protection of the gods; their
violation called for religious expiation. It will be of interest to throw a
glance at the respective rules and usages of the Jews, Greeks, and Romans.
The Jews.
 § 38. Although they were monotheists and the standard of their ethics
was consequently much higher than that of their heathen neighbours, the
Jews did not in fact raise the standard of the international relations of their
time except so far as they afforded foreigners living on Jewish territory
equality before the law. Proud of their monotheism and despising all other
nations on account of their polytheism, they found it totally impossible to
recognise other nations as equals. If we compare the different parts of the
Bible concerning the relations of the Jews with other nations, we are struck
by the fact that the Jews were sworn enemies of some foreign nations, as
the Amalekites, for example, with whom they declined to have any relations
whatever in peace. When they went to war with those nations, their practice
was extremely cruel. They killed not only the warriors on the battlefield,
but also the aged, the women, and the children in their homes. Read, for
example, the short description of the war of the Jews against the Amalekites
in 1 Samuel xv., where we are told that Samuel instructed King Saul as
follows: (3) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they
have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." King Saul obeyed the injunction,
save that he spared the life of Agag, the Amalekite king, and some of the
finest animals. Then we are told that the prophet Samuel rebuked Saul and
"hewed Agag in pieces with his own hand." Or again, in 2 Samuel xii. 31,
we find that King David, "the man after God's own heart," after the
conquest of the town of Rabbah, belonging to the Ammonites, "brought
forth the people that were therein and put them under saws, and under
harrows of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln...."
With those nations, however, of which they were not sworn enemies the
Jews used to have international relations. And when they went to war with
those nations, their practice was in no way exceptionally cruel, if looked
upon from the standpoint of their time and surroundings. Thus we find in
Deuteronomy xx. 10-14 the following rules:—
(10) "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim
peace unto it.
(11) "And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace and open unto thee,
that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and
they shall serve thee.
 (12) "And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against
thee, then thou shalt besiege it.
(13) "And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou
shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword.
(14) "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in
the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou
shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given
thee."
Comparatively mild, like these rules for warfare, were the Jewish rules
regarding their foreign slaves. Such slaves were not without legal
protection. The master who killed a slave was punished (Exodus ii. 20); if
the master struck his slave so severely that he lost an eye or a tooth, the
slave became a free man (Exodus ii. 26 and 27). The Jews, further, allowed
foreigners to live among them under the full protection of their laws. "Love
... the stranger, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt," says
Deuteronomy x. 19, and in Leviticus xxiv. 22 there is the command: "You
shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger as for one of your
own country."
Of the greatest importance, however, for the International Law of the
future, are the Messianic ideals and hopes of the Jews, as these Messianic
ideals and hopes are not national only, but fully international. The following
are the beautiful words in which the prophet Isaiah (ii. 2-4) foretells the
state of mankind when the Messiah shall have appeared:
(2) "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the
Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be
exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
(3) "And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us
of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the
law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
(4) "And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many
people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears
into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more."
 Thus we see that the Jews, at least at the time of Isaiah, had a foreboding
and presentiment of a future when all the nations of the world should be
united in peace. And the Jews have given this ideal to the Christian world.
It is the same ideal which has in bygone times inspired all those eminent
men who have laboured to build up an International Law. And it is again the
same ideal which nowadays inspires all lovers of international peace.
Although the Jewish State and the Jews as a nation have practically done
nothing to realise that ideal, yet it sprang up among them and has never
disappeared.
The Greeks.
§ 39. Totally different from this Jewish contribution to a future
International Law is that of the Greeks. The broad and deep gulf between
their civilisation and that of their neighbours necessarily made them look
down upon those neighbours as barbarians, and thus prevented them from
raising the standard of their relations with neighbouring nations above the
average level of antiquity. But the Greeks before the Macedonian conquest
were never united into one powerful national State. They lived in numerous
more or less small city States, which were totally independent of one
another. It is this very fact which, as time went on, called into existence a
kind of International Law between these independent States. They could
never forget that their inhabitants were of the same race. The same blood,
the same religion, and the same civilisation of their citizens united these
independent and—as we should say nowadays—Sovereign States into a
community of States which in time of peace and war held themselves bound
to observe certain rules as regards the relations between one another. The
consequence was that the practice of the Greeks in their wars among
themselves was a very mild one. It was a rule that war should never be
commenced without a declaration of war. Heralds were inviolable. Warriors
who died on the battlefield were entitled to burial. If a city was captured,
the lives of all those who took refuge in a temple had to be spared. War
prisoners could be exchanged or ransomed; their lot was, at the utmost,
slavery. Certain places, as, for example, the temple of the god Apollo at
Delphi, were permanently inviolable. Even certain persons in the armies of
the belligerents were considered inviolable, as, for instance, the priests, who
carried the holy fire, and the seers.
 Thus the Greeks left to history the example that independent and
Sovereign States can live, and are in reality compelled to live, in a
community which provides a law for the international relations of the
member-States, provided that there exist some common interests and aims
which bind these States together. It is very often maintained that this kind of
International Law of the Greek States could in no way be compared with
our modern International Law, as the Greeks did not consider their
international rules as legally, but as religiously binding only. We must,
however, not forget that the Greeks never made the same distinction
between law, religion, and morality which the modern world makes. The
fact itself remains unshaken that the Greek States set an example to the
future that independent States can live in a community in which their
international regulations are governed by certain rules and customs based
on the common consent of the members of that community.
The Romans.
§ 40. Totally different again from the Greek contribution to a future
International Law is that of the Romans. As far back as their history goes,
the Romans had a special set of twenty priests, the so-called fetiales, for the
management of functions regarding their relations with foreign nations. In
fulfilling their functions the fetiales did not apply a purely secular but a
divine and holy law, a jus sacrale, the so-called jus fetiale. The fetiales were
employed when war was declared or peace was made, when treaties of
friendship or of alliance were concluded, when the Romans had an
international claim before a foreign State, or vice versa.
According to Roman Law the relations of the Romans with a foreign
State depended upon the fact whether or not there existed a treaty of
friendship between Rome and the respective State. In case no such treaty
was in existence, persons or goods coming from the foreign land into the
land of the Romans, and likewise persons and goods going from the land of
the Romans into the foreign land, enjoyed no legal protection whatever.
Such persons could be made slaves, and such goods could be seized, and
became the property of the captor. Should such an enslaved person ever
come back to his country, he was at once considered a free man again
according to the so-called jus postliminii. An exception was made as
regards ambassadors. They were always considered inviolable, and
whoever violated them was handed over to the home State of those
ambassadors to be punished according to discretion.
Different were the relations when a treaty of friendship existed. Persons
and goods coming from one country into the other stood then under legal
protection. So many foreigners came in the process of time to Rome that a
whole system of law sprang up regarding these foreigners and their
relations with Roman citizens, the so-called jus gentium in contradistinction
to the jus civile. And a special magistrate, the praetor peregrinus, was
nominated for the administration of that law. Of such treaties with foreign
nations there were three different kinds, namely, of friendship (amicitia), of
hospitality (hospitium), or of alliance (foedus). I do not propose to go into
details about them. It suffices to remark that, although the treaties were
concluded without any such provision, notice of termination could be given.
Very often these treaties used to contain a provision according to which
future controversies could be settled by arbitration of the so-called
recuperatores.
Very precise legal rules existed as regards war and peace. Roman law
considered war a legal institution. There were four different just reasons for
war, namely: (1) Violation of the Roman dominion; (2) violation of
ambassadors; (3) violation of treaties; (4) support given during war to an
opponent by a hitherto friendly State. But even in such cases war was only
justified if satisfaction was not given by the foreign State. Four fetiales used
to be sent as ambassadors to the foreign State from which satisfaction was
asked. If such satisfaction was refused, war was formally declared by one of
the fetiales throwing a lance from the Roman frontier into the foreign land.
For warfare itself no legal rules existed, but discretion only, and there are
examples enough of great cruelty on the part of the Romans. Legal rules
existed, however, for the end of war. War could be ended, first, through a
treaty of peace, which was then always a treaty of friendship. War could,
secondly, be ended by surrender (deditio). Such surrender spared the enemy
their lives and property. War could, thirdly and lastly, be ended through
conquest of the enemy's country (occupatio). It was in this case that the
Romans could act according to discretion with the lives and the property of
the enemy.
From this sketch of their rules concerning external relations, it becomes
apparent that the Romans gave to the future the example of a State with
legal rules for its foreign relations. As the legal people par excellence, the
Romans could not leave their international relations without legal treatment.
And though this legal treatment can in no way be compared to modern
International Law, yet it constitutes a contribution to the Law of Nations of
the future, in so far as its example furnished many arguments to those to
whose efforts we owe the very existence of our modern Law of Nations.
No need for a Law of Nations during the Middle Ages.
§ 41. The Roman Empire gradually absorbed nearly the whole civilised
ancient world, so far as it was known to the Romans. They hardly knew of
any independent civilised States outside the borders of their empire. There
was, therefore, neither room nor need for an International Law as long as
this empire existed. It is true that at the borders of this world-empire there
were always wars, but these wars gave opportunity for the practice of a few
rules and usages only. And matters did not change when under Constantine
the Great (313-337) the Christian faith became the religion of the empire
and Byzantium its capital instead of Rome, and, further, when in 395 the
Roman Empire was divided into the Eastern and the Western Empire. This
Western Empire disappeared in 476, when Romulus Augustus, the last
emperor, was deposed by Odoacer, the leader of the Germanic soldiers, who
made himself ruler in Italy. The land of the extinct Western Roman Empire
came into the hands of different peoples, chiefly of Germanic extraction. In
Gallia the kingdom of the Franks springs up in 486 under Chlodovech the
Merovingian. In Italy, the kingdom of the Ostrogoths under Theoderich the
Great, who defeated Odoacer, rises in 493. In Spain the kingdom of the
Visigoths appears in 507. The Vandals had, as early as in 429, erected a
kingdom in Africa, with Carthage as its capital. The Saxons had already
gained a footing in Britannia in 449.
All these peoples were barbarians in the strict sense of the term.
Although they had adopted Christianity, it took hundreds of years to raise
them to the standard of a more advanced civilisation. And, likewise,
hundreds of years passed before different nations came to light out of the
amalgamation of the various peoples that had conquered the old Roman
Empire with the residuum of the population of that empire. It was in the
eighth century that matters became more settled. Charlemagne built up his
vast Frankish Empire, and was, in 800, crowned Roman Emperor by Pope
Leo III. Again the whole world seemed to be one empire, headed by the
Emperor as its temporal, and by the Pope as its spiritual, master, and for an
International Law there was therefore no room and no need. But the
Frankish Empire did not last long. According to the Treaty of Verdun, it
was, in 843, divided into three parts, and with that division the process of
development set in, which led gradually to the rise of the several States of
Europe.
In theory the Emperor of the Germans remained for hundreds of years to
come the master of the world, but in practice he was not even master at
home, as the German Princes step by step succeeded in establishing their
independence. And although theoretically the world was well looked after
by the Emperor as its temporal and the Pope as its spiritual head, there were
constantly treachery, quarrelling, and fighting going on. War practice was
the most cruel possible. It is true that the Pope and the Bishops succeeded
sometimes in mitigating such practice, but as a rule there was no influence
of the Christian teaching visible.
The Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.
§ 42. The necessity for a Law of Nations did not arise until a multitude of
States absolutely independent of one another had successfully established
themselves. The process of development, starting from the Treaty of Verdun
of 843, reached that climax with the reign of Frederic III., Emperor of the
Germans from 1440 to 1493. He was the last of the emperors crowned in
Rome by the hands of the Popes. At that time Europe was, in fact, divided
up into a great number of independent States, and thenceforth a law was
needed to deal with the international relations of these Sovereign States.
Seven factors of importance prepared the ground for the growth of
principles of a future International Law.
(1) There were, first, the Civilians and the Canonists. Roman Law was in
the beginning of the twelfth century brought back to the West through
Irnerius, who taught this law at Bologna. He and the other glossatores and
post-glossatores considered Roman Law the ratio scripta, the law par
excellence. These Civilians maintained that Roman Law was the law of the
civilised world ipso facto through the emperors of the Germans being the
successors of the emperors of Rome. Their commentaries to the Corpus
Juris Civilis touch upon many questions of the future International Law
which they discuss from the basis of Roman Law.
 The Canonists, on the other hand, whose influence was unshaken till the
time of the Reformation, treated from a moral and ecclesiastical point of
view many questions of the future International Law concerning war.[35]
[35] See Holland, Studies, pp. 40-58; Walker, History, I. pp. 204-212.
(2) There were, secondly, collections of Maritime Law of great
importance which made their appearance in connection with international
trade. From the eighth century the world trade, which had totally
disappeared in consequence of the downfall of the Roman Empire and the
destruction of the old civilisation during the period of the Migration of the
Peoples, began slowly to develop again. The sea trade specially flourished
and fostered the growth of rules and customs of Maritime Law, which were
collected into codes and gained some kind of international recognition. The
more important of these collections are the following: The Consolato del
Mare, a private collection made at Barcelona in Spain in the middle of the
fourteenth century; the Laws of Oléron, a collection, made in the twelfth
century, of decisions given by the maritime court of Oléron in France; the
Rhodian Laws, a very old collection of maritime laws which probably was
put together between the sixth and the eighth centuries;[36] the Tabula
Amalfitana, the maritime laws of the town of Amalfi in Italy, which date at
latest from the tenth century; the Leges Wisbuenses, a collection of
maritime laws of Wisby on the island of Gothland, in Sweden, dating from
the fourteenth century.
[36] See Ashburner, "The Rhodian Sea Law" (1909), Introduction, p. cxii.
The growth of international trade caused also the rise of the controversy
regarding the freedom of the high seas (see below, § 248), which indirectly
influenced the growth of an International Law (see below, §§ 248-250).
(3) A third factor was the numerous leagues of trading towns for the
protection of their trade and trading citizens. The most celebrated of these
leagues is the Hanseatic, formed in the thirteenth century. These leagues
stipulated for arbitration on controversies between their member towns.
They acquired trading privileges in foreign States. They even waged war,
when necessary, for the protection of their interests.
(4) A fourth factor was the growing custom on the part of the States of
sending and receiving permanent legations. In the Middle Ages the Pope
alone had a permanent legation at the court of the Frankish kings. Later, the
Italian Republics, as Venice and Florence for instance, were the first States
to send out ambassadors, who took up their residence for several years in
the capitals of the States to which they were sent. At last, from the end of
the fifteenth century, it became a universal custom for the kings of the
different States to keep permanent legations at one another's capital. The
consequence was that an uninterrupted opportunity was given for discussing
and deliberating common international interests. And since the position of
ambassadors in foreign countries had to be taken into consideration,
international rules concerning inviolability and exterritoriality of foreign
envoys gradually grew up.
(5) A fifth factor was the custom of the great States of keeping standing
armies, a custom which also dates from the fifteenth century. The uniform
and stern discipline in these armies favoured the rise of more universal rules
and practices of warfare.
(6) A sixth factor was the Renaissance and the Reformation. The
Renaissance of science and art in the fifteenth century, together with the
resurrection of the knowledge of antiquity, revived the philosophical and
aesthetical ideals of Greek life and transferred them to modern life.
Through their influence the spirit of the Christian religion took precedence
of its letter. The conviction awoke everywhere that the principles of
Christianity ought to unite the Christian world more than they had done
hitherto, and that these principles ought to be observed in matters
international as much as in matters national. The Reformation, on the other
hand, put an end to the spiritual mastership of the Pope over the civilised
world. Protestant States could not recognise the claim of the Pope to
arbitrate as of right in their conflicts either between one another or between
themselves and Catholic States.
(7) A seventh factor made its appearance in connection with the schemes
for the establishment of eternal peace which arose from the beginning of the
fourteenth century. Although these schemes were utopian, they nevertheless
must have had great influence by impressing upon the Princes and the
nations of Christendom the necessity for some kind of organisation of the
numerous independent States into a community. The first of these schemes
was that of the French lawyer, Pierre Dubois, who, as early as 1306, in "De
Recuperatione Terre Sancte" proposed an alliance between all Christian
Powers for the purpose of the maintenance of peace and the establishment
of a Permanent Court of Arbitration for the settlement of differences
between the members of the alliance.[37] Another project arose in 1461,
when Podiebrad, King of Bohemia from 1420-1471, adopted the scheme of
his Chancellor, Antoine Marini, and negotiated with foreign courts the
foundation of a Federal State to consist of all the existing Christian States
with a permanent Congress, seated at Basle, of ambassadors of all the
member States as the highest organ of the Federation.[38] A third plan was
that of Sully, adopted by Henri IV. of France, which proposed the division
of Europe into fifteen States and the linking together of these into a
federation with a General Council as its highest organ, consisting of
Commissioners deputed by the member States.[39] A fourth project was that
of Émeric Crucée, who, in 1623, proposed the establishment of a Union
consisting not only of the Christian States but of all States then existing in
the whole of the world, with a General Council as its highest organ, seated
at Venice, and consisting of ambassadors of all the member States of the
Union.[40]
[37] See Meyer, "Die staats- und völkerrechtlichen Ideen von Pierre Dubois" (1909); Schücking,
"Die Organisation der Welt" (1909), pp. 28-30; Vesnitch, "Deux Précurseurs Français du Pacifism,
etc." (1911), pp. 1-29.
[38] See Schwitzky, "Der Europaeische Fürstenbund Georg's von Podiebrad" (1909), and
Schücking, "Die Organisation der Welt" (1909), pp. 32-36.
[39] See Nys, "Études de Droit International et de Droit Politique" (1896), pp. 301-306, and
Darby, "International Arbitration" (4th ed. 1904), pp. 10-21.
[40] See Balch, "Le Nouveau Cynée de Émeric Crucée" (1909); Darby, "International
Arbitration" (4th ed. 1904), pp. 22-33; Vesnitch, "Deux Précurseurs Français du Pacifism, etc."
(1911), pp. 29-54.
The schemes enumerated in the text are those which were advanced before the appearance of
Grotius's work "De Jure Belli ac Pacis" (1625). The numerous plans which made their appearance
afterwards—that of the Landgrave of Hesse-Rheinfels, 1666; of Charles, Duke of Lorraine, 1688;
of William Penn, 1693; of John Bellers, 1710; of the Abbé de St. Pierre (1658-1743); of Kant,
1795; and of others—are all discussed in Schücking, "Die Organisation der Welt" (1909), and
Darby, "International Arbitration" (4th ed. 1904). They are as utopian as the pre-Grotian schemes,
but they are nevertheless of great importance. They preached again and again the gospel of the
organisation of the Family of Nations, and although their ideal has not been and can never be
realised, they drew the attention of public opinion to the fact that the international relations of
States should not be based on arbitrariness and anarchy, but on rules of law and comity. And
thereby they have indirectly influenced the gradual growth of rules of law for these international
relations.

II
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF NATIONS AFTER GROTIUS
 Lawrence, §§ 29-53, and Essays, pp. 147-190—Halleck, I. pp. 12-45—Walker, History, I. pp.
138-202—Taylor, §§ 65-95—Nys, I. pp. 19-46—Martens, I. §§ 21-33—Fiore, I. Nos. 32-52
—Calvo, I. pp. 32-101—Bonfils, Nos. 87-146—Despagnet, Nos. 20-27—Mérignhac, I. pp.
43-78—Ullmann, §§ 15-17—Laurent, "Histoire du Droit des Gens, &c.," 14 vols. (2nd ed.
1861-1868)—Wheaton, "Histoire des Progrès du Droit des Gens en Europe" (1841)—
Bulmerincq, "Die Systematik des Völkerrechts" (1858)—Pierantoni, "Storia del diritto
internazionale nel secolo XIX." (1876)—Hosack, "Rise and Growth of the Law of Nations"
(1883), pp. 227-320—Brie, "Die Fortschritte des Völkerrechts seit dem Wiener Congress"
(1890)—Gareis, "Die Fortschritte des internationalen Rechts im letzten Menschenalter"
(1905)—Dupuis, "Le Principe d'Équilibre et le Concert Européen de la Paix de Westphalie
à l'Acte d'Algésiras" (1909)—Strupp, "Urkunden zur Geschichte des Völkerrechts," 2 vols.
(1911).

The time of Grotius.

§ 43. The seventeenth century found a multitude of independent States
established and crowded on the comparatively small continent of Europe.
Many interests and aims knitted these States together into a community of
States. International lawlessness was henceforth an impossibility. This was
the reason for the fact that Grotius's work "De Jure Belli ac Pacis libri III.,"
which appeared in 1625, won the ear of the different States, their rulers, and
their writers on matters international. Since a Law of Nations was now a
necessity, since many principles of such a law were already more or less
recognised and appeared again among the doctrines of Grotius, since the
system of Grotius supplied a legal basis to most of those international
relations which were at the time considered as wanting such basis, the book
of Grotius obtained such a world-wide influence that he is correctly styled
the "Father of the Law of Nations." It would be very misleading and in no
way congruent with the facts of history to believe that Grotius's doctrines
were as a body at once universally accepted. No such thing happened, nor
could have happened. What did soon take place was that, whenever an
international question of legal importance arose, Grotius's book was
consulted, and its authority was so overwhelming that in many cases its
rules were considered right. How those rules of Grotius, which have more
or less quickly been recognised by the common consent of the writers on
International Law, have gradually received similar acceptance at the hands
of the Family of Nations is a process of development which in each single
phase cannot be ascertained. It can only be stated that at the end of the
seventeenth century the civilised States considered themselves bound by a
Law of Nations the rules of which were to a great extent the rules of
Grotius. This does not mean that these rules have from the end of that
century never been broken. On the contrary, they have frequently been
broken. But whenever this occurred, the States concerned maintained either
that they did not intend to break these rules, or that their acts were in
harmony with them, or that they were justified by just causes and
circumstances in breaking them. And the development of the Law of
Nations did not come to a standstill with the reception of the bulk of the
rules of Grotius. More and more rules were gradually required and therefore
gradually grew. All the historically important events and facts of
international life from the time of Grotius down to our own have, on the one
hand, given occasion to the manifestation of the existence of a Law of
Nations, and, on the other hand, in their turn made the Law of Nations
constantly and gradually develop into a more perfect and more complete
system of legal rules.
It serves the purpose to divide the history of the development of the Law
of Nations from the time of Grotius into seven periods—namely, 1648-
1721, 1721-1789, 1789-1815, 1815-1856, 1856-1874, 1874-1899, 1899-
1911.
The period 1648-1721.
§ 44. The ending of the Thirty Years' War through the Westphalian Peace
of 1648 is the first event of great importance after the death of Grotius in
1645. What makes remarkable the meetings of Osnaburg, where the
Protestant Powers met, and Münster, where the Catholic Powers met, is the
fact that there was for the first time in history a European Congress
assembled for the purpose of settling matters international by common
consent of the Powers. With the exception of England, Russia, and Poland,
all the important Christian States were represented at this congress, as were
also the majority of the minor Powers. The arrangements made by this
congress show what a great change had taken place in the condition of
matters international. The Swiss Confederation and the Netherlands were
recognised as independent States. The 355 different States which belonged
to the German Empire were practically, although not theoretically,
recognised as independent States which formed a Confederation under the
Emperor as its head. Of these 355 States, 150 were secular States governed
by hereditary monarchs (Electors, Dukes, Landgraves, and the like), 62
were free-city States, and 123 were ecclesiastical States governed by
archbishops and other Church dignitaries. The theory of the unity of the
civilised world under the German Emperor and the Pope as its temporal and
spiritual heads respectively was buried for ever. A multitude of recognised
independent States formed a community on the basis of equality of all its
members. The conception of the European equilibrium[41] made its
appearance and became an implicit principle as a guaranty of the
independence of the members of the Family of Nations. Protestant States
took up their position within this family along with Catholic States, as did
republics along with monarchies.
[41] See below, pp. 64, 65, 80, 193, 307.
In the second half of the seventeenth century the policy of conquest
initiated by Louis XIV. of France led to numerous wars. But Louis XIV.
always pleaded a just cause when he made war, and even the establishment
of the ill-famed so-called Chambers of Reunion (1680-1683) was done
under the pretext of law. There was no later period in history in which the
principles of International Law were more frivolously violated, but the
violation was always cloaked by some excuse. Five treaties of peace
between France and other Powers during the reign of Louis XIV. are of
great importance. (1) The Peace of the Pyrenees, which ended in 1659 the
war between France and Spain, who had not come to terms at the
Westphalian Peace. (2) The Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, which ended in 1668
another war between France and Spain, commenced in 1667 because France
claimed the Spanish Netherlands from Spain. This peace was forced upon
Louis XIV. through the triple alliance between England, Holland, and
Sweden. (3) The Peace of Nymeguen, which ended in 1678 the war
originally commenced by Louis XIV. in 1672 against Holland, into which
many other European Powers were drawn. (4) The Peace of Ryswick, which
ended in 1697 the war that had existed since 1688 between France on one
side, and, on the other, England, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Spain, and
Savoy. (5) The Peace of Utrecht, 1713, and the Peace of Rastadt and Baden,
1714, which ended the war of the Spanish Succession that had lasted since
1701 between France and Spain on the one side, and, on the other, England,
Holland, Portugal, Germany, and Savoy.
But wars were not only waged between France and other Powers during
this period. The following treaties of peace must therefore be mentioned:—
(1) The Peaces of Roeskild (1658), Oliva (1660), Copenhagen (also 1660),
and Kardis (1661). The contracting Powers were Sweden, Denmark,
Poland, Prussia, and Russia. (2) The Peace of Carlowitz, 1699, between
Turkey, Austria, Poland, and Venice. (3) The Peace of Nystaedt, 1721,
between Sweden and Russia under Peter the Great.
The year 1721 is epoch-making because with the Peace of Nystaedt
Russia enters as a member into the Family of Nations, in which she at once
held the position of a Great Power. The period ended by the year 1721
shows in many points progressive tendencies regarding the Law of Nations.
Thus the right of visit and search on the part of belligerents over neutral
vessels becomes recognised. The rule "free ships, free goods," rises as a
postulate, although it was not universally recognised till 1856. The
effectiveness of blockades, which were first made use of in war by the
Netherlands at the end of the sixteenth century, rose as a postulate and
became recognised in treaties between Holland and Sweden (1667) and
Holland and England (1674), although its universal recognition was not
realised until the nineteenth century. The freedom of the high seas, claimed
by Grotius and others, began gradually to obtain recognition in practice,
although it did likewise not meet with universal acceptance till the
nineteenth century. The balance of power is solemnly recognised by the
Peace of Utrecht as a principle of the Law of Nations.
The period 1721-1789.
§ 45. Before the end of the first half of the eighteenth century peace in
Europe was again disturbed. The rivalry between Austria and Prussia,
which had become a kingdom in 1701 and the throne of which Frederick II.
had ascended in 1740, led to several wars in which England, France, Spain,
Bavaria, Saxony, and Holland took part. Several treaties of peace were
successively concluded which tried to keep up or re-establish the balance of
power in Europe. The most important of these treaties are: (1) The Peace of
Aix-la-Chapelle of 1748 between France, England, Holland, Austria,
Prussia, Sardinia, Spain, and Genoa. (2) The Peace of Hubertsburg and the
Peace of Paris, both of 1763, the former between Prussia, Austria, and
Saxony, the latter between England, France, and Spain. (3) The Peace of
Versailles of 1783 between England, the United States of America, France,
and Spain.
These wars gave occasion to disputes as to the right of neutrals and
belligerents regarding trade in time of war. Prussia became a Great Power.
The so-called First Armed Neutrality[42] made its appearance in 1780 with
claims of great importance, which were not generally recognised till 1856.
The United States of America succeeded in establishing her independence
and became a member of the Family of Nations, whose future attitude
fostered the growth of several rules of International Law.
[42]See below, Vol. II. §§ 289 and 290, where details concerning the First and Second Armed
Neutrality are given.

The period 1789-1815.

§ 46. All progress, however, was endangered, and indeed the Law of
Nations seemed partly non-existent, during the time of the French
Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. Although the French Convention
resolved in 1792 (as stated above, § 30) to create a "Declaration of the
Rights of Nations," the Revolutionary Government and afterwards
Napoleon I. very often showed no respect for the rules of the Law of
Nations. The whole order of Europe, which had been built up by the
Westphalian and subsequent treaties of peace for the purpose of maintaining
a balance of power, was overthrown. Napoleon I. was for some time the
master of Europe, Russia and England excepted. He arbitrarily created
States and suppressed them again. He divided existing States into portions
and united separate States. The kings depended upon his goodwill, and they
had to follow orders when he commanded. Especially as regards maritime
International Law, a condition of partial lawlessness arose during this
period. Already in 1793 England and Russia interdicted all navigation with
the ports of France, with the intention of subduing her by famine. The
French Convention answered with an order to the French fleet to capture all
neutral ships carrying provisions to the ports of the enemy or carrying
enemy goods. Again Napoleon, who wanted to ruin England by destroying
her commerce, announced in 1806 in his Berlin Decrees the boycott of all
English goods. England answered with the blockade of all French ports and
all ports of the allies of France, and ordered her fleet to capture all ships
destined to any such port.
When at last the whole of Europe was mobilised against Napoleon and he
was finally defeated, the whole face of Europe was changed, and the former
order of things could not possibly be restored. It was the task of the
European Congress of Vienna in 1814 and 1815 to create a new order and a
fresh balance of power. This new order comprised chiefly the following
arrangements:—The Prussian and the Austrian monarchies were re-
established, as was also the Germanic Confederation, which consisted
henceforth of thirty-nine member States. A kingdom of the Netherlands was
created out of Holland and Belgium. Norway and Sweden became a Real
Union. The old dynasties were restored in Spain, in Sardinia, in Tuscany,
and in Modena, as was also the Pope in Rome. To the nineteen cantons of
the Swiss Confederation were added those of Geneva, Valais, and
Neuchâtel, and this Confederation was neutralised for all the future.
But the Vienna Congress did not only establish a new political order in
Europe, it also settled some questions of International Law. Thus, free
navigation was agreed to on so-called international rivers, which are rivers
navigable from the Open Sea and running through the land of different
States. It was further arranged that henceforth diplomatic agents should be
divided into three classes (Ambassadors, Ministers, Chargés d'Affaires).
Lastly, a universal prohibition of the trade in negro slaves was agreed upon.
 The period 1815-1856.
§ 47. The period after the Vienna Congress begins with the so-called
Holy Alliance. Already on September 26, 1815, before the second Peace of
Paris, the Emperors of Russia and Austria and the King of Prussia called
this alliance into existence, the object of which was to make it a duty upon
its members to apply the principles of Christian morality in the
administration of the home affairs of their States as well as in the conduct of
their international relations. After the Vienna Congress the sovereigns of
almost all the European States had joined that alliance with the exception of
England. George IV., at that time prince-regent only, did not join, because
the Holy Alliance was an alliance not of the States, but of sovereigns, and
therefore was concluded without the signatures of the respective responsible
Ministers, whereas according to the English Constitution the signature of
such a responsible Minister would have been necessary.
The Holy Alliance had not as such any importance for International Law,
for it was a religious, moral, and political, but scarcely a legal alliance. But
at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818, which the Emperors of Russia
and Austria and the King of Prussia attended in person, and where it might
be said that the principles of the Holy Alliance were practically applied, the
Great Powers signed a Declaration,[43] in which they solemnly recognised
the Law of Nations as the basis of all international relations, and in which
they pledged themselves for all the future to act according to its rules. The
leading principle of their politics was that of legitimacy,[44] as they
endeavoured to preserve everywhere the old dynasties and to protect the
sovereigns of the different countries against revolutionary movements of
their subjects. This led, in fact, to a dangerous neglect of the principles of
International Law regarding intervention. The Great Powers, with the
exception of England, intervened constantly with the domestic affairs of the
minor States in the interest of the legitimate dynasties and of an anti-liberal
legislation. The Congresses at Troppau, 1820, Laibach, 1821, Verona, 1822,
occupied themselves with a deliberation on such interventions.
[43] See Martens, N.R. IV. p. 560.
[44] See Brockhaus, "Das Legitimitätsprincip" (1868).

The famous Monroe Doctrine (see below, § 139) owes its origin to that
dangerous policy of the European Powers as regards intervention, although
this doctrine embraces other points besides intervention. As from 1810
onwards the Spanish colonies in South America were falling off from the
mother country and declaring their independence, and as Spain was, after
the Vienna Congress, thinking of reconquering these States with the help of
other Powers who upheld the principle of legitimacy, President Monroe
delivered his message on December 2, 1823, which pointed out amongst
other things, that the United States could not allow the interference of a
European Power with the States of the American continent.
Different from the intervention of the Powers of the Holy Alliance in the
interest of legitimacy were the two interventions in the interest of Greece
and Belgium. England, France, and Russia intervened in 1827 in the
struggle of Turkey with the Greeks, an intervention which led finally in
1830 to the independence of Greece. And the Great Powers of the time,
namely, England, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia, invited by the
provisional Belgian Government, intervened in 1830 in the struggle of the
Dutch with the Belgians and secured the formation of a separate Kingdom
of Belgium.
It may be maintained that the establishment of Greece and Belgium
inferred the breakdown of the Holy Alliance. But it was not till the year
1848 that this alliance was totally swept away through the disappearance of
absolutism and the victory of the constitutional system in most States of
Europe. Shortly afterwards, in 1852, Napoleon III., who adopted the
principle of nationality,[45] became Emperor of France. Since he exercised
preponderant influence in Europe, one may say that this principle of
nationality superseded in European politics the principle of legitimacy.
[45] See Bulmerincq, "Praxis, Theorie und Codification des Völkerrechts" (1874), pp. 53-70.
The last event of this period is the Crimean War, which led to the Peace
as well as to the Declaration of Paris in 1856. This war broke out in 1853
between Russia and Turkey. In 1854, England, France, and Sardinia joined
Turkey, but the war continued nevertheless for another two years. Finally,
however, Russia was defeated, a Congress assembled at Paris, where
England, France, Austria, Russia, Sardinia, Turkey, and eventually Prussia,
were represented, and peace was concluded in March 1856. In the Peace
Treaty, Turkey is expressly received as a member into the Family of
Nations. Of greater importance, however, is the celebrated Declaration of
Paris regarding maritime International Law which was signed on April 16,
1856, by the delegates of the Powers that had taken part in the Congress.
This declaration abolished privateering, recognised the rules that enemy
goods on neutral vessels and that neutral goods on enemy vessels cannot be
confiscated, and stipulated that a blockade in order to be binding must be
effective. Together with the fact that at the end of the first quarter of the
nineteenth century the principle of the freedom of the high seas[46] became
universally recognised, the Declaration of Paris is a prominent landmark in
the progress of the Law of Nations. The Powers that had not been
represented at the Congress of Paris were invited to sign the Declaration
afterwards, and the majority of the members of the Family of Nations did
sign it before the end of the year 1856. The few States, such as the United
States of America, Spain, Mexico, and others, which did not then sign,[47]
have in practice since 1856 not acted in opposition to the Declaration, and
one may therefore, perhaps, maintain that the Declaration of Paris has
already become or will soon become universal International Law through
custom. Spain and Mexico, however, signed the Declaration in 1907, as
Japan had already done in 1886.
[46]See below, § 251.
[47]It should be mentioned that the United States did not sign the Declaration of Paris because it
did not go far enough, and did not interdict capture of private enemy vessels.

The period 1856-1874.

§ 48. The next period, the time from 1856 to 1874, is of prominent
importance for the development of the Law of Nations. Under the aegis of
the principle of nationality, Austria turns in 1867 into the dual monarchy of
Austria-Hungary, and Italy as well as Germany becomes united. The unity
of Italy rises out of the war of France and Sardinia against Austria in 1859,
and Italy ranges henceforth among the Great Powers of Europe. The unity
of Germany is the combined result of three wars: that of Austria and Prussia
in 1864 against Denmark on account of Schleswig-Holstein, that of Prussia
and Italy against Austria in 1866, and that of Prussia and the allied South
German States against France in 1870. The defeat of France in 1870 had the
consequence that Italy took possession of the Papal States, whereby the
Pope disappeared from the number of governing sovereigns.
The United States of America rise through the successful termination of
the Civil War in 1865 to the position of a Great Power. Several rules of
maritime International Law owe their further development to this war. And
the instructions concerning warfare on land, published in 1863 by the
Government of the United States, represent the first step towards
codification of the Laws of War. In 1864, the Geneva Convention for the
amelioration of the condition of soldiers wounded in armies in the field is,
on the initiation of Switzerland, concluded by nine States, and in time
almost all civilised States became parties to it. In 1868, the Declaration of
St. Petersburg, interdicting the employment in war of explosive balls below
a certain weight, is signed by many States. Since Russia in 1870 had
arbitrarily shaken off the restrictions of Article 11 of the Peace Treaty of
Paris of 1856 neutralising the Black Sea, the Conference of London, which
met in 1871 and was attended by the representatives of the Powers which
were parties to the Peace of Paris of 1856, solemnly proclaimed "that it is
an essential principle of the Law of Nations that no Power can liberate itself
from the engagements of a treaty, or modify the stipulations thereof, unless
with the consent of the contracting Powers by means of an amicable
arrangement." The last event in this period is the Conference of Brussels of
1874 for the codification of the rules and usages of war on land. Although
the signed code was never ratified, the Brussels Conference was
nevertheless epoch-making, since it showed the readiness of the Powers to
come to an understanding regarding such a code.
The period 1874-1899.
§ 49. After 1874 the principle of nationality continues to exercise its
influence as before. Under its aegis takes place the partial decay of the
Ottoman Empire. The refusal of Turkey to introduce reforms regarding the
Balkan population led in 1877 to war between Turkey and Russia, which
was ended in 1878 by the peace of San Stefano. As the conditions of this
treaty would practically have done away with Turkey in Europe, England
intervened and a European Congress assembled at Berlin in June 1878
which modified materially the conditions of the Peace of San Stefano. The
chief results of the Berlin Congress are:—(1) Servia, Roumania,
Montenegro become independent and Sovereign States; (2) Bulgaria
becomes an independent principality under Turkish suzerainty; (3) the
Turkish provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina come under the
administration of Austria-Hungary; (4) a new province under the name of
Eastern Rumelia is created in Turkey and is to enjoy great local autonomy
(according to an arrangement of the Conference of Constantinople in 1885-
1886 a bond is created between Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria by the
appointment of the Prince of Bulgaria as governor of Eastern Rumelia); (5)
free navigation on the Danube from the Iron Gates to its mouth in the Black
Sea is proclaimed.
In 1889 Brazil becomes a Republic and a Federal State (the United States
of Brazil). In the same year the first Pan-American Congress meets at
Washington.
In 1897 Crete revolts against Turkey, war breaks out between Greece and
Turkey, the Powers interfere, and peace is concluded at Constantinople.
Crete becomes an autonomous half-Sovereign State under Turkish
suzerainty with Prince George of Greece as governor, who, however, retires
in 1906.
In the Far East war breaks out in 1894 between China and Japan, on
account of Korea. China is defeated, and peace is concluded in 1895 at
Shimonoseki.[48] Japan henceforth ranks as a Great Power. That she must
now be considered a full member of the Family of Nations becomes
apparent from the treaties concluded soon afterwards by her with other
Powers for the purpose of abolishing their consular jurisdiction within the
boundaries of Japan.
[48] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXI. (1897), p. 641.
In America the United States intervene in 1898 in the revolt of Cuba
against the motherland, whereby war breaks out between Spain and the
United States. The defeat of Spain secures the independence of Cuba
through the Peace of Paris[49] of 1898. The United States acquires Porto
Rico and other Spanish West Indian Islands, and, further, the Philippine
Islands, whereby she becomes a colonial Power.
[49] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXII. (1905), p. 74.
An event of great importance during this period is the Congo Conference
of Berlin, which took place in 1884-1885, and at which England, Germany,
Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, the United States of America,
France, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Russia, Sweden-Norway, and Turkey were
represented. This conference stipulated freedom of commerce, interdiction
of slave-trade, and neutralisation of the territories in the Congo district, and
secured freedom of navigation on the rivers Congo and Niger. The so-called
Congo Free State was recognised as a member of the Family of Nations.
A second fact of great importance during this period is the movement
towards the conclusion of international agreements concerning matters of
international administration. This movement finds expression in the
establishment of numerous International Unions with special International
Offices. Thus a Universal Telegraphic Union is established in 1875, a
Universal Postal Union in 1878, a Union for the Protection of Industrial
Property in 1883, a Union for the Protection of Works of Literature and Art
in 1886, a Union for the Publication of Custom Tariffs in 1890. There were
also concluded conventions concerning:—(1) Private International Law
(1900 and 1902); (2) Railway transports and freights (1890); (3) the metric
system (1875); (4) phylloxera epidemics (1878 and 1881); (5) cholera and
plague epidemics (1893, 1896, &c.); (6) Monetary Unions (1865, 1878,
1885, 1892, 1893).
A third fact of great importance is that in this period a tendency arises to
settle international conflicts more frequently than in former times by
arbitration. Numerous arbitrations are actually taking place, and several
treaties are concluded between different States stipulating the settlement by
arbitration of all conflicts which might arise in future between the
contracting parties.
The last fact of great importance which is epoch-making for this period is
the Peace Conference of the Hague of 1899. This Conference produces,
apart from three Declarations of minor importance, a Convention for the
Pacific Settlement of International Conflicts, a Convention regarding the
Laws and Customs of War on Land, and a Convention for the Adaptation to
Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention. It also
formulates, among others, the three wishes (1) that a conference should in
the near future regulate the rights and duties of neutrals, (2) that a future
conference should contemplate the declaration of the inviolability of private
property in naval warfare, (3) that a future conference should settle the
question of the bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by naval forces.

The Twentieth Century.

§ 50. Soon after the Hague Peace Conference, in October 1899, war
breaks out in South Africa between Great Britain and the two Boer
Republics, which leads to the latter's subjugation at the end of 1901. The
assassination on June 10, 1900, of the German Minister and the general
attack on the foreign legations at Peking necessitate united action of the
Powers against China for the purpose of vindicating this violation of the
fundamental rules of the Laws of Nations. Friendly relations are, however,
re-established with China on her submitting to the conditions enumerated in
the Final Protocol of Peking,[50] signed on September 7, 1901. In December
1902 Great Britain, Germany, and Italy institute a blockade of the coast of
Venezuela for the purpose of making her comply with their demands for the
indemnification of their subjects wronged during civil wars in Venezuela,
and the latter consents to pay indemnities to be settled by a mixed
commission of diplomatists.[51] As, however, Powers other than those
blockading likewise claim indemnities, the matter is referred to the
Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, which in 1904 gives its
award[52] in favour of the blockading Powers. In February 1904 war breaks
out between Japan and Russia on account of Manchuria and Korea. Russia
is defeated, and peace is concluded through the mediation of the United
States of America, on September 5, 1905, at Portsmouth.[53] Korea, now
freed from the influence of Russia, places herself by the Treaty of Seoul[54]
of November 17, 1905, under the protectorate of Japan. Five years later,
however, by the Treaty of Seoul[55] of August 22, 1910, she merges entirely
into Japan.
[50] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXII. p. 94.
[51] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. I. p. 46.
[52] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. I. p. 57.
[53] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXIII. p. 3.
[54] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXIV. p. 727.
[55] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. IV. p. 24.

The Real Union between Norway and Sweden, which was established by
the Vienna Congress in 1815, is peacefully dissolved by the Treaty of
Karlstad[56] of October 26, 1905. Norway becomes a separate kingdom
under Prince Charles of Denmark, who takes the name of Haakon VIII., and
Great Britain, Germany, Russia, and France guarantee by the Treaty of
Christiania[57] of November 2, 1907, the integrity of Norway on condition
that she would not cede any part of her territory to any foreign Power.
[56] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXIV. p. 700.
[57] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. p. 9, and below, § 574.
The rivalry between France and Germany—the latter protesting against
the position conceded to France in Morocco by the Anglo-French
agreement signed at London on April 8, 1904—leads in January 1906 to the
Conference of Algeciras, in which Great Britain, France, Germany,
Belgium, Holland, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Portugal, Russia, Sweden, Spain,
and the United States of America take part, and where on April 7, 1906, the
General Act of the International Conference of Algeciras[58] is signed. This
Act, which recognises, on the one hand, the independence and integrity of
Morocco, and, on the other, equal commercial facilities for all nations in
that country, 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. But it would seem that this
Act has not produced a condition of affairs of any permanency. Since, in
1911, internal disturbances in Morocco led to military action on the part of
France and Spain, Germany, in July of the same year, sent a man-of-war to
the port of Agadir. Thus the Moroccan question has been reopened, and
fresh negotiations for its settlement are taking place between the Powers.[59]
[58]See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXIV. p. 238.
[59]It should be mentioned that 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;
see Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXV. p. 556.
Two events of importance occur in 1908. The first is the merging of the
Congo Free State[60] into Belgium, which annexation is not as yet
recognised by all the Powers. The other is the crisis in the Near East caused
by the ascendency of the so-called Young Turks and the introduction of a
constitution in Turkey. Simultaneously on October 5, 1908, Bulgaria
declares herself independent, and Austria-Hungary proclaims her
sovereignty over Bosnia and Herzegovina, which two Turkish provinces
had been under her administration since 1878. This violation of the Treaty
of Berlin considerably endangers the peace of the world, and an
international conference is proposed for the purpose of reconsidering the
settlement of the Near Eastern question. Austria-Hungary, however, does
not consent to this, but prefers to negotiate with Turkey alone in the matter,
and a Protocol is signed by the two Powers on February 26, 1909, according
to which Turkey receives a substantial indemnity in money and other
concessions. Austria-Hungary negotiates likewise with Montenegro alone,
and consents to the modifications in Article 29 of the Treaty of Berlin
concerning the harbour of Antivary, which is to be freed from Austria-
Hungarian control and is henceforth to be open to warships of all nations.
Whereupon the demand for an international conference is abandoned and
the Powers notify on April 7, 1909, their consent to the abolition of Article
25 and the amendment of Article 29 of the Treaty of Berlin.[61]
[60] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. p. 101.
[61] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. p. 606.

In 1910 Portugal becomes a Republic; but the Powers, although they

enter provisionally into communication with the de facto government, do
not recognise the Republic until September 1911, after the National
Assembly adopted the republican form of government.
In September 1911 war breaks out between Italy and Turkey, on account
of the alleged maltreatment of Italian subjects in Tripoli.
International Law as a body of rules for the international conduct of
States makes steady progress during this period. This is evidenced by
congresses, conferences, and law-making treaties. Of conferences and
congresses must be mentioned the second, third, and fourth Pan-American
Congresses,[62] which take place at Mexico in 1901, at Rio in 1906, and at
Buenos Ayres in 1910. Although the law-making treaties of these
congresses have not found ratification, their importance cannot be denied.
Further, in 1906 a conference assembles in Geneva for the purpose of
revising the Geneva Convention of 1864 concerning the wounded in land
warfare, and on July 6, 1906, the new Geneva[63] Convention is signed. Of
the greatest importance, however, are the second Hague Peace Conference
of 1907 and the Naval Conference of London of 1898-9.
[62] See Moore, VI. § 969; Fried, "Pan-America" (1910); Barrett, "The Pan-American Union"
(1911).
[63] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. p. 323.

The second Peace Conference assembles at the Hague on June 15, 1907.
Whereas at the first there were only 26 States represented, 44 are
represented at the second Peace Conference. The result of this Conference
is contained in its Final Act,[64] which is signed on October 18, 1907, and
embodies no fewer than thirteen law-making Conventions besides a
declaration of minor importance. Of these Conventions, 1, 4, and 10 are
mere revisions of Conventions agreed upon at the first Peace Conference of
1899, but the others are new and concern:—The employment of force for
the recovery of contract debts (2); the commencement of hostilities (3); the
rights and duties of neutrals in land warfare (5); the status of enemy
merchant-ships at the outbreak of hostilities (6); the conversion of
merchantmen into men-of-war (7); the laying of submarine mines (8); the
bombardment by naval forces (9); restrictions of the right of capture in
maritime war (11); the establishment of an International Prize Court (12);
the rights and duties of neutrals in maritime war (13).
[64] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. III. p. 323.
The Naval Conference of London assembles on December 4, 1908, for
the purpose of discussing the possibility of creating a code of prize law
without which the International Prize Court, agreed upon at the second
Hague Peace Conference, could not be established, and produces the
Declaration of London, signed on February 26, 1909. This Declaration
contains 71 articles, and settles in nine chapters the law concerning:—(1)
Blockade; (2) contraband; (3) un-neutral service; (4) destruction of neutral
prizes; (5) transfer to a neutral flag; (6) enemy character; (7) convoy; (8)
resistance to search; and (9) compensation. The Declaration is accompanied
by a General Report on its stipulations which is intended to serve as an
official commentary.
The movement which began in the last half of the nineteenth century
towards the conclusion of international agreements concerning matters of
international administration, develops favourably during this period. The
following conventions are the outcome of this movement:—(1) Concerning
the preservation of wild animals, birds, and fish in Africa (1900); (2)
concerning international hydrographic and biological investigations in the
North Sea (1901); (3) concerning protection of birds useful for agriculture
(1902); (4) concerning the production of sugar (1902); (5) concerning the
White Slave traffic (1904); (6) concerning the establishment of an
International Agricultural Institute at Rome (1905); (7) concerning
unification of the Pharmacopœial Formulas (1906); (8) concerning the
prohibition of the use of white phosphorus (1906); (9) concerning the
prohibition of night work for women (1906); (10) concerning the
international circulation of motor vehicles (1909).
It is, lastly, of the greatest importance to mention that the so-called peace
movement,[65] which aims at the settlement of all international disputes by
arbitration or judicial decision of an International Court, gains considerable
influence over the Governments and public opinion everywhere since the
first Hague Peace Conference. A great number of arbitration treaties are
agreed upon, and the Permanent Court of Arbitration established at the
Hague gives its first award[66] in a case in 1902 and its ninth in 1911. The
influence of these decisions upon the peaceful settlement of international
differences generally is enormous, and it may confidently be expected that
the third Hague Peace Conference will make arbitration obligatory for some
of the matters which do not concern the vital interests, the honour, and the
independence of the States. It is a hopeful sign that, whereas most of the
existing arbitration treaties exempt conflicts which concern the vital
interests, the honour, and the independence, Argentina and Chili in 1902,
Denmark and Holland in 1903, Denmark and Italy in 1905, Denmark and
Portugal in 1907, Argentina and Italy in 1907, the Central American
Republics of Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and San
Salvador in 1907, Italy and Holland in 1907, entered into general arbitration
treaties according to which all differences, without any exception, shall be
settled by arbitration.[67]
[65] See Fried, "Handbuch der Friedensbewegung," 2nd ed., 2 vols. (1911).
[66] See below, § 476.
[67] The general arbitration treaties concluded in August 1911 by the United States with Great
Britain and France have not yet been ratified, as the consent of the American Senate is previously
required.

Six Lessons of the History of the Law of Nations.

§ 51. It is the task of history, not only to show how things have grown in
the past, but also to extract a moral for the future out of the events of the
past. Six morals can be said to be deduced from the history of the
development of the Law of Nations:
(1) The first and principal moral is that a Law of Nations can exist only if
there be an equilibrium, a balance of power, between the members of the
Family of Nations. If the Powers cannot keep one another in check, no rules
of law will have any force, since an over-powerful State will naturally try to
act according to discretion and disobey the law. As there is not and never
can be a central political authority above the Sovereign States that could
enforce the rules of the Law of Nations, a balance of power must prevent
any member of the Family of Nations from becoming omnipotent. The
history of the times of Louis XIV. and Napoleon I. shows clearly the
soundness of this principle.[68]
[68]Attention ought to be drawn to the fact that, although the necessity of a balance of power is
generally recognised, there are some writers of great authority who vigorously oppose this
principle, as, for instance, Bulmerincq, "Praxis, Theorie und Codification des Völkerrechts"
(1874), pp. 40-50. On the principle itself see Donnadieu, "Essai sur la Théorie de l'Équilibre"
(1900), and Dupuis, "Le Principe d'Équilibre et de Concert Européen" (1909).
 (2) The second moral is that International Law can develop progressively
only when international politics, especially intervention, are made on the
basis of real State interests. Dynastic wars belong to the past, as do
interventions in favour of legitimacy. It is neither to be feared, nor to be
hoped, that they should occur again in the future. But if they did, they
would hamper the development of the Law of Nations in the future as they
have done in the past.
(3) The third moral is that the principle of nationality is of such force that
it is fruitless to try to stop its victory. Wherever a community of many
millions of individuals, who are bound together by the same blood,
language, and interests, become so powerful that they think it necessary to
have a State of their own, in which they can live according to their own
ideals and can build up a national civilisation, they will certainly get that
State sooner or later. What international politics can, and should, do is to
enforce the rule that minorities of individuals of another race shall not be
outside the law, but shall be treated on equal terms with the majority. States
embracing a population of several nationalities can exist and will always
exist, as many examples show.
(4) The fourth moral is that every progress in the development of
International Law wants due time to ripen. Although one must hope that the
time will come when war will entirely disappear, there is no possibility of
seeing this hope realised in our time. The first necessities of an eternal
peace are that the surface of the earth should be shared between States of
the same standard of civilisation, and that the moral ideas of the governing
classes in all the States of the world should undergo such an alteration and
progressive development as would create the conviction that arbitral awards
and decisions of courts of justice are alone adequate means for the
settlement of international differences. Eternal peace is an ideal, and in the
very term "ideal" is involved the conviction of the impossibility of its
realisation in the present, although it is a duty to aim constantly at such
realisation. The Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, now
established by the Hague Peace Conference of 1899, is an institution that
can bring us nearer to such realisation than ever could have been hoped.
And codification of parts of the Law of Nations, following the codification
of the rules regarding land warfare and the codification comprised in the
Declaration of London, will in due time arrive, and will make the legal
basis of international intercourse firmer, broader, and more manifest than
before.[69]
[69]See Oppenheim, "Die Zukunft des Völkerrechts" (1911) where some progressive steps are
discussed which the future may realise.
(5) The fifth moral is that the progress of International Law depends to a
great extent upon whether the legal school of International Jurists prevails
over the diplomatic school.[70] The legal school desires International Law to
develop more or less on the lines of Municipal Law, aiming at the
codification of firm, decisive, and unequivocal rules of International Law,
and working for the establishment of international Courts for the purpose of
the administration of international justice. The diplomatic school, on the
other hand, considers International Law to be, and prefers it to remain,
rather a body of elastic principles than of firm and precise rules. The
diplomatic school opposes the establishment of international Courts
because it considers diplomatic settlement of international disputes, and
failing this arbitration, preferable to international administration of justice
by international Courts composed of permanently appointed judges. There
is, however, no doubt that international Courts are urgently needed, and that
the rules of International Law require now such an authoritative
interpretation and administration as only an international Court can supply.
[70]I name these schools "diplomatic" and "legal" for want of better denomination. They must,
however, not be confounded with the three schools of the "Naturalists," "Positivists," and
"Grotians," details concerning which will be given below, §§ 55-57.
(6) The sixth, and last, moral is that the progressive development of
International Law depends chiefly upon the standard of public morality on
the one hand, and, on the other, upon economic interests. The higher the
standard of public morality rises, the more will International Law progress.
And the more important international economic interests grow, the more
International Law will grow. For, looked upon from a certain stand-point,
International Law is, just like Municipal Law, a product of moral and of
economic factors, and at the same time the basis for a favourable
development of moral and economic interests. This being an indisputable
fact, it may, therefore, fearlessly be maintained that an immeasurable
progress is guaranteed to International Law, since there are eternal moral
and economic factors working in its favour.

III
 THE SCIENCE OF THE LAW OF NATIONS

Phillimore, I., Preface to the first edition—Lawrence, §§ 31-36—Manning, pp. 21-65—

Halleck, I. pp. 12, 15, 18, 22, 25, 29, 34, 42—Walker, History, I. pp. 203-337, and "The
Science of International Law" (1893), passim—Taylor, §§ 37-48—Wheaton, §§ 4-13—
Rivier in Holtzendorff, I. pp. 337-475—Nys, I. pp. 213-328—Martens, I. §§ 34-38—Fiore,
I. Nos. 53-88, 164-185, 240-272—Calvo, I. pp. 27-34, 44-46, 51-55, 61-63, 70-73, 101-137
—Bonfils, Nos. 147-153—Despagnet, Nos. 28-35—Ullmann, § 18—Kaltenborn, "Die
Vorläufer des Hugo Grotius" (1848)—Holland, Studies, pp. 1-58, 168-175—Westlake,
Chapters, pp. 23-77—Ward, "Enquiry into the Foundation and History of the Law of
Nations," 2 vols. (1795)—Nys, "Le droit de la guerre et les précurseurs de Grotius" (1882),
"Notes pour servir à l'histoire ... du droit international en Angleterre" (1888), "Les origines
du droit international" (1894)—Wheaton, "Histoire des progrès du droit des gens en
Europe" (1841)—Oppenheim in A.J. I. (1908), pp. 313-356—Pollock in the Cambridge
Modern History, vol. XII. (1910), pp. 703-729—See also the bibliographies enumerated
below in § 61.

Forerunners of Grotius.
§ 52. The science of the modern Law of Nations commences from
Grotius's work, "De Jure Belli ac Pacis libri III.," because in it a fairly
complete system of International Law was for the first time built up as an
independent branch of the science of law. But there were many writers
before Grotius who wrote on special parts of the Law of Nations. They are
therefore commonly called "Forerunners of Grotius." The most important of
these forerunners are the following: (1) Legnano, Professor of Law in the
University of Bologna, who wrote in 1360 his book "De bello, de
represaliis, et de duello," which was, however, not printed before 1477; (2)
Belli, an Italian jurist and statesman, who published in 1563 his book, "De
re militari et de bello"; (3) Brunus, a German jurist, who published in 1548
his book, "De legationibus"; (4) Victoria, Professor in the University of
Salamanca, who published in 1557 his "Relectiones theologicae,"[71] which
partly deals with the Law of War; (5) Ayala, of Spanish descent but born in
Antwerp, a military judge in the army of Alexandro Farnese, the Prince of
Parma. He published in 1582 his book, "De jure et officiis bellicis et
disciplina militari"; (6) Suarez, a Spanish Jesuit and Professor at Coimbra,
who published in 1612 his "Tractatus de legibus et de legislatore," in which
(II. c. 19, n. 8) for the first time the attempt is made to found a law between
the States on the fact that they form a community of States; (7) Gentilis
(1552-1608), an Italian jurist, who became Professor of Civil Law in
Oxford. He published in 1585 his work, "De legationibus," in 1588 and
1589 his "Commentationes de jure belli," and in 1598 an enlarged work on
the same matter under the title "De jure belli libri tres."[72] His "Advocatio
Hispanica" was edited, after his death, in 1613 by his brother Scipio.
Gentilis's book "De jure belli" supplies, as Professor Holland shows, the
model and the framework of the first and third book of Grotius's "De Jure
Belli ac Pacis." "The first step"—Holland rightly says—"towards making
International Law what it is was taken, not by Grotius, but by Gentilis."
 [71]See details in Holland, Studies, pp. 51-52.
[72]Re-edited in 1877 by Professor Holland. On Gentilis, see Holland, Studies, pp. 1-391;
Westlake, Chapters, pp. 33-36; Walker, History, I. pp. 249-277; Thamm, "Albericus Gentilis und
seine Bedeutung für das Völkerrecht" (1896); Phillipson in The Journal of the Society of
Comparative Legislation, New Series, XII. (1912), pp. 52-80; Balch in A.J. V. (1911), pp. 665-
679.

Grotius.
§ 53. Although Grotius owes much to Gentilis, he is nevertheless the
greater of the two and bears by right the title of "Father of the Law of
Nations." Hugo Grotius was born at Delft in Holland in 1583. He was from
his earliest childhood known as a "wondrous child" on account of his
marvellous intellectual gifts and talents. He began to study law at Leyden
when only eleven years old, and at the age of fifteen he took the degree of
Doctor of Laws at Orleans in France. He acquired a reputation, not only as
a jurist, but also as a Latin poet and a philologist. He first practised as a
lawyer, but afterwards took to politics and became involved in political and
religious quarrels which led to his arrest in 1618 and condemnation to
prison for life. In 1621, however, he succeeded in escaping from prison and
went to live for ten years in France. In 1634 he entered into the service of
Sweden and became Swedish Minister in Paris. He died in 1645 at Rostock
in Germany on his way home from Sweden, whither he had gone to tender
his resignation.
Even before he had the intention of writing a book on the Law of Nations
Grotius took an interest in matters international. For in 1609, when only
twenty-four years old, he published—anonymously at first—a short treatise
under the title "Mare liberum," in which he contended that the open sea
could not be the property of any State, whereas the contrary opinion was
generally prevalent.[73] But it was not until fourteen years later that Grotius
began, during his exile in France, to write his "De Jure Belli ac Pacis libri
III.," which was published, after a further two years, in 1625, and of which
it has rightly been maintained that no other book, with the single exception
of the Bible, has ever exercised a similar influence upon human minds and
matters. The whole development of the modern Law of Nations itself, as
well as that of the science of the Law of Nations, takes root from this for
ever famous book. Grotius's intention was originally to write a treatise on
the Law of War, since the cruelties and lawlessness of warfare of his time
incited him to the work. But thorough investigation into the matter led him
further, and thus he produced a system of the Law of Nature and Nations. In
the introduction he speaks of many of the authors before him, and he
especially quotes Ayala and Gentilis. Yet, although he recognises their
influence upon his work, he is nevertheless aware that his system is
fundamentally different from those of his forerunners. There was in truth
nothing original in Grotius's start from the Law of Nature for the purpose of
deducing therefrom rules of a Law of Nations. Other writers before his
time, and in especial Gentilis, had founded their works upon it. But nobody
before him had done it in such a masterly way and with such a felicitous
hand. And it is on this account that Grotius bears not only, as already
mentioned, the title of "Father of the Law of Nations," but also that of
"Father of the Law of Nature."
[73]See details with regard to the controversy concerning the freedom of the open sea below, §§
248-250. Grotius's treatise "Mare liberum" is—as we know now—the twelfth chapter of the work
"De jure praedae," written in 1604 but never published by Grotius; it was not printed till 1868. See
below, § 250.
Grotius, as a child of his time, could not help starting from the Law of
Nature, since his intention was to find such rules of a Law of Nations as
were eternal, unchangeable, and independent of the special consent of the
single States. Long before Grotius, the opinion was generally prevalent that
above the positive law, which had grown up by custom or by legislation of a
State, there was in existence another law which had its roots in human
reason and which could therefore be discovered without any knowledge of
positive law. This law of reason was called Law of Nature or Natural Law.
But the system of the Law of Nature which Grotius built up and from which
he started when he commenced to build up the Law of Nations, became the
most important and gained the greatest influence, so that Grotius appeared
to posterity as the Father of the Law of Nature as well as that of the Law of
Nations.
Whatever we may nowadays think of this Law of Nature, the fact
remains unshaken that for more than two hundred years after Grotius
jurists, philosophers, and theologians firmly believed in it. And there is no
doubt that, but for the systems of the Law of Nature and the doctrines of its
prophets, the modern Constitutional Law and the modern Law of Nations
would not be what they actually are. The Law of Nature supplied the
crutches with whose help history has taught mankind to walk out of the
institutions of the Middle Ages into those of modern times. The modern
Law of Nations in especial owes its very existence[74] to the theory of the
Law of Nature. Grotius did not deny that there existed in his time already a
good many customary rules for the international conduct of the States, but
he expressly kept them apart from those rules which he considered the
outcome of the Law of Nature. He distinguishes, therefore, between the
natural Law of Nations on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the
customary Law of Nations, which he calls the voluntary Law of Nations.
The bulk of Grotius's interest is concentrated upon the natural Law of
Nations, since he considered the voluntary of minor importance. But
nevertheless he does not quite neglect the voluntary Law of Nations.
Although he mainly and chiefly lays down the rules of the natural Law of
Nations, he always mentions also voluntary rules concerning the different
matters.
[74]See Pollock in The Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Series, III.
(1901), p. 206.
Grotius's influence was soon enormous and reached over the whole of
Europe. His book[75] went through more than forty-five editions, and many
translations have been published.
[75]
See Rivier in Holtzendorff, I. p. 412. The last English translation is that of 1854 by William
Whewell.

Zouche.
§ 54. But the modern Law of Nations has another, though minor, founder
besides Grotius, and this is an Englishman, Richard Zouche[76] (1590-1660),
Professor of Civil Law at Oxford and a Judge of the Admiralty Court. A
prolific writer, the book through which he acquired the title of "Second
founder of the Law of Nations," appeared in 1650 and bears the title: "Juris
et judicii fecialis, sive juris inter gentes, et quaestionum de eodem
explicatio, qua, quae ad pacem et bellum inter diversos principes aut
populos spectant, ex praecipuis historico jure peritis exhibentur." This little
book has rightly been called the first manual of the positive Law of Nations.
The standpoint of Zouche is totally different from that of Grotius in so far
as, according to him, the customary Law of Nations is the most important
part of that law, although, as a child of his time, he does not at all deny the
existence of a natural Law of Nations. It must be specially mentioned that
Zouche is the first who used the term jus inter gentes for that new branch of
law. Grotius knew very well and says that the Law of Nations is a law
between the States, but he called it jus gentium, and it is due to his influence
that until Bentham nobody called the Law of Nations International Law.
 [76]See Phillipson in The Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Series, IX.
(1908), pp. 281-304.
The distinction between the natural Law of Nations, chiefly treated by
Grotius, and the customary or voluntary Law of Nations, chiefly treated by
Zouche,[77] gave rise in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to three
different schools[78] of writers on the Law of Nations—namely, the
"Naturalists," the "Positivists," and the "Grotians."
[77] It should be mentioned that already before Zouche, another Englishman, John Selden, in his
"De jure naturali et gentium secundum disciplinam ebraeorum" (1640), recognised the importance
of the positive Law of Nations. The successor of Zouche as a Judge of the Admiralty Court, Sir
Leoline Jenkins (1625-1684) ought also to be mentioned. His opinions concerning questions of
maritime law, and in especial prize law, were of the greatest importance for the development of
maritime international law. See Wynne, "Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins," 2 vols. (1740).
[78] These three schools of writers must not be confounded with the division of the present
international jurists into the diplomatic and legal schools; see above, § 51, No. 5.

The Naturalists.
§ 55. "Naturalists," or "Deniers of the Law of Nations," is the appellation
of those writers who deny that there is any positive Law of Nations
whatever as the outcome of custom or treaties, and who maintain that all
Law of Nations is only a part of the Law of Nature. The leader of the
Naturalists is Samuel Pufendorf (1632-1694), who occupied the first chair
which was founded for the Law of Nature and Nations at a University—
namely, that at Heidelberg. Among the many books written by Pufendorf,
three are of importance for the science of International Law:—(1)
"Elementa jurisprudentiae universalis," 1666; (2) "De jure naturae et
gentium," 1672; (3) "De officio hominis et civis juxta legem naturalem,"
1673. Starting from the assertion of Hobbes, "De Cive," XIV. 4, that
Natural Law is to be divided into Natural Law of individuals and of States,
and that the latter is the Law of Nations, Pufendorf[79] adds that outside this
Natural Law of Nations no voluntary or positive Law of Nations exists
which has the force of real law (quod quidem legis proprie dictae vim
habeat, quae gentes tamquam a superiore profecta stringat).
[79] De jure naturae et gentium, II. c. 3, § 22.
The most celebrated follower of Pufendorf is the German philosopher,
Christian Thomasius (1655-1728), who published in 1688 his "Institutiones
jurisprudentiae divinae," and in 1705 his "Fundamenta juris naturae et
gentium." Of English Naturalists may be mentioned Francis Hutcheson
("System of Moral Philosophy," 1755) and Thomas Rutherford ("Institutes
of Natural Law; being the Substance of a Course of Lectures on Grotius
read in St. John's College, Cambridge," 2 vols. 1754-1756). Jean Barbeyrac
(1674-1744), the learned French translator and commentator of the works of
Grotius, Pufendorf, and others, and, further, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui
(1694-1748), a native of Geneva, who wrote the "Principes du droit de la
nature et des gens," ought likewise to be mentioned.
The Positivists.
§ 56. The "Positivists" are the antipodes of the Naturalists. They include
all those writers who, in contradistinction to Hobbes and Pufendorf, not
only defend the existence of a positive Law of Nations as the outcome of
custom or international treaties, but consider it more important than the
natural Law of Nations, the very existence of which some of the Positivists
deny, thus going beyond Zouche. The positive writers had not much
influence in the seventeenth century, during which the Naturalists and the
Grotians carried the day, but their time came in the eighteenth century.
Of seventeenth-century writers, the Germans Rachel and Textor must be
mentioned. Rachel published in 1676 his two dissertations, "De jure naturae
et gentium," in which he defines the Law of Nations as the law to which a
plurality of free States are subjected, and which comes into existence
through tacit or express consent of these States (Jus plurium liberalium
gentium pacto sive placito expressim aut tacite initum, quo utilitatis gratia
sibi in vicem obligantur). Textor published in 1680 his "Synopsis juris
gentium."
In the eighteenth century the leading Positivists, Bynkershoek, Moser,
and Martens, gained an enormous influence.
Cornelius van Bynkershoek[80] (1673-1743), a celebrated Dutch jurist,
never wrote a treatise on the Law of Nations, but gained fame through three
books dealing with different parts of this Law. He published in 1702 "De
dominio maris," in 1721 "De foro legatorum," in 1737 "Quaestionum juris
publici libri II." According to Bynkershoek the basis of the Law of Nations
is the common consent of the nations which finds its expression either in
international custom or in international treaties.
[80]See Phillipson in The Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Series, IX.
(1908), pp. 27-49.
Johann Jakob Moser (1701-1785), a German Professor of Law, published
many books concerning the Law of Nations, of which three must be
mentioned: (1) "Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Völkerrechts in
Friedenszeiten," 1750; (2) "Grundsätze des jetzt üblichen Völkerrechts in
Kriegszeiten," 1752; (3) "Versuch des neuesten europäischen Völkerrechts
in Friedens- und Kriegszeiten," 1777-1780. Moser's books are magazines of
an enormous number of facts which are of the greatest value for the positive
Law of Nations. Moser never fights against the Naturalists, but he is totally
indifferent towards the natural Law of Nations, since to him the Law of
Nations is positive law only and based on international custom and treaties.
Georg Friedrich von Martens (1756-1821), Professor of Law in the
University of Göttingen, also published many books concerning the Law of
Nations. The most important is his "Précis du droit des gens moderne de
l'Europe," published in 1789, of which William Cobbett published in 1795
at Philadelphia an English translation, and of which as late as 1864
appeared a new edition at Paris with notes by Charles Vergé. Martens began
the celebrated collection of treaties which goes under the title "Martens,
Recueil des Traités," and is continued to our days.[81] The influence of
Martens was great, and even at the present time is considerable. He is not
an exclusive Positivist, since he does not deny the existence of natural Law
of Nations, and since he sometimes refers to the latter in case he finds a gap
in the positive Law of Nations. But his interest is in the positive Law of
Nations, which he builds up historically on international custom and
treaties.
[81]Georg Friedrich von Martens is not to be confounded with his nephew Charles de Martens,
the author of the "Causes célèbres de droit des gens" and of the "Guide diplomatique."

The Grotians.
§ 57. The "Grotians" stand midway between the Naturalists and the
Positivists. They keep up the distinction of Grotius between the natural and
the voluntary Law of Nations, but, in contradistinction to Grotius, they
consider the positive or voluntary of equal importance to the natural, and
they devote, therefore, their interest to both alike. Grotius's influence was so
enormous that the majority of the authors of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries were Grotians, but only two of them have acquired a European
reputation—namely, Wolff and Vattel.
Christian Wolff (1679-1754), a German philosopher who was first
Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy in the Universities of Halle and
Marburg and afterwards returned to Halle as Professor of the Law of Nature
and Nations, was seventy years of age when, in 1749, he published his "Jus
gentium methodo scientifica pertractatum." In 1750 followed his
"Institutiones juris naturae et gentium." Wolff's conception of the Law of
Nations is influenced by his conception of the civitas gentium maxima. The
fact that there is a Family of Nations in existence is strained by Wolff into
the doctrine that the totality of the States forms a world-State above the
component member States, the so-called civitas gentium maxima. He
distinguishes four different kinds of Law of Nations—namely, the natural,
the voluntary, the customary, and that which is expressly created by treaties.
The latter two kinds are alterable, and have force only between those single
States between which custom and treaties have created them. But the
natural and the voluntary Law of Nations are both eternal, unchangeable,
and universally binding upon all the States. In contradistinction to Grotius,
who calls the customary Law of Nations "voluntary," Wolff names
"voluntary" those rules of the Law of Nations which are, according to his
opinion, tacitly imposed by the civitas gentium maxima, the world-State,
upon the member States.
Emerich de Vattel[82] (1714-1767), a Swiss from Neuchâtel, who entered
into the service of Saxony and became her Minister at Berne, did not in the
main intend any original work, but undertook the task of introducing
Wolff's teachings concerning the Law of Nations into the courts of Europe
and to the diplomatists. He published in 1758 his book, "Le droit des gens,
ou principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des
Nations et des Souverains." But it must be specially mentioned that Vattel
expressly rejects Wolff's conception of the civitas gentium maxima in the
preface to his book. Numerous editions of Vattel's book have appeared, and
as late as 1863 Pradier-Fodéré re-edited it at Paris. An English translation
by Chitty appeared in 1834 and went through several editions. His influence
was very great, and in diplomatic circles his book still enjoys an unshaken
authority.
[82]See Montmorency in The Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Series, X.
(1909), pp. 17-39.

Treatises of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.

§ 58. Some details concerning the three schools of the Naturalists,
Positivists, and Grotians were necessary, because these schools are still in
existence. I do not, however, intend to give a list of writers on special
subjects, and the following list of treatises comprises the more important
ones only.
(1) BRITISH TREATISES
William Oke Manning: Commentaries on the Law of Nations, 1839; new ed.
by Sheldon Amos, 1875.
Archer Polson: Principles of the Law of Nations, 1848; 2nd ed. 1853.
Richard Wildman: Institutes of International Law, 2 vols. 1849-1850.
Sir Robert Phillimore: Commentaries upon International Law, 4 vols. 1854-
1861; 3rd ed. 1879-1888.
Sir Travers Twiss: The Law of Nations, etc., 2 vols. 1861-1863; 2nd ed.,
vol. I. (Peace) 1884, vol. II. (War) 1875; French translation, 1887-
1889.
Sheldon Amos: Lectures on International Law, 1874.
Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy: First Platform of International Law, 1876.
William Edward Hall: Treatise on International Law, 1880; 6th ed. 1909 (by
Atlay).
Sir Henry Sumner Maine: International Law, 1883; 2nd ed. 1894 (Whewell
Lectures, not a treatise).
James Lorimer: The Institutes of International Law, 2 vols. 1883-1884;
French translation by Nys, 1885.
Leone Levi: International Law, 1888.
T. J. Lawrence: The Principles of International Law, 1895; 4th ed. 1910.
Thomas Alfred Walker: A Manual of Public International Law, 1895.
Sir Sherston Baker: First Steps in International Law, 1899.
F. E. Smith: International Law, 1900; 4th ed. 1911 (by Wylie).
John Westlake: International Law, vol. I. (Peace) 1904, vol. II. (War) 1907;
2nd ed. vol. I. 1910.
(2) NORTH AMERICAN TREATISES
James Kent: Commentary on International Law, 1826; English edition by
Abdy, Cambridge, 1888.
Henry Wheaton: Elements of International Law, 1836; 8th American ed. by
Dana, 1866; 3rd English ed. by Boyd, 1889; 4th English ed. by Atlay,
1904.
Theodore D. Woolsey: Introduction to the Study of International Law, 1860;
6th ed. by Th. S. Woolsey, 1891.
Henry W. Halleck: International Law, 2 vols. 1861; 4th English ed. by Sir
Sherston Baker, 1907.
Francis Wharton: A Digest of the International Law of the United States, 3
vols. 1886.
George B. Davis: The Elements of International Law, 1887; 3rd ed. 1908.
Hannis Taylor: A Treatise on International Public Law, 1901.
George Grafton Wilson and George Fox Tucker: International Law, 1901;
5th ed. 1910.
Edwin Maxey: International Law, with illustrative cases, 1906.
John Basset Moore: A Digest of International Law, 8 vols. 1906.
George Grafton Wilson: Handbook of International Law, 1910.
(3) FRENCH TREATISES
Funck-Brentano et Albert Sorel: Précis du Droit des Gens, 1877; 2nd ed.
1894.
P. Pradier-Fodéré: Traité de Droit International Public, 8 vols. 1885-1906.
Henry Bonfils: Manuel de Droit International Public, 1894; 5th ed. by
Fauchille, 1908.
Georges Bry: Précis élémentaire de Droit International Public; 5th ed. 1906.
Frantz Despagnet: Cours de Droit International Public, 1894; 4th ed. by De
Boeck, 1910.
Robert Piédelièvre: Précis de Droit International Public, 2 vols. 1894-1895.
A. Mérignhac: Traité de Droit Public International, vol. I. 1905; vol. II.
1907.
(4) GERMAN TREATISES
Theodor Schmalz: Europäisches Völkerrecht, 1816.
Johann Ludwig Klüber: Droit des Gens moderne, 1819; German ed. under
the title of Europäisches Völkerrecht in 1821; last German ed. by
Morstadt in 1851, and last French ed. by Ott in 1874.
Karl Heinrich Ludwig Poelitz: Practisches (europäisches) Völkerrecht,
1828.
Friedrich Saalfeld: Handbuch des positiven Völkerrechts, 1833.
August Wilhelm Heffter: Das europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart, 1844;
8th ed. by Geffcken, 1888; French translations by Bergson in 1851 and
Geffcken in 1883.
Heinrich Bernhard Oppenheim: System des Völkerrechts, 1845; 2nd ed.
1866.
Johann Caspar Bluntschli: Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten
Staaten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt, 1868; 3rd ed. 1878; French
translation by Lardy, 5th ed. 1895.
Adolf Hartmann: Institutionen des praktischen Völkerrechts in
Friedenszeiten, 1874; 2nd ed. 1878.
Franz von Holtzendorff: Handbuch des Völkerrechts, 4 vols. 1885-1889.
Holtzendorff is the editor and a contributor, but there are many other
contributors.
August von Bulmerincq: Das Völkerrecht, 1887.
Karl Gareis: Institutionen des Völkerrechts, 1888; 2nd. ed. 1901.
E. Ullmann: Völkerrecht, 1898; 2nd ed. 1908.
Franz von Liszt: Das Völkerrecht, 1898; 6th ed. 1910.
(5) ITALIAN TREATISES
Luigi Casanova: Lezioni di diritto internazionale, published after the death
of the author by Cabella, 1853; 3rd. ed. by Brusa, 1876.
Pasquale Fiore: Trattato di diritto internazionale publico, 1865; 4th ed. in 3
vols. 1904; French translation of the 2nd ed. by Antoine, 1885.
Giuseppe Carnazza-Amari: Trattato di diritto internazionale di pace, 2 vols.
1867-1875; French translation by Montanari-Pevest, 1881.
Antonio del Bon: Institutioni del diritto publico internazionale, 1868.
Giuseppe Sandona: Trattato di diritto internazionale moderno, 2 vols. 1870.
Gian Battista Pertille: Elementi di diritto internazionale, 2 vols. 1877.
Augusto Pierantoni: Trattato di diritto internazionale, vol. I. 1881. (No
further volume has appeared.)
Giovanni Lomonaco: Trattato di diritto internazionale publico, 1905.
Giulio Diena: Principî di diritto internazionale, Parte Prima, Diritto
internaziole publico, 1908.
(6) SPANISH AND SPANISH-AMERICAN TREATISES
Andrés Bello: Principios de derecho de gentes (internacional), 1832; last ed.
in 2 vols. by Silva, 1883.
José Maria de Pando: Elementos del derecho internacional, published after
the death of the author, 1843-1844.
Antonio Riquelme: Elementos de derecho público internacional, etc.; 2 vols.
1849.
Carlos Calvo: Le Droit International, etc. (first edition in Spanish,
following editions in French), 1868; 5th ed. in 6 vols. 1896.
Amancio Alcorta: Curso de derecho internacional público, vol. I. 1886;
French translation by Lehr, 1887.
Marquis de Olivart: Trattato y notas de derecho internacional público, 4
vols. 1887; 4th ed. 1903-1904.
Luis Gesteso y Acosta: Curso de derecho internacional público, 1894.
Miguel Cruchaga: Nociones de derecho internacional, 1899; 2nd ed. 1902.
Manuel Torres Campos: Elementos de derecho internacional público; 2nd.
ed. 1904.
(7) TREATISES OF AUTHORS OF OTHER NATIONALITIES
Frederick Kristian Bornemann: Forelæsninger over den positive Folkeret,
1866.
Friedrich von Martens: Völkerrecht, 2 vols. 1883; a German translation by
Berghohm of the Russian original. A French translation by Léo in 3
vols. appeared in the same year. The Russian original went through its
5th ed. in 1905.
Jan Helenus Ferguson: Manual of International Law, etc., 2 vols. 1884. The
author is Dutch, but the work is written in English.
Alphonse Rivier: Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, 1894; 2nd ed. 1899, and the
larger work in two vols. under the title: Principes du Droit des Gens,
1896. The author of these two excellent books was a Swiss who taught
International Law at the University of Brussels.
H. Matzen: Forelæsninger over den positive Folkeret, 1900.
Ernest Nys: Le droit international, 3 vols. 1904-1906. The author of this
exhaustive treatise is a Belgian jurist whose researches in the history of
the science of the Law of Nations have gained him far-reaching
reputation.[83]
 [83]The first volume of Nys contains in its pp. 251-328 an exhaustive enumeration of all the
more important works on International Law, treatises as well as monographs, and I have much
pleasure in referring my readers to this learned work.
J. De Louter: Het Stellig Volkenrecht, 2 vols. 1910.
The Science of the Law of Nations in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries as represented by
treatises.
§ 59. The Science of the Law of Nations, as left by the French
Revolution, developed progressively during the nineteenth century under
the influence of three factors. The first factor is the endeavour, on the whole
sincere, of the Powers since the Congress of Vienna to submit to the rules of
the Law of Nations. The second factor is the many law-making treaties
which arose during this century. And the last, but not indeed the least factor,
is the downfall of the theory of the Law of Nature, which after many
hundreds of years has at last been shaken off during the second half of this
century.
When the nineteenth century opens, the three schools of the Naturalists,
the Positivists, and the Grotians are still in the field, but Positivism[84] gains
slowly and gradually the upper hand, until at the end it may be said to be
victorious, without, however, being omnipotent. The most important
writer[85] up to 1836 is Klüber, who may be called a Positivist in the same
sense as Martens, for he also applies the natural Law of Nations to fill up
the gaps of the positive. Wheaton appears in 1836 with his "Elements," and,
although an American, at once attracts the attention of the whole of Europe.
He may be called a Grotian. And the same may be maintained of Manning,
whose treatise appeared in 1839, and is the first that attempts a survey of
British practice regarding sea warfare based on the judgments of Sir
William Scott (Lord Stowell). Heffter, whose book appeared in 1844, is
certainly a Positivist, although he does not absolutely deny the Law of
Nature. In exact application of the juristic method, Heffter's book excels all
former ones, and all the following authors are in a sense standing on his
shoulders. In Phillimore, Great Britain sends in 1854 a powerful author into
the arena, who may, on the whole, be called a Positivist of the same kind as
Martens and Klüber. Generations to come will consult Phillimore's volumes
on account of the vast amount of material they contain and the sound
judgment they exhibit. And the same is valid with regard to Sir Travers
Twiss, whose first volume appeared in 1861. Halleck's work, which
appeared in the same year, is of special importance as regards war, because
the author, who was a General in the service of the United States, gave to
this part his special attention. The next prominent author, the Italian Fiore,
who published his system in 1865 and may be called a Grotian, is certainly
the most prominent Italian author, and the new edition of his work will for a
long time to come be consulted. Bluntschli, the celebrated Swiss-German
author, published his book in 1867; it must, in spite of the world-wide fame
of its author, be consulted with caution, because it contains many rules
which are not yet recognised rules of the Law of Nations. Calvo's work,
which first appeared in 1868, contains an invaluable store of facts and
opinions, but its juristic basis is not very exact.
[84] Austin and his followers who hold that the rules of International Law are rules of "positive
morality" must be considered Positivists, although they do not agree to International Law being
real law.
[85] I do not intend to discuss the merits of writers on special subjects, and I mention only the
authors of the most important treatises which are written in, or translated into, English, French, or
German.
From the seventies of the nineteenth century the influence of the
downfall of the theory of the Law of Nature becomes visible in the treatises
on the Law of Nations, and therefore real positivistic treatises make their
appearance. For the Positivism of Zouche, Bynkershoek, Martens, Klüber,
Heffter, Phillimore, and Twiss was no real Positivism, since these authors
recognised a natural Law of Nations, although they did not make much use
of it. Real Positivism must entirely avoid a natural Law of Nations. We
know nowadays that a Law of Nature does not exist. Just as the so-called
Natural Philosophy had to give way to real natural science, so the Law of
Nature had to give way to jurisprudence, or the philosophy of the positive
law. Only a positive Law of Nations can be a branch of the science of law.
The first real positive treatise known to me is Hartmann's "Institutionen
des praktischen Völkerrechts in Friedenszeiten," which appeared in 1874,
but is hardly known outside Germany. In 1880 Hall's treatise appeared, and
at once won the attention of the whole world; it is one of the best books on
the Law of Nations that have ever been written. Lorimer, whose two
volumes appeared in 1883 and 1884, is a Naturalist pure and simple, but his
work is nevertheless of value. The Russian Martens, whose two volumes
appeared in German and French translations in 1883 and at once put their
author in the forefront of the authorities, certainly intends to be a real
Positivist, but traces of Natural Law are nevertheless now and then to be
found in his book. A work of a special kind is that of Holtzendorff, the first
volume of which appeared in 1885. Holtzendorff himself is the editor and at
the same time a contributor to the work, but there are many other
contributors, each of them dealing exhaustively with a different part of the
Law of Nations. The copious work of Pradier-Fodéré, which also began to
appear in 1885, is far from being positive, although it has its merits.
Wharton's three volumes, which appeared in 1886, are not a treatise, but
contain the international practice of the United States. Bulmerincq's book,
which appeared in 1887, gives a good survey of International Law from the
positive point of view. In 1894 three French jurists, Bonfils, Despagnet, and
Piédelievre, step into the arena; their treatises are comprehensive and
valuable, but not absolutely positive. On the other hand, the English authors
Lawrence and Walker, whose excellent manuals appeared in 1895, are real
Positivists. Of the greatest value are the two volumes of Rivier which
appeared in 1896; they are full of sound judgment, and will influence the
theory and practice of International Law for a long time to come. Liszt's
short manual, which in its first edition made its appearance in 1898, is
positive throughout, well written, and suggestive. Ullmann's work, which
likewise appeared in its first edition in 1898, is an excellent and
comprehensive treatise which thoroughly discusses all the more important
problems and points from the positive standpoint. Hannis Taylor's
comprehensive treatise, which appeared in 1901, is likewise thoroughly
positive, and so are the serviceable manuals of Wilson and Maxey. Of great
value are the two volumes of Westlake which appeared in 1904 and 1907;
they represent rather a collection of thorough monographs than a treatise,
and will have great and lasting influence. A work of particular importance
is the "Digest" of John Basset Moore, which appeared in 1906, comprises
eight volumes, and contains the international practice of the United States
in a much more exhaustive form than the work of Wharton; it is an
invaluable work which must be consulted on every subject. The same is
valid with regard to the three volumes of Nys, who may be characterised as
a Grotian, and whose work is full of information on the historical and
literary side of the problems.[86]
[86]On the task and method of the science of International Law from the positive standpoint,
see Oppenheim in A.J. II. (1908), pp. 313-356.
§ 60. COLLECTIONS OF TREATIES
(1) GENERAL COLLECTIONS
Leibnitz: Codex iuris gentium diplomaticus (1693); Mantissa codicis iuris
gentium diplomatici (1700).
Bernard: Recueil des traités, etc. 4 vols. (1700).
Rymer: Foedera etc. inter reges angliae et alios quosvis imperatores ... ab
anno 1101 ad nostra usque tempora habita et tradata, 20 vols. 1704-
1718 (Contains documents from 1101-1654).
Dumont: Corps universel diplomatique, etc., 8 vols. (1726-1731).
Rousset: Supplément au corps universel diplomatique de Dumont, 5 vols.
(1739).
Schmauss: Corpus iuris gentium academicum (1730).
Wenck: Codex iuris gentium recentissimi, 3 vols. (1781, 1786, 1795).
Martens: Recueil de Traités d'Alliance, etc., 8 vols. (1791-1808); Nouveau
Recueil de Traités d'Alliance, etc., 16 vols. (1817-1842); Nouveaux
Suppléments au Recueil de Traités et d'autres Actes remarquables, etc.,
3 vols. (1839-1842); Nouveau Recueil Général de Traités, Conventions
et autres Actes remarquables, etc., 20 vols. (1843-1875); Nouveau
Recueil Général de Traités et autres Actes relatifs aux Rapports de
droit international, Deuxième Série, 35 vols. (1876-1908); Nouveau
Recueil Général de Traités et autres Actes relatifs aux Rapports de
droit international, Troisième Série, vol. I. 1908, continued up to date.
Present editor, Heinrich Triepel, professor in the University of Kiel in
Germany.
Ghillany: Diplomatisches Handbuch, 3 vols. (1855-1868).
Martens et Cussy: Recueil manuel, etc., 7 vols. (1846-1857); continuation
by Geffcken, 3 vols. (1857-1885).
British and Foreign State Papers: Vol. I. 1814, continued up to date, one
volume yearly.
Das Staatsarchiv: Sammlung der officiellen Actenstücke zur Geschichte der
Gegenwart, vol. I. 1861, continued up to date, one volume yearly.
Archives diplomatiques: Recueil mensuel de diplomatie, d'histoire, et de
droit international, first and second series, 1861-1900, third series from
1901 continued up to date (4 vols. yearly).
Recueil International des Traités du XX^e Siècle: Edited by Descamps and
Renault since 1901.
Strupp: Urkunden zur Geschichte des Völkerrechts, 2 vols. (1911).
(2) COLLECTIONS OF ENGLISH TREATIES ONLY
Jenkinson: Collection of all the Treaties, etc., between Great Britain and
other Powers from 1648 to 1783, 3 vols. (1785).
Chalmers: A Collection of Maritime Treaties of Great Britain and other
Powers, 2 vols. (1790).
Hertslet: Collection of Treaties and Conventions between Great Britain and
other Powers (vol. I. 1820, continued to date).
Treaty Series: Vol. I. 1892, and a volume every year.
§ 61. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
Ompteda: Litteratur des gesammten Völkerrechts, 2 vols. (1785).
Kamptz: Neue Litteratur des Völkerrechts seit 1784 (1817).
Klüber: Droit des gens moderne de l'Europe (Appendix) (1819).
Miruss: Das Europäische Gesandschaftsrecht, vol. II. (1847).
Mohl: Geschichte und Litteratur des Staatswissenschaften, vol. I. pp. 337-
475 (1855).
Woolsey: Introduction to the Study of International Law (6th ed. 1891),
Appendix I.
Rivier: pp. 393-523 of vol. I. of Holtzendorff's Handbuch des Völkerrechts
(1885).
Stoerk: Die Litteratur des internationalen Rechts von 1884-1894 (1896).
Olivart: Catalogue d'une bibliothèque de droit international (1899).
Nys: Le droit international, vol. I. (1904), pp. 213-328.
§ 62. PERIODICALS
Revue de droit international et de législation comparée. It has appeared in
Brussels since 1869, one volume yearly. Present editor, Edouard Rolin.
Revue générale de droit international public. It has appeared in Paris since
1894, one volume yearly. Founder and present editor, Paul Fauchille.
Zeitschrift für internationales Recht. It has appeared in Leipzig since 1891,
one volume yearly. Present editor, Theodor Niemeyer.
Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, vol. I. 1877. A volume appears
after each meeting of the Institute.
Kokusaiho-Zasshi, the Japanese International Law Review. It has appeared
in Tokio since 1903.
Revista de Derecho Internacional y politica exterior. It has appeared in
Madrid since 1905, one volume yearly. Editor, Marquis de Olivart.
Rivista di Diritto Internazionale. It has appeared in Rome since 1906, one
volume yearly. Editors, D. Anzilotti, A. Ricci-Busatti, and L. A.
Senigallia.
Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht und Bundesstaatsrecht. It has appeared in
Breslau since 1906, one volume yearly. Editors, Joseph Kohler, L.
Oppenheim, and F. Holldack.
The American Journal of International Law. It has appeared in Washington
since 1907, one volume yearly. Editor, James Brown Scott.
Essays and Notes concerning International Law frequently appear also in
the Journal du droit international privé et de la Jurisprudence comparée
(Clunet), the Archiv für öffentliches Recht, The Law Quarterly
Review, The Law Magazine and Review, The Juridical Review, The
Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, The American Law
Review, the Annalen des deutschen Reiches, the Zeitschrift für das
privat- und öffentliche Recht der Gegenwart (Grünhut), the Revue de
droit public et de la science politique (Larnaude), the Annales des
sciences politiques, the Archivio giuridico, the Jahrbuch des
öffentlichen Rechts, and many others.
 PART I
THE SUBJECTS OF THE LAW OF NATIONS
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.
[107] See below, § 119.

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

[110]

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.
[121] See below, § 89.

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.
[122] See below, § 87.

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.
[139] See below, § 171.
 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.
[155] See below, § 126.
[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.
[169] See above, § 28.

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).
Part-Sovereign States are:
(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.

The United States of Mexico.
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.

CHAPTER II
POSITION OF THE STATES WITHIN THE FAMILY OF
NATIONS

I
INTERNATIONAL PERSONALITY

Vattel, I. §§ 13-25—Hall, § 7—Westlake, I. pp. 293-296—Lawrence, § 57—Phillimore, I. §§

144-147—Twiss, I. § 106—Wharton, § 60—Moore, I. § 23—Bluntschli, §§ 64-81—
Hartmann, § 15—Heffter, § 26—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 47-51—Gareis, §§
24-25—Liszt, § 7—Ullmann, § 38—Bonfils, Nos. 235-241—Despagnet, Nos. 165-166—
Nys, II. pp. 176-181—Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 165-195—Mérignhac, I. pp. 233-238—
Rivier, I. § 19—Fiore, I. Nos. 367-371—Martens, I. § 72—Fontenay, "Des droits et des
devoirs des États entre eux" (1888)—Pillet in R.G. V. (1898), pp. 66 and 236, VI. (1899), p.
503—Cavaglieri, "I diritti fondamentali degli Stati nella Società Internazionale" (1906).

The so-called Fundamental Rights.

§ 112. Until the last two decades of the nineteenth century all jurists
agreed that the membership of the Family of Nations includes so-called
fundamental rights for States. Such rights are chiefly enumerated as the
right of existence, of self-preservation, of equality, of independence, of
territorial supremacy, of holding and acquiring territory, of intercourse, and
of good name and reputation. It was and is maintained that these
fundamental rights are a matter of course and self-evident, since the Family
of Nations consists of Sovereign States. But no unanimity exists with regard
to the number, the names, and the contents of these alleged fundamental
rights. A great confusion exists in this matter, and hardly two text-book
writers agree in details with regard to it. This condition of things has led to
a searching criticism of the whole matter, and several writers[177] have in
consequence thereof asked that the fundamental rights of States should
totally disappear from the treatises on the Law of Nations. I certainly agree
with this. Yet it must be taken into consideration that under the wrong
heading of fundamental rights a good many correct statements have been
made for hundreds of years, and that numerous real rights and duties are
customarily recognised which are derived from the very membership of the
Family of Nations. They are rights and duties which do not rise from
international treaties between a multitude of States, but which the States
customarily hold as International Persons, and which they grant and receive
reciprocally as members of the Family of Nations. They are rights and
duties connected with the position of the States within the Family of
Nations, and it is therefore only adequate to their importance to discuss
them in a special chapter under that heading.
[177] See Stoerk in Holtzendorff's "Encyklopädie der Rechtswissenschaft," 2nd ed. (1890), p.
1291; Jellinek, "System der subjectiven öffentlichen Rechte" (1892), p. 302; Heilborn, "System,"
p. 279; and others. The arguments of these writers have met, however, considerable resistance,
and the existence of fundamental rights of States is emphatically defended by other writers. See,
for instance, Pillet, l.c., Liszt, § 7, and Gareis, §§ 24 and 25. Westlake, I. p. 293, now joins the
ranks of those writers who deny the existence of fundamental rights.

International Personality a Body of Qualities.

§ 113. International Personality is the term which characterises fitly the
position of the States within the Family of Nations, since a State acquires
International Personality through its recognition as a member. What it really
means can be ascertained by going back to the basis[178] of the Law of
Nations. Such basis is the common consent of the States that a body of legal
rules shall regulate their intercourse with one another. Now a legally
regulated intercourse between Sovereign States is only possible under the
condition that a certain liberty of action is granted to every State, and that,
on the other hand, every State consents to a certain restriction of action in
the interest of the liberty of action granted to every other State. A State that
enters into the Family of Nations retains the natural liberty of action due to
it in consequence of its sovereignty, but at the same time takes over the
obligation to exercise self-restraint and to restrict its liberty of action in the
interest of that of other States. In entering into the Family of Nations a State
comes as an equal to equals[179]; it demands that certain consideration be
paid to its dignity, the retention of its independence, of its territorial and its
personal supremacy. Recognition of a State as a member of the Family of
Nations contains recognition of such State's equality, dignity, independence,
and territorial and personal supremacy. But the recognised State recognises
in turn the same qualities in other members of that family, and thereby it
undertakes responsibility for violations committed by it. All these qualities
constitute as a body the International Personality of a State, and
International Personality may therefore be said to be the fact, given by the
very membership of the Family of Nations, that equality, dignity,
independence, territorial and personal supremacy, and the responsibility of
every State are recognised by every other State. The States are International
Persons because they recognise these qualities in one another and recognise
their responsibility for violations of these qualities.
[178] See above, § 12.
[179] See above, § 14.

Other Characteristics of the position of the States within the Family of Nations.
§ 114. But the position of the States within the Family of Nations is not
exclusively characterised by these qualities. The States make a community
because there is constant intercourse between them. Intercourse is therefore
a condition without which the Family of Nations would not and could not
exist. Again, there are exceptions to the protection of the qualities which
constitute the International Personality of the States, and these exceptions
are likewise characteristic of the position of the States within the Family of
Nations. Thus, in time of war belligerents have a right to violate one
another's Personality in many ways; even annihilation of the vanquished
State, through subjugation after conquest, is allowed. Thus, further, in time
of peace as well as in time of war, such violations of the Personality of
other States are excused as are committed in self-preservation or through
justified intervention. And, finally, jurisdiction is also important for the
position of the States within the Family of Nations. Intercourse, self-
preservation, intervention, and jurisdiction must, therefore, likewise be
discussed in this chapter.

II
EQUALITY, RANK, AND TITLES

Vattel, II. §§ 35-48—Westlake, I. pp. 308-312—Lawrence, §§ 112-119—Phillimore, I. § 147,

II. §§ 27-43—Twiss, I. § 12—Halleck, I. pp. 116-140 —Taylor, § 160—Wheaton, §§ 152-
159—Moore, I. § 24—Bluntschli, §§ 81-94—Hartmann, § 14—Heffter, §§ 27-28—
Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 11-14—Ullmann, §§ 36 and 37—Bonfils, Nos. 272-
278—Despagnet, Nos. 167-171—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 484-594—Mérignhac, I. pp. 310-
320—Rivier, I. § 9—Nys, II. pp. 194-199, 208-218—Calvo, I. §§ 210-259—Fiore, I. Nos.
428-451, and Code, Nos. 388-421—Martens, I. §§ 70-71—Lawrence, Essays, pp. 191-213
—Westlake, Chapters, pp. 86-109—Huber, "Die Gleichheit der Staaten" (1909)—Streit in
R.I. 2nd Ser. II. pp. 5-27—Hicks in A.J. II. (1908), pp. 530-561.

Legal Equality of States.

§ 115. The equality before International Law of all member-States of the
Family of Nations is an invariable quality derived from their International
Personality.[180] Whatever inequality may exist between States as regards
their size, population, power, degree of civilisation, wealth, and other
qualities, they are nevertheless equals as International Persons. This legal
equality has three important consequences:
[180] See above, §§ 14 and 113.
The first is that, whenever a question arises which has to be settled by the
consent of the members of the Family of Nations, every State has a right to
a vote, but to one vote only.
The second consequence is that legally—although not politically—the
vote of the weakest and smallest State has quite as much weight as the vote
of the largest and most powerful. Therefore any alteration of an existing
rule or creation of a new rule of International Law by a law-making treaty
has legal validity for the signatory Powers and those only who later on
accede expressly or submit to it tacitly through custom.
The third consequence is that—according to the rule par in parem non
habet imperium—no State can claim jurisdiction over another full-
Sovereign State. Therefore, although foreign States can sue in foreign
Courts,[181] they cannot as a rule be sued[182] there, unless they voluntarily
accept[183] the jurisdiction of the Court concerned, or have submitted
themselves to such jurisdiction by suing in such foreign Court.[184]
[181] See Phillimore, II. § 113 A; Nys, II. pp. 288-296; Loening, "Die Gerichtsbarkeit über
fremde Staaten und Souveräne" (1903); and the following cases:—The United States v. Wagner
(1867), L.R. 2 Ch. App. 582; The Republic of Mexico v. Francisco de Arrangoiz, and others, 11
Howard's Practice Reports 1 (quoted by Scott, "Cases on International Law," 1902, p. 170); The
Sapphire (1870), 11 Wallace, 164. See also below, § 348.
[182] See De Haber v. the Queen of Portugal (1851), 17 Ch. D. 171, and Vavasseur v. Krupp
(1878), L.R. 9 Ch. D. 351.
[183] See Prioleau v. United States, &c. (1866), L.R. 2 Equity, 656.
[184] Provided the cross-suit is really connected with the claim in the action. As regards the
German case of Hellfeld v. the Russian Government, see Köhler in Z.V. IV. (1910), pp. 309-333;
the opinions of Laband, Meili, and Seuffert, ibidem, pp. 334-448; Baty in The Law Magazine and
Review, XXV. (1909-1910), p. 207; Wolfman in A.J. IV. (1910), pp. 373-383.
To the rule of equality there are three exceptions:—
First, such States as can for some parts[185] only be considered
International Persons, are not equals of the full members of the Family of
Nations.
[185] See above, § 103.
Secondly, States under suzerainty and under protectorate which are half-
Sovereign and under the guardianship[186] of other States with regard to the
management of external affairs, are not equals of States which enjoy full
sovereignty.
[186] See above, §§ 91 and 93.
Thirdly, the part-sovereign member-States of a Federal State are not
equals of full-Sovereign States.
It is, however, quite impossible to lay down a hard and fast general rule
concerning the amount of inequality between the equal and the unequal
States, as everything depends upon the circumstances and conditions of the
special case.
Political Hegemony of Great Powers.
§ 116. Legal equality must not be confounded with political equality. The
enormous differences between States as regards their strength are the result
of a natural inequality which, apart from rank and titles, finds its expression
in the province of policy. Politically, States are in no manner equals, as
there is a difference between the Great Powers and others. Eight States must
at present be considered as Great Powers—namely, Great Britain, Austria-
Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia in Europe, the United States in
America, and Japan in Asia. All arrangements made by the body of the
Great Powers naturally gain the consent of the minor States, and the body
of the six Great Powers in Europe is therefore called the European Concert.
The Great Powers are the leaders of the Family of Nations, and every
progress of the Law of Nations during the past is the result of their political
hegemony, although the initiative towards the progress was frequently taken
by a minor Power.
But, however important the position and the influence of the Great
Powers may be, they are by no means derived from a legal basis or rule.[187]
It is nothing else than powerful example which makes the smaller States
agree to the arrangements of the Great Powers. Nor has a State the character
of a Great Power by law. It is nothing else than its actual size and strength
which makes a State a Great Power. Changes, therefore, often take place.
Whereas at the time of the Vienna Congress in 1815 eight States—namely,
Great Britain, Austria, France, Portugal, Prussia, Spain, Sweden, and Russia
—were still considered Great Powers, their number decreased soon to five,
when Portugal, Spain, and Sweden lost that character. But the so-called
Pentarchy of the remaining Great Powers turned into a Hexarchy after the
unification of Italy, because the latter became at once a Great Power. The
United States rose as a Great Power out of the civil war in 1865, and Japan
did the same out of the war with China in 1895. Any day a change may take
place and one of the present Great Powers may lose its position, or one of
the weaker States may become a Great Power. It is a question of political
influence, and not of law, whether a State is or is not a Great Power.
Whatever large-sized State with a large population gains such strength that
its political influence must be reckoned with by the other Great Powers,
becomes a Great Power itself.[188]
[187] This is, however, maintained by a few writers. See, for instance, Lorimer, I. p. 170;
Lawrence, §§ 113 and 114; Westlake, I. pp. 308, 309; and Pitt Cobbett, "Cases and Opinions on
International Law," 2nd ed. vol. I. (1909), p. 50.
[188] In contradistinction to the generally recognised political hegemony of the Great Powers,
Lawrence (§§ 113 and 114) and Taylor (§ 69) maintain that the position of the Great Powers is
legally superior to that of the smaller States, being a "Primacy" or "Overlordship." This doctrine,
which professedly seeks to abolish the universally recognised rule of the equality of States, has no
sound basis, and confounds political with legal inequality. I cannot agree with Lawrence when he
says (§ 114, p. 276):—"... in a system of rules depending, like International Law, for their validity
on general consent, what is political is legal also, if it is generally accepted and acted on." The
Great Powers are de facto, by the smaller States, recognised as political leaders, but this
recognition does not involve recognition of legal superiority.
 Rank of States.
§ 117. Although the States are equals as International Persons, they are
nevertheless not equals as regards rank. The differences as regards rank are
recognised by International Law, but the legal equality of States within the
Family of Nations is thereby as little affected as the legal equality of the
citizens is within a modern State where differences in rank and titles of the
citizens are recognised by Municipal Law. The vote of a State of lower rank
has legally as much weight as that of a State of higher rank. And the
difference in rank nowadays no longer plays such an important part as in
the past, when questions of etiquette gave occasion for much dispute. It was
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that the rank of the different
States was zealously discussed under the heading of droit de préséance or
questions de préséance. The Congress at Vienna of 1815 intended to
establish an order of precedence within the Family of Nations, but dropped
this scheme on account of practical difficulties. Thus the matter is entirely
based on custom, which recognises the following three rules:
(1) The States are divided into two classes—namely, States with and
States without royal honours. To the first class belong Empires, Kingdoms,
Grand Duchies, and the great Republics such as France, the United States of
America, Switzerland, the South American Republics, and others. All other
States belong to the second class. The Holy See is treated as though it were
a State with royal honours. States with royal honours have exclusively the
right to send and receive diplomatic envoys of the first class[189]—namely,
ambassadors; and their monarchs address one another as "brothers" in their
official letters. States with royal honours always precede other States.
[189] See below, § 365.
(2) Full-Sovereign States always precede those under suzerainty or
protectorate.
(3) Among themselves States of the same rank do not precede one
another. Empires do not precede kingdoms, and since the time of Cromwell
and the first French Republic monarchies do not precede republics. But the
Roman Catholic States always concede precedence to the Holy See, and the
monarchs recognise among themselves a difference with regard to
ceremonials between emperors and kings on the one hand, and, on the other,
grand dukes and other monarchs.
The "Alternat."
 § 118. To avoid questions of precedence, on signing a treaty, States of the
same rank observe a conventional usage which is called the "Alternat."
According to that usage the signatures of the signatory States of a treaty
alternate in a regular order or in one determined by lot, the representative of
each State signing first the copy which belongs to his State. But sometimes
that order is not observed, and the States sign either in the alphabetical
order of their names in French or in no order at all (pêle-mêle).
Titles of States.
§ 119. At the present time, States, save in a few exceptional instances,
have no titles, although formerly such titles did exist. Thus the former
Republic of Venice as well as that of Genoa was addressed as "Serene
Republic," and up to the present day the Republic of San Marino[190] is
addressed as "Most Serene Republic." Nowadays the titles of the heads of
monarchical States are in so far of importance to International Law as they
are connected with the rank of the respective States. Since States are
Sovereign, they can bestow any titles they like on their heads. Thus,
according to the German Constitution of 1871, the Kings of Prussia have
the title "German Emperor"; the Kings of England have since 1877 borne
the title "Emperor of India"; the Prince of Servia assumed in 1881, that of
Roumania in 1882, that of Bulgaria in 1908, and that of Montenegro in
1910, the title "King." But no foreign State is obliged to recognise such a
new title, especially when a higher rank would accrue to the respective
State in consequence of such a new title of its head. In practice such
recognition will regularly be given when the new title really corresponds
with the size and the importance of the respective State.[191] Servia,
Roumania, Bulgaria, and Montenegro had therefore no difficulty in
obtaining recognition as kingdoms.
[190]See Treaty Series, 1900, No. 9.
[191]History, however, reports several cases where recognition was withheld for a long time.
Thus the title "Emperor of Russia," assumed by Peter the Great in 1701, was not recognised by
France till 1745, by Spain till 1759, nor by Poland till 1764. And the Pope did not recognise the
kingly title of Prussia, assumed in 1701, till 1786.
With the titles of the heads of States are connected predicates. Emperors
and Kings have the predicate "Majesty," Grand Dukes "Royal Highness,"
Dukes "Highness," other monarchs "Serene Highness." The Pope is
addressed as "Holiness" (Sanctitas). Not to be confounded with these
predicates, which are recognised by the Law of Nations, are predicates
which originally were bestowed on monarchs by the Pope and which have
no importance for the Law of Nations. Thus the Kings of France called
themselves Rex Christianissimus or "First-born Son of the Church," the
Kings of Spain have called themselves since 1496 Rex Catholicus, the
Kings of England since 1521 Defensor Fidei, the Kings of Portugal since
1748 Rex Fidelissimus, the Kings of Hungary since 1758 Rex Apostolicus.

III
DIGNITY

Vattel, II. §§ 35-48—Lawrence, § 120—Phillimore, II. §§ 27-43—Halleck, I. pp. 124-142—

Taylor, § 162—Wheaton, § 160—Bluntschli, §§ 82-83—Hartmann, § 15—Heffter, §§ 32,
102, 103—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 64-69—Ullmann, § 38—Bonfils, Nos. 279-
284—Despagnet, Nos. 184-186—Moore, I. pp. 310-320—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 451-483
—Rivier, I. pp. 260-262—Nys, II. pp. 212-214—Calvo, III. §§ 1300-1302—Fiore, I. Nos.
439-451—Martens, I. § 78.

Dignity a Quality.
§ 120. The majority of text-book writers maintain that there is a
fundamental right of reputation and of good name belonging to every State.
Such a right, however, does not exist, because no duty corresponding to it
can be traced within the Law of Nations. Indeed, the reputation of a State
depends just as much upon behaviour as that of every citizen within its
boundaries. A State which has a corrupt government and behaves unfairly
and perfidiously in its intercourse with other States will be looked down
upon and despised, whereas a State which has an uncorrupt government and
behaves fairly and justly in its international dealings will be highly
esteemed. No law can give a good name and reputation to a rogue, and the
Law of Nations does not and cannot give a right to reputation and good
name to such a State as has not acquired them through its attitude. There are
some States—nomina sunt odiosa!—which indeed justly possess a bad
reputation.
On the other hand, a State as a member of the Family of Nations
possesses dignity as an International Person. Dignity is a quality recognised
by other States, and it adheres to a State from the moment of its recognition
till the moment of its extinction, whatever behaviour it displays. Just as the
dignity of every citizen within a State commands a certain amount of
consideration on the part of fellow-citizens, so the dignity of a State
commands a certain amount of consideration on the part of other States,
since otherwise the different States could not live peaceably in the
community which is called the Family of Nations.
 Consequences of the Dignity of States.
§ 121. Since dignity is a recognised quality of States as International
Persons, all members of the Family of Nations grant reciprocally to one
another by custom certain rights and ceremonial privileges. These are
chiefly the rights to demand—that their heads shall not be libelled and
slandered; that their heads and likewise their diplomatic envoys shall be
granted exterritoriality and inviolability when abroad, and at home and
abroad in the official intercourse with representatives of foreign States shall
be granted certain titles; that their men-of-war shall be granted
exterritoriality when in foreign waters; that their symbols of authority, such
as flags and coats of arms, shall not be made improper use of and not be
treated with disrespect on the part of other States. Every State must not only
itself comply with the duties corresponding to these rights of other States,
but must also prevent its subjects from such acts as violate the dignity of
foreign States, and must punish them for acts of that kind which it could not
prevent. The Municipal Laws of all States must therefore provide for the
punishment of those who commit offences against the dignity of foreign
States,[192] and, if the Criminal Law of the land does not contain such
provisions, it is no excuse for failure by the respective States to punish
offenders. But it must be emphasised that a State must prevent and punish
such acts only as really violate the dignity of a foreign State. Mere criticism
of policy, historical verdicts concerning the attitude of States and their
rulers, utterances of moral indignation condemning immoral acts of foreign
Governments and their monarchs need neither be suppressed nor punished.
[192] According to the Criminal Law of England, "every one is guilty of a misdemeanour who
publishes any libel tending to degrade, revile, or expose to hatred and contempt any foreign prince
or potentate, ambassador or other foreign dignitary, with the intent to disturb peace and friendship
between the United Kingdom and the country to which any such person belongs." See Stephen,
"A Digest of the Criminal Law," article 91.

Maritime Ceremonials.
§ 122. Connected with the dignity of States are the maritime ceremonials
between vessels and between vessels and forts which belong to different
States. In former times discord and jealousy existed between the States
regarding such ceremonials, since they were looked upon as means of
keeping up the superiority of one State over another. Nowadays, so far as
the Open Sea is concerned, they are considered as mere acts of courtesy
recognising the dignity of States. They are the outcome of international
usages, and not of International Law, in honour of the national flags. They
are carried out by dipping flags or striking sails or firing guns.[193] But so far
as the territorial maritime belt is concerned, littoral States can make laws
concerning maritime ceremonials to be observed by foreign merchantmen.
[194]
[193] See Halleck, I. pp. 124-142, where the matter is treated with all details. See also below, §
257.
[194] See below, § 187.

