abroad is the consular service.1 While the consul has no diplomatic or representative character, and his political functions are limited, the considerable number of consuls and their location in the more important commercial centers results in a closer relation between a consul and his fellow-citizens abroad than is possible for a diplomatic officer. Treaties and custom, therefore, confide to the consul a wide range of protective functions, short of the presentation of diplomatic claims or the making of representations to the central government.

Consular conventions usually provide that consuls shall have the right to address the local authorities in their districts in remonstrance against infractions of international law or of the treaties existing between the two countries, and against whatever abuse may be complained of by their countrymen. The consul's activity is usually confined to individual cases, the larger questions connected with a general violation of treaties or of international law being handled by the legation with the central government. The local authorities are usually required by treaty to give the consul information concerning his countrymen, to notify him of deaths, to permit him to intervene in the care of a deceased national's estate and, under certain circumstances, to appoint him administrator.2

The Italian government, one of the most watchful of all governments in the protection of its subjects abroad, has within recent years established legal bureaus in connection with its principal consular offices in the United States, with a view to conserving the legal rights of its many subjects in this country, and in case of their death, the rights of their Italian heirs and successors. An excellent system enables consuls to learn quickly of the difficulties of their fellow-citizens in any part of the country, and the legal bureaus enable these persons to obtain, under the supervision of their government, the fullest measure of rights due to them by treaty or municipal law. The principle of such legal protection is followed by consulates of other nations in this and other countries, but the system apparently does not com

1 Tchernoff, 363 et seq.; Moore's Dig. V, § 719. See also Testa, Luigi, Le voci del servizio diplomatico-consolare italiano e straniero, 3rd ed., Rome, 1912. 735 p. 2 Supra, § 166.

* See the long editorial by C. C. Hyde in 5 A. J. I. L. (1911), 1055–1058.

pare in efficiency with the Italian. Its adoption by Italy has resulted in much more certainty that Italian subjects will not be the victims of injustice, private and public.

Nations subject to a large emigration, like Italy, sometimes provide various agencies, under the supervision of the consul or other person, for the care of their emigrant nationals in the principal foreign ports of immigration. Their main purpose is to prevent the immigrants from being victimized by designing imposters and pseudo-employers.1

The exercise of consular jurisdiction over national merchant vessels and in countries in which his countrymen enjoy extraterritorial privileges may be considered incidental to the consul's protective functions.

2

One of the consul's most usual duties is to address the local authorities on behalf of his fellow-citizens accused of crime or imprisoned, to support these persons in their right to due process of law, to secure all necessary information concerning their welfare, and to visit them, if proper. Being often nearest to the scene of action, the protective function in first instance is frequently exercised by the consul rather than by the diplomatic representative. Only if prevented from fulfilling his duties of protection, in cases where communication with the central government is required, need he address the diplomatic representative accredited to the country, although, as a matter of fact, in every case of more than trifling importance the consular officer either directly informs the legation of the facts or forwards to the legation a copy of dispatches sent to the Department of State.

The printed instructions to diplomatic agents contain the following provision:

"In countries with which the United States have treaty stipulations providing for assistance from the local authorities, consular officers are instructed that it is undesirable to invoke such interposition unless it is necessary to do so. In cases of arrest and imprisonment, they will see, if possible, that both the place of confinement and the treatment of the prisoners are such as would be regarded in the United States as

1 Tchernoff, 358. Protection of Italian immigrants, For. Rel., 1894, 367–369. Abolition of Italian bureaus at Ellis Island, For Rel., 1898, 406-409. (The order was suspended on the protest of the Italian ambassador.)

2 Moore's Dig. II, §§ 287-289.

proper and humane. If a request for assistance is refused, the consular officer should claim all the rights conferred upon him by treaty or convention, and communicate at once with the diplomatic representative in the country, if there be one, and with the Department of State. When such requests are made in accordance with long-established usage, he should, when they are refused, make suitable representations to the proper local authority, and likewise advise the legation and the Depart

ment. 1

It has not infrequently happened that consuls in their character as guardians of the interests of their fellow-citizens in time of civil commotion have requested the Department of State directly or through the legation to send a warship to the scene of trouble.

Treaties sometimes provide that in the absence of a diplomatic agent consuls may address the central government of the country in which the consulate is located.

Consuls as commercial representatives of their respective countries are instructed to foster the commercial interests of their fellow-citizens, and in commercial matters they are constituted sources of information.

$185. Treaties.

