Neutralised State is: Switzerland. Half sovereign States are: Andorra (under the protectorate of France and San Marino (under the protectorate of Italy). Part sovereign States are: (a) Member-States of Germany. (b) Member-States of Switzerland: Zurich, Berne, Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Unter- Rhoden), St. Gall, Grisons, Aargau, Thurgau, The position of the territories (other than Finland and Poland) which formed part of the Russian Empire is still unsettled. The British Government has recognised the Governments of Esthonia, Lithuania, and Latvia as de facto Governments, but these territories have not so far secured recognition as independent States. §109. In America there are twenty-one States which American are members of the Family of Nations, but it must be States. emphasised that the member-States of the five Federal States on the American continent, although they are part sovereign, have no footing within the Family of Nations, because the American Federal States, in con African tradistinction to Switzerland, absorb all possible international relations of their member-States. In North America 1 there are: Great Power: The United States of America. In Central America there are: The Soudan has an exceptional position; being under the condominium of Great Britain and Egypt, a footing of its own within the Family of Nations the Soudan certainly has not. 1 As to the position of Canada and in Australasia, all self-governing Dominions of the British Empire, see above, §§ 94a and 946. 2 But see above, § 28 (5) and § 103. The position of the territories formerly part of the Russian Empire remains unsettled. The British Government has recognised the Governments of Azerbaijan, the Erivan Republic of Armenia 3 and Georgia as de facto Governments, but these territories have not so far been recognised as independent States. 3 Republic, is to be provisionally recognised as an independent State subject to the rendering of adminisItrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory in accordance with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (see below, § 167p, p. 287), and that Syria and Mesopotamia are to be established as States of the same kind. Provision is also to be made for the future status of Palestine. The so called Fundamental Rights. CHAPTER II POSITION OF THE STATES WITHIN THE FAMILY OF NATIONS I INTERNATIONAL PERSONALITY Vattel, i. §§ 13-25-Hall, § 7-Westlake, i. pp. 306-309-Lawrence, § 57Phillimore, i. §§ 144-147-Twiss, i. § 106-Wheaton, § 60-Hershey, No. 131-Moore, i. § 23-Bluntschli, §§ 64-81-Hartmann, § 15—Heffter, § 26-Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, ii. pp. 47-51-Gareis, §§ 24-25Liszt, § 7-Ullmann, § 38-Bonfils, Nos. 235-241-Despagnet, Nos. 165-166 Nys, ii. pp. 216-222- Pradier-Fodéré, i. Nos. 165-195Mérignhac, i. pp. 233-239-Rivier, i. § 19-Fiore, i. Nos. 367-371Martens, i. § 72-Fontenay, Des Droits et des Devoirs des États entre eux (1888)-Pillet in R.G., v. (1898), pp. 66 and 236, vi. (1899), p. 503— Cavaglieri, I Diritti fondamentali degli Stati nella Società internazionale (1906)-Brown in A.J., ix. (1913), pp. 305-335. § 112. Until the last two decades of the nineteenth century all jurists agreed that membership of the Family of Nations bestowed so-called fundamental rights on States. Such rights were chiefly enumerated as the rights of existence, of self-preservation, of equality, of independence, of territorial supremacy, of holding and acquiring territory, of intercourse, and of good name and reputation. It was and is maintained that these fundamental rights are a matter of course and selfevident, since the Family of Nations consists of sovereign States. But no unanimity exists with regard to the number, the appellation, and the contents of these alleged fundamental rights. Thus, to mention a modern French writer, Pillet,1 although he rejects all the fundamental rights which are usually enumerated, asserts the existence of one fundamental right, namely, the right of every State to demand respect for its sovereignty. Again, to mention a modern German writer, Kaufmann 2 asserts that the right of self-preservation is the only fundamental right. A great confusion 3 exists, and hardly two text-book writers agree in details with regard to the fundamental rights. This condition of things has led to a searching criticism of the whole matter, and several writers 4 have in consequence thereof See R.G., v. (1898), pp. 66 and 236, and R. G., vi. (1899), p. 503. See Kaufmann, Das Wesen des Folkerrechts und die Clausula rebus sic stantibus (1911), pp. 106-204. 'The Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Nations' proclaimed by the American Institute of International Law in 1916, at its first meeting at Washington, has in no way improved matters. The following is the text of this declaration : I. Every nation has the right to exist, and to protect and to conserve its existence; but this right neither implies the right nor justifies the act of the State to protect itself or to conserve its existence by the commission of unlawful acts against innocent and unoffending States. II. Every nation has the right to independence in the sense that it has a right to the pursuit of happiness, and is free to develop itself without interference or control from other States, provided that in so doing it does not interfere with or violate the rights of other States. III. Every nation is in law and before law the equal of every other nation belonging to the Society of Nations, and all nations have the right to claim and, according to the Declaration of Independence of the United States, to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them.' IV. Every nation has the right to territory within defined boundaries and to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over its territory, and all persons, whether native or foreign, found therein. V. Every nation entitled to a right by the Law of Nations is entitled to have that right respected and protected by all other nations, for right and duty are correlative, and the right of one is the duty of all to observe. VI. International Law is at one and the same time both national and international: national in the sense that it is the law of the land and applicable as such to the decision of all questions involving its principles; international in the sense that it is the law of the Society of Nations and applicable as such to all questions between and among the members of the Society of Nations involving its principles. See A.J., x. (1916), p. 212, and the Report. 4 See Stoerk in Holtzendorff's Encyklopädie der Rechtswissenschaft, 5th ed. (1890), p. 1291; Jellinek, System der subjectiven öffentlichen Rechte (1892), p. 302; Heilborn, System, p. 279, and others. The arguments of these writers have met, however, considerable resistance, and the existence of fundamental rights of States is emphatically defended by other writers. See, for instance, Pillet, l.c., Liszt, § 7, and Gareis, §§ 24 and 25. Westlake, i. p. 306, is in the ranks of those writers who deny the existence of fundamental rights. |