under the suzerainty of the Crown, but which are altogether subordinate and incapable of foreign relations; (2) that others are wholly independent, as was the case with the Kingdom of Naples in its relation to the Holy See down to 1818; and (3) that others, again, are really semi-sovereign, as was the case of Bulgaria from 1878 to 1908.13 13 If desired, this subject may be further studied in the following works: Tischel, Die Begriff der Suzeränität; Sermagieff De la Situation des Etats Mi-Souveraineä; Boghitchevitch, Halb-Souveränität; and Bornhak, Einsitige Abhangigkeitsverhältnisse unter den Modernen Staaten. Professor R. T. Crane, in his study The State in Constitutional and International Law (Johns Hopkins University Studies), has, by his discussion of the various definitions given Suzerainty, shown the absolute confusion which exists with regard to the use of the term. CHAPTER XVIII TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION In this and the chapters that follow the leading cases in American and English courts will be examined in order to show the extent to which, and the manner in which, judicial application has been made of the doctrines which, in the Part One of this treatise, have been deductively obtained from the conceptions which Public Law employs. This examination will demonstrate the correctness of the assertion, made at the outset, that the doctrines of international and constitutional jurisprudence stand in such logical relations to one another, and to certain fundamental assumptions regarding the nature of the State and its legal competence, as to create bodies of coherent juristic thought. The predication to it of Sovereignty necessarily implies that, from a standpoint of mere legal competence, the State has the power to determine, in every respect, what legal rights and obligations it will recognize with respect to itself. This means that it is legally qualified to claim either concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction over such persons and portions of the earth's surface, or the space above it as it may see fit. Each sovereign State thus has, ex hypothesi, the potential legal authority to subject to its legal control the entire surface of the globe and all those who dwell upon it. In other words, it is obligatory upon the judicial and executive officials of every sovereign State to recognize the validity of, and to the extent of their several actual powers, to give effect to, all declarations of policy of their respective governments, irrespective of what effect the carrying out of these policies may have upon the foreign relations of their respective States. Of course, in many cases there may arise questions as to the legal competence of the particular governmental organs or officials to issue the orders, or to enact or declare the policies involved, but these are matters wholly of constitutional limitations which the States have themselves laid upon their own governmental agencies, and do not disturb the postulate that there inheres in sovereign States the legal competence to remove these limitations if they so see fit, and thus to qualify their policy-forming or law-determining organs to assert, in behalf of themselves, whatever character or scope of jurisdiction, personal or territorial, they may deem desirable.1 This being the legal situation, it follows that, as long as there are a number of States, each with this unlimited potential jurisdictional competence, opportunity is provided for inter-State conflicts by reason of two or more States claiming exclusive or conflicting legal control over the same persons or the same areas. The adjustment or prevention of these conflicts is the task of international law, but the fact that the necessities of international life compel each sovereign State to refrain from the exercise, in certain respects, of a jurisdiction over persons and territory which it might, if it saw fit, bring within the scope of its legal will, does not in any wise, or to any degree, derogate from that legal omnipotency, which, from the municipal point of view, it possesses. That the courts of a country are bound to follow the determinations of their respective governments with re 'See the very valuable article by Professor Ernest Lorenzen, "Territoriality, Public Policy and the Conflict of Laws," in the Yale Law Journal, May, 1924, in which is pointed out the error of attempting to found systems of municipal law upon the promise that the jurisdiction of States is wholly territorial in character. |