of conquest, the mission terminates ipso facto. In case of annexation of the receiving State, there can be no doubt that, although the annexing State will not consider the envoys received by the annexed State as accredited to itself, it must grant those envoys the right to leave the territory of the annexed State unmolested and to take their archives away with them. In case of annexation of the sending State, the question arises what becomes of the archives and legational property of the missions of the annexed State accredited to foreign States. This question is one on the so-called succession of States. The annexing State acquires, ipso facto, by the annexation the property in those archives and other legational goods, such as the hotels, furniture, and the like. But as long as the annexation is not notified and recognised, the receiving States have no duty to interfere. Envoy. § 417. A mission ends, lastly, by the death of the Death of envoy. As soon as an envoy is dead, his effects, and especially his papers, must be sealed. This is done by a member of the dead envoy's legation, or, if there be no such members, by a member of another legation accredited to the same State. The local Government must not interfere, unless at the special request by the home State of the deceased envoy. Although the mission and therefore the privileges of the envoy come to an end by his death, the members of his family who resided under his roof and the members of his suite enjoy their privileges until they leave the country. But a certain time may be fixed for them to depart, and on its expira 1 See above, § 82. tion they lose their privilege of exterritoriality. It must be specially mentioned that the Courts of the receiving State have no jurisdiction whatever over the goods and effects of the deceased envoy, and that no death duties can be demanded. CHAPTER III CONSULS I THE INSTITUTION OF CONSULS Hall, § 105-Phillimore, II. §§ 243-246—Halleck, I. p. 369—Taylor, $$ 325-326-Twiss, I. § 223-Ullmann, $$ 44-45-Bulmerincq in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 687-695-Heffter, §§ 241-242-Rivier, I. § 41 -Calvo, III. §§ 1368-1372-Bonfils, Nos. 731-743-Pradier-Fodéré, IV. §§ 2034-2043-Martens, II. §§ 18-19-Fiore, II. Nos. 1176-1178 -Warden, "A Treatise on the Origin, Nature, etc., of the Consular Establishment" (1814)-Cussy, "Règlements consulaires des principaux États maritimes" (1851)—H. B. Oppenheim, "Handbuch der Consulate aller Länder" (1854)-Clercq et Vallat," Guide pratique des consulats" (5th ed. 1898)-Salles, "L'institution des consulats, son origine, etc." (1898). ment of Consuls. § 418. The roots of the consular institution go Develop. back to the second half of the Middle Ages. In the the Insti commercial towns of Italy, Spain, and France the tution of merchants used to appoint by election one or more of their fellow-merchants as arbitrators in commercial disputes, who were called Juges Consuls or Consuls Marchands. When, between and after the Crusades, Italian, Spanish, and French merchants. settled down in the Eastern countries, founding factories, they brought the institution of consuls with them, the merchants belonging to the same nation electing their own consul. The competence of these consuls became, however, more and more enlarged through treaties, so-called "Capitulations," between the home States of the merchants and the Mohammedan monarchs on whose territories these merchants had settled down. The competence of the consuls comprised at last the whole civil and criminal jurisdiction over, and protection of, the privileges, the life, and the property of their countrymen. From the East the institution of consuls was transferred to the West. Thus, in the fifteenth century Italian consuls existed in the Netherlands and in London, English consuls in the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Italy (Pisa). These consuls in the West exercised, just as those in the East, exclusive civil and criminal jurisdiction over the merchants of their nationality. But the position of the consuls in the West decayed in the beginning of the seventeenth century through the influence of the rising permanent legations on the one hand, and, on the other, from the fact that everywhere foreign merchants were brought under the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the State in which they resided. This change in their competence altered the position of consuls in the Christian States of the West altogether. Their functions now shrank into a general supervision of the commerce and navigation of their home States, and into a kind of protection of the commercial interests of their countrymen. Consequently, they did not receive much notice in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and it was not until the nineteenth century that the general development of international commerce, navigation, and shipping drew the attention of the Governments again to the value and importance of the institution of consuls. The institution was now systematically developed. The positions of the consuls, their 1 See Twiss, I. §§ 253–263. functions, and their privileges, were the subjects of stipulations either in commercial treaties or in special consular treaties,1 and the single States enacted statutes regarding the duties of their consuls abroad, such as the Consular Act passed by England in 1826.2 Character § 419. Nowadays consuls are agents of States resid- General ing abroad for purposes of various kinds, but mainly of Consuls. in the interests of the commerce and navigation of the appointing State. As they are not diplomatic x representatives, they do not enjoy the privileges of diplomatists. Nor have they, ordinarily, anything to do with intercourse between their home State and the State they reside in. But these rules have exceptions. Consuls of Christian Powers in nonChristian States, Japan now excepted, have retained their former competence and exercise full civil and criminal jurisdiction over their countrymen. And sometimes consuls are charged with the tasks which are regularly fulfilled by diplomatic representatives. Thus, in States under suzerainty the Powers are frequently represented by consuls, who transact all the business otherwise transacted by diplomatic representatives, and who have, therefore, often the title of "Diplomatic Agents." Thus, too, on occasions small States, instead of accrediting diplomatic envoys to another State, send only a consul thither, who combines the consular functions with those of a diplomatic envoy. It must, however, bet 1 Phillimore, II. § 255, gives a list of such treaties. VOL. I. H H |