in Europe, and the United States of America and Japan outside Europe. But owing to the defeat of the Central Empires and the breakdown of Russia, there are at present only five Great Powers, namely, the British Empire, France and Italy, together with the United States in America, and Japan in Asia; these are the States which are called in the Treaties of Peace the 'Principal Allied and Associated Powers.' The Great Powers are the leaders of the Family of Nations, and every advance of the Law of Nations during the past has been the result of their political hegemony, although the initiative towards progress was frequently taken by a minor Power.

But, however important the position and the influence of the Great Powers may be, they are by no means derived from a legal basis or rule.1 It is nothing else than powerful example which makes the smaller States agree to the arrangements of the Great Powers. Great Powers do not enjoy any superiority of right, but only a priority of action. Nor has a State the character of a Great Power by law. It is nothing else than actual size, strength, and economic influence which make a State a Great Power. Changes, therefore, often take place. Whereas at the time of the Vienna Congress in 1815 eight States-namely, Great Britain, Austria, France, Portugal, Prussia, Spain, Sweden, and Russia -were still considered Great Powers, their number decreased soon to five, when Portugal, Spain, and Sweden lost that character. But the so-called Pentarchy of the remaining Great Powers turned into a Hexarchy after the unification of Italy, because the latter became at once a Great Power. The United States rose as a Great Power out of the civil war in 1865, and Japan

1 This is, however, maintained by a few writers. See, for instance, Lorimer, i. p. 170; Lawrence, §§ 113 and 114; Westlake, i. pp. 321-323,

and Pitt Cobbett, Cases and Opinions on International Law, 2nd ed. vol. i. (1909), p. 50.

Rank of
States.

did the same out of the war with China in 1895. On the other hand, in consequence of the World War, Austria, Germany, and Russia ceased to be Great Powers, although Germany, as well as Russia, may in the course of time again become Great Powers. It is a question of political and economic influence, and not of law, whether a State is or is not a Great Power. Whatever large-sized State with a large population gains such strength and economic power that its political influence must be reckoned with by the other Great Powers, becomes a Great Power itself.1 Nor has the establishment of the League of Nations with the preponderance of the Great Powers within its Council turned their political into a legal hegemony, because this preponderance is only the fruit of their political influence.

§ 117. Although the States are equals as International Persons, they are nevertheless not equals as regards rank. The differences as regards rank are recognised by International Law, but the legal equality of States within the Family of Nations is thereby as little affected as the legal equality of the citizens is affected within a modern State where differences in rank and titles of the citizens are recognised by Municipal Law. The vote of a State of lower rank has legally as much weight as that of a State of higher rank. And the difference in rank nowadays no longer plays such an important part as in the past, when questions of etiquette gave occasion for much dispute. It was in the six

1 In contradistinction to the generally recognised political hegemony of the Great Powers, Lawrence (§§ 113 and 114) and Taylor (§§ 415 and 424) maintain that the position of the Great Powers is legally superior to that of the smaller States, being a 'Primacy' or 'Overlordship.' This doctrine, which professedly seeks to abolish the universally recognised rule of the equality of States, has no sound basis, and confounds political

with legal inequality. I cannot agree with Lawrence when he says (§ 114, p. 276): '. in a system of rules depending, like International Law, for their validity on general consent, what is political is legal also, if it is generally accepted and acted on.' The Great Powers are de facto, by the smaller States, recognised as political leaders, but this recognition does not involve recognition of legal superiority.

teenth and seventeenth centuries that the rank of the different States was zealously discussed under the heading of droit de préséance or questions de préséance. The Congress at Vienna of 1815 intended to establish an order of precedence within the Family of Nations, but dropped this scheme on account of practical difficulties. Thus the matter is entirely based on custom, which recognises the following three rules:

(1) The States are divided into two classes-namely, States with, and States without, royal honours. To the first class belong Empires and Kingdoms; to it belong Grand Duchies; to this class belong also the great Republics such as France, the United States of America, Switzerland, the South American Republics, and others. All other States belong to the second class. The Holy See is treated as though she were a State with royal honours. States with royal honours have exclusively the right to send and receive diplomatic envoys of the first class namely, ambassadors; and their monarchs address one another as 'brothers 'in their official letters. States with royal honours always precede other States. (2) Full sovereign States always precede those under suzerainty or protectorate.