IV
INDEPENDENCE AND TERRITORIAL AND PERSONAL SUPREMACY

Vattel, I. Préliminaires, §§ 15-17—Hall, § 10—Westlake, I. pp. 308-312—Lawrence, §§ 58-

61—Phillimore, I. §§ 144-149—Twiss, I. § 20—Halleck, I. pp. 93-113—Taylor, § 160—
Wheaton, §§ 72-75—Bluntschli, §§ 64-69—Hartmann, § 15—Heffter, §§ 29 and 31—
Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 36-60—Gareis, §§ 25-26—Ullmann, § 38—Bonfils,
Nos. 253-271—Despagnet, Nos. 187-189—Mérignhac, I. pp. 233-383—Pradier-Fodéré, I.
Nos. 287-332—Rivier, I. § 21—Nys, II. pp. 182-184—Calvo, I. §§ 107-109—Fiore, I. Nos.
372-427, and Code, Nos. 180-387—Martens, I. §§ 74 and 75—Westlake, Chapters, pp. 86-
106.

Independence and Territorial as well as Personal Supremacy as Aspects of Sovereignty.

§ 123. Sovereignty as supreme authority, which is independent of any
other earthly authority, may be said to have different aspects. As excluding
dependence from any other authority, and in especial from the authority of
another State, sovereignty is independence. It is external independence with
regard to the liberty of action outside its borders in the intercourse with
other States which a State enjoys. It is internal independence with regard to
the liberty of action of a State inside its borders. As comprising the power
of a State to exercise supreme authority over all persons and things within
its territory, sovereignty is territorial supremacy. As comprising the power
of a State to exercise supreme authority over its citizens at home and
abroad, sovereignty is personal supremacy.
For these reasons a State as an International Person possesses
independence and territorial and personal supremacy. These three qualities
are nothing else than three aspects of the very same sovereignty of a State,
and there is no sharp boundary line between them. The distinction is
apparent and useful, although internal independence is nothing else than
sovereignty comprising territorial supremacy, but viewed from a different
point of view.
Consequences of Independence and Territorial and Personal Supremacy.
§ 124. Independence and territorial as well as personal supremacy are not
rights, but recognised and therefore protected qualities of States as
International Persons. The protection granted to these qualities by the Law
of Nations finds its expression in the right of every State to demand that
other States abstain themselves, and prevent their agents and subjects, from
committing any act which contains a violation of its independence and its
territorial as well as personal supremacy.
In consequence of its external independence, a State can manage its
international affairs according to discretion, especially enter into alliances
and conclude other treaties, send and receive diplomatic envoys, acquire
and cede territory, make war and peace.
In consequence of its internal independence and territorial supremacy, a
State can adopt any Constitution it likes, arrange its administration in a way
it thinks fit, make use of legislature as it pleases, organise its forces on land
and sea, build and pull down fortresses, adopt any commercial policy it
likes, and so on. According to the rule, quidquid est in territorio est etiam
de territorio, all individuals and all property within the territory of a State
are under the latter's dominion and sway, and even foreign individuals and
property fall at once under the territorial supremacy of a State when they
cross its frontier. Aliens residing in a State can therefore be compelled to
pay rates and taxes, and to serve in the police under the same conditions as
citizens for the purpose of maintaining order and safety. But aliens may be
expelled, or not received at all. On the other hand, hospitality may be
granted to them whatever act they have committed abroad, provided they
abstain from making the hospitable territory the basis for attempts against a
foreign State. And a State can through naturalisation adopt foreign subjects
residing on its territory without the consent of the home State, provided the
individuals themselves give their consent.
In consequence of its personal supremacy, a State can treat its subjects
according to discretion, and it retains its power even over such subjects as
emigrate without thereby losing their citizenship. A State may therefore
command its citizens abroad to come home and fulfil their military service,
may require them to pay rates and taxes for the support of the home
finances, may ask them to comply with certain conditions in case they
desire marriages concluded abroad or wills made abroad recognised by the
home authorities, can punish them on their return for crimes they have
committed abroad.
Violations of Independence and Territorial and Personal Supremacy.
§ 125. The duty of every State itself to abstain and to prevent its agents
and subjects from any act which contains a violation[195] of another State's
independence or territorial and personal supremacy is correlative to the
respective right of the other State. It is impossible to enumerate all such
actions as might contain a violation of this duty. But it is of value to give
some illustrative examples. Thus, in the interest of the independence of
other States, a State is not allowed to interfere in the management of their
international affairs nor to prevent them from doing or to compel them to do
certain acts in their international intercourse. Further, in the interest of the
territorial supremacy of other States, a State is not allowed to send its
troops, its men-of-war, or its police forces into or through foreign territory,
or to exercise an act of administration or jurisdiction on foreign territory,
without permission.[196] Again, in the interest of the personal supremacy of
other States, a State is not allowed to naturalise aliens residing on its
territory without their consent,[197] nor to prevent them from returning home
for the purpose of fulfilling military service or from paying rates and taxes
to their home State, nor to incite citizens of foreign States to emigration.
[195] See below, § 155.
[196] But neighbouring States very often give such permission to one another. Switzerland, for
instance, allows German Custom House officers to be stationed on two railway stations of Basle
for the purpose of examining the luggage of travellers from Basle to Germany.
[197] See, however, below (§ 299), where the fact is stated that some States naturalise an alien
through the very fact of his taking domicile on their territory.

Restrictions upon Independence.

§ 126. Independence is not boundless liberty of a State to do what it likes
without any restriction whatever. The mere fact that a State is a member of
the Family of Nations restricts its liberty of action with regard to other
States because it is bound not to intervene in the affairs of other States. And
it is generally admitted that a State can through conventions, such as a
treaty of alliance or neutrality and the like, enter into many obligations
which hamper it more or less in the management of its international affairs.
Independence is a question of degree, and it is therefore also a question of
degree whether the independence of a State is destroyed or not by certain
restrictions. Thus it is generally admitted that States under suzerainty or
under protectorate are so much restricted that they are not fully
independent, but half-Sovereign. And the same is the case with the
member-States of a Federal State which are part-Sovereign. On the other
hand, the restriction connected with the neutralisation of States does not,
according to the correct opinion,[198] destroy their independence, although
they cannot make war except in self-defence, cannot conclude alliances,
and are in other ways hampered in their liberty of action.
[198] See above, § 97.
From a political and a legal point of view it is of great importance that
the States imposing and those accepting restrictions upon independence
should be clear in their intentions. For the question may arise whether these
restrictions make the respective State a dependent one.
Thus through article 4 of the Convention of London of 1884 between
Great Britain and the former South African Republic stipulating that the
latter should not conclude any treaty with any foreign State, the Orange
Free State excepted, without approval on the part of Great Britain, the
Republic was so much restricted that Great Britain considered herself
justified in defending the opinion that the Republic was not an independent
State, although the Republic itself and many writers were of a different
opinion.[199]
[199] It is of interest to state the fact that, before the last phase of the conflict between Great
Britain and the Republic, influential Continental writers stated the suzerainty of Great Britain over
the Republic. See Rivier, I. p. 89, and Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. p. 115.
Thus, to give another example, through article 1 of the Treaty of
Havana[200] of May 22, 1903, between the United States of America and
Cuba, stipulating that Cuba shall never enter into any such treaty with a
foreign Power as will impair, or tend to impair, the independence of Cuba,
and shall abstain from other acts, the Republic of Cuba is so much restricted
that some writers maintain—wrongly, I believe—that Cuba is under an
American protectorate and only a half-Sovereign State.
[200]
See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXII. (1905), p. 79. As regards the international position
of Cuba, see Whitcomb, "La situation internationale de Cuba" (1905).
Again, the Republic of Panama is, by the Treaty of Washington[201] of
1904, likewise burdened with some restrictions in favour of the United
States, but here, too, it would be wrong to maintain that Panama is under an
American protectorate.
[201] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXI. (1905), p. 601.

Restrictions upon Territorial Supremacy.

§ 127. Just like independence, territorial supremacy does not give a
boundless liberty of action. Thus, by customary International Law every
State has a right to demand that its merchantmen can pass through the
maritime belt of other States. Thus, further, navigation on so-called
international rivers in Europe must be open to merchantmen of all States.
Thus, thirdly, foreign monarchs and envoys, foreign men-of-war, and
foreign armed forces must be granted exterritoriality. Thus, fourthly,
through the right of protection over citizens abroad which is held by every
State according to customary International Law, a State cannot treat foreign
citizens passing through or residing on its territory arbitrarily according to
discretion as it might treat its own subjects; it cannot, for instance, compel
them to serve[202] in its army or navy. Thus, to give another and fifth
example, a State, in spite of its territorial supremacy, is not allowed to alter
the natural conditions of its own territory to the disadvantage of the natural
conditions of the territory of a neighbouring State—for instance, to stop or
to divert the flow of a river which runs from its own into neighbouring
territory.[203]
[202] Great Britain would seem to uphold an exception to this rule, for Lord Reay, one of her
delegates, declared—see "Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Actes et Documents,"
vol. III. p. 41—the following at the second Hague Peace Conference of 1907: "Nous
reconnaissons qu'en règle générale le neutre est exempt de tout service militaire dans l'Etat où il
réside. Cependant dans les colonies britanniques et, dans une certaine mesure, dans tous les pays
en voie de formation, la situation est tout autre et la population toute entière, sans distinction de
nationalité, peut être appelée sous les armes pour défendre leurs foyers menacés."
[203] See below, § 178 a.

In contradistinction to these restrictions by the customary Law of

Nations, a State can through treaties enter into obligations of many a kind
without thereby losing its internal independence and territorial supremacy.
Thus France by three consecutive treaties of peace—namely, that of Utrecht
of 1713, that of Aix-la-Chapelle of 1748, and that of Paris of 1763—entered
into the obligation to pull down and not to rebuild the fortifications of
Dunkirk.[204] Napoleon I. imposed by the Peace Treaty of Tilsit of 1807
upon Prussia the restriction not to keep more than 42,000 men under arms.
Again, article 29 of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878 imposed upon Montenegro
the restriction not to possess a navy.[205] There is hardly a State in existence
which is not in one point or another restricted in its territorial supremacy by
treaties with foreign Powers.
[204] This restriction was abolished by article 17 of the Treaty of Paris of 1783.
[205] It is doubtful whether this restriction is still in force; see below, § 258.

Restrictions upon Personal Supremacy.

§ 128. Personal Supremacy does not give a boundless liberty of action
either. Although the citizens of a State remain under its power when abroad,
such State is restricted in the exercise of this power with regard to all those
matters in which the foreign State on whose territory these citizens reside is
competent in consequence of its territorial supremacy. The duty to respect
the territorial supremacy of a foreign State must prevent a State from doing
all acts which, although they are according to its personal supremacy within
its competence, would violate the territorial supremacy of this foreign State.
Thus, for instance, a State is prevented from requiring such acts from its
citizens abroad as are forbidden to them by the Municipal Law of the land
in which they reside.
But a State may also by treaty obligation be for some parts restricted in
the liberty of action with regard to its citizens. Thus articles 5, 25, 35, and
44 of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878 restrict the personal supremacy of
Bulgaria, Montenegro, Servia, and Roumania in so far as these States are
thereby obliged not to impose any religious disabilities on any of their
subjects.[206]
[206] See above, § 73.

V
SELF-PRESERVATION

Vattel, II. §§ 49-53—Hall, §§ 8, 83-86—Westlake, I. pp. 296-304—Phillimore, I. §§ 210-220

—Twiss, I. §§ 106-112—Halleck, I. pp. 93-113—Taylor, §§ 401-409—Wheaton, §§ 61-62
—Moore, II. §§ 215-219—Hartmann, § 15—Heffter, § 30—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff,
II. pp. 51-56—Gareis, § 25—Liszt, § 7—Ullmann, § 38—Bonfils, Nos. 242-252—
Despagnet, Nos. 172-175—Mérignhac, I. pp. 239-245—Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 211-286—
Rivier, I. § 20—Nys, II. pp. 178-181—Calvo, I. §§ 208-209—Fiore, I. Nos. 452-466—
Martens, I. § 73—Westlake, Chapters, pp. 110-125.

Self-preservation an excuse for violations.

 § 129. From the earliest time of the existence of the Law of Nations self-
preservation was considered sufficient justification for many acts of a State
which violate other States. Although, as a rule, all States have mutually to
respect one another's Personality and are therefore bound not to violate one
another, as an exception, certain violations of another State committed by a
State for the purpose of self-preservation are not prohibited by the Law of
Nations. Thus, self-preservation is a factor of great importance for the
position of the States within the Family of Nations, and most writers
maintain that every State has a fundamental right of self-preservation.[207]
But nothing of the kind is actually the case, if the real facts of the law are
taken into consideration. If every State really had a right of self-
preservation, all the States would have the duty to admit, suffer, and endure
every violation done to one another in self-preservation. But such duty does
not exist. On the contrary, although self-preservation is in certain cases an
excuse recognised by International Law, no State is obliged patiently to
submit to violations done to it by such other State as acts in self-
preservation, but can repulse them. It is a fact that in certain cases violations
committed in self-preservation are not prohibited by the Law of Nations.
But, nevertheless, they remain violations and can therefore be repulsed.
Self-preservation is consequently an excuse, because violations of other
States are in certain exceptional cases not prohibited when they are
committed for the purpose and in the interest of self-preservation, although
they need not patiently be suffered and endured by the States concerned.
[207] This right was formerly frequently called droit de convenance, and was said to exist in the
right of every State to act in favour of its interests in case of a conflict between its own and the
interests of another State. See Heffter, § 26.

What acts of self-preservation are excused.

§ 130. It is frequently maintained that every violation is excused so long
as it was caused by the motive of self-preservation, but it becomes more
and more recognised that violations of other States in the interest of self-
preservation are excused in cases of necessity only. Such acts of violence in
the interest of self-preservation are exclusively excused as are necessary in
self-defence, because otherwise the acting State would have to suffer or
have to continue to suffer a violation against itself. If an imminent violation
or the continuation of an already commenced violation can be prevented
and redressed otherwise than by a violation of another State on the part of
the endangered State, this latter violation is not necessary, and therefore not
excused and justified. When, to give an example, a State is informed that on
neighbouring territory a body of armed men is being organised for the
purpose of a raid into its own territory, and when the danger can be
removed through an appeal to the authorities of the neighbouring country,
no case of necessity has arisen. But if such an appeal is fruitless or not
possible, or if there is danger in delay, a case of necessity arises and the
threatened State is justified in invading the neighbouring country and
disarming the intending raiders.
The reason of the thing, of course, makes it necessary for every State to
judge for itself when it considers a case of necessity has arisen, and it is
therefore impossible to lay down a hard-and-fast rule regarding the question
when a State can or cannot have recourse to self-help which violates
another State. Everything depends upon the circumstances and conditions
of the special case, and it is therefore of value to give some historical
examples.
Case of the Danish Fleet (1807).
§ 131. After the Peace of Tilsit of 1807 the British Government[208] was
cognisant of the provision of some secret articles of this treaty that France
should be at liberty to seize the Danish fleet and to make use of it against
Great Britain. This plan, when carried out, would have endangered the
position of Great Britain, which was then waging war against France. As
Denmark was not capable of defending herself against an attack of the
French army in North Germany under Bernadotte and Davoust, who had
orders to invade Denmark, the British Government requested Denmark to
deliver up her fleet to the custody of Great Britain, and promised to restore
it after the war. And at the same time the means of defence against French
invasion and a guaranty of her whole possessions were offered to Denmark
by England. The latter, however, refused to comply with the British
demands, whereupon the British considered a case of necessity in self-
preservation had arisen, shelled Copenhagen, and seized the Danish fleet.
[208] I follow Hall's (§ 86) summary of the facts.

Case of Amelia Island.

§ 132. "Amelia Island, at the mouth of St. Mary's River, and at that time
in Spanish territory, was seized in 1817 by a band of buccaneers, under the
direction of an adventurer named McGregor, who in the name of the
insurgent colonies of Buenos Ayres and Venezuela preyed indiscriminately
on the commerce of Spain and of the United States. The Spanish
Government not being able or willing to drive them off, and the nuisance
being one which required immediate action, President Monroe called his
Cabinet together in October 1817, and directed that a vessel of war should
proceed to the island and expel the marauders, destroying their works and
vessels."[209]
[209] See Wharton, § 50 a, and Moore, II. § 216.

Case of the Caroline.

§ 133. In 1837, during the Canadian rebellion, several hundreds of
insurgents got hold of an island in the river Niagara, on the territory of the
United States, and with the help of American subjects equipped a boat
called the Caroline, with the purpose of crossing into Canadian territory and
bringing material help to the insurgents. The Canadian Government, timely
informed of the imminent danger, sent a British force over into the
American territory, which obtained possession of the Caroline, seized her
arms, and then sent her adrift down the falls of the Niagara. The United
States complained of this British violation of her territorial supremacy, but
Great Britain was in a position to prove that her act was necessary in self-
preservation, since there was not sufficient time to prevent the imminent
invasion of her territory through application to the United States
Government.[210]
[210] See Wharton, I. § 50 c, Moore, II. § 217, and Hall, § 84. With the case of the Caroline is
connected the case of Macleod, which will be discussed below, § 446. Hall (§ 86), Martens (I. §
73), and others quote also the case of the Virginius (1873) as an example of necessity of self-
preservation, but it seems that the Spanish Government did not plead self-preservation but piracy
as justification of the capture of the vessel (see Moore, II. § 309, pp. 895-903). That a vessel
sailing under another State's flag can nevertheless be seized on the high seas in case she is sailing
to a port of the capturing State for the purpose of an invasion or bringing material help to
insurgents, there is no doubt. No better case of necessity of self-preservation could be given, since
the danger is imminent and can be frustrated only by capture of the vessel.

VI
INTERVENTION

Vattel, II. §§ 54-62—Hall, §§ 88-95—Westlake, I. pp. 304-308—Lawrence, §§ 62-70—

Phillimore, I. §§ 390-415A—Halleck, I. pp. 94-109—Taylor, §§ 410-430—Walker, § 7—
Wharton, I. §§ 45-72—Moore, VI. §§ 897-926—Wheaton, §§ 63-71—Bluntschli, §§ 474-
480—Hartmann, § 17—Heffter, §§ 44-46—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 131-168—
 Gareis, § 26—Liszt, § 7—Ullmann, §§ 163-164—Bonfils, Nos. 295-323—Despagnet, Nos.
193-216—Mérignhac, I. pp. 284-310—Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 354-441—Rivier, I. § 31—
Nys, II. pp. 185-193, 200-205—Calvo, I. §§ 110-206—Fiore, I. Nos. 561-608, and Code,
Nos. 543-557—Martens, I. § 76—Bernard, "On the Principle of non-Intervention" (1860)—
Hautefeuille, "Le principe de non-intervention" (1863)—Stapleton, "Intervention and Non-
intervention, or the Foreign Policy of Great Britain from 1790 to 1865" (1866)—Geffcken,
"Das Recht der Intervention" (1887)—Kebedgy, "De l'intervention" (1890)—Floecker, "De
l'intervention en droit international" (1896)—Drago, "Cobro coercitivo de deudas publicas"
(1906)—Moulin, "La doctrine de Drago" (1908).

Conception and character of Intervention.

§ 134. Intervention is dictatorial interference by a State in the affairs of
another State for the purpose of maintaining or altering the actual condition
of things. Such intervention can take place by right or without a right, but it
always concerns the external independence or the territorial or personal
supremacy of the respective State, and the whole matter is therefore of great
importance for the position of the States within the Family of Nations. That
intervention is, as a rule, forbidden by the Law of Nations which protects
the International Personality of the States, there is no doubt. On the other
hand, there is just as little doubt[211] that this rule has exceptions, for there
are interventions which take place by right, and there are others which,
although they do not take place by right, are nevertheless admitted by the
Law of Nations and are excused in spite of the violation of the Personality
of the respective States they involve.
[211] The so-called doctrine of non-intervention as defended by some Italian writers (see Fiore,
I. No. 565), who deny that intervention is ever justifiable, is a political doctrine without any legal
basis whatever.
Intervention can take place in the external as well as in the internal affairs
of a State. It concerns in the first case the external independence, and in the
second either the territorial or the personal supremacy. But it must be
emphasised that intervention proper is always dictatorial interference, not
interference pure and simple.[212] Therefore intervention must neither be
confounded with good offices, nor with mediation, nor with intercession,
nor with co-operation, because none of these imply a dictatorial
interference. Good offices is the name for such acts of friendly Powers
interfering in a conflict between two other States as tend to call negotiations
into existence for the peaceable settlement of the conflict, and mediation is
the name for the direct conduct on the part of a friendly Power of such
negotiations.[213] Intercession is the name for the interference consisting in
friendly advice given or friendly offers made with regard to the domestic
affairs of another State. And, lastly, co-operation is the appellation of such
interference as consists in help and assistance lent by one State to another at
the latter's request for the purpose of suppressing an internal revolution.
Thus, for example, Russia sent troops in 1849, at the request of Austria, into
Hungary to assist Austria in suppressing the Hungarian revolt.
[212] Many writers constantly commit this confusion.
[213] See below, vol. II. § 9.

Intervention by Right.
§ 135. It is apparent that such interventions as take place by right must be
distinguished from others. Wherever there is no right of intervention,
although it may be admissible and excused, an intervention violates either
the external independence or the territorial or the personal supremacy. But if
an intervention takes place by right, it never contains such a violation,
because the right of intervention is always based on a legal restriction upon
the independence or territorial or personal supremacy of the State
concerned, and because the latter is in duty bound to submit to the
intervention. Now a State may have a right of intervention against another
State, mainly for six reasons:[214]
[214] The enumeration is not intended to be exhaustive.
(1) A Suzerain State has a right to intervene in many affairs of the Vassal,
and a State which holds a protectorate has a right to intervene in all the
external affairs of the protected State.
(2) If an external affair of a State is at the same time by right an affair of
another State, the latter has a right to intervene in case the former deals with
that affair unilaterally. The events of 1878 provide an illustrative example.
Russia had concluded the preliminary Peace of San Stefano with defeated
Turkey; Great Britain protested because the conditions of this peace were
inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris of 1856 and the Convention of London
of 1871, and Russia agreed to the meeting of the Congress of Berlin for the
purpose of arranging matters. Had Russia persisted in carrying out the
preliminary peace, Great Britain as well as other signatory Powers of the
Treaty of Paris and the Convention of London doubtless possessed a right
of intervention.
(3) If a State which is restricted by an international treaty in its external
independence or its territorial or personal supremacy does not comply with
the restrictions concerned, the other party or parties have a right to
intervene. Thus the United States of America, in 1906, exercised
intervention in Cuba in conformity with article 3 of the Treaty of Havana[215]
of 1903, which stipulates: "The Government of Cuba consents that the
United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of
Cuban independence, the maintenance of a Government adequate for the
protection of life, property, and individual liberty...." And likewise the
United States of America, in 1904, exercised intervention in Panama in
conformity with article 7 of the Treaty of Washington[216] in 1903, which
stipulates: "The same right and authority are granted to the United States for
the maintenance of public order in the cities of Panama and Colon and the
territories and harbours adjacent thereto in case the Republic of Panama
should not be, in the judgment of the United States, able to maintain such
order."
[215] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXII. (1905), p. 79.—Even if no special right of
intervention is stipulated, it nevertheless exists in such cases. Thus—see below, § 574—those
Powers which have guaranteed the integrity of Norway under the condition that she does not cede
any part of her territory to any foreign Power would have a right to intervene in case such a
cession were contemplated, although the treaty concerned does not stipulate this.
[216] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXI. (1905), p. 599.

(4) If a State in time of peace or war violates such rules of the Law of
Nations as are universally recognised by custom or are laid down in law-
making treaties, other States have a right to intervene and to make the
delinquent submit to the rules concerned. If, for instance, a State undertook
to extend its jurisdiction over the merchantmen of another State on the high
seas, not only would this be an affair between the two States concerned, but
all other States would have a right to intervene because the freedom of the
open sea is a universally recognised principle. Or if a State which is a party
to the Hague Regulations concerning Land Warfare were to violate one of
these Regulations, all the other signatory Powers would have a right to
intervene.
(5) A State that has guaranteed by treaty the form of government of a
State or the reign of a certain dynasty over the same has a right[217] to
intervene in case of change of form of government or of dynasty, provided
the respective treaty of guaranty was concluded between the respective
States and not between their monarchs personally.
[217] But this is not generally recognised; see, for instance, Hall, § 93, who denies the existence
of such a right. I do not see the reason why a State should not be able to undertake the obligation
to retain a certain form of government or dynasty. That historical events can justify such State in
 considering itself no longer bound by such treaty according to the principle rebus sic stantibus
(see below, § 539) is another matter.
(6) The right of protection[218] over citizens abroad, which a State holds,
may cause an intervention by right to which the other party is legally bound
to submit. And it matters not whether protection of the life, security, honour,
or property of a citizen abroad is concerned.
 [218] See below, § 319.
The so-called Drago[219] doctrine, which asserts the rule that intervention
is not allowed for the purpose of making a State pay its public debts, is
unfounded, and has not received general recognition, although Argentina
and some other South American States tried to establish this rule at the
second Hague Peace Conference of 1907. But this Conference adopted, on
the initiative of the United States of America, a "Convention[220] respecting
the Limitation of the Employment of Force for the Recovery of Contract
Debts." According to article 1 of this Convention, the contracting Powers
agree not to have recourse to armed force for the recovery of contract debts
claimed from the Government of one country by the Government of another
country as being due to its nationals. This undertaking is, however, not
applicable when the debtor State refuses or neglects to reply to an offer of
arbitration, or, after accepting the offer, renders the settlement of the
compromis impossible, or, after the arbitration, fails to submit to the award.
—It must be emphasised that the stipulations of this Convention concern
the recovery of all contract debts, whether or no they arise from public
loans.
[219] The Drago doctrine originates from Louis M. Drago, sometime Foreign Secretary of the
Republic of Argentina. See Drago, "Cobro coercitivo de deudas publicas" (1906); Barclay,
"Problems of International Practice, &c." (1907), pp. 115-122; Moulin, "La Doctrine de Drago"
(1908); Higgins, "The Hague Peace Conferences, &c." (1909), pp. 184-197; Scott, "The Hague
Peace Conferences" (1909), vol. I. pp. 415-422; Calvo in R.I. 2nd Ser. V. (1903), pp. 597-623;
Drago in R.G. XIV. (1907), pp. 251-287; Moulin in R.G. XIV. (1907), pp. 417-472; Hershey in
A.J. I. (1907), pp. 26-45; Drago in A.J. I. (1907), pp. 692-726.
[220] See Scott in A.J. II. (1908), pp. 78-94.

Admissibility of Intervention in default of Right.

§ 136. In contradistinction to intervention by right, there are other
interventions which must be considered admissible, although they violate
the independence or the territorial or personal supremacy of the State
concerned, and although such State has by no means any legal duty to
submit patiently and suffer the intervention. Of such interventions in default
of right there are two kinds generally admitted and excused—namely, such
as are necessary in self-preservation and such as are necessary in the
interest of the balance of power.
(1) As regards interventions for the purpose of self-preservation, it is
obvious that, if any necessary violation committed in self-preservation of
the International Personality of other States is, as shown above (§ 130),
excused, such violation must also be excused as is contained in an
intervention. And it matters not whether such an intervention exercised in
self-preservation is provoked by an actual or imminent intervention on the
part of a third State, or by some other incident.
(2) As regards intervention in the interest of the balance of power, it is
likewise obvious that it must be excused. An equilibrium between the
members of the Family of Nations is an indispensable[221] condition of the
very existence of International Law. If the States could not keep one another
in check, all Law of Nations would soon disappear, as, naturally, an over-
powerful State would tend to act according to discretion instead of
according to law. Since the Westphalian Peace of 1648 the principle of
balance of power has played a preponderant part in the history of Europe. It
found express recognition in 1713 in the Treaty of Peace of Utrecht, it was
the guiding star at the Vienna Congress in 1815 when the map of Europe
was rearranged, at the Congress of Paris in 1856, the Conference of London
in 1867, and the Congress of Berlin in 1878. The States themselves and the
majority of writers agree upon the admissibility of intervention in the
interest of balance of power. Most of the interventions exercised in the
interest of the preservation of the Turkish Empire must, in so far as they are
not based on treaty rights, be classified as interventions in the interest of
balance of power. Examples of this are supplied by collective interventions
exercised by the Powers in 1886 for the purpose of preventing the outbreak
of war between Greece and Turkey, and in 1897 during the war between
Greece and Turkey with regard to the island of Crete.
[221] A survey of the opinions concerning the value of the principle of balance of power is given
by Bulmerincq, "Praxis, Theorie und Codification des Völkerrechts" (1874), pp. 40-50, but
Bulmerincq himself rejects the principle. See also Donnadieu, "Essai sur la théorie de l'équilibre"
(1900) where the matter is exhaustively treated, and Dupuis, "Le principe d'équilibre et le concert
européen" (1909), pp. 90-108, and 494-513. It is necessary to emphasise that the principle of the
balance of power is not a legal principle and therefore not one of International Law, but one of
International policy; it is a political principle indispensable to the existence of International Law
in its present condition.

Intervention in the interest of Humanity.

§ 137. Many jurists maintain that intervention is likewise admissible, or
even has a basis of right, when exercised in the interest of humanity for the
purpose of stopping religious persecution and endless cruelties in time of
peace and war. That the Powers have in the past exercised intervention on
these grounds, there is no doubt. Thus Great Britain, France, and Russia
intervened in 1827 in the struggle between revolutionary Greece and
Turkey, because public opinion was horrified at the cruelties committed
during this struggle. And many a time interventions have taken place to stop
the persecution of Christians in Turkey. But whether there is really a rule of
the Law of Nations which admits such interventions may well be doubted.
Yet, on the other hand, it cannot be denied that public opinion and the
attitude of the Powers are in favour of such interventions, and it may
perhaps be said that in time the Law of Nations will recognise the rule that
interventions in the interests of humanity are admissible provided they are
exercised in the form of a collective intervention of the Powers.[222]
[222]See Hall, §§ 91 and 95, where the merits of the problem are discussed from all sides. See
also below, § 292, and Rougier in R.G. XVII. (1910), pp. 468-526.

Intervention de facto a Matter of Policy.

§ 138. Careful analysis of the rules of the Law of Nations regarding
intervention and the hitherto exercised practice of intervention make it
apparent that intervention is de facto a matter of policy just like war. This is
the result of the combination of several factors. Since, even in the cases in
which it is based on a right, intervention is not compulsory, but is solely in
the discretion of the State concerned, it is for that reason alone a matter of
policy. Since, secondly, every State must decide for itself whether vital
interests of its own are at stake and whether a case of necessity in the
interest of self-preservation has arisen, intervention is for this part again a
matter of policy. Since, thirdly, the question of balance of power is so
complicated and the historical development of the States involves gradually
an alteration of the division of power between the States, it must likewise
be left to the appreciation of every State whether or not it considers the
balance of power endangered and, therefore, an intervention necessary. And
who can undertake to lay down a hard-and-fast rule with regard to the
amount of inhumanity on the part of a Government that would justify
intervention according to the Law of Nations?
No State will ever intervene in the affairs of another if it has not some
important interest in doing so, and it has always been easy for such State to
find or pretend some legal justification for an intervention, be it self-
preservation, balance of power, or humanity. There is no great danger to the
welfare of the States in the fact that intervention is de facto a matter of
policy. Too many interests are common to all the members of the Family of
Nations, and too great is the natural jealousy between the Great Powers, for
an abuse of intervention on the part of one powerful State without calling
other States into the field. Since unjustified intervention violates the very
principles of the Law of Nations, and since, as I have stated above (§ 135),
in case of a violation of these principles on the part of a State every other
State has a right to intervene, any unjustifiable intervention by one State in
the affairs of another gives a right of intervention to all other States. Thus it
becomes apparent here, as elsewhere, that the Law of Nations is intimately
connected with the interests of all the States, and that they must themselves
secure the maintenance and realisation of this law. This condition of things
tends naturally to hamper more the ambitions of weaker States than those of
the several Great Powers, but it seems unalterable.
The Monroe Doctrine.
§ 139. The de facto political character of the whole matter of intervention
becomes clearly apparent through the so-called Monroe doctrine[223] of the
United States of America. This doctrine, at its first appearance, was
indirectly a product of the policy of intervention in the interest of
legitimacy which the Holy Alliance pursued in the beginning of the
nineteenth century after the downfall of Napoleon. The Powers of this
alliance were inclined to extend their policy of intervention to America and
to assist Spain in regaining her hold over the former Spanish colonies in
South America which had declared and maintained their independence, and
which were recognised as independent Sovereign States by the United
States of America. To meet and to check the imminent danger, President
James Monroe delivered his celebrated Message to Congress on December
2, 1823. This Message contains two quite different, but nevertheless equally
important, declarations.
[223] Wharton, § 57; Dana's Note No. 36 to Wharton, p. 36; Tucker, "The Monroe Doctrine"
(1885); Moore, "The Monroe Doctrine" (1895), and Digest, VI. §§ 927-968; Cespedès, "La
doctrine de Monroe" (1893); Mérignhac, "La doctrine de Monroe à la fin du XIX^e siècle"
(1896); Beaumarchais, "La doctrine de Monroe" (1898); Redaway, "The Monroe Doctrine"
(1898); Pékin, "Les États-Unis et la doctrine de Monroe" (1900).
(1) In connection with the unsettled boundary lines in the north-west of
the American continent, the Message declared "that the American
continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed
and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future
colonisation by any European Power." This declaration was never
recognised by the European Powers, and Great Britain and Russia protested
expressly against it. In fact, however, no occupation of American territory
has since then taken place on the part of a European State.
(2) In regard to the contemplated intervention of the Holy Alliance
between Spain and the South American States, the Message declared that
the United States had not intervened, and never would intervene, in wars in
Europe, but could not, on the other hand, in the interest of her own peace
and happiness, allow the allied European Powers to extend their political
system to any part of America and try to intervene in the independence of
the South American republics.
(3) Since the time of President Monroe, the Monroe doctrine has been
gradually somewhat extended in so far as the United States claims a kind of
political hegemony over all the States of the American continent. Whenever
a conflict occurs between such an American State and a European Power,
the United States is ready to exercise intervention. Through the civil war
her hands were to a certain extent bound in the sixties of the last century,
and she could not prevent the occupation of Mexico by the French army,
but she intervened[224] in 1865. Again, she did not intervene in 1902 when
Great Britain, Germany, and Italy took combined action against Venezuela,
because she was cognisant of the fact that this action intended merely to
make Venezuela comply with her international duties. But she intervened in
1896 in the boundary conflict between Great Britain and Venezuela when
Lord Salisbury had sent an ultimatum to Venezuela, and she retains the
Monroe doctrine as a matter of principle.
[224] See Moore, VI. § 957.

Merits of the Monroe Doctrine.

§ 140. The importance of the Monroe doctrine is of a political, not of a
legal character. Since the Law of Nations is a law between all the civilised
States as equal members of the Family of Nations, the States of the
American continent are subjects of the same international rights and duties
as the European States. The European States are, as far as the Law of
Nations is concerned, absolutely free to acquire territory in America as
elsewhere. And the same legal rules are valid concerning intervention on
the part of European Powers both in American affairs and in affairs of other
States. But it is evident that the Monroe doctrine, as the guiding star of the
policy of the United States, is of the greatest political importance. And it
ought not to be maintained that this policy is in any way inconsistent with
the Law of Nations. In the interest of balance of power in the world, the
United States considers it a necessity that European Powers should not
acquire more territory on the American continent than they actually possess.
She considers, further, her own welfare so intimately connected with that of
the other American States that she thinks it necessary, in the interest of self-
preservation, to watch closely the relations of these States with Europe and
also the relations between these very States, and eventually to intervene in
conflicts. Since every State must decide for itself whether and where vital
interests of its own are at stake and whether the balance of power is
endangered to its disadvantage, and since, as explained above (§ 138),
intervention is therefore de facto a matter of policy, there is no legal
impediment to the United States carrying out a policy in conformity with
the Monroe doctrine. This policy hampers indeed the South American
States, but with their growing strength it will gradually disappear. For,
whenever some of these States become Great Powers themselves, they will
no longer submit to the political hegemony of the United States, and the
Monroe doctrine will have played its part.

VII
INTERCOURSE

Grotius, II. c. 2, § 13—Vattel, II. §§ 21-26—Hall, § 13—Taylor, § 160—Bluntschli, § 381 and

p. 26—Hartmann, § 15—Heffter, §§ 26 and 33—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 60-64
—Gareis, § 27—Liszt, § 7—Ullmann, § 38—Bonfils, Nos. 285-289—Despagnet, No. 183
—Mérignhac, I. pp. 256-257—Pradier-Fodéré, I. No. 184—Rivier, I. pp. 262-264—Nys, II.
pp. 221-228—Calvo, III. §§ 1303-1305—Fiore, I. No. 370—Martens, I. § 79.

Intercourse a presupposition of International Personality.

§ 141. Many adherents of the doctrine of fundamental rights include
therein also a right of intercourse of every State with all others. This right of
intercourse is said to contain a right of diplomatic, commercial, postal,
telegraphic intercourse, of intercourse by railway, a right of foreigners to
travel and reside on the territory of every State, and the like. But if the real
facts of international life are taken into consideration, it becomes at once
apparent that such a fundamental right of intercourse does not exist. All the
consequences which are said to follow from the right of intercourse are not
at all consequences of a right, but nothing else than consequences of the
fact that intercourse between the States is a condition without which a Law
of Nations would not and could not exist. The civilised States make a
community of States because they are knit together through their common
interests and the manifold intercourse which serves these interests. Through
intercourse with one another and with the growth of their common interests
the Law of Nations has grown up among the civilised States. Where there is
no intercourse there cannot be a community and a law for such community.
A State cannot be a member of the Family of Nations and an International
Person, if it has no intercourse whatever with at least one or more other
States. Varied intercourse with other States is a necessity for every civilised
State. The mere fact that a State is a member of the Family of Nations
shows that it has various intercourse with other States, for otherwise it
would never have become a member of that family. Intercourse is therefore
one of the characteristics of the position of the States within the Family of
Nations, and it may be maintained that intercourse is a presupposition of the
international Personality of every State. But no special right or rights of
intercourse between the States exist according to the Law of Nations. It is
because such special rights of intercourse do not exist that the States
conclude special treaties regarding matters of post, telegraphs, telephones,
railways, and commerce. On the other hand, most States keep up protective
duties to exclude or hamper foreign trade in the interest of their home
commerce, industry, and agriculture. And although as a rule they allow[225]
aliens to travel and to reside on their territory, they can expel every foreign
subject according to discretion.
[225] That an alien has no right to demand to be admitted to British territory was decided in the
case of Musgrove v. Chun Teeong Toy, L.R. (1891), App. Cas. 272.

Consequences of Intercourse as a Presupposition of International Personality.

§ 142. Intercourse being a presupposition of International Personality, the
Law of Nations favours intercourse in every way. The whole institution of
legation serves the interest of intercourse between the States, as does the
consular institution. The right of legation,[226] which every full-Sovereign
State undoubtedly holds, is held in the interest of intercourse, as is certainly
the right of protection over citizens abroad[227] which every State possesses.
The freedom of the Open Sea,[228] which has been universally recognised
since the end of the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the right of every
State to the passage of its merchantmen through the maritime belt[229] of all
other States, and, further, freedom of navigation for the merchantmen of all
nations on so-called international rivers,[230] are further examples of
provisions of the Law of Nations in the interest of international intercourse.
[226] See below, § 360.
[227] See below, § 319. The right of protection over citizens abroad is frequently said to be a
special right of self-preservation, but it is really a right in the interest of intercourse.
[228] See below, § 259.
[229] See below, § 188.
[230] See below, § 178.

The question is frequently discussed and answered in the affirmative

whether a State has the right to require such States as are outside the Family
of Nations to open their ports and allow commercial intercourse. Since the
Law of Nations is a law between those States only which are members of
the Family of Nations, it has certainly nothing to do with this question,
which is therefore one of mere commercial policy and of morality.

VIII
JURISDICTION

Hall, §§ 62, 75-80—Westlake, I. pp. 236-271—Lawrence, §§ 93-109—Phillimore, I. §§ 317-

356—Twiss, I. §§ 157-171—Halleck, I. pp. 186-245—Taylor, §§ 169-171—Wheaton, §§
77-151—Moore, II. §§ 175-249—Bluntschli, §§ 388-393—Heffter, §§ 34-39—Bonfils,
Nos. 263-266—Rivier, I. § 28—Nys, II. pp. 257-263—Fiore, I. Nos. 475-588.

Jurisdiction important for the position of the States within the Family of Nations.
§ 143. Jurisdiction is for several reasons a matter of importance as
regards the position of the States within the Family of Nations. States
possessing independence and territorial as well as personal supremacy can
naturally extend or restrict their jurisdiction as far as they like. However, as
members of the Family of Nations and International Persons, the States
must exercise self-restraint in the exercise of this natural power in the
interest of one another. Since intercourse of all kinds takes place between
the States and their subjects, the matter ought to be thoroughly regulated by
the Law of Nations. But such regulation has as yet only partially grown up.
The consequence of both the regulation and non-regulation of jurisdiction is
that concurrent jurisdiction of several States can often at the same time be
exercised over the same persons and matters. And it can also happen that
matters fall under no jurisdiction because the several States which could
extend their jurisdiction over these matters refuse to do so, leaving them to
each other's jurisdiction.
Restrictions upon Territorial Jurisdiction.
§ 144. As all persons and things within the territory of a State fall under
its territorial supremacy, every State has jurisdiction over them. The Law of
Nations, however, gives a right to every State to claim so-called
exterritoriality and therefore exemption from local jurisdiction chiefly for
its head,[231] its diplomatic envoys,[232] its men-of-war,[233] and its armed
forces[234] abroad. And partly by custom and partly by treaty obligations,
Eastern non-Christian States, Japan now excepted, are restricted[235] in their
territorial jurisdiction with regard to foreign resident subjects of Christian
Powers.
[231] Details below, §§ 348-353, and 356.—The exemption of a State itself from the jurisdiction
of another is not based upon a claim to exterritoriality, but upon the claim to equality; see above, §
115.
[232] Details below, §§ 385-405.
[233] Details below, §§ 450-451.
[234] Details below, § 445.
[235] Details below, §§ 318 and 440.

Jurisdiction over Citizens abroad.

§ 145. The Law of Nations does not prevent a State from exercising
jurisdiction over its subjects travelling or residing abroad, since they remain
under its personal supremacy. As every State can also exercise jurisdiction
over aliens[236] within its boundaries, such aliens are often under two
concurrent jurisdictions. And, since a State is not obliged to exercise
jurisdiction for all matters over aliens on its territory, and since the home
State is not obliged to exercise jurisdiction over its subjects abroad, it may
and does happen that aliens are actually for some matters under no State's
jurisdiction.
[236] See below, § 317.

Jurisdiction on the Open Sea.

§ 146. As the Open Sea is not under the sway of any State, no State can
exercise its jurisdiction there. But it is a rule of the Law of Nations that the
vessels and the things and persons thereon remain during the time they are
on the Open Sea under the jurisdiction of the State under whose flag they
sail.[237] It is another rule of the Law of Nations that piracy[238] on the Open
Sea can be punished by any State, whether or no the pirate sails under the
flag of a State. Further,[239] a general practice seems to admit the claim of
every maritime State to exercise jurisdiction over cases of collision at sea,
whether the vessels concerned are or are not sailing under its flag. Again, in
the interest of the safety of the Open Sea, every State has the right to order
its men-of-war to ask any suspicious merchantman they meet on the Open
Sea to show the flag, to arrest foreign merchantmen sailing under its flag
without an authorisation for its use, and to pursue into the Open Sea and to
arrest there such foreign merchantmen as have committed a violation of its
law whilst in its ports or maritime belt.[240] Lastly, in time of war belligerent
States have the right to order their men-of-war to visit, search, and
eventually capture on the Open Sea all neutral vessels for carrying
contraband, breach of blockade, or unneutral services to the enemy.
[237] See below, § 260.
[238] See below, § 278.
[239] See below, § 265.
[240] See below, §§ 265-266.

Criminal Jurisdiction over Foreigners in Foreign States.

§ 147. Many States claim jurisdiction and threaten punishment for certain
acts committed by a foreigner in foreign countries.[241] States which claim
jurisdiction of this kind threaten punishment for certain acts either against
the State itself, such as high treason, forging bank-notes, and the like, or
against its citizens, such as murder or arson, libel and slander, and the like.
These States cannot, of course, exercise this jurisdiction as long as the
foreigner concerned remains outside their territory. But if, after the
committal of such act, he enters their territory and comes thereby under
their territorial supremacy, they have an opportunity of inflicting
punishment. The question is, therefore, whether States have a right to
jurisdiction over acts of foreigners committed in foreign countries, and
whether the home State of such an alien has a duty to acquiesce in the
latter's punishment in case he comes into the power of these States. The
question must be answered in the negative. For at the time such criminal
acts are committed the perpetrators are neither under the territorial nor
under the personal supremacy of the States concerned. And a State can only
require respect for its laws from such aliens as are permanently or
transiently within its territory. No right for a State to extend its jurisdiction
over acts of foreigners committed in foreign countries can be said to have
grown up according to the Law of Nations, and the right of protection over
citizens abroad held by every State would justify it in an intervention in
case one of its citizens abroad should be required to stand his trial before
the Courts of another State for criminal acts which he did not commit
during the time he was under the territorial supremacy of such State.[242] In
the only[243] case which is reported—namely, in the case of Cutting—an
intervention took place according to this view. In 1886, one A. K. Cutting, a
subject of the United States, was arrested in Mexico for an alleged libel
against one Emigdio Medina, a subject of Mexico, which was published in
the newspaper of El Paso in Texas. Mexico maintained that she had a right
to punish Cutting, because according to her Criminal Law offences
committed by foreigners abroad against Mexican subjects are punishable in
Mexico. The United States, however, intervened,[244] and demanded
Cutting's release. Mexico refused to comply with this demand, but
nevertheless Cutting was finally released, as the plaintiff withdrew his
action for libel. Since Mexico likewise refused to comply with the demand
of the United States to alter her Criminal Law for the purpose of avoiding in
the future a similar incident, diplomatic practice has not at all settled the
subject.
[241] See Hall, § 62; Westlake, I. pp. 251-253; Lawrence, § 104; Taylor, § 191; Moore, II. §§
200 and 201; Phillimore, I. § 334.
[242] The Institute of International Law has studied the question at several meetings and in 1883,
at its meeting at Munich (see Annuaire, VII. p. 156), among a body of fifteen articles concerning
the conflict of the Criminal Laws of different States, adopted the following (article 8):—"Every
State has a right to punish acts committed by foreigners outside its territory and violating its penal
laws when those acts contain an attack upon its social existence or endanger its security and when
they are not provided against by the Criminal Law of the territory where they take place." But it
must be emphasised that this resolution has value de lege ferenda only.
[243] The case of Cirilo Pouble—see Moore, II. § 200, pp. 227-228—concerning which the
United States at first were inclined to intervene, proved to be a case of a crime committed within
Spanish jurisdiction. The case of John Anderson—see Moore, I. § 174, p. 933—is likewise not
relevant, as he claimed to be a British subject.
[244] See Westlake, I. p. 252; Taylor, § 192; Calvo, VI. §§ 171-173; Moore, II. § 201, and
"Report on Extraterritorial Crime and the Cutting Case" (1887); Rolin in R.I. XX. (1888), pp. 559-
577. The case is fully discussed and the American claim is disputed by Mendelssohn Bartholdy,
"Das räumliche Herrschaftsgebiet des Strafgesetzes" (1908), pp. 135-143.

CHAPTER III
 RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES

I
ON STATE RESPONSIBILITY IN GENERAL

Grotius, II. c. 21, § 2—Pufendorf, VIII. c. 6, § 12—Vattel, II. §§ 63-78—Hall, § 65—Halleck,

I. pp. 440-444—Wharton, I. § 21—Moore, VI. §§ 979-1039—Wheaton, § 32—Bluntschli,
§ 74—Heffter, §§ 101-104—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 70-74—Liszt, § 24—
Ullmann, § 39—Bonfils, Nos. 324-332—Despagnet, No. 466—Piedelièvre, I. pp. 317-322
—Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 196-210—Rivier, I. pp. 40-44—Calvo, III. §§ 1261-1298—Fiore,
I. Nos. 659-679, and Code, Nos. 591-610—Martens, I. § 118—Clunet, "Offenses et actes
hostiles commis par particuliers contre un état étranger" (1887)—Triepel, "Völkerrecht und
Landesrecht" (1899), pp. 324-381—Anzillotti, "Teoria generale della responsabilità dello
stato nel diritto internazionale" (1902)—Wiese, "Le droit international appliqué aux guerres
civiles" (1898), pp. 43-65—Rougier, "Les guerres civiles et le droit des gens" (1903), pp.
448-474—Baty, "International Law" (1908), pp. 91-242—Anzillotti in R.G. XIII. (1906),
pp. 5-29 and 285-309—Foster in A.J. I. (1907), pp. 5-10—Bar in R.I. 2nd Ser. I. (1899), pp.
464-481.

Nature of State Responsibility.

§ 148. It is often maintained that a State, as a sovereign person, can have
no legal responsibility whatever. This is only correct with reference to
certain acts of a State towards its subjects. Since a State can abolish parts of
its Municipal Law and can make new Municipal Law, it can always avoid
legal, although not moral, responsibility by a change of Municipal Law.
Different from this internal autocracy is the external responsibility of a
State to fulfil its international legal duties. Responsibility for such duties is,
as will be remembered,[245] a quality of every State as an International
Person, without which the Family of Nations could not peaceably exist.
Although there is no International Court of Justice which could establish
such responsibility and pronounce a fine or other punishment against a State
for neglect of its international duties, State responsibility concerning
international duties is nevertheless a legal responsibility. For a State cannot
abolish or create new International Law in the same way as it can abolish or
create new Municipal Law. A State, therefore, cannot renounce its
international duties unilaterally[246] at discretion, but is and remains legally
bound by them. And although there is not and never will be a central
authority above the single States to enforce the fulfilment of these duties,
there is the legalised self-help of the single States against one another. For
every neglect of an international legal duty constitutes an international
delinquency,[247] and the violated State can through reprisals or even war
compel the delinquent State to comply with its international duties. It is
only theorists who deny the possibility of a legal responsibility of States,
the practice of the States themselves recognises it distinctly, although there
may in a special case be controversy as to whether a responsibility is to be
borne. And State responsibility is now in a general way recognised for the
time of war by article 3 of the Hague Convention of 1907, concerning the
Laws and Customs of War on Land, which stipulates: "A belligerent party
which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case
demands, be liable to make compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts
committed by persons forming part of its armed forces."
[245] See above, § 113.
[246] See Annex to Protocol I. of Conference of London, 1871, where the Signatory Powers
proclaim that "it is an essential principle of the Law of Nations that no Power can liberate itself
from the engagements of a treaty, or modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the
contracting Powers by means of an amicable arrangement."
 [247] See below, § 151.

Original and Vicarious State Responsibility.

§ 149. Now if we examine the various international duties out of which
responsibility of a State may rise, we find that there is a necessity for two
different kinds of State responsibility to be distinguished. They may be
named "original" in contradistinction to "vicarious" responsibility. I name
as "original" the responsibility borne by a State for its own—that is, its
Government's actions, and for such actions of the lower agents or private
individuals as are performed at the Government's command or with its
authorisation. But States have to bear another responsibility besides that just
mentioned. For States are, according to the Law of Nations, in a sense
responsible for certain acts other than their own—namely, certain
unauthorised injurious acts of their agents, of their subjects, and even of
such aliens as are for the time living within their territory. This
responsibility of States for acts other than their own I name "vicarious"
responsibility. Since the Law of Nations is a law between States only, and
since States are the sole exclusive subjects of International Law, individuals
are mere objects[248] of International Law, and the latter is unable to confer
directly rights and duties upon individuals. And for this reason the Law of
Nations must make every State in a sense responsible for certain
internationally injurious acts committed by its officials, subjects, and such
aliens as are temporarily resident on its territory.[249]
[248] See below, § 290.
[249] The distinction between original and vicarious responsibility was first made, in 1905, in
the first edition of this treatise and ought therefore to have been discussed by Anzillotti in his able
article in R.G. XIII. (1906), p. 292. The fact that he does not appreciate this distinction is
prejudicial to the results of his researches concerning the responsibility of States.

Essential Difference between Original and Vicarious Responsibility.

§ 150. It is, however, obvious that original and vicarious State
responsibility are essentially different. Whereas the one is responsibility of
a State for a neglect of its own duty, the other is not. A neglect of
international legal duties by a State constitutes an international delinquency.
The responsibility which a State bears for such delinquency is especially
grave, and requires, apart from other especial consequences, a formal
expiatory act, such as an apology at least, by the delinquent State to repair
the wrong done. On the other hand, the vicarious responsibility which a
State bears requires chiefly compulsion to make those officials or other
individuals who have committed internationally injurious acts repair as far
as possible the wrong done, and punishment, if necessary, of the
wrongdoers. In case a State complies with these requirements, no blame
falls upon it on account of such injurious acts. But of course, in case a State
refuses to comply with these requirements, it commits thereby an
international delinquency, and its hitherto vicarious responsibility turns ipso
facto into original responsibility.

II
STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTERNATIONAL DELINQUENCIES

See the literature quoted above at the commencement of § 148.

Conception of International Delinquencies.

§ 151. International delinquency is every injury to another State
committed by the head and the Government of a State through violation of
an international legal duty. Equivalent to acts of the head and Government
are acts of officials or other individuals commanded or authorised by the
head or Government.
An international delinquency is not a crime, because the delinquent State,
as a Sovereign, cannot be punished, although compulsion may be exercised
to procure a reparation of the wrong done.
International delinquencies in the technical sense of the term must not be
confounded either with so-called "Crimes against the Law of Nations" or
with so-called "International Crimes." "Crimes against the Law of Nations"
in the wording of many Criminal Codes of the single States are such acts of
individuals against foreign States as are rendered criminal by these Codes.
Of these acts, the gravest are those for which the State on whose territory
they are committed bears a vicarious responsibility according to the Law of
Nations. "International Crimes," on the other hand, refer to crimes like
piracy on the high seas or slave trade, which either every State can punish
on seizure of the criminals, of whatever nationality they may be, or which
every State has by the Law of Nations a duty to prevent.
An international delinquency must, further, not be confounded with
discourteous and unfriendly acts. Although such acts may be met by
retorsion, they are not illegal and therefore not delinquent acts.
Subjects of International Delinquencies.
§ 152. An international delinquency may be committed by every member
of the Family of Nations, be such member a full-Sovereign, half-Sovereign,
or part-Sovereign State. Yet, half- and part-Sovereign States can commit
international delinquencies in so far only as they have a footing within the
Family of Nations, and therefore international duties of their own. And even
then the circumstances of each case decide whether the delinquent has to
account for its neglect of an international duty directly to the wronged State,
or whether it is the full-Sovereign State (suzerain, federal, or protectorate-
exercising State) to which the delinquent State is attached that must bear a
vicarious responsibility for the delinquency. On the other hand, so-called
Colonial States without any footing whatever within the Family of Nations
and, further, the member-States of the American Federal States, which
likewise lack any footing whatever within the Family of Nations because all
their possible international relations are absorbed by the respective Federal
States, cannot commit an international delinquency. Thus an injurious act
against France committed by the Government of the Commonwealth of
Australia or by the Government of the State of California in the United
States of America, would not be an international delinquency in the
technical sense of the term, but merely an internationally injurious act for
which Great Britain or the United States of America must bear a vicarious
responsibility. An instance of this is to be found in the conflict[250] which
arose in 1906 between Japan and the United States of America on account
of the segregation of Japanese children by the Board of Education of San
Francisco and the demand of Japan that this measure should be withdrawn.
The Government of the United States at once took the side of Japan, and
endeavoured to induce California to comply with the Japanese demands.
[250]See Hyde in "The Green Bag," XIX. (1907), pp. 38-49; Root in A.J. I. (1907), pp. 273-286;
Barthélemy in R.G. XIV. (1907), pp. 636-685.

State Organs able to commit International Delinquencies.

§ 153. Since States are juristic persons, the question arises, Whose
internationally injurious acts are to be considered State acts and therefore
international delinquencies? It is obvious that acts of this kind are, first, all
such acts as are performed by the heads of States or by the members of
Government acting in that capacity, so that their acts appear as State acts.
Acts of such kind are, secondly, all acts of officials or other individuals
which are either commanded or authorised by Governments. On the other
hand, unauthorised acts of corporations, such as Municipalities, or of
officials, such as magistrates or even ambassadors, or of private individuals,
never constitute an international delinquency. And, further, all acts
committed by heads of States and members of Government outside their
official capacity, simply as individuals who act for themselves and not for
the State, are not international delinquencies either.[251] The States
concerned must certainly bear a vicarious responsibility for all such acts,
but for that very reason these acts do not comprise international
delinquencies.
[251] See below, §§ 157-158.

No International Delinquency without Malice or culpable Negligence.

§ 154. An act of a State injurious to another State is nevertheless not an
international delinquency if committed neither wilfully and maliciously nor
with culpable negligence. Therefore, an act of a State committed by right or
prompted by self-preservation in necessary self-defence does not contain an
international delinquency, however injurious it may actually be to another
State. And the same is valid in regard to acts of officials or other individuals
committed by command or with the authorisation of a Government.
Objects of International Delinquencies.
§ 155. International delinquencies may be committed against so many
different objects that it is impossible to enumerate them. It suffices to give
some striking examples. Thus a State may be injured—in regard to its
independence through an unjustified intervention; in regard to its territorial
supremacy through a violation of its frontier; in regard to its dignity through
disrespectful treatment of its head or its diplomatic envoys; in regard to its
personal supremacy through forcible naturalisation of its citizens abroad; in
regard to its treaty rights through an act violating a treaty; in regard to its
right of protection over citizens abroad through any act that violates the
body, the honour, or the property[252] of one of its citizens abroad. A State
may also suffer various injuries in time of war by illegitimate acts of
warfare, or by a violation of neutrality on the part of a neutral State in
favour of the other belligerent. And a neutral may in time of war be injured
in various ways through a belligerent violating neutrality by acts of warfare
within the neutral State's territory; for instance, through a belligerent man-
of-war attacking an enemy vessel in a neutral port or in neutral territorial
waters, or through a belligerent violating neutrality by acts of warfare
committed on the Open Sea against neutral vessels.
[252] That a State which does not pay its public debts due to foreigners and refuses, on the
demand of the home State of the foreigners concerned, to make satisfactory arrangements
commits international delinquency there is no doubt. On the so-called Drago doctrine and the
Hague Convention concerning the Employment of Force for the Recovery of Contract Debts, see
above, § 135, No. 6.

Legal consequences of International Delinquencies.

§ 156. The nature of the Law of Nations as a law between, not above,
Sovereign States excludes the possibility of punishing a State for an
international delinquency and of considering the latter in the light of a
crime. The only legal consequences of an international delinquency that are
possible under existing circumstances are such as create a reparation of the
moral and material wrong done. The merits and the conditions of the special
cases are, however, so different that it is impossible for the Law of Nations
to prescribe once for all what legal consequences an international
delinquency should have. The only rule which is unanimously recognised
by theory and practice is that out of an international delinquency arises a
right for the wronged State to request from the delinquent State the
performance of such expiatory acts as are necessary for a reparation of the
wrong done. What kind of acts these are depends upon the special case and
the discretion of the wronged State. It is obvious that there must be a
pecuniary reparation for a material damage. Thus, according to article 3 of
the Hague Convention of 1907, concerning the Laws and Customs of War
on Land, a belligerent party which violates these laws shall, if the case
demands, be liable to make compensation. But at least a formal apology on
the part of the delinquent will in every case be necessary. This apology may
have to take the form of some ceremonial act, such as a salute to the flag or
to the coat of arms of the wronged State, the mission of a special embassy
bearing apologies, and the like. A great difference would naturally be made
between acts of reparation for international delinquencies deliberately and
maliciously committed, on the one hand, and, on the other, for such as arise
merely from culpable negligence.
When the delinquent State refuses reparation of the wrong done, the
wronged State can exercise such means as are necessary to enforce an
adequate reparation. In case of international delinquencies committed in
time of peace, such means are reprisals[253] (including embargo and pacific
blockade) and war as the case may require. On the other hand, in case of
international delinquencies committed in time of war through illegitimate
acts of warfare on the part of a belligerent, such means are reprisals and the
taking of hostages.[254]
[253] See below, vol. II. § 34.
[254] See below, vol. II. §§ 248 and 259.

III
STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS OF STATE ORGANS

See the literature quoted above at the commencement of § 148, and especially Moore, VI. §§
998-1018.

Responsibility varies with Organs concerned.

§ 157. States must bear vicarious responsibility for all internationally
injurious acts of their organs. As, however, these organs are of different
kinds and of different position, the actual responsibility of a State for acts of
its organs varies with the agents concerned. It is therefore necessary to
distinguish between internationally injurious acts of heads of States,
members of Government, diplomatic envoys, parliaments, judicial
functionaries, administrative officials, and military and naval forces.

Internationally injurious Acts of Heads of States.

§ 158. Such international injurious acts as are committed by heads of
States in the exercise of their official functions are not our concern here,
because they constitute international delinquencies which have been
discussed above (§§ 151-156). But a monarch can, just as any other
individual, in his private life commit many internationally injurious acts,
and the question is, whether and in what degree a State must bear
responsibility for such acts of its head. The position of a head of a State,
who is within and without his State neither under the jurisdiction of a Court
of Justice nor under any kind of disciplinary control, makes it a necessity
for the Law of Nations to claim a certain vicarious responsibility from
States for internationally injurious acts committed by their heads in private
life. Thus, for instance, when a monarch during his stay abroad commits an
act injurious to the property of a foreign subject and refuses adequate
reparation, his State may be requested to pay damages on his behalf.
Internationally injurious Acts of Members of Government.
§ 159. As regards internationally injurious acts of members of a
Government, a distinction must be made between such acts as are
committed by the offenders in their official capacity, and other acts. Acts of
the first kind constitute international delinquencies, as stated above (§ 153).
But members of a Government can in their private life perform as many
internationally injurious acts as private individuals, and we must ascertain
therefore what kind of responsibility their State must bear for such acts.
Now, as members of a Government have not the exceptional position of
heads of States, and are, therefore, under the jurisdiction of the ordinary
Courts of Justice, there is no reason why their State should bear for
internationally injurious acts committed by them in their private life a
vicarious responsibility different from that which it has to bear for acts of
private persons.
Internationally injurious Acts of Diplomatic Envoys.
§ 160. The position of diplomatic envoys who, as representatives of their
home State, enjoy the privileges of exterritoriality, gives, on the one hand, a
very great importance to internationally injurious acts committed by them
on the territory of the receiving State, and, on the other hand, excludes the
jurisdiction of the receiving State over such acts. The Law of Nations
therefore makes the home State in a sense responsible for all acts of an
envoy injurious to the State or its subjects in whose territory he resides. But
it depends upon the merits of the special case what measures beyond simple
recall must be taken to satisfy the wronged State. Thus, for instance, a
crime committed by the envoy on the territory of the receiving State must
be punished by his home State, and according to special circumstances and
conditions the home State may be obliged to disown an act of its envoy, to
apologise or express its regret for his behaviour, or to pay damages. It must,
however, be remembered that such injurious acts as an envoy performs at
the command or with the authorisation of the home State, constitute
international delinquencies for which the home State bears original
responsibility and for which the envoy cannot personally be blamed.
Internationally injurious Attitudes of Parliaments.
 § 161. As regards internationally injurious attitudes of parliaments, it
must be kept in mind that, most important as may be the part parliaments
play in the political life of a nation, they do not belong to the agents which
represent the States in their international relations with other States.
Therefore, however injurious to a foreign State an attitude of a parliament
may be, it can never constitute an international delinquency. That, on the
other hand, all States must bear vicarious responsibility for such attitudes of
their parliaments, there can be no doubt. But, although the position of a
Government is difficult in such cases, especially in States that have a
representative Government, this does not concern the wronged State, which
has a right to demand satisfaction and reparation for the wrong done.
Internationally injurious Acts of Judicial Functionaries.
§ 162. Internationally injurious acts committed by judicial functionaries
in their private life are in no way different from such acts committed by
other individuals. But these functionaries may in their official capacity
commit such acts, and the question is how far a State's vicarious
responsibility for acts of its judicial functionaries can reasonably be
extended in face of the fact that in modern civilised States these
functionaries are to a great extent independent of their Government.[255]
Undoubtedly, in case of such denial or undue delay of justice by the Courts
as is internationally injurious, a State must find means to exercise
compulsion against such Courts. And the same is valid with regard to an
obvious and malicious act of misapplication of the law by the Courts which
is injurious to another State. But if a Court observes its own proper forms of
justice and nevertheless makes a materially unjust order or pronounces a
materially unjust judgment, matters become so complicated that there is
hardly a peaceable way in which the injured State can successfully obtain
reparation for the wrong done, unless the other party consents to bring the
case before a Court of Arbitration.
[255] Wharton, II. § 230, comprises abundant and instructive material on this question.
An illustrative case is that of the Costa Rica Packet,[256] which happened
in 1891. Carpenter, the master of this Australian whaling-ship, was, by
order of a Court of Justice, arrested on November 2, 1891, in the port of
Ternate, in the Dutch East Indies, for having committed three years
previously a theft on the sea within Dutch territorial waters. He was,
however, released on November 28, because the Court found that the
alleged crime was not committed within Dutch territorial waters, but on the
High Seas. Great Britain demanded damages for the arrest of the master of
the Costa Rica Packet, but Holland maintained that, since the judicial
authorities concerned had ordered the arrest of Carpenter in strict
conformity with the Dutch laws, the British claim was unjustified. After
some correspondence, extending over several years, Great Britain and
Holland agreed, in 1895, upon having the conflict settled by arbitration and
upon appointing the late Professor de Martens of St. Petersburg as
arbitrator. The award, given in 1899, was in favour of Great Britain, and
Holland was condemned to pay damages to the master, the proprietors, and
the crew of the Costa Rica Packet.[257]
[256] See Bles in R.I. XXVIII. (1896), pp. 452-468; Regelsperger in R.G. IV. (1897), pp. 735-
745; Valery in R.G. V. (1898), pp. 57-66; Moore, I. § 148. See also Ullmann, "De la responsabilité
de l'état en matière judiciaire" (1911).
[257] The whole correspondence on the subject and the award are printed in Martens, N.R.G.
2nd Ser. XXIII. (1898), pp. 48, 715, and 808.

Internationally injurious Acts of administrative Officials and Military and Naval Forces.
§ 163. Internationally injurious acts committed in the exercise of their
official functions by administrative officials and military and naval forces
of a State without that State's command or authorisation, are not
international delinquencies because they are not State acts. But a State bears
a wide, unlimited, and unrestricted vicarious responsibility for such acts
because its administrative officials and military and naval forces are under
its disciplinary control, and because all acts of such officials and forces in
the exercise of their official functions are prima facie acts of the respective
State.[258] Therefore, a State has, first of all, to disown and disapprove of
such acts by expressing its regret or even apologising to the Government of
the injured State; secondly, damages must be paid where required; and,
lastly, the offenders must be punished according to the merits of the special
case.
[258]It is of importance to quote again here art. 3 of the Hague Convention of 1907, concerning
the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which stipulates that a State is responsible for all acts
committed by its armed forces.
As regards the question what kind of acts of administrative officials and
military and naval forces are of an internationally injurious character, the
rule may safely be laid down that such acts of these subjects are
internationally injurious as would constitute international delinquencies
when committed by the State itself or with its authorisation. Three very
instructive cases may be quoted as illustrative examples:
(1) On September 26, 1887, a German soldier on sentry duty at the
frontier near Vexaincourt shot from the German side and killed an
individual who was on French territory. As this act of the sentry violated
French territorial supremacy, Germany disowned and apologised for it and
paid a sum of 50,000 francs to the widow of the deceased as damages. The
sentry, however, escaped punishment because he proved that he had acted in
obedience to orders which he had misunderstood.
(2) On November 26, 1906, Hasmann, a member of the crew of the
German gunboat Panther,[259] at that time in the port of Itajahi in Brazil,
failed to return on board his ship. The commander of the Panther sent a
searching party, comprising three officers in plain clothes and a dozen non-
commissioned officers and soldiers in uniform, on shore for the purpose of
finding the whereabouts of Hasmann. This party, during the following
night, penetrated into several houses, and compelled some of the residents
to assist them in their search for the missing Hasmann, who, however, could
not be found. He voluntarily returned on board the following morning. As
this act violated Brazilian territorial supremacy, Brazil lodged a complaint
with Germany, which, after an inquiry, disowned the act of the commander
of the Panther, formally apologised for it, and punished the commander of
the Panther by relieving him of his command.[260]
[259] See R.G. XIII. (1906), pp. 200-206.
[260] Another example occurred in 1904, when the Russian Baltic Fleet, on its way to the Far
East during the Russo-Japanese war, fired upon the Hull Fishing Fleet off the Dogger Bank; see
below, vol. II. § 5.
(3) On July 15, 1911, while the Spanish were in occupation of Alcazar in
Morocco, M. Boisset, the French Consular Agent, who was riding back to
Alcazar from Suk el Arba with his native servants, was stopped at the gate
of the town by a Spanish sentinel. The sentinel refused to allow him to enter
unless he and his servants first delivered up their arms. As M. Boisset
refused, the sentinel barred the way with his fixed bayonet and called out
the guard. M. Boisset's horse reared, and the sentinel thereupon covered
him with his rifle. After parleying to no purpose with the guard, to whom he
explained who he was, the French Consular Agent was conducted by an
armed escort of Spanish soldiers to the Spanish barracks. A native rabble
followed upon the heels of the procession and cried out: "The French
Consular Agent is being arrested by the Spaniards." Upon arriving at the
barracks M. Boisset had an interview with a Spanish officer, who, without
in any way expressing regret, merely observed that there had been a
misunderstanding (equivocacione), and allowed the French Consular Agent
to go his way. It is obvious that, as Consuls in Eastern non-Christian
countries, Japan now excepted, are exterritorial and inviolable, the arrest of
M. Boisset was a great injury to France, which lodged a complaint with
Spain. As promptly as July 19 the Spanish Government tendered a formal
apology to France, and instructed the Spanish Commander at Alcazar to
tender a formal apology to M. Boisset.
But it must be specially emphasised that a State never bears any
responsibility for losses sustained by foreign subjects through legitimate
acts of administrative officials and military and naval forces. Individuals
who enter foreign territory submit themselves to the law of the land, and
their home State has no right to request that they should be otherwise
treated than as the law of the land authorises a State to treat its own
subjects.[261] Therefore, since the Law of Nations does not prevent a State
from expelling aliens, the home State of an expelled alien cannot request
the expelling State to pay damages for the losses sustained by the expelled
through his having to leave the country. Therefore, further, a State need not
make any reparation for losses sustained by an alien through legitimate
measures taken by administrative officials and military forces in time of
war, insurrection,[262] riot, or public calamity, such as a fire, an epidemic
outbreak of dangerous disease, and the like.
[261] Provided, however, such law does not violate essential principles of justice. See below, §
320.
[262] See below, § 167.

IV
STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS OF PRIVATE PERSONS

See the literature quoted above at the commencement of § 148, and especially Moore, VI. §§
1019-1031.

Vicarious in contradistinction to original State Responsibility for Acts of Private Persons.

§ 164. As regards State responsibility for acts of private persons, it is first
of all necessary not to confound the original with the vicarious
responsibility of States for internationally injurious acts of private persons.
International Law imposes the duty upon every State to prevent as far as
possible its own subjects, and such foreign subjects as live within its
territory, from committing injurious acts against other States. A State which
either intentionally and maliciously or through culpable negligence does not
comply with this duty commits an international delinquency for which it
has to bear original responsibility. But it is practically impossible for a State
to prevent all injurious acts which a private person might commit against a
foreign State. It is for that reason that a State must, according to
International Law, bear vicarious responsibility for such injurious acts of
private individuals as are incapable of prevention.
Vicarious responsibility for Acts of Private Persons relative only.
§ 165. Now, whereas the vicarious responsibility of States for official
acts of administrative officials and military and naval forces is unlimited
and unrestricted, their vicarious responsibility for acts of private persons is
only relative. For their sole duty is to procure satisfaction and reparation for
the wronged State as far as possible by punishing the offenders and
compelling them to pay damages where required. Beyond this limit a State
is not responsible for acts of private persons; there is in especial no duty of
a State itself to pay damages for such acts if the offenders are not able to do
it.
Municipal Law for Offences against Foreign States.
§ 166. It is a consequence of the vicarious responsibility of States for acts
of private persons that by the Criminal Law of every civilised State
punishment is severe for certain offences of private persons against foreign
States, such as violation of ambassadors' privileges, libel on heads of
foreign States and on foreign envoys, and other injurious acts.[263] In every
case that arises the offender must be prosecuted and the law enforced by the
Courts of Justice. And it is further a consequence of the vicarious
responsibility of States for acts of private persons that criminal offences of
private persons against foreign subjects—such offences are indirectly
offences against the respective foreign States because the latter exercise
protection over their subjects abroad—must be punished according to the
ordinary law of the land, and that the Civil Courts of Justice of the land
must be accessible for claims of foreign subjects against individuals living
under the territorial supremacy of such land.
[263] As regards the Criminal Law of England concerning such acts, see Stephen's Digest,
articles 96-103.

Responsibility for Acts of Insurgents and Rioters.

§ 167. The vicarious responsibility of States for acts of insurgents and
rioters is the same as for acts of other private individuals. As soon as peace
and order are re-established, such insurgents and rioters as have committed
criminal injuries against foreign States must be punished according to the
law of the land. The point need not be mentioned at all were it not for the
fact that, in several cases of insurrection and riots, claims have been made
by foreign States against the local State for damages for losses sustained by
their subjects through acts of the insurgents or rioters respectively, and that
some writers[264] assert that such claims are justified by the Law of Nations.
The majority of writers maintain, correctly, I think, that the responsibility of
States does not involve the duty to repair the losses which foreign subjects
have sustained through acts of insurgents and rioters. Individuals who enter
foreign territory must take the risk of an outbreak of insurrections or riots
just as the risk of the outbreak of other calamities. When they sustain a loss
from acts of insurgents or rioters, they may, if they can, trace their losses to
the acts of certain individuals, and claim damages from the latter before the
Courts of Justice. The responsibility of a State for acts of private persons
injurious to foreign subjects reaches only so far that its Courts must be
accessible to the latter for the purpose of claiming damages from the
offenders, and must punish such of those acts as are criminal. And in States
which, as France for instance, have such Municipal Laws as make the town
or the county where an insurrection or riot has taken place responsible for
the pecuniary loss sustained by individuals during those events, foreign
subjects must be allowed to claim damages from the local authorities for
losses of such kind. But the State itself never has by International Law a
duty to pay such damages.
[264] See, for instance, Rivier, II. p. 43; Brusa in Annuaire XVII. pp. 96-137; Bar in R.I. 2nd
Ser. I. (1899), pp. 464-481.
The practice of the States agrees with this rule laid down by the majority
of writers. Although in some cases several States have paid damages for
losses of such kind, they have done it, not through compulsion of law, but
for political reasons. In most cases in which the damages have been claimed
for such losses, the respective States have refused to comply with the
request.[265] As such claims have during the second half of the nineteenth
century frequently been tendered against American States which have
repeatedly been the scene of insurrections, several of these States have in
commercial and similar treaties which they concluded with other States
expressly stipulated[266] that they are not responsible for losses sustained by
foreign subjects on their territory through acts of insurgents and rioters.
[265]See the cases in Calvo, III. §§ 1283-1290.
[266]See Martens, N.R.G. IX. p. 474 (Germany and Mexico); XV. p. 840 (France and Mexico);
XIX. p. 831 (Germany and Colombia); XXII. p. 308 (Italy and Colombia); and p. 507 (Italy and
Paraguay).
The Institute of International Law has studied the matter and has
proposed[267] the following Règlement concerning it:—
[267] At its meeting at Neuchâtel in 1900; see Annuaire, XVIII. p. 254.

(1) Independently of the case in which indemnities are due to

foreigners by virtue of the general laws of the country, foreigners
have a right to compensation when they are injured as to their
person or as to their property in the course of a riot, of an
insurrection, or of a civil war:
(a) When the act from which they have suffered is directed against
foreigners as such in general, or against them as under the
jurisdiction of a certain State, or
(b) When the act from which they have suffered consists in closing a
port without due and proper previous notification, or in retaining
foreign ships in a port, or
(c) When the injury is the result of an act contrary to the laws
committed by a government official, or
(d) When the obligation to compensate is established by virtue of
the general principles of the law of war.
(2) The obligation is equally well established when the injury has
been committed (No. 1, a and d) on the territory of an
insurrectionary government, whether by this government itself, or
by one of its functionaries.
On the other hand, certain demands for indemnity may be set aside
when they concern facts which occur after the government of the
State to which the injured person belongs has recognised the
insurrectionary government as a belligerent Power, and when the
injured person has continued to keep his domicile or his habitation
on the territory of the insurrectionary government.
As long as the latter is considered by the government of the person
alleged to be injured as a belligerent Power, the demand may only
be addressed, in the case of paragraph 1 of article 2, to the
insurrectionary government and not to the legitimate government.
(3) The obligation to compensate disappears when the injured
persons are themselves a cause of the event which has brought the
injury.[268] Notably no obligation exists to indemnify those who have
returned to the country or who wish to give themselves up to
commerce or industry there, when they know, or ought to know, that
troubles have broken out, nor to indemnify those who establish
themselves or sojourn in a country which offers no security on
account of the presence of savage tribes, unless the government of
the country has given express assurance to immigrants.
 [268] For example, in the case of conduct which is particularly provocative to a crowd.

(4) The government of a Federal State composed of a certain

number of smaller States, which it represents from an international
point of view, may not plead, in order to avoid the responsibility
which falls upon it, the fact that the constitution of the Federal State
does not give it the right to control the member-States, nor the right
to exact from them the discharge of their obligations.
(5) The stipulations mutually exempting States from the duty of
giving their diplomatic protection ought not to comprise the cases of
refusal of justice, or of evident violation of justice or of
International Law.[269]
[269]The Institute of International Law has likewise—see Annuaire, XVIII. pp. 253 and 256—
expressed the two following vœux:—
(a) The Institute of International Law expresses the wish that the States should avoid
inserting in treaties clauses of reciprocal irresponsibility. It considers that these clauses
are wrong in exempting States from the fulfilment of their duty of protecting their
nationals abroad and of their duty of protecting foreigners on their territory. It considers
that the States which, on account of extraordinary circumstances, do not feel themselves
at all in a position to assure protection in a sufficiently efficacious manner to foreigners
on their territory, can only avoid the consequences of this condition of things by
temporarily prohibiting foreigners to enter their territory.
(b) Recourse to international commissions of inquiry and to international tribunals is in
general recommended for all differences which may arise on account of injury to
foreigners in the course of a riot, an insurrection, or of civil war.
 PART II
THE OBJECTS OF THE LAW OFNATIONS
CHAPTER I
STATE TERRITORY

I
ON STATE TERRITORY IN GENERAL

Vattel, II. §§ 79-83—Hall, § 30—Westlake, I. pp. 84-88—Lawrence, §§ 71-72—Phillimore, I.

§§ 150-154—Twiss, I. §§ 140-144—Halleck, I. pp. 150-156—Taylor, § 217—Wheaton, §§
161-163—Moore, I. § 125—Bluntschli, § 277—Hartmann, § 58—Holtzendorff in
Holtzendorff, II. pp. 225-232—Gareis, § 18—Liszt, § 9—Ullmann, § 86—Heffter, §§ 65-
68—Bonfils, No. 483—Despagnet, Nos. 374-377—Pradier-Fodéré, II. No. 612—
Mérignhac, II. pp. 356-366—Nys, I. pp. 402-412—Rivier, I. pp. 135-142—Calvo, I. §§
260-262—Fiore, I. Nos. 522-530—Martens, I. § 88—Del Bon, "Proprietà territoriale degli
Stati" (1867)—Fricker, "Vom Staatsgebiet" (1867).

Conception of State Territory.

§ 168. State territory is that definite portion of the surface of the globe
which is subjected to the sovereignty of the State. A State without a
territory is not possible, although the necessary territory may be very small,
as in the case of the Free Town of Hamburg, the Principality of Monaco, the
Republic of San Marino, or the Principality of Lichtenstein. A wandering
tribe, although it has a Government and is otherwise organised, is not a
State before it has settled down on a territory of its own.
State territory is also named territorial property of a State. Yet it must be
borne in mind that territorial property is a term of Public Law and must not
be confounded with private property. The territory of a State is not the
property of the monarch, or of the Government, or even of the people of a
State; it is the country which is subjected to the territorial supremacy or the
imperium of a State. This distinction has, however, in former centuries not
been sharply drawn.[270] In spite of the dictum of Seneca, "Omnia rex
imperio possidet, singuli dominio," the imperium of the monarch and the
State over the State territory has very often been identified with private
property of the monarch or the State. But with the disappearance of
absolutism this identification has likewise disappeared. It is for this reason
that nowadays, according to the Constitutional Law of most countries,
neither the monarch nor the Government is able to dispose of parts of the
State territory at will and without the consent of Parliament.[271]
[270]And some writers refuse to draw it even nowadays, as, for instance, Lawrence, § 71.
[271]In English Constitutional Law this point is not settled. The cession of the Island of
Heligoland to Germany in 1890 was, however, made conditional on the approval of Parliament.
It must, further, be emphasised that the territory of a State is totally
independent of the racial character of the inhabitants of the State. The
territory is the public property of the State, and not of a nation in the sense
of a race. The State community may consist of different nations, as, for
instance, the British or the Swiss or the Austrians.
Different kinds of Territory.
§ 169. The territory of a State may consist of one piece of the surface of
the globe only, such as that of Switzerland. Such kind of territory is named
"integrate territory" (territorium clausum). But the territory of a State may
also be dismembered and consist of several pieces, such as that of Great
Britain. All States with colonies have a "dismembered territory."
If a territory or a piece of it is absolutely surrounded by the territory of
another State, it is named an "enclosure." Thus the Republic of San Marino
is an enclosure of Italy, and Birkenfeld, a piece of the territory of the Grand
Duchy of Oldenburg situated on the river Rhine, is an enclosure of Prussia.
Another distinction is that between motherland and colonies. Colonies
rank as territory of the motherland, although they may enjoy complete self-
government and therefore be called Colonial States. Thus, if viewed from
the standpoint of the Law of Nations, the Dominion of Canada, the
Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa
are British territory.
As regards the relation between the Suzerain and the Vassal State, it is
certain that the vassal is not, in the strict sense of the term, a part of the
territory of the suzerain. Crete and Egypt are not Turkish territory, although
under Turkish suzerainty. But no general rule can be laid down, as
everything depends on the merits of the special case, and as the vassal, even
if it has some footing of its own within the Family of Nations, is
internationally for the most part considered a mere portion of the Suzerain
State.[272]
[272] See above, § 91.

Importance of State Territory.

§ 170. The importance of State territory lies in the fact that it is the space
within which the State exercises its supreme authority. State territory is an
object of the Law of Nations because the latter recognises the supreme
authority of every State within its territory. Whatever person or thing is on
or enters into that territory, is ipso facto subjected to the supreme authority
of the respective State according to the old rules, Quidquid est in territorio,
est etiam de territorio and Qui in territorio meo est, etiam meus subditus
est. No foreign authority has any power within the boundaries of the home
territory, although foreign Sovereigns and diplomatic envoys enjoy the so-
called privilege of exterritoriality, and although the Law of Nations does,
and international treaties may, restrict[273] the home authority in many points
in the exercise of its sovereignty.
[273] See above, §§ 126-128.

One Territory, one State.

§ 171. The supreme authority which a State exercises over its territory
makes it apparent that on one and the same territory can exist one full-
Sovereign State only. Two or more full-Sovereign States on one and the
same territory are an impossibility. The following five cases, of which the
Law of Nations is cognisant, are apparent, but not real, exceptions to this
rule.
(1) There is, first, the case of the so-called condominium. It happens
sometimes that a piece of territory consisting of land or water is under the
joint tenancy of two or more States, these several States exercising
sovereignty conjointly over such piece and the individuals living thereon.
Thus Schleswig-Holstein and Lauenburg from 1864 till 1866 were under
the condominium of Austria and Prussia. Thus, further, Moresnet (Kelmis),
on the frontier of Belgium and Prussia, is under the condominium of these
two States[274] because they have not yet come to an agreement regarding the
interpretation of a boundary treaty of 1815 between the Netherlands and
Prussia. And since 1898 the Soudan is under the condominium of Great
Britain and Egypt. It is easy to show that in such cases[275] there are not two
States on one and the same territory, but pieces of territory, the destiny of
which is not decided, and which are kept separate from the territories of the
interested States[276] under a separate administration. Until a final settlement
the interested States do not exercise each an individual sovereignty over
these pieces, but they agree upon a joint administration under their conjoint
sovereignty.
[274]
See Schröder, "Das grenzstreitige Gebiet von Moresnet" (1902).
[275]
The New Hebrides are materially likewise under a condominium, namely, that of Great
Britain and France, although article 1 of the Convention of October 20, 1906—see Martens,
N.R.G. 3rd Ser. I. (1909), p. 523—speaks only of "a region of joint influence" with regard to the
New Hebrides. See Brunet, "Le Régime International des Nouvelles-Hebrides" (1908), and Politis
in R.G. XIV. (1907), pp. 689-759.
[276] As regards the proposed condominium over Spitzbergen, see Waultrin in R.G. XV. (1908),
pp. 80-105, and Piccioni in R.G. XVI. (1909), pp. 117-134.
(2) The second case is that of the administration of a piece of territory by
a foreign Power, with the consent of the owner-State. Thus, since 1878 the
Turkish island of Cyprus has been under British administration, and the
then Turkish provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina were from 1878 to 1908
under the administration of Austria-Hungary. In these cases a cession of
pieces of territory has for all practical purposes taken place, although in law
the respective pieces still belong to the former owner-State. Anyhow, it is
certain that only one sovereignty is exercised over these pieces—namely,
the sovereignty of the State which exercises administration. On the other
hand, however, the fact that in these cases pieces of territory have for all
practical purposes been ceded to another State does not empower the latter
arbitrarily to annex the territory without the consent of the State owning it
in law. Austria-Hungary had therefore no right to annex, in 1908, without
the previous consent of Turkey, the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
[277]
[277] See above, § 50.
(3) The third case is that of a piece of territory leased or pledged by the
owner-State to a foreign Power. Thus, China in 1898 leased[278] the district
of Kiauchau to Germany, Wei-Hai-Wei and the land opposite the island of
Hong-Kong to Great Britain, and Port Arthur to Russia.[279] Thus, further, in
1803 Sweden pledged the town of Wismar[280] to the Grand Duchy of
Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and the Republic of Genoa in 1768 pledged the
island of Corsica to France. All such cases comprise, for all practical
purposes, cessions of pieces of territory, but in strict law they remain the
property of the leasing State. And such property is not a mere fiction, as
some writers[281] maintain, for it is possible that the lease comes to an end by
expiration of time or by rescission. Thus the lease, granted in 1894 by Great
Britain to the former Congo Free State, of the so-called Lado Enclave, was
rescinded[282] in 1906. However this may be, as long as the lease has not
expired it is the lease-holder who exercises sovereignty over the territory
concerned.
[278] See below, § 216.
[279] Russia in 1905, by the Peace Treaty of Portsmouth, transferred her lease to Japan.
[280] This transaction took place for the sum of 1,258,000 thaler, on condition that Sweden, after
the lapse of 100 years, should be entitled to take back the town of Wismar on repayment of the
money, with 3 per cent. interest per annum. Sweden in 1903—see Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser.
XXXI. (1905), pp. 572 and 574—formally waived her right to retake the town.
[281] See, for instance, Perrinjaquet in R.G. XVI. (1909), pp. 349-367.
[282] By article 1 of the Treaty of London of May 9, 1906; see Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXV.
(1908), p. 454.
(4) The fourth case is that of a piece of territory of which the use,
occupation, and control is in perpetuity granted by the owner-State to
another State with the exclusion of the exercise of any sovereign rights over
the territory concerned on the part of the grantor. In this way[283] the
Republic of Panama transferred, in 1903, to the United States of America a
ten-mile wide strip of territory for the purpose of constructing,
administrating, and defending the so-called Panama Canal. In this case the
grantor retains only in name the property of the territory, the transfer of the
land concerned is really cession all but in name, and it is certain that only
the grantee exercises sovereignty there.
[283] See below, § 184, and Boyd in R.G. XVII. (1910), pp. 614-624.
(5) The fifth case is that of the territory of a Federal State. As a Federal
State is considered[284] a State of its own side by side with its single
member-States, the fact is apparent that the different territories of the single
member-States are at the same time collectively the territory of the Federal
State. But this fact is only the consequence of the other illogical fact that
sovereignty is divided between a Federal State and its member-States. Two
different sovereignties are here by no means exercised over one and the
same territory, for so far as the Federal State possesses sovereignty the
member-States do not, and vice versa.
[284] See above, § 89.
 II
THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF STATE TERRITORY

Real and Fictional parts of Territory.

§ 172. To the territory of a State belong not only the land within the State
boundaries, but also the so-called territorial waters. They consist of the
rivers, canals, and lakes which water the land, and, in the case of a State
with a seacoast, of the maritime belt and certain gulfs, bays, and straits of
the sea. These different kinds of territorial waters will be separately
discussed below in §§ 176-197. In contradistinction to these real parts of
State territory there are some things that are either in every point or for
some part treated as though they were territorial parts of a State. They are
fictional and in a sense only parts of the territory. Thus men-of-war and
other public vessels on the high seas as well as in foreign territorial waters
are essentially in every point treated as though they were floating parts of
their home State.[285] And the houses in which foreign diplomatic envoys
have their official residence are in many points treated as though they were
parts of the home States of the respective envoys.[286] Again, merchantmen
on the high seas are for some points treated as though they were floating
parts of the territory of the State under whose flag they legitimately sail.[287]
[285] See below, § 450.
[286] See below, § 390.
[287] See below, § 264.

Territorial Subsoil.
§ 173. The subsoil beneath the territorial land and water[288] is of
importance on account of telegraph and telephone wires and the like, and
further on account of the working of mines and of the building of tunnels. A
special part of territory the territorial subsoil is not, although this is
frequently asserted. But it is a universally recognised rule of the Law of
Nations that the subsoil to an unbounded depth belongs to the State which
owns the territory on the surface.
[288] As regards the subsoil of the Open Sea, see below, §§ 287c and 287d.

Territorial Atmosphere.
§ 174. The space of the territorial atmosphere is no more a special part of
territory than the territorial subsoil, but it is of the greatest importance on
account of wires for telegraphs, telephones, electric traction, and the like;
further on account of wireless telegraphy and of aviation.
(1) Nothing need be said concerning wires for telegraphs and the like,
except that obviously the territorial State can prevent neighbouring States
from making use of its territorial atmosphere for such wires.
(2) As regards wireless telegraphy,[289] the "International Radiographic
Convention," signed at Berlin on November 3, 1906, represents an
agreement[290] of the signatory Powers concerning the exchange of radio-
telegrams on the part of coast stations and ship stations, but it contains no
stipulation respecting the question in general whether the territorial State is
compelled to allow the passage over its territory of waves emanating from a
foreign wireless telegraphy station. There ought to be no doubt that no such
compulsion exists according to customary International Law, and that
therefore the territorial State can prevent the passage of such waves[291] over
its territory.
[289] See Meili, "Die drahtlose Telegraphie, &c." (1908); Schneeli, "Drahtlose Telegraphie und
Völkerrecht" (1908); Landsberg, "Die drahtlose Telegraphie" (1909); Kausen, "Die drahtlose
Telegraphie im Völkerrecht" (1910); Rolland in R.G. XIII. (1906), pp. 58-92; Fauchille in
Annuaire, XXI. (1906), pp. 76-87; Bonfils, Nos. 53110 and 53111; Despagnet, No. 433 quater;
Meurer and Boidin in R.G. XVI. (1909), pp. 76 and 261.
[290] See below, §§ 287a, 287b, and 582, No. 4.
[291] The Institute of International Law—see Annuaire, XXI. (1906), p. 328—proposes by art. 3
of its "Régime de la Télégraphie sans fil" to restrict the power of the territorial State to exclude
such waves from passing over its territory to the case in which the exclusion is necessary in the
interest of its security.
(3) The space of the territorial atmosphere is of particular importance
with regard to aviation, but no customary or conventional rules of
International Law are as yet in existence which settle the very much
controverted[292] matter. An international conference for the purpose of
agreeing upon an international convention concerning aviation met in 1910
at Paris, but did not produce any result. The fact is that, since aviation is
still in its infancy, practical experience is lacking concerning many
questions which can only be settled when aviation has been more
developed. It is tempting to apply the rules concerning the maritime belt
and the Open Sea analogously to the space of the atmosphere, and,
therefore, to distinguish between a zone of a certain height, in which the
territorial State can exercise sovereignty, and, on the other hand, the
atmosphere beyond that height, which is to be considered free like the Open
Sea. This comparison between the atmosphere and the sea is, however,
faulty for two reasons. Firstly, the Open Sea is an international highway that
connects distant lands between which, except by sea, no communication
would be possible, whereas the atmosphere is not such an indispensable
highway. Secondly, navigation on the Open Sea comprises no danger
whatever to the security of the different States and the lives and property of
their inhabitants, whereas aviation threatens such danger to a great extent.
The chief question at issue is, therefore, whether the territorial State should
or should not be considered to exercise sovereignty over the space of the
atmosphere to an unbounded height, and to have the power to prevent the
passage of foreign aviators altogether, or to enact stringent rules with which
they have to comply. It would probably be best for the States in conference
to adopt such rules concerning the whole space of the atmosphere as are
similar to those valid by customary International Law for the maritime belt,
that is:—to recognise, on the one hand, sovereignty of the territorial State
over the space of its atmosphere, but, on the other hand, to give a right to
foreign States to demand from the territorial State that foreign private—but
not public!—air-vessels may pass through its atmosphere, provided they
comply with the rules enacted by the territorial State for the aerial traffic.
[293]
[292] The literature on aviation is abundant, see Holtzendorff, II. p. 230; Lawrence, § 73;
Bonfils, Nos. 5311-5319; Despagnet, Nos. 433 bis and 433 ter; Mérignhac, II. pp. 398-410; Nys, I.
pp. 523-532; Grünwald, "Das Luftschiff, &c." (1908); Meili, "Das Luftschiff, &c." (1908);
Meurer, "Luftschiffahrtsrecht" (1909); Meyer, "Die Erschliessung des Luftraums und ihre
rechtlichen Folgen" (1909); Magnani, "Il diritto sullo spazio aereo e l'aeronautica" (1909); Leech,
"The Jurisprudence of the Air" (1910), a reprint from the Journal of the Royal Artillery, vol.
XXXVII.; Lycklama à Nijeholt, "Air Sovereignty" (1910); Hazeltine, "The Law of the Air"
(1911); Bielenberg, "Die Freiheit des Luftraums" (1911); Catellani, "Il diritto aereo" (1911); Sperl,
"Die Luftschiffahrt, &c." (1911); Loubeyre, "Les principes du droit aérien" (1911); Fauchille in
Annuaire, XIX. (1902) pp. 19-114, XXIV. (1911), and in R.G. VIII. (1901), pp. 414-485, XVII.
(1910), pp. 55-62; Zitelmann in the Zeitschrift für internationales Privat- und Öffentliches Recht,
XIX. (1909), pp. 458-496; Baldwin and Kuhm in A.J. IV. (1910), pp. 95-108, 109-132; Baldwin in
Z.V. V. (1911), pp. 394-399.
[293] The Institute of International Law is studying the question of aviation, and passed, in 1911,
at its meeting in Madrid, some rules concerning the "Régime juridiques des Aéronefs"; see
Annuaire, XXIV. (1911).
Aviation through the atmosphere above the Open Sea will require special
regulation on account of the dangers to the vessels of all nations traversing
the sea, as will also aviation in general in time of war.
Inalienability of Parts of Territory.
 § 175. It should be mentioned that not every part of territory is alienable
by the owner-State. For it is evident that the territorial waters are as much
inseparable appurtenances of the land as are the territorial subsoil and
atmosphere. Only pieces of land together with the appurtenant territorial
waters are alienable parts of territory.[294] There is, however, one exception
to this, since boundary waters[295] may wholly belong to one of the riparian
States, and may therefore be transferred through cession from one to the
other riparian State without the bank itself. But it is obvious that this is only
an apparent, not a real, exception to the rule that territorial waters are
inseparable appurtenances of the land. For boundary waters that are ceded
to the other riparian State remain an appurtenance of land, although they are
now an appurtenance of the one bank only.
[294] See below, § 185.
[295] See below, § 199.

III
RIVERS

Grotius, II. c. 2, §§ 11-15—Pufendorf, III. c. 3, § 8—Vattel, II. §§ 117, 128, 129, 134—Hall, §
39—Westlake, I. pp. 142-159—Lawrence, § 92—Phillimore, I. §§ 125-151—Twiss, I. §
145—Halleck, I. pp. 171-177—Taylor, §§ 233-241—Walker, § 16—Wharton, I. § 30—
Moore, I. §§ 128-132—Wheaton, §§ 192-205—Bluntschli, §§ 314, 315—Hartmann, § 58
—Heffter, § 77—Caratheodory in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 279-406—Gareis, § 20—Liszt, §§ 9
and 27—Ullmann, §§ 87 and 105—Bonfils, Nos. 520-531—Despagnet, Nos. 419-421—
Mérignhac, II. pp. 605-632—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 688-755—Nys, I. pp. 438-441, and II.
pp. 109-131—Rivier, I. p. 142 and § 14—Calvo, I. §§ 302-340—Fiore, II. Nos. 755-776,
and Code, §§ 283-285 and 976-982—Martens, I. § 102, II. § 57—Delavaud, "Navigation ...
sur les fleuves internationaux" (1885)—Engehardt, "Du régime conventionnel des fleuves
internationaux" (1879), and "Histoire du droit fluvial conventionnel" (1889)—Vernesco,
"Des fleuves en droit international" (1888)—Orban, "Etude sur le droit fluvial
international" (1896)—Berges, "Du régime de navigation des fleuves internationaux"
(1902)—Lopez, "Regimen internacional de los rios navigables" (1905)—Huber in Z.V. I.
(1906), pp. 29 and 159—Hyde in A.J. IV. (1910), pp. 145-155.

Rivers State property of Riparian States.

§ 176. Theory and practice agree upon the rule that rivers are part of the
territory of the riparian State. Consequently, if a river lies wholly, that is,
from its source to its mouth, within the boundaries of one and the same
State, such State owns it exclusively. As such rivers are under the sway of
one State only and exclusively, they are named "national rivers." Thus, all
English, Scotch, and Irish rivers are national, and so are, to give some
Continental examples, the Seine, Loire, and Garonne, which are French; the
Tiber, which is Italian; the Volga, which is Russian. But many rivers do not
run through the land of one and the same State only, whether they are so-
called "boundary rivers," that is, rivers which separate two different States
from each other, or whether they run through several States and are
therefore named "not-national rivers." Such rivers are not owned by one
State alone. Boundary rivers belong to the territory of the States they
separate, the boundary line[296] running either through the middle of the river
or through the middle of the so-called mid-channel of the river. And rivers
which run through several States belong to the territories of the States
concerned; each State owns that part of the river which runs through its
territory.
[296] See below, § 199, and Huber in Z.V. I. (1906), pp. 29 and 159.
There is, however, another group of rivers to be mentioned, which
comprises all such rivers as are navigable from the Open Sea and at the
same time either separate or pass through several States between their
sources and their mouths. Such rivers, too, belong to the territory of the
different States concerned, but they are nevertheless named "international
rivers," because freedom of navigation in time of peace on all of those
rivers in Europe and on many of them outside Europe for merchantmen of
all nations is recognised by International Law.

Navigation on National, Boundary and not-National Rivers.

§ 177. There is no rule of the Law of Nations in existence which grants
foreign States the right of admittance of their public or private vessels to
navigation on national rivers. In the absence of commercial or other treaties
granting such a right, every State can exclude foreign vessels from its
national rivers or admit them under certain conditions only, such as the
payment of a due and the like. The teaching of Grotius (II. c. 2, § 12) that
innocent passage through rivers must be granted has not been recognised by
the practice of the States, and Bluntschli's assertion (§ 314) that such rivers
as are navigable from the Open Sea must in time of peace be open to
vessels of all nations, is at best an anticipation of a future rule of
International Law, it does not as yet exist.
As regards boundary rivers and rivers running through several States, the
riparian States[297] can regulate navigation on such parts of these rivers as
they own, and they can certainly exclude vessels of non-riparian States
altogether unless prevented therefrom by virtue of special treaties.
[297] See below, § 178a.

Navigation on International Rivers.

§ 178. Whereas there is certainly no recognised principle of free
navigation on national, boundary, and not-national rivers, a movement for
the recognition of free navigation on international rivers set in at the
beginning of the nineteenth century. Until the French Revolution towards
the end of the eighteenth century, the riparian States of such rivers as are
now called international rivers could, in the absence of special treaties,
exclude foreign vessels altogether from those parts of the rivers which run
through their territory, or admit them under discretionary conditions. Thus,
the river Scheldt was wholly shut up in favour of the Netherlands according
to article 14 of the Peace Treaty of Munster of 1648 between the
Netherlands and Spain. The development of things in the contrary direction
begins with a Decree of the French Convention, dated November 16, 1792,
which opens the rivers Scheldt and Meuse to the vessels of all riparian
States. But it was not until the Vienna Congress[298] in 1815 that the
principle of free navigation on the international rivers of Europe by
merchantmen of not only the riparian but of all States was proclaimed. The
Congress itself realised theoretically that principle in making
arrangements[299] for free navigation on the rivers Scheldt, Meuse, Rhine,
and on the navigable tributaries of the latter—namely, the rivers Neckar,
Maine, and Moselle—although more than fifty years elapsed before the
principle became realised in practice.
[298] Articles 108-117 of the Final Act of the Vienna Congress; see Martens, N.R. II. p. 427.
[299] "Règlements pour la libre navigation des rivières"; see Martens, N.R. II. p. 434.

The next step was taken by the Peace Treaty of Paris of 1856, which by
its article 15[300] stipulated free navigation on the Danube and expressly
declared the principle of the Vienna Congress regarding free navigation on
international rivers for merchantmen of all nations as a part of "European
Public Law." A special international organ for the regulation of navigation
on the Danube was created, the so-called European Danube Commission.
[300] See Martens, N.R.G. XV. p. 776. The documents concerning navigation on the Danube are
collected by Sturdza, "Recueil de documents relatifs à la liberté de navigation du Danube" (Berlin,
1904).
 A further development took place at the Congo Conference at Berlin in
1884-85, since the General Act[301] of this Conference stipulated free
navigation on the rivers Congo and Niger and their tributaries, and created
the so-called "International Congo Commission" as a special international
organ for the regulation of the navigation of the said rivers.
[301] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. X. p. 417.
Side by side with these general treaties, which recognise free navigation
on international rivers, stand treaties[302] of several South American States
with other States concerning free navigation for merchantmen of all nations
on a number of South American rivers. And the Arbitration Court in the
case of the boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela decided
in 1903 in favour of free navigation for merchantmen of all nations on the
rivers Amakourou and Barima.
 [302] See Taylor, § 238, and Moore, I. § 131, pp. 639-651.
Thus the principle of free navigation, which is a settled fact as regards all
European and some African international rivers, becomes more and more
extended over all other international rivers of the world. But when several
writers maintain that free navigation on all international rivers of the world
is already a recognised rule of the Law of Nations, they are decidedly
wrong, although such a universal rule will certainly be proclaimed in the
future. There can be no doubt that as regards the South American rivers the
principle is recognised by treaties between a small number of Powers only.
And there are examples which show that the principle is not yet universally
recognised. Thus by article 4 of the Treaty of Washington of 1854 between
Great Britain and the United States the former grants to vessels of the latter
free navigation on the river St. Lawrence as a revocable privilege, and
article 26 of the Treaty of Washington of 1871 stipulates for vessels of the
United States, but not for vessels of other nations, free navigation "for ever"
on the same river.[303]
[303] See Wharton, pp. 81-83; Moore, I. § 131, p. 631, and Hall, § 39.
However this may be, the principle of free navigation embodies the rule
that vessels of all nations must be admitted without payment of any dues
whatever. Yet this principle does not exclude the levy of dues from all
navigating vessels for expenses incurred by the riparian States for such
improvements of the navigability of rivers as embankments, breakwaters,
and the like.[304]
[304] As regards the question of levying dues for navigation of the rivers Rhine and Elbe, see
Arndt in Z.V. IV. (1910), pp. 208-229.
I should mention that the Institute of International Law, at its meeting at
Heidelberg in 1888, adopted a Projet de Règlement international de
navigation fluviale,[305] which comprises forty articles.
[305] See Annuaire, IX. p. 182.

Utilisation of the flow of rivers.

§ 178a. Apart from navigation on rivers, the question of the utilisation of
the flow of rivers is of importance. With regard to national rivers, the
question can not indeed be raised, since the local State is absolutely
unhindered in the utilisation of the flow. But the flow of not-national,
boundary, and international rivers is not within the arbitrary power of one of
the riparian States, for it is a rule of International Law[306] that no State is
allowed to alter the natural conditions of its own territory to the
disadvantage of the natural conditions of the territory of a neighbouring
State. For this reason a State is not only forbidden to stop or to divert the
flow of a river which runs from its own to a neighbouring State, but
likewise to make such use of the water of the river as either causes danger
to the neighbouring State or prevents it from making proper use[307] of the
flow of the river on its part. Since, apart from special treaties between
neighbouring countries concerning special cases, neither customary nor
conventional detailed rules of International Law concerning this subject are
in existence, the Institute of International Law, at its meeting at Madrid[308]
in 1911, adopted the following "Réglementation internationale des cours
d'eau internationaux au point de vue de leur force motrice et de leur
utilisation industrielle ou agricole":—
[306] See above, § 127.
[307] See, for instance, the treaty of Washington of January 11, 1909—Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser.
(1911), p. 208—between Great Britain and the United States concerning the utilisation of the
boundary waters between the United States and Canada.
[308] See Annuaire, XXIV. (1911). See also Bar in R.G. XVII. (1910), pp. 281-288.

I. When a stream of water forms the frontier of two States, neither

State may, without the consent of the other, and in the absence of a
special and valid legal title, make any changes prejudicial to the
bank of the other State, nor allow such changes to be made by
individuals, societies, &c. Moreover, neither State may on its own
territory utilise the water, or allow it to be utilised, in such a manner
as to cause great damage to its utilisation by the other State or by
the individuals, societies, &c., of the other.
The foregoing conditions are also applicable when a lake is situated
between territories of more than two States.
II. When a stream of water traverses successively the territories of two or
of several States:—
(1) The point at which this stream of water traverses the frontiers of the
two States, whether natural or from time immemorial, may not be changed
by the establishments of one of the States without the assent of the other.
(2) It is forbidden to make any alteration injurious to the water, or to
throw in injurious matter (coming from factories, &c.).
 (3) Water may not be withdrawn by the establishments (especially
factories for the working of hydraulic pressure) in such a quantity as to
modify greatly the constitution, or, in other words, the utilisable character
or the essential character, of the stream of water on its arrival at the territory
nearer the mouth of the river.
The right of navigation by virtue of a title recognised by International
Law cannot be restricted by any usage whatever.
(4) A State farther down the river may not make, or allow to be made, in
its territory any constructions or establishments which might cause danger
of flooding a State farther up the river.
(5) The foregoing rules are applicable in the same way to the case in
which streams of water flow from a lake, which is situated in one territory,
into the territory of another State or the territories of other States.
(6) It is recommended that the States concerned appoint common
permanent Commissions which may give decisions, or at least may give
their advice, when such new establishments are built, or when such
modifications are made in the existing establishments, as may influence the
flow of the stream of water situated on the territory of another State.

IV
LAKES AND LAND-LOCKED SEAS

Vattel, I. § 294—Hall, § 38—Phillimore, I. §§ 205-205A—Twiss, I. § 181—Halleck, I. p. 170

—Moore, I. §§ 135-143—Bluntschli, § 316—Hartmann, § 58—Heffter, § 77—
Caratheodory in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 378-385—Gareis, §§ 20-21—Liszt, § 9—Ullmann, §§
88 and 106—Bonfils, Nos. 495-505—Despagnet, No. 407—Mérignhac, II. 587-596—
Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 640-649—Nys, I. pp. 447-450—Calvo, I. §§ 301, 373, 383—Fiore,
II. Nos. 811-813, and Code, Nos. 279 and 1000—Martens, I. § 100—Rivier, I. pp. 143-145,
230—Mischeff, "La Mer Noire et les détroits de Constantinople" (1901)—Hunt in A.J. IV.
(1910), pp. 285-313.

Lakes and land-locked seas State Property of Riparian States.

§ 179. Theory and practice agree upon the rule that such lakes and land-
locked seas as are entirely enclosed by the land of one and the same State
are part of the territory of this State. Thus the Dead Sea in Palestine is
Turkish, the Sea of Aral is Russian, the Lake of Como is Italian territory. As
regards, however, such lakes and land-locked seas as are surrounded by the
territories of several States, no unanimity exists. The majority of writers
consider these lakes and land-locked seas parts of the surrounding
territories, but several[309] dissent, asserting that these lakes and seas do not
belong to the riparian States, but are free like the Open Sea. The practice of
the States seems to favour the opinion of the majority of writers, for special
treaties frequently arrange what portions of such lakes and seas belong to
the riparian States.[310] Examples are:—The Lake of Constance,[311] which is
surrounded by the territories of Germany (Baden, Würtemberg, Bavaria),
Austria, and Switzerland (Thurgau and St. Gall); the Lake of Geneva, which
belongs to Switzerland and France; the Lakes of Huron, Erie, and Ontario,
which belong to British Canada and the United States; the Caspian Sea,
which belongs to Persia and Russia.[312]
[309] See, for instance, Calvo, I. § 301; Caratheodory in Holtzendorff, II. p. 378.
[310] As regards the utilisation of the flow of such lakes and seas, the same is valid as that
concerning the utilisation of the flow of rivers; see above, § 178a.
[311] See Stoffel, "Die Fischerei-Verhältnisse des Bodensees unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
der an ihm bestehenden Hoheitsrechte" (1906).
[312] But the Caspian Sea is almost entirely under Russian control through the two treaties of
Gulistan (1813) and Tourkmantschai (1828). See Rivier, I. p. 144, and Phillimore, I. § 205.

So-called International Lakes and Land-locked Seas.

§ 180. In analogy with so-called international rivers, such lakes and land-
locked seas as are surrounded by the territories of several States and are at
the same time navigable from the Open Sea, are called "international lakes
and land-locked seas." However, although some writers[313] dissent, it must
be emphasised that hitherto the Law of Nations has not recognised the
principle of free navigation on such lakes and seas. The only case in which
such free navigation is stipulated is that of the lakes within the Congo
district.[314] But there is no doubt that in a near future this principle will be
recognised, and practically all so-called international lakes and land-locked
seas are actually open to merchantmen of all nations. Good examples of
such international lakes and land-locked seas are the fore-named lakes of
Huron, Erie, and Ontario.
[313] See, for instance, Rivier, I. p. 230; Caratheodory in Holtzendorff, II. p. 378; Calvo, I. §
301.
[314] Article 15 of the General Act of the Congo Conference. (See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. X.
p. 417.)

The Black Sea.

 § 181. It is of interest to give some details regarding the Black Sea. This
is a land-locked sea which was undoubtedly wholly a part of Turkish
territory as long as the enclosing land was Turkish only, and as long as the
Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, the approach to the Black Sea, which are
exclusively part of Turkish territory, were not open for merchantmen of all
nations. But matters have changed through Russia, Roumania, and Bulgaria
having become littoral States. It would be wrong to maintain that now the
Black Sea belongs to the territories of the four States, for the Bosphorus and
the Dardanelles, although belonging to Turkish territory, are nevertheless
parts of the Mediterranean Sea, and are now open to merchantmen of all
nations. The Black Sea is consequently now part of the Open Sea[315] and is
not the property of any State. Article 11 of the Peace Treaty of Paris,[316]
1856, neutralised the Black Sea, declared it open to merchantmen of all
nations, but interdicted it to men-of-war of the littoral as well as of other
States, admitting only a few Turkish and Russian public vessels for the
service of their coasts. But although the neutralisation was stipulated
"formally and in perpetuity," it lasted only till 1870. In that year, during the
Franco-German War, Russia shook off the restrictions of the Treaty of Paris,
and the Powers assembled at the Conference of London signed on March
13, 1871, the Treaty of London,[317] by which the neutralisation of the Black
Sea and the exclusion of men-of-war therefrom were abolished. But the
right of the Porte to forbid foreign men-of-war passage through the
Dardanelles and the Bosphorus[318] was upheld by that treaty, as was also
free navigation for merchantmen of all nations on the Black Sea.
[315] See below, § 252.
[316] See Martens, N.R.G. XV. p. 775.
[317] See Martens, N.R.G. XVIII. p. 303.
[318] See below, § 197.

V
CANALS

Westlake, I. pp. 320-331—Lawrence, § 90, and Essays, pp. 41-162—Phillimore, I. §§ 399 and
207—Moore, III. §§ 336-371—Caratheodory in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 386-405—Liszt, § 27
—Ullmann, § 106—Bonfils, Nos. 511-515—Despagnet, No. 418—Mérignhac, II. pp. 597-
604—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 658-660—Nys, I. pp. 475-495—Rivier, I. § 16—Calvo, I. §§
376-380—Fiore, Code, Nos. 983-987—Martens, II. § 59—Sir Travers Twiss in R.I. VII.
(1875), p. 682, XIV. (1882), p. 572, XVII. (1885), p. 615—Holland, Studies, pp. 270-298—
Asser in R.I. XX. (1888), p. 529—Bustamante in R.I. XXVII. (1895), p. 112—Rossignol,
 "Le Canal de Suez" (1898)—Camand, "Étude sur le régime juridique du Canal de Suez"
(1899)—Charles-Roux, "L'Isthme et le canal de Suez" (1901)—Othalom, "Der Suezkanal"
(1905)—Müller-Heymer, "Der Panamakanal in der Politik der Vereinigten Staaten" (1909)
—Arias, "The Panama Canal" (1911)—Hains, Davis, Knapp, Wambough, Olney, and
Kennedy in A.J. III. (1909), pp. 354 and 885, IV. (1910), p. 314, V. (1911), pp. 298, 615,
620.

Canals State Property of Riparian States.

