Volume I Part 17 (1/2)

[Footnote 164: See Martens, N.R.G. XVIII. p. 448.]

The neutralisation took place, however, under the abnormal condition that Luxemburg is not allowed to keep any armed force, with the exception of a police for the maintenance of safety and order, nor to possess any fortresses. Under these circ.u.mstances Luxemburg herself can do nothing for the defence of her neutrality, as Belgium and Switzerland can.

[Sidenote: The former Congo Free State.]

-- 101. The former Congo Free State,[165] which was recognised as an independent State by the Berlin Congo Conference[166] of 1884-1885, was a permanently neutralised State from 1885-1908, but its neutralisation was imperfect in so far as it was not guaranteed by the Powers. This fact is explained by the circ.u.mstances under which the Congo Free State attained its neutralisation. Article 10 of the General Act of the Congo Conference of Berlin stipulates that the signatory Powers shall respect the neutrality of any territory within the Congo district, provided the Power then or hereafter in possession of the territory proclaims its neutrality. Accordingly, when the Congo Free State was recognised by the Congress of Berlin, the King of the Belgians, as the sovereign of the Congo State, declared[167] it permanently neutral, and this declaration was notified to and recognised by the Powers. Since the Congo Conference did not guarantee the neutrality of the territories within the Congo district, the neutralisation of the Congo Free State was not guaranteed either. In 1908[168] the Congo Free State merged by cession into Belgium.

[Footnote 165: Moynier, ”La fondation de l'etat independant du Congo”

(1887); Hall, -- 26; Westlake, I. p., 30; Navez, ”Essai historique sur l'etat Independant du Congo,” Vol. I. (1905); Reeves in A.J. III.

(1909), pp. 99-118.]

[Footnote 166: See Protocol 9 of that Conference in Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. X. p. 353.]

[Footnote 167: See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XVI. p. 585.]

[Footnote 168: See Martens, N.R.G. 3rd Ser. II. pp. 101, 106, 109, and Delpech and Marcaggi in R.G. XVIII. (1911), pp. 105-163. The question is doubtful, whether the guarantee of the neutrality of Belgium extends now to territory of the former Congo Free State _ipso facto_ by its merger into Belgium.]

IX

NON-CHRISTIAN STATES

Westlake, I. p. 40--Phillimore, I. ---- 27-33--Bluntschli, ---- 1-16--Heffter, -- 7--Gareis, -- 10--Rivier, I. pp. 13-18--Bonfils, No. 40--Martens, -- 41--Nys, I. pp. 122-125--Westlake, Chapters, pp. 114-143.

[Sidenote: No essential difference between Christian and other States.]

-- 102. It will be remembered from the previous discussion of the dominion[169] of the Law of Nations that this dominion extends beyond the Christian and includes now the Mahometan State of Turkey and the Buddhistic State of j.a.pan. As all full-Sovereign International Persons are equal to one another, no essential difference exists within the Family of Nations between Christian and non-Christian States. That foreigners residing in Turkey are still under the exclusive jurisdiction of their consuls, is an anomaly based on a restriction on territorial supremacy arising partly from custom and partly from treaties. If Turkey could ever succeed, as j.a.pan did, in introducing such reforms as would create confidence in the impartiality of her Courts of Justice, this restriction would certainly be abolished.

[Footnote 169: See above, -- 28.]

[Sidenote: International position of non-Christian States except Turkey and j.a.pan.]

-- 103. Doubtful is the position of all non-Christian States except Turkey and j.a.pan, such as China, Morocco, Siam, Persia, and further Abyssinia, although the latter is a Christian State, and although China, Persia, and Siam took part in the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907. Their civilisation is essentially so different from that of the Christian States that international intercourse with them of the same kind as between Christian States has been hitherto impossible. And neither their governments nor their populations are at present able to fully understand the Law of Nations and to take up an att.i.tude which is in conformity with all the rules of this law. There should be no doubt that these States are not International Persons of the same kind and the same position within the Family of Nations as Christian States. But it is equally wrong to maintain that they are absolutely outside the Family of Nations, and are for no part International Persons. Since they send and receive diplomatic envoys and conclude international treaties, the opinion is justified that such States are International Persons only in some respects--namely, those in which they have expressly or tacitly been received into the Family of Nations. When Christian States begin such intercourse with these non-Christian States as to send diplomatic envoys to them and receive their diplomatic envoys, and when they enter into treaty obligations with them, they indirectly declare that they are ready to recognise them for these parts as International Persons and subjects of the Law of Nations. But for other parts such non-Christian States remain as yet outside the circle of the Family of Nations, especially with regard to war, and they are for those parts treated by the Christian Powers according to discretion. This condition of things will, however, not last very long. It may be expected that with the progress of civilisation these States will become sooner or later International Persons in the full sense of the term. They are at present in a state of transition, and some of them are the subjects of international arrangements of great political importance. Thus by the Treaty of London of December 13, 1906, Great Britain, France, and Italy agree to co-operate in maintaining the independence and integrity of Abyssinia,[170] and the General Act of the Conference of Algeciras of April 7, 1906,[171] signed by Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Spain, the United States of America, France, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Russia, Sweden, and Morocco herself, endeavours to suppress anarchy in Morocco and to introduce reforms in its internal administration. This Act,[172] which recognises, on the one hand, the independence and integrity of Morocco, and, on the other, equal commercial facilities in that country for all nations, contains:--(1) A Declaration concerning the organisation of the Moroccan police; (2) Regulations concerning the detection and suppression of the illicit trade in arms; (3) An Act of concession for a Moorish State Bank; (4) A Declaration concerning an improved yield of the taxes and the creation of new sources of revenue; (5) Regulations respecting customs and the suppression of fraud and smuggling; (6) A Declaration concerning the public services and public works.

[Footnote 170: See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. x.x.xV. p. 556.]

[Footnote 171: See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. x.x.xIV. p. 238.]

[Footnote 172: It has been mentioned above, p. 76, that the Moroccan question has been reopened, and that fresh negotiations are taking place for its settlement.]

X

THE HOLY SEE

Hall, -- 98--Westlake, I. pp. 37-39--Phillimore, I. ---- 278-440--Twiss, I. ---- 206-207--Taylor, ---- 277, 278, 282--Wharton, I. -- 70, p. 546--Moore, I. -- 18--Bluntschli, -- 172--Heffter, ---- 40-41--Geffcken in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 151-222--Gareis, -- 13--Liszt, -- 5--Ullmann, -- 28--Bonfils, Nos. 370-396--Despagnet, Nos. 147-164--Merignhac, II. pp. 119-153--Nys, II. pp.

297-324--Rivier, I. -- 8--Fiore, I. Nos. 520, 521--Martens, I. -- 84--Fiore, ”Della condizione giuridica intern.a.z.ionale della chiesa e del Papa” (1887)--Bombard, ”Le Pape et le droit des gens”

(1888)--Imbart-Latour, ”La papaute en droit international”

(1893)--Olivart, ”Le Pape, les etats de l'eglise et l'Italie”

(1897)--Chretien in R.G. VI. (1899) pp. 281-291--Bompart in R.G.