Volume I Part 13 (1/2)
-- 74. Recognition is of special importance in those cases where a new State tries to establish itself by breaking off from an existing State in the course of a revolution. And here the question is material whether a new State has really already safely and permanently established itself or only makes efforts to this end without having already succeeded. That in every case of civil war a foreign State can recognise the insurgents as a belligerent Power if they succeed in keeping a part of the country in their hands and set up a Government of their own, there is no doubt.
But between this recognition as a belligerent Power and the recognition of these insurgents and their part of the country as a new State, there is a broad and deep gulf. And the question is precisely at what exact time recognition of a new State may be given instead of the recognition as a belligerent Power. For an untimely and precipitate recognition as a new State is a violation of the dignity[104] of the mother-State, to which the latter need not patiently submit.
[Footnote 104: It is frequently maintained that such untimely recognition contains an intervention. But this is not correct, since intervention is (see below, -- 134) _dictatorial_ interference in the affairs of another State. The question of recognition of the belligerency of insurgents is exhaustively treated by Westlake, I. pp.
50-57.]
In spite of the importance of the question, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as regards the time when it can be said that a State created by revolution has established itself safely and permanently. The characteristic of such safe and permanent establishment may be found either in the fact that the revolutionary State has utterly defeated the mother-State, or that the mother-State has ceased to make efforts to subdue the revolutionary State, or even that the mother-State, in spite of its efforts, is apparently incapable of bringing the revolutionary back under its sway.[105] Of course, as soon as the mother-State itself recognises the new State, there is no reason for other States to withhold any longer their recognition, although they have even then no legal obligation to grant it.
[Footnote 105: When, in 1903, Panama fell away from Colombia, the United States immediately recognised the new Republic as an independent State.
For the motives of this quick action, see Moore, I. -- 344, pp. 46 and following.]
The breaking off of the American States from their European mother-States furnishes many ill.u.s.trative examples. Thus the recognition of the United States by France in 1778 was precipitate. But when in 1782 England herself recognised the independence of the United States, other States could accord recognition too without giving offence to England.
Again, when the South American colonies of Spain declared their independence in 1810, no Power recognised the new States for many years.
When, however, it became apparent that Spain, although she still kept up her claims, was not able to restore her sway, the United States recognised the new States in 1822, and England followed the example in 1824 and 1825.[106]
[Footnote 106: See Gibbs, ”Recognition: a Chapter from the History of the North American and South American States” (1863), and Moore, I. ---- 28-36.]
[Sidenote: State Recognition in contradistinction to other Recognitions.]
-- 75. Recognition of a new State must not be confounded with other recognitions. Recognition of insurgents as a belligerent Power has already been mentioned. Besides this, recognition of a change in the form of the government or of change in the t.i.tle of an old State is a matter of importance. But the granting or refusing of these recognitions has nothing to do with recognition of the State itself. If a foreign State refuses the recognition of a change in the form of the government of an old State, the latter does not thereby lose its recognition as an International Person, although no official intercourse is henceforth possible between the two States as long as recognition is not given either expressly or tacitly. And if recognition of a new t.i.tle[107] of an old State is refused, the only consequence is that such State cannot claim any privileges connected with the new t.i.tle.
[Footnote 107: See below, -- 119.]
III
CHANGES IN THE CONDITION OF INTERNATIONAL PERSONS
Grotius, II. c. 9, ---- 5-13--Pufendorf, VIII. c. 12--Vattel, I. -- 11--Hall, -- 2--Halleck, I. pp. 89-92--Phillimore, I. ---- 124-137--Taylor, -- 163--Westlake, I. pp. 58-66--Wheaton, ---- 28-32--Moore, I. ---- 76-79--Bluntschli, ---- 39-53--Hartmann, ---- 12-13--Heffter, -- 24--Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp.
21-23--Liszt, -- 5--Ullmann, ---- 31 and 35--Bonfils, Nos.
214-215--Despagnet, Nos. 86-89--Pradier-Fodere, I. Nos.
146-157--Nys, I. pp. 399-401--Rivier, I. -- 3--Calvo, I. ---- 81-106--Fiore, I. Nos. 321-331, and Code, Nos. 119-141--Martens, I. ---- 65-69.
[Sidenote: Important in contradistinction to Indifferent Changes.]
-- 76. The existence of International Persons is exposed to the flow of things and times. There is a constant and gradual change in their citizens through deaths and births, emigration, and immigration. There is a frequent change in those individuals who are at the head of the States, and there is sometimes a change in the form of their governments, or in their dynasties if they are monarchies. There are sometimes changes in their territories through loss or increase of parts thereof, and there are sometimes changes regarding their independence through partial or total loss of the same. Several of these and other changes in the condition and appearance of International Persons are indifferent to International Law, although they may be of great importance for the inner development of the States concerned and directly or indirectly for international policy. Those changes, on the other hand, which are, or may be, of importance to International Law must be divided into three groups according to their influence upon the character of the State concerned as an International Person. For some of these changes affect a State as an International Person, others do not; again, others extinguish a State as an International Person altogether.
[Sidenote: Changes not affecting States as International Persons.]
-- 77. A State remains one and the same International Person in spite of changes in its heads.h.i.+p, in its dynasty, in its form, in its rank and t.i.tle, and in its territory. These changes cannot be said to be indifferent to International Law. Although strictly no notification to and recognition by foreign Powers are necessary, according to the Law of Nations, in case of a change in the heads.h.i.+p of a State or in its entire dynasty, or if a monarchy becomes a republic or _vice versa_, no official intercourse is possible between the Powers refusing recognition and the State concerned. Although, further, a State can a.s.sume any t.i.tle it likes, it cannot claim the privileges of rank connected with a t.i.tle if foreign States refuse recognition. And although, thirdly, a State can dispose according to discretion of parts of its territory and acquire as much territory as it likes, foreign Powers may intervene for the purpose of maintaining a balance of power or on account of other vital interests.
But whatever may be the importance of such changes, they neither affect a State as an International Person, nor affect the personal ident.i.ty of the States concerned. France, for instance, has retained her personal ident.i.ty from the time the Law of Nations came into existence until the present day, although she acquired and lost parts of her territory, changed her dynasty, was a kingdom, a republic, an empire, again a kingdom, again a republic, again an empire, and is now, finally as it seems, a republic. All her international rights and duties as an International Person remained the very same throughout the centuries in spite of these important changes in her condition and appearance. Even such loss of territory as occasions the reduction of a Great Power to a small Power, or such increase of territory and strength as turns a small State into a Great Power, does not affect a State as an International Person. Thus, although through the events of the years 1859-1861 Sardinia acquired the whole territory of the Italian Peninsula and turned into the Great Power of Italy, she remained one and the same International Person.
[Sidenote: Changes affecting States as International Persons.]
-- 78. Changes which affect States as International Persons are of different character.
(1) As in a Real Union the member-States of the union, although fully independent, make one International Person,[108] two States which hitherto were separate International Persons are affected in that character by entering into a Real Union. For through that change they appear henceforth together as one and the same International Person. And should this union be dissolved, the member-States are again affected, for they now become again separate International Persons.
[Footnote 108: See below, -- 87, where the character of the Real Union is fully discussed.]