such obligations as have been incurred by the annexed State for the immediate purpose of the war which led to its subjugation.1 The case of a Federal State arising-like the German Empire in 1871-above a number of several hitherto full sovereign States also presents, with regard to many points, a case of State succession. However, no hardand-fast rules can be laid down concerning it, since everything depends upon the question whether the Federal State is one which-like all those of Americatotally absorbs all international relations of the memberStates, or whether-like Switzerland-it absorbs these relations to a greater extent only.3 sion in Dismem §83. When a State breaks up into fragments which Succesthemselves become States and International Persons, or which are annexed by surrounding States, it becomes quence of extinct as an International Person, and the same rules berment. are valid as regards the case of absorption of one State by another. A difficulty is, however, created when the territory of the extinct State is absorbed by several States. Succession actually takes place here too, first, with regard to the international rights and duties locally connected with those parts of the territory which the respective States have absorbed. Succession takes place, secondly, with regard to the fiscal property and the fiscal funds which each of the several absorbing States finds on the part of the territory it absorbs. And the debts of the extinct State must be taken over. But the case is complicated through the fact that there are several successors to the fiscal property and funds, and 1 The question how far concessions granted by a subjugated State to a private individual or to a company must be upheld by the subjugating State, is difficult to answer in its generality. The merits of each case would seem to have to be taken into consideration. See Westlake, i. p. 82; Moore, i. § 98; Gidel, Des Effets See Huber, op. cit., pp. 163-170; * See below, § 89. the only rule which can be laid down is that proportionate parts of the debts must be taken over by the different successors. In the complicated case of the dismemberment of Austria-Hungary in 1918, when the Real Union-see below, § 87-was dissolved, and the old State broke up into fragments, some of which became themselves States and International Persons, while others were annexed by surrounding States, the Treaties of Peace made express provision for the apportionment between the States concerned of the pre-war debt of Austria-Hungary, and defined the extent of the liability of Austria for the debt incurred by the dismembered Dual Monarchy in prosecuting the war. Thus the Treaty of Peace with Austria provides (Article 203) that each of the States to which territory of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy is transferred, and each of the States arising from the dismemberment of that monarchy, including Austria, shall assume responsibility for a portion of the secured and unsecured bonded debt of the former AustroHungarian Government, as it stood before the outbreak of war. Machinery is provided for ascertaining that portion which each State is to assume. None of these States, other than Austria, are to bear any responsibility for the bonded war debt of the former AustroHungarian Government; but, on the other hand, they are to have no recourse against Austria in respect of war debt bonds which they or their nationals hold (Article 205). When as in the case of Sweden-Norway in 1905a Real Union 1 is dissolved and the members become separate International Persons, a succession likewise takes place. All treaties concluded by the Union devolve upon the former members, except those which were concluded by the Union for one member onlye.g. by Sweden-Norway for Norway-and which, there 1 See below, § 87. fore, devolve upon that former member only, and, further, except those which concerned the Union itself and lose all meaning by its dissolution.1 sion in case of tion or § 84. When in consequence of war or otherwise one SuccesState cedes a part of its territory to another, or when a part of the territory of a State breaks off, and becomes Separaa State and an International Person itself, succession Cession. takes place with regard to such international rights and duties of the predecessor as are locally connected with the part of the territory ceded or broken off, and with regard to the fiscal property 2 found on that part of the territory. It would only be just if the successor had to take over a corresponding part of the debt of its predecessor, but no rule of International Law concerning this point can be said to exist, although many treaties have stipulated a devolution of a part of the debt of the predecessor upon the successor.3 Thus, for instance, Arts. 9, 33, 42 