The Project Gutenberg eBook, International Law, by George Grafton Wilson and George Fox Tucker

E-text prepared by
Carl Hudkins, Heike Leichsenring, jnik,
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(http://www.pgdp.net)

Transcriber's note

Obvious errors of punctuation have been corrected. All other changes have been marked with a dotted line beneath the text. Hover the cursor over the marked text and an explanation should appear. In addition, you will find a list of changes at the [end of the document].

INTERNATIONAL LAW

BY

GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON, Ph.D.
PROFESSOR IN BROWN UNIVERSITY

AND

GEORGE FOX TUCKER, Ph.D.
LATELY REPORTER OF DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL
COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

SILVER, BURDETT AND COMPANY
NEW YORK BOSTON CHICAGO

Copyright, 1901,
By SILVER, BURDETT AND COMPANY.

PREFACE

The authors have aimed to prepare a brief introduction to the subject of International Law. They have freely used the substantive material as found in cases, codes, etc., which involve the principles of International Law. Owing to the increasing importance of international negotiation, relatively more attention than usual has been given to matters connected with diplomacy. The appendices contain material which the authors have found advantageous to have easily accessible to each student. The study of this book should in all cases be supplemented by reference to a considerable number of the books mentioned in the bibliography.

G. G. W.
G. F. T.

September, 1901.

CONTENTS

PAGE
[Bibliography]xix
[Abbreviation of Cases Cited]xxi
[Table of Cases Cited]xxiii
[PART I]
GENERAL AND HISTORICAL

[CHAPTER I]

Definition and General Scope3
[CHAPTER II]
Nature6
[CHAPTER III]
Historical Development12
[CHAPTER IV]
Sources29
[PART II]
PERSONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

[CHAPTER V]

States39
  • [19. Definition.]
    • (a) Political.
    • (b) Sovereign.
  • [20. Nature.]
    • (a) Moral.
    • (b) Physical.
    • (c) Communal.
    • (d) External conditions.
  • [21. Recognition of New States.]
    • (a) De facto existence.
    • (b) Circumstances of recognition.
      • (1) By division.
      • (2) By union.
      • (3) By admission of old states.
      • (4) By admission of former barbarous communities.
      • (5) Individual and collective recognition.
    • (c) Act of recognition.
    • (d) Premature recognition.
    • (e) Conditions.
    • (f) Recognition irrevocable.
    • (g) Consequences.
      • (1) The Recognizing state.
      • (2) The Recognized state.
      • (3) The Parent state.
      • (4) Other States.
[CHAPTER VI]
Legal Persons having Qualified Status50
[PART III]
INTERNATIONAL LAW OF PEACE

[CHAPTER VII]

General Rights and Obligations of States67
[CHAPTER VIII]
Existence71
[CHAPTER IX]
Independence74
[CHAPTER X]
Equality88
[CHAPTER XI]
Jurisdiction94
[CHAPTER XII]
Property148
[CHAPTER XIII]
Diplomacy and International Relations in Times of Peace150
[CHAPTER XIV]
Treaties198
[CHAPTER XV]
Amicable Settlement of Disputes and Non-hostile Redress217
[PART IV]
INTERNATIONAL LAW OF WAR

[CHAPTER XVI]

War229
[CHAPTER XVII]
Status of Persons in War235
[CHAPTER XVIII]
Status of Property on Land239
[CHAPTER XIX]
Status of Property at Sea245
[CHAPTER XX]
Conduct of Hostilities250
[CHAPTER XXI]
Termination of War270
[PART V]
INTERNATIONAL LAW OF NEUTRALITY

[CHAPTER XXII]

Definition and History277
[CHAPTER XXIII]
Relations of Neutral States and Belligerent States285
[CHAPTER XXIV]
Neutral Relations between States and Individuals298
[Appendices]331
[Index]447
  • [19. Definition.]
    • (a) Political.
    • (b) Sovereign.
  • [20. Nature.]
    • (a) Moral.
    • (b) Physical.
    • (c) Communal.
    • (d) External conditions.
  • [21. Recognition of New States.]
    • (a) De facto existence.
    • (b) Circumstances of recognition.
      • (1) By division.
      • (2) By union.
      • (3) By admission of old states.
      • (4) By admission of former barbarous communities.
      • (5) Individual and collective recognition.
    • (c) Act of recognition.
    • (d) Premature recognition.
    • (e) Conditions.
    • (f) Recognition irrevocable.
    • (g) Consequences.
      • (1) The Recognizing state.
      • (2) The Recognized state.
      • (3) The Parent state.
      • (4) Other States.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

This list contains the titles of books most frequently cited in the following pages:—

  • Bluntschli, J. C. Le droit international. (Lardy), 1886.
  • Bonfils. Droit International Public. (Fauchille), 1898.
  • Calvo, Ch. Droit International. 5e éd. 6 vols. 1896.
  • Cobbett, Pitt. Leading Cases and Opinions on International Law. 2d ed, 1892.
  • Dahlgren, J. A. Maritime International Law. 1877.
  • Davis, G. B. The Elements of International Law. 1901.
  • Despagnet. Droit International Public. 2d ed. 1899.
  • Field, D. D. Outline of an International Code. 1876.
  • Glass, H. Marine International Law. 1884.
  • Glenn, E. F. Hand Book of International Law. 1895.
  • Grotius, H. De Jure Belli ac Pacis. 3 vols. Whewell. 1853.
  • Hall, W. E. International Law. 4th ed. 1895.
  • Halleck, H. W. Elements of International Law. 3d ed. Baker. 1893.
  • Heffter, A. G. Droit International. 4th ed. Geffeken. 1883.
  • Hertslet, E. Map of Europe by Treaty, 1815-1891. 4 vols. 1875-1891.
  • Holls, F. W. The Peace Conference at the Hague. 1900.
  • Hosack, J. Rise and Growth of the Law of Nations. 1882.
  • Kent, J. Commentaries on American Law. 14th ed.
  • Lawrence, T. J. Principles of International Law. 2d ed. 1901.
  • Lehr, E. Manuel des Agents Diplomatiques et Consulaires. 1888.
  • Maine, H. International Law. 1888.
  • Moore, J. B. Extradition and Interstate Rendition. 2 vols. 1891.
  • —— International Arbitrations. 6 vols. 1898.
  • Ortolan, T. Diplomatie de la Mer. 4th ed. 2 vols. 1864.
  • Perels, F. Manuel de Droit Maritime International par Arendt. 1884.
  • Phillimore, R. International Law. 3d ed.
  • Pomeroy, J. N. International Law in Times of Peace. 1886.
  • Pradier-Fodéré, P. Trait de Droit International Public Européen et Americain. 7 vols. 1885-1897.
  • Rivier, A. Principes du Droit des Gens. 2 vols. 1896.
  • Snow, F. Cases and Opinions on International Law. 1893.
  • —— American Diplomacy. 1894.
  • —— International Law. Naval War College. Prepared by Stockton. 2d ed. 1898.
  • Takahashi, S. Cases on International Law, Chino-Japanese. 1896.
  • Treaties and Conventions between the United States and Other Powers, 1776-1887. 1887.
  • Treaties in Force, Compilation of United States. 1899.
  • Vattel, E. Law of Nations. Trans. Ingraham. 1876.
  • Walker, T. A. Science of International Law. 1893.
  • —— Manual of Public International Law. 1895.
  • —— History of the Law of Nations, vol. 1. 1899.
  • Westlake, J. Chapters on Principles of International Law. 1894.
  • Wharton, F. Digest of International Law. 3 vols. 2d ed. 1887.
  • Wheaton, H. Elements of International Law. 1836.
  • —— Edited by Lawrence, W. B. 1863.
  • —— Edited by Dana, R. H. 1865.
  • —— Edited by Boyd, A. C. 2d ed.
  • Woolsey, T. D. International Law. 6th ed. 1891.

ABBREVIATIONS OF CITATIONS

The following are the important abbreviations of citations:—

Ann. Cycl. Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia.
Br. & For. St. Pap. British and Foreign State Papers.
C. Rob. Chr. Robinson's English Admiralty Reports.
Brussels Code Conference at Brussels, 1874, on Military Warfare.
Cr. Cranch's United States Reports.
Fed. Rep. Federal Reporter.
Gould & Tucker Gould and Tucker's Notes on the United States Statutes.
Hall Hall's International Law (4th ed.).
Hertslet Hertslet Map of Europe by Treaty.
How. Howard United States Reports.
Instr. U. S. Armies. Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field.
Kent's Com. Kent's Commentaries (14th ed.).
Lawrence Lawrence's Principles of International Law.
Oxford Manual Manual of the Laws of War on Land, Oxford, 1880.
Pet. Peters's United States Reports.
Schuyler Schuyler's American Diplomacy.
Takahashi Takahashi's Cases during the Chino-Japanese War.
Treaties of U. S. Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776-1887.
U. S. For. Rel. United States Foreign Relations.
U. S. Naval War Code United States Naval War Code.
U. S. United States Reports.
U. S. Rev. Sts. United States Revised Statutes.
U. S. Sts. at Large United States Statutes at Large.
Wall. Wallace, United States Reports.
Whart. Wharton's International Law Digest.
Wheaton D. Wheaton's International Law (Dana's edition).
Wheat. Wheaton's United States Reports.

TABLE OF CASES CITED

[PART I]

GENERAL AND HISTORICAL

INTERNATIONAL LAW

[CHAPTER I]

DEFINITION AND GENERAL SCOPE

[§ 1. Definition]

International law may be considered from two points of view, viz.:—

(a) From the philosophical point of view, as setting forth the rules and principles which ought to be observed in interstate relations.

(b) From the scientific point of view, as setting forth the rules and principles which are generally observed in interstate relations.

Wheaton, D., 23: "International law, as understood among civilized nations, may be defined as consisting of those rules of conduct which reason deduces, as consonant to justice, from the nature of the society existing among independent nations; with such definitions and modifications as may be established by general consent." See also I. Pradier-Fodéré, pp. 8, 41.

Early writers treated especially of those principles which ought to be observed in interstate action, and the wealth of quotation and testimony introduced to establish the validity of principles now considered almost axiomatic, is overwhelming. In the days of Ayala, Brunus, Gentilis, Grotius, and Pufendorf, all the argument possible was needed to bring states to submit to these principles. The conditions and relations of states have so changed that at the present time a body of fairly established rules and principles are observed in interstate action, and form the subject-matter of international law.[1]

[§ 2. Divisions]

International law is usually divided into:—

(a) Public international law, which treats of the rules and principles which are generally observed in interstate action, and

(b) Private international law, which treats of the rules and principles which are observed in cases of conflict of jurisdiction in regard to private rights. These cases are not properly international, and a better term for this branch of knowledge is that given by Judge Story, "The Conflict of Laws."[2]

International law, in the true sense, deals only with state affairs.

[§ 3. Scope]

International law is generally observed by civilized states; even some of those states not fully open to western civilization profess to observe its rules. [3] The expansion of commerce and trade, the introduction of new and rapid means of communication, the diffusion of knowledge through books and travel, the establishment of permanent embassies, the making of many treaties containing the same general provisions, and the whole movement of modern civilization toward unifying the interests of states, has rapidly enlarged the range of international action and the scope of international law. Civilized states, so far as possible, observe the rules of international law in their dealings with uncivilized communities which have not yet attained to statehood. International law covers all the relations into which civilized states may come, both peaceful and hostile. In general, it should not extend its scope so as to interfere with domestic affairs or to limit domestic jurisdiction, though it does often limit the economic and commercial action of a given state, and determine to some extent its policy.

[CHAPTER II]

NATURE

[§ 4. Early Terminology]

The conception of those rules and principles of which international law treats has varied greatly with periods, with conditions, and with writers.

The early terminology indicates the vagueness of the conceptions of the principles governing conduct of man toward his fellows.

(a) Jus naturale is defined broadly by Ulpian[4] as "the law which nature has taught all living creatures, so as to be common to men and beasts." Grotius also uses this term, defining it as "the dictate of right reason, indicating that any act from its agreement or disagreement with rational nature has in it moral turpitude or moral necessity, and consequently such act is either forbidden or enjoined by God, the author of nature."[5] Lieber says, "The law of nature, or natural law ... is the law, the body of rights, which we deduce from the essential nature of man."[6] The discussion of jus naturale has been carried on from an early period,[7] covering many portions of the field of modern international law, and making possible the broadening and strengthening of its foundation.

(b) Jus gentium, according to Justinian, is "that which natural reason has established among all men, that which all peoples uniformly regard."[8] "Jus gentium is common to the whole human kind."[9] This idea of a body of law common to all men assumed a different meaning when states multiplied and writer after writer redefined and qualified its meaning. Jus gentium became the subject of many controversies.[10] Among the qualifying terms were "internal," "necessary," "natural," "positive."

(c) Other terms were used to name the field or portions of the field of modern international law. Jus fetiale applied particularly to the declaration of war and sanction of treaties.[11] Jus inter gentes was used by Zouch in 1650 to name the real field of international law. Law of nations was the term commonly used in England till the days of Bentham; since that time the term international law, which he adopted, has steadily grown in favor, till almost universal in the English language.[12]

The change in terminology shows in a measure the growth in demarking the field of international law.

[§ 5. Historical Bases]

International law in its beginning may have been largely determined by abstract reasoning upon what ought to be the principles and rules governing interstate relations; but in its later development, as it has become more and more recognized as a safe guide for the conduct of states in their relations with other states, not abstract reasoning as to what ought to be, but direct investigation of what is, has determined the character of the rules and principles. What is state practice in a given case can only be determined by reference to history. From the history of cases and practice, the general rule and principle is derived, and modern international law thus comes to rest largely upon historical bases.

[§ 6. Ethical Bases]

While international law now looks to history as one of its most important bases, it must nevertheless accord somewhat closely with the ethical standards of the time, and will tend to approximate to them. The growth of the body of law upon slavery has rested on both ethical and historical bases. International law is principally an output of civilized nations having certain ethical standards. Such ancient practices as the giving of hostages for the fulfillment of treaty stipulations have disappeared, and ethical bases are generally recognized in determining practice.[13] While these ethical bases should be recognized, international law cannot be deduced from the subtle reasoning upon the abstract ideas of what it ought to be. Modern international law treats mainly of what is, but what is in international relations is always conditioned by a recognition of what ought to be.

[§ 7. Jural Bases
]

The nature of modern international law is in part due to the jural bases upon which it rests.

(a) The Roman law was the most potent influence in determining the early development, particularly in respect to dominion and acquisition of territory. International law gained a certain dignity and weight from its relation to the Roman law, the most potent legal institution in history.

(b) The canon law, as the law of the ecclesiastics who were supposed to recognize the broadest principles of human unity, gave an ethical element to early international law. Gregory IX. (1227-1241), the Justinian of the Church, reduced canon law to a code. The abstract reasoning upon its principles among the clergy and counsellors of kings, made it a part of the mental stock of the early text writers, while it strongly influenced state practice. The canon law gave a quasi-religious sanction to its observance, and in so far as international law embodied its principles, gave the same sanction to the observance of international equity. This may be seen in the religious formula in treaties, even to a late date.

(c) The common law, itself international as derived from three systems, according to tradition, by Edward the Confessor, and subsequently modified by custom, furnished a practical element in determining the nature of international law.

(d) Equity promoted the development of the recognition of principles in international law. In the early days of England cases arose which were not within the cognizance of the common law judges. The petitioner having applied to the king in Parliament or in council for justice, his petition was referred to the chancellor, the keeper of the king's conscience, who, after a hearing, required that what was equitable should be done. Thus the simpler matters came before the common law court, the more difficult before the equity court. Even now a jury largely deals with questions relating to the recovery of money, and their decision is a verdict, which is followed by a judgment. In an equity court, the more difficult problems of business and commerce are considered; and the decision of the judge is a decree.

(e) Admiralty law may be defined as in one sense the law of the sea. Anterior to and during the Middle Ages, the maritime relations of states gave rise to sea laws, many of which are to-day well-recognized principles of international law.

[§ 8. International and Statute Law
]

Statute law proceeds from legislative enactment, and is enforced by the power of the enacting state within its jurisdiction.

International law, on the other hand, is not formally enacted, and has no tribunal for its enforcement. Resort may be had to war in case of infraction of its rules, but the issue may rather depend upon the relative powers of the two states and not upon the justice of the cause.

[§ 9. How far is International Law entitled to be called Law?]

If law is defined, as by Austin, "A rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by an intelligent being having power over him,"[14] it would not be possible to include under it international law without undue liberality in the interpretation of the language.

In form, however, law is a body of rules and principles in accord with which phenomena take place. If these rules are not followed as enunciated by the state in case of statute law, certain penalties are inflicted. The nature of the penalty must to a great extent depend on the source. International law is the body of rules and principles, in accord with which, interstate phenomena take place. Violations of international law do not meet the same penalties as those of statute law, as they do not have the same source nor an established tribunal for their enforcement. International law is, however, in form law and in practice so regarded.[15]

[CHAPTER III]

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

[§ 10. Early Period]

The history of the development of those rules and principles now considered in international law naturally falls into three periods, early, middle and modern.[16]

The early period dates from the time of the development of early European civilization, and extends to the beginning of the Christian Era. During this period the germs of the present system appear.[17]

(a) Greece. The dispersion of the Greeks in many colonies which became practically independent communities gave rise to systems of intercourse involving the recognition of general obligations.[18] The maritime law of Rhodes is an instance of the general acceptance of common principles. The main body of this law has not survived, yet the fragment appearing in the Digest, De Lege Rhodia de Jactu,[19] is, after more than two thousand years, the basis of the present doctrine of jettison. It is reasonable to suppose that though the words of other portions of the Rhodian law are lost, the principles may have entered into formation of later compilations. The recognition by Greece of the existence of other independent states, and the relations into which the states entered, developed crude forms of international comity, as in the sending and receiving of ambassadors[20] and the formation of alliances.[21]

(b) Rome. Rome made many contributions to the principles of international law in the way of the extension of her own laws to wider spheres, and in the attempt to adapt Roman laws to conditions in remote territories. In this early period Rome may be said to have contributed to the field of what is now considered private international law rather than to that of public international law. This is evident in the laws in regard to marriage, contract, property, etc. The dominance of Rome impressed her laws on others, and extended the influence of those principles which, from general practice, or conformity to accepted standards, gained the name Jus Gentium.[22]

[§ 11. Middle Period]

The varied struggles of the middle period—from the beginning of the Christian Era to the middle of the seventeenth century—had a decided influence upon the body and form of international law.

(a) Roman Empire. The growth of the Roman Empire, as the single world power and sole source of political authority, left small need of international standards. The appeal in case of disagreement was not to such standards, but to Cæsar. The idea of one common supremacy was deep-rooted. Political assimilation followed the expansion of political privileges.

(b) The Church. A similar unifying influence was found in the growth of the Christian Church which knew no distinction—bond or free, Jew or Gentile. Christianity, called to be the state religion early in the fourth century, modeled its organization on that of the Roman Empire; and from the sixth century, with the decay of the Empire, the Church became the great power. The belief in the eternity and universality of Roman dominion was strengthened by the Church, although materially changed in its nature.[23] Whatever the inconsistencies in Church and State during the first ten centuries of our era, there had grown up the idea, of great importance for international law, that there could be a ground upon which all might meet, a belief which all might accept, both in regard to political and religious organization. For five hundred years before the days of Boniface VIII. (1294-1303), the holder of the papal office had from time to time acted as an international judge.

The canon law, codified by Gregory IX. (1227-1241), was planned to rival the Corpus Juris Civilis. The Popes, with varying degrees of success, tried to render such international justice as the discordant elements introduced by the growth of cities and rise of nationalities demanded.[24] From the Council of Constance (1414-1418), which was a recognition of the fact of nationality, and at which the emperor for the last time appeared as the great international head, the decline of both the Church and the Empire as direct international factors was rapid.

(c) Feudalism. By the eleventh century feudalism had enmeshed both the temporal and spiritual authorities. This system, closely related to the possession of land and gradation of classes, discouraged the development of the ideas of equality of state powers necessary for the development of international law, though it did emphasize the doctrine of sovereignty as based on land in distinction from the personal sovereignty of earlier days.

(d) The Crusades (1096-1270), uniting Christendom against the Saracen for foreign intervention, awakening Europe to a new civilization, expanding the study and practice of the Roman law which feudal courts had checked, weakening many feudal overlords, enfranchising towns, freeing the third estate, spreading the use of the Latin language, enlarging and diversifying commerce, teaching the possible unity of national interests, led to the apprehension of a broader basis in comity which made the growth of interstate relations more rapid.[25]

(e) Chivalry. The code of chivalry and the respect for honor which it enjoined introduced a basis of equable dealing which on account of the international character of the orders of chivalry reacted upon state practice throughout Christian Europe.

(f) Commerce and Sea Laws. The expansion of commerce, especially maritime, emphasized the duties and rights of nations. The old Rhodian laws of commerce, which had in part been incorporated in and expanded by the Roman code during the days before the overthrow of the Empire, formed a basis for maritime intercourse. From the fall of the Empire to the Crusades commerce was attended with great dangers from pirates on the sea and from exactions in the port. The so-called Amalfitan Tables seem to have been the sea law of the latter part of the eleventh century. The much more detailed Consolato del Mare of doubtful origin between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries derived some of its principles from the eleventh-century code. The Consolato was recognized by maritime powers as generally binding, and made possible wide commercial intercourse. Many of its principles have stood to the present day, though touching such questions as the mutual rights of neutrals and belligerents on the sea in time of war.[26] As the Consolato formed the code of Southern Europe, the Laws of Oleron formed the maritime code for Western Europe, and were compiled the latter part of the twelfth century, whether by Richard I. or by his mother Queen Eleanor is a disputed question. These laws are based in large measure on the other existing systems. The Laws of Wisby, dating from about 1288, supplemented the Laws of Oleron, and formed the fundamental law of maritime courts of the Baltic nations.[27] The Hanseatic League in 1591[28] compiled a system of marine law, Jus Hanseaticum Maritimum, based on the codes of Western and Northern Europe. The maritime law of Europe was practically unchanged for nearly a hundred years, when systematized in 1673 under Louis XIV. Similar to the maritime codes are the "Customs of Amsterdam," the "Laws of Antwerp," and the "Guidon de la Mar."[29]

(g) Consulates. Closely connected with the development of maritime law during the latter part of the middle period was the establishment of the office of consul. The consuls, under the title of consules marinariorum et mercatorum, resident in foreign countries, assisted by advice and information the merchants of their own countries, and endeavored to secure to their countrymen such rights and privileges as possible. These seem to have been sent by Pisa early in the eleventh century, and were for some time mainly sent by the Mediterranean countries to the East.

(h) The discovery of America marked a new epoch in territorial and mercantile expansion, and introduced new problems among those handed down from an age of political chaos.

(i) Conclusion. The middle period, with all its inconsistencies in theory and practice, had nevertheless taught men some lessons. The world-empire of Rome showed a common political sovereignty by which the acts of remote territories might be regulated; the world-religion of the Church of the middle period added the idea of a common bond of humanity. Both of these conceptions imbued men's minds with the possibility of a unity, but a unity in which all other powers should be subordinate to a single power, and not a unity of several sovereign powers acting on established principles. The feudal system emphasized the territorial basis of sovereignty. The Crusades gave to the Christian peoples of Europe a knowledge and tolerance of each other which the honor of the code of chivalry made more beneficent, while the growth of the free cities opposed the dominance of classes feudal or religious. The fluctuations and uncertainties in theory and practice of international intercourse, both in peace and war, made men ready to hear the voice of Grotius (1583-1645), whose work marks the beginning of the modern period.

[§ 12. Modern Period (1648- )]

The modern period may be divided into three epochs for International Law: (a) from the Peace of Westphalia, 1648, to the Peace of Utrecht, 1713; (b) from the Peace of Utrecht, 1713, to the Congress of Vienna, 1815; (c) from the Congress of Vienna, 1815, to the present time.

(a) 1648-1713. It became evident at the termination of the Thirty Years' War in 1648 that the old doctrines of world-empire, whether of Pope or Emperor, could no longer be sustained. The provisions of the Peace of Westphalia, while not creating a code to govern international relations, did give legal recognition to the existence of such conditions as Grotius contemplated in "De Jure Belli ac Pacis," viz.: sovereign states, equal regardless of area and power. The decree of James I., in 1604, establishing a neutral zone by "a straight line drawn from one point to another about the realm of England," in which neither of the parties to the war between the United Provinces and Spain should carry on hostilities, formed a precedent in maritime jurisdiction, even though the decree was but imperfectly enforced. This early part of the modern period was especially fruitful in treatises and discussions upon the nature of international law, and upon what it ought to be, and also upon the law of the sea particularly Grotius's "Mare Liberum," 1609, Selden's "Mare Clausum," 1635, and Bynkershoek's "De Dominio Maris," 1702.[30] During this period the public law was diligently studied, the right of legation became generally recognized, French gradually took the place of Latin in international intercourse,[31] with a corresponding modern spirit in the practice, though the discussions were usually ponderous and abstract, the idea of the balance of power flourished and formed a subject of frequent controversy, the principle of intervention upon political grounds was propounded and acknowledged, and the opinions of the great publicists, such as Grotius, gained great weight and were widely studied. The general principles of neutral trade, including "free ships, free goods," were laid down, prize laws and provisions as to contraband were adopted, numerous treaties of commerce gave witness of the growth of international intercourse, and both men and states became somewhat more tolerant.

(b) 1713-1815. The Treaty of Utrecht (1713) contained recognition of many of the principles which had become fairly well accepted during the years since 1648. There are evidences of the growing influences of the New World upon the policy of the Old; the American fisheries question appears; the international regulations in regard to commerce are multiplied, and the central subject of the preamble is the subject of "the balance of power."[32] For many years the question of succession to the various seats of royal and princely power formed the chief subject of international discussion. During the eighteenth century the steady growth of England as a maritime power and the European complications over trans-Atlantic possessions brought new international issues. The basis of modern territorial acquisition was found in the Roman law of occupatio, and its laws of river boundaries were almost exactly followed.[33] From the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), in which former treaties were generally renewed, to 1815, the growth and observation of the principles of international law was spasmodic. By the Peace of Paris and by the Peace of Hubertsburg (1763), many questions of territorial jurisdiction were settled. England, now become the dominant power in North America, with greatly extended power in the East, impresses upon international practice adherence to actual precedent rather than to theoretically correct principles. At the same time in Central Europe the conditions were ripe for that violation of international justice, the partition of Poland in 1772, followed by the further partition in 1793 and 1795. The rights which the concert of nations was thought to hold sacred were the ones most ruthlessly violated by the neighboring powers. The American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 introduced new principles. The "armed neutrality" of 1780,[34] while maintaining the principle "free ships, free goods," made impossible the converse, "enemy's ships, enemy's goods," which had been held. Both the American and French Revolution made evident the necessity of the development of the laws of neutrality hitherto greatly confused and disregarded.[35] During the French Revolution it seemed that to Great Britain alone could the states of Europe look for the practice of the principles of international law. After the French Revolution it was necessary to define just intervention that Europe might not be again convulsed. It became clear that the state was an entity and distinct from the person of its king. No longer could the king of France or of any European state say "L'état c'est moi." Even though personal selfishness of monarchs might pervade the Congress of Vienna, the spirit of nationality could not long be restrained. The period from 1713 to 1815 had tested the general principles propounded during the seventeenth century, and it was found necessary to expand their interpretation, while the growth of commerce and intercourse made necessary new laws of neutrality and new principles of comity, such as were in part forthcoming in the early days of the nineteenth century, as seen in the resistance to the right of search, the declaration against African slave trade, establishment of freedom of river navigation, improved regulations in regard to trade in time of war, neutralization of Switzerland, placing of protectorate over Ionian Islands, and the determination of precedence and dignities of the various diplomatic agents and the states which they represented. By the year 1815 the theory of the seventeenth century had been severely tested by the practice of the eighteenth century, and it remained for the nineteenth century to profit by the two centuries of modern political experience.

(c) 1815 to date. The Peace of Westphalia (1648), the Peace of Utrecht (1713), and the Treaty of Vienna (1815) are the three celebrated cases of combined action of modern European powers. The "balance of power" idea had gradually been supplemented by "the concert of the powers" idea, which would not merely maintain the relative status quo of "the balance," but might enter upon a positive policy of concerted action. The "Holy Alliance" of 1815, to promote "Justice, Christian Charity, and Peace,"[36] was first broken by its originators. There was a strong feeling that the principles of international law should be followed, however, and this, the "Declaration of the Five Cabinets," Nov. 15, 1818, distinctly avowed in "their invariable resolution, never to depart, either among themselves, or in their relations with other states, from the strictest observation of the principles of the Rights of Nations."[37] The attempt to extend the principle of intervention in favor of maintaining the various sovereigns on their thrones, and in suppression of internal revolutionary disturbances by foreign force was made in the "Circular of the Three Powers," Dec 8, 1820.[38] Under many forms intervention has been one of the great questions of the nineteenth century, and the growing proximity and multiplication of relations of states during the century has added many complications.[39] The Grecian War of Independence (1821-1829) brought the new principle of pacific blockade (1827), and at its conclusion the powers guaranteed the sovereignty of Greece. The subjects of right of search, foreign enlistment, Monroe Doctrine, freedom of commerce and navigation, expatriation, extradition, neutralized territory, ship canals, consular rights, neutral rights and duties, arbitration, reciprocity, mixed courts, international postage, weights and measures, trade-marks and copyright, rules of war, sub-marine cables, and sphere of influence, which have come to the front during the nineteenth century, indicate in a measure the subject-matter of international negotiation. Throughout the period since 1815 the tendency has been rather to regard what is the international practice.

[§ 13. Writers]

Among the writers upon subjects connected with international law before the days of Grotius the most prominent are Victoria ( -1550?), Ayala (1548-1584), Suarez (1548-1617), and Gentilis (1551-1611). While in many respects their contributions to the science were valuable, the work of Grotius stands out preëminent among all the early writers.

Hugo Grotius (b. Delft, Apr. 10, 1583; d. Rostock, Aug. 28, 1645). Scholar; jurist; statesman; good family; precocious; prodigious learning in many branches; at fifteen with special embassy to France; at twenty historiographer to the United Provinces; at twenty-five advocate-general of the fisc of Holland and Zealand; married next year Mary van Riegesberg, a worthy help-meet; at thirty pensionary of city of Rotterdam; same year one of deputation to England to settle maritime disputes. Grotius took active part in religious disputes, on which account in 1619 he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and confiscation of his property. Two years later, through cleverness of his wife, he escaped to Paris. Here days of adversity and study. In 1625 "De Jure Belli ac Pacis" published; brought no profit but immediate and lasting fame. Disappointed in his hope to return to permanent residence in Holland; is appointed Swedish ambassador at French Court, 1635-1645. Declines further service in 1645. Retires, honored in all lands; shipwrecked; died at Rostock, Aug. 28, 1645.[40]

Grotius's "De Jure Belli ac Pacis" (1625). An attempt to bring into a systematic treatment those principles which have since become known as international law. Touches upon many other subjects; rich in quotations; broad philosophical basis gives it permanent value. Conditions in Europe at time of appearance of work gave it immediate and powerful influence in determining course of modern political history. Upon the foundation laid by Grotius the modern science has been largely built. Of course, many of the principles expounded by Grotius are no longer applicable, and many new principles, as the doctrine of neutrality, have gained recognition.

