CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL LAW
AND DIPLOMACY
Edited by ARNOLD D. McNAiR, C.B.E., LL.D.
Fellow of Gonville and Caius College and Reader
in Public International Law in the University of
Cambridge
A GUIDE TO
DIPLOMATIC PRACTICE
CONTRIBUTIONS TO
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND DIPLOMACY
Edited by ARNOLD D. McNAIR, C.B.E., LLJ>.
ANNUAL DIGEST OF PUBLIC INTER-
NATIONAL LAW CASES
Being a Selection from the Decisions of International and
National Courts and Tribunals.
Edited by ARNOLD D. McNAIR, C.B.E., LL.D., and
H. LAUTERPACHT, LL.D., Dr. jur., Dr. Sc. Pol.
For the years 1925 and 1926 . . 35s. net.
For the years 1927 and 1928 . . 42s. net.
PRIVATE LAW SOURCES AND ANALOGIES
OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
(With Special Reference to International Arbitration.)
By H. LAUTERPACHT, Dr. jur., Dr. Sc. Pol., LL.D. 25s. net.
THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
A Contribution to the Theory and Practice of Inter-
national Mandates.
By J. STOYANOVSKY, Docteur en Droit, Paris, LL.D., London.
25s. net.
CHAPTERS ON CURRENT INTERNATIONAL
LAW AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
By Sir JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS, C.B.E., K.C. 25s. net.
THE PRESENT JURIDICAL STATUS OF THE
BRITISH DOMINIONS IN INTERNATIONAL
LAW
By Professor PHILIP NOEL BAKER, M.A. 21s. net.
THE MANDATES SYSTEM
By NORMAN BENTWICH, Attorney-General of Palestine.
15s. net.
A GUIDE TO DIPLOMATIC PRACTICE
By the Right Hon. Sir ERNEST SATOW, G.C.M.G.
Third Edition— Revised by H. RITCHIE, C.M.G.
Edited by L. OPPENHEIM, M.A., LL.D.
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE WORLD WAR
By Professor JAMES WILFORD GARNER. Two Vols. 42s. net.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
By Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER, M.A., and SIMON MACCOBY,
25s. net.
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS AND ITS
PROBLEMS
Three Lectures. By Professor L. OPPENHEIM, LL.D. 6s.net.
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND THIRD
STATES
A Monograph. By R. F. ROXBURGH. 7s. 6d. net.
A GUIDE TO
DIPLOMATIC PRACTICE
BY THE LATE
RT. HON. SIR ERNEST SATOW
G.C.M.G., LL.D., D.C.L.
FORMERLY ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER
PLENIPOTENTIARY
THIRD EDITION
REVISED BY
H. RITCHIE, C.M.G., O.B.E., I.S.O.
FORMERLY TECHNICAL ASSISTANT IN HIS MAJESTY'S
FOREIGN OFFICE
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.
LONDON * NEW YORK » TORONTO
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. LTD.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, B.C. 4
6 OLD COURT HOUSE STREET, CALCUTTA
53 NICOL ROAD, BOMBAY
3&A MOUNT ROAD, MADRAS
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.
55 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK
221 EAST 2OTH STREET, CHICAGO
88 TREMONT STREET, BOSTON
128-132 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, TORONTO
Made in Great Britain
PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION
THE late Sir Ernest Satow, who died on August 26, 1929,
published his " Guide to Diplomatic Practice" in 1917. To
its preparation he brought legal qualifications of a high order,
an extensive knowledge of the writings of earlier authorities,
and the experience of a long and distinguished career in
His Majesty's Diplomatic Service. In an editorial introduction
to the first edition the late Professor Oppenheim said that the
intention was to produce a work that would be of service alike
to the international lawyer, the diplomatist and the student of
history, and remarked that it was unique with regard to its
method of treatment of the subject, as well as the selection of
the topics discussed and in the amount of original research
which it embodied. The work deservedly attained a high
reputation, and its widespread circulation led to the issue of a
further edition in 1922.
Since the date of the original publication many changes and
developments have occurred. Some matters of former impor-
tance have receded into the background ; others have arisen
demanding inclusion in a work of this kind. In preparing a
third edition considerable revision has been found necessary.
The long lists of congresses and conferences, dating from
1648, which were set out in the former edition have been
replaced by a chapter descriptive in general of such assem-
blies, supplemented by outstanding instances of the numerous
conferences held within recent years. Similarly, events of an
earlier epoch which were narrated in the chapters on good
offices and mediation have been omitted, these subjects being
included with others in a series of chapters on the League of
Nations. The chapters on diplomatic immunities have been
largely extended, prominence being given to the views of
modern writers and the decisions of courts of law in various
countries. The chapters on treaties and other international
compacts have also undergone revision, former instances
being replaced by others more recent ; while a chapter has
been added on the British Commonwealth of Nations. But
vi PREFACE
in essential respects the historical outline and substance of the
original work are preserved, though often summarised, and
sometimes amplified by the inclusion of new matter. It has been
possible thus to bring the present edition within the compass
of a single volume of convenient size for reference, and it is
hoped that in this revised form (which has necessitated the
renumbering of the paragraphs) it will continue to serve the
useful purposes which the late Sir Ernest Satow had in mind at
the time of his original publication.
The editor desires to express his grateful acknowledgment of
the help given by Mr. Stephen Gaselee, Librarian and Keeper
of the Papers at the Foreign Office, at whose request the work
was undertaken, and by former colleagues and friends who
have contributed to the revision with suggestions and
information. Whilst access has been permitted to official
records, it must be understood that the work is entirely
unofficial, and that the views expressed in the course of it
are not necessarily those of the British Government.
LONDON,
April, 1932.
CONTENTS
BOOK I
DIPLOMACY IN GENERAL
CHAP. PAGE
I. DIPLOMACY ...... i
II. IMMUNITIES OF THE HEAD OF A FOREIGN STATE 5
III. THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS . . 16
IV. PRECEDENCE AMONG STATES AND SIMILAR
MATTERS ...... 23
V. TITLES AND PRECEDENCE AMONG SOVEREIGNS 31
VI. MARITIME HONOURS . . . . .41
VII. THE LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTER-
COURSE, AND FORMS OF DOCUMENTS . 52
VIII. CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS ... 72
IX. ADVICE TO DIPLOMATISTS . . -87
X. LATIN AND FRENCH PHRASES . . .100
BOOK II
DIPLOMATIC AGENTS IN GENERAL
XI. DIPLOMATIC AGENTS, AND THE RIGHT OF
LEGATION . . . . . .109
XII. THE SELECTION OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS . 118
XIII. PERSONA GRATA . . . . .124
XIV. DIPLOMATIC AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST 132
XV. CLASSIFICATION OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS . 149
XVI. IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS . .161
XVII. IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE DIPLO-
MATIC AGENT . . . . .198
XVIII. EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 212
PAGE
viii CONTENTS
CHAP.
XIX. POSITION OF DIPLOMATIC AGENT IN REGARD
TO THIRD STATES . . . .226
XX. THE DIPLOMATIC BODY .... 238
XXI. TERMINATION OF A MISSION . . . 256
BOOK III
INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS
XXII. CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES . . . 284
XXIII. TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL COM-
PACTS : TREATY, CONVENTION, ADDITIONAL
ARTICLES, FINAL ACT, GENERAL ACT,
CONCORDAT . . . . .318
XXIV. TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL COM-
PACTS (continued] : DECLARATION, AGREE-
MENT . . 355
XXV. TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL COM-
PACTS (continued) : PROTOCOL, PROCES
VERBAL, EXCHANGE OF NOTES . 370
XXVI. TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL COM-
PACTS (continued) : MODUS VIVENDI, COM-
PROMIS D'ARBITRAGE, REVERSALES . -391
XXVII. TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL COM-
PACTS (continued) : RATIFICATION, ACCES-
SION, RESERVATIONS, NOTICE OF TERMINA-
TION ....... 403
BOOK IV
THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
XXVIII. THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS . 422
XXIX. THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS .... 440
XXX. THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS : MANDATES, TREA-
TIES, DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES . . 467
XXXI. THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS : ARBITRATION,
CONCILIATION, GOOD OFFICES, MEDIATION 482
APPENDIX : LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO . 496
INDEX 503
PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS OF BOOKS, ETC.
QUOTED IN THE TEXT
THE books referred to in the Bibliography are mentioned in foot-
notes, and a complete list is given in the Appendix, page 496.
Certain of them, however, which are often referred to are indicated
in the footnotes in an abbreviated form as follows :
Annual Digest
Br. & For. State Papers
Ch
Clunet
Cours de La Haye
de Castro y Casaleiz .
de Maulde-la-Claviere
de Martens-GefFken .
Flassan
Garcia de la Vega
Hall
Holtzendorff
Jenkinson
K.B.
Krauske .
L.R.
Moore
Oppenheim
Annual Digest of Public International Law
Cases. Edited by McNair and Lauter-
pacht. Two vols. have appeared so
far : 1925-1926, and 1927-1928.
British and Foreign State Papers. Vols. I
to 125 have appeared so far.
Chancery.
Journal du Droit international prive et de la
Jurisprudence comparee ; Journal du Droit
international from 1915.
Academic de Droit International. Recueil des
Cours.
Guia practica del Diplomdtico Espanol
(2nd ed., 1886).
Histoire de Louis XII, 2dme par tie (1893).
Le Guide Diplomatique (1866).
Histoire de la diplomatie frangaise (2nd ed.,
1811).
Guide Pratique des Agents Politiques, etc. (1873).
A Treatise on International Law. 8th ed.,
1924. Pearce-Higgins.
Handbuch des Volkerrechts (1885-89).
A Collection of all the Treaties, etc., between
Great Britain and other Powers (1785).
King's Bench.
Entwickelung der stdndigen Diplomatie (1885).
Law Reports.
Digest of International Law (1906).
International Law, 4th ed. McNair.
2 vols. — i. Peace (1928) ; ii. Disputes,
War and Neutrality (1926).
x ABBREVIATIONS OF BOOKS
Phillimore . . Commentaries on International Law (1879-89).
Pradier Fodere . . Cours de Droit Diplomatique (1881).
P.R.O. . . . Public Record Office.
Q.B. . . Queen's Bench.
Schmelzing . . Systematischer Grundrissdes Volkerrechts (1818—
1820).
T.L.R. . . . Times Law Reports.
Treaty Series . . British Treaty Series of Parliamentary Papers.
Ullmann . . . Volkerrecht (1908).
Villa Urrutia . . Relaciones entre Espana e Inglaterra durante la
Guerra de la Independence (1911-14).
A GUIDE TO DIPLOMATIC
PRACTICE
BOOK I
DIPLOMACY IN GENERAL
CHAPTER I
DIPLOMACY
§ i . DIPLOMACY is the application of intelligence and tact to
the conduct of official relations between the governments of
independent states, extending sometimes also to their relations
with vassal states.
Other definitions are :
"La diplomatic est 1'expression par laquelle on designe depui^-
un certain nombre d'annees, la science des rapports exterieurss"
laquelle a pour base les diplomes ou actes ecrits emanes des souve-
rains " (Flassan). "La science des relations exterieures ou affaires
etrangeres des Etats, .et, dans un sens plus determine, la science
ou 1'art des negotiations " (Ch. de Martens). "La science des rap-
ports et des interets respectffs des Etats ou 1'art de concilier les
interets des peuples entre eux ; et dans un sens plus determine, la
science ou 1'art des negotiations ; elle a pour etymologic le mot
grec StVAw/Aa, duplicata, double ou copie d'un acte emane du
prince, et dont la minute est restee " (Garden).
" Elle embrasse le systeme entier des interets qui naissent des
rapports etablis entre les nations : elle a pour objet leur surete,
leur tranquillite, leur dignite respectives ; et son but direct, imme-
diat, est, ou doit etre au moins, le maintien de la paix et de la
bonne harmonic entre les puissances" (same author).
" L'ensemble des connaissances et des principes qui sont neces-
saires pour bien conduire les affaires publiques entre les Etats " (de
Cussy, Dictionnaire du Diplomate et du Consul}.
" La science des relations qui existent entre les divers fitats,
2 DIPLOMACY
telles qu'elles resultant de leurs interets reciproques, des principes
du droit international et des stipulations des traites " (Calvo).
" L'art des negociations. Kliiber developpe assez bien cette
definition en disant que c'est Tensemble des connaissances et
principes necessaires pour bien conduire les affaires publiques
entre les Etats.' La diplomatic eveille en effet 1'idee de gestion des
affaires internationales, de maniement des rapports exterieurs,
d'administration des interets nationaux des peuples et de leurs
gouvernements, dans leur contact mutuel, soit paisible soit hostile.
On pourrait presque dire que c'est ' le droit des gens applique '
(Pradier-Fodere) .
" Die Kenntniss der zur ausseren Leitung der offentlichen
Angelegenheiten und Geschafte der Volker oder Souveraine, und
der zu miindlichen oder schriftlichen Verhandelungen rnit fremden
Staaten gehorigen Grundsatze, Maximen, Fertigkeiten und
Formen " (Schmelzing, Systematischer Grundriss des Volkerrechts] .
According to Rivier, the use of" diplomacy" is three-fold :
i st. La science et 1'art de la representation des Etats et des
negociations.
2nd. On emploie le meme mot . . . pour exprimer une
notion complexe, comprenant soit 1'ensemble de la representation
d'un Etat, y compris le ministere des affaires etrangeres, soit
1'ensemble des agents politiques. C'est dans ce sens que Ton
parle du merite de la diplomatic franchise a certaines epoques, de
la diplomatic russe, autrichienne.
3rd. Enfin on entend encore par diplomatic la carriere ou
profession de diplomate. On se voue a la diplomatic, comme on
se voue a la magistrature, au barreau, a 1'enseignement, aux armes
(Principes du droit des gens] .
§ 2. The diplomat, says Littre, is so called, because diplomas
are official documents (actes) emanating from princes, and the
word diploma comes from the Greek StVAw/xa (Si7rAda>, I double)
from the way in which they were folded. A diploma is under-
stood to be a document by which % privilege is conferred : a
state paper, official document, a charter. The earliest English
instance of the use of this word is of the year 1645.
Leibniz, in 1693, published his Codex Juris Gentium Diplo-
maticus, Dumont in 1726 the Corps universel Diplomatique du Droit
des Gens. Both were collections of treaties and other official
documents. In these titles diplomaticus, diplomatique, are applied
to a body or collection of original state-papers, but as the
subject-matter of these particular collections was international
relations, " corps diplomatique " appears to have been treated
as equivalent to " corps du droit des gens," and " diplo-
matique ' as ' having to do with international relations."
Hence the application also to the officials connected with such
DIPLOMACY 3
matters. Diplomatic body x now came to signify the body of
ambassadors, envoys and officials attached to the foreign
missions residing at any seat of government, and diplomatic
service that branch of the public service which supplies the
personnel of the permanent missions in foreign countries. The
earliest example of this use in England appears to be in the
"Annual Register" for 1787. Burke, in 1796, speaks of the
" diplomatic body," and also uses " diplomacy " to mean skill
or address in the conduct of international intercourse and nego-
tiations. The terms diplomat., diplomate, diplomatist were adopted
to designate a member of this body.2 In the eighteenth
century they were scarcely known. Disraeli is quoted as
using " diplomatic ' in 1826 as " displaying address ' in
negotiations or intercourse of any kind (New English
Dictionary). La diplomatique is used in French for the art of
deciphering ancient documents, such as charters and so forth.
§ 3. The words, then, are comparatively modern, but diplo-
matists existed long before the words were employed to denote
the class. Machiavelli (1469-1527) is perhaps the most cele-
brated of men who discharged diplomatic functions in early
days. D'Ossat (1536-1604), Kaunitz (1710-1794), Metter-
nich (1773-1859), Pozzo di Borgo (1764-1842), the first Lord
Malmesbury (1764-1820), Talleyrand (1754-1838), Lord
Stratford de Redcliffe (1786-1880) are among the most
eminent of the profession in more recent times. If men who
combined fame as statesmen with diplomatic reputation are
to be included, Count Cavour (1810-1861) and Prince
Bismarck (1815-1898) enjoyed a world-wide celebrity.
§ 4. " Diplomatist 5: ought, however, to be understood as
including all the public servants employed in diplomatic
affairs, whether serving at home in the department of foreign
affairs, or abroad at embassies or other diplomatic agencies.
Strictly speaking, the head of the foreign department is also a
diplomatist, as regards his function of responsible statesman
conducting the relations of his country with other states. This
he does by discussion with their official representatives or by
issuing instructions to his agents in foreign countries. Some-
times he is a diplomatist by training and profession ; at others
he may be a political personage, often possessed of special
knowledge fitting him for the post.
§ 5. When we speak of the " diplomacy " of a country as
1 This use of the expression first arose in Vienna about the middle of the
eighteenth century (Ranke, cited by Holtzendorff, iii. 617).
2 Callieres, whose book was published in 1716, never uses the word diplomats.
He always speaks of " un bon " or " un habile negociateur."
4 DIPLOMACY
skilful or blundering, we do not mean the management of its
international affairs by its agents residing abroad, but their
direction by the statesman at the head of the department.
Many writers and speakers are disposed to put the blame for
a weak or unintelligent diplomacy on the agent, but this
mistake arises from their ignorance of the organisation of
public business. The real responsibility necessarily rests with
the government concerned.
CHAPTER II
IMMUNITIES OF THE HEAD OF A FOREIGN STATE
§ 6. A SOVEREIGN within the territory of a foreign state, so
long as he is there in his capacity of sovereign, is entitled to all
ceremonial honours befitting his position and dignity. He is
exempt from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the local
tribunals, from all taxation, police regulations ; his place of
residence may not be entered by the state authorities without
his permission.1 The movables he carries with him are ordin-
arily exempt from customs duties and visitation by customs
officers ; this privilege is also extended by general comity to
goods destined for delivery to a foreign sovereign or his family in
their transit through foreign countries.2 The members of his
suite enjoy the same immunities as himself. If he commits
acts against public order or security, he can only be expelled,
the necessary precautions being taken to prevent a repetition
of such acts. On the other hand, he cannot exercise juris-
diction over persons belonging to his suite ; if one of them
should commit an offence, he must be sent home in order
that the case may be dealt with by the tribunals of his own
country, and similarly with respect to civil matters. The
foreign sovereign cannot protect a delinquent, not a member
of his suite, who takes refuge with him, but must surrender
him on demand. He must not ignore administrative regula-
tions made for the preservation of the public peace and public
health. He must, of course, take care that they are equally
observed by the persons in his suite.
§ 7. If, however, a sovereign travels incognito in the terri-
tories of a foreign state, he can only claim to be treated as a
private individual ; but if he declares his identity, then he
becomes entitled to all the immunities pertaining to his rank
as sovereign. The same rule would hold good if he entered
the service of another sovereign ; he could only recover his
rights by resigning the service in which he was engaged.
§ 8. The case of the Duke of Cumberland, who was a peer
1 Hall, 220 ; Ullmann, 158. 2 Phillimore, ii. 139.
6 HEAD OF A FOREIGN STATE
of the realm in Great Britain, and King of Hanover, was
peculiar.1 It is conceived that if he had come to England as
Duke, he could only have become entitled to be treated as a
sovereign in England by returning to Hanover and coming
again in his capacity of King.
§ 9. A regent governing in place of a sovereign during
the infancy or incapacity of the sovereign, is as the incumbent
entitled to all the privileges due to the latter, even if not a
member of the reigning family.2
§ 10. Writers differ as to the position of the president of a
republic when in the territory of another state. While some
see no reason for drawing any distinction between a sovereign
and a president who is the elected head of a state, others hold
an opposite view :
" L'exterritorialite ne s'applique pas au president d'une repub-
lique. De prime abord il est clair que lorsqu'un souverain, aussi
bien qu'un president, sejournent a 1'etranger pour y exercer des
fonctions diplomatiques, les privileges de 1'exterritorialite prennent
existence en vertu de leur caractere diplomatique. Le droit des
gens accorde cependant, en dehors de cela, au souverain, 1'exterri-
torialite en vertu de la position qu'il occupe, comme chef supreme
de 1'Etat. Pareille position ne peut etre attribute a un president ;
il n'est pas souverain, mais seulement chef du pouvoir executif et
simple fonctionnaire, employe de 1'fitat qu'il preside. Dans ce
cas 1'exterritorialite n'a aucune justification et n'a pas a etre
appliquee."3
§11. But, however this may be, it cannot be doubted that
no head of a republic would expose himself to any risk of
being refused the immunities accorded to a sovereign, and
that on the rare occasion when a president visits a foreign
state he would expect to receive, or has been assured before-
hand, treatment in all respect the same as that of a sovereign.
All such ceremonious honours as those accorded to a sovereign
appear to have been accorded on the occasion of the visit of
the President of the French Republic to Russia in 1914, on
the visit of the President of the United States to England in
1918, and on the visit of the President of the French Republic
to England in 1927.
§ 12. If a sovereign privately owns real property in a foreign
state, it is subject to the jurisdiction of the local tribunals.
Hall holds,4 with justice in our opinion, that this applies also
See Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover (1844), 6 Beav. i ; 2 H.L.C. I.
2 Oppenheim, i. § 352.
3 Heyking, L' Exterritoriality Cours de La Haye (1925), ii. 283.
4 Hall, 222.
HEAD OF A FOREIGN STATE 7
to personalty, not coming within the categories previously
mentioned, owned in a foreign state. This seems also to be
Ullmann's 1 view. Execution of a judgment in respect of
contract or tort might in practice encounter difficulties. The
practice of the English courts, both of equity and common
law, has been in favour of the privileged exemption of
sovereigns in all matters of contract. And the French courts
have upheld the same principle.2
§ 13. If he appeals in a civil matter to the courts of a foreign
state, he must submit to cross-proceedings being taken against
him 3 as the condition on which his action is entertained by
the court. In England he must comply with the rules of
the court, for a sovereign bringing an action in the courts of
a foreign country brings with him no privilege which can vary
the practice or displace the law applying to other suitors in
those courts.4
§ 14. A sovereign who has been deposed by his people, or
who has abdicated, and whose deposition or abdication has
been recognised by other states, and a president of a republic
whose term of office has expired, or who has been overthrown
by a revolution, enjoy no immunities. Any privileges ac-
corded to such personages during their residence in other
countries must depend on the course which the authorities of
those countries deem it expedient to adopt.5
§ 15. Ceremonial of the Visit of the President of the French Republic
to England, May 16, 1927.
On May 16, 1927, the President and Suite left Calais in the
s.s. Invicta at 11.30 A.M. The vessel was met half-way across the
Channel and escorted into Dover by a Naval Escort of four
British destroyers, and an Air Escort of five fighter aeroplanes.
As she approached Dover salutes were fired by the shore
batteries.
On arrival at Dover the Prince of Wales went on board to
welcome the President on behalf of the King. His Royal Highness
was accompanied by the French Ambassador, and presented the
British Suite specially attached to the President for the period of
the State visit.
In attendance on the President : — Field Marshal Earl Haig ;
Lord Colebrook, Lord-in- Waiting to the King ; Major Reginald
Seymour, Equerry to the King.
The following were the names of the French Suite in attend-
ance : — Monsieur Jules Michel, Secretaire General Civil de la
1 Ullmann, 1 59 and footnote.
2 Phillimore, ii. 144 ; Oppenheim, i. § 1 15. 3 See on this point § 348.
4 Phillimore, ii. 151. 5 Ibid., ii. 149.
8 HEAD OF A FOREIGN STATE
Presidence de la Republique ; Monsieur P. de Fouquieres, Ministre
Plenipotentiaire, Directeur du Protocole ; Monsieur le Contre-
Amiral Vedel, Attache a la personne du President de la Repub-
lique ; Monsieur le Lieutenant-Colonel de Boyve, Attache a la
personne du President de la Republique ; Monsieur le Lieutenant-
Colonel Philippe, Attache a la personne du President de la Repub-
lique ; Monsieur Barbier, Administrateur de 1'Agence Havas ;
Monsieur Dubois, Officier d'Administration de lere Classe, Chef
du Secretariat Militaire.
Monsieur A. Briand, President du Conseil, Ministre des Affaires
fitrangeres, and Monsieur Leger, Ministre Plenipotentiaire, Chef
du Cabinet, also accompanied the President.
At i P.M. the President was conducted on shore by the Prince
of Wales, and was received by the Lord Warden of the Cinque
Ports, His Majesty's Lieutenant for the County of Kent, the Com-
mander-in-Chief The Nore, the General Officer Commanding-
in-Chief Eastern Command, and the Air Officer Commanding
Coastal Area.
Guards of Honour of the Royal Navy and of the First Battalion,
Lancashire Fusiliers, were mounted on the Pier.
An address was presented to the President by the Mayor and
Corporation of Dover, on the Station Platform.
A special train left Dover Marine Station at 1.15 P.M. to convey
the President to London.
The President of the French Republic, accompanied by the
Prince of Wales, arrived at Victoria Station at 3 P.M., where they
were met by the King and Members of the Royal Family.
There were also present at the station the Prime Minister, the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for
the Home Department, H.M. Vice-Lieutenant for the County of
London, the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs, the First Sea Lord of the
Admiralty, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, the Chief of
the Air Staff, the Chairman of the London County Council, and
the Mayor of the City of Westminster.
Levee dress was worn.
A Guard of Honour of the 3rd Battalion Grenadier Guards
was mounted at the station.
The President was conducted to his carriage by the Earl of
Granard, Master of the Horse, and then proceeded in carriage pro-
cession, accompanied by the King and Prince of Wales, and escorted
by a Sovereign's Escort of the Household Cavalry with Standard,
to Buckingham Palace. The Procession left Victoria Station at
3.10 P.M., and arrived at Buckingham Palace at 3.25 P.M.
First Carriage.
The President of the French Republic.
The King.
H.R.H. the Prince of Wales.
H.R.H. Prince Henry.
HEAD OF A FOREIGN STATE 9
Second Carriage.
Monsieur A. Briand.
The French Ambassador.
Monsieur Jules Michel.
The Master of the Horse.
Third Carriage.
Monsieur de Fouquieres.
Monsieur le Contre-Amiral Vedel.
Monsieur Leger.
Field-Marshal Earl Haig.
Fourth Carriage.
Monsieur le Lieut. -Colonel de Boyve.
Monsieur le Lieut. -Colonel Philippe.
Monsieur Barbier.
Lord Colebrooke.
Fifth Carriage.
Monsieur Dubois.
Captain Sir C. Gust, Bart., R.N.
Major Reginald Seymour.
Capt. Hon. Alexander Hardinge.
The streets were lined with troops.
The King's Guard, with the King's Colour and Band, were
mounted in the Quadrangle of the Palace.
The Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, the Captain of the
Gentlemen-at-Arms, the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard,
the Treasurer to the King and the Keeper of the Privy Purse, the
Private Secretary to the King, the Master of the Household, the
Comptroller of the Lord Chamberlain's Office, the Crown Equerry,
the Deputy Treasurer to the King, the Marshal of the Diplomatic
Corps, and the Gentlemen of the Household-in- Waiting were in
attendance in the Grand Hall.
The Queen received the President of the French Republic in
the Bow Room. The Mistress of the Robes, the Ladies-in- Waiting,
the Lord Chamberlain to the Queen, the Treasurer to the Queen,
and the Private Secretary to the Queen were in attendance.
The Suite of the President of the French Republic were received
by the King and Queen in the Bow Room.
Guards of the King's Bodyguard of the Honourable Corps of
Gentlemen-at-Arms and His Majesty's Bodyguard of the Yeomen
of the Guard were on duty in the Grand Hall. The King's Indian
Orderly Officers were also on duty.
Levee dress was worn.
At 4.30 P.M. the President and Suite left Buckingham Palace
in motor-cars to visit the Cenotaph and the Grave of the Unknown
Warrior in Westminster Abbey, being received at the Cenotaph
io HEAD OF A FOREIGN STATE
by the Second Sea Lord of the Admiralty, the Adjutant-General to
the Forces, and a Service Member of the Air Council ; and at
Westminster Abbey by the Very Reverend the Dean.
Afterwards the President visited members of the Royal Family.
At 5.45 P.M. the President arrived at St. James's Palace, where
he received the personnel of the French Embassy, Addresses from
the London County Council and the City of Westminster, and held
a reception of the French Chamber of Commerce and the French
community.
Morning dress was worn.
In the evening the King and Queen gave a State Banquet at
Buckingham Palace in honour of the President at 8.10 P.M.
A Guard of the King's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard
were on duty.
Full dress was worn.
On May 1 7, the President and Suite visited Oxford University,
where he received the Degree of Doctor of Civil Law, thereafter
returning to Buckingham Palace. Morning dress was worn. In
the evening the President entertained the King and Queen to
dinner at the French Embassy. Evening dress (Decorations,
Star and Riband) was worn.
On May 18, the President visited the French Hospital, after-
wards receiving the Chefs de Mission of the Corps Diplomatique
in the Bow Room, Buckingham Palace. Morning dress was worn
by the Corps Diplomatique. In the afternoon he visited the
Guildhall, where an Address was presented by the Lord Mayor
and the Corporation of the City of London, and was entertained
at luncheon by the Corporation of the City of London. Levee
dress was worn. Later the President visited 1'Institut Franc.ais
du Royaume-Uni. In the evening the President was entertained
to dinner at the Foreign Office by the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs. Levee dress was worn.
On May 19, the State Visit of the President of the French
Republic concluded.
§ 1 6. Ceremonial of the Vatican on the reception of a Sovereign,
as observed on the visit of the King and Queen of the Belgians, the
Duke and Duchess of Brabant, the Count of Flanders, and Princess
Marie Jose, January 7, 1930.
General Dispositions. — The Ceremony is directed by the Mon-
signor Secretary of Ceremonial. The Italian Government under-
takes to keep the Piazza of Sf. Peter's and the Colonnade entirely
clear of the public from at least two hours before the arrival of the
Royal Procession until Their Majesties shall have left the City of
the Vatican. The police service along the route within the Vatican
City, including the Piazza of St. Peter's, is entrusted to the Com-
mandant of the Pontifical Gendarmerie, who will be careful to see
that all windows and doors opening on the line of route are kept
closed. The Museums, Galleries and Offices of the Vatican City
HEAD OF A FOREIGN STATE n
and the Basilica of St. Peter's are all closed. All Military Guards are
posted two hours before the arrival of the Royal Procession and are
withdrawn only when Their Majesties have left the Vatican City.
Admission to, and circulation within, the line of route are pro-
hibited to all strangers. Those who, for official reasons, have need
to enter the Vatican City are furnished with a special card issued
by the Governor of the Vatican City. The Military are under
the orders of the Governor of the Vatican City and of Monsignor
the Master of the Household. All persons on duty in the Ante-
Chamber do not leave the Pontifical Apartments until they receive
orders from the Master of the Household. The Privy Chamberlains
of Sword and Cape on duty are increased in accordance with the
exigencies of the service. The Dignitaries of the Pontifical Court
on duty wear full dress.
The Commandant of the Noble Guard is warned for duty in
the Secret Ante-Chamber, and at the appropriate moment, in
company with the Master of the Household proceeds to the Porch
of the Papal Stairs, accompanied by an officer of his Staff to await
the arrival of the Sovereigns. At the same time another officer of
the Noble Guard proceeds with the Privy Almoner to the Sala
Clementina. Two Cadets and eighteen Guards are on duty in
the usual apartment. Sixteen Guards are formed up in a double
rank and the remaining two on sentry duty, one at the threshold
of their apartment, the other at the door of the Secret Ante-
Chamber. Twenty Guards are paraded in the Sala Ducale, on
the window side. Full dress uniform.
A double Picket of Swiss Guards posted at the edge of the
Piazza of St. Peter's renders due honours to the Sovereigns while
the Band of the Corps plays the Belgian National Anthem. Pickets
are posted on the line of route and at the Porch of the Papal Stairs.
An escort is in waiting consisting of one Sergeant, one Corporal,
and seven Guardsmen. A detachment is paraded in the Sala
Clementina, under the command of an officer, to render the usual
honours. Two officers are in the Sala degli Arazzi, the Lieutenant-
Colonel in the Throne Room and the Colonel Commandant in the
Secret Ante-Chamber. The latter, at the appropriate moment,
accompanies the Master of the Household and the Commandant
of the Noble Guard to the Porch of the Papal Stairs to await the
arrival of the Sovereigns. Guards are posted in the Chapel of the
Blessed Sacrament and along the Altar of the Confession. Full
dress uniform.
A Company of the Palatine Guard is paraded on the edge of
the Piazza of St. Peter's, under the command of a Captain, and
detachments are posted along the line of route. The Band of the
Corps and the Guard of Honour are in the Cortile di S. Damaso.
Ten officers line the route between the entrance to the Cortile of
the Holy Office and the Papal Stairs. On the arrival of the
Sovereigns in the Cortile di S. Damaso, the Band plays the Belgian
National Anthem, while the Guard of Honour renders the cus-
tomary salute. Various detachments are posted in the Papal
12 HEAD OF A FOREIGN STATE
Apartments, the Colonel Commandant in the Throne Room.
There is also a guard in the Portico of the Basilica of St. Peter's
and the Guard of Honour with the Band subsequently proceeds
to the steps outside the Basilica to render honours on the departure
of the Sovereigns. Full dress uniform.
A platoon of the Pontifical Gendarmerie is posted at the entrance
to the Vatican City and Guards line the route on police service.
In the Cortile Borgia two Trumpeters announce the arrival of the
Sovereigns. In the Cortile di S. Damaso there is a Guard of
Honour with the Band. Two Guards with drawn swords are
posted at all the entries into the Cortile di S. Damaso. In the
Papal Apartments a Picket is posted to render the due honours to
the Sovereigns. The Major Commandant of the Corps is in the
Throne Room and two Gendarmes are on duty in the Apartments
of the Secretary of State. Full dress uniform.
The Visit to His Holiness. — The Royal Procession enters the
Piazza of St. Peter's from the Piazza Rusticucci and halts on coming
to the border. Awaiting them are the Governor of the Vatican
City with his Staff, the Counsellor General of the Vatican City and
the Postmaster-General. The Guards of Honour of the Swiss
Guard and of the Palatine Guard give a Royal Salute and the
Band of the Swiss Guard plays the Belgian National Anthem. The
Governor approaches the Royal Carriage and presents to Their
Majesties the Counsellor General and the Postmaster-General, who
in their own carriages join the Procession, which proceeds to the
Cortile di San Damaso where the Band of the Palatine Guard
plays the National Anthem and the Royal Salute is given. On the
first landing of the Papal Stairs the Master of the Household, the
Grand Master of the Sacred Hospice, the Secretary of Ceremonial,
the Quarter-Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, the Master of
the Horse, the Commandants of the Noble Guard and of the Swiss
Guard and four Privy Chamberlains await Their Majesties. Six
Parafrenieri, the Picket of the Swiss Guard, and six Ushers are in
readiness to form the Procession. The Grand Master of the Sacred
Hospice descends into the Cortile and opens the door of the carriage
for Their Majesties to alight. The Secretary of the Ceremonial
presents to the Sovereigns the Grand Master of the Sacred Hospice,
who in his turn presents the Master of the Household. The
Secretary of the Ceremonial receives the other Royalties and
presents the Master of the Household. In the meantime the Suite
alight from their carriages and take up position in the Procession
which ascends the Papal Stairs in the following order :
A Sergeant of the Swiss Guard ; six Parafrenieri followed by
the Dean of the Papal Apartments ; six Ushers ; Their Majesties,
with the Master of the Household on their right, and on their left
the Grand Master of the Sacred Hospice, who offers his arm to her
Majesty the Queen ; the Princes and the Princesses and the Royal
Suite accompanied by Pontifical Dignitaries ; the Escort of the
Swiss Guard flanks and closes the procession.
In the Sala Clementina Their Majesties are awaited by the
HEAD OF A FOREIGN STATE 13
Almoner to His Holiness, the Sacrist, two Monsignori Chamber-
lains Partecipanti, a Pontifical Master of the Ceremonies, a
Monsignor Privy Chamberlain Supernumerary, an Officer of the
Staff of the Noble Guard and two Consistorial Advocates. The
Master of the Household presents to the Sovereigns and to Their
Royal Highnesses the Privy Almoner. The Procession crosses the
Sala Clementina, and the Swiss Guards fall out and line the entrance
to the Sala dei Parafrenieri awaiting the return of the Royal Pro-
cession. Similarly in the next room the Parafrenieri fall out.
Likewise the Suite of the Grand Master of the Sacred Hospice, and
also in the Sala degli Arazzi the six Ushers. The Procession then
enters the Throne Room, where the Commandant of the Palatine
Guard, the Lieutenant-Colonel of the Swiss Guard and the Com-
mandant of the Pontifical Gendarmerie, one clerical and one lay
Privy Chamberlain with three others are waiting. At the entrance
to the Throne Room the Privy Chamberlains and the Consistorial
Advocates fall out from the Procession to await the return of the
Sovereigns. Their Majesties then enter the Hall of St. John, where
the Grand Master of the Sacred Hospice, the Privy Almoner and
the Secretary of Ceremonial together with the Royal Suite fall out,
while the Master of the Household introduces the Sovereigns and
Their Royal Highnesses to the Holy Father in the Little Throne
Room.
His Holiness, in rochet and mozzetta, on notification from the
Chamberlain on duty, proceeds to meet Their Majesties and Their
Royal Highnesses in the doorway of the Little Throne Room. The
Holy Father seats himself on the Chair under the Canopy and
invites his guests to be seated. The Master of the Household, after
offering chairs to Their Majesties and to Their Royal Highnesses,
withdraws. The visit over, Their Majesties present to His Holiness
their Suite, who are introduced by the Master of the Household.
Then His Holiness accompanies them to the door of the Little
Throne Room and takes his leave. The Sovereigns and Their
Royal Highnesses, accompanied by the Master of the Household,
pass into the Secret Ante-Chamber, where its members are pre-
sented in order of precedence. The Procession is then re-formed
in the same order as before. During the passage through the
various Apartments the Master of the Household presents the
various Dignitaries on duty. At the exit from the Sala Clementina
the Privy Almoner, the Sacrist, the two Clerical Privy Chamberlains,
the Master of the Ceremonies, the Staff Officer of the Noble Guard,
and the two Consistorial Advocates take leave of Their Majesties.
Visit to the Cardinal Secretary of State. — The Procession descends
to the first floor, to the Apartments of the Cardinal Secretary of
State. In the Hall of the Congregations there are awaiting them
the three Prelates, Heads of Departments in the Secretariat of
State, i.e. the Under-Secretary and Assistant Under-Secretary of
State and the Chancellor of Apostolic Briefs. In the entrance Hall,
two Prelates, a Pontifical Master of the Ceremonies, the Cardinal's
Gentleman-in-Waiting, his Master of the Household, and Train
i4 HEAD OF A FOREIGN STATE
Bearer, await Their Majesties. The Cardinal Secretary of State
moves 'to meet Their Majesties half-way along the Corner Room.
The Master of the Household of His Holiness presents His Eminence
to the Sovereigns and to Their Royal Highnesses. The Cardinal
accompanies Their Majesties and Their Royal Highnesses into the
Throne Room, where he invites them to be seated. The Master
of the Ceremonies, after offering them chairs, retires and the
remainder of the Party wait in the Hall of the Congregations.
The conversation over, the Cardinal accompanies the Sovereigns
into the Hall of the Congregations, where reciprocal presentations
are made. Then the Cardinal accompanies Their Majesties to the
Corner Room and takes his leave. During the visit the participants
in the Procession, other than those in the Hall of the Congregations,
are posted in the various Rooms of the Cardinal's Apartments and,
on the return of the Sovereigns, resume their proper places in the
Procession, which then by the Sala Giula, the Sala Ducale and
the Sala Regia, descends the Scala Regia to the Statue of Con-
stantine and enters the Basilica of St. Peter by the Main Door.
Visit to the Basilica of St. Peter. — To the right of the main entrance,
the Cardinal Arch-Priest, in cappa magna, accompanied by his
Court, the Econome of St. Peter's and a Commission of six Canons
in Choir Dress await Their Majesties. In front of His Eminence
are also placed the Clerics of the Vatican in Choir Dress. The
Master of the Household presents the Cardinal Arch-Priest to the
Sovereigns and to Their Royal Highnesses, who in turn presents
to Their Majesties the Econome of the Basilica, the six Canons,
the Chapter and the Clergy of the Basilica " en masse." The
Cardinal Arch-Priest then offers to Their Majesties and to Their
Royal Highnesses the Holy Water, with which they make the Sign
of the Cross. Their Majesties, accompanied by the Cardinal
Arch-Priest and by the Master of the Household of His Holiness
and followed by Their Royal Highnesses, the Econome, the Com-
mission of Canons, and the Dignitaries forming part of the Pro-
cession, proceed by the Central Nave to the Chapel of the Blessed
Sacrament. There they say a prayer on the prie-dieu placed at
their disposal while the Suite and the Pontifical Dignitaries kneel
at special places prepared for them. Then Their Majesties pro-
ceed to the Altar of the Confession to pray at the Tomb of St.
Peter. The visit over, the Royal Procession proceeding down the
Central Nave leaves by the Main Door, where the Cardinal Arch-
Priest, the Econome and the Commission of Canons take their leave.
During the visit of Their Majesties and Their Royal Highnesses
the rest of the Vatican Clergy remain in their places to render
honour to the Sovereigns on their departure from the Basilica.
The Sovereigns and Their Royal Highnesses depart by the Piazza.
of St. Peter's. At the foot of the steps the Master of the Household,
the Grand Master of the Sacred Hospice, the Secretary of the
Ceremonial and the other Dignitaries of the Pontifical Court take
their leave. Their Majesties enter their carriage, the Grand Master
of the Sacred Hospice closing the door. Their Royal Highnesses
HEAD OF A FOREIGN STATE 15
and the Suite then enter their carriages and the Procession departs
in the original order. The Guard of Honour of the Palatine Guard
drawn up on the steps presents arms, while the Band plays the
Pontifical Hymn.
Return Visit. — As soon as Their Majesties have returned to their
Apartments in the Quirinal Palace, the Cardinal Secretary of State
together with his Noble Court proceeds thither to return the visit.
Non-Catholic Sovereigns, Heads of States and Other Royal Personages. —
The ceremonial for the reception of non-Catholic Sovereigns,
Heads of States and Royal Personages of lesser grades, is arranged
generally on the above lines, with the modifications adapted to
meet each individual case.
CHAPTER III
THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
§ 17. THE minister for foreign affairs is the regular inter-
mediary between the state and foreign countries. His func-
tions are regulated by domestic legislation and traditions, and
his powers vary according to the political organisations of
different states.
Foreign governments address themselves to the minister for
foreign affairs either through their own diplomatic agent
abroad, or through the diplomatic agent who represents his
sovereign or government at their own capital. As a general
rule notes and other communications concerning relations
with other countries are signed by him, or on his behalf.
Under his orders are drawn up documents connected with
foreign relations, drafts of treaties and conventions, state-
ments of fact and law, manifestos and declarations. The
negotiation of treaties rests with him and he watches over
their execution. Ratifications of treaties are exchanged by
him or his agents. He proposes to the head of the state the
nomination of diplomatic agents, he draws up .their credentials
and full powers for signature by the head of the state, and
gives them their instructions. He advises the head of the
state as to the acceptance of persons who have been proposed
to be accredited to him, and also as regards the issue of
exequaturs to foreign consular officers. The consular service
receives its orders from him. Foreign representatives address
themselves to him in order to obtain an audience of the head
of the state.
§ 1 8. On taking office the minister for foreign affairs
informs the diplomatic representatives of foreign states, and
customarily receives them as soon as possible thereafter at his
official residence to exchange greetings with them. He also
informs the diplomatic agents of his own country accredited
abroad.
§ 19. In Great Britain it is usual for the retiring Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs to address to the foreign diplo-
matic representatives an announcement in some such terms as
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS 17
I have the honour to inform you that the King has been
graciously pleased to accept my resignation of the office of His
Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and to
confide the seals of this Department to .
His successor, on assuming office, addresses a notification to
the foreign diplomatic representatives in such terms as
I have the honour to acquaint you that the King has been
graciously pleased to accept the Right Honourable 's resig-
nation of the office of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, and to confide to me the seals of this
Department.
Arrangements are then made for the reception by the
incoming Secretary of State of the heads of missions in the
order of their precedence in the diplomatic list.
§ 20. In all communications with the government of the
state to which they are accredited, diplomatic agents should
address themselves to the minister for foreign affairs, whether
in seeking information as to the views or practice of that
government in regard to various matters that may arise, or
in furnishing information as to the views or practice of their
own government.
The Pan-American Convention respecting diplomatic officers,
signed at Havana on February 20, 1928, lays down for the signa-
tory States the following rules :
'' Article 13. Diplomatic officers shall, in their official com-
munications, address themselves to the Minister of Foreign
Relations or Secretary of State of the country to which they are
accredited. Communications to other authorities shall also be
made through the said Minister or Secretary."