1

(3) Among themselves States of the same rank do not precede one another. Empires do not precede kingdoms, and since the time of Cromwell and the first French Republic monarchies do not precede republics. But the Roman Catholic States always concede precedence to the Holy See, and the monarchs recognise among themselves a difference with regard to ceremonials between emperors and kings on the one hand, and, on the other, grand dukes and other monarchs.

'Alter

§ 118. To avoid questions of precedence, on signing a The treaty, States of the same rank often observe a conven- nat." tional usage which is called the 'Alternat.' According to

1 See below, § 365.

Titles of
States.

that usage the signatures of the signatory States of a treaty alternate in a regular order or in one determined by lot, the representative of each State signing first the copy which belongs to his State. But sometimes that order is not observed, and the States sign either in the alphabetical order of their names in French or in no order at all (pêle-mêle).

§ 119. At the present time, States, save in a few exceptional instances, have no titles, although formerly such titles did exist. Thus the former Republic of Venice, as well as that of Genoa, was addressed as 'Serene Republic,' and up to the present day the Republic of San Marino 1 is addressed as 'Most Serene Republic.' Nowadays the titles of the heads of monarchical States are in so far of importance to International Law as they are connected with the rank of the respective States. Since States are sovereign, they can bestow any titles they like on their heads. Thus, according to the German Constitution of 1871, the Kings of Prussia had the title 'German Emperor'; the English monarchs have since 1877 borne the title Emperor or Empress of India'; the Prince of Roumania assumed in 1881, that of Serbia in 1882, that of Bulgaria in 1908, and that of Montenegro in 1910, the title 'King.' But no foreign State is obliged to recognise such a new title, especially when a higher rank would accrue to the State concerned in consequence of such a new title for its head. In practice such recognition will regularly be given when the new title really corresponds with the size and the importance of the State.2 Roumania, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Montenegro had therefore no difficulty in obtaining recognition as Kingdoms.

1 See Treaty Ser. (1900), No. 9.
2 History, however, reports several
cases where recognition was with-
held for a long time. Thus the title

Emperor of Russia,' assumed by
Peter the Great in 1701, was not

recognised by France till 1745, by Spain till 1759, nor by Poland till 1764. And the Pope did not recog nise the kingly title of Prussia, assumed in 1701, till 1786.

With the titles of the heads of States are connected predicates. Emperors and Kings have the predicate Majesty,' 'Grand Dukes' have the predicate 'Royal Highness,' Dukes that of 'Highness,' and other monarchs that of 'Serene Highness.' The Pope is addressed as 'Holiness' (Sanctitas). Not to be confounded with these predicates, which are recognised by the Law of Nations, are predicates which originally were bestowed on monarchs by the Pope and which have no importance for the Law of Nations. Thus the Kings of France called themselves Rex Christianissimus or First-born Son of the Church,' the Kings of Spain have called themselves since 1496 Rex Catholicus, the Kings of England since 1521 Defensor Fidei, the Kings of Portugal since 1748 Rex Fidelissimus, and the Kings of Hungary called themselves from 1758 onwards Rex Apostolicus.

III

DIGNITY

Vattel, ii. §§ 35-48-Lawrence, § 120-Phillimore, ii. §§ 27-43-Halleck, i. pp. 137-152-Taylor, § 162-Wheaton, § 160-Hershey, No. 147Bluntschli, 82-83-Hartmann, § 15- Heffter, §§ 32, 102, 103Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, ii. pp. 64-69-Ullmann, § 38-Bonfils, Nos. 279-284-Despagnet, Nos. 184-186-Pradier-Fodéré, ii. Nos. 451-483Rivier, i. pp. 260-262-Nys, ii. pp. 254-255-Calvo, iii. §§ 1300-1302— Fiore, i. Nos. 439-451-Martens, i. § 78.

§ 120. The majority of text-book writers maintain Dignity a that there is a fundamental right of reputation and of Quality. good name belonging to every State. Such a right, however, does not exist, because no duty corresponding to it can be traced within the Law of Nations. Indeed, the reputation of a State depends just as much upon behaviour as that of every citizen within its boundaries.