in 1885, and Egypt conquered the Soudan conjointly with Great Britain in 1898. How could all these and other facts be explained, if vassal States could never to some small extent be International Persons ? Side by side with these facts stand, of course, other facts which show that for the most part the vassal State, even if it has some small position of its own within the Family of Nations, is considered a mere portion of the suzerain State. Thus all international treaties concluded by the suzerain State are ipso facto concluded for the vassal, if an exception is not expressly mentioned or self-evident. Thus, again, war of the suzerain is ipso facto war of the vassal. Thus, thirdly, the suzerain bears within certain limits a responsibility for actions of the vassal State. Under these circumstances it is generally admitted that the conception of suzerainty lacks juridical precision, and experience teaches that vassal States do not remain half sovereign for ever. They either shake off suzerainty, as Roumania, Serbia, and Montenegro did in 1878, and Bulgaria 1 did in 1908, or they lose their half sovereignty through annexation, as in the case of the South African Republic in 1901, or through merger, as when the half sovereign Seignory of Kniephausen in Germany merged in 1854 into its suzerain Oldenburg. At present all such vassal States of importance as were to some extent International Persons, have disappeared. The last was Egypt; 2 but on December 18, 1 As regards the position of Bulgaria while she was a vassal State under Turkish suzerainty, see Holland, The European Concert in the Eastern Question (1885), pp. 277-307, and Nedjmidin, Völkerrechtliche Entwickelung Bulgariens (1908). 2 See Holland, The European Concert in the Eastern Question (1885), pp. 89-205; Hesse, Die staatsrecht lichen Beziehungen Aegyptens zur hohen Pforte (1897); Grunau, Die staats- und völkerrechtliche Stellung Aegyptens (1903); Cocheris, Situa tion internationale de l'Égypte et du Soudan (1903); Freycinet, La Question d'Égypte (1905); Dungern, Das Staatsrecht Aegyptens (1911); Mayer, Die völkerrechtliche Stellung Aegyptens (1914); Moret in R. G., xiv. (1907), 1914, after Turkey had joined the World War by siding with Germany and Austria, Great Britain declared Egypt to constitute a British protectorate.1 VII STATES UNDER PROTECTORATE Hall, § 4 and 38*-Westlake, i. pp. 22-24-Lawrence, § 39-Phillimore, i. 75-82-Twiss, i. §§ 22-36-Taylor, §§ 134-139-Wheaton, §§ 34-36Moore, i. § 14-Hershey, Nos. 105-106-Bluntschli, § 78-Hartmann, § 9-Heffter, §§ 19 and 22-Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, ii. pp. 98-117 -Gareis, § 15-Liszt, § 6-Ullmann, § 26-Bonfils, Nos. 176-187Despagnet, Nos. 129-136-Mérignhac, ii. pp. 180-226-Pradier-Fodéré, i. Nos. 94-108-Nys, i. pp. 390-392-Rivier, i. § 4-Calvo, i. §§ 62-65— Fiore, i. § 341, and Code, Nos. 116-123-Martens, i. §§ 60-61-Pillet in R.G., ii. (1895), pp. 583-608-Heilborn, Das völkerrechtliche Protektorat (1891), and in Z. V., viii. (1914), pp. 217-232-Engelhardt, Les Prolectorats, etc. (1896)-Gairal, Le Protectorat international (1896)--Despagnet, Essai sur les Protectorats (1896) — Boghitchévitch, Halbsouveränität (1903). Protec 2 torate. $92. Legally and materially different from suzerainty Concepis the relation of protectorate between two States. It tion of happens that a weak State surrenders itself by treaty into the protection of a strong and mighty State in such way that it transfers the management of all its a PP. 405-417; Lamba in R.G., xvii. See R.G., xxi. (1914), pp. 512524, and M'Ilwraith in the Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Ser. xvii. (1917), pp. 238-259. This is the rule, but in the Case of Egypt-see above, § 91– the protectorate was based upon a unilateral declaration on the part of 3 A treaty of protectorate must Inter national Position of States under torate. more important 1 international affairs to the protecting State. Through such a treaty an international union is called into existence between the two States, and the relation between them is called protectorate. The protecting State is internationally the superior of the protected State; the latter has with the loss of the management of its more important international affairs lost its full sovereignty, and is henceforth only a half sovereign State. Protectorate is, however, a conception which, just like suzerainty, lacks exact juristic precision,2 as its real meaning depends very much upon the special case. Generally speaking, protectorate may, again like suzerainty, be called a kind of international guardianship. § 93. The position of a State under protectorate within the Family of Nations cannot be defined by a general rule, since it is the treaty of protectorate which Protec- indirectly defines it by enumerating the reciprocal rights and duties of the protecting and the protected State. Each case must therefore be treated according to its own merits. Thus the question whether the protected State can conclude certain international treaties and can send and receive diplomatic envoys, as well as other questions, must be decided according to the terms of the particular treaty of protectorate. In any case, recognition of the protectorate on the part of third States is necessary to enable the superior State to represent the protected State internationally. But it is characteristic of a protectorate, in contradis 1 That the admittance of consuls belongs to these affairs became apparent in 1906, when Russia, after some hesitation, finally agreed upon Japan, and not Korea, granting the exequatur to the consul-general appointed by Russia for Korea, which was then a State under Japanese protectorate. See below, § 427. 