« AnteriorContinuar »
necessary, as previously stated, for a state to be a Christian state to be entitled to the status of a sovereign state. Turkey and Japan, for instance, are recognized now as sovereign states. A certain elevated standard of civilization is required by the community of sovereign states before entry can be made into that community by another state. This standard has not yet been attained by such countries as China, Persia
As to other matters Phillimore says, “ It is a sound general principle, and one to be laid down at the threshold of the science of which we are treating, that international law has no concern with the form, character or power of the constitution or government of a state; with the religion of its inhabitants, the extent of its domain, or the importance of
its position and influence in the commonwealth of nations.” 1 + Equality of sovereign States in a legal sense.—Legally,
then, all sovereign states within the purview of international law are equal, that is, equal in their rights and in their obligations, equal in their sovereignty and in their independence. It does not follow, of course, that this equality extends to their political influence. The status of the great maritime powers in the world, or of the great powers of Europe upon that continent, or even of the United States of America in American affairs, can be recognized at once as an evidence of political inequality.
Colonial possessions.-Vattel, with respect to colonial possessions and dependencies, says, “ Whenever the political laws
, and the treaties have not established distinctions to the contrary, that which we call the territory of a nation includes its colonies.”
Loss of sovereignty.—“The sovereignty of a state may be lost in various ways. It may be vanquished by a foreign power and become incorporated into the conquering state as a province or as one of its component parts, or it may voluntarily unite itself with
1 Phillimore, Int. Law., 3d edn., Vol. 1, p. 81.
another in such a way that its independent existence as a state will entirely cease. Again, two sovereign states may become incorporated into one, so as to form a new sovereign state in place of the other two whose independent existence as states is entirely destroyed by such incorporation."
“ Thus the incorporation of the Seven United Provinces and the Austrian Low Countries, by the treaties ‘of Vienna, under the Prince of Orange, as King of the Netherlands, was the union of two distinct sovereignties forming a new sovereign state. By the incorporation of Wales, Scotland and Ireland into Great Britain, and of Normandy and Brittany into France, these incorporated states lost their existence as distinct and substantive political bodies."
Recognition of new States.-Cushman K. Davis, in his treatise on International Law, says, “States come into being by conquest, by colonization, by insurrection and by peaceful change of old governments into new forms or by consolidations of several governments into one. When
they attain a firm consistency, and an apparent perpetuity is established, they become proper subjects of recognition as states by other governments."
Modes of recognition of States. The method of recognition of a new state is varying; it may be by formal declaration, by proclamation, or by treaty. It may also be implied by the sending or receiving of ambassadors or other state agents and giving exequaturs to its consuls. It may_first be done by the recognition and salute to the flag of the new state, as France did at Quiberon, with respect to the American flag.
Recognition may be collective by states, as in the case of Belgium, in 1831; of Greece, in 1832; of Roumania, Servia and Montenegro by the Berlin Congress of 1878; of the State of Congo by the Berlin Conference of 1885; and of late years of Bulgaria by the interested powers in 1908.
Neutralized States.—A state is not a sovereign state so far as international law is concerned if there are any limitations upon its power to enter into relations with other states. There are certain states coming under this head known as Neutralized States. These states are permanently neutralized by a treaty among the interested states or the Great Powers. They are required to abstain from war, except when they are attacked or their existence or territory threatened. Their immunity from attack is guaranteed by the interested states, which are generally neighbors. Switzerland, Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg occupy a position of guaranteed and permanent neutrality, provided that they avoid all belligerent operations save such as are necessary to protect themeelves from attack.
Lawrence * describes the history of this neutralization as follows: “After the final overthrow of Napoleon a declaration was signed at Paris on November 20, 1815 by the representatives of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia and Russia, whereby they formally recognized the perpetual neutrality of Switzerland and guaranteed the inviolability of its territory within the limits established by the Congress of Vienna. The agreement of the five great powers was held sufficient to elevate the neutralization of Switzerland into a principle of the public law of Europe and its sanctity is none the less real because the Swiss people have shown themselves resolved to defend the integrity of their frontiers by well-armed and admirably organized battalions of hardy mountaineers. No
4 Lawrence's Principles of Int. Law, p. 487, 3d edn.
case of violation of their territory has occurred since 1815. The political advantages of its isolation from warlike operations are so manifest that none of the neighboring states is likely to venture upon invasion with the certainty before it of encountering a desperate resistance from the inhabitants and bringing about the armed intervention of some of the guaranteeing powers.”
The Belgians, who had been united with Holland by the Congress of Vienna, rose in revolt against the ruling house in 1830. They did not come to terms until 1839, their arrangements being confirmed by the five great powers in another treaty of the same date which guaranteed the independence and neutrality of Belgium and required it to abstain from any interference in the armed struggles of other nations. This has been complied with up to the present time.
In May, 1867, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was likewise placed in the condition of neutralized territory of a permanent nature by the guarantee of the European powers. Belgium took part in the proceedings and acted in union with the other powers, but did not sign the treaty which contained the guarantee of the neutrality of Luxembourg, which guarantee might, of course, have required warlike action from Belgium not consistent with her own neutralized condition. Luxembourg has no armed forces except police.
Part- or semi-sovereign States.-A state which retains a certain unity or individuality in international law, but is subject to the authority or direction of another state in its foreign intercourse, is known as a part-sovereign or semisovereign state. “The paramount state,” Moore says, " is called the suzerain, and its relation to the subject state is called suzerainty. The extent of the authority or subordination comprehended by this term is not determined by general rules, but by the facts of the particular case. The foreign relations of a subject state may be wholly and directly conducted through the ministry of foreign affairs of the suzerain. It may, on the other hand, maintain diplomatic relations and, subject to the veto of the suzerain, conclude treaties of all kinds; but, more frequently, its right of initiative, if it possesses any, is confined to a limited sphere."
Cuba.-With respect to the relations existing between the Republic of Cuba and the United States, it may be well to give the pertinent articles of what was known as the “ Platt Amendment to the Army Appropriation Act of March 2, 1901.” These articles, with the others contained in the amendment, were incorporated into an ordinance appended to the Cuban Constitution. They were also embodied in a permanent treaty between the United States and the Republic of Cuba, signed at Havana May 22, 1903, the ratifications of which were exchanged at Washington, July 1, 1904.
I. That the Government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorize or permit any foreign power to obtain by colonization or for military or naval purposes or otherwise, lodgement in or control over any portion of said island.
III. That the Government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the Government of Cuba.
• Moore's Digest of Int. Law, Vol. 6, pp. 237-238.