Zouch (1590-1660), the successor of Gentilis, as professor of Roman Law at Oxford, while a follower of Grotius in matter and method, deserves mention for his distinction between jus gentium and that law to which he gives the name jus inter gentes, in the French translation called Droit entre les Gens, later Droit International, and in the English, Law of Nations, and since the latter part of the eighteenth century when Bentham led the way, International Law.

Pufendorf (1632-1694) in his voluminous works in general follows Grotius.

Toward the end of the seventeenth century a school opposing the earlier writers arose. This school, headed by Rachel (1628-1691), assigned a stronger authority to the principles of international law, and gave more attention to usage, whether tacitly admitted or plainly expressed, and to compacts.

Bynkershoek (1673-1743), limiting his work to particular subjects in international law, gave to the eighteenth century several authoritative treatises which are justly regarded as of the highest worth. He especially defined the laws of maritime commerce between neutrals and belligerents (De Dominio Maris, 1702), gave an outline of ambassadorial rights and privileges (De Foro Legatorum, 1721), besides contributing to a much clearer understanding of the general subject of international law.

Wolfe (1679-1754) published in 1749 his "Jus Gentium." This bases international law on a sort of state universal, civitas maxima, made up of the states of the world in their capacity as voluntarily recognizing a natural law.

Vattel (1714-1767), an ardent admirer of Wolf, published in 1758 his "Law of Nations," which he based upon the work of Wolf. This work of Vattel was clear and logical and gained an immediate and wide influence, far surpassing that of his master.

Moser (1701-1786) brings into the science the positive method which Rachel had hinted at in his work a hundred years before. He narrows his view to the principles underlying the cases of his own day, and would build the science on recent precedents. The method thus introduced has strongly influenced succeeding writers.

G. F. de Martens (1756-1801) combines in a measure the method of Vattel with the positive method of Moser in his "Précis du Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe," 1789. This treatise has been a recognized standard.

Many special and general works appeared in the latter years of the eighteenth and early years of the nineteenth century.

Wheaton (1785-1848), the foremost American writer on international law, published in 1836 his "Elements of International Law," which has long been recognized as a standard throughout the world.

Beside the great work of Wheaton justly stands Phillimore's "Commentaries upon International Law."

Many other works of highest merit have appeared during the latter half of the nineteenth century, such as those of Bluntschli, Travers Twiss, Calvo, Wharton, Pradier-Fodéré, and of the eminent authority, the late William Edward Hall. There are also many living writers whose contributions are of greatest worth.[41]

[CHAPTER IV]

SOURCES

[§ 14. Practice and Usage]

If for a time international intercourse follows certain methods, these methods are regarded as binding in later intercourse, and departure from this procedure is held a violation of international right. That collection of customs known as "The Law Merchant" is an example of a source of this class. Of this it has been said, "Gradually, the usages of merchants hardened into a cosmopolitan law, often at positive variance with the principles of local law, but none the less acquiesced in for mercantile transactions, and enforced by tribunals of commanding eminence and world-wide reputation, such as the courts of the Hanseatic League and the Parloir aux Bourgeois at Paris."[42]

Sir W. Scott, in the case of the "Santa Cruz," 1798, said "Courts of Admiralty have a law and a usage on which they proceed, from habit and ancient practice."[43]

[§ 15. Precedent and Decisions]

The domestic courts of those states within the family of nations, may by their decisions furnish precedents which become the basis of international practice.

(a) Prize and Admiralty courts decisions form in themselves a large body of law. Jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime causes in the United States rests in the District Courts, the Circuit Courts, and the Supreme Court. The District Courts have original jurisdiction in civil causes of admiralty and concurrent jurisdiction with the Circuit and State Courts in suit of an alien, because of violation of international law or treaty of United States. The District Court also has full prize court powers. Appeals from prize courts decisions go directly to the Supreme Court for final judgment; appeals from admiralty decisions go to the Circuit Court for final judgment.[44] The prize courts of other powers vary in jurisdiction, nature, and procedure. British and American courts rely more particularly upon precedents, while the Continental courts follow more distinctly the general principles laid down in codes and text writers, and place less reliance upon previous interpretation of these principles as shown in court decisions.[45] Whatever the method of the prize court, its decision, if legally rendered, stands as valid in all states.[46]

(b) The decisions of domestic courts upon such matters as extradition,[47] diplomatic privileges, piracy, etc., tend to become a source of international law. In the United States the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction "in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls."[48]

(c) The decisions of courts of arbitration and other mixed courts are usually upon broad principles. Some of the principles involved may become established precedents, yet the tendency to render a decision, which by a compromise may be measurably acceptable to both parties, may lessen the value of the decision as a precedent. As arbitration is of necessity voluntary, there is generally a consensus upon certain points, even though the decision rendered may not become a precedent. The growth of the practice of arbitration of disputes is an indication of the general recognition of mutual confidence between states. The principles upon which the court of arbitration bases its decision, rather than the decision itself, furnish material valuable for international law.

[§ 16. Treaties and State Papers]

Treaties and state papers of whatever form[49] indicate the state of opinion, at a given time, in regard to the matters of which they speak. Since they are binding upon the parties to them, treaties may be regarded as evidence of what the states, bound by their terms, accept as law. When the same terms are generally accepted among nations, treaties become a valuable evidence of concrete facts of practice and proper sources of international law. The principles may be so well established by successive treaties as to need no further treaty specification. Treaties and state papers vary greatly in value as sources of international law, however.

(a) Treaties and state papers may lay down new rules or outline the operation of old rules. As instances of those laying down new rules may be taken the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of April 19, 1850, the convention for the protection of Submarine Cables, March 14, 1884, the Geneva Convention of 1864; of those outlining and determining the operation of old rules, there are many instances, the most numerous in the treaties in regard to maritime affairs and consuls.

(b) Treaties and state papers may enunciate established rules as understood by the parties to the treaty. The Declaration of the Conference of London, Jan. 17, 1871, to which the major European states were parties, announces that the signatory powers "recognize that it is an essential principle of the Law of Nations that no Power can liberate itself from the engagements of a Treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the Contracting Powers by means of an amicable agreement."[50]

(c) Treaties and state papers may agree as to rules which shall be held as binding upon the parties to the treaty or paper. The Declaration of Paris, 1856, agreed as to certain principles and rules of maritime international law, which should be held as binding the signatory powers or those later agreeing to its provisions. This Declaration may be held as generally binding. The United States, by Proclamation of April 26, 1898, announced its adherence to the principles of the Declaration, and during the same year Spain acquiesced in its principles.

(d) Most treaties and state papers, however, deal with matters of interstate politics, and are not in any sense sources of international law. They are in most cases little more than interstate compacts.

[§ 17. Text Writers]

During the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth century, the writings of the great publicists were regarded as the highest source of authority upon matters now in the domain of international law. These writings not only laid down the principles which should govern cases similar to those which had arisen, but from the broad basis given the law of nations, deduced the principles for such cases as might arise. This latter method was especially common among the early writers, such as Victoria and Suarez in the sixteenth century. The philosophical school, from Grotius to the middle of the eighteenth century, continued to propound the principles which should govern in supposed cases, should they ever actually arise. Statesmen looked to these treatises as authoritative sources. The prolific Moser, in the middle of the eighteenth century, made the historical method more prominent by giving less attention to the natural law, and by founding his system on usage and treaties. Bynkershoek (1673-1763) had anticipated him in this method in special lines, but Moser extended the system and made it most ample. Succeeding writers mingled the two systems, inclining to the one or the other. In the early days of the modern period, the writers upon the law of nations, outlined the course which states should pursue in their relations to one another. In the later days of the modern period, the writers upon the law of nations, while sometimes discussing problems before they arise, in general attempt to expound the rules and principles which have entered already into interstate action. The works of the text writers, from Grotius to the present, must be regarded as sources of highest value.

[§ 18. Diplomatic Papers]

The diplomatic papers, as distinct from the state papers to which more than one state becomes a party, are simply papers issued by a state for the guidance of its own representatives in international intercourse. The papers are sometimes named state papers or included among the papers to which other states are parties,—in the United States, in the series known as "Diplomatic Correspondence, 1861-1868," and "Foreign Relations" since 1870; and in Great Britain in the "British and Foreign State Papers."

These papers, showing the opinions of various states from time to time upon certain subjects which may not come up for formal state action, afford a valuable source of information upon the attitude of states toward questions still formally unsettled. The simple expression to state agents in the way of instructions or information as to the position of the state on a given matter may, if continued and long accepted, give to the principle involved the force of international sanction. This was almost the case in the so-called Monroe Doctrine. In these papers may often be found an indication of the line which the principles of international law will subsequently follow and a general consensus by several states in diplomatic instructions may be considered strong evidence of what the law is on a given point.

[PART II]

PERSONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

[CHAPTER V]

STATES

  • [19. Definition.]
    • (a) Political.
    • (b) Sovereign.
  • [20. Nature.]
    • (a) Moral.
    • (b) Physical.
    • (c) Communal.
    • (d) External conditions.
  • [21. Recognition of New States.]
    • (a) De facto existence.
    • (b) Circumstances of recognition.
      • (1) By division.
      • (2) By union.
      • (3) By admission of old states.
      • (4) By admission of former barbarous communities.
      • (5) Individual and collective recognition.
    • (c) Act of recognition.
    • (d) Premature recognition.
    • (e) Conditions.
    • (f) Recognition irrevocable.
    • (g) Consequences.
      • (1) The Recognizing state.
      • (2) The Recognized state.
      • (3) The Parent state.
      • (4) Other States.

[§ 19. Definition]

A State is a sovereign political unity. It is of the relations of states that public international law mainly treats. From the nature of its subject-matter it is a juridical, historical, and philosophical science.[51] These sovereign political unities may vary greatly. The unity however

(a) Must be political, i.e. organized for public ends as understood in the family of nations and not for private ends as in the case of a commercial company, a band of pirates, or a religious organization.

(b) Must possess sovereignty, i.e. supreme political power beyond and above which there is no political power. It is not inconsistent with sovereignty, that a state should voluntarily take upon itself obligations to other states, even though the obligations be assumed under stress of war, or fear of evil.

[§ 20. Nature]

From the nature of the state as a sovereign political unity it must be self-sufficient, and certain conditions are therefore generally recognized as necessary for its existence from the standpoint of international law.[52]

(a) Moral. In order that a state may be regarded as within the "family of nations," and within the pale of international Law, it must recognize the rights of other states and acquiesce in its obligations toward them. This is considered a moral condition of state existence.

(b) Physical. A state must also possess those physical resources which enable it to exist as territory, etc.

(c) Communal. A state must possess a body of men so related as to warrant the belief in the continued existence of the unity. Each state may be its own judge as to the time when these relations are established in a given body of men, and the recognition of a new state is fitting.

That such conditions are recognized as prerequisites of state existence from the point of view of international law is not due to the essential nature of the state, but rather to the course of development of international law; as Hall says, "The degree to which the doctrines of international law are based upon the possession of land must in the main be attributed to the association of rights of sovereignty or supreme control over human beings with that of territorial property in the minds of jurists at the period when the foundations of international law were being laid."[53]

(d) External Conditions. The external relationship of the state rather than the internal nature is the subject of consideration in international law. For local law a community may enter upon state existence long before this existence is recognized by other nations, as in the case of Switzerland before 1648. Until recognition by other states of its existence becomes general, a new state cannot acquire full status in international law; and this recognition is conditioned by the policy of the recognizing states.

[§ 21. Recognition of New States]

(a) State existence de facto is not a question of international law but depends upon the existence of a sovereign political unity with the attributes which necessarily appertain to it. This de facto existence is not dependent upon the will of any other state or states.[54] The entrance of the state into the international statehood, however, depends entirely upon the recognition by those states already within this circle. Whatever advantages membership in this circle may confer, and whatever duties it may impose, do not fall upon the new state until its existence is generally recognized by the states already within the international circle. These advantages and duties, as between the recognizing and recognized state, immediately follow recognition but do not necessarily extend to other states than those actually party to the recognition. The basis of this family of nations or international circle which admits other states to membership is historical, resting on the polity of the older European states. These states, through the relations into which they were brought by reason of proximity and intercourse, developed among themselves a system of action in their mutual dealings; and international law in its beginning proposed to set forth what this system was and should be.[55] This family of states could not permit new accessions to its membership unless these new states were properly constituted to assume the mutual relationships, and as to the proper qualifications for admission in each case, the states already within the family claim and exercise the right to judge.

(b) The circumstances of recognition vary.

(1) The most numerous instances are in consequence of division which involves the recognition of the existence of more than one state within the limits which had formerly been under a single jurisdiction. This may be preceded by recognition of the belligerency of a revolted community within the jurisdiction of an existing state, or may be preceded by division of an existing state into two or more states.[56] In the first case recognition is a question of national policy, in the second case recognition is usually readily accorded.

(2) In modern times a new state has frequently been formed by the union of two or more existing states.[57] The recognition in such a case usually follows immediately.

(3) A state after existence for a period of years may be formally admitted into the family of states. Japan, for centuries a de facto state, was only recently fully admitted to international statehood.[58] Turkey, so long the dread of Europe, was formally received by the Treaty of Paris, 1856.

(4) New states may be formed in territory hitherto outside any de facto state jurisdiction, or within regions hitherto considered savage. The examples of this class are mainly Africans, as in the creation of the Congo Free State under the International Association of the Congo. The United States recognized the Congo Free State by acknowledging its flag, April 22, 1884. Liberia, originally established by the American colonization Society in 1821, as a refuge for negroes from America since 1847, has been recognized as an independent republic.

(5) From another point of view recognition may be individual or collective. Recognition is individual when a state, independently of any other, acknowledges the international statehood of a new state. This was the method of recognition of the United States. Collective recognition is by the concerted action of several states at the same time. This has taken place most often in the admission of minor states to the European family of states, as in the cases of Greece by the powers at the Conference of London, 1880; Belgium, 1831; Montenegro, Servia, and Roumania, at the Congress of Berlin, 1878. The Congo Free State was acknowledged by the International Congo Conference at Berlin, 1885.

(c) The act constituting recognition of a new state may be formal, as by a declaration, proclamation, treaty, sending and receiving ambassadors, salute of flag, etc., or informal, by implication through the grant of an exequatur to a consul from the new state, or other act which indicates an acknowledgment of international rights and obligations.[59] It should be observed, however, that the appointment by, or reception within, an existing state of agents to carry on necessary intercourse between the existing state, and the aspirant for recognition does not constitute recognition. It may be essential to have relations with a community the statehood of which is not established, because of commercial and other matters pertaining to the rights of the citizens of the existing state whose interests, or who in person may be within the jurisdiction of the unrecognized community.[60] The definite act of recognition is, however, in accord with the decision of the internal authority to which this function is by state law ascribed. As foreign states usually take cognizance of the acts of the executive department only, it is the common custom to consider recognition as an executive function, or as a function residing in the head of the state. In the United States, the President is for foreign affairs the head of the state, and has the authority to recognize new states in any manner other than by those acts, which by the Constitution require the advice and consent of the Senate, as in the conclusion of treaties, and appointment of ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls. President Grant, in his second annual message, Dec 5, 1870, said, "As soon as I learned that a republic had been proclaimed at Paris, and that the people of France had acquiesced in the change, the minister of the United States was directed by telegraph to recognize it, and to tender my congratulations and those of the people of the United States."[61] As President Jackson had in his message in December, 1831, and in the official correspondence with Buenos Ayres denied that country's jurisdiction over the Falkland Islands, Justice McLean said, in rendering his opinion in Williams v. Suffolk Insurance Company, "And can there be any doubt that when the executive branch of the government which is charged with our foreign relations, shall, in its correspondence with foreign nations, assume a fact in regard to sovereignty of any island or country, it is conclusive on the judicial department? And in this view it is not material to inquire, nor is it the province of the court to determine, whether the executive be right or wrong. It is enough to know that in the exercise of his constitutional functions he has decided the question."[62] "The President is the executive department."[63]

(d) Recognition may be premature and the recognized community may not be able to maintain its place in the international circle, or in case of a struggle with another state may be defeated. The recognizing state must assume in such case whatever consequences may come from its misjudgment, and the parent state may justly question the right of the recognizing state in its action, e.g. the recognition by France of the United States in 1778 could justly be regarded by England as premature and as a hostile act.

(e) The recognition of a new state is the recognition of the existence of certain political conditions. This recognition of the state carries with it the acknowledgment of sovereignty, independence, equality, etc. It is an essential condition to just recognition that the new aspirant possess these qualifications absolutely or potentially to a reasonable extent.

(f) From its nature, recognition is irrevocable and absolute, unless distinctly conditional. Even when conditional, if the recognition is prior to the fulfillment of the condition by the recognized state, the recognition cannot be withdrawn because of non-fulfillment of the condition, but the recognizing state may resort to any other means which would be admitted in international law as justifiable against any other state failing to fulfill its obligations, e.g. suspension of diplomatic relations, retorsion, reprisals, or even war.[64] In the case of Belgium, the definition of its boundaries and establishing of permanent neutralization was an act subsequent to the recognition of its international statehood, and in case of violation of the treaty stipulations, Belgium would not lose its position as a state, but would be liable to such measures of reparation as the other parties to the treaty might employ.[65] If recognition could be withdrawn, it would work injustice to the recognized state, and to other states who, as third parties, will not permit their rights to be subject to the will of the recognizing state or states.

(g) The consequences of recognition immediately touch the relations of (1) the recognizing state, (2) the recognized, (3) the parent state if the new state is formed from an existing state, and (4) in a minor degree other states.

(1) The recognizing state is bound to treat the new state in all respects as entitled to the rights and as under duties accepted in international law.

(2) The recognized state is, as related to the recognizing state, entitled to the rights, and under the obligations prescribed in international law. As it is a new person in international law, it is entitled to full personal freedom in entering into relations with other states. So far, however, as the territory within the new state was under local obligations, these obligations are transferred to the new state. The general obligations resting on the parent state, by reason of treaties and responsibilities of all kinds which have been assumed by the parent state in the capacity of a legal unity, are not transferred, because the identity of the parent state remains intact.[66]

(3) The parent state, in cases where the new state is formed by separation from one already existing, is, as regards the recognizing state, on the same international footing as the new state. Both states are entitled to equal privileges, and under like obligations. The relations to other states are not necessarily much changed.

(4) The relations of the states other than the recognizing, recognized, and parent states are changed to the extent that they must respect the de facto relations set forth in (1), (2), and (3) above, i.e. while not recognizing the new state, they must accept the fact that the recognition exists for the states who are parties to it, and they are not entitled to pass judgment as to the justice of the recognition.

[CHAPTER VI]

LEGAL PERSONS HAVING QUALIFIED STATUS

[§ 22. Members of Confederations and other Unions]

A state in the sense of public law is not sovereign in the sense of international law, if there are any limitations upon its power to enter into relations with other states. Such a state may be a member of a confederation and exercise certain powers giving it a qualified international status. These loose unions may, as in the German Confederation from 1815 to 1866, leave to the local states a certain degree of autonomy in regulating international affairs while granting to the central government certain specified powers. This division of international competence is usually a temporary compromise ending in new states or in a close union. "Inasmuch as both the central and the separate states carry on diplomatic intercourse with foreign powers, they must each and all be regarded as Subjects of International Law; and inasmuch as they carry on such intercourse only in a limited degree, they cannot be regarded as fully and absolutely sovereign."[67]

In the examples of personal and real unions and the like, the nature of the state is a matter of public law and little concerns international law. As related to international law, the question is how far are such states restricted in their dealings with other states. A union, such as that existing in the case of the ruler of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Empire of India, is of importance to international law only in its united capacity, while for public law the nature of the union is of much significance. The same might be said of the unions of Austria-Hungary, and Sweden-Norway.

[§ 23. Neutralized States]

Neutralized states are sovereign only in a qualified degree. While such states have a certain formal equality, their actual competence is limited in regard to the exercise of sovereign powers. This limitation as to neutrality may be externally imposed or externally enforced, as in the case of Belgium, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Congo Free State, and till 1900, Samoa. This neutralization may take place for political or philanthropic reasons.[68] The degree of external sovereignty possessed by neutralized states varies. The fact that these states are not fully sovereign in the field of international law in no way affects their competence except in respect to matters covered by the conditions of neutralization. Such states are deprived of the right of offensive warfare, and have not therefore that final recourse possessed by fully sovereign states for enforcing their demands.

[§ 24. Protectorates, Suzerainties]

States under protectors—protectorates—usually possess all powers not specifically resigned. States fully sovereign may demand (1) that states under protectors afford reasonable protection to the subjects and to the property of subjects of fully sovereign states, and (2) that the protecting state use reasonable measures to give effect to the protection which it has assumed. Just how much responsibility the protecting state has depends upon the degree of protection exercised and assumed. The protectorate of Great Britain over the South African Republic by the agreement of 1884 was of a very moderate form. The right to veto within a certain time any treaty made with a foreign state, other than the Orange Free State and native princes, constituted practically the only restriction on the independence of the Republic. Great Britain has several other protectorates in Africa over which the degree of authority varies. In many instances protectorates easily pass into colonies, as in the case of Madagascar, which Great Britain recognized as under French protection in 1890, which protection the queen of Madagascar accepted in October, 1895, and in August, 1896, Madagascar was declared a French colony.[69]

As distinct from a state under a protectorate which possesses all competence in international affairs which it has not specifically resigned, a state under suzerainty possesses only such competence as has been specifically conferred upon it by the suzerain. The relations are usually much closer than between protecting and protected states; and in many cases only the suzerain has international status, while the vassal is merely tributary, though having a certain degree of internal independence which may be in some instances almost complete. By the first article of the Treaty of Berlin, Bulgaria is made a tributary and autonomous principality under the suzerainty of the Sultan of Turkey. Under Russian suzerainty are such vassal states as Bokhara and Khiva. Some of the states under the suzerainty of European states have no status in international law, as in the case of Bokhara and Khiva. There exist such anomalous cases as the co-suzerainty of the republic of Andorra, the collective suzerainty of the Samoan Islands till 1900,[70] and the absolute suzerainty of the United States over the "domestic dependent nations" of Indians.

[§ 25. Corporations]

From the point of view of international law, corporations are generally of two kinds: corporations organized for private purposes, and corporations organized for purposes involving the exercise of delegated sovereign powers.

(a) Corporations organized for private purposes come within the field of international law, when in time of war their property or other rights are impaired, when maritime law, whether of peace or war, may have been infringed, and when their rights are involved in the domain of private international law.

(b) Corporations organized for purposes involving the exercise of political powers have from time to time, for several centuries, been chartered and have often acquired a quasi-international status. While restricted to the performance of functions intrusted to them by their charters, the home governments have often sanctioned acts for which their charters gave no warrant. The companies that early entered America, India, Africa, and the later African companies, are of this kind. The development of the late doctrine of "the sphere of influence" has given an important position to these companies organized within those states desirous to share in "the partition of Africa."

Among the most notable of the earlier companies was the English East India Company,[71] which received its first charter in 1600. During more than two hundred and fifty years this company exercised practically sovereign powers, until by the act of Aug. 2, 1858, the government heretofore exercised by the company was transferred to the crown, and was henceforth to be exercised in its name.

In recent years the African companies chartered by the European states seeking African dominions have had very elastic charters in which the home governments have generally reserved the right to regulate the exercise of authority as occasion might demand. These companies advance and confirm the spheres of influence of the various states, govern under slight restrictions great territories, and treat with native states with full authority. The British South Africa Company, chartered in 1889, was granted liberal powers of administration and full capacity, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to treat with the native states. The field of operations of this company was extended in 1891, so that it now includes over six hundred thousand square miles of territory. Of this company Lawrence says: "Clearly then it is no independent authority in the eye of British law, but a subordinate body controlled by the appropriate departments of the supreme government. Like Janus of old, it has two faces. On that which looks towards the native tribes all the lineaments and attributes of sovereignty are majestically outlined. On that which is turned towards the United Kingdom is written subordination and submission."[72] The acts of these companies become the basis of subsequent negotiations among the various European states, and the companies have a very important influence in molding the character of African development.

[§ 26. Individuals]

Without entering into discussion of "the doctrine of the separability of the individual from the state," it is safe to affirm that individuals have a certain degree of competence under exceptional circumstances, and may come under the cognizance of international law. By the well-established dictum of international law a pirate may be captured by any vessel, whatever its nationality. General admiralty and maritime procedure against a person admit the legal status of an individual from the point of view of international law. The extension of trade and commerce has made this necessary. This is particularly true in time of war, when individuals wholly without state authorization, or even in contravention of state regulations, commit acts putting them within the jurisdiction held to be covered by international law, as in the case of persons brought before Prize Courts. The principles of private international law cover a wide range of cases directly touching individuals.

[§ 27. Insurgents]

(a) Definition. Insurgents are organized bodies of men who, for public political purposes, are in a state of armed hostility to an established government.

(b) Effect of Admission of Insurgency. The practice of tacitly admitting insurgent rights has become common when the hostilities have assumed such proportions as to jeopardize the sovereignty of the parent state over the rebelling community, or seriously to interfere with customary foreign intercourse.[73] The general effect of the admission is shown as follows:[74]

(1) Insurgent rights cannot be claimed by those bodies seeking other than political ends.[75]

(2) Insurgent acts are not piratical, as they imply the pursuit of "public as contrasted with private ends."[76]

(3) The admission of insurgent rights does not carry the rights of a belligerent, nor admit official recognition of insurgent body.[77]

(4) The admission of insurgent rights does not relieve the parent state of its responsibilities for acts committed within its jurisdiction.[78]

(5) When insurgents act in a hostile manner toward foreign states, they may be turned over to the parent state, or may be punished by the foreign state.[79]

(6) A foreign state must in general refrain from interference in the hostilities between parent state and insurgents, i.e. cannot extend hospitality of its ports to insurgents, extradite insurgents, etc.[80]

(7) When insurgency exists, the armed forces of the insurgents must observe and are entitled to the advantages of the laws of war in their relations to the parent state.[81]

Note. During the struggles between the parties in the United States of Colombia in 1885, the President of Colombia decreed: (1) That certain Carribean ports held by the opposing party should be regarded as closed to foreign commerce, and trade with these ports would be considered illicit and contraband, and that vessels, crews, etc., involved in such trade would be liable to the penalties of Colombian laws. (2) That as the vessels of the opposing party in the port of Cartagena were flying the Colombian flag, it was in violation of right, and placed that party beyond the pale of international law.[82]
The United States refused to recognize the validity of the first decree unless Colombia should support it by an effective blockading force.[83] (For similar position on part of Great Britain, see Parl. Deb. H. C., June 27, 1861.)

The United States also refused to recognize that the vessels of the insurgents were beyond the pale of international law or in any sense piratical.

The United States did not deny that closure might be a domestic measure similar to blockade in accord with municipal law, but emphatically maintained that effective blockade only could close a port in time of such insurrection.

It was further maintained that "The denial by this [U.S.] Government of the Colombian proposition did not, however, imply the admission of a belligerent status on the part of the insurgents." Message Pres. Cleveland, Dec. 8, 1885.[84]

The President's messages of Dec. 2, 1895, and Dec. 7, 1896, distinctly mention a status of insurgency as existing in Cuba.

During the rebellions in Chili in 1891 and in Brazil in 1894, the insurgents, while not recognized as belligerents by third powers, were nevertheless given freedom of action by these powers.

[§ 28. Belligerents]

(a) Definition. A community attempting by armed hostility to free itself from the jurisdiction of the parent state may, under certain conditions, be recognized as a belligerent.

(b) The general conditions prior to recognition are: (1) that the end which the community in revolt seeks shall be political, i.e. a mere mob or a party of marauders could have no belligerent rights, (2) the hostilities must be of the character of war and must be carried on in accord with the laws of war, (3) the proportions of the revolt must be such as to render the issue uncertain and to make its continuance for a considerable time possible, (4) the hostilities and general government of the revolting community must be in the hands of a responsible organization.

As each state, including the parent state, must judge as to the fact whether the conditions warranting recognition of belligerency exist, there may be great divergency of opinion in cases of recognition,[85] but the question of belligerency is a question of fact and never a question of theory.

(c) A community carrying on, in accord with the rules of war, an armed revolt of such proportions as to make the issue uncertain and acting under a responsible organization may not be recognized without offense to the parent state except upon certain grounds. The generally admitted ground is, that the interests of the recognizing state be so far affected by the hostilities "as to make recognition a reasonable measure of self-protection."[86] "The reason which requires and can alone justify this step [recognition of belligerency] by the government of another country, is, that its own rights and interests are so far affected as to require a definition of its own relations to the parties.... A recognition by a foreign state of full belligerent rights, if not justified by necessity, is a gratuitous demonstration of moral support to the rebellion, and of censure upon the parent government."[87]

(d) Recognition of belligerency is naturally an act of the executive authority.[88]

The following is the proclamation of Queen Victoria of May 13, 1861:—

"Whereas we are happily at peace with all sovereign powers and states:

"And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between the Government of the United States of America and certain states styling themselves the Confederate States of America:

"And whereas we, being at peace with the Government of the United States, have declared our royal determination to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the contest between the said contending parties:

"We, therefore, have thought fit, by [and with] the advice of our privy council, to issue this our royal proclamation:

"And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving subjects to observe a strict neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities, and to abstain from violating or contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf or the law of nations in relations thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their peril."

(e) Certain consequences follow the recognition of belligerency.

(1) If recognition is by a foreign state.

(a) From the date of recognition, the parent state is released from responsibility to the recognizing state for the acts of the belligerents.

(b) So far as the recognizing state is concerned, the parent state and the belligerent community would have the same war status, i.e. in the ports of the recognizing state, the vessels of both parties would have the same privileges, the merchant vessels of the recognizing state must submit to the right of search as justly belonging to both parties; in fine, so far as the prosecution of hostilities is concerned, the recognizing state must accord the belligerent community all the privileges of a full state.

(c) The recognizing state may hold the belligerent community, if it subsequently becomes a state, accountable for its acts during the period after the recognition of its belligerency. If, however, the parent state reduces the revolting community to submission, the recognizing state can hold no one responsible for the acts of the recognized community from the date of recognition.

(d) This recognition does not necessarily affect other than the three parties, the recognizing state, the belligerent community, and the parent state.

(2) If recognition of belligerency is by the parent state.

(a) From the date of recognition, the parent state is released from responsibility to all states for the acts of the belligerents.

(b) So far as the prosecution of hostilities is concerned, the community, recognized as belligerent by the parent state, is entitled to full war status.

(c) From the date of recognition by the parent state, the belligerent community only is responsible for acts within its jurisdiction, and if subdued by the parent state, no one can be held responsible, i.e. contracts made with a belligerent, or responsibilities assumed by a belligerent, do not fall upon the parent state, when victorious in the contest.

(d) Recognition of belligerency by the parent state gives the revolting community a war status as regards all states.

