other States, provided Great Britain did not interpose a veto within six months after receiving a copy of the draft treaty, and was absolutely independent in concluding treaties with the neighbouring Orange Free State. Again, Egypt possesses since 1898 together with Great Britain condominium over the Soudan, which means that both exercise conjointly sovereignty over this territory. Although Vassal States have not the right to make war independently of their suzerain, Bulgaria nevertheless fought a war against the full-Sovereign Servia in 1885, and Egypt conquered conjointly with Great Britain the Soudan in 1898. How could all these and other facts be explained, if Vassal States could never for some small part be International Persons? Side by side with these facts stand, of course, other facts which show that for the most part the Vassal State, even if it has some small position of its own within the Family of Nations, is considered a mere portion of the Suzerain State. Thus all international treaties concluded by the Suzerain State are ipso facto concluded for the vassal, if an exception is not expressly mentioned or self-evident. Thus, again, war of the suzerain is ipso facto war of the vassal. Thus, thirdly, the suzerain bears within certain limits a responsibility for actions of the Vassal State. Under these circumstances it is generally admitted that the conception of suzerainty lacks juridical precision, and experience teaches that Vassal States do not remain half-Sovereign for long. They either shake off suzerainty and turn into full-Sovereign States, as Roumania, Servia, and Montenegro did in 1878, or they lose their half-sovereignty through annexation, as in the case of the South African 1 See below, § 171. Republic in 1901, or merger, as the half-Sovereign Seignory of Kniephausen in Germany merged in 1854 into its suzerain Oldenburg. Vassal States of importance which are for some parts International Persons are, at present, Bulgaria,1 Egypt,2 and Crete. They are all three under Turkish suzerainty, although Egypt is actually under the administration of Great Britain. VII STATES UNDER PROTECTORATE Hall, §§ 4 and 38*-Westlake, I. pp. 22-24-Lawrence, § 50-Phillimore, I. 75-82-Twiss, I. §§ 22-36-Taylor, §§ 134-139-Wheaton, §§ 3436-Bluntschli, § 78-Hartmann, § 9-Heffter, §§ 19 and 22Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 98-117-Gareis, § 15-Liszt, § 6-Ullmann, § 17-Bonfils, Nos. 176-187-Despagnet, Nos. 130– 136-Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 94-108-Nys, I. pp. 364-366-Rivier, I. § 4—Calvo, I. §§ 62–65—Fiore, I. § 341-Martens, I. §§ 60–61— Heilborn, "Das völkerrechtliche Protectorat” (1891)--Engelhardt, "Les Protectorats, etc." (1896)—Gairal, "Le protectorat international" (1896)-Despagnet, "Essai sur les protectorats" (1896) -Boghitchévitch, "Halbsouveränität" (1903). Protec § 92. Legally and materially different from suze- Conceprainty is the relation of protectorate between two tion of States. It happens that a weak State surrenders torate. itself by treaty into the protection of a strong and mighty State in such a way that it transfers the management* of all its more important international affairs to the protecting State. Through such treaty caution, since they are deeply tinged with Anglophobia. 1 See Holland, The European Concert in the Eastern Question (1885), pp. 277-307. 2 See Holland, The European Concert in the Eastern Question (1885), pp. 89-205; Grünau, Die staats- und völkerrechtliche Stellung Aegyptens (1903); Cocheris, Situation internationale de l'Egypte et du Soudan (1903). The last two books ought to be read with 3 See Streit in R.G. X. (1903), pp. 399–417. 4 A treaty of protectorate must not be confounded with a treaty of protection in which one or more strong States promise to protect a weak State without absorbing the international relations of the latter. Inter national position of States under Protectorate. an international union is called into existence between the two States, and the relation between them is called protectorate. The protecting State is internationally the superior of the protected State, the latter has with the loss of the management of its more important international affairs lost its full sovereignty and is henceforth only a half-Sovereign State. Protectorate is, however, a conception which, just like suzerainty, lacks exact juristic precision, as its real meaning depends very much upon the special case. Generally speaking, protectorate may, again like suzerainty, be called a kind of international guardianship. § 93. The position of a State under protectorate within the Family of Nations cannot be defined by a general rule, since it is the treaty of protectorate which indirectly specialises it by enumerating the reciprocal rights and duties of the protecting and the protected State. Each case must therefore be treated according to its own merits. Thus the question whether the protected State can conclude certain international treaties and can send and receive diplomatic envoys, as well as other questions, must be decided from the basis of the individual treaty of protectorate. In any case, recognition of the protectorate on the part of third States is necessary to enable the superior State to represent the protected State internationally. But it is characteristic of the protectorate, in contradistinction to suzerainty, that the protected State always has and retains for some parts a position of its own within the Family of Nations, and that it is always for some parts an International Person and a subject of International Law. It is never in any respect considered a mere portion of the superior State. It is, therefore, not necessarily a party in a war of the superior State against a third, and treaties concluded by the superior State are not ipso facto concluded for the protected State. And, lastly, it can at the same time be under the protectorate of two different States, which, of course, must exercise the protectorate conjointly. In Europe there are at present only two very small States under protectorate-namely, the republic of Andorra, under the joint protectorate of France and Spain, and the republic of San Marino, an enclosure of Italy, which was formerly under the protectorate of the Papal States and is now under that of Italy. The Principality of Monaco, which was under the protectorate at first of Spain until 1693, afterwards of France until 1815, and then of Sardinia, has now through custom become a full Sovereign State, since Italy has never 3 exercised the protectorate. The Ionian Islands, which were under British protectorate since 1815, merged into the Kingdom of Greece in 1863. torates Family of Nations. $94. Outside Europe there are numerous States Protecunder the protectorate of European States, but all of outside the them are non-Christian States of such a civilisation as would not admit them as full members of the Family of Nations, apart from the protectorate under which they are now. And it may therefore be questioned whether they have any real position within the Family of Nations at all. As the protectorate over them is recognised by third States, the latter are legally prevented from exercising any political influence in these protected States, and, failing special treaty rights, they have no right to (See Phillimore, I. § 77.) 1 This was recognised by the English Prize Courts during the Crimean War with regard to the Ionian Islands, which were then still under British protectorate. 2 This protectorate is exercised for Spain by the Bishop of Urgel. 3 This is a clear case of desuetudo. interfere if the protecting State annexes the protected State and makes it a mere colony of its own, as, for instance, France did with Madagascar in 1896. Protectorates of this kind are actually nothing else than the first step to annexation. Since they are based on treaties with real States, they cannot in every way be compared with the so-called protectorates over African tribes which European States acquire through a treaty with the chiefs of these tribes, and by which the respective territory is preserved for future occupation on the part of the so-called protector.2 But actually they always lead to annexation, if the protected State does not succeed in shaking off by force the protectorate, as Abyssinia did in 1896 when she shook off the pretended Italian protectorate. Conception of Neutral ised States. VIII NEUTRALISED STATES Westlake, I. pp. 27-30-Lawrence, §§ 52 and 246-Taylor, § 133— $95. A neutralised State is a State whose independence and integrity are for all the future guaranteed by an international convention of the Powers, under the condition that such State binds itself never to take up arms against any other State except for Examples of such nonChristian States under protectorate are Zanzibar under Great Britain and Tunis under France. 2 * See below, § 226. |