What is the weakest branch of international law

Differentiation from the other relationships of dependency

Semi-sovereignty pp 169-196 | Cite as

Summary

In order to define the terms of semi-sovereignty, it is not enough to set up a definition of the same, to determine its content and scope;

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

literature

  1. Landmann, The concept of sovereignty among French theorists, p. 43, lists Bodin's relationships of dependency - nine in number - of which only six come into consideration, because the last three are made up of subjects, freedmen and slaves. It is characteristic of Bodin's conception that when he is a vassal, his fourth to sixth class, he comes to the conclusion that the vassal as such is not sovereign. What is meant, of course, is the dependency on feudal law
  2. See Part I. p. 72 ff. Google Scholar
  3. See Part I. p. 33 ff. Google Scholar
  4. v. Martitz, Critique of Labands Staatsrecht, Zeitschrift f. Gesamt Staatswissensch. XXXII p. 565: “The contrast between the simple and the composite state can by no means exhaust the conceptually conceivable and actually existing relationships between state and state. In addition to that antithesis, there appears as a second the opposition between independent and dependent power. The state (including the sovereign), which is legally bound to receive the motives of its actions from outside, is dependent. The state is independent if it only finds it in itself. Dependence does not destroy the freedom of state authority, but damages the freedom of politics. Accordingly, the protective state is dependent on the patronage (e.g. the sovereign Khein-federal states versus the imperial protector); the individual state in the federation (e.g. the sovereign German states of the Frankfurt Bundestag) is finite the vassal state opposite the suzerain. The latter relationship can be mixed up with that of the composite state, it also happens regularly, but that is not necessary, and exceptions occur. "Google Scholar
  5. Heart fields, violence and law, p. 9. Google Scholar
  6. Jellinek, Allg. Staatslehre, p. 683 n.1 Google Scholar
  7. Namely Bornhak, one-sided. Dependency Relationships, p. 21 ff. With regard to the distinction in English usage, see Heilborn, p. 64. Google Scholar
  8. See Part I. p. 66. Google Scholar
  9. Gairal, p. 60. Google Scholar
  10. We also have no objection to the distinction between the old and the modern protectorate, as is often the case, as long as you determine exactly what you mean by that. So Pillet, R.G.D.J. II p. 585 and p. 585 n. 1. “Il existe une forme ancienne et une forme nouvelle de protectorat. La plus ancienne suppose deux États d’importance inégale, mais de civilization sensiblement égale ”; And a few lines further: “Mais il existe une autre espèce de protectorat, d'origine beaucoup plus récente, et dont l'importance est aujourd'hui infiniment plus considérable: c'est le protectorat qu'un peuple civilisé exerce sur un autre peuple moins civilisé. “Google Scholar
  11. The protection of Swiss nationals by Germany in Turkey.Google Scholar
  12. Russo-Turkish War 1877. Japanese-Chinese War. More details R.G.D.J. II p. 577. Google Scholar
  13. Key, a. a. O., also Tschernoff, Le droit de protection exercé par un état à l’égard de ses nationaux thèse. Paris 1898. Lippmann, consular jurisdiction in the Orient.Google Scholar
  14. Stengel, The state and international law. Position of the German. Colonies 1886. The same, Das Kolonialstaatsrecht 1887. The same, The German Protected Areas. Hirths Annalen 1889. Bornhak, Beginnings of the German Colonial Law. d'Orge val, Les protectorats allemands, Annales de l’Ecole libre des sciences politiques,, 1891 p. 623. Despagnet, p. 148, 211. Google Scholar
  15. Gairal, p. 58, 64. Despagnet, p. 213. Cf. Berliner Kongrefs-akte 1885, Art. 1, 8, 10, 11, 32, 34. Brussels General Act, Art. 1, 3, 9. Cf. Martiz at the Annuaire de l’Institut IX p. 247 (1887) torn. X p. 173 ff. (1888) and the same in R.D.J. XIX p. 371 (1887). Salomon, L’occupation des territoires sans maitre 1889. Jèze, L’occupation 1896. Despagnet, p. 218-238. R.D.J. XVIII 1886, (Engelhardt) R.G.D.J. I p. 103 (Despagnet). Gairal, a. a. O. Google Scholar