§21. Of this high office, Baron de Martens said :
" A 1'egard des relations exterieures . . . il faut demander,
sollicker, negocier ; le moindre mot inconsidere peut blesser toute
une nation ; une fausse demarche, un faux calcul, une combinaison
fausse ou hasardee, une simple indiscretion, peuvent compromettre
et la dignite du gouvernement et 1'interet national. La politique
exterieure d'un £tat presente des rapports si varies, si compliques,
si sujets a changer, et a la fois environnes de tant d'ecueils et de
difficultes, qu'on concevra facilement combien doivent etre difficiles
et delicates les fonctions de celui qui est appele a la direction d'une
telle administration. . . . On est tellement habitue a juger d'apres
le caractere, les principes et les qualites personnelles du ministre des
relations exterieures, le systeme de sa politique, que sa nomination
ou son renvoi sont toujours considered comme des evenements
politiques. . . .
1 8 MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
" II doit avoir une connaissance exacte des interets commerciaux
qui rapprochent les Etats, des ressources materielles de tout genre
qui font leur force, des traites et conventions qui les lient, des
qui
lites de puissances qui en compliquent 1'action ; depositaire en
quelque sorte de 1'honneur et des interets generaux de son pays,
dans ses rapports exterieurs, il doit s'appliquer a bien connaitre
les homines, afin de ne faire que des choix convenables dans le
personnel de ses agents au dehors, et de ne remettre qu'a des mains
capables et dignes la sauvegarde de ces interets si graves et de
cet honneur si ombrageux. L'experience acquise, les services
anterieurement rendus, la notoriete du talent, la consideration
personnelle, sont des elements essentiels de sa confiance." l
At the present day the duties and responsibilities of the
minister who is entrusted with the conduct of the foreign
relations of his country range over a yet wider field than when
the above was written. The birth of new states, the advance-
ment of others, constitutional changes which may occur in
their methods of government, the growth of organisations
designed to foster a better understanding between the nations
of the world, the ever-increasing complexity of international
relationships, and the many questions to which all these give
rise, have largely extended the area within which diplomacy
finds its proper scope, and call for close and unremitting
attention.
§ 22. In every country the Foreign Minister is assisted by a
trained staff who, under his guidance, constitute the Foreign
Office or Ministry for Foreign Affairs. In Great Britain the
permanent staff of the Foreign Office has at its head the
Permanent Under- Secretary of State, who has the rank of
ambassador ; two Deputy Under-Secretaries of State and two
Assistant Under-Secretaries of State, who have the rank of
minister ; and the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State,
who holds office as a member of the government in power
for the time being.
* § 23. In most countries the title of the minister who directs
foreign relations is Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the language
of the country concerned, or Minister of Foreign Relations.
In Great Britain it is Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ; in
the United States it is Secretary of State, though the authority
of the President predominates in foreign affairs as in all other
matters. In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics foreign
1 de Martens-Geffken, i. 25.
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS 19
relations are controlled by the People's Commissary for
Foreign Affairs.
Occasionally the holder of the office combines this with
other functions. In Great Britain within modern times the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has on two occasions
also been Prime Minister. In France he is often President of
the Council. In Germany, he might be also Chancellor ; in
Austria, also State Chancellor.
§ 24. In England the King's Secretary is first heard of in
1253, in the reign of Henry III. The office was at first a
part of the royal household. Its holder might be a man of
character and capacity, fit to be a member of the King's
Council, or to be sent as an envoy to foreign powers. Such
were the Secretaries of Henry III and Edward I. Or he
might be an inferior officer of the household, and such seems
to have been the position of the Secretary of Edward III.
In 1433 (reign of Henry VI) two Secretaries were appointed,
one by the delivery of the King's Signet, the other by patent.
In 1476 (reign of Edward IV) a newly appointed Secretary is
described as Principal Secretary. In the reign of Henry VIII
the position of Principal Secretary was advanced. They were
still members of the household, but ranked next to the greater
household officers, and in Parliament and Council they had
their place assigned by statute. In 1539 a warrant issued to
Thomas Wriothesley and Ralph Sadler gave them " the name
and office of the King's Majesty's Principal Secretaries during
his Highness' pleasure." After Henry's reign the Secretary
ceased to be a member of the household.
During the greater part of Elizabeth's reign there was
but one Secretary, but at the close of it Sir Robert Cecil
shared the duties with another, he being called " Our Prin-
cipal Secretary of Estate," and the other " one of our Secre-
taries of Estate." From this time, until the year 1794, it was
the rule that there should be two Secretaries of State ; the
exceptions occurred in 1616, when there were three — from
1 707 until 1 746, when there was usually a third Secretary for
Scottish business — and from 1768 until 1782, when there was a
third Secretary for Colonial business.
Down to 1 782 the duties of the two Secretaries, as regards
foreign affairs, were divided geographically into Northern and
Southern Departments, and until that year they were described
in official documents relating to the staff common to both as
" His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for Foreign
Affairs." The Northern Secretary used to announce himself
20 MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
to resident heads of foreign missions thus : ' Le Roi m'ayant
fait 1'honneur de me nommer aujourd'hui son Secretaire
d'fitat pour le department du Nord," but on March 27,
1782, Fox announced to them that " le Roi m'ayant fait
1'honneur de me nommer son Secretaire d'fitat pour le
Departement des affaires etrangeres, etc." Since 1782, there-
fore, the Secretaryship of State for Foreign Affairs has always
been entrusted to a single person. Sir William Anson says :
" I cannot ascertain that any Order in Council or depart-
mental minute authorises or records this important administra-
tive change." 1
§ 25. The mode of appointment of His Majesty's Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs is by the delivery to him by the
sovereign of the seals of office. There are three seals, the
signet, a lesser seal, and a small seal called the cachet ; all
these are engraved with the Royal arms, but the signet alone
has the supporters. In the Foreign Office, diplomatic and
consular commissions signed by the sovereign pass under
the signet ; the lesser seal is used for royal warrants (such
as instruments authorising the affixing of the Great Seal to
full powers and to ratifications of treaties) ; the cachet is
used to seal the envelopes of letters containing communica-
tions of a personal character made by the King to foreign
sovereigns.
Patents were issued from the fifteenth century onwards till
1852. From that time the practice was intermittent till 1868,
but since the latter date patents have not been issued, nor in
any case would they affect the powers of the Secretary of
State, for these follow the seals.2
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs holds a general
full power from the King, authorising him to negotiate and
conclude, subject if necessary to His Majesty's ratification,
any treaty in respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate
members of the League of Nations.
§ 26. It was in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that
most of the European monarchies established a special branch
of the administration for foreign affairs. In the reign of
Francis I of France there was a secret committee to which
was committed the discussion of questions of foreign policy.
In 1547, at the beginning of the reign of Henry II, the depart-
ment of Secretaries of State was founded. There were four
1 Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution (3rd ed.), ii. pt. i, 166.
2 Anson, op. cit., 168.
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS 21
such secretaries who shared home and foreign affairs among
them. In the reign of Charles IX the Foreign Office was
divided into four departments : (i) Italy and Piedmont,
(2) Denmark, Sweden and Poland, (3) the Emperor, Spain,
Portugal, the Low Countries, England and Scotland, (4) Ger-
many and Switzerland. In 1589 a single ministry for foreign
affairs was formed, and all foreign correspondence was com-
mitted to a single Secretary of State. But previously to 1787
he shared the direction of home affairs with the departments
of War, Marine and the Household. Thus, he had charge of
Upper and Lower Guyenne, Normandy, Champagne and
part of La Brie, the principality of Dombes and Berry.
But on Montmorin succeeding to Vergennes as Secretary of
State in that year, his functions were confined to foreign
affairs.1
Charles V of Spain had a secret council of state which
furnished advice to the Emperor through the minister charged
with the foreign branch of the administration, while in Spain
a somewhat complicated system was established.
Under the Tsar Ivan III of Russia a " chamber of em-
bassies " was employed about international relations.
§ 27. In most countries special care has been devoted to
the preservation of public documents. In England, from the
fourteenth century, papers were deposited at the Tower of
London. Queen Elizabeth, in 1578, created the State Paper
Office for the documents belonging to the Secretary of
State, which has developed into the existing Public Record
Office.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the foreign,
domestic, colonial and military records, generally described
as State Papers, were preserved in a common repository, at
first in Whitehall, and after 1833 in the new State Paper Office
built in St. James's Park. During this period they were under
the immediate charge of a Keeper of the State Papers and a
separate staff; but in 1854 the establishment of the State
Paper Office was amalgamated with that of the Public Record
Office, and in 1862 the building was pulled down and its
contents transferred to the Record Office.
The older Foreign Office records, that is those prior to
1760, were transferred to the Public Record Office in 1862,
with the rest of the contents of the State Paper Office. Fre-
quent transfers of the more modern papers have taken place
since 1868, but at irregular intervals. The Foreign Office
1 Masson, Le De'partement des Affaires Etrangeres pendant la Revolution, 56.
22 MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
records now in the Public Record Office extend up to 1909,
and public access may be had up to 1885. Correspondence of
later date than 1909 is retained by the Foreign Office, which
also keeps the indexes and registers of letters received from
1781.
§ 28. In many other countries public documents are simi-
larly centralised, and access thereto permitted up to certain
dates, concerning which particulars can doubtless be obtained,
where desired, by application to the proper department of the
government concerned.
CHAPTER IV
PRECEDENCE AMONG STATES AND SIMILAR
MATTERS
§ 29. THE Pope in early times claimed the right of fixing the
order of precedence among the heads of states. The prece-
dence of the Pope above all other potentates was assumed as
a matter of course. Next in order came the Emperor1; then
the King of the Romans, who was the heir-apparent of the
latter (by election).
§ 30. The list of sovereigns frequently attributed to Pope
Julius II in 1504 was never promulgated by him. But in
that year Paris de Grassis of Bologna became one of the two
masters of ceremony of the papal chapel. At the beginning of
a diary kept by him occurs the list, which with some variations
has been regarded as a regulation intended to settle disputed
questions of precedence. It formed part of a passage relating
the reception on May 12, 1504, of the ambassade cT obedience
from the King of England, and is as follows :
Ordo Regum Christianorum.
Imperator Caesar,
Rex Romanorum,
Rex Franciae,
Rex Hispaniae,
Rex Aragoniae,
Rex Portugallise,
Rex Angliae, cum tribus discors praedictis,
Rex Sicilian, discors cum rege Portugalliae,
Rex Scotiae et Rex Ungarias inter se discordes,
Rex Navarrae,
1 " Emperor of Germany," though often found in historical works applied to
the head of the Holy Roman Empire, and even " German Emperor," were
probably only convenient corruptions of the proper title (Bryce, Holy Roman
Empire, lib. edit., 1889, p. 305). From the eleventh to the sixteenth century,
that was, until his coronation, Romanorum rex semper Augustus, and after the
ceremony, Romanorum Imperator semper Augustus. In 1508 Maximilian obtained
a bull from Julius II permitting him to call himself Imperator electus. This became
till 1806 the strict legal designation, though the word " elect " was often omitted
(ibid., p. 432).
24 PRECEDENCE AMONG STATES
Rex Cipri,
Rex Bohemiae,
Rex Poloniae,
Rex Daniae.
Ordo Ducum.
Dux Britanniae,
Dux Burgundiae,
Dux Bavariae, comes Palatinus.
Dux Saxoniae,
Marchio Brandenburgensis,
Dux Austriae,
Dux Sabaudiae,
Dux Mediolani,
Dux Venetiarum,
Duces Bavariae,
Duces Franciae et Lotharingiae,
Dux Borboniae,
Dux Aurelianensis, Isti quatuor non praestant obedien-
tiam Sedi Apostolicae quia subditi imperatoris sunt,
Dux Januae,
Dux Ferrariae.1
§ 31. A bull of Leo X dated March, 1516, uses the following
language :
' Christianissimus in Christo filius noster, Maximilianus, in
imperatorem electus, Julii II praedecessoris nostri, nostro vero
tempore, clarissimae memoriae, Ludovicus Francorum et ceteri
reges Christiani. . . . Laterensi concilio adhaeserunt," 2 which
shows that the king of France enjoyed precedence over all
other kings.
§ 32. The first place being conceded to the Pope, and the
second, with universal assent, to the Emperor, up to the fall
of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, the question was as to
the others. Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden asserted the equality
of all crowned heads, Queen Christina maintained it at the
Congress of Westphalia, and in 1718 it was claimed for Great
Britain on the occasion of the Quadruple Alliance.
§ 33. A comparison of the antiquity of royal titles shows the
following order :
France (accession of Clovis, A.D. 481, besides the rank
derived from the character of" eldest son of the Church "
attributed to the King of France) .
1 Paris de Grassis Brit. Mus., Diarium, MSS. 8440, 8444, quoted by Nys
Revue de Droit International et Legislation compare, xxv. 515.
2 de Maulde la Claviere, 2nd part, i. 65.
PRECEDENCE AMONG STATES 25
Spain (kingdom of the Asturias in 718).
England (Egbert, 827).
Austria (Hungary a kingdom since 1000).
Denmark (Canute, 1015).
Two Sicilies (Norman kingdom, 1130).
Sweden (1132, reunion of the kingdoms of the Swedes and
Goths).
Portugal (Affonso I, in 1139).
Prussia (kingdom, January n, 1701).
Italy (kingdom of Sardinia, 1720).
Russia (assumption of the title of Emperor,October 22,1721).
Bavaria (December 26, 1805).
Saxony (December n, 1806).
Wiirttemberg (December 26, 1806).
Hanover (October 12, 1814).
Holland (May 16, 1816).
Belgium (July 2, 1831).
Greece (May 7, 1832).
Turkey (" admitted to share in the advantages of European
public law and concert ': by the Treaty of Paris,
March 30,
§ 34. But until the matter was finally settled at the Congress
of Vienna in 1815 constant disputes arose.
In 1564 Pius IV declared that France was entitled to pre-
cedence over Spain in a question respecting the relative rank
of the ambassadors of the two Powers at Rome.2 In i633,3
Christian IV of Denmark having proposed to celebrate the
wedding of his son, the Crown prince, a dispute arose between
the French and Spanish ambassadors, the Comte d'Avaux and
the Marques de la Fuente. The Danish ministers proposed
to d'Avaux various solutions of the difficulty, and among these
that he should sit next to the King, or next to the Imperial
ambassador. To this he replied : "I will give the Spanish
ambassador the choice of the place which he regards as the
most honourable, and when he shall have taken it, I will turn
him out and take it myself." To avoid further dispute, de la
Fuente, on a plea of urgent business elsewhere, absented him-
self from the ceremony. In 1657, a contest of the same kind
occurred at The Hague, between de Thou, special ambassador,
and the Spanish ambassador Gamarra.4
1 Garcia de la Vega, 525.
2 Flassan, ii. 66 ; Prescott, Philip II (ed. 1855), 233, says it was Pius V.
3 Flassan, iii. 13.
4 Lefevre-Pontalis, Jean de Witt, i. 245 ; Chappuzeau, L 'Europe Vivante, cited
by D. J. Hill, History of European Diplomacy, iii. 26.
26 PRECEDENCE AMONG STATES
§ 35. A more serious affair happened in London on Sep-
tember 30, 1 66 1, on the occasion of the state entry of the
Swedish ambassador. It was the custom at such " functions "
for the resident ambassadors to send their coaches to swell the
cortege. The Spanish ambassador de Watteville sent his
coach down to the Tower wharf, whence the procession
was to set out, with his chaplain and gentlemen, and a train of
about forty armed servants. The coach of the French ambas-
sador, Comte d'Estrades, with a royal coach for the accom-
modation of the Swedish ambassador, were also on the spot.
In the French coach were the son of d'Estrades with some of
his gentlemen, escorted by 150 men, of whom forty carried
firearms. After the Swedish ambassador had landed and
taken his place in the royal coach, the French coach tried to
go next, and on the Spaniards offering resistance, the French-
men fell upon them with drawn swords and poured in shot
upon them. The Spaniards defended themselves, hamstrung
two of the Frenchman's horses, mortally wounded a postilion
and dragged the coachman from his box, after which they
triumphantly took the place which no one was any longer
able to dispute with them.1 Louis XIV, on learning of this
incident, ordered the Spanish ambassador to quit the kingdom,
and sent instructions to his own representative at Madrid to
demand redress, consisting of the punishment of de Watteville
and an undertaking that Spanish ambassadors should in
future yield the pas to those of France at all foreign courts.
In case of a refusal a declaration of war was to be notified.
The King of Spain, anxious to avoid a rupture, recalled de
Watteville from London, and despatched the Marques de la
Fuente to Paris, as ambassador extraordinary, to disavow the
conduct of de Watteville and to announce that he had pro-
hibited all his ambassadors from engaging in rivalry in the
matter of precedence with those of the Most Christian King.2
The question was finally disposed of by the " Pacte de Famille "
of August 15, 1761, in which it was agreed that at Naples and
Parma, where the sovereigns belonged to the Bourbon family,
the French ambassador was always to have precedence, but
at other courts the relative rank was to be determined by the
date of arrival. If both arrived on the same day, then the
French ambassador was to have precedence.3
§ 36. Similar rivalry manifested itself between the Russian
1 Diary of John Evelyn (Wheatley's edition), ii. 486 ; Pepys' Diary (under date
of Sept. 30, 1661).
3 Dumont, Corps universe! diplomatique, vi. pt. ii. 403.
3 Flassan, vi. 314.
PRECEDENCE AMONG STATES 27
and French ambassadors. The latter had instructions to
maintain their rank in the diplomatic circle by all possible
means, and to yield the pas to the papal and imperial ministers
alone. On the other hand, Russia had not ordered hers to
claim precedence over the French ambassador, but simply not
to concede it to him. At a court ball in London, in the winter
of 1 768, the Russian ambassador, arriving first, took his place
immediately next to the ambassador of the Emperor, who was
on the first of two benches arranged in the diplomatic box.
The French ambassador came in late, and climbing on to the
second bench, managed to slip down between his two colleagues.
A lively interchange of words followed, and in the duel which
arose out of the incident the Russian was wounded.1
§ 37. Pombal, Prime Minister of Portugal, in 1760, on the
occasion of the marriage of the Princess of Brazil, caused a
circular to be addressed to the foreign representatives, an-
nouncing the ceremony, and acquainting them that ambas-
sadors at the court of Lisbon, with the exception of the papal
nuncio and the imperial ambassador, would thenceforth rank,
when paying visits or having audiences granted to them,
according to the date of their credentials. Choiseul, the
French minister for foreign affairs, when the matter was
referred to him, maintained that " the King would not give
up the recognised rank due to his crown, and his Majesty did
not think that the date of credentials could in any case or
under any pretext weaken the rights attaching to the dignity
of France." He added that though kings were doubtless
masters in their own dominions, their power did not extend
to assigning relative rank to other crowned heads without the
sanction of the latter. " In fact," said he, " no sovereign in
a matter of this kind recognises powers of legislation in the
person of other sovereigns. All Powers are bound to each
other to do nothing contrary to usages which they have no
power to change. . . . Pre-eminence is derived from the
relative antiquity of monarchies, and it is not permitted to
princes to touch a right so precious. . . . The King will
never, on any pretext, consent to an innovation which
violates the dignity of his throne." Nor did Spain accord a
more favourable reception to this new rule of etiquette, while
the court of Vienna, though the imperial rights had been
respected, replied to Paris that such an absurdity only de-
served contempt, and suggested consulting with the court of
Spain in order to destroy the ridiculous pretension of the
Portuguese minister.2
1 Flassan, vii. 376. 2 Ibid., vi. 193.
28 PRECEDENCE AMONG STATES
§ 38. Pombal's proposal consequently did not succeed, and
matters remained in this state until the beginning of last
century. At the Congress of Vienna the plenipotentiaries
appointed a committee which after two months' deliberation
presented a scheme dividing the Powers into three classes,
according to which the position of their diplomatic agents
would be regulated. But as it did not find unanimous
approval, especially with the rank assigned to the greater
republics, they fell back upon the simple plan of disregarding
precedence among sovereigns altogether, and of making the
relative position of diplomatic representatives depend, in each
class, on seniority, i.e. on the date of the official notification of
their arrival. And in order to do away with the last relic of
the old opinions that some crowned heads ranked higher than
others, they also decided that : " Dans les actes ou traites
entre plusieurs puissances qui admettent 1'alternat, le sort
decidera, entre les ministres, de 1'ordre qui devra etre suivi
dans les signatures." J> 2
§ 39. The alternat consisted in this, that in the copy of the
document or treaty which was destined to each separate
Power, the names of the head of that state and his plenipo-
tentiaries were given precedence over the others, and his
plenipotentiaries' signatures also were attached before those
of the other signatories. Thus each Power occupied the place
of honour in turn.
§ 40. England and France established the alternat between
themselves in 1 546,2 though it was not consistently followed
thereafter. In the treaty of January 13, 1631, between
Gustavus Adolphus and Louis XIII, the name of the latter
having been placed first in both originals, the Swedish King
protested, and the matter was arranged in accordance with
his wishes. France did not claim it in treaties with the
Emperor, but refused it to the courts of Berlin, Lisbon and
Turin up to the end of the reign of Louis XVI.4 In 1779, at
the Treaty of Teschen, it was observed between the French
and Russian courts.5
§41. When the accession of Philip V to the Quadruple
Alliance of 1718 was recorded at The Hague, twelve copies
1 But though the reglement states that the order of signature shall be decided
by lot, the signatures appended to that document followed the alphabetical
order of the French language, and the same procedure was adopted for the
signature of the acte final of the Congress of Vienna.
2 d'Angeberg, Le Congres de Vienne, prem. part. 501, 503, 504, 612, 660, 735 ;
deux. part. 932, 939.
3 de Martens-Geffken, ii. 134/2. 4 Garcia de la Vega, 253.
6 de Martens-Geffken, ii. 133 n.
PRECEDENCE AMONG STATES 29
of the Protocol were signed, six for the Emperor and two each
for France, Spain and England. The Emperor's plenipo-
tentiary signed first in all, according to the following table :
By Spain . . . . Emperor, Spain, England, France.
,, ,, Emperor, Spain, France, England.
By France. . . . Emperor, France, England, Spain.
,, ,, Emperor, France, Spain, England.
By England . . Emperor, England, Spain, France.
,, ,, Emperor, England, France, Spain.
For Spain. . . . Emperor, Spain, England, France.
,, „ Emperor, Spain, France, England.
For France . . Emperor, France, England, Spain.
„ „ Emperor, France, Spain, England.
For England . . Emperor, England, Spain, France.
,, ,, Emperor, England, France, Spain.
So that, the primacy of the Emperor being recognised, the
other three Powers admitted the alternat among themselves.
§ 42. It was doubtless to avoid disputes about the alternat
that on some occasions the practice was substituted of the
plenipotentiaries signing only the copy intended for the other
party, as in the case of the Treaty of Westminster of January 16,
1756, between George II and Frederick the Great, and other
instances. Kliiber says that at the Congresses of Utrecht (1713)
and Aix-la-Chapelle (1748) each of the High Contracting
Parties delivered to each of the others an instrument signed
by himself alone.1
§ 43. The Holy Roman Empire came to an end in July
1806, in consequence of the establishment of the Confederation
of the Rhine, and the precedence over other sovereigns
formerly enjoyed by the German Emperor disappeared and
could not be claimed by the Emperor of Austria, whose title
in 1815 was only eleven years old. Nor was France at that
time in a position to reassert her claims to rank before the
rest of the Powers. From this date the equality in point of
rank of all independent sovereign states, whether empires,
Jkingdoms or republics, has been universally admitted, and it
is improbable that any instances of the refusal of the alternat in
connexion with treaties are now likely to occur, though in the
case of multilateral treaties the more convenient method of
signing a single instrument in the alphabetical order of the
participating countries has in modern times supplanted former
methods of signing several originals according precedence to
each in turn.
1 Aden des Wiener Congresses, vi. 207.
30 PRECEDENCE AMONG STATES
§ 44. While, however, the events recorded relate to an era
when questions of precedence between states were jealously
regarded as matters affecting the personal dignity of their
sovereigns, it hardly appears that changes to more democratic
forms of government lessen the importance attached by states
to the maintenance of their position vis-d-vis other states. As
Vattel said :
"si la forme du gouvernement vient a changer chez une nation,
elle n'en conservera pas moins le rang et les honneurs dont elle est
en possession. Lorsque 1'Angleterre cut chasse ses rois, Cromwell
ne souffrit pas que Ton rebattit rien les honneurs que Ton rendait
a la couronne ou a la nation, et il sut maintenir partout les ambas-
sadeurs anglais dans le rang qu'ils avaient toujours occupe." l
The same might be said of France on successive changes
from monarchical to republican forms of government.
§ 45. In the Soviet Union diplomatic representatives have
the title of " representants plenipotentiaires " alone, but this
title is qualified by ascribing to each in his credential letter
the rank of ambassador, minister, etc., so preserving his
relative precedence (see §216). The Soviet representative
accredited to China thus became doyen of the diplomatic corps.
§ 46. In the Treaty of Versailles and other peace treaties
resulting from the Peace Conference of Paris, 1919, the five
principal Allied and Associated Powers took precedence of all
other states ranged against the Central Powers.
^§47. Dr. J. B. Scott2 narrates that at the First Peace
Conference at The Hague in 1899 tne United States repre-
sentatives took their place at the table under the letter E
(Etats-Unis), but at the Second Peace Conference of 1907
under the letter A (Amerique), it having in the meantime
been remembered that United States of America was the
official title ; and he observes that this happy philological
discovery enabled the United States delegates at the latter
conference to claim the benefit of the first letter of the alphabet,
and to take precedence over other American states.
1 Droit des Gens, ii, c. 3, § 39.
2 Le Francis, langue diplomatique, 19 ; cited by Genet. Traite de Diblomatie, etc.
J
CHAPTER V
TITLES AND PRECEDENCE AMONG SOVEREIGNS
§ 48. ORIGINALLY the title of " Majesty ' belonged to the
Emperor alone, who in speaking of himself said : " Ma
Majeste." Kings were styled " Highness," or " Serenity."
In very early charters the titles Altitudo, Illuster (for illustris)
and Nobilissimus occur in mentioning the Emperor, and the
last of these was given to the King of France until the twelfth
century. Sons of emperors were styled Nobilissimus or Pur-
puratus.1 Since the end of the fifteenth century other crowned
heads assumed it, the kings of France setting the example.
Then it was adopted by King John of Denmark (1481-1513) ;
in Spain by Charles I (V, as Emperor) ; in England under
Henry VIII ; by Portugal in 1 578.2 England and Denmark
mutually applied it in 1520 ; Sweden and Denmark in 1685.
France first accorded it to the King of Denmark at the
beginning of the eighteenth century, and in 1713 to the King
in Prussia, whose kingly title dated only from 1701. The
Emperor gave it to the King of France at the Peace of West-
phalia in 1648, and soon afterwards to other kings. The
Emperor Charles VII accorded it to all kings without
distinction.
§ 49. The Pope's title of courtesy is Most Holy Father, Tres-
SaintPere,3\so Venerable or Tres-Venerable Pere, Holiness, Saintete,
or Beatitude, and a Catholic sovereign, in addressing him by
letter, will sign devoue, or tres-devoue,fils. He in turn writes to
them as Carissime in Christo Fili, or Dilectissime in Christo Fili, in
Italian Dilettissimo, Carissimo Figlio. To emperors Sire and
Majeste Imperiale are used. Kings are addressed as Sire and
Majeste. For other sovereign princes entitled to royal honours
Monseigneur and Altesse Royale, for those who do not enjoy them
Monseigneur and Altesse Serenissime. For the heir-presumptive
of an imperial or royal crown, Monseigneur and Altesse Imperiale,
or Roy ale, as the case may be.
§ 50. The same titles of courtesy are given to empresses,
1 de Maulde-la-Claviere, 289.
2 de Martens-Geffken, ii. 25 ; Pradier-Fodere, i. 67.
32 PRECEDENCE AMONG SOVEREIGNS
queens and princesses, according to the birth or rank of their
husbands, with Madame instead of Sire. When a princess
entitled by birth to be called Altesse Imperiale or Royale marries
a prince who has not that title she continues to be addressed
by it ; but with this exception, princesses bear the same titles
as their husbands, unless a different rule has been established
by convention.
§51. The German Emperor was Majeste Imperiale et Royale.
The title of the Emperor of Austria was Empereur d'Autriche,
Roi Apostolique de Hongrie. The Emperor of Russia was
Empereur et Autocrate de toutes les Russies. The Russian title
Tsar was not to be used in speaking of him officially. The
Emperor of Japan is styled Tenno in the Japanese language ;
the title Mikado is antiquated, and its use is not desired.
§ 52. In accordance with a proclamation made by King
George V at Buckingham Palace on May 13, 1927, His
Majesty's title is : In Latin, " Georgius V, Dei Gratia
Magnae Britanniae, Hiberniae et terrarum transmarinarum
quae in ditione sunt Britannica Rex, Fidei Defensor, Indiae
Imperator " ; and in English, " George V, by the Grace of
God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions
beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of
India." The French rendering is " Georges V, par la Grace
de Dieu, Roi de Grande Bretagne, dTrlande et des Terri-
toires britanniques au dela des Mers, Defenseur de la Foi,
Empereur des Indes."
It is, however, usual in the preamble of treaties between
heads of states to cast the King's title in the shorter form
"His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the
British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India " ; in
French, " Sa Majeste le Roi de Grande Bretagne, dTrlande
et des Territoires britanniques au dela des Mers, Empereur
des Indes."
§ 53. Emperors and kings who ceased to reign in consequence
of their abdication or for other reasons continue sometimes to
receive the title of " Majesty " from friendly sovereigns. The
Treaty of Paris of April 1 1, 1814, provided that their Majesties
the Emperor Napoleon and the Empress Marie-Louise should
preserve these titles and qualities.
§ 54. The title of Altesse (Highness), which at the outset
was given principally to Italian sovereign princes, and in
Germany to the Electors, as well as to reigning Dukes and
Princes, was borne later by princes on whom the German
Emperor * had conferred it. Although the German title
1 See footnote, p. 23.
PRECEDENCE AMONG SOVEREIGNS 33
Hoheit corresponds literally to Altesse, it became a title inter-
mediary between Altesse Royale and Altesse Serenissime ; but
Hoheit, when applied to a prince of an imperial or royal family,
was always accompanied by kaiserliche or konigliche. By itself
Hoheit, which implied a sort of superiority to Durchlaucht, was
adopted in 1844 by reigning princes of the ancient ducal
families of Germany, such as those of Saxony, Anhalt, Nassau
and Brunswick, in distinction to Durchlaucht (likewise signifying
Altesse), which was borne by sovereign princes (not of ancient
descent) of Germany, as well as by high civil or military
functionaries on whom, being already princes, it was conferred.
The qualification of Erlaucht was granted to the ancient
families of the German counts mediatised after the dissolution
of the empire in 1806. x A list of such families may be found
in Part II of the Almanack de Gotha.
§ 55. The title Sa Hautesse (His Highness) was formerly
ascribed to the Sultan of Turkey : in the treaties concluded
with Turkey in 1854 and 1856 he was styled Sa Majeste
Imperiale, and the latter title became that habitually used.
Formerly the Khedive of Egypt was styled Son Altesse ; the
King of Egypt is Sa Majeste.
§ 56. The title Grand Duke was originally the prerogative
of the reigning princes of Tuscany, after Pope Pius V had
conferred it on Cosmo ier de Medicis.2 Until after the
War of 1914-18 it was borne by six reigning princes in
Germany, viz. : those of Baden, Hesse, Mecklenburg-
Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg and Saxe- Weimar-
Eisenach. The Grand Duchess of Luxemburg bears this
title and is styled Royal Highness. In Russia the heir pre-
sumptive to the throne was Tsarevitch ; all the other members
of the Imperial Family bore the titles of Grand Duke and
Grand Duchess.3
§ 57. In Austria, with the exception of the eldest son of the
Emperor, who was Prince Imperial, the other members of the
Imperial Family were styled Archduke or Archduchess 4
(Latin, archidux, German, Erzherzog).
§ 58. The titles formerly accorded to certain republics have
become obsolete. The States-General of the United Provinces
of the Netherlands were addressed as " Their High Mighti-
nesses " (Hautes Puissances], and in the letters written to them
by sovereigns they were addressed as Tres-chers amis, or Chers
et bans amis et allies. The Presidents of the United States of
1 de Martens-Geffken, ii. 27 n.
2 Genet, Traite de Diplomatic etc., i. 352.
3 de Martens-Geffken, ii. 24. * Ibid., ii. 23.
34 PRECEDENCE AMONG SOVEREIGNS
America and of the French Republic are addressed by other
heads of states as " Good Friend !: or " Great and Good
Friend."
§ 59. In former times the King of France was designated
" le Roi Tres-chretien," and the King of Portugal " le Roi
Tres-fidele ' since 1748. The King of Spain became " le
Roi Catholique " in 1496, the sovereign of Austria-Hungary
was " His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty " since 1758.
These titles were conferred by various Popes. Leo X bestowed
that of " Fidei Defensor !: (Defender of the Faith) on
Henry VIII in 1521, and his successors have continued to
bear this title. The other titles mentioned were never
employed by the sovereigns themselves ; it was only in
addressing or speaking of them that they were used.
§ 60. In early times the Russian sovereigns bore the title of
Autocrator, Magnus Dominus, Grand-Prince or Czar (Tsar),
the last being the Russian word for Emperor.
The surname Monomachus, or Monomakh, was assumed in
the twelfth century by Vladimir II, according to some writers
because at the siege of Theodosia (Kaffa) he had vanquished in
single combat the general of the Genoese,1 but according to others,
by derivation from the title of his maternal grandfather the Greek
Emperor Constantine Monomachus.2
In the seventeenth century the Russian sovereigns began
to make use of the word Imperator in the Latin translations of
official documents addressed to other Powers, and it was
Peter the Great who in 1721, after his victories over
Charles XII, formally took the title of Emperor of Russia.
Notification was made of this fact to all the ambassadors of
foreign courts, which did not, however, at once decide to
recognise the new title. Queen Anne was the first to do this
in 1710, when she instructed Lord Whitworth to present an
apology to Peter the Great for the insult committed against
his ambassador Mathveof (Matveev) in I7o8.3
§ 61. The Elector of Brandenburg assumed the title of King
of Prussia in 1 701 . It was first recognised by the Holy Roman
Emperor, then by most of the other sovereigns of Europe
at the conclusion of the Congress of Utrecht. The Pope
withheld recognition until 1786.*
§ 62. After the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine
by Napoleon I, the Electors of Bavaria, Saxony and Wiirttem-
berg took the title of King, the Margrave of Baden and the
1 Raabe and Duncan, History of Russia, 62 n.
2 Kluchevsky, History of Russia, ii. 22.
3 Ch. de Martens, Causes ctlebres, etc., i. 47. 4 Pradier-Fodere, i. 51.
PRECEDENCE AMONG SOVEREIGNS 35
Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt that of Grand Duke, and the
Prince of Nassau that of Duke. These titles were not at first
recognised by all the Powers, but they were tacitly acquiesced
in by those which were parties to the Treaty of Paris of May 30,
1814, and by the acte final of the Congress of Vienna to which
all European sovereigns acceded.
§ 63. On the latter occasion the Emperor of Russia took
the additional title of Tsar and King of Poland ; the King of
England — Elector of Hanover, that of King of Hanover ; the
King of Sardinia the additional title of Duke of Genoa ; the
Dutch branch of Nassau those of King of the Netherlands and
Grand Duke of Luxemburg ; the King of Prussia that of
Grand Duke of Posnania and of the Lower Rhine ; the Dukes
of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Saxe-
Weimar that of Grand Duke ; and the Landgrave of Hesse-
Cassel that of Elector.
§ 64. Since the Popes and the Emperors of the Holy Roman
Empire ceased to grant the title of King to other potentates,
European Powers adopted the principle that the title taken by
the head of a state could not of itself give rise to any sort of
precedence over other crowned heads, and that the latter could
either recognise the new title, or refuse to do so, or recognise
it on conditions.1
§65. In 1818 the Elector of Hesse-Cassel notified to the
diplomatic assembly at Aix-la-Chapelle that he intended to
take the title of King, having previously written to the
sovereigns of the Five Powers letters in which he asked for
their consent. At the sitting of October n, the plenipoten-
tiaries agreed that the title borne by a sovereign is not a simple
matter of etiquette, but a fact involving important political
questions, and that they could not collectively give a decision
on the request put forward. However, the Protocol stated
that the cabinets, taken separately, declared the Elector's
request not justifiable on any satisfactory ground, and that
there was no inducement to them to accede to it. The
cabinets at the same time took an engagement not to recog-
nise for the future any change, either in the titles of sovereigns,
or in those of the princes of their families, without coming
to a previous agreement. They maintained all that had
hitherto been decided in this respect by formal documents
(actes). The five cabinets explicitly applied this reserve to the
title of Royal Highness, which they would henceforth only
admit for the heads of grand-ducal houses, including the
Elector of Hesse, and their heirs-apparent.2
1 Ch. de Martens, op. cit., ii. 89. 2 Pradier-Fodere, i. 53 n.
36 PRECEDENCE AMONG SOVEREIGNS
§66. A vote of parliament at Turin on March 17, 1861,
conferred on Victor Emmanuel, King of Sardinia, the title
of King of Italy, recognised by Great. Britain, March 30. It
was not at first admitted by Prussia and Austria.
Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria took the title of King on
October 5, 1908, and was recognised as such by the Great
Powers of Europe between April 20 and 29, 1909, n.s.
Prince Charles of Roumania was unanimously elected
King by the national representatives, March 14, 1881.
Prince Milan of Serbia took the title of King, March 6,
1881.
King Haakon became King of Norway, November 18,
King Zogou was proclaimed King of Albania, September i,
1928.
§ 67. Certain sovereigns use three sorts of title : the grand
litre, the litre moyen and the petit litre.
The first of these includes the names of the fictitious as
well as of the real dominions. For instance, the King of
Spain's grand tilre included the two Sicilies, Jerusalem, Corsica,
Gibraltar, Austria, Burgundy, Brabant and Milan, Habsburg,
Flanders, Tyrol, all of which were fictitious, one of them,
Jerusalem, being also claimed in the grand litre of Austria.
Those of the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Russia also
were very long. The latter is shown in § 122.
The tilre moyen is confined to real facts, and the petit litre,
the most generally used, is the highest of all — namely, that
by which the sovereign is habitually designated.
§ 68. Sovereigns in addressing each other officially begin
Monsieur Mon Frere (Sir My Brother) , adding the name of any
blood relationship that may exist between them. To an
empress or queen it is Madame Ma Sceur (Madam My Sister) ;
to a reigning Grand Duchess, Madam My Sister and Cousin.
§ 69. Letters from the Pope to the British court may begin
' Serenissimo Augustoque Principi "... " Serenissime Rex,
salutem et felicitatem " ; or " Augusto Principi . . ." " Au-
guste Rex et Imperator salutem et felicitatem." The reply
begins, " Your Holiness."
§ 70. A Foreign Office memorandum says that other forms
of writing Royal letters are : ist, commencing with " Sir My
Brother " (or " Sir My Cousin," etc., as the case may be), and
ending thus :
" Sir My Brother,
Your Majesty's
Good Brother."
PRECEDENCE AMONG SOVEREIGNS 37
2nd, commencing with the King's titles. In these letters
the plural " We " and " Our" are employed yistead of" I " and
" My," and the letters terminate thus : " Your Good Friend."
This form is used mainly for Royal letters to Presidents of
Republics.
§ 71. Titles of heirs-apparent, when not styled Prince
Imperial or Prince Royal :
Belgium : Due de Brabant.
Great Britain : Prince of Wales (by patent).
Italy : Prince of Piedmont.
Roumania : Grand Voivode of Alba Julia.
Sweden : Duke of Scania.
As long as the Holy Roman Empire continued to exist, the
heir- apparent was designated King of the Romans (by election).
Napoleon I copied this when he conferred on his infant son
the title of King of Rome.
The heir-apparent of the German Emperor was Kronprinz,
so also the heir of the Emperor of Austria.
§ 72. As no rule has been devised for regulating precedence
among sovereigns or among the members of their respective
families, the question of the relative place to be taken by them
on the occasion of a gathering of more than two must naturally
present difficulties. The meeting of the emperors Napoleon I
and Alexander I at Erfurt, in September 1808, was attended
by a number of kings, grand dukes and princes belonging to
the Confederation of the Rhine. Among them were the
Kings of Saxony, Wiirttemberg, Westphalia, Bavaria, the
Dukes of Oldenburg, Saxe-Weimar, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha,
Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz, and the
Prince of Thurn and Taxis. At a great dinner at Weimar on
October 6, the order among these kings seems to have been
Westphalia, Bavaria, Wiirttemberg, Saxony.1
§ 73. At the Congress of Vienna in 1814—15 there was an
assemblage of crowned heads. Francis I of Austria was the
host, and among the guests Alexander I of Russia naturally
ranked first. Next to him was the King of Prussia. Among
the lesser sovereigns Christian VI doubtless had the first place.
Then in order came Maximilian Joseph I of Bavaria and
Frederick I of Wiirttemberg, the Elector of Hesse and the
Grand Duke of Baden.2
§ 74. During the meeting of the three emperors (Austria,
1 Vandal, Napoleon et Alexandre ler, i. 414, 444.
2 Cambridge Modern History, ix. 580 et infra.
38 PRECEDENCE AMONG SOVEREIGNS
Germany, Russia) at Berlin in 1872, these sovereigns took
precedence over each other alternately in each succeeding
ceremony, and the national hymns of each country were also
played accordingly.
§ 75. On the occasion of the Vienna Exhibition of 1873,
the sovereigns representing the Great Powers, including the
King of Italy and the Sultan, enjoyed precedence over one
another in alphabetical order according to the French
language. A similar rule was observed as regarded the
hereditary princes.
§ 76. It is not usual for crowned heads to attend at each
other's coronations, marriages and on other similar occasions,
but they are often represented by members of their families.
The order in which these are placed must be determined by
the court officials, or in the last resort by the sovereign who
is host. At the inauguration of King Leopold of Belgium in
December 1865, when one crowned head, the King of Portugal,
was present, he naturally had the place of honour. Next to
him came the Comte de Flandre (Belgium), the Prince of
Wales (Great Britain), Prince Arthur of England, the Crown
Prince of Prussia, the Duke of Cambridge, the Archduke
Joseph of Austria, Prince George of Saxony, Prince William
of Baden, Prince Nicholas of Nassau, Prince Louis of Hesse,
Prince Augustus of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and Prince Leopold
of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen.1
§77. At King George's coronation at London in 1911,
which, in accordance with custom, was not attended by
crowned heads, the order of precedence followed appears to
have been : Crown Princes of Great Powers, followed by
other princely representatives of such Powers ; the Prince of
Wales ; Crown Princes of lesser Powers ; German Grand
Dukes ; representatives of the United States and France ; the
Duke of Connaught and Princesses of the British Royal
Family ; the special envoy of the Vatican ; princely, grand
ducal and ducal members of the German, Netherlands and
Greek Royal houses ; Princes of lesser Oriental states ;
followed by special envoys accredited by foreign states to take
part in the ceremonies.
§ 78. The frequent intermarriages between members of
Christian reigning families created a bond of relationship
among the crowned heads and render it natural and usual to
communicate to each other news of events, such as accession
to the throne, births, marriages and deaths, etc. On important
occasions communications are also addressed by the sovereign
1 Garcfa de la Vega, 561.
PRECEDENCE AMONG SOVEREIGNS 39
to presidents of republics. Such notifications are in the form
of letters from the sovereign and are transmitted through his
diplomatic agents, with instructions to present them through
the appropriate channel, and this is done by forwarding them
to the minister for foreign affairs, with the request that they
may be communicated to their high destination. Sometimes
a special mission is sent, particularly on such occasions as
accession to the throne, or a coronation, or the celebration of
a national event of exceptional importance. If the distance
is great, the local diplomatic agent may be accredited as
special ambassador or envoy for the occasion.
§ 79- Questions of precedence have sometimes arisen as
between the diplomatic agents, permanently accredited, and
those accredited for the purpose of such ceremonial missions.
According to Article 3 of the Regulations adopted at the
Congress of Vienna (§ 277) those engaged on an extraordinary
mission have not on this ground any claim to precedence.
But in practice some variation exists. M. Genet recalls that
on the accession of Pedro V of Portugal the special envoys of
Great Britain, Austria, Belgium and Saxony took precedence
over the ministers accredited to Lisbon, and ceded it only to
the nuncio ; while at the coronation of the Emperor
Alexander II of Russia the permanent diplomatic agents
maintained precedence over those specially accredited for the
occasion and having equivalent rank. At the accession of
Leopold II of Belgium the specially accredited agents took
precedence over the permanent envoys.
" D'une maniere generale la personne chargee de mission
speciale n'a pas de rang diplomatique proprement dit, a raison de
la mission speciale, tout en ayant cependant le caractere diplo-
matique.
" Tout agent accredite a done en principe le pas sur elle ; en
pratique pourtant et comme par une faveur insigne, le pas leur est
generalement cede et on temoigne des egards tout particuliers aux
envoyes de cette categoric. ' Ils ne prennent pas la preseance, ils
la re9oivent.' Inter se, ils se classent suivant le grade reel ; a grade
egal, c'est 1'ordre de la remise des lettres de creances qui leur
donne le rang." l
At the coronation of King George V, § 77 appears to show
that the special representatives attending the ceremony
enjoyed precedence.