§ 182. That canals are parts of the territories of the respective territorial
States is obvious from the fact that they are artificially constructed
waterways. And there ought to be no doubt[319] that all the rules regarding
rivers must analogously be applied to canals. The matter would need no
special mention at all were it not for the interoceanic canals which have
been constructed during the second half of the nineteenth century or are
contemplated in the future. And as regards two of these, the Emperor
William (Kiel or Baltic) Canal, which connects the Baltic with the North
Sea, and the Corinth Canal, which connects the Gulf of Corinth with the
Gulf of Ægina, there is not much to be said. The former is a canal made
mainly for strategic purposes by the German Empire entirely through
German territory. Although Germany keeps it open for navigation to vessels
of all other nations, she exclusively controls the navigation thereof, and can
at any moment exclude foreign vessels at discretion, or admit them upon
any conditions she likes, apart from special treaty arrangements to the
contrary. The Corinth Canal is entirely within the territory of Greece, and
although the canal is kept open for navigation to vessels of all nations,
Greece exclusively controls the navigation thereof.
[319] See, however, Holland, Studies, p. 278.

The Suez Canal.

§ 183. The most important of the interoceanic canals is that of Suez,
which connects the Red Sea with the Mediterranean. Already in 1838
Prince Metternich gave his opinion that such a canal, if ever made, ought to
become neutralised by an international treaty of the Powers. When, in 1869,
the Suez Canal was opened, jurists and diplomatists at once discussed what
means could be found to secure free navigation upon it for vessels of all
kinds and all nations in time of peace as well as of war. In 1875 Sir Travers
Twiss[320] proposed the neutralisation of the canal, and in 1879 the Institute
of International Law gave its vote[321] in favour of the protection of free
navigation on the canal by an international treaty. In 1883 Great Britain
proposed an international conference to the Powers for the purpose of
neutralising the canal, but it took several years before an agreement was
actualised. This was done by the Convention of Constantinople[322] of
October 29, 1888, between Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, France,
Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, Russia, and Turkey. This treaty comprises
seventeen articles, whose more important stipulations are the following:—
[320] See R.I. VII. pp. 682-694.
[321] See Annuaire, III. and IV. vol. I. p. 349.
[322] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd, Ser. XV. p. 557. It must, however, be mentioned that Great
Britain is a party to the Convention of Constantinople under the reservation that its terms shall not
be brought into operation in so far as they would not be compatible with the transitory and
exceptional condition in which Egypt is put for the time being in consequence of her occupation
by British forces, and in so far as they might fetter the liberty of action of the British Government
during the occupation of Egypt. But article 6 of the Declaration respecting Egypt and Morocco
signed at London on April 8, 1904, by Great Britain and France (see Parliamentary Papers,
France, No. 1 (1904), p. 9), has done away with this reservation, since it stipulates the following:
—"In order to ensure the free passage of the Suez Canal, his Britannic Majesty's Government
declare that they adhere to the stipulations of the Treaty of October 29, 1888, and that they agree
to their being put in force. The free passage of the canal being thus guaranteed, the execution of
the last sentence of paragraph 1 as well as of paragraph 2 of article 8 of that treaty will remain in
abeyance." (See Holland, Studies, p. 293, and Westlake, I. p. 328.)
(1) The canal is open in time of peace as well as of war to merchantmen
and men-of-war of all nations. No attempt to restrict this free usage of the
canal is allowed in time either of peace or of war. The canal can never be
blockaded (article 1).
(2) In time of war, even if Turkey is a belligerent, no act of hostility is
allowed either inside the canal itself or within three sea miles from its ports.
Men-of-war of the belligerents have to pass through the canal without
delay. They may not stay longer than twenty-four hours, a case of absolute
necessity excepted, within the harbours of Port Said and Suez, and twenty-
four hours must intervene between the departure from those harbours of a
belligerent man-of-war and a vessel of the enemy. Troops, munitions, and
other war material may neither be shipped nor unshipped within the canal
and its harbours. All rules regarding belligerents' men-of-war are likewise
valid for their prizes (articles 4, 5, 6).
(3) No men-of-war are allowed to be stationed inside the canal, but each
Power may station two men-of-war in the harbours of Port Said and Suez.
Belligerents, however, are not allowed to station men-of-war in these
harbours (article 7). No permanent fortifications are allowed in the canal
(article 2).
 (4) It is the task of Egypt to secure the carrying out of the stipulated
rules, but the consuls of the Powers in Egypt are charged to watch the
execution of these rules (articles 8 and 9).
(5) The signatory Powers are obliged to notify the treaty to others and to
invite them to accede thereto (article 16).
The Panama Canal.
§ 184. Already in 1850 Great Britain and the United States in the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty[323] of Washington had stipulated the free navigation
and neutralisation of a canal between the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean
proposed to be constructed by the way of the river St. Juan de Nicaragua
and either or both of the lakes of Nicaragua and Managua. In 1881 the
building of a canal through the Isthmus of Panama was taken in hand, but in
1888 the works were stopped in consequence of the financial collapse of the
Company undertaking its construction. After this the United States came
back to the old project of a canal by the way of the river St. Juan de
Nicaragua. For the eventuality of the completion of this canal, Great Britain
and the United States signed, on February 5, 1900, the Convention of
Washington, which stipulated free navigation on and neutralisation of the
proposed canal in analogy with the Convention of Constantinople, 1888,
regarding the Suez Canal, but ratification was refused by the Senate of the
United States. In the following year, however, on November 18, 1901,
another treaty was signed and afterwards ratified. This so-called Hay-
Pauncefote Treaty[324] applies to a canal between the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans by whatever route may be considered expedient, and its five articles
are the following:—
[323] See Martens, N.R.G. XV. p. 187, and Moore, III. §§ 351-365. According to its article 8 this
treaty was also to be applied to a proposed canal through the Isthmus of Panama.
[324] See Moore, III. §§ 366-368.

Article 1
The High Contracting Parties agree that the present Treaty shall
supersede the aforementioned Convention of April 19, 1850.
Article 2
It is agreed that the canal may be constructed under the auspices of the
Government of the United States, either directly at its own cost, or by gift
or loan of money to individuals or corporations, or through subscription to
or purchase of stock or shares, and that, subject to the provisions of the
present Treaty, the said Government shall have and enjoy all the rights
incident to such construction, as well as the exclusive right of providing for
the regulation and management of the canal.
Article 3
The United States adopts, as the basis of the neutralisation of such ship
canal, the following Rules, substantially as embodied in the Convention of
Constantinople, signed October 29, 1888, for the free navigation of the
Suez Canal, that is to say:—
1. The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of
war of all nations observing these Rules, on terms of entire equality, so that
there shall be no discrimination against any such nation, or its citizens or
subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise.
Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable.
2. The canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of war be
exercised or any act of hostility be committed within it. The United States,
however, shall be at liberty to maintain such military police along the canal
as may be necessary to protect[325] it against lawlessness and disorder.
[325] This does not mean that the United States have a right permanently to fortify the canal.
Such a right has likewise been deduced from article 23 of the Hay-Varilla Treaty of November 18,
1903, which runs:—"If it should become necessary at any time to employ armed forces for the
safety or protection of the canal, or of the ships that make use of the same, or the railways and
auxiliary works, the United States shall have the right, at all times in its discretion, to use its
police and its land and naval forces or to establish fortifications for these purposes." However, it
would seem that by this article 23 only temporary fortifications are contemplated. On the other
hand, if read by itself, article 3 of the Hay-Varilla Treaty, according to which the Republic of
Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power, and authority which the United States
would possess and exercise if she were the sovereign of the territory concerned, could be quoted
as indirectly empowering the United States to fortify the Panama Canal permanently. But the
question is whether article 3 must not be interpreted in connection with article 23. The fact that
article 23 stipulates expressly the power of the United States temporarily to establish fortifications
would seem to indicate that it was intended to exclude permanent fortifications. The question of
the fortification of the Panama Canal is discussed by Hains (contra) and Davis (pro) in A.J. III.
(1909), pp. 354-394 and pp. 885-908, and by Olney, Wambough, and Kennedy in A.J. V. (1911),
pp. 298, 615, 620.
3. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not revictual nor take any stores in
the canal except so far as may be strictly necessary; and the transit of such
vessels through the canal shall be effected with the least possible delay in
accordance with the regulations in force, and with only such intermission as
may result from the necessities of the service.
 Prizes shall be in all respects subject to the same rules as vessels of war
of belligerents.
4. No belligerent shall embark or disembark troops, munitions of war, or
warlike materials in the canal, except in case of accidental hindrance of the
transit, and in such case the transit shall be resumed with all possible
despatch.
5. The provisions of this article shall apply to waters adjacent to the
canal, within three marine miles of either end. Vessels of war of a
belligerent shall not remain in such waters longer than twenty-four hours at
any one time except in case of distress, and in such case shall depart as soon
as possible; but a vessel of war of one belligerent shall not depart within
twenty-four hours from the departure of a vessel of war of the other
belligerent.
6. The plant, establishments, buildings and all works necessary to the
construction, maintenance, and operation of the canal shall be deemed to be
part thereof, for the purposes of this Treaty, and in time of war, as in time of
peace, shall enjoy complete immunity from attack or injury by belligerents,
and from acts calculated to impair their usefulness as part of the canal.
Article 4
It is agreed that no change of territorial sovereignty or of the international
relations of the country or countries traversed by the before-mentioned
canal shall affect the general principle of neutralisation or the obligation of
the high contracting parties under the present Treaty.
Article 5
The present Treaty shall be ratified by his Britannic Majesty and by the
President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate thereof; and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington or at
London at the earliest possible time within six months from the date hereof.
In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty
and thereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate at Washington, the 18th day of November, in the year
of Our Lord 1901.
(Seal) PAUNCEFOTE.
(Seal) JOHN HAY.
 On November 18, 1903, the so-called Hay-Varilla Treaty[326] was
concluded between the United States and the new Republic of Panama,
according to which, on the one hand, the United States guarantees and will
maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama, and, on the other
hand, the Republic of Panama grants[327] to the United States in perpetuity
for the construction, administration, and protection of a canal between
Colon and Panama the use, occupation, and control of a strip of land
required for the construction of the canal, and, further, of land on both sides
of the canal to the extent of five miles on either side, with the exclusion,
however, of the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbours adjacent to
these cities. According to article 18 of this treaty the canal and the entrance
thereto shall be neutral in perpetuity, and shall be open to vessels of all
nations as stipulated by article 3 of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.
[326]
See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXI. p. 599.
[327]
That this grant is really cession all but in name, was pointed out above, § 171 (4); see also
below § 216.

VI
MARITIME BELT

Grotius, II. c. 3, § 13—Vattel, I. §§ 287-290—Hall, §§ 41-42—Westlake, I. pp. 183-192—

Lawrence, § 187—Phillimore, I. §§ 197-201—Twiss, I. §§ 144, 190-192—Halleck, I. pp.
157-167—Taylor, §§ 247-250—Walker, § 17—Wharton, § 32—Moore, I. §§ 144-152—
Wheaton, §§ 177-180—Bluntschli, §§ 302, 309-310—Hartmann, § 58—Heffter, § 75—
Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 409-449—Gareis, § 21—Liszt, § 9—Ullmann, § 87—
Bonfils, Nos. 491-494—Despagnet, Nos. 403-414—Mérignhac, II. pp. 370-392—Pradier-
Fodéré, II. Nos. 617-639—Nys, I. pp. 496-520—Rivier, I. pp. 145-153—Calvo, I. §§ 353-
362—Fiore, II. Nos. 801-809, and Code, Nos. 271-273, 1025—Martens, I. § 99—
Bynkershoek, "De dominio maris" and "Quaestiones juris publici," I. c. 8—Ortolan,
"Diplomatie de la mer" (1856), I. pp. 150-175—Heilborn, System, pp. 37-57—Imbart-
Latour, "La mer territoriale, &c." (1889)—Godey, "La mer côtière" (1896)—Schücking,
"Das Küstenmeer im internationalen Recht" (1897)—Perels, § 5—Fulton, "The Sovereignty
of the Seas" (1911), pp. 537-740—Barclay in Annuaire, XII. (1892), pp. 104-136, and XIII.
(1894), pp. 125-162—Martens in R.G. I. (1894), pp. 32-43—Aubert, ibidem, pp. 429-441—
Engelhardt in R.I. XXVI. (1894), pp. 209-213—Godey in R.G. III. (1896), pp. 224-237—
Lapradelle in R.G. V. (1898), pp. 264-284, 309-347.

State Property of Maritime Belt contested.

§ 185. Maritime belt is that part of the sea which, in contradistinction to
the Open Sea, is under the sway of the littoral States. But no unanimity
exists with regard to the nature of the sway of the littoral States. Many
writers maintain that such sway is sovereignty, that the maritime belt is a
part of the territory of the littoral State, and that the territorial supremacy of
the latter extends over its coast waters. Whereas it is nowadays universally
recognised that the Open Sea cannot be State property, such part of the sea
as makes the coast waters would, according to the opinion of these writers,
actually be the State property of the littoral States, although foreign States
have a right of innocent passage of their merchantmen through the coast
waters.
On the other hand, many writers of great authority emphatically deny the
territorial character of the maritime belt and concede to the littoral States, in
the interest of the safety of the coast, only certain powers of control,
jurisdiction, police, and the like, but not sovereignty.
This is surely erroneous, since the real facts of international life would
seem to agree with the first-mentioned opinion only. Its supporters rightly
maintain[328] that the universally recognised fact of the exclusive right of the
littoral State to appropriate the natural products of the sea in the coast
waters, especially the use of the fishery therein, can coincide only with the
territorial character of the maritime belt. The argument of their opponents
that, if the belt is to be considered a part of State territory, every littoral
State must have the right to cede and exchange its coast waters, can
properly be met by the statement that territorial waters of all kinds are
inalienable appurtenances[329] of the littoral and riparian States.[330]
[328] Hall, p. 158. The question is treated with great clearness by Heilborn, "System," pp. 37-57,
and Schücking, pp. 14-20.
[329] See above, § 175. Bynkershoek's ("De Dominio Maris," c. 5) opinion that a littoral State
can alienate its maritime belt without the coast itself, is at the present day untenable.
[330] The fact that art. I. of Convention 13 (Neutral Rights and Duties in Maritime War) of the
second Hague Peace Conference, 1907, speaks of sovereign rights ... in neutral waters would seem
to indicate that the States themselves consider their sway over the maritime belt to be of the nature
of sovereignty.

Breadth of Maritime Belt.

§ 186. Be that as it may, the question arises how far into the sea those
waters extend which are coast waters and are therefore under the sway of
the littoral State. Here, too, no unanimity exists upon either the starting line
of the belt on the coast or the breadth itself of the belt from such starting
line.
 (1) Whereas the starting line is sometimes drawn along high-water mark,
many writers draw it along low-water mark. Others draw it along the depths
where the waters cease to be navigable; others again along those depths
where coast batteries can still be erected, and so on.[331] But the number of
those who draw it along low-water mark is increasing. The Institute of
International Law[332] has voted in favour of this starting line, and many
treaties stipulate the same.
[331] See Schücking, p. 13.
[332] See Annuaire, XIII. p. 329.
(2) With regard to the breadth of the maritime belt various opinions have
in former times been held, and very exorbitant claims have been advanced
by different States. And although Bynkershoek's rule that terrae potestas
finitur ubi finitur armorum vis is now generally recognised by theory and
practice, and consequently a belt of such breadth is considered under the
sway of the littoral State as is within effective range of the shore batteries,
there is still no unanimity on account of the fact that such range is day by
day increasing. Since at the end of the eighteenth century the range of
artillery was about three miles, or one marine league, that distance became
generally[333] recognised as the breadth of the maritime belt. But no sooner
was a common doctrine originated than the range of projectiles increased
with the manufacture of heavier guns. And although Great Britain, France,
Austria, the United States of America, and other States, in Municipal Laws
and International Treaties still adhere to a breadth of one marine league, the
time will come when by a common agreement of the States such breadth
will be very much extended.[334] As regards Great Britain, the Territorial
Waters Jurisdiction Act[335] of 1878 (41 and 42 Vict. c. 73) specially
recognises the extent of the territorial maritime belt as three miles, or one
marine league, measured from the low-water mark of the coast.
 [333] But not universally. Thus Norway claims a breadth of four miles and Spain even a breadth
of six miles. As regards Norway, see Aubert in R.G. I. (1894), pp. 429-441.
[334] The Institute of International Law has voted in favour of six miles, or two marine leagues,
as the breadth of the belt. See Annuaire, XIII. p. 281.
[335] See above, § 25, and Maine, p. 39.

Fisheries, Cabotage, Police, and Maritime Ceremonials within the Belt.

§ 187. Theory and practice agree upon the following principles with
regard to fisheries, cabotage, police, and maritime ceremonials within the
maritime belt:—
(1) The littoral State can exclusively reserve the fishery within the
maritime belt[336] for its own subjects, whether fish or pearls or amber or
other products of the sea are in consideration.
[336]All treaties stipulate for the purpose of fishery a three miles wide territorial maritime belt.
See, for instance, article 1 of the Hague Convention concerning police and fishery in the North
Sea of May 6, 1882. (Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. IX. p. 556.)
(2) The littoral State can, in the absence of special treaties to the contrary,
exclude foreign vessels from navigation and trade along the coast, the so-
called cabotage,[337] and reserve this cabotage exclusively for its own
vessels. Cabotage meant originally navigation and trade along the same
stretch of coast between the ports thereof, such coast belonging to the
territory of one and the same State. However, the term cabotage or coasting
trade as used in commercial treaties comprises now[338] sea trade between
any two ports of the same country, whether on the same coasts or different
coasts, provided always that the different coasts are all of them the coasts of
one and the same country as a political and geographical unit in
contradistinction to the coasts of colonial dependencies of such country.
[337] See Pradier-Fodéré, V. Nos. 2441, 2442.
[338] See below, § 579, where the matter is more amply treated.
(3) The littoral State can exclusively exercise police and control within
its maritime belt in the interest of its custom-house duties, the secrecy of its
coast fortifications, and the like. Thus foreign vessels can be ordered to take
certain routes and to avoid others.
(4) The littoral State can make laws and regulations regarding maritime
ceremonials to be observed by such foreign merchantmen as enter its
territorial maritime belt.[339]
[339] See Twiss, I. § 194.
 Navigation within the Belt.
§ 188. Although the maritime belt is a portion of the territory of the
littoral State and therefore under the absolute territorial supremacy of such
State, the belt is nevertheless, according to the practice of all the States,
open to merchantmen of all nations for inoffensive navigation, cabotage
excepted. And it is the common conviction[340] that every State has by
customary International Law the right to demand that in time of peace its
merchantmen may inoffensively pass through the territorial maritime belt of
every other State. Such right is correctly said to be a consequence of the
freedom of the Open Sea, for without this right navigation on the Open Sea
by vessels of all nations would in fact be an impossibility. And it is a
consequence of this right that no State can levy tolls for the mere passage of
foreign vessels through its maritime belt. Although the littoral State may
spend a considerable amount of money for the erection and maintenance of
lighthouses and other facilities for safe navigation within its maritime belt,
it cannot make merely passing foreign vessels pay for such outlays. It is
only when foreign ships cast anchor within the belt or enter a port that they
can be made to pay dues and tolls by the littoral State. Some writers[341]
maintain that all nations have the right of inoffensive passage for their
merchantmen by usage only, and not by the customary Law of Nations, and
that, consequently, in strict law a littoral State can prevent such passage.
They are certainly mistaken. An attempt on the part of a littoral State to
prevent free navigation through the maritime belt in time of peace would
meet with stern opposition on the part of all other States.
[340] See above, § 142.
[341] Klüber, § 76; Pradier-Fodéré, II. No. 628.

But a right of foreign States for their men-of-war to pass unhindered

through the maritime belt is not generally recognised. Although many
writers assert the existence of such a right, many others emphatically deny
it. As a rule, however, in practice no State actually opposes in time of peace
the passage of foreign men-of-war and other public vessels through its
maritime belt. And it may safely be stated, first, that a usage has grown up
by which such passage, if in every way inoffensive and without danger,
shall not be denied in time of peace; and, secondly, that it is now a
customary rule of International Law that the right of passage through such
parts of the maritime belt as form part of the highways for international
traffic cannot be denied to foreign men-of-war.[342]
 [342] See below, § 449.

Jurisdiction within the Belt.

§ 189. That the littoral State has exclusive jurisdiction within the belt as
regards mere matters of police and control is universally recognised. Thus it
can exclude foreign pilots, can make custom-house arrangements, sanitary
regulations, laws concerning stranded vessels and goods, and the like. It is
further agreed that foreign merchantmen casting anchor within the belt or
entering a port,[343] fall at once and ipso facto under the jurisdiction of the
littoral State. But it is a moot point whether such foreign vessels as do not
stay but merely pass through the belt are for the time being under this
jurisdiction. It is for this reason that the British Territorial Waters
Jurisdiction Act of 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 73), which claims such
jurisdiction, has called forth protests from many writers.[344] The
controversy itself can be decided only by the practice of the States. The
British Act quoted, the basis of which is, in my opinion, sound and
reasonable, is a powerful factor in initiating such a practice; but as yet no
common practice of the States can be said to exist.
[343] The Institute of International Law—see Annuaire, XVII. (1898), p. 273—adopted at its
meeting at the Hague in 1898 a "Règlement sur le régime légal des navires et de leurs équipages
dans les ports étrangers" comprising seven rules.
[344] See Perels, pp. 69-77. The Institute of International Law, which at its meeting at Paris in
1894 adopted a body of eleven rules regarding the maritime belt, gulfs, bays, and straits, voted
against the jurisdiction of a littoral State over foreign vessels merely passing through the belt. See
Annuaire, XIII. p. 328.

Zone for Revenue and Sanitary Laws.

§ 190. Different from the territorial maritime belt is the zone of the Open
Sea, over which a littoral State extends the operation of its revenue and
sanitary laws. The fact is that Great Britain and the United States, as well as
other States, possess revenue and sanitary laws which impose certain duties
not only on their own but also on such foreign vessels bound to one of their
ports as are approaching, but not yet within, their territorial maritime belt.
[345]
Twiss and Phillimore agree that in strict law these Municipal Laws have
no basis, since every State is by the Law of Nations prevented from
extending its jurisdiction over the Open Sea, and that it is only the Comity
of Nations which admits tacitly the operation of such Municipal Laws as
long as foreign States do not object, and provided that no measure is taken
within the territorial maritime belt of another nation. I doubt not that in time
special arrangements will be made as regards this point by a universal
international convention. But I believe that, since Municipal Laws of the
above kind have been in existence for more than a hundred years and have
not been opposed by other States, a customary rule of the Law of Nations
may be said to exist which allows littoral States in the interest of their
revenue and sanitary laws to impose certain duties on such foreign vessels
bound to their ports as are approaching, although not yet within, their
territorial maritime belt.
[345]See, for instance, the British so-called Hovering Acts, 9 Geo. II. c. 35 and 24 Geo. III. c.
47. The matter is treated by Moore, I. § 151; Taylor, § 248; Twiss, I. § 190; Phillimore, I. § 198;
Halleck, I. p. 157; Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 475-478; Perels, § 5, pp. 25-28. See also Hall,
"Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction," §§ 108 and 109, and Annuaire, XIII. (1894), pp. 135 and 141.

VII
GULFS AND BAYS

Vattel, I. § 291—Hall, § 41—Westlake, I. pp. 183-192—Lawrence, § 72—Phillimore, I. §§

196-206—Twiss, I. §§ 181-182—Halleck, I. pp. 165-170—Taylor, §§ 229-231—Walker, §
18—Wharton, I. §§ 27-28—Moore, I. § 153—Wheaton, §§ 181-190—Bluntschli, §§ 309-
310—Hartmann, § 58—Heffter, § 76—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 419-428—Gareis, §
21—Liszt, § 9—Ullmann, § 88—Bonfils, No. 516—Despagnet, Nos. 405-406—
Mérignhac, II. pp. 394-397—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 661-681—Nys, I. pp. 441-447—
Rivier, I. pp. 153-157—Calvo, I. §§ 366-367—Fiore, II. Nos. 808-815, and Code, Nos.
278-279—Martens, I. § 100—Perels, § 5—Schücking, "Das Küstenmeer im internationalen
Recht" (1897), pp. 20-24—Barclay in Annuaire, XII. pp. 127-129—Oppenheim in Z.V. I.
(1907), pp. 579-587, and V. (1911), pp. 74-95.

Territorial Gulfs and Bays.

§ 191. It is generally admitted that such gulfs and bays as are enclosed by
the land of one and the same littoral State, and whose entrance from the sea
is narrow enough to be commanded by coast batteries erected on one or
both sides of the entrance, belong to the territory of the littoral State even if
the entrance is wider[346] than two marine leagues, or six miles.
[346] I have no reason to alter the above statement, although Lord Fitzmaurice declared in the
House of Lords on February 21, 1907, in the name of the British Government, that they
considered such bays only to be territorial as possessed an entrance not wider than six miles. The
future will have to show whether Great Britain and her self-governing colonies consider
themselves bound by this statement. No writer of authority can be quoted in favour of it, although
Walker (§ 18) and Wilson and Tucker (5th ed., 1910, § 53) state it. Westlake (vol. I. p. 187) cannot
be cited in favour of it, since he distinguishes between bays and gulfs in such a way as is not
generally done by international lawyers, and as is certainly not recognised by geography; for the
very examples which he enumerates as gulfs are all called bays, namely those of Conception, of
 Cancale, of Chesapeake, and of Delaware. In the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries case, between the
United States and Great Britain, which was decided by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the
Hague in 1910, the United States—see the official publication of the case, p. 136—also contended
that only such bays could be considered territorial as possessed an entrance not wider than six
miles, but the Court refused to agree to this contention.
Some writers maintain that gulfs and bays whose entrance is wider than
ten miles, or three and a third marine leagues, cannot belong to the territory
of the littoral State, and the practice of some States accords with this
opinion. But the practice of other countries, approved by many writers, goes
beyond this limit. Thus Great Britain holds the Bay of Conception in
Newfoundland to be territorial, although it goes forty miles into the land
and has an entrance more than twenty miles wide. And the United States
claim the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, as well as other inlets of the
same character, as territorial,[347] although many European writers oppose
this claim. The Institute of International Law has voted in favour of a
twelve miles wide entrance, but admits the territorial character of such gulfs
and bays with a wider entrance as have been considered territorial for more
than one hundred years.[348]
[347] See Taylor, § 229; Wharton, I. §§ 27 and 28; Moore, I. § 153.
[348] See Annuaire, XIII. p. 329.
As the matter stands, it is doubtful as regards many gulfs and bays
whether they are territorial or not. Examples of territorial bays in Europe
are: The Zuider Zee is Dutch; the Frische Haff, the Kurische Haff, and the
Bay of Stettin, in the Baltic, are German, as is also the Jade Bay in the
North Sea. The whole matter calls for an international congress to settle the
question once for all which gulfs and bays are to be considered territorial.
And it must be specially observed that it is hardly possible that Great
Britain would still, as she formerly did for centuries, claim the territorial
character of the so-called King's Chambers,[349] which include portions of
the sea between lines drawn from headland to headland.
[349] Whereas Hall (§ 41, p. 162) says: "England would, no doubt, not attempt any longer to
assert a right of property over the King's Chambers," Phillimore (I. § 200) still keeps up this
claim. The attitude of the British Government in the Moray Firth Case—see below, p. 264—
would seem to demonstrate that this claim is no longer upheld. See also Lawrence, § 87, and
Westlake, I. p. 188.

Non-territorial Gulfs and Bays.

§ 192. Gulfs and bays surrounded by the land of one and the same littoral
State whose entrance is so wide that it cannot be commanded by coast
batteries, and, further, all gulfs and bays enclosed by the land of more than
one littoral State, however narrow their entrance may be, are non-territorial.
They are parts of the Open Sea, the marginal belt inside the gulfs and bays
excepted. They can never be appropriated, they are in time of peace and war
open to vessels of all nations including men-of-war, and foreign fishing
vessels cannot, therefore, be compelled to comply with municipal
regulations of the littoral State concerning the mode of fishing.
An illustrative case is that of the fisheries in the Moray Firth. By article 6
of the Herring[350] Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, beam and otter trawling is
prohibited within certain limits of the Scotch coast, and the Moray Firth
inside a line drawn from Duncansby Head in Caithness to Rattray Point in
Aberdeenshire is included in the prohibited area. In 1905, Mortensen, the
captain of a Norwegian fishing vessel, but a Danish subject, was prosecuted
for an offence against the above-mentioned article 6, convicted, and fined
by the Sheriff Court at Dornoch, although he contended that the
incriminating act was committed outside three miles from the coast. He
appealed to the High Court of Justiciary, which,[351] however, confirmed the
verdict of the Sheriff Court, correctly asserting that, whether or not the
Moray Firth could be considered as a British territorial bay, the Court was
bound by a British Act of Parliament even if such Act violates a rule of
International Law. The British Government, while recognising that the
Scotch Courts were bound by the Act of Parliament concerned, likewise
recognised that, the Moray Firth not being a British territorial bay, foreign
fishing vessels could not be compelled to comply with an Act of Parliament
regulating the mode of fishing in the Moray Firth outside three miles from
the coast, and therefore remitted Mortensen's fine. To remedy the conflict
between article 6 of the above-mentioned Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act,
1889, and the requirements of International Law, Parliament passed the
Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act,[352] 1909, according to which
no prosecution can take place for the exercise of prohibited fishing methods
outside the three miles from the coast, but the fish so caught may not be
landed or sold in the United Kingdom.[353]
[350] 52 and 53 Vict. c. 23.
[351] Mortensen v. Peters, "The Scotch Law Times Reports," vol. 14, p. 227.
[352] 9 Edw. VII. c. 8.
[353] See Oppenheim in Z.V. V. (1911), pp. 74-95.
 Navigation and Fishery in Territorial Gulfs and Bays.
§ 193. As regards navigation and fishery within territorial gulfs and bays,
the same rules of the Law of Nations are valid as in the case of navigation
and fishery within the territorial maritime belt. The right of fishery may,
therefore, exclusively be reserved for subjects of the littoral State.[354] And
navigation, cabotage excepted, must be open to merchantmen of all nations,
but foreign men-of-war need not be admitted.
[354] The Hague Convention concerning police and fishery in the North Sea, concluded on May
6, 1882, between Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and Holland reserves by its
article 2 the fishery for subjects of the littoral States of such bays as have an entrance from the sea
not wider than ten miles, but reserves likewise a maritime belt of three miles to be measured from
the line where the entrance is ten miles wide. Practically the fishery is therefore reserved for
subjects of the littoral State within bays with an entrance thirteen miles wide. See Martens, N.R.G.
2nd Ser. IX. (1884), p. 556.

VIII
STRAITS

Vattel, I. § 292—Hall, § 41—Westlake, I. pp. 193-197—Lawrence, §§ 87-89—Phillimore, I.

§§ 180-196—Twiss, I. §§ 183, 184, 189—Halleck, I. pp. 165-170—Taylor, §§ 229-231—
Walker, § 17—Wharton, §§ 27-29—Wheaton, §§ 181-190—Moore, I. §§ 133-134—
Bluntschli, § 303—Hartmann, § 65—Heffter, § 76—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 419-428
—Gareis, § 21—Liszt, §§ 9 and 26—Ullmann, § 88—Bonfils, Nos. 506-511—Despagnet,
Nos. 415-417—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 650-656—Nys, I. pp. 451-474—Rivier, I. pp. 157-
159—Calvo, I. §§ 368-372—Fiore, II. Nos. 745-754, and Code, Nos. 280-281—Martens, I.
§ 101—Holland, Studies, p. 277.

What Straits are Territorial.

§ 194. All straits which are so narrow as to be under the command of
coast batteries erected either on one or both sides of the straits, are
territorial. Therefore, straits of this kind which divide the land of one and
the same State belong to the territory of such State. Thus the Solent, which
divides the Isle of Wight from England, is British, the Dardanelles and the
Bosphorus are Turkish, and both the Kara and the Yugor Straits, which
connect the Kara Sea with the Barents Sea, are Russian. On the other hand,
if such narrow strait divides the land of two different States, it belongs to
the territory of both, the boundary line running, failing a special treaty
making another arrangement, through the mid-channel.[355] Thus the
Lymoon Pass, the narrow strait which separates the British island of Hong
Kong from the continent, was half British and half Chinese as long as the
land opposite Hong Kong was Chinese territory.
[355] See below, § 199.
It would seem that claims of States over wider straits than those which
can be commanded by guns from coast batteries are no longer upheld. Thus
Great Britain used formerly to claim the Narrow Seas—namely, the St.
George's Channel, the Bristol Channel, the Irish Sea, and the North Channel
—as territorial; and Phillimore asserts that the exclusive right of Great
Britain over these Narrow Seas is uncontested. But it must be emphasised
that this right is contested, and I believe that Great Britain would now no
longer uphold her former claim,[356] at least the Territorial Waters
Jurisdiction Act 1878 does not mention it.
[356] See Phillimore, I. § 189, and above, § 191 (King's Chambers). Concerning the Bristol
Channel, Hall (§ 41, p. 162, note 2) remarks: "It was apparently decided by the Queen's Bench in
Reg. v. Cunningham (Bell's "Crown Cases," 86) that the whole of the Bristol Channel between
Somerset and Glamorgan is British territory; possibly, however, the Court intended to refer only to
that portion of the Channel which lies within Steepholm and Flatholm." See also Westlake, I. p.
188, note 3.

Navigation, Fishery, and Jurisdiction in Straits.

§ 195. All rules of the Law of Nations concerning navigation, fishery,
and jurisdiction within the maritime belt apply likewise to navigation,
fishery, and jurisdiction within straits. Foreign merchantmen, therefore,
cannot[357] be excluded; foreign men-of-war must be admitted to such straits
as form part of the highways for international traffic;[358] the right of fishery
may exclusively be reserved for subjects of the littoral State; and the latter
can exercise jurisdiction over all foreign merchantmen passing through the
straits. If the narrow strait divides the land of two different States,
jurisdiction and fishery are reserved for each littoral State within the
boundary line running through the mid-channel or otherwise as by treaty
arranged.
[357] The claim of Russia—see Waultrin in R.G. XV. (1908), p. 410—to have a right to exclude
foreign merchantmen from the passage through the Kara and the Yugor Straits, is therefore
unfounded. As regards the Kara Sea, see below, § 253, note 2.
[358] As, for instance, the Straits of Magellan. These straits were neutralised in 1881—see
below, § 568, and vol. II. § 72—by a treaty between Chili and Argentina. See Abribat, "Le détroit
de Magellan au point de vue international" (1902); Nys, I. pp. 470-474; and Moore, I. § 134.
It must, however, be stated that foreign merchantmen cannot be excluded
from the passage through territorial straits only when these connect two
parts of the Open Sea. In case a territorial strait belonging to one and the
same State connects a part of the Open Sea with a territorial gulf or bay, or
with a territorial land-locked sea belonging to the same State—as, for
instance, the Strait of Kertch[359] at present, and formerly the Bosphorus and
the Dardanelles[360]—foreign vessels can be excluded therefrom.
[359] See below, § 252.
[360] See below, § 197.

The former Sound Dues.

§ 196. The rule that foreign merchantmen must be allowed inoffensive
passage through territorial straits without any dues and tolls whatever, had
one exception until the year 1857. From time immemorial, Denmark had
not allowed foreign vessels the passage through the two Belts and the
Sound, a narrow strait which divides Denmark from Sweden and connects
the Kattegat with the Baltic, without payment of a toll, the so-called Sound
Dues.[361] Whereas in former centuries these dues were not opposed, they
were not considered any longer admissible as soon as the principle of free
navigation on the sea became generally recognised, but Denmark
nevertheless insisted upon the dues. In 1857, however, an arrangement[362]
was completed between the maritime Powers of Europe and Denmark by
which the Sound Dues were abolished against a heavy indemnity paid by
the signatory States to Denmark. And in the same year the United States
entered into a convention[363] with Denmark for the free passage of their
vessels, and likewise paid an indemnity. With these dues has disappeared
the last witness of former times when free navigation on the sea was not
universally recognised.
[361]See the details, which have historical interest only, in Twiss, I. § 188; Phillimore, I. § 189;
Wharton, I. § 29; and Scherer, "Der Sundzoll" (1845).
[362] The Treaty of Copenhagen of March 14, 1857. See Martens, N.R.G. XVI. 2nd part, p. 345.
[363] Convention of Washington of April 11, 1857. See Martens, N.R.G. XVII. 1st part, p. 210.

The Bosphorus and Dardanelles.

§ 197. The Bosphorus and Dardanelles, the two Turkish territorial straits
which connect the Black Sea with the Mediterranean, must be specially
mentioned.[364] So long as the Black Sea was entirely enclosed by Turkish
territory and was therefore a portion of this territory, Turkey could
exclude[365] foreign vessels from the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles
altogether, unless prevented by special treaties. But when in the eighteenth
century Russia became a littoral State of the Black Sea, and the latter,
therefore, ceased to be entirely a territorial sea, Turkey, by several treaties
with foreign Powers, conceded free navigation through the Bosphorus and
the Dardanelles to foreign merchantmen. But she always upheld the rule
that foreign men-of-war should be excluded from these straits. And by
article 1 of the Convention of London of July 10, 1841, between Turkey,
Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia, this rule was once for all
accepted. Article 10 of the Peace Treaty of Paris of 1856 and the
Convention No. 1 annexed to this treaty, and, further, article 2 of the Treaty
of London, 1871, again confirm the rule, and all those Powers which were
not parties to these treaties submit nevertheless to it.[366] According to the
Treaty of London of 1871, however, the Porte can open the straits in time of
peace to the men-of-war of friendly and allied Powers for the purpose, if
necessary, of securing the execution of the stipulations of the Peace Treaty
of Paris of 1856.
[364] See Holland, "The European Concert in the Eastern Question," p. 225, and Perels, p. 29.
[365] See above, § 195.
[366] The United States, although she actually acquiesces in the exclusion of her men-of-war,
seems not to consider herself bound by the Convention of London, to which she is not a party. See
Wharton, I. § 29, pp. 79 and 80, and Moore, I. § 134, pp. 666-668.
On the whole, the rule has in practice always been upheld by Turkey.
Foreign light public vessels in the service of foreign diplomatic envoys at
Constantinople can be admitted by the provisions of the Peace Treaty of
Paris of 1856. And on several occasions when Turkey has admitted a
foreign man-of-war carrying a foreign monarch on a visit to Constantinople,
there has been no opposition by the Powers.[367] But when, in 1902, Turkey
allowed four Russian torpedo destroyers to pass through her straits on the
condition that these vessels should be disarmed and sail under the Russian
commercial flag, Great Britain protested and declared that she reserved the
right to demand similar privileges for her men-of-war should occasion arise.
As far as I know, however, no other Power has joined Great Britain in this
protest. On the other hand, no protest was raised when, in 1904, during the
Russo-Japanese war, two vessels belonging to the Russian volunteer fleet in
the Black Sea were allowed to pass through to the Mediterranean, for
nobody could presume that these vessels, which were flying the Russian
commercial flag, would later on convert themselves into men-of-war by
hoisting the Russian war flag.[368]
[367] See Perels, p. 30.
 [368] See below, vol. II. § 84.

IX
BOUNDARIES OF STATE TERRITORY

Grotius, II. c. 3, § 18—Vattel, I. § 266—Hall, § 38—Westlake, I. pp. 141-142—Twiss, I. §§

147-148—Taylor, § 251—Moore, I. §§ 154-162—Bluntschli, §§ 296-302—Hartmann, § 59
—Heffter, § 66—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 232-239—Gareis, § 19—Liszt, § 9—
Ullmann, § 91—Bonfils, Nos. 486-489—Despagnet, No. 377—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos.
759-777—Mérignhac, II. p. 358—Nys, I. pp. 413-422—Rivier, I. § 11—Calvo, I. §§ 343-
352—Fiore, II. Nos. 799-806, and Code, Nos. 1040-1049—Martens, I. § 89—Lord Curzon
of Kedleston, "Frontiers" (Romanes lecture of 1907).

Natural and Artificial Boundaries.

§ 198. Boundaries of State territory are the imaginary lines on the surface
of the earth which separate the territory of one State from that of another, or
from unappropriated territory, or from the Open Sea. The course of the
boundary lines may or may not be indicated by boundary signs. These signs
may be natural or artificial, and one speaks, therefore, of natural in
contradistinction to artificial boundaries. Natural boundaries may consist of
water, a range of rocks or mountains, deserts, forests, and the like. Artificial
boundaries are such signs as have been purposely put up to indicate the way
of the imaginary boundary-line. They may consist of posts, stones, bars,
walls,[369] trenches, roads, canals, buoys in water, and the like. It must,
however, be borne in mind that the distinction between artificial and natural
boundaries is not sharp, in so far as some natural boundaries can be
artificially created. Thus a forest may be planted, and a desert may be
created, as was the frequent practice of the Romans of antiquity, for the
purpose of marking the frontier.
[369] The Romans of antiquity very often constructed boundary walls, and the Chinese Wall may
also be cited as an example.

Boundary Waters.
§ 199. Natural boundaries consisting of water must be specially discussed
on account of the different kinds of boundary waters. Such kinds are rivers,
lakes, landlocked seas, and the maritime belt.
(1) Boundary rivers[370] are such rivers as separate two different States
from each other.[371] If such river is not navigable, the imaginary boundary
line runs down the middle of the river, following all turnings of the border
line of both banks of the river. On the other hand, in a navigable river the
boundary line runs through the middle of the so-called Thalweg, that is, the
mid-channel of the river. It is, thirdly, possible that the boundary line is the
border line of the river, so that the whole bed belongs to one of the riparian
States only.[372] But this is an exception created by treaty or by the fact that a
State has occupied the lands on one side of a river at a time prior to the
occupation of the lands on the other side by some other State.[373] And it
must be remembered that, since a river sometimes changes its course more
or less, the boundary line running through the middle or the Thalweg or
along the border line is thereby also altered. In case a bridge is built over a
boundary river, the boundary line runs, failing special treaty arrangements,
through the middle of the bridge. As regards the boundary lines running
through islands rising in boundary rivers and through the abandoned beds of
such rivers, see below, §§ 234 and 235.
 [370] See Huber in Z.V. I. (1906), pp. 29-52 and 159-217.
[371] This case is not to be confounded with the other, in which a river runs through the lands of
two different States. In this latter case the boundary line runs across the river.
[372] See above, § 175.
[373] See Twiss, I. §§ 147 and 148, and Westlake, I. p. 142.

(2) Boundary lakes and land-locked seas are such as separate the lands of
two or more different States from each other. The boundary line runs
through the middle of these lakes and seas, but as a rule special treaties
portion off such lakes and seas between riparian States.[374]
[374] See above, § 179.
(3) The boundary line of the maritime belt is, according to details given
above (§ 186), uncertain, since no unanimity prevails with regard to the
width of the belt. It is, however, certain that the boundary line runs not
nearer to the shore than three miles, or one marine league, from the low-
water mark.
(4) In a narrow strait separating the lands of two different States the
boundary line runs either through the middle or through the mid-channel,
[375]
unless special treaties make different arrangements.
[375] See Twiss, I. §§ 183 and 184, and above, § 194.

Boundary Mountains.
§ 200. Boundary mountains or hills are such natural elevations from the
common level of the ground as separate the territories of two or more States
from each other. Failing special treaty arrangements, the boundary line runs
on the mountain ridge along with the watershed. But it is quite possible that
boundary mountains belong wholly to one of the States which they
separate.[376]
[376] See Fiore, II. No. 800.

Boundary Disputes.
§ 201. Boundary lines are, for many reasons, of such vital importance
that disputes relating thereto are inevitably very frequent and have often led
to war. During the nineteenth century, however, a tendency began to prevail
to settle such disputes peaceably. The simplest way in which this can be
done is always by a boundary treaty, provided the parties can come to
terms.[377] In other cases arbitration can settle the matter, as, for instance, in
the Alaska Boundary dispute between Great Britain (representing Canada)
and the United States, settled in 1903. Sometimes International
Commissions are specially appointed to settle the boundary lines. In this
way the boundary lines between Turkey, Bulgaria, Servia, Montenegro, and
Roumania were settled after the Berlin Congress of 1878. It sometimes
happens that the States concerned, instead of settling the boundary line,
keep a strip of land between their territories under their joint tenure and
administration, so that a so-called condominium comes into existence, as in
the case of Moresnet (Kelmis) on the Prusso-Belgian frontier.[378]
[377] A good example of such a boundary treaty is that between Great Britain and the United
States of America respecting the demarcation of the international boundary between the United
States and the Dominion of Canada, signed at Washington on April 11, 1908. See Martens, N.R.G.
3rd Ser. IV. (1911), p. 191.
[378] See above, § 171, No. 1.

Natural Boundaries sensu politico.

§ 202. Whereas the term "natural boundaries" in the theory and practice
of the Law of Nations means natural signs which indicate the course of
boundary lines, the same term is used politically[379] in various different
meanings. Thus the French often speak of the river Rhine as their "natural"
boundary, as the Italians do of the Alps. Thus, further, the zones within
which the language of a nation is spoken are frequently termed that nation's
"natural" boundary. Again, the line enclosing such parts of the land as
afford great facilities for defence against an attack is often called the
"natural" boundary of a State, whether or not these parts belong to the
territory of the respective State. It is obvious that all these and other
meanings of the term "natural boundaries" are of no importance to the Law
of Nations, whatever value they may have politically.
[379] See Rivier, I. p. 166.

X
STATE SERVITUDES

Vattel, I. § 89—Hall, § 42*—Westlake, I. p. 61—Phillimore, I. §§ 281-283—Twiss, I. § 245

—Taylor, § 252—Moore, I. §§ 163-168, II. § 177—Bluntschli, §§ 353-359—Hartmann, §
62—Heffter, § 43—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 242-252—Gareis, § 71—Liszt, §§
8 and 19—Ullmann, § 99—Bonfils, Nos. 340-344—Despagnet, Nos. 190-192—Mérignhac,
II. pp. 366-368—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 834-845, 1038—Rivier, I. pp. 296-303—Nys, II.
pp. 271-279—Calvo, III. § 1583—Fiore, I. § 380, and Code, Nos. 1095-1097—Martens, I.
§§ 94-95—Clauss, "Die Lehre von den Staatsdienstbarkeiten" (1894)—Fabres, "Des
servitudes dans le droit international" (1901)—Hollatz, "Begriff und Wesen der
 Staatsservituten" (1909)—Labrousse, "Des servitudes en droit international public" (1911)
—Nys in R.I. 2nd Ser. VII. (1905), pp. 118-125, and XIII. (1911), pp. 312-323.

Conception of State Servitudes.

§ 203. State servitudes are those exceptional and conventional
restrictions on the territorial supremacy of a State by which a part or the
whole of its territory is in a limited way made perpetually to serve a certain
purpose or interest of another State. Thus a State may by a convention be
obliged to allow the passage of troops of a neighbouring State, or may in
the interest of a neighbouring State be prevented from fortifying a certain
town near the frontier.
Servitudes must not be confounded[380] with those general restrictions
upon territorial supremacy which, according to certain rules of the Law of
Nations, concern all States alike. These restrictions are named "natural"
restrictions of territorial supremacy (servitutes juris gentium naturales), in
contradistinction to the conventional restrictions (servitutes juris gentium
voluntariae) which constitute the State servitudes in the technical sense of
the term. Thus, for instance, it is not a State servitude, but a "natural"
restriction on territorial supremacy, that a State is obliged to admit the free
passage of foreign merchantmen through its territorial maritime belt.
[380] This is done, for instance, by Heffter (§ 43), Martens (§ 94), Nys (II. p. 271), and Hall (§
42*); the latter speaks of the right of innocent use of territorial seas as a servitude.
That State servitudes are or may on occasions be of great importance,
there can be no doubt whatever. The vast majority[381] of writers and the
practice of the States accept, therefore, the conception of State servitudes,
although they do not agree with regard to the definition and the width of the
conception, and although, consequently, in many cases the question is
disputed whether a certain restriction upon territorial supremacy is or is not
a State servitude.
[381] The conception of State servitudes is rejected by Bulmerincq (§ 49), Gareis (§ 71), Liszt
(§§ 8 and 19), Jellinek ("Allgemeine Staatslehre," p. 366).
The theory of State servitudes has of late been rejected by the Permanent
Court of Arbitration at the Hague in the case[382] (1910) of the North
Atlantic Coast Fisheries between Great Britain and the United States,
chiefly for the three reasons that a servitude in International Law predicated
an express grant of a sovereign right, that the doctrine of international
servitude originated in the peculiar and now obsolete conditions prevailing
in the Holy Roman Empire, and that this doctrine, being little suited to the
principle of sovereignty which prevails in States under a constitutional
government and to the present international relations of Sovereign States,
had found little, if any, support from modern publicists. It is hardly to be
expected that this opinion of the Court will induce theory and practice to
drop the conception of State servitudes, which is of great value because it
fitly covers those restrictions on the territorial supremacy of the State by
which a part or the whole of its territory is in a limited way made
perpetually to serve a certain purpose or interest of another State. That the
doctrine of State servitudes originated in the peculiar conditions of the Holy
Roman Empire does not make it unfit for the conditions of modern life if its
practical value can be demonstrated. Further, the assertion that the doctrine
is but little suited to the principle of sovereignty which prevails in States
under a constitutional government, and has, therefore, found little, if any,
support from modern publicists, does not agree with the facts. Lastly, the
statement that a servitude in International Law predicated an express grant
of a sovereign right, is not based on any other authority than the contention
of the United States, which made this unfounded statement in presenting
their case before the Tribunal. The fact is that a State servitude, although to
a certain degree it restricts the sovereignty (territorial supremacy) of the
State concerned, does as little as any other restriction upon the sovereignty
of a State confer a sovereign right upon the State in favour of which it is
established.
[382]See the official publication of the case, pp. 115-116; Hogg in The Law Quarterly Review,
XXVI. (1910), pp. 415-417; Richards in The Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation,
New Series, XI. (1910), pp. 18-27; Lansing in A.J. V. (1911), pp. 1-31; Balch and Louter in R.I.
2nd Ser. XIII. (1911), pp. 5-23, 131-157.

Subjects of State Servitudes.

§ 204. Subjects of State servitudes are States only and exclusively, since
State servitudes can exist between States only (territorium dominans and
territorium serviens). Formerly some writers[383] maintained that private
individuals and corporations were able to acquire a State servitude; but
nowadays it is agreed that this is not possible, since the Law of Nations is a
law between States only and exclusively. Whatever rights may be granted
by a State to foreign individuals and corporations, such rights can never
constitute State servitudes.
[383] Bluntschli, § 353; Heffter, § 44.
 On the other hand, every State can acquire and grant State servitudes,
although some States may, in consequence of their particular position
within the Family of Nations, be prevented from acquiring or granting some
special kind or another of State servitudes. Thus neutralised States are in
many points hampered in regard to acquiring and granting State servitudes,
because they have to avoid everything that could drag them indirectly into
war. Thus, further, half-Sovereign and part-Sovereign States may not be
able to acquire and to grant certain State servitudes on account of their
dependence upon their superior State. But apart from such exceptional
cases, even not-full Sovereign States can acquire and grant State servitudes,
provided they have any international status at all.
Object of State Servitudes.
§ 205. The object of State servitudes is always the whole or a part of the
territory of the State the territorial supremacy of which is restricted by any
such servitude.[384] Since the territory of a State includes not only the land
but also the rivers which water the land, the maritime belt, the territorial
subsoil, and the territorial atmosphere, all these can, as well as the service
of the land itself, be an object of State servitudes. Thus a State may have a
perpetual right of admittance for its subjects to the fishery in the maritime
belt of another State, or a right to lay telegraph cables through a foreign
maritime belt, or a right to make and use a tunnel through a boundary
mountain, and the like. And should ever aërostation become so developed
as to be of practical utility, a State servitude might be created through a
State acquiring a perpetual right to send military aerial vehicles through the
territorial atmosphere of a neighbouring State. It must, however, be
emphasised that the Open Sea can never be the object of a State servitude,
since it is no State's territory.
[384]The contention of the United States, adopted by the Hague Arbitration Tribunal, in 1910, in
the case of the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries, that a State servitude conferred a sovereign right
upon the State in favour of which it is established, was refuted above in § 203, p. 275.
Since the object of State servitudes is the territory of a State, all such
restrictions upon the territorial supremacy of a State as do not make a part
or the whole of its territory itself serve a purpose or an interest of another
State are not State servitudes. The territory as the object is the mark of
distinction between State servitudes and other restrictions on the territorial
supremacy. Thus the perpetual restriction imposed upon a State by a treaty
not to keep an army beyond a certain size is certainly a restriction on
territorial supremacy, but is not, as some writers[385] maintain, a State
servitude, because it does not make the territory of one State serve an
interest of another. On the other hand, when a State submits to a perpetual
right enjoyed by another State of passage of troops, or to the duty not to
fortify a certain town, place, or island,[386] or to the claim of another State
for its subjects to be allowed the fishery within the former's territorial belt;
[387]
in all these and the like[388] cases the territorial supremacy of a State is in
such a way restricted that a part or the whole of its territory is made to serve
the interest of another State, and such restrictions are therefore State
servitudes.[389]
[385] See, for instance, Bluntschli, § 356.
[386] Thus by article 32 of the peace treaty of Paris, 1856, and by the Convention of March 30,
1856, between Great Britain, France, and Russia, annexed to the peace treaty of Paris—see
Martens, N.R.G. XV. pp. 780 and 788—Russia is prevented from fortifying the Aland Islands in
the Baltic. See below, § 522, and Waultrin in R.G. XIV. pp. 517-533. See also A.J. II. (1908), p.
397.
[387] Examples of such fishery servitudes are:—

(a) The former French fishery rights in Newfoundland which were based on article 13 of the
Treaty of Utrecht, 1713, and on the Treaty of Versailles, 1783. See the details regarding the
Newfoundland Fishery Dispute, in Phillimore, I. § 195; Clauss, pp. 17-31; Geffcken in R.I. XXII.
p. 217; Brodhurst in Law Magazine and Review, XXIV. p. 67. The French literature on the
question is quoted in Bonfils, No. 342, note 1. The dispute is now settled by France's renunciation
of the privileges due to her according to article 13 of the Treaty of Utrecht, which took place by
article 1 of the Anglo-French Convention signed in London on April 8, 1904 (see Martens, N.R.G.
2nd Ser. XXXII. (1905), p. 29). But France retains, according to article 2 of the latter Convention,
the right of fishing for her subjects in certain parts of the territorial waters of Newfoundland.
(b) The fishery rights granted by Great Britain to the United States of America in certain parts
of the British North Atlantic Coast by article 1 of the Treaty of 1818 which gave rise to disputes
extending over a long period. The dispute is now settled by an award of the Hague Permanent
Court of Arbitration given in September (1910). That the Court refused to recognise the
conception of State servitudes, was pointed out above, § 203. See above, § 203, and the literature
there quoted.
[388] Phillimore (I. § 283) quotes two interesting State servitudes which belong to the past.
According to articles 4 and 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713, France was, in the interest of Great
Britain, not to allow the Stuart Pretender to reside on French territory, and Great Britain was, in
the interest of Spain, not to allow Moors and Jews to reside in Gibraltar.
[389] The controverted question whether neutralisation of a State creates a State servitude is
answered by Clauss (p. 167) in the affirmative, but by Ullmann (§ 99), correctly, I think, in the
negative. But a distinction must be drawn between neutralisation of a whole State and
neutralisation of certain parts of a State. In the latter case a State servitude is indeed created.

Different kinds of State Servitudes.

§ 206. According to different qualities different kinds of State servitudes
must be distinguished.
 (1) Affirmative, active, or positive, are those servitudes which give the
right to a State to perform certain acts on the territory of another State, such
as to build and work a railway, to establish a custom-house, to let an armed
force pass through a certain territory (droit d'étape), or to keep troops in a
certain fortress, to use a port or an island as a coaling station, and the like.
(2) Negative, are such servitudes as give a right to a State to demand of
another State that the latter shall abstain from exercising its territorial
supremacy in certain ways. Thus a State can have a right to demand that a
neighbouring State shall not fortify certain towns near the frontier, that
another State shall not allow foreign men-of-war in a certain harbour.[390]
[390] Affirmative State servitudes consist in patiendo, negative servitudes in non faciendo. The
rule of Roman Law servitus in faciendo consistere nequit has been adopted by the Law of Nations.
(3) Military, are those State servitudes which are acquired for military
purposes, such as the right to keep troops in a foreign fortress, or to let an
armed force pass through foreign territory, or to demand that a town on
foreign territory shall not be fortified, and the like.
(4) Economic, are those servitudes which are acquired for the purpose of
commercial interests, traffic, and intercourse in general, such as the right of
fisheries in foreign territorial waters, to build a railway on or lay a telegraph
cable through foreign territory, and the like.

Validity of State Servitudes.

§ 207. Since State servitudes, in contradistinction to personal rights
(rights in personam), are rights inherent to the object with which they are
connected (rights in rem), they remain valid and may be exercised however
the ownership of the territory to which they apply may change. Therefore,
if, after the creation of a State servitude, the part of the territory affected
comes by subjugation or cession under the territorial supremacy of another
State, such servitude remains in force. Thus, when the Alsatian town of
Hüningen became in 1871, together with the whole of Alsace, German
territory, the State servitude created by the Treaty of Paris, 1815, that
Hüningen should, in the interest of the Swiss canton of Basle, never be
fortified, was not extinguished.[391] Thus, further, when in 1860 the former
Sardinian provinces of Chablais and Faucigny became French, the State
servitude created by article 92 of the Act of the Vienna Congress, 1815, that
Switzerland should have temporarily during war the right to locate troops in
these provinces, was not extinguished.[392]
 [391] Details in Clauss, pp. 15-17.
[392] Details in Clauss, pp. 8-15.
It is a moot point whether military State servitudes can be exercised in
time of war by a belligerent if the State with whose territory they are
connected remains neutral. Must such State, for the purpose of upholding its
neutrality, prevent the belligerent from exercising the respective servitude—
for instance, the right of passage of troops?[393]
[393] This question became practical when in 1900, during the South African war, Great Britain
claimed, and Portugal was ready to grant, passage of troops through Portuguese territory in South
Africa. See below, vol. II. §§ 306 and 323; Clauss, pp. 212-217; and Dumas in R.G. XVI. (1909),
pp. 289-316.

Extinction of State Servitudes.

§ 208. State servitudes are extinguished by agreement between the States
concerned, or by express or tacit[394] renunciation on the part of the State in
whose interest they were created. They are not, according to the correct
opinion, extinguished by reason of the territory involved coming under the
territorial supremacy of another State. But it is difficult to understand why,
although State servitudes are called into existence through treaties, it is
sometimes maintained that the clause rebus sic stantibus[395] cannot be
applied in case a vital change of circumstances makes the exercise of a
State servitude unbearable. It is a matter of course that in such case the
restricted State must previously try to come to terms with the State which is
the subject of the servitude. But if an agreement cannot be arrived at on
account of the unreasonableness of the other party, the clause rebus sic
stantibus may well be resorted to.[396] The fact that the practice of the States
does not provide any example of an appeal to this clause for the purpose of
doing away with a State servitude proves only that such appeal has hitherto
been unnecessary.
[394] See Bluntschli, § 359 b. The opposition of Clauss (p. 219) and others to this sound
statement of Bluntschli's is not justified.
[395] See below, § 539.
[396] See Bluntschli, § 359 d, and Pradier-Fodéré, II. No. 845. Clauss (p. 222) and others oppose
this sound statement likewise.

XI
MODES OF ACQUIRING STATE TERRITORY
 Vattel, I. §§ 203-207—Hall, § 31—Westlake, I. pp. 84-116—Lawrence, §§ 74-78—
Phillimore, I. §§ 222-225—Twiss, I. §§ 113-139—Halleck, I. p. 154—Taylor, §§ 217-228
—Wheaton, §§ 161-163—Bluntschli, §§ 278-295—Hartmann, § 61—Heffter, § 69—
Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 252-255—Gareis, § 76—Liszt, § 10—Ullmann, § 92
—Bonfils, No. 532—Despagnet, No. 378—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 781-787—Mérignhac,
II. pp. 410-412—Rivier, I. § 12—Nys, II. pp. 1-3—Calvo, I. § 263—Fiore, I. Nos. 838-840
—Martens, I. § 90—Heimburger, "Der Erwerb der Gebietshoheit" (1888).

Who can acquire State Territory?

§ 209. Since States only and exclusively are subjects of the Law of
Nations, it is obvious that, as far as the Law of Nations is concerned,
States[397] solely can acquire State territory. But the acquisition of territory
by an existing State and member of the Family of Nations must not be
confounded, first, with the foundation of a new State, and, secondly, with
the acquisition of such territory and sovereignty over it by private
individuals or corporations as lies outside the dominion of the Law of
Nations.
[397] There is no doubt that no full-Sovereign State is, as a rule, prevented by the Law of
Nations from acquiring more territory than it already owns, unless some treaty arrangement
precludes it from so doing. As regards the question whether a neutralised State is, by its
neutralisation, prevented from acquiring territory, see above, § 96, and below, § 215.
(1) Whenever a multitude of individuals, living on or entering into such a
part of the surface of the globe as does not belong to the territory of any
member of the Family of Nations, constitute themselves as a State and
nation on that part of the globe, a new State comes into existence. This
State is not, by reason of its birth, a member of the Family of Nations. The
formation of a new State is, as will be remembered from former statements,
[398]
a matter of fact, and not of law. It is through recognition, which is a
matter of law, that such new State becomes a member of the Family of
Nations and a subject of International Law. As soon as recognition is given,
the new State's territory is recognised as the territory of a subject of
International Law, and it matters not how this territory was acquired before
the recognition.
[398] See above, § 71.
(2) Not essentially different is the case in which a private individual or a
corporation acquires land with sovereignty over it in countries which are
not under the territorial supremacy of a member of the Family of Nations.
The actual proceeding in all such cases is that all such acquisition is made
either by occupation of hitherto uninhabited land, for instance an island, or
by cession from a native tribe living on the land. Acquisition of territory
and sovereignty thereon in such cases takes place outside the dominion of
the Law of Nations, and the rules of this law, therefore, cannot be applied. If
the individual or corporation which has made the acquisition requires
protection by the Law of Nations, they must either declare a new State to be
in existence and ask for its recognition by the Powers, as in the case of the
former Congo Free State,[399] or they must ask a member of the Family of
Nations to acknowledge the acquisition as made on its behalf.[400]
[399] See above, § 101. The case of Sir James Brooke, who acquired in 1841 Sarawak, in North
Borneo, and established an independent State there, of which he became the Sovereign, may also
be cited. Sarawak is under English protectorate, but the successor of Sir James Brooke is still
recognised as Sovereign.
[400] The matter is treated with great lucidity by Heimburger, pp. 44-77, who defends the
opinion represented in the text against Sir Travers Twiss (I. Preface, p. x.; also in R.I. XV. p. 547,
and XVI. p. 237) and other writers. See also Ullmann, § 93.

Former Doctrine concerning Acquisition of Territory.

§ 210. No unanimity exists among writers on the Law of Nations with
regard to the modes of acquiring territory on the part of the members of the
Family of Nations. The topic owes its controversial character to the fact that
the conception of State territory has undergone a great change since the
appearance of the science of the Law of Nations. When Grotius created that
science, State territory used to be still, as in the Middle Ages, more or less
identified with the private property of the monarch of the State. Grotius and
his followers applied, therefore, the rules of Roman Law concerning the
acquisition of private property to the acquisition of territory by States.[401]
As nowadays, as far as International Law is concerned, every analogy to
private property has disappeared from the conception of State territory, the
acquisition of territory by a State can mean nothing else than the acquisition
of sovereignty over such territory. It is obvious that under these
circumstances the rules of Roman Law concerning the acquisition of private
property can no longer be applied. Yet the fact that they have been applied
in the past has left traces which can hardly be obliterated; and they need not
be obliterated, since they contain a good deal of truth in agreement with the
actual facts. But the different modes of acquiring territory must be taken
from the real practice of the States, and not from Roman Law, although the
latter's terminology and common-sense basis may be made use of.
[401]
See above, § 168. The distinction between imperium and dominium in Seneca's dictum that
"omnia rex imperio possidet, singuli dominio" was well known, and Grotius, II. c. 3, § 4, quotes
 it, but the consequences thereof were nevertheless not deduced. (See Westlake, Chapters, pp. 129-
133, and Westlake, I. pp. 84-88.)

What Modes of Acquisition of Territory there are.

§ 211. States as living organisms grow and decrease in territory. If the
historical facts are taken into consideration, different reasons may be found
to account for the exercise of sovereignty by a State over the different
sections of its territory. One section may have been ceded by another State,
another section may have come into the possession of the owner in
consequence of accretion, a third through subjugation, a fourth through
occupation of no State's land. As regards a fifth section, a State may say
that it has exercised its sovereignty over the same for so long a period that
the fact of having had it in undisturbed possession is a sufficient title of
ownership. Accordingly, five modes of acquiring territory may be
distinguished, namely: cession, occupation, accretion, subjugation, and
prescription. Most writers recognise these five modes. Some, however, do
not recognise prescription; some assert that accretion creates nothing else
than a modification of the territory of a State; and some do not recognise
subjugation at all, or declare it to be only a special case of occupation. It is
for these reasons that some writers recognise only two or three[402] modes of
acquiring territory. Be that as it may, all modes, besides the five mentioned,
enumerated by some writers, are in fact not special modes, but only special
cases of cession.[403] And whatever may be the value of the opinions of
publicists, so much is certain that the practice of the States recognises
cession, occupation, accretion, subjugation, and prescription as distinct
modes of acquiring territory.
[402] Thus Gareis (§ 70) recognises cession and occupation only, whereas Heimburger (pp. 106-
110) and Holtzendorff (II. p. 254) recognise cession, occupation, and accretion only.
[403] See below, § 216. Such alleged special modes are sale, exchange, gift, marriage contract,
testamentary disposition, and the like.

Original and derivative Modes of Acquisition.

§ 212. The modes of acquiring territory are correctly divided according
as the title they give is derived from the title of a prior owner State, or not.
Cession is therefore a derivative mode of acquisition, whereas occupation,
accretion, subjugation, and prescription are original modes.[404]
[404] Lawrence (§ 74) enumerates conquest (subjugation) and prescription besides cession as
derivative modes. This is, however, merely the consequence of a peculiar conception of what is
called a derivative mode of acquisition.
 XII
CESSION

Hall, § 35—Lawrence, § 76—Phillimore, I. §§ 252-273—Twiss, I. § 138—Walker, § 10—

Halleck, I. pp. 154-157—Taylor, § 227—Moore, I. §§ 83-86—Bluntschli, §§ 285-287—
Hartmann, § 61—Heffter, §§ 69 and 182—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 269-274—
Gareis, § 70—Liszt, § 10—Ullmann, §§ 97-98—Bonfils, Nos. 364-371—Mérignhac, II. pp.
487-497—Despagnet, Nos. 381-391—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 817-819—Rivier, I. pp. 197-
217—Nys, II. pp. 8-31—Calvo, I. § 266—Fiore, II. §§ 860-861, and Code, No. 1053—
Martens, I. § 91—Heimburger, "Der Erwerb der Gebietshoheit" (1888), pp. 110-120.

Conception of cession of State Territory.

§ 213. Cession of State territory is the transfer of sovereignty over State
territory by the owner State to another State. There is no doubt whatever
that such cession is possible according to the Law of Nations, and history
presents innumerable examples of such transfer of sovereignty. The
Constitutional Law of the different States may or may not lay down special
rules[405] for the transfer or acquisition of territory. Such rules can have no
direct influence upon the rules of the Law of Nations concerning cession,
since Municipal Law can neither abolish existing nor create new rules of
International Law.[406] But if such municipal rules contain constitutional
restrictions on the Government with regard to cession of territory, these
restrictions are so far important that such treaties of cession concluded by
heads of States or Governments as violate these restrictions are not binding.
[407]
 [405] See above, § 168.
[406] See above, § 21.
[407] See below, § 497.

Subjects of cession.
§ 214. Since cession is a bilateral transaction, it has two subjects—
namely, the ceding and the acquiring State. Both subjects must be States,
and only those cessions in which both subjects are States concern the Law
of Nations. Cessions of territory made to private persons and to
corporations[408] by native tribes or by States outside the dominion of the
Law of Nations do not fall within the sphere of International Law, neither
do cessions of territory by native tribes made to States[409] which are
members of the Family of Nations. On the other hand, cession of territory
made to a member of the Family of Nations by a State as yet outside that
family is real cession and a concern of the Law of Nations, since such State
becomes through the treaty of cession in some respects a member of that
family.[410]
[408] See above, § 209, No. 2.
[409] See below, §§ 221 and 222.
[410] See above, § 103.

Object of cession.
§ 215. The object of cession is sovereignty over such territory as has
hitherto already belonged to another State. As far as the Law of Nations is
concerned, every State as a rule can cede a part of its territory to another
State, or by ceding the whole of its territory can even totally merge in
another State. However, since certain parts of State territory, as for instance
rivers and the maritime belt, are inalienable appurtenances of the land, they
cannot be ceded without a piece of land.[411]
[411] See above, §§ 175 and 185.
The controverted question whether permanently neutralised parts of a not
permanently neutralised State can be ceded to another State must be
answered in the affirmative,[412] although the Powers certainly can exercise
an intervention by right. On the other hand, a permanently neutralised State
could not, except in the case of mere frontier regulation, cede a part of its
neutralised territory to another State without the consent of the Powers.[413]
Nor could a State under suzerainty or protectorate cede a part or the whole
of its territory to a third State without the consent of the superior State.
Thus, the Ionian Islands could not in 1863 have merged in Greece without
the consent of Great Britain, which exercised a protectorate over these
islands.
[412] Thus in 1860 Sardinia ceded her neutralised provinces of Chablais and Faucigny to France.
See above, §207.
[413] See above, § 96, and the literature there quoted.

Form of cession.
§ 216. The only form in which a cession can be effected is an agreement
embodied in a treaty between the ceding and the acquiring State. Such
treaty may be the outcome of peaceable negotiations or of war, and the
cession may be one with or without compensation.
If a cession of territory is the outcome of war, it is the treaty of peace
which stipulates the cession among its other provisions. Such cession is
regularly one without compensation, although certain duties may be
imposed upon the acquiring State, as, for instance, of taking over a part of
the debts of the ceding State corresponding to the extent and importance of
the ceded territory, or that of giving the individuals domiciled on the ceded
territory the option to retain their old citizenship or, at least, to emigrate.
Cessions which are the outcome of peaceable negotiations may be agreed
upon by the interested States from different motives and for different
purposes. Thus Austria, during war with Prussia and Italy in 1866, ceded
Venice to France as a gift, and some weeks afterwards France on her part
ceded Venice to Italy. The Duchy of Courland ceded in 1795 its whole
territory to and voluntarily merged thereby in Russia, in the same way the
then Free Town of Mulhouse merged in France in 1798, the Congo Free
State in Belgium in 1908, and the Empire of Korea in Japan in 1911.
Cessions have in the past often been effected by transactions which are
analogous to transactions in private business life. As long as absolutism was
reigning over Europe, it was not at all rare for territory to be ceded in
marriage contracts or by testamentary dispositions.[414] In the interest of
frontier regulations, but also for other purposes, exchanges of territory
frequently take place. Sale of territory is quite usual; as late as 1868 Russia
sold her territory in America to the United States for 7,200,000 dollars, and
in 1899 Spain sold the Caroline Islands to Germany for 25,000,000 pesetas.
Pledge and lease are also made use of. Thus, the then Republic of Genoa
pledged Corsica to France in 1768, Sweden pledged Wismar to
Mecklenburg in 1803; China[415] leased in 1898 Kiaochau to Germany,[416]
Wei-Hai-Wei and the land opposite the island of Hong Kong to Great
Britain,[417] and Port Arthur to Russia.
[414] Phillimore, I. §§ 274-276, enumerates many examples of such cession. The question
whether the monarch of a State under absolute government could nowadays by a testamentary
disposition cede territory to another State must, I believe, be answered in the affirmative.
[415] See above, § 171, No. 3. Cession may also take place under the disguise of an agreement
according to which territory comes under the "administration" or under the "use, occupation, and
control" of a foreign State. See above, § 171, Nos. 2 and 4.
[416] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXX. (1904), p. 326.
[417] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXII. (1905), pp. 89 and 90.

Whatever may be the motive and the purpose of the transaction, and
whatever may be the compensation, if any, for the cession, the ceded
territory is transferred to the new sovereign with all the international
obligations[418] locally connected with the territory (Res transit cum suo
onere, and Nemo plus juris transferre potest, quam ipse habet).
[418]How far a succession of States takes place in the case of cession of territory has been
discussed above, § 84.

Tradition of the ceded Territory.

§ 217. The treaty of cession must be followed by actual tradition of the
territory to the new owner State, unless such territory is already occupied by
the new owner, as in the case where the cession is the outcome of war and
the ceded territory has been during such war in the military occupation of
the State to which it is now ceded. But the validity of the cession does not
depend upon tradition,[419] the cession being completed by ratification of the
treaty of cession, and the capability of the new owner to cede the acquired
territory to a third State at once without taking actual possession of it.[420]
But of course the new owner State cannot exercise its territorial supremacy
thereon until it has taken physical possession of the ceded territory.
[419] This is controversial. Many writers—see, for instance, Rivier, I. p. 203—oppose the
opinion presented in the text.
[420] Thus France, to which Austria ceded in 1859 Lombardy, ceded this territory on her part to
Sardinia without previously having actually taken possession of it.

Veto of third Powers.

§ 218. As a rule, no third Power has the right of veto with regard to a
cession of territory. Exceptionally, however, such right may exist. It may be
that a third Power has by a previous treaty acquired a right of pre-emption
concerning the ceded territory, or that some early treaty has created another
obstacle to the cession, as, for instance, in the case of permanently
neutralised parts of a not-permanently neutralised State.[421] And the Powers
have certainly the right of veto in case a permanently neutralised State
desires to increase its territory by acquiring land through cession from
another State.[422] But even where no right of veto exists, a third Power
might intervene for political reasons. For there is no duty on the part of
third States to acquiesce in such cessions of territory as endanger the
balance of power or are otherwise of vital importance.[423] And a strong
State will practically always interfere in case a cession of such a kind as
menaces its vital interests is agreed upon. Thus, when in 1867 the reigning
King of Holland proposed to sell Luxemburg to France, the North German
Confederation intervened, and the cession was not effected, but Luxemburg
became permanently neutralised.
[421] See above. § 215.
[422] See above, §§ 209 and 215.
[423] See above, § 136.

Plebiscite and option.

§ 219. As the object of cession is sovereignty over the ceded territory, all
such individuals domiciled thereon as are subjects of the ceding State
become ipso facto by the cession subjects[424] of the acquiring State. The
hardship involved in the fact that in all cases of cession the inhabitants of
the territory lose their old citizenship and are handed over to a new
Sovereign whether they like it or not, has created a movement in favour of
the claim that no cession shall be valid until the inhabitants have by a
plebiscite[425] given their consent to the cession. And several treaties[426] of
cession concluded during the nineteenth century stipulate that the cession
shall only be valid provided the inhabitants consent to it through a
plebiscite. But it is doubtful whether the Law of Nations will ever make it a
condition of every cession that it must be ratified by a plebiscite.[427] The
necessities of international policy may now and then allow or even demand
such a plebiscite, but in most cases they will not allow it.
[424] See Keith, "The Theory of State Succession, &c." (1907), pp. 42-45; Cogordan, "La
Nationalité" (1890), pp. 317-400; Moore, III. § 379.
[425] See Stoerk, "Option und Plebiscite" (1879); Rivier, I. p. 204; Freudenthal, "Die
Volksabstimmung bei Gebietsabtretungen und Eroberungen" (1891); Bonfils, No. 570; Despagnet,
No. 391; Ullmann, § 97.
 [426] See Rivier, I. p. 210, where all these treaties are enumerated.
[427] Although Grotius (II. c. VI. § 4) taught this to be necessary.
The hardship of the inhabitants being handed over to a new Sovereign
against their will can be lessened by a stipulation in the treaty of cession
binding the acquiring State to give the inhabitants of the ceded territory the
option of retaining their old citizenship on making an express declaration.
Many treaties of cession concluded during the second half of the nineteenth
century contain this stipulation. But it must be emphasised that, failing a
stipulation expressly forbidding it, the acquiring State may expel those
inhabitants who have made use of the option and retained their old
citizenship, since otherwise the whole population of the ceded territory
might actually consist of aliens and endanger the safety of the acquiring
State.
The option to emigrate within a certain period, which is frequently
stipulated in favour of the inhabitants of ceded territory, is another means of
averting the charge that inhabitants are handed over to a new Sovereign
against their will. Thus article 2 of the Peace Treaty of Frankfort, 1871,
which ended the Franco-German war, stipulated that the French inhabitants
of the ceded territory of Alsace and Lorraine should up to October 1, 1872,
enjoy the privilege of transferring their domicile from the ceded territory to
French soil.[428]
[428] The important question whether subjects of the ceding States who are born on the ceded
territory but have their domicile abroad become ipso facto by the cession subjects of the acquiring
State, must, I think, be answered in the negative, unless special treaty arrangements stipulate the
contrary. Therefore, Frenchmen born in Alsace but domiciled at the time of the cession in Great
Britain, would not have lost their French citizenship through the cession to Germany but for
article 1, part 2, of the additional treaty of Dec. 11, 1871, to the Peace Treaty of Frankfort.
(Martens, N.R.G. XX. p. 847.) See Bonfils, No. 427, and Cogordan, "La Nationalité, &c." (1890),
p. 361.

XIII
OCCUPATION

Hall, §§ 32-34—Westlake, I. pp. 96-111, 119-133—Lawrence, § 74—Phillimore, I. §§ 236-

250—Twiss, I. §§ 118-126—Halleck, I. p. 154—Taylor, §§ 221-224—Walker, § 9—
Wharton, I. § 2—Moore, I. §§ 80-81—Wheaton, §§ 165-174—Bluntschli, §§ 278-283—
Hartmann, § 61—Heffter, § 70—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 255-266—Gareis, §
70—Liszt, § 10—Ullmann, §§ 93-96—Bonfils, Nos. 536-563—Despagnet, Nos. 329-399
—Mérignhac, II. pp. 419-487—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 784-802—Rivier, I. pp. 188-197—
Nys, II. pp. 47-108—Calvo, I. §§ 266-282—Fiore, II. Nos. 841-849, and Code, Nos. 1054-
 1067—Martens, I. § 90—Tartarin, "Traité de l'occupation" (1873)—Westlake, Chapters, pp.
155-187—Heimburger, "Der Erwerb der Gebietshoheit" (1888), pp. 103-155—Salomon,
"L'occupation des territoires sans maître" (1889)—Jèze, "Étude théorique et pratique sur
l'occupation, &c." (1896)—Macdonell in the Journal of the Society of Comparative
Legislation, New Series, I. (1899), pp. 276-286—Waultrin in R.G. XV. (1908), pp. 78, 185,
401.

Conception of Occupation.
§ 220. Occupation is the act of appropriation by a State through which it
intentionally acquires sovereignty over such territory as is at the time not
under the sovereignty of another State. Occupation as a mode of acquisition
differs from subjugation[429] chiefly in so far as the conquered and
afterwards annexed territory has hitherto belonged to another State. Again,
occupation differs from cession in so far as through cession the acquiring
State receives sovereignty over the respective territory from the former
owner State. In contradistinction to cession, which is a derivative mode of
acquisition, occupation is therefore an original mode. And it must be
emphasised that occupation can only take place by and for a State;[430] it
must be a State act, that is, it must be performed in the service of a State, or
it must be acknowledged by a State after its performance.
[429] See below, § 236.
[430] See above, § 209.

Object of Occupation.
§ 221. Only such territory can be the object of occupation as is no State's
land, whether entirely uninhabited, as e.g. an island, or inhabited by natives
whose community is not to be considered as a State. Even civilised
individuals may live and have private property on a territory without any
union by them into a State proper which exercises sovereignty over such
territory. And natives may live on a territory under a tribal organisation
which need not be considered a State proper. But a part or the whole of the
territory of any State, even although such State is entirely outside the
Family of Nations, is not a possible object of occupation, and it can only be
acquired through cession[431] or subjugation. On the other hand, a territory
which belonged at one time to a State but has been afterwards abandoned, is
a possible object for occupation on the part of another State.[432]
[431] See above, § 214.
[432] See below, §§ 228 and 247.
 Although the Open Sea is free and is, therefore, not the object of
occupation, the subsoil[433] of the bed of the Open Sea may become the
object of occupation through driving mines and piercing tunnels from the
coast.[434]
[433] See below, §§ 287c and 287d.
[434] When, in 1909, Admiral Peary reached the North Pole and hoisted the flag of the United
States the question was discussed whether the North Pole could be the object of occupation. The
question must, I believe, be answered in the negative since there is no land on the Pole. See Scott
in A.J. III. (1909), pp. 928-941, and Balch in A.J. IV. (1910), pp. 265-275.

Occupation how effected.

§ 222. Theory and practice agree nowadays upon the rule that occupation
is effected through taking possession of and establishing an administration
over the territory in the name of and for the acquiring State. Occupation
thus effected is real occupation, and, in contradistinction to fictitious
occupation, is named effective occupation. Possession and administration
are the two essential facts that constitute an effective occupation.
(1) The territory must really be taken into possession by the occupying
State. For this purpose it is necessary that the respective State should take
the territory under its sway (corpus) with the intention to acquire
sovereignty over it (animus). This can only be done by a settlement on the
territory accompanied by some formal act which announces both that the
territory has been taken possession of and that the possessor intends to keep
it under his sovereignty. The necessary formal act is usually performed
either by the publication of a proclamation or by the hoisting of a flag. But
such formal act by itself constitutes fictitious occupation only, unless there
is left on the territory a settlement which is able to keep up the authority of
the flag. On the other hand, it is irrelevant whether or not some agreement
is made with the natives by which they submit themselves to the sway of
the occupying State. Any such agreement is usually neither understood nor
appreciated by them, and even if the natives really do understand the
meaning, such agreements have a moral value only.[435]
[435] If an agreement with natives were legally important, the respective territory would be
acquired by cession, and not by occupation. But although it is nowadays quite usual to obtain a
cession from a native chief, this is, nevertheless, not cession in the technical sense of the term in
International Law; see above, § 214.
(2) After having, in the aforementioned way, taken possession of a
territory, the possessor must establish some kind of administration thereon
which shows that the territory is really governed by the new possessor. If
within a reasonable time after the act of taking possession the possessor
does not establish some responsible authority which exercises governing
functions, there is then no effective occupation, since in fact no sovereignty
of a State is exercised over the territory.
Inchoate Title of Discovery.
§ 223. In former times the two conditions of possession and
administration which now make the occupation effective were not
considered necessary for the acquisition of territory through occupation. In
the age of the discoveries, States maintained that the fact of discovering a
hitherto unknown territory was sufficient reason for considering it as
acquired through occupation by the State in whose service the discoverer
made his explorations. And although later on a real taking possession of the
territory was considered necessary for its occupation, it was not until the
eighteenth century that the writers on the Law of Nations postulated an
effective occupation as necessary,[436] and it was not until the nineteenth
century that the practice of the States accorded with this postulate. But
although nowadays discovery does not constitute acquisition through
occupation, it is nevertheless not without importance. It is agreed that
discovery gives to the State in whose service it was made an inchoate title;
it "acts as a temporary bar to occupation by another State"[437] within such a
period as is reasonably sufficient for effectively occupying the discovered
territory. If such period lapses without any attempt by the discovering State
to turn its inchoate title into a real title of occupation, such inchoate title
perishes, and any other State can now acquire the territory by means of an
effective occupation.
[436] See Vattel, I. § 208.
[437] Thus Hall, § 32.

Notification of Occupation to other Powers.

§ 224. No rule of the Law of Nations exists which makes notification of
occupation to other Powers a necessary condition of its validity. But as
regards all future occupations on the African coast the Powers assembled at
the Berlin Congo Conference in 1884-1885 have by article 34 of the
General Act[438] of this Conference stipulated that occupation shall be
notified to one another, so that such notification is now a condition of the
validity of certain occupations in Africa. And there is no doubt that in time
this rule will either by custom or by treaty be extended from occupations on
the African coast to occupations everywhere else.
[438] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. X. p. 426.

Extent of Occupation.
§ 225. Since an occupation is valid only if effective, it is obvious that the
extent of an occupation ought only to reach over so much territory as is
effectively occupied. In practice, however, the interested States have neither
in the past nor in the present acted in conformity with such a rule; on the
contrary, they have always tried to attribute to their occupation a much
wider area. Thus it has been maintained that an effective occupation of the
land at the mouth of a river is sufficient to bring under the sovereignty of
the occupying State the whole territory through which such river and its
tributaries run up to the very crest of the watershed.[439] Again, it has been
maintained that, when a coast line has been effectively occupied, the extent
of the occupation reaches up to the watershed of all such rivers as empty
into the coast line.[440] And it has, thirdly, been asserted that effective
occupation of a territory extends the sovereignty of the possessor also over
neighbouring territories as far as it is necessary for the integrity, security,
and defence of the really occupied land.[441] But all these and other fanciful
assertions have no basis to rest upon. In truth, no general rule can be laid
down beyond the above, that occupation reaches as far as it is effective.
How far it is effective is a question of the special case. It is obvious that
when the agent of a State takes possession of a territory and makes a
settlement on a certain spot of it, he intends thereby to acquire a vast area
by his occupation. Everything depends, therefore, upon the fact how far
around the settlement or settlements the established responsible authority
that governs the territory in the name of the possessor succeeds in gradually
extending the established sovereignty. The payment of a tribute on the part
of tribes settled far away, the fact that flying columns of the military or the
police sweep, when necessary, remote spots, and many other facts, can
show how far round the settlements the possessor is really able to assert the
established authority. But it will always be difficult to mark exactly in this
way the boundary of an effective occupation, since naturally the tendency
prevails to extend the sway constantly and gradually over a wider area. It is,
therefore, a well-known fact that disputes concerning the boundaries of
occupations can only rarely be decided on the basis of strict law; they must
nearly always be compromised, whether by a treaty or by arbitration.[442]
[439] Claim of the United States in the Oregon Boundary dispute (1827) with Great Britain. See
Twiss, I. §§ 126 and 127, and his "The Oregon Question Examined" (1846); Phillimore, I. § 250;
Hall, § 34.
[440] Claim of the United States in their dispute with Spain concerning the boundary of
Louisiana (1803), approved of by Twiss, I. § 125.
[441] This is the so-called "right of contiguity," approved of by Twiss, I. §§ 124 and 131.
[442] The Institute of International Law, in 1887, at its meeting in Lausanne, adopted a "Projet
de déclaration internationale relatif aux occupations de territoires," comprising ten articles; see
Annuaire, X. p. 201.

Protectorate as Precursor of Occupation.

§ 226. The growing desire to acquire vast territories as colonies on the
part of States unable at once to occupy effectively such territories has, in the
second half of the nineteenth century, led to the contracting of agreements
with the chiefs of natives inhabiting unoccupied territories, by which these
chiefs commit themselves to the "protectorate" of States that are members
of the Family of Nations. These so-called protectorates are certainly not
protectorates in the technical sense of the term designating the relation that
exists between a strong and a weak State through a treaty by which the
weak State surrenders itself into the protection of the strong and transfers to
the latter the management of its more important international relations.[443]
Neither can they be compared with the protectorate of members of the
Family of Nations exercised over such non-Christian States as are outside
that family,[444] because the respective chiefs of natives are not the heads of
States, but heads of tribal communities only. Such agreements, although
they are named "Protectorates," are nothing else than steps taken to exclude
other Powers from occupying the respective territories. They give, like
discovery, an inchoate title, and are preparations and precursors of future
occupations.
[443] See above, §§ 92 and 93.
[444] See above, § 94.

Spheres of influence.
§ 227. The uncertainty of the extent of an occupation and the tendency of
every colonising State to extend its occupation constantly and gradually
into the interior, the "Hinterland," of an occupied territory, has led several
States which have colonies in Africa to secure for themselves "spheres of
influence" by international treaties with other interested Powers. Spheres of
influence are therefore the names of such territories as are exclusively
reserved for future occupation on the part of a Power which has effectively
occupied adjoining territories. In this way disputes are avoided for the
future, and the interested Powers can gradually extend their sovereignty
over vast territories without coming into conflict with other Powers. Thus,
to give some examples, Great Britain has concluded treaties regarding
spheres of influence with Portugal[445] in 1890, with Italy[446] in 1891, with
Germany[447] in 1886 and 1890, and with France[448] in 1898.[449]
[445] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XVIII. p. 558.
[446] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XVIII. p. 175.
[447] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XII. p. 298, and XVI. p. 895.
[448] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXIX. p. 116.
[449] Protectorates and Spheres of Influence are exhaustively treated in Hall, "Foreign Powers
and Jurisdiction of the British Crown," §§ 92-100; but Hall fails to distinguish between
protectorates over Eastern States and protectorates over native tribes.
 Consequences of Occupation.
§ 228. As soon as a territory is occupied by a member of the Family of
Nations, it comes within the sphere of the Law of Nations, because it
constitutes a portion of the territory of a subject of International Law. No
other Power can acquire it hereafter through occupation, unless the present
possessor has either intentionally withdrawn from it or has been
successfully driven away by the natives without making efforts, or without
capacity, to re-occupy it.[450] On the other hand, the Power which now
exercises sovereignty over the occupied territory is hereafter responsible for
all events of international importance on the territory. Such Power has in
especial to keep up a certain order among the native tribes in order to
restrain them from acts of violence against neighbouring territories, and has
eventually to punish them for such acts.
[450] See below, § 247.
A question of some importance is how far occupation affects private
property of the inhabitants of the occupied territory. As according to the
modern conception of State territory the latter is not identical with private
property of the State, occupation brings a territory under the sovereignty
only of the occupying State, and therefore in no wise touches or affects
existing private property of the inhabitants. In the age of the discoveries,
occupation was indeed considered to include a title to property over the
whole occupied land, but nowadays this can no longer be maintained. Being
now their sovereign, the occupying State may impose any burdens it likes
on its new subjects, and may, therefore, even confiscate their private
property; but occupation as a mode of acquiring territory does not of itself
touch or affect private property thereon. If the Municipal Law of the
occupying State does give a title to private property over the whole
occupied land, such title is not based on International Law.

XIV
ACCRETION

Grotius, II. c. 8, §§ 8-16—Hall, § 37—Lawrence, § 75—Phillimore, I. §§ 240-241—Twiss, I.

§§ 131 and 154—Moore, I. § 82—Bluntschli, §§ 294-295—Hartmann, § 61—Heffter, § 69
—Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 266-268—Gareis, § 20—Liszt, § 10—Ullmann, §
92—Bonfils, No. 533—Despagnet, No. 387—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 803-816—Rivier, I.
 pp. 179-180—Nys, II. pp. 3-7—Calvo, I. § 266—Fiore, II. No. 852, and Code, Nos. 1068-
1070—Martens, I. § 90—Heimburger, "Der Erwerb der Gebietshoheit" (1888), p. 107.

Conception of Accretion.
§ 229. Accretion is the name for the increase of land through new
formations. Such new formations may be a modification only of the
existing State territory, as, for instance, where an island rises within such
river or a part of it as is totally within the territory of one and the same
State; and in such case there is no increase of territory to correspond with
the increase of land. On the other hand, many new formations occur which
really do enlarge the territory of the State to which they accrue, as, for
instance, where an island rises within the maritime belt. And it is a
customary rule of the Law of Nations that enlargement of territory, if any,
created through new formations, takes place ipso facto by the accretion,
without the State concerned taking any special step for the purpose of
extending its sovereignty. Accretion must, therefore, be considered as a
mode of acquiring territory.
Different kinds of Accretion.
§ 230. New formations through accretion may be artificial or natural.
They are artificial if they are the outcome of human work. They are natural
if they are produced through operation of nature. And within the circle of
natural formations different kinds must again be distinguished—namely,
alluvions, deltas, new-born islands, and abandoned river beds.
Artificial Formations.
§ 231. Artificial formations are embankments, breakwaters, dykes, and
the like, built along the river or the coast-line of the sea. As such artificial
new formations along the bank of a boundary river may more or less push
the volume of water so far as to encroach upon the other bank of the river,
and as no State is allowed to alter the natural condition of its own territory
to the disadvantage[451] of the natural conditions of a neighbouring State
territory, a State cannot build embankments, and the like, of such kind
without a previous agreement with the neighbouring State. But every State
may construct such artificial formations as far into the sea beyond the low-
water mark as it likes, and thereby gain considerably in land and also in
territory, since the extent of the at least three miles wide maritime belt is
now to be measured from the extended shore.
 [451] See above, § 127.

Alluvions.
§ 232. Alluvion is the name for an accession of land washed up on the
sea-shore or on a river-bank by the waters. Such accession is as a rule
produced by a slow and gradual process, but sometimes also through a
sudden act of violence, the stream detaching a portion of the soil from one
bank of a river, carrying it over to the other bank, and embedding it there so
as to be immovable (avulsio). Through alluvions the land and also the
territory of a State may be considerably enlarged. For, if the alluvion takes
place on the shore, the extent of the territorial maritime belt is now to be
measured from the extended shore. And, if the alluvion takes place on the
one bank of a boundary river, and the course of the river is thereby naturally
so altered that the waters in consequence cover a part of the other bank, the
boundary line, which runs through the middle or through the mid-channel,
[452]
may thereby be extended into former territory of the other riparian
State.
[452] See above, § 199, No. 1.

Deltas.
§ 233. Similar to alluvions are Deltas. Delta is the name for a tract of
land at the mouth of a river shaped like the Greek letter Δ, which land owes
its existence to a gradual deposit by the river of sand, stones, and earth on
one particular place at its mouth. As the Deltas are continually increasing,
the accession of land they produce may be very considerable, and such
accession is, according to the Law of Nations, considered an accretion to
the land of the State to whose territory the mouth of the respective river
belongs, although the Delta may be formed outside the territorial maritime
belt. It is evident that in the latter case an increase of territory is the result,
since the at least three miles wide maritime belt is now to be measured from
the shore of the Delta.

New-born Islands.
§ 234. The same and other natural processes which create alluvions on
the shore and banks, and Deltas at the mouths of rivers, lead to the birth of
new islands. If they rise on the High Seas outside the territorial maritime
belt, they are no State's land, and may be acquired through occupation on
the part of any State. But if they rise in rivers, lakes, and within the
maritime belt, they are, according to the Law of Nations, considered
accretions to the neighbouring land. It is for this reason that such new
islands in boundary rivers as rise within the boundary line of one of the
riparian States accrue to the land of such State, and that, on the other hand,
such islands as rise upon the boundary line are divided into parts by it, the
respective parts accruing to the land of the riparian States concerned. If an
island rises within the territorial maritime belt, it accrues to the land of the
littoral State, and the extent of the maritime belt is now to be measured
from the shore of the new-born island.
An illustrative example is the case[453] of the Anna. In 1805, during war
between Great Britain and Spain, the British privateer Minerva captured the
Spanish vessel Anna near the mouth of the River Mississippi. When brought
before the British Prize Court, the United States claimed the captured vessel
on the ground that she was captured within the American territorial
maritime belt. Lord Stowell gave judgment in favour of this claim, because,
although it appeared that the capture did actually take place more than three
miles off the coast of the continent, the place of capture was within three
miles of some small mud-islands composed of earth and trees drifted down
into the sea.
[453] See 5 C. Rob. 373.

Abandoned Riverbeds.
§ 235. It happens sometimes that a river abandons its bed entirely or dries
up altogether. If such river was a boundary river, the abandoned bed is now
the natural boundary. But often the old boundary line cannot be ascertained,
and in such cases the boundary line is considered to run through the middle
of the abandoned bed, and the portions ipso facto accrue to the land of the
riparian States, although the territory of one of these States may become
thereby enlarged, and that of the other diminished.

XV
SUBJUGATION

Vattel, III. §§ 199-203—Hall, §§ 204-205—Lawrence, § 77—Halleck, II. pp. 467-498—

Taylor, § 220—Walker, § 11—Wheaton, § 165—Moore, I. § 87—Bluntschli, §§ 287-289,
701-702—Heffter, § 178—Liszt, § 10—Ullmann, §§ 92 and 97—Bonfils, No. 535—
Despagnet, Nos. 387-390—Rivier, I. pp. 181-182, II. 436-441—Nys, II. pp. 40-46—Calvo,
V. §§ 3117, 3118—Fiore, II. No. 863, III. No. 1693, and Code, Nos. 1078-1081—Martens,
 I. § 91—Holtzendorff, "Eroberung und Eroberungsrecht" (1871)—Heimburger, "Der
Erwerb der Gebietshoheit" (1888), pp. 121-132—Westlake in The Law Quarterly Review,
XVII. (1901), p. 392.

Conception of Conquest and of Subjugation.

§ 236. Conquest is the taking possession of enemy territory through
military force in time of war. Conquest alone does not ipso facto make the
conquering State the sovereign of the conquered territory, although such
territory comes through conquest for the time under the sway of the
conqueror. Conquest is only a mode of acquisition if the conqueror, after
having firmly established the conquest, formally annexed the territory. Such
annexation makes the enemy State cease to exist and thereby brings the war
to an end. And as such ending of war is named subjugation, it is conquest
followed by subjugation, and not conquest alone, which gives a title and is a
mode of acquiring territory.[454] It is, however, quite usual to speak of
conquest as a title, and everybody knows that subjugation after conquest is
thereby meant. But it must be specially mentioned that, if a belligerent
conquers a part of the enemy territory and makes afterwards the vanquished
State cede the conquered territory in the treaty of peace, the mode of
acquisition is not subjugation but cession.[455]
[454] Concerning the distinction between conquest and subjugation, see below, vol. II. § 264.
[455] See above, §§ 216 and 219.

Subjugation in Contradistinction to Occupation.

§ 237. Some writers[456] maintain that subjugation is only a special case of
occupation, because, as they assert, through conquest the enemy territory
becomes no State's land and the conqueror can acquire it by turning his
military occupation into absolute occupation. Yet this opinion cannot be
upheld, because military occupation, which is conquest, in no way makes
enemy territory no State's land. Conquered enemy territory, although
actually in possession and under the sway of the conqueror, remains legally
under the sovereignty of the enemy until through annexation it comes under
the sovereignty of the conqueror. Annexation turns the conquest into
subjugation. It is the very annexation which uno actu makes the vanquished
State cease to exist and brings the territory under the conqueror's
sovereignty. Thus the subjugated territory has not for one moment been no
State's land, but comes from the enemy's into the conqueror's sovereignty,
although not through cession, but through annexation.
 [456] Holtzendorff, II. p. 255; Heimburger, p. 128; Salomon, p. 24.

Justification of Subjugation as a Mode of Acquisition.

§ 238. As long as a Law of Nations has been in existence, the States as
well as the vast majority of writers have recognised subjugation as a mode
of acquiring territory. Its justification lies in the fact that war is a contention
between States for the purpose of overpowering one another. States which
go to war know beforehand that they risk more or less their very existence,
and that it may be a necessity for the victor to annex the conquered enemy
territory, be it in the interest of national unity or of safety against further
attacks, or for other reasons. One must hope that the time will come when
war will disappear entirely, but, as long as war exists, subjugation will also
be recognised. If some writers[457] refuse to recognise subjugation at all as a
mode of acquiring territory, they show a lack of insight into the historical
development of States and nations.[458]
[457] Bonfils, No. 535; Fiore, II. No. 863, III. No. 1693, and Code N. See also Despagnet, Nos.
387-390.
[458] It should be mentioned that the Pan-American Congress at Washington, 1890, passed a
resolution that conquest should hereafter not be a mode of acquisition of territory in America; see
Moore, I. § 87.

Subjugation of the whole or of a part of Enemy Territory.

§ 239. Subjugation is as a rule a mode of acquiring the entire enemy
territory. The actual process is regularly that the victor destroys the enemy
military forces, takes possession of the enemy territory, and then annexes it,
although the head and the Government of the extinguished State might have
fled, might protest, and still keep up a claim. Thus after the war with
Austria and her allies in 1866, Prussia subjugated the territories of the
Duchy of Nassau, the Kingdom of Hanover, the Electorate of Hesse-Cassel,
and the Free Town of Frankfort-on-the-Main; and Great Britain subjugated
in 1900 the territories of the Orange Free State and the South African
Republic.
But it is possible, although it will nowadays hardly occur, for a State to
conquer and annex a part of enemy territory, whether the war ends by a
Treaty of Peace in which the vanquished State, without ceding the
conquered territory, submits silently[459] to the annexation, or by simple
cessation of hostilities.[460]
[459] See below, vol. II. § 273.
 [460] See below, vol. II. § 263.
It must, however, be emphasised that such a mode of acquiring a part of
enemy territory is totally different from forcibly taking possession of a part
thereof during the continuance of war. Such a conquest, although the
conqueror may intend to keep the conquered territory and therefore annex
it, is not a title as long as the war has not terminated either actually through
simple cessation of hostilities or through a Treaty of Peace. Therefore, the
practice, which sometimes prevails, of annexing a conquered part of enemy
territory during war cannot be approved. Concerning subjugation either of
the whole or of a part of enemy territory, it must be asserted that annexation
gives a title only after a firmly established conquest. So long as war
continues, conquest is not firmly established.[461]
[461] See below, vol. II. § 60, concerning guerilla war after the termination of real war. Many
writers, however, deny that a conquest is firmly established as long as guerilla war is going on.

Consequences of Subjugation.
§ 240. Although subjugation is an original mode of acquisition, since the
sovereignty of the new acquirer is not derived from that of the former
owner State, the new owner State is nevertheless the successor of the
former owner State as regards many points which have been discussed
above (§ 82). It must be specially mentioned that, as far as the Law of
Nations is concerned, the subjugator does not acquire the private property
of the inhabitants of the annexed territory. Being now their Sovereign, the
subjugating State may indeed impose any burdens it pleases on its new
subjects, it may even confiscate their private property, since a Sovereign
State can do what it likes with its subjects, but subjugation itself does not by
International Law touch or affect private property.
As regards the national status of the subjects of the subjugated State,
doctrine and practice agree that such enemy subjects as are domiciled on
the annexed territory and remain there after annexation become ipso facto
by the subjugation[462] subjects of the subjugator. But the national status of
such enemy subjects as are domiciled abroad and do not return, and further
of such as leave the country before the annexation or immediately
afterwards, is matter of dispute. Some writers maintain that these
individuals do in spite of their absence become subjects of the subjugator,
others emphatically deny it. Whereas the practice of the United States of
America seems to be in conformity with the latter opinion,[463] the practice
of Prussia in 1866 was in conformity with the former. Thus in the case of
Count Platen-Hallermund, a Cabinet Minister of King George V. of
Hanover, who left Hanover with his King before the annexation in 1866 and
was in 1868 prosecuted for high treason before the Supreme Prussian Court
at Berlin, this Court decided that the accused had become a Prussian subject
through the annexation of Hanover.[464] I believe that a distinction must be
made between those individuals who leave the country before and those
who leave it after annexation. The former are not under the sway of the
subjugator at the time of annexation, and, since the personal supremacy of
their home State terminates with the latter's extinction through annexation,
they would seem to be outside the sovereignty of the subjugator. But those
individuals who leave the country after annexation leave it at a time when
they have become subjects of the new Sovereign, and they therefore remain
such subjects even after they have left the country, for there is no rule of the
Law of Nations in existence which obliges a subjugator to grant the
privilege of emigration[465] to the inhabitants of the conquered territory.
[462] See Hall v. Campbell (1774), 1 Cowper 1208, and United States v. Repentigny (1866), 5
Wallace, 211. The case is similar to that of cession: see above, § 219; Keith, "The Theory of State
Succession" (1907), pp. 45 and 48; Moore, III. § 379.
[463] See Halleck, II. p. 476.
[464] See Halleck, II. p. 476, on the one hand, and, on the other, Rivier, II. p. 436. Valuable
opinions of Zachariae and Neumann, who deny that Count Platen was a Prussian subject, are
printed in the "Deutsche Strafrechts-Zeitung" (1868), pp. 304-320.
[465] Both Westlake and Halleck state that the inhabitants must have a free option to stay or
leave the country; but there is no rule of International Law which imposes the duty upon a
subjugator to grant this option.
Different from the fact that enemy subjects become through annexation
subjects of the subjugator is the question what position they acquire within
the subjugating State. This question is one of Municipal, and not of
International Law. The subjugator can, if he likes, allow them to emigrate
and to renounce their newly acquired citizenship, and the Municipal Law of
the subjugating State can put them in any position it likes, can in especial
grant or refuse them the same rights as those which its citizens by birth
enjoy.

Veto of third Powers.

§ 241. Although subjugation is an original mode of acquiring territory
and no third Power has as a rule[466] a right of intervention, the conqueror
has not in fact an unlimited possibility of annexation of the territory of the
vanquished State. When the balance of power is endangered or when other
vital interests are at stake, third Powers can and will intervene, and history
records many instances of such interventions. But it must be emphasised
that the validity of the title of the subjugator does not depend upon
recognition on the part of other Powers. And a mere protest of a third Power
is of no legal weight either.
[466]But this rule has exceptions, as in the case of a State whose independence and integrity
have been guaranteed by one or more Powers.

XVI
PRESCRIPTION

Grotius, II. c. 4—Vattel, I. §§ 140-151—Hall, § 36—Westlake, I. pp. 92-94—Lawrence, § 78

—Phillimore, I. §§ 251-261—Twiss, I. § 129—Taylor, §§ 218-219—Walker, § 13—
Wheaton, § 164—Moore, I. § 88—Bluntschli, § 290—Hartmann, § 61—Heffter, § 12—
Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. p. 255—Ullmann, § 92—Bonfils, No. 534—Mérignhac,
II. p. 412—Despagnet, No. 380—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 820-829—Rivier, I. pp. 182-184
—Nys, II. pp. 34-39—Calvo, I. §§ 264-265—Fiore, II. Nos. 850-851, and Code, Nos.
1074-1077—Martens, I. § 90—G. F. Martens, §§ 70-71—Bynkershoek, "Quaestiones juris
publici," IV. c 12—Heimburger, "Der Erwerb der Gebietshoheit" (1888), pp. 140-155—
Ralston in A.J. IV. (1910), pp. 133-144.

Conception of Prescription.
§ 242. Since the existence of a science of the Law of Nations there has
always been opposition to prescription as a mode of acquiring territory.
Grotius rejected the usucaption of the Roman Law, yet adopted the same
law's immemorial prescription[467] for the Law of Nations. But whereas a
good many writers[468] still defend that standpoint, others[469] reject
prescription altogether. Again, others[470] go beyond Grotius and his
followers and do not require possession from time immemorial, but teach
that an undisturbed continuous possession can under certain conditions
produce a title for the possessor, if the possession has lasted for some length
of time.
[467] See Grotius, II. c. 4, §§ 1, 7, 9.
[468] See, for instance, Heffter, § 12; Martens, § 90.
[469] G. F. Martens, § 71; Klüber, §§ 6 and 125; Holtzendorff, II. p. 255; Ullmann, § 92.
[470] Vattel, II. § 147; Wheaton, § 165; Phillimore, I. § 259; Hall, § 36; Bluntschli, § 290;
Pradier-Fodéré, II. No. 825; Bonfils, No. 534, and many others.
This opinion would indeed seem to be correct, because it recognises
theoretically what actually goes on in practice. There is no doubt that in the
practice of the members of the Family of Nations a State is considered to be
the lawful owner even of those parts of its territory of which originally it
took possession wrongfully and unlawfully, provided only the possessor has
been in undisturbed possession for such a length of time as is necessary to
create the general conviction among the members of the Family of Nations
that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order.
Such prescription cannot be compared with the usucaption of Roman Law
because the latter required bona-fide possession, whereas the Law of
Nations recognises prescription both in cases where the State is in bona-fide
possession and in cases where it is not. The basis of prescription in
International Law is nothing else than general recognition[471] of a fact,
however unlawful in its origin, on the part of the members of the Family of
Nations. And prescription in International Law may therefore be defined as
the acquisition of sovereignty over a territory through continuous and
undisturbed exercise of sovereignty over it during such a period as is
necessary to create under the influence of historical development the
general conviction that the present condition of things is in conformity with
international order. Thus, prescription in International Law has the same
rational basis as prescription in Municipal Law—namely, the creation of
stability of order.
[471] This is pointed out with great lucidity by Heimburger, pp. 151-155; he rejects, however,
prescription as a mode of acquiring territory, maintaining that there is a customary rule of
International Law in existence according to which recognition can make good originally wrongful
possession.

Prescription how effected.

§ 243. From the conception of prescription, as above defined, it becomes
apparent that no general rule can be laid down as regards the length of time
and other circumstances which are necessary to create a title by
prescription. Everything depends upon the merits of the individual case. As
long as other Powers keep up protests and claims, the actual exercise of
sovereignty is not undisturbed, nor is there the required general conviction
that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order.
But after such protests and claims, if any, cease to be repeated, the actual
possession ceases to be disturbed, and thus under certain circumstances
matters may gradually ripen into that condition which is in conformity with
international order. The question, at what time and under what
circumstances such a condition of things arises, is not one of law but of
fact. The question, for instance, whether, although the three partitions of
Poland were wrongful and unlawful acts, Prussia, Austria, and Russia have
now a good title by prescription to hold territories which were formerly
Polish must, I doubt not, be answered in the affirmative. For all the
members of the Family of Nations have now silently acquiesced in the
present condition of things, although as late as 1846 Great Britain and
France protested against the annexation of the Republic of Cracow on the
part of Austria. In spite of the fact that the Polish nation has not yet given
up its hope of seeing a Polish State re-established on the former Polish
territory, the general conviction among the members of the Family of
Nations is that the present condition of things is in conformity with
international order. When, to give another example, a State which originally
held an island mala fide under the title by occupation, knowing well that
this land had already been occupied by another State, has succeeded in
keeping up its possession undisturbed for so long a time that the former
possessor has ceased to protest and has silently dropped the claim, the
conviction will be prevalent among the members of the Family of Nations
that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order.
These examples show why a certain number of years[472] cannot, once for
all, be fixed to create the title by prescription. There are indeed
immeasurable and imponderable circumstances and influences besides the
mere run of time[473] at work to create the conviction on the part of the
members of the Family of Nations that in the interest of stability of order
the present possessor should be considered the rightful owner of a territory.
And these circumstances and influences, which are of a political and
historical character, differ so much in the different cases that the length of
time necessary for prescription must likewise differ.
[472] Vattel (II. § 151) suggests that the members of the Family of Nations should enter into an
agreement stipulating the number of years necessary for prescription, and David Dudley Field
proposes the following rule (52) in his Outlines of an International Code: "The uninterrupted
possession of territory or other property for fifty years by a nation excludes the claim of every
other nation."
[473] Heffter's (§ 12) dictum, "Hundert Jahre Unrecht ist noch kein Tag Recht" is met by the fact
that it is not the operation of time alone, but the co-operation of other circumstances and
influences which creates the title by prescription.

XVII
LOSS OF STATE TERRITORY
 Hall, § 34—Phillimore, I. §§ 284-295—Moore, I. §§ 89 and 90—Holtzendorff in
Holtzendorff, II. pp. 274-279—Gareis, § 70—Liszt, § 10—Ullmann, § 101—Pradier-
Fodéré, II. Nos. 850-852—Rivier, I. § 13—Fiore, II. No. 865—Martens, I. § 92.

Six modes of losing State Territory.

§ 244. To the five modes of acquiring sovereignty over territory
correspond five modes of losing it—namely, cession, dereliction, operation
of nature, subjugation, prescription. But there is a sixth mode of losing
territory—namely, revolt. No special details are necessary with regard to
loss of territory through subjugation, prescription, and cession, except that it
is of some importance to repeat here that the historical cases of pledging,
leasing, and giving territory to another State to administer are in fact,
although not in strict law, nothing else than cessions[474] of territory. But
operation of nature, revolt, and dereliction must be specially discussed.
[474] See above, §§ 171 and 216.

Operation of Nature.
§ 245. Operation of nature as a mode of losing corresponds to accretion
as a mode of acquiring territory. Just as through accretion a State may
become enlarged, so it may become diminished through the disappearance
of land and other operations of nature. And the loss of territory through
operation of nature takes place ipso facto by such operation. Thus, if an
island near the shore disappears through volcanic action, the extent of the
maritime territorial belt of the respective littoral State is hereafter to be
measured from the low-water mark of the shore of the continent, instead of
from the shore of the former island. Thus, further, if through a piece of land
being detached by the current of a river from one bank and carried over to
the other bank, the river alters its course and covers now part of the land on
the bank from which such piece became detached, the territory of one of the
riparian States may decrease through the boundary line being ipso facto
transferred to the present middle or mid-channel of the river.

Revolt.
§ 246. Revolt followed by secession is a mode of losing territory to
which no mode of acquisition corresponds.[475] Revolt followed by secession
has, as history teaches, frequently been a cause of loss of territory. Thus the
Netherlands fell away from Spain in 1579, Belgium from the Netherlands in
1830, the United States of America from Great Britain in 1776, Brazil from
Portugal in 1822, the former Spanish South American States from Spain in
1810, Greece from Turkey in 1830, Cuba from Spain in 1898, Panama from
Colombia in 1903. The question at what time a loss of territory through
revolt is consummated cannot be answered once for all, since no hard-and-
fast rule can be laid down regarding the time when it can be said that a State
broken off from another has established itself safely and permanently. The
matter has, as will be remembered, been treated above (§ 74), in connection
with recognition. It may well happen that, although such a seceded State is
already recognised by a third Power, the mother country does not consider
the territory to be lost and succeeds in reconquering it.
[475]The possible case where a province revolts, secedes from the mother country, and, after
having successfully defended itself against the attempts of the latter to reconquer it, unites itself
with the territory of another State, is a case of merger by cession of the whole territory.

Dereliction.
§ 247. Dereliction as a mode of losing corresponds to occupation as a
mode of acquiring territory. Dereliction frees a territory from the
sovereignty of the present owner State. Dereliction is effected through the
owner State's complete abandonment of the territory with the intention of
withdrawing from it for ever, thus relinquishing sovereignty over it. Just as
occupation[476] requires, first, the actual taking into possession (corpus) of
territory and, secondly, the intention (animus) to acquire sovereignty over it,
so dereliction requires, first, actual abandonment of a territory, and,
secondly, the intention to give up sovereignty over it. Actual abandonment
alone does not involve dereliction as long as it must be presumed that the
owner has the will and ability to retake possession of the territory. Thus, for
instance, if the rising of natives forces a State to withdraw from a territory,
such territory is not derelict as long as the former possessor is able and
makes efforts to retake possession. It is only when a territory is really
derelict that any State may acquire it through occupation.[477] History knows
of several such cases. But very often, when such occupation of derelict
territory occurs, the former owner protests and tries to prevent the new
occupier from acquiring it. The cases of the island of Santa Lucia and of the
Delagoa Bay may be quoted as illustrations:—
[476] See above, § 222.
[477] See above, § 228.