In a broad way, recognition by the parent state makes general those conditions which may exist only for the parties directly concerned, when recognition is by a single foreign state. In cases where several states recognize the belligerency of a hostile community, other states that have not recognized its belligerency may, without offense to the parent state, treat the hostile community as a lawful belligerent, which treatment would be constructive recognition. The general effect of recognition is to extend to the belligerent all the rights and obligations as to war that a state may possess, and to free the parent state from certain obligations while giving some new rights. The parent state may use the proper means for the enforcement of neutrality and demand reparation for any breach of the same, may maintain blockade, prize courts, and take other measures allowable in war.

The condition of insurgency is usually tacitly admitted for a period prior to the recognition of belligerency, and the vessels of the insurgents are not regarded as pirates either in practice or theory. They have not the animus furandi. The admission of insurgent status or the recognition of belligerency does not imply anything as to the political status of the community. In the first place there is conceded a qualified war status, and in the second full war status.

[§ 29. Communities not fully Civilized]

While there is no agreement as to what constitutes civilization, still international law is considered as binding only upon states claiming a high degree of enlightenment. Communities, whether or not politically organized and not within the circle of states recognized by international law, because they are not regarded as sufficiently civilized, are not treated as without rights. It is held that these communities not fully civilized should be treated as civilized states would be treated so far as the time and other circumstances permit. Unduly severe measures, whether in war or peace, should not be used by civilized states in dealing with those not civilized. It may be necessary that barbarians should be used as auxiliary forces in contests with barbarians, but it is now held that such forces should be officered and controlled by the civilized state. Extreme measures, in the way of devastation and destruction, have been used with the idea of impressing upon the minds of barbarians respect for the power of a state, but it is now questioned how far this is fitting for states claiming civilization. Many states not admitted to the circle of nations have now acquired such a status as entitles them to the general privileges of international law to the extent to which their action has not violated its provisions, and it is generally so accorded, as for many years to China, Persia, and other Asiatic states.

[PART III]

INTERNATIONAL LAW OF PEACE

[CHAPTER VII]

GENERAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF STATES

[§ 30. Existence]

The most comprehensive right of a state is the right to exist as a sovereign political unity. From this comprehensive right flow the general rights of independence, equality, jurisdiction, property, and intercourse and the obligations which the exercise of these rights imply. There are many classifications of the general rights of states. During the eighteenth century a classification into perfect and imperfect rights was common. A classification based on the essential nature of the state as a sovereign political unity, having (1) a right to existence and (2) from the point of view of international law, having relations to other states, has been widely followed. The rights based on the comprehensive right to existence were variously named as essential, fundamental, primitive, innate, absolute, permanent, etc., while the rights derived from the practice of states in their mutual relations were called accidental, derived, secondary, acquired, relative, contingent, etc. The view now most generally recognized is that from the single comprehensive right of states to exist, all other rights flow, and all other rights are therefore related, if not directly, at least by virtue of their common source.

[§ 31. Independence]

Independence from the point of view of international law is freedom from external political control. While all states possessing freedom from external political control may not be admitted to the family of states, yet in order that a state may be admitted, it is regarded as essential that it be independent. The recognition of a state carries with it the recognition of independence. However, from the fact that there are states in the world having equal rights to independence, it follows that the field of action of each state is limited by the necessity of respect for the right of independence belonging to other states.

The recognition of a state presupposes autonomy as an essential for the existence of a sovereign political unity, and autonomy implies the right to determine and pursue such lines of action as may be in accord with its policy.

[§ 32. Equality]

All states, the existence of which has been recognized by the family of states, are regarded as possessed of equal rights in political affairs, so far as legal competence is concerned.

This does not imply an equality of territorial area, population, wealth, rank, and influence, etc., or that a given state may not voluntarily limit the exercise of its powers.

[§ 33. Jurisdiction]

The right of jurisdiction is the right to exercise state authority. The right of jurisdiction is in general coextensive with the dominion of the state. It may be "laid down as a general proposition that all persons and property within the territorial jurisdiction of a sovereign are amenable to the jurisdiction of himself or his courts; and that the exceptions to this rule are such only as by common usage and public policy have been allowed, in order to preserve the peace and harmony of nations, and to regulate their intercourse in a manner best suited to their dignity and rights."[89]

[§ 34. Property]

In international law, as against other states, a given state has the right of property or domain in the territory and fixtures within its limits. This right of property is not the right in the old feudal sense, for in the public law of the state the title of ownership may vest in the state only in a limited sense as over territory to which none of its subjects have title, and over such other forms it has ownership in corporate capacity, as public buildings, forts, arsenals, vessels, lighthouses, libraries, museums, etc. The right of eminent domain as a domestic right may also vest in the state. While from the point of view of international law, a state has the right of property over all territorial and non-territorial possessions within its limits as against other states, yet the effect of this right is somewhat modified by the fact of public or private ownership, particularly as regards the laws of war, neutrality, and intercourse.

[§ 35. Intercourse]

In early periods of history intercourse among states was very limited and sometimes even prohibited. At the present time the necessities of state existence presuppose, in international law, the recognition of the right of intercourse in order that state business may be transacted. The principles upon which this intercourse is carried on are well established, and form the basis of diplomatic practice.

[CHAPTER VIII]

EXISTENCE

[§ 36. Application of the Right]

Besides the general rights of independence, equality, jurisdiction, property, and intercourse, the right of existence in its exercise may lead to certain acts for which the general principles of international law do not provide rules.[90]

(a) In face of actual dangers immediately threatening its existence, a state may take such measures as are necessary for self-preservation, even though not sanctioned by international law. Such measures, however, must be from "a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation," and further "must be limited by that necessity and kept clearly within it."[91] The wide discussion of the case of the Virginius involved the principle of the limits of the right of self-defense.[92]

(b) The right to act in a manner which international law does not sanction or denies, even though it may be strictly to preserve the existence of the state so acting, cannot be upheld as freeing it from responsibility for such acts, and these acts may be regarded as hostile by states affected by them.

(c) As the domestic acts of a state are not within the province of international law, a state has the right to administer its internal affairs in such manner as it may determine fit to secure and further its existence. It may adopt any form of government; may plan for its growth by developing its resources, by encouraging immigration; may strengthen defenses and forces; may regulate trade, commerce, and travel. While acts of this character may work injury to other states, they are not in general just grounds for war, but may properly be met by like acts on the part of other states.

[§ 37. Extension of the Right to Subjects of the State]

As the subjects of a state are necessary for its existence, the right of self-preservation has been held to justify certain acts of states to secure to their subjects in their relations with foreign states such rights as the foreign states would accord to their own subjects under similar circumstances. That a local tribunal within a purely domestic division of a state cannot secure to foreigners rights to which they are entitled, in no way frees that state, whose sovereignty extends over such domestic division, from responsibility for violation of the foreigner's right. International law recognizes only the personality of the sovereign political unity, and cannot cognize the administrative and other subdivisions. Hall says, "States possess a right of protecting their subjects abroad which is correlative to their responsibility in respect of injuries inflicted upon foreigners within their dominions."[93] "Fundamentally, however, there is no difference in principle between wrongs inflicted by breach of a monetary agreement and other wrongs for which the state, as itself the wrong-doer, is immediately responsible. The difference which is made in practice is in no sense obligatory; and it is open to governments to consider each case by itself, and to act as seems well to them on its merits."[94]

[CHAPTER IX]

INDEPENDENCE

[§ 38. Manner of Exercise of the Right]

Strictly, there can be no limitation or restriction of independence, for it is a recognized principle that independence must be absolute and inalienable. In fact, every state voluntarily accepts either formally by treaty or tacitly by practice, many conditions which restrain it in the exercise of its powers. The independence of the state is not thereby violated, since the restraint is exercised by the state itself, and is not an act of external control. The number of these restraints which states voluntarily assume is continually increasing, owing to the closer relations of humanity.

The exercise of the right of independence involves the privilege of making treaties, alliances, contracts, and municipal laws, so far as these do not violate international law or the right of independence as possessed by other states. A state may go to war to maintain its independence. The international rights of a state are in general closely related to the right of independence, and derive force from this relationship.

[§ 39. Balance of Power]

Undoubtedly the idea of establishing a relationship among "neighboring states more or less connected with one another, by virtue of which no one among them can injure the independence or essential rights of another without meeting with effectual resistance on some side and consequently exposing itself to danger"[95] is not a modern idea. Ancient states united to prevent the growth of some neighboring power to such magnitude as would threaten their independence.[96] From the beginning of the modern period of international law, Peace of Westphalia (1648), the idea of maintaining an equilibrium among the powers of Europe has had great influence, and until the latter part of the nineteenth century was regarded as one of the fundamental principles of European international practice. Many treaties aim to preserve this balance among the European powers, and the words "balance" and "equilibrium" often appear.[97] The Treaty of Utrecht in its provision between Spain and Great Britain, July 13, 1713, gives as its object ad firmandam stabiliendamque pacem ac tranquillitatem christiani orbis justo potentiæ equilibro. The idea that independence was to be preserved by some balance of power reappears in successive treaties. This idea of the balance of power has led to most diverse action. Unjust rulers have made it the cloak for action entirely outside the sanction of international law. Many times it has "served as the pretext for a quarrel, and repeatedly made hostilities general which would otherwise have been shut up within a comparatively small area."[98] The feeling that the balance of power was a necessary policy for the preservation of European states, led to the idea that states should be constrained to certain lines of action, which would prevent, in many cases, normal growth. Frequently the independence of a state was violated to anticipate an action which might disturb the European equilibrium. The partitions of Poland show a violation of the principles of international law for the sake of giving equal compensation to the parties to it.

The doctrine of the balance of power is not a principle of international law, but merely a maxim of European political practice pretending to state the means of maintaining the independence of European states.[99]

[§ 40. Monroe Doctrine]

Another maxim of political action is that which has become known as the "Monroe Doctrine." While enunciated by a single state, it had in view the maintenance of the independence of the states of the American continent. For many years after the Revolutionary War the opinion prevailed that Europe viewed with disfavor the growth of the American republic. The Holy Alliance, formed on the downfall of Napoleon, was followed by several congresses of European powers, at one of which, held at Verona in 1822, the subject of helping Spain recover her revolting colonies in America was discussed. This led to the declaration of President Monroe in his message of Dec. 2, 1823, that there should be, (1) no more European colonies on these continents, (2) no extension of the European political system to any portion of this hemisphere, (3) no European interposition in the affairs of the Spanish-American republics. This doctrine has been repeatedly affirmed by the United States, and in some instances very liberally interpreted. It in no way embodies a principle of international law, though the European and other states may regard it as expressing the attitude of the United States upon the points covered, and if desirous of avoiding friction, govern themselves accordingly. If it were a principle of international law, the United States would not be justified in changing its attitude upon the doctrine, but probably it would not be seriously maintained that the United States might not enunciate another policy setting aside the Monroe Doctrine. Reddaway well says, "that it produced its desired effect as an act of policy, but in no way modified the Law of Nations."[100] This doctrine cannot be considered as outlining a principle of non-intervention, as has sometimes been claimed, but it rather announces a policy of intervention on the part of the United States to anticipate intervention by other powers.

The doctrine has always failed of legislative indorsement, and has been strenuously opposed by European powers. That it has been recognized, however, to a certain extent, appears by the course of events.[101] It was recently applied in the case of the intervention by the United States in the dispute over the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana. Great Britain and the United States settled the difficulty by a submission to arbitration.[102]

[§ 41. Non-intervention]

With the right of independence goes the correlative obligation of non-intervention, i.e. of refraining from all acts that would forcibly limit the freedom of another state. This obligation of non-intervention does not extend to the limitation of acts involving no display or threat of force, as in the case of mediation and arbitration. Nor can it be claimed that the obligation of non-intervention can be urged against measures undertaken by a state to preserve its fundamental right to existence. There is no right of intervention, as has been sometimes argued, though an act of intervention may be sometimes justifiable in itself.[103] Intervention is the attempt of one or more states, by means of force, to coerce another state in its purely state action. The making of an alliance between two may influence a third state in its action, but it cannot be considered an intervention, nor is the tender of friendly offices in the settlement of a dispute to which a state is a party, intervention; but when a state directly interferes with the exercise of the authority in another state or by another state, it constitutes intervention. Intervention may vary greatly in degree and in character, whether it be armed or diplomatic. Each case must be considered separately on its merits, and if in any degree a justifiable measure, it must be on the highest grounds, and the motives of the intervening state must be pure. While it is still necessary to discuss the question of intervention in its various forms, yet, as Hall says: "It is unfortunate that publicists have not laid down broadly and unanimously that no intervention is legal, except for the purpose of self-preservation, unless a breach of the law as between states has taken place, or unless the whole body of civilized states have concurred in authorizing it."[104]

[§ 42. Practice in Regard to Intervention]

The nineteenth century might be called the century of interventions, for its whole political history has been closely related to the application of measures of intervention of the most varied sort. Naturally, all authorities do not agree as to the causes underlying the action of the several states, nor as to the nomenclature which should be used in describing these measures. A review of some of the cases of intervention during the nineteenth century shows that while the doctrine of non-intervention has been more and more widely professed, the practice has been strongly influenced by political expediency.

Intervention for any cause may always be regarded by the state whose independence is impinged as a hostile act, and a ground for war, thus putting the matter outside the international law of peace.[105]

(a) Intervention for Self-preservation. As the right of existence is the first right of a state and universally admitted, intervention may sometimes be used as a means of maintaining this existence. In such a case it is clearly a matter of policy as to the means which a state shall use, and if it resorts to intervention rather than other means, it must have ample grounds for its action in the particular case. A case of intervention on the grounds of self-preservation which has caused much debate is that of England in the two attacks upon Copenhagen in 1801 and 1807, on the ground that it was necessary for English supremacy of the seas, which formed her chief defense, to prevent the union of the Danish forces with those of the other powers. Intervention cannot be justified by any appeal to general principles which inhere in the act itself. "The facts of intervention are acts of the political existence of states. Good or bad, according as the intervention is injurious or beneficial."[106] Of intervention as a method of state action, Sir W. Harcourt says: "It is a high and summary procedure which may sometimes snatch a remedy beyond the reach of law. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that in case of Intervention, as in that of Revolution, its essence is illegality, and its justification is its success. Of all things, at once the most injustifiable and the most impolitic is an unsuccessful Intervention."[107] Non-intervention is the obligation which international law enjoins. It gives no sanction to a "right of intervention" which would be entirely inconsistent with the right of independence. The question of intervention is one of state policy only, and is outside the limits of the field of international law. Intervention is a method of state action which is justifiable only in rare cases, and less and less justifiable as the growing mutual dependence of states makes possible other methods less open to objection. International law at the present day undoubtedly regards intervention when strictly necessary to preserve the fundamental right of the intervening state to its existence as a permissible act though contravening the right of independence in another state.

(b) Intervention to prevent Illegal Acts. As international law must rest upon the observance of certain general principles, it may in extreme cases be necessary to intervene in order that these principles may be respected by certain states in their dealings with other states which, though weaker in physical force, have equal rights in international law. How far any state will act as champion of the law of nations is a question which it must decide for itself. Unquestionably international law would look with favor upon measures necessary for its own preservation.

(c) Intervention by General Sanction. Some authorities have maintained that intervention when sanctioned by a group of states is justifiable. It is probable that a group of states would be less liable to pursue an unjust course than a single state, and that intervention under such sanction would be more liable to be morally justifiable. It is, however, no more legal than the same act by a single state; and if general consent is the only sanction, while the act may be expedient, advantageous, and morally just, it cannot be regarded as upheld by international law, nor can a single act of this kind establish a principle. The several cases of such intervention under general sanction can hardly be regarded as sufficiently similar to establish a principle even upon the Eastern Question in Europe.[108] It may be concluded that while general sanction of a considerable group of states may, for a given interference, free a state from moral blame and warrant the act as a matter of policy, yet it does not give any international law sanction for intervention by general consent.

(d) Other Grounds of Intervention. Many reasons have been advanced as justifying such measures as intervention.

(1) Intervention to carry out provisions of treaties of guaranty was formerly common, e.g. intervention by one state to preserve the same form of government in the other or to maintain the ruling family. It is now held that no treaty can justify interference in the internal affairs of a state not party to the treaty.

In general, intervention, because of treaty stipulations, even when the state subject to the intervention is a party to the treaty, is a violation of independence unless the treaty provides for such measures, in which case the state has become a protected state or entered into relations by which it has not full state powers. Such treaties must be clearly state acts and not acts of individuals "who from their position have the opportunity of giving to their personal agreements the form of a state act."[109] While there is still difference of opinion as to the question of intervention under treaty sanction, the weight of opinion seems to be decidedly to the effect that such intervention has no ground of justification in international law.

(2) Intervention to preserve the balance of power, which was regarded as a necessary means for the preservation of European peace, has been considered as justifiable till recent times. Since the middle of the nineteenth century the position has received less and less support, though advanced in behalf of the preservation of the Turkish Empire and the adjustment of the Balkan states. In 1854 Great Britain and France, on the appeal of the Sultan for assistance against the Russian aggressions, determined to aid him, "their said Majesties being fully persuaded that the existence of the Ottoman Empire in its present Limits is essential to the maintenance of the Balance of Power among the States of Europe."[110] The attitude at the present time is stated by Lawrence. "The independence of states is not to be violated on the ground of possible danger to some imaginary equilibrium of political forces."[111]

(3) Interventions upon the broad and indefinite ground of humanity have been common and were generally upheld by the writers to the time of Vattel. Since his day opposition to intervention of this kind has gradually obtained favor. What the grounds of humanity are, and which nation's ideas of humanity shall be accepted as standard, have been questions difficult to settle to the general satisfaction of states. For a state to set itself up as judge of the actions of another state and to assume that it has the right to extend its powers to settling and regulating affairs of morals, religion, and the relations of public authority to the subjects in another state, on the ground of maintaining the rights of mankind as a whole, is to take a ground which the conduct of any modern state, even the most civilized, would hardly warrant. While it is admitted that a state or states may sometimes interfere to prevent one state from unduly oppressing another, as in the intervention of the powers in Greece in 1827, yet it is generally held that to interfere because the internal affairs of a given state are not conducted in a manner pleasing to the foreign state is to give a sanction to an act that would result in far more evil than good. Such intervention has often taken place. The "Holy Alliance," in attempting to guard Europe from "the curse of Revolution," advocated in practice a most dangerous form of intervention.[112] Indeed, much of the European history of the nineteenth century is but a history of successive interventions. In spite of all this, as Walker says, "the rule regularly progresses towards more general recognition, that non-intervention in the internal affairs of a state is a law which admits of no exception to foreign powers, so long as the operations of that state are confined in their effect to the limits of the national territory."[113]

Nevertheless, the United States interfered in the affairs of Cuba on the ground of humanity. The President, in his message of April 11, 1898, says, after a long statement of the facts: "I have exhausted every effort to relieve the intolerable condition of affairs which is at our doors. Prepared to execute every obligation imposed upon me by the Constitution and the law, I await your action."[114] By joint resolution of Congress of April 20, 1898, demand was made upon Spain to relinquish its authority in Cuba, and the President was authorized to use land and naval forces to carry the resolution into effect.[115]

(4) In time of civil war, on invitation of both parties, a foreign state may act as mediator, but unless the revolting party has been recognized, this is mediation in a domestic sense rather than intervention in the sense of international law.

Under other conditions there is a diversity of view as to the proper course of action.[116] Some deny with Vattel, G. F. de Martens, Heffter, Fiore, Bluntschli, Woolsey, and others maintain or permit intervention in civil war at the request of one of the parties, though some of the authorities do not permit intervention except on the invitation of the parent state and not on that of the rebelling party. Bluntschli (§ 476) and Woolsey (§ 42) admit intervention only in behalf of the party representing the state; Vattel and some others permit intervention in behalf of the party which the intervening state considers to have the right of the contest, thus opening the arbitration of the contest to a foreign state. Both of these positions are receiving less and less of sanction. Intervention in behalf of the established state implies a doubt as to which power within the state is the de facto power, and as Hall says: "the fact that it has been necessary to call in foreign help is enough to show that the issue of the conflict would without it be uncertain, and consequently that there is a doubt as to which side would ultimately establish itself as the legal representative of the state."[117] It is plain to see that intervention in behalf of the rebelling party is a violation of the independence of the existing state. It is equally clear that international law does not give a foreign state a right to judge upon the justice or merits of domestic questions in another state.

The principle may now be regarded as established by both theory and practice that the invitation of neither party to a domestic strife gives a right to a foreign state to intervene, and that no state has a right to judge as to the merits of the contest and to interfere in behalf of the party it thinks in the right. Indeed, intervention because of civil war only is in no case justifiable, though the consequences of such a disturbance may warrant intervention upon other grounds.[118]

(5) Intervention on the ground of financial transactions is not now sanctioned. A state may make any injustice done its subjects by a foreign state a matter of diplomatic negotiations. It has sometimes been held that contracts running between a state and the subject or subjects of another state may, if violated, become grounds of just intervention, and that the subjects had a right to demand action by their sovereign. This ground is manifestly insufficient, though each state is judge as to what measures it will take in a given case. International law does not guarantee the payment of loans which are merely personal transactions between the individual and the state in its corporate capacity, nor can the public law of one state be expected to hold in another. Interference on such grounds is a matter of expediency and not a matter of right.

(e) Conclusion. In general, the best authorities seem to agree that at the present time, owing to the ease with which other measures may be taken, intervention can be admitted only on the single ground of self-preservation. The numerous cases of intervention upon varied grounds amply show that any other ground would be open to wide abuse, as has often been the case. For general purposes of remedy for injury such measures as retorsion, reprisals, embargo, and pacific blockade may be taken when a state deems it expedient and is willing to assume the responsibility for such measures.[119] While intervention is, for the sake of preserving the existence of a state, a justifiable measure, it is not a right, but merely a means sometimes justifiable to preserve a right,—the right of a state to exist, which alone supersedes the obligation of non-intervention.

[CHAPTER X]

EQUALITY

[§ 43. Equality in General]

The equality of states was an early premise of international law. This equality, however wide may have been its meaning, as interpreted by some of the earlier writers, can now be held to extend only to legal status. A state from its very being as a sovereign unity must be legally equal to any other state. Only those states members of the international circle are regarded as possessed of this equality from the point of view of international law. So far as legal attributes as states extend, the states members of the international circle are equal, yet that their weight in the world of affairs may vary by virtue of other circumstances must be admitted. The legal status of states is the same; regardless of the form of state organization, whether monarchy or republic; regardless of origin, whether by division or union of former states or even if created in a region hitherto outside the jurisdiction of any state; regardless of area, population, wealth, influence, etc.; regardless of relations to other states provided sovereignty is not impaired; regardless of any change in the form of state organization, as from a republic to a monarchy or even of a temporary lapse in the exercise of sovereignty.

[§ 44. Inequalities among States]

While all states, members of the family of states, are equal in international law so far as their legal attributes are concerned, they may be very unequal in other respects.

(a) One of the oldest marks of inequality is that of court precedence, which for many years was a fertile source of difficulty, and was at last settled to the extent of ranking by title of diplomatic representative by the Congress of Vienna in 1815.[120]

(b) Inequalities in matters of ceremonial of various kinds have not disappeared. These may be based upon tradition or conventional grounds, and frequently give rise to difficulties if disregarded. These ceremonials may be (1) political as between the sovereigns in their official personal capacity as emperors, kings, dukes, etc., (2) court and diplomatic in interstate negotiations, (3) treaty as in alternat or in the alphabetical signing of treaties, (4) maritime ceremonial in salutes, etc.

(c) Inequalities in weight of influence in affairs.

(1) In Europe there is distinctly recognized in political practice an inequality of the states, and they are classed as "the great powers," "the minor powers," and sometimes such states as those of the Balkan peninsula are referred to as "the little powers" or "third-rate states." These divisions are based merely upon political grounds, and states may pass from one division to another as their wealth, area, or influence increases or decreases.

At the present time "the great powers," generally mentioned officially upon the continent in the alphabetical order of their names in French, i.e. Allemagne, Angleterre, Autriche, etc., are Germany, Great Britain, Austria, France, Italy, and Russia. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Spain was numbered with "the great powers." Sweden was so ranked in the seventeenth century. Italy was counted with "the great powers" after 1870. The union of several powers upon certain lines of policy, since early in the nineteenth century, has been called "the concert of Europe," "the primacy of the great powers," etc. It was not the purpose of these great powers to establish new rules of international law; but as enunciated by the five powers, Nov. 15, 1818, it was "their invariable resolution never to depart, either among themselves, or in their relations with other states, from the strictest observation of the principles of the Rights of Nations."[121]

That the practice of the Great Powers has not been strictly in accord with these expressed principles, a glance will show. The immediate action of Austria, Russia, and Prussia in the Congress of Troppau, 1820, carried the principle of interference in the internal affairs of states so far that Great Britain found itself compelled to dissent. This continuance of the policy of the Holy Alliance in putting down movements in favor of popular liberty, wherever arising, led to gross violations of international rights. Nor did Great Britain become a party to the acts of the Congress of Verona in 1822, which led to intervention to prevent changes in the internal organization of Spain in 1823. The struggles of the Greeks for independence at about this time were naturally regarded by those upholding the ideas of the Holy Alliance as dangerous to those states desiring to prevent revolutionary movements. But the narrow policy of the Alliance was gradually losing support. The opposition of Great Britain and the death of Alexander of Russia in 1825 hastened its speedy fall. Meantime the idea of a collective authority in the Great Powers had been maintained. This began to be exercised in behalf of the Greeks in 1826, and has throughout the nineteenth century been repeatedly exercised in the same behalf, sometimes unselfishly, often from motives of mixed character. During the latter half of the nineteenth century the Great Powers have continually kept a close surveillance over Grecian affairs, and enforced their judgments in regard to Greece by force (destruction of Turkish fleet at Navarino, 1827); by providing form of government and naming monarch (1829 and later); by fixing and changing boundaries (1829 and often); by pacific blockade (1827, 1850, 1886, 1897); by regulating financial affairs, and by other means of varying degree of force.[122]

The Eastern question has particularly occupied the Concert, and the disposition of the territory once within the Turkish jurisdiction has offered a fertile field for varying policy.

The establishment of Belgium as a neutral state by the treaty to which Belgium was itself a party afforded another example of the influence of the Great Powers.

Since 1839 Egypt has also been subject to frequent control by the Great Powers.

Since 1885 the unappropriated portion of Africa has been brought into the range of action of the Concert by the theory of the sphere of influence.

The Concert of the Great Powers shows then a policy which is liable to change with expediency. The two great treaties of the Concert are those of Paris, 1856, and Berlin, 1878. Of these Holland says, "The treaties of Paris and of Berlin thus resemble one another, in that both alike are a negation of the right of any one Power, and an assertion of the right of the Powers collectively, to regulate the solution of the Eastern question."[123] The fact that the action of the Great Powers has been regarded as binding and tacitly accepted in Europe in certain questions in the East, Egypt, Greece, and Belgium does not give the sanction of international law to the action. The most that can be said is that it is an alliance of a loose character, whose authority is in proportion to the force behind its decisions.[124]

(2) Another feature in European politics giving rise to further inequalities in practice was introduced by the alliance of Germany and Austria in 1879 and Italy in 1883, which is now commonly known as the Triple Alliance. This belt of powers separating Eastern from Western Europe has materially affected the action of other powers.

The "friendly understanding" between France and Russia soon after the Triple Alliance affords a measure of counter-check upon the action of the other powers.

In spite of all these alliances and counter-alliances, the recognition of the weight of the decisions of the congresses and conferences of the Great Powers upon those subjects which are held to affect "the peace of Europe" have an influence comparable to that which might be assigned to a "Supreme Court of International Appeal."[125]

The United States upon the American continent in its enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine, and the subsequent interpretation of it, has assumed a position as arbiter among the American states in some respects similar to that of the European Concert among the European states. This attitude of the United States has weight in international practice, but cannot be regarded as a part of international law.

[CHAPTER XI]

JURISDICTION

[§ 45. Jurisdiction in General]

Jurisdiction is the right to exercise state authority, and for the purposes of international law may be classified as, (a) territorial or land jurisdiction, (b) fluvial and maritime, and (c) jurisdiction over persons.

[§ 46. Territorial Domain and Jurisdiction]

The word "territory" is sometimes used as equivalent to domain or dominion or to an expression covering the sphere of state control. Territory is also used in the stricter sense of the land area over which a state exercises its powers. In this stricter sense, territorial jurisdiction refers to the exercise of state authority over the land within its boundaries and those things which appertain to the land. The growing international importance of railroads, telegraph, and other modern means of communication has introduced new topics not considered in early treatises, and these are still under discussion.

The fundamental law of territorial jurisdiction is that a state has within its boundaries absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over all the land and those things which appertain thereto. Certain exemptions are specially provided in international law to which all states are considered as giving express or tacit consent. In other respects than those mentioned under exemptions, the state may, as sovereign, exercise its authority at discretion within the sphere it has set for itself. The state has, as against all other states, an exclusive title to all property within its territorial jurisdiction. As regards its own subjects, it has the paramount title which is recognized in the right of eminent domain, or the right to appropriate private property when necessary for public use. A state may also in its corporate capacity hold absolute ownership in property, as in its forts, arsenals, ships, etc.

The state also has the right to enforce a lien on the land and what appertains to it in the form of taxes.

[§ 47. Method of Acquisition]

The method of acquisition of territorial jurisdiction is a subject which has received much attention in international law, particularly because of the remarkable expansion of the territorial area of states within the modern period of international law since 1648.

The methods commonly considered are: (1) discovery, (2) occupation, (3) conquest, (4) cession, (5) prescription, (6) accretion.

(a) In the early period of European expansion through discovery, the doctrine that title to land hitherto unknown vested in the state whose subject discovered the land was current. Gross abuse of this doctrine led to the modification that discovery without occupation did not constitute a valid title. As the field of discovery has grown less, the importance of a definition of occupation has decreased.

(b) Occupation is held to begin at the time of effective application of state authority, and strictly continues only during the exercise of such authority. In fact, however, the title by occupation is held to extend to the adjacent unoccupied territory to which the state might potentially extend the exercise of its authority, or where it may from time to time exercise its authority in an undisputed manner. Title by occupation extends as a rule to that area, not under the jurisdiction of another state, which is necessary for the safety of the occupied area or is naturally dependent upon it, as to the territory drained by a river of which a given state holds the mouth.

The "Hinterland Doctrine," brought forth during the latter years of the nineteenth century, advances the idea that no such limits as above shall bound the area which can be claimed on ground of occupation, but that coast settlements give a prima facie title to the unexplored interior.

While the uncivilized peoples living within an area to which a civilized state claimed jurisdiction by virtue of occupancy were often unjustly treated, they however "were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion, though not to dispose of the soil of their own will, except to the government claiming the right of preëmption.... The United States adopted the same principle, and their exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title by purchase or conquest, and to grant the soil, and exercise such a degree of sovereignty as circumstances required, has never been questioned."[126]

(c) Conquest in the technical sense of the status of a territory which has come permanently under the jurisdiction of the enemy is distinct from military occupation, which is a simple fact supported by force.

