Abandoned territorial maritime belt, they are no State's land and may be acquired through occupation on the part of any State. But if they rise in rivers, lakes, and within the maritime belt, they are, according to the Law of Nations, considered accretions to the neighbouring land. It is for this reason that such new islands in boundary rivers as rise within the boundary line of one of the riparian States accrue to the land of such State, and that, on the other hand, such islands as rise upon the boundary line are divided into parts by it, the respective parts accruing to the land of the riparian States concerned. If an island rises within the territorial maritime belt, it accrues to the land of the riparian State, and the extent of the maritime belt is now to be measured from the shore of the new-born island. An illustrative example is the case of the "Anna." In 1805, during war between Great Britain and Spain, the British privateer "Minerva captured the Spanish vessel "Anna" near the mouth of the River Mississippi. When brought before the British Prize Court, the United States claimed the captured vessel on the ground that she was captured within the American territorial maritime belt. Lord Stowell gave judgment in favour of this claim, because, although it appeared that the capture did actually take place more than three miles off the coast of the continent, the place of capture was within three miles of some small mud-islands composed of earth and trees drifted down into the sea. § 235. It happens sometimes that a river abanRiver- dons its bed entirely or dries up altogether. If beds. such river was a boundary river, the abandoned bed XV Hall, §§ 204-205-Lawrence, § 98-Halleck, II. pp. 467-498-Taylor, $220-Walker, § 11-Wheaton, § 165-Bluntschli, §§ 287-289, 701, 702-Heffter, § 178-Liszt, § 10-Ullmann, §§ 81 and 169 -Bonfils, No. 535-Despagnet, Nos. 395-398—Rivier, I. pp. 181, 182, 436-441-Calvo, V. § 3117, 3118-Fiore, II. No. 863; III. No. 1693-Martens, I. § 91-Holtzendorff, "Eroberung und Eroberungsrecht" (1871)-Heimburger, "Der Erwerb der Gebietshoheit" (1888), pp. 121-132-Westlake in The Law Quarterly Review, XVII. (1901), p. 392. tion of Subjuga. $236. Conquest is the taking possession of enemy Concepterritory through military force in time of war. Conquest Conquest alone does not ipso facto make the con- and of quering State the sovereign of the conquered terri- tion. tory, although such territory comes through conquest for the time under the sway of the conqueror. Conquest is only a mode of acquisition if the conqueror has, after having firmly established the conquest, formally annexed the territory. Such annexation makes the enemy State cease to exist and brings thereby the war to an end. And as such ending of war is named subjugation, it is conquest followed by subjugation, and not conquest alone, which gives a title and is a mode of acquiring Subjugation in Occupa tion. territory. It is, however, quite usual to speak of conquest as a title, and everybody knows that subjugation after conquest is thereby meant. But it must be specially mentioned that, if a belligerent conquers a part of the enemy territory and makes afterwards the vanquished State cede the conquered territory in the treaty of peace, the mode of acquisition is not subjugation but cession.2 § 237. Some writers 3 maintain that subjugation is Contradis. only a special case of occupation, because, as they tinction to assert, through conquest the enemy territory becomes no State's land and the conqueror can acquire it by turning his military occupation into absolute occupation. Yet this opinion cannot be upheld because military occupation, which is conquest, in no way makes enemy territory no State's land. Conquered enemy territory, although actually in possession and under the sway of the conqueror, remains legally under the sovereignty of the enemy until through annexation it comes under the sovereignty of the conqueror. Annexation turns the conquest into subjugation. It is the very annexation which uno actu makes the vanquished State cease to exist and brings the territory under the conqueror's sovereignty. Thus the subjugated territory has not for one moment been no State's land, but comes from the enemy's into the conqueror's sovereignty, although not through cession, but through annexation. Justification of § 238. As long as a Law of Nations has been in Subjuga existence, the States as well as the vast majority of tion as a writers have recognised subjugation as a mode of Mode of Acquisition. distinction 1 Concerning the 2 See above, §§ 216 and 219. 3 Holtzendorff,_ II. p. 255; Ullmann, § 81; Heimburger, p. 128; Salomon, p. 24. acquiring territory. Its justification lies in the fact that war is a contention between States for the purpose of overpowering one another. States which go to war know beforehand that they risk more or less their very existence, and that it may be a necessity for the victor to annex the conquered enemy territory, be it in the interest of national unity or of safety against further attacks, or for other reasons. Maybe, in some extremely dim and distant future, war will disappear, but, as long as war exists, subjugation will also be recognised. If some writers1 refuse to recognise subjugation at all as a mode of acquiring territory, they show a lack of insight into the historical development of States and nations. tion of the Subjugaprocess whole or enemy of Enemy enemy Territory. § 239. Subjugation is as a rule a mode of acquiring the entire enemy territory. The actual is regularly that the victor destroys the military forces, takes possession of the territory, and then annexes it, although the head and the Government of the extinguished State might have fled, might protest, and still keep up a claim. Thus after the war with Austria and her allies in 1866, Prussia subjugated the territories of the Duchy of Nassau, the Kingdom of Hanover, the Electorate of Hesse-Cassel, and the Free Town of Frankfort-on-the-Maine, and Great Britain subjugated in 1900 the territories of the Orange Free State and the South African Republic. But it is possible, although it will nowadays hardly occur, for a State to conquer and annex a part of enemy territory, whether the war ends by a Treaty of Peace in which the vanquished State, without 1 Bonfils, No. 535; Fiore, II. No. 863 and III. No. 1693. See also Despagnet, Nos. 395-398. VOL. I. U of a part こ Conse quences of Subjugation. ceding the conquered territory, submits silently' to the annexation, or by simple cessation of hostilities.2 It must, however, be emphasised that such a mode of acquiring a part of enemy territory is totally different from forcibly taking possession of a part thereof during the continuance of war. Such a con quest, although the conqueror may intend to keep the conquered territory and therefore annex it, is not a title as long as the war has not terminated either actually through simple cessation of hostilities or through a Treaty of Peace. Therefore, the practice, which sometimes prevails, of annexing a conquered part of enemy territory during war cannot be approved. Concerning subjugation either of the whole or of a part of enemy territory, it must be asserted that annexation gives a title only after a firmly established conquest. So long as war continues, conquest is not firmly established.3 § 240. Although subjugation is an original mode of acquisition, since the sovereignty of the new acquirer is not derived from that of the former owner State, the new owner State is nevertheless the successor of the former owner State as regards many points ✓ which have been discussed above (§ 82). It must be specially mentioned that, as far as the Law of Nations is concerned, the subjugator does not acquire the private property of the inhabitants of the annexed territory. Being now their Sovereign, the subjugating State may indeed impose any burdens it pleases on its new subjects, it may even confiscate their private property, since a Sovereign State can do what it likes with its subjects, but subjugation itself does not touch or affect private property. 1 See below, vol. II. § 273. termination of real war. Many writers, however, deny that a conquest is firmly established as long as guerilla war is going on. |