  16. So has z. B. France, which was most interested, secured a right of first refusal both on the part of the Congo state (conv. Of April 23, 1884, August 14, 1894) and Belgium (conv. Of February 5, 1895), if any part of the Congo state should be sold. The last convention is reprinted R.G.D.J. II p. 545. Cf. also Ribier, Repertoire des traités II vol. 1895, 1899 torn. II p. 73 sq. This could also be a compulsory right of appropriation, a distinction which might cause difficulties in international law, but which in private law is made easier by registration. Google Scholar
  17. We also have to forego the search for the tertium comparationis, in which there is equality between semi-sovereignty and the other state associations - a difficult task - for the reason given above. Google Scholar
  18. Heffter-Geffcken, p. 200 Google Scholar
  19. Juras chek, Personalunion and Realunion 1878. Ulbrich, The legal nature of Austria-Hungary. Monarchy 1879. Jellinek, Association of States, p. 82 ff. Ders., Allg. St.L., p. 687 ff. Brie, Theory of State Relations, 1886 p. 69 ff. Google Scholar
  20. Cf. the above, namely Brie, St.V. p. 85 ff. Google Scholar
  21. Above all, the excellent remarks by Jellinek, St.V. p. 197-253. Google Scholar
  22. Brie, State, 1874. Ders., St.V. p. 95 f. Jellinek, St.V. p. 137 ff. Laband, Staatsrecht, I p. 51 ff. Stengel, op. a. O. Pischel, op. a. O. p. 46, 47. Google Scholar
  23. Brie, St.V. p. 22: “Since the subordination to force majeure is also compatible with the concept of the state in accordance with the opinion represented here, the individual state in relation to other states can also be subject to such legal restrictions which lead to their emergence or presuppose a will overriding the individual state in order to exist. ”Google Scholar
  24. Martens, N.R.G. XV p. 655. A. M. Jellinek, St.V. p. 134 n. 25, which describes this contract as a guarantee contract, "because Russia had at least as great an interest in the conclusion of the contract as Turkey." Google Scholar
  25. Millovanovitch, Les traités de garantie 1888. The difference between protection and protectorate is given by Gairal, p. 71-73 and p. 111. Google Scholar
  26. The expression comes from Jellinek in his previously mentioned treatise "On Fragments of the State". Jellinek does not give a definition, but he means those territorial authorities which, without being municipal associations, have certain properties that only states have. Jellinek includes the German protected areas, Schleswig-Holstein from 1864–1866, Bosnia and Herzegovina, part of the British colonies such as Canada, Cape Country and the colonies in Australia, Iceland, the Austrian kingdoms and countries, the North American territories, Elsafs-Lorraine , Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Croatia-Slavonia, Finland. Otto Mejer, in his introduction to German constitutional law, p. 21, has already used the expression “fragment states” to denote state structures that do not also meet the concept of the state politically, but only legally. B. the individual states.Google Scholar
  27. So z. B. Croatia, the Austrian crown lands.Google Scholar
  28. So z. B. Canada.Google Scholar
  29. Pledging of Wismar on the part of Sweden to Mecklenburg 1803. B r. Schmidt, The Swedish - Mecklenburg pledge agreement. Leipzig 1901.Google Scholar
  30. For more information, see Murat, Le controle international sur les finances de l’Egypte, de la Grèce et de la Turquie. Thesis. Paris 1899. Google Scholar
  31. Faster, the constitutional position of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Inaugural Diss. Berlin 1892. Guerschitsch, The position of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Cyprus (Serbian). Spalaïkovitch, La Bosnie et l’Herzegovine 1898. Further references there and at Bonfils, a. a, o. p. 184 ff. Google Scholar
  32. Heilborn, The international legal protectorate, 1891. Despagnet, Essai sur les protectorats, 1896. Gaira ;, Le protectorat international, 1896. Hachenburger, De la nature juridique du protectorat. Thèse, Paris 1896. Engelhardt, Les protectorats anciens et modern, Paris 1896. In this book his individual essays from the R.D.I. compiled. Duhamel, Condition juridique des pays de protectorat, 1891 (not available). Clunet, XVII, 1890 p. 206 (Wilhelm), XXII, 1895 p. 760 (Wilhelm), R.G.D.J. II, 1895 p. 583-608 (Pillet); III, 1896 p. 613 to 647 (pic); IV, 1897 p. 176-202 Pouvourville); Y, 1898 p. 207-236 (Pourvourville). Wilhelm, Etude sur les principes du protectorat. Annales de l’École libre des sciences politiques, 1889 p. 694 sq. Further information from Bonfils, p. 93 n.3, and Marquis d'Olivart, Catalog d’une Bibliothèque de droit international, Paris, 1900.Google Scholar
