not follow, of course that this equality extends to their influence.

"Nations," says Vattel, "composed of men and considered as so many free persons living together in the state of nature are naturally equal and inherit from nature the same obligations and rights. Power or weakness does not in this respect produce any difference. A dwarf is as much a man as a giant; a small republic is no less a sovereign state than the most powerful kingdom." 1

41. States, Communities, Corporations, and Institutions That Are Not Primarily Subjects of International Law.-Among communities and institutions which are not directly subjects of international law are the members of a federated union like the States and Territories forming the United States of America. Of this Union the Supreme Court of the United States, in a recent decision, speaks as follows:

"While under our Constitution and form of government the mass of local matters is controlled by local authorities, the United States in their relations to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory. The powers to declare war, make treaties, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, regulate foreign commerce, secure republican governments to the States, and admit subjects of other nations to citizenship are all sovereign powers, restricted in their exercise only by the Constitution itself and considerations of public policy and justice which control, more or less, the conduct of nations." 2

The states that are members of the German Empire and the cantons composing the federation of Switzerland are not of the same status as the States composing the United States of America, as they possess certain international qualifications,

1

Vattel, "Preliminary," pars. 18, 21.

The Chinese Exclusion Act, 1889, 130 U. S. 581, 604.

such as a limited right of legation and right to grant exequatur to consuls and to conclude certain treaties. They lack, however, the full rights and qualifications of sovereign states and hence are not subjects of international law.

The public corporations and companies chartered by the state also come under this exclusion. They were represented in the past by the famous East India Companies and in the present time by such corporations as the German East Africa Company, the Royal Borneo Company, and the British South Africa Company. These corporations, though exercising almost sovereign powers with respect to the native chiefs and peoples, do so by delegation from the supreme government of their sovereign states to which they are subordinate. Their charters can be revoked at any time for cause, and they can be totally abolished by act of the home government. Nevertheless, as Lawrence says of a corporation of this type: "Like Janus of old, it has two faces: on that which looks toward the native tribes all the lineaments and attributes of sovereignty are majestically outlined. On that which is turned toward the United Kingdom are written subordination and submission." 1

The papacy, or the Vatican, at Rome is also without a membership in the family of sovereign states since it lost its temporal power in 1870. The Pope has no international rights; his status is regulated by the law of guarantees of 1871 enacted by the Italian parliament. This Italian law guarantees the inviolability of the Pope and secures to him the enjoyment of certain rights and privileges ordinarily enjoyed by sovereigns. He still continues to an extent to send and receive envoys and to make with certain Roman Catholic countries ecclesiastical treaties known as concordats. As an evidence of his exclusion from international affairs it may be recalled that the Vatican was not invited nor its representative admitted to either of The Hague conferences of 1899 or 1907.2

1 Lawrence's "Principles of Int. Law," 4th ed., p. 75.

2 See text of law in Halleck (Baker's 4th ed.), vol. I, p. 153.

42. Neutralized States.-There is a group of states the limitation to whose sovereignty, though definite and permanent, is so slight that they can be considered as sovereign states though they are ordinarily called in a technical sense neutralized states. They are not in the fullest sense independent and yet it would be too drastic to call them part or semi sovereign states. These states are permanently neutralized by a treaty on the part of the great powers of Europe or such of them as are definitely interested in the matter. They are required by convention to abstain from war, except when they are attacked or their existence or territory threatened. Their immunity from attack is guaranteed by states who are generally neighbors and who are closely interested. Switzerland, Belgium, and the grand duchy of Luxemburg occupy this position of guaranteed and permanent neutrality provided they avoid all belligerent operations save such as are necessary to protect themselves from attack. This neutralization is the only safeguard to the small countries concerned as to their nationality and independence, which is treasured by them, especially by the Swiss and Belgians. The neutrality of Belgium was carefully observed by the Germans in the war of 1870, when the policy of that country was guided by Bismarck.