Military occupation may pass into conquest (1) by actual occupation for a long period, with intention on the part of the occupier to continue the possession for an indefinite period, provided there has not been a continued and material effort upon the part of the former holder to regain possession. If, after a reasonable time, this effort to regain possession seems futile, the conquest may be regarded as complete. Each state must judge for itself as to the reasonableness of the time and futility of the effort. (2) Conquest may be said to be complete when by decree, to which the inhabitants acquiesce, a subjugated territory is incorporated under a new state. (3) A treaty of peace or act of cession may confirm the title by conquest.[127]

(d) Transfer of territory by cession may be by gift, exchange, or sale.

(1) The transfer by gift is simple, and carries such obligations as the parties interested may undertake. In 1850, by a treaty with Great Britain, "Horse-shoe Reef," in Lake Erie, was ceded to the United States for the purpose of the erection of a lighthouse, "provided the Government of the United States will engage to erect such lighthouse, and to maintain a light therein; and provided no fortification be erected on said Reef."[128]

(2) Transfer of territory by exchange is not common in modern times. By the Treaty of Berlin, 1878, a portion of Bessarabia, given to Roumania by the Treaty of Paris, 1856, was given back to Russia, and Roumania received in exchange a portion of Turkey.[129]

(3) Transfer of territory by sale has been frequent. From 1311, when the Markgraf of Brandenburg sold three villages to the Teutonic knights, down to the nineteenth century, instances of sale might be found, but the nineteenth century has numerous instances which have established the principles. Napoleon sold Louisiana to the United States in 1803, the Prince of Monaco made a sale to France in 1851, Russia sold Alaska to the United States in 1867, the Netherlands sold African colonies to Great Britain in 1872, Sweden sold the island of St. Bartholomy to France in 1877, the United States bought the Philippines in 1898. The fact of the sale is not a matter of international law, but is purely within the range of the public law of the countries concerned. The change of jurisdiction of the area gives rise to certain possible complications which may involve principles of international law, though generally the conditions of sale settle such questions.

(4) Cession of jurisdiction over a given portion of territory as surety for the performance of a certain act, payment of an indemnity or the like, has for some years been a method of acquiring temporary jurisdiction which frequently becomes permanent.

(e) Prescription, or the acquisition of territory by virtue of long-continued possession, is similar to prescription in public law as applied to the acquisition of property by persons. The recognition of this principle prevents many disputes over jurisdiction of territory which originally may have been acquired in a manner open to question, e.g. the holding of the territory by the states parties to the partition of Poland may through long-continued possession be valid by prescription if not by the original act.

In regard to prescription, it should be observed that (1) it is a title valid only against other states. The inhabitants do not necessarily lose rights originally possessed. (2) This method avoids perpetual conflicts on ground of defect of original title. (3) Prescription may be considered as effective when other states have for a considerable time made no objection, threatening the exercise of jurisdiction by the state in possession. While some authors deny this right, it is generally admitted in fact, and by most of the leading authorities acknowledged in theory.[130]

(f) When land areas in the neighborhood of the boundary of a state are changed, territory may be acquired by accretion. (1) Land formed by alluvium or other cause near the coast of a state is held to belong to that state. Lord Stowell, in 1805, held that mud islands formed by alluvium from the Mississippi River should for international law purposes be held as part of the United States territory.[131] In general, alluvium becomes the property of the state to which it attaches, following the Roman law.[132] (2) Where a river is the boundary, the rule is well-established that islands formed on either side of the deepest channel belong to the state upon that side of the channel; an island formed mid-stream is divided by the old channel line. (3) When a river's channel is suddenly changed so as to be entirely within the territory of either state, the boundary line remains as before in the old channel. So also the boundary line of territory is not changed, even if the bed of a lake be changed.

[§ 48. Qualified Jurisdiction]

Two degrees of qualified territorial jurisdiction are exercised in the protectorate and the sphere of influence.

(a) Protectorates. The protecting state usually acquires the jurisdiction over all external affairs of the protected community, often including territorial waters, and assumes the direction of its international relations. A measure of jurisdiction of those internal affairs which may lead to international complications is also generally assumed by the protecting state, e.g. treatment of foreigners in the protected territory, relations of protected subjects in foreign countries, use of flag, etc. The conditions of protected states vary greatly, hardly the same description holding for any two. It may be safe to say that (1) the protecting state cannot be held responsible for the establishment of any particular form of government, (2) a reasonable degree of security and justice must be maintained. As to what constitutes a "reasonable degree," the circumstances of each case must determine; then the protecting state is bound to afford such justice and security and (3) must be able to exercise within the protected area such powers as are necessary to meet its responsibilities.

(b) The term "sphere of influence" has been used since the Berlin Conference, 1884-1885, to indicate a sort of attenuated protectorate in which the aim is to secure the rights without the obligations. First applied to Africa in the partition of the unexplored interior among the European powers,—Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Portugal,—it has since been extended to other regions. This doctrine of mutual exclusion of each from the "spheres" of all the others cannot be held to bind any states not party to the agreement.

The method of exercise of "influence," while varying, usually consists in making with the native chiefs treaties which convey privileges other than the cession of sovereignty. These privileges are often commercial, and may be with the state direct or agreements with some company to whom the state has delegated a portion of its authority, as in the African trade companies.

The "spheres of influence," gradually with the growth of power of the influencing state and the necessity of protecting the "sphere," against other states, become less vague in their relations to the influencing state and merge into protectorates or some other more stable condition.

This "sphere of influence" idea, as well as the "Hinterland Doctrine," can be of only temporary importance, owing to the limited area still open to occupation. It is maintained that within the "sphere" the influencing state has jurisdiction to the exclusion of another state, and that it has a right to occupy the territory later, if advisable. The influencing state disclaims all obligations possible.[133]

[§ 49. Maritime and Fluvial Jurisdiction]

Wheaton states as a general principle of maritime and fluvial jurisdiction, "Things of which the use is inexhaustible, such as the sea and running water, cannot be so appropriated as to exclude others from using these elements in any manner which does not occasion a loss or inconvenience to the proprietor."[134] While the tendency of international policy is toward unrestricted freedom of river navigation, yet the principle as enunciated by Wheaton cannot be said to be established in practice. The American and Continental writers have generally favored the principle enunciated by Wheaton. English writers have contended against this position as a right, but admit that the principle is becoming established by numerous treaties and conventions. As to the sea, the principle may be said to be established.

[§ 50. Rivers]

The jurisdiction of rivers is a question which is not identical with the right of navigation of rivers, and may best be considered apart. The question of jurisdiction is one of general international principle, while the question of river navigation is one of particular provision, in many instances.

The rivers fall under three classes:—

1. Rivers which traverse only one state.

2. Rivers which traverse two or more states.

3. Rivers upon the opposite banks of which different states have jurisdiction.

(a) Rivers which traverse only one state are exclusively within the jurisdiction of that state. This jurisdiction may extend even to the forbidding of the use of a river to other states, and justifies the state in prescribing such regulations for its use as it may deem fit.

(b) Rivers flowing through two or more states are for those parts within the boundaries of each state under its jurisdiction for the purposes of police, tolls, and general regulations. The right of absolute exclusion of the co-riparian states by any one of the states through which a river flows has been the subject of much discussion, and authorities of great weight can be found upon either side.

(c) When two states have jurisdiction upon opposite banks of a river, the jurisdiction of each state extends to the middle of the main channel or thalweg. Before the Treaty of Luneville (Art. VI.), 1801, it had been common to consider the limit of jurisdiction of the two states the middle of the river, a line much more difficult to determine, and more changeable than the channel line. The thalweg has been frequently confirmed as the accepted boundary where no conventions to the contrary existed.[135]

[§ 51. The Navigation of Rivers]

The laws of jurisdiction of rivers are generally accepted. The early idea that there was a natural right of navigation, and innocent passage has received less support during the nineteenth century than formerly. The history of river navigation during the nineteenth century, as shown in the discussions between the representatives of various nations, and in the treaties and conventions agreed upon, as well as in treaties and declarations voluntarily made in regard to navigation of rivers, seem to furnish general rules.

1. That international law gives to other states no right of navigation of rivers wholly within the jurisdiction of another state.

2. That when a river forms the boundary of two or more states it is open to the navigation of each of the states.

3. That when a river passes through two or more states, international law gives no right to one of the states to pass through the part of the river in the other state or states. There is a strong moral obligation resting upon the states below to allow freedom of navigation through the river to the states upon the upper course of the river. The right of innocent use, innocent passage, freedom of river navigation, has been maintained on various grounds and in various forms, by many authorities.[136] Those who take a position opposed to this claim, assert that the navigation of rivers is, and properly should be, to avoid more serious complications, a matter of convention.

In fact, since the French Revolution, the subject has so frequently been a matter of convention[137] as to establish the general principles, that in case of no special restrictions, river navigation is free, subject to such regulations as the state having jurisdiction may deem necessary, and that the privilege of navigation carries with it the use of the river banks, so far as is necessary for purpose of navigation.[138]

[§ 52. Enclosed Waters]

(a) The rule in regard to waters wholly within the territory of a state such as lakes, etc., is that the jurisdiction is exclusively in that state.

(b) Gulfs, bays, and estuaries are regarded as within the jurisdiction of the state or states enclosing them, provided the mouth is not more than six miles in width. A line drawn from headland to headland on either side of the mouth is considered as the coast line of the state, and for purposes of maritime jurisdiction the marine league is measured from this line. Waters having wider openings into the sea have been claimed on special grounds, as the claim of the United States to territorial jurisdiction over the Chesapeake and Delaware bays. France and Germany claim jurisdiction over gulfs having outlets not over ten miles in width. Between states parties to treaties special claims have been made and allowed. These treaty stipulations do not necessarily bind states not parties to the treaty, e.g. treaty between Great Britain and France, 1839. "It is agreed that the distance of three miles, fixed as the general limit of the exclusive right of fishing upon the coasts of the two countries, shall, with respect to bays, the mouths of which do not exceed ten miles in width, be measured from a straight line drawn from headland to headland."[139]

The present tendency is toward a restricted jurisdiction and the acceptance of the six-mile limit of width of mouth, though there is a reasonable claim that some ratio should be fixed for very large interior water areas to which the entrance, though more than six miles, is yet relatively narrow.

(c) Straits less than six miles in width are within the jurisdiction of the shore state or states. In case two shores are territory of different states, each state has jurisdiction to the middle of the navigable channel.

Where a state owns both shores of a strait which does not exceed six miles in width, the strait is within its territorial jurisdiction, though other states have the right of navigation. This right of navigation is in general conferred upon both merchant and war vessels of states at peace with the territorial power. These vessels must, however, comply with proper regulations in regard to navigation. The claim to exclusive jurisdiction over such narrow straits has been abandoned.

The claim of the king of Denmark to jurisdiction over the Danish Sound and the Two Belts, which entitled him to levy tolls upon vessels passing through, was based on prescription and fortified by treaties as early as the one with the Hanse towns in 1368. Against these tolls, as an unjust burden upon commerce, the United States protested in 1848, at the same time maintaining that Denmark had not the right of exclusive jurisdiction. The European states in 1855 paid a lump sum in capitalization of the sound dues. The United States, refusing to recognize the right of Denmark to levy tolls, paid $393,011 in 1857 in consideration of Denmark's agreement to keep up lighthouses, etc.

The navigation of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles has been a subject of discussion and treaty since 1774, when Russia compelled Turkey to open these straits to the passage of merchant vessels. War vessels were excluded till 1856 when, by convention attached to the Treaty of Paris, such vessels were admitted for special purposes of service to the embassies at Constantinople and protection of improvements on the Danube waterway. By the Treaty of 1871 the Sultan may admit other war vessels, if necessary for carrying out terms of the Treaty of Paris. The United States has never acknowledged that the Sultan had the right to exclude its war vessels, though always asking permission of the Sultan to pass the Dardanelles.

As a generally accepted principle the law may be stated as follows: straits connecting free seas are open to the navigation of all states, subject of course to reasonable jurisdiction of the territorial power.

(d) Canals connecting large bodies of water have been regarded as in most respects subject to jurisdiction similar to that of straits. Yet as these canals are constructed at a cost, they must also be given exemptions from certain restrictions which properly apply to natural channels.

The position of the Suez Canal as an international waterway gives some indication of existing practice.

It is to be noted, (1) that the canal is an artificial waterway; (2) that M. de Lesseps, a foreigner, in 1854, under authorization of the Viceroy, undertook its construction as a business venture; (3) that it is wholly within the territory of Egypt.

The case is then one of an artificial waterway, constructed by private capital, wholly within the territory of a state.

The negotiations continued from 1869, when the canal was opened, to 1888, when a convention was signed by the Six Great Powers, and by the Netherlands, Spain, and Turkey, by which the status of the canal was defined. By Article I. of the Conventional Act, "The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open, in the time of war as in the time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag.

"Consequently, the High Contracting Parties agree not in any way to interfere with the free use of the Canal, in time of war as in time of peace.

"The Canal shall never be subjected to the exercise of the right of blockade."

By Article IV., the canal is not to become the base of hostile action. The marine league is to be respected in the action of foreign vessels. The twenty-four hour period was to elapse between the sailing of hostile vessels.

By Article VII., the powers might keep two war vessels in the "ports of access of Port Said and Suez," though "this right shall not be exercised by belligerents."

By Article X., the territorial jurisdiction for general administrative purposes is affirmed, and likewise for sanitary measures in Article XV.[140]

This Suez Canal of such great international importance is by this convention within the jurisdiction of Egypt, but the powers have assumed to provide that this jurisdiction shall not be exercised in such a way as to prevent innocent passage.

The Panama or Nicaraguan Canal is in part provided for by the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, between the United States and Great Britain in 1850, but in case of actual operation new agreements would be necessary.[141]

The canal at Corinth, shortening somewhat the route to the Black Sea and Asia Minor, was opened in 1893. This canal does not, like the Suez, greatly change the current of the world's intercourse, and is entirely within the jurisdiction of Greece.

Similarly the canal at Kiel, opened in 1896, is wholly within the jurisdiction of Germany.

[§ 53. The Three-mile Limit]

One of the most generally recognized rules of international law is that the jurisdiction of a state extends upon the open sea to a distance of three miles from the low-water mark. In the words of the Act of Parliament passed in consequence of the case of the Franconia,[142] 1878 (41 and 42 Victoria, c. 73), "The territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions, in reference to the sea, means such part of the sea adjacent to the coast of the United Kingdom, or the coast of some other part of Her Majesty's dominions, as is deemed by international law to be within the territorial sovereignty of Her Majesty; and for the purpose of any offence declared by this Act to be within the jurisdiction of the Admiral, any part of the open sea within one marine league of the coast measured from low-water mark shall be deemed to be open sea within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions." The three-mile limit became more and more generally recognized after the publication of Bynkershoek's "De Dominio Maris," in which he enunciates the principle that the territorial jurisdiction ends where the effective force of arms ends, which being approximately three miles from shore at that time, has since been usually accepted.

For special purposes a wider limit of jurisdiction is maintained and sometimes accepted by courtesy, though it is doubtful whether any state would attempt to hold its position against a protest from another state. The claims are based on the jurisdiction over fisheries, the enforcement of revenue laws, and the maintenance of neutrality. Such claims as the former English claims to the "King's Chambers," announced in 1604 to be bounded by a "straight line drawn from one point to another about the realm of England," as from the Lizard to Land's End, would not now receive serious support; and since the rejection of the claims of the United States by the Bering Sea Tribunal, it can be safely stated that the expansion of territorial jurisdiction upon the open sea will only come through the consensus of states. The desirability of some new regulations upon marine jurisdiction was well shown in the discussions of the Institute of International Law at its meeting in Paris in 1894.[143]

Within the three-mile limit the jurisdiction extends to commercial regulations, rules for pilotage and anchorage, sanitary and quarantine regulations, control of fisheries, revenue, general police, and in time of war to the enforcement of neutrality.

[§ 54. Fisheries]

The existence of fisheries has given rise to some special claims to extension of maritime jurisdiction.

(a) As a general rule, the right of fishing on the high sea belongs to all states alike, but each must respect the rights of others. In order that these rights might be defined, it has in many cases been necessary to resort to conventions. One of the most recent examples of this kind is seen in the convention in regard to the North Sea Fisheries, May 6, 1882, to which Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Holland are parties. The cruisers of any of these states may present the case of the fishing vessel violating the regulations of the convention in the country to which the vessel belongs, but the trial and penalty belong to the country of the vessel.[144]

(b) Special privileges granted by one state to another, or secured by custom, become servitudes, as in the case of the Canadian fisheries, and must depend upon the interpretation of the treaties by which they were granted.

By the Treaty of 1783 the United States have the right of fishing on certain parts of the coast of the British Dominion in North America.

Great Britain claimed that these rights were annulled by the Treaty of Ghent, 1814, which put an end to the War of 1812 as that treaty was silent upon the subject. The United States declared "they were not annulled by the war as they were enjoyed by the colonists before the separation from England in 1783, and so existed perpetually independent of treaty."

This claim was adjusted by the Treaty of 1818, which gave to the United States permission to take fish on certain parts of the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, to dry and cure fish in certain inlets, and to enter other inlets for shelter, repairs, and supplies.

Disputes arising under this treaty were settled by the Treaty of 1854, which gave to Canadian fishermen certain rights of fishing along the eastern coast of the United States north of the thirty-sixth parallel of latitude.

The United States took action to terminate this treaty in accord with its terms in 1866. The conditions of the Treaty of 1818 revived.

The Treaty of Washington, 1871, practically reëstablishes the provisions of the Treaty of 1854, specifying that the difference in value between the rights granted by each state to the other should be determined by a commission. This commission awarded $5,500,000 to Great Britain in 1877.[145]

In accord with the provisions of the Treaty of 1871, it was terminated by the United States in 1886, the provisions of the Treaty of 1818 again coming in force.

A law of March 3, 1897,[146] provides that the President may in certain contingencies deny vessels of the British Dominions of North America entry into the waters of the United States, and may also prohibit the importation of fish and other goods.

(c) Another question which has given rise to much discussion is that of the seal-fishing in Bering Sea.[147]

In 1821 Russia claimed that the Pacific north of latitude 51° was mare clausum. The United States and Great Britain denied this claim. By conventions, 1824 and 1825, Russia conceded to these nations rights of navigation, fishing, etc. After the United States in 1867 acquired Russian America, seal-fishing assumed importance. As the Canadian fishermen were not restrained by the laws binding the United States fishermen, it was feared that the seal would become extinct. In 1886 three Canadian schooners were by decree of the district court of Sitka confiscated for the violation of the laws of the United States in regard to seal-fishing, the judge charging the jury that the territorial waters of Alaska embraced the area bounded by the limits named in the treaty of cession to the United States of 1867 as those "within which the territories and dominion conveyed are contained."[148] This act with others of similar character led to a formal protest by Great Britain.

The questions in dispute were referred to a court of arbitration which decided against the claims of the United States, denying that the sea referred to as the Bering Sea was mare clausum, and denying that the United States acquired jurisdiction by prescriptive right from Russia in 1867. It was also decided that the United States had no right of property in the seals in the open sea, and that the destruction of these animals was contrary to the laws of nature. The United States and Great Britain, however, entered into an agreement in regard to the protection and taking of the seals by their subjects. Other nations were also to be asked to become parties to the agreement.[149]

It may be regarded as finally established that fishing in the open sea is free to all, though of course states may by conventions establish regulations which shall be binding upon their subjects.

[§ 55. Vessels]

At the present time every vessel must be under the jurisdiction of some state.

(a) Classes.—Vessels are divided into two general classes.

(1) Public vessels, which include ships of war, government vessels engaged in public service, and vessels employed in the service of the state and in command of government officers.

(2) Private vessels, owned by individuals and under regulations varying in different states.

(b) The nationality of a public vessel is determined by its flag. In an extreme case the word of the commander is held to be sufficient proof.

In case of a private vessel the flag is a common evidence, but in case of doubt the vessel must show to proper authorities its papers which certify its nationality.

(c) The general exercise of jurisdiction over vessels is as follows:—

(1) Upon the high seas and within its own waters the jurisdiction of a state over its public and private vessels is exclusive for all cases.

(2) Over public vessels in foreign waters, the jurisdiction of the state to which a public vessel belongs is exclusive for all matters of internal economy. The vessels are subject to port regulations in matters of anchorage, public safety, etc. As Dana says in his note to Wheaton, "It may be considered as established law, now, that the public vessels of a foreign state coming within the jurisdiction of a friendly state, are exempt from all forms of process in private suits."[150] In general practice the waters of all states are open to the vessels of war of all other states with which they are at peace. This is a matter of courtesy and not of right, and is in fact sometimes denied, as by the provision of the Treaty of Berlin, 1878, "The port of Antivari and all the waters of Montenegro shall remain closed to the ships of war of all nations."[151] Various regulations may require, without offence, notice of arrival, probable duration of stay, rank of commander, etc.

The boats, rafts, etc., attached to a vessel of war are regarded as a part of the ship while engaged in the public service.

While there is some difference of opinion as to the immunities of the persons belonging to a ship of war in a foreign harbor, a generally admitted rule seems to be that while the persons of a ship of war are engaged in any public service that is not prohibited by the local authorities, such persons are exempt from local jurisdiction. The ship's crew would not be arrested and detained by local authorities for minor breaches of local regulations, though they might be sent on board their vessel with statement of reasons for such action. If the action of the crew constitutes a violation of the law of the country to which they belong, the commander of the ship may punish them, and report his action to the local authorities. In case of crimes of serious nature the commander may turn the offenders over to the local authorities, but must assure them a fair trial.

The commander of a vessel is, of course, always responsible to his home government, and his action may become the subject of diplomatic negotiations.

The question of right of asylum on board a ship of war has been much discussed. First, Most civilized states now afford asylum on board their ships of war to those who, in the less civilized regions, flee from slavery.[152] Second, In cases of revolution ships of war sometimes afford refuge to members of the defeated party, though the ship of war may not be used as a safe point from which further hostilities may be undertaken. Third, A commander may afford asylum to political refugees under circumstances which he thinks advisable. Fourth, In cases where asylum is granted to offenders whether political, or (in case of treaty right) criminal, if the request of the local authorities for the release of the criminal is refused by the commander of the ship, there is no recourse except to the diplomatic channels through extradition.

The immunities granted to vessels of war are also generally conceded to other vessels strictly upon public service, e.g. carrying an ambassador to his post. The largest possible exemption is given to a vessel conveying the sovereign of a state. Vessels transporting military forces in command of regularly commissioned government officers are usually granted immunities accorded to men-of-war.

(3) Over private vessels in foreign waters the amount of jurisdiction claimed by different states varies.

The principle which is meeting with growing favor, as shown by practice and by treaty stipulation, is stated by Chief Justice Waite in 1886 as follows, "Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship, or those on board, are to be dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship, but those which disturb the public peace may be suppressed, and, if need be, the offenders punished by the proper authorities of the local jurisdiction."[153]

The position of France is, briefly, to assume no jurisdiction over foreign merchantmen within her ports save in cases where the act affects some person other than those belonging to the ship, where the local authorities are expressly called upon to interfere, or, when the order of the port is disturbed.[154]

The British Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of Aug. 28, 1878, gives jurisdiction to the authorities over all acts committed within the marine league, even though the ships are not anchored but merely passing through territorial waters.[155] This is an extreme position, and not supported by the best authorities, even in Great Britain.

The position of France, as stated above, is open to little objection either in practice or theory, and is more and more becoming a form of treaty agreement, and may be considered generally approved. Where these principles are adopted the jurisdiction of breaches of order within the ship may be referred to the home consul at the port, who has jurisdiction, and if necessary may call upon the local officers to assist him in enforcing his authority.

(4) In recent years special exemption from jurisdiction has been accorded to certain semi-public vessels engaged particularly in the postal and scientific service. Vessels in the postal service have by treaties been accorded special freedom from customs and port regulations; and by the Convention between Great Britain and France, Aug. 30, 1890 (Art. 9), it is agreed that in time of war such vessels shall be free from molestation till one of the states shall give formal notice that communication is at an end.

[§ 56. Jurisdiction over Persons—Nationality]

Under the discussion of jurisdiction of the state over persons comes the question of nationality. Nationality involves the reciprocal relations of allegiance and protection on the part of the person and state. It corresponds to citizenship in the broad sense of that term. In general a state may exercise jurisdiction over its own subjects or citizens as it will, and the relations of a state to its citizens are matters of municipal law only.

A state exercises jurisdiction over all persons within its limits except certain officers of other states by exterritoriality entitled to exemption from local jurisdiction. In some of the Eastern states citizens of Western states are by treaty exempt from certain local laws. This last exemption may properly be said to be by local law, as a treaty becomes a part of the state law for the subjects upon which it touches.

The jurisdiction also varies with the status of the person as regards his relations to other states. The conflict of laws in regard to nationality forms an important part of private international law.

[§ 57. Jurisdiction over Natural-born Subjects]

Children born within a state of which the parents are citizens are natural-born subjects of that state. Such persons are fully under the local jurisdiction.

Foundlings, because of the uncertainty of parentage, are considered subjects of the state in which they are found.

Illegitimate children take the nationality of the mother, provided they are born in the state of which the mother is subject.

The great bulk of the population of all states, except those most recently founded, is natural-born, and therefore fully under local jurisdiction.

[§ 58. Foreign-born Subjects]

It is the general principle that each state determines citizenship by its own laws. The status of persons born abroad may become very uncertain by virtue of the conflict of laws of the state of which one or both the parents are citizens and the state in which the child is born.

These laws in regard to children born to parents while sojourning in foreign countries may be classified as follows:—

(a) The child born in the foreign country is a subject of the state of which his parents are citizens. That the child inherits the nationality of his father is a common maxim known as jus sanguinis. The United States law says, "All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."[156] The jus sanguinis is followed by Austria,[157] Germany,[158] Hungary,[159] Sweden,[160] Switzerland,[161] and by some of the smaller European states.

(b) Certain states follow the rule of jus soli, maintaining that the place of birth determines the nationality. Great Britain, by Article 4, of the Act of May 12, 1870, adopts this principle. By the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The laws of the United States have given rise to many questions.[162] Portugal and most of the South American states follow the jus soli.

(c) Other states follow sometimes the jus sanguinis, sometimes jus soli, and sometimes modifications of these laws. The laws of Belgium and Spain regard the child of an alien as an alien, though on attaining majority the child may choose the citizenship of the country of his birth. The French laws of June 26-28, 1889, and July 22, 1893, consider as subjects the children born abroad to French citizens, also the children of foreigners born in France, unless these children within one year after attaining majority elect the nationality of their parents. Most states allow the descendants born to foreigners sojourning within their limits to elect their allegiance on attaining majority. Switzerland, however, strongly maintains the jus sanguinis, without according any choice to the descendants born to foreigners within her limits, or to her own subjects born abroad except by formal renunciation of citizenship. Thus the child of a citizen of Switzerland born in France would be by French law a citizen of France, and by Swiss law a citizen of Switzerland.

By the law of Germany, a citizen of Germany sojourning more than ten years abroad without registration at his consulate loses his German citizenship, without necessarily acquiring the citizenship of the country of his sojourn, thereby becoming heimatlos, or a "man without a country."

At the present time the laws in regard to descendants born to parents sojourning in a foreign state show the widest diversity and give rise to unfortunate complications.[163]

[§ 59. Jurisdiction by Virtue of Acquired Nationality]

The jurisdiction of a state extends to those who voluntarily acquire its citizenship.

(a) A woman in most states by marriage acquires the nationality of her husband. In some of the South American states the husband acquires the citizenship of his wife. By the law of Belgium, Aug. 6, 1881, and by the law of France, June 26, 1889, it was made easier for foreigners who had married women natives of those states to acquire Belgian or French nationality respectively. The United States law, while holding that a woman marrying a citizen of the United States acquires his nationality, does not hold that an American woman on marrying a foreigner thereby becomes expatriated, unless she takes up her residence in her husband's state.[164]

(b) A state may acquire jurisdiction over persons by naturalization, which is an act of sovereignty by which a foreigner is admitted to citizenship in another state. The method of naturalization is in accord with local law and varies greatly in different states.[165] The law of the United States prescribes that Congress has power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."[166] The foreigner desiring naturalization in the United States must declare on oath before a court after three years of residence in this country, his intent to become a citizen, and, after he has remained here two years longer he must take an oath of allegiance to the United States and of renunciation of his former country. An alien who has resided in the United States the three years next preceding the attaining of his majority and who continues to reside in this country at the time of his application, may, after reaching twenty-one years of age, and after residing here five years including the three years of minority, become a citizen by making a declaration at the time of admission.[167]

(c) A state may acquire jurisdiction over persons by annexation of the territory upon which they reside. The territory may be acquired by cession, exchange, purchase, conquest, etc. The conditions of the transfer of allegiance from the state formerly possessing the territory is usually fixed by the treaty. This transfer is known as collective naturalization.

Ordinarily a right to choose the allegiance to either state is left to the inhabitants of an annexed territory. Removal from the new jurisdiction is usually required if the inhabitant does not choose to change his allegiance. If the inhabitant does not take any action, it is held that he thereby tacitly transfers his allegiance unless there are special treaty provisions.[168]

(d) The effect of naturalization, whatever the method, is to make the person a citizen of the state into which he is admitted, and over him that state has jurisdiction in all places outside the jurisdiction of the state whose allegiance he has forsworn.

There is conflict of the laws determining the relations to his native state of a person who has renounced his allegiance to one state by naturalization in another state. The general law is, that he becomes entitled to all the privileges of a subject of the state of his new allegiance, except that when he is within his first state he becomes liable for the performance of any obligation which he may have incurred prior to his naturalization.[169]

A state may determine what conditions must be fulfilled in order to constitute a valid severance of allegiance. Laws are diverse upon this subject. Many states have maintained, and some still maintain, that allegiance is inalienable.[170] England formally maintained this principle till 1870, and her attempts to enforce the principle brought on the War of 1812 with the United States.

In certain countries, as in the United States and Switzerland, minor children are held to follow the allegiance of their father in case of naturalization. The French law claims that the minor child's nationality is that of his birthplace. The subject has been determined in some instances by treaty stipulation, yet must be considered, like many questions of naturalization, as unsettled.

Many states distinguish in law and more in practice between that naturalization which carries with it protection of the state and allegiance of the subject (naturalisation ordinaire) and that naturalization which carries full political privileges (grande naturalisation).

(e) Incomplete naturalization. The fact that a person has taken the preliminary steps toward acquiring the nationality of a foreign state, by making a declaration of his intention or otherwise, may give the state to which the person has assumed an inchoate allegiance the right of protection of the declarant against third states,[171] though not necessarily against the native state of the declarant.[172] Of the privileges to be accorded to one who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, Secretary Marcy said, "The declaration, indeed, is prima facie evidence that the person who made it was, at its date, domiciled in the United States, and entitled thereby, though not to all, to certain rights of a citizen, and to much more consideration when abroad than is due to one who has never been in our country; but the declarant, not being a citizen under our laws, even while domiciled here, cannot enjoy all the rights of citizenship either here or abroad;"[173] and Mr. Marcy also says of the papers proving domicile, "And to this simple certificate ... the European authorities are at liberty to pay such respect as they think proper."[174]

In 1853 a case arose in which the United States affirmed: "It is a maxim of international law that domicile confers national character; ... international law looks only to the national character in determining what country has the right to protect. If a person goes from this country abroad, with the nationality of the United States, this law enjoins upon other nations to respect him, in regard to protection, as an American citizen."[175] This statement was made in support of the position assumed by the United States in the case of one Martin Koszta. Koszta, a Hungarian refugee of 1848-1849, went to Turkey, was imprisoned, later was released on condition of leaving the country, went to the United States, declared his intention to become a citizen, and in 1853 returned to Turkey. He went into business at Smyrna, obtained there a traveling pass certifying that he was under protection of the United States, was seized, thrown into the sea by persons employed by the Austrian consulate, and was picked up by an Austrian man-of-war, Hussar. The consul of the United States remonstrated, but the captain of the Hussar held Koszta. The chargé d'affaires requested the aid of a United States man-of-war, whose captain demanded Koszta's release. To avoid conflict in the port the mediation of the French consul was accepted, and Koszta was intrusted, pending settlement of claims, to the French consul. Finally Koszta was allowed to return to the United States, though Austria maintained her right to proceed against him if he returned to Turkey. The United States in this case undoubtedly took an extreme position in its claim of jurisdiction.

