States recognised the new States in 1822, and England followed the example in 1824 and 1825.1 tion in tinction to Recogni. § 75. Recognition of a new State must not be con- State founded with other recognitions. Recognition of in- Recognisurgents as a belligerent Power has already been mentioned. Besides this, recognition of a change in the other headship of a State,2 or in the form of its Government, tions. or of a change in the title of an old State, are matters of importance. But the granting or refusing of these recognitions has nothing to do with recognition of the State itself. If a foreign State refuses the recognition of a new head, or of a change in the form of the Government of an old State, the latter does not thereby lose its recognition as an International Person, although no official intercourse is henceforth possible between the two States as long as recognition is not given either expressly or tacitly. And if recognition of a new title 3 of an old State is refused, the only consequence is that such State cannot claim any privileges connected with the new title. However this may be, if a State has not recognised insurgents in a foreign State as a belligerent Power, or has not recognised the new head or a change in the form of Government of a foreign State, the courts 4 of the State refusing recognition cannot on their own account grant such recognition, which is purely a matter for their Government. a 1 See Gibbs, Recognition: Chapter from the History of the North American and South American States (1863), and Moore, i. SS 28-36. 2 See below, § 342. 4 Thompson v. Powles, (1828) 2 ! III Import ant in contradistinction to Indifferent Changes. CHANGES IN THE CONDITION OF INTERNATIONAL PERSONS Grotius, ii. c. 9, §§ 5-13-Pufendorf, viii. c. 12-Vattel, i. § 11—Hall, § 2— Halleck, i. pp. 96-99-Phillimore, i. §§ 124-137-Taylor, § 163-Westlake, i. pp. 58-66-Wheaton, §§ 22-32-Hershey, Nos. 124-125-Moore, i. §§ 76-79-Bluntschli, §§ 39-53-Hartmann, §§ 12-13-Heffter, § 24Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, ii. pp. 21-23-Liszt, § 5-Ullmann, §§ 31 and 35-Bonfils, Nos. 214-215-Despagnet, Nos. 86-89-PradierFodéré, i. Nos. 146-157-Nys, i. pp. 432-435-Rivier, i. § 3, pp. 62-67 -Calvo, i. §§ 81-106-Fiore, i. Nos. 321-331, and Code, Nos. 124-146 -Martens, i. §§ 65-69-Borchard, § 84. § 76. The existence of International Persons is exposed to the flow of things and times. There is a constant and gradual change in their citizens through deaths and births, emigration and immigration. There is a frequent change in those individuals who are at the head of the States, and there is sometimes a change in the form of their Governments, or in their dynasties if they are monarchies. There are sometimes changes in their territories through loss or increase of parts thereof, and there are sometimes changes regarding their independence through partial or total loss of the same. Several of these and other changes in the condition and appearance of International Persons are indifferent to International Law, although they may be of great importance for the inner development of the States concerned, and, directly or indirectly, for international policy. Those changes, on the other hand, which are, or may be, of importance to International Law must be divided into three groups according to their influence upon the character of the State concerned as an International Person. For some of these changes affect a State as an International Person, others do not; again, others extinguish a State as an International Person altogether. not affect national § 77. A State remains one and the same International Changes Person in spite of changes in its headship, in its dynasty, ing States in its form, in its rank and title, and in its territory. as InterThese changes cannot be said to be indifferent to Inter- Persons. national Law. Although strictly no notification to or recognition by foreign Powers is necessary, according to the Law of Nations, in case of a change in the headship of a State or in its entire dynasty, or if a monarchy becomes a republic or vice versa, no official intercourse is possible between the Powers refusing recognition and the State concerned. Although, further, a State can assume any title it likes, it cannot claim the privileges of rank connected with a title if foreign States refuse recognition. And although, thirdly, a State can dispose according to discretion of parts of its territory and acquire as much territory as it likes, foreign Powers may intervene for the purpose of maintaining a balance of power or on account of other vital interests. But whatever may be the importance of such changes, they neither affect a State as an International Person, nor affect the personal identity of the States concerned.1 France, for instance, has retained her personal identity from the time the Law of Nations came into existence until the present day, although she acquired, lost, and regained parts of her territory, changed her dynasty, was a kingdom, a republic, an empire, again a kingdom, again a republic, again an empire, and is now, finally as it seems, a republic. All her international rights and duties as an International Person remained the very same throughout the centuries in spite of these important changes in her condition and appearance. Even such 1 For this reason a State is reponsible for all acts committed by former head which was recognised a foreign State, although such head may have attained its position Changes affecting States as International loss of territory as occasions the reduction of a Great Power to a small Power, or such increase of territory and strength as turns a small State into a Great Power, does not affect a State as an International Person. Thus, although through the events of the years 1859-1861 Sardinia acquired the whole territory of the Italian Peninsula and turned into the Great Power of Italy, she remained one and the same International Person.1 § 78. Changes which affect States as International Persons are of different character. (1) As in a Real Union the member-States of the Persons. union, although fully independent, make one International Person,2 two States which hitherto were separate International Persons are affected in that character by entering into a Real Union. For through that change they appear henceforth together as one and the same International Person. And should this union be dissolved, the member-States are again affected, for they now become again separate International Persons. (2) Other changes affecting States as International Persons are such changes as involve a partial loss of independence on the part of the States concerned. Many restrictions may be imposed upon States without interfering with their independence proper,3 but certain restrictions involve inevitably a partial loss of independence. Thus if a hitherto independent State comes under the suzerainty of another State and becomes thereby a half sovereign State, its character as ar International Person is affected. The same is valid with regard to a hitherto independent State which come under the protectorate of another State. Again, i several hitherto independent States enter into a Federa 1 Another illustration is provided by the expansion of Serbia into the Serb-Croat-Slovene State after the World War. 2 See below, § 87, where the char acter of the Real Union is full discussed. 3 See below, §§ 126-127, where th different kinds of these restriction are discussed. State, they transfer a part of their sovereignty to the Federal State and become thereby part sovereign States. On the other hand, if a vassal State or a State under protectorate is freed from the suzerainty or protectorate, it is thereby affected as an International Person, because it turns now into a full sovereign State. And the same is valid with regard to a member-State of a Federal State which leaves the union and gains the condition of a full sovereign State. (3) States which become permanently neutralised are thereby also affected in their character as International Persons, although their independence remains untouched. But permanent neutralisation alters the condition of a State so much that it thereby becomes an International Person of a particular kind. tion Persons. § 79. A State ceases to be an International Person Extinowhen it ceases to exist. Theoretically such extinction of Interof International Persons is possible through emigration national or the perishing of the whole population of a State, or through permanent anarchy within a State. But it is evident that such cases will hardly ever occur in fact. Practical cases of extinction of States are: merger of one State into another, annexation after conquest in war, breaking up of a State into several States, and breaking up of a State into parts which are annexed by surrounding States. By voluntarily merging into another State, a State loses all its independence and becomes a mere part of another. In this way the Duchy of Courland merged in 1795 into Russia, the two Principalities of Hohenzollern-Hechingen and Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen in 1850 into Prussia, the Congo Free State in 1908 into Belgium, and Korea in 1910 into Japan. And the same is the case if a State is subjugated by another. In this way the Orange Free State and the South African Republic were absorbed by Great Britain in 1901. An |