It may be mentioned here incidentally that insurgent communities that have become recognized belligerents attain a certain status which gives them a place in international law not as sovereign states but as entitled to be considered as having rights and obligations in connection with neutrals especially and for purposes of warfare under the rules of which they are obliged to conform.

Afghanistan and Abyssinia, being less than civilized as nationalities, are not entered into the community of sovereign states, while such weak communities as Liberia, Andorra, Monaco, and San Marino are neither strong enough nor sufficiently free from protecting entanglements to preserve an independence to the extent required by sovereign states.

So far as those communities, tribes, and peoples who are less than civilized, or who are classed as barbarous and savage, are concerned, the quality of their government as well as the conduct and lack of intelligence of their peoples places them out of the sphere of subjects, primary subjects, of international law and, consequently, of members of the family of nations. They are entitled to be treated with humanity and justice in all relations held with them. The rules and moral sense of international law should be applied to them as far as practicable. The accountability with which such peoples should be held depends upon their intelligence and the nature and circumstances attending upon their conduct. Certainly the law of retaliation should not be indiscriminately applied to them.

The permanent neutrality of Switzerland was guaranteed under the settlement treaties of 1815.1 Belgium was declared permanently neutralized by the treaty of London confirmed by the quintuple treaty, and Luxemburg was similarly dealt with in 1867.3 "One or two unfortunate episodes," says Walker, "have from time to time suggested the necessary weakness of all such human arrangements. Chablais, Faucigny, and the Genevese districts of Savoy, neutralized in 1815, were, in spite of the protests of the Swiss Government, ceded to Napoleon III in 1860; and on December 3, 1870, a Prussian circular announced that, in view of the violation of the neutrality of the Grand Duchy by the transit of French soldiers, the Prussians held themselves no longer bound to respect the neutral sanctity of Luxemburg."5 But with these exceptions the neutralization of these countries has been maintained either by agreements of co-operation on the part of states up to the present war (1914) or, as in the case of Switzerland in 1870, 1 Wheaton, "Int. Law," pp. 416-420.

4

2 Hertslet, "Map of Europe by Treaty," II, pp. 979-998.

3 Hertslet, "Map of Europe by Treaty," III, p. 1801.

Hertslet, "Map of Europe by Treaty," II, pp. 1415, etc., to 1450.

5 Walker, "Science of Int. Law," p. 449.

by a determined policy and the exhibition of military strength and efficiency. Norway has been classed with the neutralized states; but as the treaty of 1907, made by the leading European powers, respects its integrity and agrees to support its government in case this integrity should be "threatened or impaired by any power whatsoever," Norway seems to be in the status more of a protected than a neutralized state.

43. Part-Sovereign States and Protectorates.-In defining in a previous paragraph a sovereign state it was stated that it should be fully independent of all other states. In other words, as Moore says, "a state is sovereign from the point of view of the law of nations when it is independent of every other state in the exercise of its international rights externally and in the manner in which it lives and governs itself internally."

A state which, while retaining a certain unity or individuality in international law is at the same time subject to the authority or direction of another state, or group of states, especially in its foreign intercourse, is generally known as a part-sovereign or semisovereign state. The paramount state is sometimes called the suzerain, and its relation to the other states, suzerainty; but the extent of the authority and of the subordination varies so greatly that it is difficult to comprehend the dependency or the limitation in a single phrase or by general rules. Probably the term "part sovereign," or "with limited sovereignty," is the best expression that can be found for use in a general sense. The conditions differ in almost every case. In fact, there has been attempt to separate what is known as a protected state from the class of semisovereign states. “In a sense," as Moore says, every semisovereign state may be regarded as a protected state, and protected states are regularly classed as semisovereign."

Semisovereign states existed in the loose German and American confederations of the past. Part-sovereign states are found in states occupying the positions of Egypt, Zanzibar,

1 Moore's "Digest," vol. I, p. 18.