§ 80. Friendly sovereigns sometimes exchange high orders
of chivalry, which are occasionally also conferred on members
of reigning families. On the outbreak of war, in August 1914,
1 Genet, op. cit., i. 86.
40 PRECEDENCE AMONG SOVEREIGNS
the Emperor of Austria, the German Emperor, the King of
Wurttemberg, the Duke of Saxe-Coburg, the Duke of Cumber-
land, the Grand Duke of Hesse, Prince Henry of Prussia, the
German Crown Prince and the Grand Duke of Mecklen-
burg-Strelitz having become enemies, ceased to be members
of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, and their banners were
removed from St. George's Chapel at Windsor. When one
sovereign confers a decoration on another, the intention to
confer is expressed by letter. On rare occasions the Garter
has been conferred on a foreign sovereign on the occasion of
his visiting England. Usually it has been conveyed to him
by a complimentary special mission.1
§81. An official notification made by the Vatican in
December 1931 to diplomatic representatives accredited to the
Holy See says that cardinals are regarded as equal in rank to
princes of the blood, and, in accordance with canon law, claim
precedence over everyone except sovereigns and crown princes
(principi ereditari] .
1 For an account of what takes place in connection with the investiture see
Redesdale, Garter Afission to Japan ( 1 906) .
CHAPTER VI
MARITIME HONOURS
§82. AT the so-called Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1818,
a protocol was signed on November 21 which contained the
following paragraph :
" Des doutes s'etant eleves sur les principes a observer relative-
ment au salut de mer, il est convenu que chacune des Cours
signataires de ce protocole fera remettre a la Conference minis-
terielle a Londres les reglements qu'elle fait observer jusqu'ici a cet
egard, et que Ton invitera ensuite les autres Puissances a com-
muniquer les memes notions de leur cote, afin que 1'on puisse
s'occuper de quelque reglement general sur cet objet."
This protocol bears the signatures of Metternich, Welling-
ton, Nesselrode, Richelieu, Hardenberg, Capo dTstria, Castle-
reagh and Bernstorff.
Nothing seems to have been done at the time to carry
this agreement into effect. Certain arrangements have, how-
ever, since been entered into between the maritime Powers ;
in particular those referred to in Articles 72 and 90 of the King's
Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, extracts from which
are appended to this Chapter.
§ 83. The British rules governing the number of guns
forming a salute to each class of diplomatic officers, the places
and occasions, are set forth in Article 66 of the King's Regula-
tions and Admiralty Instructions. It is to be observed, how-
ever, that not all of his Majesty's ships are " saluting ships " ;
the point is mainly governed by the size of the ship and the
number of guns that can be fired for saluting purposes. The
number of guns accorded in British practice may occasionally
differ from the number accorded in the practice of other
countries.
§ 84. When a British diplomatic agent pays an official
visit in a foreign port to the officer commanding the
naval forces of his (the agent's) own country, he is received
on board with much ceremony. A salute is fired, in con-
formity with the table shown in Article 66, at the moment
42 MARITIME HONOURS
when he leaves the ship to return on shore. He acknowledges
the compliment by removing his hat until the last gun
is fired. If he desires it, the commanding officer^ of the
ship he visits will send a boat to bring him and his suite,
if any, on board, and back again ashore. In going on
board the person of highest rank ascends the ship's side first.
When he leaves her to take his place in the boat, he is the last
to leave the ship's deck and enter the boat. (As regards
uniform to be worn on such occasions see § 475-)
§ 85. When men-of-war happen to be lying in a foreign
port on the occasion of a national ceremony it is customary for
British warships to adopt the same ceremonial as regards
salutes, dressing ship and half-masting flags, as the ships^ of
the foreign nation concerned, provided, of course, the occasion
is one which can be properly recognised by His Majesty's
Government. A royal salute is one of twenty-one guns.
§ 86. These are, however, matters with which the diplo-
matic agent is not, as a rule, concerned, except in countries
where the capital happens to be situated at a port where ships
can lie, and the conduct of the ceremonies to be observed in
such cases concerns the naval officers ; the diplomatic official
does not intervene, but he will do well, if resident at such a
place, to inform himself of the rules that are observed in this
respect by the navy of his own country.
§ 87. In many countries there exists a regulation prohibiting
more than a certain number of war-ships of any foreign
country from lying at the same time in a port of the country.
When an official friendly visit is to be paid by a larger number,
the diplomatic agent will probably be the channel through
whom the arrangements have to be made, and he may
perhaps be afforded an opportunity of presenting some of
the principal officers of the squadron to the sovereign or
president at a private audience granted for the purpose.
§ 88. The regulations with regard to salutes by His Majesty's
ships to foreign sovereigns or other distinguished personages,
dressing of ship, visits and other matters of etiquette, are laid
down in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions,
the following Articles of which contain all such information as
is likely to be of interest to British diplomatic officers :
ROYAL SALUTES AND FLAGS
40. Salutes to (British) Royal Family. — Whenever any members
of the Royal Family shall arrive at, or quit, any place where there
is a fort or battery from which salutes are usually fired, they shall
MARITIME HONOURS 43
receive a Royal salute on their first arrival and final departure,
from such fort or battery, and from all His Majesty's ships present.
Any ship arriving at or leaving that place during the stay of a
member of the Royal Family, shall also fire a Royal salute on
arrival or departure.
2. Whenever any member of the Royal Family shall go on
board any of His Majesty's ships, the Standard of His or Her Royal
Highness shall be hoisted at the main on board such ship, and a
Royal salute shall be fired from her, on such member of the Royal
Family going on board, and again upon leaving her.
3. Whenever any member of the Royal Family shall be em-
barked in any ship or vessel, and the Standard of His or Her Royal
Highness shall be hoisted in her, every one of His Majesty's ships
meeting, passing or being passed by her shall fire a Royal salute.
43. Foreign Sovereigns or Chiefs of States. — Whenever any foreign
Crowned Heads or Sovereign Princes, or the consorts of any foreign
Crowned Heads or Sovereign Princes, or the President of a Republic,
shall arrive at or quit any place in His Majesty's dominions they
shall receive a Royal salute on their first arrival and again on their
final departure from any ships present and from any fort or battery
at such place, from which salutes are usually fired ; and from any
ship on her arrival or departure, which may arrive at or leave that
place during the stay of such foreign personage. A similar salute
is also to be fired upon their going on board or leaving any of His
Majesty's ships. On such occasions all ships shall be dressed, either
overall or with masthead flags as may be ordered, in accordance
with Article 93. ...
4. The following procedure is to be observed in the case of a
foreign warship which is wearing a Royal or Imperial Standard or
President's flag visiting a British port :
(a) The visiting warship will salute the flag of the country.
(b) National salute is returned by the above battery.
(c) British warships present and shore battery salute Royal,
Imperial or Distinguished personages.
44. Foreign Royal or Imperial Family. — Whenever any Prince or
Princess, being a member of a foreign Royal or Imperial Family,
shall arrive at or quit any British port, or visit any of His Majesty's
ships, the same salutes shall be fired and compliments paid to him
or her as are directed by Article 40 to be paid to the members of
the British Royal Family, the flag of the nation of such foreign
Prince or Princess being displayed at the main.
2. In Foreign Ports. — Whenever such visits to His Majesty's ships
shall take place in a foreign port, corresponding salutes shall be
fired, and the flag of the nation of the Royal or Imperial visitors
hoisted, as already explained.
46. Standards of Royal or Imperial Personages at Foreign Ports. —
Whenever any of His Majesty's ships arrive at a foreign port in
which salutes are returned (see Article 72) and where the Standard
44 MARITIME HONOURS
of any Royal or Imperial personage, British or foreign, or the flag
of the President of a Republic, is hoisted, the customary salute to
the flag of the nation to which the port belongs is in all cases to be
fired first, the Standards or President's flag present being sub-
sequently saluted in the order directed in Article 45.
2. Salute to National Flag. — In case the Standard of any member
of the Royal or Imperial Family or the flag of the President of the
Republic of the nation to which the port belongs is hoisted in the
port, the salute to the national flag is to be considered as personal
to that Standard or flag as representing the nation, and in this case
the salute will not be returned.
In the event, however, of this salute being returned, a further
salute of 2 1 guns is to be fired.
50. Birthday of Foreign Sovereigns or other National Festivities. — On
the occasion of the celebration of the birthday of the King or Queen
of a foreign nation, or of other important national festivals and
ceremonies, by any ships of war or batteries of such nation, His
Majesty's ships present may, on previous official information being
received by the Senior Officer, fire such salutes in compliment
thereto, not exceeding 2 1 guns, as are fired by the ships or batteries
of the foreign nation, the flag of such nation being displayed at the
main during the salute only, or the ships being dressed in accord-
ance with Article 93, in conformity with the action taken by the
ships of such nation.
5OA. Death of Foreign Sovereign or Chief of State . — Orders concern-
ing the ceremony to be observed will be issued by the Admiralty
on each occasion. The usual procedure to be followed will be for
the flag to be half-masted on the day of the funeral only, with the
ensign (if available) or the national flag of the bereaved nation at
the dip on the mainmast. No gun salutes are to be fired unless
specially ordered.
2. In the event of His Majesty's ships being in company with
a ship or in a port of the bereaved nation, His Majesty's ships are
to act in unison with the procedure adopted by the Commanding
Officer of the foreign ship or with the observances in the port.
In the event of a ship of the bereaved nation being in a British
port, His Majesty's ships should act in unison with the procedure
adopted by the foreign ship.
SALUTES TO BRITISH AUTHORITIES
66. British authorities shall be saluted when in their official
capacities as laid down in the following table (extract) :
At all places, whenever
he embarks, and if he
Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary . 19 guns.
goes to sea in a ship, on
finally landing, by such
ship. No limitation of
occasion.
MARITIME HONOURS
45
Envoy Extraordinary and
Minister Plenipotentiary,
and others accredited to
sovereigns (with the ex-
ception of such as are
accredited in the specific
rank of Minister Resident) 1 7 guns
Minister Resident, Diplo-
matic authorities below the
rank of Envoy Extraordi-
nary and Minister Pleni-
potentiary, and above
that of Charge d' Affaires 1 5 guns
Charge d'Affaires, or a sub-
ordinate diplomatic agent
left in charge of a mission 1 3 guns )
Consul-General . .11 guns
Consul .... 7 guns
Within the precincts of
the nation to which he
is accredited. By the
ship from which he
may land, and also
that in which he may
finally embark. When
visiting a ship, upon
going on board or on
quitting her. As the
occasion arises. Only
once within twelve
months and by one ship
only on the same day.
Within the foreign port
to which he belongs.
When visiting a ship,
upon going on board
or on quitting her.
Only once within twelve
months, and by one
ship only on the same
day.
NATIONAL SALUTES, ETC.
72. The Captain of a ship, or the Senior Officer of more than
one ship, visiting a foreign port where there is a fort or saluting
battery, or where a ship of the nation may be lying, shall salute
the national flag with 21 guns, on being satisfied that the salute
will be returned. A salute is not to be fired when passing through
territorial waters with no intention of anchoring, or making fast in
any way, in them, even if a saluting station is passed, unless unusual
circumstances make it desirable.
The salute shall be fired on each occasion that a ship visits a
foreign port, except that of a ship leaving port temporarily, when,
by agreement with the local authorities, the salute on her return
may be dispensed with. This rule has been concurred in by the
maritime Powers generally.
2. When a ship visits a foreign port where there is no saluting
battery and no ship of the nation is lying on arrival and a ship of
the nation arrives during the visit, a salute to the national flag shall
only be fired after mutual agreement between the Senior Officers
of the ships concerned.
3. If a ship of a senior British Officer is already present in the
port, the junior will not fire a salute.
46 MARITIME HONOURS
73. Recognised Governments.— Salutes to foreign Imperial and
Royal personages and other foreign authorities and flags are only
authorised in the case of a government formally recognised by
His Majesty.
74. Salutes to Foreign Functionaries.— Salutes in conformity with
the table of salutes given in Article 66 shall be fired in compliment
to foreign officials, from either ships or forts, in the same manner
and in circumstances similar to those in which salutes to a British
official would be fired.
(See also Article 78— Salutes to foreigners visiting His Majesty's
ships.)
78. Salutes to Foreigners visiting His Majesty's Ships.— If a foreigner
of high distinction, or a foreign General Officer or Air Officer,
should visit any one of His Majesty's ships, he may be saluted on
his going on board, or on leaving the ship, with the number of guns
with which he, from his rank, would receive on visiting a ship of
war of his own nation ; or with such number of guns not exceeding
19 as may be deemed proper ; should the number of guns to which
he is entitled from ships of his own nation be less than is given
to officers of his rank under Article 66, he is to be saluted with the
greater number.
SALUTES WHICH ARE TO BE RETURNED OR NOT RETURNED
90. To Foreign Royal or Imperial Personages or Authorities. — In the
case of salutes from His Majesty's ships, forts and batteries to
foreign Royal or Imperial personages and other functionaries, the
following arrangement entered into with the maritime Powers is
to be observed :
i . Salutes not returned.— Salutes from ships of war which will not
be returned :
(a) to Royal or Imperial personages, Presidents of Republics,
Chiefs of States or members of Royal or Imperial Families,
whether on arrival at, or departure from, a port, or upon
visiting ships of war ;
(b] to Diplomatic, Military or Consular authorities, or to
Governors or Officers administering a Government,
whether on arrival at, or departure from, a port, or when
visiting ships of war ;
(c) to foreigners on visiting ships of war ;
(d] upon occasions of national festivities or anniversaries.
Mote. — By this clause (taken in conjunction with clause 3) His
Majesty's ships will not return a personal salute to a British officer
fired by foreign vessels ; nor will such return salute be expected by
the officers of a Power which adheres strictly to the international
arrangement. If, however, on any occasion where personal
salutes are exchanged, a personal salute, fired by one of His
Majesty's ships or by the ship of some third nation to a foreign
officer is returned, it is an excess of courtesy which it would be
MARITIME HONOURS 47
impossible not to reciprocate by returning any personal salute to
a British officer fired immediately afterwards under like conditions.
His Majesty's ships may even take the initiative in returning per-
sonal salutes, if such is known to be the custom of the nation whose
ship has saluted, and if it is expected that a personal salute to an
officer of that nation will presently have to be fired and will be
returned.
2. Salutes returned. — Salutes from ships of war which will be
returned gun for gun :
(a) to the national flag on anchoring at a foreign port, except
in the circumstances detailed in Article 46 (2).
3. Reciprocity with Foreign Ships. — When foreign ships of war
salute the British flag or British Royal or other personages, or any
of His Majesty's functionaries in similar circumstances, the same
rules are to be reciprocally observed by His Majesty's ships present,
as to returning or not returning the salutes.
DRESSING SHIP AND FLAGS, ETC.
93. Dressing Ship. . . .
4. His Majesty's ships are also to be dressed by order of the
Senior Officer present when in the presence of a Royal or Imperial
Standard on occasions of visits of Royal or Imperial personages,
and on certain foreign ceremonial occasions when in the presence
of ships, or in the waters, of the nations concerned. The manner
of dressing and time during which ships are to be dressed are to be
stated on each of these occasions according to circumstances.
94. Flags hoisted during Salutes. — When salutes are interchanged
with foreign ships of war or forts or batteries, or when salutes to
flag and personal salutes are fired in honour of foreigners, the follow-
ing rules as to the flags that shall be displayed are to be observed
by His Majesty's ships :
(a) Royal or Imperial Personages, etc. — In the case of a foreign
Royal or Imperial personage, President of a Republic or
Chief of State, the flag of the nation of such Royal or
Imperial personage, &c., is to be hoisted at the main, if
necessary, alongside any Standard, flag or broad pendant
which may already be hoisted in that position.
(b) National Flag. — On arrival at a foreign port, the flag of the
foreign nation which is being saluted is to be hoisted at
the main during the salute, if necessary, alongside any
Standard, flag or broad pendant which may already be
hoisted in that position.
(0 . . .
(d) Visits of Foreign Authorities. — On the occasion of visits from
Governors-General, Governors or Officers administering
a government, Diplomatic, Naval, Military, Air or Con-
sular authorities, or of persons of high distinction entitled
48 MARITIME HONOURS
to salutes, the flag of the foreign nation to which the person
saluted belongs is to be hoisted at the fore during the
personal salute, if necessary, alongside any flag or broad
pendant which may already be hoisted in that position.
2. To British Authorities.— The distinguishing flags particularised
in Article 112 are to be hoisted respectively at the fore whenever
any of His Majesty's Military, Air, Diplomatic, Dominion, Colonial
or Consular authorities are receiving salutes to which they may be
entitled ; should, however, the proper distinguishing flag not be
on board the ship saluting, the blue ensign is to be hoisted when
saluting Consular officers, and the red ensign when paying the same
honours to any of the other authorities. Should the ship have
neither a red nor blue ensign, a white ensign may be hoisted at the
fore when saluting any of the British authorities referred to.
VISITS OF CEREMONY
95. Visits to Foreign Ports.— The preliminary arrangements for
visits of His Majesty's ships to foreign ports will always be made by
the Foreign Office with the foreign government concerned, except
(a) on certain foreign stations, where the Commander-in-Chief
is authorised to communicate direct with His Majesty's
representative in the country which it is proposed to visit ;
and
(b) in the circumstances specified in clause 3.
2. As soon as the consent of the foreign government concerned
has been obtained, the Senior Officer of the visiting fleet or squadron,
or the Commanding Officer of a single ship, will notify the British
Consul direct of the date and time of the intended arrival of the
fleet, squadron or ship at the foreign port and the probable dura-
tion of the visit. Ceremonial visits are to be exchanged in accord-
ance with Articles 950, 96, 97 and 98.
The customary visit to the Governor or Chief Authority at a
foreign port should always be made unless there is some special
reason for not doing so. Communication should always be
established with the Consular officer on arrival.
3. In the event of a visit of His Majesty's ship to a foreign port
being of very short duration and purely informal as distinct from
a ceremonial nature, e.g. for the purpose of shipping or landing
persons or stores, the British Consul is to be notified of the proposed
visit direct by the Commanding Officer of the ship, with a request
that the local authorities may be informed. The British representa-
tive at the seat of government of the country visited is to be notified
at the same time that the visit will be made, and requested to inform
the government of the informal character of the proposed visit.
Communication should be established with the consular officer
on arrival, and the Commanding Officer should consult with him
as to the practicability of exchanging any ceremonial visits. When
MARITIME HONOURS 49
a call is made at a naval port, visits should always be paid to the
naval authority.
95^. To Foreign Authorities. — The Governor of a province, terri-
tory or colonial possession, if residing in or near the port, is to
receive the first visit from the Senior Officer in command of His
Majesty's ship or squadron visiting a foreign port.
The visit will be returned in person to all Flag Officers
and Commodores, and by an Aide-de-Camp, or other officer, to
officers of lower rank.
To 'Foreign Civic Authority. — The chief civilian authority of the
port should, as a general rule, receive the first visit from the Senior
Officer in command of His Majesty's ship or squadron visiting a
foreign port.
97. British Diplomatic Functionaries. — Every Flag or other officer
in command will, on arrival, pay the first visit to His Majesty's
diplomatic functionaries in charge of embassies or legations, of or
above the rank of Charge d'Affaires, but they will receive the first
visit from diplomatic functionaries below that rank.
2. In case of doubt as to the status of a diplomatic functionary
in charge of an embassy or legation, an officer should be sent on
shore to ascertain it previous to the interchange of visits.
98. Consular Authorities. — On the arrival of a fleet, squadron or
ship at a foreign port, the first visit will be made by the naval or
consular officer who is subordinate in rank to the other, according
to the following scale :
(a] Consuls-General . . To rank with, but after Rear-
Admirals.
(b] Consuls . . . .To rank with, but after Captains
of the Royal Navy.
(c] Vice-Consuls . . .To rank with, but after Lieu-
tenant-Commanders.
(d] Consular Agents . . To rank with, but after Lieu-
tenants.
2. The officer in charge of a consular post during the absence
of the titular incumbent will take for the time being the rank of
that incumbent.
100. Boats for Visits. — The Senior Officer present will arrange,
when necessary, to provide a suitable boat to enable the Diplomatic,
Dominion, Colonial or Consular officer to pay any official visits
afloat, and to take him ashore, on the officer notifying his wishes
to that effect.
1 1 o. Flags and Pendants displaced. By Admiralty Flag.
3. The flags of other functionaries ordered to be hoisted in ships
of war by Articles 1 1 2 to 1 1 4 . . . are not to displace at the mast-
head the flag of an Admiral of any grade, nor the broad pendant
of a Commodore of either class. When therefore a flag or broad
pendant is hoisted, the distinguishing flag of the civil or military
functionary is, if possible, to be hoisted at another masthead ; but
5o MARITIME HONOURS
if not possible, then it is to be hoisted side by side with the other,
subject to the discretion conferred on the Senior Naval Officer in
Article 1 14.
DISTINGUISHING FLAGS, ETC.
112. Particulars of Flags. — The flags authorised by His Majesty
to be displayed afloat are :
(a) ...
(b) By His Majesty's diplomatic servants, the Union flag, with
the Royal Arms in the centre thereof on a white ground
encircled by a garland.
(,)...
(d) By Consuls-General, Consuls and Consular Agents, the
blue ensign with the Royal Arms in the centre of the fly
thereof, that is in the centre of that part between the
Union and the end of the flag.
2. No other distinguishing flag or flags are authorised to be
worn afloat by any of these functionaries.
113. When to be Hoisted. — Whenever any of the functionaries
particularised in Articles 99 and 1 1 2 are embarked :
(a) In a boat for the purpose of paying visits of ceremony or
on other official occasions — the proper distinguishing flag
within the respective limits prescribed by the following
clause (b) may be hoisted at the bow, but when the boat
belongs to one of His Majesty's ships she is to have her
white ensign flying.
(b} In one of His Majesty's ships for passage :
(i) . . .
(ii) If a diplomatic functionary and in charge of a mission —
the proper distinguishing flag, with the approval of the
Senior Naval Officer, may be hoisted at the fore, and
be kept flying within the limits of the mission, provided
the diplomatic functionary be proceeding on the public
service.
(iii) . . .
(iv) The distinguishing flag of consular authorities is to be
hoisted in boats only and not in ships, except when
they are being saluted.
(c) In one of His Majesty's ships on the occasion of an official
visit — the distinguishing flags are to be hoisted respectively
at the fore whenever any of His Majesty's Military, Air,
Diplomatic, Dominion, Colonial or Consular functionaries
are receiving salutes to which they are entitled.
(d) In British ships and boats, other than those of His Majesty,
these functionaries, except consular officers as to ships, are,
with the sanction of the owners or masters, authorised to
fly their proper distinguishing flags on the same occasions,
and within the same limits, and these regulations shall be
MARITIME HONOURS 51
a sufficient warrant to the master under the Merchant
Shipping Act for so doing, but the permission to hoist such
masthead flags indicative of the presence on board of any
of these functionaries in no way affects or alters the
character or status of the merchant ship in time of peace
or in time of war, whether His Majesty is belligerent or
neutral.
114. Approval of Senior Officer. — With regard to the previous
approval of the Senior Officer, whenever a requisition is received
for the embarkation or conveyance of any of the functionaries
particularised in Article 99 or 112, the Senior Officer present, in
the absence of special orders from superior authority, will issue the
necessary directions, provided that, after consultation with, and
on requisition from, the official to be embarked, he considers it for
the benefit of the service about to be performed that such flag
should be hoisted within the authorised limits. Should the officer
who has to determine the question consider it, in the circumstances,
undesirable that the distinguishing flag should be hoisted, he is to
inform the functionary of his reasons, and at once report the same
for the information of the Admiralty.
2. When Ambassador, etc., is Embarked. — In the event of an
Ambassador being embarked, or a Governor-General, Governor,
High Commissioner, etc., of a Dominion or Colony being detached
on a foreign mission in his official capacity as Governor-General,
Governor or High Commissioner, special instructions will be issued
in each case as to the flag which should be hoisted in a man-of-war
in which he may be embarked ; in the absence of instructions from
the superior authority, the Senior Officer present is to exercise his
discretion in consultation with the official about to embark.
CHAPTER VII
THE LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE,
AND FORMS OF DOCUMENTS
§ 89. FORMERLY the language in universal use was Latin,
which may be said to have been at first the only language in
which men knew how to write, at least in central and western
Europe. When French, Spanish, Italian and English took on
a literary form, the instructions to diplomatic representatives
came to be framed in the language of the envoy's own country,
German was the latest of all to be written. Latin was also
used in conversation between diplomatists, where the parties
were unable to speak each other's language. French came
next in frequency of use after Latin. At the end of the
fifteenth century it had become the court language of Savoy
and the Low Countries, and also of the Emperor's court.
When the League of Cambrai was formed, in 1508, the full
powers of both Imperial and French negotiators were drawn
up in French, but the ratifications were in Latin. Henry VI
of England wrote to Charles VII of France in French, and
that language was usually employed both in writing and
speaking between the two countries. At the end of the
sixteenth century the King of France no longer writes Latin
except to the King of Poland, to such an extent had the use
of French gained ground.1
§ 90. At the beginning of the sixteenth century all agree-
ments drawn up in English, German or Italian have a domestic
or quasi-domestic character. English served for Anglo-Scottish
relations, German for those of German princes and of Germany
with Bohemia, Hungary and Switzerland. Italian was some-
times employed between the smaller Italian states. In the
Low Countries, Lorraine, and at Metz, French was naturally
the native language. Only two languages, however, were
admitted for drawing up international compacts : Latin for
the apostolic notaries and the whole school attached to the
Roman Chancery, and French. England and Germany con-
1 de Maulde-la-Claviere, i. 80, 389.
LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE 53
stantly used the latter, above all for treaties with France and
the Low Countries. At the end of the fifteenth century
England reverted to Latin for its treaties with France.1
§ 91. The treaties of Westphalia (1648) were in Latin. The
Treaty of January 30, 1648, between Spain and the United
Provinces, by which the independence of the latter was
recognised, was in French and Dutch, but Latin was used for
all communications between France and the Empire up to
the time of the French Revolution.2 The Anglo-Danish
Treaty of July n, 1670, was in Latin ; also the Anglo-Dutch
Treaty of 1674 ; but the Treaty of Alliance of 1677-8 in
French. The Treaty of the Grand Alliance of September 7,
1701, was in Latin, and likewise that of May 16, 1703, between
Great Britain, the Emperor and the States-General, members
of the Grand Alliance, and Portugal. In 1711 Queen Anne
wrote to her allies in Latin, and the full powers given to her
plenipotentiaries for the Congress of Utrecht were in the same
language. But at the first conference, in 1712, the English
demands were presented in French, as were also those of
Prussia, Savoy and the States-General. The commercial
treaty between England and France of April n, 1713, was in
Latin, certain forms appended were in Latin and French, and
the Queen's ratification was in Latin. But the certificate of
the exchange of ratifications was drawn up in French. The
treaties signed on the same day by France with Portugal,
Prussia, the Duke of Savoy and the States-General were in
French. Sweden and Holland exchanged correspondence
about the same period in Latin, but Peter the Great used
French. On July 13, 1713, Spain and Savoy signed a treaty
of peace in Spanish and French, while the treaty of peace of
September 7, 1714, signed by the Emperor and the Empire
with France, was in Latin. Russia used German in her early
treaties with Brandenburg ; with Austria, German, Latin and
French on different occasions, but from about the middle of
the eighteenth century always French ; with England always
French from 1715 onwards.3
§92. At Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1748, a separate article was
annexed to the treaty of peace signed by Great Britain,
Holland and France, to the effect that the use of the French
language in the treaty of peace was not to be taken as preju-
dicing the right of the contracting parties to have copies
signed in other languages.
1 de Maulde-la-Claviere, i. 209.
2 Garden, Histoire des Traites de Paix, v. 1 55 n.
3 F. de Martens, Recueil des Traites, etc., v. and ix. (x.).
54 LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE
§ 93. A similar article was attached to the Treaty of Paris
of 1763, between Great Britain, France and Spain, and to the
Treaty of Versailles of 1783, between Great Britain and
France.1 Article 120 of the Final Act of the Congress of
Vienna declared that :
' La langue frar^aise ayant etc exclusivement employee dans
toutes les copies du present traite, il est reconnu par les Puissances
qui ont concouru a cet acte que 1'emploi de cette langue ne tirera
point a consequence pour 1'avenir ; de sorte que chaque Puissance
se reserve d 'adopter, dans les negotiations et conventions futures,
la langue dont elle s'est servie jusqu'ici dans ses relations diploma-
tiques, sans que le traite actuel puisse etre cite comme exemple
contraire aux usages etablis." 2
§94. In March 1753, on the occasion of the settlement of
prize claims under the declaration of July 8, 1748, between
Great Britain, France and the States-General, the French
commissioners proposed to return to the British a memorandum
presented by them, on the ground of its being drawn up in the
English language, and claimed a prescriptive right to have all
transactions carried on in French. The British Government
sent instructions to Paris, stating that out of complaisance they
had at first usually accompanied the English memoranda (or
memorials) with a French translation, but the French com-
missioners having found fault with its wording, the commis-
sioners had been ordered to confine themselves in future to the
English language ; the French commissioners having now,
however, demanded the use of French as a right, to comply
would be to establish a precedent ; and it was added :
" All nations whatsoever have a right to treat with each other in
a neutral language. As such, the French is made use of in transac-
tions with the princes of the Empire and other foreign Powers, and
if the Court of Versailles thinks fit to treat with His Majesty in
Latin, the King will readily agree to it. ... It is the King's express
command that you should not for the future accept any paper
from the French commissaries in their own language, unless they
shall engage to receive the answer . . . returned to it in English."
§95. In 1800 Lord Grenville introduced the practice of
conducting his relations with foreign diplomatists accredited
to the Court of St. James' in English instead of French, the
language previously employed. Lord Castlereagh, when at the
headquarters of the allied Powers in 1814-15, wrote in English
to the foreign sovereigns and ministers. Canning, in 1823,
1 Jenkinson, iii. 342. 2 d'Angeberg, Le Congres de Vienne, 1432.
LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE 55
discovered that the British representative at Lisbon was in the
habit of writing in French to the minister for foreign affairs,
although the latter addressed him in Portuguese ; he therefore
instructed him to use English in future. In 1826 a controversy
arose with the Prussian Government in consequence of Count
Bernstorff's refusal to receive an English note from the British
representative,1 on the ground that it was the official rule to
receive such communications only when written in French or
German. The question remained in abeyance until 1831,
when the British minister was instructed to use English in
future. In 1851, the President of the German Diet having
set up the pretension to receive translations of notes addressed
to that body, Lord Palmerston instructed the British repre-
sentative that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government
every government was entitled to use its own language in
official communications, on the ground that it is more certain
of expressing its meaning in its own language. He regarded
as objectionable the practice of furnishing a translation,
because it led to the translation being treated as an original in
place of the English version.
Since that time the right of British diplomatic agents to
use their own language for communications to the government
to which they are accredited does not seem to have been
further contested, the right claimed by Great Britain being
recognised by her as appertaining to every other state.
§ 96. Sometimes, however, the use of one's own language
may cause inconvenience, as is shown in an anecdote related
to Dr. Busch by Count Bismarck 2 :
By the way, Keudell, he said suddenly, it just occurs to me
that I must get a full power from the King to-morrow — in German
of course. The German Emperor may only write in German, the
Minister may be guided by circumstances. Official correspond-
ence should be conducted in the language of the country and not
in that of the foreign one. Bernstorff tried to carry out that idea
here, but he went too far. He used to write to all diplomats in
German, and they all replied — by arrangement of course — in their
mother tongue, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, and what not, so that
he had to keep a whole staff of translators at the Ministry. That
was how I found things when I took office. Budberg sent me a
note in Russian. That wouldn't do. If they wanted their
revenge, Gortschakoff would have to write Russian to our Minister
at Petersburg. That would be the correct course. It might be
permissible to require foreign representatives to know and use the
language of the country to which they are accredited. But to
1 Stapleton, Political Life of the Rt. Hon. George Canning, iii. 265.
2 Graf Bismarck, 4th ed. (1878), ii. 289.
56 LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE
reply in Russian to me in Berlin to a note in German was unreason-
able. So I laid it down that anything received which was not in
German, French, English or Italian should be left untouched and
put away in the archives. Budberg then wrote complaint after
complaint — always in Russian. No reply ! The notes were put
away in the presses. Finally he came himself and asked why I
didn't reply. ' Reply ? ' I said in astonishment — ' what to ? I
have seen nothing from you.' Now, he had written weeks before,
and had sent several reminders. I told him, if I remember right,
that a pile of documents in Russian were lying downstairs, and that
his notes were probably among them ; but that downstairs no one
understood Russian, and anything in an undecipherable language
was pigeon-holed. It was then agreed, if my memory serves, that
Budberg would write in French, and the Foreign Ministry also
occasionally. (Translation.}
§ 97. As regards treaties, conventions, etc., these, when
concluded between two countries, are now ordinarily signed
in two texts, i.e. in the respective languages of the two countries,
though exceptions occur. In the case of treaties of a general
nature — multilateral treaties — concluded between many states,
*he usual practice is to use French, but often French and
English. Those concluded under the auspices of the League
of Nations have both French and English texts, both equally
authentic.
§ 98. When a government addresses a formal communication
to another, it generally does so through its diplomatic agent
accredited to the other state, and the correspondence in the
matter thereafter continues as a rule through the same
channel.
§ 99. Written official communications between a diplomatic
agent and the minister for foreign affairs of the state to which
he is accredited take as a rule one or other of three principal
forms, of which examples are given below.
§ 100. NOTE. — This may be in the first or third person. The
former is much the more usual ; the latter is apt to be some-
what stiff in tone. Many instances of notes in the first person
will be found in §§ 681-691.
On the occasion of the annexation of Bosnia and Herze-
govina by Austria-Hungary in 1908, that government informed
the other governments who were parties to the Treaty of Berlin,
1878, of the signature of a Protocol with the Turkish Govern-
ment, and requested their assent to the abrogation of Article 25
of that treaty. The Powers, one after another, notified their
consent. The note of the German ambassador was in the
third person :
LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE 57
(Translation.}
The Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government having
informed the Imperial German Government of the signature of the
Protocol relating to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has been
concluded with the Sublime Porte, and having further requested
assent to the abrogation of Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin, the
undersigned Imperial German ambassador, under instructions
from his Government, has the honour to make known to His
Excellency Baron von Aehrenthal, the Imperial and Royal Minister
of the Imperial and Royal House and of Foreign Affairs, that the
Imperial Government formally and without reserve gives its assent
to the abrogation of Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin.
The Undersigned, etc.
VON TSCHIRSCHKY.
Vienna, April 7, 1909.
His EXCELLENCY BARON VON AEHRENTHAL,
etc., etc., etc.
The reply of the British ambassador was in the first
person :
Vienna,
April 17, 1909.
MONSIEUR LE MINISTRE D'£TAT,
In reply to the communication which the Austro-Hungarian
Ambassador in London made to Sir Edward Grey on the 3rd inst.,
I have the honour to inform Your Excellency that His Britannic
Majesty's Government give their consent to the suppression of
Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin.
I avail, etc.,
FAIRFAX L. CARTWRIGHT.
It appears to have been the practice of the German and
Austro-Hungarian Foreign Offices to address notes in the third
person to foreign representatives.
§ 1 01. NOTE VERBALE. — This is in the third person and is
neither addressed nor signed ; it should, however, terminate
with a formula of courtesy. It is often used for the record of a
conversation or in order to put a question.1 Pasquier defined
it thus :
" C'est une expression usitee dans le langage diplomatique. Elle
veut dire une piece dont le contenu doit etre pris en serieuse con-
sideration, tres importante, mais qui n'est pas destinee a etre rendue
publique. C'est comme on disait une importante declaration
faite de vive voix, puis recueillie sur le papier pour n'etre pas
oubliee."
The mandates for Togoland accepted by Great Britain and
France provided for the delimitation by a mixed commission
1 Garcia de la Vega, 209 ; de Martens-Geffken, iii. 3.
58 LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE
of the respective zones, as recorded in the agreement between
the two governments of July 10, 1919. This having been
completed, the French Ambassador at London addressed a
note verbale to His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs :
" Comme le salt son Excellence le Principal Secretaire d'fitat de
Sa Majeste Britannique aux Affaires etrangeres, des conversations
ont eu lieu entre 1'Ambassade de Sa Majeste Britannique a Paris,
les Ministeres des Affaires etrangeres et des Colonies, en vue de
proceder a la delimitation des zones franchise et anglaise du mandat
sur le Togo.
Une mission franco-anglaise ayant prepare un abornement
definitif, dont le projet a etc arrete a Lome par les Commissaires
franco-anglais, un rapport commun fut etabli ainsi que ses annexes
(description de la frontiere et jeu de cartes) en trois originaux dans
chacune des langues frangaise et anglaise et le tout signe a Lome le
21 octobre 1929.
Deux de ces originaux ont du etre adresses a son Excellence le
Principal Secretaire d'Etat pour les Affaires etrangeres, 1'un pour
etre examine par le Gouvernement de Sa Majeste Britannique et
garde dans ses archives, 1'autre, afin d'etre transmis au Conseil de
la Societe des Nations, lorsque les Gouvernements britannique
et frangais se seront notifie leur accord respectif a la frontiere
proposee.
L'Ambassadeur de France a etc prie par son Gouvernement de
faire savoir a son Excellence le Principal Secretaire d'fitat de Sa
Majeste Britannique aux Affaires etrangeres que M. Briand a regu
I'exemplaire qui lui etait destine, qu'il 1'a soumis au Gouvernement
de la Republique et que le projet de frontiere ainsi tracee a obtenu
son agrement.
L'abornement definitif sur les lieux ne devant etre effectue que
lorsque les deux Gouvernements se seront notifie leur mutuel
accord, M. de Fleuriau serait tres reconnaissant a Mr. Henderson
de bien vouloir lui faire connaitre le plus tot possible 1'adhesion du
Gouvernement britannique. II saisit, etc.
Ambassade de France, Londres,
le 30 Janvier 1930."
The reply of the British Minister for Foreign Affairs was
in the first person, and as the correspondence 1 furnishes an
example of a joint note addressed by the French and British
representatives to the Secretary General of the League of
Nations, this also is given below :
Foreign Office,
August 19, 1930.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
On the 3Oth January last you were good enough to address to
me a note stating that the French Government had given their
1 Treaty Series No. 45 (1930).
LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE 59
approval to the boundary line defined in the report of the British
and French Commissioners appointed to define the frontier between
the British and French mandated territories in Togoland.
2. I am now in a position to inform your Excellency that His
Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have approved this
report, and I have the honour to suggest that, if the French
Government concur, steps should be taken to communicate to the
Secretary-General of the League of Nations the third copy of the
report, with the maps attached thereto, which was forwarded to
London by the Governor of the Gold Coast. I beg leave accordingly
to transmit herewith, for the consideration of the French Govern-
ment, the draft of the note which I would propose to address to
the Secretary-General and to request that I may be informed
whether the French Government would agree to address a similar
note to Sir Eric Drummond.
I have, etc.
Geneve,
le 23 Septembre 1930.
M. LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL,
Conformement aux instructions que nous avons re£ues des
Ministres des Affaires etrangeres de nos Gouvernements respectifs,
nous avons 1'honneur de porter a votre connaissance que le
Gouvernement francais et le Gouvernement de Sa Majeste
Britannique dans le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande
du Nord ont approuve par echange de notes le Rapport final en
trois exemplaires, date de Lome, le 21 octobre 1929, presente par
la Commission mixte de Delimitation des Territoires du Togo
places sous le mandat des deux Hautes Parties Contractantes
respectivement, en vertu de 1'article ier des mandats conferes par
la Societe des Nations a la date du 20 juillet 1922.
Le depot aux archives de la Societe des Nations du troisieme
exemplaire original dudit Rapport final et des cartes y annexees
s'effectue en meme temps que celui de la presente note. Ces
documents donnent la description exacte de la frontiere telle qu'elle
a ete determinee sur le terrain et portent les signatures des chefs
de la mission.
Agreez, etc.
R. MASSIGLI. ALEXANDER CADOGAN.
§ 1 02. MEMORANDUM (me'moire, pro-memoria) . — This is often a
detailed statement of facts, and of arguments based thereon,
not differing essentially from a note, except that it does not
begin and end with a formula of courtesy, need not be signed,
but it may be convenient to deliver it by means of a short
covering note. In earlier times these were often termed
deduction or expose de motifs.
Perhaps the most important instance of recent years is the
6o LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE
memorandum communicated by the German Government to
the French Government on February 9, 1925, initiating the
correspondence which led to the Locarno Conference of that
year.1
(Translation.}
(Strictly Confidential.)
In considering the various forms which a pact of security might
at present take, one could proceed from an idea cognate to that
from which the proposal made in December 1922 by Dr. Cuno
sprang. Germany could, for example, declare her acceptance of
a pact by virtue of which the Powers interested in the Rhine —
above all, England, France, Italy and Germany — entered into a
solemn obligation for a lengthy period (to be eventually defined
more specifically) vis-a-vis the Government of the United States
of America as trustee not to wage war against a contracting State.
A comprehensive arbitration treaty, such as has been concluded
in recent years between different European countries, could be
amalgamated with such a pact. Germany is also prepared to
conclude analogous arbitration treaties providing for the peaceful
settlement of juridical and political conflicts with all other States
as well.
Furthermore, a pact expressly guaranteeing the present terri-
torial status (" gegenwartiger Besitzstand ") on the Rhine would
also be acceptable to Germany. The purport of such a pact
could be, for instance, that the interested States bound themselves
reciprocally to observe the inviolability of the present territorial
status on the Rhine ; that they furthermore, both jointly and
individually (" conjointement et separement "), guaranteed the
fulfilment of this obligation ; and, finally, that they would regard
any action running counter to the said obligation as affecting them
jointly and individually. In the same sense, the treaty States could
guarantee in this pact the fulfilment of the obligation to demilitarise
the Rhineland which Germany has undertaken in articles 42 and 43
of the Treaty of Versailles. Again, arbitration agreements of the
kind defined above between Germany and all those States which
were ready on their side to accept such agreements could be
combined with such a pact.
To the examples set out above still other possibilities of solution
could be linked. Furthermore, the ideas on which these examples
are based could be combined in different ways. Again, it would be
worth considering whether it would not be advisable so to draft the
security pact that it would prepare the way for a world convention
to include all States along the lines of the " Protocole pour le
Reglement pacifique de Differends internationaux " drawn up by
the League of Nations, and that, in case such a world convention
was achieved, it could be absorbed by it or worked into it.
1 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. 7 (1925).
LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE 61
The memorandum of the French Government in reply was
as follows :
(Translation.}
The memorandum communicated to the French Government
on the gth February by His Excellency the German Ambassador
has been examined by them with interest and with a determination
not to neglect anything which may contribute to European and
world peace. The German Government will understand that the
examination of these suggestions cannot be continued until France
has submitted them to her Allies and has come to an agreement
with them for the establishment of a system of security within
the framework of the Treaty of Versailles.
Paris,
February 20, 1925.
§ 103. Other and less usual forms are the following :
A method occasionally employed in some matter of weighty
import is for the minister for foreign affairs to address a
despatch to his representative at the other capital, setting
forth the views of his government, with an instruction to read
it to the Foreign Minister and to leave him a copy.
On the passage of the Panama Canal Act by the United
States Congress in 1912 the following despatch was addressed
by the British Government to His Majesty's Ambassador at
Washington 1 :
Foreign Office,
London,
November 14, 1912.
SIR,
Your Excellency will remember that on the 8th July, 1912,
Mr. Mitchell Innes communicated to the Secretary of State the
objections which His Majesty's Government entertained to the
legislation relating to the Panama Canal, which was then under
discussion in Congress, and that on the 2Jth August, after the passing
of the Panama Canal Act and the issue of the President's memo-
randum on signing it, he informed Dr. Knox that when His
Majesty's Government had had time to consider fully the Act and
the memorandum a further communication would be made to him.
Knowing as I do full well the interest which this great under-
taking has aroused in the New World, and the emotion with which
its opening is looked forward to by United States citizens, I wish
to add before closing this despatch that it is only with great
reluctance that His Majesty's Government have felt bound to raise
objection on the ground of treaty rights to the provisions of the Act.
Animated by an earnest desire to avoid points which might in any
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cv. 366.
6s LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE
way prove embarrassing to the United States, His Majesty's Govern-
ment have confined their objections within the narrowest possible
limits, and have recognised in the fullest manner the rights of the
United States to control the Canal. They feel convinced that they
may look with confidence to the Government of the United States
to ensure that, in promoting the interests of United States shipping,
nothing will be done to impair the safeguards guaranteed to British
shipping by treaty.
Your Excellency will read this despatch to the Secretary of
State and will leave with him a copy.
I am, etc.,
E. GREY.
§ 104. Formerly when this method of communicating the
views of one government to another was resorted to, the copy
of the despatch was sometimes withheld, a course which might
be held to justify a refusal to listen to the reading of the
despatch.
