condemned to a fine for some slight contravention, but the sentence was not carried out, as he gave up his incognito. and Abdi §351. All privileges mentioned must be granted to Deposed a monarch only as long as he is really the head of a cated State. As soon as he is deposed or has abdicated, Monarchs. he is no longer a Sovereign. Therefore in 1870 and 1872 the French Courts permitted, because she was deposed, a civil action against Queen Isabella of Spain, then living in Paris, for money due to the plaintiffs. Nothing, of course, prevents the Municipal Law of a State from granting the same privileges to a foreign deposed or abdicated monarch as to a foreign Sovereign, but the Law of Nations does not exact any such courtesy. §352. All privileges due to a monarch are also due Regents. to a Regent, at home or abroad, whilst he governs on behalf of an infant, or of a King who is through illness incapable of exercising his powers. And it matters not whether such Regent is a member of the King's family and a Prince of royal blood or not. in the Foreign § 353. When a monarch accepts any office in a Monarchs foreign State, when he serves, for instance, in a service or foreign army, as the monarchs of the small German subjects of States have formerly frequently done, he submits to Powers. such State as far as the duties of the office are concerned, and his home State cannot claim any privileges for him that otherwise would be due to him. When a monarch is at the same time a subject of another State, distinction must be made between his acts as a Sovereign on the one hand and his acts as a subject on the other. For the latter, the State whose subject he is has jurisdiction over him, but not for the former. Thus, in 1836, the Duke of Cumberland became King of Hanover, but at the same time he was by hereditary title an English Peer and therefore an English subject. And in 1844, in the case Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover, the Master of the Rolls held that the King of Hanover was liable to be sued in the Courts of England in respect of any acts done by him as an English subject.1 Presidents not Sovereigns. Position of Presidents in general. III PRESIDENTS OF REPUBLICS Bluntschli, § 134-Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. p. 661-Ullmann, § 32— §354. In contradistinction to monarchies, in republics the people itself, and not a single individual, appears as the representative of the sovereignty of the State, and accordingly the people styles itself the Sovereign of the State. And it will be remembered that the head of a republic may consist of a body of individuals, such as the Bundesrath in Switzerland. But in case the head is a President, as in France and the United States of America, such President represents the State, at least in the totality of its international relations. He is, however, not a Sovereign, but a citizen and subject of the very State whose head he is as President. $355. Consequently, his position at home and abroad cannot be compared with that of monarchs, and International Law does not empower his home State to claim for him the same, but only similar, consideration as that due to a monarch. Neither at home nor abroad, therefore, does a president of a 1 See Phillimore, II. § 109. republic appear as a peer of monarchs. Whereas all monarchs are in the style of the Court phraseology considered as though they were members of the same family, and therefore address each other in letters as "my brother," a president of a republic is usually addressed in letters from monarchs as my friend." His home State can certainly at home and abroad claim such honours for him as are due to its dignity, but no such honours as must be granted to a Sovereign monarch. 66 of Presi §356. As to the position of a president when Position abroad, writers on the Law of Nations do not agree. dents Some maintain that, since a president is not a abroad. Sovereign, his home State can never claim for him the same privileges as for a monarch, and especially that of exterritoriality. Others 2 make a distinction whether a president is staying abroad in his official capacity as head of a State or for his private purposes, and they maintain that his home State could only in the first case claim exterritoriality for him. Others 3 again will not admit any difference in the position of a president abroad from that of a monarch abroad. How the States themselves think as regards the position of the exterritoriality of presidents of republics abroad cannot be ascertained, since to my knowledge no case has hitherto occurred in practice from which a conclusion may be drawn. But practice seems to have settled the question of ceremonial honours due to a president officially abroad ; they are such as correspond to the rank of his home State, and not such as are due to a monarch. As regards exterritoriality, I believe that future contin 'Ullmann, § 32; Rivier, I. p. 423; Stoerk in Holtzendorff, II. p. 658. 2 Martens, I. § 80; Bluntschli, Despagnet, No. 254; Bonfils, gencies will create the practice on the part of the States of granting this privilege to presidents and members of their suite in a similar way as to monarchs. I cannot see that there is any danger in such a grant. And nobody can deny that, if exterritoriality is not granted, all kinds of friction and even conflicts might arise. Although not Sovereigns, presidents of republics fill for the time being a sublime office, and the grant of exterritoriality to them is a tribute paid to the dignity of the States they represent. Position of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. IV FOREIGN OFFICES Heffter, § 201-Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. p. 668—Ullmann, § 33— $357. As a rule nowadays no head of a State, be he a monarch or a president, negotiates directly and in person with a foreign Power, although this happens occasionally. The necessary negotiations are regularly conducted by the Foreign Office, an office which since the Westphalian Peace has been in existence in every civilised State. The chief of this office, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who is a Cabinet Minister, directs the foreign affairs of the State in the name of the head and with the latter's consent; he is the middleman between the head of the State and other States. And although many a head of a State directs in fact all the foreign affairs himself, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs is nevertheless the person through whose hands all transactions must pass. Now, as regards the position of such Foreign Secretary at home, it is the Municipal Law of a State which regulates this. International Law defines his position regarding international intercourse with other States. He is the chief over all the ambassadors of the State, over its consuls, and over its other agents in matters international. It is he who either in person or through the envoys of his State approaches foreign States for the purpose of negotiating matters international. And again it is he whom foreign States through their Foreign Secretaries or their envoys approach for the like purpose. He is present when Ministers hand in their credentials to the head of the State. All documents of importance regarding foreign matters are signed by him or his substitute, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It is, therefore, usual to notify the appointment of a new Foreign Secretary of a State to such foreign States as are represented within its boundaries by diplomatic envoys; the new Foreign Secretary himself makes this notification. |