(a) In 1639 Santa Lucia, one of the Antilles Islands, was occupied by
England, but in the following year the English settlers were massacred by
the natives. No attempt was made by England to retake the island, and
France, considering it no man's land, took possession of it in 1650. In 1664
an English force under Lord Willoughby attacked the French, drove them
into the mountains, and held the island until 1667, when the English
withdrew and the French returned from the mountains. No further step was
made by England to retake the island, but she nevertheless asserted for
many years to come that she had not abandoned it sine spe redeundi, and
that, therefore, France in 1650 had no right to consider it no man's land.
Finally, however, England resigned her claims by the Peace Treaty of Paris
of 1763.[478]
 [478] See Hall, § 34, and Moore, I. § 89.
(b) In 1823 England occupied, in consequence of a so-called cession
from native chiefs, a piece of territory at Delagoa Bay, which Portugal
claimed as part of the territory owned by her at the bay, maintaining that the
chiefs concerned were rebels. The dispute was not settled until 1875, when
the case was submitted to the arbitration of the President of France. The
award was given in favour of Portugal, since the interruption of the
Portuguese occupation in 1823 was not to be considered as abandonment of
a territory over which Portugal had exercised sovereignty for nearly three
hundred years.[479]
[479] See Hall, § 34. The text of the award is printed in Moore, "Arbitrations," V. p. 4984.

CHAPTER II
THE OPEN SEA

I
RISE OF THE FREEDOM OF THE OPEN SEA

Grotius, II. c. 2, § 3—Pufendorf, IV. c. 5, § 5—Vattel, I. §§ 279-286—Hall, § 40—Westlake,

I. pp. 161-162—Phillimore, I. §§ 172-179—Taylor, §§ 242-246—Walker, Science, pp. 163-
171—Wheaton, §§ 186-187—Hartmann, § 64—Heffter, § 73—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II.
pp. 483-490—Bonfils, Nos. 573-576—Despagnet, No. 401—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 871-
874—Nys, II. pp. 132-139—Mérignhac, II. pp. 498-505—Calvo, I. §§ 347-352—Fiore, II.
Nos. 718-726—Martens, I. § 97—Perels, § 4—Azuni, "Diritto maritimo" (1796), 1, c. I.
Article III.—Cauchy, "Le droit maritime international considéré dans ses origines," 2 vols.
(1862)—Nys, "Les origines du droit international" (1894), pp. 377-388—Castel, "Du
principe de la liberté des mers" (1900), pp. 1-15—Fulton, "The Sovereignty of the Seas"
(1911), pp. 1-56.

Former Claims to Control over the Sea.

§ 248. In antiquity and the first half of the Middle Ages navigation on the
Open Sea was free to everybody. According to Ulpianus,[480] the sea is open
to everybody by nature, and, according to Celsus,[481] the sea, like the air, is
common to all mankind. Since no Law of Nations in the modern sense of
the term existed during antiquity and the greater part of the Middle Ages,
no importance is to be attached to the pronouncement of Antoninus Pius,
Roman Emperor from 138 to 161:—"Being[482] the Emperor of the world, I
am consequently the law of the sea." Nor is it of importance that the
Emperors of the old German Empire, who were considered to be the
successors of the Roman Emperors, styled themselves among other titles
"King of the Ocean." Real claims to sovereignty over parts of the Open Sea
begin, however, to be made in the second half of the Middle Ages. And
there is no doubt whatever that at the time when the modern Law of Nations
gradually rose it was the conviction of the States that they could extend
their sovereignty over certain parts of the Open Sea. Thus, the Republic of
Venice was recognised as the Sovereign over the Adriatic Sea, and the
Republic of Genoa as the Sovereign of the Ligurian Sea. Portugal claimed
sovereignty over the whole of the Indian Ocean and of the Atlantic south of
Morocco, Spain over the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico, both Portugal and
Spain basing their claims on two Papal Bulls promulgated by Alexander VI.
in 1493, which divided the new world between these Powers. Sweden and
Denmark claimed sovereignty over the Baltic, Great Britain over the
Narrow Seas, the North Sea, and the Atlantic from the North Cape to Cape
Finisterre.
[480] L. 13, pr. D. VIII. 4: mari quod natura omnibus patet.
[481] L. 3 D. XLIII. 8: Maris communem usum omnibus hominibus ut aeris.
[482] L. 9 D. XIV. 2: ἐγὼ μὲν τοῦ κόσμου κύριος, ὁ δὲ νόμος τῆς θαλάσσης.

These claims have been more or less successfully asserted for several
hundreds of years. They were favoured by a number of different
circumstances, such as the maintenance of an effective protection against
piracy for instance. And numerous examples can be adduced which show
that such claims have more or less been recognised. Thus, Frederick III.,
Emperor of Germany, had in 1478 to ask the permission of Venice for a
transportation of corn from Apulia through the Adriatic Sea.[483] Thus, Great
Britain in the seventeenth century compelled foreigners to take out an
English licence for fishing in the North Sea; and when in 1636 the Dutch
attempted to fish without such licence, they were attacked and compelled to
pay £30,000 as the price for the indulgence.[484] Again, when Philip II. of
Spain was in 1554 on his way to England to marry Queen Mary, the British
Admiral, who met him in the "British Seas," fired on his ship for flying the
Spanish flag. And the King of Denmark, when returning from a visit to
James I. in 1606, was forced by a British captain, who met him off the
mouth of the Thames, to strike the Danish flag.
[483] See Walker, "History," I. p. 163.
[484] This and the two following examples are quoted by Hall, § 40.
 Practical Expression of claims to Maritime Sovereignty.
§ 249. Maritime sovereignty found expression in maritime ceremonials at
least. Such State as claimed sovereignty over a part of the Open Sea
required foreign vessels navigating on that part to honour its flag[485] as a
symbol of recognition of its sovereignty. So late as 1805 the British
Admiralty Regulations contained an order[486] to the effect that "when any of
His Majesty's ships shall meet with the ships of any foreign Power within
His Majesty's Seas (which extend to Cape Finisterre), it is expected that the
said foreign ships do strike their topsail and take in their flag, in
acknowledgment of His Majesty's sovereignty in those seas; and if any do
resist, all flag officers and commanders are to use their utmost endeavours
to compel them thereto, and not suffer any dishonour to be done to His
Majesty."
[485] See Fulton, "The Sovereignty of the Seas" (1911), pp. 38 and 204-208.
[486] Quoted by Hall, § 40.
But apart from maritime ceremonials maritime sovereignty found
expression in the levying of tolls from foreign ships, in the interdiction of
fisheries to foreigners, and in the control or even the prohibition of foreign
navigation. Thus, Portugal and Spain attempted, after the discovery of
America, to keep foreign vessels altogether out of the seas over which they
claimed sovereignty. The magnitude of this claim created an opposition to
the very existence of such rights. English, French, and Dutch explorers and
traders navigated on the Indian Ocean and the Pacific in spite of the Spanish
and Portuguese interdictions. And when, in 1580, the Spanish ambassador
Mendoza lodged a complaint with Queen Elizabeth against Drake for
having made his famous voyage to the Pacific, Elizabeth answered that
vessels of all nations could navigate on the Pacific, since the use of the sea
and the air is common to all, and that no title to the ocean can belong to any
nation, since neither nature nor regard for the public use permits any
possession of the ocean.[487]
[487] See Walker, "History," I. p. 161. It is obvious that this attitude of Queen Elizabeth was in
no way the outcome of the conviction that really no State could claim sovereignty over a part of
the Open Sea. For she herself did not think of dropping the British claims to sovereignty over the
"British Seas." Her arguments against the Spanish claims were made in the interest of the growing
commerce and navigation of England, and any one daring to apply the same arguments against
England's claims would have incurred her royal displeasure.

Grotius's Attack on Maritime Sovereignty.

 § 250. Queen Elizabeth's attitude was the germ out of which grew
gradually the present freedom of the Open Sea. Twenty-nine years after her
answer to Mendoza, in 1609, appeared Grotius's short treatise[488] "Mare
liberum." The intention of Grotius was to show that the Dutch had a right of
navigation and commerce with the Indies in spite of the Portuguese
interdictions. He contends that the sea cannot be State property, because it
cannot really be taken into possession through occupation,[489] and that
consequently the sea is by nature free from the sovereignty of any State.[490]
The attack of Grotius was met by several authors of different nations.
Gentilis defends Spanish and English claims in his "Advocatio Hispanica,"
which appeared in 1613. Likewise, in 1613 William Welwood defends the
English claims in his book, "De dominio maris." John Selden wrote his
"Mare Clausum sive de dominio maris" in 1618, but it was not printed until
1635. Sir John Burroughs published in 1653 his book, "The Sovereignty of
the British Seas proved by Records, History, and the Municipal Laws of this
Kingdom." And in defence of the claims of the Republic of Venice Paolo
Sarpi published in 1676 his book "Del dominio del mare Adriatico." The
most important of these books defending maritime sovereignty is that of
Selden. King Charles I., by whose command Selden's "Mare Clausum" was
printed in 1635, was so much impressed by it that he instructed in 1629 his
ambassador in the Netherlands to complain of the audacity of Grotius and
to request that the author of the "Mare liberum" should be punished.[491]
[488] Its full title is: "Mare liberum, seu de jure quod Batavis competit ad Indicana commercia
Dissertatio," and it is now proved that this short treatise is only chapter 12 of another work of
Grotius, "De jure praedae," which was found in manuscript in 1864 and published in 1868. See
above, § 53.
[489] See below, § 259.
[490] Grotius was by no means the first author who defended the freedom of the sea. See Nys,
"Les origines du droit international," pp. 381 and 382.
[491] See Phillimore, I. § 182.

The general opposition to Grotius's bold attack on maritime sovereignty

prevented his immediate victory. Too firmly established were the then
recognised claims to sovereignty over certain parts of the Open Sea for the
novel principle of the freedom of the sea to supplant them. Progress was
made regarding one point only—namely, freedom of navigation of the sea.
England had never pushed her claims so far as to attempt the prohibition of
free navigation on the so-called British Seas. And although Venice
succeeded in keeping up her control of navigation on the Adriatic till the
middle of the seventeenth century, it may be said that in the second half of
that century navigation on all parts of the Open Sea was practically free for
vessels of all nations. But with regard to other points, claims to maritime
sovereignty continued to be kept up. Thus the Netherlands had by article 4
of the Treaty of Westminster, 1674, to acknowledge that their vessels had to
salute the British flag within the "British Seas" as a recognition of British
maritime sovereignty.[492]
[492] See Hall, § 40, p. 152, note 1.

Gradual Recognition of the Freedom of the Open Sea.

§ 251. In spite of opposition, the work of Grotius was not to be undone.
All prominent writers of the eighteenth century take up again the case of the
freedom of the Open Sea, making a distinction between the maritime belt
which is to be considered under the sway of the littoral States, and, on the
other hand, the High Seas, which are under no State's sovereignty. The
leading author is Bynkershoek, whose standard work, "De dominio maris,"
appeared in 1702. Vattel, G. F. de Martens, Azuni, and others follow the
lead. And although Great Britain upheld her claim to the salute due to her
flag within the "British Seas" throughout the eighteenth and at the
beginning of the nineteenth century, the principle of the freedom of the
Open Sea became more and more vigorous with the growth of the navies of
other States; and at the end of the first quarter of the nineteenth century this
principle became universally recognised in theory and practice. Great
Britain silently dropped her claim to the salute due to her flag, and with it
her claim to maritime sovereignty, and became now a champion of the
freedom of the Open Sea. When, in 1821, Russia, who was then still the
owner of Alaska in North America, attempted to prohibit all foreign ships
from approaching the shore of Alaska within one hundred Italian miles,
Great Britain and the United States protested in the interest of the freedom
of the Open Sea, and Russia dropped her claims in conventions concluded
with the protesting Powers in 1824 and 1825. And when, after Russia had
sold Alaska in 1867 to the United States, the latter made regulations
regarding the killing of seals within Behring Sea, claiming thereby
jurisdiction and control over a part of the Open Sea, a conflict arose in 1886
with Great Britain, which was settled by arbitration[493] in 1893 in favour of
the freedom of the Open Sea.
[493] See below, § 284.
 II
CONCEPTION OF THE OPEN SEA

Field, article 53—Westlake, I. p. 160—Moore, II. § 308—Rivier, I. pp. 234-235—Pradier-

Fodéré, II. No. 868—Ullmann, § 101—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. p. 483.

Discrimination between Open Sea and Territorial Waters.

§ 252. Open Sea or High Seas[494] is the coherent body of salt water all
over the greater part of the globe, with the exception of the maritime belt
and the territorial straits, gulfs, and bays, which are parts of the sea, but not
parts of the Open Sea. Wherever there is a salt-water sea on the globe, it is
part of the Open Sea, provided it is not isolated from, but coherent with, the
general body of salt water extending over the globe, and provided that the
salt water approach to it is navigable and open to vessels of all nations. The
enclosure of a sea by the land of one and the same State does not matter,
provided such a navigable connection of salt water as is open to vessels of
all nations exists between such sea and the general body of salt water, even
if that navigable connection itself be part of the territory of one or more
littoral States. Whereas, therefore, the Dead Sea is Turkish and the Aral Sea
is Russian territory, the Sea of Marmora is part of the Open Sea, although it
is surrounded by Turkish land and although the Bosphorus and the
Dardanelles are Turkish territorial straits, because these are now open to
merchantmen of all nations. For the same reason the Black Sea[495] is now
part of the Open Sea. On the other hand, the Sea of Azoff is not part of the
Open Sea, but Russian territory, although there exists a navigable
connection between it and the Black Sea. The reason is that this connection,
the Strait of Kertch, is not according to the Law of Nations open to vessels
of all nations, since the Sea of Azoff is less a sea than a mere gulf of the
Black Sea.[496]
[494] Field defines in article 53: "The High Seas are the ocean, and all connecting arms and bays
or other extensions thereof not within the territorial limits of any nation whatever."
[495] See above, § 181.
[496] So say Rivier, I. p. 237, and Martens, I. § 97: but Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. p. 513,
declares that the Sea of Azoff is part of the Open Sea.

Clear Instances of Parts of the Open Sea.

§ 253. It is not necessary and not possible to particularise every portion
of the Open Sea. It is sufficient to state instances which clearly indicate the
extent of the Open Sea. To the Open Sea belong, of course, all the so-called
oceans—namely, the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, and Antarctic. But the
branches of the oceans, which go under special names, and, further, the
branches of these branches, which again go under special names, belong
likewise to the Open Sea. Examples of these branches are: the North Sea,
the English Channel, and the Irish Sea; the Baltic Sea, the Gulf of Bothnia,
the Gulf of Finland, the Kara Sea,[497] and the White Sea; the Mediterranean
and the Ligurian, Tyrrhenian, Adriatic, Ionian, Marmora, and Black Seas;
the Gulf of Guinea; the Mozambique Channel; the Arabian Sea and the Red
Sea; the Bay of Bengal, the China Sea, the Gulf of Siam, and the Gulf of
Tonking; the Eastern Sea, the Yellow Sea, the Sea of Japan, and the Sea of
Okhotsk; the Behring Sea; the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea;
Baffin's Bay.
[497]
The assertion of some Russian publicists that the Kara Sea is Russian territory is refuted by
Martens, I. § 97. As regards the Kara Straits, see above, § 194.
It will be remembered that it is doubtful as regards many gulfs and bays
whether they belong to the Open Sea or are territorial.[498]
[498] See above, § 191.

III
THE FREEDOM OF THE OPEN SEA

Hall, § 75—Westlake, I. pp. 160-166—Lawrence, § 100—Twiss, I. §§ 172-173—Moore, II.

§§ 309-310—Taylor, § 242—Wheaton, § 187—Bluntschli, §§ 304-308—Heffter, § 94—
Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 483-498—Ullmann, § 101—Bonfils, Nos. 572-577—
Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 874-881—Rivier, I. § 17—Nys, II. pp. 140-166—Calvo, I. § 346—
Fiore, II. Nos. 724, 727, and Code, Nos. 928-930—Martens, I. § 97—Perels, § 4—Testa,
pp. 63-66—Ortolan, "Diplomatie de la mer" (1856), I. pp. 119-149—De Burgh, "Elements
of Maritime International Law" (1868), pp. 1-24—Castel, "Du principe de la liberté des
mers" (1900), pp. 37-80.

Meaning of the Term "Freedom of the Open Sea."

§ 254. The term "Freedom of the Open Sea" indicates the rule of the Law
of Nations that the Open Sea is not and never can be under the sovereignty
of any State whatever. Since, therefore, the Open Sea is not the territory of
any State, no State has as a rule a right to exercise its legislation,
administration, jurisdiction,[499] or police[500] over parts of the Open Sea.
Since, further, the Open Sea can never be under the sovereignty of any
State, no State has a right to acquire parts of the Open Sea through
occupation,[501] for, as far as the acquisition of territory is concerned, the
Open Sea is what Roman Law calls res extra commercium.[502] But although
the Open Sea is not the territory of any State, it is nevertheless an object of
the Law of Nations. The very fact alone of such a rule exempting the Open
Sea from the sovereignty of any State whatever shows this. But there are
other reasons. For if the Law of Nations were to content itself with the rule
which excludes the Open Sea from possible State property, the consequence
would be a condition of lawlessness and anarchy on the Open Sea. To
obviate such lawlessness, customary International Law contains some rules
which guarantee a certain legal order on the Open Sea in spite of the fact
that it is not the territory of any State.
[499] As regards jurisdiction in cases of collision and salvage on the Open Sea, see below, §§
265 and 271.
[500] See, however, above, § 190, concerning the zone for Revenue and Sanitary Laws.
[501] Following Grotius (II. c. 3, § 13) and Bynkershoek ("De dominio maris," c. 3), some
writers (for instance, Phillimore, I. § 203) maintain that any part of the Open Sea covered for the
time by a vessel is by occupation to be considered as the temporary territory of the vessel's flag
State. And some French writers go even beyond that and claim a certain zone round the respective
vessel as temporary territory of the flag State. But this is an absolutely superfluous fiction. (See
Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. p. 494; Rivier, I. p. 238; Perels, pp. 37-39.)
[502] But the subsoil of the bed of the Open Sea can well, through driving mines and piercing
tunnels from the coast, be acquired by a littoral State. See above, § 221, and below, §§ 287c and
287d.

Legal Provisions for the Open Sea.

§ 255. This legal order is created through the co-operation of the Law of
Nations and the Municipal Laws of such States as possess a maritime flag.
The following rules of the Law of Nations are universally recognised,
namely:—First, that every State which has a maritime flag must lay down
rules according to which vessels can claim to sail under its flag, and must
furnish such vessels with some official voucher authorising them to make
use of its flag; secondly, that every State has a right to punish all such
foreign vessels as sail under its flag without being authorised to do so;
thirdly, that all vessels with their persons and goods are, whilst on the Open
Sea, considered under the sway of the flag State; fourthly, that every State
has a right to punish piracy on the Open Seas even if committed by
foreigners, and that, with a view to the extinction of piracy, men-of-war of
all nations can require all suspect vessels to show their flag.
 These customary rules of International Law are, so to say, supplemented
by Municipal Laws of the maritime States comprising provisions, first,
regarding the conditions to be fulfilled by vessels for the purpose of being
authorised to sail under their flags; secondly, regarding the details of
jurisdiction over persons and goods on board vessels sailing under their
flags; thirdly, concerning the order on board ship and the relations between
the master, the crew, and the passengers; fourthly, concerning punishment
of ships sailing without authorisation under their flags.
The fact that each maritime State has a right to legislate for its own
vessels gives it a share in keeping up a certain order on the Open Sea. And
such order has been turned into a more or less general order since the large
maritime States have concurrently made more or less concordant laws for
the conduct of their vessels on the Open Sea.
Freedom of the Open Sea and war.
§ 256. Although the Open Sea is free and not the territory of any State, it
may nevertheless in its whole extent become the theatre of war, since the
region of war is not only the territories of the belligerents, but likewise the
Open Sea, provided that one of the belligerents at least is a Power with a
maritime flag.[503] Men-of-war of the belligerents may fight a battle in any
part of the Open Sea where they meet, and they may capture all enemy
merchantmen they meet on the Open Sea. And, further, the jurisdiction and
police of the belligerents become through the outbreak of war in so far
extended over vessels of other States, that belligerent men-of-war may now
visit, search, and capture neutral merchantmen for breach of blockade,
contraband, and the like.
[503] Concerning the distinction between theatre and region of war, see below, vol. II. § 70.
However, certain parts of the Open Sea can become neutralised and
thereby be excluded from the region of war. Thus, the Black Sea became
neutralised in 1856 through article 11 of the Peace Treaty of Paris
stipulating:—"La Mer Noire est neutralisée: ouverte à la marine marchande
de toutes les nations, ses eaux et ses ports sont formellement et à perpétuité
interdites au pavillon de guerre, soit des puissances riveraines, soit de tout
autre puissance." Yet this neutralisation of the Black Sea was abolished[504]
in 1871 by article 1 of the Treaty of London, and no other part of the Open
Sea is at present neutralised.
[504] See above, § 181.
 Navigation and ceremonials on the Open Sea.
§ 257. The freedom of the Open Sea involves perfect freedom of
navigation for vessels of all nations, whether men-of-war, other public
vessels, or merchantmen. It involves, further, absence of compulsory
maritime ceremonials on the Open Sea. According to the Law of Nations,
no rights whatever of salute exist between vessels meeting on the Open Sea.
All so-called maritime ceremonials on the Open Sea[505] are a matter either
of courtesy and usage or of special conventions and Municipal Laws of
those States under whose flags vessels sail. There is in especial no right of
any State to require a salute from foreign merchantmen for its men-of-war.
[506]
[505]
But not within the maritime belt or other territorial waters. See above, §§ 122 and 187.
[506] That men-of-war can on the Open Sea ask suspicious foreign merchantmen to show their
flags has nothing to do with ceremonials, but with the supervision of the Open Sea in the interest
of its safety. See below, § 266.
The freedom of the Open Sea involves likewise freedom of inoffensive
passage[507] through the maritime belt for merchantmen of all nations, and
also for men-of-war of all nations in so far as the part concerned of the
maritime belt forms a part of the highways for international traffic. Without
such freedom of passage, navigation on the Open Sea by vessels of all
nations would be a physical impossibility.
[507] See above, § 188.

Claim of States to Maritime Flag.

§ 258. Since no State can exercise protection over vessels that do not sail
under its flag, and since every vessel must, in the interest of the order and
safety of the Open Sea, sail under the flag of a State, the question has been
raised whether not only maritime States but also such States as are not
littoral States of the Sea have a claim to a maritime flag. There ought to be
no doubt[508] that the freedom of the Open Sea involves a claim of any State
to a maritime flag. At present no non-littoral State actually has a maritime
flag, and all vessels belonging to subjects of such non-littoral States sail
under the flag of a maritime State. But any day might bring a change. The
question as to the claim to a maritime flag on the part of a non-littoral State
was discussed in Switzerland. When, in 1864, Swiss merchants in Trieste,
Smyrna, Hamburg, and St. Petersburg applied to the Swiss Bundesrath for
permission to have their vessels sailing under the Swiss flag, the
Bundesrath was ready to comply with the request, but the Swiss Parliament,
the Bundesversammlung, refused the necessary consent. In 1889 and 1891
new applications of the same kind were made, but Switzerland again
refused to have a maritime flag.[509] She had no doubt that she had a claim to
such flag, but was aware of the difficulties arising from the fact that, having
no seaports of her own, vessels sailing under her flag would in many points
have to depend upon the goodwill of the maritime Powers.[510]
[508] See, however, Westlake, I. p. 165.
[509] See Salis, "Schweizerisches Bundesrecht" (1891), vol. I. p. 234.
[510] The question is discussed by Calvo, I. § 427; Twiss, I. §§ 197 and 198; and Westlake, I. p.
165.
Such States as have a maritime flag as a rule have a war flag different
from their commercial flag; some States, however, have one and the same
flag for both their navy and their mercantile marine. But it must be
mentioned that a State can by an international convention be restricted to a
mercantile flag only, such State being prevented from having a navy. This is
the position of Montenegro[511] according to article 29 of the Treaty of
Berlin of 1878.
[511] See above, § 127, but it is doubtful whether this restriction is still in existence, since article
29 has, after the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria in 1908, been modified by the
Powers, so that the port of Antivari and the other Montenegrin waters are now no longer closed to
men-of-war of all nations. See R.G. XVII. (1910), pp. 173-176.

Rationale for the Freedom of the Open Sea.

§ 259. Grotius and many writers who follow[512] him establish two facts
as the reason for the freedom of the Open Sea. They maintain, first, that a
part of the Open Sea could not effectively be occupied by a Navy and could
therefore not be brought under the actual sway of any State. And they
assert, secondly, that Nature does not give a right to anybody to appropriate
such things as may inoffensively be used by everybody and are
inexhaustible, and, therefore, sufficient for all.[513] The last argument has
nowadays hardly any value, especially for those who have freed themselves
from the fanciful rules of the so-called Law of Nature. And the first
argument is now without basis in face of the development of the modern
navies, since the number of public vessels which the different States possess
at present would enable many a State to occupy effectively one part or
another of the Open Sea. The real reason for the freedom of the Open Sea is
represented in the motive which led to the attack against maritime
sovereignty, and in the purpose for which such attack was made—namely,
the freedom of communication, and especially commerce, between the
States which are severed by the Sea. The Sea being an international
highway which connects distant lands, it is the common conviction that it
should not be under the sway of any State whatever. It is in the interest of
free intercourse[514] between the States that the principle of the freedom of
the Open Sea has become universally recognised and will always be upheld.
[515]
[512]
See, for instance, Twiss, I. § 172, and Westlake, I. p. 160.
[513] See Grotius, II. c. 2, § 3.
[514] See above, § 142.
[515] Connected with the reason for the freedom of the Open Sea is the merely theoretical
question whether the vessels of a State could through an international treaty be prevented from
navigating on the whole or on certain parts of the Open Sea. See Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 881-885,
where this point is exhaustively discussed.

IV
JURISDICTION ON THE OPEN SEA

Vattel, II. § 80—Hall, § 45—Westlake, I. pp. 166-176—Lawrence, § 100—Halleck, p. 438—

Taylor, §§ 262-267—Walker, § 20—Wheaton, § 106—Moore, II. §§ 309-310—Bluntschli,
§§ 317-352—Heffter, §§ 78-80—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 518-550—Liszt, § 26—
Bonfils, Nos. 578-580, 597-613—Despagnet, Nos. 422-430—Mérignhac, II. pp. 505-511—
Pradier-Fodéré, V. Nos. 2376-2470—Rivier, I. § 18—Nys, II. pp. 139-165—Calvo, I. §§
385-473—Fiore, II. Nos. 730-742, and Code, Nos. 1001-1027—Martens, II. §§ 55-56—
Perels, § 12—Testa, pp. 98-112—Ortolan, "Diplomatie de la mer" (1856), II. 254-326—
Hall, "Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown" (1894), §§ 106-109.
 Jurisdiction on the Open Sea mainly connected with Flag.
§ 260. Jurisdiction on the Open Sea is in the main connected with the
maritime flag under which vessels sail. This is the consequence of the fact
stated above[516] that a certain legal order is created on the Open Sea through
the co-operation of rules of the Law of Nations with rules of the Municipal
Laws of such States as possess a maritime flag. But two points must be
emphasised. The one is that this jurisdiction is not jurisdiction over the
Open Sea as such, but only over vessels, persons, and goods on the Open
Sea. And the other is that jurisdiction on the Open Sea is, although mainly,
not exclusively connected with the flag under which vessels sail, because
men-of-war of all nations have, as will be seen,[517] certain powers over
merchantmen of all nations. The points which must therefore be here
discussed singly are—the claim of vessels to sail under a certain flag, ship-
papers, the names of vessels, the connection of vessels with the territory of
the flag State, the safety of traffic on the Open Sea, the powers of men-of-
war over merchantmen of all nations, and, lastly, shipwreck.
[516] See above, § 255.
[517] See below, § 266.

Claim of Vessels to sail under a certain Flag.

§ 261. The Law of Nations does not include any rules regarding the claim
of vessels to sail under a certain maritime flag, but imposes the duty upon
every State having a maritime flag to stipulate by its own Municipal Laws
the conditions to be fulfilled by those vessels which wish to sail under its
flag. In the interest of order on the Open Sea, a vessel not sailing under the
maritime flag of a State enjoys no protection whatever, for the freedom of
navigation on the Open Sea is freedom for such vessels only as sail under
the flag of a State. But a State is absolutely independent in framing the rules
concerning the claim of vessels to its flag. It can in especial authorise such
vessels to sail under its flag as are the property of foreign subjects; but such
foreign vessels sailing under its flag fall thereby under its jurisdiction. The
different States have made different rules concerning the sailing of vessels
under their flags.[518] Some, as Great Britain[519] and Germany, allow only
such vessels to sail under their flags as are the exclusive property of their
citizens or of corporations established on their territory. Others, as
Argentina, admit vessels which are the property of foreigners. Others again,
as France, admit vessels which are in part the property of French citizens.
[520]
[518]
See Calvo, I. §§ 393-423, where the respective Municipal Laws of most countries are
quoted.
[519] See section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (27 and 28 Vict. c. 60), and sections 51
and 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906 (6 Ed. VII. c. 7).
[520] The Institute of International Law adopted, at its meeting at Venice—see Annuaire, XV.
(1896), p. 201—in 1896, a body of ten rules concerning the sailing of merchantmen under the
maritime flag of a State under the heading:—"Règles relatives à l'usage du pavillon national pour
les navires de commerce."
But no State can allow such vessel to sail under its flag as already sails
under the flag of another State. Just as a vessel not sailing under the flag of
a State, so a vessel sailing under the flags of two different States does not
enjoy any protection whatever. Nor is protection enjoyed by such vessel as
sails under the flag of a State which, like Switzerland, has no maritime flag.
Vessels belonging to persons who are subjects of States without a maritime
flag must obtain authority to sail under some other State's flag, if they wish
to enjoy protection on the Open Sea. And any vessel, although the property
of foreigners, which sails without authority under the flag of a State, may be
captured by the men-of-war of such State, prosecuted, punished, and
confiscated.[521]
[521]
See the case of the steamship Maori King v. His Britannic Majesty's Consul-General at
Shanghai, L.R., App. c. 1909, p. 562, and sections 69 and 76 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894
(27 and 28 Vict. c. 60).

Ship Papers.
§ 262. All States with a maritime flag are by the Law of Nations obliged
to make private vessels sailing under their flags carry on board so-called
ship papers, which serve the purpose of identification on the Open Sea. But
neither the number nor the kind of such papers is prescribed by
International Law, and the Municipal Laws of the different States differ
much on this subject.[522] But, on the other hand, they agree as to the
following papers:—
[522]
See Holland, "Manual of Naval Prize Law," §§ 178-194, where the papers required by the
different maritime States are enumerated.
(1) An official voucher authorising the vessel to sail under its flag. This
voucher consists of a Certificate of Registry, in case the flag State
possesses, like Great Britain and Germany for instance, a register of its
mercantile marine; in other cases the voucher consists of a "Passport," "Sea-
letter," "Sea-brief," or of some other document serving the purpose of
showing the vessel's nationality.
(2) The Muster Roll. This is a list of all the members of the crew, their
nationality, and the like.
(3) The Log Book. This is a full record of the voyage, with all nautical
details.
(4) The Manifest of Cargo. This is a list of the cargo of a vessel, with
details concerning the number and the mark of each package, the names of
the shippers and the consignees, and the like.
(5) The Bills of Lading. These are duplicates of the documents which the
master of the vessel hands over to the shipper of the goods at shipment.
(6) The Charter Party, if the vessel is chartered. This is the contract
between the owner of the ship, who lets it wholly or in part, and the
charterer, the person who hires it.
Names of Vessels.
§ 263. Every State must register the names of all private vessels sailing
under its flag, and it must make them bear their names visibly, so that every
vessel may be identified from a distance. No vessel must be allowed to
change her name without permission and fresh registration.[523]
[523]As regards Great Britain, see sections 47 and 48 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and
sections 50 and 53 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906.

Territorial Quality of Vessels on the Open Sea.

§ 264. It is a customary rule of the Law of Nations that men-of-war and
other public vessels of any State are, whilst on the Open Sea as well as in
foreign territorial waters, in every point considered as though they were
floating parts of their home States.[524] Private vessels are only considered as
though they were floating portions of the flag State in so far as they remain
whilst on the Open Sea in principle under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
flag State. Thus the birth of a child, a will or business contract made, a
crime[525] committed on board ship, and the like, are considered as
happening on the territory and therefore under the territorial supremacy of
the flag[526] State. But although they appear in this respect as though they
were, private vessels are in fact not floating portions of the flag State. For in
time of war belligerent men-of-war can visit, search, and capture neutral
private vessels on the Open Sea for breach of blockade, contraband, and the
like, and in time of peace men-of-war of all nations have certain powers[527]
over merchantmen of all nations.
[524] See above, § 172, and below, §§ 447-451.
[525] See Jordan in R.I. 2nd Ser. X. (1908), pp. 340-362 and 481-500.
[526] Since, however, individuals abroad remain under the personal supremacy of their home
State, nothing can prevent a State from legislating as regards such of its citizens as sail on the
Open Sea on board a foreign vessel.
[527] See below, § 266. The question of the territoriality of vessels is ably discussed by Hall, §§
76-79.

Safety of Traffic on the Open Sea.

§ 265. No rules of the Law of Nations exist as yet[528] for the purpose of
preventing collisions, saving lives after collisions, and the like, but every
State possessing a maritime flag has legislated for the conduct on the Open
Sea of vessels sailing under its flag concerning signalling, piloting, courses,
collisions, and the like. Although every State can legislate on these matters
independently of other States, more and more corresponding rules have
been put into force by all the States during the second half of the nineteenth
century, following the lead given by Great Britain through section 25 of the
Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act of 1862, the "Regulations for
preventing Collisions at Sea" which accompany this Act, and, further,
Sections 16 to 20 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873.[529] And the
"Commercial Code of Signals for the Use of all Nations," published by
Great Britain in 1857, has been adopted by all maritime States. In 1889 a
maritime Conference took place at Washington, at which eighteen maritime
States were represented and which recommended a body of rules for
preventing collisions at sea to be adopted by the single States,[530] and a
revision of the Code of Signals. These regulations were revised in 1890 by
a British Committee appointed by the Board of Trade,[531] and, after some
direct negotiations between the Governments, most maritime States have
made corresponding regulations by their Municipal Laws.[532] And a new
and revised edition of "The International Code of Signals" was published by
the British Board of Trade, in conformity with arrangements with other
maritime Powers, in 1900, and is now in general use.[533]
[528] It is to be expected that matters will soon undergo a change, for the Conference of the
International Maritime Committee, which met at Brussels in September 1910 and where all the
maritime States of Europe, the United States of America, most of the South American States, and
Japan were represented, produced a draft convention concerning collisions (see Supplement to the
American Journal of International Law, IV. (1910), p. 121). The "Maritime Conventions Bill,"
which is now before Parliament, proposes such alterations of British Municipal Law as would
 enable the British Government to ratify this Convention. The Institute of International Law
already in 1888, at its meeting at Lausanne—see Annuaire, X. (1889), p. 150—adopted a body of
eight rules concerning the subject.
[529] See 25 and 26 Vict. c. 63; 36 and 37 Vict. c. 83. The matter is now dealt with by sections
418-421 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 and 58 Vict. c. 60).
[530] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XII. p. 416.
[531] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXII. p. 113.
[532] Latest British Regulations, 1896.
[533] The matter of collision at sea is exhaustively treated by Prien, "Der Zusammenstoss von
Schiffen nach dem Gesetzen des Erdhalls" (2nd ed. 1899).
The question of jurisdiction in actions for damages for collision at sea is
not at all settled.[534] That the damaged innocent vessel can bring an action
against the guilty ship in the Courts of the latter's flag State is beyond doubt
since jurisdiction on the Open Sea follows the flag. If the rule that all
vessels while on the Open Sea are considered under the sway of their flag
State were one without exception, no other State would claim jurisdiction in
cases of collision but the flag State of the guilty ship. Yet the practice of the
maritime States[535] goes far beyond this, without, however, being uniform.
Thus, for instance, France[536] claims jurisdiction if the damaged ship is
French, although the guilty ship may be foreign, and also in the event of
both ships being foreign in case both consent, or for urgent measures having
a provisionary character, or in case France is a place of payment. Thus,
further, Italy[537] claims jurisdiction even if both ships are foreign in case an
Italian port is the port nearest to the collision, or in case the damaged ship
was forced by the collision to remain in an Italian port. Great Britain goes
farthest, for the Admiralty Court claims jurisdiction provided the guilty ship
is in a British port at the time the action for damages is brought, even if the
collision took place between two foreign ships anywhere on the High Seas.
[538]
And the Admiralty Court justifies this extended claim of jurisdiction[539]
by maintaining that collision is a matter of communis juris, and can
therefore be adjudicated upon by the Courts[540] of all maritime States.[541]
[534] See Phillimore, IV. § 815; Calvo, I. § 444; Pradier-Fodéré, V. Nos. 2362-2374; Bar,
"Private International Law" (2nd ed. translated by Gillespie), pp. 720 and 928; Dicey, "Conflict of
Laws" (2nd ed.), pp. 650-652 and 790; Foote, "Private International Law" (3rd ed.), pp. 486 and
495; Westlake, "Private International Law" (3rd ed.), pp. 266-269; Marsden, "The Law of
Collisions at Sea" (6th ed. 1910); Williams and Bruce, "Treatise on the Jurisdiction of English
Courts in Admiralty Actions" (3rd ed. 1902).
[535] See above, § 146.
[536] See Pradier-Fodéré, No. 2363.
[537] See Pradier-Fodéré, No. 2364.
 [538] Or even in foreign territorial waters. See Williams and Bruce, op. cit., p. 78:—"The
Admiralty Court from ancient times exercised jurisdiction in cases of collision between foreign
vessels on the High Seas; and since the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, it has entertained suits for
collision between ships in foreign waters, and between an English and a foreign ship in foreign
waters."
[539] The Johann Friederich (1838), 1 W. Robinson, 35; the Chartered Mercantile Bank of
India, London, and China v. The Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co., 10 Q.B.D. 537.
[540] The practice of the United States of America coincides with that of Great Britain; see the
case of the Belgenland, 114, United States, 355, and Wharton, I. § 27.
[541] The Institute of International Law, at its meeting at Lausanne in 1888, adopted two rules
concerning the jurisdiction in cases of collision; see Annuaire, X. (1889), p. 152.

Powers of Men-of-war over Merchantmen of all Nations.

§ 266. Although the freedom of the Open Sea and the fact that vessels on
the Open Sea remain under the jurisdiction of the flag State exclude as a
rule the exercise of any State's authority over foreign vessels, there are
certain exceptions in the interest of all maritime nations. These exceptions
are the following:—
(1) Blockade and Contraband. In time of war belligerents can blockade
not only enemy ports and territorial coast waters, but also parts of the Open
Sea adjoining those ports and waters, and neutral merchantmen attempting
to break such a blockade can be confiscated. And, further, in time of war
belligerent men-of-war can visit, search, and eventually seize neutral
merchantmen for contraband, and the like.
(2) Verification of Flag. It is a universally recognised customary rule of
International Law that men-of-war of all nations have, to maintain the
safety of the Open Sea against piracy, the power to require suspicious
private vessels on the Open Sea to show their flag.[542] But such vessels
must be suspicious, and, since a vessel may be a pirate although she shows
a flag, she may eventually be stopped and visited for the purpose of
inspecting her papers and thereby verifying the flag. It is, however, quite
obvious that this power of men-of-war must not be abused, and that the
home State is responsible for damages in case a man-of-war stops and visits
a foreign merchantman without sufficient ground of suspicion. The right of
every State to punish piracy on the Open Sea will be treated below, §§ 272-
280.
[542] So-called "Droit d'enquête" or "Vérification du pavillon." This power of men-of-war has
given occasion to much dispute and discussion, but in fact nobody denies that in case of grave
suspicion this power does exist. See Twiss, I. § 193; Hall, § 81, p. 276; Fiore, II. Nos. 732-736;
Perels, § 17; Taylor, § 266; Bonfils, No. 519.
 (3) So-called Right of Pursuit. It is a universally recognised customary
rule that men-of-war of a littoral State can pursue into the Open Sea, seize,
and bring back into a port for trial any foreign merchantman that has
violated the law whilst in the territorial waters of the State in question. But
such pursuit into the Open Sea is permissible only if commenced while the
merchantman is still in the said territorial waters or has only just escaped
thence, and the pursuit must stop as soon as the merchantman passes into
the maritime belt of a foreign State.[543]
[543] See Hall, § 80.
(4) Abuse of Flag. It is another universally recognised rule that men-of-
war of every State may seize and bring to a port of their own for
punishment any foreign vessel sailing under the flag of such State without
authority.[544] Accordingly, Great Britain has, by section 69 of the Merchant
Shipping Act, 1894, enacted:—"If a person uses the British flag and
assumes the British national character on board a ship owned in whole or in
part by any persons not qualified to own a British ship, for the purpose of
making the ship appear a British ship, the ship shall be subject to forfeiture
under this Act, unless the assumption has been made for the purpose of
escaping capture by an enemy or by a foreign ship of war in the exercise of
some belligerent right."
[544] The four exceptions mentioned in the text above are based on universally recognised
customary rules of the Law of Nations. It is, of course, possible for several States to enter into
treaty agreements according to which their men-of-war acquire certain powers over each other's
merchantmen on the Open Sea. According to such agreements, which are, however, not universal,
the following additional exceptions may be enumerated:—
(1) In the interest of the suppression of the slave trade, the signatory Powers of the General Act
of the Brussels Conference of 1890 to which all the larger maritime Powers belong, have, by
articles 20-65, stipulated that their men-of-war shall have the power, in certain parts of the Open
Sea where slave traffic still continues, to stop every suspect vessel under 500 tons.
(2) In the interest of the Fisheries in the North Sea, special cruisers of the littoral Powers control
all fishing vessels and bumboats. See below, §§ 282 and 283.
(3) In the interest of Transatlantic telegraph cables, men-of-war of the signatory Powers of the
treaty for the protection of such cables have certain powers over merchantmen. (See below, §
287.)

How Verification of Flag is effected.

§ 267. A man-of-war which meets a suspicious merchantman not
showing her colours and wishes to verify the same, hoists her own flag and
fires a blank cartridge. This is a signal for the other vessel to hoist her flag
in reply. If she takes no notice of the signal, the man-of-war fires a shot
across her bows. If the suspicious vessel, in spite of this warning, still
declines to hoist her flag, the suspicion becomes so grave that the man-of-
war may compel her to bring to for the purpose of visiting her and thereby
verifying her nationality.
How Visit is effected.
§ 268. The intention to visit may be communicated to a merchantman
either by hailing or by the "informing gun"—that is, by firing either one or
two blank cartridges. If the vessel takes no notice of this communication, a
shot may be fired across her bows as a signal to bring to, and, if this also
has no effect, force may be resorted to. After the vessel has been brought to,
either an officer is sent on board for the purpose of inspecting her papers, or
her master is ordered to bring his ship papers for inspection on board the
man-of-war. If the inspection proves the papers to be in order, a
memorandum of the visit is made in the log-book, and the vessel is allowed
to proceed on her course.
How Search is effected.
§ 269. Search is naturally a measure which visit must always precede. It
is because the visit has given no satisfaction that search is instituted. Search
is effected by an officer and some of the crew of the man-of-war, the master
and crew of the vessel to be searched not being compelled to render any
assistance whatever except to open locked cupboards and the like. The
search must take place in an orderly way, and no damage must be done to
the cargo. If the search proves everything to be in order, the searchers have
carefully to replace everything removed, a memorandum of the search is to
be made in the log-book, and the searched vessel is to be allowed to
proceed on her course.
How Arrest is effected.
§ 270. Arrest of a vessel takes place either after visit and search have
shown her liable thereto, or after she has committed some act which alone
already justifies her seizure. Arrest is effected through the commander of
the arresting man-of-war appointing one of her officers and a part of her
crew to take charge of the arrested vessel. Such officer is responsible for the
vessel and her cargo, which latter must be kept safe and intact. The arrested
vessel, either accompanied by the arresting vessel or not, must be brought
to such harbour as is determined by the cause of the arrest. Thus, neutral or
enemy ships seized in time of war are always[545] to be brought into a
harbour of the flag State of the captor. And the same is the case in time of
peace, when a vessel is seized because her flag cannot be verified, or
because she was sailing under no flag at all. On the other hand, when a
fishing vessel or a bumboat is arrested in the North Sea, she is always to be
brought into a harbour of her flag State and handed over to the authorities
there.[546]
[545] Except in the case of distress or unseaworthiness; see below, vol. II. § 193.
[546] See below, §§ 282 and 283.

Shipwreck and Distress on the Open Sea.

§ 271. It is at present the universal conviction on the part of the States
that goods and persons shipwrecked on the Open Sea do not thereby lose
the protection of the flag State of the shipwrecked vessel. No State is
allowed to recognise appropriation of abandoned vessels and other derelicts
on the Open Sea by those of its subjects who take possession thereof. But
every State can by its Municipal Laws enact that those of its subjects who
take possession of abandoned vessels and of shipwrecked goods need not
restore them to their owners without salvage,[547] whether the act of taking
possession occurred on the actual Open Sea or within territorial waters and
on shore of the respective State.
[547] The Conference of the Maritime Committee held at Brussels in September 1910 also
produced a draft convention concerning salvage, which the British Government likewise intends
to ratify provided Parliament passes the "Maritime Conventions Bill," see above, § 265, p. 333,
note 2, and Supplement to the American Journal of International Law, IV. (1910), p. 126.
According to the practice of the Admiralty Court—see the case of the Johann Friederich, 1 W.
Robinson, 35—salvage on the Open Sea is, just like collisions, a matter of communis juris upon
which the Courts of all maritime States are competent to adjudicate. See Phillimore, IV. § 815;
and Dicey, "Conflict of Laws" (2nd ed. 1908), p. 791. See also sect. 545 and 565 of the Merchant
Shipping Act, 1894.
As regards vessels in distress on the Open Sea, some writers[548] maintain
that men-of-war must render assistance even to foreign vessels in distress.
But it is impossible to say that there is a customary or conventional rule of
the Law of Nations in existence which imposes upon all States the duty of
instructing their men-of-war to render assistance to foreign vessels in
distress, although many States order by Municipal Regulations their men-
of-war to render such assistance, and although morally every vessel is
bound to render assistance to another vessel in distress.[549]
 [548]See, for instance, Perels, § 25, and Fiore, II. No. 732.
[549]According to article 11 of the draft convention concerning salvage produced by the
Conference of the Maritime Committee at Brussels in September 1910—see above, note 1
—"every master shall be obliged, as far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel, his
crew, or his passengers, to lend assistance to any person, even an enemy, found at sea in danger of
perishing. The owner of the vessel shall not be liable for violations of the foregoing provision."

V
PIRACY

Hall, §§ 81-82—Westlake, I. pp. 177-182—Lawrence, § 102—Phillimore, I. §§ 356-361—

Twiss, I. §§ 177 and 193—Halleck, I. pp. 444-450—Taylor, §§ 188-189—Walker, § 21—
Westlake, I. pp. 177-182—Wheaton, §§ 122-124—Moore, II. §§ 311-315—Bluntschli, §§
343-350—Heffter, § 104—Gareis in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 571-581—Gareis, § 58—Liszt, §
26—Ullmann, § 104—Bonfils, Nos. 592-594—Despagnet, Nos. 431-433—Mérignhac, II.
pp. 506-511—Pradier-Fodéré, V. Nos. 2491-2515—Rivier, I. pp. 248-251—Calvo, I. §§
485-512—Fiore, I. Nos. 494-495, and Code, Nos. 295-300—Perels, §§ 16-17—Testa, pp.
90-97—Ortolan, "Diplomatie de la mer" (1856), I. pp. 231-253—Stiel, "Der Thatbestand
der Piraterie" (1905).

Conception of Piracy.
§ 272. Piracy, in its original and strict meaning, is every unauthorised act
of violence committed by a private vessel on the Open Sea against another
vessel with intent to plunder (animo furandi). The majority of writers
confine piracy to such acts, which indeed are the normal cases of piracy.
But there are cases possible which are not covered by this narrow
definition, and yet they are practically treated as though they were cases of
piracy. Thus, if the members of the crew revolt and convert the ship and the
goods thereon to their own use, they are considered to be pirates, although
they have not committed an act of violence against another ship. Thus,
secondly, if unauthorised acts of violence, such as murder of persons on
board the attacked vessel or destruction of goods thereon, are committed on
the Open Sea without intent to plunder, such acts are practically considered
to be piratical. Under these circumstances several writers,[550] correctly, I
think, oppose the usual definition of piracy as an act of violence committed
by a private vessel against another with intent to plunder. But no unanimity
exists among these very writers concerning a fit definition of piracy, and the
matter is therefore very controversial. If a definition is desired which really
covers all such acts as are practically treated as piratical, piracy must be
defined as every unauthorised act of violence against persons or goods
committed on the Open Sea either by a private vessel against another vessel
or by the mutinous crew or passengers against their own vessel.[551]
[550]
Hall, § 81; Lawrence, § 102; Bluntschli, § 343; Liszt, § 26; Calvo, § 485.
[551]
The conception of Piracy is discussed in the case of the Republic of Bolivia v. The
Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co., L.R. (1909), 1 K.B., 785.
Already, before a Law of Nations in the modern sense of the term was in
existence, a pirate was considered an outlaw, a "hostis humani generis."
According to the Law of Nations the act of piracy makes the pirate lose the
protection of his home State, and thereby his national character; and his
vessel, although she may formerly have possessed a claim to sail under a
certain State's flag, loses such claim. Piracy is a so-called "international
crime";[552] the pirate is considered the enemy of every State, and can be
brought to justice anywhere.
[552] See above, § 151.

Private Ships as Subjects of Piracy.

§ 273. Private vessels only[553] can commit piracy. A man-of-war or other
public ship, as long as she remains such, is never a pirate. If she commits
unjustified acts of violence, redress must be asked from her flag State,
which has to punish the commander and to pay damages where required.
But if a man-of-war or other public ship of a State revolts and cruises the
sea for her own purposes, she ceases to be a public ship, and acts of
violence now committed by her are indeed piratical acts. A privateer is not
a pirate as long as her acts of violence are confined to enemy vessels,
because such acts are authorised by the belligerent in whose services she is
acting. And it matters not that the privateer is originally a neutral vessel.[554]
But if a neutral vessel were to take Letters of Marque from both
belligerents, she would be considered a pirate.
[553]
Piracy committed by the mutinous crew will be treated below, § 274.
[554]
See details regarding this controversial point in Hall, § 81. See also below, vol. II. §§ 83
and 330.
Doubtful is the case where a privateer in a civil war has received her
Letters of Marque from the insurgents, and, further, the case where during a
civil war men-of-war join the insurgents before the latter have been
recognised as a belligerent Power. It is evident that the legitimate
Government will treat such ships as pirates; but third Powers ought not to
do so, as long as these vessels do not commit any act of violence against
ships of these third Powers. Thus, in 1873, when an insurrection broke out
in Spain, Spanish men-of-war stationed at Carthagena fell into the hands of
the insurgents, and the Spanish Government proclaimed these vessels
pirates, England, France, and Germany instructed the commanders of their
men-of-war in the Mediterranean not to interfere as long as these insurgent
vessels[555] abstained from acts of violence against the lives and property of
their subjects.[556] On the other hand, when in 1877 a revolutionary outbreak
occurred at Callao in Peru and the ironclad Huascar, which had been seized
by the insurgents, put to sea, stopped British steamers, took a supply of coal
without payment from one of these, and forcibly took two Peruvian officials
from on board another where they were passengers, she was justly
considered a pirate and attacked by the British Admiral de Horsey, who was
in command of the British squadron in the Pacific.[557]
 [555] See Calvo, I. §§ 497-501; Hall, § 82; Westlake, I. pp. 179-182.
[556] But in the American case of the Ambrose Light (25 Federal 408; see also Moore, II. § 332,
p. 1098) the Court did not agree with this. The Ambrose Light was a brigantine which, when on
April 24, 1885, she was sighted by Commander Clark of the U.S.S. Alliance in the Caribbean Sea,
was flying a strange flag showing a red cross on a white ground, but she afterwards hoisted the
Columbian flag; when seized she was found to carry sixty armed soldiers, one cannon, and a
considerable quantity of ammunition. She bore a commission from Columbian insurgents, and
was designed to assist in the blockade of the port of Carthagena by the rebels. Commander Clark
considered the vessel to be a pirate and sent her in for condemnation. The Court held that in
absence of any recognition of the Columbian insurgents as a belligerent Power the Ambrose Light
had been lawfully seized as a pirate. The vessel was, however, nevertheless released because the
American Secretary of State had recognised by implication a state of war between the insurgents
and the legitimate Columbian Government.
[557] As regards the case of the Argentinian vessel Porteña and the Spanish vessel Montezuma,
afterwards called Cespedes, see Calvo, I. §§ 502 and 503.
The case must also be mentioned of a privateer or man-of-war which
after the conclusion of peace or the termination of war by subjugation and
the like continues to commit hostile acts. If such vessel is not cognisant of
the fact that the war has come to an end she cannot be considered as a
pirate. Thus the Confederate cruiser Shenandoah, which in 1865, for some
months after the end of the American Civil War, attacked American vessels,
was not considered a pirate[558] by the British Government when her
commander gave her up to the port authorities at Liverpool in November
1865, because he asserted that he had not known till August of the
termination of the war, and that he had abstained from hostilities as soon as
he had obtained this information.
[558] See Lawrence, § 102.
It must be emphasised that the motive and the purpose of such acts of
violence do not alter their piratical character, since the intent to plunder
(animus furandi) is not required. Thus, for instance, if a private neutral
vessel without Letters of Marque during war out of hatred of one of the
belligerents were to attack and to sink vessels of such belligerent without
plundering at all, she would nevertheless be considered as a pirate.[559]
[559] This statement is correct in spite of art. 46, No. 1, of the Declaration of London; see below,
vol. II. § 410, No. 1.

Mutinous Crew and Passengers as Subjects of Piracy.

§ 274. The crew or the whole or a part of the passengers who revolt on
the Open Sea and convert the vessel and her goods to their own use, commit
thereby piracy, whether the vessel is private or public. But a simple act of
violence alone on the part of crew or passengers does not constitute in itself
the crime of piracy, at least not as far as International Law is concerned. If,
for instance, the crew were to murder the master on account of his cruelty
and afterwards carry on the voyage, they would be murderers, but not
pirates. They are pirates only when the revolt is directed not merely against
the master, but also against the vessel, for the purpose of converting her and
her goods to their own use.
Object of Piracy.
§ 275. The object of piracy is any public or private vessel, or the persons
or the goods thereon, whilst on the Open Sea. In the regular case of piracy
the pirate wants to make booty; it is the cargo of the attacked vessel which
is the centre of his interest, and he might free the vessel and the crew after
having appropriated the cargo. But he remains a pirate whether he does so
or kills the crew and appropriates the ship, or sinks her. On the other hand,
it does not matter if the cargo is not the object of his act of violence. If he
stops a vessel and takes a rich passenger off with the intention to keep him
for the purpose of a high ransom, his act is piracy. It is likewise piracy if he
stops a vessel for the purpose of killing a certain person only on board,
although he may afterwards free vessel, crew, and cargo.
That a possible object of piracy is not only another vessel, but also the
very ship on which the crew and passenger navigate, is an inference from
the statements above in § 274.
Piracy, how effected.
§ 276. Piracy is effected by any unauthorised act of violence, be it direct
application of force or intimidation through menace. The crew or
passengers who, for the purpose of converting a vessel and her goods to
their own use, force the master through intimidation to steer another course,
commit piracy as well as those who murder the master and steer the vessel
themselves. And a ship which, through the threat to sink her if she should
refuse, forces another ship to deliver up her cargo or a person on board,
commits piracy as well as the ship which attacks another vessel, kills her
crew, and thereby gets hold of her cargo or a person on board.
The act of violence need not be consummated to constitute the crime of
piracy. The mere attempt, such as attacking or even chasing only for the
purpose of attack, by itself comprises piracy. On the other hand, it is
doubtful whether persons cruising in armed vessels with the intention of
committing piracies are liable to be treated as pirates before they have
committed a single act of violence.[560]
[560] See Stephen, "Digest of the Criminal Law," article 104. In the case of the Ambrose Light—
see above, § 273—the Court considered the vessel to be a pirate, although no attempt to commit a
piratical act had been made by her.

Where Piracy can be committed.

§ 277. Piracy as an "international crime" can be committed on the Open
Sea only. Piracy in territorial coast waters has quite as little to do with
International Law as other robberies on the territory of a State. Some
writers[561] maintain that piracy need not necessarily be committed on the
Open Sea, but that it suffices that the respective acts of violence are
committed by descent from the Open Sea. They maintain, therefore, that if
"a body of pirates land on an island unappropriated by a civilised Power,
and rob and murder a trader who may be carrying on commerce there with
the savage inhabitants, they are guilty of a crime possessing all the marks of
commonplace professional piracy." With this opinion I cannot agree. Piracy
is, and always has been, a crime against the safety of traffic on the Open
Sea, and therefore it cannot be committed anywhere else than on the Open
Sea.
[561] Hall, § 81; Lawrence, § 102; Westlake, I. p. 177.

Jurisdiction over Pirates, and their Punishment.

§ 278. A pirate and his vessel lose ipso facto by an act of piracy the
protection of their flag State and their national character. Every maritime
State has by a customary rule of the Law of Nations the right to punish
pirates. And the vessels of all nations, whether men-of-war, other public
vessels, or merchantmen,[562] can on the Open Sea[563] chase, attack, seize,
and bring the pirate home for trial and punishment by the Courts of their
own country. In former times it was said to be a customary rule of
International Law that pirates could at once after seizure be hanged or
drowned by the captor. But this cannot now be upheld, although some
writers assert that it is still the law. It would seem that the captor may
execute pirates on the spot only when he is not able to bring them safely
into a port for trial; but Municipal Law may, of course, interdict such
execution. Concerning the punishment for piracy, the Law of Nations lays
down the rule that it may be capital. But it need not be, the Municipal Law
of the different States being competent to order any less severe punishment.
Nor does the Law of Nations make it a duty for every maritime State to
punish all pirates.[564]
[562] A few writers (Gareis in Holtzendorff, II. p 575; Liszt, § 26; Ullmann, § 104; Stiel, op. cit.,
p. 51) maintain, however, that men-of-war only have the power to seize the pirate.
[563] If a pirate is chased on the Open Sea and flees into the territorial maritime belt, the
pursuers may follow, attack, and arrest the pirate there; but they must give him up to the
authorities of the littoral State.
[564] Thus, according to the German Criminal Code, piracy committed by foreigners against
foreign vessels cannot be punished by German Courts (see Perels, § 17). From article 104 of
Stephen's "Digest of the Criminal Law," there seems to be no doubt that, according to English
Law, all pirates are liable to be punished. See Stiel, op. cit., p. 15, note 4, where a survey is given
of the Municipal Law of many States concerning this point.
That men-of-war of all nations have, with a view to insuring the safety of
traffic, the power of verifying the flags of suspicious merchantmen of all
nations, has already been stated above (§ 266, No. 2).
Pirata non mutat dominium.
§ 279. The question as to the property in the seized piratical vessels and
the goods thereon has been the subject of much controversy. During the
seventeenth century the practice of several States conceded such vessel and
goods to the captor as a premium. But during the eighteenth century the rule
pirata non mutat dominium became more and more recognised. Nowadays
the conviction would seem to be general that ship and goods have to be
restored to their proprietors, and may be conceded to the captor only when
the real ownership cannot be ascertained. In the first case, however, a
certain percentage of the value is very often conceded to the captor as a
premium and an equivalent for his expenses (so-called droit de
recousse[565]). Thus, according to British Law,[566] a salvage of 12-1/2 per
cent. is to be paid to the captor of the pirate.
[565] See details regarding the question as to the piratical vessels and goods in Pradier-Fodéré,
V. Nos. 2496-2499.
[566] See section 5 of the "Act to repeal an Act of the Sixth Year of King George the Fourth, for
encouraging the Capture or Destruction of Piratical Ships, &c." (13 & 14 Vict. ch. 26).

Piracy according to Municipal Law.

§ 280. Piracy, according to the Law of Nations, which has been defined
above (§ 272) as every unauthorised act of violence against persons or
goods committed on the Open Sea either by a private vessel against another
vessel or by the mutinous crew or passengers against their own vessel, must
not be confounded with the conception of piracy according to the different
Municipal Laws.[567] The several States may confine themselves to
punishing as piracy a narrower circle of acts of violence than that which the
Law of Nations defines as piracy. On the other hand, they may punish their
subjects as pirates for a much wider circle of acts. Thus, for instance,
according to the Criminal Law of England,[568] every English subject is inter
alia deemed to be a pirate who gives aid or comfort upon the sea to the
King's enemies during a war, or who transports slaves on the High Seas.
[567] See Calvo, §§ 488-492; Lawrence, § 103; Pradier-Fodéré, V. Nos. 2501 and 2502.
[568] See Stephen, "Digest of the Criminal Law," articles 104-117.
However, since a State cannot on the Open Sea enforce its Municipal
Laws against others than its own subjects, no State can treat such foreign
subjects on the Open Sea as pirates as are not pirates according to the Law
of Nations. Thus, when in 1858, before the abolition of slavery in America,
British men-of-war molested American vessels suspected of carrying
slaves, the United States objected and rightly complained.[569]
[569] See Wharton, III. § 327, pp. 142 and 143; Taylor, § 190; Moore, II. § 310, pp. 941-946.

VI
FISHERIES IN THE OPEN SEA

Grotius, II. c. 3, § 4—Vattel, I. § 287—Hall, § 27—Lawrence, §§ 86 and 91—Phillimore, I.

§§ 181-195—Twiss, I. § 185—Taylor, §§ 249-250—Wharton, II. §§ 300-308—Wheaton,
§§ 167-171—Moore, I. §§ 169-173—Bluntschli, § 307—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp.
504-507—Gareis, § 62—Liszt, § 35—Ullmann, § 103—Bonfils, Nos. 581-582, 595—
Despagnet, Nos. 411-413—Mérignhac, II. p. 531—Pradier-Fodéré, V. Nos. 2446-2458—
Rivier, I. pp. 243-245—Nys, II. pp. 165-169—Calvo, I. §§ 357-364—Fiore, II. Nos. 728-
729, and Code, Nos. 995-999—Martens, I. § 98—Perels, § 20—Hall, "Foreign Powers and
Jurisdiction" (1894), § 107—David, "La pêche maritime au point de vue international"
(1897)—Fulton, "The Sovereignty of the Seas" (1911), pp. 57-534.

Fisheries in the Open Sea free to all Nations.

§ 281. Whereas the fisheries in the territorial maritime belt can be
reserved by the littoral State for its own subjects, it is an inference of the
freedom of the Open Sea that the fisheries thereon are open[570] to vessels of
all nations. Since, however, vessels remain whilst on the Open Sea under
the jurisdiction of their flag State, every State possessing a maritime flag
can legislate concerning the exercise of fisheries on the Open Sea on the
part of vessels sailing under its flag. And for the same reason a State can by
an international agreement renounce its fisheries on certain parts of the
Open Sea, and accordingly interdict its vessels from exercising fisheries
there. If certain circumstances and conditions make it advisable to restrict
and regulate the fisheries on some parts of the Open Sea, the Powers are
therefore able to create restrictions and regulations for that purpose through
international treaties. Such treaties have been concluded—first, with regard
to the fisheries in the North Sea and the suppression of the liquor trade
among the fishing vessels in that Sea; secondly, with regard to the seal
fisheries in the Behring Sea; thirdly, with regard to the fisheries around the
Faröe Islands and Iceland.
[570] Denmark silently, by fishing regulations of 1872, dropped her claim to an exclusive right
of fisheries within twenty miles of the coast of Iceland; see Hall, § 40, p. 153, note 2. Russia
promulgated, in 1911, a statute forbidding the fisheries to foreign vessels within twelve miles of
the shore of the White Sea, but the Powers protested against this encroachment upon the freedom
of the Open Sea; the matter is still unsettled.
A case of a particular kind would seem to be the pearl fishery off Ceylon, which extends to a
distance of twenty miles from the shore and for which regulations exist which are enforced against
foreign as well as British subjects. The claim on which these regulations are based is one "to the
products of certain submerged portions of land which have been treated from time immemorial by
the successive rulers of the island as subject of property and jurisdiction." See Hall, "Foreign
Powers and Jurisdiction" (1894), p. 243, note 1. See also Westlake, I. p. 186, who says: "The case
of the pearl fishery is peculiar, the pearls being obtained from the sea bottom by divers, so that it
has a physical connection with the stable element of the locality which is wanting to the pursuit of
fish swimming in the water. When carried on under State protection, as that off the British island
of Ceylon, or that in the Persian Gulf which is protected by British ships in pursuance of treaties
with certain chiefs of the Arabian mainland, it may be regarded as an occupation of the bed of the
sea. In that character the pearl fishery will be territorial even though the shallowness of the water
may allow it to be practised beyond the limit which the State in question generally fixes for the
littoral seas, as in the case of Ceylon it is practised beyond the three miles limit generally
recognised by Great Britain. 'Qui doutera,' says Vattel (I. § 28), 'que les pêcheries de Bahrein et de
Ceylon ne puissent légitimement tomber en propriété?' And the territorial nature of the industry
will carry with it, as being necessary for its protection, the territorial character of the spot." This
opinion of Westlake coincides with that contended by Great Britain during the Behring Sea
Arbitration; see Parliamentary Papers, United States, No. 4 (1893) Behring Sea Arbitration,
Archives of His Majesty's Government, pp. 51 and 59. But it is submitted that the bed of the Open
Sea is not a possible object of occupation. The explanation of the pearl fisheries off Ceylon and in
the Persian Gulf being exclusively British is to be found in the fact that the freedom of the Open
Sea was not a rule of International Law when these fisheries were taken possession of. See
Oppenheim in Z.V. II. (1908), pp. 6-10, and Westlake, I. (2nd ed.), p. 203.

Fisheries in the North Sea.

§ 282. For the purpose of regulating the fisheries in the North Sea, an
International Conference took place at the Hague in 1881 and again in
1882, at which Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany,
Holland, and Sweden-Norway were represented, and on May 6, 1882, the
International Convention for the Regulation of the Police of the Fisheries in
the North Sea outside the territorial waters[571] was signed by the
representatives of all these States, Sweden-Norway excepted, to which the
option of joining later on is given. This treaty contains the following
stipulations:[572]—
[571] Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. IX. p. 556.
[572] The matter is exhaustively treated by Rykere, "Le régime légal de la pêche maritime dans
la Mer du Nord" (1901). To carry out the obligations undertaken by her in the Convention for the
regulation of the fisheries in the North Sea, Great Britain enacted in 1883 the "Act to carry into
effect an International Convention concerning the Fisheries in the North Sea, and to amend the
Laws relating to British Sea Fisheries" (46 and 47 Vict. ch. 22).
(1) All the fishing vessels of the signatory Powers must be registered, and
the registers have to be exchanged between the Powers (article 5). Every
vessel has to bear visibly in white colour on black ground its number, name,
and the name of its harbour (articles 6-11). Every vessel must bear an
official voucher of her nationality (articles 12-13).
(2) To avoid conflicts between the different fishing vessels, very minute
interdictions and injunctions are provided (articles 14-25).
(3) The supervision of the fisheries by the fishing vessels of the signatory
Powers is exercised by special cruisers of these Powers (article 26). With
the exception of those contraventions which are specially enumerated by
article 27, all these cruisers are competent to verify all contraventions
committed by the fishing vessels of all the signatory Powers (article 28).
For that purpose they have the right of visit, search, and arrest (article 29).
But a seized fishing vessel is to be brought into a harbour of her flag State
and to be handed over to the authorities there (article 30). All
contraventions are to be tried by the Courts of the State to which the
contravening vessels belong (article 36); but in cases of a trifling character
the matter can be compromised on the spot by the commanders of the
special public cruisers of the Powers (article 33).
Bumboats in the North Sea.
§ 283. Connected with the regulation of the fisheries is the abolition of
the liquor trade among the fishing vessels in the North Sea. Since serious
quarrels and difficulties were caused through bumboats and floating grog-
shops selling intoxicating liquors to the fishermen, an International
Conference took place at the Hague in 1886, where the signatory Powers of
the Hague Convention concerning the fisheries in the North Sea were
represented. And on November 16, 1887, the International Convention
concerning the Abolition of the Liquor Traffic among the fishermen in the
North Sea was signed by the representatives of these Powers—namely,
Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and Holland. This
treaty[573] was, however, not ratified until 1894, and France did not ratify it
at all. It contains the following stipulations:[574]—
[573] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XIV. p. 540, and XXII. p. 563.
[574] The matter is treated by Guillaume in R.I. XXVI. (1894), p. 488.
It is interdicted to sell spirituous drinks to persons on board of fishing
vessels, and these persons are prohibited from buying such drinks (article
2). Bumboats, which wish to sell provisions to fishermen, must be licensed
by their flag State and must fly a white flag[575] with the letter S in black in
the middle (article 3). The special cruisers of the Powers which supervise
the fisheries in the North Sea are likewise competent to supervise the treaty
stipulations concerning bumboats; they have the right to ask for the
production of the proper licence, and eventually the right to arrest the vessel
(article 7). But arrested vessels must always be brought into a harbour of
their flag State, and all contraventions are to be tried by Courts of the flag
State of the contravening vessel (articles 2, 7, 8).
[575]
This flag was agreed upon in the Protocol concerning the ratification of the Convention.
(See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXII. p. 565.)

Seal Fisheries in Behring Sea.

§ 284. In 1886 a conflict arose between Great Britain and the United
States through the seizure and confiscation of British-Columbian vessels
which had hunted seals in the Behring Sea outside the American territorial
belt, infringing regulations made by the United States concerning seal
fishing in that sea. Great Britain and the United States concluded an
arbitration treaty[576] concerning this conflict in 1892, according to which
the arbitrators should not only settle the dispute itself, but also (article 7)
"determine what concurrent regulations outside the jurisdictional limits of
the respective Governments are necessary" in the interest of the
preservation of the seals. The Arbitration Tribunal, which assembled and
gave its award[577] at Paris in 1893, imposed the duty upon both parties of
forbidding their subjects to kill seals within a zone of sixty miles around the
Pribilof Islands; the killing of seals at all between May 1 and July 31 each
year; seal-fishing with nets, firearms, and explosives; seal-fishing in other
than specially licensed sailing vessels. Both parties in 1894 carried out this
task imposed upon them.[578] Other maritime Powers were at the same time
asked by the United States to submit voluntarily to the regulations made for
the parties by the arbitrators, but only Italy[579] has agreed to this.
[576] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XVIII. p. 587.
[577] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXI. p. 439. The award is discussed by Barclay in R.I. XXV.
(1893), p. 417, and Engelhardt in R.I. XXVI. (1894), p. 386, and R.G. V. (1898), pp. 193 and 347.
See also Tillier, "Les Pêcheries de Phoques de la Mer de Behring" (1906), and Balch, "L'évolution
de l'Arbitrage International" (1908), pp. 70-91.
[578] See the Behring Sea Award Act, 1894 (57 Vict. c. 2).
[579] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXII. p. 624.

Experience has shown that the provisions made by the Arbitration

Tribunal for the purpose of preventing the extinction of the seals in the
Behring Sea are insufficient. The United States therefore invited the
maritime Powers whose subjects are engaged in the seal fisheries to a
Pelagic Sealing Conference which took place at Washington in 1911, and
produced a convention[580] which was signed on July 7, 1911, by which the
suspension of pelagic sealing for fifteen years was agreed upon.
[No further details of this Convention are as yet known, and it has
not yet been ratified.]
[580] See below, § 593, No. 2.

Fisheries around the Faröe Islands and Iceland.

§ 285. For the purpose of regulating the fisheries outside territorial
waters around the Faröe Islands and Iceland, Great Britain and Denmark
signed on June 24, 1901, the Convention of London,[581] whose stipulations
are for the most part literally the same as those of the International
Convention for the Regulation of the Fisheries in the North Sea, concluded
at the Hague in 1882.[582] The additional article of this Convention of
London stipulates that any other State whose subjects fish around the Faröe
Islands and Iceland may accede to it.
[581] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXIII. (1906), p. 268.
[582] See above, § 282.

VII
TELEGRAPH CABLES IN THE OPEN SEA
 Bonfils, No. 583—Despagnet, No. 401—Pradier-Fodéré, V. No. 2548—Mérignhac, II. p. 532
—Nys, II. p. 170—Rivier, I. pp. 244 and 386—Fiore, II. No. 822, and Code, Nos. 1134-
1137—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 507-508—Liszt, § 29—Ullmann, § 103—Lauterbach,
"Die Beschädigung unterseeischer Telegraphenkabel" (1889)—Landois, "Zur Lehre vom
völkerrechtlichen Schutz der submarinen Telegraphenkabel" (1894)—Jouhannaud, "Les
câbles sous-marins" (1904)—Renault, in R.I. XII. (1880), p. 251, XV. (1883), p. 17. See
also the literature quoted below, vol. II., at the commencement of § 214.

Telegraph cables in the Open Sea admitted.

§ 286. It is a consequence of the freedom of the Open Sea that no State
can prevent another from laying telegraph and telephone cables in any part
of the Open Sea, whereas no State need allow this within its territorial
maritime belt. As numerous submarine cables have been laid, the question
as to their protection arose. Already in 1869 the United States proposed an
international convention for this purpose, but the matter dropped in
consequence of the outbreak of the Franco-German war. The Institute of
International Law took up the matter in 1879[583] and recommended an
international agreement. In 1882 France invited the Powers to an
International Conference at Paris for the purpose of regulating the
protection of submarine cables. This conference met in October 1882, again
in October 1883, and produced the "International Convention for the
Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables" which was signed at Paris on
April 16, 1884.[584]
[583] See Annuaire, III. pp. 351-394.
[584] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XI. p. 281.
The signatory Powers are:—Great Britain, Argentina, Austria-Hungary,
Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, San Domingo, France,
Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Holland, Italy, Persia, Portugal, Roumania,
Russia, Salvador, Servia, Spain, Sweden-Norway, Turkey, the United
States, and Uruguay. Colombia and Persia did not ratify the treaty, but, on
the other hand, Japan acceded to it later on.
International Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables.
§ 287. The protection afforded to submarine telegraph cables finds its
expression in the following stipulations of this international treaty:—
(1) Intentional or culpably negligent breaking or damaging of a cable in
the Open Sea is to be punished by all the signatory Powers,[585] except in the
case of such damage having been caused in the effort of self-preservation
(article 2).
 [585] See the Submarine Telegraph Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. c. 49).
(2) Ships within sight of buoys indicating cables which are being laid or
which are damaged must keep at least a quarter of a nautical mile distant
(article 6).
(3) For dealing with infractions of the interdictions and injunctions of the
treaty the Courts of the flag State of the infringing vessel are exclusively
competent (article 8).
(4) Men-of-war of all signatory Powers have a right to stop and to verify
the nationality of merchantmen of all nations which are suspected of having
infringed the regulations of the treaty (article 10).
(5) All stipulations are made for the time of peace only and in no wise
restrict the action of belligerents during time of war.[586]
[586]See below, vol. II. § 214, and art. 54 of the Hague rules concerning land warfare which
enacts:—"Submarine cables connecting a territory occupied with a neutral territory shall not be
seized or destroyed except in the case of absolute necessity. They also must be restored and
indemnities for them regulated at the peace."

VIII
WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY ON THE OPEN SEA

Bonfils, Nos. 53110, 11—Despagnet, 433quater—Liszt, § 29—Ullmann, § 147—Meili, "Die

drahtlose Telegraphie, &c." (1908)—Schneeli, "Drahtlose Telegraphie und Völkerrecht"
(1908)—Landsberg, "Die drahtlose Telegraphie" (1909)—Kausen, "Die drahtlose
Telegraphie im Völkerrecht" (1910)—Rolland in R.G. XIII. (1906), pp. 58-92—Fauchille
in Annuaire, XXI. (1906), pp. 76-87—Meurer and Boidin in R.G. XVI. (1909), pp. 76 and
261.

Radio-telegraphy between ships and the shore.

§ 287a. To secure radio-telegraphic[587] communication between ships of
all nations at sea and the continents, a Conference met at Berlin in 1906,
where Great Britain, Germany, the United States of America, Argentina,
Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chili, Denmark, Spain, France,
Greece, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Monaco, Norway, Holland, Persia, Portugal,
Roumania, Russia, Sweden, Turkey, and Uruguay were represented, and
where was signed on November 3, 1906, the International Radio-
telegraphic Convention.[588] This Convention, which consists of twenty-
three articles, is accompanied by a Final Protocol, comprising six important
articles, and by Service Regulations, embodying fifty-two articles. The
more important stipulations of the Convention are the following:—Coast
Stations and ships are bound to exchange radio-telegrams reciprocally
without regard to the particular system of radio-telegraphy adopted by them
(article 3). Each of the contracting parties undertakes to cause its coast
stations to be connected with the telegraph system by means of special
wires, or at least to take such other measures as will ensure an expeditious
exchange of traffic between the coast stations and the telegraph system
(article 5). Radio-telegraph stations are bound to accept with absolute
priority calls of distress from ships, to answer such calls with similar
priority, and to take the necessary steps with regard to them (article 9). An
International Bureau shall be established with the duty of collecting,
arranging, and publishing information of every kind concerning radio-
telegraphy, and for some other purposes mentioned in article 13.
[587] See above, § 173, and below, §§ 464 and 582, No. 4.
[588] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. III. (1910), p. 147. But not all the signatory Powers have as
yet ratified the Convention, ratification having been given hitherto only by Great Britain, Austria-
Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Monaco,
Holland, Norway, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Turkey; and Tunis acceded to
it. Italy has reserved ratification on account of her relations with the Marconi Wireless Telegraphy
Co.

Radio-telegraphy between ships at sea.

§ 287b. To secure radio-telegraphic communication between such ships
at sea as possess installations for wireless telegraphy, an Additional
Convention[589] to that mentioned above in § 287a was signed on November
3, 1906, by all the Powers who signed the forementioned Convention
except by Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Persia, and Portugal.
According to this additional Convention all ships at sea which possess
radio-telegraphic installations are compelled to exchange radio-telegrams
reciprocally at all times without regard to the particular system of radio-
telegraphy adopted.
 [589]See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. III. (1910), p. 158. But this Convention likewise has not yet
been ratified by all the signatory Powers.
It is to be hoped that in time all the Powers will accede to this Additional
Convention, for its stipulation is of great importance in cases of shipwreck.
If ships at sea can refuse to exchange radio-telegrams, it is impossible for
them to render one another assistance. It ought not to be possible for the
following case[590] to occur, to which attention was drawn at the Berlin
Conference by the delegate of the United States of America:—The
American steamer Lebanon had received orders to search the Atlantic for a
wrecked vessel which offered great danger to navigation. The Lebanon
came within communicating reach of the liner Vaderland, and inquired by
wireless telegraphy whether the Vaderland had seen the wreck. The
Vaderland refused to reply to this question, on the ground that she was not
permitted to enter into communication with a ship provided with a wireless
apparatus other than the Marconi.
[590] See Hazeltine, "The Law of the Air" (1911), p. 101.

IX
THE SUBSOIL BENEATH THE SEA BED

Five rules concerning the subsoil beneath the Sea Bed.

§ 287c. The subsoil beneath the bed of the Open Sea requires special
consideration on account of coal or other mines, tunnels, and the like, for
the question is whether such buildings can be driven into that subsoil at all,
and, if this can be done, whether they can be under the territorial supremacy
of a particular State. The answer depends entirely upon the character in law
of such subsoil. If the rules concerning the territorial subsoil[591] would have
analogously to be applied to the subsoil beneath the bed of the Open Sea, all
rules concerning the Open Sea would necessarily have to be applied to the
subsoil beneath its bed, and no part of this subsoil could ever come under
the territorial supremacy of any State. It is, however, submitted[592] that it
would not be rational to consider the subsoil beneath the bed of the Open
Sea an inseparable appurtenance of the latter, such as the subsoil beneath
the territorial land and water is. The rationale of the Open Sea being free
and for ever excluded from occupation on the part of any State is that it is
an international highway which connects distant lands and thereby secures
freedom of communication, and especially of commerce, between such
States as are separated by the sea.[593] There is no reason whatever for
extending this freedom of the Open Sea to the subsoil beneath its bed. On
the contrary, there are practical reasons—taking into consideration the
building of mines, tunnels, and the like—which compel the recognition of
the fact that this subsoil can be acquired through occupation. The following
five rules recommend themselves concerning this subject:—
[591] See above, §§ 173, 175.
[592] See Oppenheim in Z.V. II. (1908), p. 11.
[593] See above, § 259.

(1) The subsoil beneath the bed of the Open Sea is no man's land, and it
can be acquired on the part of a littoral State through occupation, starting
from the subsoil beneath the bed of the territorial maritime belt.
(2) This occupation takes place ipso facto by a tunnel or a mine being
driven from the shore through the subsoil of the maritime belt into the
subsoil of the Open Sea.
(3) This occupation of the subsoil of the Open Sea can be extended up to
the boundary line of the subsoil of the territorial maritime belt of another
State, for no State has an exclusive claim to occupy such part of the subsoil
of the Open Sea as is adjacent to the subsoil of its territorial maritime belt.
(4) An occupation of the subsoil beneath the bed of the Open Sea for a
purpose which would endanger the freedom of the Open Sea is
inadmissible.
(5) It is likewise inadmissible to make such arrangements in a part of the
subsoil beneath the Open Sea which has previously been occupied for a
legitimate purpose as would indirectly endanger the freedom of the Open
Sea.
If these five rules are correct, there is nothing in the way of coal and
other mines which are being exploited on the shore of a littoral State being
extended into the subsoil beneath the Open Sea up to the boundary line of
the subsoil beneath the territorial maritime belt of another State. Further, a
tunnel which might be built between such two parts of the same State—for
instance, between Ireland and Scotland—as are separated by the Open Sea
would fall entirely under the territorial supremacy of the State concerned.
On the other hand, for a tunnel between two different States separated by
the Open Sea special arrangements by treaty would have to be made
concerning the territorial supremacy over that part of the tunnel which runs
under the bed of the Open Sea.
The proposed Channel Tunnel.
§ 287d. Since there is as yet no submarine tunnel in existence, it is of
interest to give some details concerning the project of a Channel Tunnel[594]
between Dover and Calais, and the preliminary arrangements between
France and England concerning it. Already some years before the Franco-
German War the possibility of such a tunnel was discussed, but it was not
until 1874 that the first preliminary steps were taken. The subsoil of the
Channel was geologically explored, plans were worked out, and a shaft of
more than a mile long was tentatively bored from the English shore. And in
1876 an International Commission, appointed by the English and French
Governments, and comprising three French and three English members,
made a report on the construction and working of the proposed tunnel.[595]
The report enclosed a memorandum, recommended by the Commissioners
to be adopted as the basis of a treaty between Great Britain and France
concerning the tunnel, the juridically important articles of which are the
following:—
[594] See Oppenheim in Z.V. II. (1908), pp. 1-16; Robin in R.G. XV. (1908), pp. 50-77; and
Liszt, § 26.
[595] See Parliamentary Papers, C. 1576, Report of the Commissioners for the Channel Tunnel
and Railway, 1876.
(Article 1) The boundary between England and France in the tunnel shall
be half-way between low-water mark (above the tunnel) on the coast of
England, and low-water mark (above the tunnel) on the coast of France.
The said boundary shall be ascertained and marked out under the direction
of the International Commission to be appointed, as mentioned in article 4,
before the Submarine Railway is opened for public traffic. The definition of
boundary provided for by this article shall have reference to the tunnel and
Submarine Railway only, and shall not in any way affect any question of the
nationality of, or any rights of navigation, fishing, anchoring, or other rights
in, the sea above the tunnel, or elsewhere than in the tunnel itself.
(Article 4) There shall be constituted an International Commission to
consist of six members, three of whom shall be nominated by the British
Government and three by the French Government....
 The International Commission shall ... submit to the two Governments its
proposals for Supplementary Conventions with respect—(a) to the
apprehension and trial of alleged criminals for offences committed in the
tunnel or in trains which have passed through it, and the summoning of
witnesses; (b) to customs, police, and postal arrangements, and other
matters which it may be found convenient so to deal with.
(Article 15) Each Government shall have the right to suspend the
working of the Submarine Railway and the passage through the tunnel
whenever such Government shall, in the interest of its own country, think
necessary to do so. And each Government shall have power, to be exercised
if and when such Government may deem it necessary, to damage or
destroy[596] the works of the tunnel or Submarine Railway, or any part of
them, in the territory of such Government, and also to flood the tunnel with
water.
[596]This stipulation was proposed in the interest of defence in time of war. As regards the
position of a Channel Tunnel in time of war, see Oppenheim in Z.V. II. (1908), pp. 13-16.
In spite of this elaborate preparation the project could not be realised,
since public opinion in England was for political reasons opposed to it. And
although several times since—in 1880, 1884, 1888, and 1908—steps were
again taken in favour of the proposed tunnel, public opinion in England
remained hostile and the project has had for the time to be abandoned. It is,
however, to be hoped and expected that ultimately the tunnel will be built
when the political conditions which are now standing in the way of its
realisation have undergone a change.

CHAPTER III
INDIVIDUALS

I
POSITION OF INDIVIDUALS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

Lawrence, § 42—Taylor, § 171—Heffter, § 58—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 585-592—

Gareis, § 53—Liszt, §§ 5 and 11—Ullmann, § 107—Bonfils, Nos. 397-409—Despagnet,
No. 328—Mérignhac, II. pp. 169-172—Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 43-49—Fiore, II. Nos. 568-
712—Martens, I. §§ 85-86—Jellinek, "System der subjectiven öffentlichen Rechte" (1892),
pp. 310-314—Heilborn, "System," pp. 58-138—Kaufmann, "Die Rechtskraft des
Internationalen Rechtes" (1899)—Buonvino, "Diritto e personalità giuridica internazionale"
 (1910)—Rehm and Adler in Z.V. II. (1908), pp. 53-55 and 614-618—Kohler in Z.V. III.
(1909), pp. 209-230—Diena in R.G. XVI. (1909), pp. 57-76.

Importance of Individuals to the Law of Nations.

§ 288. The importance of individuals to the Law of Nations is just as
great as that of territory, for individuals are the personal basis of every
State. Just as a State cannot exist without a territory, so it cannot exist
without a multitude of individuals who are its subjects and who, as a body,
form the people or the nation. The individuals belonging to a State can and
do come in various ways in contact with foreign States in time of peace as
well as of war. The Law of Nations is therefore compelled to provide
certain rules regarding individuals.
Individuals never Subjects of the Law of Nations.
§ 289. Now, what is the position of individuals in International Law
according to these rules? Since the Law of Nations is a law between States
only and exclusively, States only and exclusively[597] are subjects of the Law
of Nations. How is it, then, that, although individuals are not subjects of the
Law of Nations, they have certain rights and duties in conformity with or
according to International Law? Have not monarchs and other heads of
States, diplomatic envoys, and even simple citizens certain rights according
to the Law of Nations whilst on foreign territory? If we look more closely
into these rights, it becomes quite obvious that they are not given to the
favoured individual by the Law of Nations directly. For how could
International Law, which is a law between States, give rights to individuals
concerning their relations to a State? What the Law of Nations really does
concerning individuals, is to impose the duty upon all the members of the
Family of Nations to grant certain privileges to such foreign heads of States
and diplomatic envoys, and certain rights to such foreign citizens as are on
their territory. And, corresponding to this duty, every State has by the Law
of Nations a right to demand that its head, its diplomatic envoys, and its
simple citizens be granted certain rights by foreign States when on their
territory. Foreign States granting these rights to foreign individuals do this
by their Municipal Laws, and these rights are, therefore, not international
rights, but rights derived from Municipal Laws. International Law is indeed
the background of these rights in so far as the duty to grant them is imposed
upon the single States by International Law. It is therefore quite correct to
say that the individuals have these rights in conformity with or according to
International Law, if it is only remembered that these rights would not exist
had the single States not created them by their Municipal Law.
[597] See above, §§ 13 and 63.
And the same is valid as regards special rights of individuals in foreign
countries according to special international treaties between two or more
Powers. Although such treaties mostly speak of rights which individuals
shall have as derived from the treaties themselves, this is nothing more than
an inaccuracy of language. In fact, such treaties do not create these rights,
but they impose the duty upon the contracting States of calling these rights
into existence by their Municipal Laws.[598]
[598]
The whole matter is treated with great lucidity by Jellinek, "System der subjectiven
öffentlichen Rechte" (1892), pp. 310-314, and Heilborn, "System," pp. 58-138.
Again, in those rare cases in which States stipulate by international
treaties certain favours for individuals other than their own subjects, these
individuals do not acquire any international rights under these treaties. The
latter impose the duty only upon the State whose subjects these individuals
are of calling those favours into existence by its Municipal Law. Thus, for
example, when articles 5, 25, 35, and 44 of the Treaty of Berlin, 1878, made
it a condition of the recognition of Bulgaria, Montenegro, Servia, and
Roumania, that these States should not impose any religious disability upon
their subjects, the latter did not thereby acquire any international rights.
Another instructive example[599] is furnished by article 5 of the Peace Treaty
of Prague, 1866, between Prussia and Austria, which stipulated that the
northern district of Schleswig should be ceded by Prussia to Denmark in
case the inhabitants should by a plebiscite vote in favour of such cession.
Austria, no doubt, intended to secure by this stipulation for the inhabitants
of North Schleswig the opportunity of voting in favour of their union with
Denmark. But these inhabitants did not thereby acquire any international
right. Austria herself acquired only a right to insist upon Prussia granting to
the inhabitants the opportunity of voting for the union with Denmark.
Prussia, however, intentionally neglected her duty, Austria did not insist
upon her right, and finally relinquished it by the Treaty of Vienna of 1878.
[600]
[599]
See Heilborn, "System," p. 67.
[600] It ought to be mentioned that the opinion presented in the text concerning the impossibility
for individuals to be subjects of International Law, which is now mostly upheld, is vigorously
opposed by Kaufmann, "Die Rechtskraft des internationalen Rechtes" (1899), §§ 1-4, and a few
others.
 Now it is maintained[601] that, although individuals cannot be subjects of
International Law, they can nevertheless acquire rights and duties from
International Law. But it is impossible to find a basis for the existence of
such rights and duties. International rights and duties they cannot be, for
international rights and duties can only exist between States. Likewise they
cannot be municipal rights, for municipal rights and duties can only be
created by Municipal Law. The opponents answer that such rights and
duties nevertheless exist, and quote for example articles 4 and 5 of
Convention XII. (concerning the establishment of an International Prize
Court) of the second Hague Peace Conference, according to which
individuals have a right to bring an appeal before the International Prize
Court. But is this a real right? Is it not more correct to say that the home
States of the individuals concerned have a right to demand that these
individuals can bring the appeal before the Court? Wherever International
Law creates an independent organisation, such as the International Prize
Court at the Hague or the European Danube Commission and the like,
certain powers and claims must be given to the Courts and Commissions
and the individuals concerned, but these powers and claims, and the
obligations deriving therefrom, are neither international nor municipal
rights and duties: they are powers, claims, and obligations existing only
within the organisations concerned. To call them rights and duties—as
indeed the respective treaties frequently do—is a laxity of language which
is quite tolerable as long as one remembers that they neither comprise any
relations between States nor any claims and obligations within the province
of Municipal Law.
[601]See Diena in R.G. XVI. (1909), pp. 57-76; Rehm and Adler in Z.V. I. (1908), pp. 53 and
614; Liszt, § 5; Kohler in Z.V. II. (1909), pp. 209-230.

Individuals Objects of the Law of Nations.

§ 290. But what is the real position of individuals in International Law, if
they are not subjects thereof? The answer can only be that they are objects
of the Law of Nations. They appear as such from many different points of
view. When, for instance, the Law of Nations recognises the personal
supremacy of every State over its subjects at home and abroad, these
individuals appear just as much objects of the Law of Nations as the
territory of the States does in consequence of the recognised territorial
supremacy of the States. When, secondly, the recognised territorial
supremacy of every State comprises certain powers over foreign subjects
within its boundaries without their home State's having a right to interfere,
these individuals appear again as objects of the Law of Nations. And,
thirdly, when according to the Law of Nations any State may seize and
punish foreign pirates on the Open Sea, or when belligerents may seize and
punish neutral blockade-runners and carriers of contraband on the Open Sea
without their home State's having a right to interfere, individuals appear
here too as objects of the Law of Nations.[602]
[602] Westlake, Chapters, p. 2, maintains that in these cases individuals appear as subjects of
International Law; but I cannot understand upon what argument this assertion is based. The
correct standpoint is taken up by Lorimer, II. p. 131, and Holland, "Jurisprudence," p. 341.

Nationality the Link between Individuals and the Law of Nations.

§ 291. If, as stated, individuals are never subjects but always objects of
the Law of Nations, then nationality is the link between this law and
individuals. It is through the medium of their nationality only that
individuals can enjoy benefits from the existence of the Law of Nations.
This is a fact which has its consequences over the whole area of
International Law.[603] Such individuals as do not possess any nationality
enjoy no protection whatever, and if they are aggrieved by a State they have
no way of redress, there being no State which would be competent to take
their case in hand. As far as the Law of Nations is concerned, apart from
morality, there is no restriction whatever to cause a State to abstain from
maltreating to any extent such stateless individuals.[604] On the other hand, if
individuals who possess nationality are wronged abroad, it is their home
State only and exclusively which has a right to ask for redress, and these
individuals themselves have no such right. It is for this reason that the
question of nationality is a very important one for the Law of Nations, and
that individuals enjoy benefits from this law not as human beings but as
subjects of such States as are members of the Family of Nations. And so
distinct is the position as subjects of these members from the position of
stateless individuals and from subjects of States outside the Family of
Nations, that it has been correctly characterised as a kind of international
"indigenousness," a Völkerrechts-Indigenat.[605] Just as municipal
citizenship procures for an individual the enjoyment of the benefits of the
Municipal Laws, so this international "indigenousness," which is a
necessary inference from municipal citizenship, procures the enjoyment of
the benefits of the Law of Nations.
[603] See below, § 294.
 [604] See below, § 312.
[605] See Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. p. 588.

The Law of Nations and the Rights of Mankind.

§ 292. Several writers[606] maintain that the Law of Nations guarantees to
every individual at home and abroad the so-called rights of mankind,
without regarding whether an individual be stateless or not, or whether he
be a subject of a member-State of the Family of Nations or not. Such rights
are said to comprise the right of existence, the right to protection of honour,
life, health, liberty, and property, the right of practising any religion one
likes, the right of emigration, and the like. But such rights do not in fact
enjoy any guarantee whatever from the Law of Nations,[607] and they cannot
enjoy such guarantee, since the Law of Nations is a law between States, and
since individuals cannot be subjects of this law. But there are certain facts
which cannot be denied at the background of this erroneous opinion. The
Law of Nations is a product of Christian civilisation and represents a legal
order which binds States, chiefly Christian, into a community. It is therefore
no wonder that ethical ideas which are some of them the basis of, others a
development from, Christian morals, have a tendency to require the help of
International Law for their realisation. When the Powers stipulated at the
Berlin Congress of 1878 that the Balkan States should be recognised only
under the condition that they did not impose any religious disabilities on
their subjects, they lent their arm to the realisation of such an idea. Again,
when the Powers after the beginning of the nineteenth century agreed to
several international arrangements in the interest of the abolition of the
slave trade,[608] they fostered the realisation of another of these ideas. And
the innumerable treaties between the different States as regards extradition
of criminals, commerce, navigation, copyright, and the like, are inspired by
the idea of affording ample protection to life, health, and property of
individuals. Lastly, there is no doubt that, should a State venture to treat its
own subjects or a part thereof with such cruelty as would stagger humanity,
public opinion of the rest of the world would call upon the Powers to
exercise intervention[609] for the purpose of compelling such State to
establish a legal order of things within its boundaries sufficient to guarantee
to its citizens an existence more adequate to the ideas of modern
civilisation. However, a guarantee of the so-called rights of mankind cannot
be found in all these and other facts. Nor do the actual conditions of life to
which certain classes of subjects are forcibly submitted within certain States
show that the Law of Nations really comprises such guarantee.[610]
[606] Bluntschli, §§ 360-363 and 370; Martens, I. §§ 85 and 86; Fiore, I. Nos. 684-712, and
Code, Nos. 614-669; Bonfils, No. 397, and others.
[607] The matter is treated with great lucidity by Heilborn, "System," pp. 83-138.
[608] It is incorrect to maintain that the Law of Nations has abolished slavery, but there is no
doubt that the conventional Law of Nations has tried to abolish the slave trade. Three important
general treaties have been concluded for that purpose during the nineteenth century, since the
Vienna Congress—namely, (1) the Treaty of London, 1841, between Great Britain, Austria,
France, Prussia, and Russia; (2) the General Act of the Congo Conference of Berlin, 1885, whose
article 9 deals with the slave trade; (3) the General Act of the anti-slavery Conference of Brussels,
1890, which is signed by Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, the Congo Free State,
Denmark, France, (see, however, below, § 517), Germany, Holland, Italy, Luxemburg, Persia,
Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Norway, the United States, Turkey, and Zanzibar. See Queneuil,
"De la traite des noirs et de l'esclavage" (1907).
[609] See above, § 137.
[610] The reader may think of the sad position of the Jews within the Russian Empire. The
treatment of the native Jews in Roumania, although the Powers have, according to the spirit of
article 44 of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878, a right of intervention, shows even more clearly that the
Law of Nations does not guarantee what are called rights of mankind. See below, § 312.

II
NATIONALITY

Vattel, I. §§ 220-226—Hall, §§ 66 and 87—Westlake, I. pp. 213, 231-233—Halleck, I. p. 401

—Taylor, §§ 172-178—Moore, III. §§ 372-376—Bluntschli, §§ 364-380—Stoerk in
Holtzendorff, II. pp. 630-650—Gareis, § 54—Liszt, § 11—Ullmann, § 108—Bonfils, Nos.
433-454—Despagnet, Nos. 329-333—Pradier-Fodéré, III. No. 1645—Rivier, I. p. 303—
Nys, II. pp. 214-220, 229-237—Calvo, II. §§ 539-540—Fiore, I. Nos. 644-658, 684-717,
and Code, Nos. 638-641—Martens, I. §§ 85-87—Hall, "Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction"
(1894), § 14—Cogordan, "La nationalité au point de vue des rapports internationaux" (2nd
ed. 1890)—Gargas in Z.V. V. (1911), pp. 278-316 and....

Conception of Nationality.
§ 293. Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a
certain State and therefore its citizen. It is not for International but for
Municipal Law to determine who is and who is not to be considered a
subject. And therefore it matters not, as far as the Law of Nations is
concerned, that Municipal Laws may distinguish between different kinds of
subjects—for instance, those who enjoy full political rights and are on that
account named citizens, and those who are less favoured and are on that
account not named citizens. Nor does it matter that according to the
Municipal Laws a person may be a subject of a part of a State, for instance
of a colony, but not a subject of the mother-country, provided only such
person appears as a subject of the mother-country as far as the latter's
international relations are concerned. Thus, a person naturalised in a British
Colony is for all international purposes a British subject, although he may
not have the rights of a British subject within the United Kingdom itself.[611]
For all international purposes, all distinctions made by Municipal Laws
between subjects and citizens and between different kinds of subjects have
neither theoretical nor practical value, and the terms "subject" and "citizen"
are, therefore, synonymously made use of in the theory and practice of
International Law.
[611] See below, § 307, and Hall, "Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction," § 20, who quotes, however,
a decision of the French Cour de Cassation according to which naturalisation in a British Colony
does not constitute a real naturalisation. But this decision is based on the Code Civil of France and
has nothing to do with the Law of Nations. See also Westlake, I. pp. 231-233.
But it must be emphasised that nationality as citizenship of a certain State
must not be confounded with nationality as membership of a certain nation
in the sense of a race. Thus, all Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Irishmen are,
despite their different nationality as regards their race, of British nationality
as regards their citizenship. Thus, further, although all Polish individuals
are of Polish nationality qua race, they have been, since the partition of
Poland at the end of the eighteenth century between Russia, Austria, and
Prussia, either of Russian, Austrian, or German nationality qua citizenship.
Function of Nationality.
§ 294. It will be remembered that nationality is the link between
individuals and the benefits of the Law of Nations.[612] This function of
nationality becomes apparent with regard to individuals abroad, or property
abroad of individuals who themselves are within the territory of their home
State. Through one particular right and one particular duty of every State
towards all other States this function of nationality becomes most
conspicuous. The right is that of protection over its citizens abroad which
every State holds and occasionally vigorously exercises towards other
States; it will be discussed in detail below, § 319. The duty, on the other
hand, is that of receiving on its territory such citizens as are not allowed to
remain[613] on the territory of other States. Since no State is obliged by the
Law of Nations to allow foreigners to remain within its boundaries, it may,
for many reasons, happen that certain individuals are expelled from all
foreign countries. The home State of those expelled cannot refuse to receive
them on the home territory, the expelling States having a claim on the home
State that the latter do receive the expelled individuals.[614]
[612] See above, § 291.
[613] See below, § 326.
[614] Beyond the right of protection and the duty to receive expelled citizens at home, the
powers of a State over its citizens abroad in consequence of its personal supremacy illustrate the
function of nationality. (See above, § 124.) Thus, the home State can tax citizens living abroad in
the interest of home finance, can request them to come home for the purpose of rendering military
service, can punish them for crimes committed abroad, can categorically request them to come
home for good (so-called jus avocandi). And no State has a right forcibly to retain foreign citizens
called home by their home State, or to prevent them from paying taxes to their home State, and the
like.

So-called Protégés and de facto Subjects.

§ 295. Although nationality alone is the regular means through which
individuals can derive benefit from the Law of Nations, there are two
exceptional cases in which individuals may come under the international
protection of a State without these individuals being really its subjects. It
happens, first, that a State undertakes by an international agreement the
diplomatic protection of another State's citizens abroad, and in this case the
protected foreign subjects are named "protégés" of the protecting States.
Such agreements are either concluded for a permanency as in the case of a
small State, Switzerland for instance, having no diplomatic envoy in a
certain foreign country where many of its subjects reside, or in time of war
only, a belligerent handing over the protection of its subjects in the enemy
State to a neutral State.
It happens, secondly, that a State promises diplomatic protection within
the boundaries of Turkey and other Oriental countries to certain natives.
Such protected natives are likewise named protégés, but they are also called
"de facto subjects" of the protecting State. The position of these protégés is
quite anomalous, it is based on custom and treaties, and no special rules of
the Law of Nations itself are in existence concerning such de facto subjects.
Every State which takes such de facto subjects under its protection can act
according to its discretion, and there is no doubt that as soon as these
Oriental States have reached a level of civilisation equal to that of the
Western members of the Family of Nations, the whole institution of the de
facto subjects will disappear.
 Concerning the exercise of protection in Morocco, a treaty[615] was
concluded at Madrid on July 3, 1880, signed by Morocco, Great Britain,
Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Portugal,
Spain, Sweden-Norway, and the United States of America, which sanctions
the stipulations of the treaty of 1863 between France and Morocco
concerning the same subject. According to this treaty the term "protégé"
embraces[616] in relation to States of Capitulations only the following classes
of persons:—(1) Persons being subjects of a country which is under the
protectorate of the Power whose protection they claim; (2) individuals
corresponding to the classes enumerated in the treaties with Morocco of
1863 and 1880 and in the Ottoman law of 1863; (3) persons, who under a
special treaty have been recognised as protégés like those enumerated by
article 4 of the French Muscat Convention of 1844; and (4) those
individuals who can establish that they had been considered and treated as
protégés by the Power in question before the year in which the creation of
new protégés was regulated and limited—that is to say, before the year
1863, these individuals not having lost the status they had once legitimately
acquired.
[615] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. VI. (1881), p. 624.
[616] See p. 56 of the official publication of the Award, given in 1905, of the Hague Court of
Arbitration in the case of France v. Great Britain concerning the Muscat Dhows.
It is of interest to note that the Court considers it a fact that the Powers have no longer the right
to create protégés in unlimited numbers in any of the Oriental States, for the Award states on p.
56:—"Although the Powers have expressis verbis resigned the exercise of the pretended right to
create 'protégés' in unlimited number only in relation to Turkey and Morocco, nevertheless the
exercise of this pretended right has been abandoned also in relation to other Oriental States,
analogy having always been recognised as a means to complete the very deficient written
regulations of the capitulations as far as circumstances are analogous."

Nationality and Emigration.

§ 296. As emigration comprises the voluntary removal of an individual
from his home State with the intention of residing abroad, but not
necessarily with the intention of renouncing his nationality, it is obvious
that emigrants may well retain their nationality. Emigration is in fact
entirely a matter of internal legislation of the different States. Every State
can fix for itself the conditions under which emigrants lose or retain their
nationality, as it can also prohibit emigration altogether, or can at any
moment request those who have emigrated to return to their former home,
provided the emigrants have retained their nationality of birth. And it must
be specially emphasised that the Law of Nations does not and cannot grant
a right of emigration to every individual, although it is frequently
maintained that it is a "natural" right of every individual to emigrate from
his own State.[617]
 [617]Attention ought to be drawn to the fact that, to ensure the protection of the interests of
emigrants and immigrants from the moral, hygienic, and economic view, the Institute of
International Law, at its meeting at Copenhagen in 1897, adopted a body of fourteen principles
concerning emigration under the heading "Vœux relatifs à la matière de l'émigration"; see
Annuaire, XVI. (1897), p. 276. See also Gargas in Z.V. V. (1911), pp. 278-316.

III
MODES OF ACQUIRING AND LOSING NATIONALITY

Vattel, I. §§ 212-219—Hall, §§ 67-72—Westlake, I. pp. 213-220—Lawrence, §§ 94-95—

Halleck, I. pp. 402-418—Moore, III. §§ 372-473—Taylor, §§ 176-183—Walker, § 19—
Bluntschli, §§ 364-373—Hartmann, § 81—Heffter, § 59—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp.
592-630—Gareis, § 55—Liszt, § 11—Ullmann, §§ 110 and 112—Bonfils, Nos. 417-432—
Despagnet, Nos. 318-327—Pradier-Fodéré, III. Nos. 1646-1691—Rivier, I. pp. 303-306—
Calvo, II. §§ 541-654, VI. §§ 92-117—Martens, II. §§ 44-48—Fiore, Code, Nos. 660-669
—Foote, "Private International Jurisprudence" (3rd ed. 1904), pp. 1-52—Dicey, "Conflict
of Laws" (1896), pp. 173-204—Martitz, "Das Recht der Staatsangehörigkeit im
internationalen Verkehr" (1885)—Cogordan, "La nationalité, &c" (2nd ed. 1890), pp. 21-
116, 317-400—Lapradelle, "De la nationalité d'origine" (1893)—Berney, "La nationalité à
l'Institut de Droit International" (1897)—Bisocchi, "Acquisto e perdita della Nazionalità,
&c." (1907)—Sieber, "Das Staatsbürgerrecht in internationalem Verkehr," 2 vols. (1907)—
Lehr, "La nationalité dans les principaux états du globe" (1909), and in R.I. 2nd Ser. X.
(1908), pp. 285, 401, and 525.
In 1893 the British Government addressed a circular to its representatives
abroad requesting them to send in a report concerning the laws relating to
nationality and naturalisation in force in the respective foreign countries.
These reports have been collected and presented to Parliament. They are
printed in Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XIX. pp. 515-760.

Five Modes of Acquisition of Nationality.

§ 297. Although it is for Municipal Law to determine who is and who is
not a subject of a State, it is nevertheless of interest for the theory of the
Law of Nations to ascertain how nationality can be acquired according to
the Municipal Law of the different States. The reason of the thing presents
five possible modes of acquiring nationality, and, although no State is
obliged to recognise all five, nevertheless all States practically do recognise
them. They are birth, naturalisation, redintegration, subjugation, and
cession.

Acquisition of Nationality by Birth.

 § 298. The first and chief mode of acquiring nationality is by birth, for
the acquisition of nationality by another mode is exceptional only, since the
vast majority of mankind acquires nationality by birth and does not change
it afterwards. But no uniform rules exist according to the Municipal Law of
the different States concerning this matter. Some States, as Germany and
Austria, have adopted the rule that descent alone is the decisive factor,[618]
so that a child born of their subjects becomes ipso facto by birth their
subject likewise, be the child born at home or abroad. According to this
rule, illegitimate children acquire the nationality of their mother. Other
States, such as Argentina, have adopted the rule that the territory on which
birth occurs is exclusively the decisive factor.[619] According to this rule
every child born on the territory of such State, whether the parents be
citizens or aliens, becomes a subject of such State, whereas a child born
abroad is foreign, although the parents may be subjects. Again, other States,
as Great Britain[620] and the United States, have adopted a mixed principle,
since, according to their Municipal Law, not only children of their subjects
born at home or abroad become their subjects, but also such children of
alien parents as are born on their territory.
[618] Jus sanguinis.
[619] Jus soli.
[620] See details concerning British law on this point in Hall, "Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction"
(1894), § 14.

Acquisition of Nationality through Naturalisation.

§ 299. The most important mode of acquiring nationality besides birth is
that of naturalisation in the wider sense of the term. Through naturalisation
an alien by birth acquires the nationality of the naturalising State.
According to the Municipal Law of the different States naturalisation may
take place through six different acts—namely, marriage, legitimation,
option, acquisition of domicile, appointment as Government official, grant
on application. Thus, according to the Municipal Law of most States, an
alien female marrying a subject of such State becomes thereby ipso facto
naturalised. Thus, further, according to the Municipal Law of several States,
an illegitimate child born of an alien mother, and therefore an alien himself,
becomes ipso facto naturalised through the father marrying the mother and
thereby legitimating the child.[621] Thus, thirdly, according to the Municipal
Law of some States, which declare children of foreign parents born on their
territory to be aliens, such children, if, after having come of age, they make
a declaration that they intend to be subjects of the country of their birth,
become ipso facto by such option naturalised. Again, fourthly, some States,
such as Venezuela, let an alien become naturalised ipso facto by his taking
his domicile[622] on their territory. Some States, fifthly, let an alien become
naturalised ipso facto on appointment as a Government official. And, lastly,
in all States naturalisation may be procured through a direct act on the part
of the State granting nationality to an alien who has applied for it. This last
kind of naturalisation is naturalisation in the narrower sense of the term; it
is the most important for the Law of Nations, and, whenever one speaks of
naturalisation pure and simple, such naturalisation through direct grant on
application is meant; it will be discussed in detail below, §§ 303-307.
[621] English law has not adopted this rule.
[622] It is doubtful (see Hall, § 64) whether the home State of such individuals naturalised
against their will must submit to this ipso facto naturalisation. See above, § 125, where the rule
has been stated that in consideration of the personal supremacy of the home State over its citizens
abroad no State can naturalise foreigners against their will.

Acquisition of Nationality through Redintegration.

§ 300. The third mode of acquiring nationality is that by so-called
redintegration or resumption. Such individuals as have been natural-born
subjects of a State, but have lost their original nationality through
naturalisation abroad or for some other cause, may recover their original
nationality on their return home. One speaks in this case of redintegration or
resumption in contradistinction to naturalisation, the favoured person being
redintegrated and resumed into his original nationality. Thus, according to
Section 10 of the Naturalisation Act,[623] 1870, a widow being a natural-born
British subject, who has lost her British nationality through marriage with a
foreigner, may at any time during her widowhood obtain a certificate of
readmission to British nationality, provided she performs the same
conditions and adduces the same evidence as is required in the case of an
alien applying for naturalisation. And according to section 8 of the same
Act, a British-born individual who has lost his British nationality through
being naturalised abroad, may, if he returns home, obtain a certificate of
readmission to British nationality, provided he performs the same
conditions and adduces the same evidence as is required in the case of an
alien applying for naturalisation.
[623] 33 and 34 Vict. c. 14.

Acquisition of Nationality through Subjugation and Cession.

 § 301. The fourth and fifth modes of acquiring nationality are by
subjugation after conquest and by cession of territory, the inhabitants of the
subjugated as well as of the ceded territory acquiring ipso facto by the
subjugation or cession the nationality of the State which acquires the
territory. These modes of acquisition of nationality are modes settled by the
customary Law of Nations; it will be remembered that details concerning
this matter have been given above, §§ 219 and 240.
Seven modes of losing Nationality.
§ 302. Although it is left in the discretion of the different States to
determine the grounds on which individuals lose their nationality, it is
nevertheless of interest for the theory of the Law of Nations to take notice
of these grounds. Seven modes of losing nationality must be stated to exist
according to the reason of the thing, although all seven are by no means
recognised by all the States. These modes are:—Release, deprivation,
expiration, option, substitution, subjugation, and cession.
(1) Release. Some States, as Germany, give their citizens the right to ask
to be released from their nationality. Such release, if granted, denationalises
the released individual.
(2) Deprivation. According to the Municipal Law of some States, as, for
instance, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Holland, Portugal, and Spain, the fact that
a citizen enters into foreign civil or military service without permission of
his Sovereign deprives him of his nationality.
(3) Expiration. Some States have legislated that citizenship expires in the
cases of such of their subjects as have emigrated and stayed abroad beyond
a certain length of time. Thus, a German ceases to be a German subject
through the mere fact that he has emigrated and stayed abroad for ten years
without having undertaken the necessary step for the purpose of retaining
his nationality.
(4) Option. Some States, as Great Britain, which declare a child born of
foreign parents on their territory to be their natural-born subject, although
he becomes at the same time according to the Municipal Law of the home
State of the parents a subject of such State, give the right to such child to
make, after coming of age, a declaration that he desires to cease to be a
citizen. Such declaration of alienage creates ipso facto the loss of
nationality.
 (5) Substitution. Many States, as, for instance, Great Britain, have
legislated that the nationality of their subjects extinguishes ipso facto by
their naturalisation abroad, be it through marriage, grant on application, or
otherwise. Other States, however, as, for instance, Germany, do not object
to their citizens acquiring another nationality besides that which they
already possess.
(6) Subjugation and cession. It is a universally recognised customary rule
of the Law of Nations that the inhabitants of subjugated as well as ceded
territory lose their nationality and acquire that of the State which annexes
the territory.[624]
[624] See above, § 301. Concerning the option sometimes given to inhabitants of ceded territory
to retain their former nationality, see above, § 219.

