Person following another in the possession of State territory, there is no doubt that, as far as these devolving rights and duties are concerned, a succession of one International Person into the rights and duties of another really does take place. But no general rule can be laid down concerning all the cases in which a succession takes place. These cases must be discussed singly. sion in conse Absorp § 82. When a State merges voluntarily into Succesanother State or when a State is subjugated by another State, the latter remains one and the same quence of International Person and the former becomes totally tion. extinct as an International Person. No succession takes place, therefore, with regard to rights and duties of the extinct State arising either from the character of the latter as an International Person or from its purely political treaties. Thus treaties of alliance or of arbitration or of neutrality or of any other political nature fall to the ground with the extinction of the State which has concluded it. They are personal treaties, and their natural, legal, and necessary presupposition is the existence of the contracting State. But it is controversial whether treaties of commerce, extradition, and the like, of the extinct State remain valid and therefore a succession takes place. The majority of writers correctly, I think, answer the question in the negative, because such treaties are in the main political. A real succession takes place, however, first, with regard to such international rights and duties of the extinct State as are locally connected with its land, rivers, main roads, railways, and the like. According to the principle res transit cum suo onere, treaties of the extinct State concerning boundary lines, repairing of main roads, navigation on rivers, and the like, remain valid, and all rights and duties arising from such treaties devolve from the extinct on the absorbing State. A real succession, secondly, takes place with regard to the fiscal property and the fiscal funds of the extinct State. They both accrue to the absorbing State ipso facto by the absorption of the extinct State.But the debts of the extinct State must, on the other hand, be taken over by the absorbing State also. The private creditor of an extinct State certainly acquires no right by International Law against the absorbing State, since the Law of Nations is a law between States only and exclusively. But if he is a foreigner, the right of protection due to his home State enables the latter to exercise pressure upon the absorbing State for the purpose of making it fulfil its international duty to take over the debts of the extinct State. Some jurists3 go so far as to maintain that the succeeding State must take over the debts of the extinct State, even when they are higher than the value of the accrued fiscal property and fiscal funds. But I doubt whether in such cases the practice of the States would follow that opinion. On the other hand, a State which has subjugated This was recognised by the High Court of Justice in 1866 in the case of the United States v. Prioleau. See Snow, Cases on International Law (1902), p. 85. 2 This is almost generally recognised by the writers on International Law and by the practice of the States. (See Huber, p. 156 and p. 282, note 449.) The Report of the Transvaal Concessions Commission (see British State Papers, South Africa, 1901, Cd. 623), although it declares (p. 7) that "it is clear that a State which has annexed another is not legally bound by any contracts made by the State which has ceased to exist," nevertheless agrees that, "the modern usage of nations has tended in the acknowledgment of such contracts." It may, however, safely be maintained that not a usage, but a real rule of International Law, based on custom, is in existence with regard to this point. (See Hall, § 29, and Westlake in The Law Quarterly Review, XVII. (1901), pp. 392–401, and now Westlake, I. pp. 74-82.) 3 See Martens, I. § 67; Heffter, $25; Huber, p. 158. another would be obliged to take over even such, obligations as have been incurred by the annexed State for the immediate purpose of the war which le to its subjugation.2 sion in conse Dismem § 83. When a State breaks off into fragments which Succesbecome States and International Persons themselves, or which are annexed by surrounding States, it quence of becomes extinct as an International Person, and the berment. same rules are valid as regards the case of absorption of one State by another. A difficulty is, however, created when the territory of the extinct State is absorbed by several States. Succession actually takes place here too, first, with regard to the international rights and duties locally connected with those parts of the territory which the respective States have absorbed. Succession, secondly, takes place with regard to the fiscal property and the fiscal funds which each of the several absorbing States finds on the part of the territory it absorbs. And the debts of the extinct State must be taken over. But the case is complicated through the fact that there are several successors to the fiscal property and funds, and the only rule which can be laid down is that proportionate parts of the debts must be taken over by the different successors. § 84. When in consequence of war or otherwise 1 See the Report of the Transvaal Concession Commission, p. 9, which maintains the contrary. Westlake (I. p. 78) adopts the reasoning of this report, but his arguments are not decisive. The lending of money to a belligerent under ordinary mercantile conditions is not prohibited by International Law, although the carriage of such funds in cash on neutral vessels to the enemy falls under the category of carriage of contraband, and can be punished 2 The question how far conces- Succession in case of Separation or Cession. one State cedes a part of its territory to another, or when a part of the territory of a State breaks off and becomes a State and an International Person of its own, succession takes place with regard to such international rights and duties of the predecessor as are locally connected with the part of the territory ceded or broken off, and with regard to the fiscal property found on that part of the territory. It would only be just, if the successor had to take over a corresponding part of the debt of its predecessor, but no rule of International Law concerning this point can be said to exist, although many treaties have stipulated a devolution of a part of the debt of the predecessor upon the successor.1 Thus, for instance, arts. 9, 33, 42 of the Treaty of Berlin2 of 1878 stipulate that Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Servia should | take over a part of the Turkish debt. 1 Many writers, however, maintain that there is such a rule of International Law. (See Huber, Nos. 125-135 and 205, where the respective treaties are enumerated.) 2 See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd ser III. p. 449. Pufendorf, VII. c. 5-Hall, § 4-Westlake, I. pp. 31-37-Phillimore, apparent national § 85. International Persons are as a rule single Real and Sovereign States. In such single States there is one Composite central political authority as Government which Interrepresents the State, within its borders as well as Persons. without, in the international intercourse with other International Persons. Such single States may be called simple International Persons. And a State remains a simple International Person, although it may grant so much internal independence to outlying parts of its territory that these parts become in a sense States themselves, and thus the whole becomes an Incorporate Union. Great Britain is a simple International Person, although the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia, as well as their member-States, are now States of their own, because Great Britain is alone Sovereign and represents exclusively the British Empire within the Family of Nations. Historical events, however, have created, in addition to the simple International Persons, com |