burg. Powers are parties, and which is the final treaty concerning the separation of Belgium from the Netherlands. Belgium has, just like Switzerland, also succeeded in keeping up her neutrality. She, too, has built fortresses and possesses a strong army. Luxem § 100. The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg1 was since 1815 in personal union with the Netherlands, but at the same time a member of the Germanic Confederation, and Prussia had since 1856 the right to keep troops in the fortress of Luxemburg. In 1866 the Germanic Confederation came to an end, and Napoleon III. made efforts to acquire Luxemburg by purchase from the King of Holland, who was at the same time Grand Duke of Luxemburg. As Prussia objected to this, it seemed advisable to the Powers to neutralise Luxemburg. A Conference met in London, at which Great Britain, Austria, Belgium, France, Holland and Luxemburg, Italy, Prussia, and Russia were represented, and on May 11, 1867, a treaty was signed for the purpose of the neutralisation, which is stipulated and collectively guaranteed by all the signatory Powers, Belgium as a neutralised State herself excepted, by article 2.2 The neutralisation took place, however, under the abnormal condition that Luxemburg is not allowed to keep any armed force, with the exception of a police for the maintenance of safety and order, nor to possess any fortresses. Under these circumstances Luxemburg herself can do nothing for the defence of her neutrality, as Belgium and Switzerland can. § 101. The Congo Free State, which was re 1 See Wompach, Le Luxembourg neutre (1900). 2 See Martens, N.R.G. XVIII. p. 448. Moynier, La fondation de l'Etat indépendant du Congo (1887); Hall, § 26; Westlake, I. p. 30. Free State. cognised as an independent State by the Berlin The Congo Congo Conference of 1884-1885, is a permanently neutralised State since 1885, but its neutralisation is imperfect in so far as it is not guaranteed by the Powers. This fact is explained by the circumstances under which this State attained its neutralisation. Article 10 of the General Act of the Congo Conference of Berlin stipulates that the signatory Powers shall respect the neutrality of any territory within the Congo district, provided the Power then or hereafter in possession of the territory proclaims its neutrality. Accordingly, when the Congo Free State was recognised by the Congress of Berlin, the King of the Belgians, as the sovereign of the Congo State, declared2 it permanently neutral, and this declaration was notified to and recognised by the Powers. Since the Congo Conference did not guarantee the neutrality of the territories within the Congo district, the neutralisation of the Congo Free State is not guaranteed either. IX NON-CHRISTIAN STATES Westlake, I. p. 40-Phillimore, I. §§ 27-33-Bluntschli, $$ 1-16— tial dif §102. It will be remembered from the previous No essen. discussion of the dominion 3 of the Law of Nations ference that this dominion extends beyond the Christian and between includes now the Mahometan State of Turkey and and other See Protocol 9 of that Confer ence in Martens, N.R.G., 2nd ser. X. p. 353. 2 See Martens, N.R.G., 2nd ser. XVI. p. 585. See above, § 28. Christian States. International position of nonChristian States besides Turkey and Japan. the Buddhistic State of Japan. As all full-Sovereign International Persons are equal to one another, no essential difference exists within the Family of Nations between Christian and non-Christian States. That foreigners residing in Turkey are still under the exclusive jurisdiction of their consuls, is an anomaly based on a restriction on territorial supremacy arising partly from custom and partly from treaties. If Turkey could ever succeed, as Japan did, in introducing such reforms as would create confidence in the impartiality of her Courts of Justice, this restriction would certainly be abolished. § 103. Doubtful is the position of all non-Christian States except Turkey and Japan, such as China, Korea, Siam, Persia, and further Abyssinia, although the latter is a Christian State. Their civilisation is essentially so different from that of the Christian States that international intercourse with them of the same kind as between Christian States has been hitherto impossible. And neither their governments nor their population are at present able to fully understand the Law of Nations and to take up an attitude which is in conformity with all the rules of this law. There should be no doubt that these States are not International Persons of the same kind and the same position within the Family of Nations as Christian States. But it is equally wrong to maintain that they are absolutely outside the Family of Nations, and are for no part International Persons. Since they send and receive diplomatic envoys and conclude international treaties, the opinion is justified that such States are International Persons only in some respects-namely, those in which they have expressly or tacitly been received into the Family of Nations. When Christian States begin such inter course with these non-Christian States as to send X THE HOLY SEE Hall, § 98-Westlake, I. pp. 37-39-Lawrence, § 143-Phillimore, I. § 104. When the Law of Nations began to grow up The among the States of Christendom, the Pope was the former Papal monarch of one of those States-namely, the so-called States. Papal States. This State owed its existence to Pepinle-Bref and his son Charlemagne, who established it in gratitude to the Popes Stephen III. and Adrian I., who crowned them as Kings of the Franks. It remained The Law of in the hands of the Popes till 1798, when it became a republic for about three years. In 1801 the former order of things was re-established, but in 1809 it became a part of the Napoleonic Empire. In 1814 it was re-established and remained in existence till 1870, when it was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy. Throughout the existence of the Papal States, the Popes were monarchs and, as such, equals to all other monarchs. Their position was, however, even then anomalous, as their influence and the privileges granted to them by the different States were due, not alone to their being monarchs of a State, but to their being the head of the Roman Catholic Church. But this anomaly did not create any real difficulty, since the privileges granted to the Popes existed within the province of precedence only. It § 105. When, in 1870, Italy annexed the Papal States and made Rome her capital, she had to underGuaranty. take the task of creating a position for the Holy See and the Pope which was consonant with the importance of the latter to the Roman Catholic Church. seemed impossible that the Pope should become an Italian subject and that the Holy See should be an institution under the territorial supremacy of Italy. For many reasons no alteration was desirable in the administration by the Holy See of the affairs of the Roman Catholic Church or in the position of the Pope as the inviolable head of that Church. For that purpose the Italian Parliament passed an Act regarding the guaranties granted to the Pope and the Holy See, which is commonly called the "Law of Guaranty." According to this the position of the Pope and the Holy See is in Italy as follows: The person of the Pope is sacred and inviolable (article 1). An offence against his person is to be |