IV
NATURALISATION IN ESPECIAL

Vattel, I. § 214—Hall, §§ 71-71*—Westlake, § I. pp. 225-230—Lawrence, §§ 95-96—

Phillimore, I. §§ 325-332—Halleck, I. pp. 403-410—Taylor, §§ 181-182—Walker, § 19—
Wharton, II. §§ 173-183—Moore, III. §§ 377-380—Wheaton, § 85—Bluntschli, §§ 371-
372—Ullmann, §§ 110-111—Pradier-Fodéré, III. Nos. 1656-1659—Calvo, II. §§ 581-646
—Martens, II. §§ 47-48—Stoicesco, "Étude sur la naturalisation" (1875)—Folleville,
"Traité de la naturalisation" (1880)—Cogordan, "La nationalité, &c." (2nd ed. 1890), pp.
117-284, 307-316—Delécaille, "De la naturalisation" (1893)—Henriques, "The Law of
Aliens, &c." (1906), pp. 91-121—Piggott, "Nationality and Naturalisation, &c." 2 vols.
(new ed. 1907)—Hart, in the Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, new series,
vol. II. (1900), pp. 11-26.

Conception and Importance of Naturalisation.

§ 303. Naturalisation in the narrower sense of the term—in
contradistinction to naturalisation ipso facto through marriage, legitimation,
option, domicile, and Government office (see above, § 299)—must be
defined as reception of an alien into the citizenship of a State through a
formal act on application of the favoured individual. International Law does
not provide any such rules for such reception, but it recognises the natural
competence of every State as a Sovereign to increase its population through
naturalisation, although a State might by its Municipal Law be prevented
from making use of this natural competence.[625] In spite, however, of the
fact that naturalisation is a domestic affair of the different States, it is
nevertheless of special importance to the theory and practice of the Law of
Nations. This is the case because naturalisation is effected through a special
grant of the naturalising State, and regularly involves either a change or a
multiplication of nationality, facts which can be and have been the source of
grave international conflicts. In the face of the fact that millions of citizens
emigrate every year from their home countries with the intention of settling
permanently in foreign countries, where the majority of them become
sooner or later naturalised, the international importance of naturalisation
cannot be denied.
[625] But there is, as far as I know, no civilised State in existence which abstains altogether from
naturalising foreigners.

Object of Naturalisation.
§ 304. The object of naturalisation is always an alien. Some States will
naturalise such aliens only as are stateless because they never have been
citizens of another State or because they have renounced, or have been
released from or deprived of, the citizenship of their home State. But other
States, as Great Britain, naturalise also such aliens as are and remain
subjects of their home State. Most States naturalise such person only as has
taken his domicile in their country, has been residing there for some length
of time, and intends permanently to remain in their country. And according
to the Municipal Law of many States, naturalisation of a married individual
includes that of his wife and children under age. But although every alien
may be naturalised, no alien has, according to the Municipal Law of most
States, a claim to become naturalised, naturalisation being a matter of
discretion of the Government, which can refuse it without giving any
reasons.
Conditions of Naturalisation.
§ 305. If granted, naturalisation makes an alien a citizen. But it is left to
the discretion of the naturalising State to grant naturalisation under any
conditions it likes. Thus, for example, Great Britain grants naturalisation on
the sole condition that the naturalised alien shall not be deemed to be a
British subject when within the limits of the foreign State of which he has
been a subject previously to his naturalisation, unless at the time of
naturalisation he has ceased to be a subject of that State. And it must be
specially mentioned that naturalisation need not give an alien absolutely the
same rights as are possessed by natural-born citizens. Thus according to
article 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America a naturalised
alien can never be elected President.[626]
[626] A foreigner naturalised in Great Britain by Letters of Denization does not acquire the same
rights as a natural-born British subject. See Hall, "Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction" (1894), § 22.

Effect of Naturalisation upon previous Citizenship.

§ 306. Since the Law of Nations does not comprise any rules concerning
naturalisation, the effect of naturalisation upon previous citizenship is
exclusively a matter of the Municipal Law of the States concerned. Some
States, as Great Britain,[627] have legislated that one of their subjects
becoming naturalised abroad loses thereby his previous nationality; but
other States, as Germany, have not done this. Further, some States, as Great
Britain again, deny every effect to the naturalisation granted by them to an
alien whilst he is staying on the territory of the State whose subject he was
previously to his naturalisation, unless at the time of naturalisation he was
no longer a subject of such State. But other States do not make this
provision. Be that as it may, there can be no doubt that a person who is
naturalised abroad and temporarily or permanently returns into the country
of his origin, can be held responsible[628] for all acts done there at the time
before his naturalisation abroad.
[627] Formerly Great Britain upheld the rule nemo potest exuere patriam, but Section 6 of the
Naturalisation Act, 1870, does away with that rule. Its antithesis is the rule ne quis invitus civitate
mutetur, neve in civitate maneat invitus (Cicero, "Pro Balbo," c. 13, § 31; see Rattigan, "Private
International Law" (1895), p. 29, No. 21).
[628] Many instructive cases concerning this matter are reported by Wharton, II. §§ 180 and 181,
and Moore, III. §§ 401-407. See also Hall, § 71, where details concerning the practice of many
States are given with regard to their subjects naturalised abroad.

Naturalisation in Great Britain.

§ 307. The present law of Great Britain[629] concerning Naturalisation is
mainly contained in the Naturalisation Acts of 1870, 1874, and 1895.[630]
Aliens may on their application become naturalised by a certificate of
naturalisation in case they have resided in the United Kingdom or have
been in the service of the British Crown for a term of not less than five
years, and in case they have the intention to continue residing within the
United Kingdom or serving under the Crown. But naturalisation may be
refused without giving a reason therefor (section 7). British possessions
may legislate on their own account concerning naturalisation (section 16),
and aliens so naturalised are for all international purposes[631] British
subjects. Where the Crown enters into a convention with a foreign State to
the effect that the subjects of such State who have been naturalised in Great
Britain may divest themselves of their status as British subjects, such
naturalised British subjects can through a declaration of alienage shake off
the acquired British nationality (section 3). Naturalisation of the husband
includes that of his wife, and naturalisation of the father, or mother in case
she is a widow, includes naturalisation of such children as have during
infancy become resident in the United Kingdom at the time of their father's
or mother's naturalisation (section 10). Neither the case of children who are
not resident within the United Kingdom or not resident with their father in
the service of the Crown abroad at the time of the naturalisation of their
father or widowed mother, nor the case of children born abroad after the
naturalisation of the father is mentioned in the Naturalisation Act. It is,
therefore, to be taken for granted that such children are not[632] British
subjects, except children born of a naturalised father abroad in the service
of the Crown.[633]
[629] As regards naturalisation in the United States of America, see Moore, III. §§ 381-389, and
Dyne, "Naturalisation in the United States" (1907).
[630] 33 Vict. c. 14; 35 and 36 Vict. c. 39; 58 & 59 Vict. c. 43. See Foote, "Private International
Jurisprudence," 3rd ed. (1904), pp. 1-51; Westlake, "Private International Law," 4th ed. (1905), §§
284-287; Dicey, "Conflict of Laws," 2nd ed. (1908), pp. 172-191.
[631] See Hall, "Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction," §§ 20 and 21, especially concerning
naturalisation in India.
[632] See Hall, "Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction," § 19.
[633] See Naturalisation Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 43).

Not to be confounded with naturalisation proper is naturalisation through

denization by means of Letters Patent under the Great Seal. This way of
making an alien a British subject is based on a very ancient practice[634]
which has not yet become obsolete. Such denization requires no previous
residence within the United Kingdom. "A person may be made a denizen
without ever having set foot upon British soil. There have been, and from
time to time there no doubt will be, persons of foreign nationality to whom
it is wished to entrust functions which can only be legally exercised by
British subjects. In such instances, the condition of five years' residence in
the United Kingdom would generally be prohibitory. The difficulty can be
avoided by the issue of Letters of Denization; and it is believed that on one
or two occasions letters have in fact been issued with the view of enabling
persons of foreign nationality to exercise British consular jurisdiction in the
East." (Hall.)
[634] See Hall, "Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction," § 22.

V
DOUBLE AND ABSENT NATIONALITY

Hall, § 71—Westlake, I. pp. 221-225—Lawrence, § 96—Halleck, I. pp. 410-413—Taylor, §

183—Wheaton, § 85 (Dana's note)—Moore, III. §§ 426-430—Bluntschli, §§ 373-374—
Hartmann, § 82—Heffter, § 59—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 650-655—Ullmann, § 110
—Bonfils, No. 422—Pradier-Fodéré, III. Nos. 1660-1665—Rivier, I. pp. 304-306—Calvo,
II. §§ 647-654—Martens, II. § 46.

Possibility of Double and Absent Nationality.

§ 308. The Law of Nations having no rule concerning acquisition and
loss of nationality beyond this, that nationality is lost and acquired through
subjugation and cession, and, on the other hand, the Municipal Laws of the
different States differing in many points concerning this matter, the
necessary consequence is that an individual may own two different
nationalities as easily as none at all. The points to be discussed here are
therefore: how double nationality occurs, the position of individuals with
double nationality, how absent nationality occurs, the position of
individuals destitute of nationality, and, lastly, means of redress against
difficulties arising from double and absent nationality.
It must, however, be specially mentioned that the Law of Nations is
concerned with such cases only of double and absent nationality as are the
consequences of conflicting Municipal Laws of several absolutely different
States. Such cases as are the consequence of the Municipal Laws of a
Federal State or of a State which, as Great Britain, allows outlying parts to
legislate on their own account concerning naturalisation, fall outside the
scope of the Law of Nations. Thus the fact that, according to the law of
Germany, a German can be at the same time a subject of several member-
States of the German Empire, or can be a subject of this Empire without
being a subject of one of its member-States, does as little concern the Law
of Nations as the fact that an individual can be a subject of a British
Colonial State without at the same time being a subject of the United
Kingdom. For internationally such individuals appear as subjects of such
Federal State or the mother-country, whatever their position may be inside
these States.
How Double Nationality occurs.
§ 309. An individual may own double nationality knowingly or
unknowingly, and with or without intention. And double nationality may be
produced by every mode of acquiring nationality. Even birth can vest a
child with double nationality. Thus, every child born in Great Britain of
German parents acquires at the same time British and German nationality,
for such child is British according to British, and German according to
German Municipal Law. Double nationality can likewise be the result of
marriage. Thus, a Venezuelan woman marrying an Englishman acquires
according to British law British nationality, but according to Venezuelan
law she does not lose her Venezuelan nationality. Legitimation of
illegitimate children can produce the same effect. Thus, an illegitimate child
of a German born in England of an English mother is a British subject
according to British and German law, but if after the birth of the child the
father marries the mother and remains a resident in England, he thereby
legitimates the child according to German law, and such child acquires
thereby German nationality without losing his British nationality, although
the mother does lose her British nationality.[635] Again, double nationality
may be the result of option. Thus, a child born in France of German parents
acquires German nationality, but if, after having come of age, he acquires
French nationality by option through making the declaration necessary
according to French Municipal Law, he does not thereby, according to
German Municipal Law, lose his German nationality. It is not necessary to
give examples of double nationality caused by taking domicile abroad,
accepting foreign Government office, and redintegration, and it suffices
merely to draw attention to the fact that naturalisation in the narrower sense
of the term is frequently a cause of double nationality, since individuals
may apply for and receive naturalisation in a State without thereby losing
the nationality of their home State.
[635] This is the consequence of Section 10, Nos. 1 and 3, of the Naturalisation Act, 1870.

Position of Individuals with Double Nationality.

§ 310. Individuals owning double nationality bear in the language of
diplomatists the name sujets mixtes. The position of such "mixed subjects"
is awkward on account of the fact that two different States claim them as
subjects, and therefore their allegiance. In case a serious dispute arises
between these two States which leads to war, an irreconcilable conflict of
duties is created for these unfortunate individuals. It is all very well to say
that such conflict is a personal matter which concerns neither the Law of
Nations nor the two States in dispute. As far as an individual has, through
naturalisation, option, and the like, acquired his double nationality, one may
say that he has placed himself in that awkward position by intentionally and
knowingly acquiring a second without being released from his original
nationality. But those who are natural-born sujets mixtes in most cases do
not know thereof before they have to face the conflict, and their difficult
position is not their own fault.
Be that as it may, there is no doubt that each of the States claiming such
an individual as subject is internationally competent to do this, although
they cannot claim him against one another, since each of them correctly
maintains that he is its subject.[636] But against third States each of them
appears as his Sovereign, and it is therefore possible that each of them can
exercise its right of protection over him within third States.
[636] I cannot agree with the statement in its generality made by Westlake, I. p. 221:—"If, for
instance, a man claimed as a national both by the United Kingdom and by another country should
contract in the latter a marriage permitted by its laws to its subjects, an English Court would have
to accept him as a married man." If this were correct, the marriage of a German who, without
having given up his German citizenship, has become naturalised in Great Britain and has
afterwards married his niece in Germany, would have to be recognised as legal by the English
Courts. The correct solution seems to me to be that such marriage is legal in Germany, but not
legal in England, because British law does not admit of marriage between uncle and niece. The
case is different when a German who marries his niece in Germany, afterwards takes his domicile
and becomes naturalised in England; in this case English Courts would have to recognise the
marriage as legal because German law does not object to a marriage between uncle and niece, and
because the marriage was concluded before the man took his domicile in England and became a
British subject. See Foote, "Private International Jurisprudence," 3rd ed. (1904), p. 106, and the
cases there cited.

How Absent Nationality occurs.

§ 311. An individual may be destitute of nationality knowingly or
unknowingly, intentionally or through no fault of his own. Even by birth a
person may be stateless. Thus, an illegitimate child born in Germany of an
English mother is actually destitute of nationality because according to
German law he does not acquire German nationality, and according to
British law he does not acquire British nationality. Thus, further, all
children born in Germany of parents who are destitute of nationality are
themselves, according to German law, stateless. But statelessness may take
place after birth. All individuals who have lost their original nationality
without having acquired another are in fact destitute of nationality.
Position of Individuals destitute of Nationality.
§ 312. That stateless individuals are objects of the Law of Nations in so
far as they fall under the territorial supremacy of the State on whose
territory they live there is no doubt whatever. But since they do not own a
nationality, the link[637] by which they could derive benefits from
International Law is missing, and thus they lack any protection whatever as
far as this law is concerned. The position of such individuals destitute of
nationality may be compared to vessels on the Open Sea not sailing under
the flag of a State, which likewise do not enjoy any protection whatever. In
practice, stateless individuals are in most States treated more or less as
though they were subjects of foreign States, but as a point of international
legality there is no restriction whatever upon a State's maltreating them to
any extent.[638]
[637] See above, § 291.
[638] The position of the Jews in Roumania furnishes a sad example. According to Municipal
Law they are, with a few exceptions, considered as foreigners for the purpose of avoiding the
consequences of article 44 of the Treaty of Berlin, 1878, according to which no religious
disabilities may be imposed by Roumania upon her subjects. But as these Jews are not subjects of
any other State, Roumania compels them to render military service, and actually treats them in
every way according to discretion without any foreign State being able to exercise a right of
protection over them. See Rey in R.G. X. (1903), pp. 460-526, and Bar in R.I. 2nd Ser. IX. (1907),
pp. 711-716. See also above, § 293, p. 369, note 2.

Redress against Difficulties arising from Double and Absent Nationality.

§ 313. Double as well as absent nationality of individuals has from time
to time created many difficulties for the States concerned. As regards the
remedy for such difficulties, it is comparatively easy to meet those created
by absent nationality. If the number of stateless individuals increases much
within a certain State, the latter can require them to apply for naturalisation
or to leave the country; it can even naturalise them by Municipal Law
against their will, as no other State will, or has a right to, interfere, and as,
further, the very fact of the existence of individuals destitute of nationality
is a blemish in Municipal as well as in International Law. Much more
difficult is it, however, to find, within the limits of the present rules of the
Law of Nations, means of redress against conflicts arising from double
nationality. Very grave disputes indeed have occasionally occurred between
States on account of individuals who were claimed as subjects by both
sides. Thus, in 1812, a time when England still kept to her old rule that no
natural-born English subject could lose his nationality, the United States
went to war with England because the latter impressed Englishmen
naturalised in America from on board American merchantmen, claiming the
right to do so, as according to her law these men were still English citizens.
Thus, further, Prussia frequently had during the sixties of the last century
disputes with the United States on account of Prussian individuals who,
without having rendered military service at home, had emigrated to
America to become there naturalised and had afterwards returned to
Prussia.[639] Again, during the time of the revolutionary movements in
Ireland in the last century before the Naturalisation Act of 1870 was passed,
disputes arose between Great Britain and the United States on account of
such Irishmen as took part in these revolutionary movements after having
become naturalised in the United States.[640] It would seem that the only way
in which all the difficulties arising from double and absent nationality could
really be done away with is for all the Powers to agree upon an international
convention, according to which they undertake the obligation to enact by
their Municipal Law such corresponding rules regarding acquisition and
loss of nationality as make the very occurrence of double and absent
nationality impossible.[641]
[639] The case of Martin Koszta ought here to be mentioned, details of which are reported by
Wharton, II. § 175; Moore, III. §§ 490-491, and Martens, "Causes Célèbre," V. pp. 583-599.
Koszta was a Hungarian subject who took part in the revolutionary movement of 1848, escaped to
the United States, and in July, 1852, made a declaration under oath, before a proper tribunal, of his
intention to become naturalised there. After remaining nearly two years in the United States, but
before he was really naturalised, he visited Turkey, and obtained a tezkereh, a kind of letter of
safe-conduct, from the American Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople. Later on, while at Smyrna,
he was seized by Austrian officials and taken on board an Austrian man-of-war with the intention
of bringing him to Austria, to be there punished for his part in the revolution of 1848. The
American Consul demanded his release, but Austria maintained that she had a right to arrest
Koszta according to treaties between her and Turkey. Thereupon the American man-of-war Saint
Louis threatened to attack the Austrian man-of-war in case she would not give up her prisoner, and
an arrangement was made that Koszta should be delivered into the custody of the French Consul
at Smyrna until the matter was settled between the United States and Austrian Governments.
Finally, Austria consented to Koszta's being brought back to America. Although Koszta was not
yet naturalised, the United States claimed a right of protection over him, since he had taken his
domicile on her territory with the intention to become there naturalised in due time, and had
thereby in a sense acquired the national character of an American.
 [640] The United States have, through the so-called "Bancroft Treaties," attempted to overcome
conflicts arising from double nationality. The first of these treaties was concluded in 1868 with the
North German Confederation, the precursor of the present German Empire, and signed on behalf
of the United States by her Minister in Berlin, George Bancroft. (See Wharton, II. §§ 149 and 179,
and Moore, III. §§ 391-400.) In the same and the following years treaties of the same kind were
concluded with many other States, the last with Portugal in 1908. A treaty of another kind, but
with the same object, was concluded between the United States and Great Britain on May 13,
1870. (See Martens, N.R.G. XX. p. 524, and Moore, III. § 397.) All these treaties stipulate that
naturalisation in one of the contracting States shall be recognised by the other, whether the
naturalised individual has or has not previously been released from his original citizenship,
provided he has resided for five years in such country. And they further stipulate that such
naturalised individuals, in case they return after naturalisation into their former home State and
take their residence there for some years, either ipso facto become again subjects of their former
home State and cease to be naturalised abroad (as the Bancroft Treaties), or can be reinstated in
their former citizenship, and cease thereby to be naturalised abroad (as the treaty with Great
Britain).
 [641]The Institute of International Law has studied the matter, and formulated at its meeting in
Venice in 1896 six rules, which, if adopted on the part of the different States, would do away with
many of the difficulties. (See Annuaire, XV. p. 270.)

VI
RECEPTION OF ALIENS AND RIGHT OF ASYLUM

Vattel, II. § 100—Hall, §§ 63-64—Westlake, I. pp. 208-210—Lawrence, §§ 97-98—

Phillimore, I. §§ 365-370—Twiss, I. § 238—Halleck, I. pp. 452-454—Taylor, § 186—
Walker, § 19—Wharton, II. § 206—Wheaton, § 115, and Dana's Note—Moore, IV. §§ 560-
566—Bluntschli, §§ 381-398—Hartmann, §§ 84-85, 89—Heffter, §§ 61-63—Stoerk in
Holtzendorff, II. pp. 637-650—Gareis, § 57—Liszt, § 25—Ullmann, §§ 113-115—Bonfils,
Nos. 441-446—Despagnet, Nos. 339-343—Rivier, I. pp. 307-309—Nys, II. pp. 232-237—
Calvo, II. §§ 701-706, VI. § 119—Martens, II. § 46—Overbeck, "Niederlassungsfreiheit
und Ausweisungsrecht" (1906); Henriques, "The Law of Aliens, &c." (1906)—Sibley and
Elias, "The Aliens Act, &c." (1906)—Proceedings of the American Society of International
Law, 1911, pp. 65-115.

No Obligation to admit Aliens.

§ 314. Many writers[642] maintain that every member of the Family of
Nations is bound by International Law to admit all aliens into its territory
for all lawful purposes, although they agree that every State could exclude
certain classes of aliens. This opinion is generally held by those who assert
that there is a fundamental right of intercourse between States. It will be
remembered[643] that no such fundamental right exists, but that intercourse is
a characteristic of the position of the States within the Family of Nations
and therefore a presupposition of the international personality of every
State. A State, therefore, cannot exclude aliens altogether from its territory
without violating the spirit of the Law of Nations and endangering its very
membership of the Family of Nations. But no State actually does exclude
aliens altogether. The question is only whether an international legal duty
can be said to exist for every State to admit all unobjectionable aliens to all
parts of its territory. And it is this duty which must be denied as far as the
customary Law of Nations is concerned. It must be emphasised that, apart
from general conventional arrangements, as, for instance, those concerning
navigation on international rivers, and apart from special treaties of
commerce, friendship, and the like, no State can claim the right for its
subjects to enter into and reside on the territory of a foreign State. The
reception of aliens is a matter of discretion, and every State is by reason of
its territorial supremacy competent to exclude aliens from the whole or any
part of its territory. And it is only by an inference of this competence that
Great Britain,[644] the United States of America, and other States have made
special laws according to which paupers and criminals, as well as diseased
and other objectionable aliens, are prevented from entering their territory.
Every State is and must remain master in its own house, and such
mastership is of especial importance with regard to the admittance of aliens.
Of course, if a State excluded all subjects of one State only, this would
constitute an unfriendly act, against which retorsion would be admissible;
but it cannot be denied that a State is competent to do this, although in
practice such wholesale exclusion will never happen. Hundreds of treaties
of commerce and friendship exist between the members of the Family of
Nations according to which they are obliged to receive each other's
unobjectionable subjects, and thus practically the matter is settled, although
in strict law every State is competent to exclude foreigners from its
territory.[645]
[642] See, for instance, Bluntschli, § 381, and Liszt, § 25.
[643] See above, § 141.
[644] See the Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. VII. c. 13). See also Henriques, "The Law of Aliens,
&c." (1906), and Sibley and Elias, "The Aliens Act, &c." (1906).
[645] The Institute of International Law has studied the matter, and adopted, at its meeting at
Geneva in 1892 (see Annuaire, XII. p. 219), a body of forty-one articles concerning the admission
and expulsion of aliens; articles 6-13 deal with the admittance of aliens.

Reception of Aliens under conditions.

§ 315. It is obvious that, if a State need not receive aliens at all, it can, on
the other hand, receive them under certain conditions only. Thus, for
example, Russia does not admit aliens without passports, and if the alien
adheres to the Jewish faith he has to submit to a number of special
restrictions. Thus, further, during the time Napoleon III. ruled in France,
every alien entering French territory from the sea or from neighbouring land
was admitted only after having stated his name, nationality, and the place to
which he intended to go. Some States, as Switzerland, make a distinction
between such aliens as intend to settle down in the country and such as
intend only to travel in the country; no alien is allowed to settle in the
country without having asked and received a special authorisation on the
part of the Government, whereas the country is unconditionally open to all
mere travelling aliens.
So-called Right of Asylum.
 § 316. The fact that every State exercises territorial supremacy over all
persons on its territory, whether they are its subjects or aliens, excludes the
prosecution of aliens thereon by foreign States. Thus, a foreign State is,
provisionally at least, an asylum for every individual who, being prosecuted
at home, crosses its frontier. In the absence of extradition treaties stipulating
the contrary, no State is by International Law obliged to refuse admittance
into its territory to such a fugitive or, in case he has been admitted, to expel
him or deliver him up to the prosecuting State. On the contrary, States have
always upheld their competence to grant asylum if they choose to do so.
Now the so-called right of asylum is certainly not a right of the alien to
demand that the State into whose territory he has entered with the intention
of escaping prosecution from some other State should grant protection and
asylum. For such State need not grant them. The so-called right of asylum is
nothing but the competence mentioned above of every State, and inferred
from its territorial supremacy, to allow a prosecuted alien to enter and to
remain on its territory under its protection, and to grant thereby an asylum
to him. Such fugitive alien enjoys the hospitality of the State which grants
him asylum; but it might be necessary to place him under surveillance, or
even to intern him at some place in the interest of the State which is
prosecuting him. For it is the duty of every State to prevent individuals
living on its territory from endangering the safety of another State. And if a
State grants asylum to a prosecuted alien, this duty becomes of special
importance.

VII
POSITION OF ALIENS AFTER RECEPTION

Vattel, I. § 213, II. §§ 101-115—Hall, §§ 63 and 87—Westlake, I. pp. 211-212, 313-316—

Lawrence, §§ 97-98—Phillimore, I. §§ 332-339—Twiss, I. § 163—Taylor, §§ 173, 187,
201-203—Walker, § 19—Wharton, II. §§ 201-205—Wheaton, § 77-82—Moore, IV. §§
534-549—Bluntschli, §§ 385-393—Hartmann, §§ 84-85—Heffter, § 62—Stoerk in
Holtzendorff, II. pp. 637-650—Gareis, § 57—Liszt, § 25—Ullmann, §§ 113-115—Bonfils,
Nos. 447-454—Despagnet, Nos. 339-343—Rivier, I. pp. 309-311—Calvo, II. §§ 701-706—
Martens, II. § 46—Gaston de Leval, "De la protection des nationaux à l'étranger" (1907)—
Wheeler in A.J. III. (1909), pp. 869-884—Proceedings of the American Society of
International Law, 1911, pp. 32-65, 150-225.

Aliens subjected to territorial Supremacy.

 § 317. With his entrance into a State, an alien, unless he belongs to the
class of those who enjoy so-called exterritoriality, falls at once under such
State's territorial supremacy, although he remains at the same time under the
personal supremacy of his home State. Such alien is therefore under the
jurisdiction of the State in which he stays, and is responsible to such State
for all acts he commits on its territory. He is further subjected to all
administrative arrangements of such State which concern the very locality
where the alien is. If in consequence of a public calamity, such as the
outbreak of a fire or an infectious disease, certain administrative restrictions
are enforced, they can be enforced against all aliens as well as against
citizens. But apart from jurisdiction and mere local administrative
arrangements, both of which concern all aliens alike, a distinction must be
made between such aliens as are merely travelling and stay, therefore, only
temporarily on the territory, and such as take their residence there either
permanently or for some length of time. A State has wider power over
aliens of the latter kind; it can make them pay rates and taxes, and can even
compel them in case of need, under the same conditions as citizens, to serve
in the local police and the local fire brigade for the purpose of maintaining
public order and safety. On the other hand, an alien does not fall under the
personal supremacy of the local State; therefore he cannot be made to
serve[646] in its army or navy, and cannot, like a citizen, be treated according
to discretion.
[646] See, however, above, § 127, concerning the attitude of Great Britain with regard to aliens
in British colonies.
It must be emphasised that an alien is responsible to the local State for all
illegal acts which he commits while the territory concerned is during war
temporarily occupied by the enemy. An illustrative case is that of De Jager
v. the Attorney-General for Natal.[647] De Jager was a burgher of the South
African Republic, but a settled resident at Natal when the South African
War broke out. In October 1899 the British forces evacuated that part of
Natal in which Waschbank, where he lived, is situated, and the Boer forces
were in occupation for some six months. He joined them, and served in
different capacities until March 1900, when he went to the Transvaal, and
took no further part in the war.
[647]L.R. [1907] App. C., 326. See Baty in The Law Magazine and Review, XXXIII. (1908),
pp. 214-218, who disapproves of the conviction of De Jager.
 He was tried in March 1901, and convicted of high treason, and
sentenced to five years' imprisonment and a fine of £5000, or, failing
payment thereof, to a further three years.
Aliens in Eastern Countries.
§ 318. The rule that aliens fall under the territorial supremacy of the State
they are in finds an exception in Turkey and, further, in such other Eastern
States, like China, as are, in consequence of their deficient civilisation, only
for some parts members of the Family of Nations. Aliens who are subjects
of Christian States and enter into the territory of such Eastern States, remain
wholly under the jurisdiction[648] of their home State. This exceptional
condition of things is based, as regards Turkey, on custom and treaties
which are called Capitulations, as regards other Eastern States on treaties
only.[649] Jurisdiction over aliens in these countries is exercised by the
consuls of their home States, which have enacted special Municipal Laws
for that purpose. Thus, Great Britain has enacted so-called Foreign
Jurisdiction Acts at several times, which are now all consolidated in the
Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890.[650] It must be specially mentioned that
Japan has since 1899 ceased to belong to the Eastern States in which aliens
are exempt from local jurisdiction.
[648] See below, § 440.
[649] See Twiss, I. § 163, who enumerates many of these treaties; see also Phillimore, I. §§ 336-
339; Hall, "Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction," §§ 59-91; and Scott, "The Law affecting Foreigners
in Egypt as the Result of the Capitulations" (1907).
[650] 53 & 54 Vict. c. 37. See Piggott, "Exterritoriality. The Law relating to Consular
Jurisdiction, &c.," new edition (1907).

Aliens under the Protection of their Home State.

§ 319. Although aliens fall at once under the territorial supremacy of the
State they enter, they remain nevertheless under the protection of their
home State. By a universally recognised customary rule of the Law of
Nations every State holds a right of protection[651] over its citizens abroad, to
which corresponds the duty of every State to treat foreigners on its territory
with a certain consideration which will be discussed below, §§ 320-322.
The question here is only when and how this right of protection can be
exercised.[652] Now there is certainly, as far as the Law of Nations is
concerned, no duty incumbent upon a State to exercise its protection over
its citizens abroad. The matter is absolutely in the discretion of every State,
and no citizen abroad has by International Law, although he may have it by
Municipal Law, a right to demand protection from his home State. Often for
political reasons States have in certain cases refused the exercise of their
right of protection over citizens abroad. Be that as it may, every State can
exercise this right when one of its subjects is wronged abroad in his person
or property, either by the State itself on whose territory such person or
property is for the time, or by such State's officials or citizens without such
State's interfering for the purpose of making good the wrong done.[653] And
this right can be realised in several ways. Thus, a State whose subjects are
wronged abroad can diplomatically insist upon the wrongdoers being
punished according to the law of the land and upon damages, if necessary,
being paid to its subjects concerned. It can, secondly, exercise retorsion and
reprisals for the purpose of making the other State comply with its
demands. It can, further, exercise intervention, and it can even go to war
when necessary. And there are other means besides those mentioned. It is,
however, quite impossible to lay down hard-and-fast rules as regards the
question in which way and how far in every case the right of protection
ought to be exercised. Everything depends upon the merits of the individual
case and must be left to the discretion of the State concerned. The latter will
have to take into consideration whether the wronged alien was only
travelling through or had settled down in the country, whether his behaviour
had been provocative or not, how far the foreign Government identified
itself with the acts of officials or subjects, and the like.
[651] This right has, I believe, grown up in furtherance of intercourse between the members of
the Family of Nations (see above, § 142); Hall (§ 87) and others deduce this indubitable right from
the "fundamental" right of self-preservation.
[652] See Moore, VI. §§ 979-997, and Wheeler in A.J. III. (1909), pp. 869-884.
[653] Concerning the responsibility of a State for internationally injurious acts of its own, its
organs and other officials, and its subjects, see above, §§ 151-167, and Anzilloti in R.G. XIII.
(1906), pp. 5 and 285. The right of protection over citizens abroad is discussed in detail by Hall, §
87, Westlake, I. pp. 313-320, and Gaston de Leval, op. cit. Concerning the right of protection of a
State over its citizens with regard to public debts of foreign States, see above, §§ 135 (6) and 155.

Protection to be afforded to Aliens' Persons and Property.

§ 320. Under the influence of the right of protection over its subjects
abroad which every State holds, and the corresponding duty of every State
to treat aliens on its territory with a certain consideration, an alien, provided
he owns a nationality at all, cannot be outlawed in foreign countries, but
must be afforded protection of his person and property. The home State of
the alien has by its right of protection a claim upon such State as allows him
to enter its territory that such protection shall be afforded, and it is no
excuse that such State does not provide any protection whatever for its own
subjects. In consequence thereof every State is by the Law of Nations
compelled, at least, to grant to aliens equality before the law with its
citizens as far as safety of person and property is concerned. An alien must
in especial not be wronged in person or property by the officials and Courts
of a State. Thus, the police must not arrest him without just cause, custom-
house officials must treat him civilly, Courts of Justice must treat him justly
and in accordance with the law. Corrupt administration of the law against
natives is no excuse for the same against aliens, and no Government can
cloak itself with the judgment of corrupt judges.
How far Aliens can be treated according to Discretion.
§ 321. Apart from protection of person and property, every State can treat
aliens according to discretion, those points excepted concerning which
discretion is restricted through international treaties between the States
concerned. Thus, a State can exclude aliens from certain professions and
trades; it can, as Great Britain did formerly and Russia does even to-day,
exclude them from holding real property; it can, as again Great Britain[654]
did in former times, compel them to have their names registered for the
purpose of keeping them under control, and the like. It must, however, be
stated that there is a tendency within all the States which are members of
the Family of Nations to treat admitted aliens more and more on the same
footing as citizens, political rights and duties, of course, excepted. Thus, for
instance, with the only exception that an alien cannot be sole or part owner
of a British ship, aliens having taken up their domicile in this country are
for all practical purposes treated by the law[655] of the land on the same
footing as British subjects.
[654] See an Act for the Registration of Aliens, &c., 1836 (6 & 7 William IV. c. 11).
[655] That aliens cannot now any longer belong to the London Stock Exchange, is an outcome
not of British Municipal Law, but of regulations of the Stock Exchange.

Departure from the Foreign Country.

§ 322. Since a State holds territorial only, but not personal supremacy
over an alien within its boundaries, it can never under any circumstances
prevent him from leaving its territory, provided he has fulfilled his local
obligations, as payment of rates and taxes, of fines, of private debts, and the
like. And an alien leaving a State can take all his property away with him,
and a tax for leaving the country or tax upon the property he takes away
with him[656] cannot be levied. And it must be specially mentioned that since
the beginning of the nineteenth century the so-called droit d'aubaine
belongs to the past; this is the name of the right, which was formerly
frequently exercised, of a State to confiscate the whole estate of an alien
deceased on its territory.[657] But if a State levies estate duties in the case of a
citizen dying on its territory, as Great Britain does according to the Finance
Act[658] of 1894, such duties can likewise be levied in case of an alien dying
on its territory.
[656] So-called gabella emigrationis.
[657] See details in Wheaton, § 82. The droit d'aubaine was likewise named jus albinagii.
[658] 57 & 58 Vict. c. 30. Estate duty is levied in Great Britain in the case also of such alien
dying abroad as leaves movable property in the United Kingdom without having ever been
resident there. As far as the Law of Nations is concerned, it is doubtful whether Great Britain is
competent to claim estate duties in such cases.

VIII
EXPULSION OF ALIENS

Hall, § 63—Westlake, I. p. 210—Phillimore, I. § 364—Halleck, I. pp. 460-461—Taylor, § 186

—Walker, § 19—Wharton, II. § 206—Moore, IV. §§ 550-559—Bluntschli, §§ 383-384—
Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 646-656—Ullmann, § 115—Bonfils, No. 442—Despagnet,
Nos. 336-337—Pradier-Fodéré, III. Nos. 1857-1859—Rivier, I. pp. 311-314—Nys, II. pp.
229-237—Calvo, VI. §§ 119-125—Fiore, Code, Nos. 252-259—Martens, I. § 79—Bleteau,
"De l'asile et de l'expulsion" (1886)—Berc, "De l'expulsion des étrangers" (1888)—Féraud-
Giraud, "Droit d'expulsion des étrangers" (1889)—Langhard, "Das Recht der politischen
Fremdenausweisung" (1891)—Overbeck, "Niederlassungsfreiheit und Ausweisungsrecht"
(1906)—Rolin-Jaequemyns in R.I. XX. (1888), pp. 499 and 615—Proceedings of the
American Society of International Law, 1911, pp. 119-149.

Competence to expel Aliens.

§ 323. Just as a State is competent to refuse admittance to an alien, so it
is, in conformity with its territorial supremacy, competent to expel at any
moment an alien who has been admitted into its territory. And it matters not
whether the respective individual is only on a temporary visit or has settled
down for professional or business purposes on that territory, having taken
his domicile thereon. Such States, of course, as have a high appreciation of
individual liberty and abhor arbitrary powers of Government will not
readily expel aliens. Thus, the British Government has no power to expel
even the most dangerous alien without the recommendation of a Court, or
without an Act of Parliament making provision for such expulsion. And in
Switzerland, article 70 of the Constitution empowers the Government to
expel such aliens only as endanger the internal and external safety of the
land. But many States are in no way prevented by their Municipal Law
from expelling aliens according to discretion, and examples of arbitrary
expulsion of aliens, who had made themselves objectionable to the
respective Governments, are numerous in the past and the present.
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that, especially in the case of
expulsion of an alien who has been residing within the expelling State for
some length of time and has established a business there, the home State of
the expelled individual is by its right of protection over citizens abroad
justified in making diplomatic representations to the expelling State and
asking for the reasons for the expulsion. But as in strict law a State can
expel even domiciled aliens without so much as giving the reasons, the
refusal of the expelling State to supply the reasons for expulsion to the
home State of the expelled alien does not constitute an illegal, although a
very unfriendly, act. And there is no doubt that every expulsion of an alien
without just cause is, in spite of its international legality, an unfriendly act,
which can rightfully be met with retorsion.
Just Causes of Expulsion of Aliens.
§ 324. On account of the fact that retorsion might be justified, the
question is of importance what just causes of expulsion of aliens there are.
As International Law gives no detailed rules regarding expulsion,
everything is left to the discretion of the single States and depends upon the
merits of the individual case. Theory and practice correctly make a
distinction between expulsion in time of war and in time of peace. A
belligerent may consider it convenient to expel all enemy subjects residing
or temporarily staying within his territory. And, although such a measure
may be very hard and cruel, the opinion is general that such expulsion is
justifiable.[659] As regards expulsion in time of peace, on the other hand, the
opinions of writers as well as of States naturally differ much. Such State as
expels an alien will hardly admit not having had a just cause. Some States,
as Belgium[660] since 1885, possess Municipal Laws determining just causes
for the expulsion of aliens, and such States' discretion concerning expulsion
is, of course, more or less restricted. But many States do not possess such
laws, and are, therefore, entirely at liberty to consider a cause as justifying
expulsion or not. The Institute of International Law at its meeting at Geneva
in 1892 adopted a body of forty-one articles concerning the admittance and
expulsion of aliens, and in article 28 thereof enumerated nine just causes for
expulsion in time of peace.[661] I doubt whether the States will ever come to
an agreement about just causes of expulsion. The fact cannot be denied that
an alien is more or less a guest in the foreign land, and the question under
what conditions such guest makes himself objectionable to his host cannot
once for all be answered by the establishment of a body of rules. So much is
certain, that with the gradual disappearance of despotic views in the
different States, and with the advance of true constitutionalism guaranteeing
individual liberty and freedom of opinion and speech, expulsion of aliens,
especially for political reasons, will become less frequent. Expulsion will,
however, never totally disappear, because it may well be justified. Thus, for
example, Prussia after the annexation of the formerly Free Town of
Frankfort-on-the-Main, was certainly justified in expelling those individuals
who, for the purpose of avoiding military service in the Prussian Army, had
by naturalisation become Swiss citizens without giving up their residence at
Frankfort.
[659] Thus in 1870, during the Franco-German war, the French expelled all Germans from
France, and the former South African Republic expelled in 1899, during the Boer war, almost all
British subjects. See below, vol. II. § 100.
[660] See details in Rivier, I. p. 312.
[661] See Annuaire, XII. p. 223. Many of these causes, as conviction for crimes, for instance, are
certainly just causes, but others are doubtful.

Expulsion how effected.

§ 325. Expulsion is, in theory at least, not a punishment, but an
administrative measure consisting in an order of the Government directing a
foreigner to leave the country. Expulsion must therefore be effected with as
much forbearance and indulgence as the circumstances and conditions of
the case allow and demand, especially when compulsion is meted out to a
domiciled alien. And the home State of the expelled, by its right of
protection over its citizens abroad, may well insist upon such forbearance
and indulgence. But this is valid as regards the first expulsion only. Should
the expelled refuse to leave the territory voluntarily or, after having left,
return without authorisation, he may be arrested, punished, and forcibly
brought to the frontier.
 Reconduction in Contradistinction to Expulsion.
§ 326. In many Continental States destitute aliens, foreign vagabonds,
suspicious aliens without papers of legitimation, alien criminals who have
served their punishment, and the like, are without any formalities arrested
by the police and reconducted to the frontier. There is no doubt that the
competence for such reconduction, which is often called droit de renvoi, is
an inference from the territorial supremacy of every State, for there is no
reason whatever why a State should not get rid of such undesirable aliens as
speedily as possible. But although such reconduction is materially not much
different from expulsion, it nevertheless differs much from this in form,
since expulsion is an order to leave the country, whereas reconduction is
forcible conveying away of foreigners.[662] The home State of such
reconducted aliens has the duty to receive them, since, as will be
remembered,[663] a State cannot refuse to receive such of its subjects as are
expelled from abroad. Difficulties arise, however, sometimes concerning
the reconduction of such alien individuals as have lost their nationality
through long-continued absence[664] from home without having acquired
another nationality abroad. Such cases are a further example of the fact that
the very existence of stateless individuals is a blemish in Municipal as well
as International Law.[665]
[662] Rivier, I. p. 308, correctly distinguishes between reconduction and expulsion, but
Phillimore, I. § 364, seems to confound them.
[663] See above, § 294.
[664] See above, § 302, No. 3.
[665] It ought to be mentioned that many States have, either by special treaties or in their treaties
of commerce, friendship, and the like, stipulated proper treatment of each other's destitute subjects
on each other's territory.

IX
EXTRADITION

Hall, §§ 13 and 63—Westlake, I. pp. 241-251—Lawrence, §§ 110-111—Phillimore, I. §§ 365-

389D—Twiss, I. § 236—Halleck, I. pp. 257-268—Taylor, §§ 205-211—Walker, § 19—
Wharton, II. §§ 268-282—Wheaton, §§ 115-121—Moore, IV. §§ 579-622—Bluntschli, §§
394-401—Hartmann, § 89—Heffter, § 63—Lammasch in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 454-566—
Liszt, § 33—Ullmann, §§ 127-131—Bonfils, Nos. 455-481—Despagnet, Nos. 276-286—
Pradier-Fodéré, III. Nos. 1863-1893—Mérignhac, II. pp. 732-777—Rivier, I. pp. 348-357
—Nys, II. pp. 244-253—Calvo, II. §§ 949-1071—Fiore, Code, Nos. 584-586—Martens, II.
§§ 91-98—Spear, "The Law of Extradition" (1879)—Lammasch, "Auslieferungspflicht und
Asylrecht" (1887)—Martitz, "Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen," 2 vols. (1888 and
 1897)—Bernard, "Traité théorique et pratique de l'extradition," 2 vols. (2nd ed. 1890)—
Moore, "Treatise on Extradition" (1891)—Hawley, "The Law of International Extradition"
(1893)—Clark, "The Law of Extradition" (3rd ed. 1903)—Biron and Chalmers, "The Law
and Practice of Extradition" (1903)—Piggott, "Extradition" (1910)—Lammasch in R.G. III.
(1896), pp. 5-14—Diena in R.G. XII. (1905), pp. 516-544—See the French, German, and
Italian literature concerning extradition quoted by Fauchille in Bonfils, No. 455.

Extradition no legal duty.

§ 327. Extradition is the delivery of a prosecuted individual to the State
on whose territory he has committed a crime by the State on whose territory
the criminal is for the time staying. Although Grotius[666] holds that every
State has the duty either to punish or to surrender to the prosecuting State
such individuals within its boundaries as have committed a crime abroad,
and although there is as regards the majority of such cases an important
interest of civilised mankind that this should be done, this rule of Grotius
has never been adopted by the States and has, therefore, never become a
rule of the Law of Nations. On the contrary, States have always upheld their
competence to grant asylum to foreign individuals as an inference from
their territorial supremacy, those cases, of course, excepted which fall under
stipulations of special extradition treaties, if any. There is, therefore, no
universal rule of customary International Law in existence which
commands[667] extradition.
[666] II. c. 21, § 4.
[667] Clarke, op. cit. pp. 1-15, tries to prove that a duty to extradite criminals does exist, but the
result of all his labour is that he finds that the refusal of extradition is "a serious violation of the
moral obligations which exist between civilised States" (see p. 14). But nobody has ever denied
this as far as the ordinary criminal is concerned. The question is only whether an international
legal duty exists to surrender a criminal. And this legal duty States have always denied.

Extradition Treaties how arisen.

§ 328. Since, however, modern civilisation categorically demands
extradition of criminals as a rule, numerous treaties have been concluded
between the several States stipulating the cases in which extradition shall
take place. According to these treaties, individuals prosecuted for the more
important crimes, political crimes excepted, are actually always surrendered
to the prosecuting State, if not punished locally. But this solution of the
problem of extradition is a product of the nineteenth century only. Before
the eighteenth century extradition of ordinary criminals hardly ever
occurred, although many States used then frequently to surrender to each
other political fugitives, heretics, and even emigrants, either in consequence
of special treaties stipulating the surrender of such individuals, or
voluntarily without such treaties. Matters began to undergo a change in the
eighteenth century, for then treaties between neighbouring States frequently
stipulated extradition of ordinary criminals besides that of political
fugitives, conspirators, military deserters, and the like. Vattel (II. § 76) is
able to assert in 1758 that murderers, incendiaries, and thieves are regularly
surrendered by neighbouring States to each other. But general treaties of
extradition between all the members of the Family of Nations did not exist
in the eighteenth century, and there was hardly a necessity for such general
treaties, since traffic was not so developed as nowadays and fugitive
criminals seldom succeeded in reaching a foreign territory beyond that of a
neighbouring State. When, however, in the nineteenth century, with the
appearance of railways and Transatlantic steamships, transit began to
develop immensely, criminals used the opportunity to flee to distant foreign
countries. It was then and thereby that the conviction was forced upon the
States of civilised humanity that it was in their common interest to
surrender ordinary criminals regularly to each other. General treaties of
extradition became, therefore, a necessity, and the several States succeeded
in concluding such treaties with each other. There is no civilised State in
existence nowadays which has not concluded such treaties with the majority
of the other civilised States. And the consequence is that, although no
universal rule of International Law commands it, extradition of criminals
between States is an established fact based on treaties. The present
condition of affairs is, however, very unsatisfactory, since there are many
hundreds of treaties in existence which do not at all agree in their details.
What is required nowadays, and what will certainly be realised in the near
future, is a universal treaty of extradition, one single treaty to which all the
civilised States become parties.[668]
[668]The Second Pan-American Conference of 1902 produced a treaty of extradition which was
signed by twelve States, namely, the United States of America, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chili, San
Domingo, Ecuador, Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, and Nicaragua, but this treaty
has not been ratified; see the text in "Annuaire de la Vie Internationale" (1908-9), p. 461.
 Municipal Extradition Laws.
§ 329. Some States, however, were unwilling to depend entirely upon the
discretion of their Governments as regards the conclusion of extradition
treaties and the procedure in extradition cases. They have therefore enacted
special Municipal Laws which enumerate those crimes for which
extradition shall be granted and asked in return, and which at the same time
regulate the procedure in extradition cases. These Municipal Laws[669]
furnish the basis for the conclusion of extradition treaties. The first in the
field with such an extradition law was Belgium in 1833, which remained,
however, for far more than a generation quite isolated. It was not until 1870
that England followed the example given by Belgium. English public
opinion was for many years against extradition treaties at all, considering
them as a great danger to individual liberty and to the competence of every
State to grant asylum to political refugees. This country possessed,
therefore, before 1870 a few extradition treaties only, which moreover were
in many points inadequate. But in 1870 the British Government succeeded
in getting Parliament to pass the Extradition Act.[670] This Act, which was
amended by another in 1873[671] and a third in 1895,[672] has furnished the
basis for extradition treaties of Great Britain with forty other States.[673]
Belgium enacted a new extradition law in 1874. Holland enacted such a law
in 1875, Luxemburg in the same year, Argentina in 1885, the Congo Free
State in 1886, Peru in 1888, Switzerland in 1892.
[669] See Martitz, "Internationale Rechtshilfe," I. pp. 747-818, where the history of all these
laws is sketched and their text is printed.
[670] 33 & 34 Vict. c. 52.
[671] 36 & 37 Vict. c. 60.
[672] 58 & 59 Vict. c. 33. On the history of extradition in Great Britain before the Extradition
Act, 1870, see Clarke, op. cit. pp. 126-166.
[673] The full text of these treaties is printed by Clarke, as well as Biron and Chalmers. Not to be
confounded with extradition of criminals to foreign States is extradition within the British Empire
from one part of the British dominions to another. This matter is regulated by the Fugitive
Offenders Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 169).
Such States as possess no extradition laws and whose written
Constitution does not mention the matter, leave it to their Governments to
conclude extradition treaties according to their discretion. And in these
countries the Governments are competent to extradite an individual even if
no extradition treaty exists.
 Object of Extradition.
§ 330. Since extradition is the delivery of an incriminated individual to
the State on whose territory he has committed a crime by the State on
whose territory he is for the time staying, the object of extradition can be
any individual, whether he is a subject of the prosecuting State, or of the
State which is required to extradite him, or of a third State. Many States,
however, as France and most other States of the European continent, have
adopted the principle never to extradite one of their subjects to a foreign
State, but themselves to punish subjects of their own for grave crimes
committed abroad. Other States, as Great Britain and the United States,
have not adopted this principle, and do extradite such of their subjects as
have committed a grave crime abroad. Thus Great Britain surrendered in
1879 to Austria, where he was convicted and hanged,[674] one Tourville, a
British subject, who, after having murdered his wife in the Tyrol, had fled
home to England. And it must be emphasised that the object of extradition
is an individual who has committed a crime abroad, whether or not he was
during the commission of the criminal act physically present on the territory
of the State where the crime was committed. Thus, in 1884, Great Britain
surrendered one Nillins to Germany, who, by sending from Southampton
forged bills of exchange to a merchant in Germany as payment for goods
ordered, was considered to have committed forgery and to have obtained
goods by false pretences in Germany.[675]
[674] This case is all the more remarkable, as (see 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, § 9) the criminal law of
England extends over murder and manslaughter committed abroad by English subjects, and as,
according to article 3 of the extradition treaty of 1873 between England and Austria-Hungary, the
contracting parties are in no case under obligation to extradite their own subjects.
[675] See Clarke, op. cit. pp. 177 and 262, who, however, disapproves of this surrender.

A conflict between International and Municipal Law arises if a certain

individual must be extradited according to an extradition treaty, but cannot
be extradited according to the Municipal Law of the State from which
extradition is demanded. Thus in the case of Salvatore Paladini,[676] whose
extradition was demanded by the United States of America from the Italian
Government in 1888 for having passed counterfeit money, Italian Municipal
Law, which prohibits the extradition of an Italian citizen, came into conflict
with article 1 of the Extradition Treaty of 1868 between Italy and the
United States which stipulates extradition of criminals without exempting
nationals. For this reason Italy refused to extradite Paladini. It is noteworthy
that the United States, although they do not any longer press for extradition
of Italian subjects who, after having committed a crime in the United States
have returned to Italy, nevertheless consider themselves bound by the
above-mentioned treaty of 1868 to extradite to Italy such American subjects
as have committed a crime in Italy. Therefore, when in 1910 the Italian
Government demanded from the United States extradition of one Porter
Charlton,[677] an American citizen, for having committed a murder in Italy,
extradition was granted.
[676] See Moore, IV. § 594, pp. 290-297.
[677] See A.J. V. (1911), pp. 182-191.

Extraditable Crimes.
§ 331. Unless a State is restricted by an extradition law, it can grant
extradition for any crime it thinks fit. And unless a State is bound by an
extradition treaty, it can refuse extradition for any crime. Such States as
possess extradition laws frame their extradition treaties conformably
therewith and specify in those treaties all those crimes for which they are
willing to grant extradition. And no person is to be extradited whose deed is
not a crime according to the Criminal Law of the State which is asked to
extradite, as well as of the State which demands extradition. As regards
Great Britain, the following are extraditable crimes according to the
Extradition Act of 1870:—Murder and manslaughter; counterfeiting and
uttering counterfeit money; forgery and uttering what is forged;
embezzlement and larceny; obtaining goods or money by false pretences;
crimes by bankrupts against bankruptcy laws; fraud by a bailee, banker,
agent, factor, trustee, or by a director, or member, or public officer of any
company; rape; abduction; child stealing; burglary and housebreaking;
arson; robbery with violence; threats with intent to extort; piracy by the
Law of Nations; sinking or destroying a vessel at sea; assaults on board ship
on the High Seas with intent to destroy life or to do grievous bodily harm;
revolt or conspiracy against the authority of the master on board a ship on
the High Seas. The Extradition Acts of 1873 and 1906 added the following
crimes to the list:—Kidnapping, false imprisonment, perjury, subornation of
perjury, and bribery.
Political criminals are, as a rule, not extradited,[678] and according to many
extradition treaties military deserters and such persons as have committed
offences against religion are likewise excluded from extradition.
[678] See below, §§ 333-340.
 Effectuation and Condition of Extradition.
§ 332. Extradition is granted only if asked for, and after the formalities
have taken place which are stipulated in the treaties of extradition and the
extradition laws, if any. It is effected through handing over the criminal by
the police of the extraditing State to the police of the prosecuting State. But
it must be emphasised that, according to most extradition treaties, it is a
condition that the extradited individual shall be tried and punished for those
crimes exclusively for which his extradition has been asked and granted, or
for those at least which the extradition treaty concerned enumerates.[679] If,
nevertheless, an extradited individual is tried and punished for another
crime, the extraditing State has a right of intervention.[680]
[679] See Mettgenberg in the "Zeitschrift für internationales Recht," XVIII. (1908), pp. 425-430.
[680] It ought to be mentioned that the Institute of International Law in 1880, at its meeting in
Oxford (see Annuaire, V. p. 117), adopted a body of twenty-six rules concerning extradition.
An important question is whether, in case a criminal, who has succeeded
in escaping into the territory of another State, is erroneously handed over,
without the formalities of extradition having been complied with, by the
police of the local State to the police of the prosecuting State, such local
State can demand that the prosecuting State shall send the criminal back
and ask for his formal extradition. This question was decided in the
negative in February 1911 by the Court of Arbitration at the Hague in the
case of France v. Great Britain concerning Savarkar. This British-Indian
subject, who was prosecuted for high treason and abatement of murder, and
was being transported in the P. and O. boat Morea to India for the purpose
of standing his trial there, escaped to the shore on October 25, 1910, while
the vessel was in the harbour of Marseilles. He was, however, seized by a
French policeman, who, erroneously and without further formalities,
reconducted him to the Morea with the assistance of individuals from the
vessel who had raised a hue-and-cry. Since Savarkar was prima facie a
political criminal, France demanded that England should give him up and
should request his extradition in a formal way, but England refused to
comply with this demand, and the parties, therefore, agreed to have the
conflict decided by the Court of Arbitration at the Hague. The award, while
admitting that an irregularity had been committed by the reconduction of
Savarkar to the British vessel, decided, correctly, I believe, in favour of
Great Britain, asserting that there was no rule of International Law
imposing, in circumstances such as those which have been set out above,
any obligation on the Power which has in its custody a prisoner, to restore
him on account of a mistake committed by the foreign agent who delivered
him up to that Power.[681] It should be mentioned that the French
Government had been previously informed of the fact that Savarkar would
be a prisoner on board the Morea while she was calling at Marseilles, and
had agreed to this.
[681] See Hamelin, "L'Affaire Savarkar" (Extrait du "Recueil général de Jurisprudence, de
Doctrine et de Législation coloniales," 1911), who defends the French view. The award of the
Court of Arbitration has been severely criticised by Baty in the Law Magazine and Review,
XXXVI. (1911), pp. 326-330; Kohler in Z.V. V. (1911), pp. 202-211; Strupp, "Zwei praktische
Fälle aus dem Völkerrecht" (1911), pp. 12-26; Robin in R.G. XVIII. (1911), pp. 303-352; Hamel
in R.I. 2nd Ser. XIII. (1911), pp. 370-403.

X
PRINCIPLE OF NON-EXTRADITION OF POLITICAL CRIMINALS

Westlake, I. pp. 247-248—Lawrence, § 111—Taylor, § 212—Wharton, II. § 272—Moore, IV.

§ 604—Bluntschli, § 396—Hartmann, § 89—Lammasch in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 485-510
—Liszt, § 33—Ullmann, § 129—Rivier, I. pp. 351-357—Nys, II. pp. 253-256—Calvo, II.
§§ 1034-1036—Martens, II. § 96—Bonfils, Nos. 466-467—Pradier-Fodéré, III. Nos. 1871-
1873—Mérignhac, II. pp. 754-771—Soldan, "L'extradition des criminels politiques" (1882)
—Martitz, "Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen," vol. II. (1897), pp. 134-707—
Lammasch, "Auslieferungspflicht und Asylrecht" (1887), pp. 203-355—Grivaz, "Nature et
effets du principe de l'asyle politique" (1895)—Piggott, "Extradition" (1910), pp. 42-60—
Scott in A.J. III. (1909), pp. 459-461.

How Non-extradition of Political Criminals became the Rule.

§ 333. Before the French Revolution[682] the term "political crime" was
unknown in either the theory or the practice of the Law of Nations. And the
principle of non-extradition of political criminals was likewise non-existent.
On the contrary, whereas extradition of ordinary criminals was, before the
eighteenth century at least, hardly ever stipulated, treaties very often
stipulated the extradition of individuals who had committed such deeds as
are nowadays termed "political crimes," and such individuals were
frequently extradited even when no treaty stipulated it.[683] And writers in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries did not at all object to such practice
on the part of the States; on the contrary, they frequently approved of it.[684]
It is indirectly due to the French Revolution that matters gradually
underwent a change, since this event was the starting-point for the revolt in
the nineteenth century against despotism and absolutism throughout the
western part of the European continent. It was then that the term "political
crime" arose, and article 120 of the French Constitution of 1793 granted
asylum to foreigners exiled from their home country "for the cause of
liberty." On the other hand, the French emigrants, who had fled from France
to escape the Reign of Terror, found an asylum in foreign States. However,
the modern principle of non-extradition of political criminals even then did
not conquer the world. Until 1830 political criminals frequently were
extradited. But public opinion in free countries began gradually to revolt
against such extradition, and Great Britain was its first opponent. The fact
that several political fugitives were surrendered by the Governor of
Gibraltar to Spain created a storm of indignation in Parliament in 1815,
where Sir James Mackintosh proclaimed the principle that no nation ought
to refuse asylum to political fugitives. And in 1816 Lord Castlereagh
declared that there could be no greater abuse of the law than by allowing it
to be the instrument of inflicting punishment on foreigners who had
committed political crimes only. The second in the field was Switzerland,
the asylum for many political fugitives from neighbouring countries, when,
after the final defeat of Napoleon, the reactionary Continental monarchs
refused the introduction of constitutional reforms which were demanded by
their peoples. And although, in 1823, Switzerland was forced by threats of
the reactionary leading Powers of the Holy Alliance to restrict somewhat
the asylum afforded by her to individuals who had taken part in the
unsuccessful political revolts in Naples and Piedmont, the principle of non-
extradition went on fighting its way. The question as to that asylum was
discussed with much passion in the press of Europe. And although the
principle of non-extradition was far from becoming universally recognised,
that discussion indirectly fostered its growth. A practical proof thereof is
that in 1830 even Austria and Prussia, two of the reactionary Powers of that
time, refused Russia's demand for extradition of fugitives who had taken
part in the Polish Revolution of that year. And another proof thereof is that
at about the same time, in 1829, a celebrated dissertation[685] by a Dutch
jurist made its appearance, in which the principle of non-extradition of
political criminals was for the first time defended with juristic arguments
and on a juristic basis.
[682] I follow in this section for the most part the summary of the facts given by Martitz, op. cit.
II. pp. 134-184.
[683] Martitz, op. cit. II. p. 177, gives a list of important extraditions of political criminals which
took place between 1648 and 1789.
 [684] So Grotius, II. c. 21, § 5, No. 5.
[685] H. Provó Kluit, "De deditione profugorum."
On the other hand, a reaction set in in 1833, when Austria, Prussia, and
Russia concluded treaties which remained in force for a generation, and
which stipulated that henceforth individuals who had committed crimes of
high treason and lèse-majesté, or had conspired against the safety of the
throne and the legitimate Government, or had taken part in a revolt, should
be surrendered to the State concerned. The same year, however, is epoch-
making in favour of the principle of non-extradition of political criminals,
for in 1833 Belgium enacted her celebrated extradition law, the first of its
kind, being the very first Municipal Law which expressly interdicted the
extradition of foreign political criminals. As Belgium, which had seceded
from the Netherlands in 1830 and became recognised and neutralised by the
Powers in 1831, owed her very existence to revolt, she felt the duty of
making it a principle of her Municipal Law to grant asylum to foreign
political fugitives, a principle which was for the first time put into practice
in the treaty of extradition concluded in 1834 between Belgium and France.
The latter, which to the present day has no municipal extradition law, has
nevertheless henceforth always in her extradition treaties with other Powers
stipulated the principle of non-extradition of political criminals. And the
other Powers followed gradually. Even Russia had to give way, and since
1867 this principle is to be found in all extradition treaties of Russia with
other Powers, that with Spain of 1888 excepted. It is due to the stern
attitude of Great Britain, Switzerland, Belgium, France, and the United
States that the principle has conquered the world. These countries, in which
individual liberty is the very basis of all political life, and constitutional
government a political dogma of the nation, watched with abhorrence the
methods of government of many other States between 1815 and 1860.
These Governments were more or less absolute and despotic, repressing by
force every endeavour of their subjects to obtain individual liberty and a
share in the government. Thousands of the most worthy citizens and truest
patriots had to leave their country for fear of severe punishment for political
crimes. Great Britain and the other free countries felt in honour bound not
to surrender such exiled patriots to the persecution of their Governments,
but to grant them an asylum.
Difficulty concerning the Conception of Political Crime.
 § 334. Although the principle became and is generally[686] recognised that
political criminals shall not be extradited, serious difficulties exist
concerning the conception of "political crime." Such conception is of great
importance, as the extradition of a criminal may depend upon it. It is
unnecessary here to discuss the numerous details of the controversy. It
suffices to state that whereas many writers call such crime "political" as was
committed from a political motive, others call "political" any crime
committed for a political purpose; again, others recognise such crime only
as "political" as was committed from a political motive and at the same time
for a political purpose; and, thirdly, some writers confine the term "political
crime" to certain offences against the State only, as high treason, lèse-
majesté, and the like.[687] To the present day all attempts have failed to
formulate a satisfactory conception of the term, and the reason of the thing
will, I believe, for ever exclude the possibility of finding a satisfactory
conception and definition.[688] The difficulty is caused through the so-called
"relative political crimes" or délits complexes—namely, those complex
cases in which the political offence comprises at the same time[689] an
ordinary crime, such as murder, arson, theft, and the like. Some writers
deny categorically that such complex crimes are political; but this opinion is
wrong and dangerous, since indeed many honourable political criminals
would have to be extradited in consequence thereof. On the other hand, it
cannot be denied that many cases of complex crimes, although the deed
may have been committed from a political motive or for a political purpose,
are such as ought not to be considered political. Such cases have roused the
indignation of the whole civilised world, and have indeed endangered the
very value of the principle of non-extradition of political criminals. Three
practical attempts have therefore been made to deal with such complex
crimes without violating this principle.
[686] See, however, below, § 340, concerning the reactionary movement in the matter.
[687] See Mettgenberg, "Die Attentatsklausel im deutschen Auslieferungsrecht" (1906), pp. 61-
76, where a survey of the different opinions is given.
[688] According to Stephen, "History of the Criminal Law in England," vol. II. p. 71, political
crimes are such as are identical to and form a part of political disturbances.
[689] The problem came twice before the English courts; see Ex parte Castione, L.R. [1891] 1
Q.B. 149, and In re Meunier, L.R. [1894] 2 Q.B. 415. In the case of Castione, a Swiss who had
taken part in a revolutionary movement in the canton of Ticino and had incidentally shot a
member of the Government, the Court refused extradition because the crime was considered to be
political. On the other hand, in the case of Meunier, a French anarchist who was prosecuted for
 having caused two explosions in France, one of which resulted in the death of two individuals, the
extradition was granted because the crime was not considered to be political.

The so-called Belgian Attentat Clause.

§ 335. The first attempt was the enactment of the so-called attentat clause
by Belgium in 1856,[690] following the case of Jacquin in 1854. A French
manufacturer named Jules Jacquin, domiciled in Belgium, and a foreman of
his factory named Célestin Jacquin, who was also a Frenchman, tried to
cause an explosion on the railway line between Lille and Calais with the
intention of murdering the Emperor Napoleon III. France requested the
extradition of the two criminals, but the Belgian Court of Appeal had to
refuse the surrender on account of the Belgian extradition law interdicting
the surrender of political criminals. To provide for such cases in the future,
Belgium enacted in 1856 a law amending her extradition law and
stipulating that murder of the head of a foreign Government or of a member
of his family should not be considered a political crime. Gradually all
European States, with the exception of England and Switzerland, have
adopted that attentat clause, and a great many Continental writers urge its
adoption by the whole of the civilised world.[691]
[690] See details in Martitz, op. cit. II. p. 372.
[691] See Mettgenberg, op. cit. pp. 109-114.

The Russian Project of 1881.

§ 336. Another attempt to deal with complex crimes without detriment to
the principle of non-extradition of political criminals was made by Russia in
1881. Influenced by the murder of the Emperor Alexander II. in that year,
Russia invited the Powers to hold an International Conference at Brussels
for the consideration of the proposal that thenceforth no murder or attempt
to murder ought to be considered as a political crime. But the Conference
did not take place, since Great Britain as well as France declined to take
part in it.[692] Thus the development of things had come to a standstill, many
States having adopted, others declining to adopt, the Belgian clause, and the
Russian proposal having fallen through.
[692] See details in Martitz, op. cit. II. p. 479.

The Swiss Solution of the Problem in 1892.

§ 337. Eleven years later, in 1892, Switzerland attempted a solution of
the problem on a new basis. In that year Switzerland enacted an extradition
law whose article 10 recognises the non-extradition of political criminals,
but at the same time lays down the rule that political criminals shall
nevertheless be surrendered in case the chief feature of the offence wears
more the aspect of an ordinary than of a political crime, and that the
decision concerning the extraditability of such criminals rests with the
"Bundesgericht," the highest Swiss Court of Justice. This Swiss rule
contains a better solution of the problem than the Belgian attentat clause in
so far as it allows the circumstances of the special case to be taken into
consideration. And the fact that the decision is taken out of the hands of the
Government and transferred to the highest Court of the country, denotes
likewise a remarkable progress.[693] For the Government cannot now be
blamed whether extradition is granted or refused, the decision of an
independent Court of Justice being a certain guarantee that an impartial
view of the circumstances of the case has been taken.[694]
[693] See Langhard, "Das Schweizerische Auslieferungsrecht" (1910), where all the cases are
discussed which have come before the Court since 1892.
[694] It ought to be mentioned that the Institute of International Law at its meeting at Geneva in
1892 (see Annuaire, XII. p. 182) adopted four rules concerning extradition of political criminals,
but I do not think that on the whole these rules give much satisfaction.

Rationale for the Principle of Non-extradition of Political Criminals.

§ 338. The numerous attempts[695] against the lives of heads of States and
the frequency of anarchistic crimes have shaken the value of the principle
of non-extradition of political criminals in the opinion of the civilised world
as illustrated by the three practical attempts described above to meet certain
difficulties. It is, consequently, no wonder that some writers[696] plead
openly and directly for the abolition of this principle, maintaining that it
was only the product of abnormal times and circumstances such as were in
existence during the first half of the nineteenth century, and that with their
disappearance the principle is likely to do more harm than good. And
indeed it cannot be denied that the application of the principle in favour of
some criminals, such as anarchistic[697] murderers and bomb-throwers, could
only be called an abuse. But the question is whether, apart from such
exceptional cases, the principle itself is still to be considered as justified or
not.
[695] Not less than nineteen of these attempts have been successful since 1850, as the following
formidable list shows:—

Charles II., Duke of Parma, murdered on March 26, 1854.

 Prince Danilo of Montenegro, murdered on August 14, 1860.
President Abraham Lincoln, U.S.A., murdered on April 14, 1865.
Prince Michael of Servia, murdered on June 10, 1868.
President Balta of Peru, murdered on July, 1872.
President Moreno of Ecuador, murdered on August 6, 1872.
Sultan Abdul Assis of Turkey, murdered on June 4, 1876.
Emperor Alexander II. of Russia, murdered on March 13, 1881.
President Garfield, U.S.A., murdered on July 2, 1881.
President Carnot of France, murdered on June 24, 1894.
Shah Nazr-e-Din of Persia, murdered on May 1, 1896.
Empress Elizabeth of Austria, murdered on September 10, 1898.
King Humbert I. of Italy, murdered on July 30, 1900.
President McKinley, U.S.A., murdered on September 6, 1901.
King Alexander I. of Servia and
Queen Draga, murdered on June 10, 1903.
King Carlos I. of Portugal and
the Crown Prince, murdered on February 15, 1908.
President Caceres of San Domingo, murdered on November 19, 1911.
[696]See, for instance, Rivier, I. p. 354, and Scott in A.J. III. (1909), p. 459.
[697]"... the party with whom the accused is identified ... namely the party of anarchy, is the
enemy of all governments. Their efforts are directed primarily against the general body of citizens.
They may, secondarily and incidentally, commit offences against some particular government, but
anarchist offences are mainly directed against private citizens." (From the judgment of Cave, J. In
re Meunier, L.R. [1894] 2 Q.B. 419.)—See also Diena in R.G. II. (1905), pp. 306-336.
Without doubt the answer must be in the affirmative. I readily admit that
every political crime is by no means an honourable deed, which as such
deserves protection. Still, political crimes are committed by the best of
patriots, and, what is of more weight, they are in many cases a consequence
of oppression on the part of the respective Governments. They are
comparatively infrequent in free countries, where there is individual liberty,
where the nation governs itself, and where, therefore, there are plenty of
legal ways to bring grievances before the authorities. A free country can
never agree to surrender foreigners to their prosecuting home State for
deeds done in the interest of the same freedom and liberty which the
subjects of such free country enjoy. For individual liberty and self-
government of nations are demanded by modern civilisation, and their
gradual realisation over the whole globe is conducive to the welfare of the
human race.
Political crimes may certainly be committed in the interest of reaction as
well as in the interest of progress, and reactionary political criminals may
have occasion to ask for asylum as well as progressive political criminals.
The principle of non-extradition of political criminals indeed extends its
protection over the former too, and this is the very point where the value of
the principle reveals itself. For no State has a right to interfere with the
internal affairs of another State, and, if a State were to surrender reactionary
political criminals but not progressive ones, the prosecuting State of the
latter could indeed complain and consider the refusal of extradition an
unfriendly act. If, however, non-extradition is made a general principle
which finds its application in favour of political criminals of every kind, no
State can complain if extradition is refused. Have not reactionary States the
same faculty of refusing the extradition of reactionary political criminals as
free States have of refusing the extradition of progressive political
criminals?
Now, many writers agree upon this point, but maintain that such
arguments meet the so-called purely political crimes only, and not the
relative or complex political crimes, and they contend, therefore, that the
principle of non-extradition ought to be restricted to the former crimes only.
But to this I cannot assent. No revolt happens without such complex crimes
taking place, and the individuals who commit them may indeed deserve the
same protection as other political criminals. And, further, although I can
under no circumstances approve of murder, can never sympathise with a
murderer, and can never pardon his crime, it may well be the case that the
murdered official or head of a State has by inhuman cruelty and oppression
himself whetted the knife which cut short his span of life. On the other
hand, the mere fact that a crime was committed for a political purpose may
well be without any importance in comparison with its detestability and
heinousness. Attempts on heads of States, such, for example, as the murders
of Presidents Lincoln and Carnot or of Alexander II. of Russia and Humbert
of Italy, are as a rule, and all anarchistic crimes are without any exception,
crimes of that kind. Criminals who commit such crimes ought under no
circumstances to find protection and asylum, but ought to be surrendered
for the purpose of receiving their just and appropriate punishment.
How to avoid Misapplication of the Principle of Non-extradition of Political Criminals.
§ 339. The question, however, is how to sift the chaff from the wheat,
how to distinguish between such political criminals as deserve an asylum
and such as do not. The difficulties are great and partly insuperable as long
as we do not succeed in finding a satisfactory conception of the term
"political crime." But such difficulties are only partly, not wholly,
insuperable. The step taken by the Swiss extradition law of 1892 is so far in
advance as to meet a great many of the difficulties. There is no doubt that
the adoption of the Swiss rule by all the other civilised States would
improve matters more than the universal adoption of the so-called Belgian
attentat clause. The fact that according to Swiss law each case of complex
political crime is unravelled and obtains the verdict of an independent Court
according to the very circumstances, conditions, and requirements under
which it occurred, is of the greatest value. It enables every case to be met in
such a way as it deserves, without compromising the Government, and
without sacrificing the principle of non-extradition of political criminals as
a valuable rule. I cannot support the charge made by some writers[698] that
the Swiss law is inadequate because it does not give criteria for the
guidance of the Court in deciding whether or no extradition for complex
crimes should be granted. In my opinion, the very absence of such criteria
proves the superiority of the Swiss clause to the Belgian attentat clause. On
the one hand, the latter is quite insufficient, for it restricts its stipulations to
murder of heads of States and members of their families only. But I see no
reason why individuals guilty of any murder—as provided by the Russian
proposal—or who have committed other crimes, such as arson, theft, and
the like, should not be surrendered in case the political motive or purpose of
the crime is of no importance in comparison with the crime itself. On the
other hand, the Belgian clause goes too far, since exceptional cases of
murder of heads of States from political motives or for political purposes
might occur which do not deserve extradition. The Swiss clause, however,
with its absence of fixed distinctions between such complex crimes as are
extraditable, and such as are not, permits the consideration of the
circumstances, conditions, and requirements under which a complex crime
was committed. It is true that the responsibility of the Court of Justice
which has to decide whether such a complex crime is extraditable is great.
But it is to be taken for granted that such Court will give its decision with
impartiality, fairness, and justice. And it need not be feared that such Court
will grant asylum to a murderer, incendiary, and the like, unless convinced
that the deed was really political.
[698] See, for instance, Martitz, op. cit. II. pp. 533-539.

Reactionary Extradition Treaties.

§ 340. Be that as it may, the present condition of matters is a danger to
the very principle of non-extradition of political criminals. Under the
influence of the excitement caused by numerous criminal attempts in the
last quarter of the nineteenth century, a few treaties have already been
concluded which make a wide breach in this principle. It is Russia which is
leading the reaction. This Power in 1885 concluded treaties with Prussia
and Bavaria which stipulate the extradition of all individuals who have
made an attack on the life, the body, or the honour[699] of a monarch, or of a
member of his family, or who have committed any kind of murder or
attempt to murder. And the extradition treaty between Russia and Spain of
1888 goes even further and abandons the principle of non-extradition of
political criminals altogether. Fortunately, the endeavour of Russia to
abolish this principle altogether has not succeeded. In her extradition treaty
with Great Britain of 1886 she had to adopt it without any restriction, and in
her extradition treaties with Portugal of 1887, with Luxemburg of 1892, and
with the United States and Holland of 1893, she had to adopt it with a
restrictive clause similar to the Belgian attentat clause.
[699] Thus, even for lèse majesté extradition must be granted.
 PART III
ORGANS OF THE STATES FOR THEIR
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
CHAPTER I
HEADS OF STATES, AND FOREIGN OFFICES

I
POSITION OF HEADS OF STATES ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW

Hall, § 97—Phillimore, II. §§ 101 and 102—Bluntschli, §§ 115-125—Holtzendorff in

Holtzendorff, II. pp. 77-81—Ullmann, § 40—Rivier, I. § 32—Nys, II. pp. 325-329—Fiore,
II. No. 1097—Bonfils, No. 632—Mérignhac, II. pp. 294-305—Bynkershoek, "De foro
legatorum" (1721), c. III. § 13.

Necessity of a Head for every State.

§ 341. As a State is an abstraction from the fact that a multitude of
individuals live in a country under a Sovereign Government, every State
must have a head as its highest organ, which represents it within and
without its borders in the totality of its relations. Such head is the monarch
in a monarchy and a president or a body of individuals, as the Bundesrath of
Switzerland, in a republic. The Law of Nations prescribes no rules as
regards the kind of head a State may have. Every State is, naturally,
independent regarding this point, possessing the faculty of adopting any
Constitution it likes and of changing such Constitution according to its
discretion. Some kind or other of a head of the State is, however, necessary
according to International Law, as without a head there is no State in
existence, but anarchy.
Recognition of Heads of States.
§ 342. In case of the accession of a new head of a State, other States are
as a rule notified. The latter usually recognise the new head through some
formal act, such as a congratulation. But neither such notification nor
recognition is strictly necessary according to International Law, as an
individual becomes head of a State, not through the recognition of other
States, but through Municipal Law. Such notification and recognition are,
however, of legal importance. For through notification a State declares that
the individual concerned is its highest organ, and has by Municipal Law the
power to represent the State in the totality of its international relations. And
through recognition the other States declare that they are ready to negotiate
with such individual as the highest organ of his State. But recognition of a
new head by other States is in every respect a matter of discretion. Neither
has a State the right to demand from other States recognition of its new
head, nor has any State a right to refuse such recognition. Thus Russia,
Austria, and Prussia refused until 1848 recognition to Isabella, Queen of
Spain, who had come to the throne as an infant in 1833. But, practically, in
the long run recognition cannot be withheld, for without it international
intercourse is impossible, and States with self-respect will exercise
retorsion if recognition is refused to the heads they have chosen. Thus,
when, after the unification of Italy in 1861, Mecklenburg and Bavaria
refused the recognition of Victor Emanuel as King of Italy, Count Cavour
revoked the exequatur of the consuls of these States in Italy.
But it must be emphasised that recognition of a new head of a State by no
means implies the recognition of such head as the legitimate head of the
State in question. Recognition is in fact nothing else than the declaration of
other States that they are ready to deal with a certain individual as the
highest organ of the particular State, and the question remains totally
undecided whether such individual is or is not to be considered the
legitimate head of that State.
Competence of Heads of States.
§ 343. The head of a State, as its chief organ and representative in the
totality of its international relations, acts for his State in the latter's
international intercourse, with the consequence that all his legally relevant
international acts are considered acts of his State. His competence to
perform such acts is termed jus repraesentationis omnimodae. It comprises
in substance chiefly: reception and mission of diplomatic agents and
consuls, conclusion of international treaties, declaration of war, and
conclusion of peace. But it is a question of the special case, how far this
competence is independent of Municipal Law. For heads of States exercise
this competence for their States and as the latter's representatives, and not in
their own right. If a head of a State should, for instance, ratify a treaty
without the necessary approval of his Parliament, he would go beyond his
powers, and therefore such treaty would not be binding upon his State.[700]
[700] See below, § 497.
On the other hand, this competence is certainly independent of the
question whether a head of a State is the legitimate head or a usurper. The
mere fact that an individual is for the time being the head of a State makes
him competent to act as such head, and his State is legally bound by his
acts. It may, however, be difficult to decide whether a certain individual is
or is not the head of a State, for after a revolution some time always elapses
before matters are settled.

Heads of States Objects of the Law of Nations.

§ 344. Heads of States are never subjects[701] of the Law of Nations. The
position a head of a State has according to International Law is due to him,
not as an individual, but as the head of his State. His position is derived
from international rights and duties of his State, and not from international
rights of his own. Consequently, all rights possessed by heads of States
abroad are not international rights, but rights which must be granted to them
by the Municipal Law of the foreign State on whose territory such foreign
heads of States are temporarily staying, and such rights must be granted in
compliance with international rights of the home States of the respective
heads. Thus, heads of States are not subjects but objects of International
Law, and in this regard are like any other individual.
[701]But Heffter (§ 48) maintains the contrary, and Phillimore (II. § 100) designates monarchs
mediately and derivatively as subjects of International Law. The matter is treated in detail above,
§§ 13 and 288-290; see also below, § 384.

Honours and Privileges of Heads of States.

§ 345. All honours and privileges of heads of States due to them by
foreign States are derived from the fact that dignity is a recognised quality
of States as members of the Family of Nations and International Persons.[702]
Concerning such honours and privileges, International Law distinguishes
between monarchs and heads of republics. This distinction is the necessary
outcome of the fact that the position of monarchs according to the
Municipal Law of monarchies is totally different from the position of heads
of republics according to the Municipal Law of the republics. For monarchs
are sovereigns, but heads of republics are not.
[702] See above, § 121.

II
MONARCHS

Vattel, I. §§ 28-45; IV. § 108—Hall, § 49—Lawrence, § 105—Phillimore, II. §§ 108-113—

Taylor, § 129—Moore, II. § 250—Bluntschli, §§ 126-153—Heffter, §§ 48-57—Ullmann,
§§ 41-42—Rivier, I. § 33—Nys, II. pp. 280-296—Calvo, III. §§ 1454-1479—Fiore, II. Nos.
1098-1102—Bonfils, Nos. 633-647—Mérignhac, II. pp. 94-105—Pradier-Fodéré, III. Nos.
1564-1591.

Sovereignty of Monarchs.
§ 346. In every monarchy the monarch appears as the representative of
the sovereignty of the State and thereby becomes a Sovereign himself, a
fact which is recognised by International Law. And the difference between
the Municipal Laws of the different States regarding this point matters in no
way. Consequently, International Law recognises all monarchs as equally
sovereign, although the difference between the constitutional positions of
monarchs is enormous, if looked upon in the light of the rules laid down by
the Constitutional Laws of the different States. Thus, the Emperor of
Russia, whose powers are very wide, and the King of England, who is
sovereign in Parliament only, and whose powers are therefore very much
restricted, are indifferently sovereign according to International Law.
Consideration due to Monarchs at home.
§ 347. Not much need be said as regards the consideration due to a
monarch from other States when within the boundaries of his own State.
Foreign States have to give him his usual and recognised predicates[703] in
all official communications. Every monarch must be treated as a peer of
other monarchs, whatever difference in title and actual power there may be
between them.
[703] Details as regards the predicates of monarchs are given above, § 119.

Consideration due to Monarchs abroad.

§ 348. As regards, however, the consideration due to a monarch abroad
from the State on whose territory he is staying in time of peace and with the
consent and the knowledge of the Government, details must necessarily be
given. The consideration due to him consists in honours, inviolability, and
exterritoriality.
(1) In consequence of his character of Sovereign, his home State has the
right to demand that certain ceremonial honours be rendered to him, the
members of his family, and the members of his retinue. He must be
addressed by his usual predicates. Military salutes must be paid to him, and
the like.
(2) As his person is sacrosanct, his home State has a right to insist that he
be afforded special protection as regards personal safety, the maintenance of
personal dignity, and the unrestrained intercourse with his Government at
home. Every offence against him must be visited with specially severe
penalties. On the other hand, he must be exempt from every kind of
criminal jurisdiction. The wife of a Sovereign must be afforded the same
protection and exemption.
(3) He must be granted so-called exterritoriality conformably with the
principle: "Par in parem non habet imperium," according to which one
Sovereign cannot have any power over another Sovereign. He must,
therefore, in every point be exempt from taxation, rating, and every fiscal
regulation, and likewise from civil jurisdiction, except when he himself is
the plaintiff.[704] The house where he has taken his residence must enjoy the
same exterritoriality as the official residence of an ambassador; no
policeman or other official must be allowed to enter it without his
permission. Even if a criminal takes refuge in such residence, the police
must be prevented from entering it, although, if the criminal's surrender is
deliberately refused, the Government may request the recalcitrant Sovereign
to leave the country and then arrest the criminal. If a foreign Sovereign has
real property in a country, such property is under the latter's jurisdiction.
But as soon as such Sovereign takes his residence on the property, it must
become exterritorial for the time being. Further, a Sovereign staying in a
foreign country must be allowed to perform all his own governmental acts
and functions, except when his country is at war with a third State and the
State in which he is staying remains neutral. And, lastly, a Sovereign must
be allowed, within the same limits as at home, to exercise civil jurisdiction
over the members of his retinue. In former times even criminal jurisdiction
over the members of his suite was very often claimed and conceded, but
this is now antiquated.[705] The wife of a Sovereign must likewise be granted
exterritoriality, but not other members of a Sovereign's family.[706]
[704] See above, § 115, and the cases there quoted; see also Phillimore, II. § 113A, and Loening,
"Die Gerichtsbarkeit über fremde Staaten und Souveräne" (1903).
[705] A celebrated case happened on November 10, 1656, in France, when Christina, Queen of
Sweden, although she had already abdicated, sentenced her grand equerry, Monaldeschi, to death,
and had him executed by her bodyguard.
[706] See Rivier, I. p. 421, and Bluntschli, § 154; but, according to Bluntschli, exterritoriality
need not in strict law be granted even to the wife of a Sovereign.
However, exterritoriality is in the case of a foreign Sovereign, as in any
other case, a fiction only, which is kept up for certain purposes within
certain limits. Should a Sovereign during his stay within a foreign State
abuse his privileges, such State is not obliged to bear such abuse tacitly and
quietly, but can request him to leave the country. And when a foreign
Sovereign commits acts of violence or such acts as endanger the internal or
external safety of the State, the latter can put him under restraint to prevent
further acts of the same kind, but must at the same time bring him as
speedily as possible to the frontier.
The Retinue of Monarchs abroad.
§ 349. The position of individuals who accompany a monarch during his
stay abroad is a matter of some dispute. Several publicists maintain that the
home State can claim the privilege of exterritoriality as well for members of
his suite as for the Sovereign himself, but others deny this.[707] I believe that
the opinion of the former is correct, since I cannot see any reason why a
Sovereign abroad should as regards the members of his suite be in an
inferior position to a diplomatic envoy.[708]
[707] See Bluntschli, § 154, and Hall, § 49, in contradistinction to Martens, I. § 83.
[708] See below, §§ 401-405.

Monarchs travelling incognito.

§ 350. Hitherto only the case where a monarch is staying in a foreign
country with the official knowledge of the latter's Government has been
discussed. Such knowledge may be held in the case of a monarch travelling
incognito, and he enjoys then the same privileges as if travelling not
incognito. The only difference is that many ceremonial observances, which
are due to a monarch, are not rendered to him when travelling incognito.
But the case may happen that a monarch is travelling in a foreign country
incognito without the latter's Government having the slightest knowledge
thereof. Such monarch cannot then of course be treated otherwise than as
any other foreign individual; but he can at any time make known his real
character and assume the privileges due to him. Thus the late King William
of Holland, when travelling incognito in Switzerland in 1873, was
condemned to a fine for some slight contravention, but the sentence was not
carried out, as he gave up his incognito.
Deposed and Abdicated Monarchs.
§ 351. All privileges mentioned must be granted to a monarch only as
long as he is really the head of a State. As soon as he is deposed or has
abdicated, he is no longer a Sovereign. Therefore in 1870 and 1872 the
French Courts permitted, because she was deposed, a civil action against
Queen Isabella of Spain, then living in Paris, for money due to the
plaintiffs. Nothing, of course, prevents the Municipal Law of a State from
granting the same privileges to a foreign deposed or abdicated monarch as
to a foreign Sovereign, but the Law of Nations does not exact any such
courtesy.
Regents.
§ 352. All privileges due to a monarch are also due to a Regent, at home
or abroad, whilst he governs on behalf of an infant, or of a King who is
through illness incapable of exercising his powers. And it matters not
whether such Regent is a member of the King's family and a Prince of royal
blood or not.
Monarchs in the service or subjects of Foreign Powers.
§ 353. When a monarch accepts any office in a foreign State, when, for
instance, he serves in a foreign army, as the monarchs of the small German
States have formerly frequently done, he submits to such State as far as the
duties of the office are concerned, and his home State cannot claim any
privileges for him that otherwise would be due to him.
When a monarch is at the same time a subject of another State,
distinction must be made between his acts as a Sovereign, on the one hand,
and his acts as a subject, on the other. For the latter, the State whose subject
he is has jurisdiction over him, but not for the former. Thus, in 1837, the
Duke of Cumberland became King of Hanover, but at the same time he was
by hereditary title an English Peer and therefore an English subject. And in
1844, in the case Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover,[709] the Master of
the Rolls held that the King of Hanover was liable to be sued in the Courts
of England in respect of any acts done by him as an English subject.
[709] 6 Beavan, 1; 2 House of Lords Cases, 1; see also Phillimore, II. § 109.

III
PRESIDENTS OF REPUBLICS

Bluntschli, § 134—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. p. 661—Ullmann, § 42—Rivier, I. § 33—

Martens, I. § 80—Walther, "Das Staatshaupt in den Republiken" (1907), pp. 190-204.

Presidents not Sovereigns.

§ 354. In contradistinction to monarchies, in republics the people itself,
and not a single individual, appears as the representative of the sovereignty
of the State, and accordingly the people styles itself the Sovereign of the
State. And it will be remembered that the head of a republic may consist of
a body of individuals, such as the Bundesrath in Switzerland. But in case
the head is a President, as in France and the United States of America, such
President represents the State, at least in the totality of its international
relations. He is, however, not a Sovereign, but a citizen and subject of the
very State whose head he is as President.
Position of Presidents in general.
§ 355. Consequently, his position at home and abroad cannot be
compared with that of monarchs, and International Law does not empower
his home State to claim for him the same, but only similar, consideration as
that due to a monarch. Neither at home nor abroad, therefore, does a
president of a republic appear as a peer of monarchs. Whereas all monarchs
are in the style of the Court phraseology considered as though they were
members of the same family, and therefore address each other in letters as
"my brother," a president of a republic is usually addressed in letters from
monarchs as "my friend." His home State can certainly at home and abroad
claim such honours for him as are due to its dignity, but no such honours as
must be granted to a Sovereign monarch.
Position of Presidents abroad.
 § 356. As to the position of a president when abroad, writers on the Law
of Nations do not agree. Some[710] maintain that, since a president is not a
Sovereign, his home State can never claim for him the same privileges as
for a monarch, and especially that of exterritoriality. Others[711] make a
distinction whether a president is staying abroad in his official capacity as
head of a State or for his private purposes, and they maintain that his home
State could only in the first case claim exterritoriality for him. Others[712]
again will not admit any difference in the position of a president abroad
from that of a monarch abroad. How the States themselves think as regards
the question of the exterritoriality of presidents of republics abroad cannot
be ascertained, since to my knowledge no case has hitherto occurred in
practice from which a conclusion may be drawn. But practice seems to have
settled the question of ceremonial honours due to a president officially
abroad; they are such as correspond to the rank of his home State, and not
such as are due to a monarch. As regards exterritoriality, I believe that
future contingencies will create the practice on the part of the States of
granting this privilege to presidents and members of their suite as in the
case of monarchs. I cannot see that there is any danger in such a grant. And
nobody can deny that, if exterritoriality is not granted, all kinds of friction
and even conflicts might arise. Although not Sovereigns, presidents of
republics fill for the time being a sublime office, and the grant of
exterritoriality to them is a tribute paid to the dignity of the States they
represent.
[710] Ullmann, § 42; Rivier, I. p. 423; Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. p. 658.
[711] Martens, I. § 80; Bluntschli, § 134; Despagnet, No. 254; Hall, § 97.
[712] Bonfils, No. 632; Nys, II. p. 287; Mérignhac, II. p. 298; Liszt, § 13; Walther, op. cit., p.
195.

IV
FOREIGN OFFICES

Heffter, § 201—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. p. 668—Ullmann, § 43—Rivier, I. § 34—

Bonfils, Nos. 648-651—Nys, II. pp. 330-334.

Position of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

§ 357. As a rule nowadays no head of a State, be he a monarch or a
president, negotiates directly and in person with a foreign Power, although
this happens occasionally. The necessary negotiations are regularly
conducted by the Foreign Office, an office which since the Westphalian
Peace has been in existence in every civilised State. The chief of this office,
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who is a Cabinet Minister, directs the
foreign affairs of the State in the name of the head and with the latter's
consent; he is the middle-man between the head of the State and other
States. And although many a head of a State directs in fact all the foreign
affairs himself, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs is nevertheless the person
through whose hands all transactions must pass. Now, as regards the
position of such Foreign Secretary at home, it is the Municipal Law of a
State which regulates this. International Law defines his position regarding
international intercourse with other States. He is the chief over all the
ambassadors of the State, over its consuls, and over its other agents in
matters international. It is he who, either in person or through the envoys of
his State, approaches foreign States for the purpose of negotiating matters
international. And again it is he whom foreign States through their Foreign
Secretaries or their envoys approach for the like purpose. He is present
when Ministers hand in their credentials to the head of the State. All
documents of importance regarding foreign matters are signed by him or his
substitute, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It is, therefore, usual to
notify the appointment of a new Foreign Secretary of a State to such foreign
States as are represented within its boundaries by diplomatic envoys; the
new Foreign Secretary himself makes this notification.

CHAPTER II
DIPLOMATIC ENVOYS

I
THE INSTITUTION OF LEGATION

Phillimore, II. §§ 143-153—Taylor, § 274—Twiss, § 199—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. pp.

605-618—Nys, II. pp. 335-339—Rivier, I. § 35—Ullmann, § 44—Martens, II. § 6—
Gentilis, "De legationibus libri III." (1585)—Wicquefort, "L'Ambassadeur et ses fonctions"
(1680)—Bynkershoek, "De foro legatorum" (1721)—Garden, "Traité complet de
diplomatie" (3 vols. 1833)—Mirus, "Das europäische Gesandtschaftsrecht" (2 vols. 1847)
—Charles de Martens, "Le guide diplomatique" (2 vols. 1832; 6th ed. by Geffcken, 1866)
—Montague Bernard, "Four Lectures on Subjects connected with Diplomacy" (1868), pp.
111-162 (3rd Lecture)—Alt, "Handbuch des Europäischen Gesandtschaftsrechts" (1870)—
Pradier-Fodéré, "Cours de droit diplomatique" (2 vols. 2nd ed. 1899)—Krauske, "Die
 Entwickelung der ständigen Diplomatie," &c. (1885)—Lehr, "Manuel théorique et pratique
des agents diplomatiques" (1888)—Hill, "History of Diplomacy in the International
Development of Europe," vol. I. (1905), vol. II. (1906; the other vols. have not yet
appeared).

Development of Legations.
§ 358. Legation as an institution for the purpose of negotiating between
different States is as old as history, whose records are full of examples of
legations sent and received by the oldest nations. And it is remarkable that
even in antiquity, where no such law as the modern International Law was
known, ambassadors enjoyed everywhere a special protection and certain
privileges, although not by law but by religion, ambassadors being looked
upon as sacrosanct. Yet permanent legations were unknown till very late in
the Middle Ages. The fact that the Popes had permanent representatives—
so-called apocrisiarii or responsales—at the Court of the Frankish Kings
and at Constantinople until the final separation of the Eastern from the
Western Church, ought not to be considered as the first example of
permanent legations, as the task of these papal representatives had nothing
to do with international affairs, but with those of the Church only. It was not
until the thirteenth century that the first permanent legations made their
appearance. The Italian Republics, and Venice in especial, created the
example[713] by keeping representatives stationed at one another's capitals
for the better negotiation of their international affairs. And in the fifteenth
century these Republics began to keep permanent representatives in Spain,
Germany, France, and England. Other States followed the example. Special
treaties were often concluded stipulating permanent legations, such as in
1520, for instance, between the King of England and the Emperor of
Germany. From the end of the fifteenth century England, France, Spain, and
Germany kept up permanent legations at one another's Courts. But it was
not until the second half of the seventeenth century that permanent legations
became a general institution, the Powers following the example of France
under Louis XIV. and Richelieu. It ought to be specially mentioned that
Grotius[714] thought permanent legations to be wholly unnecessary. The
course of events has, however, shown that Grotius's views as regards
permanent legations were short-sighted. Nowadays the Family of Nations
could not exist without them, as they are the channel through which nearly
the whole, and certainly all important, official intercourse of the States
flows.
 [713] See Nys, "Les Origines du droit international" (1894), p. 295.
[714] "De jure belli ac pacis," II. c. 28, § 3: "Optimo autem jure rejici possunt, quae nunc in usu
sunt, legationes assiduae, quibus cum non sit opus, docet mos antiquus, cui illae ignoratae."

Diplomacy.
§ 359. The rise of permanent legations created the necessity for a new
class of State officials, the so-called diplomatists; yet it was not until the
end of the eighteenth century that the terms "diplomatist" and "diplomacy"
came into general use. And although the art of diplomacy is as old as
official intercourse between States, such a special class of officials as are
now called diplomatists did not and could not exist until permanent
legations had become a general institution. In this as in other cases the
office has created the class of men necessary for it. International Law has
nothing to do with the education and general character of these officials.
Every State is naturally competent to create its own rules, if any, as regards
these points. Nor has International Law anything to do with diplomatic
usages, although these are more or less of importance, as they may
occasionally grow into customary rules of International Law. But I would
notice one of these usages—namely, that as regards the language which is
in use in diplomatic intercourse. This language was formerly Latin, but
through the political ascendency of France under Louis XIV. it became
French. However, this is a usage of diplomacy only, and not a rule of
International Law.[715] Each State can use its own language in all official
communications to other States, and States which have the same language
regularly do so in their intercourse with each other. But between States of
different tongues and, further, at Conferences and Congresses, it is
convenient to make use of a language which is generally known. This is
nowadays French, but nothing could prevent diplomatists from dropping
French at any moment and adopting another language instead.
[715] See Mirus, "Das europäische Gesandtschaftsrecht," I. §§ 266-268.

II
RIGHT OF LEGATION

Grotius, II. c. 18—Vattel, IV. §§ 55-68—Hall, § 98—Phillimore, II. §§ 115-139—Taylor, §§

285-288—Twiss, §§ 201-202—Wheaton, §§ 206-209—Bluntschli, §§ 159-165—Heffter, §
200—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. pp 620-631—Ullmann, § 45—Rivier, I. § 35—Nys, II.
p. 339—Bonfils, Nos. 658-667—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 1225-1256—Fiore, II. Nos. 1112-
1117—Calvo, III. §§ 1321-1325—Martens, II. §§ 7-8.
 Conception of Right of Legation.
§ 360. Right of legation is the right of a State to send and receive
diplomatic envoys. The right to send such envoys is termed active right of
legation, in contradistinction to the passive right of legation, as the right to
receive such envoys is termed. Some writers[716] on International Law assert
that no right but a mere competence to send and receive diplomatic envoys
exists according to International Law, maintaining that no State is bound by
International Law to send or receive such envoys. But this is certainly
wrong in its generality. Obviously a State is not bound to send diplomatic
envoys or to receive permanent envoys. But, on the other hand, the very
existence[717] of the Family of Nations makes it necessary for the members
or some of the members to negotiate occasionally on certain points. Such
negotiation would be impossible in case one member could always and
under all circumstances refuse to receive an envoy from the other members.
The duty of every member to listen, under ordinary circumstances, to a
message from another brought by a diplomatic envoy is, therefore, an
outcome of its very membership of the Family of Nations, and this duty
corresponds to the right of every member to send such envoys. But the
exercise of the active right of legation is discretionary. No State need send
diplomatic envoys at all, although practically all States do at least
occasionally send such envoys, and most States send permanent envoys to
many other States. The passive right of legation is discretionary as regards
the reception of permanent envoys only.
[716] See, for instance, Wheaton, § 207; Heilborn, "System," p. 182.
[717] See above, § 141.

What States possess the Right of Legation.

§ 361. Not every State, however, possesses the right of legation. Such
right pertains chiefly to full-Sovereign States,[718] for other States possess
this right under certain conditions only.
[718] It should be emphasised that the Holy See, which is in some respects treated as though an
International Person, can send and receive envoys, who must in every respect be considered as
though they were diplomatic envoys. That they are actually not diplomatic envoys, although so
treated, becomes apparent from the fact that they are not agents for international affairs of States,
but exclusively for affairs of the Roman Catholic Church. (See above, § 106.)
(1) Half-Sovereign States, such as States under the suzerainty or the
protectorate of another State, can as a rule neither send nor receive
diplomatic envoys. Thus, Crete and Egypt are destitute of such right, and
the Powers are represented in these States only by consuls or agents without
diplomatic character. But there may be exceptions to this rule. Thus,
according to the Peace Treaty of Kainardgi of 1774 between Russia and
Turkey, the two half-Sovereign principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia
had the right of sending Chargés d'Affaires to foreign Powers. Thus, further,
the late South African Republic, which was a State under British suzerainty
in the opinion of Great Britain, used to keep permanent diplomatic envoys
in several foreign States.
(2) Part-Sovereign member-States of a Federal State may or may not
have the right of legation besides the Federal State. It is the constitution of
the Federal State which regulates this point. Thus, the member-States of
Switzerland and of the United States of America have no right of legation,
but those of the German Empire certainly have. Bavaria, for example, sends
and receives several diplomatic envoys.
Right of Legation by whom exercised.
§ 362. As, according to International Law, a State is represented in its
international relations by its head, it is he who acts in the exercise of his
State's right of legation. But Municipal Law may, just as it designates the
person who is the head of the State, impose certain conditions and
restrictions upon the head as regards the exercise of such right. And the
head himself may, provided that it is sanctioned by the Municipal Law of
his State, delegate[719] the exercise of such right to any representative he
chooses.
[719]See Phillimore, II. §§ 126-133, where several interesting cases of such delegation are
discussed.
It may, however, in consequence of revolutionary movements, be
doubtful who the real head of a State is, and in such cases it remains in the
discretion of foreign States to make their choice. But it is impossible for
foreign States to receive diplomatic envoys from both claimants to the
headship of the same State, or to send diplomatic envoys to both of them.
And as soon as a State has recognised the head of a State who came into his
position through a revolution, it can no longer keep up diplomatic relations
with the former head.
It should be mentioned that a revolutionary party which is recognised as
a belligerent Power has nevertheless no right of legation, although foreign
States may negotiate with such party in an informal way through political
agents without diplomatic character, to provide for the temporal security of
the persons and property of their subjects within the territory under the
actual sway of such party. Such revolutionary party as is recognised as a
belligerent Power is in some points only treated as though it were a subject
of International Law; but it is not a State, and there is no reason why
International Law should give it the right to send and receive diplomatic
envoys.
It should further be mentioned that neither an abdicated nor a deposed
head has a right to send and receive diplomatic envoys.[720]
[720]See Phillimore, II. §§ 124-125, where the case of Bishop Ross, ambassador of Mary Queen
of Scots, is discussed.

III
KINDS AND CLASSES OF DIPLOMATIC ENVOYS

Vattel, IV. §§ 69-75—Phillimore, II. §§ 211-224—Twiss, I. §§ 204-209—Moore, IV. § 624—

Heffter, § 208—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 635-646—Calvo, III. §§ 1326-1336—
Bonfils, Nos. 668-676—Pradier-Fodéré, III. §§ 1277-1290—Rivier, I. pp. 443-453—Nys,
II. pp. 342-352.

Envoys Ceremonial and Political.

§ 363. Two different kinds of diplomatic envoys are to be distinguished
—namely, such as are sent for political negotiations and such as are sent for
the purpose of ceremonial function or notification of changes in the
headship. For States very often send special envoys to one another on
occasion of coronations, weddings, funerals, jubilees, and the like; and it is
also usual to send envoys to announce a fresh accession to the throne. Such
envoys ceremonial have the same standing as envoys political for real State
negotiations. Among the envoys political, again, two kinds are to be
distinguished—namely, first, such as are permanently or temporarily
accredited to a State for the purpose of negotiating with such State, and,
second, such as are sent to represent the sending State at a Congress or
Conference. The latter are not, or need not be, accredited to the State on
whose territory the Congress or Conference takes place, but they are
nevertheless diplomatic envoys and enjoy all the privileges of such envoys
as regards exterritoriality and the like which concern the inviolability and
safety of their persons and the members of their suites.
 Classes of Diplomatic Envoys.
§ 364. Diplomatic envoys accredited to a State differ in class. These
classes did not exist in the early stages of International Law. But during the
sixteenth century a distinction between two classes of diplomatic envoys
gradually arose, and at about the middle of the seventeenth century, after
permanent legations had come into general vogue, two such classes became
generally recognised—namely, extraordinary envoys, called Ambassadors,
and ordinary envoys, called Residents; Ambassadors being received with
higher honours and taking precedence of the other envoys. Disputes arose
frequently regarding precedence, and the States tried in vain to avoid them
by introducing during the eighteenth century another class—namely, the so-
called Ministers Plenipotentiary. At last the Powers assembled at the Vienna
Congress came to the conclusion that the matter ought to be settled by an
international understanding, and they agreed, therefore, on March 19, 1815,
upon the establishment of three different classes—namely, first,
Ambassadors; second, Ministers Plenipotentiary and Envoys Extraordinary;
third, Chargés d'Affaires. And the five Powers assembled at the Congress of
Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818 agreed upon a fourth class—namely, Ministers
Resident, to rank between Ministers Plenipotentiary and Chargés d'Affaires.
All the other States either expressly or tacitly accepted these arrangements,
so that nowadays the four classes are an established order. Although their
privileges are materially the same, they differ in rank and honours, and they
must therefore be treated separately.
Ambassadors.
§ 365. Ambassadors form the first class. Only States enjoying royal
honours[721] are entitled to send and to receive Ambassadors, as also is the
Holy See, whose first-class envoys are called Nuncios, or Legati a latere or
de latere. Ambassadors are considered to be personal representatives of the
heads of their States and enjoy for this reason special honours. Their chief
privilege—namely, that of negotiating with the head of the State personally
—has, however, little value nowadays, as almost all States have to a certain
extent constitutional government, which necessitates that all the important
business should go through the hands of a Foreign Secretary.
[721] See above, § 117, No. 1.

Ministers Plenipotentiary and Envoys Extraordinary.

 § 366. The second class, the Ministers Plenipotentiary and Envoys
Extraordinary, to which also belong the Papal Internuncios, are not
considered to be personal representatives of the heads of their States.
Therefore they do not enjoy all the special honours of the Ambassadors, and
have not the privilege of treating with the head of the State personally. But
otherwise there is no difference between these two classes.
Ministers Resident.
§ 367. The third class, the Ministers Resident, enjoy fewer honours and
rank below the Ministers Plenipotentiary. But beyond the fact that Ministers
Resident do not enjoy the title "Excellency," there is no difference between
them and the Ministers Plenipotentiary.
Chargés d'Affaires.
§ 368. The fourth class, the Chargés d'Affaires, differs chiefly in one
point from the first, second, and third class—namely, in so far as its
members are accredited from Foreign Office to Foreign Office, whereas the
members of the other classes are accredited from head of State to head of
State. Chargés d'Affaires do not enjoy, therefore, so many honours as other
diplomatic envoys. And it must be specially mentioned that a distinction
ought to be made between a Chargé d'Affaires who is the head of a
Legation, and who, therefore, is accredited from Foreign Office to Foreign
Office, and a Chargé d'Affaires ad interim. The latter is a member of a
Legation whom the head of the Legation delegates for the purpose of taking
his place during absence on leave. Such Chargé d'Affaires ad interim, who
had better be called a Chargé des Affaires,[722] ranks below the ordinary
Chargé d'Affaires; he is not accredited from Foreign Office to Foreign
Office, but is simply a delegate of the absent head of the Legation.
[722] See Rivier, II. pp. 451-452.

The Diplomatic Corps.

§ 369. All the Diplomatic Envoys accredited to the same State form,
according to a diplomatic usage, a body which is styled the "Diplomatic
Corps." The head of this body, the so-called "Doyen," is the Papal Nuncio,
or, in case there is no Nuncio accredited, the oldest Ambassador, or, failing
Ambassadors, the oldest Minister Plenipotentiary, and so on. As the
Diplomatic Corps is not a body legally constituted, it performs no legal
functions, but it is nevertheless of great importance, as it watches over the
privileges and honours due to diplomatic envoys.

IV
APPOINTMENT OF DIPLOMATIC ENVOYS

Vattel, IV. §§ 76-77—Phillimore, II. §§ 227-231—Twiss, I. §§ 212-214—Ullmann, § 48—

Calvo, III. §§ 1343-1345—Bonfils, Nos. 677-680—Wheaton, §§ 217-220—Moore, IV. §§
632-635.

Person and Qualification of the Envoy.

§ 370. International Law has no rules as regards the qualification of the
individuals whom a State can appoint as diplomatic envoys, States being
naturally competent to act according to discretion, although of course there
are many qualifications a diplomatic envoy must possess to fill his office
successfully. The Municipal Laws of many States comprise, therefore,
many details as regards the knowledge and training which a candidate for a
permanent diplomatic post must possess, whereas, regarding envoys
ceremonial even the Municipal Laws have no provisions at all. The question
is sometimes discussed whether females[723] might be appointed envoys.
History relates a few cases of female diplomatists. Thus, for example, Louis
XIV. of France accredited in 1646 Madame de Guébriant ambassador to the
Court of Poland. During the last two centuries, however, no such case has to
my knowledge occurred, although I doubt not that International Law does
not prevent a State from sending a female as diplomatic envoy. But under
the present circumstances many States would refuse to receive her.
[723]
See Mirus, "Das europäische Gesandtschaftsrecht," I. §§ 127-128; Phillimore, II. § 134;
and Focherini, "Le Signore Ambasciatrici dei secoli XVII. e XVIII. e loro posizione nel diritto
diplomatico" (1909).

Letter of Credence, Full Powers, Passports.

§ 371. The appointment of an individual as a diplomatic envoy is
announced to the State to which he is accredited in certain official papers to
be handed in by the envoy to the receiving State. Letter of Credence (lettre
de créance) is the designation of the document in which the head of the
State accredits a permanent ambassador or minister to a foreign State.
Every such envoy receives a sealed Letter of Credence and an open copy.
As soon as the envoy arrives at his destination, he sends the copy to the
Foreign Office in order to make his arrival officially known. The sealed
original, however, is handed in personally by the envoy to the head of the
State to whom he is accredited. Chargés d'Affaires receive a Letter of
Credence too, but as they are accredited from Foreign Office to Foreign
Office, their Letter of Credence is signed, not by the head of their home
State, but by its Foreign Office. Now a permanent diplomatic envoy needs
no other empowering document in case he is not entrusted with any task
outside the limits of the ordinary business of a permanent legation. But in
case he is entrusted with any such task, as, for instance, if any special treaty
or convention is to be negotiated, he requires a special empowering
document—namely, the so-called Full Powers (Pleins Pouvoirs). They are
given in Letters Patent signed by the head of the State, and they are either
limited or unlimited Full Powers, according to the requirements of the case.
Such diplomatic envoys as are sent, not to represent their home State
permanently, but on an extraordinary mission such as representation at a
Congress, negotiation of a special treaty, and other transactions, receive full
Powers only, and no Letter of Credence. Every permanent or other
diplomatic envoy is also furnished with so-called Instructions for the
guidance of his conduct as regards the objects of his mission. But such
Instructions are a matter between the Envoy and his home State exclusively,
and they have therefore, although they may otherwise be very important, no
importance for International Law. Every permanent diplomatic envoy
receives, lastly, Passports for himself and his suite specially made out by
the Foreign Office. These Passports the envoy after his arrival deposits at
the Foreign Office of the State to which he is accredited, where they remain
until he himself asks for them because he desires to leave his post, or until
they are returned to him on his dismissal.
Combined Legations.
§ 372. As a rule, a State appoints different individuals as permanent
diplomatic envoys to different States, but sometimes a State appoints the
same individual as permanent diplomatic envoy to several States. As a rule,
further, a diplomatic envoy represents one State only. But occasionally
several States appoint the same individual as their envoy, so that one envoy
represents several States.
Appointment of several Envoys.
 § 373. In former times States used frequently[724] to appoint more than
one permanent diplomatic envoy as their representative in a foreign State.
Although this would hardly occur nowadays, there is no rule against such a
possibility. And even now it happens frequently that States appoint several
envoys for the purpose of representing them at Congresses and
Conferences. In such cases one of the several envoys is appointed senior, to
whom the others are subordinate.
[724] See Mirus, op. cit. I. §§ 117-119.

V
RECEPTION OF DIPLOMATIC ENVOYS

Vattel, IV. §§ 65-67—Hall, § 98—Phillimore, II. §§ 133-139—Twiss, I. §§ 202-203—Taylor,

§§ 285-290—Moore, IV. §§ 635, 637-638—Martens, II. § 8—Calvo, III. §§ 1353-1356—
Pradier-Fodéré, III. §§ 1253-1260—Fiore, II. Nos. 1118-1120—Rivier, I. pp. 455-457.

Duty to receive Diplomatic Envoys.

§ 374. Every member of the Family of Nations that possesses the passive
right of legation is under ordinary circumstances bound to receive
diplomatic envoys accredited to itself from other States for the purpose of
negotiation. But the duty extends neither to the reception of permanent
envoys nor to the reception of temporary envoys under all circumstances.
(1) As regards permanent envoys, it is a generally recognised fact that a
State is as little bound to receive them as it is to send them. Practically,
however, every full-Sovereign State which desires its voice to be heard
among the States receives and sends permanent envoys, as without such it
would, under present circumstances, be impossible for a State to have any
influence whatever in international affairs. It is for this reason that
Switzerland, which in former times abstained entirely from sending
permanent envoys, has abandoned her former practice and nowadays sends
and receives several. The insignificant Principality of Lichtenstein is, as far
as I know, the only full-Sovereign State which neither sends nor receives
one single permanent legation.
But a State may receive a permanent legation from one State and refuse
to do so from another. Thus the Protestant States never received a
permanent legation from the Popes, even when the latter were heads of a
State, and they still observe this rule, although one or another of them, such
as Prussia for example, keeps a permanent legation at the Vatican.
(2) As regards temporary envoys, it is likewise a generally recognised
fact among those writers who assert the duty of a State to receive under
ordinary circumstances temporary envoys that there are exceptions to that
rule. Thus, for example, a State which knows beforehand the object of a
mission and does not wish to negotiate thereon can refuse to receive the
mission. Thus, further, a belligerent can refuse[725] to receive a legation from
the other belligerent, as war involves the rupture of all peaceable relations.
[725]But this is not generally recognised. See Vattel, IV. § 67; Phillimore, II. § 138; and Pradier-
Fodéré, III. No. 1255.

