pendence. This voluntary yielding to varying degrees of external control is the significant fact to be reckoned with. It has not been accompanied by a surrender also of the agreement-making power to the protector, although these Republics have undertaken not to exercise that power with respect to certain important matters without the approval of the United States. This circumstance does not, however, alter the distinctive character of these relationships which, despite differences between any two of them, with respect to permanence or design, permit the United States to enforce tranquillity and maintain public order as a protector. In so doing it fulfills in the estimation of the outside world a quasi-domestic function for the benefit chiefly of its ward, and is not subject to the principles which generally determine the propriety of intervention in the affairs of independent States.1 In proportion as the United States by virtue of these conventions exercises rights which they confer as a privilege peculiarly its own, and in which no foreign State is permitted to participate, it ap-. pears to assume internationally a certain responsibility for conditions of government within the territories concerned.

(5)

§ 25. Protection of Countries Lacking European Civilization.

Not infrequently a so-called protectorate is established by a State over a territory or country unfamiliar with and not possessed of what is known as European civilization, or over a region which may be fairly deemed to be uncivilized. An uncivilized community, while it remains such, lacks the capacity to be a person or State of international law. The outside world regards territory occupied by such a community as subject to the control of the State which exercises in fact a right of protection therein. Thus, in a broad sense, the relationship established between the State and the protected region is not internationally important. An anomalous situation exists, however, when the protector, claiming the right to exclude foreign States from intercourse with the protected territory, does not purport to annex it, or to assume responsibility for the establishment of government therein.3

1 See Intervention, In General, infra, § 69.

2 "Where there is no State, that is to say, in an uncivilized region, there can be no protected State, and therefore no such protectorate as has been described in the last paragraph." Westlake, Collected Papers, 182. See Countries Not Possessed of European Civilization, infra, § 33.

3 See General Act of the Berlin Conference of Feb. 26, 1885, concerning the

Where a so-called protectorate is established over a country possessing a civilization other than European, and occupying territory within definite limits, a situation arises somewhat resembling in theory that which presents itself when the protected political entity is a State. While the protected country by reason of the nature and degree of its civilization may not, in the course. of its development, have reached the stage indicative of a capacity for statehood, it may, nevertheless, have previously enjoyed extensive diplomatic intercourse with independent powers, and have concluded treaties with them. In such case, the change wrought by the creation of the protectorate becomes a matter of direct international significance. Thus Tunis was a party to numerous treaties with enlightened States when, in 1881, it became a French protectorate. Likewise Zanzibar2 and Korea had contracted conventions with the outside world when Great Britain and Japan, respectively, established protectorates over them. The States of international law doubtless lack the right to object to the establishment of a protectorate over such a country with which they have concluded treaties, and by virtue of which they have obtained commercial or other benefits. Nevertheless, they are disposed to insist that their contractual privileges shall remain unaffected until at least the protector agrees equitably to supplant them with direct undertakings of its own, or by annexing the protected territory, deals with it as a part of its own domain.1

The point seems to require emphasis that in an international sense, a protectorate, regardless of the degree or kind of civiliza

assumption of protectorates on the African coast by any of the contracting parties, and the requirements incidental thereto in the matter of notification, and in the establishment of governmental authority in regions occupied, Nouv. Rec. Gén., 2 ser., X, 414, 426; Moore, Dig., I, 267-268. See in this connection, Westlake, 2 ed., I, 121–129.

Concerning the protected princess of India, cf. William Lee-Warner, The Protected Princess of India, London, 1894; Westake, Collected Papers, 220

224.

See treaty between France and Tunis of May 12, 1881, Nouv. Rec. Gén., 2 ser., VI, 307; also treaty of June 8, 1883, id., IX, 698. See, also, in this connection, Bonfils-Fauchille, 7 ed., § 184, and literature there cited.

As early as August, 1797, the United States concluded a treaty with Tunis, and did so again Feb. 24, 1824. Malloy's Treaties, II, 1794 and 1800.

Brit. and For. State Pap., LXXXII, 654, embracing text of notification of the British protectorate under date of Nov. 4, 1890; also declarations of Great Britain and France, of Aug. 5, 1890, id., 89.

See arrangements between Japan and Korea of Aug. 24, 1904, U. S. For. Rel. 1904, 439, and Nov. 17, 1905, id., 1905, 612.

See, for example, treaty between the United States and France, March 15, 1904, in which the former renounced its rights under existing treaties with Tunis, and the latter undertook on its part "to assure these rights and privileges

tion prevailing in the country over which it is exercised, contemplates the retention by that country of a personality recognizable as such by the family of nations. Such retention is manifested by some participation, however slight, in the conduct of foreign relations, or by the continuance of a political entity maintaining, although possibly through the representation of the protector, diplomatic relations with the outside world. When France established its protectorate over Morocco in 1912, and Great Britain proclaimed a protectorate over Egypt in 1914,2 neither of the paramount States appeared to thwart the operation of this principle. If a protecting State seeks to destroy the international personality of its ward, and so put an end to its capacity for statehood, it would seem to be obliged to annex the territory concerned, and by such process make known the assertion of supremacy as the territorial sovereign.