  33. Such is Despagnet in his work, as is Engelhard T. Google Scholar
  34. Heilborn, a. a. O. p. 50. Sirmagieff, op. a. O., Le Normand, op. a. O. p. 71. Google Scholar
  35. Hanotaux, in the Revue de Paris du January 1st 1896: “Le traité de Tananarive et Madagascar et le régime du protectorat”, p. 5 p .: “Le protectorat ne se définit pas. C’est un état de fait et voilà tout ”; and d'Orgeval Annales de l’École des sciences politiques, 1890 p. 699. Les protectorats allemands, which denies the possibility of setting up a scientific theory of the protectorate. See also Despagnet, op. a. O. p. 4. Google Scholar
  36. So Heilborn, a. a. O. p. 34ff. Despagnet, p. 51. Gairal, p. 109. Wilhelm Clunet, 1896 p. 209, and most textbooks, such as: Pradier-Fodéré, I p. 186. Calvo, I p. 200. Pièdelièvre, I p. 87. Rivier, I p. 95. Bonfils, p. 94. Fiore, I p. 300. Bluntschli, Reg. 78. Heffter, p. 19. Jellinek, St.Y. Ullmann, § 16, 17. Liszt, § 6. IV. Bulmerincq, § 14. Wheaton, I p. 43. Tr. Twiss, I, p. 25. Lawrence, Commentaires, I § 225. Hall, p. 25. Phillimore, I p. 100th Google Scholar
  37. Holtzendorff, Handbook, II p. 103ff. Gareis, p. 54. Ortolan, Règles internationales et diplomatiques de la mer, I p. 48. Chrétien, Principes de droit international, I p. 255 (1893). Me. Illraith in the Law Quaterly Review, XII 1896 p. 114. Pillet, R.G.D.J. II p. 583 f, except that Holtzendorff does not make a distinction between protectorate and semi-sovereignty; in its generality, its restrictions are often not applicable at all.Google Scholar
  38. Pillet, op. a. O. II p. 585: "Actuellement le civilisé préfère respecter l'existence et les institutions du non civilisé avec lequel il est entré en contact sauf à assumer par rapport à lui un pouvoir de direction conforme à ses visées politiques, conforme aussi à la mission de civilization dont il doit s'acquitter à son égard, et qui constitue la seule justification plausible de la supériorité par lui prétendue. C’est en vue de cet objet qu’a été créée la theory modern du protectorat. L’Etat civilisé se présente à l’Etat moins civilisé comme un tuteur, comme un instituteur, comme un guide. Il facilite son entrée dans la communauté internationale en se chargant de ces relations avec les peuples étrangers, ralations que ce dernier serait inhabile à conduire avec succès; il promet de le défendre contre tout danger extérieur; il se charge de le faire avancer peu a peu dans la voie du progrès. Le protégé, de son côté, se borne le plus souvent à promettre à son protecteur la somme d’obéissance nécessaire à l’exercise de ses importantes et délicates fonctions. Cette conception est en vérité séduisante, et cette relation de tuteur à pupille qu’elle constitue entre civilisé et moins civilisé est l’une des inventions politiques les plus heureuses de notre époque. Elle purifie, elle ennoblit le rôle du protecteur, elle sauvegarde les intérêts les plus sacrés du protégé, lui garantissant son existence, la conservation de sa nationalité le respect de ses mœurs propres, et lui ménageant une accession progressive et insensible aux avantages de la civilization . “Google Scholar
  39. Leroy-Beaulieu, Colonization chez les peuples modern, 1874, since then there have been more recent editions.Google Scholar
  40. Most recently Cuba.Google Scholar
  41. Jellinek, St.V. p. 133 above.Google Scholar
  42. Heilborn, a. a. O. p. 50. Google Scholar
  43. Rehm, Allgemeine Staatslehre, p. 22, 85. Google Scholar
  44. So Westlake, R.D.J. XXVIII p. 274. Despagnet, op. a. O. p. 4, from: "Mais, de ce qu’il n’y a pas deux contrats de vente qui se ressemblent dans leurs détails, peut-on en conclure qu’il n’y a pas une théorie juridique de ce contrat? Nous pensons au contraire, qu’il est possible de dégager de la variété des traités de protectorat certaines idées générales. "Google Scholar
  45. See e.g. B. Treaty of Kasr-Said with Tunis Art. VI, or the Treaty of Tamatave, December 17, 1885, both printed in Rouard de Card, Les traités de protectorat conclus par la France en Afrique, Paris 1896 p. 159 and 177; both also in Clercq, XIII p. 25, XV p. 922. One of the most precise protectorate treaties is that of August 3, 1847 between France and the Society Islands, namely Art. 35.Google Scholar