Refusal to receive a certain Individual.

§ 375. But the refusal to receive an envoy must not be confounded with
the refusal to receive a certain individual as envoy. A State may be ready to
receive a permanent or temporary envoy, but may object to the individual
selected for that purpose. International Law gives no right to a State to
insist upon the reception of an individual appointed by it as diplomatic
envoy. Every State can refuse to receive as envoy a person objectionable to
itself. And a State refusing an individual envoy is neither compelled to
specify what kind of objection it has, nor to justify its objection. Thus, for
example, most States refuse to receive one of their own subjects as an
envoy from a foreign State.[726] Thus, again, the King of Hanover refused in
1847 to receive a minister appointed by Prussia, because the individual was
of the Roman Catholic faith. Italy refused in 1885 to receive Mr. Keiley as
ambassador of the United States of America because he had in 1871
protested against the annexation of the Papal States. And when the United
States sent the same gentleman as ambassador to Austria, the latter refused
him reception on the ground that his wife was said to be a Jewess.
Although, as is apparent from these examples, no State has a right to insist
upon the reception of a certain individual as envoy, in practice States are
often offended when reception is refused. Thus, in 1832 England did not
cancel for three years the appointment of Sir Stratford Canning as
ambassador to Russia, although the latter refused reception, and the post
was practically vacant. In 1885, when, as above mentioned, Austria refused
reception to Mr. Keiley as ambassador of the United States, the latter did
not appoint another, although Mr. Keiley resigned, and the legation was for
several years left to the care of a Chargé d'Affaires.[727] To avoid such
conflicts it is a good practice of many States never to appoint an individual
as envoy without having ascertained beforehand whether the individual
would be persona grata. And it is a customary rule of International Law
that a State which does not object to the appointment of a certain individual,
when its opinion has been asked beforehand, is bound to receive such
individual.[728]
[726] In case a State receives one of its own subjects as diplomatic envoy of a foreign State, it
has to grant him all the privileges of such envoys, including exterritoriality. Thus in the case of
Macartney v. Garbutt and others (1890, L.R. 24 Q.B. 368) it was decided that a British subject
accredited to Great Britain by the Chinese Government as a Secretary of its embassy and received
by Great Britain in that capacity without an express condition that he should remain subject to
British jurisdiction, was exempt from British jurisdiction. See, however, article 15 of the
Règlement sur les Immunités Diplomatiques, adopted in 1895 by the Institute of International Law
(see Annuaire, XIV. p. 244), which denies to such an individual exemption from jurisdiction. See
also Phillimore, II. § 135, and Twiss, I. § 203.
[727] See Moore, IV. § 638, p. 480.
[728] The question is of interest whether the privileges due to diplomatists must be granted on
his journey home to an individual to whom reception as an envoy is refused. I think the question
ought to be answered in the affirmative; see, however, Moore, IV. § 666, p. 668.

Mode and Solemnity of Reception.

§ 376. In case a State does not object to the reception of a person as
diplomatic envoy accredited to itself, his actual reception takes place as
soon as he has arrived at the place of his designation. But the mode of
reception differs according to the class to which the envoy belongs. If he be
one of the first, second, or third class, it is the duty of the head of the State
to receive him solemnly in a so-called public audience with all the usual
ceremonies. For that purpose the envoy sends a copy of his credentials to
the Foreign Office, which arranges a special audience with the head of the
State for the envoy, when he delivers in person his sealed credentials.[729] If
the envoy be a Chargé d'Affaires only, he is received in audience by the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, to whom he hands his credentials. Through the
formal reception the envoy becomes officially recognised and can officially
commence to exercise his functions. But such of his privileges as
exterritoriality and the like, which concern the safety and inviolability of his
person, must be granted even before his official reception, as his character
as diplomatic envoy is considered to date, not from the time of his official
reception, but from the time when his credentials were handed to him on
leaving his home State, his passports furnishing sufficient proof of his
diplomatic character.
[729] Details concerning reception of envoys are given by Twiss, I. § 215, and Rivier, I. p. 467.

Reception of Envoys to Congresses and Conferences.

§ 377. It must be specially observed that all these details regarding the
reception of diplomatic envoys accredited to a State do not apply to the
reception of envoys sent to represent the several States at a Congress or
Conference. As such envoys are not accredited to the State on whose
territory the Congress or Conference takes place, such State has no
competence to refuse the reception of the appointed envoys, and no formal
and official reception of the latter by the head of the State need take place.
The appointing States merely notify the appointment of their envoys to the
Foreign Office of the State on whose territory the transactions take place,
the envoys call upon the Foreign Secretary after their arrival to introduce
themselves, and they are courteously received by him. They do not,
however, hand in to him their Full Powers, but reserve them for the first
meeting of the Congress or Conference, where they produce them in
exchange with one another.

VI
FUNCTIONS OF DIPLOMATIC ENVOYS

Rivier, I. § 37—Ullmann, § 49—Bonfils, Nos. 681-683—Pradier-Fodéré, III. §§ 1346-1376.

On Diplomatic Functions in general.

§ 378. A distinction must be made between functions of permanent
envoys and of envoys for temporary purposes. The functions of the latter,
who are either envoys ceremonial or such envoys political as are only
temporarily accredited for the purpose of some definite negotiations or as
representatives at Congresses and Conferences, are clearly demonstrated by
the very purpose of their appointment. But the functions of the permanent
envoys demand a closer consideration. These regular functions may be
grouped together under the heads of negotiation, observation, and
protection. But besides these regular functions a diplomatic envoy may be
charged with other and more miscellaneous functions.
 Negotiation.
§ 379. A permanent ambassador or other envoy represents his home State
in the totality of its international relations not only with the State to which
he is accredited, but also with other States. He is the mouthpiece of the head
of his home State and its Foreign Secretary as regards communications to
be made to the State to which he is accredited. He likewise receives
communications from the latter and reports them to his home State. In this
way not only are international relations between these two States fostered
and negotiated upon, but such international affairs of other States as are of
general interest to all or a part of the members of the Family of Nations are
also discussed. Owing to the fact that all the more important Powers keep
permanent legations accredited to one another, a constant exchange of
views in regard to affairs international is taking place between them.
Observation.
§ 380. But these are not all the functions of permanent diplomatic
envoys. Their task is, further, to observe attentively every occurrence which
might affect the interest of their home States, and to report such
observations to their Governments. It is through these reports that every
member of the Family of Nations is kept well informed in regard to the
army and navy, the finances, the public opinion, the commerce and industry
of foreign countries. And it must be specially observed that no State that
receives diplomatic envoys has a right to prevent them from exercising their
function of observation.
Protection.
§ 381. A third task of diplomatic envoys is the protection of the persons,
property, and interests of such subjects of their home States as are within
the boundaries of the State to which they are accredited. If such subjects are
wronged without being able to find redress in the ordinary way of justice,
and ask the help of the diplomatic envoy of their home State, he must be
allowed to afford them protection. It is, however, for the Municipal Law
and regulations of his home State, and not for International Law, to
prescribe to an envoy the limits within which he has to afford protection to
his compatriots.

Miscellaneous Functions.
 § 382. Negotiation, observation, and protection are tasks common to all
diplomatic envoys of every State. But a State may order its permanent
envoys to perform other tasks, such as the registration of deaths, births, and
marriages of subjects of the home State, legalisation of their signatures,
making out of passports for them, and the like. But in doing this a State
must be careful not to order its envoys to perform such tasks as are by the
law of the receiving State exclusively reserved to its own officials. Thus, for
instance, a State whose laws compel persons who intend marriage to
conclude it in presence of its registrars, need not allow a foreign envoy to
legalise a marriage of compatriots before its registration by the official
registrar. So, too, a State need not allow a foreign envoy to perform an act
which is reserved for its jurisdiction, as, for instance, the examination of
witnesses on oath.
Envoys not to interfere in Internal Politics.
§ 383. But it must be specially emphasised that envoys must not interfere
with the internal political life of the State to which they are accredited. It
certainly belongs to their functions to watch the political events and the
political parties with a vigilant eye and to report their observations to their
home States. But they have no right whatever to take part in that political
life itself, to encourage a certain political party, or to threaten another. If
nevertheless they do so, they abuse their position. And it matters not
whether an envoy acts thus on his own account or on instructions from his
home State. No strong self-respecting State will allow a foreign envoy to
exercise such interference, but will either request his home State to recall
him and appoint another individual in his place or, in case his interference is
very flagrant, hand him his passports and therewith dismiss him. History
records many instances of this kind,[730] although in many cases it is
doubtful whether the envoy concerned really abused his office for the
purpose of interfering with internal politics.
[730]See Hall (§ 98**), Taylor (§ 322), and Moore (IV. § 640), who discuss a number of cases,
especially that of Lord Sackville, who received his passports in 1888 from the United States of
America for an alleged interference in the Presidential election.

VII
POSITION OF DIPLOMATIC ENVOYS
 Diplomatic Envoys objects of International Law.
§ 384. Diplomatic envoys are just as little subjects of International Law
as are heads of States; and the arguments regarding the position of such
heads[731] must also be applied to the position of diplomatic envoys, which is
given to them by International Law not as individuals but as representative
agents of their States. It is derived, not from personal rights, but from rights
and duties of their home States and the receiving States. All the privileges
which according to International Law are possessed by diplomatic envoys
are not rights given to them by International Law, but rights given by the
Municipal Law of the receiving States in compliance with an international
right of their home States. For International Law gives a right to every State
to demand for its diplomatic envoys certain privileges from the Municipal
Law of a foreign State. Thus, a diplomatic envoy is not a subject but an
object of International Law, and is in this regard like any other individual.
[731] See above, § 344.

Privileges due to Diplomatic Envoys.

§ 385. Privileges due to diplomatic envoys, apart from ceremonial
honours, have reference to their inviolability and to their so-called
exterritoriality. The reasons why these privileges must be granted are that
diplomatic envoys are representatives of States and of their dignity,[732] and,
further, that they could not exercise their functions perfectly unless they
enjoyed such privileges. For it is obvious that, were they liable to ordinary
legal and political interference like other individuals and thus more or less
dependent on the good-will of the Government, they might be influenced by
personal considerations of safety and comfort to such a degree as would
materially hamper the exercise of their functions. It is equally clear that
liability to interference with their full and free intercourse with their home
States through letters, telegrams, and couriers would wholly nullify their
raison d'être. In this case it would be impossible for them to send
independent and secret reports to or receive similar instructions from their
home States. From the consideration of these and various cognate reasons
their privileges seem to be inseparable attributes of the very existence of
diplomatic envoys.[733]
[732] See above, § 121.
[733] The Institute of International Law, at its meeting at Cambridge in 1895, discussed the
privileges of diplomatic envoys, and drafted a body of seventeen rules in regard thereto; see
Annuaire, XIV. p. 240.
 VIII
INVIOLABILITY OF DIPLOMATIC ENVOYS

Vattel, IV. §§ 80-107—Hall, §§ 50, 98*—Phillimore, II. §§ 154-175—Twiss, I. §§ 216-217—

Moore, IV. §§ 657-659—Ullmann, § 50—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 648-654—
Rivier, I. § 38—Nys, II. pp. 372-374—Bonfils, Nos. 684-699—Pradier-Fodéré, III. §§
1382-1393—Mérignhac, II. pp. 264-273—Fiore, II. Nos. 1127-1143—Calvo, III. §§ 1480-
1498—Martens, II. § 11—Crouzet, "De l'inviolabilité ... des agents diplomatiques" (1875).

Protection due to Diplomatic Envoys.

§ 386. Diplomatic envoys are just as sacrosanct as heads of States. They
must, therefore, on the one hand, be afforded special protection as regards
the safety of their persons, and, on the other hand, they must be exempted
from every kind of criminal jurisdiction of the receiving States. Now the
protection due to diplomatic envoys must find its expression not only in the
necessary police measures for the prevention of offences, but also in
specially severe punishments to be inflicted on offenders. Thus, according
to English Criminal Law,[734] every one is guilty of a misdemeanour who, by
force or personal restraint, violates any privilege conferred upon the
diplomatic representatives of foreign countries, or who[735] sets forth or
prosecutes or executes any writ or process whereby the person of any
diplomatic representative of a foreign country or the person of a servant of
any such representative is arrested or imprisoned. The protection of
diplomatic envoys is not restricted to their own person, but must be
extended to the members of their family and suite, to their official
residence, their furniture, carriages, papers, and likewise to their intercourse
with their home States by letters, telegrams, and special messengers. Even
after a diplomatic mission has come to an end, the archives of an Embassy
must not be touched, provided they have been put under seal and confided
to the protection of another envoy.[736]
[734] See Stephen's Digest, articles 96-97.
[735] 7 Anne, c. 12, sect. 3-6. This statute, which was passed in 1708 in consequence of the
Russian Ambassador in London having been arrested for a debt of £50, has always been
considered as declaratory of the existing law in England, and not as creating new law.
[736] See above, § 106 (case of Montagnini), and below, § 411.

Exemption from Criminal Jurisdiction.

§ 387. As regards the exemption of diplomatic envoys from criminal
jurisdiction, theory and practice of International Law agree nowadays[737]
upon the fact that the receiving States have no right, under any
circumstances whatever, to prosecute and punish diplomatic envoys. But
among writers on International Law the question is not settled whether the
commands and injunctions of the laws of the receiving States concern
diplomatic envoys at all, so that the latter have to comply with such
commands and injunctions, although the fact is established that they can
never be prosecuted and punished for any breach.[738] This question ought to
be decided in the negative, for a diplomatic envoy must in no point be
considered under the legal authority of the receiving State. But this does not
mean that a diplomatic envoy must have a right to do what he likes. The
presupposition of the privileges he enjoys is that he acts and behaves in
such a manner as harmonises with the internal order of the receiving State.
He is therefore expected voluntarily to comply with all such commands and
injunctions of the Municipal Law as do not restrict him in the effective
exercise of his functions. In case he acts and behaves otherwise, and
disturbs thereby the internal order of the State, the latter will certainly
request his recall or send him back at once.
[737] In former times there was no unanimity amongst publicists. See Phillimore, II. § 154.
[738] The point is thoroughly discussed by Beling, "Die strafrechtliche Bedeutung der
Exterritorialität" (1896), pp. 71-90.
History records many cases of diplomatic envoys who have conspired
against the receiving States, but have nevertheless not been prosecuted.
Thus, in 1584, the Spanish Ambassador Mendoza in England plotted to
depose Queen Elizabeth; he was ordered to leave the country. In 1586 the
French Ambassador in England, L'Aubespine, conspired against the life of
Queen Elizabeth; he was simply warned not to commit a similar act again.
In 1654 the French Ambassador in England, De Bass, conspired against the
life of Cromwell; he was ordered to leave the country within twenty-four
hours.[739]
[739] These and other cases are discussed by Phillimore, II. §§ 160-165.

Limitation of Inviolability.
§ 388. As diplomatic envoys are sacrosanct, the principle of their
inviolability is generally recognised. But there is one exception. For if a
diplomatic envoy commits an act of violence which disturbs the internal
order of the receiving State in such a manner as makes it necessary to put
him under restraint for the purpose of preventing similar acts, or in case he
conspires against the receiving State and the conspiracy can be made futile
only by putting him under restraint, he may be arrested for the time being,
although he must in due time be safely sent home. Thus in 1717 the
Swedish Ambassador Gyllenburg in London, who was an accomplice in a
plot against King George I., was arrested and his papers were searched. In
1718 the Spanish Ambassador Prince Cellamare in France was placed in
custody because he organised a conspiracy against the French Government.
[740]
And it must be emphasised that a diplomatic envoy cannot make it a
point of complaint if injured in consequence of his own unjustifiable
behaviour, as for instance in attacking an individual who in self-defence
retaliates, or in unreasonably or wilfully placing himself in dangerous or
awkward positions, such as in a disorderly crowd.[741]
[740]Details regarding these cases are given by Phillimore, II. §§ 166 and 170.
[741]See article 6 of the rules regarding diplomatic immunities adopted by the Institute of
International Law at its meeting at Cambridge in 1895 (Annuaire, XIV. p. 240).

IX
EXTERRITORIALITY OF DIPLOMATIC ENVOYS

Vattel, IV. §§ 80-119—Hall, §§ 50, 52, 53—Westlake, I. pp. 263-273—Phillimore, II. §§ 176-
210—Taylor, §§ 299-315—Twiss, I. §§ 217-221—Moore, II. §§ 291-304 and IV. §§ 660-
669—Ullmann, § 50—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 654-659—Nys, II. pp. 353-385—
Rivier, I. 38—Bonfils, Nos. 700-721—Pradier-Fodéré, III. §§ 1396-1495—Mérignhac, II.
pp. 249-293—Fiore, II. Nos. 1145-1163—Calvo, III. §§ 1499-1531—Martens, II. §§ 12-14
—Gottschalck, "Die Exterritorialität der Gesandten" (1878)—Heyking, "L'exterritorialité"
(1889)—Odier, "Des privilèges et immunités des agents diplomatiques" (1890)—Vercamer,
"Des franchises diplomatiques et spécialement de l'exterritorialité" (1891)—Droin,
"L'exterritorialité des agents diplomatiques" (1895)—Mirre, "Die Stellung der
völkerrechtlichen Literatur zur Lehre von den sogenannten Nebenrechten der
gesandschaftlichen Functionäre" (1904).

Reason and Fictional Character of Exterritoriality.

§ 389. The exterritoriality which must be granted to diplomatic envoys
by the Municipal Laws of all the members of the Family of Nations is not,
as in the case of sovereign heads of States, based on the principle par in
parem non habet imperium, but on the necessity that envoys must, for the
purpose of fulfilling their duties, be independent of the jurisdiction, the
control, and the like, of the receiving States. Exterritoriality, in this as in
every other case, is a fiction only, for diplomatic envoys are in reality not
without, but within, the territories of the receiving States. The term
"Exterritoriality" is nevertheless valuable, because it demonstrates clearly
the fact that envoys must in most points be treated as though they were not
within the territory of the receiving States.[742] And the so-called
exterritoriality of envoys is actualised by a body of privileges which must
be severally discussed.
[742]With a few exceptions (see Droin, "L'exterritorialité des agents diplomatiques" (1895), pp.
32-43), all publicists accept the term and the fiction of exterritoriality.

Immunity of Domicile.
§ 390. The first of these privileges is immunity of domicile, the so-called
Franchise de l'hôtel. The present immunity of domicile has developed from
the former condition of things, when the official residences of envoys were
in every point considered to be outside the territory of the receiving States,
and when this exterritoriality was in many cases even extended to the whole
quarter of the town in which such a residence was situated. One used then
to speak of a Franchise du quartier or the Jus quarteriorum. And an
inference from this Franchise du quartier was the so-called right of asylum,
envoys claiming the right to grant asylum within the boundaries of their
residential quarters to every individual who took refuge there.[743] But
already in the seventeenth century most States opposed this Franchise du
quartier, and it totally disappeared in the eighteenth century, leaving
behind, however, the claim of envoys to grant asylum within their official
residences. Thus, when in 1726 the Duke of Ripperda, first Minister to
Philip V. of Spain, who was accused of high treason and had taken refuge in
the residence of the English Ambassador in Madrid, was forcibly arrested
there by order of the Spanish Government, the British Government
complained of this act as a violation of International Law.[744] Twenty-one
years later, in 1747, a similar case occurred in Sweden. A merchant named
Springer was accused of high treason and took refuge in the house of the
English Ambassador at Stockholm. On the refusal of the English envoy to
surrender Springer, the Swedish Government surrounded the embassy with
troops and ordered the carriage of the envoy, when leaving the embassy, to
be followed by mounted soldiers. At last Springer was handed over to the
Swedish Government under protest, but England complained and called
back her ambassador, as Sweden refused to make the required reparation.
[745]
As these two examples show, the right of asylum, although claimed and
often conceded, was nevertheless not universally recognised. During the
nineteenth century all remains of it vanished, and when in 1867 the French
envoy in Lima claimed it, the Peruvian Government refused to concede it.
[746]
 [743] Although this right of asylum was certainly recognised by the States in former centuries, it
is of interest to note that Grotius did not consider it postulated by International Law, for he says of
this right (II. c. 18, § 8): "Ex concessione pendet ejus apud quem agit. Istud enim juris gentium
non est." See also Bynkershoek, "De foro legat." c. 21.
[744] See Martens, "Causes Célèbres," I. p. 178.
[745] See Martens, "Causes Célèbres," II. p. 52.
[746] The South American States, Chili excepted, still grant the right to foreign envoys to afford
asylum to political refugees in time of revolution. It is, however, acknowledged that this right is
not based upon a rule of International Law, but merely upon local usage. See Hall, § 52; Westlake,
I. p. 272; Moore, II. §§ 291-304; Chilbert in A.J. III. (1909), pp. 562-595; Robbin in R.G. XV.
(1908), pp. 461-508; Moore, "Asylum in Legations and Consulates, and in Vessels" (1892). That
actually in times of revolution and of persecution of certain classes of the population asylum is
occasionally granted to refugees and respected by the local authorities, there is no doubt, but this
occasional practice does not shake the validity of the general rule of International Law according
to which there is no obligation on the part of the receiving State to grant to envoys the right of
affording asylum to individuals not belonging to their suites. See, however, Moore, II. § 293.
Nowadays the official residences of envoys are in a sense and in some
respects only considered as though they were outside the territory of the
receiving States. For the immunity of domicile granted to diplomatic
envoys comprises the inaccessibility of these residences to officers of
justice, police, or revenue, and the like, of the receiving States without the
special consent of the respective envoys. Therefore, no act of jurisdiction or
administration of the receiving Governments can take place within these
residences, except by special permission of the envoys. And the stables and
carriages of envoys are considered to be parts of their residences. But such
immunity of domicile is granted only in so far as it is necessary for the
independence and inviolability of envoys and the inviolability of their
official documents and archives. If an envoy abuses this immunity, the
receiving Government need not bear it passively. There is, therefore, no
obligation on the part of the receiving State to grant an envoy the right of
affording asylum to criminals or to other individuals not belonging to his
suite. Of course, an envoy need not deny entrance to criminals who want to
take refuge in the embassy. But he must surrender them to the prosecuting
Government at its request, and, if he refuses, any measures may be taken to
induce him to do so, apart from such as would involve an attack on his
person. Thus, the embassy may be surrounded by soldiers, and eventually
the criminal may even forcibly be taken out of the embassy. But such
measures of force are justifiable only if the case is an urgent one, and after
the envoy has in vain been required to surrender the criminal. Further, if a
crime is committed inside the house of an envoy by an individual who does
not enjoy personally the privilege of exterritoriality, the criminal must be
surrendered to the local Government. The case of Nikitschenkow, which
occurred in Paris in 1867, is an instance thereof. Nikitschenkow, a Russian
subject not belonging to the Russian Legation, made an attempt on and
wounded a member of that legation within the precincts of the embassy.
The French police were called in and arrested the criminal. The Russian
Government required his extradition, maintaining that, as the crime was
committed inside the Russian Embassy, it fell exclusively under Russian
jurisdiction; but the French Government refused extradition and Russia
dropped her claim.
Again, an envoy has no right to seize a subject of his home State who is
within the boundaries of the receiving State and keep him under arrest
inside the embassy with the intention of bringing him away into the power
of his home State. An instance thereof is the case of the Chinaman Sun Yat
Sen which occurred in London in 1896. This was a political refugee from
China living in London. He was induced to enter the house of the Chinese
Legation and kept under arrest there in order to be conveyed forcibly to
China, the Chinese envoy contending that, as the house of the legation was
Chinese territory, the English Government had no right to interfere. But the
latter did interfere, and Sun Yat Sen was released after several days.
As a contrast to this case may be mentioned that of Kalkstein which
occurred on the Continent in 1670. Colonel von Kalkstein, a Prussian
subject, had fled to Poland for political reasons since he was accused of
high treason against the Prussian Government. Now Frederic William, the
great Elector of Brandenburg, ordered his diplomatic envoy at Warsaw, the
capital of Poland, to obtain possession of the person of Kalkstein. On
November 28, 1670, this order was carried out. Kalkstein was secretly
seized, and, wrapped up in a carpet, was carried across the frontier. He was
afterwards executed at Memel.

Exemption from Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction.

§ 391. The second privilege of envoys in reference to their exterritoriality
is their exemption from criminal and civil jurisdiction. As their exemption
from criminal jurisdiction is also a consequence of their inviolability, it has
already been discussed,[747] and we have here to deal with their exemption
from civil jurisdiction only. No civil action of any kind as regards debts and
the like can be brought against them in the Civil Courts of the receiving
States. They cannot be arrested for debts, nor can their furniture, their
carriages, their horses, and the like, be seized for debts. They cannot be
prevented from leaving the country for not having paid their debts, nor can
their passports be refused to them on the same account. Thus, when in 1772
the French Government refused the passports to Baron de Wrech, the envoy
of the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel at Paris, for not having paid his debts, all
the other envoys in Paris complained of this act of the French Government
as a violation of International Law.[748] But the rule that an envoy is exempt
from civil jurisdiction has certain exceptions. If an envoy enters an
appearance to an action against himself, or if he himself brings an action
under the jurisdiction of the receiving State, the courts of the latter have
civil jurisdiction in such cases over him. And the same is valid as regards
real property held within the boundaries of the receiving State by an envoy,
not in his official character, but as a private individual, and as regards
mercantile[749] ventures in which he might engage on the territory of the
receiving State.
[747] See above, §§ 387-388.
[748] See Martens, "Causes Célèbres," II. p. 282.
[749] The statute of 7 Anne, c. 12, on which the exemption of diplomatic envoys from English
jurisdiction is based, does not exclude such envoy as embarks on mercantile ventures from the
benefit of the Act, and the practice of the English Courts grants, therefore, to foreign envoys even
in such cases exemption from local jurisdiction; see the case (1859) of Magdalena Steam
Navigation Co. v. Martin, 2 Ellis and Ellis 94, overruling the case of Taylor v. Best, 14 C.B. 487.
See also Westlake, I. p. 267.

Exemption from Subpœna as witness.

§ 392. The third privilege of envoys in reference to their exterritoriality is
exemption from subpœna as witnesses. No envoy can be obliged, or even
required, to appear as a witness in a civil or criminal or administrative
Court, nor is an envoy obliged to give evidence before a Commissioner sent
to his house. If, however, an envoy chooses for himself to appear as a
witness or to give evidence of any kind, the Courts can make use of such
evidence. A remarkable case of this kind is that of the Dutch envoy Dubois
in Washington, which happened in 1856. A case of homicide occurred in
the presence of M. Dubois, and, as his evidence was absolutely necessary
for the trial, the Foreign Secretary of the United States asked Dubois to
appear before the Court as a witness, recognising the fact that Dubois had
no duty to do so. When Dubois, on the advice of all the other diplomatic
envoys in Washington, refused to comply with this desire, the United States
brought the matter before the Dutch Government. The latter, however,
approved of Dubois' refusal, but authorised him to give evidence under oath
before the American Foreign Secretary. As, however, such evidence would
have had no value at all according to the local law, Dubois' evidence was
not taken, and the Government of the United States asked the Dutch
Government to recall him.[750]
[750] See Wharton, I. § 98; Moore, IV. § 662; and Calvo, III. § 1520.

Exemption from Police.

§ 393. The fourth privilege of envoys in reference to their exterritoriality
is exemption from the police of the receiving States. Orders and regulations
of the police do in no way bind them. On the other hand, this exemption
from police does not contain the privilege of an envoy to do what he likes
as regards matters which are regulated by the police. Although such
regulations can in no way bind him, an envoy enjoys the privilege of
exemption from police under the presupposition that he acts and behaves in
such a manner as harmonises with the internal order of the receiving State.
He is, therefore, expected to comply voluntarily with all such commands
and injunctions of the local police as, on the one hand, do not restrict him in
the effective exercise of his duties, and, on the other hand, are of
importance for the general order and safety of the community. Of course, he
cannot be punished if he acts otherwise, but the receiving Government may
request his recall or even be justified in other measures of such a kind as do
not injure his inviolability. Thus, for instance, if in time of plague an envoy
were not voluntarily to comply with important sanitary arrangements of the
local police, and if there were great danger in delay, a case of necessity
would be created and the receiving Government would be justified in the
exercise of reasonable pressure upon the envoy.
Exemption from Taxes and the like.
§ 394. The fifth privilege of envoys in reference to their exterritoriality is
exemption from taxes and the like. As an envoy, through his exterritoriality,
is considered not to be subjected to the territorial supremacy of the
receiving State, he must be exempt from all direct personal taxation and
therefore need not pay either income-tax or other direct taxes. As regards
rates, it is necessary to draw a distinction. Payment of rates imposed for
local objects from which an envoy himself derives benefit, such as
sewerage, lighting, water, night-watch, and the like, can be required of the
envoy, although this is often[751] not done. Other rates, however, such as
poor-rates and the like, he cannot be requested to pay. As regards customs
duties, International Law does not claim the exemption of envoys
therefrom. Practically and by courtesy, however, the Municipal Laws of
many States allow diplomatic envoys within certain limits the entry free of
duty of goods intended for their own private use. If the house of an envoy is
the property of his home State or his own property, the house need not be
exempt from property tax, although it is often so by the courtesy of the
receiving State. Such property tax is not a personal and direct, but an
indirect tax.
[751] As, for instance, in England where the payment of local rates cannot be enforced by suit or
distress against a member of a legation; see Parkinson v. Potter, 16 Q.B. 152, and Macartney v.
Garbutt, L.R. 24 Q.B. 368. See also Westlake, I. p. 268.

Right of Chapel.
§ 395. A sixth privilege of envoys in reference to their exterritoriality is
the so-called Right of Chapel (Droit de chapelle or Droit du culte). This is
the privilege of having a private chapel for the practice of his own religion,
which must be granted to an envoy by the Municipal Law of the receiving
State. A privilege of great worth in former times, when freedom of religious
worship was unknown in most States, it has at present an historical value
only. But it has not disappeared, and might become again of actual
importance in case a State should in the future give way to reactionary
intolerance. It must, however, be emphasised that the right of chapel must
only comprise the privilege of religious worship in a private chapel inside
the official residence of the envoy. No right of having and tolling bells need
be granted. The privilege includes the office of a chaplain, who must be
allowed to perform every religious ceremony within the chapel, such as
baptism and the like. It further includes permission to all the compatriots of
the envoy, even if they do not belong to his retinue, to take part in the
service. But the receiving State need not allow its own subjects to take part
therein.
Self-jurisdiction.
§ 396. The seventh and last privilege of envoys in reference to their
exterritoriality is self-jurisdiction within certain limits. As the members of
his retinue are considered exterritorial, the receiving State has no
jurisdiction over them, and the home State may therefore delegate such civil
and criminal jurisdiction to the envoy. But no receiving State is required to
grant self-jurisdiction to an ambassador beyond a certain reasonable limit.
Thus, an envoy must have jurisdiction over his retinue in matters of
discipline, he must be able to order the arrest of a member of his retinue
who has committed a crime and is to be sent home for his trial, and the like.
But no civilised State would nowadays allow an envoy himself to try a
member of his retinue. This was done in former centuries. Thus, in 1603,
Sully, who was sent by Henri IV. of France on a special mission to England,
called together a French jury in London and had a member of his retinue
condemned to death for murder. The convicted man was handed over for
execution to the English authorities, but James I. reprieved him.[752]
[752] See Martens, "Causes Célèbres," I. p. 391. See also the two cases reported by Calvo, III. §
1545.

X
POSITION OF DIPLOMATIC ENVOYS AS REGARDS THIRD STATES

Vattel, IV. §§ 84-86—Hall, §§ 99-101—Phillimore, II. §§ 172-175—Taylor, §§ 293-295—

Moore, IV. §§ 643-644—Twiss, I. § 222—Wheaton, §§ 242-247—Ullmann, § 52—
Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 665-668—Heffter, § 207—Rivier, § 39—Nys, II. p. 390
—Pradier-Fodéré, III. § 1394—Fiore, II. Nos. 1143-1144—Calvo, III. §§ 1532-1539.

Possible Cases.
§ 397. Although, when an individual is accredited as diplomatic envoy by
one State to another, these two States only are directly concerned in his
appointment, the question must be discussed, what position such envoy has
as regards third States in those cases in which he comes in contact with
them. Several such cases are possible. An envoy may, first, travel through
the territory of a third State to reach the territory of the receiving State. Or,
an envoy accredited to a belligerent State and living on the latter's territory
may be found there by the other belligerent who militarily occupies such
territory. And, lastly, an envoy accredited to a certain State might interfere
with the affairs of a third State.
Envoy travelling through Territory of third State.
§ 398. If an envoy travels through the territory of a third State incognito
or for his pleasure only, there is no doubt that he cannot claim any special
privileges whatever. He is in exactly the same position as any other foreign
individual travelling on this territory, although by courtesy he might be
treated with particular attention. But matters are different when an envoy on
his way from his own State to the State of his destination travels through
the territory of a third State. If the sending and the receiving States are not
neighbours, the envoy probably has to travel through the territory of a third
State. Now, as the institution of legation is a necessary one for the
intercourse of States and is firmly established by International Law, there
ought to be no doubt whatever that such third State must grant the right of
innocent passage (jus transitus innoxii) to the envoy, provided that it is not
at war with the sending or the receiving State. But no other privileges,[753]
especially those of inviolability and exterritoriality need be granted to the
envoy. And the right of innocent passage does not include the right to stop
on the territory longer than is necessary for the passage. Thus, in 1854,
Soulé, the envoy of the United States of America at Madrid, who had
landed at Calais, intending to return to Madrid via Paris, was provisionally
stopped at Calais for the purpose of ascertaining whether he intended to
make a stay in Paris, which the French Government wanted to prevent,
because he was a French refugee naturalised in America and was reported
to have made speeches against the Emperor Napoleon. Soulé at once left
Calais, and the French Government declared, during the correspondence
with the United States in the matter, that there was no objection to Soulé's
traversing France on his way to Madrid, but they would not allow him to
make a sojourn in Paris or anywhere else in France.[754]
[753] The matter, which has always been disputed, is fully discussed by Twiss, I. § 222, who also
quotes the opinion of Grotius, Bynkershoek, and Vattel.
[754] See Wharton, I. § 97, and Moore, IV. § 643.

It must be specially remarked that no right of passage need be granted if

the third State is at war with the sending or receiving State. The envoy of a
belligerent, who travels through the territory of the other belligerent to
reach the place of his destination, may be seized and treated as a prisoner of
war. Thus, in 1744, when the French Ambassador, Maréchal de Belle-Isle,
on his way to Berlin, passed through the territory of Hanover, which
country was then, together with England, at war with France, he was made
a prisoner of war and sent to England.
Envoy found by Belligerent on occupied Enemy Territory.
 § 399. When in time of war a belligerent occupies the capital of an
enemy State and finds there envoys of other States, these envoys do not lose
their diplomatic privileges as long as the State to which they are accredited
is in existence. As military occupation does not extinguish a State subjected
thereto, such envoys do not cease to be envoys. On the other hand, they are
not accredited to the belligerent who has taken possession of the territory by
military force, and the question is not yet settled by International Law how
far the occupying belligerent has to respect the inviolability and
exterritoriality granted to such envoys by the law of the land in compliance
with a demand of International Law. It may safely be maintained that he
must grant them the right to leave the occupied territory. But must he
likewise grant them the right to stay? Has he to respect their immunity of
domicile and their other privileges in reference to their exterritoriality?
Neither customary rules nor international conventions exist as regards these
questions, which must, therefore, be treated as open. The only case which
occurred concerning this problem is that of Mr. Washburne, ambassador of
the United States in Paris during the siege of that town in 1870 by the
Germans. This ambassador claimed the right of sending a messenger with
despatches to London in a sealed bag through the German lines. But the
Germans refused to grant that right, and did not alter their decision although
the Government of the United States protested.[755]
[755] See below, vol. II. § 157, and Wharton, I. § 97.

Envoy interfering with affairs of a third State.

§ 400. There is no doubt that an envoy must not interfere with affairs
concerning the State to which he is accredited and a third State. If
nevertheless he does interfere, he enjoys no privileges whatever against
such third State. Thus, in 1734, the Marquis de Monti, the French envoy in
Poland, who took an active part in the war between Poland and Russia, was
made a prisoner of war by the latter and not released till 1736, although
France protested.[756]
[756] See Martens, "Causes Célèbres," I. p. 207.

XI
THE RETINUE OF DIPLOMATIC ENVOYS
 Vattel, IV. §§ 120-124—Hall, § 51—Phillimore, II. §§ 186-193—Twiss, I. § 218—Moore, IV.
§§ 664-665—Ullmann, §§ 47 and 51—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 660-661—Heffter,
§ 221—Rivier, I. pp. 458-461—Nys, II. pp. 386-390—Pradier-Fodéré, III. §§ 1472-1486—
Fiore, II. Nos. 1164-1168—Calvo, III. §§ 1348-1350—Martens, II. § 16—Roederer, "De
l'application des immunités de l'ambassadeur au personnel de l'ambassade" (1904), pp. 22-
84.

Different Classes of Members of Retinue.

§ 401. The individuals accompanying an envoy officially, or in his
private service, or as members of his family, or as couriers, compose his
retinue. The members of the retinue belong, therefore, to four different
classes. All those individuals who are officially attached to an envoy are
members of the legation and are appointed by the home State of the envoy.
To this first class belong the Councillors, Attachés, Secretaries of the
Legation; the Chancellor of the Legation and his assistants; the interpreters,
and the like; the chaplain, the doctor, and the legal advisers, provided that
they are appointed by the home State and sent specially as members of the
legation. A list of these members of legation is handed over by the envoy to
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State and is revised from
time to time. The Councillors and Secretaries of Legation are personally
presented to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and very often also to the
head of the receiving State. The second class comprises all those
individuals who are in the private service of the envoy and of the members
of legation, such as servants of all kinds, the private secretary of the envoy,
the tutor and the governess of his children. The third class consists of the
members of the family of the envoy—namely, his wife, children, and such
of his other near relatives as live within his family and under his roof. And,
lastly, the fourth class consists of the so-called couriers. They are the
bearers of despatches sent by the envoy to his home State, who on their way
back also bear despatches from the home State to the envoy. Such couriers
are attached to most legations for the guarantee of the safety and secrecy of
the despatches.
Privileges of Members of Legation.
§ 402. It is a universally recognised[757] rule of International Law that all
members of a legation are as inviolable and exterritorial as the envoy
himself. They must, therefore, be granted by the receiving State exemption
from criminal and civil jurisdiction, exemption from police,[758] subpœna as
witnesses, and taxes. They are considered, like the envoy himself, to retain
their domicile within their home State. Children born to them during their
stay within the receiving State are considered born on the territory of the
home State. And it must be emphasised that it is not within the envoy's
power to waive these privileges of members of legation, although the home
State itself can waive these privileges. Thus when, in 1909, Wilhelm
Beckert, the Chancellor of the German Legation in Santiago de Chili,
murdered the porter of this legation, a Chilian subject, and then set fire to
the Chancery in order to conceal his embezzlements of money belonging to
the legation, the German Government consented to his being prosecuted in
Chili; he was tried, found guilty, and executed at Santiago on July 5, 1910.
[757] Some authors, however, plead for an abrogation of this rule. See Martens, II. § 16.
[758] A case of this kind occurred in 1904 in the United States. Mr. Gurney, Secretary of the
British Legation at Washington, was fined by the police magistrate of Lee, in Massachusetts, for
furiously driving a motor-car. But the judgment was afterwards annulled, and the fine imposed
remitted.

Privileges of Private Servants.

§ 403. It is a customary rule of International Law that the receiving State
must grant to all persons in the private service of the envoy and of the
members of his legation, provided such persons are not subjects of the
receiving State, exemption from civil and criminal jurisdiction.[759] But the
envoy can disclaim these exemptions, and these persons cannot then claim
exemption from police, immunity of domicile, and exemption from taxes.
Thus, for instance, if such a private servant commits a crime outside the
residence of his employer, the police can arrest him; he must, however, be
at once released if the envoy does not waive the exemption from criminal
jurisdiction.
[759] This rule seems to be everywhere recognised except in Great Britain. When, in 1827, a
coachman of Mr. Gallatin, the American Minister in London, committed an assault outside the
embassy, he was arrested in the stable of the embassy and charged before a local magistrate, and
the British Foreign Office refused to recognise the exemption of the coachman from the local
jurisdiction. See Wharton, I. § 94, and Hall, § 50.

Privileges of Family of Envoy.

§ 404. Although the wife of the envoy, his children, and such of his near
relatives as live within his family and under his roof belong to his retinue,
there is a distinction to be made as regards their privileges. His wife must
certainly be granted all his privileges in so far as they concern inviolability
and exterritoriality. As regards, however, his children and other relatives, no
general rule of International Law can safely be said to be generally
recognised, but that they must be granted exemption from civil and criminal
jurisdiction. But even this rule was formerly not generally recognised. Thus,
when in 1653 Don Pantaleon Sà, the brother of the Portuguese Ambassador
in London and a member of his suite, killed an Englishman named
Greenway, he was arrested, tried in England, found guilty, and executed.[760]
Nowadays the exemption from civil and criminal jurisdiction of such
members of an envoy's family as live under his roof is always granted.
Thus, when in 1906 Carlo Waddington,[761] the son of the Chilian envoy at
Brussels, murdered the secretary of the Chilian Legation, the Belgian
authorities did not take any step to arrest him. Two days afterwards,
however, the Chilian envoy waived the privilege of the immunity of his son,
and on March 2 the Chilian Government likewise agreed to the murderer
being prosecuted in Belgium. The trial took place in July 1907, but
Waddington was acquitted by the Belgian jury.
[760] The case is discussed by Phillimore, II. § 169.
[761] See R.G. XIV. (1907), pp. 159-165.

Privileges of Couriers of Envoy.

§ 405. To insure the safety and secrecy of the diplomatic despatches they
bear, couriers must be granted exemption from civil and criminal
jurisdiction and afforded special protection during the exercise of their
office. It is particularly important to observe that they must have the right of
innocent passage through third States, and that, according to general usage,
those parts of their luggage which contain diplomatic despatches and are
sealed with the official seal must not be opened and searched. It is usual to
provide couriers with special passports for the purpose of their legitimation.

XII
TERMINATION OF DIPLOMATIC MISSION

Vattel, IV. §§ 125-126—Hall, § 98**—Phillimore, II. §§ 237-241—Moore, IV. §§ 636, 639,

640, 666—Taylor, §§ 320-323—Wheaton, §§ 250-251—Ullmann, § 53—Heffter, §§ 223-
226—Rivier, I. § 40—Nys, II. p. 392—Bonfils, Nos. 730-732—Pradier-Fodéré, III. §§
1515-1535—Fiore, II. Nos. 1169-1175—Calvo, III. §§ 1363-1367—Martens, II. § 17.

Termination in contradistinction to Suspension.

 § 406. A diplomatic mission may come to an end from eleven different
causes—namely, accomplishment of the object for which the mission was
sent; expiration of such Letters of Credence as were given to an envoy for a
specific time only; recall of the envoy by the sending State; his promotion
to a higher class; the delivery of passports to him by the receiving State;
request of the envoy for his passports on account of ill-treatment; war
between the sending and the receiving State; constitutional changes in the
headship of the sending or receiving State; revolutionary change of
government of the sending or receiving State; extinction of the sending or
receiving State; and, lastly, death of the envoy. These events must be treated
singly on account of their peculiarities. But the termination of diplomatic
missions must not be confounded with their suspension. Whereas from the
foregoing eleven causes a mission comes actually to an end, and new
Letters of Credence are necessary, a suspension does not put an end to the
mission, but creates an interval during which the envoy, although he
remains in office, cannot exercise his office. Suspension may be the result
of various causes, as, for instance, a revolution within the sending or
receiving State. Whatever the cause may be, an envoy enjoys all his
privileges during the duration of the suspension.
Accomplishment of Object of Mission.
§ 407. A mission comes to an end through the fulfilment of its objects in
all cases of missions for special purposes. Such cases may be ceremonial
functions like representations at weddings, funerals, coronations; or
notification of changes in the headship of a State, or representation of a
State at Conferences and Congresses; and other cases. Although the mission
is terminated through the accomplishment of its object, the envoys enjoy all
their privileges on their way home.
Expiration of Letter of Credence.
§ 408. If a Letter of Credence for a specified time only is given to an
envoy, his mission terminates with the expiration of such time. A temporary
Letter of Credence may, for instance, be given to an individual for the
purpose of representing a State diplomatically during the interval between
the recall of an ambassador and the appointment of his successor.
Recall.
 § 409. The mission of an envoy, be he permanently or only temporarily
appointed, terminates through his recall by the sending State. If this recall is
not caused by unfriendly acts of the receiving State but by other
circumstances, the envoy receives a Letter of Recall from the head, or, in
case he is only a Chargé d'Affaires, from the Foreign Secretary of his home
State, and he[762] hands this letter over to the head of the receiving State in a
solemn audience, or in the case of a Chargé d'Affaires to the Foreign
Secretary. In exchange for the Letter of Recall the envoy receives his
passports and a so-called Lettre de récréance, a letter in which the head of
the receiving State (or the Foreign Secretary) acknowledges the Letter of
Recall. Although therewith his mission ends, he enjoys nevertheless all his
privileges on his home journey.[763] A recall may be caused by the
resignation of the envoy, by his transference to another post, and the like. It
may, secondly, be caused by the outbreak of a conflict between the sending
and the receiving State which leads to a rupture of diplomatic intercourse,
and under these circumstances the sending State may order its envoy to ask
for his passports and depart at once without handing in a Letter of Recall.
And, thirdly, a recall may result from a request of the receiving State by
reason of real or alleged misconduct of the envoy. Such request of recall[764]
may lead to a rupture of diplomatic intercourse, if the receiving State insists
upon the recall, although the sending State does not recognise the act of its
envoy as misconduct.
[762] But sometimes his successor presents the letter recalling his predecessor to the head of the
receiving State, or to the Foreign Secretary in the case of Chargés d'Affaires.
[763] See the interesting cases discussed by Moore, IV. § 666.
[764] Notable cases of request of recall of envoys are reported by Taylor, § 322; Hall, § 98**;
Moore, IV. § 639.

Promotion to a higher Class.

§ 410. When an envoy remains at his post, but is promoted to a higher
class—for instance, when a Chargé d'Affaires is created a Minister Resident
or a Minister Plenipotentiary is created an Ambassador—his original
mission technically ends, and he receives therefore a new Letter of
Credence.

Delivery of Passports.
§ 411. A mission may terminate, further, through the delivery of his
passports to an envoy by the receiving State. The reason for such dismissal
of an envoy may be either gross misconduct on his part or a quarrel
between the sending and the receiving State which leads to a rupture of
diplomatic intercourse. Whenever such rupture takes place, diplomatic
relations between the two States come to an end and all diplomatic
privileges cease with the envoy's departing and crossing the frontier. If the
archives of the legations are not removed, they must be put under seal by
the departing envoy and confided to the protection[765] of some other foreign
legation.
[765] As regards the case of Montagnini, see above, §§ 106 and 386.

Request for Passports.

§ 412. Without being recalled, an envoy may on his own account ask for
his passports and depart in consequence of ill-treatment by the receiving
State. This may or may not lead to a rupture of diplomatic intercourse.
Outbreak of War.
§ 413. When war breaks out between the sending and the receiving State
before their envoys accredited to each other are recalled, their mission
nevertheless comes to an end. They receive their passports, but nevertheless
they must be granted their privileges[766] on their way home.
[766] See below, vol. II. § 98.

Constitutional Changes.
§ 414. If the head of the sending or receiving State is a Sovereign, his
death or abdication terminates the missions sent and received by him, and
all envoys remaining at their posts must receive new Letters of Credence.
But if they receive new Letters of Credence, no change in seniority is
considered to have taken place from the order in force before the change.
And during the time between the termination of the missions and the arrival
of new Letters of Credence they enjoy nevertheless all the privileges of
diplomatic envoys.
As regards the influence of constitutional changes in the headship of
republics on the missions sent or received, no certain rule exists.[767]
Everything depends, therefore, upon the merits of the special case.
[767] Writers on International Law differ concerning this point. See, for instance, Ullmann, § 53,
in contradistinction to Rivier, I. p. 517.

Revolutionary Changes of Government.

 § 415. A revolutionary movement in the sending or receiving State which
creates a new government, changing, for example, a republic into a
monarchy or a monarchy into a republic, or deposing a Sovereign and
enthroning another, terminates the missions. All envoys remaining at their
posts must receive new Letters of Credence, but no change in seniority
takes place if they receive them. It happens that in cases of revolutionary
changes of government foreign States for some time neither send new
Letters of Credence to their envoys nor recall them, watching the course of
events in the meantime and waiting for more proof of a real settlement. In
such cases the envoys are, according to an international usage, granted all
privileges of diplomatic envoys, although in strict law they have ceased to
be such. In cases of recall subsequent to revolutionary changes, the
protection of subjects of the recalling States remains in the hands of their
consuls, since the consular office[768] does not come to an end through
constitutional or revolutionary changes in the headship of a State.
 [768] See below, § 438.

Extinction of sending or receiving State.

§ 416. If the sending or receiving State of a mission is extinguished by
voluntary merger into another State or through annexation in consequence
of conquest, the mission terminates ipso facto. In case of annexation of the
receiving State, there can be no doubt that, although the annexing State will
not consider the envoys received by the annexed State as accredited to
itself, it must grant those envoys the right to leave the territory of the
annexed State unmolested and to take their archives away with them. In
case of annexation of the sending State, the question arises what becomes of
the archives and legational property of the missions of the annexed State
accredited to foreign States. This question is one on the so-called
succession[769] of States. The annexing State acquires, ipso facto, by the
annexation the property in those archives and other legational goods, such
as the hotels, furniture, and the like. But as long as the annexation is not
notified and recognised, the receiving States have no duty to interfere.
[769] See above, § 82.

Death of Envoy.
§ 417. A mission ends, lastly, by the death of the envoy. As soon as an
envoy is dead, his effects, and especially his papers, must be sealed. This is
done by a member of the dead envoy's legation, or, if there be no such
members, by a member of another legation accredited to the same State.
The local Government must not interfere, unless at the special request by
the home State of the deceased envoy.
Although the mission and therefore the privileges of the envoy come to
an end by his death, the members of his family who resided under his roof
and the members of his suite enjoy their privileges until they leave the
country. But a certain time may be fixed for them to depart, and on its
expiration they lose their privilege of exterritoriality. It must be specially
mentioned that the Courts of the receiving State have no jurisdiction
whatever over the goods and effects of the deceased envoy, and that no
death duties can be demanded.

CHAPTER III
 CONSULS

I
THE INSTITUTION OF CONSULS

Hall, § 105—Phillimore, II. §§ 243-246—Halleck, I. p. 369—Taylor, §§ 325-326—Twiss, I. §

223—Ullmann, §§ 54-55—Bulmerincq in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 687-695—Heffter, §§ 241-
242—Rivier, I. § 41—Nys, II. pp. 394-399—Calvo, III. §§ 1368-1372—Bonfils, Nos. 731-
743—Pradier-Fodéré, IV. §§ 2034-2043—Martens, II. §§ 18-19—Fiore, II. Nos. 1176-1178
—Warden, "A Treatise on the Origin, Nature, &c., of the Consular Establishment" (1814)—
Miltitz, Manuel des Consuls, 5 vols. (1837-1839)—Cussy, "Règlements consulaires des
principaux États maritimes" (1851)—H. B. Oppenheim, "Handbuch der Consulate aller
Länder" (1854)—Clercq et Vallat, "Guide pratique des consulats" (5th ed. 1898)—Salles,
"L'institution des consulats, son origine, &c." (1898)—Chester Lloyd Jones, "The Consular
Service of the United States. Its History and Activities" (1906)—Stowell, "Le Consul"
(1909), and "Consular Cases and Opinions, &c." (1910)—Pillaut, "Manuel de droit
Consulaire" (1910)—Jordan in R.I. 2nd Ser. VIII. (1906), pp. 479-507 and 717-750.

Development of the Institution of Consuls.

§ 418. The roots of the consular institution go back to the second half of
the Middle Ages. In the commercial towns of Italy, Spain, and France the
merchants used to appoint by election one or more of their fellow-
merchants as arbitrators in commercial disputes, who were called Juges
Consuls or Consuls Marchands. When, between and after the Crusades,
Italian, Spanish, and French merchants settled down in the Eastern
countries, founding factories, they brought the institution of consuls with
them, the merchants belonging to the same nation electing their own consul.
The competence of these consuls became, however, more and more
enlarged through treaties, so-called "Capitulations," between the home
States of the merchants and the Mohammedan monarchs on whose
territories these merchants had settled down.[770] The competence of consuls
comprised at last the whole civil and criminal jurisdiction over, and
protection of, the privileges, the life, and the property of their countrymen.
From the East the institution of consuls was transferred to the West. Thus,
in the fifteenth century Italian consuls existed in the Netherlands and in
London, English consuls in the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark,
Italy (Pisa). These consuls in the West exercised, just as those in the East,
exclusive civil and criminal jurisdiction over the merchants of their
nationality. But the position of the consuls in the West decayed in the
beginning of the seventeenth century through the influence of the rising
permanent legations on the one hand, and, on the other, from the fact that
everywhere foreign merchants were brought under the civil and criminal
jurisdiction of the State in which they resided. This change in their
competence altered the position of consuls in the Christian States of the
West altogether. Their functions now shrank into a general supervision of
the commerce and navigation of their home States, and into a kind of
protection of the commercial interests of their countrymen. Consequently,
they did not receive much notice in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, and it was not until the nineteenth century that the general
development of international commerce, navigation, and shipping drew the
attention of the Governments again to the value and importance of the
institution of consuls. The institution was now systematically developed.
The position of the consuls, their functions, and their privileges, were the
subjects of stipulations either in commercial treaties or in special consular
treaties,[771] and the several States enacted statutes regarding the duties of
their consuls abroad, such as the Consular Act passed by England in 1826.
[772]
[770] See Twiss, I. §§ 253-263.
[771] Phillimore, II. § 255, gives a list of such treaties.
[772] 6 Geo. IV. c. 87.

General Character of Consuls.

§ 419. Nowadays consuls are agents of States residing abroad for
purposes of various kinds, but mainly in the interests of commerce and
navigation of the appointing State. As they are not diplomatic
representatives, they do not enjoy the privileges of diplomatists. Nor have
they, ordinarily, anything to do with intercourse between their home State
and the State in which they reside. But these rules have exceptions. Consuls
of Christian Powers in non-Christian States, Japan now excepted, have
retained their former competence and exercise full civil and criminal
jurisdiction over their countrymen. And sometimes consuls are charged
with the tasks which are regularly fulfilled by diplomatic representatives.
Thus, in States under suzerainty the Powers are frequently represented by
consuls, who transact all the business otherwise transacted by diplomatic
representatives, and who have, therefore, often the title of "Diplomatic
Agents." Thus, too, on occasions small States, instead of accrediting
diplomatic envoys to another State, send only a consul thither, who
combines the consular functions with those of a diplomatic envoy. It must,
however, be emphasised that consuls thereby neither become diplomatic
envoys, although they may have the title of "Diplomatic Agents," nor enjoy
the diplomatic envoys' privileges, if such privileges are not specially
provided for by treaties between the home State and the State in which they
reside. Different, however, is the case in which a consul is at the same time
accredited as Chargé d'Affaires, and in which, therefore, he combines two
different offices; for as Chargé d'Affaires he is a diplomatic envoy and
enjoys all the privileges of such an envoy, provided he has received a Letter
of Credence.

II
CONSULAR ORGANISATION

Hall, "Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction," § 13—Phillimore, II. §§ 253-254—Halleck, I. p. 371

—Taylor, § 528—Moore, V. § 696—Ullmann, § 57—Bulmerincq in Holtzendorff, III. pp.
695-701—Rivier, I. § 41—Calvo, III. §§ 1373-1376—Bonfils, Nos. 743-748—Pradier-
Fodéré, IV. §§ 2050-2055—Mérignhac, II. pp. 320-333—Martens, II. § 20—Stowell, "Le
Consul," pp. 186-206—"General Instructions for His Majesty's Consular Officers" (1907).

Different kinds of Consuls.

§ 420. Consuls are of two kinds. They are either specially sent and paid
for the administration of their consular office (Consules missi), or they are
appointed from individuals, in most cases merchants, residing in the district
for which they are to administer the consular office (Consules electi).[773]
Consuls of the first kind, who are so-called professional consuls and are
always subjects of the sending State, have to devote their whole time to the
consular office. Consuls of the second kind, who may or may not be
subjects of the sending State, administer the consular office besides
following their ordinary callings. Some States, such as France, appoint
professional consuls only; most States, however, appoint Consuls of both
kinds according to the importance of the consular districts. But there is a
general tendency with most States to appoint professional consuls for
important districts.
[773]
To this distinction corresponds in the British Consular Service the distinction between
"Consular Officers" and "Trading Consular Officers."
No difference exists between the two kinds of consuls as to their general
position according to International Law. But, naturally, a professional
consul enjoys actually a greater authority and a more important social
position, and consular treaties often stipulate special privileges for
professional consuls.
Consular Districts.
§ 421. As the functions of consuls are of a more or less local character,
most States appoint several consuls on the territory of other larger States,
limiting the duties of the several consuls within certain districts of such
territories or even within a certain town or port only. Such consular districts
as a rule coincide with provinces of the State in which the consuls
administer their offices. The different consuls appointed by a State for
different districts of the same State are independent of each other and
conduct their correspondence directly with the Foreign Office of their home
State, the agents-consular excepted, who correspond with their nominators
only. The extent of the districts is agreed upon between the home State of
the consul and the admitting State. Only the consul appointed for a
particular district is entitled to exercise consular functions within its
boundaries, and to him only the local authorities have to grant the consular
privileges, if any.
Different Classes of Consuls.
§ 422. Four classes of consuls are generally distinguished according to
rank: consuls-general, consuls, vice-consuls, and agents-consular. Consuls-
general are appointed either as the head of several consular districts, and
have then several consuls subordinate to themselves, or as the head of one
very large consular district. Consuls are usually appointed for smaller
districts, and for towns or even ports only. Vice-consuls are such assistants
of consuls-general and consuls as themselves possess the consular character
and take, therefore, the consul's place in regard to the whole consular
business; they are, according to the Municipal Law of some States,
appointed by the consul, subject to the approbation of his home State.
Agents-consular are agents with consular character, appointed, subject to
the approbation of the home Government, by a consul-general or consul for
the exercise of certain parts of the consular functions in certain towns or
other places of the consular district. Agents-consular are not independent of
the appointing consul, and do not correspond directly with the home State,
as the appointing consul is responsible to his Government for the agents-
consular. The so-called Proconsul is not a consul, but a locum tenens of a
consul only during the latter's temporary absence or illness; he possesses,
therefore, consular character for such time only as he actually is the locum
tenens.
The British Consular Service consists of the following six ranks: (1)
Agents and consuls-general, commissioners and consuls-general; (2)
consuls-general; (3) consuls; (4) vice-consuls; (5) consular agents; (6)
proconsuls. In the British Consular Service pro-consuls only exercise, as a
rule, the notarial functions of a consular officer.
Consuls subordinate to Diplomatic Envoys.
§ 423. Although consuls conduct their correspondence directly with their
home Government, they are nevertheless, subordinate to the diplomatic
envoy of their home Government accredited to the State in which they
administer the consular offices. According to the Municipal Law of almost
every State except the United States of America, the diplomatic envoy has
full authority and control over the consuls. He can give instructions and
orders, which they have to execute. In doubtful cases they have to ask his
advice and instructions. On the other hand, the diplomatic envoy has to
protect the consuls in case they are injured by the local Government.

III
APPOINTMENT OF CONSULS

Hall, § 105—Phillimore, II. § 250—Halleck, I. p. 371—Moore, V. §§ 697-700—Ullmann, §

58—Bulmerincq in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 702-706—Rivier, I. § 41—Nys, II. p. 400—
Calvo, III. §§ 1378-1384—Bonfils, Nos. 749-752—Pradier-Fodéré, IV. §§ 2056-2067—
Fiore, II. Nos. 1181-1182—Martens, II. § 21—Stowell, "Le Consul," pp. 207-216.

Qualification of Candidates.
§ 424. International Law has no rules in regard to the qualifications of an
individual whom a State can appoint consul. Many States, however, possess
such rules in their Municipal Law as far as professional consuls are
concerned. The question, whether female consuls could be appointed,
cannot be answered in the negative, but, on the other hand, no State is
obliged to grant female consuls the exequatur, and many States would at
present certainly refuse it.
No State obliged to admit Consuls.
 § 425. According to International Law a State is not at all obliged to
admit consuls. But the commercial interests of all the States are so powerful
that practically every State must admit consuls of foreign Powers, as a State
which refused such admittance would in its turn not be allowed to have its
own consuls abroad. The commercial and consular treaties between two
States stipulate as a rule that the contracting States shall have the right to
appoint consuls in all those parts of each other's country in which consuls of
third States are already or shall in future be admitted. Consequently a State
cannot refuse admittance to a consul of one State for a certain district if it
admits a consul of another State. But as long as a State has not admitted any
other State's consul for a district, it can refuse admittance to a consul of the
State anxious to organise consular service in that district. Thus, for instance,
Russia refused for a long time for political reasons to admit consuls in
Warsaw.
What kind of States can appoint Consuls.
§ 426. There is no doubt that it is within the faculty of every full-
Sovereign State to appoint consuls. As regards not full-Sovereign States,
everything depends upon the special case. As foreign States can appoint
consuls in States under suzerainty, it cannot be doubted that, provided the
contrary is not specially stipulated between the vassal and the suzerain
State, and provided the vassal State is not one which has no position within
the Family of Nations,[774] a vassal State is in its turn competent to appoint
consuls in foreign States. In regard to member-States of a Federal State it is
the Constitution of the Federal State which settles the question. Thus,
according to the Constitution of Germany, the Federal State is exclusively
competent to appoint consuls, in contradistinction to diplomatic envoys
who may be sent and received by every member-State of the German
Empire.
[774] See above, § 91.

Mode of Appointment and of Admittance.

§ 427. Consuls are appointed through a patent or commission, the so-
called Lettre de provision, of the State whose consular office they are
intended to administer. Vice-consuls are sometimes, and agents-consular are
always, appointed by the consul, subject to the approval of the home State.
Admittance of consuls takes place through the so-called exequatur, granted
by the head of the admitting State.[775] The diplomatic envoy of the
appointing State hands the patent of the appointed consul on to the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs for communication to the head of the State,
and the exequatur is given either in a special document or by means of the
word exequatur written across the patent. But the exequatur can be refused
for personal reasons. Thus, in 1869 England refused the exequatur to an
Irishman named Haggerty, who was naturalised in the United States and
appointed American consul for Glasgow. And the exequatur can be
withdrawn for personal reasons at any moment. Thus, in 1834 France
withdrew it from the Prussian consul at Bayonne for having helped in
getting into Spain supplies of arms for the Carlists.
[775] That, in case a consul is appointed for a State which is under the protectorate of another, it
is within the competence of the latter to grant or refuse the exequatur, has been pointed out above,
§ 92, p. 144, note 4.

Appointment of Consuls includes Recognition.

§ 428. As the appointment of consuls takes place in the interests of
commerce, industry, and navigation, and has merely local importance
without political consequences, it is maintained[776] that a State does not
indirectly recognise a newly created State ipso facto by appointing a consul
to a district in such State. This opinion, however, does not agree with the
facts of international life. Since no consul can exercise his functions before
he has handed over his patent to the local State and received the latter's
exequatur, it is evident that thereby the appointing State enters into such
formal intercourse with the admitting State as indirectly[777] involves
recognition. But it is only if consuls are formally appointed and formally
receive the exequatur on the part of the receiving State, that indirect
recognition is involved. If, on the other hand, no formal[778] appointment is
made, and no formal exequatur is asked for and received, foreign
individuals may actually with the consent of the local State exercise the
functions of consuls without recognition following therefrom. Such
individuals are not really consuls, although the local State allows them for
political reasons to exercise consular functions.
[776] Hall, §§ 26* and 105, and Moore, I. § 72.
[777] See above, § 72.
[778] The case mentioned by Hall, § 26*, of Great Britain appointing, in 1823, consuls to the
South American Republics, without gazetting the various consuls and—as must be presumed—
without the individuals concerned asking formally for the exequatur of the various South
American States, would seem to be a case of informal appointment.
 IV
FUNCTIONS OF CONSULS

Hall, § 105—Phillimore, II. §§ 257-260—Taylor, § 327—Halleck, I. pp. 380-385—Moore, V.

§§ 717-731—Ullmann, § 61—Bulmerincq in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 738-749—Rivier, I. § 42
—Calvo, III. §§ 1421-1429—Bonfils, Nos. 762-771—Pradier-Fodéré, IV. §§ 2069-2113—
Fiore, II. Nos. 1184-1185—Martens, II. § 23—Stowell, "Le Consul," pp. 15-136.

On Consular Functions in general.

§ 429. Although consuls are appointed chiefly in the interest of
commerce, industry, and navigation, they are nevertheless charged with
various functions for other purposes. Custom, commercial and consular
treaties, Municipal Laws, and Municipal Consular Instructions contain
detailed rules in regard to these functions. They may be grouped under the
heads of fosterage of commerce and industry, supervision of navigation,
protection, notarial functions.
Fosterage of Commerce and Industry.
§ 430. As consuls are appointed in the interest of commerce and industry,
they must be allowed by the receiving State to watch over the execution of
the commercial treaties of their home State, to send reports to the latter in
regard to everything which can influence the development of its commerce
and industry, and to give such information to merchants and manufacturers
of the appointing State as is necessary for the protection of their
commercial interests. Municipal Laws of the several States and their
Consular Instructions comprise detailed rules on these consular functions,
which are of the greatest importance. Consular reports, on the one hand, and
consular information to members of the commercial world, on the other,
have in the past and the present rendered valuable assistance to the
development of commerce and industry of their home States.
Supervision of Navigation.
§ 431. Another task of consuls consists in supervision of the navigation
of the appointing State. A consul at a port must be allowed to keep his eye
on all merchantmen sailing under the flag of his home State which enter the
port, to control and legalise their ship papers, to exercise the power of
inspecting them on their arrival and departure, to settle disputes between the
master and the crew or the passengers. He assists sailors in distress,
undertakes the sending home of shipwrecked crews and passengers, attests
averages. It is neither necessary nor possible to enumerate all the duties and
powers of consuls in regard to supervision of navigation. Consular and
commercial treaties, on the one hand, and, on the other, Municipal Laws
and Consular Instructions, comprise detailed rules regarding these consular
functions. It should, however, be added that consuls must assist in every
possible way any public vessel of their home State which enters their port,
if the commander so requests. But consuls have no power of supervision
over such public vessels.
Protection.
§ 432. The protection which consuls must be allowed by the receiving
State to provide for subjects of the appointing State is a very important task.
For that purpose consuls keep a register, in which these subjects can have
their names and addresses recorded. Consuls make out passports, they have
to render a certain assistance and help to paupers and the sick, and to
litigants before the Courts. If a foreign subject is wronged by the local
authorities, his consul has to give him advice and help, and has eventually
to interfere on his behalf. If a foreigner dies, his consul may be approached
for securing his property and for rendering all kind of assistance and help to
the family of the deceased.
As a rule, a consul exercises protective functions over subjects of the
appointing State only; but the latter may charge him with the protection of
subjects of other States which have not nominated a consul for his district.
Notarial Functions.
§ 433. Very important are the notarial and the like functions with which
consuls are charged. They attest and legalise signatures, examine witnesses
and administer oaths for the purpose of procuring evidence for the Courts
and other authorities of the appointing State. They conclude or register
marriages of the latter's subjects, take charge of their wills, legalise their
adoptions, register their births and deaths. They provide authorised
translations for local as well as for home authorities, and furnish attestations
of many kinds. All consular functions of this kind are specialised by
Municipal Laws and Consular Instructions. But it should be specially
observed that whereas fosterage of commerce, supervision of navigation,
and protection are functions the exercise of which must, according to a
customary rule of International Law, be granted to consuls by receiving
States, many of their notarial functions need not be permitted by such
receiving States in the absence of treaty stipulations.

V
POSITION AND PRIVILEGES OF CONSULS

Hall, § 105—Phillimore, II. §§ 261-271—Halleck, I. pp. 371-379—Taylor, §§ 326, 332-333—

Moore, V. §§ 702-716—Ullmann, §§ 60 and 62—Bulmerincq in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 710-
720—Rivier, I. § 42—Calvo, III. §§ 1385-1420—Bonfils, Nos. 753-761—Pradier-Fodéré,
IV. §§ 2114-2121—Fiore, II. No. 1183—Martens, II. § 22—Bodin, "Les immunités
consulaires" (1899)—Stowell, "Le Consul," pp. 137-185.

Position.
§ 434. Like diplomatic envoys, consuls are simply objects of
International Law. Such rights as they have are granted to them by
Municipal Laws in compliance with rights of the appointing States
according to International Law.[779] As regards their position, it should
nowadays be an established and uncontested fact that consuls do not enjoy
the position of diplomatic envoys, since no Christian State actually grants to
foreign consuls the privileges of diplomatic agents. On the other hand, it
would be incorrect to maintain that their position is in no way different
from that of any other individual living within the consular district. Since
they are appointed by foreign States and have received the exequatur, they
are publicly recognised by the admitting State as agents of the appointing
State. Of course, consuls are not diplomatic representatives, for they do not
represent the appointing States in the totality of their international relations,
but for a limited number of tasks and for local purposes only. Yet they bear
a recognised public character, in contradistinction to mere private
individuals, and, consequently, their position is different from that of mere
private individuals. This is certainly the case with regard to professional
consuls, who are officials of their home State and are specially sent to the
foreign State for the purpose of administering the consular office. But in
regard to non-professional consuls it must likewise be maintained that the
admitting State by granting the exequatur recognises their official position
towards itself, which demands at least a special protection[780] of their
persons and residences. The official position of consuls, however, does not
involve direct intercourse with the Government of the admitting State.
Consuls are appointed for local purposes only, and they have, therefore,
direct intercourse with the local authorities only. If they want to approach
the Government itself, they can do so only through the diplomatic envoy, to
whom they are subordinate.
[779] See above, § 384.
[780] According to British and American practice a consul of a neutral Power accredited to the
enemy State who embarks upon mercantile ventures, is not by his official position protected
against seizure of his goods carried by enemy vessels, for by trading in the enemy country he
acquires to a certain extent enemy character; see the case of the Indian Chief, 3 C. Rob. 12.

Consular Privileges.
§ 435. From the undoubted official position of consuls no universally
recognised privileges of importance emanate as yet. Apart from the special
protection due to consuls according to International Law, there is neither a
custom nor a universal agreement between the Powers to grant them
important privileges. Such privileges as consuls actually enjoy are granted
to them either by courtesy or in compliance with special stipulations of a
Commercial or Consular Treaty between the sending and the admitting
State. I doubt not that in time the Powers will agree upon a universal treaty
in regard to the position and privileges of consuls.[781] Meanwhile, it is of
interest to take notice of some of the more important stipulations which are
to be found in the innumerable treaties between the several States in regard
to consular privileges:
[781]The Institute of International Law at its meeting at Venice in 1896 adopted a Règlement sur
les immunités consulaires comprising twenty-one articles. See Annuaire, XV. p. 304.
(1) A distinction is very often made between professional and non-
professional consuls in so far as the former are accorded more privileges
than the latter.
(2) Although consuls are not exempt from the local civil and criminal
jurisdiction, the latter is in regard to professional consuls often limited to
crimes of a more serious character.
(3) In many treaties it is stipulated that consular archives shall be
inviolable from search or seizure. Consuls are therefore obliged to keep
their official documents and correspondence separate from their private
papers.
(4) Inviolability of the consular buildings is also sometimes stipulated, so
that no officer of the local police, Courts, and so on, can enter these
buildings without special permission of the consul. But it is then the duty of
consuls to surrender criminals who have taken refuge in these buildings.
(5) Professional consuls are often exempt from all kinds of rates and
taxes, from the liability to have soldiers quartered in their houses, and from
the duty to appear in person as witnesses before the Courts. In the latter
case consuls have either to send in their evidence in writing, or their
evidence may be taken by a commission on the premises of the consulate.
(6) Consuls of all kinds have the right to put up the arms of the
appointing State over the door of the consular building and to hoist the
national flag.

VI
TERMINATION OF CONSULAR OFFICE

Hall, § 105—Moore, V. § 701—Ullmann, § 59—Bulmerincq in Holtzendorff, III. p. 708—

Rivier, I. § 41—Calvo, III. §§ 1382, 1383, 1450—Bonfils, No. 775—Fiore, II. No. 1187—
Martens, II. § 21—Stowell "Le Consul," pp. 217-222.

Undoubted Causes of Termination.

§ 436. Death of the consul, withdrawal of the exequatur, recall or
dismissal, and, lastly, war between the appointing and the admitting State,
are universally recognised causes of termination of the consular office.
When a consul dies or war breaks out, the consular archives must not be
touched by the local authorities. They remain either under the care of an
employé of the consulate, or a consul of another State takes charge of them
until the successor of the deceased arrives or peace is concluded.

Doubtful Causes of Termination.

§ 437. It is not certain in practice whether the office of a consul
terminates when his district, through cession, conquest followed by
annexation, or revolt, becomes the property of another State. The question
ought to be answered in the affirmative, because the exequatur given to
such consul originates from a Government which then no longer possesses
the territory. A practical instance of this question occurred in 1836, when
Belgium, which was then not yet recognised by Russia, declared that she
would henceforth no longer treat the Russian consul Aegi at Antwerp as
consul, because he was appointed before the revolt and had his exequatur
granted by the Government of the Netherlands. Although Belgium gave
way in the end to the urgent remonstrances of Russia, her original attitude
was legally correct.
Change in the Headship of States not Cause of Termination.
§ 438. It is universally recognised that, in contradistinction to a
diplomatic mission, the consular office does not come to an end through a
change in the headship of the appointing or the admitting State. Neither a
new patent nor a new exequatur is therefore necessary whether another king
comes to the throne or a monarchy turns into a republic, or in any like case.

VII
CONSULS IN NON-CHRISTIAN STATES

Tarring, "British Consular Jurisdiction in the East" (1887)—Hall, "Foreign Powers and
Jurisdiction," §§ 64-85—Halleck, I. pp. 385-398—Phillimore, II. §§ 272-277—Taylor, §§
331-333—Twiss, I. § 136—Wheaton, § 110—Ullmann, §§ 63-65—Bulmerincq in
Holtzendorff, III. pp. 720-738—Rivier, I. § 43—Nys, II. pp. 400-414—Calvo, III. §§ 1431-
1449—Bonfils, Nos. 776-791—Pradier-Fodéré, IV. 2122-2138—Mérignhac, II. pp. 338-
351—Martens, II. §§ 24-26—Martens, "Konsularwesen und Konsularjurisdiction im
Orient" (German translation from the Russian original by Skerst, 1874)—Bruillat, "Étude
historique et critique sur les juridictions consulaires" (1898)—Lippmann, "Die
Konsularjurisdiction im Orient" (1898)—Vergé, "Des consuls dans les pays d'occident"
(1903)—Hinckley, "American Consular Jurisdiction in the Orient" (1906)—Piggott,
"Exterritoriality. The Law relating to Consular Jurisdiction, &c. in Oriental Countries" (new
edition, 1907)—Mandelstam, "La justice ottomane dans ses rapports avec les puissances
étrangères" (1911), and in R.G. XIV. (1907), pp. 5 and 534, and XV. (1908), pp. 329-384.

Position of Consuls in non-Christian States.

§ 439. Fundamentally different from the regular position is that of
consuls in non-Christian States, with the single exception of Japan. In the
Christian countries of the West alone consuls have, as has been stated
before (§ 418), lost jurisdiction over the subjects of the appointing States. In
the Mohammedan States consuls not only retained their original
jurisdiction, but the latter became by-and-by so extended through the so-
called Capitulations that the competence of consuls soon comprised the
whole civil and criminal jurisdiction, the power of protection of the
privileges, the life, and property of their countrymen, and even the power to
expel one of their countrymen for bad conduct. And custom and treaties
secured to consuls inviolability, exterritoriality, ceremonial honours, and
miscellaneous other rights, so that there is no doubt that their position is
materially the same as that of diplomatic envoys. From the Mohammedan
countries this position of consuls has been extended and transferred to
China, Japan, Persia, and other non-Christian countries, but in Japan the
position of consuls shrank in 1899 into that of consuls in Christian States.
Consular Jurisdiction in non-Christian States.
§ 440. International custom and treaties lay down the rule only that all
the subjects of Christian States residing in non-Christian States shall remain
under the jurisdiction of the home State as exercised by their consuls.[782] It
is a matter for the Municipal Laws of the several Christian States to
organise this consular jurisdiction. All States have therefore enacted statutes
dealing with this matter. As regards Great Britain, several Orders in Council
and the Foreign Jurisdiction Act (53 & 54 Vict., c. 37) of 1890 are now the
legal basis of the consular jurisdiction.[783] The working of this consular
jurisdiction is, however, not satisfactory in regard to the so-called mixed
cases. As the national consul has exclusive jurisdiction over the subjects of
his home State, he exercises this jurisdiction also in cases in which the
plaintiff is a native or a subject of another Christian State, and which are
therefore called mixed cases.
[782] See above, § 318.
[783] See Piggott, op. cit.

International Courts in Egypt.

§ 441. To overcome in some points the disadvantages of the consular
jurisdiction, an interesting experiment is being made in Egypt. On the
initiative of the Khedive, most of the Powers in 1875 agreed upon an
organisation of International Courts in Egypt for mixed cases.[784] These
Courts began their functions in 1876. They are in the main competent for
mixed civil cases, mixed criminal cases of importance remaining under the
jurisdiction of the national consuls. There are three International Courts of
first instance—namely, at Alexandria, Cairo, and Ismailia (formerly at
Zagazig), and one International Court of Appeal at Alexandria. The
tribunals of first instance are each composed of three natives and four
foreigners, the Court of Appeal is composed of four natives and seven
foreigners.
[784] See Holland, "The European Concert in the Eastern Question," pp. 101-102; Scott, "The
Law Affecting Foreigners in Egypt as the Result of the Capitulations" (1907); Goudy in The Law
 Quarterly Review, XXIII. (1907), pp. 409-413.

Exceptional Character of Consuls in non-Christian States.

§ 442. There is no doubt that the present position of consuls in non-
Christian States is in every point an exceptional one, which does not agree
with the principles of International Law otherwise universally recognised.
But the position is and must remain a necessity as long as the civilisation of
non-Christian States has not developed their ideas of justice in accordance
with Christian ideas, so as to preserve the life, property, and honour of
foreigners before native Courts. The case of Japan is an example of the
readiness of the Powers to consent to the withdrawal of consular
jurisdiction in non-Christian States as soon as they have reached a certain
level of civilisation.

CHAPTER IV
MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES

I
ARMED FORCES ON FOREIGN TERRITORY

Hall, §§ 54, 56, 102—Lawrence, § 107—Halleck, I. pp. 477-479—Phillimore, I. § 341—

Taylor, § 131—Twiss, I. § 165—Wheaton, § 99—Moore, II. § 251—Westlake, I. p. 255—
Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 664-666—Rivier, I. pp. 333-335—Calvo, III. § 1560—Fiore,
I. Nos. 528-529.
 Armed Forces State Organs.
§ 443. Armed forces are organs of the State which maintains them,
because such forces are created for the purpose of maintaining the
independence, authority, and safety of the State. And in this respect it
matters not whether armed forces are at home or abroad, for they are organs
of their home State even when on foreign territory, provided only they are
there in the service of their State and not for their own purposes. For if a
body of armed soldiers enters foreign territory without orders from, or
without being otherwise in the service of, its State, but on its own account,
be it for pleasure or for the purpose of committing acts of violence, it is no
longer an organ of its State.
Occasions for Armed Forces abroad.
§ 444. Besides war, there are several occasions for armed forces to be on
foreign territory in the service of their home State. Thus, a State may have a
right to keep troops in a foreign fortress or to send troops through foreign
territory. Thus, further, a State which has been victorious in war with
another may, after the conclusion of peace, occupy a part of the territory of
its former opponent as a guarantee for the execution of the Treaty of Peace.
After the Franco-German war, for example, the Germans in 1871 occupied
a part of the territory of France until the final instalments of the indemnity
for the war costs of five milliards of francs were paid. It may also be a case
of necessity for the armed forces of a State to enter foreign territory and
commit acts of violence there, such as the British did in the case of the
Caroline.[785]
[785] See above, § 133, and below, § 446.

Position of Armed Forces abroad.

§ 445. Whenever armed forces are on foreign territory in the service of
their home State, they are considered exterritorial and remain, therefore,
under the jurisdiction of the latter. A crime committed on foreign territory
by a member of the force cannot be punished by the local civil or military
authorities, but only by the commanding officer of the forces or by other
authorities of its home State.[786] This is, however, valid only in case the
crime is committed either within the place where the force is stationed, or
anywhere else where the criminal was on duty. If, for example, soldiers
belonging to a foreign garrison of a fortress leave the rayon of the latter, not
on duty but for recreation and pleasure, and then and there commit a crime,
the local authorities are competent to punish them.
[786]This is nowadays the opinion of the vast majority of writers on International Law. There
are, however, still a few dissenting authorities, such as Bar ("Lehrbuch des internationalen Privat-
und Strafrecht" (1892), p. 351), and Rivier (I. p. 333).

Case of McLeod.
§ 446. An excellent example of the position of armed forces abroad is
furnished by the case of McLeod,[787] which occurred in 1841. Alexander
McLeod, who was a member of the British force sent by the Canadian
Government in 1837 into the territory of the United States for the purpose
of capturing the Caroline, a boat equipped for crossing into Canadian
territory and taking help to the Canadian insurgents, came in 1841 on
business to the State of New York, and was arrested and indicted for the
killing of one Amos Durfee, a citizen of the United States, on the occasion
of the capture of the Caroline. The English Ambassador at Washington
demanded the release of McLeod, on the ground that he was at the time of
the alleged crime a member of a British armed force sent into the territory
of the United States by the Canadian Government acting in a case of
necessity. McLeod was not released, but had to take his trial; he was,
however, acquitted on proof of an alibi. It is of importance to quote a
passage in the reply of Mr. Webster, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the
United States, to a note of the British Ambassador concerning this affair.
The passage runs thus:—"The Government of the United States entertains
no doubt that, after the avowal of the transaction as a public transaction,
authorised and undertaken by the British authorities, individuals concerned
in it ought not ... to be holden personally responsible in the ordinary
tribunals for their participation in it."
[787] See Wharton, I. § 21, and Moore, II. § 179.

The Casa Blanca Incident.

§ 446a. Another interesting example is the Casa Blanca incident. On
September 25, 1908, six soldiers—three of them Germans—belonging to
the French Foreign Legion which formed part of the French troops at
Morocco, deserted at Casa Blanca and asked for and obtained the protection
of the local German consul, who intended to take them on board a German
vessel lying in the harbour of Casa Blanca. On their way to the ship,
however, they were forcibly taken by the French out of the custody of the
secretary of the German Consulate and a native soldier in the service of the
consulate who were conducting them. Considering all Germans in Morocco
without exception exterritorial and under the exclusive jurisdiction of her
consul, Germany complained of this act of force and demanded that those
of the deserters concerned who were German subjects should be given up to
her by France, acknowledging the fact that the consul had no right to extend
his protection to other than German subjects. France refused to concede this
demand, maintaining that the individuals concerned had even after their
desertion remained under the exclusive jurisdiction of their corps, which
formed part of a French force occupying foreign territory. As the parties
could not settle the conflict diplomatically, they agreed, on November 24,
1908, to bring it before the Hague Court of Arbitration, which gave its
award[788] on May 22, 1909, on the whole in favour of France. The Court
considered: that there was a conflict of jurisdiction with regard to the
German deserters because they were as German subjects under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the German Consulate, but as deserters from the
French Foreign Legion under the exclusive jurisdiction of the French Army
of Occupation; that under the circumstances of the case the jurisdiction of
the Army of Occupation should have the preference; that nevertheless the
German consul was not to be blamed for his action on account of the fact
that in a country granting exterritorial jurisdiction to foreigners the question
of the respective competency of the consular jurisdiction and of the
jurisdiction of an Army of Occupation was very complicated and had never
been settled in an express, distinct, and universally recognised manner; that,
since the German deserters were found at the port under the actual
protection of the German Consulate and this protection was not manifestly
illegal, the actual situation should, as far as possible, have been respected
by the French military authority; that therefore the French military
authorities ought to have confined themselves to preventing the
embarkation and escape of the deserters, and, before proceeding to their
arrest and imprisonment, to have offered to leave them in sequestration of
the German Consulate until the question of the competent jurisdiction had
been decided. The Court did not, however, decree the restitution on the part
of France of the three German deserters to Germany.[789]
[788] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. (1910), p. 19. An English translation of the Award is
printed in A.J. III. (1909), p. 755.
[789] The ambiguity of the award has justly been severely criticised. If, as the Court correctly
asserts, the jurisdiction of an Army of Occupation must prevail over the jurisdiction of a consul
 over his nationals in a country granting exterritorial jurisdiction, a decision of the conflict on mere
legal grounds would have to be entirely in favour of France, for it is difficult to see how a
wrongfully acquired and illegally asserted protection can create any obligation on the part of those
who are exclusively competent to exercise jurisdiction. But it is a well-known fact that Courts of
Arbitration frequently endeavour to give an award which satisfies both parties and the ambiguity
of the award in the Casa Blanca incident is manifestly due to this fact. The award is not of such a
kind as one would expect from a Court of Justice, although it may be an excellent specimen of an
arbitral decision. See A.J. III. (1909), pp. 698-701.

II
MEN-OF-WAR IN FOREIGN WATERS

Hall, §§ 54-55—Halleck, I. pp. 215-230—Lawrence, §§ 107-109—Phillimore, II. §§ 344-350

—Westlake, pp. 256-259—Taylor, § 261—Moore, II. §§ 252-256—Twiss, I. § 165—
Wheaton, § 100—Bluntschli, § 321—Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 434 and 446—Perels,
§§ 11, 14, 15—Heilborn, "System," pp. 248-279—Rivier, I. pp. 333-335—Bonfils, Nos.
614-623—Mérignhac, II. pp. 554-564—Calvo, III. §§ 1550-1559—Fiore, I. Nos. 547-550
—Testa, p. 86—Jordan, R.I. 2nd Ser. X. (1908), p. 343.

Men-of-war State Organs.

§ 447. Men-of-war are State organs just as armed forces are, a man-of-
war being in fact a part of the armed forces of a State. And respecting their
character as State organs, it matters nought whether men-of-war are at home
or in foreign territorial waters or on the High Seas. But it must be
emphasised that men-of-war are State organs only as long as they are
manned and under the command of a responsible officer, and, further, as
long as they are in the service of a State. A shipwrecked man-of-war
abandoned by her crew is no longer a State organ, nor does a man-of-war in
revolt against her State and sailing for her own purposes retain her character
as an organ of a State. On the other hand, public vessels in the service of the
police and the Custom House of a State; further, private vessels chartered
by a State for the transport of troops and war materials; and, lastly, vessels
carrying a head of a State and his suite exclusively, are also considered
State organs, and are, consequently, in every point treated as though they
were men-of-war.

Proof of Character as Men-of-war.

§ 448. The character of a man-of-war or of any other vessel treated as a
man-of-war is, in the first instance, proved by their outward appearance,
such vessels flying the war flag and the pennant of their State.[790] If,
nevertheless, the character of the vessel seems doubtful, her commission,
duly signed by the authorities of the State which she appears to represent,
supplies a complete proof of her character as a man-of-war. And it is by no
means necessary to prove that the vessel is really the property of the State,
the commission being sufficient evidence of her character. Vessels chartered
by a State for the transport of troops or for the purpose of carrying its head
are indeed not the property of such State, although they bear, by virtue of
their commission, the same character as men-of-war.[791]
[790] Attention ought to be drawn here to Convention VII. (concerning the conversion of
merchant-ships into war-ships) of the second Hague Peace Conference of 1907. Although this
convention concerns the time of war only, it is indirectly of importance for the time of peace. Its
stipulations are the following:—No merchant-ship converted into a war-ship can have the rights
and duties appertaining to that status unless it is placed under the direct authority, immediate
control, and responsibility of the Power whose flag it flies (art. 1). Merchant-ships converted into
war-ships must bear the external marks which distinguish the war-ships of their nationality (art.
2). The commander must be in the service of the State and duly commissioned by the proper
authorities. His name must figure on the list of the officers of the military fleet (art. 3). The crew
must be subject to the rules of military discipline (art. 4). Every merchant-ship converted into a
war-ship is bound to observe, in its operations, the laws and customs of war (art. 5). A belligerent
who converts a merchant-ship into a war-ship must, as soon as possible, announce such
conversion in the list of the ships of its military fleet (art. 6).
[791] Privateers used to enjoy the same character and exemptions as men-of-war.

Occasions for Men-of-war abroad.

§ 449. Whereas armed forces in time of peace have no occasion to be
abroad, cases of a special right from a convention and cases of necessity
excepted, men-of-war of all maritime States possessing a navy are
constantly crossing the High Seas in all parts of the world for all kinds of
purposes. Occasions for men-of-war to sail through foreign territorial
waters and to enter foreign ports necessarily arise therefrom. And a special
convention between the flag-State and the littoral State is not necessary to
enable a man-of-war to enter and sail through foreign territorial waters and
to enter a foreign port. All territorial waters and ports of the civilised States
are, as a rule, quite as much open to men-of-war as to merchantmen of all
nations, provided they are not excluded by special international stipulations
or special Municipal Laws of the littoral States. On the other hand, it must
be emphasised that, provided special international stipulations or special
treaties between the flag-State and the littoral State do not prescribe the
contrary in regard to one port or another and in regard to certain territorial
waters, a State is in strict law always competent to exclude men-of-war
from all or certain of its ports, and from those territorial waters which do
not serve as highways for international traffic.[792] And a State is, further,
always competent to impose what conditions it thinks necessary upon men-
of-war which it allows to enter its ports, provided these conditions do not
deny to men-of-war their universally recognised privileges.
[792] The matter is controversial. See above, § 188, and Westlake, I. p. 192, in contradistinction
to Hall, § 42.

Position of Men-of-war in foreign waters.

§ 450. The position of men-of-war in foreign waters is characterised by
the fact that they are called "floating" portions of the flag-State. For at the
present time a customary rule of International Law is universally recognised
that the owner State of the waters into which foreign men-of-war enter must
treat them in every point as though they were floating portions of their flag-
State.[793] Consequently, a man-of-war, with all persons and goods on board,
remains under the jurisdiction of her flag-State even during her stay in
foreign waters. No official of the littoral State is allowed to board the vessel
without special permission of the commander. Crimes committed on board
by persons in the service of the vessel are under the exclusive jurisdiction of
the commander and the other home authorities. Individuals who are subjects
of the littoral State and are only temporarily on board may, although they
need not, be taken to the home country of the vessel, to be there punished if
they commit a crime on board. Even individuals who do not belong to the
crew, and who after having committed a crime on the territory of the littoral
State have taken refuge on board, cannot be forcibly taken off the vessel; if
the commander refuses their surrender, it can be obtained only by means of
diplomacy from the home State.
[793] This rule became universally recognised during the nineteenth century only. On the change
of doctrines formerly held in this country and the United States of America, see Hall, § 54, and
Lawrence, § 107. English and American Courts now recognise the exterritoriality of foreign
public vessels. Thus, in the case of the Exchange (7 Cranch, 116), the Supreme Court of the
United States recognised the fact that the latter had no jurisdiction over this French man-of-war. In
the case of the Constitution, an American man-of-war, the High Court of Admiralty in 1879 held
that foreign public ships cannot be sued in English Courts for salvage (L.R. 4 P.D. 39). And in the
case of the Parlement Belge (L.R. 5 P.D. 197) the Court of Appeal, affirmed by the House of
Lords in 1878, held that foreign public vessels cannot be sued in English Courts for damages for
collision. Again the same was held in 1906 in the case of the Jassy, a Roumanian ship, 10
Aspinall, Mar. Cas. p. 278. See also the Charkieh (1873), L.R. 4 Adm. and Eccl. 59.
On the other hand, men-of-war cannot do what they like in foreign
waters. They are expected voluntarily to comply with the laws of the littoral
States with regard to order in the ports, the places for casting anchor,
sanitation and quarantine, customs, and the like. A man-of-war which
refuses to do so can be expelled, and, if on such or other occasions she
commits acts of violence against the officials of the littoral State or against
other vessels, steps may be taken against her to prevent further acts of
violence. But it must be emphasised that even by committing acts of
violence a man-of-war does not fall under the jurisdiction of the littoral
State. Only such measures are allowed against her as are necessary to
prevent her from further acts of violence.[794]
[794]Attention ought to be drawn to the "Règlement sur le régime légal des navires et de leurs
équipages dans les ports étrangers," adopted by the Institute of International Law, in 1898, at its
meeting at the Hague of which articles 8-24 deal with men-of-war in foreign waters; see Annuaire,
XVII. (1898), pp. 275-280.

Position of Crew when on Land abroad.

§ 451. Of some importance is the unsettled question respecting the
position of the commander and the crew of a man-of-war in foreign ports
when they are on land.
The majority of publicists distinguish between a stay on land in the
service of the man-of-war and a stay for other purposes.[795] The commander
and members of the crew on land officially in the service of their vessel, to
buy provisions or to make other arrangements respecting the vessel, remain
under the exclusive jurisdiction of their home State, even for crimes they
commit on the spot. Although they may, if the case makes it necessary, be
arrested to prevent further violence, they must at once be surrendered to the
vessel. On the other hand, if they are on land not officially, but for purposes
of pleasure and recreation, they are under the territorial supremacy of the
littoral State like any other foreigners, and they may be punished for crimes
committed ashore.
[795] So also Moore, II. § 256.
There are, however, a number of publicists[796] who do not make this
distinction, and who maintain that commanders or members of the crew
whilst ashore are in every case under the local jurisdiction.
[796]See, for instance, Hall, § 55; Phillimore, I. § 346; Testa, p. 109. See also art. 18 of the
"Règlement sur les régime légal des navires et de leurs équipages dans les ports étrangers,"
adopted by the Institute of International Law, in 1898, at its meeting at the Hague (Annuaire,
XVII. (1898), p. 278).
 III
AGENTS WITHOUT DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR CHARACTER

Hall, §§ 103-104*—Moore, IV. § 623—Bluntschli, §§ 241-243—Ullmann, §§ 66-67—

Heffter, § 222—Rivier, I. § 44—Calvo, III. §§ 1337-1339—Fiore, II. Nos. 1188-1191—
Martens, II. § 5—Adler, "Die Spionage" (1906), pp. 63-92.

Agents lacking diplomatic or consular character.

§ 452. Besides diplomatic envoys and consuls, States may and do send
various kinds of agents abroad—namely, public political agents, secret
political agents, spies, commissaries, bearers of despatches. Their position
is not the same, but varies according to the class they belong to, and they
must therefore be severally treated.
Public Political Agents.
§ 453. Public political agents are agents sent by one Power to another for
political negotiations of different kinds. They may be sent for a permanency
or for a limited time only. As they are not invested with diplomatic
character, they do not receive a Letter of Credence, but a letter of
recommendation or commission only. They may be sent by one full-
Sovereign State to another, but also by and to insurgents recognised as a
belligerent Power, and by and to States under suzerainty. Public (or secret)
political agents without diplomatic character are, in fact, the only means for
personal political negotiations with such insurgents and States under
suzerainty.
As regards the position and privileges of such agents, it is obvious that
they enjoy neither the position nor the privileges of diplomatic envoys.[797]
But, on the other hand, they have a public character, being admitted as
public political agents of a foreign State. They must, therefore, certainly be
granted a special protection, but no distinct rules concerning special
privileges to be granted to such agents seem to have grown up in practice.
Inviolability of their persons and official papers ought to be granted to
them.[798]
[797] Heffter, § 222, is, as far as I know, the only publicist who maintains that agents not
invested with diplomatic character must nevertheless be granted the privileges of diplomatic
envoys.
[798] Ullmann, § 66, and Rivier, I. § 40, maintain that they must be granted the privilege of
inviolability to the same extent as diplomatic envoys.
 Secret Political Agents.
§ 454. Secret political agents may be sent for the same purposes as public
political agents. But two kinds of secret political agents must be
distinguished. An agent may be secretly sent to another Power with a letter
of recommendation and admitted by that Power. Such agent is a secret one
in so far as third Powers do not know, or are not supposed to know, of his
existence. As he is, although secretly, admitted by the receiving State, his
position is essentially the same as that of a public political agent. On the
other hand, an agent may be secretly sent abroad for political purposes
without a letter of recommendation, and therefore without being formally
admitted by the Government of the State in which he is fulfilling his task.
Such agent has no recognised position whatever according to International
Law. He is not an agent of a State for its relations with other States, and he
is therefore in the same position as any other foreign individual living
within the boundaries of a State. He may be expelled at any moment if he
becomes troublesome, and he may be criminally punished if he commits a
political or ordinary crime. Such secret agents are often abroad for the
purpose of watching the movements of political refugees or partisans, or of
Socialists, Anarchists, Nihilists, and the like. As long as such agents do not
turn into so-called agents provocateurs, the local authorities will not
interfere.
Spies.
§ 455. Spies are secret agents of a State sent abroad[799] for the purpose of
obtaining clandestinely information in regard to military or political secrets.
Although all States constantly or occasionally send spies abroad, and
although it is neither morally nor politically and legally considered wrong
to send spies, such agents have, of course, no recognised position whatever
according to International Law, since they are not agents of States for their
international relations. Every State punishes them severely when they are
caught committing an act which is a crime by the law of the land, or expels
them if they cannot be punished. And a spy cannot legally excuse himself
by pleading that he only executed the orders of his Government. The latter,
on the other hand, will never interfere, since it cannot officially confess to
having commissioned a spy.
[799]
Concerning spies in time of war, see below, vol. II. §§ 159 and 210, and Adler, "Die
Spionage" (1906), pp. 7-62.
 Commissaries.
§ 456. Commissaries are agents sent with a letter of recommendation or
commission by one State to another for negotiations, not of a political but
of a technical or administrative character only. Such commissaries are, for
instance, sent and received for the purpose of arrangements between the
two States as regards railways, post, telegraphs, navigation, delineation of
boundary lines, and so on. A distinct practice of guaranteeing certain
privileges to such commissaries has not grown up, but inviolability of their
persons and official papers ought to be granted to them, as they are
officially sent and received for official purposes. Thus Germany, in 1887, in
the case of the French officer of police Schnaebélé, who was invited by
local German functionaries to cross the German frontier for official
purposes and then arrested, recognised the rule that a safe-conduct is tacitly
granted to foreign officials when they enter officially the territory of a State
with the consent of the local authorities, although Schnaebélé was not a
commissary sent by his Government to the German Government.
Bearers of Despatches.
§ 457. Individuals commissioned to carry official despatches from a State
to its head or to diplomatic envoys abroad are agents of such State.
Despatch-bearers who belong to the retinue of diplomatic envoys as their
couriers must enjoy, as stated above (§ 405), exemption from civil and
criminal jurisdiction and a special protection in the State to which the envoy
is accredited, and a right of innocent passage through third States. But
bearers of official despatches who are not in the retinue of the diplomatic
envoys employing them must nevertheless be granted inviolability for their
person and official papers, provided they possess special passports stating
their official character as despatch-bearers. And the same is valid respecting
bearers of despatches between the head of a State who is temporarily
abroad and his Government at home.

IV
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS

Rivier, I. pp. 564-566—Ullmann, § 68—Gareis, §§ 51-52—Liszt, § 16—Moore, IV. § 623.

Permanent in Contradistinction to Temporary Commissions.

 § 458. A distinction must be made between temporary and permanent
international commissions. The former consist of commissaries delegated
by two or more States to arrange all kinds of non-political matters, such as
railways, post, telegraphs, navigation, boundary lines, and the like. Such
temporary commissions dissolve as soon as their purpose is realised.[800]
Besides temporary commissions, there are, however, permanent
commissions in existence. They have been instituted by the Powers[801] in
the interest of free navigation on two international rivers and the Suez
Canal; further, in the interest of international sanitation; thirdly, in the
interest of the foreign creditors of several States unable to pay the interest
on their stocks; and, lastly, concerning bounties on sugar.
[800] The position of their members has been discussed above, § 456. Quite novel institutions
are the International Commissions of Inquiry recommended by the Hague Peace Conferences of
1890 and 1907. Articles 9 to 36 of the Hague Convention for the peaceful adjustment of
international differences provide that, in international differences involving neither honour nor
vital interests, and arising from a difference of opinion on matters of fact, the parties should
institute an International Commission of Inquiry; this commission to present a report to the
parties, which shall be limited to a statement of the facts. See below, vol. II. § 5.
[801] Only such permanent commissions are mentioned in the text as have been instituted by the
Powers in conference. There are, however, many permanent commissions in existence which have
been instituted by neighbouring Powers for local purposes, as for example:—(1) The American-
Canadian International Fisheries Commission, instituted according to article 1 of the Treaty of
Washington of April 11, 1908; see Treaty Series, 1908, No. 17. (2) The American-Canadian
International Joint Commission concerning boundary waters, instituted by articles 7-12 of the
Treaty of Washington of January 11, 1909; see Treaty Series, 1910, No. 23. (3) The permanent
Mixed Fisheries Commission between the United States, Canada, and Newfoundland, instituted in
consequence of the award of the Hague Court of Arbitration in the North Atlantic Fisheries Case.
As regards the privileges to be granted to the members of either
temporary or permanent international commissions, no distinct practice has
grown up. If the treaty according to which a commission concerned does
not stipulate anything as regards such privileges, none need be granted, but
the persons of the commissioners must be specially protected. However that
may be, there is no doubt that members of international commissions
cannot, unless this be specially stipulated, claim the privileges of diplomatic
envoys. Thus, when in 1796 Messrs. Gore and Pinkney,[802] the American
Commissioners in London under article 7 of the Jay Treaty, claimed these
privileges, Great Britain refused to concede them.
[802] See Moore, IV. § 623, p. 428.

Commissions in the interest of Navigation.

 § 459. Four international commissions have been instituted in the interest
of navigation—namely, two for the river Danube, one for the Congo river,
and one for the Suez Canal.
1. With regard to navigation on the Danube, the European Danube
Commission was instituted by article 16 of the Peace Treaty of Paris in
1856. This commission, whose members are appointed by the signatory
Powers of the Treaty of Paris, was reconstituted by the Berlin Conference in
1878 and again by the Conference of London in 1883. The commission is
totally independent of the territorial Governments, its rights are clearly
defined, and its members, offices, and archives enjoy the privilege of
inviolability. The competence of the European Danube Commission
comprehends the Danube from Ibraila downwards to its mouth.[803]
[803] Details in Twiss, I. §§ 150-152.
2. The above-mentioned London Conference of 1883 has sanctioned
regulations[804] in regard to the navigation and river-police of the Danube
from the Iron Gates down to Ibraila, and has, by article 96 of these
regulations, instituted the Mixed Commission of the Danube to enforce the
observance of the regulations. The members of this Commission are
delegates from Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Roumania, Servia, and the
European Danube Commission—one member from each.[805]
[804] Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. IX. p. 394.
[805] Details in Twiss, § 152.

3. The Powers represented at the Berlin Congo Conference of 1884 have

sanctioned certain regulations in regard to navigation on the Congo river,
and have, by articles 17-21 of the General Act of the Conference, instituted
an International Commission of the Congo to enforce the observance of
these regulations. This Commission, in which every signatory Power may
be represented by one member, is totally independent of the territorial
Governments, and its members, offices, and archives enjoy the privilege of
inviolability.[806]
[806]Details in Calvo, I. § 334. According to Liszt, § 16, II. 3, this Commission has never been
appointed.
4. By article 8 of the Treaty of Constantinople of 1888 in regard to the
neutralisation of the Suez Canal, a Commission was instituted for the
supervision of the execution of that treaty. The Commission consists of all
the consuls of the signatory Powers in Egypt.[807]
[807] See above, § 183.
 Commissions in the interest of Sanitation.
§ 460. Three international commissions in the interest of sanitation are in
existence. For the purpose of supervising the sanitary arrangements in
connection with the navigation on the lower part of the Danube, the
International Council of Sanitation was instituted at Bucharest in 1881.[808]
The Conseil supérieur de santé at Constantinople has the task of
supervising the arrangements concerning cholera and plague. The Conseil
sanitaire maritime et quarantenaire at Alexandria has similar tasks and is
subject to the control of the Conseil supérieur de santé at Constantinople.
[809]
As regards the International Health Office at Paris, see below, § 590,
No. 6.
[808] See article 6 of the Acte additionnel à l'Acte public du 2 novembre 1865 pour la navigation
des embouchures du Danube, signed on May 28, 1881; Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. VIII. p. 207.
[809] Details in Liszt, § 16, III., where likewise information is to be found as regards the Conseil
sanitaire at Tangiers, which consists of all the foreign envoys in Morocco.

Commissions in the Interest of Foreign Creditors.

§ 461. Three international commissions in the interest of foreign creditors
are in existence—namely, in Turkey since 1878, in Egypt since 1880, and in
Greece since 1897.[810]
[810] See Kaufmann, "Das internationale Recht der aegyptischen Staatsschuld" (1891), and
Murat, "Le contrôle international sur les finances de l'Egypte, de la Grèce et de la Turquie"
(1899).

Permanent Commission concerning Sugar.

§ 462. According to article 7 of the Brussels Convention concerning
bounties on sugar, a permanent commission was instituted in 1902 at
Brussels.[811]
[811] See below, § 585, No. 3.

V
INTERNATIONAL OFFICES

Rivier, I. pp. 564-566—Nys, II. pp. 264-270—Ullmann, § 58—Liszt, § 17—Gareis, § 52—

Descamps, "Les offices internationaux et leur avenir" (1894).

Character of International Offices.

§ 463. During the second half of the nineteenth century a great number of
general treaties were entered into by a greater or lesser number of States for
the purpose of settling in common certain non-political matters. These
general treaties create so-called unions among the parties, and the business
of these unions is in most cases transacted by international offices created
specially for that purpose. The functionaries of these offices, however,
ordinarily enjoy no privilege whatever. The number of these offices is
constantly increasing. Only the more important ones are here enumerated,
with the exclusion of the International Bureau of Arbitration,[812] which,
although an international office, has no relation to those here discussed.
 [812] See below, § 474.

International Telegraph Offices.

§ 464. In 1868 the international telegraph office of the International
Telegraph Union was created at Berne. It is administered by four
functionaries under the supervision of the Swiss Bundesrath. It edits the
Journal Télégraphique in French.[813] Connected with this office is, since
1906, the International Office for Radiotelegraphy.[814]
[813] See below, § 582, No. 2.
[814] See below, § 582, No. 4.

International Post Office.

§ 465. The pendant of the international telegraph office is the
international post office of the Universal Postal Union created at Berne in
1874. It is administered by seven functionaries under the supervision of the
Swiss Bundesrath, and edits a monthly, L'Union Postale, in French,
German, and English.[815]
[815] See below, § 582, No. 1.

International Office of Weights and Measures.

§ 466. The States which have introduced the metric system of weights
and measures created in 1875 the international office of weights and
measures in Paris. Of functionaries there are a director and several
assistants. Their task is the custody of the international prototypes of the
metre and kilogramme and the comparison of the national prototypes with
the international.[816]
[816] See below, § 588, No. 1.

International Office for the Protection of Works of Literature and Art and of Industrial Property.
§ 467. In 1883 an International Union for the Protection of Industrial
Property, and in 1886 an International Union for the Protection of Works of
Literature and Art, were created, with an international office in Berne.
There are a secretary-general and three assistants, who edit a monthly, Le
Droit d'Auteur, in French.[817]
[817] See below, §§ 584 and 585, No. 2.

The Pan-American Union.

 § 467a. The first Pan-American Conference of 1889 created "The
American International Bureau," which, since the fourth Conference of
1910, bears the name "The Pan-American Union." There are a director, an
assistant director, and several secretaries. This office[818] publishes a
"Monthly Bulletin."
[818] See below, § 595.

Maritime Office at Zanzibar, and Bureau Spécial at Brussels.

§ 468. In accordance with the General Act of the Anti-Slavery
Conference of Brussels, 1890, the International Maritime Office at Zanzibar
and the "Bureau Spécial" at Brussels were established; the latter is attached
to the Belgian Foreign Office at Brussels.[819]
[819] See below, § 592, No. 1.

International Office of Customs Tariffs.

§ 469. The International Union for the Publication of Customs Tariffs,
concluded in 1890, has created an international office[820] at Brussels. There
are a director, a secretary, and ten translators. The office edits the Bulletin
des Douanes in French, German, English, Italian, and Spanish.
[820] See below, § 585, No. 1.

Central Office of International Transports.

§ 470. Nine States—namely, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France,
Germany, Holland, Italy, Luxemburg, Russia, Switzerland—entered in 1890
into an international convention in regard to transports and freights on
railways and have created the "Office Central des Transports[821]
Internationaux" at Berne.
[821] See below, § 583, No. 1.

Permanent Office of the Sugar Convention.

§ 471. The States which concluded on March 5, 1902, at Brussels the
Convention concerning bounties on sugar[822] have, in compliance with
article 7 of this Convention, instituted a permanent office at Brussels. The
task of this office, which is attached to the permanent commission,[823] also
instituted by article 7, is to collect, translate, and publish information of all
kinds respecting legislation on and statistics of sugar.
[822] See below, § 585, No. 3.
[823] See above, § 462.
 Agricultural Institute.
§ 471a. In 1905 the Agricultural Institute[824] was established at Rome. It
consists of a General Assembly and a Permanent Committee with a general
secretary.
[824] See below, § 586, No. 1.

International Health Office.

§ 471b. In 1907 the International Health Office[825] was established at
Paris. It consists of a director, a general secretary, and a number of clerks. It
publishes at least once a month a bulletin in French.
[825] See below, § 590, No. 6.

VI
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION

Lawrence, § 221—Bonfils, No. 9708—Despagnet, Nos. 736-740.

Organisation of Court in general.

§ 472. In compliance with articles 20 to 29 of the Hague Convention for
the peaceful adjustment of international differences, the signatory Powers in
1900 organised the International Court of Arbitration at the Hague. This
organisation comprises three distinct bodies—namely, the Permanent
Administrative Council of the Court, the International Bureau of the Court,
and the Court of Arbitration itself. But a fourth body must also be
distinguished—namely, the tribunal to be constituted for the decision of
every case. Articles 20 to 29 are now replaced by articles 41 to 50 of the
Convention for the peaceful adjustment of international differences
produced by the second Hague Peace Conference of 1907.
The Permanent Council.
§ 473. The Permanent Council (article 49) consists of the diplomatic
envoys of the contracting Powers accredited to Holland and the Dutch
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who acts as president of the Council. The task
of the Council is the control of the International Bureau of the Court, the
appointment, suspension, and dismissal of the employés of the bureau, the
fixing of the payments and salaries, the control of the general expenditure,
and the decision of all questions of administration with regard to the
business of the Court. The Council has, further, the task of furnishing the
signatory Powers with a report of the proceedings of the Court, the working
of the administration, and the expenses. At meetings duly summoned, the
presence of nine members is sufficient to give the Council power to
deliberate, and its decisions are taken by a majority of votes.
The International Bureau.
§ 474. The International Bureau (article 43) serves as the Registry for the
Court. It is the intermediary for communications relating to the meetings of
the Court. It has the custody of the archives and the conduct of all the
administrative business of the Court. The contracting Powers have to
furnish the Bureau with a certified copy of every stipulation concerning
arbitration arrived at between them, and of any award concerning them
rendered by a special tribunal. They likewise have to communicate to the
Bureau the laws, regulations, and documents, if any, showing the execution
of the awards given by the Court. The Bureau is (article 47) authorised to
place its premises and its staff at the disposal of the contracting Powers for
the work of any special[826] tribunal of arbitration not constituted within the
International Court of Arbitration. The expense (article 50) of the Bureau is
borne by the signatory Powers in the proportion established for the
International Office of the International Postal Union.
[826] See below, vol. II. § 20.

The Court of Arbitration.

§ 475. The Court of Arbitration (article 44) consists of a large number of
individuals "of recognised competence in questions of International Law,
enjoying the highest moral reputation," selected and appointed by the
contracting Powers. No more than four members may be appointed by one
Power, but two or more Powers may unite in the appointment of one or
more members, and the same individual may be appointed by different
Powers. Every member is appointed for a term of six years, but his
appointment may be renewed. The place of a resigned or deceased member
is to be refilled by the respective Powers, and in this case the appointment is
made for a fresh period of six years. The names of the members of the
Court thus appointed are enrolled upon a general list, which is to be kept up
to date and communicated to all the contracting Powers. The Court thus
constituted has jurisdiction over all cases of arbitration, unless there shall be
an agreement between the parties for a special tribunal of arbitrators not
selected from the list of the members of the Court (article 42).
The Deciding Tribunal.
§ 476. The Court of Arbitration does not as a body decide the cases
brought before it, but a tribunal is created for every special case by
selection of a number of arbitrators from the list of the members of the
Court. This tribunal (article 45) may be created directly by agreement of the
parties. If this is not done, the tribunal is formed in the following manner:—
Each party selects two arbitrators from the list, of whom one only can be its
national or chosen from the persons appointed by it as members of the
Permanent Court, and the four arbitrators so appointed choose a fifth as
umpire and president. If the votes of the four are equal, the parties entrust to
a third Power the choice of the umpire. If the parties cannot agree in their
choice of such third Power, each party nominates a different Power, and the
umpire is chosen by the united action of the Powers thus nominated. If
within two months' time these two Powers cannot come to an agreement,
each of them presents two candidates from the list of members of the
Permanent Court, exclusive of the members selected by the parties and not
being nationals of either of them. Which of the candidates thus selected
shall be the umpire is determined by lot.
After this is done, the tribunal is constituted, and the parties communicate
to the International Bureau of the Court the names of the members of the
tribunal, which meets at the time fixed by the parties; the members of the
tribunal must be granted the privileges of diplomatic envoys when
discharging their duties outside their own country (article 46). The tribunal
sits at the Hague (article 43), and, except in case of force majeure, the place
of session can only be altered by the tribunal with the assent of the parties,
but the parties can from the beginning designate another place than the
Hague as the venue of the tribunal (article 60). The expenses of the tribunal
are paid by the parties in equal shares, and each party pays its own expenses
(article 85).[827]
[827] The procedure to be followed by and before the Tribunal is described below, vol. II. § 27.
The following nine awards have hitherto been given by the Permanent
Court of Arbitration:—
(1) On October 14, 1902, in the case of the United States of America
v. Mexico concerning the Fonds pieux des Californias; see Martens,
N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXII. (1905), p. 193.
(2) On February 22, 1904, in the case of Germany, Great Britain,
and Italy v. Venezuela concerning certain claims of their subjects;
see Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. I. (1909), p. 57.
(3) On May 22, 1905, in the case of Germany, France, and Great
Britain v. Japan concerning the interpretation of article 18 of the
treaty of April 4, 1896, and of other treaties; see Martens, N.R.G.
2nd Ser. XXXV. (1908), p. 376.
(4) On August 8, 1905, in the case of France v. Great Britain
concerning the Muscat Dhows; see Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser.
XXXV. (1908), p. 356.
(5) On May 22, 1909, in the case of France v. Germany concerning
the Casa Banca incident; see Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. (1910), p.
19.
(6) On October 23, 1909, in the case of Norway v. Sweden
concerning the question of their maritime frontier; see Martens,
N.R.G. 3rd Ser. III. (1910), p. 85.
(7) On September 7, 1910, in the case of the United States of
America v. Great Britain concerning the North Atlantic Fisheries;
see Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. IV. (1911), p. 89.
(8) On October 25, 1910, in the case of the United States of America
v. Venezuela concerning the claims of the Orinoco Steamship Co.;
see Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. IV. (1911), p. 79.
(9) On February 24, 1911, in the case of France v. Great Britain
concerning the British-Indian Savarkar; see Martens, N.R.G. 3rd
Ser. IV. (1911), p. 744.