Canning, in January 1825, having recognised the independence
of Buenos Aires, Colombia and Mexico, the Russian and Austrian
ambassadors called upon him on successive days, and said they
were instructed to read to him the despatches from their respective
courts on the subject, but were absolutely prohibited from giving
or allowing him to take copies. Canning asked them to give what-
ever they had to say to him the form of a note verbale, explaining
the difficulty in which he would be placed when, after listening to
the reading of a long despatch, it became his duty to lay before the
King and to convey to his colleagues a faithful impression of its
contents, with no other voucher than his own individual recollec-
tion of it. He therefore felt bound not to listen to the reading of
the despatch without being allowed to take a copy of it, but was
perfectly willing to receive any communication in a written form.
However, after they had left, he noted down his understanding and
impression of what they had said, and sent copies to them for their
approval or correction. These were returned to him — that from
the Russian ambassador considerably enlarged, and that from the
Austrian ambassador with an alteration.
§ 105. COLLECTIVE NOTE. This is one addressed by the
representatives of several states to a government in regard to
some matter in which they have been instructed to make a joint
representation. It involves close relations between the Powers
whose representatives sign it.
The following notes addressed by the Italian, British and
French representatives at Budapest to the Hungarian Govern-
ment in 1921, concerning the deprivation of royal rights of all
members of the House of Habsburg, are instances l :
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxvi. 513-17.
LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE 63
(i)
Budapest,
le 4 novembre, 1921.
M. LE MlNISTRE,
D'ordre de la Conference des Ambassadeurs, nous avons
I'honneur de transmettre au Gouvernement hongrois la declaration
suivante datee du 2 novembre :
" La Conference des Ambassadeurs a pris acte de la declaration
faite aux Commissaires allies par le Gouvernement hongrois suivant
laquelle il se remet entre les mains des Grandes Puissances alliees.
Cette decision, en facilitant Faction que les Puissances alliees ne
cessent d'exercer pour ramener 1'apaisement dans 1'Europe cen-
trale, est de nature a ecarter les dangers qui menacent la Hongrie.
" Convaincue que 1'execution de ses decisions constitue la seule
sauvegarde de la paix, la Conference a, de meme, pris acte de la
declaration suivant laquelle le Gouvernement hongrois proclame
la decheance de tous les membres de la maison des Habsbourg,
declaration dont elle attend que la confirmation soit remise par
ecrit et sans delai aux Commissaires allies. Elle compte fermement
que 1'Assemblee nationale hongroise, comme le Gouvernement
hongrois en a pris 1'engagement, sanctionnera cette proclamation de
decheance avant le 8 novembre.
" La Conference charge les Commissaires allies de veiller a la
stricte execution de cet engagement et decline toute responsabilite
des evenements qui pourraient survenir s'il n'etait pas tenu dans le
delai maximum susdit."
Veuillez agreer, etc.,
CASTAGNETO. HOHLER. FOUCHET.
(2)
Budapest,
le 5 novembre, 1921.
M. LE MlNISTRE,
D'ordre de la Conference des Ambassadeurs, nous avons
I'honneur de signaler a votre Excellence que le texte du projet de
loi gouvernementale, concernant la decheance de la dynastie des
Habsbourg, apparait aux Grandes Puissances comme donnant
prise a une equivoque qui ne leur permettra certainement pas
d'obtenir la demobilisation de la Petite Entente. En effet, le
projet de loi, tout en proclamant la decheance de Charles IV, et
1'abolition de la Pragmatique Sanction, reserve a la Hongrie le
droit d'elire son roi, sans preciser que les Habsbourg, quels qu'ils
soient, seront exclus de cette election.
II est indispensable que le vote de 1'Assemblee nationale soit
de plus grande nettete et, a cet egard, ne permette pas de supposer
que la Hongrie se derobe a la volonte tres nettement marquee par
les Puissances dans les declarations de la Conference des Ambas-
sadeurs des 4 fevrier, 1920, et 2 avril, 1921, en ce qui concerne
1'exclusion du trone de tous les Habsbourg.
En portant sans delai ce qui precede a la connaissance de votre
64 LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE
Excellence, nous croyons devoir appeler tres vivement a ce sujet
toute 1'attention du Gouvernement hongrois.
Veuillez agreer, etc.,
CASTAGNETO. HOHLER. FOUCHET.
(3)
Budapest,
le 12 novembre, 1921.
M. LE MlNISTRE,
De la part de la Conference des Ambassadeurs, nous avons
Phonneur de transmettre a votre Excellence la communication
suivante qui vient d'etre adressee au Haut Commissaire de France :
'' La Conference se declare satisfaite du texte de la declaration
complementaire de la loi de decheance qui vous a etc remis par le
Gouvernement hongrois, et que vous m'avez communiqu6 par
votre telegramme du 6 novembre 1921.
' Elle est en effet d'accord avec vos propositions et elle estime
que les assurances ainsi donnees par un acte international fournis-
sent des garanties plus serieuses qu'une loi qui pourrait etre sujette
a revision.
" Je vous prie en consequence de vous concer ter avec vos coll egues
britannique et italien, et, par une demarche conjointe, de faire
savoir au Gouvernement hongrois que les Principales Puissances
alliees prennent acte avec satisfaction de la declaration visee
ci-dessus qu'elles considerent comme un engagement international."
En portant ce qui precede a la connaissance de votre Excellence,
nous vous prions, M. le Ministre, d'agreer, etc.,
CASTAGNETO. HOHLER. FOUCHET.
§ 1 06. IDENTIC NOTES. These are not always exactly similar.
It is, however, desirable that they should be worded as closely
as possible and be identical quant au fond. They should be
presented, as far as possible, simultaneously.
On February 4, 1897, a Greek force landed in Crete and
proclaimed the occupation of the island in the name of the
King of the Hellenes. The Powers intervened, and in concert
drew up the terms of an identic note to be presented to the
Greek Government by the representatives of Great Britain,
Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy and Russia. This
was in the following terms l :
Athenes,
le 2 mars, 1897.
M. LE MINISTRE,
J'ai recu de mon Gouvernement 1'ordre de porter a la con-
naissance de votre Excellence que les Grandes Puissances se sont
entendues pour arreter une ligne de conduite commune destinee
a mettre fin a une situation qu'il n'a pas dependu d'elles de pre-
venir, mais dont la prolongation serait de nature a compromettre
gravement la paix de 1'Europe.
1 Br. and For. State Papers, xci. 1 75.
LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE 65
A cet effet les gouvernements d'Allemagne, d'Autriche-Hongrie,
de France, de la Grande-Bretagne, d'ltalie et de Russia sont
tombes d'accord sur les deux points suivants :
1. La Crete ne pourra en aucun cas, dans les conjonctions
actuelles, etre annexee a la Grece ;
2. Vu les retards apportes par la Turquie dans 1'application
des reformes arretees de concert avec elles et qui n'en permettent
plus 1'adaptation a un etat de choses transforme, les Puissances sont
resolues, tout en maintenant 1'integrite de 1'Empire Ottoman, a
doter la Crete d'un regime autonome absolument effectif et destine
a lui assurer un gouvernement separe sous la haute suzerainete
du Sultan.
La realisation de ces vues ne saurait, dans la conviction des
Cabinets, s'obtenir que par le retrait des navires et des troupes
helleniques qui sont actuellement dans les eaux ou sur le territoire
de 1'ile occupee par les Puissances. Aussi attendons-nous avec
confiance cette determination de la sagesse du Gouvernement de
Sa Majeste, qui ne voudra pas persister dans une voie contraire a
la resolution des Puissances, decidees a poursuivre un prompt
apaisement aussi indispensable a la Crete qu'au maintien de la
paix generale.
Je ne dissimulerai pas toutefois a votre Excellence que mes
instructions me prescrivent de vous prevenir qu'en cas de refus du
Gouvernement Royal les Grandes Puissances sont irrevocablement
determinees a ne reculer devant aucun moyen de contrainte si,
a 1'expiration d'un delai de six jours, le rappel des navires et des
troupes helleniques de Crete n'etait pas effectue.
§ 107. The formal parts of a note are — to give them their
customary French designations — (i) U appel or inscription;
(2) le traitement ; (3) la courtoisie ; (4) la souscription ; (5) la
date ; (6) la reclame ; (7) la suscription.
(1) is the title of the person addressed, as Sire (to a
sovereign), Monseigneur, Monsieur le Ministre, Monsieur le
Comte, or simply Monsieur (Sir) if he is a commoner, bearing
no title.
It is placed en vedette, i.e. apart from the body of the letter ;
en ligne, i.e. at the beginning of the first line ; or dans la ligne,
i.e. after some words at the beginning of the letter. En vedette
is used in ordinary correspondence. When the head of a
state writes to another head of a state, the appel or inscription
is usually en ligne ; if he is addressing a non-sovereign prince,
or other important personage, the appel is often dans la ligne.
(2) Traitement is mentioning the person addressed by his title
of courtesy, such as Saintete (Holiness) to the Pope, Majeste
(Majesty) to kings and emperors ; altesse imperiale (Imperial
Highness) ; altesse royale (Royal Highness) ; altesse serenissime
66 LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE
(Serene Highness) ; altesse (Highness) ; excellence (Excellency) ;
seigneurie excellentissime, seigneurie illustrissime, grandeur, eminence
(Eminence).1
(3) The courtoisie is the complimentary phrase which
concludes the letter. It may express an assurance of respect,
consideration, attachment, gratitude, etc.
(4) The souscription is the signature. When preceded by
" votre obeissant serviteur " it is said to be written en depeche ;
if by " veuillez agreer les assurances de ma haute considera-
tion," or by some similar form of words, it is said to be written
en billet. The former is used in circumstances of ceremony, the
latter in ordinary correspondence.
(5) The date (Latin data, i.e. given) gives the time and
place of writing.
(6) The reclame consists of the name and official designation
of the person addressed. It is placed at the bottom of the first
page on the left.
Suscription is the address, and is a reproduction on the
envelope of the reclame.
§ 1 08. French usage since 1920.
To foreign Ambassadors :
Appel (en vedette] : " Monsieur 1'Ambassadeur."
Traitement : " Votre Excellence."
Courtoisie : " Veuillez agreer, Monsieur 1'Ambassadeur,
les assurances de ma tres haute consideration."
Date: " A Paris, le , 19.."
Reclame : " Son Excellence Monsieur ou
Monsieur le (titre nobiliaire, s'il y a lieu),
Ambassadeur de "
To foreign Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipo-
tentiary.
Date: " Paris, le , 19.."
Appel (en vedette} : " Monsieur le Ministre, ou Monsieur
le (titre nobiliaire s'il y a lieu)."
Traitement : " Vous."
Courtoisie : " Agreez, Monsieur le Ministre, ou Monsieur
le (titre nobiliaire s'il y a lieu), les assurances
de ma haute consideration."
Reclame : " Monsieur ou Monsieur le
(titre nobiliaire, s'il y a lieu) et Ministre
de "
1 Eminence is said to have been invented by Cardinal Richelieu for himself.
It was afterwards adopted by the other cardinals, and became generally recognised.
LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE 67
To foreign Ministers Resident :
The same as the foregoing, except that the appel is
written en ligne.
To foreign Charges d'Affaires :
Date : " Paris, le , 19. ."
Appel (en ligne} : " Monsieur le Charge d'Affaires
vous "
Traitement : " Vous."
Courtoisie : " Agreez, Monsieur le Charge d'Affaires
les assurances de ma consideration la plus
distinguee."
Reclame : " Monsieur ou Monsieur le
(titre nobiliaire s'il y a lieu), Charge d'Affaires de
§ 109. Other rules of the French Foreign Office are :
Letters addressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to
the representatives of foreign Powers accredited to the French
Republic are written on large paper with printed heading.
The Agents of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, in their
correspondence with the authorities of the foreign country
where they exercise their functions, must follow the forms and
the rules laid down by the head of the mission, in accordance
with local usages.
Notes verbales destined for foreign representatives accredited
at Paris are written on large paper with printed heading,
and reclame, but without appel ; the date is written at the end.
Notes pro-memorid, destined for foreign representatives accre-
dited at Paris, are written on square paper, with printed
heading. These have neither appel nor reclame, and, as they
are to be delivered from one person to another, they do not
require a courtoisie. The date is written at the end.
Abbreviations such as " S.M." for " Sa Majeste, " S.A."
for " Son Altesse," " S.A.S." for " Son Altesse Serenissime,"
" S. Exc." for Son Excellence," " S.E." for " Son Eminence,"
" Mgr." for " Monseigneur," " M." for " Monsieur," " Mme."
for " Madame," etc., are only allowable if the name or title
of the person follows immediately, and if the document is not
destined for that person. Where both these conditions are
present the use of the abbreviation is imperative. Thus
' Dans votre entretien avec S. Exc. PAmbassadeur de
vous ," but " Veuillez faire observer a Son Excellence
que ," or " Le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres pre-
sente ses compliments a Son Excellence 1'Ambassadeur de
et a 1'honneur de Lui rappeler que "
68 LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE
The expressions " Votre Majeste," " Votre Altesse,"
" Votre Altesse Serenissime," " Votre Excellence," " Prince,"
" Princesse," " Madame," " Mademoiselle," heraldic titles,
and the words " Gouvernement," " Departement," " Ad-
ministration," etc., may never be abbreviated.
Forms used in addressing Sovereigns and Heads of Foreign
States :
Appel (en vedette] : " Sire " or " Madame," or " Monsieur
le President."
fraitemeni : " Votre Majeste " or " Votre Excellence."
Courtoisie : " Je prie Votre Majeste, ou Votre Excellence,
d'agreer les assurances * de mon profond respect."
Date : " A Paris, le ,19. ."
To Princes and Princesses of Sovereign Families and
reigning Princes and Princesses :
Appel (en vedette] : " Monseigneur " or " Madame."
Traitement : " Votre Altesse (Imperiale, Royale, Sere-
nissime)."
Courtoisie: "Je prie Votre Altesse (Imperiale, Royale,
Serenissime) d'agreer les assurances2 de ma respec-
tueuse consideration."
Date : " A Paris le ,19. ."
Reclame : " Son Altesse (Imperiale, Royale, Serenissime)
Monseigneur le Prince X ou Madame la
Princesse X "
To Foreign Cabinet Ministers :
Appel (en vedette] : " Monsieur le Minis tre ou Monsieur
le (titre nobiliaire s'il y a lieu)."
Traitement : " Votre Excellence."
Courtoisie : " Veuillez agreer, Monsieur le Ministre ou
Monsieur le (titre nobiliaire s'il y a lieu), les
assurances de ma tres haute (ou haute) consideration."
Date : " A Paris, le ,19. ."
Reclame : "A Son Excellence Monsieur le Ministre ou
Monsieur le (titre nobiliaire s'il y a lieu),
Ministre de "
The French Chancery may be safely taken by other
chanceries as a model in matters of etiquette, and for that
reason we have not hesitated to give these details.
§ no. British usage.
In all official communications, foreign ambassadors accre-
dited in London are addressed as " Your Excellency " ; other
1 For a sovereign, " 1'hommage."
2 For a princess, " Phommage de mon respect."
LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE 69
correspondents as " My Lord," " Sir," or " Gentlemen," as
the case may be.
The following terminations of notes, despatches and letters
are prescribed :
To foreign Ambassadors in London :
I have the honour to be, with the highest consideraticn,
Your Excellency's obedient servant.
To foreign Ministers :
I have the honour to be, with the highest consideration,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant.
To foreign Charges d'affaires :
I have the honour to be, with high consideration,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant.
To His Majesty's Ambassadors abroad :
I am, with great truth and respect,
Sir (or, My Lord),
Your obedient Servant.
To His Majesty's Ministers abroad :
I am, with great truth and regard,
Sir (or, My Lord),
Your obedient Servant.
To His Majesty's Charges d'affaires abroad :
I am, with great truth,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant.
To the Law Officers of the Crown :
I have the honour to be,
Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant.
To other correspondents :
I am,
Sir (Gentlemen, My Lord),
Your obedient Servant.
§ui. Letters addressed by the British ambassador at Paris
to foreign ambassadors and ministers usually terminate :
" Veuillez agreer, Monsieur , 1'assurance de ma tres
haute consideration " ; and to charges d'affaires : ( Veuillez
agreer, Monsieur , 1'assurance de ma haute
consideration."
70 LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE
§ 112. How sovereigns address each other in correspondence
has been explained in § 68. The ceremonial observed is less
strict than in the case of communications addressed to others ;
between equals the style is more familiar and less formal ; for
this reason the form designated in French Lettres de Cabinet
is that used by preference for communications between
sovereigns.
Such letters (written usually on quarto paper) begin,
Monsieur Mon Frere (et cher Beau-Frere), Sir My Brother
(and dear Brother-in-Law) ; Madame Ma Soeur (et chere
Niece), Madame My Sister (and dear Niece) ; Monsieur Mon
Cousin (Sir My Cousin) ; etc.
In the body of the letter the sovereign speaks of himself in
the singular, and gives to his equals the title of Majeste, Altesse
Rqyale, etc. Princes of lesser rank speak of crowned heads as
Sire, both in the body of the letter and its signature.
Some friendly expressions, which vary according to_ the
relations or degree of relationship between the two sovereigns,
close the letter, such as "Je saisis cette occasion pour Vous
offrir les assurances de la haute consideration et de 1'invariable
attachement avec lesquelles Je suis, Monsieur Mon Frere, de
Votre Majeste le bon Frere, N."
The signature of the sovereign to such letters is in some
countries countersigned by a minister of state. Letters in this
form are customarily employed for credentials of ambassadors
or ministers, or letters announcing their recall, and recredentials,
and in general for announcements of births, marriages, or
deaths in the Royal Family, or expressions of congratulation
or condolence conveyed to other sovereigns.
§113. Letters addressed by sovereigns to presidents of
republics are in the more formal and ceremonious style of
Lettres de Chancellerie (on large paper) beginning with the
name and title of the sovereign, followed by the title of the
head of the state to whom the letter is addressed : To the
President of the Republic of Our Good Friend '
(or some equivalent). These are ordinarily credentials of am-
bassadors or ministers, letters of recall, recredentials, announce-
ments of the death of the late sovereign or of accession to the
throne, congratulations on election, etc., and may^end by an
expression of the value attached by the sovereign to the
maintenance of the friendly relations happily subsisting between
the two countries. They are usually countersigned by a
minister of state.
§ 1 14. Letters addressed by the sovereign to other sovereigns
are sometimes in similar formal style to Lettres de Chancellerie,
LANGUAGE OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE 71
with the designation of the sovereign to whom they are
addressed following the name and title of the sender.
§115. Letters addressed by presidents of republics to
sovereigns usually begin : " A.B. President of the Republic
of To His Majesty the King of
Great and Good Friend (or some equivalent)." These may
be credentials of ambassadors or ministers, letters of recall,
recredentials, announcement of election to the presidency,
etc. In the case of many republics such announcements of
assumption of the office of president are customary.
§116. In 1913 the Austro-Hungarian Chancery still used
Latin for Imperial and Royal letters :
Serenissime et potentissime Princeps, Consanguinee et Frater
carissime. . . .
Maiestatis Vestrae Bonus Frater
Franciscus Josephus.
Dabantur Viennae, die . . . mensis. . . .
CHAPTER VIII
CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS
Letters of Credence or Credentials
§117. THE form of credentials used in Great Britain in the
case of foreign sovereigns is that of a Lettre de Cabinet, as, for
example :
SIR MY BROTHER,
Being desirous to maintain without interruption the relations
of friendship and good understanding which happily subsist between
the two Crowns, I have made choice of Sir Augustus Berkeley
Paget, a member of My Privy Council, and Knight Grand Cross
of My Most Honourable Order of the Bath, to reside at the Court
of Your Imperial Majesty in the character of My Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary.
The long experience which I have had of Sir Augustus Paget's
talents and zeal for My service assures Me that the selection which
I have made will be perfectly agreeable to Your Imperial Majesty,
and that he will discharge the important duties of his Embassy in
such a manner as to prove himself worthy of this new mark of My
confidence, and to merit Your Imperial Majesty's approbation
and esteem.
I therefore request that Your Imperial Majesty will give entire
credence to all that Sir Augustus Paget shall communicate to You
in My name, more especially when he shall assure Your Imperial
Majesty of My invariable esteem and regard, and shall renew to
You the expression of those sentiments of sincere attachment and
highest consideration with which I am, Sir My Brother,
Your Imperial Majesty's
Good Sister,
VICTORIA, R. ET I.
Osborne,
January i, 1884.
To My Good Brother the Emperor of Austria.
§ 1 1 8. Or, in the case of a republic, a Lettre de Chancellerie,
as, for example :
Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of
India, etc., etc., etc.
CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS 73
To the President of the United States of Venezuela, Sendeth
Greeting.
Our Good Friend. Being desirous to continue without inter-
ruption the relations of friendship and good understanding which
happily subsist between Great Britain and the United States of
Venezuela, and having the fullest confidence in the fidelity,
prudence and other good qualities of Our trusty and well-beloved
Frederick Robert St. John, Esquire, We have thought proper to
accredit him to the United States of Venezuela in the character of
Our Minister Resident. We doubt not that he will merit your
approbation and goodwill by a strict observance of the instructions
he has received from Us to evince to you Our constant friendship,
and the sincere desire which We entertain to preserve and advance
on all occasions the interest and happiness of both nations. We
therefore request that you will grant a favourable reception to Our
said Minister Resident, and that you will give entire credence to
all that he shall represent to you in Our name, especially when,
in obedience to Our orders, he shall assure you of Our esteem and
regard, and of Our hearty wishes for the welfare and prosperity of
the United States of Venezuela.
And so We recommend you to the Protection of the Almighty.
Given at Our Court at Osborne, the 24th day of December, in the
Year of Our Lord 1884, and in the forty-eighth year of Our Reign.
Your Good Friend,
VICTORIA, R. ET I.
(Countersigned) GRANVILLE.
§ 119. Or, again in the case of certain Oriental monarchs, a
Lettre de Chancellerie, as, for example :
Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of
India, etc.
To the Most High, Mighty and Glorious Prince, His Imperial
and Royal Majesty the Emperor of China, Our Good Brother and
Cousin, Greeting.
Most High and Mighty Prince. Having granted permission
to Our Trusty and Well-beloved Sir Thomas Francis Wade, Knight
Commander of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, who has
for some years resided at the Court of Your Imperial and Royal
Majesty in the character of Our Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary, to resign his Mission and remain in England, We
cannot omit to notify to You that his functions in that capacity
have terminated, and that he will not return to Your Court.
Being, however, desirous to maintain without interruption the
relations of friendship and good understanding which happily
exist between Our respective Empires, and to promote and extend
the commercial intercourse between Our subjects and Dominions
and those of Your Imperial and Royal Majesty, We have selected
Our Trusty and Well-beloved Sir Harry Smith Parkes, Grand
74 CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS
Cross of Our Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St.
George, Knight Commander of Our Most Honourable Order of
the Bath, in whose zeal, talents, and discretion We have the most
perfect confidence, to reside at the Court of Your Imperial and
Royal Majesty in the character of Our Envoy Extraordinary and
Minister Plenipotentiary. Sir Harry Smith Parkes will have the
honour of presenting this Our Royal Letter to Your Imperial and
Royal Majesty, and will, in obedience to Our orders, assure You
of Our Most sincere friendship, and of Our ardent wishes for Your
long life and uninterrupted happiness. He is fully informed as to
all matters which concern the interests of Our subjects trading to
or residing in the Dominions of Your Imperial and Royal Majesty,
and will use his best efforts to perpetuate that harmony and friendly
intercourse which it is Our earnest desire should ever prevail
between the two great Empires. We accordingly request that Your
Imperial and Royal Majesty will receive Our said Envoy Extra-
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in a favourable manner,
that You will grant him free access to Your Presence, and that
You will give entire credence to all that he shall have occasion to
represent to You in Our Name.
And so We recommend Your Imperial and Royal Majesty to
the Protection of The Almighty.
Given at Our Court at Windsor Castle, the first day of July, in the
Year of Our Lord 1883, and in the forty-seventh Year of Our Reign.
Your Imperial and Royal Majesty's
Affectionate Sister and Cousin,
VICTORIA R. ET I.
(Countersigned) GRANVILLE.
To the Most High, Mighty
and Glorious Prince, His
Imperial and Royal Majesty
The Emperor of China, Our
Good Brother and Cousin.
§ 120. The language of such documents is a matter of
" common form." The highly ornate phraseology of the
past has in modern times given way to a more simple style of
address, and while this may differ from reign to reign, and
between one country and another, the final phrase asking that
credit may be given to all that the agent may say in the name of
his sovereign or government is of universal application, as being
what constitutes the essential part of a letter of credence.
Letters of Recall
§ 121. Letters of Recall may take the form of a Lettre de
Cabinet, as, for example :
MADAME MA SCEUR,
Des motifs de sante ayant porte le Lieutenant General de
Bulow a desirer de rentrer en Danemark, j'ai cru devoir acceder a
CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS 75
ses voeux en mettant un terme a la mission qu'il remplissait comme
Mon Envoy e Extraordinaire et Ministre Plenipotentiaire aupres
de Votre Majeste. J'aime a croire que cet Envoye, qui a rernpli
cette mission honorable a Mon end ere satisfaction, aura su meriter
la haute bienveillance de Votre Majeste, et J'espere qu'Elle lui
permettra de Lui temoigner en personne la reconnaissance dont il
est penetre pour les marques de bonte dont Votre Majeste a bien
voulu 1'honorer pendant le sejour qu'il a fait aupres d'Elle. Je
profite Moi-meme avec plaisir de cette occasion pour renouveler
a Votre Majeste 1'expression de la haute consideration et de la plus
parfaite amide avec lesquelles Je suis,
Madame Ma Soeur,
de Votre Majeste,
le bon Frere,
CHRISTIAN R.
Copenhague,
le 1 1 Mai 1 880.
A Sa Majeste la Reine du
Royaume-Uni de la Grande-
Bretagne et d'Irlande, Im-
peratrice des Indes.
§ 122. Or of a Lettre de Chancellerie :
Par la Grace de Dieu,
Nous Alexandre III, Empereur et Autocrate de Toutes les
Russies, de Moscou, Kiow, Wladimir, Novgorod, Tsar de Casan,
Tsar d'Astrakhan, Tsar de Pologne, Tsar de Siberie, Tsar de la
Chersonese, Taurique, Tsar de la Georgie, Seigneur de Plescow et
Grand Due de Smolensk, de Lithuanie, Volhynie, Podolie et de la
Finlande ; Due d'Estonie, de Livonie, de Courlande et Semigalle,
de Samogide, Bialostock, Carelie, Twer, Jugotie, Perm, Viatka,
Bolgarie et d'autres ; Seigneur et Grand Due de Novgorod-inferieur,
de Czarnigow, Riasan, Polotzk, Rostow, Jaroslaw, Beloosersk,
Oudor, Obdor-Condie, Witepsk, Mstislaw ; Dominateur de toute
la contree du Nord ; Seigneur dTberie, de la Cartalinie, de la
Cabardie et de la province d'Armenie ; Prince Hereditaire et
Souverain des Princes de Circassie et d'autres Princes montagnards ;
Seigneur de Turkestan ; Successeur de Norvege, Due de Schleswig-
Holstein, de Stormarn, deDithmarsen et d'Oldenbourg, etc., etc., etc.
A la Tres-Haute et Tres-Puissante Princesse Victoire Ier, par
la Grace de Dieu, Reine du Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne
et d'Irlande, Impera trice des Indes, etc. Salut !
Tres-Haute et Tres-Puissante Reine, tres-chere Soeur et tres-
aimee parente ! Nous avons juge a propos de rappeler Notre
Conseiller Prive et Chevalier Baron Arthur Mohrenheim du poste
de Notre Ambassadeur Extraordinaire et Plenipotentiaire qu'il
a occupe jusqu'ici pres Votre Majeste. En informant Votre
Majeste de cette determination, Nous La prions de vouloir bien
congedier gracieusement Notre susdit Ambassadeur, etant persuade,
qu'en se conformant dans 1'exercice des ses fonctions aux instructions
76 CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS
que Nous lui avons donnees, il aura deploy e tout son zele pour
entretenir les liens d'amitie qui subsistent entre Nos deux Cours,
et aura su meriter la bienveillance de Votre Majeste. Sur ce, Nous
prions Dieu qu'Il ait Votre Majeste en Sa sainte et digne garde.
Donne a St. Petersbourg, le 8 fevrier, 1884, de Notre Regne la
troisieme annee.
De Votre Majeste 1'affectionne Frere et Cousin,
ALEXANDRE.
(Countersigned) N. GIERS.
A Sa Majeste la Reine du
Royaume-Uni de la Grande-
Bretagne et d'Irlande, Im-
peratrice des Indes.
§ 123. Or, when addressed to a Republic :
Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India,
etc., etc., etc.
To the President of the United States of America, Sendeth
Greeting ! Our Good Friend !
Having need elsewhere for the services of Our Right Trusty
and Well-beloved Councillor Sir Edward Thornton, Knight Com-
mander of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, who has for
some time resided with You in the character of Our Envoy Extra-
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, We have thought proper to
notify to You his recall. We are Ourselves so entirely satisfied with
the zeal, ability and discretion with which Sir Edward Thornton
has uniformly executed Our orders during his mission, by studying
to promote the friendship and good understanding which happily
subsist between the two Nations, and which We trust will always
continue, that We cannot doubt that You will also have found his
conduct deserving of Your approbation.
We gladly embrace this opportunity to assure You of the sincere
interest which We take in the welfare and prosperity of the United
States. And so We recommend You to the Protection of The
Almighty.
Given at Our Court at Balmoral the 25th day of May, in the
Year of Our Lord 1 88 1 , and in the 44th Year of Our Reign.
Your Good Friend,
VICTORIA, R. ET I.
(Countersigned) GRANVILLE.
To Our Good Friend,
The President of the United
States of America.
§ 124. Or, when issued by a Republic :
Jules Grevy,
President de la Republique Franchise.
A Sa Majeste la Reine du Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne
et d'Irlande, Imperatrice des Indes.
CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS 77
TRES CHERE ET GRANDE AMIE,
Ayant juge a propos d'acceder au desir que Nous a exprime
M. Charles Tissot de revenir en France, Nous avons mis fin a la
haute mission qu'il remplissait aupres de Votre Majeste en qualite
d'Ambassadeur de la Republique Francaise. Nous ne doutons
pas que, pendant la duree de sa charge, M. Tissot n'ait profite de
toutes les occasions qui se sont presentees pour exprimer a Votre
Majeste la gratitude que lui ont inspiree les marques de bonte dont
Vous avez bien voulu 1'honorer, et que, suivant Notre recommanda-
tion, il Vous ait renouvele les assurances de Notre haute estime et
de Notre inviolable amitie, ainsi que celles des voeux que Nous
formons pour la prosperite du Royaume-Uni.
ficrit a Paris le 19 juillet, 1883.
JULES GREW.
(Countersigned) CHALLEMEL LECOUR.
Recredentials
§ 125. Recredential (recreance, recreditif] is the name given to
the reply to a letter of recall. The following are examples :
MADAME MA SCEUR ET CHERE COUSINE,
J'ai regu la lettre par laquelle Votre Majeste Royale et Imperiale
a bien voulu M'informer qu'Elle avait juge a propos d'utiliser
ailleurs les services de Sir Edward Baldwin Malet, Commandeur
de Son tres-honorable ordre du Bain, charge pendant quelque
temps d'une mission a Ma Cour en qualite d'Envoye Extraordinaire
et Ministre Plenipotentiaire. Je saisis avec empressement 1'occasion
qui M'est offerte pour exprimer a Votre Majeste Royale et Imperiale
combien J'ai eu lieu d'etre satisfait de la maniere dont Sir Edward
Baldwin Malet a constamment execute ses ordres dans 1'exercice des
hautes fonctions qui 1'ont retenu aupres de Ma Personne. Comme
il n'a cesse a consacrer ses efforts au developpement des rapports
d'amitie qui existent si heureusement entre Nos deux Couronnes,
il s'est montre digne de toute Ma bienveillance, et J'ose a ce titre
le recommander particulierement aux bonnes graces de Votre
Majeste Royale et Imperiale. En exprimant a Votre Majeste
Royale et Imperiale le plaisir que Me font eprouver les temoignages
d'amitie qu'Eile Me donne, Je La prie de recevoir 1'expression
renouvelee de la haute estime et de ['inviolable attachement avec
lesquels Je suis, Madame Ma Soeur et Chere Cousine,
de Votre Majeste Royale et Imperiale
le bon Frere et Cousin,
LEOPOLD.
Bruxelles,
le 19 octobre 1884.
Sa Majeste la Reine du
Royaume-Uni de la Grande-
Bretagne et d'lrlande, Im-
peratrice des Indes.
78 CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS
§ 126.
MADAME,
Par lettres royales, datees du Chateau de Windsor, le ier
juillet, Votre Majeste nous a fait 1'honneur de nous informer
qu'Elle avait juge a propos de rappeler de sa mission aupres de
nous Son Excellence Monsieur Hussey Crespigny Vivian, Son
Envoye Extraordinaire et Ministre Plenipotentiaire pres la Con-
federation Suisse.
Nous ne Vous dissimulerons pas le regret que nous eprouvons
du depart de 1'honorable Monsieur Vivian, qui a su s'attirer toutes
nos sympathies par la bienveillance et 1'amenite qu'il a toujours
mises dans ses relations avec nous et reserrer encore davantage les
liens d'estime et de bonne amitie qui unissent la Suisse et la Grande-
Bretagne.
Nous saisissons avec plaisir cette occasion pour renouveler a
Votre Majeste les voeux que nous formons pour la prosperite de Sa
famille et pour le bonheur des peuples qui sont reunis sous Son
sceptre et pour La recommander avec nous a la protection du
Tout-Puissant.
Berne,
le 1 9 juillet 1881.
Au nom du Conseil federal suisse,
Le Vice-President,
BAVTER.
Le Chancelier de la Confederation, X.
§ 127.
Victoria by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of
India, etc., etc., etc.,
To His Majesty Somdetch Phra Paramindr Maha Chulalonkorn
Phra Chula Chom Klao, King of Siam, Our Distinguished and
Beloved Friend, Sendeth Greeting.
We have received from the hands of His Highness Prince
Prisdang, Your Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary at Our Court, the letter which You addressed to
Us on the 1 6th of July last, and in which You acquaint Us that
You had found it desirable to terminate his functions in that
character. The mission of Prince Prisdang being thus at an end,
We cannot omit to assure You that His Highness's language and
conduct during his residence at Our Court have been such as to
merit Our entire approbation and esteem and to strengthen and
maintain those friendly relations which happily subsist between
Our Dominions and those of Your Majesty, to the continuance of
which We attach a high value. And so We recommend You to the
Protection of the Almighty.
Given at Our Court at Windsor Castle, the I7th day of
CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS 79
December, in the Year of Our Lord 1883, and in the forty-seventh
year of Our Reign.
Your Majesty's Affectionate Sister and Friend,
VICTORIA, R. ET I.
(Countersigned) GRANVILLE.
To His Majesty The King of
Siam, Our Distinguished and
Beloved Friend.
Full Powers
§ 128. These are in the form of letters patent.
A diplomatic agent to whom a particular negotiation is
entrusted for the conclusion of a treaty or convention, or an
agent who is deputed to take part in a congress or conference
for a similar purpose, requires as a general rule a special
authorisation, called a full power, from the head of the state
whom he represents ; or, it may be, from its government, if
the proposed treaty arrangement is to be between governments.
§ 129. Before the signature of a treaty or convention, etc.,
it is the rule that the full powers of the plenipotentiaries must
be exhibited for verification. In the case of a bilateral treaty
this usually takes place at the ministry for foreign affairs prior
to the signature of the treaty ; in the case of a multilateral
treaty, the duty automatically devolves upon the headquarters
government, viz. that of the state wherein the treaty is
signed ; in the case of a conference a small sub-committee is
often appointed at the outset to receive and examine the full
powers of the representatives of the various states taking part.
§ 130. It is not, however, necessary that an actual exchange
or transference of the original documents should take place.
An inspection will suffice, and the most that could be required
would be the retention of certified copies. That this was the
custom in former times is shown from the practice that
prevailed of publishing the text of the full powers conferred
by the high contracting parties along with the treaty negotiated
in pursuance of them.1 But sometimes full powers, where
given ad hoc, having served the purpose for which they were
intended, are left with the government of the state wherein
signature of the treaty take place, and in this event they are
preserved in its archives with the signed treaty.
§131. Formerly, when a congress was held under the super-
intendence of one or more mediators, the full powers of the
plenipotentiaries were handed to them for verification. At
the conferences of Constantinople (1876-7) and Berlin (1884)
the plenipotentiaries appointed ad hoc alone produced full
1 See Jenkinson, iii. 347.
8o CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS
powers, which were held to be unnecessary in the case of the
resident diplomatic agents who represented their governments
on those occasions.
§ 132. In the eighteenth century the King of Great Britain
and the Emperor conferred full powers in the Latin language ;
France and Russia used French, Spain Spanish, and the
United States English. For the definitive Treaty of Peace
with the United States of September 3, 1 783, the King's full
power was also in English. Latin was used for this purpose
as late at least as 1806, for the full powers given first to Lord
Yarmouth, and afterwards to Lord Lauderdale in conjunction
with him, for the abortive peace negotiations at Lille.
§ 133. Full power, dated April 23, 1783, to the Duke of
Manchester for negotiating a treaty of peace with France :
(Signature] Georgius R.
Georgius Tertius, Dei Gratia, Magnse Britanniae, Franciae,
et Hiberniae, Rex, Fidei Defensor, Dux Brunsvicensis et Lune-
burgensis, Sacri Romani Imperii Archi-Thesaurarius, et Princeps
Elector, etc. Omnibus et singulis ad quos praesentes hae literae
pervenerint, salutem ! Cum ad pacem perficiendam inter nos et
bonurn fratrem nostrum Regem Christianissimum, quae jam signatis
apud Versalios, die vicesimo mensis Januarii proxime praeteriti,
articulis preliminariis feliciter inchoata est, eamque ad finem
exoptatum perducendam, virum aliquem idoneum, ex nostra parte,
plena auctoritate munire nobis e re visum sit ; cumque perdilectus
nobis et perquam fidelis consanguineus et consiliarius noster,
Georgius Dux et Comes de Manchester, Vicecomes de Mandeville,
Baron de Kimbolton, Comitatus de Huntingdon Locum-Tenens
et Gustos Rotulorum, nobilitate generis, egregiis animi dotibus,
summo rerum usu, et spectata fide, se nobis commendaverit, quern
idcirco titulo Legati Nostri Extraordinarii et Plenipotentiarii apud
praedictum bonum fratrem nostrum Regem Christianissimum
decoravimus, persuasumque nobis sit amplissime ornaturum fore
provinciam quam ei mandare decrevimus : Sciatis igitur quod nos
praedictum Georgium Ducem de Manchester fecimus, constituimus
et ordinavimus, et, per praesentes, eum facimus, constituimus et
ordinamus, nostrum verum certum ac indubitatum plenipotentia-
rium, commissarium, et procuratorem ; dantes et concedentes
eidem plenam et omnimodam potestatem, atque auctoritatem,
pariter ac mandatum generale ac speciale, cum praedicto Rege
Christianissimo, ipsiusque ministris, commissariis vel procura-
toribus, sufficienti auctoritate instructis, cumque legatis, com-
missariis, deputatis et plenipotentiariis aliorum principum et
statuum, quorum interesse poterit, sufficienti itidem auctoritate
instructis tarn singulatim ac divisim, quam aggregatim ac con-
junctim, congrediendi et colloquendi, atque cum ipsis de pace
firma ac stabili, sinceraque amicitia et concordia quantocius
CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS 81
restituendis, conveniendi, tractandi, consulendi et concludendi ;
eaque omnia, quae ita conventa et conclusa fuerint, pro nobis
et nostro nomine, subsignandi, superque conclusis tractatum,
tractatusve, vel alia instrumenta quotquot et qualia necessaria
fuerint, conficiendi, mutuoque tradendi, recipiendique ; omniaque
alia quae ad opus supradictum feliciter exequendum pertinent,
transigendi, tam amplis modo et forma, ac vi effectuque pari, ac nos,
si interessemus, facere et praestare possemus : Spondentes, et in
verbo regio promittentes, nos omnia et singula quaecunque a dicto
nostro Plenipotentiario transigi et concludi contigerint, grata, rata
et accepta, omni meliori modo, habituros, neque passuros unquam
ut in toto, vel in parte, a quopiam violentur, aut ut iis in contrarium
eatur. In quorum omnium majorem fidem et robur prassentibus,
manu nostra regia signatis, magnum nostrum Magnas Britanniae
sigillum appendi fecimus. Quae dabantur in palatio nostro Divi
Jacobis die vicesimo tertio mensis Aprilis, anno domini millesimo,
septingesimo octogesimo tertio, regnique nostri vicesimo tertio.1
§ 134. The full powers given in 1806 to Lord Yarmouth in
the first instance, and afterwards to Lord Lauderdale and
Lord Yarmouth conjointly, were worded in the same manner.
Napoleon's full power to General Clarke on the same occasion
ran as follows :
Napoleon par la grace de Dieu, et les constitutions, Empereur
des Frangais, Roi d'ltalie, prenant entiere confiance dans la
fidelite pour Notre personne, et le zele pour Notre service de
Monsieur le General de division Clarke, Notre conseiller intime
du cabinet, et grand officier de la Legion d'honneur, Nous lui
avons donne, et lui donnons par les presentes, plein et absolu
pouvoir, commission, et mandement special, pour en notre nom,
et avec tel ministre de Sa Majeste Britannique dument autorise a
cet effet, convenir, arreter, conclure, et signer, tels traites, articles,
conventions, declarations, et autres actes qu'il avisera bien etre ;
promettons d'avoir pour agreable et tenir ferme et stable, accomplir
et executer ponctuellement tout ce que le dit plenipotentiaire aura
promis et signe en vertu des presents pleins-pourvoirs, comme aussi
d'en faire expedier les lettres de ratification en bonne forme, et de les
faire delivrer pour etre echangees dans le terns dont il sera convenu.
En foi de quoi Nous avons donne les presentes signees de notre
main, contresignees et munies de Notre sceau Imperial.
A St. Cloud, le vingt-un juillet an mil huit cent six, de Notre
regne le second.
NAPOLEON.
Par 1'Empereur, le Ministre Secretaire d'Etat,
HUGUES MARET.
Le Ministre des Relations Exterieures,
CH. MAU. TALLEYRAND,
Prince de Benevent.2
1 Jenkinson, iii. 347. " Papers Relative to the Negotiations with France, 75.
G
82 CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS
§ 135. At the present day the full powers issued to repre-
sentatives for such purposes as the negotiation and signature
of a treaty, or the settlement in a similar manner at a congress
or conference of some question of international concern, vary
greatly in form, according to the particular constitution or
the settled practice of the country which issues them. In the
case of Great Britain the form used for the signature of a treaty
or convention between heads of states is shown in § 136, and
the wording, it will be seen, follows in general that of the past
(§ :33)5 though the use of Latin for such purposes has long been
discontinued. Many countries adopt a similar formal style ;
in the case of others it may be simpler, and the phraseology
employed may vary considerably. Differences may exist also
according to the degree of importance ascribed to the treaty,
or whether it is to be concluded between heads of states or,
on the other hand, between governments. The essential
feature of all such documents is that they should show by
their terms that the representative to whom they are issued is
invested with all necessary authority on the part of the state
concerned to take part in the negotiations pending, and to
conclude and sign, subject if necessary to ratification, the
treaty instrument which may result from these negotiations.
§ 136. The form of full power issued by the Court of
St. James for the purpose of a treaty or convention between
heads of states is as follows :
(Signature] George R.I.
George, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and
the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith,
Emperor of India, etc., etc., etc.,
To all and singular to whom these Presents shall come,
Greeting !
Whereas for the better treating of and arranging certain matters
which are now in discussion, or which may come into discussion,
between Us and concerning
We have judged it expedient to
invest a fit person with Full Power to conduct the said discussion
on Our part in respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland \ Know
Ye therefore, that We, reposing especial Trust and Confidence
in the Wisdom, Loyalty, Diligence and Circumspection of Our
have named, made, constituted
and appointed, as We do by these presents name, make, constitute
and appoint him Our undoubted Commissioner, Procurator and
Plenipotentiary, in respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ;
Giving to him all manner of Power and Authority to treat,
adjust and conclude with such minister or ministers as may
be vested with similar Power and Authority on the part of
CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS 83
any treaty, con-
vention or agreement that may tend to the attainment of the
above-mentioned end, and to sign for Us, and in Our Name, in
respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, everything so agreed
upon and concluded, and to do and transact all such other matters
as may appertain thereto, in as ample manner and form, and with
equal force and efficacy, as We Ourselves could do if personally
present ; Engaging and Promising, upon Our Royal Word, that
whatever things shall be so transacted and concluded by Our said
Commissioner, Procurator and Plenipotentiary, in respect of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, shall, subject if necessary to Our ratifica-
tion, be agreed to, acknowledged and accepted by Us in the
fullest manner, and that We will never suffer, either in the whole
or in part, any person whatsoever to infringe the same, or act con-
trary thereto, as far as it lies in Our power.