  46. Consistent Pillet, R.G.D.J. II p. 585 and Pic, R.G.D.J. III p. 613 if Google Scholar
  47. Protectorate treaties between France and the Society Islands, 1847 Art. 35. Annam, 1844 Art. 1. Anjouan, 1886 Art. 1. Madagascar, 1885 Art. 1, and 1895 Art. 3. The only apparent exception is Tunis in the Treaty of Kasr-Said , 1881 Art. 6. In the same year, however, the French resident was appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs. See also the English protectorate treaties.Google Scholar
  48. So Heilborn, a. a. O. p. 40. Google Scholar
  49. E.g. Transvaal; Convention of 1884, Art. 4. Google Scholar
  50. Pic, R.G.D.J. III p. 626, wants to extend the effect against third parties so far that the surrender of the foreign powers, that is, well-acquired rights, lose their validity through the mere fact of the Protectorate. See also Pillet, op. a. O. p. 605. Wilhelm, loc. a. O. p. 208. Pradier-Fodéré, IV no. 2137. It seems to us that this harsh statement on a vested third party right is too much at odds with the actual circumstances. However, this demand is by no means so unjustified. The protest of France against a similar demand with regard to Massaouahs speaks only apparently against it. The same did not apply generally to this question, but was made with regard to Egypt because of the dependence of this country on the gate. Anything more detailed R.G.D.J. III p. 630 after 2. R.D.J. XYII p. 229 sq. Spalaikovitch, et al. a. O. p. 260. Google Scholar
  51. The French Supreme Court drew this conclusion. Arrêt de la cour de cassation on October 27th. 1893 (p. 95, 1. 57.), with detailed commentary by Appert. The decision is also reprinted by R.G.D.J. I p. 64. Google Scholar
  52. So z. B. unauthorized regulation of the coinage, or the entire civil and criminal legislation, or even the unconditional consequences of war. This is followed by the important questions of neutrality and so on Google Scholar
  53. See also Pic, Influence de l’établissement d’un protectorat sur les traités antérieurement conclus avec des puissances tierces par l’état protégé in the R.G.D.J. III p. 613 sq., Specifically p. 626 ff. Google Scholar
  54. Pouvourville, Des bases de la politique extérieure dans les pays de protectorat in the R.G.D.J. IV p. 176 ff., V p. 207 ff. Google Scholar
  55. Pic, a. a. O. p. 615 and p. 616 p., 620 p., Which seeks to objectively compare the advantages and disadvantages of protectorate and annexation. In addition to most journalists, Despagnet, op. Cit., Advocated the annexation of Madagascar. 384 and 424, and Leroy-Beaulieu, in l’Économiste français of August 24, 1895, IL vol. P. 237-239. p. 237: "Le protectorat comme à Tunis, sans annexion, cela ferait de Madagascar un commensal européen, ou les hotes les plus voraces et les plus energiques, à savoir les Anglais, prendraient tout pour eux et nous réduiraient à rien." Google Scholar
  56. This is expressly stated in the individual treaties between the Suzerain authority and third powers. So z. ß. in the trade agreement between the gate and the north German customs union, Art. IX; reprinted by Martens and Cussy. Recueil 1ère Series tome V p. 366; also in the contract of Balta Liman, Art. 16. Google Scholar
  57. A. A. Heilborn, p. 91 and many others. On the other hand, see § 27. Google Scholar below
  58. See Part I above, p. 49 on Bulgaria. Egypt also waged wars against indigenous tribes alone.The question is made more complicated by the intervention of England, especially against the Mahdi.Google Scholar
  59. So Paris Treaty, Art. XXVIII. The Berlin Treaty does not include any intervention by the gate at all. Google Scholar
  60. In our opinion, Madagascar has become what it used to be due to the state of war with France, an independent state that could now enter into treaties which it wanted and how it wanted.Google Scholar
  61. See note 24 above, Google Scholar
  62. See above p. 143. Google Scholar
  63. Heilborn, p. 137. The excellent comparison comes from Leroy-Beaulieu: “La colonization française en Tunisie.” Revue des deux mondes 1886, t. 73 p. 397; quoted by Heilborn 1. c, with the misprint but t. 78 instead of 73. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1903

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available