VII
THE INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT AND THE PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF JUSTICE
 Lawrence, § 192—Despagnet, No. 683^{bis}—Scott, "The Hague Peace Conferences"
(1909), pp. 465-511 and 423-464, and in A.J. V. (1911), pp. 302-324—Gregory in A.J. II.
(1908), pp. 458-475.

The International Prize Court.

§ 476a. The International Prize Court will be established at the Hague
according to Convention XII. of the second Hague Peace Conference of
1907. The following are the more important stipulations of this Convention
concerning the constitution[828] of the Court:—The Court consists of fifteen
judges and fifteen deputy-judges, who are appointed for a period of six
years and who rank equally and have precedence according to the date of
the notification of their appointment, but the deputy judges rank after the
judges (articles 10 to 12). Of the fifteen judges of which the Court is
composed, nine constitute a quorum; a judge who is absent or prevented
from sitting is replaced by his deputy judge (article 14). The judges enjoy
diplomatic privileges and immunities in the performance of their duties
when outside their own country (article 13). Each contracting Power
appoints one judge and one deputy judge, and the judges appointed by
Great Britain, Germany, the United States of America, Austria-Hungary,
France, Italy, Japan, and Russia are always summoned to sit, whereas the
judges appointed by the other contracting Powers sit by rota, as shown in
the table annexed to the Convention (article 15). If a belligerent Power has,
according to the rota, no judge sitting in the Court, it may ask that the judge
appointed by it shall take part in the settlement of all cases arising from the
war; lots shall then be drawn as to which of the judges entitled to sit
according to the rota shall withdraw, and this arrangement does not affect
the judge appointed by the other belligerent (article 16). No judge can sit
who has been a party, in any way whatever, to the sentence pronounced by
the National Courts, or has taken part in the case as counsel or advocate for
one of the parties; no judge or deputy judge can, during his tenure of office,
appear as agent or advocate before the International Prize Court, nor act for
one of the parties in any capacity whatever (article 17). The belligerent
captor is entitled to appoint a naval officer of high rank to sit as assessor,
but with no voice in the decision; a neutral Power, which is a party to the
proceedings or whose national is a party, has the same right of appointment;
if in applying this last provision more than one Power is concerned, they
must agree among themselves, if necessary by lot, on the officer to be
appointed (article 18). The Court elects its President and Vice-President by
an absolute majority of the votes cast; after two ballots, the election is made
by a bare majority, and, in case the votes are equal, by lot (article 19). The
judges of the International Prize Court are entitled to travelling allowances
in accordance with the regulations in force in their own country, and in
addition thereto receive, while the Court is sitting or while they are carrying
out duties conferred upon them by the Court, a sum of 100 Netherland
florins per diem; the judges may not receive from their own Governments
or from that of any other Power any remuneration in their capacity of
members of the Court (article 20). The seat of the International Prize Court
is at the Hague, and it cannot, except in the case of force majeure, be
transferred elsewhere without the consent of the belligerents (article 21).
[828] Details concerning the constitution of the International Prize Court and the mode of
procedure to be followed by and before it, will be given below, vol. II. part III. chapter VI.

The proposed International Court of Justice.

§ 476b. Valuable as is the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, it
must be pointed out that it is not a real Court of Justice. For, firstly, it is not
itself a deciding tribunal, but only a list of names out of which the parties in
each case elect some members and thereby constitute the Court. Secondly,
experience teaches that a Court of Arbitration endeavours more to give an
award ex aequo et bono which more or less pleases both parties than to
decide the conflict in a judicial manner by simply applying strict legal rules
without any consideration as to whether or no the decision will please either
party. Thirdly, since in conflicts to be decided by arbitration the arbitrators
each time are selected by the parties, there are in most cases different
individuals acting as arbitrators, so that there is no continuity in the
administration of justice.
For these reasons it would be of the greatest value to institute side by side
with the Permanent Court of Arbitration a real International Court of Justice
consisting of a number of judges in the technical sense of the term, who are
once for all appointed and will have to act in each case that the parties
choose to bring before the Court. Such a Court would only take the legal
aspects of the case into consideration and would base its decision on mere
legal deliberations. It would secure continuity in the administration of
international justice, because it would in each case consider itself bound by
its former decisions. It would in time build up a valuable practice by
deciding innumerable controversies which as yet haunt the theory of
International Law. The second Hague Peace Conference of 1907 therefore
discussed the question of creating such a Court, but only produced the draft
of a Convention concerning the subject. It is, however, to be regretted that
this draft Convention speaks of the creation of a judicial "Arbitration"
Court, and thereby obliterates the boundary line between the arbitral and the
strictly judicial decision of international disputes; it would have been better
to speak simply of an International Court of Justice. However that may be,
there is no doubt that the near future will bring the establishment of such a
Court of Justice in contradistinction to the Permanent Court of Arbitration,
for the parties to a conflict frequently hesitate to have it settled by
arbitration, whereas they would be glad to have it settled by a strictly
judicial decision of the legal questions involved. The same motives which
urged the Powers to leave aside the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Prize
Cases and to enter into a Convention for the establishment of a real
International Prize Court, will in time compel the Powers to establish a real
International Court of Justice.[829]
[829] It should be mentioned that Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and San
Salvador in 1907—see Supplement to the American Journal of International Law, II. (1908), p.
231—established the "Central American Court of Justice" at Cartago, consisting of five judges, to
which they have bound themselves to submit all controversies arising amongst them, of
whatsoever nature, no matter what the origin may be, in case they cannot be settled by diplomatic
negotiation. This Court is, however, only of local importance, although it is of great value, being
the first Court of its kind.
 PART IV
INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
CHAPTER I
ON INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN GENERAL

I
NEGOTIATION

Heffter, §§ 234-239—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 668-676—Liszt, § 20—Ullmann, §

71—Bonfils, Nos. 792-795—Pradier-Fodéré, III. Nos. 1354-1362—Rivier, II. § 45—Calvo,
III. §§ 1316-1320, 1670-1673.

Conception of Negotiation.
§ 477. International negotiation is the term for such intercourse between
two or more States as is initiated and directed for the purpose of effecting
an understanding between them on matters of interest. Since civilised States
form a body interknitted through their interests, such negotiation is in some
shape or other constantly going on. No State of any importance can abstain
from it in practice. There are many other international transactions,[830] but
negotiation is by far the most important of them. And it must be emphasised
that negotiation as a means of amicably settling conflicts between two or
more States is only a particular kind of negotiation, although it will be
specially discussed in another part of this work.[831]
[830] See below, §§ 486-490.
[831] See below, vol. II. §§ 4-6.

Parties to Negotiation.
§ 478. International negotiations can be conducted by all such States as
have a standing within the Family of Nations. Full-Sovereign States are,
therefore, the regular subjects of international negotiation. But it would be
wrong to maintain that half- and part-Sovereign States can never be parties
to international negotiations. For they can indeed conduct negotiations on
those points concerning which they have a standing within the Family of
Nations. Thus, for instance, while Bulgaria was a half-Sovereign State, she
was nevertheless able to negotiate on several matters with foreign States
independently of Turkey.[832] But so-called colonial States, as the Dominion
of Canada, can never be parties to international negotiations; any necessary
negotiation for a colonial State must be conducted by the mother-State to
which it internationally belongs.[833]
[832] See above, § 91.
[833] The demand on the part of many influential Canadian politicians, expressed after the
verdict of the Arbitration Court in the Alaska Boundary dispute, that Canada should have the
power of making treaties independently of Great Britain, necessarily includes the demand to
become in some respects a Sovereign State.
It must be specially mentioned that such negotiation as is conducted
between a State, on the one hand, and, on the other, a party which is not a
State, is not international negotiation, although such party may reside
abroad. Thus, negotiations of a State with the Pope and the Holy See are not
international negotiations, although all the formalities connected with
international negotiations are usually observed in this case. Thus, too,
negotiations on the part of States with a body of foreign bankers and
contractors concerning a loan, the building of a railway, the working of a
mine, and the like, are not international negotiations.
Purpose of Negotiation.
§ 479. Negotiations between States may have various purposes. The
purpose may be an exchange of views only on some political question; but
it may also be an arrangement as to the line of action to be taken in future
with regard to a certain point, or a settlement of differences, or the creation
of international institutions, such as the Universal Postal Union for
example, and so on. Of the greatest importance are those negotiations which
aim at an understanding between members of the Family of Nations
respecting the very creation of rules of International Law by international
conventions. Since the Vienna Congress at the beginning of the nineteenth
century negotiations between the Powers for the purpose of defining,
creating, or abolishing rules of International Law have been frequently and
very successfully conducted.[834]
[834] See below, §§ 555-568b.

Negotiations by whom conducted.

 § 480. International negotiations are conducted by the agents which
represent the negotiating States. The heads of these States may conduct the
negotiations in person, either by letters or by a personal interview. Serious
negotiations have in the past been conducted by heads of States, and,
although this is comparatively seldom done, there is no reason to believe
that personal negotiations between heads of States will not occur in future.
[835]
Heads of States may also personally negotiate with diplomatic or other
agents commissioned for that purpose by other States. Ambassadors, as
diplomatic agents of the first class, must, according to International Law,
have even the right to approach in person the head of the State to which
they are accredited for the purpose of negotiation.[836] The rule is, however,
that negotiation between States concerning more important matters is
conducted by their Secretaries for Foreign Affairs, with the help either of
their diplomatic envoys or of agents without diplomatic character and so-
called commissaries.[837]
[835]
See below, § 495.
[836]
See above, § 365.
[837] Negotiations between armed forces of belligerents are regularly conducted by soldiers. See
below, vol. II. §§ 220-240.

Form of Negotiation.
§ 481. The Law of Nations does not prescribe any particular form in
which international negotiations must be conducted. Such negotiations may,
therefore, take place viva voce or through the exchange of written
representations and arguments, or both. The more important negotiations
are regularly conducted through the diplomatic exchange of written
communications, as only in this way can misunderstandings be avoided,
which easily arise during viva voce negotiations. Of the greatest importance
are the negotiations which take place through congresses and conferences.
[838]
[838] See below, § 483.
During viva voce negotiations it happens sometimes that a diplomatic
envoy negotiating with the Secretary for Foreign Affairs reads out a letter
received from his home State. In such case it is usual to leave a copy of the
letter at the Foreign Office. If a copy is refused, the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs can on his part refuse to hear the letter read. Thus in 1825 Canning
refused to allow a Russian communication to be read to him by the Russian
Ambassador in London with regard to the independence of the former
Spanish colonies in South America, because this Ambassador was not
authorised to leave a copy of the communication at the British Foreign
Office.[839]
[839] As regards the language used during negotiation, see above, § 359.

End and Effect of Negotiation.

§ 482. Negotiations may and often do come to an end without any effect
whatever on account of the parties failing to agree. On the other hand, if
negotiations lead to an understanding, the effect may be twofold. It may
consist either in a satisfactory exchange of views and intentions, and the
parties are then in no way, at any rate not legally, bound to abide by such
views and intentions, or to act on them in the future; or in an agreement on
a treaty, and then the parties are legally bound by the stipulations of such
treaty. Treaties are of such importance that it is necessary to discuss them in
a special chapter.[840]
[840] See below, §§ 491-554.

II
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES

Phillimore, II. §§ 39-40—Twiss, II. § 8—Taylor, §§ 34-36—Bluntschli, § 12—Heffter, § 242

—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 679-684—Ullmann, §§ 71-72—Bonfils, Nos. 796-814
—Despagnet, Nos. 478-482—Pradier-Fodéré, VI. Nos. 2593-2599—Rivier, II. § 46—Nys,
III. pp. 7-17—Calvo, III. §§ 1674-1681—Fiore, II. Nos. 1216-1224, and Code, Nos. 1206-
1245—Martens, I. § 52—Charles de Martens, "Guide diplomatique," vol. I. § 58—Pradier-
Fodéré, "Cours de droit diplomatique" (1881), vol. II. pp. 372-424—Zaleski, "Die
völkerrechtliche Bedeutung der Congresse" (1874)—Nippold, "Die Fortbildung des
Verfahrens in völkerrechtlichen Streitigkeiten" (1907), pp. 480-526.

Conception of Congresses and Conferences.

§ 483. International congresses and conferences are formal meetings of
the representatives of several States for the purpose of discussing matters of
international interest and coming to an agreement concerning these matters.
As far as language is concerned, the term "congress" as well as
"conference" may be used for the meetings of the representatives of only
two States, but as a rule congresses or conferences denote such bodies only
as are composed of the representatives of a greater number of States.
Several writers[841] allege that there are characteristic differences between a
congress and a conference. But all such alleged differences vanish in face of
the fact that the Powers, when summoning a meeting of representatives,
name such body either congress or conference indiscriminately. It is not
even correct to say that the more important meetings are named congresses,
in contradistinction to conferences, for the Hague Peace Conferences of
1899 and 1907 were, in spite of their grand importance, denominated
conferences.
[841] See, for instance, Martens, I. § 52; Fiore, II. §§ 1216-1224, and Code, No. 1231.
Much more important than the mere terminological difference between
congress and conference is the difference of the representatives who attend
the meeting.
For it may be that the heads of the States meet at a congress or
conference, or that the representatives consist of diplomatic envoys and
Secretaries for Foreign Affairs of the Powers. But, although congresses and
conferences of heads of States have been held in the past and might at any
moment be held again in the future, there can be no doubt that the most
important matters are treated by congresses and conferences consisting of
diplomatic representatives of the Powers.
 Parties to Congresses and Conferences.
§ 484. Congresses and conferences not being organised by customary or
conventional International Law, no rules exist with regard to the parties of a
congress or conference. Everything depends upon the purpose for which a
congress or a conference meets, and upon the Power which invites other
Powers to the meeting. If it is intended to settle certain differences, it is
reasonable that all the States concerned should be represented, for a Power
which is not represented need not consent to the resolutions of the congress.
If the creation of new rules of International Law is intended, at least all full-
Sovereign members of the Family of Nations ought to be represented. To
the First Peace Conference at the Hague, nevertheless, only the majority of
States were invited to send representatives, the South American Republics
not being invited at all. But to the Second Peace Conference of 1907 forty-
seven States were invited, although only forty-four sent representatives.
Costa Rica, Honduras, and Abyssinia were invited, but did not send any
delegates.
It is frequently maintained that only full-Sovereign States can be parties
to congresses and conferences. This is certainly not correct, as here, too,
everything depends upon the merits of the special case. As a rule, full-
Sovereign States only are parties, but there are exceptions. Thus, Bulgaria,
at the time a vassal under Turkish suzerainty, was a party to the First as well
as to the Second Hague Peace Conference, although without a vote. There
is no reason to deny the rule that half- and part-Sovereign States can be
parties to congresses and conferences in so far as they are able to negotiate
internationally.[842] Such States are, in fact, frequently asked to send
representatives to such congresses and conferences as meet for non-political
matters.
[842] See above, § 478.
But no State can be a party which has not been invited, or admitted at its
own request. If a Power thinks it fitting that a congress or conference
should meet, it invites such other Powers as it pleases. The invited Powers
may accept under the condition that certain other Powers should or should
not be invited or admitted. Those Powers which have accepted the
invitation become parties if they send representatives. Each party may send
several representatives, but they have only one vote, given by the senior
representative for himself and his subordinates.
 Procedure at Congresses and Conferences.
§ 485. After the place and time of meeting have been arranged—such
place may be neutralised for the purpose of securing the independence of
the deliberations and discussions—the representatives meet and constitute
themselves by exchanging their commissions and electing a president and
other officers. It is usual, but not obligatory,[843] for the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs of the State within which the congress meets to be elected president.
If the difficulty of the questions on the programme makes it advisable,
special committees are appointed for the purpose of preparing the matter for
discussion by the body of the congress. In such discussion all
representatives can take part. After the discussion follows the voting. The
motion must be carried unanimously to consummate the task of the
congress, for the vote of the majority has no power whatever in regard to
the dissenting parties. But it is possible that the majority considers the
motion binding for its members. A protocol is to be kept of all the
discussions and the voting. If the discussions and votings lead to a final
result upon which the parties agree, all the points agreed upon are drawn up
in an Act, which is signed by the representatives and which is called the
Final Act or the General Act of the congress or conference. A party can
make a declaration or a reservation in signing the Act for the purpose of
excluding a certain interpretation of the Act in the future. And the Act may
expressly stipulate freedom for States which were not parties to accede to it
in future.
[843] Thus at both Hague Peace Conferences the first Russian delegate was elected president.

III
TRANSACTIONS BESIDES NEGOTIATION

Bluntschli, § 84—Hartmann, § 91; Gareis, § 77—Liszt, § 20.

Different kinds of Transaction.

§ 486. International transaction is the term for every act on the part of a
State in its intercourse with other States. Besides negotiation, which has
been discussed above in §§ 477-482, there are eleven other kinds of
international transactions which are of legal importance—namely,
declaration, notification, protest, renunciation, recognition, intervention,
retorsion, reprisals, pacific blockade, war, and subjugation. Recognition has
already been discussed above in §§ 71-75, as has also intervention in §§
134-138, and, further, subjugation in §§ 236-241. Retorsion, reprisals,
pacific blockade, and war will be treated in the second volume of this work.
There are, therefore, here to be discussed only the remaining four
transactions—namely, declaration, notification, protest, and renunciation.
Declaration.
§ 487. The term "declaration" is used in three different meanings. It is,
first, sometimes used as the title of a body of stipulations of a treaty
according to which the parties engage themselves to pursue in future a
certain line of conduct. The Declaration of Paris, 1856, the Declaration of
St. Petersburg, 1868, and the Declaration of London, 1909, are instances of
this. Declarations of this kind differ in no respect from treaties.[844] One
speaks, secondly, of declarations when States communicate to other States
or urbi et orbi an explanation and justification of a line of conduct pursued
by them in the past, or an explanation of views and intentions concerning
certain matters. Declarations of this kind may be very important, but they
hardly comprise transactions out of which rights and duties of other States
follow. But there is a third kind of declarations out of which rights and
duties do follow for other States, and it is this kind which comprises a
specific international transaction, although the different declarations
belonging to this group are by no means of a uniform character.
Declarations of this kind are declarations of war, declarations on the part of
belligerents concerning the goods they will condemn as contraband,
declarations at the outbreak of war on the part of third States that they will
remain neutral, and others.
[844] See below, § 508, where is mentioned the attempt of the British Foreign Office to give to
the term "declaration" a specific meaning.

Notification.
§ 488. Notification is the technical term for the communication to other
States of the knowledge of certain facts and events of legal importance. But
a distinction must be drawn between obligatory and merely usual
notification.
Notification has of late been stipulated in several cases to be obligatory.
Thus, according to article 34 of the General Act of the Berlin Congo
Conference of 1885, notification of new occupations and the like on the
African coast is obligatory. Thus, further, according to article 84 of the
Hague Convention for the peaceful adjustment of international differences,
in case a number of States are parties to a treaty and two of the parties are at
variance concerning the interpretation of such treaty and agree to have the
difference settled by arbitration, they have to notify this agreement to all
other parties to the treaty. Again, according to article 2 of the Hague
Convention concerning the Commencement of Hostilities, 1907, the
outbreak of war must be notified to the neutral Powers, and so must the
declaration of a blockade,[845] according to article 11 of the Declaration of
London, 1909.
[845] See also Declaration of London, articles 11 (2), 16, 23, 25, and 26.
Apart from such cases in which notification is stipulated as obligatory, it
is in principle not obligatory, although in fact it frequently takes place
because States cannot be considered subject to certain duties without the
knowledge of the facts and events which give rise to these duties. Thus it is
usual to notify to other States changes in the headship and in the form of
government of a State, the establishment of a Federal State, an annexation
after conquest, the appointment of a new Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and
the like.

Protest.
§ 489. Protest is a formal communication on the part of a State to another
that it objects to an act performed or contemplated by the latter. A protest
serves the purpose of preservation of rights, or of making it known that the
protesting State does not acquiesce in and does not recognise certain acts. A
protest can be lodged with another State concerning acts of the latter which
have been notified to the former or which have otherwise become known.
On the other hand, if a State acquires knowledge of an act which it
considers internationally illegal and against its rights, and nevertheless does
not protest, such attitude implies renunciation of such rights, provided a
protest would have been necessary to preserve a claim. It may further
happen that a State at first protests, but afterwards either expressly[846] or
tacitly acquiesces in the act. And it must be emphasised that under certain
circumstances and conditions a simple protest on the part of a State without
further action is not in itself sufficient to preserve the rights in behalf of
which the protest was made.[847]
 [846] Thus by section 2 of the Declaration concerning Siam, Madagascar, and the New Hebrides,
which is embodied in the Anglo-French Agreement of April 8, 1904, Great Britain withdrew the
protest which she had raised against the introduction of the Customs tariff established at
Madagascar after the annexation to France.
[847] See below, § 539, concerning the withdrawal of Russia from article 59 of the Treaty of
Berlin, 1878, stipulating the freedom of the port of Batoum.

Renunciation.
§ 490. Renunciation is the deliberate abandonment of rights. It can be
given expressis verbis or tacitly. If, for instance, a State by occupation takes
possession of an island which has previously been occupied by another
State,[848] the latter tacitly renounces its rights by not protesting as soon as it
receives knowledge of the fact. Renunciation plays a prominent part in the
amicable settlement of differences between States, either one or both parties
frequently renouncing their claims for the purpose of coming to an
agreement. But it must be specially observed that mere silence on the part
of a State does not imply renunciation; this occurs only when a State
remains silent, although a protest is necessary to preserve a claim.
[848] See above, § 247.

CHAPTER II
TREATIES

I
CHARACTER AND FUNCTION OF TREATIES

Vattel, II. §§ 152, 153, 157, 163—Hall, § 107—Phillimore, II. § 44—Twiss, I. §§ 224-233—
Taylor, §§ 341-342—Bluntschli, § 402—Heffter, § 81—Despagnet, Nos. 435-436—
Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 888-919—Rivier, II. pp. 33-40—Nys, III. pp. 18-20 and 43-48—
Calvo, III. §§ 1567-1584—Fiore, II. Nos. 976-982—Martens, I. § 103—Bergbohm,
"Staatsverträge und Gesetze als Quellen des Völkerrechts" (1877)—Jellinek, "Die
rechtliche Natur der Staatenverträge" (1880)—Laghi, "Teoria dei trattati internazionali"
(1882)—Buonamici, "Dei trattati internazionali" (1888)—Nippold, "Der völkerrechtliche
Vertrag" (1894)—Triepel, "Völkerrecht und Landesrecht" (1899), pp. 27-90.

Conception of Treaties.
§ 491. International treaties are conventions or contracts between two or
more States concerning various matters of interest. Even before a Law of
Nations in the modern sense of the term was in existence, treaties used to be
concluded between States. And although in those times treaties were neither
based on nor were themselves a cause of an International Law, they were
nevertheless considered sacred and binding on account of religious and
moral sentiment. However, since the manifold intercourse of modern times
did not then exist between the different States, treaties did not discharge
such all-important functions in the life of humanity as they do now.
Different kinds of Treaties.
§ 492. These important functions are manifest if attention is given to the
variety of international treaties which exist nowadays and are day by day
concluded for innumerable purposes. In regard to State property, treaties are
concluded of cession, of boundary, and many others. Alliances, treaties of
protection, of guarantee, of neutrality, and of peace are concluded for
political purposes. Various purposes are served by consular treaties,
commercial[849] treaties, treaties in regard to the post, telegraphs, and
railways, treaties of copyright and the like, of jurisdiction, of extradition,
monetary treaties, treaties in regard to measures and weights, to rates, taxes,
and custom-house duties, treaties on the matter of sanitation with respect to
epidemics, treaties in the interest of industrial labourers, and treaties with
regard to agriculture and industry. Again, various purposes are served by
treaties concerning warfare, mediation, arbitration, and so on.
[849] See below, §§ 578-580.
I do not intend to discuss the question of classification of the different
kinds of treaties, for hitherto all attempts[850] at such classification have
failed. But there is one distinction to be made which is of the greatest
importance and according to which the whole body of treaties is to be
divided into two classes. For treaties may, on the one hand, be concluded
for the purpose of confirming, defining, or abolishing existing customary
rules, and of establishing new rules for the Law of Nations. Treaties of this
kind ought to be termed law-making treaties. On the other hand, treaties
may be concluded for all kinds of other purposes. Law-making treaties as a
source of rules of International Law have been discussed above (§ 18); the
most important of these treaties will be considered below (§§ 556-568b).
[850] Since the time of Grotius the science of the Law of Nations has not ceased attempting a
satisfactory classification of the different kinds of treaties. See Heffter, §§ 88-91; Bluntschli, §§
442-445; Martens, I. § 113; Ullmann, § 82; Wheaton, § 268 (following Vattel, II. § 169); Rivier,
II. pp. 106-118; Westlake, I. p. 283, and many others.
 Binding Force of Treaties.
§ 493. The question as to the reason of the binding force of international
treaties always was, and still is, very much disputed. That all those
publicists who deny the legal character of the Law of Nations deny likewise
a legally binding force in international treaties is obvious. But even among
those who acknowledge the legal character of International Law, unanimity
by no means exists concerning this binding force of treaties. The question is
all the more important as everybody knows that treaties are sometimes
broken, rightly according to the opinion of the one party, and wrongly
according to the opinion of the other. Many publicists find the binding force
of treaties in the Law of Nature, others in religious and moral principles,
others[851] again in the self-restraint exercised by States in becoming a party
to a treaty. Some writers[852] assert that it is the contracting parties' own will
which gives binding force to their treaties, and others[853] teach that such
binding force is to be found im Rechtsbewusstsein der Menschheit—that is,
in the idea of right innate in man. I believe that the question can
satisfactorily be dealt with only by dividing it into several different
questions and by answering those questions seriatim.
[851] So Hall, § 107; Jellinek, "Staatenverträge," p. 31; Nippold, § 11.
[852] So Triepel, "Völkerrecht und Landesrecht" (1899), p. 82.
[853] So Bluntschli, § 410.

First, the question is to be answered why treaties are legally binding. The
answer must categorically be that this is so because there exists a customary
rule of International Law that treaties are binding.
Then the question might be put as to the cause of the existence of such
customary rule. The answer must be that such rule is the product of several
joint causes. Religious and moral reasons require such a rule quite as much
as the interest of the States, for no law could exist between nations if such
rule did not exist. All causes which have been and are still working to create
and maintain an International Law are at the background of this question.
And, thirdly, the question might be put how it is possible to speak of a
legally binding force in treaties without a judicial authority to enforce their
stipulations. The answer must be that the binding force of treaties, although
it is a legal force, is not the same as the binding force of contracts according
to Municipal Law, since International Law is a weaker law, and for this
reason less enforceable, than Municipal Law. But just as International Law
does not lack legal character in consequence of the fact that there is no
central authority[854] above the States which could enforce it, so international
treaties are not deficient of a legally binding force because there is no
judicial authority for the enforcement of their stipulations.
[854] See above, § 5.

II
PARTIES TO TREATIES

Vattel, II. §§ 154-156, 206-212—Hall, § 108—Westlake, I. p. 279—Phillimore, II. §§ 48-49—

Halleck, I. pp. 275-278—Taylor, §§ 361-365—Wheaton, §§ 265-267—Moore, V. §§ 734-
737—Bluntschli, §§ 403-409—Heffter, §§ 84-85—Ullmann, § 75—Bonfils, No. 818—
Despagnet, No. 446—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 1058-1068—Rivier, II. pp. 45-48—Nys, III.
pp. 20-24—Calvo, III. §§ 1616-1618—Fiore, II. Nos. 984-1000, and Code, Nos. 743-749—
Martens, I. § 104—Nippold, op. cit. pp. 104-112—Schoen in Z.V. V. (1911), pp. 400-431.

The Treaty-making Power.

§ 494. The so-called right of making treaties is not a right of a State in
the technical meaning of the term, but a mere competence attaching to
sovereignty. A State possesses, therefore, treating-making power only so far
as it is sovereign. Full-Sovereign States may become parties to treaties of
all kinds, being regularly competent to make treaties on whatever matters
they please. Not-full Sovereign States, however, can become parties to such
treaties only according to their competence to conclude. It is impossible to
lay down a hard-and-fast rule concerning such competence of all not-full
Sovereign States. Everything depends upon the special case. Thus, the
constitutions of Federal States comprise provisions with regard to the
competence, if any, of the member-States to conclude international treaties
among themselves as well as with foreign States.[855] Thus, again, it depends
upon the special relation between the suzerain and the vassal how far the
latter possesses the competence to enter into treaties with foreign States;
ordinarily a vassal can conclude treaties concerning such matters as
railways, extradition, commerce, and the like.
[855] According to articles 7 and 9 of the Constitution of Switzerland the Swiss member-States
are competent to conclude non-political treaties among themselves, and, further, such treaties with
foreign States as concern matters of police, of local traffic, and of State economics. According to
article 11 of the Constitution of the German Empire, the German member-States are competent to
conclude treaties concerning all such matters as do not, in conformity with article 4 of the
Constitution, belong to the competence of the Empire. On the other hand, according to article 1,
section 10, of the Constitution of the United States of America, the member-States are
incompetent either to conclude treaties among themselves or with foreign States.
 Treaty-making Power exercised by Heads of States.
§ 495. The treaty-making power of all States is exercised by their heads,
either personally or through representatives appointed by these heads. The
Holy Alliance of Paris, 1815, was personally concluded by the Emperors of
Austria and Russia and the King of Prussia. And when, on June 24, 1859,
the Austrian army was defeated at Solferino, the Emperors of Austria and
France met on July 11, 1859, at Villafranca and agreed in person on
preliminaries of peace. Yet, as a rule, heads of States do not act in person,
but authorise representatives to act for them. Such representatives receive a
written commission, known as powers or full powers, which authorises
them to negotiate in the name of the respective heads of States. They also
receive oral or written, open or secret instructions. But, as a rule, they do
not conclude a treaty finally, for all treaties concluded by such
representatives are in principle not valid before ratification.[856] If they
conclude a treaty by exceeding their powers or acting contrary to their
instructions, the treaty is not a real treaty and not binding upon the State
they represent. A treaty of such a kind is called a sponsio or sponsiones.
Sponsiones may become a real treaty and binding upon the State through
the latter's approval. Nowadays, however, the difference between real
treaties and sponsiones is less important than in former times, when the
custom in favour of the necessity of ratification for the validity of treaties
was not yet general. If nowadays representatives exceed their powers, their
States can simply refuse ratification of the sponsio.
[856] See below, § 510.

Minor Functionaries exercising Treaty-making Power.

§ 496. For some non-political purposes of minor importance, certain
minor functionaries are recognised as competent to exercise the treaty-
making power of their States. Such functionaries are ipso facto by their
offices and duties competent to enter into certain agreements without the
requirement of ratification. Thus, for instance, in time of war, military and
naval officers in command[857] can enter into agreements concerning a
suspension of arms, the surrender of a fortress, the exchange of prisoners,
and the like. But it must be emphasised that treaties of this kind are valid
only when these functionaries have not exceeded their powers.
[857] See Grotius, III. c. 22.

Constitutional Restrictions.
 § 497. Although the heads of States are regularly, according to the Law
of Nations, the organs that exercise the treaty-making power of the States,
constitutional restrictions imposed upon the heads concerning the exercise
of this power are nevertheless of importance for the Law of Nations. Such
treaties concluded by heads of States or representatives authorised by these
heads as violate constitutional restrictions are not real treaties and do not
bind the State concerned, because the representatives have exceeded their
powers in concluding the treaties.[858] Such constitutional restrictions,
although they are not of great importance in Great Britain,[859] play a
prominent part in the Constitutions of most countries. Thus, according to
article 8 of the French Constitution, the President exercises the treaty-
making power; but peace treaties and such other treaties as concern
commerce, finance, and some other matters, are not valid without the co-
operation of the French Parliament. Thus, further, according to articles 1, 4,
and 11 of the Constitution of the German Empire, the Emperor exercises the
treaty-making power; but such treaties as concern the frontier, commerce,
and several other matters, are not valid without the co-operation of the
Bundesrath and the Reichstag. Again, according to article 2, section 2, of
the Constitution of the United States, the President can only ratify treaties
with the consent of the Senate.
[858] The whole matter is discussed with great lucidity by Nippold, op. cit. pp. 127-164; see also
Schoen, loc. cit.
[859] See Anson, "The Law and Custom of the Constitution," II. (2nd ed.), pp. 297-300.

Mutual Consent of the Contracting Parties.

§ 498. A treaty being a convention, mutual consent of the parties is
necessary. Mere proposals made by one party and not accepted by the other
are, therefore, not binding upon the proposer. Without force are also
pollicitations which contain mere promises without acceptance by the party
to whom they were made. Not binding are, lastly, so-called punctationes,
mere negotiations on the items of a future treaty, without the parties
entering into an obligation to conclude that treaty. But such punctationes
must not be confounded either with a preliminary treaty or with a so-called
pactum de contrahendo. A preliminary treaty requires the mutual consent of
the parties with regard to certain important points, whereas other points
have to be settled by the definitive treaty to be concluded later. Such
preliminary treaty is a real treaty and therefore binding upon the parties. A
pactum de contrahendo requires likewise the mutual consent of the parties.
It is an agreement upon certain points to be incorporated in a future treaty,
and is binding upon the parties. The difference between punctationes and a
pactum de contrahendo is, that the latter stipulates an obligation of the
parties to settle the respective points by a treaty, whereas the former does
not.
Freedom of Action of consenting Representatives.
§ 499. As a treaty will lack binding force without real consent, absolute
freedom of action on the part of the contracting parties is required. It must,
however, be understood that circumstances of urgent distress, such as either
defeat in war or the menace of a strong State to a weak State, are, according
to the rules of International Law, not regarded as excluding the freedom of
action of a party consenting to the terms of a treaty. The phrase "freedom of
action" applies only to the representatives of the contracting States. It is
their freedom of action in consenting to a treaty which must not have been
interfered with and which must not have been excluded by other causes. A
treaty concluded through intimidation exercised against the representatives
of either party or concluded by intoxicated or insane representatives is not
binding upon the party so represented. But a State which was forced by
circumstances to conclude a treaty containing humiliating terms has no
right afterwards to shake off the obligations of such treaty on the ground
that its freedom of action was interfered with at the time.[860] This must be
emphasised, because in practice such cases of repudiation have frequently
occurred. A State may, of course, hold itself justified by political necessity
in shaking off such obligations, but this does not alter the fact that such
action is a breach of law.
[860] See examples in Moore, V. § 742.

Delusion and Error in Contracting Parties.

§ 500. Although a treaty was concluded with the real consent of the
parties, it is nevertheless not binding if the consent was given in error, or
under a delusion produced by a fraud of the other contracting party. If, for
instance, a boundary treaty were based upon an incorrect map or a map
fraudulently altered by one of the parties, such treaty would by no means be
binding. Although there is freedom of action in such cases, consent has
been given under circumstances which prevent the treaty from being
binding.
 III
OBJECTS OF TREATIES

Vattel, II. §§ 160-162, 166—Hall, § 108—Phillimore, II. § 51—Walker, § 30—Bluntschli, §§

410-416—Heffter, § 83—Ullmann, § 97—Bonfils, No. 819—Despagnet, No. 445—
Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 1080-1083—Mérignhac, II. p. 640—Rivier, II. pp. 57-63—Nys,
III. p. 24—Fiore, II. Nos. 1001-1004, and Code, Nos. 755-758—Martens, I. § 110—
Jellinek, "Die rechtliche Natur der Staatenverträge" (1880), pp. 59-60—Nippold, op. cit. pp.
181-190.

Objects in general of Treaties.

§ 501. The object of treaties is always an obligation, whether mutual
between all the parties or unilateral on the part of one only. Speaking
generally, the object of treaties can be an obligation concerning any matter
of interest for States. Since there exists no other law than International Law
for the intercourse of States with each other, every agreement between them
regarding any obligation whatever is a treaty. However, the Law of Nations
prohibits some obligations from becoming objects of treaties, so that such
treaties as comprise obligations of this kind are from the very beginning
null and void.[861]
[861] The voidance ab origine of these treaties must not be confounded with voidance of such
treaties as are valid in their inception, but become afterwards void on some ground or other; see
below, §§ 541-544.

Obligations of Contracting Parties only can be Object.

§ 502. Obligations to be performed by a State other than a contracting
party cannot be the object of a treaty. A treaty stipulating such an obligation
would be null and void. But this must not be confounded with the
obligation undertaken by one of the contracting States to exercise an
influence upon another State to perform certain acts. The object of a treaty
with such a stipulation is an obligation of one of the contracting States, and
the treaty is therefore valid and binding.

An Obligation inconsistent with other Obligations cannot be an Object.

§ 503. Such obligation as is inconsistent with obligations under treaties
previously concluded by one State with another cannot be the object of a
treaty with a third State. Thus, in 1878, when after the war Russia and
Turkey concluded the preliminary Treaty of Peace of San Stefano, which
was inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris of 1856 and the Convention of
London of 1871, England protested,[862] and the Powers met at the Congress
of Berlin to arrange matters by mutual consent.
[862] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. III. p. 257.

Object must be physically possible.

§ 504. An obligation to perform a physical impossibility[863] cannot be the
object of a treaty. If perchance a State entered into a convention stipulating
an obligation of that kind, no right to claim damages for non-fulfilment of
the obligation would arise for the other party, such treaty being legally null
and void.
[863] See below, § 542.

Immoral Obligations.
§ 505. It is a customarily recognised rule of the Law of Nations that
immoral obligations cannot be the object of an international treaty. Thus, an
alliance for the purpose of attacking a third State without provocation is
from the beginning not binding. It cannot be denied that in the past many
treaties stipulating immoral obligations have been concluded and executed,
but this does not alter the fact that such treaties were legally not binding
upon the contracting parties. It must, however, be taken into consideration
that the question as to what is immoral is often controversial. An obligation
which is considered immoral by other States may not necessarily appear
immoral to the contracting parties, and there is no Court that can decide the
controversy.
Illegal Obligations.
§ 506. It is a unanimously recognised customary rule of International
Law that obligations which are at variance with universally recognised
principles of International Law cannot be the object of a treaty. If, for
instance, a State entered into a convention with another State not to
interfere in case the latter should appropriate a certain part of the Open Sea,
or should command its vessels to commit piratical acts on the Open Sea,
such treaty would be null and void, because it is a principle of International
Law that no part of the Open Sea can be appropriated, and that it is the duty
of every State to interdict to its vessels the commission of piracy on the
High Seas.
 IV
FORM AND PARTS OF TREATIES

Grotius, II. c. 15, § 5—Vattel, II. § 153—Hall, § 109—Westlake, I. pp. 279-281—Wheaton, §

253—Moore, V. § 740—Bluntschli, §§ 417-427—Hartmann, §§ 46-47—Heffter, §§ 87-91
—Ullmann, § 80—Bonfils, Nos. 821-823—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 1084-1099—
Mérignhac, II. p. 645—Rivier, II. pp. 64-68—Nys, III. pp. 25-28—Fiore, II. Nos. 1004-
1006, and Code, Nos. 759-763—Martens, I. § 112—Jellinek, "Die rechtliche Natur der
Staatenverträge" (1880), p. 56—Nippold, op. cit. pp. 178-181.

No necessary Form of Treaties.

§ 507. The Law of Nations includes no rule which prescribes a necessary
form of treaties. A treaty is, therefore, concluded as soon as the mutual
consent of the parties becomes clearly apparent. Such consent must always
be given expressly, for a treaty cannot be concluded by tacit consent. But it
matters not whether an agreement is made in writing, orally, or by symbols.
Thus, in time of war, the exhibition of a white flag symbolises the proposal
of an agreement as to a brief truce for the purpose of certain negotiations,
and the acceptance of the proposal on the part of the other side by the
exhibition of a similar symbol establishes a convention as binding as any
written treaty. Thus, too, history tells of an oral treaty of alliance, secured
by an oath, concluded in 1697 at Pillau between Peter the Great of Russia
and Frederick III., Elector of Brandenburg.[864] Again, treaties are
sometimes concluded through an exchange of diplomatic notes between the
Secretaries for Foreign Affairs of two States or through the exchange of
personal letters between the heads of two States. However, as a matter of
reason, treaties usually take the form of a written[865] document signed by
duly authorised representatives of the contracting parties.
[864] See Martens, I. § 112.
[865] The only writer who nowadays insists upon a written agreement for a treaty to be valid is,
as far as I know, Bulmerincq (§ 56). But although all important treaties are naturally concluded in
writing, the example of the agreements concluded between armed forces in time of war either
orally or through symbols proves that the written form is not absolutely necessary.
 Acts, Conventions, Declarations.
§ 508. International compacts which take the form of written contracts,
are, besides Agreements or Treaties, sometimes termed Acts, sometimes
Conventions, sometimes Declarations. But there is no essential difference
between them, and their binding force upon the contracting parties is the
same whatever be their name. The Geneva Convention, the Declarations of
Paris and of London, and the Final Act of the Vienna Congress are as
binding as any agreement which goes under the name of "Treaty" or
"Convention." The attempt[866] to distinguish fundamentally between a
"Declaration" and a "Convention" by maintaining that whereas a
"Convention" creates rules of particular International Law between the
contracting States only, a "Declaration" contains the recognition, on the part
of the best qualified and most interested Powers, of rules of universal
International Law, does not stand the test of scientific criticism. A
"Declaration" is nothing else but the title of a law-making treaty according
to which the parties engage themselves to pursue in future a certain line of
conduct.[867] But such law-making treaties are quite as frequently styled
"Conventions" as "Declarations." The best example is the Hague
"Convention" concerning the laws and usages of war, which is based upon
the unratified "Declaration" concerning the laws and customs of war
produced by the Brussels Conference of 1874.
[866] On the part of the British Foreign Office, see Parliamentary Papers, Miscellaneous, No. 5
(1909), Cd. 4555, Proceedings of the International Naval Conference held in London, December
1908-1909, p. 57.
[867] See above, § 487.

Parts of Treaties.
§ 509. Since International Law lays down no rules concerning the form
of treaties, there exist no rules concerning the arrangement of the parts of
written treaties. But the following order is usually observed. A first part, the
so-called preamble, comprises the names of the heads of the contracting
States, of their duly authorised representatives, and the motives for the
conclusion of the treaty. A second part consists of the primary stipulations
in numbered articles. A third part consists of miscellaneous stipulations
concerning the duration of the treaty, its ratification, the accession of third
Powers, and the like. The last part comprises the signatures of the
representatives. But this order is by no means necessary. Sometimes, for
instance, the treaty itself does not contain the very stipulations upon which
the contracting parties have agreed, such stipulations being placed in an
annex to the treaty. It may also happen that a treaty contains secret
stipulations in an additional part, which are not made public with the bulk
of the stipulations.[868]
[868] The matter is treated with all details by Pradier-Fodéré, II. §§ 1086-1096.

V
RATIFICATION OF TREATIES

Grotius, II. c. 11, § 12—Pufendorf, III. c. 9, § 2—Vattel, II. § 156—Hall, § 110—Westlake, I.

pp. 279-280—Lawrence, § 132—Phillimore, II. § 52—Twiss, I. § 214—Halleck, I. pp. 276-
277—Taylor, §§ 364-367—Moore, V. §§ 743-756—Walker, § 30—Wharton, II. §§ 131-
131A—Wheaton, §§ 256-263—Bluntschli, §§ 420-421—Heffter, § 87—Gessner in
Holtzendorff, III. pp. 15-18—Ullmann, § 78—Bonfils, Nos. 824-831—Pradier-Fodéré, II.
Nos. 1100-1119—Mérignhac, II. pp. 652-666—Nys, III. pp. 28-36—Rivier, II. § 50—
Calvo, III. §§ 1627-1636—Fiore, II. No. 994, and Code, No. 750—Martens, I. §§ 105-108
—Wicquefort, "L'Ambassadeur et ses fonctions" (1680), II. Section XV.—Jellinek, "Die
rechtliche Natur der Staatenverträge" (1880), pp. 53-56—Nippold, op. cit. pp. 123-125—
Wegmann, "Die Ratifikation von Staatsverträgen" (1892).

Conception and Function of Ratification.

§ 510. Ratification is the term for the final confirmation given by the
parties to an international treaty concluded by their representatives.
Although a treaty is concluded as soon as the mutual consent is manifest
from acts of the duly authorised representatives, its binding force is as a
rule suspended till ratification is given. The function of ratification is,
therefore, to make the treaty binding, and, if it is refused, the treaty falls to
the ground in consequence. As long as ratification is not given, the treaty is,
although concluded, not perfect. Many writers[869] maintain that, as a treaty
is not binding without ratification, it is the latter which really contains the
mutual consent and really concludes the treaty. Before ratification, they
maintain, there is no treaty concluded, but a mere mutual proposal agreed to
to conclude a treaty. But this opinion does not accord with the real facts.[870]
For the representatives are authorised and intend to conclude a treaty by
their signatures. The contracting States have always taken the standpoint
that a treaty is concluded as soon as their mutual consent is clearly
apparent. They have always made a distinction between their consent given
by representatives and their ratification to be given afterwards, they have
never dreamt of confounding the two and considering their ratification their
consent. It is for that reason that a treaty cannot be ratified in part, that no
alterations of the treaty are possible through the act of ratification, that a
treaty may be tacitly ratified by its execution, that a treaty always is dated
from the day when it was duly signed by the representatives and not from
the day of its ratification, that there is no essential difference between such
treaties as want and such as do not want ratification.
[869] See, for instance, Ullmann, § 78; Jellinek, p. 55; Nippold, p. 123; Wegmann, p. 11.
[870] The matter is very ably discussed by Rivier, II. pp 74-76.

Rationale for the Institution of Ratification.

§ 511. The rationale for the institution of ratification is another argument
for the contention that the conclusion of the treaty by the representatives is
to be distinguished from the confirmation given by the respective States
through ratification. The reason is that States want to have an opportunity of
re-examining not the single stipulations, but the whole effect of the treaty
upon their interests. These interests may be of various kinds. They may
undergo a change immediately after the signing of the treaty by the
representatives. They may appear to public opinion in a different light from
that in which they appear to the Governments, so that the latter want to
reconsider the matter. Another reason is that treaties on many important
matters are, according to the Constitutional Law of most States, not valid
without some kind of consent of Parliaments. Governments must therefore
have an opportunity of withdrawing from a treaty in case Parliaments refuse
their recognition. These two reasons have made, and still make, the
institution of ratification a necessity for International Law.
Ratification regularly, but not absolutely, necessary.
§ 512. But ratification, although necessary in principle, is not always
essential. Although it is now a universally recognised customary rule of
International Law that treaties are regularly in need of ratification, even if
the latter was not expressly stipulated, there are exceptions to the rule. For
treaties concluded by such State functionaries[871] as have within certain
narrow limits, ipso facto by their office, the power to exercise the treaty-
making competence of their State do not want ratification, but are binding
at once when they are concluded, provided the respective functionaries have
not exceeded their powers. Further, treaties concluded by heads of States in
person do not want ratification provided that they do not concern matters in
regard to which constitutional restrictions[872] are imposed upon heads of
States. And, lastly, it may happen that the contracting parties stipulate
expressly, for the sake of a speedy execution of a treaty, that it shall be
binding at once without ratifications being necessary. Thus, the Treaty of
London of July 15, 1840, between Great Britain, Austria, Russia, Prussia,
and Turkey concerning the pacification of the Turko-Egyptian conflict was
accompanied by a secret protocol,[873] signed by the representatives of the
parties, according to which the treaty was at once, without being ratified, to
be executed. For the Powers were, on account of the victories of Mehemet
Ali, very anxious to settle the conflict as quickly as possible. But it must be
emphasised that renunciation of ratification is valid only if given by
representatives duly authorised to make such renunciation. If the
representatives have not received a special authorisation to dispense with
ratification, then renunciation is not binding upon the States which they
represent.
[871] See above, § 496.
[872] See above, § 497.
[873] See Martens, N.R.G. I. p. 163.

Length of Time for Ratification.

§ 513. No rule of International Law prescribes the length of time within
which ratification must be given or refused. If such length of time is not
specially stipulated by the contracting parties in the very treaty, a reasonable
length of time must be presumed as mutually granted. Without doubt, a
refusal to ratify must be presumed from the lapse of an unreasonable time
without ratification having been made. In most cases, however, treaties
which are in need of ratification contain nowadays a clause stipulating the
reservation of ratification, and at the same time a length of time within
which ratification should take place.

Refusal of Ratification.
§ 514. The question now requires attention whether ratification can be
refused on just grounds only or according to discretion. Formerly[874] it was
maintained that ratification could not be refused in case the representatives
had not exceeded their powers or violated their secret instructions. But
nowadays there is probably no publicist who maintains that a State is in any
case legally[875] bound not to refuse ratification. Yet many insist that a State
is, except for just reasons, in principle morally bound not to refuse
ratification. I cannot see, however, the value of such a moral in
contradistinction to a legal duty. The fact upon which everybody agrees is
that International Law does in no case impose a duty of ratification upon a
contracting party. A State refusing ratification will always have reasons for
such line of action which appear just to itself, although they may be unjust
in the eyes of others. In practice, ratification is given or withheld at
discretion. But in the majority of cases, of course, ratification is not refused.
A State which often and apparently wantonly refused ratification of treaties
would lose all credit in international negotiations and would soon feel the
consequences. On the other hand, it is impossible to lay down hard-and-fast
rules respecting just and unjust causes of refusal of ratification. The
interests at stake are so various, and the circumstances which must
influence a State are so imponderable, that it must be left to the discretion
of every State to decide the question for itself. Numerous examples of
important treaties which have not found ratification can be given. It suffices
to mention the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty between the United States and Great
Britain regarding the proposed Nicaragua Canal, signed on February 5,
1900, which was ratified with modifications by the Senate of the United
States, this being equivalent to refusal of ratification. (See below, § 517.)
[874] See Grotius, II. c. 11, § 12; Bynkershoek, "Quaestiones juris publici," II. 7; Wicquefort,
"L'Ambassadeur," II. 15; Vattel, II. § 156; G. F. von Martens, § 48.
[875] This must be maintained in spite of Wegmann's (p. 32) assertion that a customary rule of
the Law of Nations has to be recognised that ratification can not regularly be refused. The hair-
splitting scholasticism of this writer is illustrated by a comparison between his customary rule for
the non-refusal of ratification as arbitrarily constructed by himself, and the opinion which he (p.
11) emphatically defends that a treaty is concluded only by ratification.

Form of Ratification.
§ 515. No rule of International Law exists which prescribes a necessary
form of ratification. Ratification can therefore be given as well tacitly as
expressly. Tacit ratification takes place when a State begins the execution of
a treaty without expressly ratifying it. Further, ratification may be given
orally or in writing, although I am not aware of any case in which
ratification was given orally. For it is usual for ratification to take the form
of a document duly signed by the heads of the States concerned and their
Secretaries for Foreign Affairs. It is usual to draft as many documents as
there are parties to the convention, and to exchange these documents
between the parties. Sometimes the whole of the treaty is recited verbatim
in the ratifying documents, but sometimes only the title, preamble, and date
of the treaty, and the names of the signatory representatives are cited. As
ratification is the necessary confirmation only of an already existing treaty,
the essential requirement in a ratifying document is merely that it refer
clearly and unmistakably to the treaty to be ratified. The citation of title,
preamble, date, and names of the representatives is, therefore, quite
sufficient to satisfy that requirement, and I cannot agree with those writers
who maintain that the whole of the treaty ought to be recited verbatim.
Ratification by whom effected.
§ 516. Ratification is effected by those organs which exercise the treaty-
making power of the States. These organs are regularly the heads of the
States, but they can, according to the Municipal Law of some States,
delegate the power of ratification for some parts of the globe to other
representatives. Thus, the Viceroy of India is empowered to ratify treaties
with certain Asiatic monarchs in the name of the King of Great Britain and
Emperor of India, and the Governor-General of Turkestan has a similar
power for the Emperor of Russia.
In case the head of a State ratifies a treaty, although the necessary
constitutional requirements have not been previously fulfilled, as, for
instance, in the case in which a treaty has not received the necessary
approval from the Parliament of the said State, the question arises whether
such ratification is valid or null and void. Many writers[876] maintain that
such ratification is nevertheless valid. But this opinion is not correct,
because it is clearly evident that in such a case the head of the State has
exceeded his powers, and that, therefore, the State concerned cannot be held
to be bound by the treaty.[877] The conflict between the United States and
France in 1831, frequently quoted in support of the opinion that such
ratification is valid, is not in point. It is true that the United States insisted
on payment of the indemnity stipulated by a treaty which had been ratified
by the King of France without having received the necessary approval of
the French Parliament, but the United States did not maintain that the
ratification was valid; she insisted upon payment because the French
Government had admitted that such indemnity was due to her.[878]
[876] See, for instance, Martens, § 107, and Rivier, II. p. 85.
[877] See above, § 497, and Nippold, p. 147.
[878] See Wharton, II. § 131A, p. 20.
 Ratification can not be partial and conditional.
§ 517. It follows from the nature of ratification as a necessary
confirmation of a treaty already concluded that ratification must be either
given or refused, no conditional or partial ratification being possible. That
occasionally a State tries to modify a treaty in ratifying it cannot be denied,
yet conditional ratification is no ratification at all, but equivalent to refusal
of ratification. Nothing, of course, prevents the other contracting party from
entering into fresh negotiations in regard to such modifications; but it must
be emphasised that such negotiations are negotiations for a new treaty,[879]
the old treaty having become null and void through its conditional
ratification. On the other hand, no obligation exists for such party to enter
into fresh negotiations, it being a fact that conditional ratification is
identical with refusal of ratification, whereby the treaty falls to the ground.
Thus, for instance, when the United States Senate on December 20, 1900, in
consenting[880] to the ratification of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty as regards the
Nicaragua Canal, added modifying amendments, Great Britain did not
accept the amendments and considered the treaty fallen to the ground.
[879] This is the correct explanation of the practice on the part of States, which sometimes
prevails, of acquiescing, after some hesitation, in alterations proposed by a party to a treaty in
ratifying it; see examples in Pradier-Fodéré, II. No. 1104, and Calvo, III. § 1630.
[880] It is of importance to emphasise that the United States' Senate, in proposing an amendment
to a treaty before its ratification, does not, strictly speaking, ratify such treaty conditionally, since
it is the President, and not the Senate, who possesses the power of granting or refusing ratification;
see Willoughby, "The Constitutional Law of the United States" (1910), I. p. 462, note 14. The
President, however, according to article 2 of the Constitution, cannot grant ratification without the
consent of the Senate, and the proposal of an amendment to a treaty on the part of the Senate,
therefore, comprises, indirectly, the proposal of a new treaty.
Quite particular is the case of a treaty to which a greater number of States
are parties and which is only partially ratified by one of the contracting
parties. Thus France, in ratifying the General Act of the Brussels Anti-
Slavery Conference of July 2, 1890, excepted from ratification articles 21 to
23 and 42 to 61, and the Powers have acquiesced in this partial ratification,
so that France is not bound by these twenty-three articles.[881]
[881] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXII. (1897), p. 260.
But it must be emphasised that ratification is only then partial and
conditional if one or more stipulations of the treaty which has been signed
without reservation are exempted from ratification, or if an amending clause
is added to the treaty during the process of ratification. It is therefore quite
legitimate for a party who has signed a treaty with certain reservations as
regards certain articles[882] to ratify the approved articles only, and it would
be incorrect to speak in this case of a partial ratification.
[882] See below, § 519.
Again, it is quite legitimate—and one ought not in that case to speak of
conditional ratification—for a contracting party who wants to secure the
interpretation of certain terms and clauses of a treaty to grant ratification
with the understanding only that such terms and clauses should be
interpreted in such and such a way. Thus when, in 1911, opposition arose in
Great Britain to the ratification of the Declaration of London on account of
the fact that the meaning of certain terms was ambiguous and that the
wording of certain clauses did not agree with the interpretation given to
them by the Report of the Drafting Committee, the British Government
declared that they would only ratify with the understanding that the
interpretation contained in the Report should be considered as binding and
that the ambiguous terms concerned should have a determinate meaning. In
such cases ratification does not introduce an amendment or an alteration,
but only fixes the meaning of otherwise doubtful terms and clauses of the
treaty.

Effect of Ratification.
§ 518. The effect of ratification is the binding force of the treaty. But the
question arises whether the effect of ratification is retroactive, so that a
treaty appears to be binding from the date when it is duly signed by the
representatives. No unanimity exists among publicists as regards this
question. As in all important cases treaties themselves stipulate the date
from which they are to take effect, the question is chiefly of theoretical
interest. The fact that ratification imparts the binding force to a treaty seems
to indicate that ratification has regularly no retroactive effect. Different,
however, is of course the case in which the contrary is expressly stipulated
in the very treaty, and, again, the case when a treaty contains such
stipulations as shall at once be executed, without waiting for the necessary
ratification. Be this as it may, ratification makes a treaty binding only if the
original consent was not given in error or under a delusion.[883] If, however,
the ratifying State discovers such error or delusion and ratifies the treaty
nevertheless, such ratification makes the treaty binding. And the same is
valid as regards a ratification given to a treaty although the ratifying State
knows that its representatives have exceeded their powers by concluding
the treaty.
[883] See above, § 500.

VI
EFFECT OF TREATIES

Hall, § 114—Lawrence, § 134—Halleck, I. pp. 279-281—Taylor, §§ 370-373—Wharton, II. §

137—Wheaton, § 266—Bluntschli, §§ 415-416—Hartmann, § 49—Heffter, § 94—Bonfils,
Nos. 845-848—Despagnet, Nos. 447-448—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 1151-1155—
Mérignhac, II. pp. 667-672—Rivier, II. pp. 119-122—Calvo, III. §§ 1643-1648—Fiore, II.
Nos. 1008-1009, and Code, Nos. 768-778—Martens, I. §§ 65 and 114—Nippold, op. cit.
pp. 151-160.

Effect of Treaties upon Contracting Parties.

§ 519. By a treaty the contracting parties in the first place are concerned.
The effect of the treaty upon them is that they are bound by its stipulations,
and that they must execute it in all its parts. No distinction should be made
between more and less important parts of a treaty as regards its execution.
Whatever may be the importance or the insignificance of a part of a treaty,
it must be executed with good faith, for the binding force of a treaty covers
equally all its parts and stipulations. If, however, a party to a treaty
concluded between more than two parties signs it with a reservation as
regards certain articles, such party is not bound by these articles, although it
ratifies[884] the treaty.
[884] See above, § 518.

Effect of Treaties upon the Subjects of the Parties.

§ 520. It must be specially observed that the binding force of a treaty
concerns the contracting States only, and not their subjects. As International
Law is a law between States only and exclusively, treaties can have effect
upon States and can bind States only and exclusively. If treaties contain
stipulations with regard to rights and duties of the contracting States'
subjects,[885] courts, officials, and the like, these States have to take such
steps as are necessary, according to their Municipal Law, to make these
stipulations binding upon their subjects, courts, officials, and the like. It
may be that according to the Municipal Laws of some countries the official
publication of a treaty concluded by the Government is sufficient for this
purpose, but in other countries other steps are necessary, such as, for
example, special statutes to be passed by the respective Parliaments.[886]
[885] See above, § 289.
[886] The distinction between International and Municipal Law as discussed above, §§ 20-25, is
the basis from which the question must be decided whether international treaties have a direct
effect upon the officials and subjects of the contracting parties.

Effect of Changes in Government upon Treaties.

§ 521. As treaties are binding upon the contracting States, changes in the
government or even in the form of government of one of the parties can as a
rule have no influence whatever upon the binding force of treaties. Thus, for
instance, a treaty of alliance concluded by a State with constitutional
government remains valid, although the Ministry may change. And no head
of a State can shirk the obligations of a treaty concluded by his State under
the government of his predecessor. Even when a monarchy turns into a
republic, or vice versa, treaty obligations regularly remain the same. For all
such changes and alterations, important as they may be, do not alter the
person of the State which concluded the treaty. If, however, a treaty
stipulation essentially presupposes a certain form of government, then a
change from such form makes such stipulation void, because its execution
has become impossible.[887]
[887] See below, § 542. Not to be confounded with the effect of changes in government is the
effect of a change in international status upon treaties, as, for instance, if a hitherto full-sovereign
State becomes half- or part-Sovereign, or vice versa, or if a State merges entirely into another, and
the like. This is a case of succession of States which has been discussed above, §§ 82-84; see also
below, § 548.

Effect of Treaties upon third States.

§ 522. According to the principle pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt, a
treaty concerns the contracting States only; neither rights nor duties, as a
rule, arise under a treaty for third States which are not parties to the treaty.
But sometimes treaties have indeed an effect upon third States. Such an
effect is always produced when a treaty touches previous treaty rights of
third States. Thus, for instance, a commercial treaty conceding more
favourable conditions than hitherto have been conceded by the parties
thereto has an effect upon all such third States as have previously concluded
commercial treaties containing the so-called most-favoured-nation
clause[888] with one of the contracting parties.
[888] See below, § 580, but note the American interpretation of this clause.
 The question arises whether in exceptional cases third States can acquire
rights under such treaties as were specially concluded for the purpose of
creating such rights not only for the contracting parties but also for third
States. Thus, the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty between Great Britain and the
United States of 1901, and the Hay-Varilla Treaty between the United States
and Panama of 1903, stipulate that the Panama Canal to be built shall be
open to vessels of commerce and of war of all nations, although Great
Britain, the United States, and Panama only are parties.[889] Thus, further,
article 5 of the Boundary Treaty of Buenos Ayres of September 15, 1881,
stipulates that the Straits of Magellan shall be open to vessels of all nations,
although Argentina and Chili only are parties. Again, the Treaty of Paris,
signed on March 30, 1856, and annexed to the Peace Treaty of Paris of
1856, stipulates that Russia shall not fortify the Aland[890] Islands; although
this stipulation was made in the interest of Sweden, only Great Britain,
France, and Russia are parties. I believe that the question must be answered
in the negative, and nothing prevents the contracting parties from altering
such a treaty without the consent of third States, provided the latter have not
in the meantime acquired such rights through the unanimous tacit consent
of all concerned.
[889] See above, § 184.
[890] See above, § 205, p. 277, note 2.
It must be emphasised that a treaty between two States can never
invalidate a stipulation previously created by a treaty between one of the
contracting parties and a third State, unless the latter expressly consents. If,
for instance, two States have entered into an alliance and one of them
afterwards concludes a treaty with a third State, according to which all
conflicts without exception shall be settled by arbitration, the previous
treaty of alliance remains valid even in the case of war breaking out
between the third State and the other party to the alliance.[891] Therefore,
when in 1911 Great Britain contemplated entering, with the United States of
America, into a treaty of general arbitration according to which all
differences should be decided by arbitration, she notified Japan of her
intention, on account of the existing treaty of alliance, and Japan consented
to substitute for the old treaty a new treaty of alliance,[892] article 4 of which
stipulates that the alliance shall never concern a war with a third Power with
whom one of the allies may have concluded a treaty of general arbitration.
[891] See below, § 573.
 [892] See below, § 569.

VII
MEANS OF SECURING PERFORMANCE OF TREATIES

Vattel, II. §§ 235-261—Hall, § 115—Lawrence, § 134—Phillimore, II. §§ 54-63A—

Bluntschli, §§ 425-441—Heffter, §§ 96-99—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 85-90—
Ullmann, § 83—Bonfils, Nos. 838-844—Despagnet, Nos. 451-452—Pradier-Fodéré, II.
Nos. 1156-1169—Rivier, II. pp. 94-97—Nys, III. pp. 36-41—Calvo, III. §§ 1638-1642—
Fiore, II. Nos. 1018-1019, and Code, Nos. 784-791—Martens, I. § 115—Nippold, op. cit.
pp. 212-227.

What means have been in use.

§ 523. As there is no international institution which could enforce the
performance of treaties, and as history teaches that treaties have frequently
been broken, various means of securing performance of treaties have been
made use of. The more important of these means are oaths, hostages,
pledges, occupation of territory, guarantee. Nowadays these means, which
are for the most part obsolete, have no longer great importance on account
of the gratifying fact that all States are now much more conscientious and
faithful as regards their treaty obligations than in former times.
Oaths.
§ 524. Oaths are a very old means of securing the performance of
treaties, which was constantly made use of not only in antiquity and the
Middle Ages, but also in modern times. For in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries all important treaties were still secured by oaths. During the
eighteenth century, however, the custom of securing treaties by oaths
gradually died out, the last example being the treaty of alliance between
France and Switzerland in 1777, which was solemnly confirmed by the
oaths of both parties in the Cathedral at Solothurn. The employment of
oaths for securing treaties was of great value in the times of absolutism,
when little difference used to be made between the State and its monarch.
The more the distinction grew into existence between the State as the
subject of International Law on the one hand, and the monarch as the
temporary chief organ of the State on the other hand, the more such oaths
fell into disuse. For an oath can exercise its force on the individual only
who takes it, and not on the State for which it is taken.
 Hostages.
§ 525. Hostages are as old a means of securing treaties as oaths, but they
have likewise, for ordinary purposes[893] at least, become obsolete, because
they have practically no value at all. The last case of a treaty secured by
hostages is the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, in which hostages were
stipulated to be sent by England to France for the purpose of securing the
restitution of Cape Breton Island to the latter. The hostages sent were Lords
Sussex and Cathcart, who remained in France till July 1749.
[893] Concerning hostages nowadays taken in time of war, see below, vol. II. §§ 258-259.

Pledge.
§ 526. The pledging of movable property by one of the contracting
parties to the other for the purpose of securing the performance of a treaty is
possible, but has not frequently occurred. Thus, Poland is said to have
pledged her crown jewels once to Prussia.[894] The pledging of movables is
nowadays quite obsolete, although it might on occasion be revived.
[894] See Phillimore, II. § 55.

Occupation of Territory.
§ 527. Occupation of territory, such as a fort or even a whole province, as
a means of securing the performance of a treaty, has frequently been made
use of with regard to the payment of large sums of money due to a State
under a treaty. Nowadays such occupation is only resorted to in connection
with treaties of peace stipulating the payment of a war indemnity. Thus, the
preliminary peace treaty of Versailles in 1871 stipulated that Germany
should have the right to keep certain parts of France under military
occupation until the final payment of the war indemnity of five milliards of
francs.
 Guarantee.
§ 528. The best means of securing treaties, and one which is still in use
generally, is the guarantee of such other States as are not directly affected
by the treaty. Such guarantee is a kind of accession[895] to the guaranteed
treaty, and a treaty in itself—namely, the promise of the guarantor
eventually to do what is in his power to compel the contracting party or
parties to execute the treaty.[896] Guarantee of a treaty is a species only of
guarantee in general, which will be discussed below, §§ 574-576a.
[895] See below, § 532.
[896] Nippold (p. 266) proposes that a universal treaty of guarantee should be concluded
between all the members of the Family of Nations guaranteeing for the present and the future all
international treaties. I do not believe that this well-meant proposal is feasible.

VIII
PARTICIPATION OF THIRD STATES IN TREATIES

Hall, § 114—Wheaton, § 288—Hartmann, § 51—Heffter, § 88—Ullmann, § 81—Bonfils,

Nos. 832-834—Despagnet, No. 448—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 1127-1150—Rivier, II. pp.
89-93—Calvo, III. §§ 1621-1626—Fiore, II. Nos. 1025-1031—Martens, I. § 111.

Interest and Participation to be distinguished.

§ 529. Ordinarily a treaty creates rights and duties between the
contracting parties exclusively. Nevertheless, third States may be interested
in such treaties, for the common interests of the members of the Family of
Nations are so interlaced that few treaties between single members can be
concluded in which third States have not some kind of interest. But such
interest, all-important as it may be, must not be confounded with
participation of third States in treaties. Such participation can occur in five
different forms—namely, good offices, mediation, intervention, accession,
and adhesion.[897]
[897] That certain treaties concluded by the suzerain are ipso facto concluded for the vassal State
does not make the latter participate in such treaties. Nor is it correct to speak of participation of a
third State in a treaty when a State becomes party to a treaty through the fact that it has given a
mandate to another State to contract on its behalf.

Good Offices and Mediation.

§ 530. A treaty may be concluded with the help of the good offices or
through the mediation of a third State, whether these offices be asked for by
the contracting parties or be exercised spontaneously by a third State. Such
third State, however, does not necessarily, either through good offices or
through mediation, become a real party to the treaty, although this might be
the case. A great many of the most important treaties owe their existence to
the good offices or mediation of third Powers. The difference between good
offices and mediation will be discussed below, vol. II. § 9.
Intervention.
§ 531. A third State may participate in a treaty in such a way that it
interposes dictatorially between two States negotiating a treaty and requests
them to drop or to insert certain stipulations. Such intervention does not
necessarily make the interfering State a real party to the treaty. Instances of
threatened intervention of such a kind are the protest on the part of Great
Britain against the preliminary peace treaty concluded in 1878 at San
Stefano[898] between Russia and Turkey, and that on the part of Russia,
Germany, and France in 1895 against the peace treaty of Shimonoseki[899]
between Japan and China.
[898]See above, § 135, p. 190, No. 2.
[899]See R.G. II. pp. 457-463. Details concerning intervention have been given above, § 134-
138; see also below, vol. II. § 50.

Accession.
§ 532. Of accession there are two kinds. Accession means, firstly, the
formal entrance of a third State into an existing treaty so that such State
becomes a party to the treaty with all rights and duties arising therefrom.
Such accession can take place only with the consent of the original
contracting parties, and accession always constitutes a treaty of itself. Very
often the contracting parties stipulate expressly that the treaty shall be open
to the accession of a certain State. And the so-called law-making treaties, as
the Declaration of Paris or the Geneva Convention for example, regularly
stipulate the option of accession of all such States as have not been
originally contracting parties.
But there is, secondly, another kind of accession possible. For a State
may enter into a treaty between other States for the purpose of guarantee.
[900]
This kind of accession makes the acceding State also a party to the
treaty; but the rights and duties of the acceding State are different from the
rights and duties of the other parties, for the former is a guarantor only,
whereas the latter are directly affected by the treaty.
 [900] See above, § 528.

Adhesion.
§ 533. Adhesion is defined as such entrance of a third State into an
existing treaty as takes place either with regard only to a part of the
stipulations or with regard only to certain principles laid down in the treaty.
Whereas through accession a third State becomes a party to the treaty with
all the rights and duties arising from it, through adhesion a third State
becomes a party only to such parts or principles of the treaty as it has
adhered to. But it must be specially observed that the distinction between
accession and adhesion is one made in theory, to which practice frequently
does not correspond. Often treaties speak of accession of third States where
in fact adhesion only is meant, and vice versa. Thus, article 6 of the Hague
Convention with respect to the laws and customs of war on land stipulates
the possibility of future adhesion of non-signatory Powers, although
accession is meant.

IX
EXPIRATION AND DISSOLUTION OF TREATIES

Vattel, II. §§ 198-205—Hall, § 116—Westlake, I. pp. 284-286—Lawrence, § 134—Halleck, I.

pp. 293-296—Taylor, §§ 394-399—Wharton, II. § 137A—Wheaton, § 275—Moore, V. §§
770-778—Bluntschli, §§ 450-461—Heffter, § 99—Ullmann, § 85—Bonfils, Nos. 855-860
—Despagnet, Nos. 453-455—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 1200-1218—Mérignhac, II. p. 788—
Rivier, II. § 55—Nys, III. pp. 48-53—Calvo, III. §§ 1662-1668—Fiore, II. Nos. 1047-1052
—Martens, I. § 117—Jellinek, "Die rechtliche Natur der Staatenverträge" (1880), pp. 62-64
—Nippold, op. cit. pp. 235-248—Olivi, "Sull' estinzione dei trattati internazionali" (1883)
—Schmidt, "Ueber die völkerrechtliche clausula rebus sic stantibus, &c." (1907)—
Kaufmann, "Das Wesen des Völkerrechts und die clausula rebus sic stantibus" (1911)—
Bonucci in Z.V. IV. (1910), pp. 449-471.

Expiration and Dissolution in Contradistinction to Fulfilment.

§ 534. The binding force of treaties may terminate in four different ways,
because a treaty may either expire, or be dissolved, or become void, or be
cancelled.[901] The grounds of expiration of treaties are, first, expiration of
the time for which a treaty was concluded, and, secondly, occurrence of a
resolutive condition. Of grounds of dissolution of treaties there are three—
namely, mutual consent, withdrawal by notice, and vital change of
circumstances. In contradistinction to expiration and dissolution as well as
to voidance and cancellation, performance of treaties does not terminate
their binding force. A treaty whose obligation has been performed is as
valid as before, although it is now of historical interest only.
[901]The distinction made in the text between fulfilment, expiration, dissolution, voidance, and
cancellation of treaties is, as far as I know, nowhere sharply drawn, although it would seem to be
of considerable importance. Voidance and cancellation will be discussed below, §§ 540-544 and
545-549.

Expiration through Expiration of Time.

§ 535. All such treaties as are concluded for a certain period of time only,
expire with the expiration of such time, unless they are renewed or
prolonged for another period. Such time-expiring treaties are frequently
concluded, and no notice is necessary for their expirations, except when
specially stipulated.
A treaty, however, may be concluded for a certain period of time only,
but with the additional stipulation that the treaty shall after the lapse of such
period be valid for another such period, unless one of the contracting parties
gives notice in due time.
Expiration through Resolutive Condition.
§ 536. Different from time-expiring treaties are such as are concluded
under a resolutive condition, which means under the condition that they
shall at once expire with the occurrence of certain circumstances. As soon
as these circumstances arise, the treaties expire.
Mutual Consent.
§ 537. A treaty, although concluded for ever or for a period of time which
has not yet expired, may nevertheless always be dissolved by mutual
consent of the contracting parties. Such mutual consent can become
apparent in three different ways.
First, the parties can expressly and purposely declare that a treaty shall be
dissolved; this is rescission. Or, secondly, they can conclude a new treaty
concerning the same objects as those of a former treaty without any
reference to the latter, although the two treaties are inconsistent with each
other. This is substitution, and in such a case it is obvious that the treaty
previously concluded was dissolved by tacit mutual consent. Or, thirdly, if
the treaty is such as imposes obligations upon one of the contracting parties
only, the other party can renounce its rights. Dissolution by renunciation is
a case of dissolution by mutual consent, since acceptance of the
renunciation is necessary.
Withdrawal by Notice.
§ 538. Treaties, provided they are not such as are concluded for ever, may
also be dissolved by withdrawal, after notice by one of the parties. Many
treaties stipulate expressly the possibility of such withdrawal, and as a rule
contain details in regard to form and period in which notice is to be given
for the purpose of withdrawal. But there are other treaties which, although
they do not expressly stipulate the possibility of withdrawal, can
nevertheless be dissolved after notice by one of the contracting parties. To
that class belong all such treaties as are either not expressly concluded for
ever or apparently not intended to set up an everlasting condition of things.
Thus, for instance, a commercial treaty or a treaty of alliance not concluded
for a fixed period only can always be dissolved after notice, although such
notice be not expressly stipulated. Treaties, however, which are apparently
intended, or expressly concluded, for the purpose of setting up an
everlasting condition of things, and, further, treaties concluded for a certain
period of time only, are as a rule not notifiable, although they can be
dissolved by mutual consent of the contracting parties.
It must be emphasised that all treaties of peace and all boundary treaties
belong to this class. It cannot be denied that history records many cases in
which treaties of peace have not established an everlasting condition of
things, since one or both of the contracting States took up arms again as
soon as they recovered from the exhausting effect of the previous war. But
this does not prove either that such treaties can be dissolved through giving
notice, or that, at any rate as far as International Law is concerned, they are
not intended to create an everlasting condition of things.
Vital Change of Circumstances.
§ 539. Although, as just stated, treaties concluded for a certain period of
time, and such treaties as are apparently intended or expressly contracted
for the purpose of setting up an everlasting condition of things, cannot in
principle be dissolved by withdrawal of one of the parties, there is an
exception to this rule. For it is an almost universally recognised fact that
vital changes of circumstances may be of such a kind as to justify a party in
notifying an unnotifiable treaty. The vast majority of publicists, as well as
all the Governments of the members of the Family of Nations, defend the
principle Conventio omnis intelligitur rebus sic stantibus, and they agree,
[902]
therefore, that all treaties are concluded under the tacit condition rebus
sic stantibus. That this condition involves a certain amount of danger cannot
be denied, for it can be, and indeed sometimes has been, abused for the
purpose of hiding the violation of treaties behind the shield of law, and of
covering shameful wrong with the mantle of righteousness. But all this
cannot alter the fact that this exceptional condition is as necessary for
International law and international intercourse as the very rule pacta sunt
servanda. When, for example, the existence or the necessary development
of a State stands in unavoidable conflict with such State's treaty obligations,
the latter must give way, for self-preservation and development in
accordance with the growth and the necessary requirements of the nation
are the primary duties of every State. No State would consent to any such
treaty as would hinder it in the fulfilment of these primary duties. The
consent of a State to a treaty presupposes a conviction that such treaty is not
fraught with danger to its existence and development, and implies a
condition that, if by an unforeseen change of circumstances the obligations
stipulated in the treaty should imperil the said State's existence and
necessary development, the treaty, although by its nature unnotifiable,
should nevertheless be notifiable.
[902]See Bonucci in Z.V. IV. (1910), pp. 449-471. Many writers agree to it with great reluctance
only and in a very limited sense, as, for instance, Grotius, II. c. 16, § 25, No. 2; Vattel, II. § 296;
Klüber, § 165. Some few writers, however, disagree altogether, as, for instance, Bynkershoek,
"Quest. jur. public.," II. c. 10, and Wildman, "Institutes of International Law," I. (1849), p. 175.
Schmidt, op. cit. pp. 97-118, would seem to reject the clausula altogether, but can nevertheless not
help recognising it in the end. A good survey of the practice of the States in the matter during the
nineteenth century is given by Kaufmann, op. cit. pp. 12-37.
The danger of the clause rebus sic stantibus is to be found in the elastic
meaning of the term "vital changes of circumstances," as, after all, a State
must in every special case judge for itself whether or no there is a vital
change of circumstances justifying its withdrawal from an unnotifiable
treaty. On the other hand, the danger is counterbalanced by the fact that the
frequent and unjustifiable use of the clause rebus sic stantibus by a State
would certainly destroy all its credit among the nations.
Be that as it may, it is generally agreed that certainly not every change of
circumstances justifies a State in making use of the clause. All agree that,
although treaty obligations may through a change of circumstances become
disagreeable, burdensome, and onerous, they must nevertheless be
discharged. All agree, further, that a change of government and even a
change in the form of a State, such as the turning of a monarchy into a
republic and vice versa, does not alone and in itself justify a State in
notifying such a treaty as is by its nature unnotifiable. On the other hand, all
agree in regard to many cases in which the clause rebus sic stantibus could
justly be made use of. Thus, for example, if a State enters into a treaty of
alliance for a certain period of time, and if before the expiration of the
alliance a change of circumstances occurs, so that now the alliance
endangers the very existence of one of the contracting parties, all will agree
that the clause rebus sic stantibus would justify such party in notifying the
treaty of alliance.
A certain amount of disagreement as to the cases in which the clause
might or might not be justly applied will of course always remain. But the
fact is remarkable that during the nineteenth century not many cases of the
application of the clause have occurred. And the States and public opinion
everywhere have come to the conviction that the clause rebus sic stantibus
ought not to give the right to a State at once to liberate itself from the
obligations of a treaty, but only the claim to be released from these
obligations by the other parties to the treaty. Accordingly, when a State is of
the opinion that the obligations of a treaty have through a vital change of
circumstances become unbearable, it should first approach the other party
or parties and request them to abrogate the treaty. And it is only when such
abrogation is refused that a State may perhaps be justified in declaring that
it could no longer consider itself bound by the obligations concerned. Thus,
when, in 1870, during the Franco-German War, Russia declared her
withdrawal from such stipulations of the Treaty of Paris of 1856 as
concerned the neutralisation of the Black Sea and the restriction imposed
upon Russia in regard to men-of-war in that sea, Great Britain protested,
and a conference was held in London in 1871. Although by a treaty signed
on March 13, 1871, this conference, consisting of the signatory Powers of
the Treaty of Paris—namely, Austria, England, France, Germany, Italy,
Russia, and Turkey—complied with the wishes of Russia and abolished the
neutralisation of the Black Sea, it adopted in a protocol[903] of January 17,
1871, the following declaration:—"Que c'est un principe essentiel du droit
des gens qu'aucune Puissance ne peut se délier des engagements d'un traité,
ni en modifier les stipulations, qu'à la suite de l'assentiment des parties
contractantes, au moyen d'une entente amicale."
[903] See Martens, N.R.G. XVIII. p. 278.
In spite of this declaration, signed also by herself, Russia in 1886 notified
her withdrawal from article 59 of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878 stipulating
the freedom of the port of Batoum.[904] The signatory Powers of the Treaty
of Berlin seem to have tacitly consented, with the exception of Great
Britain, which protested. Again, in October 1908, Austria-Hungary, in
defiance of article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin, 1878, proclaimed her
sovereignty over Bosnia and Herzegovina, which hitherto had been under
her occupation and administration, and simultaneously Bulgaria, in defiance
of article 1 of the same treaty, declared herself independent.[905] Thus the
standard value of the Declaration of the Conference of London of 1871 has
become doubtful again.
[904] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XIV. p. 170, and Rolin-Jaequemyns in R.I. XIX. (1887), pp.
37-49.
[905]See above, § 50, p. 76; Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. p. 606; and Blociszewski in R.G.
XVII. (1910), pp. 417-449. There is hardly any doubt that, if Austria-Hungary had not ignored the
above-mentioned Declaration contained in the protocol of January 17, 1871, and had approached
the Powers in the matter, the abrogation of article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin would have been
granted and she would have been allowed to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina after having
indemnified Turkey. This is to be inferred from the fact that, when Austria-Hungary proclaimed
her sovereignty over the provinces, Turkey accepted compensation, and the Powers, which first
had protested and demanded an international conference, consented to the abrogation of the Treaty
of Berlin.

X
VOIDANCE OF TREATIES

See the literature quoted at the commencement of § 534.

Grounds of Voidance.
§ 540. A treaty, although it has neither expired nor been dissolved, may
nevertheless lose its binding force by becoming void.[906] And such voidance
may have different grounds—namely, extinction of one of the two
contracting parties, impossibility of execution, realisation of the purpose of
the treaty otherwise than by fulfilment, and, lastly, extinction of such object
as was concerned in a treaty.
 [906]But such voidance must not be confounded with the voidance of a treaty from its very
beginning; see above, § 501.

Extinction of one of the two Contracting Parties.

§ 541. All treaties concluded between two States become void through
the extinction of one of the contracting parties, provided they do not
devolve upon such State as succeeds to the extinct State. That some treaties
devolve upon the successor has been shown above (§ 82), but many treaties
do not. On this ground all political treaties, such as treaties of alliance,
guarantee, neutrality, and the like, become void.
Impossibility of Execution.
§ 542. All treaties whose execution becomes impossible subsequent to
their conclusion are thus rendered void. A frequently quoted example is that
of three States concluding a treaty of alliance and subsequent war breaking
out between two of the contracting parties. In such case it is impossible for
the third party to execute the treaty, and it becomes void.[907] It must,
however, be added that the impossibility of execution may be temporary
only, and that then the treaty is not void but merely suspended.
[907] See also above, § 521, where the case is mentioned that a treaty essentially presupposes a
certain form of government, and for this reason cannot be executed when this form of government
undergoes a change.

Realisation of Purpose of Treaty other than by Fulfilment.

§ 543. All treaties whose purpose is realised otherwise than by fulfilment
become void. For example, a treaty concluded by two States for the purpose
of inducing a third State to undertake a certain obligation becomes void if
the third State voluntarily undertakes the same obligation before the two
contracting States have had an opportunity of approaching the third State
with regard to the matter.

Extinction of such Object as was concerned in a Treaty.

§ 544. All treaties whose obligations concern a certain object become
void through the extinction of such object. Treaties, for example, concluded
in regard to a certain island become void when such island disappears
through the operation of nature, as likewise do treaties concerning a third
State when such State merges in another.
 XI
CANCELLATION OF TREATIES

See the literature quoted at the commencement of § 534.

Grounds of Cancellation.
§ 545. A treaty, although it has neither expired, nor been dissolved, nor
become void, may nevertheless lose its binding force by cancellation. The
causes of cancellation are four—namely, inconsistency with International
Law created subsequent to the conclusion of the treaty, violation by one of
the contracting parties, subsequent change of status of one of them, and war.
Inconsistency with subsequent International Law.
§ 546. Just as treaties have no binding force when concluded with
reference to an illegal object, so they lose their binding force when through
a progressive development of International Law they become inconsistent
with the latter. Through the abolition of privateering among the signatory
Powers of the Declaration of Paris of 1856, for example, all treaties
between any of these Powers based on privateering as a recognised
institution of International Law were ipso facto cancelled.[908] But it must be
emphasised that subsequent Municipal Law can certainly have no such
influence upon existing treaties. On occasions, indeed, subsequent
Municipal Law creates for a State a conflict between its treaty obligations
and such law. In such case this State must endeavour to obtain a release by
the other contracting party from these obligations.[909]
[908] This must be maintained in spite of the fact that Protocol No. 24—see Martens, N.R.G.
XV. (1857), pp. 768-769—contains the following: "Sur une observation faite par M.M. les
Plénipotentiaires de la Russie, le Congrès reconnaît que la présente résolution, ne pouvant avoir
d'effet retroactif, ne saurait invalider les Conventions antérieures." This expression of opinion can
only mean that previous treaties with such States as were not and would not become parties to the
Declaration of Paris are not ipso facto cancelled by the Declaration.
[909] That Municipal Courts must apply the subsequent Municipal Law although it conflicts
with previous treaty obligations, there is no doubt, as has been pointed out above, § 21. See The
Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall 616; Whitney v. Robertson, 124 United States 190; Botiller v.
Dominguez, 130 United States 238. See also Moore, V. § 774.

Violation by one of the Contracting Parties.

§ 547. Violation of a treaty by one of the contracting States does not ipso
facto cancel such treaty, but it is in the discretion of the other party to
cancel it on the ground of violation. There is no unanimity among writers
on International Law in regard to this point, in so far as a minority makes a
distinction between essential and non-essential stipulations of the treaty,
and maintains that violation of essential stipulations only creates a right for
the other party to cancel the treaty. But the majority of writers rightly
oppose this distinction, maintaining that it is not always possible to
distinguish essential from non-essential stipulations, that the binding force
of a treaty protects non-essential stipulations as well as essential ones, and
that it is for the faithful party to consider for itself whether violation of a
treaty, even in its least essential parts, justifies the cancelling of the treaty.
The case, however, is different when a treaty expressly stipulates that it
should not be considered broken by violation of merely one or another part
of it. And it must be emphasised that the right to cancel the treaty on the
ground of its violation must be exercised within a reasonable time after the
violation has become known. If the Power possessing such right does not
exercise it in due time, it must be taken for granted that such right has been
waived. A mere protest, such as the protest of England in 1886 when Russia
withdrew from article 59 of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878, which stipulated
the freedom of the port of Batoum, neither constitutes a cancellation nor
reserves the right of cancellation.
Subsequent Change of Status of one of the Contracting Parties.
§ 548. A cause which ipso facto cancels treaties is such subsequent
change of status of one of the contracting States as transforms it into a
dependency of another State. As everything depends upon the merits of
each case, no general rule can be laid down as regards the question when
such change of status must be considered to have taken place, or, further, as
regards the other question as to the kind of treaties cancelled by such
change.[910] Thus, for example, when a State becomes a member of a Federal
State, it is obvious that all its treaties of alliance are ipso facto cancelled, for
in a Federal State the power of making war rests with the Federal State, and
not with the several members. And the same is valid as regards a hitherto
full-Sovereign State which comes under the suzerainty of another State. On
the other hand, a good many treaties retain their binding force in spite of
such a change in the status of a State, all such treaties, namely, as concern
matters in regard to which the State has not lost its sovereignty through the
change. For instance, if the constitution of a Federal State stipulates that the
matter of extradition remains fully in the competence of the member-States,
all treaties of extradition of members concluded with third States previous
to their becoming members of the Federal State retain their binding force.
[910] See Moore, V. § 773, and above, § 82, p. 128, note 1, and § 521.

War.
§ 549. How far war is a general ground of cancellation of treaties is not
quite settled. Details on this point will be given below, vol. II. § 99.

XII
RENEWAL, RECONFIRMATION, AND REDINTEGRATION OF TREATIES

Vattel, II. § 199—Hall, § 117—Taylor, § 400—Hartmann, § 51—Ullmann, § 85—Bonfils,

Nos. 851-854—Despagnet, No. 456—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 1191-1199—Rivier, II. pp.
143-146—Calvo, III. §§ 1637, 1666, 1669—Fiore, II. Nos. 1048-1049, and Code, Nos.
835-838.

Renewal of Treaties.
§ 550. Renewal of treaties is the term for the prolongation of such treaties
before their expiration as were concluded for a definite period of time only.
Renewal can take place through a new treaty, and the old treaty may then be
renewed as a body or in parts only. But the renewal can also take place
automatically, many treaties concluded for a certain period stipulating
expressly that they are considered renewed for another period in case
neither of the contracting parties has given notice.
Reconfirmation.
§ 551. Reconfirmation is the term for the express statement made in a
new treaty that a certain previous treaty, whose validity has or might have
become doubtful, is still, and remains, valid. Reconfirmation takes place
after such changes of circumstances as might be considered to interfere with
the validity of a treaty; for instance, after a war, as regards such treaties as
have not been cancelled by the outbreak of war. Reconfirmation can be
given to the whole of a previous treaty or to parts of it only. Sometimes
reconfirmation is given in this very precise way, that a new treaty stipulates
that a previous treaty shall be incorporated in itself. It must be emphasised
that in such a case those parties to the new treaty which have not been
parties to the previous treaty do not now become so by its reconfirmation,
the latter applying to the previous contracting parties only.
Redintegration.
§ 552. Treaties which have lost their binding force through expiration or
cancellation may regain it through redintegration. A treaty becomes
redintegrated by the mutual consent of the contracting parties regularly
given in a new treaty. Thus it is usual for treaties of peace to redintegrate all
those treaties cancelled through the outbreak of war whose stipulations the
contracting parties do not want to alter.
Without doubt, redintegration does not necessarily take place exclusively
by a treaty, as theoretically it must be considered possible for the
contracting parties tacitly to redintegrate an expired or cancelled treaty by a
line of conduct which indicates apparently their intention to redintegrate the
treaty. However, I do not know of any instance of such tacit redintegration.

XIII
INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES

Grotius, II. c. 16—Vattel, II. §§ 262-322—Hall, §§ 111-112—Phillimore, II. §§ 64-95—

Halleck, I. pp. 296-304—Taylor, §§ 373-393—Walker, § 31—Wheaton, § 287—Moore, V.
§§ 763-764—Heffter, § 95—Ullmann, § 84—Bonfils, Nos. 835-837—Despagnet, No. 450
—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 1171-1189—Mérignhac, II. p. 678—Nys, III. pp. 41-43—Rivier,
II. pp. 122-125—Calvo, III. §§ 1649-1660—Fiore, II. Nos. 1032-1046, and Code, Nos.
792-816—Martens, I. § 116—Westlake, I. pp. 282-283—Pick in R.G. XVII. (1907), pp. 5-
35—Hyde in A.J. III. (1909), pp. 46-61.

Authentic Interpretation, and the Compromise Clause.

§ 553. Neither customary nor conventional rules of International Law
exist concerning interpretation of treaties. Grotius and the later authorities
applied the rules of Roman Law respecting interpretation in general to
interpretation of treaties. On the whole, such application is correct in so far
as those rules of Roman Law are full of common sense. But it must be
emphasised that interpretation of treaties is in the first instance a matter of
consent between the contracting parties. If they choose a certain
interpretation, no other has any basis. It is only when they disagree that an
interpretation based on scientific grounds can ask a hearing. And these
scientific grounds can be no other than those provided by jurisprudence.
The best means of settling questions of interpretation, provided the parties
cannot come to terms, is arbitration, as the appointed arbitrators will apply
the general rules of jurisprudence. Now in regard to interpretation given by
the parties themselves, there are two different ways open to them. They may
either agree informally upon the interpretation and execute the treaty
accordingly; or they may make an additional new treaty and stipulate
therein such interpretation of the previous treaty as they choose. In the latter
case one speaks of "authentic" interpretation in analogy with the authentic
interpretation of Municipal Law given expressly by a statute. Nowadays
treaties very often contain the so-called "compromise clause" as regards
interpretation—namely, the clause that, in case the parties should not agree
on questions of interpretation, these questions shall be settled by arbitration.
Italy and Switzerland regularly endeavour to insert that clause in their
treaties.
Rules of Interpretation which recommend themselves.
§ 554. It is of importance to enumerate some rules of interpretation[911]
which recommend themselves on account of their suitability.
[911]The whole matter of interpretation of treaties is dealt with in an admirable way by
Phillimore, II. §§ 64-95; see also Moore, V. § 763, and Wharton, II. § 133.
(1) All treaties must be interpreted according to their reasonable in
contradistinction to their literal sense. An excellent example illustrating this
rule is the following, which is quoted by several writers:—In the interest of
Great Britain the Treaty of Peace of Utrecht of 1713 stipulated in its article
9 that the port and the fortifications of Dunkirk should be destroyed and
never be rebuilt. France complied with this stipulation, but at the same time
began building an even larger port at Mardyck, a league off Dunkirk. Great
Britain protested on the ground that France in so acting was violating the
reasonable, although not the literal, sense of the Peace of Utrecht, and
France in the end recognised this interpretation and discontinued the
building of the new port.
(2) The terms used in a treaty must be interpreted according to their usual
meaning in the language of every-day life, provided they are not expressly
used in a certain technical meaning or another meaning is not apparent from
the context.
(3) It is taken for granted that the contracting parties intend something
reasonable, something adequate to the purpose of the treaty, and something
not inconsistent with generally recognised principles of International Law
nor with previous treaty obligations towards third States. If, therefore, the
meaning of a stipulation is ambiguous, the reasonable meaning is to be
preferred to the unreasonable, the more reasonable to the less reasonable,
the adequate meaning to the meaning not adequate for the purpose of the
treaty, the consistent meaning to the meaning inconsistent with generally
recognised principles of International Law and with previous treaty
obligations towards third States.
(4) The principle in dubio mitius must be applied in interpreting treaties.
If, therefore, the meaning of a stipulation is ambiguous, such meaning is to
be preferred as is less onerous for the obliged party, or as interferes less
with the parties' territorial and personal supremacy, or as contains less
general restrictions upon the parties.
(5) Previous treaties between the same parties, and treaties between one
of the parties and third parties, may be alluded to for the purpose of clearing
up the meaning of a stipulation.
(6) If there is a discrepancy between the clear meaning of a stipulation,
on the one hand, and, on the other, the intentions of one of the parties
declared during the negotiations preceding the signing of a treaty, the
decision must depend on the merits of the special case. If, for instance, the
discrepancy was produced through a mere clerical error or by some other
kind of mistake, it is obvious that an interpretation is necessary in
accordance with the real intentions of the contracting parties.
(7) In case of a discrepancy between the clear meaning of a stipulation,
on the one hand, and, on the other, the intentions of all the parties
unanimously declared during the negotiations preceding the signing of the
treaty, the meaning which corresponds to the real intentions of the parties
must prevail over the meaning of the text. If, therefore—as in the case of
the Declaration of London of 1909—the Report of the Drafting Committee
contains certain interpretations and is unanimously accepted as authoritative
by all the negotiators previous to the signing of the treaty, their
interpretations must prevail.
(8) If two meanings of a stipulation are admissible according to the text
of a treaty, such meaning is to prevail as the party proposing the stipulation
knew at the time to be the meaning preferred by the party accepting it.
 (9) If it is a matter of common knowledge that a State upholds a meaning
which is different from the generally prevailing meaning of a term, and if
nevertheless another State enters into a treaty with the former in which such
term is made use of, such meaning must prevail as is upheld by the former.
If, for instance, States conclude commercial treaties with the United States
of America in which the most-favoured-nation clause[912] occurs, the
particular meaning which the United States attribute to this clause must
prevail.
 [912] See below, § 580.
(10) If the meaning of a stipulation is ambiguous and one of the
contracting parties, at a time before a case arises for the application of the
stipulation, makes known what meaning it attributes to the stipulation, the
other party or parties cannot, when a case for the application of the
stipulation occurs, insist upon a different meaning. They ought to have
previously protested and taken the necessary steps to secure an authentic
interpretation of the ambiguous stipulation. Thus, when in 1911 it became
obvious that Germany and other continental States attributed to article 23(h)
of the Hague Regulations respecting the Laws and Usages of War on Land a
meaning different from the one preferred by Great Britain, the British
Foreign Office made the British interpretation of this article known.
(11) It is to be taken for granted that the parties intend the stipulations of
a treaty to have a certain effect and not to be meaningless. Therefore, such
interpretation is not admissible as would make a stipulation meaningless or
inefficient.
(12) All treaties must be interpreted so as to exclude fraud and so as to
make their operation consistent with good faith.
(13) The rules commonly applied by the Courts as regards the
interpretation and construction of Municipal Laws are in so far only
applicable to the interpretation and construction of treaties, and in especial
of law-making treaties, as they are general rules of jurisprudence. If,
however, they are particular rules, sanctioned only by the Municipal Law or
by the practice of the Courts of a particular country, they may not be
applied.
(14) If a treaty is concluded in two languages, for instance, a treaty
between Great Britain and France in English and French, and if there is a
discrepancy between the meaning of the two different texts, each party is
only bound by the text of its own language. But a party cannot claim any
advantage from the text of the language of the other party.

CHAPTER III
IMPORTANT GROUPS OF TREATIES

I
 IMPORTANT LAW-MAKING TREATIES

Important Law-making Treaties a product of the Nineteenth Century.

§ 555. Law-making treaties[913] have been concluded ever since
International Law came into existence. It was not until the nineteenth
century, however, that such law-making treaties existed as are of world-
wide importance. Although at the Congress at Münster and Osnabrück all
the then existing European Powers, with the exception of Great Britain,
Russia, and Poland, were represented, the Westphalian Peace of 1648, to
which France, Sweden, and the States of the German Empire were parties,
and which recognised the independence of Switzerland and the
Netherlands, on the one hand, and, on the other, the practical sovereignty of
the then existing 355 States of the German Empire, was not of world-wide
importance, in spite of the fact that it contains various law-making
stipulations. And the same may be said with regard to all other treaties of
peace between 1648 and 1815. The first law-making treaty of world-wide
importance was the Final Act of the Vienna Congress, 1815, and the last, as
yet, is the Declaration of London of 1909. But it must be particularly noted
that not all of these are pure law-making treaties, since many contain other
stipulations besides those which are law-making.
[913] Concerning the conception of law-making treaties, see above, §§ 18 and 492.

Final Act of the Vienna Congress.

§ 556. The Final Act of the Vienna Congress,[914] signed on June 9, 1815,
by Great Britain, Austria, France, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Spain, and
Sweden-Norway, comprises law-making stipulations of world-wide
importance concerning four points—namely, first, the perpetual
neutralisation of Switzerland (article 118, No. 11); secondly, free navigation
on so-called international rivers (articles 108-117); thirdly, the abolition of
the negro slave trade (article 118, No. 15); fourthly, the different classes of
diplomatic envoys (article 118, No. 16).
[914]
Martens, N.R. II. p. 379. See Angeberg, "Le congrès de Vienne et les traités de 1815" (4
vols., 1863).

Protocol of the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle.

§ 557. The Protocol of November 21 of the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle,
[915]
1818, signed by Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia,
contains the important law-making stipulation concerning the establishment
of a fourth class of diplomatic envoys, the so-called "Ministers Resident,"
to rank before the Chargés d'Affaires.
[915] Martens, N.R. IV. p. 648. See Angeberg, op. cit.

Treaty of London of 1831.

§ 558. The Treaty of London[916] of November 15, 1831, signed by Great
Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia, comprises in its article 7 the
important law-making stipulation concerning the perpetual neutralisation of
Belgium.
[916] Martens, N.R. XI. p. 390. See Descamps, "La neutralité de la Belgique" (1902).

Declaration of Paris.
§ 559. The Declaration of Paris[917] of April 13, 1856, signed by Great
Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, is a pure
law-making treaty of the greatest importance, stipulating four rules with
regard to sea warfare—namely, that privateering is abolished; that the
neutral flag covers enemy goods with the exception of contraband of war;
that neutral goods, contraband excepted, cannot be confiscated even when
sailing under the enemy flag; that a blockade must be effective to be
binding.
[917] Martens, N.R.G. XV. p. 767.
Through accession during 1856, the following other States have become
parties to this treaty: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chili, Denmark, Ecuador,
Greece, Guatemala, Hayti, Holland, Peru, Portugal, Sweden-Norway, and
Switzerland. Japan acceded in 1886, Spain and Mexico in 1907.
Geneva Convention.
§ 560. The Geneva Convention[918] of August 22, 1864, and that of July 6,
1906, are pure law-making treaties for the amelioration of the conditions of
the wounded of armies in the field. The Geneva Convention of 1864 was
originally signed only by Switzerland, Baden, Belgium, Denmark, France,
Holland, Italy, Prussia, and Spain, but in time all other civilised States have
acceded except Costa Rica, Lichtenstein, and Monaco. A treaty [919]
containing articles additional to the Geneva Convention of 1864 was signed
at Geneva on October 20, 1868, but was not ratified. A better fate was in
store for the Geneva Convention[920] of 1906, which was signed by the
delegates of thirty-five States, many of which have already granted
ratification. Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Nicaragua, Turkey, and Venezuela
have already acceded. It is of importance to emphasise that the Convention
of 1864 is not entirely replaced by the Convention of 1906, in so far as the
former remains in force between those Powers which are parties to it
without being parties to the latter. And it must be remembered that the Final
Act of the First as well as of the Second Peace Conference contains a
convention for the adaptation to sea warfare of the principles of the Geneva
Convention.
[918] Martens, N.R.G. XVIII. p. 607. See Lueder, "Die Genfer Convention" (1876), and Münzel,
"Untersuchungen über die Genfer Convention" (1901).
[919] Martens, N.R.G. XVIII. p. 612.
[920] Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. p. 323.

Treaty of London of 1867.

§ 561. The Treaty of London[921] of May 11, 1867, signed by Great
Britain, Austria, Belgium, France, Holland, Italy, Prussia, and Russia,
comprises in its article 2 the important law-making stipulation concerning
the perpetual neutralisation of Luxemburg.
[921] Martens, N.R.G. XVIII. p. 445. See Wampach, "Le Luxembourg Neutre" (1900).

Declaration of St. Petersburg.

§ 562. The Declaration of St. Petersburg[922] of November 29, 1868,
signed by Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France,
Greece, Holland, Italy, Persia, Portugal, Prussia and other German States,
Russia, Sweden-Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey—Brazil acceded later on
—is a pure law-making treaty. It stipulates that projectiles of a weight
below 400 grammes (14 ounces) which are either explosive or charged with
inflammable substances shall not be made use of in war.
[922] Martens, N.R.G. XVIII. p. 474.

Treaty of Berlin of 1878.

§ 563. The Treaty of Berlin[923] of July 13, 1878, signed by Great Britain,
Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Turkey, is law-
making with regard to Bulgaria, Montenegro, Roumania, and Servia. It is of
great importance in so far as the present phase of the solution of the Near
Eastern Question arises therefrom, although Bulgaria became full-sovereign
in 1908.
[923] Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. III. p. 449. See Mulas, "Il congresso di Berlino" (1878).
 General Act of the Congo Conference.
§ 564. The General Act of the Congo Conference[924] of Berlin of
February 26, 1885, signed by Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Belgium,
Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Spain,
Sweden-Norway, Turkey, and the United States of America, is a law-
making treaty of great importance, stipulating: freedom of commerce for all
nations within the basin of the river Congo; prohibition of slave-transport
within that basin; neutralisation of Congo Territories; freedom of navigation
for merchantmen of all nations on the rivers Congo and Niger; and, lastly,
the obligation of the signatory Powers to notify to one another all future
occupations on the coast of the African continent.
[924]
Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. X. p. 414. See Patzig, "Die afrikanische Conferenz und der
Congostaat" (1885).

Treaty of Constantinople of 1888.

§ 565. The Treaty of Constantinople[925] of October 29, 1888, signed by
Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Russia,
Spain, and Turkey, is a pure law-making treaty stipulating the permanent
neutralisation of the Suez Canal and the freedom of navigation thereon for
vessels of all nations.
[925] Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XV. p. 557. See above, § 183.

General Act of the Brussels Anti-Slavery Conference.

§ 566. The General Act of the Brussels Anti-Slavery Conference,[926]
signed on July 2, 1890, by Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, the
Congo Free State, Denmark, France,[927] Germany, Holland, Italy, Persia,
Portugal, Russia, Sweden-Norway, Spain, Turkey, the United States of
America, and Zanzibar, is a law-making treaty of great importance which
stipulates a system of measures for the suppression of the slave-trade in
Africa, and, incidentally, restrictive measures concerning the spirit-trade in
certain parts of Africa. To revise the stipulations concerning this spirit-trade
the Convention of Brussels[928] of November 3, 1906, was signed by Great
Britain, Germany, Belgium, Spain, the Congo Free State, France, Italy,
Holland, Portugal, Russia, and Sweden.
[926] Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XVI. p. 3, and XXV. p. 543. See Lentner, "Der afrikanische
Sklavenhandel und die Brüsseler Conferenzen" (1891).
[927] But France only ratified this General Act with the exclusion of certain articles.
[928] Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. I. p. 722.
 Two Declarations of the First Hague Peace Conference.
§ 567. The Final Act of the Hague Peace Conference[929] of July 29, 1899,
was a pure law-making treaty comprising three separate conventions—
namely, a convention for the peaceful adjustment of international
differences, a convention concerning the law of land warfare, and a
convention for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the
Geneva Convention of 1864,—and three Declarations—namely, a
Declaration prohibiting, for a term of five years, the discharge of projectiles
and explosives from balloons, a Declaration concerning the prohibition of
the use of projectiles the only object of which is the diffusion of
asphyxiating or deleterious gases, and a Declaration concerning the
prohibition of so-called dum-dum bullets. All these conventions, however,
and the first of these declarations have been replaced by the General Act of
the Second Hague Peace Conference, and only the last two declarations are
still in force. All the States which were represented at the Conference are
now parties to these declarations except the United States of America.
[929]Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXVI. p. 920. See Holls, "The Peace Conference at the Hague"
(1900), and Mérignhac, "La Conférence internationale de la Paix" (1900).

Treaty of Washington of 1901.

§ 568. The so-called Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of Washington[930] between
Great Britain and the United States of America, signed November 18, 1901,
although law-making between the parties only, is nevertheless of world-
wide importance, because it neutralises permanently the Panama Canal,
which is in course of construction, and stipulates free navigation thereon for
vessels of all nations.[931]
[930] Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXX. p. 631.
[931] It ought to be mentioned that article 5 of the Boundary Treaty of Buenos Ayres, signed by
Argentina and Chili on September 15, 1881—see Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XII. p. 491—contains
a law-making stipulation of world-wide importance, because it neutralises the Straits of Magellan
for ever and declares them open to vessels of all nations. See above, p. 267, note 2, and below,
vol. II. § 72.

Conventions and Declaration of Second Hague Peace Conference.

§ 568a. The Final Act of the Second Hague Peace Conference of October
18, 1907, is a pure law-making treaty of enormous importance comprising
the following thirteen conventions[932] and a declaration:—
[932]Only a greater number of States have as yet ratified the Conventions, but it is to be
expected that many more will grant ratification in the course of time.
 (1) Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. All
States represented at the Conference signed except Nicaragua, but some
signed with reservations only. Nicaragua acceded later.
(2) Convention respecting the Limitation of the Employment of Force for
the Recovery of Contract Debts, signed by Great Britain, Germany, the
United States of America, Argentina, Austria-Hungary, Bolivia, Bulgaria,
Chili, Columbia, Cuba, Denmark, San Domingo, Ecuador, Spain, France,
Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Montenegro, Norway,
Panama, Paraguay, Holland, Peru, Persia, Portugal, Russia, Salvador,
Servia, Turkey, Uruguay; China and Nicaragua acceded later. Some of the
South American States signed with reservations.
(3) Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities. All the States
represented at the Conference signed except China and Nicaragua; both,
however, acceded later.
(4) Convention concerning the Laws and Usages of War on Land. All the
States represented at the Conference signed except China, Spain, and
Nicaragua, but Nicaragua acceded later. Some States made reservations in
signing.
(5) Convention concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and
Persons in Case of War on Land. All the States represented at the
Conference signed except China and Nicaragua, but some States made
reservations. Both China and Nicaragua acceded later.
(6) Convention relative to the Status of Enemy Merchantmen at the
Outbreak of Hostilities. All the Powers represented at the Conference
signed except the United States of America, China, and Nicaragua, but the
last named acceded later. Some States made reservations in signing.
(7) Convention relative to the Conversion of Merchant Ships into War
Ships. All the Powers represented at the Conference signed except the
United States of America, China, San Domingo, Nicaragua, and Uruguay,
but Nicaragua acceded later. Turkey made a reservation in signing.
(8) Convention relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact
Mines. The majority of the States represented at the Conference signed.
China, Spain, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Portugal, Russia, and Sweden have
not signed, but Nicaragua acceded later. Some States made reservations.
 (9) Convention respecting Bombardments by Naval Forces in Time of
War. Except China, Spain, and Nicaragua all the States represented at the
Conference signed, but China and Nicaragua acceded later. Some States
made reservations.
(10) Convention for the Adaptation to Naval War of the Principles of the
Geneva Convention. All the Powers represented at the Conference signed
except Nicaragua, but some made reservations. Nicaragua acceded later.
(11) Convention relative to certain Restrictions on the Exercise of the
Right of Capture in Maritime War. All States represented at the Conference
signed except China, Montenegro, Nicaragua, and Russia, but Nicaragua
acceded later.
(12) Convention relative to the Creation of an International Prize Court.
The majority of the States represented at the Conference signed. Brazil,
China, San Domingo, Greece, Luxemburg, Montenegro, Nicaragua,
Roumania, Russia, Servia, and Venezuela have not signed, and some of the
smaller signatory Powers made a reservation with regard to the composition
of the Court according to article 15 of the Convention.
(13) Convention concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in
Naval War. All the States represented at the Conference signed except the
United States of America, China, Cuba, Spain, and Nicaragua. Some States
made reservations. But the United States of America, China, and Nicaragua
acceded later.
(14) Declaration prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives
from Balloons. Only twenty-seven of the forty-four States represented at the
Conference signed. Germany, Chili, Denmark, Spain, France, Guatemala,
Italy, Japan, Mexico, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Roumania, Russia,
Servia, Sweden, and Venezuela refused to sign, but Nicaragua acceded later.
The Declaration of London.
§ 568b. The Declaration of London[933] of February 26, 1909, concerning
the Laws of Naval War, is a pure law-making treaty of the greatest
importance. All the ten Powers represented at the Conference of London
which produced this Declaration signed[934] it—namely, Great Britain,
Germany, the United States of America, Austria-Hungary, Spain, France,
Italy, Japan, Holland, and Russia, but it is not yet ratified.
[933]On account of the opposition to the Ratification of the Declaration of London which arose
in England, the English literature on the Declaration is already very great. The more important
 books are the following:—Bowles, "Sea Law and Sea Power" (1910); Baty, "Britain and Sea
Law" (1911); Bentwich, "The Declaration of London" (1911); Bray, "British Rights at Sea"
(1911); Bate, "An Elementary Account of the Declaration of London" (1911); Civis, "Cargoes and
Cruisers" (1911); Holland, "Proposed Changes in Naval Prize Law" (1911); Cohen, "The
Declaration of London" (1911). See also Baty and Macdonell in the Twenty-sixth Report (1911) of
the International Law Association. There are also innumerable articles in periodicals.
[934] There is no doubt that the majority, if not all, of the States concerned will in time accede to
the Declaration of London.

II
ALLIANCES

Grotius, II. c. 15—Vattel, III. §§ 78-102—Twiss, I. § 246—Taylor, §§ 347-349—Wheaton, §§

278-285—Bluntschli, §§ 446-449—Heffter, § 92—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 115-
139—Ullmann, § 82—Bonfils, Nos. 871-881—Despagnet, No. 459—Mérignhac, II. p. 683
—Nys, III. pp. 554-557—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 934-967—Rivier, II. pp. 111-116—
Calvo, III. §§ 1587-1588—Fiore, II. No. 1094, and Code, Nos. 893-899—Martens, I. § 113
—Rolin-Jaequemyns in R.I. XX. (1888), pp. 5-35—Erich, "Ueber Allianzen und
Allianzverhältnisse nach heutigem Völkerrecht" (1907).

