organization of a prize court, and such a court was established at Sasebo. These acts, as above stated, convinced the civilized nations as to the attitude of Japan toward international law and gained her admission into the family of nations.

b. All the civilized states of the earth have now adopted the principles of international law, and even the semicivilized or barbarous states are compelled to conduct both their internal and external affairs with a certain regard for the governments and peoples of other states. As aptly expressed by Lawrence in his admirable work on international law, "they cannot act as if they were alone in the world, for the simple reason that they are not alone."

7. INTERNAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP.-If the government of a state is capable of securing at home the observance of rightful relations with other states, the demands of international law are satisfied. Such law has no concern with the form, character, or power of the constitution or government of a state, the religion of its inhabitants, the extent of its domain, or the importance of its position and influence in the commonwealth of nations.

8. SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCE.-a. These terms are not quite synonymous. A state may be part-sovereign, but never partially independent. Its sovereign existence begins with its recognition by other powers; that is, from the time they accredit ministers to it, or conclude treaties with it, or in some other way enter into such relations with it as exist between states alone. Each power judges for itself whether a community claiming to be recognized really possesses all the necessary requirements, and especially whether it is likely to live. The judgment of the recognizing state respecting these matters is, of course, not always sound. That of our own country with reference to Mexico is an example. In a special message to Congress on May 15, 1856, President Pierce observed that five successive revolutionary governments had made their appearance in Mexico in the course of a few months, all of which had been successively recognized by the United States.

5

INTERNATIONAL LAW

b. The independence of a state may be self-asserted and maintained, as in the case of the United States and other great powers; or it may be guaranteed by one or more states severally or jointly, as in the case of Switzerland; or other contracting parties may agree among themselves to respect the independence and territorial integrity of another state, as was the case of the Ottoman Empire under the Treaty of Paris of 1856. This last is not a guarantee.

9. LIMITED SOVEREIGNTIES.-a. These range all the way from protected states and those which are within spheres of influence, down through colonies, protectorates, suzerainties, mandates, and dependencies, to the domestic dependent nations of Indians in the United States. All except the last may be described as part-sovereign for the reason that their domestic rulers in dealing with external affairs find themselves more or less restricted in the exercise of rights of control by some external power. This external power is usually the government of some external state, but this is not always the case. The city of Danzig, for instance, is now a free city under the protection of the League of Nations.

b. Strictly speaking, and contrary to popular conception, the term protectorate includes the protecting power as well as the protected state. For example, the Republic of San Marino, an enclave under the "exclusive protective friendship" of Italy, is popularly termed a protectorate, but the protectorate actually consists of both Italy and San Marino.

c. A suzerainty is practically the same thing as a protectorate except that at times it may be only nominal, as was the case of Bulgaria while it was under the suzerainty of Turkey from 1878 to 1908. The dominant state is called a suzerain.

d. The terms "protectorate" and "suzerainty" are both so indefinite and variable in meaning, and are otherwise so unsatisfactory, that they are carefully avoided in diplomatic

papers.

6

MILITARY AID TO THE CIVIL POWER

e. The term colony does not necessarily denote the absence of international personality. As explained by Professor Winfield in his recent revision of Lawrence's International Law (p. 63),

"Recent events have made it no longer possible to dismiss the British self-governing dominions, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa as colonies which are merely part of the British Empire and possess no international personality of their own. And the same applies to India, which, like these dominions, was separately represented at the Peace Conference after the great war. Moreover, all became original members of the League of Nations, with representatives separate from that of Great Britain in the Assembly of the League. Hence they have become members of the 'organized Family of Nations,' and this marks a wide difference from their pre-war position."