In witness whereof, We have caused Our Great Seal to be
affixed to these Presents, which We have signed with Our Royal
Hand.
Given at Our Court of St. James, the day of ,
in the Year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and
and in the year of Our Reign.
§ 137. In the case of an agreement between governments,
the form of full power issued by His Majesty's Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs is as follows :
Whereas for the better treating of and arranging certain matters
which are now in discussion, or which may come into discussion,
between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland and the Government of
concerning it is expedient
that a fit person should be invested with Full Power to con-
duct the said discussion on the part of the Government of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ; I,
, His Majesty's Principal
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, do hereby certify that
is by these Presents named, constituted
and appointed as Plenipotentiary and Representative having Full
Power and Authority to agree and conclude, with such Plenipoten-
tiary or Representative as may be vested with similar Power and
Authority on the part of the Government of , any
Convention or Agreement that may tend to the attainment of the
above-mentioned end, and to sign for the Government of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland every-
thing so agreed upon and concluded. Further I do hereby certify
that whatever things shall be so transacted and concluded by the
said Plenipotentiary and Representative, shall, subject if necessary
to ratification by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, be agreed to, acknowledged and
84 CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS
accepted by the said Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland in the fullest manner.
In witness whereof I have signed these Presents, and affixed
hereto my seal.
Signed and sealed at the Foreign Office, London, the day
of , in the Year of our Lord 19...
(Seal) (Signature of Secretary of State.)
§ 138. A French example :
Gaston Doumergue, President de la Republique Francaise,
A Tous Ceux qui ces presentes lettres verront, Sa*lut ;
Une Conference Internationale s'etant reunis. a Londres en
vue de conclure une Convention sur les marques de franc-bord,
Nous avons charge MM. Haarbleicher Andre Maurice, Directeur des
services de la Flotte de Commerce et du Materiel Naval au Ministere
de la Marine Marchande, President de la Delegation, Lindemann
Rene Hippolyte Joseph, directeur adjoint des services du Travail; ;;
Maritime et de la Comptabilite au Ministere de la Marine Mar-,
chande, ITngenieur principal du genie maritime, Marie Jean
Henri Theophile, attache aux services de la Flotte de Commerce
et du Materiel Naval au Ministere de la Marine Marchande, de
Berlhe A.H.A., administrateur delegue du Bureau Veritas, d'etudier
toutes les questions qui font 1'objet de cette reunion internationale
et, par les presentes, les nommons et constituons Nos Plenipoten-
tiaires a 1'effet de negocier, conclure et signer avec le ou les Pleni-
potentiaires egalement munis de pleins pouvoirs de la part des
Puissances contractantes, tels Arrangement, Convention, Declara-
tion ou Actes quelconques qui seront juges necessaires pour atteindre
le resultat desire. Promettant d'accomplir et d'executer tout ce
que Nosdits Plenipotentiaires auront stipule et signe au nom de la
Republique Franchise, sans jamais y contrevenir, ni permettre
qu'il y soit contrevenu directement ou indirectement pour quelque
pretexte et de quelque maniere que ce soit, sous la reserve de Nos
Lettres de Ratification que Nous ferons delivrer en bonne et due
forme pour etre echangees dans le delai qui sera convenu. En
foi de quoi, Nous avons fait apposer a ces presentes le sceau de la
Republique.
Fait a Rambouillet, le 22 mai, 1930.
(Signed) GASTON DOUMERGUE.
Par le President de la Republique
(Seal) Le Ministre des Affaires fitrangeres
(Signed) A. BRIAND.
§ 139. A United States example :
Herbert Hoover, President of the United States of America,
To all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting.
Know Ye, That reposing special trust and confidence in the
integrity, prudence and ability of Mr. H. B. Walker, President of
the American Steamship Owners' Association, Mr. David Arnott,
CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS 85
of the American Bureau of Shipping, Mr. Laurens Prior, of the
Bureau of Navigation, Department of Commerce, Mr. H. C.
Towle, of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Mr. S. D.
McComb, of the Marine Office of America, Captain A. F. Pillsbury,
of Pillsbury & Curtis, San Francisco, Mr. Robert F. Hand, of the
Standard Oil Company, New York, Mr. James Kennedy, General
Manager, Marine Department, Gulf Refining Company, New York,
Mr. H. W. Warley, of the Ore Steamship Company, New York,
and Rear-Admiral J. G. Tawresey, United States Navy, retired,
Delegates of the United States of America to the International
Conference on Load-Lines to convene at London on May 20, 1930,
I have invested them jointly and severally with full and all manner
of power and authority, for and in the name of the United States
of America, to meet and confer with any persons duly authorised
by the Governments of the States represented at the said Inter-
national Conference, being invested with like power and authority,
and with them to negotiate, conclude and sign a Convention on the
subject of load-lines, the same to be transmitted to the President
of the United States for his ratification, subject to the advice and
consent thereto of the Senate of the United States.
In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United
States to be hereunto affixed.
Done at the City of Washington this 2Qih day of April in the
year of Our Lord 1930, and of the independence of the United
States the one hundred and fifty-fourth.
(Seal] (Signed) HERBERT HOOVER.
By the President (signed) X.
Acting Secretary of State.
§ I3QA. A Roumanian example :
Nous, Carol II, Roi de Roumaiiie, Nous confiant pleinement
dans le zele et le devouement de Monsieur V. V. Tilea, depute,
lui donnons pleins-pouvoirs de negocier, de conclure et de signer,
avec le ou les Plenipotentiaires — egalement munis de pleins-
pouvoirs en bonne et due forme — de Sa Majeste Britannique un
Traite de Commerce et de Navigation entre la Roumanie et la
Grande-Bretagne .
En foi de quoi, Nous avons delivre les presentes, signees par
Notre main et revetues de Notre Sceau Royal.
Fait a Bucarest le 28 juillet, 1930.
(Seal) (Signed) CAROL.
Le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres par interim
(Signed) ALEX. VAIDA VOEVOD.
§ 1396. A German example :
Vollmacht,
Der Deutsche Botschafter in London, Herr Konstantin Freiherr
von Neurath, wird hiermit bevollmachtigt, die in London zur
86 CREDENTIALS AND FULL POWERS
Unterzeichnung aufgelegte Ubereinkunft iiber die Unterhaltung
von Leuchtfeuern im Roten Meer im Namen des Deutschen Reichs
vorbehaltlich der Ratifikation zu unterzeichnen.
Berlin, den 5. Dezember 1930.
(Seal) (Signed) VON HINDENBURG.
(Countersigned) CURTIUS.
§ 140. A Soviet Union example :
(Translation.)
The Central Executive Committee of the U.S.S«R. announces
that it has empowered and hereby authorises the citizen Dimitri
Vassilievich Bogomolov, Counsellor of the Soviet Embassy in Great
Britain, to sign such acts as may be drawn up at the international
Conference in London on load-lines.
Acts signed in pursuance of the present authorisation must be
ratified in the manner prescribed by the laws of the U.S.S.R.
Moscow, May 31, 1930.
(Seal) President of the Central Executive Com-
mittee of the U.S.S.R., KALININ.
Secretary of above, ENUKIDZE.
Commissar for Foreign Affairs, LITVINOV.
§ 141. A full power issued by the Vatican for the purpose
of the signature of the Universal Postal Convention runs as
follows :
Segretario di Stato di Sua Santita.
II sottoscritto Cardinale Pietro Gasparri, Segretario di Stato
di Sua Santita, autorizza il Signor Prof. Hewins a rappresentare
lo Stato della Citta del Vaticano al Congresso Postale che si terra
a Londra col pieni poteri per negoziare e sottoscrivere a nome
della Santa Sede la Convenzione Postale che in detto Congresso
verra concordata.
Dal Vaticano, 22 Giugno 1929.
(Seal) P. CARD. GASPARRI.
CHAPTER IX
ADVICE TO DIPLOMATISTS
§ 142. OF the qualities necessary for the profession of a diplo-
matist, Callieres treats in his famous work " De la maniere de
negocier avec les souverains," * and his observations, though
made two centuries ago, have still much to commend them
to notice. In modern days methods of diplomacy are doubtless
less subtle and tortuous than were those of the past ; while the
rapidity of telegraphic communication now enables a nego-
tiator to remain in constant touch with his government
throughout. But national character and human nature have
not changed to any appreciable extent. Callieres' counsels
are not here reproduced for the use of experienced diplomatists,
but rather as hints that may prove serviceable to younger
members of the profession. The following passages,2 taken
from his work, on the qualities of the good negotiator, may
therefore fitly form an introduction to the present chapter.
§ 143-
Ces qualites sont un esprit attentif et applique, qui ne se
laisse point distraire par les plaisirs, & par les amusemens frivoles,
un sens droit qui con9oive nettement les choses comme elles sont,
& qui aille au but par les voyes les plus courtes & les plus naturelles,
sans s'egarer a force de rafinement & de vaines subtilitez qui
rebuttent d'ordinaire ceux avec qui on traite, de la penetration
pour decouvrir ce qui se passe dans le coeur des hommes & pour
S9avoir profiler des moindres mouvemens de leurs visages & des
autres effets de leurs passions, qui echapent aux plus dissimulez ;
un esprit fecond en expediens, pour aplanir les difficultez qui se
rencontrent a ajuster les interets dont on est charge ; de la presence
d'esprit pour repondre bien a propos sur les choses imprevues, &
pour se tirer par des reponses judicieuses d'un pas glissant ; une
humeur egale, & un naturel tranquile & patient, toujours dispose
a ecouter sans distraction ceux avec qui il traite ; un abord
toujours ouvert, doux, civil, agreable, des manieres aisees &
insinuantes qui contribuent beaucoup a acquerir les inclinations de
1 Paris, 1716.
2 The orthography and accentuation of the original are preserved.
88 ADVICE TO DIPLOMATISTS
ceux avec qui on traite, au lieu qu'un air grave & froid, & une
mine sombre & rude, rebute & cause d'ordinaire de 1'aversion.
II faut surtout qu'un bon Negociateur 1 ait assez de pouvoir
sur lui-rneme pour resister a la demangeaison de parler avant que
de s'etre bien consulte sur ce qu'il a a dire, qu'il ne se pique pas
de repondre sur le champ & sans premeditation sur les propositions
qu'on lui fait, & qu'il prenne garde de tomber dans le defiant
d'un fameux Ambassadeur etranger de notre terns, qui etoit si vif
dans la dispute, que lorsqu'on I'echaufibit en le contredisant, il
reveloit souvent des secrets d'importance pour soutenir son
opinion.
II ne faut pas aussi qu'il donne dans le deffaut oppose de
certains esprits mysterieux, qui font des secrets de rien, & qui
erigent en affaires d'importance de pures bagatelles ; c'est une
marque de petitesse d'esprit de ne s£avoir pas discerner les choses
de consequence d'avec celles qui ne le sont pas, & c'est s'oter les
moyens de decouvrir ce qui se passe, & d'acquerir aucune part a
la confiance de ceux avec qui on est en commerce, lorsqu'on a
avec eux une continuelle reserve.
Un habile Negociateur ne laisse pas penetrer son secret avant
le temps propre ; mais il faut qu'il scache cacher cette reteniie
a ceux avec qui il traite ; qu'il leur temoigne de 1'ouverture &
de la confiance, & qu'il leur en donne des marques effectives dans les
choses qui ne sont point contraires a ses desseins ; ce qui les engage
insensiblement a y repondre par d'autres marques de confiance
en des choses souvent plus importantes ; il y a entre les Negocia-
teurs un commerce d'avis reciproques, il faut en donner, si on veut
en recevoir, & le plus habile est celui qui tire le plus d'utilite de ce
commerce, parce qu'il a des vue's plus etendiies, pour profiler des
conjonctures qui se presentent.
II ne sufHt pas pour former un bon Negociateur, qu'il ait toutes
les lumieres, toute la dexterite & les autres belles qualitez de
1'esprit ; il faut qu'il ait celles qui dependent des sentimens du
cceur ; il n'y a point d'employ qui demande plus d'elevation &
plus de noblesse dans les manieres d'agir.
Tout homme qui entre dans ces sortes d'employs avec un esprit
d'avarice, & un desir d'y chercher d'autres interets que ceux qui
sont attachez a la gloire de reiissir & de s'attirer par la 1'estime &
les recompenses de son Maitre, n'y sera jamais qu'un homme
tres-mediocre.
Pour soutenir la dignite attachee a ces employs, il faut que
celui qui en est revetu, soit liberal & magnifique, mais avec choix
& avec dessein, que sa magnificence paroisse dans son train, dans
sa livree & dans le reste de son equipage ; que la proprete, 1'abond-
ance, & meme la delicatesse, regne sur sa table : qu'il donne
souvent des fetes et des divertissemens aux principales personnes
de la Cour ou il se trouve, & au Prince meme, s'il est d'humeur
a y prendre part, qu'il tache d'entrer dans ses parties de divertis-
1 Observe that the word diplomate did not exist when Callieres wrote.
ADVICE TO DIPLOMATISTS 89
semens, mais d'une maniere agreable & sans le contraindre, &
qu'il y apporte toujours un air ouvert, complaisant, honnete et un
desir continuel de lui plaire.
S'il est dans un Etat populaire, il faut qu'il assiste a toutes
ses Diettes ou Assemblies, qu'il y tienne grande table pour y
attirer les Deputez, et qu'il s'y acquiere par ses honnestetez & par
ses presens, les plus accreditez & les plus capables de detourner
les resolutions prejudiciables aux interets de son Maitre, & de
favoriser ses desseins.
Une bonne table facilite les moyens de scavoir ce qui se passe,
lorsque les gens du pays ont la liberte d'aller manger chez 1'Ambas-
sadeur, & la depense qu'il y fait est non seulement honorable,
mais encore tres-utile a son Maitre lorsque le Negociateur la s$ait
bien mettre en oeuvre. C'est le propre de la bonne chere de con-
cilier les esprits, de faire naitre de la familiarite et de 1'ouverture
de coeur entre les convives.
On appelle un Ambassadeur un honorable Espion ; parce que
1'une des ses principales occupations est de decouvrir les secrets
des Cours ou il se trouve, & il s'acquitte mal de son employ s'il
ne s$ait pas faire les depenses necessaires pour gagner ceux qui sont
propres a 1'en instruire.
La fermete est encore qualite tres-necessaire a un Negociateur
. . . un homme ne timide n'est pas capable de bien conduire de
grands desseins ; il se laisse ebranler facilement dans les accidens
imprevus, la peur peut faire decouvrir son secret par les impressions
qu'elle fait sur son visage, & par le trouble qu'elle cause dans ses
discours ; elle peut meme lui faire prendre des mesures prejudi-
ciables aux affaires dont il est charge, & lorsque 1'honneur de son
Maitre est attaque, elle 1'empeche de le soutenir avec la vigueur &
la fermete si necessaires en ces occasions, & de repousser 1'injure
qu'on luy fait, avec cette noble fierte & cette audace qui accom-
pagnent un homme de courage. . . . Mais 1'irresolution est tres-
prejudiciable dans la conduite des grandes affaires ; il y faut un
esprit decisif, qui apres avoit balance les divers inconveniens,
sgache prendre son parti & le suivre avec fermete.
Un bon Negociateur ne doit jamais fonder le succes de ses
negociations sur de fausses promesses & sur des manquemens de
foy ; c'est une erreur de croire, suivant 1'opinion vulgaire, qu'il
faut qu'un habile Ministre soit un grand maitre en 1'art de fourber ;
la fourberie est un effet de la petitesse de 1'esprit de celui qui le
met en usage & c'est une marque qu'il n'a pas assez d'etendue
pour trouver les moyens de parvenir a ses fins, par les voyes justes
& raisonnables.
Un homme qui se possede & qui est toujours de sang froid
a un grand avantage a traiter avec un homme vif & plein de feu ;
& on peut dire qu'ils ne combattent pas avec armes egales. Pour
reiissir en ces sortes d'employs, il y faut beaucoup moins parler
qu'ecouter ; il faut du flegme de la retenue, beaucoup de discre-
tion & une patience a toute epreuve.
go ADVICE TO DIPLOMATISTS
Un homme engage dans les employs publics, doit considerer
qu'il est destine pour agir & non pas pour demeurer trop long-
temps enferme dans son cabinet, que sa principale etude doit etre
de s'instruire de ce qui se passe parmi les vivans, preferablement
a tout ce qui s'est passe chez les morts.
Un sage & habile Negociateur doit non seulement etre bon
Chretien ; mais paroitre toujours tel dans ses discours & dans sa
maniere de vivre.
II doit etre juste & modeste dans toutes ses actions, respec-
tueux avec les Princes, complaisant avec ses egaux, carressant avec
ses inferieurs, doux, civil & honneste avec tout le monde.
II faut qu'il s'accommode aux mceurs & aux Coutumes du Pays
ou il se trouve, sans y temoigner de la repugnance & sans les
mepriser, comme font plusieurs Negociateurs qui louent sans cesse
les manieres de vivre de leurs pays pour trouver a redire a celles
des autres.
Un Negociateur doit se persuader une fois pour toutes qu'il
n'est pas assez autorise pour reduire tout un pays a sa fa$on de
vivre, & qu'il est bien plus raisonnable qu'il s'accommode a celle
du Pays ou il est pour le peu de temps qu'il y doit rester.
II ne doit jamais blamer la forme du gouvernement & moins
encore la conduite du Prince avec qui il negocie, il faut au contraire
qu'il loue tout ce qu'il y trouve de louable sans affectation et sans
basse flaterie. II n'y a point de Nations & d'Etats qui n'ayent
plusieurs bonnes loix parmy quelques mauvaises, il doit loiier les
bonnes & ne point parler de celles qui ne le sont pas.
II est bon qu'il sache ou qu'il etudie 1'histoire du Pays ou il se
trouve, afin qu'il ait occasion d'entretenir le Prince ou les principaux
de sa Cour des grandes actions de leurs Ancetres & de celles qu'ils
ont faites eux-memes ce qui lui est fort capable de lui acquerir leur
inclination, qu'il les mette souvent sur ces matieres, & qu'il se les
fasse raconter par eux, parce qu'il est sur qu'il leur fera plaisir de
les ecouter, et qu'il doit rechercher a leur en faire.
Un Negociateur doit toujours faire des relations avantageuses,
des affaires de son Maitre dans le pays ou il se trouve, mais avec
discretion & en se conservant de la creance pour les avis qu'il
donne ; il faut pour cela qu'il evite de debiter des mensonges,
comme font souvent certains Ministres de nos voisins qui ne font
aucun scrupule de publier des avantages imaginaires en faveur
de ceux de leur party. Outre que le mensonge est indigne d'un
Ministre public, il fait plus de tort que de profit aux affaires de
son Maitre, parce qu'on n'ajoute plus de foy aux avis qui viennent
de sa part ; il est vray qu'il est difficile de ne pas recevoir quelque-
fois de faux avis, mais if faut les donner tels qu'on les a recus, sans
s'en rendre garand ; & un habile Negociateur doit etablir si bien la
reputation de sa bonne-foy dans 1'esprit du Prince & des Ministres
avec qui il negocie, qu'ils ne doutent point de la verite de ses avis
lorsqu'il les leur a donnez pour surs non plus que de la verite de
ses promesses.
ADVICE TO DIPLOMATISTS 91
Un Ambassadeur doit eviter de recevoir au nombre de ses
principaux domestiques des gens du Pays oil il se trouve, ce sont
d'ordinaire des espions qu'il introduit dans sa maison.
Quelques elevez que soient les Princes, ils sont homnies comme
nous, c'est-a-dire sujets aux memes passions, mais outre celles qui
leur sont communes avec les autres homines, 1'opinion qu'ils ont
de leur grandeur, & le pouvoir effectif qui est attache a leur rang
leur donnent des idees differentes de celles du commun des hommes,
& il faut qu'un bon Negociateur agisse avec eux par rapport a
leurs idees, s'il veut ne pas se tromper.
II est plus avantageux a un habile Negociateur de negocier
de vive voix, parce qu'il a plus d'occasions de decouvrir par ce
moyen les sentimens & les desseins de ceux avec qui il traite, &
d'employer sa dexterite a leur en inspirer de conformes a ses vues
par ses insinuations & par la force de ses raisons.
La plupart des hommes qui parlent d'affaires ont plus d'atten-
tion a ce qu'ils veulent dire qu'a ce qu'on leur dit, ils sont si pleins
de leurs idees qu'ils ne songent qu'a se faire ecouter, & ne peuvent
presque obtenir sur eux-memes d'ecouter a leur tour. . . . L'une
des qualitez le plus necessaire a un bon Negociateur est de scavoir
ecouter avec attention & avec reflexion tout ce qu'on luy veut
dire, & de repondre juste & bien a propos aux choses qu'on luy
represente, bien-loin de s'empresser a declarer tout ce qu'il scait &
tout ce qu'il desire. II n'expose d'abord le sujet de sa negociation
que jusqu'au point qu'il faut pour sender le terrain, il regie ses
discours & sa conduite sur ce qu'il decouvre tant par les reponses
qu'on lui fait, que par les mouvemens du visage, par le ton & 1'air
dont on lui parle ; & par toutes les autres circonstances qui peu-
vent contribuer a luy faire penetrer les pensees & les desseins de
ceux avec qui il traite, & apres avoir connu la situation & la portee
de leurs esprits, 1'etat de leurs affaires, leurs passions & leurs
interests, il' se sert de toutes ses connoissances pour les conduire
par degrez au but qu'il s'est propose.
C'est un des plus grands secrets de 1'art de negocier que de
ssavoir, pour ainsi dire, distiler goute a goute dans 1'esprit de
ceux avec qui on negocie les choses qu'on a interest de leur
persuader. . . .
Comme les affaires sont ordinairement epineuses par les diffi-
cultez qu'il y a d'ajuster des interests souvent opposez entre des
Princes & des Etats qui ne reconnoissent point de Juges de leurs
pretentions, il faut que celuy qui en est charge employe son adresse
a diminuer & a aplanir ces difficultez, non seulement par les
expediens que ses lumieres luy doivent suggerer, mais encore par
un esprit liant & souple qui scache se plier & s'accommoder aux
passions & meme aux caprices & aux preventions de ceux avec
qui il traite. Un homme difficultueux & d'un esprit dur & con-
trariant augmente les difficultez attachees aux affaires par la
rudesse de son humeur, qui aigrit & aliene les esprits, & il erige
souvent en affaires d'importance des bagatelles & des pretentions
92 ADVICE TO DIPLOMATISTS
mal fondees, dont il se fait des especes d'entraves qui 1'arretent a
tous momens dans le cours de sa negociation.
II ne se trouve presque point d'hommes qui veiiillent avoiier
qu'ils ont tort, ou qu'ils se trompent, & qui se depoiiillent entiere-
rnent de leurs sentimens en faveur de ceux d'autruy, quand on ne
fait que les contredire par des raisons opposees quelques bonnes
qu'elles puissent etre, rnais il y en a plusieurs qui sont capables de
se relacher de quelques-unes de leurs opinions, quand on leur en
accorde d'autres, ce qui se fait moyennant certains menagemens
propres a les faire revenir de leurs preventions ; il faut pour cela
avoir 1'art de leur alleguer des raisons capables de justifier ce qu'ils
ont fait ou ce qu'ils ont cru par le passe, afin de flater leur amour
propre, & leur faire connoitre ensuite des raisons plus fortes
appuyees sur leurs interets, pour les faire changer de sentiment et
de conduite . . . il faut eviter les contestations aigres & obstinees
avec les Princes & avec leurs Ministres & leur representer la raison
sans trop de chaleur, & sans vouloir avoir toujours le dernier
mot.
§ 144. Letter of the first Earl of Malmesbury to Lord
Camden, written at his request, on his nephew, Mr. James,
being destined for the foreign service :
Park Place, April n, 1813.
MY DEAR LORD,
It is not an easy matter in times like these, to write anything on the
subject of a Foreign Minister's conduct that might not be rendered
inapplicable to the purpose by daily events. Mr. James' best
school will be the advantage he will derive from the abilities of his
Principal, and from his own observations.
The first and best advice I can give a young man on entering
this career, is to listen, not to talk — at least, not more than is necessary
to induce others to talk. I have in the course of my life, by endea-
vouring to follow this method, drawn from my opponents much
information, and concealed from them my own views, much more
than by the employment of spies or money.
To be very cautious in any country, or at any court, of such as,
on your first arrival, appear the most eager to make your acquaint-
ance and communicate their ideas to you. I have ever found their
professions insincere, and their intelligence false. They have been
the first I have wished to shake off, whenever I have been so
imprudent as to give them credit for sincerity. They are either
persons who are not considered or respected in their own country,
or are put about you to entrap and circumvent you as newly
arrived.
Englishmen should be most particularly on their guard against
such men, for we have none such on our side the water, and are
ourselves so little coming towards foreigners, that we are astonished
and gratified when we find a different treatment from that which
strangers experience here ; but our reserve and ill manners are
ADVICE TO DIPLOMATISTS 93
infinitely less dangerous to the stranger than these premature and
hollow civilities.
To avoid what is termed abroad an attachement. If the other
party concerned should happen to be sincere, it absorbs too much
time, occupies too much your thoughts ; if insincere, it leaves you
at the mercy of a profligate and probably interested character.
Never to attempt to export English habits and manners, but
to conform as far as possible to those of the country where you
reside — to do this even in the most trivial things — to learn to speak
their language, and never to sneer at what may strike you as
singular and absurd. Nothing goes to conciliate so much, or to
amalgamate you more cordially with its inhabitants, as this very
easy sacrifice of your national prejudices to theirs.
To keep your cypher and all your official papers under a very
secure lock and key ; but not to boast of your precautions, as Mr.
Drake did to Mehee de la Touche.
Not to allow any opponent to carry away any official document,
under the pretext that he wishes " to study it more carefully " ;
let him read it as often as he wishes, and, if it is necessary, allow
him to take minutes of it, but both in jour presence.
Not to be carried away by any real or supposed distinctions
from the sovereign at whose Court you reside, or to imagine,
because he may say a few more commonplace sentences to you
than to your colleagues, that he entertains a special personal pre-
dilection for you, or is more disposed to favour the views and
interests of your Court than if he did not notice you at all. This
is a species of royal stage-trick, often practised, and for which it is
right to be prepared.
Whenever you receive discretionary instructions (that is, when
authority is given you) in order to obtain any very desirable end,
to decrease your demands or increase your concessions according
as you find the temper and disposition of the Court where you are
employed, and to be extremely careful not to let it be supposed
that you have any such authority ; to make a firm, resolute stand
on the first offer you are instructed to make, and, if you find " this
nail will not drive," to bring forward your others most gradually, and
not, either from an apprehension of not succeeding at all, or from
an over-eagerness to succeed too rapidly, injure essentially the
interests of your Court.
It is scarcely necessary to say that no occasion, no provocation,
no anxiety to rebut an unjust accusation, no idea, however tempt-
ing, of promoting the object you have in view, can need, much less
justify, a falsehood. Success obtained by one is a precarious and
baseless success. Detection would ruin, not only your own
reputation for ever, but deeply wound the honour of your Court.
If, as frequently happens, an indiscreet question, which seems to
require a distinct answer, is put to you abruptly by an artful
minister, parry it either by treating it as an indiscreet question, or
get rid of it by a grave and serious look : but on no account
94 ADVICE TO DIPLOMATISTS
contradict the assertion flatly if it be true, or admit it as true, if false
and of a dangerous tendency.
In ministerial conferences, to exert every effort of memory to
carry away faithfully and correctly what you hear (what you say in
them yourself you will not forget) ; and, in drawing your report,
to be most careful it should be faithful and correct. I dwell the
more on this (seemingly a useless hint) because it is a most seducing
temptation, and one to which we often give way almost uncon-
sciously, in order to give a better turn to a phrase, or to enhance
our skill in negotiation ; but we must remember we mislead and
deceive our Government by it.
I am, etc.1
§ 145. A good diplomatist will always endeavour to put
himself in the position of the person with whom he is treating,
and try to imagine what he would wish, do and say, under
those circumstances. As Callieres observed :—
" II faut qu'il se depoiiille en quelque sorte de ses propres senti-
mens pour se mettre en la place du Prince [say, the government]
avec qui il traite, qu'il se transforme, pour ainsi dire en luy, qu'il
entre dans ses opinions & dans ses inclinations, & qu'il se disc a
lui-meme apres 1'avoir connu tel qu'il est, si j'etois en la place de ce
Prince avec le meme pouvoir, les memes passions & les memes prejugez, quels
effets produiroient en moy les choses quefay a luy representer ? '
§ 146. The man who speaks in a foreign tongue, not his
own, is to a certain extent wearing a disguise. If one wants
to discover his ideas de derriere la tete encourage him to use his
own language. Prince Bismarck is reported to have said :
" Der alte (ich verstand Meyendorff) hat mir einmal gesagt :
Trauen Sie keinen Englander der das Franzosische mit
richtigem Accent spricht, und ich habe das meist bestatigt
gefunden. Nur Odo Russell mochte ich ausnehmen." This
remark cuts both ways. On the other hand, a minister who
can spare time to study the language of the country to which
he is sent, will find its acquisition of great advantage. The
surest way to gain admission to the heart of a nation is to give
this proof of a desire to cultivate intimate relations with, and
to understand the feelings of, the people.
§ 147. A diplomatist must be on his guard to protect the
dignity of the state which he represents. Thus, the Due de
Mortemart, French ambassador at Petersburg, having been
invited to attend a performance of the Te Deum in celebration
of Russian victories over the Turks, learnt that it was to be
given in a church decorated with flags taken from the French,
and on this ground declined to be present. This course was
1 Diaries and Correspondence, iv. 420.
ADVICE TO DIPLOMATISTS 95
approved by both his own government and by the Emperor
of Russia.1 In October, 1831, after the capture of Warsaw
from the Polish insurgents by the Russian troops, M. Bourgoing,
the French minister, refused to be present at a Te Deum ordered
to celebrate the triumph of the Russian Government, and he
informed Count Nesselrode of his intention to absent himself,
his reason being the strong sympathy for the Poles which was
felt in France. On the same day he dined at an official
banquet given at the Austrian embassy, went publicly the
next day to the theatre, and passed the evening at a private
house. It does not appear that his conduct was made a
ground of complaint to the French Government by the
Emperor.2 But it is scarcely admissible for an envoy to refuse
to be present on such occasions, merely on the ground of
friendship between his own country and the belligerent over
whose defeat the rejoicing is held.
§ 148. The head of a mission should be careful that the
affairs, the manners and customs, of the country in which he
is residing are not criticised at his table. What he or his
guests may say on such subjects is sure to be repeated to his
disadvantage.
§ 149. A diplomatist should not hold government bonds or
shares in a limited liability company in the territory of the
state where he is accredited, and in general, neither real nor
personal property which is under the local jurisdiction. A
fortiori he should not engage in trade or hold directorships,
or speculate on the Stock Exchange. He must not incur the
risk of his judgment as to the financial stability of the state
or of local commercial undertakings being deflected by his
personal interest.
§ 150. A diplomatist must be on his guard against the notion
that his own post is the centre of international politics, and
against an exaggerated estimate of the part assigned to him
in the general scheme. Those in whose hands is placed the
supreme direction of foreign relations are alone able to decide
what should be the main object of state policy, and to estimate
the relative value of political friendships and alliances.
§ 151. In former times a wide discretion in the interpretation
of his instructions was permitted to an envoy, in case it became
necessary to take a sudden decision, but in these days, when
telegraphic communication is universal, if he is of opinion that
his instructions are not perfectly adapted to secure the object
in view, he can easily ask for the modification he judges to be
1 Garden, Traitf complet de la Diplomatic, ii. 84.
2 F. de Martens, Recueil des Traite's, etc., xv. 140.
96 ADVICE TO DIPLOMATISTS
desirable. In doing this he will be well advised to explain
his reasons at full length. It is better to spend money on
telegrams than to risk the failure of a negotiation.
§ 152. A diplomatic agent should beware of communicating
the text of the instructions he receives, whether by telegram
or written despatch, unless he is specifically told to do so. It
sometimes happens that he is told to read a despatch to the
minister for foreign affairs, and to leave with him a copy.
With this exception, the ambassador should generally confine
himself to making the sense of his instructions known by note,
or by word of mouth. In communicating the contents of a
cyphered telegram he should be especially careful so to change
the wording and order of sentences as to afford no clue to the
cypher used by his government.
The case of Bulwer at Madrid, in 1848, who enclosed, in
an official note to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs,
a copy of a despatch of March 16, marked " confidential,"
in which Palmerston instructed him to offer to the Spanish
Government advice on the internal affairs of the kingdom,
is an example of the unwisdom of putting in writing language
which, if used orally, would have been much less likely to
give offence. (See § 505.)
§ 153. Before sending home the report of any important
conversation with the minister for foreign affairs, in which
the latter has made statements or given promises that may
afterwards be relied on as evidence of intentions or under-
takings of the government in whose name he is assumed to
have spoken, it may be advisable to submit to him the draft
report for any observations he may desire to make. It is said
that Lord Normanby, when ambassador at Paris, reproduced
a conversation of M. Guizot's, which the latter asserted was
incorrect, and he pointed out that the report of a conversation
made by a foreign agent can only be regarded as authentic
and irrefragable when it has previously been submitted to the
person whose language is being reported. He added that if
Lord Normanby had conformed to this practice, he would
have spoken otherwise and perhaps better.1
§ 154. In concluding any written agreement with the state
to which he is accredited, the agent should take ample time
to study the document carefully so as to avoid any ambiguity
or imperfection in the terms employed. The use of clear and
definite language should in all cases be secured, the meaning
of which shall not be open to doubt or dispute.
1 Ollivier, L'Empire Liberal, i. 322.
ADVICE TO DIPLOMATISTS 97
§ 155. Despatches, their style :
' II faut que le stile des depeches soit net & concis, sans y employer
de paroles inutiles & sans y rien obmettre de ce qui sert a la clarte
du discours, qu'il regne une noble simplicite, aussi eloignee d'une
vaine affectation de science & de bel esprit, que de negligence &
de grossierete, & qu'elles soient egalement epurees de certaines
fa<jons de parler nouvelles & affectees, & de celles qui sont basses
& hors du bel usage. II y a peu de choses qui puissent demeurer
secrettes parmi les hommes qui ont un long commerce ensemble,
des lettres interceptees & plusieurs autres accidens imprevus les
decouvrent souvent, & on en pourrait citer ici divers exemples ;
ainsi il est de la sagesse d'un bon Negociateur de songer lorsqu'il
ecrit que ses depeches peuvent etre vues du Prince ou des Ministres
dont il parle, & qu'il doit les faire de telle sorte qu'ils n'ayent pas
de sujet legitime de s'en plaindre.1 "
§ 156. An English writer of despatches should be careful
to eschew Gallicisms or idioms borrowed from the language of
the country where he is serving. Such phrases as "it goes
without saying 3:> (for " of course "), " the game is not worth
the candle " (for " it is not worth while "), " in this connexion,"
" that gives furiously to think " (for " that is a serious subject
for reflection "), and others adopted from the current style of
journalism, are to be avoided. " Transaction " for " com-
promise " ; " franchise of duties !: for " freedom from
[customs] duties"; "category" for "class"; " suscitate " for
" raise " ; " destitution ' for " dismissal " ; " rally them-
selves to " for " come round to," and " minimal " for " very
small " are also cases in point. " Psychological moment " is
a mistranslation of " d^tsj psychologische Moment," which
properly means " the psychological factor." Never place an
adjective before a noun, if it can be spared ; it only weakens
the effect of a plain statement. Above all^ do not attempt to
be witty. Each despatch should treafbT one subject only, and
tKe paragraphs should be numbered to admit of convenient
reference. To keep a diary of events and of conversations is
very useful.
§ 157. One of the chief functions of the head of a mission
is to train the junior members of the service in the right
performance of their duties, especially in the preparation of
reports on subjects of interest, in drafting despatches and in
paraphrasing the text of cyphered telegrams. This last should
be done in such a manner as to afford no clue to the order of
words in the original.
1 Callieres, op. tit., 298, 304.
H
98 ADVICE TO DIPLOMATISTS
§ 158. The duties of the head of a mission include also the
furtherance of the legitimate private interests of his own
countrymen residing in or passing through the country to
which he is accredited, the giving of advice to them when in
difficulties, and especially intervention on their behalf, if they
invoke his assistance when they are arrested and detained in
custody. This should be done through the ministry for
foreign affairs, to which alone he is entitled to address
himself. He should not, however, interfere in civil actions
that may be brought against them, or in criminal matters
except where manifest injustice or a departure from the strict
course of legal procedure has taken place. He must on no
account occupy himself with the interests of any but the
subjects or ressortissants (a much wider term) of his own
sovereign or state, and especially not with those of the subjects
of the local sovereign.
§ 159. At the present day the commercial intercourse of
nations constitutes a sphere of great and increasing importance,
and a diplomatic agent may often be engaged in the conduct
of negotiations with the government to which he is accredited,
with a view of fostering and developing relations of trade and
commerce between the two countries. Recently Mr. Lansing,
a former Secretary of State of the United States, has observed :
" Formerly diplomacy was confined almost exclusively to political
and legal subjects, and the training of the members of the diplomatic
service was devoted to that branch of international intercourse.
To-day our embassies and legations are dealing more and more
with commercial, financial and industrial questions." 1
At many capitals the diplomatic agent is now assisted by
a commercial counsellor, secretary, or attache, who may also
be charged with special functions in the way of furnishing
periodical reports on matters of trade and commerce to his
government.
§ 1 60. The diplomatic agent may grant passports to his own
countrymen and certify signatures to legal documents on their
behalf. But in British practice, and in that of most important
countries, the duties of issuing passports and of performing
such notarial acts as are allowable under the laws of the foreign
state wherein they reside, are now delegated to consular
officers.
§ 161. A diplomatist ought not to publish any writing on
international politics either anonymously or with his name.
The rule of the British service is very strict in regard to the
1 Lay, Foreign Service of the United States, 120.
ADVICE TO DIPLOMATISTS 99
publication of experiences in any country where a diplomatist
has served, without the previous sanction of the Secretary of
State, and it applies to retired members as well as to those
still on active service.
§ 162. Bribery.
The books generally condemn the employment of bribes
to obtain secret information or to influence the course
of negotiation. Many cases are, however, recorded in
history of such proceedings being practised on a large scale,
and with considerable effect. Besides gifts, the furnishing of
articles to the press, or information which editors would not
be able to secure otherwise, was also found of great utility for
influencing public opinion. " L'ambassadeur [Count Lieven]
re9Ut enfin Fordre d'exercer, par 1'entremise de la presse
periodique, une pression sur 1'opinion publique et de demontrer
au peuple anglais que son interet le plus naturel exigeait
1' alliance et 1'amitie de la Russie pour le meilleur developpe-
ment de son commerce et de son Industrie. " *• This was a
century or more since, but instances of more recent date could
no doubt be quoted.
" If an envoy seek by means of presents to secure the goodwill
or friendship of those who can assist him in attaining his objects,
but without either expressly or tacitly asking from them anything
wrong, this is not to be regarded as bribery." 2
" It must be left to the ingenuity of the envoy to form connections
which will enable him to obtain news and to verify what he receives.
The Law of Nations appears to hold that it is not forbidden to
obtain information by means of bribery ; at least no one doubts
the daily practice of this expedient, and though it has often been
censured, in other cases it has been not obscurely admitted. . . .
An uniform policy, armed with strength and honesty, has little to
apprehend from what is concealed, in either foreign or domestic
affairs, and steady attention to what passes around us will mostly
enable us to divine what is secret." 3
It may be that the Law of Nations is not concerned with
bribery. It seems rather a question of morality.
•
1 F. de Martens, Recueil des Traith, etc., xi. 212.
2 G. F. de Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, ii. 1 16.
3 Schmalz, Europdisches Volkerrecht, 98.
CHAPTER X
LATIN AND FRENCH PHRASES
§ 163. Ultimatum. — This term signifies a note or memorandum
in which a government or its diplomatic representative sets forth
the conditions on which the state in whose name the declaration
is made will insist. It should contain an express demand for a
prompt, clear and categorical reply, and it may also require the
answer to be given within a fixed limit of time. This is as
much as to say that an ultimatum embodies the final condition
or concession, " the last word," so to speak, of the person
negotiating.1 It ordinarily, but not always, implies a threat to
use force, if the demand is not complied with.
§ 164. A good example of this is contained in the last para-
graph of a note addressed by the Russian charge d'affaires at
Constantinople to the Reis-Effendi in 1826, which was thus
worded :
Le soussigne terminera la tache que lui imposent les instructions
de son souverain, en declarant a la Porte Ottomane que, si, centre
la legitime attente de 1'Empereur, les mesures indiquees dans les
trois demandes qui forment le present office n'auraient pas ete
mises completement a execution dans le delai de six semaines, il
quitterait aussitot Constantinople. II est facile aux ministres de Sa
Hautesse de prevoir les consequences immediates de cet evenement.
Le soussigne, etc.
MlNCIAKI.2
Constantinople,
le 5 avril, 1826.
§ 165. Another case of ultimatum in the ordinary sense
occurred in 1850, when, by the orders of Palmerston, the
British minister at Athens presented a demand for the settle-
ment of the Don Pacifico claim within twenty-four hours,
failing which a blockade of the coasts of Greece would be
established and Greek merchant ships seized.3
The note from the British minister to the Greek Minister
1 Cussy, Dictionnaire du Diplomate et du Consul, s.v. ; Oppenheim, ii. § 95.
2 Garden, Traitl Complet de Diplomatic, iii. 344,
3 Br. and For. State Papers, xxxix. 49 1 .
LATIN AND FRENCH PHRASES 101
for Foreign Affairs of Jan. 5/17, 1850, after making a formal
demand for reparation for the wrongs and injuries inflicted
in Greece upon British and Ionian subjects, and the satisfaction
of their claims within twenty-four hours, announced that if the
demand were not literally complied with within that period
after the note had been placed in the hands of the Hellenic
Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Commander-in-Chief of Her
Majesty's naval forces in the Mediterranean would have no
other alternative (however painful the necessity might be to
him) than to act at once on the orders he had received from
Her Majesty's Government.1
§ 1 66. Art. I of the Hague Convention No. 3 of 1907
declares that :
" Les Puissances contractantes reconnaissent que les hostilites
entre elles ne doivent pas commencer sans un avertissement pre-
alable et non equivoque, qui aura, soit la forme d'une declaration
de guerre motivee, soit celle d'un ultimatum avec declaration de
guerre conditionnelle."
§ 167. Austrian ultimatum to Serbia. This took the form of
a note, dated July 23, 1914, to the Serbian Government, con-
taining various demands, and requiring an answer by six
o'clock in the evening of the 25th. The reply of the Serbian
Government not being regarded as satisfactory, the Austro-
Hungarian minister left Belgrade, and war was declared
against Serbia on the 28th.
§ 1 68. On July 31, 1914, the German ambassador in Paris
asked the President of the Council (who was also minister for
foreign affairs) what would be the attitude of France in the
case of war between Germany and Russia, and said he would
return for a reply at one o'clock on the following day. On
August 3, at 6.45, alleging acts of aggression committed by
French aviators, he communicated a declaration of war.
This does not appear to have been preceded by an ultimatum.
§ 169. At midnight on July 31, 1914, the German ambas-
sador at St. Petersburg, by order of his government, informed
the Russian minister for foreign affairs that if within twelve
hours Russia had not begun to demobilise, Germany would
be compelled to give the order for mobilisation, and at
7.10 P.M. on August i the German Government, on the
alleged ground that Russia had refused this demand, pre-
sented a declaration of war. The demand for demobilisation
was in the nature of an ultimatum.
1 See also Ollivier, L'Empire Literal, ii. 320 ; and F. de Martens, Recueil des
Trails, etc., xii. 262.
102 LATIN AND FRENCH PHRASES
§ 170. The German ultimatum to Belgium of August 2, 1914,
demanded permission to march through Belgian territory and
threatened to regard Belgium as an enemy
"sollte Belgian den deutschen Truppen feindlich entgegentreten,
insbesondere ihreni Vorgehen durch Widerstand der Maas-
Befestigungen oder durch Zerstorungen von Eisenbahnen, Strassen,
Tunneln oder sonstigen Kunstbauten Schwierigkeiten bereiten."
The note of the German minister presenting this demand did
not mention any length of time for an answer, but it appears
from the telegram of August 3 sent out by the Belgian minister
for foreign affairs to the Belgian ministers at St. Petersburg,
Berlin, London, Paris, Vienna and The Hague, that the
German minister had verbally required an answer within
twelve hours.