By an act of March 3, 1863, the United States declared that those who had taken the preliminary oath of intention to become citizens were liable to military service. Upon protest by foreign nations against this act of Congress, the President, by proclamation, announced that, as it had been claimed that "such persons, under treaties or the law of nations, retain a right to renounce that purpose, and to forego the privileges of citizenship and residence within the United States, under the obligations imposed by the aforesaid act of Congress,"[176] to avoid all misapprehension, the plea of alienage would be accepted for sixty-five days, during which time such persons as had only declared their intention to become citizens might depart.

The position in the Koszta case, where the claim to the protection of the United States was made when the inchoate citizen was in trouble, and the claim of the inchoate citizens to renounce their allegiance when the state was in difficulties, show some of the problems to which the diverse laws and practices in regard to naturalization have given rise.

The municipal laws of some of the local states of the United States admit to all political privileges of the local state those who have taken the first steps toward naturalization. It is generally conceded that such as have exercised the privileges of full citizens can properly be held to the obligations of full citizens, as was declared in the above proclamation.

The inconsistencies in regard to jurisdiction over those naturalized or incompletely naturalized are gradually yielding to treaty provisions which distinctly determine the position of such persons.

[§ 60. Jurisdiction over Aliens]

Citizens of one state, when sojourning in a foreign state, have a dual relationship by which they may claim certain privileges, both from their native state and from the foreign state.

(a) The native state naturally has jurisdiction of a qualified sort over its subjects even when they are in a foreign state.

(1) The right to make emigration laws may lead to restrictions binding in a foreign state. A state may banish its subjects. No other state is obliged to receive them, however.

(2) A state may recall its citizens for special reasons, as in the case of Greece in 1897, when Greek citizens were recalled for military service.

(3) There is much difference of opinion upon the question of penal jurisdiction of the native state over its subjects who have committed crimes in a foreign state. In general American and English authorities agree that penal law is territorial. Some of the continental authorities take the view that a citizen on his return may be punished for crimes committed in a foreign state. The English law takes this position in certain crimes, as treason, bigamy, and premeditated murder. Usually a crime committed upon a vessel in a foreign harbor is held as within the jurisdiction of the state of the vessel's registry.

(4) A state may interfere to protect its subjects in a foreign state, thus extending its authority in their behalf. This has been frequently done to protect Western sojourners in Eastern states, e.g. the demands of Germany, in 1898, for concessions from China on account of injuries to missionaries. These demands, accompanied by a naval demonstration, resulted in the cession of Kaio-Chau.

(b) The jurisdiction of a state over aliens within its territory is very extensive.

(1) The absolute right of exclusion of all foreigners would hardly be maintained by any civilized state, though it could be deduced from the doctrine of sovereignty. Whether justly or not, Japan and China have been compelled by force to cede certain rights to states demanding admission for their citizens.

(2) The right of expulsion is, however, generally maintained. This right should, however, be exercised most carefully, as the fact of admission carries with it some obligation on the part of the admitting state.

(3) The right to conditional admission is generally allowed, as seen in laws in regard to immigration.

(4) The foreign state may impose such restrictions upon settlement as it sees fit.

(5) A foreign state may levy such taxes upon the person and goods of aliens as are in accord with state law.

(6) Aliens are subject to the local sanitary and police jurisdiction.

(7) The foreign state has penal jurisdiction over aliens for crimes committed within territorial limits, and many states maintain, also, for such crimes as plotting against the state, counterfeiting state money, or crimes directly imperiling the state's well-being even when committed outside of state limits.

(8) The state may require aliens to render service such as is necessary to maintain public order, even military service, to ward off immediate and sudden danger, e.g. as an attack by savages, a mob, etc., but

(9) A state cannot compel aliens to enter its military service for the securing of political ends, or for the general ends of war.

(10) In nearly all states freedom of commerce is now conceded, the state giving to native and foreigner similar privileges. China still restricts trade to certain free ports.

(11) The holding and bequeathing of property of whatever sort is subject to local law.

(12) Freedom of speech and of worship are also subject to local law.

All these laws are subject to the exemptions in favor of sovereigns, diplomatic agents, etc.

(c) Ordinarily the identity of an alien is established by a passport. This may also secure for him a measure of care in a foreign state. Below is the form of passport.

Good only for two years from date.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Department of State
To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting:
I, the undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States of
America, hereby request all whom
DESCRIPTIONit may concern to permit
Age.... Years.....................
Stature... Feet... Inches..., Eng. .............. ...............,
Forehead.......................... a Citizen of the United States,
Eyes.............................. ........................ safely
Nose.............................. and freely to pass, and in case of
Mouth............................. need to give ... all lawful Aid
Chin.............................. and Protection.
Hair..............................
Complexion........................ Given under my hand and the
Face.............................. Seal of the Department of State,
at the City of Washington, the
(SEAL)... day of ....... in the year
19..., and of the Independence of
(Signature of the Bearer) the United States the one hundred
.................................. and.................
No.....................

[§ 61. Exemptions from Jurisdiction—General]

As a general principle, the sovereignty of a state within its boundaries is complete and exclusive. For various reasons there has grown up the custom of granting immunity from local jurisdiction to certain persons generally representing the public authority of a friendly state. This immunity may extend to those persons and things under their control.

This immunity has been called exterritoriality. The persons and things thus exempt from local jurisdiction are regarded as carrying with them the territorial status of their native state, or as being for purposes of jurisdiction within their own state territory, and beyond that of the state in which they are geographically. Wherever they may go they carry with them the territory and jurisdiction of their home state. Doubtless this doctrine of exterritoriality in the extreme form may be carried too far, as many late writers contend, and some have desired another term, as immunity from jurisdiction, as more exact and correct.[177] Such a term would have the merit of directing attention to the nature of the relation which the persons concerned sustained to the state. Hall sums up the case by saying, "If exterritoriality is taken, not merely as a rough way of describing the effect of certain immunities, but as a principle of law, it becomes, or at any rate is ready to become, an independent source of legal rule, displacing the principle of the exclusiveness of territorial sovereignty within the range of its possible operation in all cases in which practice is unsettled or contested."[178] Exterritoriality should be viewed as based on the immunities conceded to public persons, rather than as the source of these immunities.

[§ 62. Exemption of Sovereigns]

Sovereigns sojourning in their official capacity in foreign countries are exempt from local jurisdiction. This principle is based, not merely upon courtesy, but also upon convenience and necessity. The sovereign represents the state, and therefore cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of another state without waiving the sovereignty, and in so far depriving the state of one of its essential qualities. Nor can the visiting sovereign exercise any authority which would infringe the sovereign powers of the state in which he is. The visiting sovereign can only claim immunity for such action as is in accord with the necessities of his convenient sojourn. He, his retinue, and effects, are exempt from civil and criminal jurisdiction. He is free from taxes, duties, police and administrative regulations. In the case of Vavasseur v. Krupp, 1878, it was decided that infringement of the patent law did not constitute a ground for suit against a sovereign. In this case Vavasseur brought action against Krupp for infringement of patent on shells in custody of the agents of the Mikado of Japan. The action resulted in an injunction preventing removal of the shells to the Mikado's ships, but on application of the Mikado to remove the shells as his property, the court held that, even if the property in question infringed a patent, the Mikado could not be sued and his property could not be held.[179] The principle that the sovereign is free from suit has frequently been decided by the courts of various countries. A sovereign sojourning in a foreign state cannot, however, set up his courts and execute judgment; such functions belong to his territorial courts. Criminals in his retinue must be sent home for trial. While the sovereign's hôtel or place of residence while abroad is exempt from local jurisdiction, the sovereign is not justified in allowing the hôtel to become an asylum for others than members of his retinue. On demand he must give up such refugees. In case the sovereign does not observe this principle or commits acts liable to endanger the peace of the foreign state, the authorities may invite him to depart, or if necessary expel him by force.

The sovereign may, in his private capacity, hold property and become party to a suit like any citizen.[180] A sovereign may travel incognito, and is then entitled only to the recognition accorded to the rank which he assumes. He can, however, assert his sovereign capacity and obtain its immunities at any time should he deem it proper.

[§ 63. Exemptions of State Officers]

(a) Diplomatic agents, or those commissioned to transact the political affairs of the state abroad, are conceded a wide immunity from local jurisdiction. As representing the political will of their state, diplomatic agents have immunities similar to those conceded to the sovereign, though by virtue of the fact that the sending of diplomatic agents has long been a common practice, their immunities are quite well defined. These immunities will be considered more in detail under the subject of International Intercourse, but in general a diplomatic agent is exempt from, (1) criminal jurisdiction, (2) civil jurisdiction, (3) local police and administrative regulations, (4) taxes and duties, (5) jury and witness duty, (6) regulations in regard to religious and social action, (7) all exercise of authority by the local state within his official residence or hôtel, (8) and from the exercise of similar authority over his household, official and unofficial.

(b) The exemptions granted to consuls vary in different states and under different circumstances. In general they are entitled to such exemptions as will enable them to perform their functions effectively.[181]

(c) Any foreign army within the territorial limits of a given state, by permission of the sovereign of said state, is free from the sovereign's jurisdiction. Chief Justice Marshall, in 1812, gave as his opinion: "In such case, without any express declaration waiving jurisdiction over the army to which this right of passage has been granted, the sovereign who should attempt to exercise it would certainly be considered as violating his faith.... The grant of a free passage, therefore, implies a waiver of all jurisdiction over the troops during their passage, and permits the foreign general to use that discipline, and to inflict those punishments, which the government of his army may require."[182] Permission, either general or special, must be obtained in order that an army may enter a foreign state in time of peace. The army must cause the least possible inconvenience to the state during its sojourn.

The military attaché of an embassy is regarded as a member of the official household of the diplomatic agent.

(d) Navy. As a vessel of war can without inconvenience to a foreign state pass through or remain within its maritime jurisdiction, it is customary to accord to the vessel and crew immunity from local jurisdiction and freedom of passage unless withheld for special reason. "Their immunity from local jurisdiction has come to be more absolute than that of the official residence of ambassadors, and probably for the reason that they have the efficient means of resistance which an ambassador has not."[183]

In general the exemption from local jurisdiction which a vessel of war enjoys in a foreign state extends: (1) to acts beginning and ending on board the vessel;[184] (2) to all boats, etc., of the vessel of war in charge of the crew of the vessel and upon its service; (3) to freedom from customs and all such regulations as are not necessary for the safety of the port (it was held in case of the United States frigate Constitution, in 1879, that she was not liable to salvage charges;[185] the vessel is therefore liable to quarantine, anchorage, etc., rules which imply no derogation of sovereignty); (4) to all persons on board the vessel whether members of the crew or others. This exemption should not be taken as warranting a general exercise of the right of asylum on board vessels of war. Asylum can be granted as an act of hospitality to a political refugee, who cannot use the vessel as a base for political intrigue. Asylum to common criminals cannot be granted without offense to the foreign state. Such criminals are usually surrendered on request of the local authorities.

A commander cannot pursue deserters on shore or exercise external authority.

Hall sums up the general principle as follows, "The immunities of a vessel of war belong to her as a complete instrument, made up of vessel and crew, and intended to be used by the state for specific purposes; the elements of which she is composed are not capable of separate use for those purposes; they consequently are not exempted from the local jurisdiction."[186]

In case of abuse of exemptions the state in whose waters the foreign ship of war is, can request it to depart; and if its request is not complied with, can use force, though the customary method is to resort to diplomatic channels.

[§ 64. Special Exemptions]

(a) In certain Oriental states, the subjects of Western states are by treaty exempt from local jurisdiction. The extent of the exemption in each case depends upon the treaty provisions. The basis of this exemption is found in the "incompatibility of habits of thought on all legal and moral questions,"[187] and the consequent impossibility of obtaining what to the Western states seemed just treatment on the part of Oriental officials. Consular courts were established to meet the needs of foreigners within the jurisdiction of these Eastern states.[188] The consuls in these states were invested with special judicial powers, though not considered by the laws of the United States judicial officers. Each state determines the competence of its consular courts in foreign states.

The following rules are general, though not absolute, propositions in regard to the treatment of cases involving natives of Eastern countries and foreigners.

(1) Penal Matters. If a native commits a crime against a foreigner, he is generally tried in the local court.

If a foreigner commits a crime against a native, he is generally tried in the consular court of his state.

If a foreigner commits a crime against a foreigner of another nationality, he is generally tried in the consular court of the injured foreigner.

If both parties to the crime are of the same nationality, the offenders are tried in the court of their own state.

If the crime is a grave one, such as murder, sentence cannot be passed without the sanction of the home government, and in some cases the offender is sent home for trial.

(2) Civil Matters. In cases involving a foreigner and a native, the trial is generally by agents of the two countries.

In cases involving subjects of the same state, their consular court has jurisdiction.

In cases involving foreigners of different nationalities the consular court of the defendant has jurisdiction.

In cases involving large interests, there is an appeal from the consular to the higher courts of the state.

In the East registration of the head of the family at the consulate is necessary to obtain consular protection. Local statutes provide for the execution of treaty stipulations as to consular jurisdiction.[189]

(b) In Egypt mixed courts were instituted in 1875. This system, arranged by convention, has received the assent of nearly all the European states and of the United States.[190]

The majority of the judges in these courts are foreigners, and the courts have competence over cases against the Egyptian government, over civil and commercial matters between foreigners and natives, and between foreigners of different nationalities. Jurisdiction for other matters remains in the consuls. These courts have been the subject of much discussion and great difference of opinion.

[§ 65. Extradition]

Extradition is the act by which one state delivers a person accused of crime committed beyond its borders to another state for trial and punishment.

Many of the Continental states maintain that extradition is a duty binding upon all civilized states, on the ground that the prevention of crime which would result from certainty of punishment is an object to be sought by all for the general good. Grotius, Vattel, Kent, Fiore, and many other authorities maintain this position. Bluntschli, Foelix, Klüber, G. F. de Martens, Pufendorf, Phillimore, Wheaton and the majority of authorities make the basis of extradition the conventional agreement of treaties.[191] The large number of extradition treaties of the last half of the nineteenth century has made the practice general. Occasionally a state has, in the absence of treaties, voluntarily surrendered fugitives from justice as an act of courtesy. The extradition of Tweed by Spain in 1876 was an act of this kind.[192] Such cases are not common, however,[193] and it is safe to derive the principles from the general practice as seen in treaties.

(a) Persons liable to extradition vary according to treaties. It is the general practice to surrender on demand of the state in which the crime is committed only those who are subjects of the state making the demand. This is the general rule of the Continental states. As Great Britain and the United States maintain the principle of territorial penal jurisdiction, it is customary for these states to uphold the idea of extradition even of their own subjects.[194] The practice is not uniform in the relations of these states to other states, as is shown in their treaties. The South American and Continental European states hold that their own citizens are not liable to extradition.

A large number of the modern writers are in favor of the extradition of subjects in the same manner as aliens, and it is evident that the drift of international practice, as shown by the treaties of the last quarter-century, is toward the refusal to grant protection to a subject who has sought refuge in his native state after committing a crime abroad.

In case the accused whose extradition is demanded is a citizen of a third state, the practice is not uniform, though the best authorities seem to favor the granting of the extradition only after communication with and assent of the third state, on the ground that the state to which the subject has fled is responsible to the third state for its treatment of him. This practice has been followed in many European treaties.

Ordinarily, not all criminals are liable to extradition, though treaty stipulations may cover cases usually excepted. Those accused of political crimes have, since the early part of the nineteenth century, been more and more generally exempt from extradition. During the last quarter of the nineteenth century few treaties have been made which do not make political criminals specifically non-extraditable. Political crimes accompanied by attacks upon the person of the sovereign or of those holding political office or position are not, however, in the above category, but are usually extraditable.

(b) Even when an accused person is extradited there are limitations as to the jurisdiction of the state to which he goes. The trial must be for the offense or offenses enumerated in the treaty. For example, a treaty between two states enumerates among extraditable crimes murder, and does not enumerate larceny. A fugitive from one of the countries is accused of both murder and larceny. The country surrendering the criminal would not permit the trial of the criminal for any other crime than murder, until the criminal should have had opportunity to return to the state from which he was surrendered. For many years Great Britain claimed that a person surrendered in accordance with an extradition treaty should be tried only for the specific offense for which he was surrendered. The United States desired to include other offenses provided the person had been once surrendered. This position of Great Britain was accepted by the treaty of July 12, 1889.[195]

(c) The conditions necessary for a claim for extradition are: (1) that the crime shall have been committed within the territorial or maritime jurisdiction of the state making the demand, (2) that there be sufficient evidence of guilt to establish a case, and (3) that the application be from the proper authority and in the proper form.[196]

(d) The procedure in cases of extradition is based on definite principles. As it is an act of sovereignty, it must be performed by agents of the sovereign person, who for this purpose, although generally engaged in other functions, are executive officers.[197] The general rule is that the demand for extradition shall be made through the ordinary diplomatic channels. In colonies and under special circumstances an officer of first rank may be the medium of the demand.

The person demanded may be placed under provisional arrest pending the full proceedings of extradition.[198]

Reasonable evidence of the identity of the person and of the facts of the crime must be furnished by the state making the demand.

In case a person is demanded by two states, his native state and a third state in which he has committed a crime, it is customary to grant the request of the state in which he has committed the crime.

When a person is demanded on the ground of separate crimes committed in both states as above, if the crimes are equally grave, the request of his native state is granted. Sometimes, however, when the third state offers to surrender the fugitive to his native state after he has paid the penalty of his crime, the request of the third state is granted.

When the crime committed in one state is more grave than that committed in another, the request of the state maintaining the graver charge is granted.

When states other than the native state request the extradition of a fugitive, the state receiving the demand may take into consideration the gravity of the offense and the probability that a given state will, after securing justice, make it possible for other states to prosecute their claims. In cases of equal gravity priority of demand usually determines the course of action.[199]

If the person demanded is accused of a crime in the state of refuge, the demand for his extradition may be refused pending his trial in the state of refuge.

Many other questions arise which complicate the actual procedure in cases of extradition, but these belong mainly to the realm of private international law.

[§ 66. Servitudes]

Servitudes in international law constitute a restriction upon the exercise of the territorial jurisdiction of a state in favor of one or more states.

(a) International servitudes are:—

(1) positive, implying that a state is under obligation to permit within its territory another state to exercise certain powers, as by the Treaty of Berlin, 1878, Art. XXIX. "The administration of the maritime and sanitary police, both at Antivari and along the coast of Montenegro, shall be carried out by Austria-Hungary by means of light coastguard vessels;"[200]

(2) negative, implying that a state is to refrain from certain acts, otherwise customary, as "Montenegro shall neither have ships of war nor flag of war."[201]

Among the positive servitudes are: those obligations of a state to allow within its own jurisdiction the exercise of political or administrative authority by another state, as in the execution of judicial or police regulations; those obligations to allow the exercise of military authority, as in military occupation of a portion of the territory or the passage of troops. Among the negative servitudes are: those obligations of a state to refrain from exercising within its own jurisdiction certain political or administrative authority which might be exercised, if the servitude did not exist, as in the exemption of the citizens or corporate persons of certain states from certain acts of jurisdiction or taxation; those obligations to refrain from military acts, such as the limitation of the army or navy to a certain number, or the obligation not to fortify a certain place.

(b) There are also servitudes which may be called general, because binding alike upon every state in favor of all others, such as the innocent use of territorial seas.[202]

[CHAPTER XII]

PROPERTY

[§ 67. Property in General]

The term "property" has been used in varying senses by writers upon international law. By virtue of the fact that a state has jurisdiction over all its public property there has sometimes been confusion between the two terms, but jurisdiction may, and does, extend to persons and things of which proprietorship cannot be affirmed by the state.

In the sense commonly used in international law the property of a state is held to be all the lands and water within its limits. Within this territory the state has rights to the exclusion of other states, and upon the land area may exercise the right of eminent domain.

The idea of property in this international sense is distinct from that of private ownership, which is merely relative and depends upon the regulations of the state; indeed, private property may be seized for the debts of the state.

A state may hold absolute possession of such objects as are capable of appropriation, as lands, buildings, and other material resources for public purposes. In some cases the state owns the railroads, telegraphs, mines, etc. In time of war such property receives treatment somewhat different from that of private property, and in time of peace it may receive special recognition, e.g. houses of ambassadors.

[§ 68. State Property in International Law]

Hall outlines this subject as follows: "A state may own property as a private individual within the jurisdiction of another state; it may possess the immediate as well as the ultimate property in movables, land, and buildings within its own territory; and it may hold property in its state capacity in places not belonging to its own territory, whether within or outside the jurisdiction of other states."[203] Property of the first class falls under the local law of the state in which it is. Property of the second class may come within the scope of international law in time of war. Property of the third class may come with the scope of international law both in time of peace and of war.

[CHAPTER XIII]

DIPLOMACY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN TIMES OF PEACE

[§ 69. General Development]

Diplomacy may be broadly defined as the art and science of international negotiation. The conditions which make possible established relations among states are of comparatively recent origin. In the days when stranger and enemy were not distinguished, and when "strange air made a man unfree," there could be no extended relations among states. In very early times, however, states had some relations with each other, and general principles were observed in carrying on such business as might be necessary. These growing relations have given rise to what is known as the right of legation. Sometimes a right of intercourse between states has been claimed on the ground that the citizens of one state cannot be excluded from the natural advantages of another state, on the ground that all men have an equal right to innocent use of the earth's resources, or on more abstract grounds of moral duty variously interpreted. As the actual practice of states never has recognized such a right to contend for it would hardly be necessary. States put restrictions upon commerce, even to the exclusions of goods and persons. In some cases where the terms of the state enactment may not be prohibitive, the conditions of admission amount to practical prohibition.[204]

The influence of commerce in its many forms, the idea of unity of mankind in its various manifestations, the growth of neighborhood on the part of European states, and the necessity of respect for each other on the part of these states, made interstate relations imperative and convenient. While the right of intercourse might be questioned, the necessity and convenience of interstate relations admitted of no question.

[§ 70. Diplomatic Agents]

(a) Historical. In very early times special privileges were extended to heralds, ambassadors, or other bearers of the state will. Laws[205] and history record as a fact this practice which had long been observed. The ambassador was often one who in his own state held some priestly office. In the days of the Roman dominance, the office of ambassador was commonly exercised by one holding a religious office, and while the unity represented by the church remained prominent, its officials were often ambassadors. Both from necessity and from the sacred character of the person, the ambassador was usually regarded as inviolable. The person of the ambassador was respected long before there was any recognition of the rights and dignity of states as states. In order that there might be any such intercourse, it was necessary that the agents should not be placed in undue personal peril.[206]

With the preëminence of the Italian city states in the Middle Ages there came the development of diplomacy as an art. The most distinguished men of the times were called to this state service. Machiavelli's name is inseparably linked to one school of diplomacy. Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, and others whose names have become famous, were sent on missions.[207]

During the thirteenth century, Venice outlined the policy which her ambassadors should follow, and there the system of foreign representation became well established. This system included the granting of a commission, instructions, letter of credence, attachés, etc. Italy may, indeed, be called the home of the diplomatic system.

For many years, in fact till comparatively recent times, ambassadors were looked upon with suspicion, as spies whom monarchs were more willing to give than to receive. Gradually, however, the practice of sending and receiving ambassadors was seen to have much value. During the fifteenth century, which marks the beginning of the modern period in the history of diplomacy, the practice of sending permanent ambassadors seems to have arisen. There may have been isolated cases of sending of permanent ambassadors before this time, but from the fifteenth century the practice became more and more common, though the different countries did not observe any uniform regulations as to personnel, procedure, or in other respects. From this time diplomacy became more of a career, and one going on a mission to a foreign country received careful preparation that he might outwit the representatives of the state to which he was sent. Sir Henry Wotton's oft-quoted definition of an ambassador, "An ambassador is an honest man, sent to lie abroad for the good of his country,"[208] describes the attitude taken in many countries toward the office, when early in the seventeenth century he wrote the definition in Christopher Flecamore's album. Gradually the rules of international negotiation became established, and treatises upon the subject appeared.

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which marks the beginning of modern international relations, showed that modern diplomacy had already obtained a recognition, and served to give it a more definite form. This date serves as a boundary to the first division of the modern period in the history of diplomacy. The years from the early part of the fifteenth century to the Peace of Westphalia are the years of beginnings. From this time the system of permanent ministers, which so greatly changed the character of international negotiations, became almost a necessity through the development of the equilibrium of the states of Europe.[209]

During the years 1648 to 1815 the relations of states became more complex, and the business of international negotiation more delicate. Diplomatic practice, always tending to look to precedent, suffered severe strains under the ambitious monarchs occupying the thrones of Europe after the Peace of Westphalia. Principles and precedent were often disregarded to obtain political ends. So great was the friction that at length some of the more commonly disputed questions were settled at the Congress of Vienna, 1815.

(b) The question of relative rank of state agents gave rise, in the days before the Congress of Vienna, to many difficulties. The protocol of that Congress of March 9, 1815, together with the eighth article adopted at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, Nov. 21, 1818, give the basis of present practice as follows:—

"In order to prevent in future the inconveniences which have frequently occurred, and which may still occur, from the claims of Precedence among the different Diplomatic characters, the Plenipotentiaries of the Powers who signed the Treaty of Paris have agreed on the following Articles, and think it their duty to invite those of other Crowned Heads to adopt the same regulations:—

Division of Diplomatic Characters

Art. I. Diplomatic characters are divided into Three classes: That of Ambassadors, Legates, or Nuncios.
That of Envoys, Ministers, or other persons accredited to Sovereigns.
That of Chargés d'Affaires accredited to Ministers for foreign affairs.

Representative Character

Art. II. Ambassadors, Legates, or Nuncios only shall have the Representative character.

Special Missions

Art. III. Diplomatic characters charged with any special Mission shall not, on that account, assume any superiority of Rank.

Diplomatic Precedence

Art. IV. Diplomatic characters shall rank in their respective classes according to the date of the official notification of their arrival.

Representatives of the Pope

The present Regulation shall not occasion any change respecting the Representative of the Pope.

Form for Reception of Diplomatic Agents

Art. V. There shall be a regular form adopted by each State for the reception of Diplomatic Characters of every Class.

Diplomatic Agents of Courts Allied by Family or Other Ties

Art. VI. Ties of consanguinity or family alliance between Courts confer no Rank on their Diplomatic Agents. The same rule also applies to political alliances.

Alteration of Signatures in Acts or Treaties

Art. VII. In Acts or Treaties between several Powers that admit alternity, the order which is to be observed in the signatures of Ministers shall be decided by ballot.[210]

Art. VIII. It is agreed between the Five Courts that Ministers Resident accredited to them shall form, with respect to their Precedence, an intermediate class between Ministers of the Second Class and Chargés d'Affaires."[211]

To the articles, except the last, Austria, Spain, France, Great Britain, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, and Sweden were parties. Spain, Portugal, and Sweden were not parties to the eighth article. Theoretically these rules are binding only upon those states parties to the treaties, but practically they are accepted by all civilized states.

The four grades are as follows:—

1. Ambassadors, legates, and nuncios.

2. Envoys, ministers, or other persons accredited to sovereigns.

3. Ministers resident.

4. Chargés d'affaires.

The first three grades are accredited to the sovereign. The fourth grade, chargés d'affaires, is accredited to the minister of foreign affairs.

The rank of the agent does not necessarily have any relation to the importance of the business which may be intrusted to him. The titles given to the different diplomatic agents, at the present time, are in a general way descriptive, as follows:—

(1) Diplomatic agents of the first class are held to represent the person of the sovereign. Ambassador ordinary usually designates one holding a permanent mission. Ambassador extraordinary designates one on a special mission, or having power to act in exceptional circumstances. This, however, is most often a title of somewhat superior honor giving no other advantage. Papal legates rank, and for practical purposes, are, ambassadors extraordinary, though representing particularly ecclesiastical affairs and the Pope as head of the Church. Legates are chosen from the cardinals and sent to countries recognizing the papal supremacy. Nuncios of the Pope rank as ambassadors ordinary on a permanent mission, and are usually intrusted with power to transact general affairs.[212]

(2) Envoys extraordinary, envoys ordinary, and ministers plenipotentiary have in general the same functions and rank. With these rank the papal internuncio. The general idea is that the agents of the second class do not stand for the person of the sovereign, but for the state.

(3) Ministers resident are regarded as upon a less important mission than the agents of the first or second class. They are frequently sent by the greater powers to the lesser powers.

(4) Chargés d'affaires ceremonially rank below the ministers resident. They are accredited to the minister of foreign affairs, while members of the first three classes are accredited to the sovereign. A chargé d'affaires may perform the functions of the higher grades of agents and has the same general privileges. When a consul is charged with a diplomatic mission he ranks with the chargés d'affaires. Commissioners on various missions are sometimes accorded the same rank; but, as they do not bear the title, commissioners cannot claim the rank of the chargé d'affaires, though in their functions there may be no difference.

There is no rule as to the grade of diplomatic agent which one state shall send to another, though it was formerly held that only states entitled to royal honors could send ambassadors. It is now customary for states to agree among themselves as to the relative rank of their diplomatic agent. Thus the United States by a recent act provided that "whenever the President shall be advised that any foreign government is represented or is about to be represented in the United States by an ambassador, envoy extraordinary, minister plenipotentiary, minister resident, or special, envoy or chargé d'affaires, he is authorized in his discretion to direct that the representative of United States to such government shall bear the same designation. This provision shall in no wise affect the duties, powers, or salary of such representative."[213]

The rank of a diplomatic agent is a mark of dignity and honor particularly of consequence in matters of etiquette and ceremonial. Reciprocity between states is the general rule in the grade of agents. The old theory that agents of the first rank had access to the ear of the sovereign is no longer held, and all grades alike represent both the sovereign and the state from which they come.

[§ 71. Suite]

The personnel of a mission may be distinguished as the official and the non-official.

(a) The official suite consists of the functionaries, and varies in number according to the dignity and importance of the mission. Formerly the number was scrutinized with great care, owing to the fear that a numerous suite might endanger the safety of the receiving state. The official suite may include, (1) the counsel to the mission, (2) the secretaries, (3) the attachés, military, naval, and others, (4) the interpreters and dragomans, (5) the clerks and accountants, (6) the couriers, (7) the chaplain, (8) the doctor, and in some instances other officers necessary for the performance of the official functions.