***

f. The term mandate was introduced into international law by the Covenant of the League of Nations. It was coined to describe the relationship existing between certain overseas dominions lost by Germany during the World War, which were inhabited by backward peoples, and the advanced nations to whom the tutelage of those backward dominions was entrusted. The guardian nations are called mandatories. They perform their duties on behalf of the League of Nations and report annually to the Council of the League.

g. The status of Indians in their allotted territories is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions which do not exist elsewhere. They can not with strict accuracy be denominated foreign nations, for our government asserts title to their lands independent of their will when their right of possession ceases. They and their territory are considered by foreign nations, as well as by ourselves, as being so completely under the sovereignty of the United States that any attempt to acquire their lands or to form a political connection with them would be considered by all as an invasion of our territory and as an act of hostility. Our draft machinery reached out and effected the registration of Indians in their respective territories during the World War. Congress has by legislation asserted criminal jurisdiction over them respecting certain crimes, and our government exercises the right of eminent domain within their ter

INTERNATIONAL LAW

7

ritory in the usual way. Yet they are distinct communities each occupying its own territory, with its own tribal governmental organization, marriage laws, and real estate laws, also criminal laws punishing with death.

h. In 1894, Sir Julian Pauncefote, British Ambassador to the United States, complained to our State Department that certain British subjects had been unjustly removed by Choctaw Indians from their territory. The reply of Mr. Adee, our Acting Secretary of State, was that

"The Choctaws are not citizens of the United States, but constitute a separate nation, with its own form of government and laws, existing within the borders of the United States under and in accordance with treaty stipulations. Those people who go into that country must be held to have done so with full knowledge of those treaties and of the Choctaw laws, and must accept the consequences if they are found to be there without proper authority."

i. An Indian born on an Indian reservation, even though he later separate from the tribe and live among white people, is not a citizen of the United States by virtue of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, for the simple reason that he was not born within the United States.* Nevertheless, the Indians are domestic subjects of our country, and the term "domestic dependent nations" has been coined by the Supreme Court of the United States (1 Peters, 1) as accurately describing their relationship. They are not members of the family of nations for the reason that they cannot deal in any way with any other power than the United States.

j. The States composing the American Union, though part-sovereign, are likewise not individual members of the family of nations for the reason that their foreign affairs are carried on solely by the central government.

10. SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORY.-a. Sovereignty and territory are not necessarily coexistent, nor are they inseparable. The Pope, though now deprived of all temporal power, is still recognized as a sovereign by many powers of

*By legislative enactment, approved 2 June, 1924 (43 Stat. 253), Congress finally conferred citizenship upon all non-citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States.

8

MILITARY AID TO THE CIVIL POWER

the world which receive from him diplomatic representatives in the person of either a nuncio or legate, or possibly in some other capacity, and which powers also accredit to him certain diplomatic representatives. Our government does not participate in this, but abstains from interference or criticism, recognizing it as the right of other powers to determine such questions for themselves. Our diplomatic representatives abroad are advised that when the power at whose court the United States has a representative receives a representative from the Pope of higher rank than the representative of the United States, it becomes the duty of the latter to observe toward the Pope's representative the courtesies and formality of first visit prescribed by the conventional rule of intercourse and ceremonial, in accordance with the customary precedence of diplomatic agents.

b. The League of Nations has an international entity distinct from the several states of which it is composed. It is not, strictly speaking, a sovereign body, yet we have seen that it exercises a protectorate over the Free City of Danzig. It also governs the Saar Basin through a Commission. It thus exercises certain rights normally exercised only by sovereign states, yet it has no territory peculiarly its own.

c. Military occupation, of which we shall learn more later, is still another situation which shows clearly that territory and sovereignty are separable. When Castine, Maine, was in the hands of the British in 1814-1815, the sovereignty of the United States thereover was suspended, but the territory of the United States was not actually diminished. Again, when we occupied Tampico in 1847, our sovereignty was extended thereover but our territory was not expanded. The place was still foreign. The law of nations merely prescribes that conquered territory is subject to be governed by the conqueror during his military possession. This may continue after the cessation of hostilities until stipulations contained in the treaty of peace have been complied with, or until conditions are such as to cause the conqueror to withdraw, voluntarily or otherwise, from the occupied territory.