Volume I Part 20 (1/2)

[Footnote 188: In contradistinction to the generally recognised political hegemony of the Great Powers, Lawrence (---- 113 and 114) and Taylor (-- 69) maintain that the position of the Great Powers is _legally_ superior to that of the smaller States, being a ”Primacy” or ”Overlords.h.i.+p.” This doctrine, which professedly seeks to abolish the universally recognised rule of the equality of States, has no sound basis, and confounds political with legal inequality. I cannot agree with Lawrence when he says (-- 114, p. 276):--”... in a system of rules depending, like International Law, for their validity on general consent, what is political is legal also, if it is generally accepted and acted on.” The Great Powers are _de facto_, by the smaller States, recognised as political leaders, but this recognition does not involve recognition of legal superiority.]

[Sidenote: Rank of States.]

-- 117. Although the States are equals as International Persons, they are nevertheless not equals as regards rank. The differences as regards rank are recognised by International Law, but the legal equality of States within the Family of Nations is thereby as little affected as the legal equality of the citizens is within a modern State where differences in rank and t.i.tles of the citizens are recognised by Munic.i.p.al Law. The vote of a State of lower rank has legally as much weight as that of a State of higher rank. And the difference in rank nowadays no longer plays such an important part as in the past, when questions of etiquette gave occasion for much dispute. It was in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that the rank of the different States was zealously discussed under the heading of _droit de preseance_ or _questions de preseance_.

The Congress at Vienna of 1815 intended to establish an order of precedence within the Family of Nations, but dropped this scheme on account of practical difficulties. Thus the matter is entirely based on custom, which recognises the following three rules:

(1) The States are divided into two cla.s.ses--namely, States with and States without royal honours. To the first cla.s.s belong Empires, Kingdoms, Grand Duchies, and the great Republics such as France, the United States of America, Switzerland, the South American Republics, and others. All other States belong to the second cla.s.s. The Holy See is treated as though it were a State with royal honours. States with royal honours have exclusively the right to send and receive diplomatic envoys of the first cla.s.s[189]--namely, amba.s.sadors; and their monarchs address one another as ”brothers” in their official letters. States with royal honours always precede other States.

[Footnote 189: See below, -- 365.]

(2) Full-Sovereign States always precede those under suzerainty or protectorate.

(3) Among themselves States of the same rank do not precede one another.

Empires do not precede kingdoms, and since the time of Cromwell and the first French Republic monarchies do not precede republics. But the Roman Catholic States always concede precedence to the Holy See, and the monarchs recognise among themselves a difference with regard to ceremonials between emperors and kings on the one hand, and, on the other, grand dukes and other monarchs.

[Sidenote: The ”Alternat.”]

-- 118. To avoid questions of precedence, on signing a treaty, States of the same rank observe a conventional usage which is called the ”Alternat.” According to that usage the signatures of the signatory States of a treaty alternate in a regular order or in one determined by lot, the representative of each State signing first the copy which belongs to his State. But sometimes that order is not observed, and the States sign either in the alphabetical order of their names in French or in no order at all (_pele-mele_).

[Sidenote: t.i.tles of States.]

-- 119. At the present time, States, save in a few exceptional instances, have no t.i.tles, although formerly such t.i.tles did exist. Thus the former Republic of Venice as well as that of Genoa was addressed as ”Serene Republic,” and up to the present day the Republic of San Marino[190] is addressed as ”Most Serene Republic.” Nowadays the t.i.tles of the heads of monarchical States are in so far of importance to International Law as they are connected with the rank of the respective States. Since States are Sovereign, they can bestow any t.i.tles they like on their heads.

Thus, according to the German Const.i.tution of 1871, the Kings of Prussia have the t.i.tle ”German Emperor”; the Kings of England have since 1877 borne the t.i.tle ”Emperor of India”; the Prince of Servia a.s.sumed in 1881, that of Roumania in 1882, that of Bulgaria in 1908, and that of Montenegro in 1910, the t.i.tle ”King.” But no foreign State is obliged to recognise such a new t.i.tle, especially when a higher rank would accrue to the respective State in consequence of such a new t.i.tle of its head.

In practice such recognition will regularly be given when the new t.i.tle really corresponds with the size and the importance of the respective State.[191] Servia, Roumania, Bulgaria, and Montenegro had therefore no difficulty in obtaining recognition as kingdoms.

[Footnote 190: See Treaty Series, 1900, No. 9.]

[Footnote 191: History, however, reports several cases where recognition was withheld for a long time. Thus the t.i.tle ”Emperor of Russia,”

a.s.sumed by Peter the Great in 1701, was not recognised by France till 1745, by Spain till 1759, nor by Poland till 1764. And the Pope did not recognise the kingly t.i.tle of Prussia, a.s.sumed in 1701, till 1786.]

With the t.i.tles of the heads of States are connected predicates.

Emperors and Kings have the predicate ”Majesty,” Grand Dukes ”Royal Highness,” Dukes ”Highness,” other monarchs ”Serene Highness.” The Pope is addressed as ”Holiness” (_Sanct.i.tas_). Not to be confounded with these predicates, which are recognised by the Law of Nations, are predicates which originally were bestowed on monarchs by the Pope and which have no importance for the Law of Nations. Thus the Kings of France called themselves _Rex Christianissimus_ or ”First-born Son of the Church,” the Kings of Spain have called themselves since 1496 _Rex Catholicus_, the Kings of England since 1521 _Defensor Fidei_, the Kings of Portugal since 1748 _Rex Fidelissimus_, the Kings of Hungary since 1758 _Rex Apostolicus_.

III

DIGNITY

Vattel, II. ---- 35-48--Lawrence, -- 120--Phillimore, II. ---- 27-43--Halleck, I. pp. 124-142--Taylor, -- 162--Wheaton, -- 160--Bluntschli, ---- 82-83--Hartmann, -- 15--Heffter, ---- 32, 102, 103--Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 64-69--Ullmann, -- 38--Bonfils, Nos. 279-284--Despagnet, Nos. 184-186--Moore, I. pp.

310-320--Pradier-Fodere, II. Nos. 451-483--Rivier, I. pp.

260-262--Nys, II. pp. 212-214--Calvo, III. ---- 1300-1302--Fiore, I.

Nos. 439-451--Martens, I. -- 78.

[Sidenote: Dignity a Quality.]

-- 120. The majority of text-book writers maintain that there is a fundamental right of reputation and of good name belonging to every State. Such a right, however, does not exist, because no duty corresponding to it can be traced within the Law of Nations. Indeed, the reputation of a State depends just as much upon behaviour as that of every citizen within its boundaries. A State which has a corrupt government and behaves unfairly and perfidiously in its intercourse with other States will be looked down upon and despised, whereas a State which has an uncorrupt government and behaves fairly and justly in its international dealings will be highly esteemed. No law can give a good name and reputation to a rogue, and the Law of Nations does not and cannot give a right to reputation and good name to such a State as has not acquired them through its att.i.tude. There are some States--_nomina sunt odiosa!_--which indeed justly possess a bad reputation.

On the other hand, a State as a member of the Family of Nations possesses dignity as an International Person. Dignity is a quality recognised by other States, and it adheres to a State from the moment of its recognition till the moment of its extinction, whatever behaviour it displays. Just as the dignity of every citizen within a State commands a certain amount of consideration on the part of fellow-citizens, so the dignity of a State commands a certain amount of consideration on the part of other States, since otherwise the different States could not live peaceably in the community which is called the Family of Nations.