Page images
PDF
EPUB

national language in treaties and diplomatic correspondence, usually annex to the papers transmitted by them a translation in the language of the opposite party, wherever it is understood that this comity will be reciprocated. Such is the usage of the Germanic confederation, of Spain, and the Italian courts. Those States. which have a common language, generally use it in their transactions with each other. Such is the case between the Germanic confederation and its different members, and between the respective members themselves; between the different States of Italy; and between Great Britain and the United States of America.

§ 159. sovereign

States.

All sovereign princes or States may assume whatever Titles of titles of dignity they think fit, and may exact from their princes and own subjects these marks of honour. But their recognition by other States is not a matter of strict right, especially in the case of new titles of higher dignity, assumed by sovereigns. Thus, the royal title of King of Prussia, which was assumed by Frederick I. in 1701, was first acknowledged by the Emperor of Germany, and subsequently by the other princes and States of Europe. It was not acknowledged by the Pope until the reign of Frederick William II. in 1786, and by the Teutonic knights until 1792, this once famous military order still retaining the shadow of its antiquated claims to the Duchy of Prussia until that period (i). So, also, the title of Emperor of all the Russias, which was taken by the Czar, Peter the Great, in 1701, was successively acknowledged by Prussia, the United Netherlands, and Sweden in 1723, by Denmark in 1732, by Turkey in 1739, by the emperor and the empire in 1745-6, by France in 1745, by Spain in 1750, and by the Republic of Poland in 1764. In the recognition of this title by France, a reservation of the right of precedence claimed by that crown was insisted on, and a stipulation entered into by Russia in the form of a Réversale, that this

(i) Ward's History of the Law of Nations, vol. ii. pp. 245-248. Klüber,

Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe,
pt. ii. tit. i. ch. 2, § 107, note c.

§ 160. Maritime ceremonials.

RIGHTS OF EQUALITY.

change of title should make no alteration in the ceremonies observed between the two courts. On the accession of the Empress Catherine II. in 1762, she refused to renew the stipulation in that form, but declared that the imperial title should make no change in the ceremonial observed between the two courts. This declaration was answered by the court of Versailles in a counter declaration, renewing the recognition of that title, upon the express condition, that, if any alteration should be made by the court of St. Petersburg in the rules previously observed by the two courts as to rank and precedence, the French Crown would resume its ancient style, and cease to give the title of Imperial to that of Russia (k).

The title of Emperor, from the historical associations with which it is connected, was formerly considered the most eminent and honourable among all sovereign titles; but it was never regarded by other crowned heads as conferring, except in the single case of the Emperor of Germany, any prerogative or precedence over those princes.

The usage of nations has established certain maritime ceremonials to be observed, either on the ocean or those parts of the sea over which a sort of supremacy is claimed by a particular State.

Among these is the salute by striking the flag or the sails, or by firing a certain number of guns on approaching a fleet or a ship of war, or entering a fortified port or harbour.

Every sovereign State has the exclusive right, in virtue of its independence and equality, to regulate the maritime ceremonial to be observed by its own vessels towards each other, or towards those of another nation, on the high seas, or within its own territorial jurisdiction. It has a similar right to regulate the ceremonial to be observed within its own exclusive jurisdiction by the vessels of all nations, as well with respect to each other,

(*) Flassan, Histoire de la Diplomatie Française, tom. vi. liv. iii. pp. 328

as towards its own fortresses and ships of war, and the reciprocal honours to be rendered by the latter to foreign ships. These regulations are established either by its own municipal ordinances, or by reciprocal treaties with other maritime powers (1).

Where the dominion claimed by the State is contested by foreign nations, as in the case of Great Britain in the Narrow Seas, the maritime honours to be rendered by its flag are also the subject of contention. The disputes on this subject have not unfrequently formed the motives or pretexts for war between the powers asserting these pretensions, and those by whom they were resisted. The maritime honours required by Denmark, in consequence of the supremacy claimed by that power over the Sound and Belts, at the entrance of the Baltic Sea, have been regulated and modified by different treaties with other States, and especially by the convention of the 15th of January, 1829, between Russia and Denmark, suppressing most of the formalities required by former treaties. This convention is to continue in force until a general regulation shall be established among all the maritime powers of Europe, according to the protocol of the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, signed on the 9th November, 1818, by the terms of which it was agreed, by the ministers of the five great powers, Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, that the existing regulations observed by them should be referred to the ministerial conferences at London, and that the other maritime powers should be invited to communicate their views of the subject in order to form some such general regulation (m).