(b) The non-official suite includes the family of the diplomatic agent and those in his household employ. This may include, beside his immediate family, (1) the private chaplain, (2) the private doctor, (3) the private secretaries, (4) the domestic servants of various grades.

[§ 72. Who may send Diplomatic Agents]

It is the general rule that sovereign states only may send ambassadors or other diplomatic agents. Sometimes diplomatic relations are maintained between states when both are not fully sovereign, as in the relations between Bavaria, a member of the German Empire, and France. In general, where the sovereignty of a state is not complete, its right of legation is fixed by the treaty which impairs its sovereignty. A state which has not full sovereign powers may have a partial right of legation, either active or passive, or a right to send diplomatic agents with limited functions.

The sending of a diplomatic agent is essentially an act of the sovereign person, whether he be a monarch, president, council, or have other title. The domestic law determines who this person shall be. International law makes no distinction.

In each state a department, usually called the department of foreign affairs, has the business of international intercourse in charge. The organization of this department and the general methods are matters of domestic law. All foreign states need to know is to what extent this department is competent to carry on negotiations.

[§ 73. Who may be Sent]

Before actually sending a diplomatic agent, a state usually obtains assurance from the receiving state that the proposed agent will be an acceptable person. If the proposed agent is a persona non grata, it is held that the foreign state is not obliged to give its reasons for refusing to receive him. To refuse a given person does not imply any lack of courtesy to the sending state on the part of the refusing state. A state may refuse to receive one of its own citizens as the minister of a foreign state. Sometimes states have refused to receive those who have in the sending state taken positions manifesting hostile disposition toward the receiving state.

In 1885 the Italian government refused to receive Mr. Keily as United States representative on the ground that he had denounced the overthrow of the temporal power of the Pope. It was considered probable that one who had taken so decided an attitude toward an action of the government to which he was sent would hardly be acceptable. Mr. Keily had just before been refused by Austria-Hungary on the ground that his wife was a Jewess and his marriage only a civil one. President Cleveland showed his attitude toward this action in his first annual message, 1885. "The Austro-Hungarian government finally decided not to receive Mr. Keily as the envoy of the United States, and that gentleman has since resigned his commission, leaving the post vacant. I have made no new nomination, and the interests of this government at Vienna are now in the care of the secretary of legation, acting as chargé d'affaires ad interim."[214]

[§ 74. Credentials, Instructions, Passport]

Before starting upon his mission, a diplomatic representative receives, if of one of the first three classes, from the head of the state, if of the fourth class (chargé d'affaires) from the minister of foreign affairs, a letter of credence. In the United States the President signs the letters of credence of diplomatic agents above the rank of chargé d'affaires. In these instances the letter is addressed to the head of the foreign state. In the case of chargé d'affaires the letter is addressed to the minister of foreign affairs and signed by the Secretary of State. A letter of credence gives the name, the character and general object of the mission, and requests for the agent full faith and credence as the state's representative. In case of representatives to Turkey, besides the letter of credence to the Sultan, letters are also taken to the grand vizier and to the minister of foreign affairs. Representatives of the Pope carry in place of letters of credence papal bulls. Sometimes a diplomatic agent receives also letters of recommendation to persons of importance in the foreign country. These letters have a semi-official character in many cases. While a letter of credence may give power to open treaty negotiations, it is usual to give a special letter conferring full powers or general full powers to close and sign a treaty, or to act in behalf of the state in some manner not covered by his instructions. These letters are commonly letters patent.

The diplomatic agent also customarily receives instructions which may be either for his own guidance or to be communicated to the foreign state. If to be communicated to the foreign state, the instructions make more fully known his special functions. In all cases the agent is bound by his instructions, and in case of doubt as to method of action it is easy, in these days of rapid communication, to entertain a matter ad referendum.

The diplomatic agent also receives for himself, family, and suite a special passport. The special passport "differs from the ordinary passport in that it usually describes the official rank or occupation of the holder, and often also the purpose of his traveling abroad, while generally omitting the description of his person."[215] This may serve not only the purpose of the ordinary passport, but may also give an official introduction to the bearer.

The papers furnished to diplomatic representatives of the United States include:—

1. A sealed letter of credence to the head of the state or minister of foreign affairs according to rank of the representative.

2. "An open office copy of the letter of credence."

3. The special passport above mentioned.

4. "A copy of the Register of the Department of State."

5. A letter of credit upon the bankers of the United States.

6. A copy of Instructions to the Diplomatic Officers of the United States.

7. A copy of the Consular Regulations of the United States.

(FORM OF)

LETTER OF CREDENCE

A.............. B..............,

President of the United States of America.

To ...............................
................................
................................

Great and Good Friend:

I have made choice of ...............................
one of our distinguished citizens, to reside near the Government of
Your ............ in the quality of ...............................
He is well informed of the relative interests of the two countries and
of our sincere desire to cultivate to the fullest extent the friendship
which has so long subsisted between the two Governments. My
knowledge of his high character and ability gives me entire confidence
that he will constantly endeavor to advance the interest and prosperity
of both Governments, and so render himself acceptable to Your ......
............

I therefore request Your ............ to receive him favorably and
to give full credence to what he shall say on the part of the United
States, and to the assurances which I have charged him to convey to
you of the best wishes of this Government for the prosperity of ......
............

May God have Your ............ in His wise keeping.

Written at Washington this ............ day of ............ in the
year ................

Your good friend,

A ............ B ............

By the President,
............................

Secretary of State.

[§ 75. Ceremonial]

(a) General. In certain countries diplomatic ceremonial has been very elaborate and complex. The tendency during the nineteenth century has been toward simplification. Each state has the power to determine its own ceremonial for the most part. Of course no state can disregard established rules as to rank, precedence, and similarly generally recognized practices. At the time when these practices originated it was imperative that there should be some fixed mode of procedure which a state could follow without giving offense in its treatment of a foreign representative. Much of the ceremonial became fixed during the latter part of the seventeenth and during the eighteenth century. In the days of absolutism the monarch naturally demanded such recognition of his representative in a foreign country as befitted his own estimate of the dignity of the monarchical office. It may not be unfortunate that the monarch placed a high estimate upon the sovereign office and devised a ceremonial commensurate with this estimate, for what was once done out of respect for and in response to the demand of a personal sovereign, is now done out of respect for the dignity of the state itself. Thus in the days of more democratic sovereignties international representatives are clothed with a dignity which both elevates the attitude of participants in international negotiations and gives greater weight to their conclusions. The ceremonial also fixes a definite course of procedure which any state may follow without giving offense to another, whether it be weak or powerful.

(b) While the minor details of the ceremonial of reception of a diplomatic agent are not invariable, certain customs are well established. A diplomat officially notifies the receiving state of his arrival by sending, (1) if he be of the first rank, a secretary of the embassy to the minister of foreign affairs, with a copy of his letter of credence and a request for a day and hour when he may have an audience with the head of the state in order to present his credentials, (2) if of the second rank, while sometimes the above procedure is allowed, he usually makes the announcement and request in writing, (3) if of the third rank he always observes the last-mentioned procedure, (4) if of the fourth rank, chargé d'affaires, he notifies the minister of foreign affairs of his arrival and requests an audience.

The audience may be for any grade more or less formal, public or private. Usually diplomats of the first rank are received in public audience. At the audience the diplomat presents his letter of credence, and usually makes a brief address, of which he has earlier furnished a copy to the minister of foreign affairs in order that a suitable reply may be prepared. Diplomats of the second rank customarily receive a similar solemn audience. This may or may not be granted to ministers of the third rank. Official visits, varying somewhat in ceremonial in different states, follow.

(c) From the time when permanent missions began to be common, conflict between the representatives of different states made necessary fixed rules of precedence. As Wicquefort said in the latter part of the seventeenth century, "One of the things that most hinders Embassadors from paying one another civilities, is the Contest they have concerning Honours and Rank; not only on Account of the Competition of their Masters, but sometimes also by Reason of some Pretensions they have amongst themselves."[216] Wicquefort's citations of cases give ample evidence of the confusion prevailing in his day. Bynkershoek, in "De Foro Legatorum," Ch. I. and XII., shows that the confusion was scarcely less in 1721, though the rank by title was coming to be more fully recognized. Vattel in 1758 shows that there had arisen a more definite ceremonial[217] and a fairly clear gradation, yet as this had never been agreed to by any considerable number of states, and was not in accordance with any generally recognized principle, there were contests still. By the Congresses of Vienna (1815) and Aix-la-Chapelle (1818) many of the disputed points in regard to precedence were adjusted. Certain general propositions are now admitted, such as, that no diplomat can pretend to special honors or immunities above other diplomats of the same rank.[218] The rule of the Congress of Vienna is followed, by which diplomats of the same class rank according to the precedence in the date of the official notification of their arrival.

Places of honor are now quite definitely fixed. On ceremonial occasions, where the representatives are seated at a table, as in an international congress, it may be somewhat varied as fronting the main window, opposite the main entrance to the room, in the place receiving the light over the left shoulder. When the place is determined by the relation to the head of the table or the presiding officer, the first honor, except in Turkey, is at his right, the second at his left, the third in the second place on the right, the fourth in the second place on the left, and so on. In processions the place of honor is sometimes first, sometimes last. For relatively short processions, certain more definite rules are usually observed. When only two participate, the first place is the place of honor; when three participate, the middle place, the place in advance being the second honor and the place in the rear the third; when four participate, the second place is the place of honor, the place in advance the second, the third and fourth being in honor in order; when five participate, the middle is the place of honor, the second place being the second in honor, the first the fourth in honor, the fourth the third in honor, and the fifth the fifth in honor.[219]

To avoid friction as to place of honor in signing treaties, etc., the principle of the alternat is usually followed, by which the copy going to a given nation has the name of its own representative first in order.[220] Sometimes the order is determined by lot, and sometimes is alphabetical in the order of the names of the states parties to the treaty.

(d) Certain prerogatives are held to appertain to the office of ambassador and to diplomats of the first rank. Among these are: (1) the title of Excellency, (2) the right to remain covered in the presence of the sovereign, unless the sovereign himself is uncovered, (3) the privilege of a dais in his own home, (4) the right to use a "coach and six" with outriders, (5) military and naval honors, (6) the use of the coat of arms over the door, (7) invitations to all court ceremonies. This last is usually extended to all diplomats. Those of lower rank than the ambassador sometimes claim modified forms of the above prerogatives.

Many of the interesting phases of diplomatic ceremonial are survivals of forms which in earlier days were most jealously and strenuously guarded. The closer relations of states and better understanding of mutual relations have made unnecessary the observance of many forms once vital to harmony.

Many courtesies are regarded as due diplomatic representatives by virtue of their rank. These are not uniform at the various courts, but generally include, notification of accession to the throne, notifications of births and deaths in the royal family, congratulations and condolences as public events warrant, and many others.

Diplomats are also entitled to receive salutes, which are usually arranged for in advance. The ambassador receives a salute of fifteen guns; the minister, eleven; and the chargé d'affaires, nine.

[§ 76. Functions]

The functions of a diplomatic representative in a broad sense are, to direct the internal business of the legation, to conduct the negotiations with the state to which he is accredited, to protect citizens of his state[221] and to issue passports under proper restrictions,[222] and to make reports to his home government.

(a) The internal business of the mission may in general be classified as concerned with (1) the custody of archives, (2) diplomatic correspondence[223] involving at times the use of cipher, (3) record of the work of the legation, (4) the exercise of a measure of jurisdiction over the household. In grave cases the diplomat must send the offender home for trial, or under certain circumstances, if a native of the state, hand the offender over to the local authorities. Otherwise his jurisdiction is mainly of a minor disciplinary sort. The assumption of such authority as claimed by Sully, in 1603, when he tried and condemned to death one of the French suite, is now absolutely denied. Indeed, James I. pardoned the offender whom Sully had delivered to him for execution. In 1896 Great Britain denied the right of the Chinese ambassador to detain a Chinaman who was held in the legation under charge of political conspiracy, and compelled his release.

(b) The conduct of negotiations with the state to which he is accredited may involve, (1) verbal communications with the sovereign or ministers. The purport of such communications may be preserved in writing known as briefs of the conversation, or aids to the memory. In cases of somewhat formal conversations the written reports may be called notes or memoranda. To the procès-verbaux, or reports of international conferences for the discussion of treaty stipulations, the name protocol is usually given. (2) Formal communications with the sovereign or ministers, (3) the maintenance of diplomatic privileges and immunities, (4) such action as may be necessary to protect his state's interests so far as possible, and particularly its treaty rights.

(c) The diplomat's relations to the citizens of his own country are largely determined by the domestic law of his own state, and usually involve, (1) a measure of protection to his fellow-citizens; (2) issue and visé of passports, and in some countries the issue of certificates of nationality and travel certificates; (3) in cases of extradition of citizens of his own state from the foreign state, the presentation of the requisition for extradition; and in cases of extradition of citizens of the state to which he is accredited from his own state, usually the certification that the papers submitted as evidence are "properly and legally authenticated."[224] In some states diplomats are authorized to perform notarial acts.[225] (4) The exercise of a reasonable courtesy in the treatment of his fellow-citizens.

All these functions vary with local law. The practice is not uniform, as is evidenced in the inconsistencies in regard to regulations as to the marriage by the diplomatic agent.[226]

(d) In making reports the diplomat is supposed to keep his own government informed upon, (1) the views and policy of the state to which he is accredited, and (2) such facts as to events, commerce, discoveries, etc., as may seem desirable. These reports may be regular at specified periods, or special.

[§ 77. Termination of Mission]

The mission of a diplomatic representative may terminate in various ways.

(a) A mission may terminate through the death of the diplomat. In such a case there may properly be a funeral befitting the rank of the diplomat. The property and papers of the mission are inventoried and sealed by the secretary, or in case of absence of secretaries and other proper persons, by the diplomats of one or more friendly powers. The inheritance and private property of the diplomat, of course, follow the law of his country, and the property of the deceased is exempt from local jurisdiction.

(b) The mission may terminate in ordinary course of events, by (1) expiration of the period for which the letter of credence or full power is granted, (2) fulfillment of the purpose of the mission if on a special mission, (3) change of grade of diplomat, (4) the death or dethronement of the sovereign to whom the diplomatic agent is accredited, except in cases of republican forms of government. In the above case new letters of credence are usually regarded as essential to the continuance of the mission. The weight of opinion seems to indicate that the mission of a diplomat is terminated by a change in the government of his home country through revolution, and that new letters of credence are necessary for the continuance of his mission.

(c) A mission may be interrupted or broken off through strained relations between the two states or between the diplomatic agent and the receiving state. (1) A declaration of war immediately terminates diplomatic relations. (2) Diplomatic relations may be broken off by the personal departure of the agent, which departure is for a stated cause, such as the existence of conditions making the fulfillment of his mission impossible, or the violation of the principles of international law. (3) Diplomatic relations may be temporarily suspended, owing to friction between the states, as in the case of the suspension of diplomatic relations between Great Britain and Venezuela from 1887 to 1897, owing to dispute upon questions of boundary. In 1891 Italy recalled her minister from the United States on account of alleged tardiness of the United States authorities in making reparation for the lynching of Italians in New Orleans on March 14, 1891.[227] (4) A diplomatic agent is sometimes dismissed either on grounds personal to the diplomat, or on grounds involving the relations of the two states. When, in 1888, the demand for the recall of Lord Sackville, the British minister at Washington, was not promptly complied with, Lord Sackville was dismissed and his passport sent to him. Lord Sackville had, in response to a letter purporting to be from an ex-British subject, sent a reply which related to the impending presidential election. His recall was demanded by telegraph Oct. 27. The British government declined to grant it without time for investigation, and his passport was sent him on Oct. 30. In 1871, "The conduct of Mr. Catacazy, the Russian minister at Washington, having been for some time past such as materially to impair his usefulness to his own Government, and to render intercourse with him for either business or social purposes highly disagreeable," it was the expressed opinion of the President that "the interests of both countries would be promoted ... if the head of the Russian legation here was to be changed." The President, however, agreed to tolerate the minister till after the contemplated visit of the grand duke. The communication also stated, "That minister will then be dismissed if not recalled."[228]

(d) The ceremonial of departure is similar to that of reception. (1) The diplomat seeks an interview according to the method outlined in the ceremonial of reception, in order to present his letter of recall. (2) In case of remoteness from the seat of government the agent may, if necessary, take leave of the sovereign by letter, forwarding to the sovereign his letter of recall. (3) It very often happens that a diplomatic agent presents his successor at the time of his own departure. (4) In case of change of title the diplomat follows the ceremonial of departure in one capacity with that of arrival in his new capacity. (5) It is understood that the agent, after the formal close of his mission, will depart with convenient speed, and until the expiration of such period he enjoys diplomatic immunities.

[§ 78. Immunities and Privileges]

Few subjects involved in international relations have been more extensively discussed than the privileges and immunities of diplomatic agents. Many of the earliest treatises on international affairs were devoted to such questions. In order that any business between states might be carried on, some principles upon which the diplomatic agent could base his action were necessary. The treatment of the agent could not be left to chance or to the feeling of the authorities of the receiving state. Gradually fixed usages were recognized. These immunities and privileges may be considered under two divisions: personal inviolability, and exemption from local jurisdiction, otherwise known as exterritoriality.

(a) Inviolability. The person of the agent was by ancient law inviolable. According to the dictum of the Roman Law, sancti habentur legati. In accord with this principle the physical and moral person is inviolable. Any offense toward the person of the ambassador is in effect an offense to the state which he represents, and to the law of nations. The receiving state is bound to extend to the diplomatic agent such protection as will preserve his inviolability. This may make necessary the use of force to preserve to the diplomatic agent his privileges. The idea of inviolability, as Calvo says, is absolute and unlimited, and based, not on simple convenience, but upon necessity. Without it diplomatic agents could not perform their functions, for they would be dependent upon the sovereign to whom they might be accredited.[229] In many states laws have been enacted during the last half of the nineteenth century fixing severe penalties for acts which affect the diplomatic agent unfavorably in the performance of his functions, or reflect upon his dignity.[230]

The privilege of inviolability extends, (1) alike to agents of all classes, (2) to the suite, official and non-official, (3) to such things as are convenient for the performance of his functions, (4) during the entire time of his official sojourn, i.e. from the time of the making known of his official character to the expiration of a reasonable time for departure after the completion of his mission. This also holds even when the mission is terminated by the outbreak of war between the state from which the agent comes and the state to which he is accredited. (5) By courtesy the diplomatic agent is usually accorded similar privileges when passing through a third state in going to or returning from his post.

A diplomatic agent may place himself under the law, says Despagnet, so far as attacks upon him are concerned: (1) when he voluntarily exposes himself to danger, in a riot, duel, civil war; (2) when in his private capacity he does that which is liable to criticism, e.g. as a writer or artist, provided the criticism should not degenerate into an attack upon his public character; (3) when the attacks upon him are in legitimate personal self-defense; (4) when, by his actions, he provokes on the part of the local government precautionary measures against himself, e.g. if he should plot against the surety of the state to which he is accredited.[231] Only in the case of extreme necessity, however, should any force be used. It is better to ask for the recall of the agent. In case of refusal or in case of urgent necessity the agent may be expelled.

(b) Exemption from local jurisdiction of the state to which a diplomatic agent is sent, or exterritoriality in a limited sense, flows naturally from the admitted right of inviolability. The term "exterritoriality" is a convenient one for describing the condition of immunity which diplomatic agents enjoy in a foreign state, but it should be observed that the custom of conceding these immunities has given rise to the "legal fiction of exterritoriality," rather than that these immunities are based on a right of exterritoriality. The practice of granting immunities was common long before the idea of exterritoriality arose.[232] The exemptions give to diplomatic agents large privileges.

(1) The diplomatic agent is exempt from the criminal jurisdiction of the state to which he is accredited. In case of violation of law the receiving state has to decide whether the offense is serious enough to warrant a demand for the recall of the agent, or whether it should be passed without notice. In extreme cases a state might order the agent to leave the country, or in case of immediate danger might place the agent under reasonable restraint. Hall considers these "as acts done in pursuance of a right of exercising jurisdiction upon sufficient emergency, which has not been abandoned in conceding immunities to diplomatic agents."[233]

(2) The diplomatic agent is exempt from civil jurisdiction of the state to which he is sent, and cannot be sued, arrested, or punished by the law of that state.[234] This rule is sometimes held to apply only to such proceedings as would affect the diplomat in his official character; but unless the diplomat voluntarily assume another character, he cannot be so proceeded against. If he become a partner in a firm, engage in business, buy stocks, or assume financial responsibilities, it is held in theory by some authorities that the diplomatic agent may be proceeded against in that capacity. The diplomatic agent of the United States is distinctly instructed that "real or personal property, aside from that which pertains to him as a minister, ... is subject to the local laws."[235] The practice is, however, to extend to the diplomat in his personal capacity the fullest possible immunity, and in case of need to resort to his home courts, or to diplomatic methods by appeal to the home government, for the adjustment of any difficulties that may involve its representative in foreign court proceedings. The real property of the diplomatic agent is, of course, liable to local police and sanitary regulations. In cases where a diplomatic agent consents to submit himself to foreign jurisdiction, the procedure and the judgment, if against him, cannot involve him in such manner as to seriously interfere with the performance of his functions. He cannot be compelled to appear as witness in a case of which he has knowledge; however, it is customary in the interests of justice for the diplomatic agent to make a deposition before the secretary of the legation or some proper officer. By the Constitution of the United States, in criminal prosecutions the accused has a right to have the evidence taken orally in his presence. The refusal to give oral testimony of M. Dubois, the Dutch minister to the United States in 1856, resulted in his recall.[236] The Venezuelan minister, however, testified in open court as a courtesy to the United States government in the trial of the assassin of President Garfield.[237] The United States at the present time maintains that "a diplomatic representative cannot be compelled to testify, in the country of his sojourn, before any tribunal whatsoever." This may be considered the generally accepted principle, though the interests of general justice and international courtesy frequently lead to voluntary waiving of the rule with the consent of the accrediting state.

(3) The official and non-official family enjoy the immunities of their chief as necessary for the convenient performance of his mission. Questions in regard to the immunities of the non-official suite have sometimes arisen. To avoid this it is customary for the diplomat to furnish the receiving state with a list of his family. Great Britain does not admit the full immunity of domestic servants. When Mr. Gallatin was United States minister to Great Britain, his coachman, who had committed an assault beyond the hôtel of the minister, was held liable to the local jurisdiction. As a diplomatic agent can voluntarily turn over an offender to the local authorities, and as he would naturally desire the observance of local law, there would be little danger of friction with local authorities anywhere, provided a just cause could be shown.

Couriers and bearers of dispatches are entitled to immunities so far as is necessary for the free performance of the specific function.

(4) The house and all grounds and buildings within the limits of the diplomatic residence are regarded as exempt from local jurisdiction. Great Britain claimed the right of entry to arrest Mr. Gallatin's coachman above mentioned, though admitting that such entrance should be made at a time to suit the convenience of the minister if he did not care to hand him over directly. This immunity extends also to carriages and other necessary appurtenances of the mission.

Children born to the official family in the house of the diplomatic agent are considered as born in the state by which the agent is accredited.

(5) The right of asylum in the house of the ambassador is now generally denied. In 1726 the celebrated case of the Duke of Ripperda, charged with treason, gave rise to the decision by the Council of Castile that the duke could be taken from the English legation by force if necessary, because the legation, which had been established to promote good relations between the states, would otherwise be used for overthrowing the state in which it had been established.[238] It may be regarded as a rule that, in Europe and in the United States, the house of a diplomatic agent affords only temporary protection for a criminal, whether political or otherwise, and that on demand of the proper authority the criminal must be surrendered. Refusal is a just ground for demand for recall of the diplomatic agent. The United States instructs its agents that "The privilege of immunity from local jurisdiction does not embrace the right of asylum for persons outside of a representative's diplomatic or personal household."[239] This right is, however, recognized in practice, both by the United States and European nations, so far as pertains to the houses of the diplomats in South American states. The United States, in 1870, tried without avail to induce the European nations to agree to the discontinuance of the practice. In 1891, in Chile, Minister Egan, of the United States, afforded refuge in the legation to a large number of the political followers of Balmaceda. Chile demanded his recall, but the United States maintained that there must be sufficient grounds for such action. In Eastern countries it has been the practice to afford asylum in legations in times of political disturbance and to political offenders. In 1895 the British ambassador at Constantinople gave asylum to the deposed grand vizier at Constantinople. It can be said, however, that the tendency is to limit the granting of asylum to the fullest possible extent,[240] and finally to abolish the practice altogether, as has been the case with the ancient extension of this privilege to the neighborhood of the legation under the name of jus quarteriorum.[241]

(6) In general, the diplomatic agent is exempt from personal taxes and from taxes upon his personal goods. The property owned by and devoted to the use of the mission is usually exempt from taxation. In this respect the principle of reciprocity is followed among some states. The taxes for betterments, such as paving, sewerage, etc., are regarded as proper charges upon the mission. A state has a right to make such regulations as it deems necessary to prevent the abuse of this immunity from taxation. It is also customary for a third state to grant to a diplomat passing through its territory immunity from duties. Diplomatic agents are also exempt from income, military, window, and similar taxes.

(7) It is hardly necessary now to mention the fact that the diplomatic agent is entitled to freedom of religious worship within the mission, provided there be no attempt by bell, symbol, or otherwise to attract the attention of the passer-by to the observance. This privilege was formerly of importance, but now is never questioned.

[§ 79. Diplomatic Practice of the United States]

Some of the minor points of procedure and functions may be seen by the study of the customs and rules of any large state, as in the United States.

(a) Official communications involving international relations and general international negotiations are within the exclusive province of the Department of State, at the head of which stands the Secretary of State. In other states this department is commonly called the Department of Foreign Affairs, and its chief is the Minister or Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and was so designated in the United States from 1781 to 1789. The Department of State of the United States, however, performs many functions not strictly within a Department of Foreign Affairs, as an enumeration of the Bureaus will show.

(1) Bureau of Appointments.

(2) Diplomatic Bureau.

(3) Consular Bureau.

(4) Bureau of Indexes and Archives.

(5) Bureau of Accounts.

(6) Bureau of Rolls and Library, which, besides other duties, has charge of the publication of the laws, treaties, proclamations, and executive orders.

(7) Bureau of Foreign Commerce (before July 1, 1897, called Bureau of Statistics).

(b) The Constitution provides that, "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls," the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.[242]

(c) A diplomatic agent cannot, without consent of Congress, "accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state."[243] This provision does not, however, prevent the rendering of a friendly service to a foreign power, and it may be proper for him, having first obtained permission from the Department of State, to accede to the request to discharge temporarily the duties of a diplomatic agent of any other state.[244]

(d) In case of revolution a diplomatic agent may extend protection to the subjects of other friendly powers left for the time without a representative.[245] In neither this nor in the preceding case does the United States become responsible for the acts of its diplomatic representative in so far as he is acting as agent of the other state or states.

(e) "It is forbidden to diplomatic officers to participate in any manner in the political concerns of the country of their residence; and they are directed especially to refrain from public expressions of opinion upon local political or other questions arising within their jurisdiction. It is deemed advisable to extend similar prohibition against public addresses, unless upon exceptional festal occasions, in the country of official residence. Even upon such occasions any reference to political issues, pending in the United States or elsewhere, should be carefully avoided."[246] A diplomatic agent is forbidden to recommend any person for office under the government to which he is accredited.[247] The diplomatic agent should not become the agent to prosecute private claims of citizens.[248] The diplomatic agent should not retain any copy of the archives, nor allow the publication of any official document, without authorization of the Department of State. The Department in general disapproves of residence of the agent elsewhere than at the capital of the receiving state.

(f) Joint action with the diplomatic agents of other powers at a foreign court is deprecated, although conferences resulting in a common understanding in cases of emergency are considered desirable.[249]

(g) It is permitted that the diplomatic agent of the United States wear the uniform and bear the title of the rank attained in the volunteer service of the Army of the United States during the rebellion.[250] It is prohibited by a later statute to wear "any uniform or official costume not previously authorized by Congress."[251] This has been interpreted as applying to dress denoting rank, but not to the prescribed court dress of certain capitals;[252] and "diplomatic officers are permitted to wear upon occasions of ceremony the dress which local usage prescribes as appropriate to the hour and place."[253]

(h) The United States has never been liberal in compensating diplomatic agents for their services. In 1784 the salary of the highest grade was fixed at nine thousand dollars, and it had only been doubled at the end of the nineteenth century. Other states of equal dignity provide far more liberally for their representatives.

The whole matter of diplomatic agents has been the subject of numerous statutes.[254]

[§ 80. Consuls]

(a) Historically the office of consul preceded that of ambassador. The merchants of different states had dealings with each other long before the states, as such, entered into negotiations. The Egyptians, apparently as early as the fourteenth century B.C., intrusted the trial of certain maritime cases to a designated priest. The Mediterranean merchants appealed to the judicium mercatorium et maritimum in the sixth century B.C. The Greek proxenos performed some consular functions. Rome later had similar public servants. The consular system, however, did not develop during the long period of decay of the Roman Empire. In the days of the Crusades, the merchants settled in the coast cities of the Mediterranean. Quarters of the cities practically came under the jurisdiction of the foreign occupants. The consuls, probably at first chosen by the merchants, exercised this jurisdiction, under which the law of the state of the origin of the merchants was regarded as binding. Their functions were somewhat similar to those exercised in some Eastern states at the present time. As soon as conditions became more settled, the states gradually assumed control of these consular offices. The laws of Oleron, Amalfi, Wisby, the Consolato del Mare, and the early Lex Rhodia show that many of the consular functions were recognized in the Middle Ages, and the institution of consuls seems to have been quite well established by the year 1200. The Hanseatic League in the fourteenth century had magistrates in many cities entitled aldermen, who were performing functions similar to those of the consuls of the Mediterranean.[255] England began to send consuls in the fifteenth century; the system rapidly spread, and the powers and functions of consuls were wide. From this time, with the growth of the practice of sending resident ambassadors, the extent of the consular duties was gradually lessened. The diplomatic functions formerly in the charge of the consuls were intrusted to the ambassadors, and other functions of the consuls were reduced by making them the representatives of the business interests of the subjects of the state in whose service they were, rather than of the interests of the state as such.[256] From the middle of the seventeenth century, when the responsibility of states to each other became more fully recognized, and government became more settled, the exterritorial jurisdiction of consuls was no longer necessary. The growth of commerce among the nations has increased the duties of the consul. The improved means of communication, telegraphic and other, has relieved both consuls and ambassadors of the responsibility of deciding, without advice from the home government, many questions of serious nature.

(b) The rank of consuls is a matter of domestic law, and each state may determine for its own officers the grade and honors attaching thereto in the way of salutes, precedence among its domestic officials, etc. There is no international agreement in regard to consuls similar to that of 1815-1818 in regard to diplomatic agents.

