general conventional arrangements, as, for instance, those concerning navigation on international rivers, and apart from special treaties of commerce, friendship, and the like, no State can claim the right for its subjects to enter into, and reside on, the territory of a foreign State. The reception of aliens is a matter of discretion, and every State is by reason of its territorial supremacy competent to exclude aliens from the whole, or any part, of its territory. And it is only by an inference from this competence that Great Britain,1 the United States of America, and other States have made special laws according to which paupers and criminals, as well as diseased and other objectionable aliens, are prevented from entering their territory. Every State is, and must remain, master in its own house, and this is of special importance with regard to the admittance of aliens. Of course, if a State excluded all subjects of one State only, this would constitute an unfriendly act, against which retorsion would be admissible; but it cannot be denied that a State is competent to do this, although in practice such wholesale exclusion is improbable in normal times. Hundreds of treaties of commerce and friendship exist between the members of the Family of Nations according to which they are obliged to receive each other's unobjectionable subjects, and thus in practice the matter is settled, although in strict law every State is competent to exclude foreigners from its territory.3 § 315. It is obvious that, if a State need not receive

1 See the Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. VII. c. 13), the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. v. c. 12), and the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919 (9 & 10 Geo. v. c. 92), especially § 16 of the latter, which relates to the repeal of the Aliens Act, 1905. See also Henriques, The Law of Aliens, etc. (1906), and Sibley and Elias, The Aliens Act, etc. (1906), with regard to the position of aliens under British

law prior to the World War.

2 See Bouvé, A Treatise on the Laws governing the Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States (1912).

The Institute of International Law adopted at its meeting at Geneva in 1892 (see Annuaire, xii. p. 219) forty-one articles concerning the admission and expulsion of aliens; Articles 6-13 deal with the admittance of aliens.

of Aliens

Condi

tions.

Reception aliens at all, it can receive them only under certain under conditions. Thus, for example, Russia, before the World War, did not admit aliens without passports, and if the alien adhered to the Jewish faith he had to submit to a number of special restrictions.1 Thus, further, during the time Napoleon III. ruled in France, every alien entering French territory from the sea, or from neighbouring land, was admitted only after having stated his name, nationality, and the place to which he intended to go. Some States, as Switzerland, make a distinction between such aliens as intend to settle down in the country, and such as intend only to travel in the country; no alien is allowed to settle in the country without having asked for and received a special authorisation, whereas the country is open unconditionally to all aliens who are merely travelling.

So-called

Asylum.

§ 316. The fact that every State exercises terriRight of torial supremacy over all persons on its territory, whether they are its subjects or aliens, excludes the prosecution of aliens thereon by foreign States. Thus, a foreign State is, provisionally at least, an asylum for every individual who, being prosecuted at home, crosses its frontier. In the absence of extradition treaties stipulating the contrary, no State is by International Law obliged to refuse admittance into its territory to such a fugitive or, in case he has been admitted, to expel him or deliver him up to the prosecuting State. On the contrary, States have always upheld their competence to grant asylum, if they choose to do so. Now the so-called right of asylum is certainly not a right possessed by the alien to demand that the State into whose

1 Many special restrictions have been imposed upon the admission of aliens, especially former enemy aliens, in Great Britain and in other States for the period of reconstruction following the World War, and the requirement of passports and

other formalities is at present general; but it is not possible to discuss these in a general treatise. See the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919 (9 & 10 Geo. v. c. 92), and the Aliens Order, 1920, made thereunder.

territory he has entered with the intention of escaping prosecution in some other State should grant protection and asylum. For such State need not grant these things. The so-called right of asylum is nothing but the competence of every State mentioned above, and inferred from its territorial supremacy, to allow a prosecuted alien to enter, and to remain on, its territory under its protection, and thereby to grant an asylum to him. Such fugitive alien enjoys the hospitality of the State which grants him asylum; but it might be necessary to place him under surveillance, or even to intern him at some place, in the interest of the State which is prosecuting him. For it is the duty of every State to prevent individuals living on its territory from endangering the safety of another State. And if a State grants asylum to a prosecuted alien, this duty becomes of special importance.