(1) Bynkershoek, de Dominio Maris, cap. 2, 4. Martens, Précis du Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, liv. iv. ch. 4, § 159. Klüber, Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, pt. ii. tit. 1, ch. 3, §§ 117–122. [See U. S. Dipl. Cor. 1872, p. 202, where the United States complained of the Canadian flag being

hoisted over the Union flag, on board a United States vessel captured for violating the fishing laws.]

(m) J. H. W. Schlegel, Staats Recht des Königreichs Dänemark, 1 Theil, p. 412. Martens, Nouveau Recueil, tom. viii. p. 73. Ortolan, Diplomatie de la Mer, t. i. liv. 2, ch. 15.

$161. National proprietary rights.

§ 162. Public and private property.

$ 163. Eminent domain.

§ 164. Prescription.

CHAPTER IV.

RIGHTS OF PROPERTY.

THE exclusive right of every independent State to its territory and other property, is founded upon the title originally acquired by occupancy, conquest, or cession, and subsequently confirmed by the presumption arising from the lapse of time, or by treaties and other compacts with foreign States.

This exclusive right includes the public property or domain of the State, and those things belonging to private individuals, or bodies corporate, within its territorial limits.

The right of the State to its public property or domain is absolute, and excludes that of its own subjects as well as other nations. The national proprietary right, in respect to those things belonging to private individuals, or bodies corporate, within its territorial limits, is absolute, so far as it excludes that of other nations; but, in respect to the members of the State, it is paramount only, and forms what is called the eminent domain (a); that is, the right, in case of necessity or for the public safety, of disposing of all the property of every kind within the limits of the State.

The writers on natural law have questioned how far that peculiar species of presumption, arising from the lapse of time, which is called prescription, is justly applicable, as between nation and nation; but the constant and approved practice of nations shows that, by whatever

(a) Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. i. ch. 20, §§ 235, 244. Rutherforth's Inst. of Natural Law, vol. ii. ch. 9, § 6.

Heffter, Das Europäische Völkerrecht, §§ 64, 69, 70.

name it be called, the uninterrupted possession of territory, or other property, for a certain length of time, by one State, excludes the claim of every other; in the same manner as, by the law of nature and the municipal code of every civilized nation, a similar possession by an individual excludes the claim of every other person to the article of property in question. This rule is founded upon the supposition, confirmed by constant experience, that every person will naturally seek to enjoy that which belongs to him; and the inference fairly to be drawn from his silence and neglect, of the original defect of his title, or his intention to relinquish it (b).

discovery

compact and

$165. The title of almost all the nations of Europe to the Conquest and territory now possessed by them, in that quarter of the confirmed by world, was originally derived from conquest, which has the lapse of been subsequently confirmed by long possession and time. international compacts, to which all the European States have successively become parties. Their claim to the possessions held by them in the New World, discovered by Columbus and other adventurers, and to the territories which they have acquired on the continents and islands of Africa and Asia, was originally derived from discovery, or conquest and colonization, and has since been confirmed in the same manner, by positive compact. Independently of these sources of title, the general consent of mankind has established the principle, that long and uninterrupted possession by one nation excludes the claim of every other. Whether this general consent be considered as an implied contract, or as positive law, all nations are equally bound by it; since all are parties to it, since none can safely disregard it without impugning its own title to its possessions, and since it is founded upon

(b) Grotius, de Jur. Bel. ac Pac. lib. ii. cap. 4. Puffendorf, Jus Naturæ et Gentium, lib. iv. cap. 12. Vattel, Droit des Gens, tome i. liv. ii. ch. 11. Rutherforth's Inst. of Natural Law, vol. i. ch. 8; vol. ii. ch. 9, §§ 3, 6.

[Calvo thinks acquisition by prescrip

tion more necessary for States than in-
dividuals. The latter can appeal to
courts of law to decide upon their title,
while the former too often resort to arms
for the settlement of such differences.
Droit International, vol, i. § 211.]

« EelmineJätka »