several States of the American Union are State Constitutions properly so-called since they rest exclusively upon the laws of the States and not upon the will of the Federal State which is superimposed upon them.

The fact that it is required by the American and Swiss Federal Constitutions that the member States shall maintain governments republican in form, Jellinek declares, is not inconsistent with the assertion that the constitutions of the member States rest exclusively upon their own will. The same is true when wholly foreign States have joined in the establishment of a constitution for another community. This community, he asserts, remains a State if its constitution is considered, pro futuro, as exclusively an original act of its will, so that it may be able to alter it without obtaining any external consent.

Turning now to political units which may not properly be termed States, Jellinek holds that these groups receive their organization from a superior legal source. Thus, Alsace-Lorraine, while it remained a part of the German Empire, was not a State, nor are the English dominions. of Canada and Australia, notwithstanding the very considerable autonomous powers with which they are endowed. For their constitutions are acts of the parliament of Great Britain. So, also, the kingdom and countries of the former Austrian Empire possessed constitutions which had been proclaimed as fundamental laws of the State, but these laws had been given by the Emperor and not by the chief authority of each of the States themselves, and, for their amendment, there was required the imperial consent. These communities, therefore, lacked the character of statehood.

Further elaborating his position, Jellinek says that, in order to attribute statehood to a political group, it is essential that its highest organ of government-that which assures its perpetuity-should be independent.

This organ may not coincide with the organ of another State. Thus, before 1918, Croatia, by its relation to Hungary, and Finland, by its relation to Russia, were not States, since the King of Croatia was juridically the King of Hungary, and the Prince of Finland was juridically the Tsar of Russia.

The first quality of the independent authority which characterizes the State, says Jellinek, is the right to create for itself all the organs materially essential to the laws which the State provides. It is therefore necessary that a veritable State should be so organized that it may be placed within a definite class as regards its governmental organization. Thus Würtemburg and Baden were monarchies; Hamburg, Berne and Pennsylvania were republics. Furthermore, non-sovereign bodies, in order to be entitled to be termed States, must be so completely organized governmentally that they will be able to stand forth as sovereign and completely organized States immediately upon the disappearance of the sovereign authority to which they have been subjected. This is not true of autonomous bodies which have not the character of States. These autonomous bodies, moreover, though able to issue orders with penalties prescribed for their violation, have the authority to enforce them only by reason of power delegated to them by the superior political State, and it is this lack of power to command in an absolute manner, and with a legally irresistible right of coercion that denotes their non-statehood. Thus, as distinguished from Laband, Jellinek emphasizes not so much the idea that the legal powers of the non-state entities are granted or delegated to them by political entities which are entitled to be termed States, as that these non-state bodies have no original coercive authority to execute such orders as they are conceded to have the legal right to issue. In short, the non-sovereign body which is entitled to be

termed a State, as distinguished from the non-sovereign body, which is not so entitled, has, according to Jellinek, an original legal right of its own to provide for itself a complete governmental organization, with executive legislative and judicial powers. It thus has, of its own right, authority to enforce, as well as to create, legal obligations and rights. It is distinguished from the sovereign State only by reason of the fact that its sphere of legal authority is a limited one-limited by the authority of the sovereign State to which it is subordinated.

In order that we may have clearly before us Jellinek's doctrine, as stated in his last published work, the following is quoted from his Allgemeine Staatslehre:

"Wo ein Gemeinwesen aus ursprünglicher Macht und mit ursprünglichen Zwangsmitteln Herrschaft über seine Glieder und sein Gebiet gemäss einer ihm eigenthümlichen Ordnung zu üben vermag, da ist ein Staat vorhanden. Das Dasein einer Staatsgewalt aüssert sich zunächst in dem Dasein selbständiger, sie versehender Organe. Eigene Organisation und die mit ihr verknüpfte Machtverteilung ist das erste Merkmal, um den Staat vom nichtstaatlichen Verbande zu trennen. Wo immer daher ein Gemeinwesen seine Verfassung von einer andern Macht erhält, so dass sie nicht auf seinem Willen, sondern dauernd auf dem Gesetze dieser Macht ruht, da ist kein Staat, sondern nur das Glied eines Staates vorhanden. Daher sind die deutschen Gliedstaaten Staaten, denn sie können sich durch ihre eigenen, ausschliesslich auf ihrem Willen beruhenden Verfassungen organisieren, die ihre Gesetze, nicht die des Reiches sind. Ebenso sind die Verfassungen der schweizerischen Kantone, der Einzelstaaten der amerikanischen Union Staatsverfassungen, denn sie beruhen ausschliesslich auf ihren eigenen Gesetzen, nicht auf dem Willen des übergeordneten Bundesstaates. Es können Schranken in den

