Volume I Part 13 (2/2)

(2) Other changes affecting States as International Persons are such changes as involve a partial loss of independence on the part of the States concerned. Many restrictions may be imposed upon States without interfering with their independence proper,[109] but certain restrictions involve inevitably a partial loss of independence. Thus if a hitherto independent State comes under the suzerainty of another State and becomes thereby a half-Sovereign State, its character as an International Person is affected. The same is valid with regard to a hitherto independent State which comes under the protectorate of another State. Again, if several hitherto independent States enter into a Federal State, they transfer a part of their sovereignty to the Federal State and become thereby part-Sovereign States. On the other hand, if a va.s.sal State or a State under protectorate is freed from the suzerainty or protectorate, it is thereby affected as an International Person, because it turns now into a full Sovereign State. And the same is valid with regard to a member-State of a Federal State which leaves the union and gains the condition of a full Sovereign State.

[Footnote 109: See below, ---- 126-127, where the different kinds of these restrictions are discussed.]

(3) States which become permanently neutralised are thereby also affected in their character as International Persons, although their independence remains untouched. But permanent neutralisation alters the condition of a State so much that it thereby becomes an International Person of a particular kind.

[Sidenote: Extinction of International Persons.]

-- 79. A State ceases to be an International Person when it ceases to exist. Theoretically such extinction of International Persons is possible through emigration or the peris.h.i.+ng of the whole population of a State, or through a permanent anarchy within a State. But it is evident that such cases will hardly ever occur in fact. Practical cases of extinction of States are: Merger of one State into another, annexation after conquest in war, breaking up of a State into several States, and breaking up of a State into parts which are annexed by surrounding States.

By voluntarily merging into another State, a State loses all its independence and becomes a mere part of another. In this way the Duchy of Courland merged in 1795 into Russia, the two Princ.i.p.alities of Hohenzollern-Hechingen and Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen in 1850 into Prussia, the Congo Free State in 1908 into Belgium, and Korea in 1910 into j.a.pan. And the same is the case if a State is subjugated by another. In this way the Orange Free State and the South African Republic were absorbed by Great Britain in 1901. An example of the breaking up of a State into different States is the division of the Swiss canton of Basle into Basel-Stadt and Basel-Land in 1833. And an example of the breaking up of a State into parts which are annexed by surrounding States is the absorption of Poland by Russia, Austria, and Prussia in 1795.

IV

SUCCESSION OF INTERNATIONAL PERSONS[110]

Grotius, II. c. 9 and 10--Pufendorf, VIII. c. 12--Hall, ---- 27-29--Phillimore, I. -- 137--Lawrence, -- 49--Halleck, I. pp.

89-92--Taylor, ---- 164-168--Westlake, I. pp. 68-83--Wharton, I. -- 5--Moore, I. ---- 92-99--Wheaton, ---- 28-32--Bluntschli, ---- 47-50--Hartmann, -- 12--Heffter, -- 25--Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 33-47--Liszt, -- 23--Ullmann, -- 32--Bonfils, Nos. 216-233--Despagnet, Nos. 89-102--Pradier-Fodere, I. Nos.

156-163--Nys, I. pp. 399-401--Rivier, I. -- 3, pp. 69-75 and p.

438--Calvo, I. ---- 99-103--Fiore, I. Nos. 349-366--Martens, I. -- 67--Appleton, ”Des effets des annexions sur les dettes de l'etat demembre ou annexe” (1895)--Huber, ”Die Staatensuccession”

(1898)--Keith, ”The Theory of State Succession, with special reference to English and Colonial Law” (1907)--Cavaglieri, ”La dottrina della successione di stato a stato, &c.” (1910)--Richards in _The Law Magazine and Review_, XXVIII. (1903), pp.

129-141--Keith in Z.V. III. (1909), pp. 618-648--Hershey in A.J.

V. (1911), pp. 285-297.

[Footnote 110: The following text treats only of the broad outlines of the subject, as the practice of the States has hardly settled more than general principles. Details must be studied in Huber, ”Die Staatensuccession” (1898), and Keith, ”The Theory of State Succession, &c.” (1907); the latter writer's a.n.a.lysis of cases in Z.V. III. (1909), pp. 618-648, is likewise very important.]

[Sidenote: Common Doctrine regarding Succession of International Persons.]

-- 80. Although there is no unanimity among the writers on International Law with regard to the so-called succession of International Persons, nevertheless the following common doctrine can be stated to exist.

A succession of International Persons occurs when one or more International Persons take the place of another International Person, in consequence of certain changes in the latter's condition.

Universal succession takes place when one International Person is absorbed by another, either through subjugation or through voluntary merger. And universal succession further takes place when a State breaks up into parts which either become separate International Persons of their own or are annexed by surrounding International Persons.

Partial succession takes place, first, when a part of the territory of an International Person breaks off in a revolt and by winning its independence becomes itself an International Person; secondly, when one International Person acquires a part of the territory of another through cession; thirdly, when a hitherto full Sovereign State loses part of its independence through entering into a Federal State, or coming under suzerainty or under a protectorate, or when a hitherto not-full Sovereign State becomes full Sovereign; fourthly, when an International Person becomes a member of a Real Union or _vice versa_.

n.o.body ever maintained that on the successor devolve all the rights and duties of his predecessor. But after stating that a succession takes place, the respective writers try to educe the consequences and to make out what rights and duties do, and what do not, devolve.

Several writers,[111] however, contest the common doctrine and maintain that a succession of International Persons never takes place. Their argument is that the rights and duties of an International Person disappear with the extinguished Person or become modified according to the modifications an International Person undergoes through losing part of its sovereignty.

[Footnote 111: See Gareis, pp. 66-70, who discusses the matter with great clearness, and Liszt, -- 23.]

[Sidenote: How far Succession actually takes place.]

-- 81. If the real facts of life are taken into consideration, the common doctrine cannot be upheld. To say that succession takes place in such and such cases and to make out afterwards what rights and duties devolve, shows a wrong method of dealing with the problem. It is certain that no _general_ succession takes place according to the Law of Nations. With the extinction of an International Person disappear its rights and duties as a person. But it is equally wrong to maintain that no succession whatever occurs. For n.o.body doubts that certain rights and duties actually and really devolve upon an International Person from its predecessor. And since this devolution takes place through the very fact of one International Person following another in the possession of State territory, there is no doubt that, as far as these devolving rights and duties are concerned, a succession of one International Person to the rights and duties of another really does take place. But no general rule can be laid down concerning all the cases in which a succession takes place. These cases must be discussed singly.

[Sidenote: Succession in consequence of Absorption.]

<script>