Possibly the most customary instrument for defining the rights of citizens abroad and assuring protection for their interests is a treaty between the respective countries. Such treaties are usually confined to the definition of commercial rights, but often assume a wider range. Municipal legislation, by which rights are extended to aliens upon a basis of reciprocity, is also a customary means for obtaining the grant of reciprocal rights to citizens abroad. Finally, international conventions between several states having in view an enhancement of the rights or an amelioration of the condition of aliens, may well be considered a mode of protection. Thus, the Geneva and some of the Hague conventions, the international treaties dealing with the condition of laborers, workmen's compensation, poor relief, the protection of women and children against overwork and against the white-slave traffic, and similar conventions may be regarded as coöperative measures for the mutual protection of citizens abroad.

1 Printed Personal Instructions to Diplomatic Agents, 1885, § 150, p. 32, reprinted in Moore's Dig. V, 101.

$186. Methods of Redress of Injuries.

When an injury has been inflicted upon an alien in such manner as to involve the international responsibility of the state, an international case has arisen to be settled by the means recognized as legal for the settlement of any other international difference. The modes of redress may be either amicable or non-amicable, and may range from diplomatic negotiations, the use of good offices, mediation, arbitration, suspension of diplomatic relations, a display of force, retorsion, reprisals, or armed intervention, to war in the full sense of the word.

The object to be attained by resort to these methods of providing a sanction for diplomatic protection is usually a pecuniary indemnity and a guarantee against the recurrence of the international delinquency; in other words, redress for the present and security for the future. Having become a matter for international adjustment, the person injured has no control over the measure of redress to be demanded or the means to be employed, matters entirely within the discretion and control of the government. Thus it happens that the international offense growing out of an injury to a citizen may find its solution in the annexation of territory, as occurred in China in 1897 when Germany secured Kiauchau on lease as a consequence of the assassination of some German missionaries, and as occurred in 1913 in Tripoli, ceded to Italy by Turkey as the outcome of a war begun ostensibly, if not actually, because of the non-payment of claims.

AMICABLE METHODS

§ 187. Diplomacy.

Upon an injury to an alien, in a case where international responsibility is alleged by his national government, diplomatic negotiation is the first method used to secure redress. The complaining state, through its diplomatic representative, brings the claim to the attention of the defendant government, which may interpose defenses or suggest some other method of settlement, such as mediation or arbitration. The complaining government may conduct the negotiations itself or may support the claimant in his endeavor to arrive at a direct settlement with the defendant government. It may fairly be said that the majority of international pecuniary claims arising out of private injuries are

settled by diplomatic negotiation. In this connection, it is to be noted that the methods of diplomacy are in international law as truly legal a form of procedure as any of the forms of judicial procedure known to municipal law. When negotiation fails the parties may resort to the good offices or mediation of a friendly power, or to arbitration.

$188. Good Offices.

1

The term "good offices" in diplomacy is employed in two senses. In the first, it denotes informal representations corresponding to the French officieux, and means "the unofficial advocacy of interests which the agent may properly represent, but which it may not be convenient to present and discuss on a full diplomatic footing." " It signifies the unofficial, personal and friendly efforts of a diplomatic agent, as distinguished from the official, formal and governmental support of a diplomatic claim. The line of demarcation between unofficial good offices and official interposition is not always easy to draw, inasmuch as in either case the government may authorize or direct a diplomatic representative to extend his assistance. In both cases, the diplomatic officer proceeds through the medium of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the country to which he is accredited. The principal differences between the two forms of diplomatic action lie in the fact that in the former case, while the government has an interest in facilitating the protection of its citizen's rights abroad, it is unwilling to make his grievance or difficulty the subject of an international complaint, with the necessary consequences attendant upon its possible rejection by the government complained against, and in the further fact that the diplomatic agent has full discretion as to the best method to pursue to assist his fellow-citizen. Good offices are employed by direction of the government, among other cases, in contractual claims, for the facilitation or acceleration of judicial proceedings in which a citizen may be involved-respecting, however, the independence of the local authorities and, on certain occasions, for the allevation of the punish

1 Mr. Hay, Sec'y of State, to Mr. McNally, Mar. 16, 1900, Moore's Dig. VII, 3; Pradier-Fodéré, P., Cours de droit diplomatique, 2nd ed., Paris, 1899, 524-527. On modes of redress, see also Halleck (Baker's ed., 1908), I, ch. XIV.

2 Supra, § 113.