counted with "the great powers" after 1870. The union of several powers upon certain lines of policy, since early in the nineteenth century, has been called "the concert of Europe," "the primacy of the great powers," etc. It was not the purpose of these great powers to establish new rules of international law; but as enunciated by the five powers, November 15, 1818, it was "their invariable resolution never to depart, either among themselves, or in their relations with other states, from the strictest observation of the principles of the Rights of Nations." 1 Instances of the Great Powers. That the practice of the Great Powers has not been strictly in accord with these expressed principles, a glance will show. The immediate action of Austria, Russia, and the practice of Prussia in the Congress of Troppau, 1820, carried the principle of interference in the internal affairs of states so far that Great Britain found itself compelled to dissent. This continuance of the policy of the Holy Alliance in putting down movements in favor of popular liberty, wherever arising, led to gross violations of international rights. Nor did Great Britain become a party to the acts of the Congress of Verona in 1822, which led to intervention to prevent changes in the internal organization of Spain in 1823. The struggles of the Greeks for independence at about this time were naturally regarded by those upholding the ideas of the Holy Alliance as dangerous to those states desiring to prevent revolutionary movements. But the narrow policy of the Alliance was gradually losing support. The opposition of Great Britain and the death of Alexander of Russia in 1825 hastened its speedy fall. Meantime the idea of a collective authority in the Great Powers had been maintained. This began to be exercised in behalf of the Greeks in 1826, and throughout the nineteenth century was repeatedly exercised in the same behalf, sometimes un1 1 Hertslet, 574. selfishly, often from motives of mixed character. During the latter half of the nineteenth century the Great Powers continually kept a close surveillance over Grecian affairs, and enforced their judgments in regard to Greece by force (destruction of Turkish fleet at Navarino, 1827); by providing form of government and naming monarch (1829 and later); by fixing and changing boundaries (1829 and often); by pacific blockade (1827, 1850, 1886, 1897); by regulating financial affairs, and by other means of varying degree of force.1 The Eastern question has particularly occupied the Concert, and the disposition of the territory once within the Turkish jurisdiction has offered a fertile field for varying policy. The establishment of Belgium as a neutral state by the treaty to which Belgium was itself a party afforded another example of the influence of the Great Powers. Since 1839 Egypt has also been subject to frequent control by the Great Powers. Since 1885 the unappropriated portion of Africa has been brought within the range of action of the Concert by the theory of the sphere of influence. Policy liable The Concert of the Great Powers shows then a policy which is liable to change with expediency. The two great treaties of the Concert are those of Paris, 1856, and Berlin, 1878. Of these Holland says: "The treaties of Paris and of Berlin thus resemble one another, in that both alike are a negation of the right of any one Power, and an assertion of the right of the Powers collectively, to regulate the solution of the Eastern question." 2 The fact that the action of the Great Powers has been regarded as binding and tacitly accepted in Europe in certain questions in the East, Egypt, Greece, and Belgium does not give 1 For detailed summary, 1826-1881, see Holland, "European Concert in the Eastern Question," Ch. II. 2 "European Concert in the Eastern Question,” p. 221. the sanction of international law to the action. The most that can be said is that it is an alliance of a loose character, whose authority is in proportion to the force behind its decisions.1 European alliances. (2) Another feature in European politics giving rise to further inequalities in practice was introduced by the alliance of Germany and Austria in 1879 and Italy in 1883, which is now commonly known as the Triple Alliance. This belt of powers separating Eastern from Western Europe has materially affected the action of other powers. The "friendly understanding" between France and Russia soon after the Triple Alliance affords a measure of countercheck upon the action of the other powers. The exact terms of this compact of Germany, AustriaHungary, and Italy have never been divulged, although cooperation is assured in the event of hostile relations with Russia or France. The alliance does not prevent friendly relations between the parties to it and the other powers. In spite of all these alliances and counter-alliances, the recognition of the weight of the decisions of the congresses and conferences of the Great Powers upon those subjects which are held to affect "the peace of Europe" has an influence comparable to that which might be assigned to a "Supreme Court of International Appeal." 2 (3) The United States upon the American continent in its enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine, and in the subsequent interpretation of it, has assumed a position as arbiter among the American states in some respects similar to that of the European Concert among the European states. This attitude of the United States has weight in international practice, but cannot be regarded as a part of international law, Influence of states. 1 Lawrence, "Disputed Questions," V. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER XI JURISDICTION 46. JURISDICTION IN GENERAL. 47. TERRITORIAL DOMAIN AND JURISDICTION. 48. METHOD OF ACQUISITION OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. (a) By right of discovery of a new land. (b) By effective and continued occupation of a territory. (1) The Hinterland Doctrine. (2) Uncivilized peoples the rightful occupants of the soil. (c) By conquest of a territory, usually a result of military occupation. (d) By cession through the transfer of territory. (1) By gift. (2) By exchange. (3) By sale. (4) By special agreement. (e) By prescription, or long-continued possession. (f) By accretion, or change in land areas near the boundary of a state. 49. QUALIFIED TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. (a) In protectorates the external affairs and international relations are usually under the direction of the protecting state. (b) In a sphere of influence the aim is to secure the rights without all the obligations. 50. MARITIME AND FLUVIAL JURISDICTION. 51. JURISDICTION OF RIVERS. (a) Rivers which traverse only one state. (b) Rivers which traverse two or more states. (c) Rivers with opposite banks under jurisdiction of two different states. (a) General rules for river navigation. (b) Confirmation of rules by conventions. 53. JURISDICTION OF ENCLOSED WATERS. (a) Exclusive jurisdiction of a state over the waters wholly within its borders. (b) Jurisdiction over gulfs, bays, and estuaries in the state or states enclosing them. (c) Jurisdiction over straits less than six miles in width in the shore state or states. (1) Jurisdiction over the Danish sounds. (2) The Bosphorus and Dardanelles. (d) Jurisdiction of canals similar to that of straits. (1) The Suez Canal. (2) The Panama Canal. (3) The Corinth and Kiel Canals. 54. THE THREE-MILE LIMIT. (a) Statement and origin of the principle. (b) A wider limit sometimes claimed for special purposes. 55. JURISDICTION OVER FISHERIES. (a) Fishing on the high sea a right belonging to all states alike. fisheries. (c) The disputed question of seal-fishing in the Bering Sea. 56. JURISDICTION OVER VESSELS. (a) Two classes of vessels. (1) Public. (2) Private. (b) Nationality of a vessel determined by its flag or papers. (c) General exercise of jurisdiction over vessels. (1) Exclusive over public and private vessels on high seas and in home waters. |