§ 171. On the same occasion the British Government, on
July 3 1 , asked the German and French Governments to engage
to respect the neutrality of Belgium, adding that it was
important to have an early reply. France at once acceded
to the request, but, no reply having been received from the
German Government, Great Britain on August 4 protested
against a violation of the treaty by which Belgium was con-
stituted a neutralized state, and requested an assurance that her
neutrality would be respected by Germany. Later in the day
a telegram was sent to Berlin, instructing the ambassador to
ask for the same assurance to respect the neutrality of Belgium
as had been given by France, and for a satisfactory reply to
the requests of July 3 1 and of that of the morning of August 4
to be received in London by midnight. These requests,
especially the last, amounted in substance to an ultimatum.
§ 172. But the meaning of ultimatum is not restricted to the
sense which it bears in the foregoing examples. During the
course of a negotiation it may imply the maximum amount of
concession which will be made in order to arrive at an agree-
ment, where no resort to compulsion is contemplated in case
of refusal. Cases have occurred in which it has been used as
denoting an irreducible minimum which would be accepted,
a plan or scheme of arrangement which it was sought to
impose, a maximum of what would be conceded, and the like.
§ 173. Uti possidetis and Status quo.
These two phrases often amount to the same thing, and
are used to denote actual possession by right of conquest,
occupation or otherwise, at some particular moment, which
has to be defined with as much exactness as possible in the
LATIN AND FRENCH PHRASES 103
proposals for a treaty of peace, or in the treaty itself.1 But
while uti possidetis relates to the possession of territory, the
status quo may be the previously existing situation in regard to
other matters, e.g. to privileges enjoyed by one of the parties
at the expense of the other, such as the French privilege of
taking and drying fish on a portion of the coast of
Newfoundland.
In the memorial of the King of France of March 16, 1761,
it was proposed
that the two Crowns shall remain in possession of what they have
conquered from each other, and that the situation in which they
shall stand on the ist September, 1761, in the East Indies, on the
ist July in the West Indies and Africa, and on the ist May following
in Europe, shall be the position which shall serve as a basis to the
treaty which may be negotiated between the two Powers.2
The British reply accepted the status quo, but it is alleged
to have said nothing " with regard to the epochs." It did,
in fact, say 3 that
" expeditions at sea requiring preparations of long standing, and
depending on navigations which are uncertain, as well as on the
concurrence of seasons, in places which are often too distant for
orders relative to their execution to be adapted to the common
vicissitudes of negotiations, which for the most part are subject to
disappointments and delays, and are always fluctuating and pre-
carious : from whence it necessarily results, that the nature of such
operations is by no means susceptible, without prejudice to the
party who employs them, of any other epochs than those which
have reference to the day of signing the treaty of peace."
The French Government took this to mean that the date of
the treaty of peace should be the epoch to fix the possessions
of the two Powers, and delivered a memorial of April 19,
insisting on the dates previously proposed by them. On this,
the British Government replied that they were ready to
negotiate as to the dates. The French envoy to London was
furnished with " extremely simple instructions."
The basis of them regarded the proposition Uti Possidetis and
he was enjoined to demand of the British Minister, whether the
King of England accepted of the periods annexed to the proposi-
tion of Status quo, and if His Britannic Majesty did not accept of
them, what new periods he proposed to France ? 4
1 Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, 246, defines uti possidetis by the
belligerents of the territory occupied by their armies at the end of the war, but this
seems too absolute. Cf. Oppenheim, ii. § 263.
2 Jenkinson, iii. 91. 3 Ibid., 95, 96. * Ibid., 108.
104 LATIN AND FRENCH PHRASES
The British proposal in reply was that July, September and
November should respectively be the periods for fixing the
Uti possidetis. So much difficulty arose from this original
proposal of Uti possidetis, that it was ultimately replaced by a
series of mutual concessions of territory to take place in
consequence of the treaty which might be eventually con-
cluded. In the preliminaries of peace finally signed at
Fontainebleau, November 3, 1762, it was provided, for
instance, by Art. 7 that Great Britain should restore the fortresses
in Guadeloupe, Mariegalante, Desirade, Martinique and Belle-
isle l in the same condition as when they were conquered by
the British arms, i.e. in statu quo, and the French trading posts in
India " in the condition in which they now are," i.e. also in
statu quo.2 These stipulations were renewed in the definitive
treaty of peace of February 10, 1 763.3
In stipulating for uti possidetis or for status quo, it is conse-
quently of the utmost importance to fix the date to which
either expression is to relate.
When on the conclusion of a treaty of peace the belligerents
agree mutually to restore all their conquests, they are said to
revert to the status quo ante helium* In 1813 Napoleon drafted
instructions for his plenipotentiaries to the Congress of Prague :
"Quant aux bases, n'en indiquer qu'une seule : 1' Uti possidetis ante
bellum," meaning by that the relative possessions of France and
the Continental alliance before the invasion of Russia in i8i2.5
In May 1850 the French President, Prince Napoleon,
demanded of the Porte that the privileges accorded to the Latin
Church by the treaty between Francis I and Soliman should
be upheld, without regard to those granted to the Greek
Church by various firmans. The Emperor Nicholas resented
this action, and addressed a letter to the Sultan Abdul Medjid
in which he insisted on the maintenance of the status quo with
respect to the Holy Places, i.e. the arrangements that had
existed up to that time in virtue of the firmans.6 This is a
case in which status quo has nothing to do with the state of
territorial possession.
English writers ordinarily use the form status quo. Statu
quo is the foreign expression for the same thing.
§ 1 74. Ad referendum and Sub spe rati.
When the sovereign whom a diplomatic agent represents,
1 Jenkinson, iii. 1 70. 2 Ibid., 171. 3 Ibid., 177.
4 Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, 246.
5 Sorel, L 'Europe et la Revolution frangaise, viii. 159.
6 Ollivier, U Empire Liberal, ii. 323.
LATIN AND FRENCH PHRASES 105
or to whom he is accredited, dies, the mission of the agent is,
strictly speaking, at an end. During the interval which must
elapse before he can receive fresh credentials, he may carry
on a negotiation which has already been commenced, sub spe
rati, i.e. in the expectation that what he promises will be
ratified by his sovereign.1
It has also been said that when a proposal is made to an
agent, and the case is urgent and the distance from his own
country is considerable, he may accept or decline it sub spe
rati.2 But in these days, when telegraphic communication is
possible between capitals even the most distant from each
other, a prudent diplomatist will take care not to commit his
government by a provisional acceptance of what is not
warranted by his previous instructions. The utmost he will
do will be to receive the proposal ad referendum. Sub spe rati
may be explained to indicate that the agent is himself inclined
to favour the proposal, but there is no reason why he should
compromise either himself or his government.
§ 175. Ne varietur.
Louis Philippe wrote to Guizot, July 24, 1846 :
' Une lettre de vous a Bresson, qu'il lui serait enjoint de lire a
sa Majeste, et dont il devrait lui demander de laisser entre ses
mains une copie ne varietur,"
i.e. from which no departure can be permitted. Again, an
acte authentique is an instrument certified by a third autho-
rity who is competent for the purpose. It has a public and
permanent character. It is perfect in itself, without ratifica-
tion. It is inserted in the minutes of the notaries, ne varietur*
The Final Protocol of the Locarno Conference, 1925, in
reciting the various treaties and conventions prepared and
initialled at that conference, continued :
" Ces actes, des a present paraphes ne varietur., porteront la date de
ce jour, les representants des parties interessees convenant de se
rencontrer a Londres le ier decembre prochain, pour proceder, au
cours d'une meme reunion, a la formalite de la signature des actes
qui les concernent."
Nevertheless some slight amendments in grammar and
spelling were found necessary, and these were agreed to by
the plenipotentiaries at the time of the signature of the
instruments on December i, 1925.
1 de Martens-Geffken, i. 187. 2 Pradier-Fodere, i. 370.
3 de Maulde-la-Claviere, ii. 3, 199.
io6 LATIN AND FRENCH PHRASES
§ 176. A condition sine qua non denotes a condition that
must be accepted, if an agreement is desired by the party to
whom it is proposed.
§ 1 77. Casus belli and Casusfaderis. These terms appear to be
sometimes confused.
The former signifies an act or proceeding of a provocative
nature on the part of one Power which, in the opinion of the
offended Power, justifies it in making or declaring war. Pal-
merston defined it in 1853 as " a case which would justify war." *
The latter is an offensive act or proceeding of one state
towards another, or any occurrence bringing into existence
the condition of things which entitles the latter to call upon
its ally to fulfil the undertakings of the alliance existing
between them, i.e. a case contemplated by the treaty of
alliance.
At the Congress of Paris, April 15, 1856, the English,
French and Austrian plenipotentiaries signed a convention by
which a reciprocal engagement was entered into to regard
as a casus belli any violation of the main treaty, and any
attempt, no matter from what quarter it might be made, on
the independence and integrity of the Ottoman empire ; it
also fixed the naval and military contingents to be mobilised
in case this casus faderis should arise.2
§ 178. There are certain French terms used in diplomacy
for which it is not easy to find an exact rendering in English.
Demarche is defined by Littre as : " Ce qu'on fait pour la
reussite de quelque chose," and one of the examples he gives
is : 'la demarche que FAngleterre avait faite du cote de
Rome." This " something " may have been what in English
might be described as an offer, a suggestion, an advance, a
demand, an attempt, a proposal, a protestation, a remon-
strance, a request, an overture, a warning, a threat, a step,
a measure — according to circumstances, and unless the trans-
lator happens to know what the circumstances were under
which the demarche was made, he will be at a loss for a precise
English equivalent.
§ 179. Fin de non-recevoir is originally a legal term. Littre
explains^ or fins as
' toute espece de demande, pretention ou exception presentee au
tribunal par les parties. Fin de non-recevoir, refus d'admettre une
action judiciaire, en pretendant, par un motif pris en dehors de la
1 Ashley, Life of Lord Palmerston, i. 35. 2 Ollivier, L' Empire Liberal, ii. 363.
LATIN AND FRENCH PHRASES 107
demande elle-meme et de son mal-fonde, que celui qui veut 1'intenter
n'est pas recevable dans sa demande.1 Dans le langage general,
fin de non-recevoir, refus pour des raisons extrinseques. Repondre
par des fins de non recevoir. Opposer des fins de non-recevoir."
Cussy says :
" Cette locution, en usage dans les tribunaux, signifie les excep-
tions diverses qui forment autant d'obstacles a ce que le juge saisi
d'une instance puisse s'occuper, au moins immediatement, de la
connaissance et de 1'appreciation de la demande ; c'est un moyen
de droit prejudiciel, par lequel on repousse une action, sans qu'il
soit necessaire d'examiner le fond de la contestation." 2
This latter explanation corresponds better to the notion
conveyed when the expression is used to describe the diplo-
matic practice which consists in rejecting an official complaint
or demand without examining into the merits.
" Evasive reply " may be sometimes the best rendering.
§ 1 80. Prendre Acte. Donmr Acte.
The legal definition of acte is " a declaration made before
a court, whether spontaneously or in consequence of an order
of a court, and which has been certified to have been made."
In diplomacy it is applied to any document recording an
international agreement by which an obligation is under-
taken ; such as, for instance, the convention for the suspension
of hostilities of April 23, 1814, signed between France and
the four allied Great Powers.3 " Instrument " is the proper
English equivalent, though we sometimes find it rendered by
" Act."
Prendre acte is to declare that one will avail one's self,
should the necessity arise, of a declaration or admission made
by the other party, without conceding that one is in any way
bound by that declaration. " To take note of" is perhaps
the English equivalent. Yet it may sometimes conveniently
be rendered by " recognise " or " acknowledge."
" Mais les sagesses tardives ne suffisent point ; et meme quand
elles veulent etre prudentes, 1'esprit politique manque aux nations
qui ne sont pas exercees a faire elles-memes leurs affaires et leur
destinee. Dans le deplorable etat ou 1'entreprise d'un egoisme
h6roique et chimerique avait jete la France, il n'y avait evidem-
ment qu'une conduite a tenir ; reconnaitre Louis XVIII, prendre
1 The nearest English legal equivalent is perhaps " demurrer," or " objection
in point of law."
2 Dictionnaire du diplomate, etc., s.v., 323.
3 Mlmoires du Pr. de Talleyrand, ii. 1 75, in the preamble.
io8 LATIN AND FRENCH PHRASES
acte de ses dispositions liberates et se concerter avec lui pour traiter
avec les etrangers." x
Donner acte is to give recognition to another party that he
has performed a certain necessary act.
§ 181. Donner la main (in English, give the hand, German
Oberhand] means to give the seat of honour, i.e. on the right
hand of the host or diplomatic agent receiving a visit from a
person of lower rank. The Elector Max Joseph of Bavaria
was reported in 1 765 to have bestowed this mark of deference
on the Imperial Ambassador " which certainly no crowned
head in Europe would do." 2 In the instructions to Lord
Gower, on his appointment as ambassador to Paris in 1790,
he is directed to act in accordance with the Order in Council
of August 26, 1668, and " to take the hand of envoys " in
his own house, i.e. to place them on his left hand.3 See also
on this point § 459.
§ 182. Denoncer un traite is to give notice of intention to
terminate a treaty, to the other contracting party or parties.
" Denounce a treaty " is not good English.
§ 183. National. This French term, of which the conve-
nience must be admitted, corresponds in English to " subject
or citizen." A similar convenience attaches to the term
ressortissantj one who is subject to a particular jurisdiction,
which comprises both citizens of the French Republic and
persons under its protection, whether as subjects of a protected
state, such as Tunis, or the natives of Morocco, who, in
accordance with former treaty stipulations existing with that
country, were entitled to French protection as being semsars or
brokers, and mokhalata or employes of French commercial
houses.4
1 Guizot, Memoires, etc., i. 95.
2 Temperley, Frederick the Great and Kaiser Joseph, 67.
3 Browning, The Despatches of Earl Gower, 2.
4 See also Annual Digest, etc. (1927-8), Case No. 24.
BOOK II
DIPLOMATIC AGENTS IN GENERAL
CHAPTER XI
DIPLOMATIC AGENTS, AND THE RIGHT OF
LEGATION
§ 184. Diplomatic agents is a general term denoting the persons
who carry on the political relations of the states which they
represent, in conjunction with the minister for foreign affairs
.of the country where they are appointed to reside. They are
also styled " ministres publics " in French. It is not meant
that their official intercourse is limited to the head of the
foreign department. Matters which come under the heading
of current business, or the details of diplomatic negotiations,
of which the principles have already been settled, may be
and usually are discussed with one of the minister's immediate
subordinates. Questions affecting the vital relations of the
two nations will, however, be treated with the head of the
office.
§ 185. The duty of the diplomatic agent is to watch over
the maintenance of good relations, to protect the interests of
his countrymen, and to report to his government on all
matters of importance, without being always charged with
the conduct of a specific negotiation. At the more important
posts, the agent is assisted in furnishing reports of a special
character by military, naval, air and commercial attaches.
§ 1 86. In addition to the head of the permanent mission,
other diplomatic agents are sometimes accredited for special
purposes of a ceremonial character, to represent the sovereign
or state at a coronation or other state ceremony, or it may be
to invest a foreign sovereign with a high decoration.
§ 187. Every recognised independent state is held to be
entitled to send diplomatic agents to represent its interests in
no DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
other states, and reciprocally to receive such agents, but there
is no obligation in international law to exercise either right.1
§ 1 88. In treaties with some Oriental states the right to
have a diplomatic representative has been expressly stipulated,
as with China, for instance, and formerly with Japan. This
practice, however, dates from an earlier period. In 1614 it
was provided by a treaty between Sweden and Holland that
the two states should mutually accredit resident envoys.
Holland had a similar agreement, also of 1614, with Branden-
burg, Anhalt, Baden, Oettingen and Wiirttemberg. The
Treaty of Belgrade, 1739, between Russia and the Porte,
provided that the former might have a resident minister at
Constantinople, of whatever category the Russian sovereign
might determine ; and by Article V of the Treaty of Kutchuk-
Kainardji, 1774 (January 10, 1775), it was settled that the
Russian representative should always be of the second class,
taking rank immediately after the Imperial German minister ;
but if the latter were of a higher or lower category, then the
Russian to have precedence immediately after the Dutch,
or, in his absence, after the Venetian ambassador.2 Great
Britain, up to December 1914, maintained no regular diplo-
matic intercourse with the Holy See ; formerly, before the
annexation of Rome to the Kingdom of Italy, a secretary of
the British legation at Florence usually resided at Rome as
the unofficial medium of official communication. Prussia had
a legation at Rome, while not receiving a nuncio at Berlin ;
so also Russia.
§ 189. Within recent years a number of treaties have been
concluded, notably by Turkey and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, which by their terms provide for the
establishment of diplomatic relations and treatment of diplo-
matic agents. The Treaty of Friendship between Turkey and
Poland of July 23, 1923, provides :
" Les Hautes Parties Contractantes sont d'accord pour retablir
les relations diplomatiques entre les deux fitats conformement aux
principes du droit des gens. Elles conviennent que les ministres,
envoyes et agents diplomatiques de chacune d'elles jouiront a
charge de reciprocite dans le territoire de 1'autre, des privileges,
honneurs, immunites et exemptions accordes a ceux de la nation la
plus favorisee." 3
§ 190. Similar articles appear in treaties concluded by
Turkey with Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Hungary,
1 See also Oppenheim, i. § 360.
2 Koch and Schoell, Histoire abrigee des Traites de Paix, etc., xiv.
3 Br. and For. State Papers, cxviii. 974.
DIPLOMATIC AGENTS in
the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Yugoslavia, but
in these the latter part of the article is modified to read " le
traitement consacre par les principes generaux du droit
international public general."
§ 191. By the Treaty of Rapallo, April 16, 1922, Germany
resumed diplomatic relations with Russia. Treaties have
since been concluded by the Soviet Union with various
countries to the same effect. The Convention of Friendship
and Economic Co-operation of January 20, 1925, between
Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, e.g., says :
" The High Contracting Parties agree that, with the coming into
force of the present convention, diplomatic and consular relations
shall be established between them." 1
The Pan-American Convention, signed at Havana on
February 20, 1928, provides in Article i : " States have the
right of being represented before each other through diplomatic
officers."
§ 192. Whether semi-sovereign states possess the right or
not is determined by the form of the tie between them and
the suzerain power, sometimes by treaty. The right to send
diplomatic agents is not co-extensive with that of concluding
treaties. Thus Egypt, as long as the Turkish suzerainty lasted,
was able to conclude commercial treaties with foreign states,
but was not empowered to maintain permanent missions.
§ 193. In monarchical states the sovereign has the right of
making appointments. Generally speaking, this right is de-
fined by the constitution. Thus, in the French Republic it is
exercised by the President ; in the United States by the
President in conjunction with the Senate, whose consent is
- necessary to the nominations sent to it by the former.
§ 194. In the case of a regency, the diplomatic agent is
nevertheless accredited in the name of the sovereign, whether
he be a minor or be prevented by infirmity from discharging
• his functions. During the minority of Louis XV, the Duke
of Orleans being regent, Cardinal Dubois negotiated the
Triple Alliance of The Hague in 1 7 1 7, in virtue of credentials,
full powers and instructions made out in the name of the King.
In England, during the periods when George III was incapa-
citated for the transaction of affairs, the right of sending
embassies was vested in the Prince of Wales. The Republic
of Poland, during a vacancy of the elective throne, exercised
the right of embassy.2
1 Br. and For. State Papers., cxxii. 895. a Phillimore, ii. 163-4.
ii2 DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
§ 195. On the occasion of the serious illness of King George V
in 1928 His Majesty signed Letters Patent authorising the
issue of a Commission under the Great Seal creating a Council
of State, composed of the Queen, Prince of Wales, Duke of
York, Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prime Minister, who
were authorised to sign documents.1 Formal documents such
as the credentials of ambassadors and ministers, full powers
and ratifications of treaties were signed on His Majesty's
behalf by the Regents.
§ 196. The maxim delegates non potest delegare was formerly
subject to certain exceptions. Thus, after the death of
Gustavus Adolphus at Liitzen in 1632 the Senate at Stockholm
delegated the whole government to the Chancellor Oxen-
stierna. Grotius, nominated by him as ambassador to France,
had credentials in the Chancellor's name. He was received
as the ambassador of Sweden, in virtue of the procuration of the
Senate, and not merely as the representative of the Chancellor
who had appointed him.
Phillimore says that the Viceroy of a province, especially of
a distant province, has always been held, ex necessitate rei, to
possess the right of embassy ; and he adds that during the
period when Spain governed Naples by a viceroy, Milan by
a governor, and the Spanish Netherlands by a governor-general,
the right to confer upon others the jus legationis was frequently
exercised by these high delegates of their sovereign, generally
without controversy. But in 1646 the French ambassador in
Switzerland persuaded the Cantons to refuse an audience at
their general assembly to the ambassador of the governor of
Milan, on the ground that this ambassador had no credentials
from the Crown of Spain. During the time that the Nether-
lands (now Belgium) were a possession of the House of Austria,
foreign diplomatic agents were sent to reside at Brussels, the
seat of the governor-general's authority. The British Governor-
General of India, the Dutch Governor of Java, and formerly the
Spanish Governor of the Philippines are other examples. The
Dutch, French, and British East India Companies often possessed
this power, but this cannot be presumed ; it must have been
conferred by the special and express grant of their respective
governments.2
§ 197. A monarch who is a prisoner-of-war cannot accredit
diplomatic agents 3 ; nor a monarch who has abdicated, or
has been deposed.
1 Keith, British Constitutional Law, 35.
2 Phillimore, ii. 164-6.
3 G. F. de Martens, Pricis du Droit des Gens, ii. 40.
DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 113
§ 198. When a civil war or a revolution breaks out, agents
despatched to foreign countries by the opponents of the
hitherto constituted government ought not to be officially
received until the new state of things has assumed a permanent
character and given rise to the formation of a new de facto
government. The fact that a party in a state, during a civil
war, has been recognised as a belligerent, conveys no right to
be diplomatically represented abroad. But foreign states may
negotiate with the agents of such a belligerent informally, to
provide for the safety of their subjects and of the property of
their subjects resident within the territory under the sway of
such a party.1 During the continuance of a civil war or
revolution the diplomatist on the spot may often have to
intervene on behalf of his own countrymen with the insurgents
in possession, but he will do this personally and unofficially
until his government recognises the new power which has
been set up, and, if necessary, sends him new credentials. As
long as its recognition does not take place, the diplomatic
agent previously accredited continues to represent the head
of the state which appointed him. In 1861, Great Britain,
having recognised the Kingdom of Italy, which had annexed
the Neapolitan dominions, intimated to the charge d'affaires of
Naples that he could no longer be accredited as a representative
of the King of the Two Sicilies.2 In 1871 Count Bismarck
insisted that, in order that the Government of National
Defence should be recognised as having the right to represent
France diplomatically, it must be recognised by the French
nation. The right may sometimes be doubtful or disputed,
e.g. when a sovereign has assumed a title which is not as yet
recognised by other Powers. On the occasion of the corona-
tion of King William I, Prussia not having recognised the
Kingdom of Italy, it was doubtful whether the King of Italy
could send an ambassador to attend the ceremony. The
difficulty was overcome by appointing General de la Rocca
ambassador of King Victor Emmanuel, without specifying the
country of which he was King.
§ 199. There is no fixed method of according recognition to
a new government which has assumed office as a result of a
revolutionary outbreak. Any form of notification suffices for
the purpose or any act on the part of a state which is consistent
only with such recognition.
§ 200. In the case of the 1910 revolution in Portugal,
official recognition was delayed by the British Government
1 Oppenheim, i. § 362. 2 de Martens-Geffken, i. 39.
ii4 DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
until the new republic had been confirmed by a general
election, and until certain alterations, sufficient to protect
British church property in Portugal, had been made in the
Constitution. Recognition was accorded jointly with the
Governments of Spain, Germany, Austria and Italy, and was
expressed in notes stating that, in view of the fact that the
Portuguese Constitution had been voted, the respective
governments were glad to join in the recognition of the
republic.
§201. In 1924, following the plebiscite which resulted in
favour of a republican form of government in Greece, the
British Government accepted the verdict as representing the
wishes of the Greek people and formally recognised the regime
thus established.
§202. The British note of February i, 1924, to the Soviet
Government stated that His Majesty's Government recognise
the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics as the de jure rulers of
those territories of the old Russian Empire which acknowledge
their authority.
§203. In the case of revolutionary changes of government
which have taken place in South American countries within
recent years, viz. : Chile, Ecuador (1925), Peru (1930), the
Argentine Republic (1930), and Brazil (1930), the British
representative has been instructed to inform the government
concerned that the British Government considered that diplo-
matic relations between the two countries were in no way
affected by the change of government.
§ 204. On the occasion, in April 1931, of the revolution in
Spain and the departure of the King of Spain from that
country the governments of most foreign states, including
those of Great Britain and the British Dominions, forthwith
recognised the new regime. The former Spanish ambassador
at London, the Marquis de Merry del Val, having resigned, a
charge d'affaires ad interim was appointed by the provisional
government, and in May Senor Perez de Ayala took up his
appointment at London as ambassador extraordinary and
plenipotentiary from the provisional government, being
received in that capacity, and his name placed on the diplomatic
list. The British ambassador at Madrid was not, however,
furnished with new credentials pending the confirmation by
popular vote of the new regime which had been set up in
Spain, and the election of a constitutional president of the
republic.
§ 205. The right of the Holy See to diplomatic representa-
DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 115
tion was not affected by the annexation of the States of the
Church to the Kingdom of Italty.
By the Treaty of February n, 1929, between Italy and the
Holy See, Italy recognises the full ownership and the exclusive
and absolute dominion and sovereign jurisdiction of the Holy
See over the Vatican City, all persons having permanent
residence there being subject to the sovereignty of the Holy
See. Under Article 1 2 of the treaty Italy also recognises the
right of the Holy See to active and passive legation, in
accordance with the general rules of international law, envoys
of foreign governments continuing to enjoy in the Kingdom all
the privileges and immunities appertaining to diplomatic
agents, while their headquarters may remain in Italian terri-
tories and enjoy all immunities due to them in accordance
with international law ; an Italian ambassador being accre-
dited to the Holy See and a Papal nuncio to Italy, the latter
being the doyen of the diplomatic corps in accordance with the
customary right recognised by the Congress of Vienna. (See
also § 436.)
§ 206. It is a general practice to have only one permanent
diplomatic agent at each capital.
The counsellors of the British embassies at Paris and
Washington are specially accredited as envoys extraordinary
and ministers plenipotentiary. Envoys extraordinary and
ministers plenipotentiary are also accredited at certain capitals
in respect of the Dominion of Canada, the Union of South
Africa and the Irish Free State. (See § 775.)
§ 207. In time of war the representative of a neutral friendly
Power commonly undertakes the protection of the subjects of
one belligerent in the dominions of the other belligerent, so
far as is permitted by the state to which he is accredited, and,
of course, with the sanction of his own government.
§ 208. There is no objection in principle to one and the
same person being accredited to more than one country.
Indeed, this is often done where several minor states
lie adjacent to each other, or when it is desired for reasons
of public economy to limit expenditure on diplomatic
missions.
The British ambassador at Buenos Aires is accredited also
to Paraguay as minister plenipotentiary. The British envoy
at Panama is accredited in the same capacity to Costa Rica ;
the British envoy in Latvia also to Estonia and Lithuania ;
and the British envoy at Guatemala also to Honduras,
Nicaragua and Salvador.
n6 DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
§ 209. What class of agents shall be accredited is a matter
for arrangement between the governments concerned, the
usual practice being to exchange agents of the same class.
France, however, appoints an ambassador to Berne, while
the Swiss Confederation sends a minister to Paris. Generally,
however, only the principal states are represented by ambas-
sadors, though up to 1893 the United States made it a rule to
appoint agents of not higher rank than envoy. At the
beginning of Queen Victoria's reign Great Britain had am-
bassadors at Vienna, Paris, St. Petersburg and Constantinople.
Vienna was reduced in 1835, and from 1844 to 1860 the post at
St. Petersburg was occupied by an envoy and minister. The
legation at Vienna was raised to an embassy in 1860 (but is
at the present time again a legation), that at Berlin in 1862,
at Rome in 1876, at Madrid in 1887, at Washington in 1893,
at Tokio in 1905, at Brussels in 1919, at Rio de Janeiro in
1919, at Lisbon in 1924, at Buenos Aires in 1927, at Warsaw
in 1929, and at Santiago in 1930.
In all these cases the change of status took place by mutual
consent and the British diplomatic agent became ambassador.
Similar changes have taken place all over the world during
the last century, charges d'affaires being converted into ministers
resident and ministers resident into envoys extraordinary and
ministers plenipotentiary, as a matter of international com-
pliment and in recognition of the growing importance of the
political and commercial relations of states.
§210. The continuous residence of an embassy is, to speak
strictly, a matter of comity, and not of strict right.
Nevertheless, so long a custom and so universal a consent
have incorporated this permission of strict residence into the
practice of nations, that its refusal would require unanswerable
reasons for its justification.
Such refusal was the ancient practice of Far Eastern
nations towards European states up to about the middle of
the nineteenth century, and in the case of Corea until 1883.
And, more recently, diplomatic representation as between
Soviet Russia and many countries was suspended, and still is
in the case of the United States of America and certain other
countries.
§211. As apart from diplomatic agents formally accredited
to the heads of foreign states, representatives are often
appointed to attend congresses or conferences for the discussion
and settlement of matters of international concern, and to
negotiate and sign treaties in regard to such matters ; or, it
DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 117
may be, to revise treaties which have been formerly concluded
between the states concerned. These are commonly furnished
with full powers from their sovereign or government for the
purpose. ^See §§ 365, 539.)
Commissioners are also sometimes appointed to regulate
boundary questions or to transact other matters requiring
adjustment which are outside the ordinary scope of the
permanent diplomatic representative. (See §§ 366, 369.)
CHAPTER XII
THE SELECTION OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
§212. IN theory the selection of heads of missions will be
determined with reference to the absolute fitness of the man
for the particular post. Most European states confine diplo-
matic appointments, at least to ranks below that of ambassador,
to a close service consisting of trained men l who have begun
at the lowest step of the ladder and risen gradually ; a similar
practice now extends to various American countries. In some
the diplomatic service is amalgamated with that of the Foreign
Office, and sometimes also with the higher ranks of the consular
service. In Great Britain heads of missions are usually
taken from one of the two former, seldom from the last ;
sometimes, but rarely, they have previously been politicians ;
formerly they belonged to the political party in power, and
usually resigned on a change of government. The same com-
bination of foreign office and diplomatic service apparently
existed in Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Russia
and Spain. In all of those countries the interchange of the
office of minister for foreign affairs with that of ambassador
was not infrequent, but in Great Britain no instance of the
kind has occurred, at least in recent times, though the special
missions to the United States of the late Earl of Balfour in
1917, of Viscount Reading in 1918, and of Viscount Grey of
Fallodon in 1919, may be mentioned.
In 1754 Sir Thomas Robinson (afterwards Lord Grantham),
who had been minister at Vienna, was made Secretary of State for
the Southern Department and leader of the House of Commons,
in which position he achieved no marked distinction. His son,
the second Lord Grantham, was ambassador at Madrid from 1771
to 1779, and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for a few months
in 1782-3. The appointment of the fifth Duke of Leeds is scarcely
a case in point, nor is that of George Canning, of Marquess
Wellesley, nor of the second Earl Granville, all of whom were in
real fact politicians. The fourth Earl of Clarendon had been
envoy at Madrid from 1833 to 1839, but did not go to the Foreign
1 On the question of women as diplomatic agents see Oppenheim, i. § 370.
SELECTION OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 119
Office till 1 853. The first Earl of Kimberley was envoy at St. Peters-
burg under his earlier title of Lord Wodehouse from 1856 to 1858,
but did not become Secretary of State till 1894.
§213. If the diplomatist suggested for appointment as
ambassador or envoy is married, the social gifts, character,
religion, past history, or original nationality of his wife may
be an important ingredient in the determination of his
appointment.
§214. The regulations for the British diplomatic service
say :
" The Secretary of State reserves to himself the power to recom-
mend to the King the name of any person, even though not in the
diplomatic service, for the higher and more responsible posts in it ;
and generally, in regard to all appointments whatever in the
diplomatic service, the Secretary of State will not be restricted by
claims founded on seniority, or membership of the service, from
making any such selection as on his own responsibility he may
deem right." *•
§215. In the United States Article II, sec. 2, 2, of the
Constitution declares that " the President shall nominate and,
by and with the advice of the Senate, shall appoint ambas-
sadors, other public ministers and consuls." Diplomatic
appointments to missions of all classes were formerly conferred
almost without exception on political supporters of the party
whose nominee had been elected president, but in 1924 a
career service was established, from which a number of
appointments has since been made. A feature is the inter-
changeability of the diplomatic and consular services. Heads
of missions, however, it is understood, still formally send in
their resignations when a new president is elected.
In Japan there have been several instances of the inter-
change of minister for foreign affairs and ambassador.
§ 216. In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics appoint-
ments to heads of missions are apparently made on political
grounds. By a decree of May 22-June 4, 1918, the titles of
ambassador, envoy, etc., were abolished, and a single class
created called Representants < Plenipotentiaires.} But the need of
indicating the rank of these agents when accredited to foreign
states has since compelled a modification, and their credentials,
while styling them Representants Plenipotentiaires, add to this
designation " a titre d'ambassadeur extraordinaire et pleni-
potentiaire " or other description, according to the rank to
be assigned to them in the country in which they are to reside.
1 Foreign Office List (1932), 119.
120 SELECTION OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
§217. In 1914 a British Royal Commission on the Civil
Service presented a report containing a series of recommenda-
tions with respect to the organisation and recruitment of the
diplomatic service. One was that the diplomatic establish-
ment of the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Corps serving
abroad should be amalgamated, up to and including the
grades of assistant under-secretary of state and minister of
the lowest grade. Another that the existing property quali-
fication (the possession of a private income of £400 a year)
be abolished, and that members of the service employed
abroad should receive a suitable foreign allowance. These
recommendations were accepted in principle, and at the
present time the regulations for admission to the Diplomatic
Service and Foreign Office prescribe :
" Admission to the Diplomatic Service and the Foreign Office is
by open competition. The examination is the same as that for
Class I of the (general) Civil Service, with special arrangements
to ensure a thorough knowledge of French and German and some
other modern language. Candidates desiring to be appointed to
the combined Service will first be required to appear before a
Board of Selection, appointed by the Secretary of State, which will
decide whether they possess suitable qualifications for entry into
the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service. No assurance as to
the possession of private means will be required of candidates. All
members of the combined Service will be liable for service abroad." i
§ 2 1 8. One would be disposed to say that some, if not all,
of the following are necessary qualifications for the diplomatic
career.
Good temper, good health and good looks. Rather more
than average intelligence, though brilliant genius is not
necessary. A straightforward character, devoid of selfish
ambition. A mind trained by the study of the best literature,
and by that of history. Capacity to judge of evidence. In
short, the candidate must be an educated gentleman. These
points cannot be ascertained by means of written examinations.
Those can only afford evidence of knowledge already acquired ;
they do not reveal the essential ingredients of a character. At
some posts it is useful to have had a legal training, particularly
where the minister for foreign affairs is likely to be a lawyer.
Some private income, even though the government should
give a special foreign service allowance, is very desirable in
the lower grades of the diplomatic service, and the higher the
grade the more of it the better.
1 Foreign Office List (1932), 116.
SELECTION OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 121
§219. In most countries it is an essential requirement for
entry into the diplomatic service that the candidate should
be a subject or citizen of the country.
In Great Britain candidates must be natural-born British sub-
jects and born within the United Kingdom or in one of the self-
governing Dominions of parents also born within those territories,
except when the circumstances are such as to justify a departure
from the general rule, in which case they can be allowed to compete
by special permission of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
provided they fulfil the conditions of the rule in respect of nationality
prescribed for candidates for admission to His Majesty's Civil
Service as a whole, viz. :
Every candidate must be a natural-born British subject, the
child of a person who is, or was at the time of his death, a British
subject. Provided that exception may be made :
(a) in the case of candidates serving in a civil situation to which
they were admitted with the certificate of the Civil
Service Commissioners ;
(b} in the case of natural-born British subjects who served in
His Majesty's Armed Forces in the Great War between
August 4, 1914, and November 11, 1918 ;
(c] in the case of natural-born British subjects who have satis-
factorily completed a period of not less than five years'
service on full pay in His Majesty's Regular Forces.
Provided also that if the Civil Service Commissioners are satis-
fied, in the case of any candidate who is a British subject but does
not fulfil all the requirements of the rule as to nationality and
descent, that the candidate is so closely connected by ancestry and
upbringing with His Majesty's dominions that an exception may
properly be made to that rule, they may accept such candidate as
eligible provided that this discretion shall not be exercisable unless
(a) the father or paternal grandfather of the candidate was a natural-
born British subject, and (b) neither the father nor the paternal
grandfather had acquired any other nationality by naturalisation
or by any other voluntary or formal act.
§ 220. In the British diplomatic service the age of retirement
was formerly fixed at seventy years, though cases occurred in
which, for special reasons, it was thought desirable to extend
the period of service. But the Superannuation (Diplomatic
Service) Act, 1929, now applies to members of that service the
provisions of the Superannuation Acts governing civil servants
in general (subject to certain modifications as regards pensions).
The French rule is retirement at the age of sixty, which may
be extended to sixty-five. Many states have no age limit.
§221. The qualifications and characteristics of the perfect
diplomatist have been discussed in Chapter IX. Certain
other observations may be cited :
122 SELECTION OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
The attempt to reduce to rules the art of negotiating is as vain
and futile as the attempt to teach the art of social intercourse. In
addition to knowledge of affairs in general and comprehension of
the interests of his own country in particular, the distinguishing
characteristics of a successful negotiator, such as knowledge of men,
which enables one to interpret looks and glances, an elasticity of
demeanour which overcomes the weak man by earnestness and the
strong man by gentleness, readiness to understand the opponent's
point of view and skill in refuting his objections — all these are
qualities which can be acquired only by natural disposition, social
intercourse and practical acquaintance with affairs.1
§ 222. In a recent work,2 the essential qualities of the perfect
diplomatist are thus set forth : He is conciliatory and firm ;
he eludes difficulties which cannot immediately be overcome
only in order to obviate them in more favourable conditions ;
he is courteous and unhurried ; he easily detects insincerity,
not always discernible to those who are themselves sincere ;
he has a penetrating intellect and a subtle mind, combined
with a keen sense of honour ; he has an intuitive sense of
fitness and is adaptable ; he is at home in any society and is
equally effective in the chanceries of the old diplomacy or on
the platforms of the new.
§ 223. Ch. de Martens said :
" Pour que 1'agent diplomatique inspire la confiance si necessaire
au succes des affaires, il faut que, sans abandon affecte, son carac-
tere fasse croire a sa franchise. Le soup9on de finesse provoque la
mefiance, et la marche des affaires en souffre. Mais la loyaute
n'exclut pas la prudence, et Ton peut repudier la ruse sans
renoncer a la circonspection." 3
§ 224. A well-known witticism of Sir Henry Wotton has been
made use of by ill-natured persons as the foundation of a
charge that the method principally employed by diplomatists is
the perversion of truth. Izaak Walton, in the life prefixed
to the Reliquia Wottoniana, reports :
" At his first going ambassador into Italy, as he passed through
Germany, he stayed some days at Augusta [Augsburg], where having
been in his former Travels, well-known by many of the best note
for Learning and Ingeniousness (those that are esteemed the
Vertuosi of that Nation) with whom he passing an Evening in
Merriments, was requested by Christopher Flecamore 4 to write some
1 Schmalz ; cited by Schmelzing, ii. 105.
2 Kennedy, Old Diplomacy and New, 366. 3 de Martens-Geffken, 152.
4 John Christopher Flechammer or Fleckammer. See Logan Pearsall Smith,
Life and^ Letters of Sir H. Wotton, i. 49 «., 127 «. ; ii. 10. Also an article by
E. Nys in Revue de Droit International, xxi. 388.
SELECTION OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 123
Sentence in his Albo (a Book of white Paper, which for that purpose
many of the German Gentry usually carry about them) and Sir
Henry Wotton consenting to the motion, took an occasion from some
accidental discourse of the present Company, to write a pleasant
definition of an Ambassadour, in these very words :
Legatus est vir bonus peregre missus ad mentiendum Reipublica causa.
Which Sir Henry Wotton could have been content should have
been thus Englished :
An Ambassador is an honest man, sent to lie abroad for the good of his
Country.
But the word for lye (being the hinge upon which the Conceit
was to turn) was not so expressed in Latine, as would admit (in the
hands of an Enemy especially) so fair a construction as Sir Henry
thought in English. Yet as it was, it slept quietly among other
Sentences in this Albo, almost eight years, till by accident it fell into
the hands of Jasper Scioppius, a Romanist, a man of a restless spirit,
and a malicious Pen : who with Books against King James, Prints
this as a Principle of that Religion professed by the King, and his
Ambassadour Sir Henry Wotton, then at Venice : and in Venice it was
presently written after in several Glass-windows, and spitefully
declared to be Sir Henry Walton's.
This coming to the knowledge of King James, he apprehended
it to be such an oversight, such a weakness, or worse in Sir Henry
Wotton as caused the King to express much wrath against him :
and this caused Sir Henry Wotton to write two Apologies, one to
Velserus (one of the Chiefs of Augusta] in the universal Language,
which he caused to be Printed, and given, and scattered in the most
remarkable places both of Germany and Italy, as an Antidote against
the venemous [sic] Books of Scioppius ; and another Apology to
King James : which were both so ingenious, so clear, and so
choicely Eloquent, that his Majesty (who was a pure judge of it)
could not forbear, at the receit thereof, to declare publickly, That
Sir Henry Wotton had commuted sufficiently for a greater offence " [4th
edit. 1685].
In the letter to Mark Welser, Wotton calls his " pleasant
definition '
" iocosam Legati definitionem, quam iam ante octennium istac
transiens apud amicum virum Chris tophorum Fleckamerum forte
posueram in Albo Amicorum more Teutonico, his ipsis verbis ;
' Legatus est vir bonus, peregre missus ad mentiendum reipublicae
causa.' Definitio adeo fortasse catholica, ut complecti possit etiam
Legates a latere." 5
This seems a sufficient exoneration as far as Sir Henry Wotton
is concerned.
1 L. P. Smith, op. cit., ii. 9, and Reliquia Wottoniants (4th ed.).
CHAPTER XIII
PERSONA GRATA
§ 225. EVERY state has the right of refusing to accept a
particular diplomatic agent, whether on the ground of his
personal character or of his previous record, as, for instance,
if he is known to have entertained sentiments of enmity toward
the state to which it is proposed to accredit him. A diplomatic
agent may also be declined because of the character with
which it is proposed to invest him, or, as it is tersely expressed
in Latin, ex eo ob quod mittitur. If the Pope had announced his
intention of sending a legate or nuncio to certain Protestant
countries it is probable that such a representative would not
have been received. The Ottoman Porte for a long time
declined to exchange ambassadors with the United States,
until the latter finally despatched a squadron of ships of war
to Constantinople, and at the cannon's mouth, as it were,
extracted a promise to fall in with the proposed arrangement.1
§ 226. Agrfation. — To avoid unpleasantness arising from a
refusal, it is the usual practice to submit the name of the
person whom it is desired to appoint, beforehand, to the head
of the state to whom he is to be accredited. This is done
confidentially as a rule, the channel generally employed being
the retiring diplomatic agent of the country which appoints,
or the charge d'affaires ad interim. Sometimes it is done
by the minister for foreign affairs addressing himself to
the diplomatic representative of the state to which the
diplomatist is to be accredited. When the Pope was about
to appoint a nuncio or legate to Spain (formerly also to the
courts of Austria-Hungary, France and Portugal) he submitted
a list of three names, called a terna, to the sovereign, who then
was at liberty to make his choice. If there existed no special
reasons for exercising the power of choosing, it was usual to
take the name that stood first. In 1819, Dessolles, the French
minister for foreign affairs, wrote to Nesselrode giving a list
of four men, either of whom the king would be willing to
1 Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, 31.
PERSONA GRATA 125
appoint ambassador at St. Petersburg, recommending par-
ticularly the first on the list. Alexander, however, chose La
Ferronays, who was the second.1
§ 227. It is a matter of dispute whether a refusal must be
accompanied by a statement of the grounds on which it is
made, but if in such a case the reasons are asked for, and they
are not given, or if it appears to the government whose
candidate has been refused that the grounds alleged are
inadequate, that Power may refuse to make an appointment,
and prefer to leave its diplomatic representation in the hands
of a charge d'affaires.
Nevertheless the Pan-American Convention of February 20,
1928, signed at Havana, lays down for the signatory states the
following rules : " Article 8. — No state may accredit its diplomatic
officers to other states without previous agreement with the latter.
States may decline to receive an officer from another, or, having
already accepted him, may request his recall, without being obliged
to state the reasons for such a decision."
§ 228. The books give several instances of refusals, and others
have occurred which have not been made public. One of
the best known is that of the refusal of the Emperor Nicholas
of Russia to receive Sir Stratford Canning in 1832, on the
ostensible ground that the appointment was made without
previous notice having been given, since it was only ten days
after it had been officially gazetted that Palmerston mentioned
it to the Russian ambassador in London. It has been sug-
gested that the Emperor's objection to Sir Stratford Canning
was on personal grounds, and though the British Government
maintained that a government was perfectly free in the choice
of its representatives at foreign courts, the Emperor refused to
receive him, and the ordinary relations between the two courts
were only resumed in 1835, when Lord Durham was appointed
ambassador.