Conception of Alliances.
§ 569. Alliances in the strict sense of the term are treaties of union
between two or more States for the purpose of defending each other against
an attack in war, or of jointly attacking third States, or for both purposes.
The term "alliance" is, however, often made use of in a wider sense, and it
comprises in such cases treaties of union for various purposes. Thus, the so-
called "Holy Alliance," concluded in 1815 between the Emperors of Austria
and Russia and the King of Prussia, and afterwards joined by almost all of
the Sovereigns of Europe, was a union for such vague purposes that it
cannot be called an alliance in the strict sense of the term.
History relates innumerable alliances between the several States. They
have always played, and still play, an important part in politics. At the
present time the triple alliance between Germany, Austria, and Italy since
1879 and 1882, the alliance between Russia and France since 1899, and that
between Great Britain and Japan since 1902, renewed in 1905 and 1911, are
illustrative examples.[935]
[935]The following is the text of the Anglo-Japanese treaty of Alliance of 1911:—
The Government of Great Britain and the Government of Japan, having in view the important
changes which have taken place in the situation since the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese
agreement of the 12th August 1905, and believing that a revision of that Agreement responding to
such changes would contribute to general stability and repose, have agreed upon the following
stipulations to replace the Agreement above mentioned, such stipulations having the same object
as the said Agreement, namely:—
(a) The consolidation and maintenance of the general peace in the regions of Eastern Asia and
of India;
(b) The preservation of the common interests of all Powers in China by insuring the
independence and integrity of the Chinese Empire and the principle of equal opportunities for the
commerce and industry of all nations in China;
(c) The maintenance of the territorial rights of the High Contracting Parties in the regions of
Eastern Asia and of India, and the defence of their special interests in the said regions:—
ARTICLE I.
It is agreed that whenever, in the opinion of either Great Britain or Japan, any of the rights and
interests referred to in the preamble of this Agreement are in jeopardy, the two Governments will
communicate with one another fully and frankly, and will consider in common the measures
which should be taken to safeguard those menaced rights or interests.
ARTICLE II.
If by reason of unprovoked attack or aggressive action, wherever arising, on the part of any
Power or Powers, either High Contracting Party should be involved in war in defence of its
territorial rights or special interests mentioned in the preamble of this Agreement, the other High
Contracting Party will at once come to the assistance of its ally, and will conduct the war in
common, and make peace in mutual agreement with it.
ARTICLE III.
The High Contracting Parties agree that neither of them will, without consulting the other, enter
into separate arrangements with another Power to the prejudice of the objects described in the
preamble of this Agreement.
ARTICLE IV.
Should either High Contracting Party conclude a treaty of general arbitration with a third
Power, it is agreed that nothing in this Agreement shall entail upon such Contracting Party an
obligation to go to war with the Power with whom such treaty of arbitration is in force.
ARTICLE V.
The conditions under which armed assistance shall be afforded by either Power to the other in
the circumstances mentioned in the present Agreement, and the means by which such assistance is
to be made available, will be arranged by the Naval and Military authorities of the High
Contracting Parties, who will from time to time consult one another fully and freely upon all
questions of mutual interest.
ARTICLE VI.
The present Agreement shall come into effect immediately after the date of its signature, and
remain in force for ten years from that date.
In case neither of the High Contracting Parties should have notified twelve months before the
expiration of the said ten years the intention of terminating it, it shall remain binding until the
expiration of one year from the day on which either of the High Contracting Parties shall have
denounced it. But if, when the date fixed for its expiration arrives, either ally is actually engaged
in war, the alliance shall, ipso facto, continue until peace is concluded.
In faith whereof the undersigned, duly authorised by their respective Governments, have signed
this Agreement, and have affixed thereto their Seals.
Done in duplicate at London, the 13th day of July 1911.
 Parties to Alliance.
§ 570. Subjects of alliances are said to be full-Sovereign States only. But
the fact cannot be denied that alliances have been concluded by States
under suzerainty. Thus, the convention of April 16, 1877, between
Roumania, which was then under Turkish suzerainty, and Russia,
concerning the passage of Russian troops through Roumanian territory in
case of war with Turkey, was practically a treaty of alliance.[936] Thus,
further, the former South African Republic, although, at any rate according
to the views of the British Government, a half-Sovereign State under British
suzerainty, concluded an alliance with the former Orange Free State by
treaty of March 17, 1897.[937]
[936] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. III. p. 182.
[937] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXV. p. 327.

A neutralised State can be the subject of an alliance for the purpose of

defence, whereas the entrance into an offensive alliance on the part of such
State would involve a breach of its neutrality.

Different kinds of Alliances.

§ 571. As already mentioned, an alliance may be offensive or defensive,
or both. All three kinds may be either general alliances, in which case the
allies are united against any possible enemy whatever, or particular
alliances against one or more individual enemies. Alliances, further, may be
either permanent or temporary, and in the latter case they expire with the
period of time for which they were concluded. As regards offensive
alliances, it must be emphasised that they are valid only when their object is
not immoral.[938]
[938] See above, § 505.

Conditions of Alliances.
§ 572. Alliances may contain all sorts of conditions. The most important
are the conditions regarding the assistance to be rendered. It may be that
assistance is to be rendered with the whole or a limited part of the military
and naval forces of the allies, or with the whole or a limited part of their
military or with the whole or a limited part of their naval forces only.
Assistance may, further, be rendered in money only, so that one of the allies
is fighting with his forces while the other supplies a certain sum of money
for their maintenance. A treaty of alliance of such a kind must not be
confounded with a simple treaty of subsidy. If two States enter into a
convention that one of the parties shall furnish the other permanently in
time of peace and war with a limited number of troops in return for a certain
annual payment, such convention is not an alliance, but a treaty of subsidy
only. But if two States enter into a convention that in case of war one of the
parties shall furnish the other with a limited number of troops, be it in return
for payment or not, such convention really constitutes an alliance. For every
convention concluded for the purpose of lending succour in time of war
implies an alliance. It is for this reason that the above-mentioned[939] treaty
of 1877 between Russia and Roumania concerning the passage of Russian
troops through Roumanian territory in case of war against Turkey was
really a treaty of alliance.
[939] See above, § 570.

Casus Fœderis.
§ 573. Casus fœderis is the event upon the occurrence of which it
becomes the duty of one of the allies to render the promised assistance to
the other. Thus in case of a defensive alliance the casus fœderis occurs
when war is declared or commenced against one of the allies. Treaties of
alliance very often define precisely the event which shall be the casus
fœderis, and then the latter is less exposed to controversy. But, on the other
hand, there have been many alliances concluded without such
specialisation, and, consequently, disputes have arisen later between the
parties as to the casus fœderis.
That the casus fœderis is not influenced by the fact that a State,
subsequent to entering into an alliance, concludes a treaty of general
arbitration with a third State, has been pointed out above, § 522.

III
TREATIES OF GUARANTEE AND OF PROTECTION

Vattel, II. §§ 235-239—Hall, § 113—Phillimore, II. §§ 56-63—Twiss, I. § 249—Halleck, I. p.

285—Taylor, §§ 350-353—Wheaton, § 278—Bluntschli, §§ 430-439—Heffter, § 97—
Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 85-112—Liszt, § 22—Ullmann, § 83—Fiore, Code, Nos.
787-791—Bonfils, Nos. 882-893—Despagnet, No. 461—Mérignhac, II. p. 681—Nys, III.
pp. 36-41—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 969-1020—Rivier, II. pp. 97-105—Calvo, III. §§ 1584-
1585—Martens, I. § 115—Neyron, "Essai historique et politique sur les garanties" (1779)
—Milovanovitch, "Des traités de garantie en droit international" (1888)—Erich, "Ueber
 Allianzen und Allianzverhältnisse nach heutigem Völkerrecht" (1907)—Quabbe, "Die
völkerrechtliche Garantie" (1911).

Conception and Object of Guarantee Treaties.

§ 574. Treaties of guarantee are conventions by which one of the parties
engages to do what is in its power to secure a certain object to the other
party. Guarantee treaties may be mutual or unilateral. They may be
concluded by two States only, or by a number of States jointly, and in the
latter case the single guarantors may give their guarantee severally or
collectively or both. And the guarantee may be for a certain period of time
only or permanent.
The possible objects of guarantee treaties are numerous.[940] It suffices to
give the following chief examples: the performance of a particular act on
the part of a certain State, as the discharge of a debt or the cession of a
territory; certain rights of a State; the undisturbed possession of the whole
or a particular part of the territory; a particular form of Constitution; a
certain status, as permanent neutrality[941] or independence[942] or
integrity[943]; a particular dynastic succession; the fulfilment of a treaty
concluded by a third State.
[940] The important part that treaties of guarantee play in politics may be seen from a glance at
Great Britain's guarantee treaties. See Munro, "England's Treaties of Guarantee," in The Law
Magazine and Review, VI. (1881), pp. 215-238.
[941] See above, § 95.
[942] Thus Great Britain, France, and Russia have guaranteed, by the Treaty with Denmark of
July 13, 1863, the independence (but also the monarchy) of Greece (Martens, N.R.G. XVII. Part.
II. p. 79). The United States of America has guaranteed the independence of Cuba by the Treaty of
Havana of May 22, 1903 (Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXII. p. 79), and of Panama by the Treaty
of Washington of November 18, 1903 (Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXI. p. 599).
[943] Thus the integrity of Norway is guaranteed by Great Britain, Germany, France, and Russia
by the Treaty of Christiania of November 2, 1907; see Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. p. 9. A
condition of this integrity is that Norway does not cede any part of her territory to any foreign
Power.
 Effect of Treaties of Guarantee.
§ 575. The effect of guarantee treaties is the creation of the duty of the
guarantors to do what is in their power in order to secure the guaranteed
objects. The compulsion to be applied by a guarantor for that purpose
depends upon the circumstances; it may eventually be war. But the duty of
the guarantor to render, even by compulsion, the promised assistance to the
guaranteed depends upon many conditions and circumstances. Thus, first,
the guaranteed must request the guarantor to render assistance. When, for
instance, the possession of a certain part of its territory is guaranteed to a
State which after its defeat in a war with a third State agrees as a condition
of peace to cede such piece of territory to the victor without having
requested the intervention of the guarantor, the latter has neither a right nor
a duty to interfere. Thus, secondly, the guarantor must at the critical time be
able to render the required assistance. When, for instance, its hands are tied
through waging war against a third State, or when it is so weak through
internal troubles or other factors that its interference would expose it to a
serious danger, it is not bound to fulfil the request for assistance. So too,
when the guaranteed has not complied with previous advice given by the
guarantor as to the line of its behaviour, it is not the guarantor's duty to
render assistance afterwards.
It is impossible to state all the circumstances and conditions upon which
the fulfilment of the duty of the guarantor depends, as every case must be
judged upon its own merits. And it is certain that, more frequently than in
other cases, changes in political constellations and the general
developments of events may involve such vital change of circumstances as
to justify[944] a State in refusing to interfere in spite of a treaty of guarantee.
It is for this reason that treaties of guarantee to secure permanently a certain
object to a State are naturally of a more or less precarious value to the latter.
The practical value, therefore, of a guarantee treaty, whatever may be its
formal character, would as a rule seem to extend to the early years only of
its existence while the original conditions still obtain.
[944] See above, § 539.

Effect of Collective Guarantee.

§ 576. In contradistinction to treaties constituting a guarantee on the part
of one or more States severally, the effect of treaties constituting a
collective guarantee on the part of several States requires special
consideration. On June 20, 1867, Lord Derby maintained[945] in the House of
Lords concerning the collective guarantee by the Powers of the
neutralisation of Luxemburg that in case of a collective guarantee each
guarantor had only the duty to act according to the treaty when all the other
guarantors were ready to act likewise; that, consequently, if one of the
guarantors themselves should violate the neutrality of Luxemburg, the duty
to act according to the treaty of collective guarantee would not accrue to the
other guarantors. This opinion is certainly not correct,[946] and I do not know
of any publicist who would or could approve of it. There ought to be no
doubt that in a case of collective guarantee one of the guarantors alone
cannot be considered bound to act according to the treaty of guarantee. For
a collective guarantee can have the meaning only that the guarantors should
act in a body. But if one of the guarantors themselves violates the object of
his own guarantee, the body of the guarantors remains, and it is certainly
their duty to act against such faithless co-guarantor. If, however, the
majority,[947] and therefore the body of the guarantors, were to violate the
very object of their guarantee, the duty to act against them would not accrue
to the minority.
[945] Hansard, vol. 183, p. 150.
[946] See Hall, § 113; Bluntschli, § 440; and Quabbe, op. cit. pp. 149-159.
[947] See against this statement Quabbe, op. cit. p. 158.

Different, however, is the case in which a number of Powers have

collectively and severally guaranteed a certain object. Then, not only as a
body but also individually, it is their duty to interfere in any case of
violation of the object of guarantee.
Pseudo-Guarantees.
§ 576a. Different from real Guarantee Treaties are such treaties as
declare the policy of the parties with regard to the maintenance of their
territorial status quo. Whereas treaties guaranteeing the maintenance of the
territorial status quo engage the guarantors to do what they can to maintain
such status quo, treaties declaring the policy of the parties with regard to
the maintenance of their territorial status quo do not contain any legal
engagements, but simply state the firm resolution of the parties to uphold
the status quo. In contradistinction to real guarantee treaties, such treaties
declaring the policy of the parties may fitly be called Pseudo-Guarantee
Treaties, and although their political value is very great, they have scarcely
any legal importance. For the parties do not bind themselves to pursue a
policy for maintaining the status quo, they only declare their firm resolution
to that end. Further, the parties do not engage themselves to uphold the
status quo, but only to communicate with one another, in case the status
quo is threatened, with a view to agreeing upon such measures as they may
consider advisable for the maintenance of the status quo. To this class of
pseudo-guarantee treaties belong:—
(1) The Declarations[948] exchanged on May 16, 1907, between France
and Spain on the one hand, and, on the other hand, between Great Britain
and Spain, concerning the territorial status quo in the Mediterranean. Each
party declares that its general policy with regard to the Mediterranean is
directed to the maintenance of the territorial status quo, and that it is
therefore resolved to preserve intact its rights over its insular and maritime
possessions within the Mediterranean. Each party declares, further, that,
should circumstances arise which would tend to alter the existing territorial
status quo, it will communicate with the other party in order to afford it the
opportunity to concert, if desired, by mutual agreement the course of action
which the two parties shall adopt in common.
[948] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXV. p. 692, and 3rd Ser. I. p. 3.
(2) The Declarations[949] concerning the maintenance of the territorial
status quo in the North Sea, signed at Berlin on April 23, 1908, by Great
Britain, Germany, Denmark, France, Holland, and Sweden, and concerning
the maintenance of the territorial status quo in the Baltic, signed at St.
Petersburg, likewise on April 23, 1908, by Germany, Denmark, Russia, and
Sweden. The parties declare their firm resolution to preserve intact the
rights of all the parties over their continental and insular possessions within
the region of the North Sea, and of the Baltic respectively. And the parties
concerned further declare that, should the present territorial status quo be
threatened by any events whatever, they will enter into communication with
one another with a view to agreeing upon such measures as they may
consider advisable in the interest of the maintenance of the status quo.
[949] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. I. pp. 17 and 18.
There is no doubt that the texts of the Declarations concerning the status
quo in the North Sea and the Baltic stipulate a stricter engagement of the
respective parties than the texts of the Declarations concerning the status
quo in the Mediterranean, but neither[950] of them comprises a real legal
guarantee.
[950]
Whereas Quabbe (p. 97, note 1), correctly denies the character of a real guarantee to the
Declarations concerning the Mediterranean, he (p. 105) considers the Declarations concerning the
North Sea and the Baltic real Guarantee Treaties.

Treaties of Protection.
§ 577. Different from guarantee treaties are treaties of protection.
Whereas the former constitute the guarantee of a certain object to the
guaranteed, treaties of protection are treaties by which strong States simply
engage to protect weaker States without any guarantee whatever. A treaty of
protection must, however, not be confounded with a treaty of protectorate.
[951]
[951] See above, § 92.

IV
COMMERCIAL TREATIES

Taylor, 354—Moore, V. §§ 765-769—Melle in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 143-256—Liszt, § 28—

Ullmann, § 145—Bonfils, No. 918—Despagnet, No. 462—Pradier-Fodéré, IV. Nos. 2005-
2033—Mérignhac, II. pp. 688-693—Rivier, I. pp. 370-374—Fiore, II. Nos. 1065-1077, and
Code, Nos. 848-854—Martens, II. §§ 52-55—Steck, "Versuch über Handels- und
Schiffahrtsverträge" (1782)—Schraut, "System der Handelsverträge und der
Meistbegünstigung" (1884)—Veillcovitch, "Les traités de commerce" (1892)—Nys, "Les
origines du droit international" (1894), pp. 278-294—Herod, "Favoured Nation Treatment"
(1901)—Calwer, "Die Meistbegünstigung in den Vereinigten Staaten von Nord-America"
(1902)—Glier, "Die Meistbegünstigungs-Klausel" (1906)—Cavaretta, "La clausola della
natiozione più favorita" (1906)—Barclay, "Problems of International Law and Diplomacy"
(1907), pp. 137-142—Hornbeck, "The Most-Favoured Nation Clause" (1910), and in A.J.
III. (1909), pp. 394-422, 619-647, and 798-827—Lehr in R.I. XXV. (1893), pp. 313-316—
Visser in R.I. 2nd Ser. IV. (1902), pp. 66-87, 159-177, and 270-280—Lehr in R.I. 2nd Ser.
XII. (1910), pp. 657-668—Shepheard in The Journal of the Society of Comparative
Legislation, New Series, III. (1901), pp. 231-237, and V. (1903), pp. 132-136—Oppenheim
in The Law Quarterly Review, XXIV. (1908), pp. 328-334.

Commercial Treaties in General.

§ 578. Commercial treaties are treaties concerning the commerce and
navigation of the contracting States and concerning the subjects of these
States who are engaged in commerce and navigation. Incidentally, however,
they also contain clauses concerning consuls and various other matters.
They are concluded either for a limited or an unlimited number of years,
and either for the whole territory of one or either party or only for a part of
such territory—e.g., by Great Britain for the United Kingdom alone, or for
Canada alone, and the like. All full-Sovereign States are competent to enter
into commercial treaties, but it depends upon the special case whether half-
and part-Sovereign States are likewise competent. Although competent to
enter upon commercial treaties, a State may, by an international compact, be
restricted in its freedom with regard to its commercial policy. Thus,
according to articles 1 to 5 of the General Act of the Berlin Congo
Conference of February 26, 1885, all the Powers which have possessions in
the Congo district must grant complete freedom of commerce to all nations.
Again, to give another example, France and Germany are by article 11 of
the Peace of Frankfort of May 10, 1871, compelled to grant one another
most-favoured-nation treatment in their commercial relations, in so far as
favours which they grant to Great Britain, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland,
Austria, and Russia are concerned.
The details of commercial treaties are for the most part purely technical
and are, therefore, outside the scope of a general treatise on International
Law. There are, however, two points of great importance which require
discussion—namely, the meaning of coasting trade and of the most-
favoured-nation clause.
Meaning of Coasting Trade in Commercial Treaties.
§ 579. The meaning of the term coasting-trade[952] in commercial treaties
must not be confounded with its meaning in International Law generally.
The meaning of the term in International Law becomes apparent through its
synonym cabotage—that is, navigation from cape to cape along the coast
combined with trading between the ports of the coast concerned without
going out into the Open Sea. Therefore, trade between Marseilles and Nice,
between Calais and Havre, between London and Liverpool, and between
Dublin and Belfast is coasting-trade, but trade between Marseilles and
Havre, and between London and Dublin is not. It is a universally recognised
rule[953] of International Law that every littoral State can exclude foreign
merchantmen from the cabotage within its maritime belt. Cabotage is the
contrast to the over-sea[954] carrying trade, and has nothing to do with the
question of free trade from or to a port on the coast to or from a port abroad.
This question is one of commercial policy, and International Law does not
prevent a State from restricting to vessels of its subjects the export from or
the import to its ports, or from allowing such export or import under certain
conditions only.
[952] See Oppenheim in The Law Quarterly Review, XXIV. (1908), pp. 328-334.
[953] See above, § 187.
[954] It must be emphasised that navigation and trade from abroad to several ports of the same
coast successively—for instance, from Dover to Calais and then to Havre—is not coasting-trade
but over-sea trade, provided that all the passengers and cargo are shipped from abroad.
There is no doubt that originally the meaning of coasting-trade in
commercial treaties was identical with its meaning in International Law
generally, but there is likewise no doubt that the practice of the States gives
now a much more extended meaning to the term coasting-trade as used in
commercial treaties. Thus France distinguishes between cabotage petit and
grand; whereas petit cabotage is coasting-trade between ports in the same
sea, grand cabotage is coasting-trade between a French port situated in the
Atlantic Ocean and a French port situated in the Mediterranean, and—
according to a statute of September 21, 1793—both grand and petit
cabotage are exclusively reserved for French vessels. Thus, further, the
United States of America has always considered trade between one of her
ports in the Atlantic Ocean and one in the Pacific to be coasting-trade, and
has exclusively reserved it for vessels of her own subjects; she considers
such trade coasting-trade even when the carriage takes place not exclusively
by sea around Cape Horn, but partly by sea and partly by land through the
Isthmus of Panama. Great Britain has taken up a similar attitude. Section 2
of the Navigation Act of 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 29) enacted "that no goods
or passengers shall be carried coastwise from one part of the United
Kingdom to another, or from the Isle of Man to the United Kingdom, except
in British ships," and thereby declared trade between a port of England or
Scotland to a port of Ireland or the Isle of Man to be coasting-trade
exclusively reserved for British ships in spite of the fact that the Open Sea
flows between these ports. And although the Navigation Act of 1849 is no
longer in force, and this country now does admit foreign ships to its
coasting-trade, it nevertheless still considers all trade between one port of
the United Kingdom and another to be coasting-trade, as becomes apparent
from Section 140 of the Customs Laws Consolidation Act of July 24, 1876
(39 & 40 Vict. c. 36). Again, Germany declared by a statute of May 22,
1881, coasting-trade to be trade between any two German ports, and
reserved it for German vessels, although vessels of such States can be
admitted as on their part admit German vessels to their own coasting-trade.
Thus trade between Koenigsberg in the Baltic and Hamburg in the North
Sea is coasting-trade.
These instances are sufficient to demonstrate that an extension of the
original meaning of coasting-trade has really taken place and has found
general recognition. A great many commercial treaties have been concluded
between such countries as established that extension of meaning and others,
and these commercial treaties no doubt make use of the term coasting-trade
in this its extended meaning. It must, therefore, be maintained that the term
coasting-trade or cabotage as used in commercial treaties has acquired the
following meaning: Sea-trade between any two ports of the same country
whether on the same coast or different coasts, provided always that the
different coasts are all of them the coasts of one and the same country as a
political and geographical unit in contradistinction to the coasts of
Colonial dependencies of such country.
In spite of this established extension of the term coasting-trade, it did not
include colonial trade until nearly the end of the nineteenth century.[955]
Indeed, when Russia, by ukase of 1897, enacted that trade between any of
her ports should be considered coasting trade and be reserved for Russian
vessels, this did not comprise a further extension of the conception of
coasting-trade. The reason is that Russia, although her territory extends
over different parts of the globe, is a political and geographical unit, and
there is one stretch of territory only between St. Petersburg and
Vladivostock. But when, in 1898 and 1899, the United States of America
declared trade between any of her ports and those of Porto Rico, the
Philippines, and the Hawaiian Islands to be coasting-trade, and
consequently reserved it exclusively for American vessels, the distinction
between coasting-trade and over-sea or colonial trade fell to the ground. It
is submitted that this American extension of the conception of coasting-
trade as used in her commercial treaties before 1898 is inadmissible[956] and
contains a violation of the treaty rights of the other contracting parties.
Should these parties consent to the American extension of the meaning of
coasting-trade, and should other countries follow the American lead and
apply the term coasting-trade indiscriminately to trade along their coasts
and to their colonial trade, the meaning of the term would then become
trade between any two ports which are under the sovereignty of the same
State. The distinction between coasting-trade and colonial trade would then
become void, and the last trace of the synonymity between coasting-trade
and cabotage would have disappeared.
[955] See details in Oppenheim, loc. cit. pp. 331-332, but it is of value to draw attention here to a
French statute of April 2, 1889. Whereas a statute of April 9, 1866, had thrown open the trade
between France and Algeria to vessels of all nations, article 1 of the statute of April 2, 1889,
enacts: La navigation entre la France et l'Algérie ne pourra s'effectuer que sous pavillon français.
This French statute does not, as is frequently maintained, declare the trade between France and
Algeria to be coasting-trade, but it nevertheless reserves such trade exclusively for French vessels.
The French Government, in bringing the bill before the French Parliament, explained that the
statute could not come into force before February 1, 1892, because art. 2 of the treaty with
Belgium of May 14, 1882, and art. 21 of the treaty with Spain of February 6, 1882—both treaties
to expire on February 1, 1892—stipulated the same treatment for Belgian and Spanish as for
French vessels, cabotage excepted. It is quite apparent that, if France had declared trade between
French and Algerian ports to be coasting-trade in the meaning of her commercial treaties, the
expiration of the treaties with Belgium and Spain need not have been awaited for putting the law
of April 2, 1889, into force.
[956] In the case of Huus v. New York and Porto Rico Steamship Co. (1901), 182 United States
392, the Court was compelled to confirm the extension of the term coasting-trade to trade between
any American port and Porto Rico, because this extension was recognised by section 9 of the
Porto Rican Act, and because in case of a conflict between Municipal and International Law—see
above, § 21—the Courts are bound to apply their Municipal Law.

Meaning of most-favoured-nation Clause.

§ 580. Most of the commercial treaties of the nineteenth century contain
a stipulation which is characterised as the most-favoured-nation clause. The
wording of this clause is by no means the same in all treaties, and its
general form has therefore to be distinguished from several others which are
more specialised in their wording. According to the most-favoured-nation
clause in its general form, all favours which either contracting party has
granted in the past or will grant in the future to any third State must be
granted to the other party. But the real meaning of this clause in its general
form has ever been controverted since the United States of America entered
into the Family of Nations and began to conclude commercial treaties
embodying the clause. Whereas in former times the clause was considered
obviously to have the effect of causing all favours granted to any one State
at once and unconditionally to accrue to all other States having most-
favoured-nation treaties with the grantor, the United States contended that
these favours could accrue to such of the other States only as fulfilled the
same conditions under which these favours had been allowed to the
grantee. The majority of the commercial treaties of the United States,
therefore, do not contain the most-favoured-nation clause in its general
form, but in what is called its conditional, qualified, or reciprocal, form. In
this form it stipulates that all favours granted to third States shall accrue to
the other party unconditionally, in case the favours have been allowed
unconditionally to the grantee, but only under the same compensation, in
case they have been granted conditionally. The United States, however, has
always upheld the opinion, and the supreme Court of the United States has
confirmed[957] this interpretation, that, even if a commercial treaty contains
the clause in its general, and not in its qualified, form, it must always be
interpreted as though it were worded in its qualified form.
[957] See Bartram v. Robertson, 122 United States 116, and Whitney v. Robertson, 124 United
States 190.
Now nobody doubts that according to the qualified form of the clause a
favour granted to any State can only accrue to other States having most-
favoured-nation treaties with the grantor, provided they fulfil the same
conditions and offer the same compensations as the grantee. Again, nobody
doubts that, if the clause is worded in its so-called unconditional form
stipulating the accrument of a favour to other States whether it was allowed
to the grantee gratuitously or conditionally against compensation, all
favours granted to any State accrue immediately and without condition to
all the other States. However, as regards the clause in its general form, what
might, broadly speaking, be called the European is confronted by the
American interpretation. This American interpretation is, I believe,
unjustifiable, although it is of importance to mention that two European
writers of such authority as Martens (II. p. 225) and Westlake (I. p. 283)
approve of it.
It has been suggested[958] that the controversy should be brought before
the Hague Court of Arbitration, yet the United States will never consent to
this. Those States which complain of the American interpretation had
therefore better notify their commercial treaties with the United States and
insert in new treaties the most-favoured-nation clause in such a form as puts
matters beyond all doubt. So much is certain, a State that at present enters
upon a commercial treaty with the United States comprising the clause in its
general form cannot complain[959] of the American interpretation, which,
whatever may be its merits, is now a matter of common knowledge.[960]
[958] See Barclay, op. cit. pp. 142 and 159.
[959] See above, § 554, No. 9.
[960] It is not possible in a general treatise on International Law to enter into the details of the
history, the different forms, the application, and the interpretation of the most-favoured-nation
clause. Readers must be referred for further information to the works and articles of Calwer,
 Herod, Glier, Cavaretta, Visser, Melle, and others quoted above before § 578. See also Moore, V.
§§ 765-769.
V
UNIONS CONCERNING COMMON NON-POLITICAL INTERESTS
Nys, II. pp. 264-270—Mérignhac, II. pp. 694-731—Descamps, "Les offices internationaux et
leur avenir" (1894)—Moynier, "Les Bureaux internationaux des unions universelles"
(1892)—Poinsard, "Les Unions et ententes internationales" (2nd ed. 1901)—Renault in
R.G. III. (1896), pp. 14-26—Reinsch, "Public International Unions" (1911), and in A.J. I.
pp. 579-623, and III. pp. 1-45.

Object of the Unions.

§ 581. The development of international intercourse has called into
existence innumerable treaties for the purpose of satisfying economic and
other non-political interests of the several States. Each nation concludes
treaties of commerce, of navigation, of extradition, and of many other kinds
with most of the other nations, and tries in this way, more or less
successfully, to foster its own interests. Many of these interests are of such a
particular character and depend upon such individual circumstances and
conditions that they can only be satisfied and fostered by special treaties
from time to time concluded by each State with other States. Yet experience
has shown that the several States have also many non-political interests in
common which can better be satisfied and fostered by a general treaty
between a great number of States than by special treaties singly concluded
between the several parties. Therefore, since the second half of the
nineteenth century, such general treaties have more and more come into
being, and it is certain that their number will in time increase. Each of these
treaties creates what is called a Union among the contracting parties, since
these parties have united for the purpose of settling certain subjects in
common. The number of States which are members of these Unions varies,
of course, and whereas some of them will certainly become in time
universal in the same way as the Universal Postal Union, others will never
reach that stage. But all the treaties which have created these Unions are
general treaties because a lesser or greater number of States are parties, and
these treaties have created so-called Unions, although the term "Union" is
not always made use of.[961]
[961] A general treatise on Public International Law cannot attempt to go into the details of these
Unions; it is really a matter for monographs or for a treatise on International Administrative Law,
such as Neumayer's "Internationales Verwaltungsrecht," which is to comprise three volumes, and
of which the first volume appeared in 1910. See also Reinsch, "Public International Unions"
(1911).
 Post and Telegraphs.
§ 582. Whereas previously the States severally concluded treaties
concerning postal and telegraphic arrangements, they entered into Unions
for this purpose during the second part of the nineteenth century:—
(1) Twenty-one States entered on October 9, 1874, at Berne, into a
general postal convention[962] for the purpose of creating a General Postal
Union. This General turned into the Universal Postal Union through the
Convention of Paris[963] of June 1, 1878, to which thirty States were parties.
This convention has several times been revised by the congresses of the
Union, which have to meet every five years. The last revision took place at
the Congress of Rome, 1906, where, on May 26, a new Universal Postal
Convention[964] was signed by all the members of the Family of Nations for
themselves and their colonies and dependencies. This Union possesses an
International Office seated at Berne.[965]
[962] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. I. p. 651.
[963] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. III. p. 699.
[964] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. I. p. 355.
[965] See Fischer, "Post und Telegraphie im Weltverkehr" (1879); Schröter, "Der
Weltpostverein" (1900); Rolland, "De la correspondance postale et télégraphique dans les
relations internationales" (1901).
(2) A general telegraphic convention was concluded at Paris already on
May 17, 1865, and in 1868 an International Telegraph Office[966] was
instituted at Berne. In time more and more States joined, and the basis of
the Union is now the Convention of St. Petersburg[967] of July 22, 1875,
which has been amended several times, the last time at Lisbon on June 11,
1908. That the Union will one day become universal there is no doubt, but
as yet, although called "Universal" Telegraphic Union, only about thirty
States are members.
[966] See above, § 464, and Fischer "Die Telegraphie und das Völkerrecht" (1876).
[967] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. III. p. 614.
(3) Concerning the general treaty of March 14, 1884, for the protection of
submarine telegraph cables,[968] see above, § 287.
[968] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XI. p. 281.
(4) A general radio-telegraphic convention[969] was signed by twenty-
seven States on November 3, 1906, at Berlin. This Union has an
International Office at Berne which is combined with that of the Universal
Telegraph Union.
 [969]See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. III. p. 147, and above, § 174, No. 2, and §§ 287a and 287b,
where the literature concerned is also to be found.

Transport and Communication.

§ 583. Two general conventions are in existence in the interest of
transport and communication:—
(1) A general convention[970] was concluded on October 14, 1890, at
Berne concerning railway transports and freights. The parties—namely,
Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Luxemburg,
Russia, and Switzerland—form a Union for this purpose, although the term
"Union" is not made use of. The Union possesses an International Office[971]
at Berne, which issues the Zeitschrift für den internationalen Eisenbahn
transport and the Bulletin des transports internationaux par chemins de fer.
Denmark, Roumania, and Sweden acceded to this Union some time after its
conclusion.
[970] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XIX. p. 289.
[971] See above, § 470, and Kaufmann, "Die mitteleuropäischen Eisenbahnen und das
internationale öffentliche Recht" (1893); Rosenthal, "Internationales Eisenbahnfrachtrecht"
(1894); Magne, "Des raccordements internationaux de chemins de fer, &c." (1901); Eger, "Das
internationale Uebereinkommen über den Eisenbahnfrachtverkehr" (2nd ed. 1903).
(2) A general convention concerning the International Circulation of
Motor Vehicles[972] was concluded on October 11, 1909, at Paris. The
original signatory Powers were:—Great Britain, Germany, Austria-
Hungary, Belgium, Bulgaria, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Monaco,
Montenegro, Holland, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Servia; but Greece,
Montenegro, Portugal, and Servia have not yet ratified. Luxemburg,
Sweden, and Switzerland acceded later on. To give effect to this convention
in Great Britain, Parliament passed in 1909 the Motor Car (International
Circulation) Act,[973] 9 Edw. VII. c. 37.
[972] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. III. p. 834, and Treaty Series, 1910, No. 19.
[973] See also the Motor Car (International Circulation) Order in Council, 1910.

Copyright.
§ 584. On September 9, 1886, the Convention of Berne was signed for
the purpose of creating an international Union for the Protection of Works
of Art and Literature. The Union has an International Office[974] at Berne.
An additional Act to the convention was signed at Paris on May 4, 1906.
Since, however, the stipulations of these conventions did not prove quite
adequate, the "Revised[975] Berne Convention" was signed at Berlin on
November 13, 1908. The parties are Great Britain, Germany, Belgium,
Denmark, Spain, France, Haiti, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxemburg, Monaco,
Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunis; but Denmark, France, Italy, Sweden,
and Tunis have not yet ratified. Portugal acceded later. To give effect to the
Convention of Berne of 1886, Parliament passed in 1886 the "Act to amend
the Law respecting International and Colonial Copyright" (49 & 50 Vict. c.
33). This Act, however, was, in consequence of the "Revised Berne
Convention" of Berlin of 1908, repealed by section 37 of the Copyright Act,
1911 (1 Geo. V. c. 00), and sections 30 and 31 of the latter Act now deal
with International Copyright.
[974]See above, § 467, and Orelli, "Der internationale Schutz des Urheberrechts" (1887);
Thomas, "La convention littéraire et artistique internationale, &c." (1894); Briggs, "The Law of
International Copyright" (1906); Röthlisberger, "Die Berner Übereinkunft zum Schutze von
Werken der Literatur und Kunst" (1906).
 [975]See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. IV. p. 590; Wauwermans, "La convention de Berne (revisée à
Berlin) pour la protection des œuvres littéraires et artistiques" (1910).

Commerce and Industry.

§ 585. In the interests of commerce and industry three Unions are in
existence:—
(1) On July 5, 1890, the Convention of Brussels was signed for the
purpose of creating an international Union for the Publication of Customs
Tariffs.[976] The Union has an International Office[977] at Brussels, which
publishes the customs tariffs of the various States of the globe. The
members of the Union are at present the following States:—Great Britain,
Germany, Argentina, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria,
Chili, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, San Domingo,
Ecuador, Egypt, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Holland, Honduras,
Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru,
Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Salvador, Servia, Siam, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, the United States of America, Uruguay, and
Venezuela.
[976] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XVIII. p. 558.
[977] See above, § 469.

(2) On March 20, 1883, the Convention of Paris[978] was signed for the
purpose of creating an international Union for the Protection of Industrial
Property. The original members were:—Belgium, Brazil, San Domingo,
France, Holland, Guatemala, Italy, Portugal, Salvador, Servia, Spain, and
Switzerland. Great Britain, Japan, Denmark, Mexico, the United States of
America, Sweden-Norway, Germany, Cuba, and Austria-Hungary acceded
later. This Union has an International Office[979] at Berne. The object of the
Union is the protection of patents, trade-marks, and the like. On April 14,
1891, at Madrid, this Union agreed to arrangements concerning false
indications of origin and the registration of trade-marks[980]; and an
additional Act[981] was signed at Brussels on December 14, 1900. These later
arrangements, however, are accepted only by certain States of the Union;
Great Britain, for instance, is a party to the former but not to the latter.
[978] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. X. p. 133.
[979] See above, § 467.
[980] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXII. p. 208, and Pelletier et Vidal-Noguet, "La convention
d'union pour la protection de la propriété industrielle du 20 mars 1883 et les conférences de
révision postérieures" (1902).
 [981] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXX. p. 475.
(3) On March 5, 1902, the Convention of Brussels[982] was signed
concerning the abolition of bounties on the production and exportation of
sugar. The original parties were:—Great Britain, Austria-Hungary,
Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, and Sweden; but Spain
has never ratified. Luxemburg, Peru, and Russia acceded later. A Permanent
Commission[983] was established at Brussels for the purpose of supervising
the execution of the convention. An additional Act[984] was signed at
Brussels on August 28, 1907.
[982] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXI. p. 272, and Kaufmann, "Welt-Zuckerindustrie und
internationales und coloniales Recht" (1904).
[983] See above, §§ 462 and 471.
[984] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. I. p. 874.

Agriculture.
§ 586. Three general conventions are in existence in the interest of
Agriculture:—
(1) On June 7, 1905, the Convention for the Creation of an International
Agricultural Institute[985] was signed at Rome by forty States. The Institute
has its seat at Rome.
[985] See above, § 471a, and Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. p. 238, and Treaty Series, 1910, No.
17.
(2) Owing to the great damage done to grapes through phylloxera
epidemics a general convention[986] for the prevention of the extension of
such epidemics was concluded on September 17, 1878, at Berne. Its place
was afterwards taken by the convention[987] signed at Berne on November 3,
1881. The original members were:—Austria-Hungary, France, Germany,
Portugal, and Switzerland. Belgium, Italy, Spain, Holland, Luxemburg,
Roumania, and Servia acceded later.
[986] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. VI. p. 261.
[987] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. VIII. p. 435.

(3) On March 19, 1902, a general convention[988] was signed at Paris

concerning the preservation of birds useful to agriculture. The parties are:—
Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Spain, France, Greece, Luxemburg,
Monaco, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland.
[988] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXX. p. 686.

Welfare of Working Classes.

 § 587. Two general treaties are in existence with regard to the welfare of
the working classes:—
(1) On September 26, 1906, was signed at Berne a convention[989]
concerning the prohibition of the use of white phosphorus in the
manufacture of matches. The original parties were:—Germany, Denmark,
France, Holland, Luxemburg, Switzerland. Great Britain, Italy, Spain, and
Tunis acceded later. To give effect to this convention in Great Britain,
Parliament passed in 1908 the White Phosphorus Matches Prohibition Act
(8 Edw. VII. c. 42).
[989] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. p. 872, and Treaty Series, 1909, No. 4.
(2) Likewise at Berne on September 26, 1906, was signed the
convention[990] for the prohibition of night-work for women in industrial
employment. The original parties are:—Great Britain, Germany, Austria-
Hungary, Belgium, Spain, France, Luxemburg, Holland, Portugal, and
Switzerland. Italy and Sweden, which had signed the convention, but had
not ratified in time, acceded in 1910.
[990] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. p. 861, and Treaty Series, 1910, No. 21.

Weights, Measures, Coinage.

§ 588. One Union concerning weights and measures and two monetary
Unions are in existence.
(1) In the interest of the unification and improvement of the metric
system a general convention[991] was signed at Paris on May 20, 1875, for
the purpose of instituting at Paris an International Office[992] of Weights and
Measures. The original parties were:—Argentina, Austria-Hungary,
Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Peru, Portugal, Russia,
Spain, Sweden-Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, the United States of America,
and Venezuela; but Brazil has never ratified. Great Britain, Japan, Mexico,
Roumania, and Servia acceded later.
[991] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. I. p. 663.
[992] See above, § 466.

(2) On December 23, 1865, Belgium, France, Italy, and Switzerland

signed the Convention of Paris which created the so-called "Latin Monetary
Union" between the parties; Greece acceded in 1868.[993] This convention
was three times renewed and amended—namely, in 1878, 1885, and 1893.
[994]
[993] See Martens, N.R.G. XX. pp. 688 and 694.
 [994] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. IV. p. 725, XI. p. 65, XXI. p. 285.
Another Monetary Union is that entered into by Denmark, Sweden, and
Norway by the Convention of Copenhagen[995] of May 27, 1873.
[995] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. I. p. 290.
On November 22, 1892, the International Monetary Conference[996] met at
Brussels, where the following States were represented:—Great Britain,
Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Holland,
Italy, Mexico, Portugal, Roumania, Spain, Sweden-Norway, Switzerland,
Turkey, and the United States of America. The deliberations of this
conference, however, had no practical result.
[996] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXIV. pp. 167-478.

Official Publications.
§ 589. On March 15, 1886, Belgium, Brazil, Italy, Portugal, Servia,
Spain, Switzerland, and the United States of America signed at Brussels a
convention[997] concerning the exchange of their official documents and of
their scientific and literary publications in so far as they are edited by the
Governments. The same States, except Switzerland, signed under the same
date at Brussels a convention[998] for the exchange of their Journaux officiels
ainsi que des annales et des documents parlementaires.
[997] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XIV. p. 287.
[998] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XIV. p. 285.

Sanitation.
§ 590. In the interest of public health as endangered by cholera and
plague a number of so-called sanitary conventions have been concluded:—
(1) On January 30, 1892, Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary,
Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Russia,
Sweden-Norway, and Turkey signed the International Sanitary Convention
of Venice.[999]
[999] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XIX. p. 261, and Treaty Series, 1893, No. 8.
(2) On April 15, 1893, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France,
Italy, Luxemburg, Montenegro, Holland, Russia, Switzerland signed the
Cholera Convention of Dresden;[1000] but Montenegro has not ratified. Great
Britain, Servia, Lichtenstein, and Roumania acceded later.
[1000] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XIX. p. 39, and Treaty Series, 1894, No. 4.
 (3) On April 3, 1894, Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium,
Denmark, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Holland, Persia, Portugal, and
Russia signed the Cholera Convention of Paris; an additional declaration
was signed at Paris on October 30, 1897.[1001] Sweden-Norway acceded
later.
[1001] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXIV. pp. 516 and 552, and Treaty Series, 1899, No. 8.
(4) On March 19, 1897, Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary,
Belgium, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Luxemburg, Montenegro, Turkey,
Holland, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Servia, and Switzerland
signed the Plague Convention of Venice; an additional declaration was
signed at Rome on January 24, 1900;[1002] but Greece, Turkey, Portugal, and
Servia do not seem to have ratified. Sweden acceded later.
[1002] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXVIII. p. 339, XXIX. p. 495, and Treaty Series, 1900,
No. 6—See also Loutti, "La politique sanitaire internationale" (1906). Attention should be drawn
to a very valuable suggestion made by Ullmann in R.I. XI. (1879), p. 527, and in R.G. IV. (1897),
p. 437. Bearing in mind the fact that frequently in time of war epidemics break out in consequence
of insufficient disinfection of the battlefields, Ullmann suggests a general convention instituting
neutral sanitary commissions whose duty would be to take all necessary sanitary measures after a
battle.
(5) For the purpose of revising the previous cholera and plague
conventions and amalgamating them into one document, Great Britain,
Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Spain, the United States of
America, France, Italy, Luxemburg, Montenegro, Holland, Persia, Portugal,
Roumania, Russia, Switzerland, and Egypt signed on December 3, 1903,
the International Sanitary Convention of Paris.[1003] Denmark, Mexico,
Norway, Sweden, and Zanzibar acceded later. It is, however, of importance
to mention that the previous sanitary conventions remain in force for those
signatory Powers who do not become parties to this convention.
[1003] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. I. p. 78, and Treaty Series, 1907, No. 27.
(6) For the purpose of organising the International Office of Public
Health contemplated by the Sanitary Convention of Paris of December 3,
1903, Great Britain, Belgium, Brazil, Spain, the United States of America,
France, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, and Egypt signed at
Rome on December 9, 1907, an agreement[1004] concerning the
establishment of such an office at Paris;[1005] but it would seem that Holland
and Portugal have not yet ratified. Argentina, Bulgaria, Mexico, Persia,
Peru, Servia, Sweden, and Tunis acceded later.
[1004] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. p. 913, and Treaty Series, 1909, No. 6.
 [1005] See above, § 471b.

Pharmacopœia.
§ 591. On November 29, 1906, Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary,
Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Spain, the United States of America, France,
Greece, Italy, Luxemburg, Norway, Holland, Russia, Servia, Sweden, and
Switzerland signed at Brussels an agreement concerning the Unification of
the Pharmacopœial Formulas for Potent Drugs.[1006]
[1006] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. I. p. 592, and Treaty Series, 1907, No. 1.

Humanity.
§ 592. In the interest of humanity two Unions—although the term
"Union" is not made use of in the treaties—are in existence, namely, that
concerning Slave Trade and that concerning the so-called White Slave
Traffic.
(1) A treaty concerning slave trade[1007] was already in 1841 concluded
between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia. And article 9
of the General Act of the Berlin Congo Conference of 1885 likewise dealt
with the matter. But it was not until 1890 that a Union for the suppression
of the slave trade came into existence. This Union was established by the
General Act[1008] of the Brussels Conference, signed on July 2, 1890, and
possesses two International Offices,[1009] namely, the International Maritime
Office at Zanzibar and the Bureau Spécial attached to the Foreign Office at
Brussels. The signatory Powers are:—Great Britain, Austria-Hungary,
Belgium, Congo Free State, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, Italy,
Persia, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden-Norway, the United States of
America, Turkey, and Zanzibar. Liberia acceded later.
[1007] See above, § 292, p. 368, note 2.
[1008] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XVI. p. 3.
[1009] See above, § 468.

(2) On May 18, 1904, an Agreement for the Suppression of the White
Slave Traffic[1010] was signed at Paris by Great Britain, Germany, Belgium,
Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Russia, Sweden-Norway,
and Switzerland. Brazil and Luxemburg acceded later. A further Agreement
concerning the subject was signed at Paris on May 4, 1910, by thirteen
States, but has not yet been ratified.
[1010]See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXII. p. 160, and Treaty Series, 1905, No. 24—See also
Butz, "Die Bekämpfung des Mädchenhandels im internationalen Recht" (1908); Rehm in Z.V. I.
 (1907), pp. 446-453.

Preservation of Animal World.

§ 593. Two general treaties are in existence for the purpose of preserving
certain animals in certain parts of the world:—
(1) In behalf of the preservation of wild animals, birds, and fish in Africa,
the Convention of London[1011] was signed on May 19, 1900, by Great
Britain, the Congo Free State, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain;
Liberia acceded later. However, this convention has not yet been ratified.
[1011] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXX. p. 430.
(2) In behalf of the prevention of the extinction of the seals in the
Behring Sea, the Pelagic Sealing Convention[1012] of Washington was signed
on July 7, 1911, by Great Britain, the United States of America, Japan, and
Russia, but has not yet been ratified.
[1012] See above, § 284.

Private International Law.

§ 594. Various general treaties have been concluded for the purpose of
establishing uniform rules concerning subjects of the so-called Private
International Law:—
(1) Already on November 14, 1896, a general treaty concerning the
conflict of laws relative to procedure in civil cases was concluded at the
Hague. But this treaty was replaced by the Convention[1013] of the Hague of
July 17, 1905, which is signed by Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium,
Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Luxemburg, Norway, Holland, Portugal,
Roumania, Russia, Sweden, and Switzerland.
[1013] See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. p. 243.
(2) On June 12, 1902, likewise at the Hague, were signed three
conventions[1014] for the purpose of regulating the conflict of laws
concerning marriage, divorce, and guardianship. The signatory Powers are
Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, Luxemburg,
Holland, Portugal, Roumania, Sweden, and Switzerland.
[1014] See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXXI. pp. 706, 715, 724.
(3) Again at the Hague, on July 17, 1905, were signed two conventions
for the purpose of regulating the conflict of laws concerning the effect of
marriage upon the personal relations and the property of husband and wife,
and concerning the placing of adults under guardians or curators. The
signatory Powers are Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Roumania,
and Sweden.[1015]
[1015]
Meili and Mamelok, "Das internationale Privat und Zivilprozessrecht auf Grund der
Haager Konventionen" (1911), offers a digest of all the Hague Conventions concerned.

American Republics.
§ 595. The first Pan-American Conference held at Washington in 1889
created the International Union of the American Republics for prompt
collection and distribution of commercial information.[1016] This Union of
the twenty-one independent States of America established an International
Office at Washington, called at first "The American International Bureau,"
but the fourth Pan-American Conference, held at Buenos Ayres in 1910,
changed the name of the Office[1017] to "The Pan-American Union." At the
same time this conference considerably extended[1018] the scope of the task
of this Bureau to include, besides other objects, the function of a permanent
commission of the Pan-American Conferences which has to keep the
archives, to assist in obtaining the ratification of the resolutions and
conventions adopted, to study or initiate projects to be included in the
programme of the conferences, to communicate them to the several
Governments, and to formulate the programme and regulations of each
successive conference.
[1016] See Barrett, "The Pan-American Union" (1911).
[1017] See above, § 467a.
[1018] See Reinsch, "Public International Unions" (1911), p. 117.

Science.
§ 596. In the interest of scientific research the following Unions[1019] have
been established:—
[1019]The conventions which have created these Unions would seem to be nowhere officially
published and are, therefore, not to be found in the Treaty Series or in Martens. The dates and
facts mentioned in the text are based on private and such information as can be gathered from the
Annuaire de la Vie Internationale, 1908-1909, pp. 389-401.
(1) On October 30, 1886, Great Britain, Germany, Argentina, Austria-
Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, the United States of America, France,
Greece, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Holland, Portugal, Roumania,
Russia, Sweden, and Switzerland signed a convention at Berlin for the
purpose of creating an International Geodetic Association. Already in 1864
a number of States had entered at Berlin into an Association concerning
geodetic work in Central Europe, and in 1867 the scope of the association
was expanded to the whole of Europe, but it was not until 1886 that the
geodetic work of the whole world was made the object of the Geodetic
Association. The convention of 1886, however, was revised and a new
convention was signed at Berlin on October 11, 1895.[1020] The Association,
which arranges an international conference every three years, possesses a
Central Office at Berlin.
[1020] For the text of this Convention, see Annuaire de la Vie Internationale, 1908-1909, p. 390.
(2) On July 28, 1903, was signed at Strasburg a convention for the
purpose of creating an International Seismologic Association. This
convention was revised on August 15, 1905, at Berlin.[1021] The following
States are parties:—Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Canada, Chili, Spain, the United States of America, France,
Greece, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Holland, Portugal, Roumania,
Russia, Servia, and Switzerland. The Association, which arranges an
international conference at least once in every four years, has a Central
Office at Strasburg.
[1021]
The text of this Convention is not published in the Annuaire de la Vie Internationale,
1908-1909, but its predecessor of 1903 is published there on p. 393.
(3) On May 11, 1901, a convention was signed at Christiania for the
International Hydrographic and Biologic Investigation of the North Sea.[1022]
The parties are Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Holland,
Norway, Russia, and Sweden. The Association possesses a Central Office.
[1022] For the text of this Convention, see Annuaire de la Vie Internationale, 1908-1909, p. 397.
 INDEX
A
Abandoned river-beds, 302
Abdicated monarchs, 432
Absorption of a State, 127
Abuse of flag, 336
Abyssinia, independence of, 76, 145, 147, 156, 164
Accession to treaties, 568
Accretion of territory:
abandoned river-beds, 302
alluvions, 300
artificial formations, 299
conception of, 299
deltas, 300
different kinds of, 299
new-born islands, 301
Acosta, 97
Acquisition of territory, 281-284
Acquisition of territory by individuals and corporations, 282
Acts, 551
Adhesion to treaties, 569
Administration of territory by a foreign Power, 232
Aegi, case of, 496
Africa:
notification of future occupations on the coast of, 294, 590
preservation of wild animals in, 623
African states, 164, 165
Agadir, German action at, 76
Agent consular, 486
Agents lacking diplomatic or consular character, 509
Agents provocateurs, 510
Agricultural Institute, International, 518, 617
Agriculture, Convention for preservation of birds useful to, 618
Aix-la-Chapelle:
Congress of (1818), 67, 444, 566, 588
Peace treaty of (1668), 62;
(1748), 64
Aland Islands, 277, 564
Alaska boundary dispute, 272, 320
Alcazar, case of, 220
Alcorta, 97
Alexander II. of Russia, assassination of, 416, 418, 420
Alexander VI., Pope, 316
Alexandria, International Court of appeal at, 499
Algeciras, International Conference of, 75, 156
Algeria, trade between France and, 608
Aliens Act, the, 391
Aliens:
Act for the registration of, 398
expulsion of, 399-403
how far they can be treated according to discretion, 397
in Eastern countries, 395
protection to be afforded to, 397
reception of, 390
reconduction of, 402
right of asylum of, 392
subjected to territorial supremacy, 393
their departure from the foreign country, 398
under protection of their home State, 395
Alliances:
casus fœderis, 599
conception of, 595
conditions of, 598
different kinds of, 597
parties to, 597
Alluvion, 300
Alsace, 279, 291
"Alternat" clause, the, 173
Amakouron, river, 242
Ambassadors, 57, 444. See also Diplomatic envoys
Ambrose Light, case of the, 342
Amelia Island, case of the, 186
American International Bureau, 517, 624
American Civil War, 70
Amos, Sheldon, 94
Andorra, international position of, 146
Anglo-French Agreement (1904), 278, 539
Anglo-Japanese Alliance, text of, 596
Anna, case of the, 301
Annexation, 303
Anti-Slavery Conference at Brussels, 368, 517, 560
Antivari, port of, 327
Antoninus Pius, 315
Anzilotti, 104
Apocrisiarii, 437
Aral, Sea of, 245, 321
Arbitration:
International Court of, 79, 274, 278, 372, 410, 503
Permanent Court of, suggested in 1306 by Pierre Dubois, 58
Tribunal at Paris (1893), 352
Armed forces on foreign territory, 500. See also Jurisdiction
Armed neutrality, first (1780), 64
Army of Occupation, jurisdiction of, 503
Art, Union for the protection of works of, 516, 615
Artificial boundaries, 270
Artificial formation of territory, 299
Asiatic States, 164, 165
Asylum of criminals:
in foreign countries, 392
in hôtels of diplomatic envoys, 461
in men-of-war and other public vessels abroad, 507
Atmosphere, territorial, 236
Attachés of Legation, 472
Attentat clause, the Belgian, 416, 421
Aubaine, droit d', 398
Aubespine, case of L', 459
Austin, 5, 98
Austria-Hungary as a real union, 134
Authentic interpretation, 582
Aviation, 236
Avulsio, 300
Awards of the Court of Arbitration, 521
Ayala, 84
Azoff, Sea of, 321
Azuni, 320
B
Baker, Sir Sherston, 94
Balance of power, 62, 65, 80, 193, 289, 307
Baltic, the, 248, 267
maintenance of status quo in the, 604
Bancroft treaties, 389
Barbeyrac, 90
Barents Sea, 266
Barima, river, 242
Bass, case of De, 459
Batoum, 539, 575, 579
Bavaria sends and receives diplomatic envoys, 441
Bay:
of Cancale, 262
of Chesapeake, 262, 263
of Conception, 262, 263
of Delaware, 262, 263
of Stettin, 263
Bays, 262
Bearers of despatches, 511, 512
Beckert, case of, 474
Behring Sea Award Act (1894), 352
Behring Sea conflict between Great Britain and United States, 320, 351
Belgium, independence of, 68, 312
neutralisation of, 152, 588
Belle-Isle, case of Maréchal de, 471
Belli, 84
Bello, 97
Bentham, 4, 88
Berlin:
Congo Conference of (1884-85), 72, 153, 368, 514, 537, 590, 605
 Congress of (1878), 71, 118, 272, 368, 514
Decrees of, 65
Treaty of (1878), 71, 76, 327, 364, 369, 387, 575, 576, 579, 590
Bernard, 102
Berne Convention, 615
Bill of lading, 331
Binding force of treaties, 541, 545, 546
Biologic investigation of the North Sea, 626
Birds:
in Africa, preservation of, 623
useful to agriculture, Convention for the preservation of, 618
Birkenfeld, 230
Birth, acquisition of nationality by, 375
Black Sea, 247, 268, 269, 321
neutralisation of, 70, 325, 575
Blockade, 63, 335, 538, 588
of Venezuela, 74
Bluntschli, 36, 96, 99
Bodin, 111, 112
Bombardments, convention concerning, 594
Bon, 96
Bonfils, 95, 100
Bornemann, 97
Bosnia and Herzegovina, international position of, 77, 233, 576
Bosphorus and Dardanelles, 247, 266, 267, 268, 321
Boundaries of State territory, 270-273
Boundary:
Commissions, 272
dispute, 272, 296
mountains, 272
waters, 270
Boundary dispute:
between Great Britain and Venezuela, 198, 242
Louisiana, 295
Oregon, 295
Boundary treaty:
between Great Britain and the United States, 272
of Buenos Ayres (1881) between Argentina and Chili, 267, 564, 592
Bounties on sugar, Convention concerning, 515, 617
Brazil, international position of, 72, 312
Bristol Channel, 266
British seas, 317
Brooke, Sir James, Sovereign of Sarawak, 282
Brunus, 84
Brussels:
Anti-Slavery Conference of, 368, 517, 560, 591
Conference of (1874), 71, 552
Convention concerning sugar, 515, 617
Bry, 95
Buddhist States, 30, 154
Buenos Ayres, Boundary treaty of (1881), between Argentina and Chili,
267, 564, 592
Buffer States, 148
Bulgaria:
a party to the Hague Peace Conferences, 534
international position of, 71, 183, 576
Bulletin des Douanes, 517
Bulmerincq, 96, 100
Bumboats in the North Sea, 338, 351
Bundesrath, the, 433, 516, 546
Bundesgericht, the, 417
Burlamaqui, 90
Burroughs, Sir John, 319
Bynkershoek, 91, 320
C
Cabotage, 258, 606
Calhoun, 115
Callao, revolutionary outbreak at, 342
Calvo, 97, 99
Campos, 97
Canals, 248-254
Cancale, bay of, 262
Cancellation of treaties on account of:
subsequent change of status of a party, 579
their inconsistency with subsequent rules of International Law, 578
their violation by one of the parties, 579
war, 580
Canning, case of George, 532
Canning, case of Sir Stratford, 451
Canonists, 55
Canon Law, 8
Cape Breton Island, restitution of, to France, 566
Capitulations, 395, 482, 497
Capture in maritime war, Convention concerning, 594
Carlowitz, Peace Treaty of, 63
Carnazza-Amari, 96
Carnot, assassination of, 418, 420
Caroline, case of the, 187, 501
Caroline Islands, sold by Spain to Germany, 288
Carthagena, rebel men-of-war at, 342
Casa Blanca incident, the, 502
Casanova, 96
Caspian Sea, 246
Castione, case of, 415
Castlereagh, Lord, 412
Casus fœderis, 599
Cavour, Count, 426
Cellamare, case of Prince, 459
Celsus, 315
Central American Court of Justice, 525
Ceremonials, maritime. See Maritime ceremonials
Certificate of registry, 331
Cession of territory, 285-291
acquisition of nationality through, 289, 377
Ceylon, pearl fishery off the coast of, 348
Chablais and Faucigny, 279, 286
Chalmers, 103
Chambers of Reunion (1680-1683), 62
Changes in the condition of States, 121-125
Channel:
Bristol, 266
North, 266
St. George's, 266
Channel tunnel, proposed, 359
Chapelle, droit de, 467
Chargés d'Affaires, 445-481. See also Diplomatic envoys
Chargés des Affaires, 445
Charkieh, case of the, 507
Charles I., 319
Charlton, case of Porter, 408
Charter-party, 332
Chesapeake, Bay of, 262, 263
China, international position of, 164
China and Japan, war between, 72
Cholera. See Sanitary Conventions
Christiania, Treaty of, 75, 135
Christina, Queen of Sweden, 431
"Citizen" and "subject" of a State synonymous in International Law, 370
Civilians, the, 55
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, 251
Coasting trade, 258, 606
Code of signals, International, 333
Codification of International Law, 35
Collective guarantee, treaties of, 601
Collision at sea, 334
Colonial States cannot be parties to international negotiation, 530
Colonies rank as territory of the motherland, 231
Comity of Nations, 24, 261
Commercial Code of Signals, 333, 334
Commissaries, 511
Commissions, International, 512-515
in the interest of:
fisheries, 513
foreign creditors, 515
navigation, 513
sanitation, 515
sugar, 515
Common Consent, 16
Como, Lake of, 245
Composite International Persons, 132-140
Compromise clause, 583
Conception, Bay of, 262, 263
Concert, European, 170
Concordat, 161
Condominium, 232, 272
Confederate States, 133, 135
Conferences. See Congresses.
Congo, river, 242
Congo Commission, the international, 242
Congo Conference of Berlin, 72, 368, 514, 537, 590, 605
Congo Free State:
annexation of, 76
merged in Belgium, 34, 287
neutralisation of, 153
recognition of, 73
Congresses, international:
cannot be distinguished from Conferences, 533
conception of, 533
envoys representing states at, 443, 453
parties to, 534
permanent, suggested by Podiebrad, 58
procedure at, 535
reception of envoys at, 452
Conquest, 302. See alsoSubjugation
Conseil sanitaire maritime et quarantenaire at Alexandria, 515
Conseil supérieur de santé at Constantinople, 515
Consolato del mare, 56
Constance, Lake of, 246
Constantinople:
Conference of (1885-6), 71
Treaty of (1888), 514, 591
Constitution, case of the, 507
Constitutional restrictions concerning the treaty-making power, 545
Constitutional system, 68
Consular Act, 484
Consular districts, 485
Consul-general, 486
Consular jurisdiction in non-Christian States, 497
Consular officers, 485
Consular service, British, 487
Consuls:
appointment of, 487-490
archives of, 495, 496
consular organisation, 485
consules missi and electi, 485
consular districts, 485
different classes of, 486
functions of, 480, 490-493
general character of, 484
informal appointment of, 490
in non-Christian States, 497
in the fifteenth century, 483
no obligation to admit, 488
non-professional, 495
position and privileges of, 493-495
qualification of, 487
subordinate to diplomatic envoys, 487
termination of consular office, 496
the institution of, 482
Consuls Marchands, 482
Contiguity, right of, 295
Contraband, 335
Contract debts, recovery of, 192, 592
Conventio omnis intelligitur rebus sic stantibus, 573
Convention, 551:
Anglo-French (1904), 278
concerning matters of international administration, 79
 concerning the North Sea Fisheries, 349
concerning radiotelegraphy, 236, 355
for the protection of submarine cables, 354
Co-operation, 189
Copenhagen:
Peace Treaty of, 63
Treaty (1857) abolishing Sound dues, 268
Copyright:
Union concerning, 615
Acts concerning, 616
Corinth Canal, 248
Corps, diplomatic, 446
Corsica, pledged by Genoa to France, 233, 288
Costa Rica Packet, case of the, 217
Councillors of Legation, 472
Couriers, 472, 473, 475. See also Retinue of envoy
Courland merged in Russia, 124, 287
Court of Arbitration. See Arbitration.
Court of Justice, Central American, 525
Cracow, republic of, 151, 310
Creasy, Sir Edward Shepherd, 94
Crete:
international position of, 72, 144
possesses no right of legation, 441
Crews of men-of-war, their position when on land abroad, 508
Crime:
against the Law of Nations, 209
extraditable, 408
political, 415
Crimean war, 68
Cromwell, 172, 459
Crucée, Émeric, 58
Cruchaga, 97
Cuba:
independence of, 72, 181
intervention in, 190
Cuban debt, 132
Culte, droit du, 467
Cumberland, Duke of (1837), 433
Cussy, 102
Custom, as source of International Law, 16, 22, 23
Custom tariffs, Union for publication of, 616
office of the Union for publication of, 517
Customs Laws Consolidation Act, 608
Cutting, case of, 205
Cyprus, international position of, 233
D
Danish fleet, case of, 186
Danube, navigation on the, 71, 242
Danube Commission, 242, 513
Dardanelles, 247, 266, 267, 268, 321
Davis, 95
Dead Sea, 244, 321
Death:
of consul, 496
of diplomatic envoy, 480
De Bass, case of, 459
Debts to be taken over by the succeeding State, 131, 287
Declaration:
of Brussels, 37
of London, 78, 343, 537, 538, 560, 585, 595
of Paris, 12, 68, 537, 569, 588
of St. Petersburg, 70, 537, 590
Declarations, 551
three kinds of, 536
De facto subjects, 372
De Jager v. Attorney-General for Natal, 394
Delagoa Bay, case of, 314
Delaware, Bay of, 262, 263
Delinquency, international, 209
Délits complexes, 415
Delta, 300
Delusion and error in parties to treaties, 547
Deniers of the Law of Nations, 89
Denization, 381, 383
Denmark, 186
her sovereignty over the Baltic, 316
Deposed monarchs, 432
Deprivation, loss of nationality through, 378
De Recuperatione Terre Sancte, 58
Derby, Lord, 601
Dereliction of territory, 313
Deserters not to be extradited, 409
Despagnet, 95, 100
Despatches, sealed, transmission through belligerents' lines, 471
Diena, 96
Dignity of States, 174-177
Diplomacy, 438
language of, 439
Diplomatic corps, 446
Diplomatic envoys:
appointment of, 446-448
ceremonial and political, 443
classes of, 66, 443-481, 588
death of, 480
dismissal through delivery of passports, 455, 478
exempt from criminal and civil jurisdiction, 458, 464
exempt from police regulations, 466
exempt from subpœna as witnesses, 465
exempt from taxes, &c., 467
exterritoriality of, 460
family of, 474
found on enemy territory by a belligerent, 471
functions of, 453
immunity of domicile of, 461
injurious acts of, 215
interference with affairs of third States by, 472
interference in internal politics by, not permitted, 455
 inviolability of, 457-466
official papers of, 447, 458, 478, 480
persons and qualifications of, 446
position of, 455
privileges of, 456
promotion of, 478
recall of, 477
reception of, 449-452
refusal to receive certain individuals as, 450
retinue of, 472-475
request for, and delivery of, passports, 478
right of chapel of, 467
self-jurisdiction of, 468
servants of, 474
suspension of mission of, 476
termination of mission of, 476-481
travelling through third States, 469
Diplomatic usages, 439
Discovery, inchoate title of, 294
Discretion of States:
to admit aliens, 391
to appoint envoys, 446
to conclude extradition treaties, 406
to expel aliens, 400
to protect their citizens abroad, 396
to receive and send envoys, 440
to recognise new heads of States, 426
Dissolution of treaties:
in contradistinction to fulfilment, 570
through mutual consent, 571
through vital change of circumstances, 572
 through withdrawal by notice, 571
Dogger Bank, case of the, 219
Domicile:
of envoys abroad, 474
through naturalisation, 375, 379
Domin-Petrushévecz, 36
Doyen of the diplomatic corps, 446
Drago doctrine, 192
Droit:
d'aubaine, 398
de chapelle, 467
de convenance, 184
d'enquête, 336
d'étape, 278
de préséance, 172
de recousse, 347
de renvoi, 402
du culte, 467
Dubois, case of, 465
Dubois, Pierre, 58
Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover, 433
Duke of Cumberland, 433
Dum-dum bullets, 592
Dumont, 102
Dunkirk, fortification of, 183, 583
Duplessix, E., 37
E
Eastern countries:
Consuls in, 497
Protection of individuals in, 372, 395
Effect of treaties:
 how affected by changes in government, 562
upon the parties, 561
upon the subjects of the parties, 562
upon third States, 563
Effective occupation. See Occupation.
Egypt, international position of, 142, 164, 498
international courts in, 498
possesses no right of legation, 441
Elizabeth, Queen, 318, 459
Emigration, 373
loss of nationality through, 378
Emperor William Canal, 248
Enclosure, 230
Enemy goods covered by neutral flag, 588
Enquête, droit d', 336
Envoys extraordinary, 444, 445
Equality of States, 20, 168
Equilibrium, 80. See also Balance of power.
Erie, Lake, 246, 247
Error and delusion in parties to treaties, 547
Estate duty, 398
Étape, droit d', 278
European Concert, 170
European Danube Commission, 513
Exchange, case of the, 507
Exchange of State territory, 287
Exequatur:
requisite for consuls, 489, 493, 494, 496
revoked, 426
Exclusion of aliens in the discretion of every State, 391
Expiration, loss of nationality through, 378
Expiration of treaties:
in contradistinction to fulfilment, 570
through expiration of time, 571
through resolutive condition, 571
Explosives, discharge of from balloons prohibited, 39
Expulsion of aliens:
from Great Britain, 399
from Switzerland, 399
how effected, 402
in the discretion of every State, 400
just causes of, 400
Exterritoriality, 460
of a monarch's retinue abroad, 431
of consuls in non-Christian States, 497
of diplomatic envoys and the members of their suite, 460-469
of monarchs and the members of their suite, 430
of men-of-war in foreign waters, 506
of presidents of republics, 434
of the wife of a monarch, 430, 431
Extinction of States, 124
Extraditable crimes, 409
Extradition:
conception of, 403
condition of, 409
effectuation of, 409
municipal laws concerning, 406
no obligation to grant, 404
of deserters, 409
of political criminals, 409, 411-422
treaties of, 392
treaties stipulating, how arisen, 404
Extradition Acts, British, 406, 409
F
Family of Nations:
conditions of membership of, 31, 166
definition of, 11
position of States in the, 165
Faröe Island Fisheries, 353
Fauchille, 95, 103
Faucigny, 279, 286
Federal States, 136
as regards appointment of envoys by, 138, 441
as regards appointment of consuls by, 489
as regards conclusion of treaties by, 544
Federalist, The, 115, 137
Female consuls, 488
Female diplomatic envoys, 446
Ferguson, 97
Fetiales, 51
Field, 36
Final Act of a Congress, 536
Finance Act (1894), 399
Fiore, 37, 96, 99
Fisheries:
around the Faröe Islands, 353
as servitudes, 278
in gulfs and bays, 265
in straits, 266
in the maritime belt, 258
in the North Sea, 316, 337, 349
in the Open Sea, 348-353
in the White Sea, 348
 off the coast of Iceland, 348, 353
pearl, off Ceylon, 348
Fishery Commissions, 513
Fish in Africa, preservation of, 623
Fitzmaurice, Lord, 262
Flag:
abuse of, on the part of vessels, 336
claims of States to maritime, 326
claims of vessels to sail under a certain, 329
commercial, 327
enemy goods covered by neutral, 588
special, for bumboats, 351
verification of, 335, 337
Force majeure, 521, 524
Foreign Jurisdiction Act (1890), 395, 498
Foreign Offices, 435
Foreigner. See Alien.
Forerunners of Grotius, 83
Form of treaties, 550
France, as an International person, 122
Franchise de l'hôtel, 461
du quartier, 461
Franconia, case of, 29
Frankfort:
Peace Treaty of, 290, 291, 606
subjugation of, 304
Frederick III., Emperor of Germany, 316
Frederick William of Brandenburg, 464
Freedom of action necessary for consent to treaties, 547
French:
Convention, 35, 65
 Constitution, 412
Revolution, 65, 98, 411
Frische Haff, 263
Fugitive Offenders Act (1881), 406
Fulfilment of treaties, 570
Full powers, 447, 544
Funck-Brentano, 95
Fundamental rights of States, 165
G
Gabella emigrationis, 398
Gallatin, case of the coachman of Mr., 474
Gareis, 96
General Act of a Congress, 536
Geneva Convention, 70, 569, 589
Convention for its adaptation to Naval War, 594
Geneva, Lake of, 246
Genoa, her sovereignty over the Ligurian Sea, 316
Gentilis, 84, 318
Geodetic Association, International, 625
Germany, member-States of:
competent to conclude treaties, 544
recognised as independent, 61, 66
Ghillany, 102
Gibraltar, 278
Good offices, 189, 568
Gore, American Commissioner, 513
Grand cabotage, 607
Great Powers, 3
hegemony of, 168
Greece, independence of, 68
Greeks, their rules for international relations, 49
Gregoire, Abbé, 35
Grotians, the, 92
Grotius, Hugo, 4, 59, 85-88, 283, 318, 438
Guarantee as a means of securing the performance of treaties, 567
Guarantee of government or dynasty, 191
Guarantee, treaties of, 599
collective, 601
conception of, 599
effect of, 600
pseudo-guarantees, 602-604
Guébriant, Madame de, 447
Gulfs, 262
Gulistan, Treaty of, 246
Gurney, case of, 473
Gyllenburg, case of, 459
H
Haggerty, case of, 489
Hague:
Convention concerning conversion of merchant ships into war ships, 505
Convention (1882), concerning fisheries in the North Sea, 349
Convention concerning laws and usages of war, 552, 569, 586
Convention (1887), concerning Liquor Traffic on the North Sea, 351
Conventions (1907), 207, 213, 218, 538
International Court of Arbitration at the, 74, 274, 278, 518
First Peace Conference at the, 12, 37, 73, 534, 589, 591
Second Peace Conference at the, 12, 38, 77, 365, 534, 589, 592
Haiti, 32
Half-Sovereign States, 141
cannot send or receive diplomatic envoys, 441
competent to conclude treaties, 544
may be parties to international congresses, 534
Hall, 94, 100
Halleck, 95, 99
Hamilton, A., 115
Hanover:
King of, 433, 450
subjugation of, 304
Hanseatic League, 56
Hartmann, 96, 100
Havana, Treaty of, 181
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, 251, 557, 559, 563, 592
Hay-Varilla Treaty, 252, 254, 564
Heads of States, 425-428
competence of, 427
honours and privileges of, 428
injurious acts of, 214
 legitimate, 426, 427
objects of Law of Nations, 427
position of, 427
predicates of, 174
privileges of, 428
recognition of new, 425
usurping, 427
Health Office, International, 518
Heffter, 96, 98, 509
Henry IV. of France, 58
Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 264
Hertslet, 103
Herzegovina, international position of, 233, 576
Hesse-Cassel, subjugation of, 304
Hinterland, 297
Hobbes, 4, 89, 112
Holland, Professor, 85
Holldack, 104
Holtzendorff, 96, 100
Holy Alliance, 66, 68, 196, 413, 544, 596
Holy Roman Empire, origin of doctrine of servitudes in the, 275
Holy See, 157-162, 441
cannot be party to international negotiation, 161, 441
receives ambassadors of first class, 444
Hostages as a means of securing the performance of treaties, 566
Hostilities:
convention relative to the opening of, 593
convention regarding enemy merchantmen, 593
Hovering Acts, 261
Huascar, the, 342
Hubertsburg, Peace treaty of, 64
Humanity, Unions in the interest of, 622, 623
Humbert of Italy, assassination of King, 418, 420
Hüningen, 279
Huron, Lake of, 246, 247
Hutcheson, 90
Hydrographic investigation of the North Sea, 626
I
Iceland, fisheries around, 348, 353
Illegal obligations, 550
Immoral obligations, 549
Immunity of domicile, 461, 474
Independence of States:
consequences of, 178
definition of, 177
restrictions upon, 180
violations of, 179
Indian vassal States of Great Britain, 142
Indians, Red, 35
"Indigenousness," international, 367
Individuals:
never subjects of International Law, 19, 362
objects of International Law, 366
stateless, 366, 387
In dubio mitius, 584
Industrial property, union for protection of, 616
office of, 517
Informing gun, the, 337
Inquiry, international commissions of, 512
Institute of International Law, the, 36
règlement concerning acts of insurgents, 224
règlement concerning consuls, 494
 règlement concerning men-of-war in foreign ports, 508
règlement concerning utilisation of flow of rivers, 243
rules concerning aliens, 391, 401
rules concerning double and absent nationality, 390
rules concerning extradition, 410, 417
rules concerning immunities of diplomatic envoys, 450, 457
vœux concerning emigrants, 374
Instructions of diplomatic envoys, 448
Insurgents and rioters, 223
Insurgents recognised as a belligerent Power, 107, 119
do not possess the right of legation, 442
règlement of the Institute of International Law concerning acts of, 224
send public political agents, 509
Integrate territory, 230
Intercession, 189
Intercourse of States, 199-201, 328
International bureau of the International Court of Arbitration, 516, 519
International Code of Signals, 333
International Commission concerning sugar, 515
International Commission of the Congo, 514
International Commission of the proposed Channel Tunnel, memorandum
respecting, 359
International Commissions, 512
in the interest of foreign creditors, 515
of Inquiry, 512
International Council of Sanitation at Bucharest, 515
International Court of Arbitration at the Hague:
Awards of, 521
Bureau of, 519
deciding Tribunal of, 520
Permanent Council of, 518
International Court of Justice, proposed, 524
International Courts in Egypt, 498
International crimes, 209
International delinquencies, 209
International disputes, convention for the settlement of, 592
International Health Office, 518
International Jurists, schools of, 82, 89
International Law:
basis of, 15
basis of international relations, 67
codification of, 35
definition of, 3
development of, 45, 59
dominion of, 30
factors influencing the growth of, 24
legal force of, 4
periodicals relating to, 103, 104
relations between International Law and Municipal Law, 25
sources of, 20
States as subjects of, 19, 107
International Law Association, the, 37
International Maritime Committee, conference of (1910), 333, 339
International negotiation. See Negotiation.
International offices:
agriculture, 518
customs tariffs, 517
health, 518
industrial property, 517
maritime office at Zanzibar, 517
Pan-American Union, 517
post, 516
 sugar, 517
telegraphs, 516
transports, 517
weights and measures, 516
works of literature and art, 516
International personality as a body of qualities, 166
definition of, 167
International persons, 107, 121, 125, 132, 154, 162
International Prize Court, 12, 522
convention concerning, 594
International Radiographic Convention, 236, 355
International Telegraph Union, 614
International transactions. See Transactions.
Internoscia, Jerome, 37
Internuncios, 445
Interpretatio authentica, 583
Interpretation of treaties, 582-586
Intervention, 81, 188
admissibility in default of right, 193
by right, 189
concerning a treaty concluded by other States, 568
concerning extradited criminals, 410
definition of, 188
for maintaining the balance of power, 193
in the interest of humanity, 194
on behalf of citizens abroad, 396
Ionian Islands, international position of, 146, 286
Inviolability:
of bearers of despatches, 512
of commissaries, 511
of consular buildings, 495
 of consuls in non-Christian States, 497
of diplomatic envoys, 457-460
of members of international commissions, 514
of monarchs abroad, 429
of presidents of republics, 433, 434
of public political agents, 510
Irish Sea, 266
Isabella, Queen of Spain, 426, 432
Island, new-born, 301
Italy as a Great Power, 70, 171
her "Law of Guaranty" concerning the Pope, 158
J
Jacquin, case of, 416
Jade Bay, 263
James I., 317, 469
Japan, 33, 72, 171
and Russia, war between, 74
conflict with United States concerning Japanese school children in
California, 211
treaty of alliance with Great Britain, 565
text of the treaty of alliance, 596
Jassy, case of the, 507
Jay, John, 115
Jay Treaty, article concerning privileges of commissioners, 513
Jenkins, Sir Leoline, 89
Jenkinson, 103
Jews:
not a subject of International Law, 108
sometime excluded from Gibraltar, 278
their rules for international relations, 46
their treatment in Roumania and Russia, 369, 387, 392
Johann Friederich, case of the, 339
Journal Télégraphique, 516
Juges Consuls, 482
Jurisdiction, 201-205
exemption of envoys from, 458, 462-464
in actions for collision at sea, 334
in Straits, 266
of an Army of Occupation, 503
of monarchs abroad over their retinue, 430
of States over their citizens in Eastern countries, 395
on the Open Sea, 203, 329-339
over armed forces abroad, 501
over citizens abroad, 202
over crews of men-of-war when on land abroad, 508
over foreigners abroad, 204
over foreign vessels sailing under the flag of a State, 330
over monarchs as subjects, 433
over pirates, 345
within the maritime belt, 260
Jus:
albinagii, 398
avocandi, 371
fetiale, 51, 52
quarteriorum, 461
repraesentationis omnimodae, 427
sacrale, 51
sanguinis, 375
soli, 375
transitus innoxii, 470
K
Kainardgi, Treaty of, 441
Kalkstein, case of Colonel von, 464
Kamptz, 103
Kara Sea, 266
Kara Straits, 266
Kardis, Peace Treaty of, 63
Karlstad, Treaty of, 75
Katschenowsky, 36
Kattegat, the, 267
Keiley, case of, 450
Kelmis, 232
Kent, James, 95, 137
Kertch, Strait of, 267, 321
Khedive of Egypt, 498
Kiauchau leased to Germany, 233, 288
King's Chamber, 263
Klüber, 95, 98, 103
Kohler, 104
Korea:
extinction of treaties of, 128
merged in Japan, 287
Koszta, case of Martin, 388
Kurische Haff, 263
L
Lado Enclave, leased to Congo Free State, 234
Laibach, Congress of, 67
Lakes, 245
Landlocked seas, 245
Language of diplomacy, 439
Law of Guaranty, the Italian, 158
Law of Nations. See International Law.
Law of Nature, 86
Law-making treaties, 23, 541, 587-595
Lawrence, 94, 100
Lease of territory, 233, 288
Lebanon, the, 357
Le Droit d'Auteur, 517
Legation:
combined, 448
institution of, 435, 438
members of, 472-475
papers of the, 478
right of, 440
Legati a latere or de latere, 444
Leges Wisbuenses, 56
Legitimacy, doctrine of, 67
Legnano, 84
Leibnitz, 102
Lèse-majesté, 413, 415
Letters:
of credence, 447, 476, 477, 479, 509
of marque, 341, 342
of recall, 477
of recommendation, 509, 510
Lettre:
de créance, 447
de provision, 477
de récréance, 477
Levi, Leone, 37, 94
Liberia, 32
Lichtenstein, neither sends nor receives permanent diplomatic envoys, 449
Lieber, 36
Lincoln, assassination of, 418, 420
Liquor Traffic among North Sea Fishermen, Convention concerning, 351
Liszt, 96, 101
Literature, Union for the protection of works of, 516, 615
Log-book, 331
Locke, John, 112
Lombardy, ceded in 1859 by Austria to France, 288
Lomonaco, 96
London:
Conference of (1871), 70, 575
Convention of (1841), 268
Convention of (1884), 181
Convention of (1901), concerning fisheries, 353
Declaration of, 78, 343, 537, 538, 560, 585, 595
Declaration of, concerning Egypt and Morocco, 249
Naval Conference of, 38, 39, 43, 78, 595
Treaty (1831), 588
Treaty (1840), 555
Treaty (1841), 268, 368
Treaty (1867), 589
Treaty (1871), 247, 269, 325
Treaty (1883), 514, 587
Treaty (1906), 76, 156
Treaty (1908-9), 38
Lorenzelli, 160
Lorimer, James, 94, 100
Lorraine, 291
Loss of territory, 311
Louis XI. of France, 111
Louisiana boundary dispute, 295
Louter, De, 97
L'Union Postale, 516
Luxemburg, neutralisation of, 152, 289, 590
Lymoon Pass, 266
M
Macartney v. Garbutt, 450, 467
Mackintosh, Sir James, 412
McGregor, adventurer, 186
McLeod, case of, 501
Madagascar, annexed by France, 147, 539
Madison, J., 115
Magellan, Straits of, 267, 564
Maine, Sir Henry Sumner, 94
Maine, the river, 241
Mancini, 36
Manifest of cargo, 331
Mankind, rights of, 35, 367
Manning, 94, 98
Mardyck, port of, 583
Mare clausum, 318
Mare liberum, 318
Marini, Antoine, 58
Marino, international position of San, 146
Maritime belt, 255-261
Maritime ceremonials, 176, 258, 317, 326
Maritime Conference:
of London, 38, 39, 43, 78, 595
of Washington, 333
of Brussels, 333, 339
Maritime Conventions Bill, 333, 339
Maritime office at Zanzibar, 517
Marmora Sea, 321
Martens, Charles de, 92
Martens, F. von, 97, 100
Martens, G. F. von, 91, 102, 320
Mary, Queen, 317
Matzen, 97
Maxey, 95, 101
Means of securing performance of treaties: 565
guarantee, 567
hostages, 566
oaths, 565
occupation of territory, 566
pledge, 566
Measures. See Weights and Measures.
Mediation, 189, 568
Mediterranean, maintenance of status quo in the, 603
Mehemet Ali, 555
Mendoza, Spanish Ambassador, 318
case of, 459
Men-of-war:
admittance to maritime belt, 260
admittance to gulfs, 265
admittance to straits, 267
excluded from the Bosphorus, 268
 in foreign waters, 504
in revolt, 504
on the Open Sea, 325, 326
position in foreign waters, 235, 506
position of crew on land abroad, 508
proof of character, 505
powers over merchantmen, 335, 337
shipwrecked, 504
Merchantmen. See Merchant ships and Navigation.
Merchant Shipping Act (1873), 333
Merchant Shipping Act (1894), 330, 331, 332, 333, 337
Merchant ships, conversion into war ships, 593
Merger of States, 124, 127, 372
Mérignhac, 95
Metternich, Prince, 249
Metric system, Convention concerning, 619
Meunier, case of, 415
Meuse, the, 241
Mines:
Convention concerning, 593
in the subsoil of the sea bed, 357
Ministers Plenipotentiary, 445
Ministers Resident, 445, 588
Miruss, 103
Mixed Commission of the Danube, 514
Mohammedan States, 30, 154
Mohl, 103
Moldavia, 441
Monaco, international position of, 146
Monaldeschi, case of, 431
Monarchs:
 acts of violence committed by foreign, 431
consideration due to, 429
deposed or abdicated, 432
exterritoriality of, 430
in the service of, or subjects of, foreign Powers, 432
position of wife of, 430, 431
residence of, 430
retinue of, abroad, 431
sovereignty of, 428
travelling incognito, 431
Monetary Conventions, 619
Monetary Conference, International, 619
Monroe Doctrine, 67, 196
Montagnini, case of, 160
Montenegro:
independence of, 71;
restricted, 183
restricted to a commercial flag only, 327
Monti, case of Marquis de, 472
Moore, 95, 101
Moors in Gibraltar, 278
Moray Firth, case of the, 264
Moresnet, 232, 273
Morocco:
independence of, 75, 156, 164
protection of natives by foreign Powers, 372
treaties of (1863 and 1880), 373
Mortensen v. Peters, case of, 264
Moselle, the river, 241
Moser, 91
Most-favoured-nation clause, 563, 585, 606, 610
Motor vehicles, circulation of, 615
Motor Car (International Circulation) Act, 615
Mulhouse merged in 1798 in France, 287
Municipal Law:
in conflict with treaty obligations, 578
not identical with law in general, 9, 14
relations between International and Municipal Law, 25
respecting offences against foreign States, 222
Murdered rulers, 418, 420
Muscat Convention, 373
Muscat Dhows, case of the, 372
Muster Roll, 331
Mutinous crew, 343
N
Names of vessels, 332, 350
Napoleon I., 65, 183
Napoleon III., 416, 470
Narrow Seas:
sovereignty of Great Britain over the, 266, 316
Nassau, subjugation of, 304
National. See Citizen.
Nationality:
absent, 383, 387
acquisition of, 306, 374
conception of, 369
difficulties arising from double and absent nationalities, 388
double, 383, 384
function of, 370
loss of, 377
principle of, 68, 81
the link between individuals and International Law, 366
Natural boundaries, 270
Natural boundaries sensu politico, 273
Naturalisation Acts, British, 377, 381, 382, 383
Naturalisation in Great Britain, 382
Naturalisation:
acquisition of nationality by, 375
conception of, 379
conditions of, 380
loss of nationality through, 378, 381
object of, 380
through grant on application, 376
Naturalists, the, 89
Naval Conference of London, 38, 39, 43, 78, 595
Naval war code of the United States, 38
Navigation:
Commissions in the interest of, 513
in gulfs and bays, 265
in straits, 266
in the Suez Canal, 513, 514
on rivers, 240-243, 588
on the Congo, 514
on the Danube, 513
on the Open Sea, 319, 324
supervised by consuls, 491
through the Straits of Magellan, 267
within and through the maritime belt, 259, 326
See also Open Sea.
Navigation Act, 607
Neckar, river, 241
Negotiation:
by whom conducted, 531
 conception of, 529
end and effect of, 532
envoy's function of, 453
form of, 531
parties to, 529
purpose of, 530
Negro Republics, 32
Nemo plus juris transferre potest, quam ipse habet, 288
Nemo potest exuere patriam, 381
Ne quis invitus civitate mutetur, neve in civitate maneat invitus, 381
Netherlands, revolt of, 312
Neutralisation of the Black Sea, 575
Neutralised States, 147-154
as regards State servitudes, 278
cannot cede territory without consent of the Powers, 286
can be parties to defensive alliances, 597
Neutral Powers in Naval War, Convention concerning the rights and duties
of, 594
Newfoundland fishery dispute, 278
New Hebrides, international position of, 232
Niemeyer, 103
Niger, river, 242
Night work of women, Convention for the prohibition of, 618
Nikitschenhow, case of, 463
Nillins, case of, 407
Non-Christian States, 154-156
Non-extradition:
Attentat clause of, 416, 421
principle of, 411-422
rationale for, 418
Russian proposal concerning, 416, 421
 Swiss solution of, 417, 421
North Atlantic coast fisheries, case of, 275, 276, 278
North Channel, 266
North Pole, 292
North Sea fisheries, 337, 349
Convention for the regulation of, 349
North Sea:
hydrographic and biologic investigation of, 626
maintenance of status quo in the, 603
Norway, international position of, 75
Notarial functions:
of consuls, 492
of diplomatic envoys, 454
Notification:
as an international transaction, 537
of a change in the headship of a State, 425
of occupation, 294
Nuncios, 444
Nymeguen, Treaty of, 62
Nys, 97, 101, 103
Nystaedt, Treaty of, 63
O
Oath as a means of securing performance of treaties, 551, 565
Observation, envoy's function of, 454, 455
Occupation of territory, 291-298
as a means of securing the performance of treaties, 566
conception of, 291
extent of, 295
how affected, 292
notification of, 294
object of, 292
Office central des transports internationaux, 517
Offices, international, 515-518
Official publications, 620
Oléron, Laws of, 56
Oliva, Peace Treaty of, 63
Olivart, Marquis de, 97, 103
Omnia rex imperio possidet, singuli dominio, 283
Ompteda, 103
Ontario, Lake of, 246, 247
Open Sea, 315
ceremonials on, 326
claims to sovereignty over parts of, 316
collisions on, 333
conception of, 321
fisheries in the, 348-353
freedom of, 201, 323-328
in time of war, 325
jurisdiction on, 329-339
legal order on, 324
navigation on, 326
neutralisation of parts, 325
 piracy on, 339-348
powers of men-of-war over merchantmen on the, 335, 337
rationale for freedom of, 327
right of pursuit on, 336
shipwreck and distress on, 339
subsoil beneath the sea bed, 292, 357-361
telegraph cables in, 353-355
verification of flag on, 337
wireless telegraphy on the, 355-357
See also Vessel.
Operation of nature as a mode of losing territory, 312
Oppenheim, Heinrich Bernard, 96
Oppenheim, L., 104
Option:
loss of nationality through, 378
of inhabitants of ceded territory to retain their old citizenship, 290
Orange Free State, 304
Oregon Boundary dispute, 295
Ottoman law (1863), concerning protégés, 373
P
Pacta sunt servanda, 573
Pacta tertiis nee nocent nec prosunt, 563
Pactum de contrahendo, 546
Paladini, case of Salvatore, 408
Panama:
international position of the Republic, 182, 312
intervention in, 191
Panama Canal, 251, 592
Pan-American Conferences, 72, 405, 517
Pan-American Union, 517, 624
Pando, 97
Panther, case of the, 219
Papal Nuncio. See Nuncio.
Papal States, 157, 450
Par in parem non habet imperium, 169, 430, 460
Paris:
Convention for the protection of submarine telegraph cables, 354
Declaration of, 12, 68, 537, 569, 588
Peace Treaty of (1763), 64, 183, 314
Peace Treaty of (1856), 68, 190, 247, 268, 277, 325, 514, 549, 564, 575,
578
Peace Treaty of (1898), 72
Parkinson v. Potter, 467
Parlement Belge, case of the, 507
Parliaments, injurious attitude of, 216
Participation of third States in treaties:
accession, 568
adhesion, 569
good offices and mediation, 568
intervention, 568
Parties to treaties, 543-548
Parts of treaties, 552
Part-Sovereign States, 441
Passports:
dismissal of diplomatic envoys through delivery of, 455
of courier, 475
of diplomatic envoy, 448
Passport of vessels, 331
Peace Conferences at the Hague. See Hague.
Peace Treaty of:
Aix-la-Chapelle (1668), 62
Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), 64, 183
 Carlowitz, 63
Christiania, 75
Copenhagen, 63
Frankfort, 290, 291, 606
Hubertsburg, 64
Kainardgi (1774), 441
Kardis, 63
Karlstad, 75, 135
Munster, 241
Nymeguen, 62
Nystaedt, 63
Oliva, 63
Paris (1763), 64, 183, 314
(1856), 68, 190, 247, 268, 277, 325, 514, 549, 564, 575, 578
(1898), 72
Prague (1866), 364
Pyrenees, 62
Rastadt and Baden, 63
Roeskild, 63
Ryswick, 63
San Stefano, 71, 190, 549
Seoul, 75
Shimonoseki, 72
Tilsit, 183, 186
Utrecht, 63, 183, 278
Versailles (1783), 64, 278
Westminster (1674), 319
Westphalia, 61, 151, 435, 587
Pearl fishery off Ceylon and in the Persian Gulf, 348
Peary, Admiral, 292
Pelagic Sealing Conference, 352
Persia, international position of, 164
Persian Gulf, pearl fishery in the, 348
Persona grata of diplomatic envoy, 451
Personal supremacy:
consequences of, 178
definition of, 177
restrictions upon, 183
violations of, 179
Personal union of States, 133
Pertille, 96
Petit cabotage, 607
Pharmacopœial formulas, unification of, 622
Philip II. of Spain, 316
Philippine Islands, 72
Phillimore, Sir Robert, 94, 99
Phosphorus. See White phosphorus.
Phylloxera conventions, 618
Physically impossible obligations, 549
Piédelièvre, 95, 100
Pierantoni, 96
Pillau, alliance of, 551
Pinkney, American commissioner, 513
Piracy, 203, 340-348
Pirata non mutat dominium, 346
Pirates:
jurisdiction over, 345
may be pursued into the territorial maritime belt, 346
Plague. See Sanitary Conventions.
Platen-Hallermund, case of Count, 306
Plebiscite concerning cession of territory, 289, 364
Pledge, 233, 288, 566
Pleins pouvoirs, 447
Podiebrad, 58
Poelitz, 96
Poland, 566
partition of, 151, 310, 370
Polish revolution (1830), 413
Political agents:
public, 509
secret, 510
spies, 510
Political crime, conception of, 414-421
Political criminals, non-extradition of, 411-422
Pollicitations, 546
Polson, Archer, 94
Pope, position of the, 70, 157-162. See also Holy See.
Port Arthur leased to Russia, 233, 288
Porto Rico, 72
Portugal:
her claims to parts of the Open Sea, 316
international position of, 77
passage of troops through territory of, 280
republic proclaimed in, 76
Position:
of armed forces abroad, 501
of consuls, 493
of diplomatic envoys, 455
of diplomatic envoys as regards third States, 469
Positivists, the, 90, 98
Postal Union, Universal, 516
Powers of men-of-war over merchantmen of all nations, 335, 337
Pradier-Fodéré, 95, 100
Prague, Peace Treaty of (1866), 364
Precedence among envoys, 444
Predicates of heads of States, 174
Prescription, 308-311
Presidents of republics:
not sovereigns, 433
position of, 434
Private International Law:
conception of, 4
Hague Conventions concerning, 623, 624
Privateer, 341, 342
Privateering abolished by Declaration of Paris, 69, 588
Privileges of:
consuls, 494
couriers, 475
diplomatic envoys, 456
judges of the Prize Court, 522
members of legation, 473
members of the Tribunal of the Court of Arbitration, 521
Proconsul, 487
Projectiles, Convention concerning, 594
Protection, treaties of, 604
Protection:
envoy's function of, 454
of citizens abroad, 371, 372, 396, 492
Protectorate, 144
Protectorate as precursor of occupation, 296
Protégés, 371
Protest as an international transaction, 538
Protestant States, 449
Prussia becomes a Great Power, 64
Pseudo-guarantees, 602
Publications, official, 620
Public Health, international office of, 518, 621
Public political agents, 509
Pufendorf, 4, 89, 112
Punctationes, 546
Pursuit into the Open Sea, right of, 336
Pyrenees, Peace of the, 62
Q
Quabbe, 604
Quidquid est in territorio est etiam de territorio, 178, 231
Qui in territorio meo est, etiam meus subditus est, 231
R
Rachel, 90
Radiotelegraphy, 236
office of, 516
on the Open Sea, 355
Radiotelegraphic Convention, 355
Union, 614
Railway transports and freights, Union concerning, 614
Office of, 517
Rank of States, 171
Rastadt and Baden, Peace Treaty of, 63
Ratification of treaties:
by whom effected, 558
conception of, 553
effect of, 561
form of, 557
not absolutely necessary, 554
not to be partial or conditional, 559
 rationale for, 554
refusal of, 556
space of time for, 555
Rationale for the freedom of the Open Sea, 327
Real Union of States, 123, 131, 134
Rebus sic stantibus, clause of, 280, 573-574
Recall of diplomatic envoys, 477
Reception of diplomatic envoys, 449, 451, 452
Reception of aliens:
may be received conditionally only, 392
no obligation to receive aliens, 390
Recognition:
of a change in the form of government, 120
of a change in the title of a State, 121, 173
of a new head of a State, 425
of a State through appointment of consul, 489
of States, 116-121
of insurgents as a belligerent Power, 119
Reconduction of foreigners, 402
Reconfirmation of treaties, 581
Recousse, droit de, 347
Red Indians, 35
Redintegration, acquisition of nationality by, 376
Redintegration of treaties, 581
Regents, 432
Registration of Aliens, Act for the, 398
Reign of Terror, 412
Release, loss of nationality through, 378
Religious disabilities, 364, 368
in Roumania, 388
Renewal of treaties, 580
Renunciation as an international transaction, 539
Renunciation of a treaty, 571
Renvoi, droit de, 402
Reprisals, 396
Republics:
American, 624
Italian, 438
Negro, 32
Presidents of, 433, 434
Rescission of treaties, 571
Res extra commercium, 323
Residents, 445
Responsales, 437
Responsibility of States, 206-225
for acts of courts of justice, 216
for acts of diplomatic envoys, 215
for acts of heads of States, 214
for acts of insurgents and rioters, 222
for acts of members of Governments, 215
for acts of officials and military forces, 218
for acts of Parliaments, 216
for acts of private individuals, 221
Res transit cum suo onere, 128, 288
Retinue of diplomatic envoys, 472-475
of monarchs abroad, 430
Retorsion, 391, 396, 400
Revenue Laws, 261
Revolt as a mode of losing territory, 312
Rhine, the river, 241
Rhodian laws, 56
Ricci-Busatti, 104
Right:
of asylum, 392, 461, 462
of chapel, 467
of contiguity, 295
of legation, 440
of protection over citizens abroad, 395, 400
of pursuit on the sea, 336
Right of legation:
by whom exercised, 442
conception, 440
not possessed by a revolutionary party recognised as a belligerent Power,
442
what States possess the, 441
Rights of mankind, 35, 367, 369
Rights of Nations, Declaration of, 35, 65
Rioters, règlement of the Institute of International Law concerning Acts of,
224
Ripperda, case of the Duke of, 461
Riquelme, 97
Rivers, 239
abandoned beds of, 302
international, 240
South American, 242
utilisation of the flow of, 243
See also Navigation.
Rivier, 97, 101, 103
Roeskild, Peace Treaty of, 63
Rolin, 103
Roman Catholic Church, 8
Roman Law, 283
Romans, their rules for international relations, 50
Rome, Congress at, 613
Ross, case of Bishop, 443
Roumania:
Convention of 1877 with Russia, 597
independence of, 71;
restricted, 183
treatment of Jews in, 388
Rousseau, J. J., 113
Rousset, 102
Royal honours, States enjoying, 172
Russian Ambassador, case of, 457
Rutherford, 90
Rymer, 102
Ryswick, Peace Treaty of, 63
S
Sà, case of Don Pantaleon, 475
Saalfeld, 96
Sackville, case of Lord, 455
St. George's Channel, 266
St. Lawrence, navigation on the river, 243
St. Petersburg:
Convention of, 614
Declaration of, 70, 537, 590
Sale of State territory, 287
Salvage, 339
Samos, international position of, 144
San Domingo, 32
San Marino, international position of, 146
San Stefano, Peace Treaty of, 71, 549, 568
Sandona, 96
Sanitary Conventions, 620
Sanitary laws, 261
Sanitation, International Council of, at Bucharest, 515
Santa Lucia, case of, 313
Sarawak, 282
Sarpi, Paolo, 319
Savarkar, case of, 410
Scheldt, the river, 241
Schmalz, 95
Schmauss, 102
Schnaebélé, case of, 511
Schools of International Jurists, 82, 89
Scientific Research, Unions in the interest of, 625, 626
Scott, James Brown, 104
Scott, Sir William, 98. See also Lord Stowell.
Sea-brief, 331
Sea-letter, 331
Seal fisheries in the Behring Sea, 351, 623
Sealing Conference, pelagic, 352, 623
Secret political agents, 510
Secret protocol, 555
Secretaries of Legation, 472
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 435
Seismologic Association, International, 625
Selden, John, 89, 318
Self-jurisdiction:
of diplomatic envoys, 468
of monarchs abroad, 429, 430
Self-preservation, 184-187
Semi-sovereign. See Half- and Part-Sovereign.
Seneca, 230, 283
Senigallia, 104
Seoul, Peace of, 75
Servia, independence of, 71
restricted, 183
Servitudes, 273-281
Servitus in faciendo consistere nequit, 279
Servitutes juris gentium naturales, 274
Servitutes juris gentium voluntariae, 274
Shenandoah, case of the, 343
Shimonoseki, Peace Treaty of, 72, 568
Ship. See Vessel.
Ship-papers, 331, 491
Shipwreck on the Open Sea, 339
Siam, international position of, 164
Slave-trade, 66, 348, 368, 588, 591, 622
Smith, F. E., 94
Solent, the, 266
Solferino, battle of, 544
Sorel, Albert, 95
Soudan, international position of, 232
Soulé, case of, 470
Sound dues, 267
Sources of International Law, 20
South African Republic, 74, 142, 181, 304, 441
her alliance with the Orange Free State, 597
Sovereignty:
conception of, 110, 112, 177
divisibility of sovereignty contested, 110
history of meaning of sovereignty, 111-115
in contradistinction to suzerainty, 141
Sovereignty of monarchs, 428
Spheres of influence, 297
Spies, 510
Spirit-trade in certain parts of Africa, 591
Spitzbergen, 232
Sponsio, 545
Springer, case of, 461
State, conception of, 108
State property. See State territory.
States:
American, 163
a product of law, 14
changes in the conditions of, 121-125
confederated, 135
dignity of, 174-177, 456
equality of, 20, 168
 European, 162
extinction of, 124
Federal, 130, 136
full- and not-full Sovereign, 109
heads of. See Heads of States.
independence of, 177
intercourse of, 166, 199-201
jurisdiction of, 201-205
neutralised, 147-154
new-born, 281
non-Christian, 154, 497
order of precedence of, 172
part-Sovereign, 141
personal supremacy of, 177
personal union of, 133
possessing royal honours, 172
rank of, 171
real union of, 123, 131, 134
recognition of, 116-121
responsibility of, 206-225
self-preservation of, 184-187
suzerain, 140, 190
territorial supremacy of, 177
titles of, 173
under protectorate, 144
vassal, 140
State servitudes, 273-281
State territory:
cession of, 285
definition of, 229
different kinds of, 230
 different parts of, 235
dismembered, 230
importance of, 231
inalienability of parts of, 238
integrate, 230
loss of, 311-314
modes of acquiring, 281-284
servitudes on, 273-281
States under protectorate cannot cede territory without consent of the
superior State, 286
Status quo:
in the Baltic, 604
in the Mediterranean, 603
in the North Sea, 603, 604
treaties guaranteeing maintenance of, 602-604
Stettin, Bay of, 263
Stockton, Capt. C. H., 38
Stoerk, 103
Story, 137
Stowell, Lord, 98, 302
Straits, 265
of Kara, 266
of Kertch, 267
of Magellan, 267
of Yugor, 266
Strupp, 102
Stuart Pretender, the, 278
Suarez, 84
Subject of a State, his position when a diplomatic envoy of a foreign State,
450
Subjugation:
 conception of, 302
consequences of, 305
in contradistinction to occupation, 303
justification of, 304
of the whole or of a part of enemy territory, 304
veto by third Powers, 307
acquisition of nationality through, 306, 377
Subsoil, territorial, 235
beneath the sea bed, 357
Substitution of one treaty for another, 571
Substitution, loss of nationality through, 378
Succession of States, 125-132
Suez Canal, 249, 514, 591
Sugar Convention, 617
Office of, 517
Sujets mixtes, 386
Sully, 58
Sully, case of, 468
Sun Yat Sen, case of, 464
Suzerainty, conception of, 141
Sweden, her sovereignty over the Baltic, 316
Sweden-Norway, Real Union dissolved, 135
Swiss Confederation reorganised, 61
Switzerland, neutralisation of, 66, 151, 588
member-States conclude treaties, 544
without a maritime flag, 327
T
Tabula Amalfitana, 56
Taylor, Hannis, 95, 101
Telegraph cables:
Convention for the protection of, 354
 in the Open Sea, 353
Telegraph Union, Universal, 516
Telegraphy, wireless, on the Open Sea, 355
Terrae potestas finitur ubi finitur armorum vis, 257
Territorial atmosphere, 236
Territorial supremacy:
consequences of, 178
definition of, 177
restrictions upon, 182, 273
violations of, 179
Territorial waters, 235
contrasted with Open Sea, 321
Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 29, 257, 260, 266
Territorium clausum, 230
Territorium dominans, 276
Territorium serviens, 276
Territory. See State Territory.
Textor, 90
Tezkereh, 389
Thalweg, the, 271
Tibet, international position of, 164
Titles of States, 173
Thomasius, 90
Toll, maritime, 259
Tourkmantschai, Treaty of, 246
Tourville, case of, 407
Trading Consular Officers, 485
Tradition of ceded territory, 288
Transactions:
declarations, 536
different kinds of, 536
 notifications, 537
protests, 538
renunciation, 539
Traffic on the Open Sea, 333
Transports, Central Office of International, 517
Transvaal. See South African Republic.
Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act, 265
Treaties:
accession and adhesion to, 568, 569
binding force of, 541, 545, 546
cancellation of, 578
commercial and consular, 488, 605-612
conception of, 540
constitutional restrictions concerning the treaty-making power, 545
different kinds of, 540
effect of, 561
expiration and dissolution of, 570-576
extradition, 412-422
form of, 550
fulfilment of, 570
interpretation of, 582
law-making, 23, 541, 587
lists of, 94, 102
means of securing performance of, 565
objects of, 548
of alliance, 595
of cession, 290
of extradition, 404-406
of guarantee, 599
of protection, 604
of subsidy, 598
 pactum de contrahendo, 546
participation of third States in, 567
parties to, 543, 546-548
parts of, 552
pseudo-guarantees, 602
punctationes, 546
ratification of, 553-561
reconfirmation of, 581
redintegration of, 581
regarding spheres of influence, 297
renewal of, 580
sources of International Law, 23
voidance of, 576
who can exercise the power of making, 543
Triepel, 102
Troppau, Congress of, 67
Tucker, 95
Tunis, international position of, 147, 164
Tunnel, proposed Channel, 359
Turkey, reception into the Family of Nations through Peace Treaty of Paris
(1856), 32, 69
Twiss, Sir Travers, 94, 99, 249
U
Ullmann, 96, 101
Ulpianus, 315
Unions concerning:
Agriculture, 617
birds useful to agriculture, 618
Cholera and plague, 620
Coinage, 619
Copyright, 615
 Customs tariffs publication, 616
Geodetic work, 625
Humanity, 622
Hydrographic work, 626
Industrial property, 616
Literature and Art, 615
Metric system, the, 619
Motor Vehicles, 615
Night work of women, 618
Official publications, 620
Pelagic Sealing, 623
Pharmacopœial formulas, 622, 623
Phylloxera epidemics, 618
Post, 613
Private International Law, 623
Public health, 621
Radiotelegraphy, 614
Railway transport, 614
Sanitation, 620
Science, 625
Seismology, 625
Submarine cables, 614
Sugar, 617
Telegraphs, 614
Transport, 614
White phosphorus, the use of, 618
White slave traffic, 622, 623
Wild animals in Africa, 623
Unions, object of, 612
United States of America:
become a Great Power, 70, 171, 312
 become a member of Family of Nations, 64
intervene in the revolt of Cuba, 72
member-States cannot conclude treaties, 544
naval war code of, 38
Universal Postal Union, 613
Universal Telegraph Union, 614
Usage, international, in contradistinction to international custom, 22
Usurper, 427
Utrecht, Peace of, 63, 278, 583
V
Vaderland, case of the, 357
Vassal States, 140
cannot be parties to offensive alliances, 142, 597
cannot cede territory without consent of suzerain, 286
competent to appoint consuls, 488
competent to make treaties, 544
competent to send public political agents, 509
of Great Britain, Indian, 142
Vatican, the, 158, 449
Vattel, 93, 320, 405
Venezuela, blockade of (1902), 74
Venice:
ceded by Austria to France, 287
her sovereignty over the Adriatic Sea, 316
Verdun, Treaty of, 54
Verification of flag, 335
Verona, Congress of, 67
Versailles, Peace of, 64, 567
Vessels:
arrest of, 338
collision of, 333
distress of, 339, 356
names of, 332, 350
papers of, 331
search of, 338
territorial quality of, when on the Open Sea, 332
visit of, 337
See also Men-of-War.
Veto concerning a cession of territory, 289
concerning subjugation, 307
Vexaincourt, case of, 219
Vice-consul, 486
Victor Emanuel, King of Italy, 426
Victoria, 84
Vienna Congress, 65, 75
(1815), 241, 280, 444, 587, 588
Vienna, Treaty of (1878), 364
Villafranca, Preliminary Peace Treaty of, 544
Virginius, case of the, 187
Visit of vessels, 337
Vital change of circumstances, 573
Voidance of treaties:
through extinction of object concerned, 577
through extinction of one of the parties, 576
through impossibility of execution, 577
through realisation of purpose, 577
Völkerrechts-Indigenat, 367
W
Waddington, case of, 475
Walker, Thomas Alfred, 94, 100
Wallachia, 441
War, Convention concerning Laws of, 593
Convention concerning rights and duties of neutrals in, 593
Laws of (U.S.A.), 36
Laws of (U.S.A.) at sea, 38
Warsaw, non-admittance of consuls to, 488
Washburne, case of, 471
Washington:
Boundary Treaty of (1908), 272, 513
Congress of (1890), 304
Maritime Conference of (1889), 333
 Pelagic Fishing Conference of, 352
Treaties (1854) and (1871), concerning navigation on the river St.
Lawrence, 243
Treaty (1857) concerning the Sound Dues, 268
Treaty (1901) concerning the Panama Canal, 251
Treaty (1904), 182
Waters, territorial. See Territorial waters.
Webster, Mr., U.S.A., Secretary of Foreign Affairs, 502
Weights and Measures, International Union of, 619
Office of the Union of, 516
Wei-Hai-Wei leased to Great Britain, 233, 288
Welwood, William, 318
Wenck, 102
Westlake, 94, 101
Westminster, Treaty of (1674), 319
Westphalian Peace, 61, 151, 435, 587
Wharton, 95, 100
Wheaton, 95, 98
White Phosphorus, Convention for the prohibition of the use of, 618
White Phosphorus Matches Prohibition Act, 618
White Sea fisheries, 348
White slave traffic, 623
Wild animals, &c., in Africa, preservation of, 623
Wildman, Richard, 94
William of Holland, case of King, 432
Wilson, 95, 101
Wireless telegraphy, 236
on the Open Sea, 355
Wisby, the maritime laws of, 56
Wismar, pledged by Sweden to Mecklenburg, 233, 288
Wolff, Christian, 92
Women. See Night-work of women.
Woolsey, 95, 103
Wrech, case of Baron de, 465
Y
Young Turks movement, 76
Yugor Straits, 266
Z
Zanzibar, international position of, 147
Zone for revenue and sanitary laws extended beyond the maritime belt, 261
Zouche, 88
Zuider Zee, 263

END OF VOL. I.

Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.

Edinburgh & London
 *** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be
renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law
means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States
without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying
and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a
registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook,
except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying
royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge
anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg
eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do
practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by
U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

 THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any
other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you
agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License
available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic

work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all
the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright)
agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement,
you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and
you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may
obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set
forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on

or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can
do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without
complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below.
There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free
future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E
below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation”

or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual
work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are
removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing
Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement
for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You
can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in
the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a
constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the
laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before
downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating
derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™
work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied
or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from
texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice
indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the
work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without
paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a
work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on
the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs
1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with

the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must
comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms
imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the
Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of
the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™

License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or
any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently
displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or
immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than
“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on
the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of
exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work
in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format
must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph
1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing,
copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply
with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to
or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use
of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already
use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties
under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following
each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such
and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in
writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to
the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such
a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical
medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic
work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the
work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of
Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in
this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable

effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works
not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and
the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription
errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that
damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to
you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you
can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund.
If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to
you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work
electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you
may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or

the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or
limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable
to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum
disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity
or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause
to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project

Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic

works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including
obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the
efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of
life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance
they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring
that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for
generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for
Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and
donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information
page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary

Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)

(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.
The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541.
Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s
laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt
Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date
contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official
page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread

public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the
number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment
including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are
particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort,
much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not
received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have
not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against
accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us
with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any

statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the
United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods
and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including
checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™

electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™

concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with
anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™
eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions,
all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a
copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in
compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including

how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to
our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.