CHAPTER VI LEGAL PERSONS HAVING QUALIFIED STATUS 22. MEMBERS OF CONFEDERATIONS AND OTHER UNIONS. 23. NEUTRALIZED STATES. 24. PROTECTorates, SuzerAINTIES. 25. CORPORATIONS. (a) Private. (b) Exercising political powers. 26. INDIVIDUALS. 27. INSURGENTS. (a) Definition. (b) Effect of admission of insurgency. 28. BELLIGERENTS. (a) Definition. (b) Conditions prior to recognition. (c) Grounds of recognition. (d) Who may recognize. (e) Consequences. (1) Recognition by a foreign state. 29. COMMUNITIES NOT FUlly Civilized. § 22. Members of Confederations and other Unions A state in the sense of public law is not sovereign in the sense of international law, if there are any limitations upon its power to enter into relations with other states. Such a state may be a member of a confedera tion and exercise certain powers giving it a qualified international status. These loose unions may, as in the German Confederation from 1815 to 1866, leave to the local states a certain degree of autonomy in regulating international affairs while granting to the central government certain specified powers. This division of international competence is usually a temporary compromise ending in new states or in a close union. "Inasmuch as both the central and the separate states carry on diplomatic intercourse with foreign powers, they must each and all be regarded as Subjects of International Law; and inasmuch as they carry on such intercourse only in a limited degree, they cannot be regarded as fully and absolutely sovereign." 1 In the examples of personal and real unions and the like, the nature of the state is a matter of public law and little concerns international law. As related to international law, the question is how far are such states restricted in their dealings with other states. A union, such as that existing in the case of the ruler of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Empire of India, is of importance to international law only in its united capacity, while for public law the nature of the union is of much significance. The same might be said of the unions of Austria-Hungary, and Sweden-Norway. § 23. Neutralized States Neutralized states are sovereign only in a qualified degree. While such states have a certain formal equal· 1 Lawrence, § 51, p. 75. ity, their actual competence is limited in regard to the exercise of sovereign powers. This limitation as to neutrality may be externally imposed or externally enforced, as in the case of Belgium, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Congo Free State, and till 1900, Samoa. This neutralization may take place for political or philanthropic reasons.1 The degree of external sovereignty possessed by neutralized states varies. The fact that these states are not fully sovereign in the field of international law in no way affects their competence except in respect to matters covered by the conditions of neutralization. Such states are deprived of the right of offensive warfare, and have not therefore that final recourse possessed by fully sovereign states for enforcing their demands. § 24. Protectorates, Suzerainties States under protectors-protectorates-usually possess all powers not specifically resigned. States fully sovereign may demand (1) that states under protectors afford reasonable protection to the subjects and to the property of subjects of fully sovereign states, and (2) that the protecting state use reasonable measures to give effect to the protection which it has assumed. Just how much responsibility the protecting state has depends upon the degree of protection exercised and assumed. The protectorate of Great Britain over the South African Republic by the agreement of 1884 was of a very moderate form. The right to veto within a certain time any treaty made with a foreign state, other than the Orange Free State and native princes, 1 "Political Annuals," since 1887 rich in discussion of neutralization. constituted practically the only restriction on the independence of the Republic. Great Britain has several other protectorates in Africa over which the degree of authority varies. In many instances protectorates easily pass into colonies, as in the case of Madagascar, which Great Britain recognized as under French protection in 1890, which protection the queen of Madagascar accepted in October, 1895, and in August, 1896, Madagascar was declared a French colony.1 As distinct from a state under a protectorate which possesses all competence in international affairs which it has not specifically resigned, a state under suzerainty possesses only such competence as has been specifically conferred upon it by the suzerain. The relations are usually much closer than between protecting and protected states; and in many cases only the suzerain has international status, while the vassal is merely tributary, though having a certain degree of internal independence which may be in some instances almost complete. By the first article of the Treaty of Berlin, Bulgaria is made a tributary and autonomous principality under the suzerainty of the Sultan of Turkey. Under Russian suzerainty are such vassal states as Bokhara and Khiva. Some of the states under the suzerainty of European states have no status in international law, as in the case of Bokhara and Khiva. There exist such anomalous cases as the co-suzerainty of the republic of Andorra, the collective suzerainty of the Samoan Islands till 1900,2 and the absolute suzerainty of the United States over the "domestic dependent nations" of Indians. 1 Statesman's Year Book 1901, p. 591. 2 Ibid., pp. 657, 1237. § 25. Corporations From the point of view of international law, corporations are generally of two kinds: corporations organized for private purposes, and corporations organized for purposes involving the exercise of delegated sovereign powers. (a) Corporations organized for private purposes come within the field of international law, when in time of war their property or other rights are impaired, when maritime law, whether of peace or war, may have been infringed, and when their rights are involved in the domain of private international law. (b) Corporations organized for purposes involving the exercise of political powers have from time to time, for several centuries, been chartered and have often acquired a quasi-international status. While restricted to the performance of functions intrusted to them by their charters, the home governments have often sanctioned acts for which their charters gave no warrant. The companies that early entered America, India, Africa, and the later African companies, are of this kind. The development of the late doctrine of "the sphere of influence" has given an important position to these companies organized within those states desirous to share in "the partition of Africa." Among the most notable of the earlier companies was the English East India Company,1 which received its first charter in 1600. During more than two hundred and fifty years this company exercised practically sovereign powers, until by the act of Aug. 2, 1858, 16 American Cycl., 376. |