§ 229. In the past refusal to receive an envoy might occur
on such grounds as the following : Sweden, in 1757, refused
to accept the British envoy, Goodrich, because after his
appointment he had visited a prince with whom Sweden was
at war ; Great Britain consequently broke off diplomatic
relations with Sweden.2 In 1820, the King of Sardinia
refused to receive the Prussian envoy, Baron von Martens,
because he had married the daughter of a regicide. In 1847
the King of Hanover refused to accept Graf von Westphalen
because he was a Roman Catholic.
1 F. de Martens, Recueil des traite's, etc., xiv, 415.
2 Schmalz, Europaisches Volkerrecht, 87, etc.
126 PERSONA GRATA
§ 230. At the present day the practice of making inquiry
beforehand is recognised by most states as thoroughly well
established, with the possible exception of the United States,
which observes the practice of inquiring in advance as to the
acceptability of persons nominated as ambassadors, but, at
any rate until recently, adhered to the rule that this was
unnecessary in respect of envoys and diplomatic representatives
of a lower grade. It would seem, however, that this rule has
of late undergone modification, for Article 8 of the Pan-
American Convention of February 20, 1928, referred to above,
between the United States and most American countries,
prescribes that no state may accredit its diplomatic officers
to other states without previous agreement with the latter.
§231. In 1885 Mr. Keiley was appointed United States
minister at Rome. The Italian Government asked that
another choice might be made, without, however, assigning
any reason. But it was evident that the ground of the refusal
to receive him was a speech made by Mr. Keiley at a public
meeting of Roman Catholics, at which a protest was made
against the annexation of the Papal States to the Kingdom of
Italy. Mr. Bayard, the United States Secretary of State,
recognised " the full and independent right " of the King of
Italy " to decide the question of personal acceptability to him
of an envoy," and Mr. Keiley, on being made acquainted
with the refusal of the Italian Government, resigned his
commission.
§ 232. Mr. Keiley was thereupon appointed to Vienna, and
the Austro-Hungarian minister at Washington was instructed
to the effect that since, as at Rome, scruples prevailed against
this choice, he was to direct the attention of the United States
Government, in the most friendly way, to the generally
existing diplomatic practice to ask, previously to any nomina-
tion of a foreign minister, the consent (agrement) of the govern-
ment to which he is to be accredited. It was added that " the
position of a foreign envoy wedded to a Jewess by civil marriage
would be untenable and intolerable in Vienna." This afforded
Mr. Bayard the opportunity of asserting that the only reason
given was the allegation as to Mrs. Keiley's religion, which he
indignantly repudiated as sufficient ground for the refusal,
while recognising
" the undoubted right of every government to decide for itself
whether the individual presented as the envoy of another state is
or is not an acceptable person, and, in the exercise of its own
high and friendly discretion, to receive or not the person so
presented."
PERSONA GRATA 127
Later, he discussed the question whether it was necessary
previously to ask for the consent of the government to whom
the minister was to be accredited ; there was no instance of
this having been done by the United States, and the reason
was that frequent elections at regular intervals might render
it difficult to procure the consent of a foreign government to
the appointment of agents whose views were in harmony with
the latest expression of public opinion, if the new government
should happen to have superseded one whose policy was more
in accord with that of the foreign government concerned.
Subsequently the Austro-Hungarian Government based their
refusal on the ground that the Italian Government had
objected to Mr. Keiley, and that its views had found earnest
expression at Vienna since the President had nominated him
to Austria-Hungary ; the fact that his wife was a Jewess did
not influence the judgment of the government, but the latter
could not prescribe social usage, which might be unpleasant
in that regard. The main reason for objection was not the
action of Italy, but the public utterances of Mr. Keiley, which
were of a character not agreeable to the Austro-Hungarian
Government. Finally the latter definitely refused to receive
Mr. Keiley, who thereupon sent in his resignation. The
President declined to make a fresh nomination and the legation
was left in the hands of a secretary as charge d'affaires.1
§ 233. In 1891 the United States appointed Mr. H. W.
Blair minister to China. When he was on his way thither,
the Chinese Foreign Office telegraphed their objection to the
appointment on the ground that in 1882 and 1888 he had
" bitterly abused China in the Senate " and " was conspicuous
in helping to pass the oppressive Exclusion Act." In response
to a request that they would consent to reopen the case the
Chinese Foreign Office said " Mr. Blair is not popularly
regarded in China," but that if the President could do anything
to repeal the Exclusion Law of 1888 " the situation in China
would be much changed, and then it would not make much
difference what Mr. Blair has said, and he would be well
received if the President asked for it." After the lapse of
nearly three months, the President wrote to Mr. Blair accepting
his resignation. At the same time, the minister then in China
was instructed to deny the sufficiency of the allegations made
in respect of the views concerning the Chinese people which
were stated to have been entertained and uttered in legislative
debate by Mr. Blair :
1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1886.
is8 PERSONA GRATA
" If Mr. Blair may not be received as minister while that law
[of 1 888] remains unrepealed, and because of its existence as a law,
it is not easy to reconcile that position with the continued friendly
reception of the present minister of the United States at Peking.
In this aspect, as in every other aspect, the position assumed by
China is incongruous and inadmissible."
There was no interruption of the diplomatic representation
at Peking.1
§ 234. It is seldom that the national of a state is employed
as the envoy of a foreign state in his own country. Before
he can appear in that capacity he must apply for the approval
of his own sovereign or government.
§ 235. In France it appears to have been for some time
settled as a constitutional maxim that French citizens are not
admissible as foreign ambassadors or ministers at Paris. And
for nearly a century past the British Government has refused to
receive British subjects as heads of foreign missions.
§ 236. In 1878 Mr. M. Hopkins, who, in the absence of the
Hawaiian envoy to Great Britain, desired to be recognised as
charge d'affaires, was informed that, being a British subject,
he could not be received in that capacity, and was reminded
of communications made to him to the same effect as far back
as 1859. And in 1886 Mr. A. Hoffnung, who was accredited
as Hawaiian charge d'affaires, was only accepted as such on
his becoming naturalised in Hawaii and so ceasing to be a
British subject. His nephew, Mr. S. Hoffnung, divested
himself of British nationality in like manner, and was thus
enabled to act as charge d'affaires ad interim in the absence
of the head of mission.
§ 237. In Great Britain it has long been a settled principle
that no British subject attached to a foreign embassy or
legation, other than a servant, is entitled to the protection
afforded to the diplomatic body by the statute 7 Anne, c. 12.
On July 8, 1786, the following notice was published in the
London Gazette :
" Whereas divers applications have of late been made by people
of different descriptions to the foreign ministers resident in England
to be appointed secretaries to some or other of the said foreign
ministers in order to avail themselves of the protection due to
persons in that situation against the ordinary course of legal pro-
ceedings in various cases. And whereas such indulgence is liable
to many abuses, it is His Majesty's pleasure that henceforth no
subject of His Majesty shall be permitted by the Secretary of State
1 Hall, 355 n.
PERSONA GRATA 129
to have his name inserted at the Sheriff's office in the list of those
who are to be deemed under the protection of any foreign minister,
excepting only such persons as may be employed by the said foreign
minister in the capacity of menial servants."
CARMARTHEN.
§ 238. The objection to receiving British subjects as members
of a foreign mission has not, however, applied to the post
of secretary to certain Oriental missions in England. The
Chinese, Japanese and Siamese missions have from time to
time employed British subjects in this capacity, and the custom
may have extended to some other missions. But the condition
is made that they shall not be regarded as entitled to diplo-
matic privilege, and their names are not inserted in the list of
persons so entitled furnished to the Sheriffs of London and
Middlesex.
§ 239. A state may declare beforehand the terms on which
it will consent to receive its own national as a foreign diplo-
matic agent or a member of his staff. But if he be received
without any such previous stipulation he becomes entitled to
the jus legationis l :
"•
When, as an exception, a foreign minister is a subject of the state
to which he is accredited, and his principal consents to his continu-
ing to be regarded as such, he remains subject to the law of the
state in all matters not connected with his diplomatic mission ;
but though a subject of the court at which he resides, he must, so
far as his character of public minister is concerned, enjoy the inde-
pendence and all the other immunities and prerogatives accorded
to the character with which he is clothed, during the whole period
of his mission, unless the sovereign has consented to receive him
only under the express condition that he shall continue to be
regarded as his subject.2
§ 240. In 1890, in the case Macartney v. Garbutt and others, the
plaintiff, Sir H. Macartney, a British subject, and English Secretary
to the Chinese Legation at London, sought to recover £1 18, which
he had paid under protest to avoid distraint upon the furniture in
his house, for parochial rates levied- by the Vestry of St. Marylebone.
It was held by the court that his name having been submitted to
the Foreign Office in the usual way, and his position as a member
of the Chinese Legation having been recognised without reserva-
tion or condition of any sort, he was therefore clearly entitled to
the privileges of the Corps Diplomatique, and it would follow that
his personal effects were exempt from seizure. His rights in this
respect appeared to be fully recognised by the local Act (35 Geo. Ill,
c. 73) under which the rates were levied. An examination of the
works of writers on international law confirmed the view that the
1 Phillimore, ii. 179-81. 2 de Martens-Geffken, i. 89.
K
130 PERSONA GRATA
only mode of escaping from the doctrine of exemption was to
impose on an envoy, when received, that he shall be subject to
the local jurisdiction. Judgment with costs was accordingly
entered in Sir H. Macartney's favour.1
§ 241. Certain instances of the past are : In 1714 Sir Patrick
Lawless was Spanish envoy in London, and General Wall from
1748 to 1762 ; both were Irishmen by birth. There is also
the case of Benjamin Thompson, born in the United States,
who entered the service of the Elector of Bavaria, by whom
he was appointed as minister to Great Britain in 1798. He
was refused by the British Government on the ground of his
being a British subject, aggravated by the circumstance of his
having formerly occupied the post of Under-Secretary of State
in the American or Colonial Department in 1 780. Several of
the smaller German states were represented at Vienna by
Austrians, and up to 1855 the charge d'affaires of the Hanse
Towns in London was a British subject. Wicquefort had been
resident of the Duke of Liineburg at The Hague, though he
was a Dutch subject born at Amsterdam.
§ 242. " The laws of the United States forbid the employment of
any other than a citizen of the United States in its diplomatic service.
It is also a rule of the Department of State that no citizen of the
United States shall be received by it as the diplomatic representa-
tive of a foreign government, but this rule is of a flexible character
in its application. Anson Burlingame, who for some years had
acted as the American minister in China, resigned to accept from
the Chinese Government the post of special ambassador to the
United States and certain European governments. He was
received as such in Washington, and Secretary Fish negotiated
with him and his colleagues an important treaty." 2
" Mr. Camacho, a native of Venezuela but a naturalised citizen
of the United States, was accepted as minister from Venezuela in
1880, on renewal of relations with that country which had been
for some time suspended. On the other hand, General O'Beirne,
a prominent citizen of New York, was accredited as diplomatic
representative of the Transvaal Republic to the United States at
the outbreak of hostilities with Great Britain ; and the Secretary
of State, applying the rule, declined to receive him on the ground
of his American citizenship, thus avoiding the question of the
reception of a representative of a country which the British Govern-
ment claimed was a suzerain state.3
" In late years a practice grew up of securing the insertion in
the Diplomatic List, published monthly by the State Department,
1 L.R. [1890] 24 Q.B.D. 368.
2 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1868-9, *• 493' 60 1 ; Foster, op. cit., 49.
3 Should be : state under suzerainty.
PERSONA GRATA 131
of the names of resident attorneys of Washington as counsellors of
certain legations of the less important countries. The main object
of such insertion was to secure thereby invitations for the persons
named and their wives to the receptions and teas at the White
House. When the attention of Secretary Root was called to the
practice he directed it to be discontinued, basing his action on the
rule above cited, that an American citizen could not be clothed
with a diplomatic character in a foreign legation in Washington." x
§ 243. The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928,
signed at Havana, lays down for the signatory states the following
rule : Article 7. — " States are free in the selection of their diplomatic
officers, but they may not invest with such functions the nationals
of a state in which the mission must function, without its consent."
1 Foster, op. cit., 49, 50.
CHAPTER XIV
DIPLOMATIC AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST
§ 244. IN ordinary circumstances a newly appointed diplo-
matic agent proceeding to his post will find there an established
mission, fully provided with archives containing previous corre-
spondence with his own Foreign Office, with the minister for
foreign affairs of the state to which he is accredited and with
miscellaneous persons ; also cyphers, collections of treaties
and all other helps and appliances which he will require. He
must carry with him his credentials to the head of the state,
or if he is a charge d'affaires a letter accrediting him in that
capacity to the minister for foreign affairs at the capital
where he is to reside. It will be prudent on his part to ascer-
tain beforehand that the letter of recall of his predecessor has
been presented in the proper quarter, or if that formality has
not yet been complied with, to take the letter of recall with
him. For in the contrary event it may happen that on
arriving at his post and applying for an audience to present
his credentials, he may receive for answer that his predecessor
is not yet functus qfficio, and so his own recognition may be
delayed until the necessary document can be procured from
home.
§ 245. In addition to his credentials it is the custom of the
Court of St. James to furnish a newly appointed ambassador
or minister with a commission of appointment in such terms
as the following :
(Seal) (Signed) GEORGE R.I.
George, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the
British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith,
Emperor of India, etc., etc., etc.
To all and singular to whom these Presents shall come,
Greeting.
Whereas it appears to Us expedient to nominate some person
of approved Wisdom, Loyalty, Diligence and Circumspection to
represent Us in the character of Our Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary to
AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST 133
Now Know Ye that We, reposing especial trust and confidence
in the discretion and faithfulness of Our Right Trusty and Well-
beloved have nominated, con-
stituted and appointed, as We do by these Presents nominate,
constitute and appoint him, the said to be
Our Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to
aforesaid. Giving and granting to him in that character all power
and authority to do and perform all proper acts, matters and
things which may be desirable or necessary for the promotion of
relations of friendship, good understanding and harmonious inter-
course between Our and , and for
the protection and furtherance of the interests confided to his care ;
by the diligent and discreet accomplishment of which acts, matters
and things afore-mentioned he shall gain Our approval and show
himself worthy of Our high confidence.
And We therefore request all those whom it may concern to
receive and acknowledge Our said as such
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary as aforesaid, and freely
to communicate with him upon all matters which may appertain
to the objects of the high mission whereto he is hereby appointed.
Given at Our Court of St. James, the day of ,
in the year of Our Lord , and in the year
of Our Reign.
By His Majesty's Command,
(Countersigned)
Or
(Seal) (Signed) GEORGE R.I.
George, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the
British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith,
Emperor of India, etc., etc., etc.
To all and singular to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting.
Whereas it appears to Us expedient to nominate some person
of approved Wisdom, Loyalty, Diligence and Circumspection to
represent Us in the character of Our Envoy Extraordinary and
Minister Plenipotentiary for Our Dominion of
to
Now Know Ye, that We, reposing especial trust and confidence
in the discretion and faithfulness of Our Trusty and Well-beloved
have nominated, constituted and
appointed, and We do by these Presents nominate, constitute, and
appoint him the said to be Our Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary for Our Dominion of
to Giving and granting
to him in that character all power and authority to do and perform
all proper acts, matters and things which may be desirable or
necessary for the promotion of relations of friendship, good under-
standing and harmonious intercourse between Our Dominion of
i34 AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST
and , and for the protection
and furtherance of the interests confided to his care ; by the diligent
and discreet accomplishment of which acts, matters and things, he
shall gain Our approval and show himself worthy of Our high
confidence.
And We therefore request all those whom it may concern to
receive and acknowledge Our said Trusty and Well-beloved
as such Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary as aforesaid, and freely to communicate with him
upon all matters which may appertain to the objects of the high
mission to which he is hereby appointed.
Given at Our Court of St. James, the day of ,
in the year of Our Lord , and in the year
of Our Reign.
By His Majesty's Command,
(Countersigned)
§ 246. Formerly printed instructions for the guidance of
their conduct were furnished to British ambassadors and
ministers on taking up their appointments, but these were
mainly of a formal nature, relating to matters which have
become stereotyped by usage, and the custom no longer exists.
§ 247. The case of a negotiator at a congress or conference
is naturally different. On such occasions special written
instructions are indispensable. The delegate to such gather-
ings receives only full powers, not credentials. An ordinary
permanent diplomatic agent is not provided with full powers,
unless he is entrusted with the negotiation of a treaty
instrument.
§ 248. Before starting for his post the agent should take care
to let the probable date of his intended arrival be known, in
order that when he reaches the frontier he may at once enter
on the enjoyment of all the privileges and immunities attaching
to his position, especially with regard to the passage of his
personal effects through the Customs.
§ 249. A passport, in which his official status is fully detailed,
should be taken, duly vise where necessary by the representa-
tive of the foreign state concerned, who should also be asked
for the favour of a laisser-passer to admit of the free entry
through the Customs of the agent's baggage and effects. If
he has to pass through a third country before arriving at his
destination, similar steps are advisable.
§ 250. Before proceeding to his post Callieres recommends
the perusal of the despatches exchanged between his predecessor
and the Foreign Office, and after having perused them with
AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST 135
care and reflection, to discuss pending questions with the
head of the office. He should gain as much information as
possible from those who have preceded him at the post to
which he has been appointed, and also make friends with the
diplomatic representative of that state, who will be able to
write home a favourable account of his character and disposi-
tion. He should also be careful in the choice of the servants
he takes with him.
§251. In the past it was the custom for ambassadors to
make a formal state entry into the capital of the sovereign to
whom he was accredited, but this practice is no longer
observed. A special ambassador is sometimes welcomed at
the railway station on his arrival by the minister for foreign
affairs or his representative. But, generally speaking, diplo-
matic agents travel to their posts with as little outward show
as private persons.
With regard to his passage through a third country before
arriving at his destination, see § 428.
§ 252. On reaching the capital he should at once formally
notify his arrival to the minister for foreign affairs, and ask
when it will be convenient to the latter to receive him. At
some capitals he may also be expected to notify the Master
of the Ceremonies or the Introducer of Ambassadors.
This may be done by letter. He also requests the minister
for foreign affairs to take the orders of the head of the state
respecting an audience for the purpose of presenting his
credentials, of which he must furnish a copy beforehand.
§ 253. Until he has presented his credentials, with the due
ceremonies which are the outward and visible signs of his
official character, the agent makes no official calls. But as
most European Powers at the present day appoint members of
their regular diplomatic service to represent them at foreign
capitals, he is likely to find among his future colleagues
acquaintances or friends with whom he has been previously
associated in the course of his career, and he can freely make
private visits to them. It is also advisable to call privately on
the doyen of the diplomatic body, who will be able to afford
him useful information as to the ceremonies accompanying
the presentation of his credentials, the audiences of members
of the reigning family in a monarchical country, for which he
may perhaps have to ask, the official calls he must make, and
other matters of local etiquette. On these points, however, it
must be understood that court and departmental officials, like
the Master of the Ceremonies, the Marshal of the Diplomatic
136 AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST
Corps in Great Britain, or Introducer of Ambassadors, are
the authoritative exponents of the local etiquette.
§ 254. On being informed by the minister for foreign
affairs of the day and hour at which his audience is to take
place, if it is the customary local usage for the agent to address
a formal speech to the sovereign or president, he sends to the
minister for foreign affairs a copy of what he proposes to say,
but he has no right to expect a copy of the reply which will be
made to him. Such a speech should be of a general character.
It might, for instance, begin by expressing the agent's satis-
faction at having been appointed to represent his country ;
convey assurances of friendship on the part of his own sovereign
or president, and his own wishes for the prosperity and welfare
of the sovereign or president he is addressing ; state that he
will do all in his power to strengthen the friendly relations
existing between the two countries ; and bespeak the friendly
co-operation of the sovereign's or president's ministers in his
endeavour to fulfil the purpose of his mission. He will
mention also his credentials (when doing so he takes the latter
from his senior secretary, and presents it to the sovereign or
president, who hands it, usually unread, to the minister for
foreign affairs). If the agent has formerly had diplomatic
service in the country, e.g. as secretary, a graceful allusion to
an agreeable sojourn will be in place.
§ 255. His speech must on no account contain any reference
to matters of controversy between the two states, nor to any
current business, but, if an alliance of a definite character
exists, mention of it may be fitly introduced.
We remember an occasion in which a diplomatic agent,
on the occasion of presenting his credentials, committed the
mistake of urging certain pecuniary claims of his countrymen
against the government of the country to which he was
accredited, and thereby gave serious offence at the very outset
of his mission.
The object of communicating a copy of the speech before-
hand is to give the head of the state, to whom it is to be
addressed, an opportunity of requesting modifications, and it has
happened on more than one occasion that this has been done.1
§ 256. Besides committing his speech to memory as far as
he is able, the agent would do well to have a copy in his
pocket.
The Comte de Segur, in 1 785, on proceeding to the Palace for
his audience of Catherine the Great, and while waiting in the ante-
1 Garcia de la Vega, 635.
AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST 137
room, engaged in a conversation with his Austrian colleague,
which proved of such an absorbing character that the speech which
he had prepared faded from his memory. When he entered the
presence of the Empress, he found that he could not recollect a
single word of it, but, with great presence of mind, he improvised an
entirely new speech, to her great surprise, as she had received a copy
of the original discourse, and had framed a corresponding answer.
Subsequently when he came to be on intimate terms with the
Empress, she asked him one day why he had suddenly taken it into
his head to change his speech at his first audience. He replied
that he had lost his nerve in the presence of so much glory and
majesty, and so expressed the sentiments of his sovereign in the
first phrases that suggested themselves. The Empress answered
that he had done right. Everyone had his failings, and one of
hers was easily to conceive prejudices. " I remember that one of
your predecessors was so perturbed on the occasion of his presenta-
tion to me that he could only say, ' Le Roi mon maitre, Le Roi
mon maitre.' The third time he repeated these words I inter-
rupted him by saying that I had long been aware of his master's
friendship for me. Everybody assured me that he was an intelligent
man, but his bashfulness always made me prejudiced against him,
for which I reproach myself, but, as you see, somewhat late in
the day." 1
§ 257. It is not usual for the diplomatic agent to speak again
in reply to the answer made to him by the sovereign or
president.
The language of the speech may be that of his own
nationality, or French. In Oriental countries the former is
most usual, the speech being translated into the language of
the country by an official interpreter ; the head of the state
replies in his own tongue, and the reply is, if necessary, then
translated.'
§ 258. The following is an instance of a discourse on such
occasions :
SIRE,
J'ai 1'honneur de presenter a Votre Majeste les lettres qui
m'accreditent aupres de son auguste personne en qualite de . . .
Permettez-moi, Sire, d'etre en meme temps aupres de Votre
Majeste 1'interprete des sentiments d'estime et de sympathie que
mon souverain professe a un si haut degre pour la personne de
Votre Majeste, et les vceux qu'il fait pour la felicite de votre famille
et pour la prosperite de vos peuples.
A 1'expression de ces sentiments, daignez, Sire, me permettre
d'ajouter 1'hommage de mon profond respect. Pendant le cours
de la mission que je vais commencer, je ferai tout ce qui dependra
de moi pour meriter la confiance de Votre Majeste ; je me trouverai
1 Memoires et Souvenirs de M. le Comte de Sdgur (3rd ed.), ii. 215.
138 AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST
heureux si j'y reussis et si mes constants efforts contribuent a
resserrer encore les liens d'amitie et d'interet qui unissent deja si
etroitement les deux peuples.1
§ 259. Speech of a Spanish ambassador to the President of
the French Republic :
MONSIEUR LE PRESIDENT,
J'ai 1'honneur de remettre a Votre Excellence les lettres par
lesquelles S. M. le roi Don . . . m'accredite en qualite d'Ambas-
sadeur Extraordinaire et Plenipotentiaire aupres du President de la
Republique Frangaise.
C'est avec empressement que je saisis cette occasion solennelle
pour exprimer, au nom de mon auguste Souverain, les voeux tres
sinceres qu'il forme pour la prosperite de la France et pour le
bonheur de l'homme d'fitat eleve par ses concitoyens a la premiere
magistrature du pays.
Quant a moi, porte vers la France par toutes mes sympathies,
j'accepte avec joie Phonorable mission de maintenir, de developper
et de rendre encore plus intimes les bons rapports deja existants
entre deux nations soeurs par la race et 1'origine, par le voisinage
et la communaute des interets.
J'apporterai tout mon zele dans 1'accomplissement d'un
devoir si conforme a mes sentiments, et j'espere pouvoir compter,
pour y reussir, sur la haute bienveillance de M. le President
de la Republique comme sur le puissant et amical concours de son
gouvernement.
§ 260. Reply of the President of the French Republic :
MONSIEUR L'AMBASSADEUR,
Je remercie S. M. le roi d'Espagne des voeux que vous m'ap-
portez en son nom pour la France et pour le President de la Repub-
lique. J'ai eu recemment 1'honneur de dire a votre illustre pre-
decesseur, et je saisis avec empressement cette nouvelle occasion
de repeter, combien je desire ardemment le bonheur de la noble
nation espagnole et de son auguste Souverain.
Pour vous, monsieur 1'Ambassadeur, qui connaissez la France,
et qui en parlez si affectueusement, soyez persuade qu'elle vous
accueillera avec une vive sympathie et que vous trouverez aupres
de son gouvernement, dans raccomplissement de votre mission,
tout le concours et toute la cordialite que vous pouvez souhaiter.2
§ 261 . At most capitals there is a marked distinction between
the reception of ambassadors, on the one hand, and of envoys
extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary and diplomatic
agents of lesser rank on the other.
An ambassador is taken to the palace by a court or state
official with one or more carriages for himself and his suite,
1 Garcia de la Vega, 636. 2 de Castro y Casaleiz, ii. 291-2.
AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST 139
while envoys and other ministers use their own carriages.
Usually the ambassador enters the presence unaccompanied
by the members of his mission, and after the conclusion of the
ceremony of delivery of credentials he asks permission to
present them. At most capitals he is introduced to the
presence of the head of the state by the Master of the Cere-
monies or by a court or state official of equivalent importance.
He does not always make a set speech ; this is a point regu-
lated by local custom. The ceremonial in returning to his
residence is the same as on going to the audience. In most
countries, after having presented his credentials, the ambas-
sador makes the first official call on the other ambassadors,
but he receives the first call from envoys and ministers
resident. He may also hold one or two official receptions, to
which are invited the other members of the diplomatic body,
official persons and other distinguished members of society,
of whom a list is furnished to him by the proper court or
state official. If he is married, the ambassadress will at the
same time receive the wives of the before-mentioned persons.
§ 262. In general, an ambassador, on retiring from his post,
goes to the palace in his own carriage, without the members
of his mission, and presents his letters of recall at a private
audience. If he is unable to present them himself, they are
delivered by his successor together with his own credentials.
§ 263. An envoy extraordinary and minister plenipoten-
tiary, or a minister resident, usually goes to his audience
without the members of his legation and in his own carriage,
and makes no set speech when delivering his credentials. At
some capitals, however, he takes his personnel with him, and
presents them at the end of his audience. Altogether it is a
much simpler affair than the audience accorded to an
ambassador.
§ 264. At Washington an envoy goes in his own carriage to
the Department of State, whence he is accompanied without
display to the White House by the Secretary of State, and into
the Blue Room, where he remains while the Secretary of State
goes to notify the President of his arrival. The President enters
with his secretary, the envoy is presented and at once proceeds
to read his address, which is replied to by the President. The
letter of credence is received by the President and handed to
the Secretary of State, and after a brief informal conversation
the reception ends. Since the establishment of embassies at
Washington, the practice is to send a member of the President's
military staff in one of his carriages to bring the ambassador
to the White House.
140 AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST
§ 265. Besides the audience for the presentation of credentials
to a sovereign or president there may be other audiences or
presentations. To attempt to give details, as they are laid
down in the Guta Prdctica and in other sources of information,
would unduly increase the bulk of this chapter, and they can
be best learnt at each capital by the newly arrived diplomatic
agent from the proper official. No attempt is therefore made
to supply them here.
§ 266. In countries where there are no ambassadors, it
seems to be the rule that envoys and ministers resident are
fetched in state carriages to the audience for the presentation
of credentials. At some of these it is the custom to make a
speech on delivering credentials, at others not. The minister
for foreign affairs is usually present on such occasions, but
not at the audience for taking leave.
§ 267. Ceremonial of the Court of St. James.
Ambassadors on arrival in Great Britain notify the fact to
the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the usual manner,
and ask for an audience of the Sovereign for the purpose of
presenting their credentials, at the same time furnishing the
usual copy of the latter. They write also to the Secretary of
State, asking when he can receive them.
When the date of the audience is appointed, the ambassador
is taken to the palace by the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps
in a town coach. The personnel of the embassy follow in other
town coaches, with attendants in royal scarlet, and two footmen
standing on the footboard at the back of each carriage.
Ambassadors never make set speeches.
The ambassador is received at the grand entrance by the
Equerry-in-Waiting, and in the Grand Hall by the Master of
the Household, and is conducted by them to the Bow Room,
where he meets the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (or
in his absence the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs), the Lord-in- Waiting and the Groom-in-
Waiting. The personnel of the embassy are also shown into
the Bow Room.
The Secretary of State having taken His Majesty's com-
mands, the ambassador is conducted to the Presence by the
Lord-in- Waiting and the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps,
and is announced to His Majesty by the Marshal of the
Diplomatic Corps.
The Lord-in- Waiting and the Marshal of the Diplomatic
Corps withdraw.
At the conclusion of the audience the personnel of the
AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST 141
embassy are introduced into the Presence by the Marshal of
the Diplomatic Corps, and severally presented to His Majesty
by the ambassador.
The reception over, the ambassador is conducted to the
grand entrance by the Master of the Household and to the
coach by the Equerry-in-Waiting. He is then accompanied
to the embassy by the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps, the
personnel following as before.
Levee dress is worn.
Arrangements for any subsequent reception by members
of the Royal Family are made through the Marshal of the
Diplomatic Corps.
Ambassadors do not hold receptions after the presenta-
tion of their credentials, as may be the custom in some
other countries. With respect to ordinary visits, heads of
missions generally have recourse to their doyen for help and
assistance.
An ambassador desirous of obtaining an audience of the
Sovereign (other than that for presenting his credentials)
would apply to the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps.
§ 268. An Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, or
a Minister Resident, drives to the palace in his own carriage,
and attends the audience alone.
He is met at the grand entrance by the Marshal of the
Diplomatic Corps and the Equerry-in-Waiting, and conducted
to the Grand Hall, where he meets the Master of the Household
and is taken by him to the Bow Room.
Here he meets the Permanent Under-Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, the Lord-in- Waiting and the Groom-in-
Waiting.
The Under-Secretary of State having taken His Majesty's
commands, the minister is conducted to the Presence by the
Lord-in-Waiting and the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps,
and is announced by the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps.
The Lord-in-Waiting and the Marshal of the Diplomatic
Corps withdraw.
At the conclusion of the audience the minister is conducted
to the Grand Hall by the Master of the Household, and to his
carriage by the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps and the
Equerry-in-Waiting.
Levee dress is worn.
The procedure is the same as in the case of an ambassador,
so far as asking for an audience and calling on the Minister for
Foreign Affairs are concerned.
142 AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST
§ 269. Reception of a Special Ambassador or Special Envoy.
The ceremonial is the same as in the case of a permanent
ambassador.
§ 270. A titular Charge d'affaires is presented to the Sove-
reign at a Levee or a Court by the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs.
§271. A Charge d'affaires ad interim will have been pre-
sented in his proper rank — Counsellor, First Secretary, or
whatever he may be — on his arrival, at the earliest Levee,
but there is no second presentation as Charge d'affaires ; he
simply assumes the duties of his chief, and attends Levees,
Courts, etc., in his absence. When a foreign representative
goes on leave, he writes to the Foreign Office to announce his
departure and whom he has left in charge.
§ 272. Presentation of the Corps Diplomatique on the
occasion of the Visit of a Foreign Sovereign : The Chefs de
Mission are presented to the Sovereign by the ambassador or
minister, assisted by the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps.
§ 273. In former days the reception of an ambassador was
attended by an elaborate ceremonial. An account of the
public entry into London of the Venetian ambassador in 1715
is as follows :
Leaving his house at nine in the morning of August 27, he drove
with his suite incogniti in hired carriages to the Tower, whence
they were conveyed to Greenwich in boats furnished by the Master
of the Ceremonies. Greenwich was the point from which these
public entries commenced. There they waited, at a house previously
hired for the ambassador, for the arrival of the Master of the
Ceremonies and the Earl of Bristol, who had been deputed by the
King to accompany the cortege to London. After refreshments
had been served, the party embarked in royal barges, and were
rowed to the Tower, where they disembarked. Here two of the
royal carriages and one of the Prince of Wales were standing ready,
and three belonging to the ambassador. The moment the procession
started a salute was fired by the Tower artillery. It was headed
by the carriage of Lord Bristol, next came twenty of the ambassador's
footmen, a squire on horseback and six pages on foot, then the two
royal coaches and the coach of the Prince of Wales, the ambas-
sador's three carriages, the first of which was drawn by eight
horses, followed by the coaches and six belonging to a small number
of peers. In this style the ambassador was conveyed to his residence
in St. James' by seven o'clock in the evening. The public audience
of the ambassador took place on September 2, with great pomp and
AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST 143
ceremony, and he was afterwards presented to the Prince and Princess
of Wales. The King's reply to the ambassador's speech was read in
French by the Master of the Ceremonies.1
§ 274. Ceremonial on the presentation of Letters of Credence by
foreign representatives accredited to the Government of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics. (Circular of 1923.)
On the day appointed for the audience the Chef du Protocole
attends at the house of the foreign representative (ambassador,
representant plenipotentiaire, or minister), in order to accom-
pany him to the Kremlin. The official personnel of
the mission (embassy, representation plenipotentiaire, or lega-
tion), accompanied by an official attached to the Service du
Protocole, follow in other carriages.
At the gate of the Kremlin the foreign representative
is received by the Director of the political department of
the foreign administration. The sentinel Red Guards at
the gate of the Kremlin render him military honours when
passing.
The foreign representative and the official personnel of his
mission are introduced into the hall, where the President, the
Secretary and members of the Central Executive Committee
of the Union, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs and members
of the College of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs
are already assembled. The arrival of the foreign representa-
tive is announced by the Chef du Protocole.
The foreign representative delivers his speech and hands
his letters of credence to the President, who passes them to
the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs. If the speech is
in a foreign language an interpreter reads a Russian trans-
lation of it. In this event the speech made in Russian by the
President is equally followed by a translation.
After the speech of the President the representative presents
the personnel of the mission.
The President then accords a private audience to the
foreign representative. This takes place in the presence of
the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs in an adjoining
room.
The audience over, the foreign representative returns to
his residence with the same ceremonial.
§ 275. Ceremonial of the Vatican for Ambassadors, Ministers and
Charges d'affaires.
The ambassador is received under the porch in the Cortile
Busnelli-Ballarin, Bologna, Giacoma.
144 AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST
di S. Damaso by a Privy Chamberlain Supernumerary of
Sword and Cape, who escorts him during his visit, taking
post at first on the ambassador's left. Four pontifical
chairmen also await the arrival of the ambassador and walk
in front of him up the papal stairs. The ambassador with
the staff of the embassy wear diplomatic uniform with
decorations.
In the Sala Clementina the ambassador and his staff are
met by the Monsignor Secretary of the Sacred Congregation
of Ceremonial who, placing himself on his left, escorts him to
the Sala degli Arazzi, and the Privy Chamberlain of Sword
and Cape takes post on the left of the senior member of the
embassy staff.
In the throne room six Noble Guards, under the orders
of the Cadet, are posted beside the papal throne.
The Holy Father, informed by Monsignor Master of the
Household of the arrival of the new ambassador, wearing his
rochet and mozzetta, seats himself on the throne, accom-
panied by his personal staff, who dispose themselves on both
sides of the throne in the following order :
On the right of His Holiness : His Excellency the
Monsignor Maggiordomo ; the Monsignor Privy Almoner ;
the Senior Monsignor Privy Chamberlain Partecipante ; the
Quarter-Master General of the Sacred Apostolic Palaces ; the
Postmaster-General ; the Exon of the Week, Noble Guard ;
the Monsignor Privy Chamberlain Supernumerary ; the Privy
Chamberlain Supernumerary of Sword and Cape.
On the left of His Holiness : the Monsignor Master of
the Household ; the Monsignor Sacrist ; the Junior Monsignor
Privy Chamberlain Partecipante ; the Master of the Horse ;
the Commandant of the Swiss Guards ; the Monsignor Cham-
berlain of Honour, in purple dress ; the Chamberlain of
Honour of Sword and Cape Supernumerary.
The prelates on service for the ceremony, i.e. the Maggior-
domo, the Master of the Household, the Almoner, the Sacrist,
the Secretary of Ceremonial, wear prelatical dress with
rochet and mantelletta. The Monsignori Privy Chamberlains
Partecipanti, the Privy Chamberlain Supernumerary, and
the Chamberlains of Honour wear purple soutane and
mantellone.
The Civil Privy Chamberlains Partecipanti, i.e. the Quarter-
Master General, the Master of the Horse, and the Postmaster-
General, are in full-dress uniform.
The Privy Chamberlain and the Chamberlain of Honour
of Sword and Cape Supernumeraries are in full uniform.
AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST 145
The detachments of the pontifical armed forces wear the
uniform prescribed by their own regulations.
As soon as the Holy Father is seated on the throne the
Monsignor Privy Chamberlain Partecipante, who has taken
post on the left of the throne, on receiving the order from
the Master of the Household and having made the usual
genuflections, proceeds to the Sala degli Arazzi to instruct
the Monsignor Secretary to introduce the ambassador. He
then returns to his place repeating the genuflections.
The Monsignor Secretary of Ceremonial introduces the
ambassador into the presence of His Holiness, announcing
him in audible tone.
The ambassador, with the Secretary of Ceremonial on his
left and followed by his staff, together with the Privy Chamber-
lain Supernumerary, approaches the papal throne. The
ambassador and his staff make the three genuflections, the
first on entering the room, the second in the middle, and the
third on the steps of the throne.
Non-Catholic ambassadors, instead of making three
genuflections, may make three low bows.
The Secretary of the Ceremonial remains on the left of
the ambassador, with the staff of the embassy immediately
behind. The ambassador, standing, then reads his speech and
hands his Letter of Credence to the Pope, who passes it to the
Monsignor Master of the Household. The speech over, the
Holy Father briefly replies and then, leaving the throne,
invites the ambassador into the library for a private con-
versation. At that moment the Monsignor Privy Chamberlain
Partecipante opens the door of the library, into which His
Holiness proceeds with the ambassador. The Master of the
Household accompanies His Holiness into the library to offer
a chair to the ambassador. The other dignitaries present at
the ceremony resume their places in the respective rooms.
The staff of the embassy, during the private conversation
between His Holiness and the ambassador, wait in the Noble
Ante-Chamber. The Secretary of Ceremonial presents them
to the Master of the Household, who, on a signal given by the
Holy Father, introduces them into the Presence and they are
presented by the ambassador.
On leaving the library the ambassador is presented by
the Secretary of Ceremonial to the Master of the Household.
The ambassador, with the Master of the Household on his
left and followed by the staff of the embassy and the Secretary
of Ceremonial, passes through the room of the Tronetto into
the Secret Ante-Chamber, where the Master of the Household
146 AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST
presents to the ambassador His Excellency the Monsignor
Maggiordomo and the staff of the Secret Ante-Chamber in
order of precedence. To them is also presented the staff of
the embassy.
The presentations over, the Master of the Household
accompanies the ambassador to the doorway of the Secret
Ante-Chamber, where he takes leave of His Excellency and of
his staff.
The ambassador, with the Secretary of Ceremonial on his
left, and followed by his staff and by the Privy Chamberlain
Supernumerary of Sword and Cape, and preceded by four
ushers, leaves the pontifical apartments to pay a visit to His
Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State, receiving on his
way the due military honours from the various detachments
on duty of the Noble Guard, the Swiss Guard, the Palatine
Guard and the Gendarmerie, drawn up in their respective
rooms.
The ambassador, escorted by four Swiss Guards with
halberds and preceded by four chairmen, descends the papal
stairs to the apartment of the Cardinal Secretary of State on
the first floor. In the first ante-chamber of the Cardinal's
apartment two gendarmes are posted in full uniform.
The Secretary of Ceremonial accompanies the ambassador
across the apartment and His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary
of State, who has been informed by his own Master of the
Household, meets him at the doorway of the reception room,
where the Secretary of the Ceremonial makes the presentation.
The conversation then takes place.
On this occasion His Eminence wears his ordinary cardinal-
itial robes of the colour of the day and is accompanied by his
Noble Court, i.e. his Auditor, Master of the Household,
Gentleman-in- Waiting and Chaplain Train-bearer.
During the visit the picket of the Swiss Guard waits at
the entrance to the apartment, the chairmen in the first ante-
chamber, the ushers in the corner room, the Privy Chamber-
lain Supernumerary of Sword and Cape in the Hall of the
Congregations, the staff of the embassy in the Throne Room
with the Secretary of Ceremonial.
The conversation over, the ambassador presents his staff to
the Cardinal Secretary of State.
A non-Catholic ambassador then descends the papal
stairs to the porch in the Cortile di S. Damaso, where he takes
leave of the Secretary of Ceremonial and of the Privy Chamber-
lain Supernumerary of Sword and Cape and, entering his
motor-car, returns to the embassy.
AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST 147
A Catholic ambassador, accompanied by the same escort,
crosses the Sala dei Paramenti, the Sala Ducale, and the Sala
Regia, and descends the Scala Regia to the Basilica of St.
Peter's to venerate the Tomb of St. Peter.
Under the orders of Monsignor the Econome of the Fabric
of St. Peter's, four vergers join the cortege at the Scala del
Portico ; two others are on duty at the entry to the Chapel
of the Blessed Sacrament and two at the outside doorway
of the Scala Braschi.
The Canon Secretary of the Vatican Chapter, having been
warned by the Master of the Household of the day and hour
of the visit, the ambassador is received at the main door of
the Basilica by four Canons and the Minor Sacristan.
The Master of Ceremonies of the Basilica is also on duty
and the Canons wear choir dress with purple soutane.
The senior Canon is presented to the ambassador by the
Secretary of the Ceremonial, and he in turn presents his three
colleagues.
The senior Canon then takes from the Minor Sacristan
the sprinkler with Holy Water, presents it to the ambassador,
who places his finger on it and crosses himself.
The ambassador, accompanied by the two senior Canons,
proceeds up the nave towards the Chapel of the Blessed
Sacrament and there kneels in prayer, on the prie-dieu placed
within the chapel. The remaining two Canons place them-
selves by the side of the embassy staff. Those who preceded
the ambassador place themselves on each side of the prie-dieu
and the rest of the party remain in their places and kneel.
The ambassador, accompanied as before, then proceeds
to pray before the altar of the Blessed Virgin and the altar of
the Confession at the Tomb of St. Peter.
The ambassador with his staff leaves the Basilica by the
Sacristy passage, descends the Scala Braschi, and enters his
motor-car, taking leave of the Canons, the Secretary of
Ceremonial, and the Privy Chamberlain Supernumerary of
Sword and Cape.
The Cardinal Secretary of State, wearing a ferraiclone of
the colour of the day, and accompanied by the Master of the
Household, returns on the same day the ambassador's visit.
Their Excellencies the Maggiordomo of His Holiness and
the other prelates " di fiocchetto " all call on the ambassador.
The dignitaries of the Noble Ante-Chamber, who were on
duty during the ceremony, all write their names in the
ambassador's visitors' book.
After the presentation of credentials the ambassador
148 AGENT PROCEEDING TO HIS POST
writes to the Dean of the Sacred College, informing him of
the fact and requesting an audience.
The Cardinal Dean in response fixes a day and hour for
the visit, which takes place in official form in the Throne
Room of the Cardinal Dean.
On this occasion His Eminence wears cardinalitial dress,
with ferraiclone of the colour of the day, and is surrounded by
his noble court, i.e. his Auditor, the Master of the Household,
the Gentleman-in-Waiting, and Chaplain Train-bearer.
The ambassador and his staff wear diplomatic uniform
with decorations.
The Cardinal and the ambassador seat themselves in two
chairs by the throne.
The conversation over, the Cardinal Dean presents his
court to the ambassador, who in return presents his staff to
His Eminence.
The Cardinal Dean, accompanied by his Master of the
Household, returns on the same day the visit of the
ambassador.
On the following days the ambassador personally proceeds
to call upon all the cardinals present in Curia and likewise
on the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps and on his other
colleagues.
The reception of ministers plenipotentiary, ministers
resident and charges d'affaires is on the same lines, but
with differences as to the number of escorting officials, cate-
gory of uniform, place of meeting. A non-Catholic Chef de
Mission is not expected to genuflect to the Pope or to visit
St. Peter's.