(6)

§ 26. Mandatory States under the League of Nations. The Covenant of the League of Nations contemplated a special form of protection for colonies and territories which, as a consein Tunis to the consuls and citizens of the United States and to extend to them the advantage of all treaties and conventions existing between the United States and France." Malloy's Treaties, I, 544, 545.

See convention between the United States and Great Britain of May 31, 1902, concerning import duties in Zanzibar, Malloy's Treaties, I, 784. See declaration between Great Britain and France of Aug. 5, 1890, embracing French recognition of the British protectorate over Zanzibar, and British recognition of the French protectorate over Madagascar, Brit. and For. State Pap., LXXXII, 89. By the agreement between Japan and Korea of Nov. 17, 1905, the former undertook" to see to the execution of the treaties actually existing between Korea and other powers." For. Rel. 1905, 612.

1 See treaty between France and Morocco of March 30, 1912, Am. J., VI, Supp., 207; Nouv. Rec. Gén., 3 ser., VI, 332. Cf., also, convention between France and Spain concerning Morocco, Nov. 27, 1912, id., VII, 323; Am. J., VII, Supp., 81. See, in this connection, N. Dwight Harris, "The New Moroccan Protectorate", Am. J., VII, 245.

2 See British notification of Dec. 18, 1914, that Egypt was placed under the protection of His Britannic Majesty, and would thereafter constitute a British protectorate, Brit. and For. State Pap., CVIII, 185. See British note of Dec. 19, 1914, addressed to His Highness Prince Hussein Kamel Pasha, respecting the establishment of the protectorate, id., CIX, 437. Also "The Egyptian Protectorate", The Law Journal (London), Dec. 24, 1914, XLIX,

710.

It may be noted that the United States did not cease to accredit a diplomatic agent to Morocco, and also to Egypt in consequence of the establishment of a protectorate over the former country in 1912, and over the latter in 1914. See Mr. Lansing, Secy. of State, to the French Ambassador at Washington, Jan. 17, 1917, announcing recognition by the United States "of the French protectorate over the French zone of the Shereefian Empire." Naval War College, Int. Law Documents, 1918, 208.

quence

of The World War, "ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them", and which were inhabited by peoples "not able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world ", and whose wellbeing and development were declared to "form a sacred trust of civilization." To that end, it was announced that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations which by reason of their resources, experience or geographical position could best undertake the responsibility, and which were able to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by such States as Mandatories on behalf of the League.2

It was provided that in every case of mandate, the Mandatory should render to the Council of the League an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge. The degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory was, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, to be explicitly defined by the Council. A permanent Commission was to be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories, and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates. The plan of making the protector of dependent peoples responsible to an organization representative of the States constituting the League, and as a trustee, was designed to prevent abuse of power

1Art. XXII of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and embraced in the Treaty of Versailles, of June 28, 1919.

It was observed that "the character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances."

? It was declared that certain communities belonging to the Turkish Empire had reached a state of development "where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone." The wishes of such communities should be, it was said, a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, were said to be "at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and liquor traffic and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defense of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.'

Attention was called to other territories, such as Southwest Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centers of civilization, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, could, it was declared, be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to safeguards previously mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

by the Mandatory, and to assure the proper performance of the trust.1

(7)

§ 27. Certain Minor Impairments of Independence through the Medium of the League of Nations.

Events of The World War impelled the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to require that certain new States resulting from the conflict should be subjected to a slight measure of external control not commonly suffered by independent States, and that such control should be exercised for the collective interests of all concerned through the medium of the League of Nations. Both the Czecho-Slovak State and Poland consented in the Treaty of Versailles with Germany, of June 28, 1919, to the principle involved. The treaty of that date signed in behalf of the United States, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, on the one hand, and Poland on the other, gave effect to the design.5 Poland there accepted as its fundamental and supreme law the undertaking to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of its territory, without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion, and to accord Polish nationals belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities the same treatment and security in law and in fact as that accorded other Polish nationals. That Republic agreed, moreover, that the latter stipulations should constitute obligations of international concern and should be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations, that any member of the Council thereof should have the

1 It will be recalled that on May 24, 1920, President Wilson requested the Congress to grant to the Executive power to accept for the United States a mandate in Armenia, in pursuance of a formal request of the statesmen in conference at San Remo. Cong. Rec., May 24, 1920, Vol. LIX, No. 143, p. 8137.

2 See Conditional Recognition, infra, § 38.

3 Art. 86.

4 Art. 93.

British Treaty Series, No. 8 (1919), Cmd. 223, embracing letter of M. Clemenceau, President of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, of June 24, 1919, to M. Paderewski, President of the Polish Republic, adverting to the fact that the principles applied to Poland and Czecho-Slovakia would find expression also in treaties with Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria.

Arts. I, II and VIII. According to Art. II all inhabitants of Poland were to be entitled to the free exercise, whether public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, the practices of which were not inconsistent with public order or public morals. Art. VIII provided that the racial, religious or linguistic minorities of Polish nationals should have an equal right to establish, manage and control, at their own expense, charitable, religious and social institutions, schools and other educational establishments, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their religion freely therein.