but it is only after it has been recognized that it is assured of exercising them. Regular political relations exist only between states that reciprocally recognize them. Recognition is therefore useful, even necessary, to the new state. It is also the constant usage, when a state is formed, to demand it. Except in consequence of particular conventions, no state is obliged to accord it. But the refusal may give rise to measures of retorsion. When, after the formation of the kingdom of Italy, certain German states persisted in refusing to recognize it, Count Cavour withdrew the exequaturs of their consuls. Recognition was then accorded."1 A state may be recognized as a sovereign state without being considered a member of the family of nations. This was the case of Turkey before 1856 and is the case of some Asiatic states, like China and Siam, with whom European and American states entertain continual relations while refusing to comprehend them among the society of nations. The manner of recognition of a new state varies; it may be by treaty, by formal declaration, or by proclamation. A recognition of the independence of a state may be made by implication, by the sending or receiving of diplomatic agents and the opening of full diplomatic intercourse, or by the granting of exequaturs to consuls. It may be done by the formal recognition of the flag of the new state by a salute of guns, as France did with respect to the American flag at the French port of Quiberon. Recognition may also be a collective one of nations or of European powers, as of Belgium in 1831, of Greece in 1832, of Rumania, Servia, and Montenegro in 1878, and of Bulgaria in 1908. 55. Continuity of States. In speaking of a state we are apt at times to consider that word as synonymous with the government of the state. It must, however, be distinctly borne in mind that the government is but the agent of the state. There must be a government in order that the state 1 Quoted by Moore's "Digest," vol. I, p. 72. should fulfil the necessary conditions of statehood, but the state exists no matter what form of government may be in power and also no matter what change may be made in the form of government and also while the change is being made. Hence, although the government changes, the state remains, with all of its rights and with all of its obligations unimpaired. This principle of the continuity of states requires that a state should accept the obligations of its predecessors, even if the successor should claim the earlier government as a usurpation, so long as it is the actual government or, as it is technically termed, the de facto government, either in possession of the capital and the machinery of the government or the major portion of the territory, and having recognition as such. The governments of Louis XVIII and of Louis Philippe in France, for instance, as far as practicable reimbursed foreigners for losses occasioned by the government of Napoleon, while the King of Naples made compensation to foreign subjects for the acts of Murat. By an application of this principle, if a monarch assume a higher title-that is, from king to emperor he does not raise himself in the scale of international precedence. "The rank of a state is part of its relation to other states and, without their consent, is not affected by a change of internal designation."1 Besides the continuance of states throughout changes of government, continuity extends also through changes of territory, as, for example, when a portion of the territory of a state is ceded by one state to another, the continuity of neither state is affected. Of course, this has certain limitations in the treaties and obligations of the two states, which will be treated more definitely under the head of treaties. An evident instance of this kind would be when a state has been a grantor of the neutrality of a certain country but loses such amount of territory as to affect vitally its resources and hence to be unable to fulfil such obligations. 1 Westlake, "Int. Law," vol. I, p. 58. 56. De Facto Governments.-Reference has been made in the previous paragraphs to a de facto government. A de facto government may be defined as a political organization, arising during a civil war or rebellion, which has established itself by hostilities or otherwise to such an extent that it can exercise sovereign powers and be entitled to all of the rights of war and commercial intercourse. De facto governments vary in condition, according to the circumstances of the case and the strength of their position. They may be in a condition of insurgency or belligerency. These governments have been discussed in previous paragraphs. The de facto government now under consideration is one which approaches very closely the status of a permanently established and recognized government. It is located in the usual capital city, has control of the various departments of the government, and is transacting the business of the state in the buildings devoted to those departments to such an extent that it may be considered as replacing the former government of the state, or, at least, in a major part of its territory, and thus representing the sovereignty of the country. "The distinguishing characteristics of such a government are that adherents to it in war against the government de jure do not incur the penalties of treason and, under certain limitations, obligations assumed by it in behalf of the country or otherwise will in general be respected by the government de jure when restored."1 In addition to the general de facto government of the state, there may be local de facto governments maintained by active military power within certain limited territory, operating against the established government in the capital of the country. As a government of dominating force it must from necessity be obeyed by private citizens and domiciled aliens of the locality. The government referred to is akin to that of a military occupation. The recognition of a de facto government in a foreign state is a matter, with the United States, placed in the hands of the executive department and is not considered a question of fact alone, as it may involve a serious question of state policy. The government of Maximilian in Mexico, for instance, in-. volved in its recognition the question of a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. Although for a time practically the de facto government of Mexico, it was never recognized by the United States, though its administration lasted several years. Maximilian was considered as the creature of the French intervention and its continuance would probably have led eventually to military operations on the part of the United States and a restoration of Juarez to the capital city. In the case of the Maximilian government, as in the case of the Confederate Government, no succession of the obligations of these governments was assumed or recognized by the republic of Mexico or the government of the United States. 57. Extinction of States.-A state as a sovereign state may become extinct by conquest, by forcible division, or by voluntary arrangement. The recognition of such an extinction is the recognition of an accomplished fact after sufficient delay for the assurance of its reality and permanency. States tha lose their identity and sovereignty lose, of course, their international personality, and their subjects acquire the rights and obligation of those of the absorbing state. An example of forcible annexation and state extinction is found in the annexation of the South African Republic by Great Britain, and an example of separation by force, accompanied by extinction of a nation, is that of Poland. A case of voluntary extinction as a sovereign state is found in the incorporation of Texas into the Union of the United States and of peaceable separation is that of the dissolution of the United Kingdom of Norway and Sweden in 1905. In case of total extinction, it is generally agreed that the absorbing state, as a rule, succeeds to the rights and obligations of the absorbed state. It is incorporated subject to all of its engagements and obligations toward other states. This is especially the case as to the public debt of the absorbed state, while its successor inherits in turn the assets, revenues, and resources of the extinguished state, subject to the charges resting upon them. Westlake remarks, in this connection, that "the succession of a state to its predecessor is qualified by the circumstances that it is the public law and policy of the successor which are to prevail in the future, as being inseparable from his person, which remains his own, while he steps into the other's position."1 TOPICS AND REFERENCES 1. The Formation of States Lawrence's "Principles," etc., 4th ed., 83-90. Westlake's "International Law," I, 44-49. Holland's "Jurisprudence," 10th ed., 385. 2. The Formation of a State by Occupation or Colonization in a Territory Without Civilized Population— Hall, 6th ed., 88-91, 101-6. Maine, "International Law," 66–76. 3. Formation of a State by the Attainment, after Previous Existence, of Sufficiently Full Civilization and Standing Westlake, "International Law," I, 45-47. Lawrence's "Prin ciples," 4th ed., 84. Hershey, "Essentials," 65, 117. 4. Formation of a State by the Division of a State into Two or More Nationalities Hershey, "Essentials," 117. Phillimore, vol. II, 21, 28, 32. Halleck, Baker's 4th ed., vol. I, 97, 98. 5. The Attainment of Independence as a Nationality from the Subjection of Another State Phillimore, "International Law," vol. II, 28, 32; Hall, 6th ed., 86-88. Westlake, "International Law," 46-47. 1 Westlake's "Int. Law," I, p. 82. |