2 It is therefore of great importance that the parties should make quite clear the meaning of a clause which is supposed to stipulate a protectorate. Thus Article 17 of the Treaty of Friendship and Commerce between Italy and Abyssinia, signed at Uccialli on May 2, 1889-see Martens, N. R. G., 2nd Ser. xviii. p. 697-was interpreted by Italy as establishing a protectorate over Abyssinia, but the latter refused to recognise it. tinction to suzerainty, that the protected State always has, and retains for some purposes, a position of its own within the Family of Nations, and that it is always for some purposes an International Person and a subject of International Law. It is never in any respect considered a mere portion of the superior State. It is, therefore, not necessarily a party in a war1 waged by the superior State against a third State, and treaties concluded by the superior State are not ipso facto concluded for the protected State. And, lastly, it can at the same time be under the protectorate of two different States, which, of course, must exercise the protectorate conjointly. In Europe there are at present four protectorates :— The Republic of Andorra is under the joint protectorate of France and Spain.2 The Republic of San Marino, an enclosure of Italy, formerly under the protectorate of the Papal States, is now under the protectorate of Italy. Iceland, formerly a part of Denmark, is since December 1, 1918, an independent State under the protectorate of Denmark. Danzig is placed by the Treaty of Peace with Germany under the protectorate of the League of Nations.4 3 Of former protectorates in Europe the following may be mentioned :-The principality of Monaco, which This was recognised by the English prize courts during the Crimean War with regard to the Ionian Islands, which were then still under British protectorate; see the case of The Ionian Ships, 2 Spinks 212, and Phillimore, i. § 77. This protectorate is exercised for Spain by the Bishop of Urgel. As regards the international position of Andorra, see Vilar, L'Andorre (1905). The status of Iceland in her relation to Denmark, according to what is called the Law of Confederation'-(not yet printed in Martens) is difficult to define. Since the foreign affairs of Iceland will be conducted by Denmark, the assertion that Denmark exercises a protectorate would seem to be correct. 4 See Articles 102-104 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany. The protectorate of the League of Nations over Danzig is to be exercised by Poland, because Poland is to conduct the foreign relations of Danzig. Macey, Statut international de Monaco (1913). But see now the Treaty of July 17, 1918 (? 1919), between France and Monaco-(not yet printed in Martens)-defining the future relations between France and the Principality. Protec torates outside the Family of was under the protectorate of Spain from 1523 to 1641, afterwards of France until 1814, and then of Sardinia, has now through desuetudo become a full sovereign State, since Italy has never exercised the protectorate. The Ionian Islands, which were under British protectorate from 1815, merged into the Kingdom of Greece in 1863. The free State of Cracow, which was created in 1815 by the Vienna Congress, and put under the joint protectorate of Austria, Russia and Prussia, was annexed by Austria in 1846. § 94. Outside Europe there are numerous States under the protectorate of European States, but all of them are non-Christian States of such a civilisation as Nations. would not admit them to full membership of the Family of Nations, apart from the protectorate under which they now are. It may therefore be questioned whether they have any real position within the Family of Nations at all. As the protectorate over them is recognised by third States, the latter are legally prevented from exercising any political influence in these protected States, and, failing special treaty rights, they have no right to interfere if the protecting State annexes the protected State and makes it a mere colony of its own, as, for instance, France did with Madagascar in 1896. Protectorates of this kind are in many cases, although not necessarily, nothing else than the first step to annexation. Examples of such protectorates outside Europe are the French over Tunis and Morocco, and the English over Zanzibar and Egypt. Be that as it may, these protectorates are exercised over real States. For this reason they must not in every way be compared with the so-called protectorates over African tribes, which European States acquire through a treaty with the chiefs of these tribes, and by which the territory in question is preserved for future occupation on the part of the so-called |