The United States differentiates the consular service more fully than most states, having the following: consuls-general, vice-consuls-general, deputy consuls-general, consuls, vice-consuls, deputy consuls, commercial agents, vice-commercial agents, consular agents, consular clerks, interpreters, marshals, and clerks.[257] The term "consular officer," however, includes only consuls-general, consuls, commercial agents, deputy consuls, vice-consuls, vice-commercial agents, and consular agents.[258] The full officers are consuls-general, consuls, and commercial agents. The vice consular officers are "substitute consular officers" and the deputy consuls-general, deputy consuls, and consular agents are "subordinate consular officers."[259]

Consuls-general ordinarily have a supervisory jurisdiction of the consuls within the neighborhood of their consulate, though sometimes they have no supervisory jurisdiction. This is often exercised by the diplomatic agent accredited to the same state.

Most states have consuls-general, consuls, vice-consuls, consular agents, sometimes also consular students.

(c) The nomination of consuls is an attribute of a sovereign state. They may be chosen either from among its own citizens or from those of the foreign state. Consuls chosen from the citizens of the state to which they are accredited exercise only in part the full consular functions, the limit of the functions being determined by the laws of the accrediting state and by the laws of the receiving state. Some states refuse to receive their own citizens as consuls; others do not accredit foreigners as consuls.

The commission or patent by which a consul-general or consul is always appointed is transmitted to the diplomatic representative of the appointing state in the state to which the consul is sent, with the request that he apply to the proper authority for an exequatur, by which the consul is officially recognized and guaranteed such prerogatives and immunities as are attached to his office. The vice-consul is usually appointed by patent, though he may be nominated by his superior, and is recognized by granting of an exequatur. The exequatur may be revoked for serious cause, though the more usual way is to ask the recall of a consul who is not satisfactory to a state. The exequatur may be refused for cause. It is usually issued by the head of the state. If the form of government in the receiving state or in the accrediting state changes, it is customary to request a new exequatur.

Note. The consular agents, while appointed and confirmed as are the higher consular officers, do not in the practice of the United States receive an exequatur.

(FORM OF)
FULL PRESIDENTIAL EXEQUATUR
.................................................
President of the United States of America.
To all to whom it may concern
Satisfactory evidence having been exhibited to me
that...........................................................
has been appointed..............................................
I do hereby recognize him as such, and declare him free to exerciseand enjoy such functions, powers, and privileges as are allowed to....................................................
[SEAL
OF THE
UNITED
STATES]		In Testimony whereof, I have caused these Letters to be made Patent, and the Seal of the United Statesto be hereunto affixed.
Given under my hand at the City of Washingtonthe..............day of.............., A.D. 19....,and of the Independence of the United States of America, the............
By the President,...........................
............................
Secretary of State.

(d) Functions. The consul, as the officer representing particularly the commercial and business interests of the state from which he comes, and in a minor degree the other individual interests, has a great variety of functions. His functions are in general such as affect only indirectly the state in which he resides. He is not, like the diplomatic agent, directly concerned with affairs of state; he has no representative character, though in effect he is often the local representative of the diplomatic agent accredited to the state.

The functions of a consul are largely matters determined by custom, treaty stipulation, and by special provisions of his exequatur. Within these limits domestic law of the accrediting state determines the consul's functions. (1) In general the consul has many duties in connection with the commercial interests of the subjects of the state which he serves. These duties extend both to maritime and land commerce. The consul is to care that the provisions of commercial treaties are observed, that proper invoices of goods are submitted, and that shipment is in accord with the regulations of the state which he serves. He is to furnish such reports in regard to commercial and economic conditions as are required. These reports often involve many subjects only indirectly related to trade and commerce. (2) The consul has many duties relating to the maritime service of the state which accredits him. This usually includes such supervision of merchant vessels as the domestic law of his state may grant to him, together with that accorded by custom. His office is a place of deposit of a ship's papers while the ship remains in port. When necessary he may supervise the shipment, wages, relief, transportation, and discharge of seamen, the reclaiming of deserters, the care of the effects of deceased seamen, in some states the adjudication of disputes between masters, officers, and crews, and if necessary he may intervene in cases of mutiny or insubordination. In case of wrecked vessels the consul is usually left considerable latitude in his action. The consul may also authenticate the bill of sale of a foreign vessel to the subject of the state which accredits him. This authentication entitles the vessel to the protection of the consul's state. The consul may also be intrusted with other duties by treaties and custom of given states. (3) The consul represents the interests of the citizens of the state in whose service he is, in matters of authentication of acts under seal, in administration of the property of citizens within his district, in taking charge of effects of deceased citizens, in arbitration of disputes voluntarily submitted to him, visé of passports, and minor services. (4) The consul furnishes to the state which he represents information upon a great variety of subjects particularly relating to commercial, economic, and political affairs, the conditions of navigation, and general hydrographic information. Besides this he is expected to keep his state informed of the events of interest transpiring within his district.

As Hall says: "In the performance of these and similar duties the action of a consul is evidently not international. He is an officer of his state to whom are entrusted special functions which can be carried out in a foreign country without interfering with its jurisdiction. His international action does not extend beyond the unofficial employment of such influence as he may possess, through the fact of his being an official and through his personal character, to assist compatriots who may be in need of his help with the authorities of the country. If he considers it necessary that formal representations shall be made to its government as to treatment experienced by them or other matters concerning them, the step ought in strictness to be taken through the resident diplomatic agent of his state,—he not having himself a recognized right to make such communications."[260] In late years there has been in the consular conventions between different states a tendency to extend to consuls the right of complaint to the local authorities in case "of any infraction of the treaties or conventions existing between the states," and "if the complaint should not be satisfactorily redressed, the consular officer, in the absence of the diplomatic agent of his country, may apply directly to the government of the country where he resides."[261]

(e) In some of the Eastern and non-Christian states consuls have special powers and functions in addition to the ordinary powers and functions. The extent of the powers varies, and is usually determined by treaty. With the advance of civilization these special functions are withdrawn, as by the Treaty of the United States with Japan, Nov. 22, 1894,[262] the jurisdiction of the consular courts of the United States in Japan came to an end July 17, 1899.

In general, in Mohammedan and non-Christian states, treaty stipulations secure to the consuls of Western states the right of exercising extensive criminal and civil jurisdiction in cases involving citizens of their own and the Eastern states, or in cases involving citizens of their own and other Western states.[263] In some of the Eastern states the consuls have exclusive jurisdiction over all cases to which citizens of their states are parties;[264] in others the cases involving citizens of the Eastern and Western states are tried in the court of the defendant in the presence of the "authorized official of the plaintiff's nationality," who may enter protest if the proceedings are not in accord with justice,[265] while in certain states or for certain cases mixed courts are constituted. Certain Western states in their domestic laws make provisions for appeal from the decision of the consular court to specified authorities as to the diplomatic agent or to some domestic tribunal.

This jurisdiction is exceptional, furnishes no precedents for international law, tends to become more restricted, and will doubtless gradually disappear.[266]

(f) The privileges and immunities vary according to the states and from the fact that a consul may be, (1) a citizen of the state in which he exercises his consular functions, (2) a domiciled alien, (3) an alien engaged in business or some other occupation in the state where he exercises his functions, or (4) a citizen of the accrediting state engaged exclusively upon consular business.[267] It is, however, necessary that the state which grants an exequatur to, or receives as consul a person from one of the first three classes, grant to such person a measure of privilege and immunity consistent with the free performance of his consular duties.

Each consul has the privilege of placing above the door of his house the arms of the state which he serves, generally also of flying its flag. The archives and official property are inviolable.

In the case of a consul not a citizen of the receiving state and engaged exclusively in consular business, exemption from arrest except on a criminal charge, when he may be punished by local laws or sent home for trial; exemption from witness duty, though testimony may be taken in writing; exemption from taxation; exemption from military charges and service,—is usually conceded by custom and often by treaty. It is not, however, conceded that the consular residence may be used as an asylum.

The consul of the third class, who, though an alien to the receiving state, engages in business other than consular duties, is subject to all local laws governing similarly circumstanced foreigners, except when in the performance of his functions. His consular effects must be kept distinct from those appertaining to his business capacity, which last are under local law.

The domiciled alien exercising consular functions is subject to local law as others similarly circumstanced, which, in some states, may involve considerable obligations. The freedom from local restrictions sufficient for the convenient performance of his consular duties is implied in the grant of the exequatur.

The reception of a citizen as a consular representative of a foreign state does not confer upon him the personal privileges and immunities of any of the other classes, but only the immunities attaching to the office itself, and absolutely necessary for the performance of its duties, as the right to use the arms above the office door, the inviolability of archives, and respect for his authority while in the performance of his functions.

In some of the Eastern states and in some of the non-Christian and semicivilized states consuls are entirely exempt from local jurisdiction, enjoying exemptions similar to those of diplomatic agents.

In time of war the house of the consul is, when flying the flag of the state which he serves, specially protected, and liable to injury only in case of urgent military necessity. Consuls do not necessarily withdraw because of hostilities with the accrediting state.[268]

In general, the consul, by virtue of his public office, is entitled to more respect than a simple citizen, or, as Heffter puts it, "consuls are entitled to that measure of inviolability which will enable them to exercise their consular functions without personal inconvenience."[269]

(g) The consular office may be vacated by a given occupant, (1) by death, (2) by recall, (3) by expiration of his term of service, (4) by revocation of his exequatur. This last cause is the only one needing attention. The exequatur may be revoked by the state issuing it, if the conduct of the holder be displeasing to the state. The state issuing the exequatur is sole judge. This does not necessarily imply any discourtesy to the accrediting state, as the consul does not represent the sovereignty of the state. It is customary, however, to give the accrediting state an opportunity to recall its consul. Exequaturs have, on several occasions, been withdrawn from consuls who have directly or indirectly aided the enemies of the receiving state, or have given offense by their participation in the public affairs of the receiving state. Consequently consuls are usually officially advised to refrain so far as possible from expressions of their opinions upon public affairs, either of the receiving or sending state.

[CHAPTER XIV]

TREATIES

[§ 81. Definition]

A treaty is an agreement, generally in writing, and always in conformity with law, between two or more states. A treaty may establish, modify, or terminate obligations. These obligations must be such as are legally within the capacity of the states concerned to negotiate. A treaty runs between states only. As distinguished from other forms of international agreement, a treaty is usually concerned with matters of high state importance, with a considerable number of questions, or with matters involving several states.

Separate articles are clauses attached to a treaty after ratification, and to be interpreted with reference to the whole.

[§ 82. Other Forms of International Agreements]

Besides the treaty, which is the most formal international agreement, there may be various other methods of expressing the terms of international agreements. The importance of the matter contained in the various documents is not necessarily in proportion to their formality.

The terms "convention" and "treaty" are very generally used interchangeably, though strictly the scope of a convention is less broad, and usually applies to some specific subject, as to the regulation of commerce, navigation, consular service, postal service, naturalization, extradition, boundaries, etc. The terms below are often used loosely in practice.

(a) A protocol, or procès verbal, is usually in the form of official minutes, giving the conclusions of an international conference and signed at the end of each session by the negotiators. This does not require ratification by the sovereign as in the case of treaties and conventions, though it is equally binding upon the good faith of the states concerned. Ordinarily the persons signing the protocol have been duly authorized by their respective states in advance. The term "protocol" is sometimes applied to the preliminary draft of an agreement between two or more states as to the agreements entered into by negotiators in preparation of a more formal document, such as a treaty or convention.[270]

(b) Declarations are usually documents containing reciprocal agreements of states, as in granting equal privileges in matters of trade-marks, copyrights, etc., to the citizens of each state. The term is used for the documents, (1) which outline the policy or course of conduct which one or more states propose to pursue under certain circumstances, (2) which enunciate the principles adopted, or (3) which set forth the reasons justifying a given act.

(c) The terms "memoranda" and "memoires" are used to indicate the documents in which the principles entering an international discussion are set forth, together with the probable conclusions. These documents may be considered by the proper authorities, e.g. may be sent to the foreign secretaries of the states concerned, and contre-memoires may be submitted. These documents are generally unsigned.

(d) Besides the above, there may be in diplomatic negotiations letters between the agents, in which the use of the first or second person is common, and notes, which are more formal and usually in the third person. These letters, if made public, may have much force, as in the case of the collective note of the powers commonly called the "Andrassy note," by which the Powers of Europe in 1875 held that in Turkey "reform must be adopted to put a stop to a disastrous and bloody contest."

(e) When representatives of states not properly commissioned for the purpose, or exceeding the limits of their authority, enter into agreements, their acts are called treaties sub spe rati or sponsions. Such agreements require ratification by the state. This ratification may be explicit in the usual form, or tacit, when the state governs its action by the agreements.

(f) Of the nature of treaties are cartels, which are agreements made between belligerents, usually mutual, regulating intercourse during war. These may apply to exchange of prisoners, postal and telegraphic communications, customs, and similar subjects. These documents are less formal than conventions, usually negotiated by agents specially authorized, and do not require ratification, though fully obligatory upon the states parties to the agreement.[271] Here also may be named the suspension of arms, which the chief of an army or navy may enter into as an agreement for the regulation or cessation of hostilities within a limited area for a short time and for military ends. When such agreements are for the cessation of hostilities in general, or for a considerable time, they receive the name of armistices or truces. These are sometimes called conventions with the enemy. These last do not imply international negotiation.

Note. Agreements concluded between states and private individuals or corporations have not an international character, and do not come within the domain of international law. Such agreements may include:—

1. Contracts with individuals or corporations for a loan, colonization, developing a country, etc.

2. Agreements between princes in regard to succession, etc.

3. Concordats signed by the Pope as such and not as a secular prince.

[§ 83. The Negotiation of Treaties]

The negotiation of treaties includes, (a) the international agreement upon the terms, (b) the drafting of the terms, (c) the signing, and (d) the ratification.

(a) The first step preparatory to the agreement is the submission of proof that the parties entering into the negotiations are duly qualified and authorized. As the sovereigns themselves do not now in person negotiate treaties,[272] it is customary for those who are to conduct such negotiations to be authorized by a commission generally known as full power. The negotiators first present and exchange their full powers. They may be somewhat limited in their action by instructions.[273] Often it is the diplomatic representatives who negotiate with the proper authorities of the state to which they are accredited. The negotiations are sometimes written, sometimes verbal, and are preserved in the procès verbaux. In case the negotiations are for any reason discontinued before the drafting of the terms of the agreement, it is customary to state the circumstances leading to this act in a protocol signed by all the negotiators. Sometimes this takes the name of a manifest or of a declaration.

(b) The draft of the treaty is usually, though not necessarily, of a uniform style. Many early treaties opened with an invocation to Deity. This is not the custom followed by the United States, however. The general form is to specify the sovereigns of the contracting states, the purpose of the agreement, and the names of the negotiators, with their powers. This constitutes the preamble. Then follow in separate articles the agreements entered into forming the body of the treaty, the conditions of ratification, the number of copies, the place of the negotiation, the signatures and seals of the negotiators. Sometimes other articles or declarations[274] are annexed or added, with a view to defining, explaining, or limiting words or clauses used in the body of the treaty. Ordinarily the same formula is followed as in the portion of the main treaty subsequent to the body in setting forth conditions of ratification, etc.

The order of the states parties to the treaty, and of the agents negotiating it, varies in the different copies. The copy transmitted to a given state party to the treaty contains the name of that state and of its agents in the first place, so far as possible. Each negotiator signs in the first place the copy of the treaty to be transmitted to his own state, and if the agents of more than one other state sign the treaty, they sign in alphabetical order of their states, in the original language of the convention. This is known as the principle of the alternat.

The following is the beginning and end of the Treaty of Washington relative to the Alabama Claims, etc., including the President's proclamation thereof:—[275]

"BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

"A Proclamation

"Whereas a treaty, between the United States of America and her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, concerning the settlement of all causes of difference between the two countries, was concluded and signed at Washington by the high commissioners and plenipotentiaries of the respective governments on the eighth day of May last; which treaty is word for word, as follows:—

"'The United States of America and her Britannic Majesty, being desirous to provide for an amicable settlement of all causes of difference between the two countries, have for that purpose appointed their respective plenipotentiaries, that is to say: The President of the United States has appointed, on the part of the United States, as Commissioners in a Joint High Commission and Plenipotentiaries [here follow the names]; and her Britannic Majesty, on her part, has appointed as her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries [here follow the names].

"'And the said plenipotentiaries, after having exchanged their full powers, which were found to be in due and proper form, have agreed to and concluded the following articles:—

[Here follow 42 articles.]

"'Article XLIII

"'The present treaty shall be duly ratified by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by her Britannic Majesty; and the ratifications shall be exchanged either at Washington or at London within six months from the date hereof, or earlier if possible.

"'In faith whereof, we, the respective plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty and have hereunto affixed our seals.

"'Done in duplicate at Washington the eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one.'

[Here follow the seals and signatures.]

"And whereas the said treaty has been duly ratified on both parts, and the respective ratifications of the same were exchanged in the city of London, on the seventeenth day of June, 1871, by Robert C. Schenck, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, and Earl Granville, her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on the part of their respective governments:

"Now, therefore, be it known that I, Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States of America, have caused the said treaty to be made public, to the end that the same, and every clause and article thereof, may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof.

"In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

"Done at the City of Washington this fourth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and of the Independence of the United States the ninety-sixth.

"U. S. Grant.

"By the President:

"Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State."

There is no diplomatic language, though various languages have from time to time been more commonly used. In early treaties and diplomatic works Latin was very common, and it was used so late as the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Spanish prevailed for some years toward the end of the fifteenth century. From the days of Louis XIV., when the French particularly became the court language, it has been widely used in congresses and treaties. Frequently, when used, there have been inserted in the treaties provisions that the use of French should not be taken as a precedent. The French language is, however, commonly employed in congresses in which a considerable number of different languages are represented, and the original forms of the treaties are drawn in French. During the nineteenth century this has been very common, as in the acts of the Congress of Vienna, 1815; Aix-la-Chapelle, 1818; Paris, 1856; Berlin, 1878 and 1885; Brussels, 1890. Even other states of Europe, in making treaties with Asiatic and African states, have agreed upon French as the authoritative text for both states. In some of the treaties of the United States and the Ottoman Porte, the French language is used.

It is customary, when the treaty is between states having different official languages, to arrange for versions in both languages in parallel columns, placing at the left the version in the language of the state to which the treaty is to be transmitted.

(c) In signing the treaty each representative signs and seals in the first place the copy to be sent to his own state. The order of the other signatures may be by lot or in the alphabetical order of the states represented. The signing of the treaty indicates the completion of the agreement between those commissioned in behalf of the states concerned. This does not irrevocably bind the states which the signers represent, though the fact that its representative has signed a treaty is a reason for ratification which cannot be set aside except for most weighty cause.

(d) Ratification is the acceptance by the state of the terms of the treaty which has been agreed upon by its legally qualified agent. The exchange of ratifications is usually provided for in a special clause, e.g. "The present treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications exchanged at ... as speedily as possible." By this clause the state reserves to itself the right to examine the conditions before entering into the agreement. At the present time it is held that even when not expressed, the "reserve clause" is understood.

The ratification conforms to the domestic laws of each state. Ordinarily it is in the form of an act duly signed and sealed by the head of the state. In the act of ratification the text of the treaty may be reproduced entire, or merely the title, preamble, the first and last articles of the body of the treaty, the concluding clauses following the last article, the date, and the names of the plenipotentiaries.

In many states prior approval of the treaty by some legislative body is necessary. In the United States the Constitution provides that the President "shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."[276] In the United States it has frequently happened that the Senate has not approved of treaties, and they have therefore failed of ratification. This was the fate of the Fishery Treaty with Great Britain in 1888.

The ratification may be refused for sufficient reason. Each state must decide for itself what is sufficient reason. The following have been offered at various times as valid reasons for refusal of ratification: (1) error in points essential to the agreement, (2) the introduction of matters of which the instructions of the plenipotentiaries do not give them power to treat, (3) clauses contrary to the public law of either of the states, (4) a change in the circumstances making the fulfillment of the stipulations unreasonable, (5) the introduction of conditions impossible of fulfillment, (6) the failure to meet the approval of the political authority whose approval is necessary to give the treaty effect, (7) the lack of proper credentials on the part of the negotiators or the lack of freedom in negotiating.

The exchange of ratifications is usually a solemn, i.e. highly formal, ceremony by which parties to the treaty or convention guarantee to each other the execution of its terms. As many copies of the act of ratification are prepared by each state as there are state parties to the treaty. When the representatives of the states assemble for the exchange of ratifications, they submit them to each other. These are carefully compared, and if found in correct form, they make the exchange and draw up a procès verbal of the fact, making as many copies of the procès verbal as there are parties to the treaty. At this time also a date for putting into operation the provisions of the treaty may be fixed. Sometimes clauses explanatory of words, phrases, etc., in the body of the treaty are agreed upon. Such action usually takes the form of a special procès verbal or protocol.

Unless there is a stipulation as to the time when a treaty becomes effective, it is binding upon the signatory states from the date of signing, provided it is subsequently ratified.

A state may assume a more or less close relation to the agreements contained in treaties made by other states, by measures less formal than ratification. These measures are commonly classed as acts of, (1) approbation, by which a state without becoming in any way a party to the treaty assumes a favorable attitude toward its provisions, (2) adhesion, by which a state announces its intention to abide by the principles of a given treaty without becoming party to it, and (3) accession, by which a state becomes a party to a treaty which has already been agreed upon by other states.

Note. After the completion of the negotiation it is customary to promulgate and publish the treaty or convention. Both these acts are matters of local rather than international law. The promulgation is the announcement by the chief of the state that the treaty or convention has been made, and the publication is the official announcement of the contents of the treaty or convention. See p. [204].

[§ 84. Validity of Treaties]

Four conditions are very generally recognized as essential to the validity of a treaty.

(a) The parties to the treaty must have the international capacity to contract, i.e. ordinarily they must be independent states.

(b) The agents acting for the state must be duly authorized, i.e. the plenipotentiaries must act within their powers.

(c) There must be freedom of consent in the agreements between the states. This does not imply that force, as by war, reprisals, or otherwise, may not be used in bringing about a condition of affairs which may lead a state, without parting with its independence, to make such sacrifices as may be necessary to put an end thereto. No constraint can be put upon the negotiators of the treaty by threats of personal violence, or in any way to prohibit their free action, without invalidating their acts. There is no freedom of consent when the agreement is reached through fraud of either party, and treaties so obtained are not valid.

(d) The treaties must be in conformity to law, as embodied in the generally recognized principles of international law and the established usage of states. States could not by treaty appropriate the open sea, protect the slave trade, partition other states unless as a measure of self-protection, deprive subjects of essential rights of humanity, or enter into other agreements that could not be internationally obligatory.

[§ 85. Classification of Treaties]

Treaties have been variously classified, but the classifications serve no great purpose. The most common classification is clearly set forth by Calvo. As regards form, treaties may be, (1) transitory, or (2) permanent or perpetual; as regards nature, (1) personal, relating to the sovereign, or (2) real, relating to things and not dependent on the sovereign person; as regards effects, (1) equal or (2) unequal, or according to other effects, simple or conditional, definitive or preliminary, principal or accessory, etc.; as regards objects, (1) general or (2) special.[277] In a narrower sense treaties may be divided into many classes, as political, economic, guarantee, surety, neutrality, alliance, friendship, boundary, cession, exchange, jurisdiction, extradition, commerce, navigation, peace, etc., and conventions relating to property of various kinds, including literary and artistic, to post and telegraph, etc. Most of these classes are sufficiently described by their titles. The nature of some of the classes is not fully indicated in the title.

A treaty of guarantee is an engagement by which a state agrees to secure another in the possession of certain specified rights, as in the exercise of a certain form of government, in the free exercise of authority within its dominions, in freedom from attack, in the free navigation of specified rivers, in the exercise of neutrality, etc. In 1831 and 1839, by the Treaties of London, the independence and neutrality of Belgium were guaranteed, and in the Treaty of 1832 the affairs in Greece were adjusted under guarantee. The Treaty of Paris, 1856, guarantees "the independence and the integrity of the Ottoman Empire." When the guaranteeing state is not only bound to use its best efforts to secure the fulfillment of the treaty stipulations, but to make good the conditions agreed upon in the treaty provided one of the principals fails to meet its obligations, the treaty is not merely one of guarantee, but also a treaty of surety. This happens in case of loans more particularly.

Agreements of states to act together for specific or general objects constitute treaties of alliance. The nature of these treaties of alliance varies with the terms. They may be defensive, offensive, equal, unequal, general, special, permanent, temporary, etc., or may combine several of these characteristics.

[§ 86. Interpretation of Treaties]

Sometimes clauses interpreting treaties are discussed and adopted by the states signing a treaty. These acts may take the form of notes, protocols, declarations, etc. The dispatch of the French ambassador at London, Aug. 9, 1870, to the foreign secretary interprets certain clauses of the treaty guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium. In cases where no preliminary agreement in regard to interpretation is made, there are certain general principles of interpretation which are ordinarily accepted. Many treatises follow closely the chapters of Grotius and Vattel upon this subject.[278]

The rules usually accepted are: (1) Words of the treaty are to be taken in the ordinary and reasonable sense as when elsewhere used under similar conditions. (2) If the words have different meanings in the different states, the treaty should so far as possible be construed so as to accord with the meaning of the words in the states which accepted the conditions. (3) In default of a plain meaning, the spirit of the treaty or a reasonable meaning should prevail. (4) Unless the fundamental rights of states are expressly the subject of the agreement, these rights are not involved. (5) That which is clearly granted by the treaty carries with it what is necessary for its realization.

In the cases of conflicting clauses in a single treaty or conflicting treaties, the general rules are: (1) Special clauses prevail against general clauses; prohibitory against permissive, unless the prohibitory is general and the permissive special; of two prohibitory clauses, the one more distinctly mandatory prevails; of two similar obligatory clauses the state in whose favor the obligation runs may choose which shall be observed. (2) In case of conflict in treaties between the same states the later prevails; in case a later treaty with a third state conflicts with an earlier treaty with other states, the earlier treaty prevails.[279]

"The most favored nation" clause is now common in treaties of commercial nature. This clause ordinarily binds the state to grant to its co-signer all the privileges similarly granted to all other states, and such as shall be granted under subsequent treaties. When privileges are granted by one state in exchange for privileges granted by another, as in a reciprocal reduction in tariff duties, a third state can lay claim to like reduction only upon fulfillment of like conditions. Under "the most favored nation" clause, Art. VIII., of the Treaty of 1803, between France and the United States, France claimed that its ships were entitled to all the privileges granted to any other nation whether so granted in return for special concessions or not. This position the United States refused to accept, and by Article VII. of the Treaty of 1831 France renounced the claims.[280]

[§ 87. Termination of Treaties]

Treaties in general come to an end under the following conditions:—

(a) The complete fulfillment of all the treaty stipulations terminates a treaty.

(b) The expiration of the limit of time for which the treaty agreement was made puts an end to the treaty.

(c) A treaty may be terminated by express agreement of the parties to it.

(d) When a treaty depends upon the execution of conditions contrary to the principles of international law or morality or impossible of performance, it is not effective.

(e) A state may renounce the advantages and rights secured under a treaty, e.g. England renounced the protectorate of the Ionian Islands in 1864, which she had held since 1815.

(f) A declaration of war may put an end to those treaties which have regard only to conditions of peaceful relations, as treaties of alliance, commerce, navigation, etc., and may suspend treaties which have regard to permanent conditions, as treaties of cession, boundaries, etc. The treaty of peace between China and Japan, May 8, 1895, Article 6, asserts that, "All treaties between Japan and China having come to an end in consequence of the war, China engages, immediately upon the exchange of ratifications of this act, to appoint plenipotentiaries to conclude, with the Japanese plenipotentiaries, a treaty of commerce and navigation, and a convention to regulate frontier intercourse and trade." In the war between the United States and Spain the royal decree issued by Spain, April 23, 1898, Article I., asserts that "The state of war existing between Spain and the United States terminates the treaty of peace and friendship of the 27th October, 1795, the protocol of the 12th January, 1877, and all other agreements, compacts, and conventions that have been in force up to the present between the two countries." The declaration of war also gives special effect to certain treaties and conventions, as to those in regard to care of wounded, neutral commerce, etc.

(g) A treaty is voidable when, (1) it is concluded in excess of powers of contracting parties, (2) when it is concluded because of stress of force upon negotiators or because of fraud, (3) when the conditions threaten the self-preservation of the state or its necessary attributes. Hall gives as the test of voidability the following: "Neither party to a contract can make its binding effect dependent at his will upon conditions other than those contemplated at the moment when the contract was entered into, and on the other hand a contract ceases to be binding so soon as anything which formed an implied condition of its obligatory force at the time of its conclusion is essentially altered."[281] The condition rebus sic stantibus is always implied.

(h) A treaty may be terminated by the simple act of denunciation when this right of denunciation is specified in the treaty itself, or when the treaty is of such a nature as to be voidable by an act of one of the parties.

[CHAPTER XV]

AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES AND NON-HOSTILE REDRESS

[§ 88. The Amicable Settlement of Disputes]

It is now generally admitted that in the settlement of international disputes war should be regarded as a last resort. Other means of amicable settlement should be exhausted before any measures of force are tried. Among these amicable means the most common are diplomatic negotiations, the good offices or friendly mediation of a third state, conferences and congresses, and arbitration.[282]

(a) The settlement of disputes by diplomatic negotiation follows the ordinary course of diplomatic business, whether committed to the regular or to special agents. The larger number of disputed questions are settled by diplomatic negotiation.

(b) In the case of disputes which are not easily settled by diplomatic negotiations, a third state, friendly to the disputants, sometimes offers its good offices as mediator to bring about an agreement. The office of the mediating state is not to judge upon the merits of the disputed question, but to devise a practicable means of settlement of the question in view of the circumstances of the dispute. The tender of good offices is a measure involving the least possible interference in the dispute, and cannot be regarded as other than a friendly act. There is no obligation to accept the tender, and either disputant may decline it without offense. One of the disputants may request the tender of good offices or of mediation. The distinction between good offices and mediation is not always made in practice, though it may be said that good offices extend only to the establishing of bases of negotiations and the commencement of the negotiations. The more direct work of carrying on the negotiations is of the nature of mediation. Either party may at the beginning or at any time refuse the mediator's offices.

(c) The settlement of disputes or of questions liable to give rise to disputes by conferences and congresses is common, and implies a meeting of representatives of the interested parties for consideration of the terms of agreement upon which a question may be adjudicated. In general the conclusions of a congress are more formal and are regarded as having more binding force than those of a conference, though this distinction is not always made. States not directly interested may participate in conferences or congresses, and sometimes as mediators play a leading part.

(d) Arbitration involves an agreement between the disputants to submit their differences to some person or persons by whose decision they will abide. Arbitration has been common from early times. It is now becoming common to insert in treaties clauses providing for arbitration in cases of disagreement upon the interpretation of clauses of the treaty, and to resort more and more to this method of settling disputed international questions.

The parties submitting the question to arbitration usually provide for the naming of the arbitrator or arbitrators, and for the rules and principles in accord with which the decision shall be made.

It is generally admitted that a decision is not binding if it is not in accord with the principles to which the disputants had agreed; if it is flagrantly unjust; if it is equivocal and itself open to dispute; or if the decision is obtained by fraud or force.