bundesstaatlichen Gesetzen für die Verfassungen der Gliedstaaten gezogen sein (z. B. Verbot einer anderen als der republikanischen Staatsform, wie in der Schweiz und in den Vereinigten Staaten): sie bleiben trotzdem ausschliesslich Gesetze der Gliedstaaten. Selbst wenn ein Gemeinwesen unter der Mitwirkung fremder Staaten seine Verfassung empfangen hat, so ist es Staat, wenn diese Verfassung pro futuro ausschliesslich als sein originäler Willensakt auzusehen ist, so dass sie von ihm ohne weitere Ermächtigung abgeändert werden kann.

"Wo hingegen ein Herrschergewalt übender Verband seine Organisation von einem über ihm stehenden Staate als dessen Gesetz empfangen hat, da ist kein Staat vorhanden. So vor allem bei den Kommunen, deren Verfassung stets auf Staatsgesetzen ruht, die höchstens in untergeordneten Dingen eine begrenzte Organisationsbefugniss zugestehen. . . . Daher ist Elsass-Lothringen kein Staat, . . . daher sind die mit weitestgehender Autonomie ausgerüsteten englischen Charterkolonien, wie Kanada, die südafrikanische Union, Australien, keine Staaten, denn ihre Verfassungen sind in englischen Gesetze enthalten, in Parlamentsakten Grossbritanniens, die rechtlich jederzeit vom Parlament wieder geändert werden können, ohne dass der betreffenden Kolonie ein gesetzliches Mitwirkungsrecht an solcher Verfassungsanderung zustände.'

As regards the status of the constituent units of a Bundesstaat, Jellinek, in another place, declares that they are to be viewed as States with respect to certain of their functions, and as mere organs of the superior sovereign State as to other of their activities. He says: "Die Glieder des Bundesstaates sind als solche, soweit sie an der Herrschaft des Bundes teilnehmen, nicht Staaten,

Allgemeine Staatslehre (ed. 1922), p. 490. See also Jellinek's short treatise, published in 1896, entitled Ueber Staatsfragmente, pp. 11-17.

sondern Organe des Bundesstaates und, soweit sie unterworfen sind und überhaupt noch einen selbständigen Willen aussern können, nichtstatliche Verbände, und nur die physische Identität dieses Verbandes mit dem Gliedstaate führt zu der ungenauen Vorstellung, dass der Gliedstaat als solcher dem Bundesstaate unterworfen sei. Daher hat der Gliedstaat nur nach zwei Richtungen hin staatlichen Charakter: als Gemeinwesen, das von der Bundesstaatsgewalt frei ist und als Träger von öffentlichrechtlichen Ansprüchen an den Bundesstaat gemäss dessen Verfassung."

Criticism of Laband and Jellinek. It will have been seen that both Laband and Jellinek seek to invest the non-sovereign State with at least a certain sphere of legal authority that may truly be spoken of as, legally if not historically, underived from and uncontrolled by the superior State under whose sovereignty it exists, and that it is the possession of this authority that distinguishes it from the mere administrative agency of a sovereign State. It would seem, however, that the attempt to draw this distinction is an unsuccessful one. Unless one is willing to concede that sovereignty is divisible, which Laband and Jellinek are unwilling to do, and which, if admitted, would mean that the notion of sovereignty must be given a juristic meaning quite different from that which is attached to it by practically all publicists, it is futile to speak of a political entity as possessing original powers or rights of its own when these powers may be exercised only within a limited sphere of political control, and when the extent of this sphere is legally determined, and may be further curtailed or even wholly destroyed, by an exercise of the legal will of another political body. If this is the case, then it is not correct to say that certain subordinate or non-sovereign political bodies can exAllgemeine Staatslehre (1922), p. 773.