of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878 stipulated that Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Serbia should take over part of the Turkish debt. Again, the Peace Treaty of Lausanne of 1912, by which Italy acquired Tripoli, stipulated that Italy should take over a part of the Turkish debt.5 Likewise the Treaty of Peace with Germany provides that the Powers to which German territory is ceded shall assume responsibility for a portion of the pre-war debt 1 The dismemberment of AustriaHungary in 1918 involved, among other things, the dissolution of the Real Union between Austria and Hungary. The extent to which the treaties concluded by the Union devolved upon Austria and Hungary respectively is, so far at any rate as the Allied and Associated Powers are concerned, provided for by the Treaties of Peace. See below, § 568ƒ, $5816, and vol. ii. § 99. Thus in the case of The United States v. Percheman, (1833) 7 Peters 51, it was recognised that a grant of land in a ceded province, made to of the German Empire, and also of the pre-war debt of the German State to which the ceded territory belonged. Arrangements are made for determining the portion which each State is to assume (Article 254). As, however, Germany in 1871 refused to undertake any part of the French debt, France is exempted by the Treaty of Peace from assuming any part of the German debt on account of the cession of Alsace-Lorraine (Article 255); and in the case of Poland, that part of the German debt which is attributable to measures for the German colonisation of Poland is to be excluded from the apportionment (Article 255). On the other hand, the United States refused, after the cession of Cuba in 1898, to take over from Spain the so-called Cuban debt-that is, the debt which was settled by Spain on Cuba before the war.1 Spain argued that it was not intended to transfer to the United States a proportional part of the debt of Spain, but only such debt as attached individually to the island of Cuba. The United States, however, met this argument by the correct assertion that the debt concerned was not incurred by Cuba, but by Spain, and settled by her on Cuba. V COMPOSITE INTERNATIONAL PERSONS Pufendorf, vii. c. 5-Hall, § 4-Westlake, i. pp. 31-37-Phillimore, i. §§ 7174, 102-121-Twiss, i. §§ 37-60-Halleck, i. pp. 75-79-Taylor, §§ 120130-Wheaton, §§ 39-59-Moore, i. §§ 6-11-Hershey, Nos, 96-102Hartmann, § 10-Heffter, §§ 20-21-Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, ii. pp. 118-149-Liszt, § 6-Ullmann, §§ 20-24-Bonfils, Nos. 165-174— Despagnet, Nos. 109-126-Pradier-Fodéré, i. Nos. 117-124-Mérignhac, ii. pp. 6-42-Nys, i. pp. 392-409-Rivier, i. §§ 5-6-Calvo, i. §§ 44-61Fiore, i. Nos. 335-339, and Code, Nos. 101-109-Martens, i. §§ 56-59— 1 See Moore, i. § 97, pp. 351-385. Pufendorf, De Systematibus Civitatum (1675)—Jellinek, Die Lehre von den Staatenverbindungen (1882)—Borel, Étude sur la Souveraineté de l'État fédératif (1886)-Brie, Theorie der Staatenverbindungen (1886)—Hart, Introduction to the Study of Federal Government in Harvard Historical Monographs (1891) (includes an excellent bibliography)-Le Fur, État fédéral et Confédération d'États (1896)-Moll, Der Bundestaatsbegriff in den Vereinigten Staaten von America (1905)—Ebers, Die Lehre von dem Staatenbunde (1910). Com Persons. § 85. International Persons are as a rule single sove- Real and reign States. In such single States there is one central apparent political authority as Government, which represents the posite InterState, within its borders as well as without, in its inter- national national intercourse with other International Persons. Such single States may be called simple International Persons. And a State may remain a simple International Person, although it may grant so much internal independence to outlying parts of its territory that these parts become in a sense States themselves. Great Britain is,1 or at any rate was before the World War, a simple International Person, although the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa were States, because Great Britain was alone sovereign and represented exclusively the British Empire within the Family of Nations. Historical events, however, have created, in addition to the simple International Persons, composite International Persons. A composite International Person is in existence when two or more sovereign States are linked together in such a way that they take up their position within the Family of Nations either exclusively, or at least to a great extent, as one single International Person. History has produced two different kinds of such composite International Persons-namely, Real Unions and Federal States. In contradistinction to Real Unions and Federal States, a so-called Personal 1 See, however, below, § 946. |