VII

POSITION OF ALIENS AFTER RECEPTION 1

Vattel, i. § 213, ii. §§ 101-115-Hall, §§ 63 and 87-Westlake, i. pp. 218-219, 327-330-Lawrence, $$ 97-98-Phillimore, i. §§ 332-339-Twiss, i. § 163 -Taylor, §§ 173, 187, 201-203-Walker, § 19-Wharton, ii. §§ 201-205 -Wheaton, § 77-82-Moore, iv. §§ 534-549-Hershey, Nos. 237-249Bluntschli, § 385-393-Hartmann, $$ 84-85-Heffter, § 62-Stoerk in Holtzendorff, ii. pp. 637-650-Gareis, § 57-Liszt, § 25-Ullmann, §§ 113115-Bonfils, Nos. 447-454-Despagnet, Nos. 339-343-Rivier, i. pp. 309-311-Calvo, ii. §§ 701-706-Martens, ii. § 46-Gaston de Leval, De la Protection des Nationaux à l'Étranger (1907)—Wheeler in A.J., iii. (1909), pp. 869-884-Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, v. (1911), pp. 32-66, 150-225—Borchard, §§ 6-8, 14-25, 34-46, 133-136, and in A.J., vii. (1913), pp. 497-520.

§ 317. With his entrance into a State, an alien, unless

1 Every student desiring information on a special point arising out of the position of aliens after reception or concerning citizens and their

property abroad must study the excellent and standard work of Borchard, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (1919).

premacy.

Aliens he belongs to the class of those who enjoy so-called subjected to Terri- exterritoriality, falls at once under the territorial supretorial Su- macy of that State, although he remains at the same time under the personal supremacy of his home State. He is therefore under the jurisdiction of the State in which he stays, and is responsible to it for all acts he commits on its territory. He is further subjected to all administrative arrangements made by it which concern the very locality where the alien is. If in consequence of a public calamity, such as the outbreak of a fire or an infectious disease, certain administrative restrictions are enforced, they can be enforced against all aliens, as well as against citizens. But apart from jurisdiction, and mere local administrative arrangements, which concern all aliens alike, a distinction must be made between such aliens as are merely travelling, and stay, therefore, only temporarily on the territory, and such as take up their residence there either permanently or for some length of time. A State has wider power over aliens of the latter kind; it can make them pay rates and taxes, and can even compel them in case of need, and under the same conditions as citizens, to serve in the local police and the local fire brigade for the purpose of maintaining public order and safety. On the other hand, an alien does not fall under the personal supremacy of the local State; therefore he cannot be made to serve1 in its army or navy, and cannot, like a citizen, be treated according to discretion.2

It must be emphasised that an alien is responsible to the local State for all illegal acts which he commits while the territory concerned is during war temporarily occupied by the enemy. An illustrative case is that of

1 See, however, above, § 127, concerning the attitude of Great Britain with regard to aliens in British colonies.

As regards religious disabilities of foreigners, see Henriques in the Law Magazine and Review, xxxix. (1914), pp. 320-326.

De Jager v. The Attorney-General for Natal.1 De Jager was a burgher of the South African Republic, but a settled resident in Natal when the South African War broke out. In October 1899 the British forces evacuated that part of Natal in which Waschbank, where he lived, is situated, and it was occupied by the Boer forces for some six months. He joined them, and served in different capacities until March 1900, when he went to the Transvaal, and took no further part in the war. He was tried in March 1901, and convicted of high treason, and sentenced to five years' imprisonment and a fine of £5000, or, failing payment thereof, to a further three years.

Eastern

§ 318. The rule that aliens fall under the territorial Aliens in supremacy of the State they are in finds an exception Coun in Turkey, and, further, in such other Eastern States, tries. like China, as are, in consequence of their deficient civilisation, only for some parts members of the Family of Nations. Aliens who are subjects of Christian States and enter into the territory of such Eastern States, remain wholly under the jurisdiction 2 of their home State. This exceptional condition of things was based, as regards Turkey, on custom and treaties which are called Capitulations, but as regards other Eastern States rests almost entirely on treaties only. Jurisdiction over aliens in these countries is exercised by the consuls of

1 [1907] A.C. 326. See Baty in the Law Magazine and Review, xxxiii. (1908), pp. 214-218, who disapproves of the conviction of De Jager.

'See below, § 440.

3 During the World War Turkey denounced the Capitulations; protests were at once made against this denunciation, and by the Treaty of Peace Turkey will be called upon to accept a scheme of judicial reform designed to replace the Capitulations. (See above, § 102.)

4 See Twiss, i. § 163, who enumerates many of these treaties. See also Phillimore, i. §§ 336-339; Liszt, § 15, iv.; Hall, Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction, §§ 59-91; Scott, The Law affecting Foreigners in Egypt as the Result of the Capitulations (1907); Pélissié du Rausas, Le Régime des Capitulations dans l'Empire Ottoman (2nd ed. 1910); Tchou, Le Régime des Capitulations en Chine (1915); Borchard, § 201-205; Overboek, Die Kapitulationen des Osmanischen Reiches (1917).