Of about thirty cases of arbitration during the nineteenth century, the decision in one case was rejected by both parties to the dispute, and in one case rejected by one of the parties. In several other instances one party has refused to submit to arbitration questions readily lending themselves to such settlement, even though requested by the other party.[283]

[§ 89. Non-hostile Redress]

Good offices, mediation, and arbitration can only extend to international differences of certain kinds. Such measures are not applicable to all cases of disagreement, nor are such measures always acceptable to both parties. Consequently certain other practices have arisen with the view of obtaining satisfaction by measures short of war. Formerly an individual might be commissioned by a letter of marque and reprisal to obtain satisfaction from a state for injuries which he had suffered. This practice is, however, discontinued,[284] and satisfaction must be obtained through the proper state channels. The means by which satisfaction may be claimed vary, and are usually classed as retorsions, reprisals, of which embargo is an important variety, and pacific blockades.

[§ 90. Retorsion]

Retorsion is a species of retaliation in kind.[285] Retorsion may not consist in acts precisely identical with those which have given offense, though it is held that the acts should be analogous. The offense in consequence of which measures of retorsion are taken may be an act entirely legitimate and desirable from the point of view of the offending state. Another state may, however, consider the act as discourteous, injurious, discriminating, or unduly severe. In recent years commercial retorsion has become a very important means of retaliation which, bearing heavily upon modern communities, may lead to a speedy settlement of difficulties. The tariff wars of recent years show the effectiveness of commercial retorsion, e.g. the measures in consequence of the tariff disagreements between France and Switzerland in 1892. These measures of retorsion should always be within the bounds of municipal and international law.

[§ 91. Reprisals]

Reprisals are acts of a state performed with a view to obtaining redress for injuries. The injuries leading to reprisals may be either to the state or to a citizen, and the acts of reprisal may fall upon the offending state or upon its citizens either in goods or person. The general range of acts of reprisal may be by (1) the seizure and confiscation of public property or private property, and (2) the restraint of intercourse, political, commercial, or general. In extreme cases, acts of violence upon persons belonging to one state, when in a foreign state, have led to similar acts upon the part of the state whose subjects are injured against the subjects of the foreign state. This practice is looked upon with disfavor, though it might be sanctioned by extremest necessity. Acts of retaliation for the sake of revenge are generally discountenanced.

[§ 92. Embargo]

Embargo consists in the detention of ships and goods which are within the ports of the state resorting to this means of reprisal. It may be (1) civil or pacific embargo, the detention of its own ships, as by the act of the United States Congress in 1807, to avoid risk on account of the Berlin Decree of Napoleon, 1806, and the British Orders in Council, 1807; or (2) hostile, the detention of the goods and ships of another state. It was formerly the custom to detain within the ports of a given state the ships of the state upon which it desired to make reprisals, and if the relations between the states led to war to confiscate such ships. Hostile embargo may now be said to be looked upon with disfavor, and a contrary policy is generally adopted, by which merchant vessels may be allowed a certain time in which to load and depart even after the outbreak of hostilities. The Naval War Code of the United States provides that "Merchant vessels of the enemy, in ports within the jurisdiction of the United States at the outbreak of war, shall be allowed thirty days after war has begun to load their cargoes and depart."[286] By the proclamation of the President of the United States declaring that war with Spain had existed since April 21, 1898, it was also declared that "Spanish merchant vessels, in any ports or places within the United States, shall be allowed till May 21, 1898, inclusive, for loading their cargoes and departing from such ports or places."[287] Spain, by the royal decree of April 23, 1898, declared "A term of five days from the date of the publication of the present royal decree in the Madrid Gazette is allowed to all United States ships anchored in Spanish ports, during which they are at liberty to depart."[288]

[§ 93. Pacific Blockade]

Pacific blockade is a form of reprisal or constraint which consists in the blockading by one or more states of certain ports of another state without declaring or making war upon that state. In the conduct of such blockades practice has varied greatly. In general, however, the vessels of states not parties to the blockade are not subject to seizure. Such vessels may be visited by a ship of the blockading squadron in order to obtain proof of identity. Whether vessels under foreign flags are liable to other inconveniences or to any penalties is not defined by practice or opinion of text writers. "The Institute of International Law," in 1887, provided that pacific blockade should be effective against the vessels of the blockaded party only. This position seemed to be one which could be generally accepted. From the nature of pacific blockade as a measure short of war, its consequences should be confined only to the parties concerned. The pacific blockade of Greece in 1886 extended only to vessels flying the Greek flag,[289] but the admirals of the Great Powers in the pacific blockade of Crete in 1897 endeavored to establish the right to control other than Greek vessels if they carried merchandise for the Greek troops or for the interior of the island. As no case arose to test the claim, this question cannot be regarded as settled.

The provisions of the pacific blockade of Crete in 1897 were as follows:—

"The blockade will be general for all ships under the Greek flag.

"Ships of the six powers or neutral may enter into the ports occupied by the powers and land their merchandise, but only if it is not for the Greek troops or the interior of the island. These ships may be visited by the ships of the international fleets.

"The limits of the blockade are comprised between 23° 24' and 26° 30' longitude east of Greenwich, and 35° 48' and 34° 45' north latitude."[290]

The Secretary of State of the United States, in acknowledging the receipt of the notification of the action of the powers, said, "I confine myself to taking note of the communication, not conceding the right to make such a blockade as that referred to in your communication, and reserving the consideration of all international rights and of any question which may in any way affect the commerce or interests of the United States."[291] The weight of authority supports the position of the United States.

The first attempt to establish a blockade without resorting to war was in 1827, when Great Britain, France, and Russia blockaded the coasts of Greece with a view to putting pressure upon the Sultan, its nominal ruler. Since that time there have been pacific blockades varying in nature: blockade of Tagus by France, 1831; New Granada by England, 1836; Mexico by France, 1838; La Plata by France, 1838 to 1840; La Plata by France and England, 1845 to 1848; Greece by England, 1850; Formosa by France, 1884; Greece by Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Russia, 1886; Zanzibar by Portugal, 1888; and Crete by Great Britain, Germany, Austria, France, Italy, and Russia, 1897. From these instances it may be deduced (1) that pacific blockade is a legitimate means of constraint short of war, (2) that those states parties to the blockade are bound by its consequences, (3) that as a matter of policy it may be advisable to resort to pacific blockade in order to avoid the more serious resort to war, and (4) that states not parties to the pacific blockade are in no way bound to observe it, though their ships cannot complain because they are required to establish their identity in the ordinary manner.

[PART IV]

INTERNATIONAL LAW OF WAR

[CHAPTER XVI]

WAR

[§ 94. Definition]

Gentilis, one of the earliest writers on the laws of war, defined war in 1588 as "a properly conducted contest of armed public forces."[292] The nature of such contests varied with circumstances, and wars were, accordingly, classified by early writers as public, private, mixed, etc., distinctions that now have little more than historical value.[293] Wars are now sometimes classified as international and civil.

[§ 95. Commencement]

It is now assumed that peace is the normal relation of states. When these relations become strained it is customary for one or both of the states to indicate this condition by discontinuing some of the means of peaceful intercommunication, or by some act short of war. The withdrawal of a diplomatic representative, an embargo, or any similar action does not mark the commencement of war. War commences with the first act of hostilities, unless a declaration fixes an earlier date, and in case of a declaration subsequent to the first act of hostilities, war dates from the first act. A proclamation of the blockade of Cuban ports preceded the declaration of war between Spain and the United States in 1898.[294] Similarly, hostilities were begun before the declaration of war between China and Japan in 1894.[295] Indeed, few of the wars of the last two centuries have been declared before the outbreak of hostilities, and many have not been declared formally at all. Declaration at the present time is usually but a formal acknowledgment of a well-known fact. In the case of the war in South Africa, early in October, 1899, the government of the Transvaal requested the government of Great Britain to give "an immediate and affirmative answer" not later than 5 P.M. on October 11th to certain questions in the accompanying ultimatum as to settling differences by arbitration, the withdrawal of British troops, etc., stating that if the answer was not satisfactory, it would be regarded as "a formal declaration of war." The government of Great Britain replied that the conditions demanded were such that the government deemed it impossible to discuss them. Hostilities immediately followed.

Civil war naturally is not preceded by a declaration, but exists from the time of the recognition of the belligerency by an outside state, or from the date when the parent state engaged in some act of war against the insurgent party.[296] In the case of the Civil War in the United States, the proclamation of blockade of the Southern ports by President Lincoln was held to be sufficient acknowledgment of a state of war.[297]

[§ 96. Declaration]

In ancient times wars between states were entered upon with great formality. A herald whose person was inviolate brought the challenge, or formal declaration, which received reply with due formality. At the beginning of the eighteenth century this practice had become unusual, and in the days of Vattel (1714-1767) the theory of the necessity of a formal declaration was set aside. It was, however, maintained that a proclamation or manifesto should be issued for the information of the subjects of the states parties to the war, and for the information of neutrals. The practice is now generally followed, and may be regarded as obligatory.[298] Such action is reasonable in view of the changes which a state of war brings about in the relations of the parties concerned, and of neutrals. The proclamations usually specify the date from which the war begins, and hence have weight in determining the nature of acts prior to the proclamation, as the legal effects of war date from the first act of hostilities if the proclamation does not fix an earlier date. The constitution of a state, written or unwritten, determines in what hands the right to declare war shall rest, e.g. in the United States in Congress.

By act of the United States Congress of April 25, 1898,[299] it was declared:—

"First, That war be, and the same is hereby, declared to exist, and that war has existed since the twenty-first day of April, Anno Domini eighteen hundred and ninety eight, including said day, between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain.

"Second, That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, directed and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States, and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of the several States, to such extent as may be necessary to carry this Act into effect."[300]

[§ 97. Object]

The object of war may be considered from two points of view, the political and the military. International law cannot determine the limits of just objects for which a state may engage in war. Politically the objects have covered a wide range, though there is a growing tendency to limit the number of objects for which a state may go to war. It is generally held that self-preservation is a proper object, but as each state must decide for itself what threatens its existence and well-being, even this object may be very broadly interpreted. History shows that it has not been difficult from the political point of view to find an object of war when the inclination was present in the state. The nominal are often not the real objects, and the changing conditions during the progress of the war may make the final objects quite different from the initial objects. The simple cost of carrying on hostilities sometimes changes the conditions upon which peace can be made. The classification of causes and objects formerly made have little weight in determining whether a state will enter upon war. The questions of policy and conformity to current standards are the main ones at the present time.

The object of war in the military sense "is a renewed state of peace,"[301] or as stated in the English manual, "to procure the complete submission of the enemy at the earliest possible period with the least possible expenditure of men and money." The "Institute of International Law," Oxford session of 1880, gave as a general principle that the only legitimate end that a state may have in war is to weaken the military strength of the enemy.[302]

[§ 98. General Effects]

The general and immediate effects of war are:—

(a) To suspend all non-hostile intercourse between the states parties to the war.

(b) To suspend the ordinary non-hostile intercourse between the citizens of the states parties to the war.

(c) To introduce new principles in the intercourse of the states parties to the war with third states. These impose new duties upon neutrals and allies.

(d) To abrogate or suspend certain treaties:—

(1) To abrogate those treaties which can have force only in time of peace, e.g. of amity, commerce, navigation, etc.

(2) To suspend those treaties which are permanent and naturally revive at the end of the war, e.g. of boundaries, public debts, etc.

(3) To bring into operation treaties concerning the conduct of hostilities.

The fuller consideration of the effects of war upon general relations will be found in the succeeding chapters.

[CHAPTER XVII]

STATUS OF PERSONS IN WAR

[§ 99. Persons affected by War]

(a) By the strict theory of war "the subjects of enemy states are enemies."[303] The treatment of the subjects of enemy states is not, however, determined by the allegiance alone, but in part by conduct and in part by domicile of the subject.

(b) The subjects of neutral states are affected by their relations to the hostile states as established by their own government, as determined by their conduct, and as determined by their domicile.

(c) By conduct persons are divided into combatants and non-combatants, according as they do or do not participate in the hostilities. The status of such persons may be further modified by domicile or by political allegiance.

[§ 100. Combatants]

Combatants in the full sense are the regularly authorized military and naval forces of the states. They are liable to the risks and entitled to the immunities of warfare, and if captured become prisoners of war.

(a) The status of combatants is also allowed to two classes which engage in defensive hostilities:—

(1) The officers and crew of a merchant vessel which defends itself by force are liable to capture as prisoners of war.

(2) With regard to levies en masse much difference of opinion exists. Article 10 of the Declaration of Brussels, 1874, was adopted at the Hague Conference in 1899, and may be considered as representing a generally accepted position, namely, "The population of a non-occupied territory, who, on the approach of the enemy, of their own accord take up arms to resist the invading troops, without having had time to organize themselves in conformity with Article 9 [providing for responsible leader, uniform, etc.], shall be considered as belligerents, if they respect the laws and customs of war."[304]

(b) The status of combatants is not allowable for those who, without state authorization, engage in aggressive hostilities.

(1) When in the time of war the officers and crew of a merchant vessel attack another merchant vessel, they are liable to punishment according to the nature of their acts, and the state to which they owe allegiance is only indirectly responsible, nor can they claim its protection.

(2) When bands of men without state authorization and control, such as guerrilla troops or private persons, engage in offensive hostilities, they are liable to the same treatment as above mentioned.

(3) Spies are those who, acting secretly or under false pretenses, collect or seek to collect information in the districts occupied by the enemy, with the intention of communicating it to the opposing force.[305] Such agents are not forbidden, but are liable to such treatment as the laws of the capturing army may prescribe. This may be death by hanging. The office of spy is not necessarily dishonorable.

[§ 101. Non-combatants]

Non-combatants include those who do not participate in the hostilities. In practice this status is generally conceded to women, children, clergy, scientists, artists, professional men, laborers, etc., who make no resistance, whether subjects of the state or not. These are, of course, liable to the hardships consequent upon war.

(a) When the armed forces of one state obtain authority over territory previously occupied by the other state, the non-combatant population is free from all violence or constraint other than that required by military necessity. They are liable, however, to the burdens imposed by civilized warfare.

(b) Subjects of one of the belligerent states sojourning within the jurisdiction of the other were in early times detained as prisoners. While Grotius (1625) allows this on the ground of weakening the forces of the enemy,[306] and while Ayala had earlier (1597) sanctioned it,[307] Bynkershoek, writing in 1737, mentions it as a right seldom used. The detention of English tourists by Napoleon in 1803 was not in accord with modern usage. During the eighteenth century, the custom was to secure, by treaty stipulation, a fixed time after the outbreak of hostilities during which enemy subjects might withdraw. While similar provisions are inserted in many treaties of the nineteenth century, the practice may be said to be so well established that, in absence of treaty stipulations, a reasonable time would be allowed for withdrawal. A large number of treaties of the nineteenth century have provisions to the effect of Article XXVI. of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of 1795: "The merchants and others of each of the two nations residing in the dominions of the other shall have the privilege of remaining and continuing their trade, so long as they live peaceably and commit no offense against the laws; and in case their conduct should render them suspected, and their respective Governments should think proper to order them to remove, the term of twelve months from the publication of the order shall be allowed them for that purpose, to remove with their families, effects, and property." This custom of allowing enemy subjects to remain during good behavior has become common, but can hardly be called a rule of international law. Persons thus allowed to remain are generally treated as neutrals, though in the case of Alcinous v. Nigreu[308] it was held that an enemy subject, residing in England without a license, could not maintain an action for breach of contract, though the contract which had been entered into before the war was valid and might be enforced when peace was restored.

[CHAPTER XVIII]

STATUS OF PROPERTY ON LAND

[§ 102. Public Property of the Enemy]

Formerly the public property of the enemy, whatever its nature, was regarded as hostile, and liable to seizure. Practice of modern times has gradually become less extreme, and the attitude of the powers in restoring the works of art which Napoleon had brought to Paris shows the sentiment early in the nineteenth century. The practice in regard to public property of the enemy has now become fairly defined.

The public property of one belligerent state within the territory of the other at the outbreak of war, if real property, may be administered during the war for the benefit of the local state; if movable, it is liable to confiscation. Works of art, scientific and educational property, and the like are, however, exempt.[309] The Treaty of Aug. 20, 1890, between Great Britain and France, exempts public vessels employed in the postal service.

In case one belligerent by military occupation acquires authority over territory formerly within the jurisdiction of the other, the rules of the Hague Conference of 1899 provide as follows:—

"Art. 53. An army of occupation can only take possession of the cash, funds, and property liable to requisition belonging strictly to the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and generally, all movable property of the State which may be used for military operations.

"Railway plant, land telegraphs, telephones, steamers, and other ships, apart from cases governed by maritime law, as well as depots of arms and, generally, all kinds of war material, even though belonging to Companies or to private persons, are likewise material which may serve for military operations, but they must be restored at the conclusion of peace, and indemnities paid for them."

"Art. 55. The occupying state shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real property, forests, and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must protect the capital of these properties, and administer it according to the rules of trusteeship.

"Art. 56. The property of municipalities, that of religious, charitable, and educational institutions, and those of arts and science, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

"All seizure, destruction of, or intentional damage done to such institutions, to historical monuments, works of art or science, is prohibited, and should he made the subject of civil and criminal proceedings."[310]

[§ 103. Real Property of Enemy Subjects]

The real property of the subject of one belligerent situated within the territory of the other belligerent was in early times appropriated by the state, later practice administered it during the war, for the benefit of the state; but at present it is treated as the real property of any non-hostile foreigner.

It is generally conceded that real property of the subjects of either state is unaffected by hostile occupation by the forces of the other state, except so far as the necessities of warfare may require.[311]

[§ 104. Personal Property of Enemy Subjects]

The movable property of the subject of one of the belligerent states in the territory of the other belligerent state was until comparatively recent times appropriated. In the case of Brown v. United States,[312] in 1814, the Supreme Court held that the "existence of war gave the right to confiscate, yet did not of itself and without more, operate as a confiscation of the property of an enemy," though it further held that the court could not condemn such property unless there was a legislative act authorizing the confiscation. Many modern treaties provide that in case of war between the parties to the treaties subjects of each state may remain in the other, "and shall be respected and maintained in the full and undisturbed enjoyment of their personal liberty and property so long as they conduct themselves peaceably and properly, and commit no offense against the laws."[313] The most recent practice has been to exempt personal property of the subject of one belligerent state from all molestation, even though it was within the territory of the other at the outbreak of war. Of course, such property is liable to the taxes, etc., imposed upon others not enemy subjects.

In case of hostile occupation, the Hague Conference of 1899 summarized the rules as follows:—

"Art. 46. Private property cannot be confiscated.

"Art. 47. Pillage is formally prohibited.

"Art. 48. If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for the benefit of the State, he shall do it, so far as possible, in accordance with the rules in existence and the assessment in force....

"Art. 49. If ... the occupant levies other money taxes in the occupied territory, this can only be for military necessities or the administration of such territory."

Articles 50, 51, 52, provide that burdens due to military occupation shall be as equable as possible, and that payment shall be made for contributions.[314]

The practice now is to exempt private property so far as possible from the consequences of hostile occupation, and to take it only on the ground of reasonable military necessity.[315]

With regard to one particular form of property, modern commercial relations as influenced by state credit have been more powerful than theory or country. The stock in the public debt held by an enemy subject is wholly exempt from seizure or sequestration, and practice even demands that interest must be paid to enemy subjects during the continuance of the war.[316]

In case of belligerent occupation, contributions, requisitions, and other methods are sometimes resorted to in supplying military needs.

Contributions are money exactions in excess of taxes.[317] Contributions should be levied only by the general-in-chief.

Requisitions consist in payment in kind of such articles as are of use for the occupying forces, as food, clothes, horses, boats, compulsory labor, etc. Requisitions may be levied by subordinate commanders when there is immediate need, otherwise by superior officers. Such requisitions should not be in excess of need or of the resources of the region.

Receipts for the value of both contributions and requisitions should be given, in order that subsequent impositions may not be made without due knowledge, and in order that the sufferers may obtain due reparation from their own state on the conclusion of peace.

In naval warfare "reasonable requisitions for provisions and supplies essential at the time"[318] is allowed. Such requisitions may be enforced by bombardment if necessary. Contributions, however, cannot be exacted unless after actual and complete belligerent occupation, as by land forces. Contributions in the form of ransom to escape bombardment cannot be levied, as in such cases occupation is not a fact.[319]

Foraging is resorted to in cases where lack of time makes it inconvenient to obtain supplies by the usual process of requisition, and consists in the actual taking of provisions for men and animals by the troops themselves.

Booty commonly applies to military supplies seized from the enemy. In a more general sense it applies to all property of the enemy which is susceptible of appropriation. Such property passes to the state of the captor, and its disposition should be determined by that state.

[CHAPTER XIX]

STATUS OF PROPERTY AT SEA

[§ 105. Vessels]

Vessels may be classed as public, belonging to the state, and private, belonging to citizens of the state.

(a) Public vessels of a belligerent are liable to capture in any port or sea except in territorial waters of a neutral. The following public vessels are, however, exempt from capture unless they perform some hostile act:—

(1) Cartel ships commissioned for the exchange of prisoners.

(2) Vessels engaged exclusively in non-hostile scientific work and in exploration.[320]

(3) Hospital ships, properly designated and engaged exclusively in the care of the sick and wounded.

(b) Private vessels of the enemy are liable to capture in any port or sea except in territorial waters of a neutral. The following private vessels are, however, exempt from capture unless they perform some hostile act:—

(1) Cartel ships.

(2) Vessels engaged in explorations and scientific work.

(3) Hospital ships.

(4) Small coast fishing vessels. This exemption is not allowed to deep sea fishing vessels.[321]

(5) Vessels of one of the belligerents in the ports of the other at the outbreak of hostilities are usually allowed a specified time in which to take cargo and depart. In the war between the United States and Spain, 1898, Spanish vessels were allowed thirty days in which to depart and were to be exempt on homeward voyage. Vessels sailing from Spain for the United States ports before the declaration of war were to be allowed to continue their voyages.[322] Spain allowed vessels of the United States five days in which to depart.[323] It did not prohibit the capture of such ships after departure. No provision was made for vessels sailing from the United States for Spanish ports before the declaration of war.

In the Prize Law of Japan, 1898, the following exemptions of enemy's vessels are made:—

"(1) Boats engaged in coast fisheries.

"(2) Ships engaged exclusively on a voyage of scientific discovery, philanthropy, or religious mission.

"(3) Vessels actually engaged in cartel service, and this even when they actually have prisoners on board.

"(4) Boats belonging to lighthouses."[324]

[§ 106. Goods]

In general all public goods found upon the seas outside of neutral jurisdiction are liable to capture. Works of art, historical and scientific collections are sometimes held to be exempt, and probably would not be captured.

Private hostile property at sea and not under the flag of a neutral is liable to capture unless such property consist of vessels, etc., exempt under § 105, (b).

Contraband of war under any flag, outside of neutral territory, and destined for the enemy, is liable to capture.

Neutral goods in the act of violating an established blockade may be captured.

Previous to the Treaty of Paris in 1856 great diversity in the treatment of maritime commerce prevailed. This treaty provided that:—

"The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war," and

"Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy's flag."[325]

Nearly all the important states of the world acceded to these provisions except the United States and Spain, and both of these powers formally proclaimed that they would observe these provisions in the war of 1898.[326]

[§ 107. Submarine Telegraphic Cables]

The position of submarine telegraphic cables has in recent years become of great importance. Such a cable easily becomes an instrument of value in the carrying on the operations of war. A convention of representatives of the important states of the world met at Paris in 1884, and agreed upon rules for the protection of submarine cables.[327] Article XV. of this convention announces that, "It is understood that the stipulations of this convention shall in no wise affect the liberty of action of belligerents." The principles recognized in war seem to accord with Article 5 of the Naval War Code of the United States, which provides that:—

"The following rules are to be followed with regard to submarine telegraphic cables in time of war irrespective of their ownership:—

"(a) Submarine telegraphic cables between points in the territory of an enemy, or between the territory of the United States and that of an enemy, are subject to such treatment as the necessities of war may require.

"(b) Submarine telegraphic cables between the territory of an enemy and neutral territory may be interrupted within the territorial jurisdiction of the enemy.

"(c) Submarine telegraphic cables between two neutral territories shall be held inviolable and free from interruption."[328]

There is reason to believe that a submarine cable connecting the enemy's country with a neutral country is liable to such censorship as will render it neutral; and if this cannot be secured, it is liable to interruption outside of neutral jurisdiction, otherwise it might become a most dangerous organ of unneutral service.[329]

[CHAPTER XX][330]

CONDUCT OF HOSTILITIES

[§ 108. Belligerent Occupation]

This is defined by the "Institute of International Law," Oxford, 1880, as follows:—

"A territory is considered to be occupied, when, as the result of its invasion by an enemy's force, the State to which it belongs has ceased, in fact, to exercise its ordinary authority within it, and the invading State is alone in a position to maintain order. The extent and duration of the occupation are determined by the limits of space and time within which this state of things exists."[331]

The sovereignty of the occupied territory does not pass to the occupying state, but only the right to exercise the authority necessary for safety and operations of war. Belligerent occupation was formerly held to carry with it the right to full disposition of whatever appertained to the territory. During the nineteenth century it has been given a clearer definition. Belligerent occupation is a fact impairing the usual jurisdiction, but it does not transfer sovereignty.

In general the civil laws of the invaded state continue in force in so far as they do not affect the hostile occupant unfavorably. The regular judicial tribunals continue to act in cases not affecting the military occupation. Administrative officers continue to perform their functions in absence of orders to the contrary, though of course purely political officers would be limited in the exercise of their functions; e.g. registrars of marriages, births, and deaths might act as usual, while the authority of a governor might be suspended. There is no doubt that the freedom of the press cannot be claimed, as this might bring grave consequences upon the occupying force.

The belligerent occupant may destroy or appropriate public property which may have a hostile purpose, as forts, arms, armories, etc. The occupying force may enjoy the income from the public sources. Strictly private property should be inviolable, except so far as the necessity of war requires contrary action.

Means of transportation, railways, boats, etc., as of direct use in military operations, can be appropriated for the use of the invader. "Their destruction is forbidden, unless it be required by the necessities of war. They are restored, at the peace, in the state in which they then are."[332]

The invader is bound to give such measure of protection to the inhabitants of the occupied territory as he is able.[333]

Belligerent occupation begins when an invaded territory is effectively held by a military force.

[§ 109. Forbidden Methods]

In the conduct of hostilities certain methods of action and certain instruments are generally forbidden.

Deceit involving perfidy is forbidden.[334] As there are certain conventional agreements held to exist even between enemies, violations of these agreements remove from the violator the protection of the laws of war. On land it is not permitted to use the flag or uniform of the enemy for purposes of deceit.[335] Article 7 of the Naval War Code of the United States provides that "The use of false colors in war is forbidden, and when summoning a vessel to lie to, or before firing a gun in action, the national colors should be displayed by vessels of the United States."[336] Not all authorities agree in regard to the provision forbidding false colors, though agreeing upon the other provisions. The use of the conventional flag of truce, a white flag, or of the hospital flag, red cross on white ground, to cover military operations or supplies is forbidden.[337] Stratagems, such as feigned attacks, ambush, and deceit not involving perfidy are allowed.[338] Assassination by treachery is forbidden.[339]

"The bombardment, by a naval force, of unfortified and undefended towns, villages, or buildings is forbidden, except when such bombardment is incidental to the destruction of military or naval establishments, public depots of munitions of war, or vessels of war in port, or unless reasonable requisitions for provisions and supplies essential at the time to such naval vessel or vessels are forcibly withheld, in which case due notice of bombardment shall be given. The bombardment of unfortified and undefended towns and places for the nonpayment of ransom is forbidden."[340]

By the declaration of the Hague Conference of 1898, "the contracting parties agree to prohibit, for a term of five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature."[341]

The use of poison, of projectiles or weapons inflicting unnecessary suffering, is prohibited.[342] The Hague Conference also declared against the "use of projectiles, the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases."[343]

Retaliation, devastation, refusal of quarter, and other severe methods once resorted to are now generally forbidden, except as punishment for violation of the laws of war.

[§ 110. Privateers]

A private armed vessel owned and manned by private persons and under a state commission called a "letter of marque,"[344] is a privateer.

This method of carrying on hostilities has gradually met with less and less of favor.[345] From the early days of the fifteenth century neutrals were given commissions. Toward the end of the eighteenth century treaties and domestic laws gradually provided against this practice, though letters of marque were offered to foreigners by Mexico in 1845, and by the Confederate States in 1861-1865. These were not accepted, however, as such action had then come to be regarded as piracy by many states. Privateering of any kind, as Kent said, "under all the restrictions which have been adopted, is very liable to abuse. The object is not fame or chivalric warfare, but plunder and profit. The discipline of the crews is not apt to be of the highest order, and privateers are often guilty of enormous excesses, and become the scourge of neutral commerce.... Under the best regulations, the business tends to blunt the sense of private right, and to nourish a lawless and fierce spirit of rapacity."[346] The granting of letters of marque to private persons of either of the belligerent states was attended with grave evils, and, by the Declaration of Paris, 1856, "Privateering is, and remains, abolished."[347] This declaration was agreed to by the leading states of the world, with the exception of the United States, Spain, Mexico, Venezuela, and China. In the Spanish-American War of 1898 the United States formally announced that it would not resort to privateering.[348] Spain, while maintaining her right to issue letters of marque, declared the intention to organize for the present (May 3, 1898) a service of "auxiliary cruisers of the navy." The importance of the subject of privateering is now largely historical, as it is doubtful whether any civilized state would resort to this method of carrying on maritime war.

[§ 111. Voluntary and Auxiliary Navy]

The relations of private vessels to the state in time of war, which had been settled by the Declaration of Paris in 1856, was again made an issue by the act of Prussia in the Franco-German War. By a decree of July 24, 1870, the owners of vessels were invited to equip them for war and place them under the naval discipline. The officers and crews were to be furnished by the owners of the vessels, to wear naval uniform, to sail under the North-German flag, to take oath to the articles of war, and to receive certain premiums for capture or destruction of the enemy's ships. The French authorities complained to the British that this was privateering in disguise and a violation of the Declaration of Paris. The law officers of the crown declared that there was a "substantial difference" between such a volunteer navy and a system of privateering, and that the action of Prussia was not contrary to the Declaration of Paris. With this position some authorities agree, while others dissent.[349] The weight of the act as a precedent is less on account of the fact that no ships of this navy ever put to sea. Similarly, the plan of Greece for a volunteer navy in 1897 was never put into operation.[350]

Russia, in view of possible hostilities with England in 1877-1878, accepted the offer of certain citizens to incorporate into the navy during the war vessels privately purchased and owned. Such vessels are still numbered in the "volunteer fleet," and though privately owned and managed are, since 1886, under the Admiralty. These vessels may easily be converted into cruisers, and are, so far as possible, favored with government service. There seems to be little question as to the propriety of such a relationship between the state and the vessels which may be used in war.

Still less open to objection is the plan adopted by Great Britain in 1887 and by the United States in 1892, by which these governments, through agreements with certain of their great steamship lines, could hire or purchase at a fixed price specified vessels for use in case of war. The construction of such vessels is subject to government approval, and certain subsidies are granted to these companies. In time of war both officers and men must belong to the public forces. The plans of Russia, Great Britain, and the United States have met with little criticism.[351]

[§ 112. Capture and Ransom]