CHAPTER XV
CLASSIFICATION OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
§ 276. DIPLOMATIC agents are divided into the following
classes :
1. Ambassadors. Legates, who are papal ambassadors
extraordinary, charged with special missions, pri-
marily representing the Pope as Head of the Church,
always cardinals, and sent only to states acknow-
ledging the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. Nuncios,
who are ordinary ambassadors resident, and are never
cardinals.
2. Envoys and ministers plenipotentiary.
3. Ministers resident, accredited to the sovereign.
4. Charges d'affaires, accredited to the minister for foreign
affairs.1
§ 277. This classification is based on the following regulations
adopted at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and added to at the
Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818.
Reglement sur le rang entre les agents diplomatiqu.es 2
Pour prevenir les embarras qui se sont souvent presentes et qui
pourraient naitre encore des preventions de preseance entre les
divers agents diplomatiques, les plenipotentiaires des puissances
signataires du traite de Paris sont convenus des articles qui suivent ;
et ils croient devoir inviter les representants des autres tetes couron-
nees a adopter le meme reglement.
Art. i. — Les employes diplomatiques sont partages en trois
classes :
Celle des ambassadeurs, legats ou nonces ;
Celle des envoyes, ministres ou autres, accredites aupres des
souverains ;
Celle des charges d'affaires, accredites aupres des ministres
charges du portefeuille des affaires etrangeres.
Art. 2. — Les ambassadeurs, legats ou nonces, ont seul le carac-
tere representatif.
1 Hall, 356. 2 de Martens-Geffken, i. 53.
1 50 CLASSIFICATION OF AGENTS
Art. 3. — Les employes diploma tiques en mission extraordinaire
n'ont, a ce titre, aucune superiorite de rang.
Art. 4. — Les employes diplomatiques prendront rang entre eux,
dans chaque classe, d'apres la date de la notification officielle de
leur arrivee.
Le present reglement n'apportera aucune innovation relative-
ment aux representants du pape.
Art. 5. — II sera determine dans chaque fitat, une mode uniforme
pour la reception des employes diplomatiques de chaque classe.
Art. 6. — Les liens de parente ou d'alliance de famille entre les
cours ne donnent aucun rang a leurs employes diplomatiques.
II en est de meme des alliances politiques.
Art. 7. — Dans les actes ou traites entre plusieurs puissances qui
admettent 1'alternat, le sort decidera, entre les ministres, de 1'ordre
qui devra etre suivi dans les signatures.1
Le present reglement sera insere au protocole des plenipoten-
tiaires des huit puissances signataires du traite de Paris, dans leur
seance du 19 mars, 1815.
(Signed in alphabetical order of the states represented, viz. :
Autriche, Espagne, France, Grande-Bretagne, Portugal, Prusse,
Russie, Suede.)
§ 278. Addition made at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle
by the plenipotentiaries of the five Great Powers, at their
meeting of November 21, 1818 :
" Pour eviter les discussions desagreables qui pourraient avoir
lieu a 1'avenir sur un point d'etiquette diplomatique que 1'annexe
du reces de Vienne par laquelle les questions de rang ont etc reglees
ne parait pas avoir prevu, il est arrete entre les cinq cours que les
ministres-residents accredites aupres d'elles formeront, par rapport
a leur rang, une classe intermediaire entre les ministres du second
ordre et les charges d'affaires."
(Vide Protocole de la Conference du 21 novembre 1818.)
It was signed by Metternich, Wellington, Nesselrode, Richelieu,
Hardenberg, Capo DTstria, Castlereagh, Bernstorff, i.e. or in
no regular order.) 2
§ 279. It appears from the foregoing that on neither of these
two occasions did the plenipotentiaries act in conformity with
what they had laid down in Article 7 of the Vienna regulations,
but signed in the alphabetical order, according to the French
language, of the names of the states they represented, or
else pele-mele. The former is the modern usage in similar
cases.
1 See footnote to § 38. Though the article speaks only of " several " Powers,
the principle of the alternat is equally followed in bilateral treaties.
2 de Martens-Geffken, i. 54 ; Calvo, Le Droit international, etc., iii. 183 n.
CLASSIFICATION OF AGENTS 151
§ 280. The classification established by the Congress of
Vienna in 1815, as amended by the Protocol of Aix-la-Chapelle
in 1818, constitutes to-day an integral part of diplomatic
custom admitted throughout the world.1 The United States,
e.g., adopted it for reasons of convenience and uniformity2 ; the
law of March i, 1893, declared :
" Whenever the President shall be advised that any foreign
government is represented, or is about to be represented, in the
United States by an ambassador, envoy extraordinary, minister
plenipotentiary, minister resident, special envoy or charge d'affaires,
he is authorised in his discretion to direct that the representative
of the United States to such government shall bear the same
designation." 3
§ 281. The determination of rank among diplomatic agents
effected by the regulations adopted in 1815 and 1818 put an
end to the disputes formerly existing regarding matters of
precedence.4
§ 282. Venice originated the institution of permanent diplo-
matic missions. In the sixteenth century the Republic had
ambassadors ordinary at Vienna, Paris, Madrid and Rome,
while the Emperor and the Kings of France and Spain had
ambassadors, and the Holy See a nuncio, at Venice. Residents
were accredited to the courts of Naples, Turin, Milan and
London, as well as to the Swiss cantons. At Constantinople
there was a bailo (bajulus) .5 It was partly the cost of embassies,
partly the trouble arising from disputes about precedence and
ceremonial, that led to the appointment of agents or residents,
who were not entitled to the same ceremonial honours as
ambassadors.6 In the sixteenth century the less honour-
able title of agent began to fall into disuse, and the process
continued during the seventeenth century.7 Charge
d'affaires was another title for these diplomatists of inferior
rank. Residents are found at various periods till the close of
the eighteenth century. In 1675 tne Dutch negotiator of the
preliminary treaty with Sweden respecting contraband of war,
etc., is described as " Minister Celsorum & Praepotentium
Dominorum Ordinum Generalium Fcederati Belgii ad Aulam
1 Deak, Classification, etc. des agents diplomatiques, Rev. de Dr. Int. (1928), 183.
2 Instructions to Diplomatic Officers of the United States (1897), §§ 18-19.
3 27 Statutes at Large, 497, c. 182. 4 Deak, op. cit., 185.
8 Nys, Les Origines du Droit international, 312. There was a Venetian bailo
there already in 1249, but not till after the conquest by the Turks did he come
to have a diplomatic character (Holtzendorff, iii. 613).
6 Schmelzing, ii. 115 ; de Martens-Geffken, i. 59.
7 Krauske, 160.
1 52 CLASSIFICATION OF AGENTS
altissime memoratae Regiae Sacrae Majestatis Sueciae Residens,"
and also as " Dominus Residens," both in the preamble.
Frederick William of Brandenburg (Der Grosse Kurfurst),
from motives of economy, appointed no ambassadors. In
1651 he had residents at The Hague, Vienna, Paris, Stock-
holm, Cologne and Brussels.1 Bonet was the King of Prussia's
resident in London in 1710. In 1745, France had a resident
at Geneva. The Holy Roman Emperor in 1727 had residents at
London, Lisbon and Constantinople. Vattel, in 1 758, speaks
of ambassadors, envoys, residents and ministers.2
§ 283. The designation envoye, which is a translation of
ablegatus, seems up to the middle of the seventeenth century
not to have been more highly esteemed than that of resident.3
At that period the general position was as follows : Diplomatic
agents were still divided into two classes, the first consisting
of ambassadors or legati, the second comprising agents,
residents, envoyes and ablegati ; of these agent is the earliest,
envoye the latest in origin. Just as the title of resident had
superseded that of agent, so the envoye with the additional
qualification of extraordinaire pushed the resident ever further
into the background.
§ 284. In the second half of the seventeenth century arose
the practice of designating resident ambassadors as " extra-
ordinary." Originally this term had been applied only to
those who were sent on special missions. The disputes about
precedence between ordinary and extraordinary ambassadors
furnished the motive to both monarchs and their agents for
this otherwise unreasonable custom. In imitation of the
ambassador extraordinary, the addition was conferred upon
envoys, who thereupon began to claim precedence over
residents. Such questions of precedence were naturally regu-
lated by the etiquette of the court to which the diplomatic
agent happened to be appointed, and in Louis XIV's time
the French Court refused to make any difference. Still the
envoys extraordinary went on asserting their pretensions, until
in the beginning of the eighteenth century the balance began
to incline in their favour at Paris and Vienna, the two courts
which were most regarded as having a voice in such matters,
while lesser courts continued to recognise only the old division
into two classes. The title of resident was also degraded by
the smaller German courts giving, or even selling, it to private
persons who had no diplomatic functions at all4 (much in
the same way as in more recent times they had conferred
1 Krauske, 129. 2 Nys, Droit International, ii. 345.
3 Krauske, 163. 4 Ibid., 165, 174.
CLASSIFICATION OF AGENTS 153
decorations with a lavish hand). In the eighteenth century,
between the envoy extraordinary and the resident there are
found ministers, ministers resident and ministers plenipoten-
tiary.1 Plenipotentiarii nomine tales magis in usu sunt, quam vere
tales, says a writer of 1740 quoted by Krauske. At the nego-
tiations which preceded the peace of Nijmegen (1678), the
conjunction of the two titles of envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary in one person made its appearance. According
to the regulations at the French Court the envoy extraordinary
presented his letters of credence to the King, while the mere
minister plenipotentiary, like the resident and others of the
third class, such as the charge d'affaires, delivered theirs to
the minister for foreign affairs.
Ambassadors
§ 285. The ordinary practice now is to give to a diplomatic
agent of the first class the title of ambassador extraordinary
and plentipotentiary.
Until the close of last century France appears to have used
the title ambassador alone in letters of credence, but has since
made the usual addition " extraordinary and plenipotentiary."
The United States until 1893 did not appoint diplomatic agents
of ambassadorial rank, and consequently foreign diplomatic
agents accredited to Washington prior to that date were also
of lesser rank. And within recent years numerous appoint-
ments of ambassadors have been made where formerly the
diplomatic agent accredited held the rank of envoy only. (See
§ 209.)
§ 286. The derivation of ambassador seems to be as follows :
Fr. ambaxadeur (i5th cent.), OSp. ambaxador, It. ambasciatore,
from ambaxade, OSp. ambaxada, It. ambasciata ; all these from
ambactidre, a word not found but inferred to have existed,
and formed on ambactia, ambaxia in the Salic and Burgundian
laws, meaning charge, office, employment, name of an office
formed on ambactus, a servant (? vassal, retainer). (See Oxford
1 Z,' ' Intermediate des Chercheurs of Aug. 1 3-30, 1 93 1 , notes that the term " ministre
plenipotentiaire " appears in the first edition of the Dictionnaire de i'Academie
in 1694, and that Richelet's Dictionary, which omits it from the first edition
(1680), includes it in that of 1719, with the note "mot ecorche du latin," which is
taken to signify that grammarians did not approve of it. Quotation is made
from the Treaty of Miinster (1648) " congressus plenipotentiariorum " and " legati
plenipotentiarii " ; and of somewhat later seventeenth-century instances of the
French word — thus Cardinal Mazarin is " Plenipotentiaire de S.M. Tres-
Chretienne " in the Treaty of the Pyrenees. Hatzfeld-Darmesteter gives as the
first occurrence that in Balzac's address to the Regent in 1615. (Notes and Queries,
Sept. 12, 1931.)
i54 CLASSIFICATION OF AGENTS
Dictionary and note to Rice Holmes' Casar E.G., vi. 15 ;
adaptation of a Gallic word.) ' Le mot ambaxador etait
apparu au milieu du XIII6 siecle ': (Nys, Origines du droit
international, p. 317). " Au XI Ve siecle, la terminologie am-
baxiator continuus atteste deja la stabilite de 1'institution."
Ambaxiator occurs in the treaty between Henry V and
Charles VI of France, of October 14, 1417 (Dumont, ii, pt. ii,
92 ; Rymer, IX, 517). " Du VIII6 au Xe siecle, dans les
actes de la chancellerie, le verbe d'origine germanique ambas-
ciare designe 1'intervention de quelque grand personnage dans
le but de faire obtenir une concession du souverain ; 1'inter-
mediaire s'appelle Vambasciator. Au XIVe siecle, ce dernier
mot devient usuel et passe dans plusieurs langues " (R. de
Maulde-la-Claviere, cited by Nys, Le Droit international, ii. 341).
§ 287. Article 2 of the Vienna Reglement says of ambas-
sadors, legates and nuncios, that they alone have representative
character, and by this was meant that agents of the first class
only were considered as representing the person of their
sovereign, though they did not receive all the honours due to
the sovereign himself. Their privileges were originally founded
on the supposition that they alone were competent to carry
on negotiations with the sovereign himself. But this has no
real signification in modern times, for they deal as a rule with
the minister for foreign affairs, even in countries which preserve
a monarchical form of government. It is sometimes supposed
that an ambassador can demand access to the person of the
head of the state at any time, but this is not the case, as the
occasions on which the ambassador can speak with the head
of the state are limited by the etiquette of the court or
government to which he is accredited. The so-called " repre-
sentative character ': of the ambassador extends no farther,
as Leibniz says, than
' quantum fert ratio aut consuetudo.' It gives him no right to go
behind the back of the minister for foreign affairs, and negotiate
with the sovereign direct. As Prince Bismarck rightly observed,
no envoy or ambassador has the right of demanding a personal
interview with the head of the state, nor can the sovereign in any
state which possesses a parliamentary constitution negotiate apart
from the advice of his responsible minister. Only in practice, and
especially in the case of absolute rulers, has the easier access to the
sovereign which an ambassador enjoys, any political importance,
as was perceived in 1853 in the personal negotiations of Lord
Stratford with the Sultan, and of the Prussian ambassador Graf v. d.
Goltz with Napoleon III in 1866. The same ground is opposed
to it from the side of the state to which he is accredited. If a
CLASSIFICATION OF AGENTS 155
minister for foreign affairs has to endure that what he has settled
with an envoy is upset by conversations of the latter with the
sovereign, no steady (folgerichtige) policy is possible. Frederick
the Great refused to have any ambassadors, because they were an
inconvenience.1
§ 288. Legates and Nuncios.
The following may be regarded as an authoritative explana-
tion of these two designations :
Legati in jure canonico sunt in triplici differentia, nempe legati
a latere, legati missi seu nuncii apostolici, et legati nati. . . . Legati
a latere alii sunt ordinarii et alii extraordinarii. Legati a latere
ordinarii sunt cardinales qui a Summo Pontifice in alia provincia
legationis officium cum jurisdictione, seu potestate ordinaria ad
instar praesidium provinciarum, ut sunt legati Bononiae, Ferrarias,
Romandiolae, etc. [The so-called Legations.] . . . Legati a latere
extraordinarii sunt illi qui mittuntur occasione alicujus emergentis
necessitatis Ecclesiae universalis, ut ad Concilia convocanda, vel
etiam apud reges pro pace promovenda, sive pro Summi Pontificis
paterno amore alicui regi in ejus adventu testificando, vel alia
simili gravi causa. . . . Et quamvis pluries a Sumrnis Pontificibus
pro similibus causis fuerint missi episcopi, et alii non cardinales ;
nunc autem constans praxis obtinuit non mitti nisi cardinales
legates a latere. . . . Et dato quod contingat, ut contingit, mitti
alios non cardinales, non datur eis titulus legati a latere, sed missus
nominatur, nuntius cum poteslate legati a latere. . . . Legati missi,
seu nuntii apostolici dicuntur, et sunt illi prcelati, non cardinales,
qui a Papa mittuntur ad alios principes pro obeundo apud ipsos
munere legationis. . . . Et tales sunt nuntii Germanise, Franciae,
Hispaniae, etc. et olim apocrisarii dicebantur Graeco vocabulo.
. . . Legati nati dicuntur, et sunt illi, quorum dignitati, quam in
Ecclesia obtinent, munus legationis est annexum, et dicuntur legati
nati, non quod a Sede Apostolica non hauriant auctoritatem, sed
quod hanc ilia dederit fixae cuidam Ecclesiae, et quicumque illi
merit praefectus, una simul etiam fiat, ac veluti nascatur legatus
apostolicus, utopte cujus munus suae dignitati de jure annexum
habet. Sic legatus natus a jure dicitur archiepiscopus Cantuariensis
in Anglia, archiepiscopus Eboracensis item in Anglia. . . . Archi-
episcopus Rhemensis in Gallia. ... In Germania plures archi-
episcopi legatorum natorum nomine insigniuntur, ut archiepiscopus
Salisburgensis, elector Coloniensis, archiepiscopus Pragensis.2
§ 289. So that, strictly speaking, a nuncio is also a legatus,
of the class called missus, being thus distinguished from the
legatus a latere, who nowadays is always a cardinal, and from
the legatus natus, who is not a diplomatic agent at all. In 1914
1 Holtzendorf, iii. 641.
2 Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, Canonica, Juridica, etc., iv. 1401. See also
Schmelzing, ii. 120.
156 CLASSIFICATION OF AGENTS
the Holy See was represented by nonces apostoliques in Bavaria,
Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil and Spain. Representatives
with that title were accredited to France till 1905, and to
Portugal till 1911. In 1836 Prussia refused to receive a nuncio,
as a serious innovation, not only rejecting the proposal in the
particular instance, but for all future time, and firmly and
unequivocally.1 France in 1921 received a nuncio.
§290. In 1931 the Holy See was represented by nonces
apostoliques in the following countries : Argentine Republic,
Austria, Bavaria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,
Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, France, Hayti, Hun-
gary, the Irish Free State, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Paraguay,
Peru, Poland, Portugal, Prussia, Roumania, Spain, Switzerland,
Venezuela and Yugoslavia.2
§291. Under Article 4 of the Vienna Reglement of 1815,
the nuncio was regarded as the doyen of the resident diplomatic
body. This might apparently be construed as making a
nuncio the doyen in every country to which he may be accredited,
or only in such countries as those to which a nuncio was in 1815
accredited, and to whom a privileged position was by the
Reglement accorded. The British official interpretation of the
article was in 1856 as follows : ' It is intended that if by
the invariable custom of any court the representative of the
Pope had at the time of the Congress been allowed to take
precedence of all other diplomatic agents of the same class,
without reference to the date of his arrival, that custom should
not be affected by the new regulation " ; and this view has
since been maintained. But in certain countries to which a
nuncio has since been accredited the point has, in the local
circumstances and as an act of courtesy, been conceded, with
the practical unanimity of the resident diplomatic body. (For
the functions of doyen see § 443).
Envoys
§ 292. The ordinary custom now is to give to an agent of
the second class the double title of envoy extraordinary and
minister plenipotentiary. These constitute by far the largest
class of diplomatic agents.
Internuncios
§ 293. The Holy See employs for its ministers of the second
class the title of internonce apostolique. From the Middle Ages
onwards internuntius was in use to denote the diplomatic agent
1 Holtzendorf, iii. 630. 2 Annuario Pontificio (1931), 559.
CLASSIFICATION OF AGENTS 157
of a lay sovereign, but was not so common as ambasciator and
orator. It first occurs in the literature of the subject in 1595.
Its signification was gradually restricted until from the seven-
teenth century onwards it became the technical term for the
Austrian agent at Constantinople from 1678 to I856.1 Its
use by Austria is thought to have been adopted in order to
avoid conflicts of precedence with the French ambassador, to
whom Soliman the Magnificent (1520-1566) had undertaken
by treaty to accord precedence over the representatives of all
other potentates, and it was continued down to the time of the
Crimean War. The internonce always belonged to the second
class of diplomatic agents, when there were only two.2 It
seems possible that the English ambassador at Constantinople
ranked after the French, and unless there were also Spanish
and Dutch diplomatic agents of the first class the Austrian
internuntius had the third place. In any case he ranked before
agents of the second class.3 But Rivier says, " Ils n'ont aucune
preseance sur les autres ministres de la meme classe."4
§ 294. In 1931 the Holy See was represented by internonces
apostoliques in Central America (Costa Rica, Honduras,
Nicaragua, Panama and Salvador), Luxemburg and the
Netherlands.5
Ministers Plenipotentiary
§ 295. These, being accredited to the head of the state,
rank with envoys, according to Article i of the Vienna Regle-
ment. There appears, therefore, to be no substantial difference
in status between a minister plenipotentiary en titre and one
who has the title of envoy extraordinary.
Ministers Resident
§ 296. These, being accredited to the head of the state,
form the third class of diplomatic agents, and rank, according
to the rule adopted at the Conference of Aix-la-Chapelle in
1818, after ministers of the second class and before charges
d'affaires.
Charges d'affaires
§ 297. These are accredited to the minister for foreign
affairs, in accordance with Article I of the Vienna Reglement
and not to the head of the state (though instances have
1 Heffter, Das europdische Volkenecht der Gegenwart, 7te Ausg., 428.
2 Krauske, s.v. 3 C. O. L. v. Arnim, cited by Miruss, 1 15.
4 Principes du Droit des Gens, i. 450. 5 Annuario Pontificio (1931), 559-
158 CLASSIFICATION OF AGENTS
occurred in which their credentials have been addressed to
the latter).
A distinction is drawn between such as present letters of
credence from their government formally appointing them on
a permanent footing as charges d'affaires and such as are
only appointed temporarily, or are notified by the head of a
mission as being left in charge of the mission during his
absence or pending the appointment of his successor. The
latter are styled charges d'affaires ad interim, and rank after
those accredited in a permanent capacity. In British practice,
it is customary also to rank charges d'affaires ad interim of
embassies before charges d'affaires ad interim of legations.
Questions of Precedence
§ 298. By Article 4 of the Vienna Reglement diplomatic
agents take rank in each class according to the date of the
official notification of their arrival.
By Article 3, those entrusted with an extraordinary mission
have no special claim to precedence on this ground. See,
however, § 79 as regards ceremonial missions.
§ 299. In case of disagreement among members of the
diplomatic body as to precedence, the rules adopted by the
court or government to which they are accredited will be
decisive (§ 447), and especially as to whether the question is
governed by the date of official notification of arrival or by
that of presentation of credentials.
§ 300. A question has occasionally arisen which was not
decided by the regulations of 1815 or 1818, viz., what is to be
the order of seniority when the death of the sovereign or a
change in the form of government necessitates the presentation
of new credentials by diplomatic agents formerly accredited.
On this point see § 446.
§ 301. In Great Britain, besides the annual list of foreign
diplomatic agents and their suites, furnished to the Sheriffs of
London and Middlesex for the purpose of ensuring the enjoy-
ment of diplomatic immunities (§341), monthly lists are pre-
pared— the social list and the precedence list. In the latter
the relative precedence of heads of missions is given.
§ 302. Formerly it was the practice of some governments
to accredit representatives with the title of" agent and consul-
general 5:' or " commissioner and consul-general," and these
might be regarded as forming a fifth class. Thus, Great
Britain was represented by an agent and consul-general in
CLASSIFICATION OF AGENTS 159
Serbia till 1879, Roumania till 1880, Tunis till 1881, Siam till
1885, Bulgaria till 1908, and Zanzibar till 1913. In all these
cases, except that of Siam, the country concerned was a
vassal-state. In Egypt, a vassal-state of Turkey till 1914,
the representatives of the Powers were " agent and consul-
general." x Legally they were consul-general with a her at from
the Porte. But for a long time the title of agent (or diplomatic
agent) had been recognised. Most of the Great Powers gave
local diplomatic rank to their agents. Thus the Russian was
envoy extraordinary and consul-general. Many of the others
had also the honorary rank of envoy and minister, minister-
resident or charge d'affaires. But these titles did not affect
precedence, which was regulated by seniority only, according
to the date of arrival in Egypt. In Morocco the position was
much the same, and the agents ranked according to seniority,
no matter whether they were charge d'affaires in the absence
of a minister or not. Formerly Holland was represented in
Japan by a consul-general and political agent. It may, how-
ever, be concluded that this class of diplomatic agent was, as
a rule, appointed only to states which were not fully sovereign.
§ 303. Ullmann says2 : " In 1875 a dispute about relative
rank arose at Belgrade between the French consul-general
and diplomatic agent Debains and the German consul-general
v. Rosen, which was decided by the Servian Government in
favour of the former.3 The German Government recognised
in the designation ' diplomatic agent ' only an honorary title ;
the right of receiving diplomatic representatives belonged only
to the suzerain. Eventually the affair was decided in the
latter sense ; the consuls appointed to semi-sovereign states
with the title ' diplomatic agent ' possess merely the character
of consuls." But elsewhere he states that " to the fourth
class of diplomatic agents belong generally all remaining
diplomatic agents without regard to their further title, such
as ministers resident, simple residents and consuls, accredited
to Foreign Offices, if, as is the case in the East, they function
as diplomatic agents." 4
§ 304. In 1914, on the outbreak of war with Turkey and the
establishment of a British protectorate over Egypt, His Britannic
Majesty's representative at Cairo was given the rank of high
commissioner, and this title is still borne by him, the counsellor
of the mission having usually the personal rank of minister
1 Almanack de Gotha. 2 Ullmann, 166 n.
3 Holtzendorf states that the German Government thereupon recalled Dr. Rosen
and induced the Powers to agree that consuls-general in semi-sovereign states,
irrespective of their title, have no diplomatic character at all (iii. 621).
4 Ibid., 172.
i6o CLASSIFICATION OF AGENTS
plenipotentiary. Other countries are now largely represented
at Cairo by envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary.
§ 305. In 1927 the Committee of Experts for the Progressive
Codification of International Law, which was set up at
Geneva under the auspices of the League of Nations, requested
that they might be furnished with the replies of the various
governments to certain questions, among which were the
following :
"Is it desirable to revise the classification of diplomatic
agents made by the Congresses of Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle ?
In the affirmative case, to what extent should the existing
classes of diplomatic agents be amalgamated, and should each
state be recognised to have the right, in so far as differences of
class remain, to determine at its discretion in what class its
agents are to be ranked ? '
In the analysis made by the Committee of the answers
received from the various governments to these questions it
was shown that eleven governments replied to the questions in
the negative, viz. Belgium, British Empire, France, Germany,
India, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Spain
and the United States. Four replied neither affirmatively nor
negatively, viz. Australia, Brazil, Egypt and Roumania ; while
twelve replied affirmatively, if briefly and sometimes with
qualification, viz. Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Salvador,
Sweden and Switzerland. Italy does not appear to have
replied.
The report made to the Council of the League, as adopted
by the Committee at its fourth session held in June 1928,
states : " While noting that the majority of the replies received
recommend that the third question above mentioned (i.e. the
question of revising the classification of diplomatic agents)
should be placed on the agenda, the Committee has found the
contrary opinion to be so strongly represented that, for the
moment, it does not feel it can declare an international
regulation of this subject matter to be realisable." 1
§ 306. The Pan-American Convention, signed at Havana
on February 20, 1928, classifies diplomatic officers as ordinary
and extraordinary, those permanently accredited being
ordinary, and those entrusted with a special mission or
those accredited to represent the government in international
conferences and congresses or other international bodies being
extraordinary. (See § 365.)
1 Report of the Committee (A. 15, 1928, V).
CHAPTER XVI
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
§ 307. THE immunities of diplomatic agents form an excep-
tion to the rule that all persons and things within a sovereign
state are subject to its jurisdiction. Grotius says 1 :
"The common rule, that he who is in a foreign territory is subject
to that territory, does, by the common consent of nations, suffer
an exception in the case of ambassadors ; as being, by a certain
fiction, in the place of those who send them (senatus faciem secum
attulerat, auctoritatem reipublica, ait de legato quodam M. Tullius),
and by a similar fiction they are, as it were, extra territorium ; and
thus, are not bound by the Civil Law (civili jure) of the People
among whom they live."
§ 308. The obligation to exempt diplomatic agents from
the local jurisdiction is a necessary consequence of the con-
ditions on which they are sent and received, viz. that as
representing sovereign states they owe no allegiance to the
state to which they are accredited. Should they offend
against its laws, complaint will justly be made to their govern-
ment. But, without the consent of the latter, proceedings
cannot be taken against them before the local tribunals.
" Le meme droit des gens qui oblige les nations a admettre les
ministres etrangers les oblige done aussi manifestement a recevoir
ces ministres avec tous les droits qui leur sont necessaires, tous
les privileges qui assurent 1'exercice de leurs fonctions. II est
aise de comprendre que 1'independance doit etre 1'un de ces
privileges. ... II importe qu'il n'ait point de pieges a redouter,
qu'il ne puisse etre distrait de ses fonctions par aucune chicane."
(Vattel.) 2
" Le droit des gens a voulu que les princes s'envoyassent des
ambassadeurs, et la raison, tiree de la nature de la chose, n'a pas
permis que ces ambassadeurs dependissent du souverain chez qui
ils sont envoyes, ni de ses tribunaux. Us sont la parole du prince
qui les envoie, et cette parole doit etre libre." (Montesquieu.) 3
1 WhewelPs edition, ii. 209 (Book II, chap. 18, § 4, no. 5) ; see also Nys,
Droit International, ii. 368.
2 Droit des Gens, iv. ch. 7, § 92. 3 Esprit des Lois, xxvi. ch. 21.
M
1 62 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
" The privilege of a public minister is to have his person sacred
and free from arrests, not on his own account, but on the account
of those he represents, and this arises from the necessity of the thing,
that nations may have intercourse with one another in the same
manner as private persons, by agents when they cannot meet
themselves." (Lord Chancellor Talbot in Barbuit's case.) 1
" A sovereign committing the interests of his nation with a foreign
Power to the care of a person whom he has selected for that purpose,
cannot intend to subject his minister in any degree to that Power ;
and therefore a consent to receive him implies a consent that he
shall possess those privileges which his principal intended he should
retain, privileges which are essential to the dignity of his sovereign,
and to the duties he is bound to perform." (Chief Justice Marshall
in Exchange v. Macf addon, Supreme Court of the United States.) 2
§ 309. These immunities are founded on common usage and
tacit consent ; they are essential to the conduct of the relations
between independent sovereign states ; they are given on the
understanding that they will be reciprocally accorded, and
their infringement by a state would lead to protest by the
diplomatic body resident therein, and would prejudicially
affect its own representation abroad.3
§ 310. The term exterritoriality (or extraterritoriality) is
that used to denote the immunities accorded to foreign
sovereigns, and to diplomatic agents, their families and staffs,
as well as to foreign residents in certain non-Christian countries
in virtue of special treaty provisions. The use of the term,
like that of" diplomacy," is more modern than the application
of the principle. The word " extraterritorialitas " was used
by Wolff in 1749, and G. F. de Martens, writing towards the
end of the eighteenth century, converted it into exterritorialite
and Exterritorialitdt in French and German respectively.4
Though used of the agent in his wholly representative capacity,
it is more in accordance with the actual position to interpret
it as denoting that he is not subject to the authority or juris-
diction of the state to which he is accredited.
" C'est done tres convenablement aux devoirs de nations, et con-
formement aux grands principes du droit des gens, que par 1'usage
et le consentement de tous les peuples, 1'ambassadeur ou ministre
public est aujourd'hui absolument independant de toute juridiction
de 1'Etat ou il reside." (Vattel.) 5
" L'Exterritorialite a sa base juridique, d'une part dans la
renonciation a 1'exercice du pouvoir territorial (exemption du
1 Gas t. Talbot, 281 ; Hudson, Cases on International Law, 875.
2 7 Cranch, 116 ; Hudson, op. cit., 546.
3 Hurst, Les Immunit&s Diplomatiques, Cours de La Haye (1926), ii. 123.
4 Nys, Droit International, ii. 371. 6 Op. cit., iv. ch. 8, § 1 10.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 163
ministre public) ; d'autre part dans 1'assurance de 1'exercice du
pouvoir exterritorial (sujetion du ministre public). Le consente-
ment des Etats est formel ou tacite. La reception de 1'ambassadeur,
si aucune volonte n'a ete exprimee de part ou d'autre, est en meme
temps, pour 1'Etat qui le regoit une renonciation tacite, pour 1'fitat
qui 1'envoie une acceptation t^ite, de 1'exercice de son pouvoir
sur le ministre public. Cette presomption de 1'exterritorialite est
basee sur la reconnaissance que 1'ambassadeur ne peut, sans son
appui, remplir la tache qui lui incombe ; c'est pour lui conditio
sine qua non." 1
§311. The immunities and privileges of diplomatic agents
extend to exemptions from criminal, civil, police, fiscal and
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. They are, however, best con-
sidered under their various heads, and of these the foremost
are Inviolability, Freedom of Communication, and Exemption
from the Local Jurisdiction. Others will be referred to later,
in this and the following chapters.
Inviolability
§ 312. This term implies a higher degree of protection to
the person of the diplomatic agent and his belongings than is
accorded to a private person. It extends to his family, suite,
servants, houses, carriages, goods, archives, documents of
whatever sort, and to his official correspondence carried by
his couriers or messengers.
§ 313. It is the duty of the government to which they are
accredited to take all necessary measures to safeguard the
inviolability of diplomatic agents and to protect them from
any act of violence or insult. Should such an act be committed
by a public official adequate reparation is due, and in extreme
cases serious consequences have sometimes followed. One of
the most noted is that of the arrest of the Russian ambassador
in London in 1708, which led to the passing of the Act 7 Anne,
cap. 12, " to prevent the like insolences for the future." 2
In 1708 M. de Mathveof (Matveev), the Russian ambassador,
who was about to present his letters of recall, was arrested, with
some degree of violence, in the streets of London, at the instiga-
tion of certain merchants, to enforce payment of debts. He was
shortly afterwards released, on bail being offered by his friends.
On hearing of the incident, the Queen commanded the Secretary
of State to express regret to the ambassador, who was informed that
the offenders would be brought to trial, and punished with the
utmost rigour of the law. He was, however, in no way satisfied
1 Heyking, L'Exterritorialite, Cours de La Haye (1925), ii. 265.
2 Br. and For. State Papers, i. 993.
1 64 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
with this apology, and hurriedly left the country, without presenting
his letters of recall, or availing himself of any of the courtesies placed
at his disposal. To make amends, Lord Whitworth, the British
envoy at St. Petersburg, was accredited as special ambassador, for
the purpose of conveying to Peter the Great at a public audience
the expression of the Queen's regret for the insult offered to his
ambassador, and it is recorded that the Czar's carver and cupbearer
proceeded to his residence in a court carriage to fetch him to the
audience, followed by twenty other coaches conveying court
personages and gentlemen of the embassy.1
In 1915, at a time when public feeling ran high, the Greek
naval attache at Constantinople was openly insulted by a Turkish
police agent. For this offence official apologies were rendered in
person by the Turkish prefect of police, the police agent was dis-
missed and punished, and a public announcement was made by
the Turkish Government of the steps taken to give satisfaction to
the Greek Government.2
§ 314. More serious instances are the Boxer rising in China in
1899, when the German minister and the Japanese chancellor
were killed by Chinese troops and the foreign legations besieged ;
and the assassination at Moscow and Petrograd in 1918 of
the German ambassador and the British naval attache ; while
an instance in which it was alleged that neglect to afford proper
protection had been shown was the assassination in Poland
in 1927 of M. Voikov, Soviet minister at Warsaw, though he had
been offered police protection. While of a different class, the
case of M. Vorowski, Soviet observer to the Lausanne Confer-
ence, who was murdered in Switzerland in 1923, may also be
mentioned, since it formed the subj ect of serious complaint by the
Soviet Government to the Swiss Government, though the latter
had not been officially informed of his presence in Switzerland.
§ 315. A government should ensure that proper means
exist for the punishment of offences committed by individuals
against diplomatic agents. In most countries special laws
have been enacted for the purpose.
" Every person who assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons, or in
any other manner offers violence to the person of a public minister,
in violation of the law of nations, shall be imprisoned for not more
than three years, and fined at the discretion of the court." (Revised
Statutes of the United States, § 4062.)
§ 316. But if no such special law exists, the ordinary pro-
cedure of the penal law should be employed.3
1 Ch. de Martens, Causes ctlebres, etc., i. 68, etc.
2 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 126. 3 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 130.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 165
The punishment of a crime or offence depends upon the rules
of the penal law and the criminal procedure in force in the country.
The executive power of that country cannot as a rule intervene
in the administration of justice. If, therefore, there is no other
procedure for dealing with offences against international law, the
judgment of those offences must be remitted to the ordinary
tribunals. The offended state has no ground for reclaiming a
departure from the ordinary process of justice, and should be
satisfied even if the accused might be acquitted or punished by the
infliction of a lesser penalty than that state might deem just.
(Bluntschli.) 1
§ 3 1 7. The above may, however, be open to the qualification
that the law provides a proper means of punishment, and that
the trial is properly conducted.
"Le moyen ordinaire qu'on emploie pour la reparation d'une
injustice causee a 1'ambassadeur, c'est de lui rendre satisfaction par
des excuses faites soit a sa personne, soit a 1'Etat qu'il represente,
par 1'envoi d'une deputation solennelle, par le paiement d'une
indemnite, par la punition du coupable (bien entendu d'apres les
lois locales)." 2
§ 318. In 1912 the United States Charge d'affaires in Cuba was
assaulted by the reporter of a Cuban journal, who was arrested,
but was released on bail by the Cuban court, with the remark that
it was indifferent whether the person attacked was the American
minister or a Cuban of the lowest class. The United States Govern-
ment protested against this interpretation of international law, and
the offender was ultimately sentenced to two and a half years3
imprisonment.3
§ 319. Inviolability, in common with other immunities,
attaches from the moment "that the diplomatic agent has set
foot in the country to which he is sent, if previous notice of
his mission has been imparted to the government of the
receiving state and accepted, or at any rate as soon as he has
made his public character known by the production either of
his passports or his credentials. It extends, as far as the state
to which he is accredited is concerned, over the period occupied
by him in his arrival, his sojourn, and his departure within
a reasonable time after the termination of his mission. Should
his letters of credence expire, owing to the death of his own
sovereign or the sovereign to whom he is accredited, he is
nevertheless accorded all the usual immunities during the
interval before he receives fresh credentials.
1 Das Moderne Volkerrecht, etc. (1872), § 467. 2 Heyking, op. cit., ii. 272.
3 Dedk, Classification, etc., des Agents diplomatique is, Revue de Droit International
(1928), 201.
1 66 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, signed at
Havana, lays down for the signatory states the following rules :
" Article 22. — Diplomatic officers enter upon the enjoyment of
their immunity from the moment they pass the frontier of the
state where they are going to serve and make known their position.
The immunities shall continue during the period that the mission
may be suspended, and even after it shall be terminated, for the
time necessary for the officer to be able to withdraw with the
mission.'
§ 320. It is not affected by the breaking out of war between,
his own country and that to which he is accredited.1 In such
an event, it is the duty of the government to which he is
accredited to take every precaution against insult or violence
directed against him or any of the persons, whether belonging
to his family or suite, covered by the right of inviolability, or
against his residence or baggage, and to allow him to withdraw
with his suite in all security. In case of need, special facilities
should be afforded him, free of expense,2 and after his departure
the embassy house and its contents should be respected.
§ 321. It is, of course, expected that, on his part, a diplomatic
agent will pay due regard to the laws and regulations for the
maintenance of public order and safety in the state where he
is appointed to reside, and abstain from any act which might
call for the imposition of restraint to prevent injury or detriment
to others or give rise to reasonable ground for complaint.
The correctness of his own conduct will afford the best
guarantee of the inviolability claimed by him. While in
general exempted from police jurisdiction, this does not imply
a right to disregard measures necessary for the well-being of
the community.
" Les reglements de police sont pour 1'ambassadeur lex, sed
lex imperfecta, car toute punition et toute contrainte a son egard
doivent etre exclues. Si 1'ambassadeur se croit affranchi de toute
mesure de police, par exemple s'il trouble la tranquillite et la
securite publique, ourdit des conspirations ou commet enfin des
crimes, 1' Etat qui regoit ne peut rester indifferent a ces agissements
et la police doit employer des mesures de prevention et de securite.
Le gouvernement local adresse dans ce cas une plainte au gouverne-
ment de 1'Etat qui envoie." 3
In 1927, in a case before the Cour de Cassation of Costa Rica,
regarding an assault committed on the Peruvian charge d'affaires by
one Araya, it was held that this being the natural and logical conse-
quence brought about by the offended person himself — who had
1 Phillimore, ii. 183. 2 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 231.
3 Heyking, op. cit., ii. 275.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 167
previously insulted and threatened to strike the accused— could not
be regarded as a violation of diplomatic immunity.1
§ 322. If, on the other hand, an offence should be com-
mitted against him, his proper course is to lodge complaint
with the government to which he is accredited, and, failing
satisfaction, to turn to his own government for the means of
redress.
Freedom of Communication
§ 323. As it is essential for the fulfilment of his mission that
a diplomatic agent should be able to communicate freely and
in all security on matters in which he is engaged, it is in
general recognised that couriers who bear official despatches
to and from the mission are exempt from the local jurisdiction,
even in third countries which they may have to traverse while
engaged in the performance of their duties. They should,
of course, carry official passports clearly defining their status.
" For the discharge and expedition of his business and negotia-
tions, an uninterrupted exchange of correspondence with his own
court or government is necessary to the envoy. He employs
messengers, whom he despatches to convey information to his
sovereign, or to his colleagues at other courts with the least possible
delay. The correspondence of an envoy sent through the ordinary
post comes under the special protection of international law, the
messengers despatched by him to his court and vice versa enjoy,
in times of peace, inviolability for their person and the despatches
they carry — complete inviolability, even in the territory of a third
state. They must . . . carry proper passports. To such mes-
sengers must be accorded every possible facility for pursuing their
journey." 2
" To ensure the safety and secrecy of the diplomatic despatches
they bear, couriers must be granted exemption from civil and
criminal jurisdiction, and afforded special protection during the
exercise of their office. It is therefore usual to provide them with
special passports. It is particularly important to observe that they
must have the right of innocent passage through third states, and
that, according to general usage, those parts of their luggage which
contain diplomatic despatches, and are sealed with the official seal,
must not be opened and searched." 3
§ 324. Within recent years special arrangements have been
made between several countries under which bags, officially
sealed, are transmitted through the ordinary post to and from
their diplomatic missions abroad, and are exempted from all
interference.
1 Annual Digest (1927-28), Case No. 243. 2 Schmelzing, ii. 224.
3 Oppenheim, i. § 405.
1 68 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
Immunity from Local Criminal Jurisdiction
§ 325. If a diplomatic agent commits an ordinary crime
in the country to which he is accredited he cannot be tried or
punished by the local courts. No case can be cited where,
without his consent or that of his government, such a course
has been followed.1 But in such a case his government would
doubtless be asked to recall and punish him.
" Deja le droit des gens universel offre des arguments plus
decisifs pour exempter le ministre etranger de la juridiction
criminelle de 1'fitat aupres duquel il reside que pour 1'exempter
de la juridiction civile ; la nature des actes inseparables d'une
procedure criminelle, et toutes les suites qu'on en pourrait craindre
pour le sort des negotiations semblent s'opposer a 1'exercice d'une
telle juridiction." 2
§ 326. But an offence of a flagrant character might justify
the state to which he is accredited in seizing his person and
expelling him. Certain incidents of this kind have happened
in the past, though now of little more than historical interest.
In 1716 Count Gyllenborg, Swedish minister in London, entered
into communication with the leading Jacobites, in furtherance of
a plot which aimed, amongst other things, at the deposition of
George I from the throne. Gortz, a secret agent of Charles XII
of Sweden, at the same time pursued negotiations in Holland and
elsewhere for funds to prosecute these designs. The plot was dis-
covered, Gyllenborg was arrested, and his papers seized. The
diplomatic body protested, but are said to have withdrawn their
protest. Gortz was also arrested in Holland at the request of the
British Government. As a reprisal Jackson, the British minister at
Stockholm, was arrested there, and the Dutch minister forbidden to
appear at the Swedish court. Eventually Gyllenborg was exchanged
for Jackson, and Gortz set at liberty in Holland.3
In 1718 Prince de Cellamare, Spanish ambassador at Paris, conspired
to deprive the Due d'Orleans of the Regency and transfer it to his
master the King of Spain. The conspiracy was discovered, and
Cellamare was placed under arrest. The resident diplomatic body
declined to take up the case. Meanwhile in Spain orders had
been given for the arrest of the French ambassador, but he managed
to reach the frontier in safety. Cellamare was thereupon con-
ducted to the Spanish frontier and expelled from France.4
§ 327. Other cases in which the offence, though flagrant,
was not followed by arrest are mentioned in Chapter XXI
(Termination of Mission) . A notable case of the past is also
1 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 164. 2 G. F. de Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, ii. go.
8 Ch. de Martens, op. cit., i. 83. * Ibid., i. 139.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 169
that of Dom Pantaleon de Sa, who in 1653 was accused of
murder in London, and his surrender forcibly compelled from
the Portuguese ambassador's house. He was placed on trial,
and being found guilty was executed. But in this case the
claim to privilege could not be maintained as he had only a
dormant commission, and his plea of relationship to the
ambassador did not suffice.
§ 328. A decree of the Soviet Union of January 14, 1927, framed
on a basis of reciprocity, declares that diplomatic representatives
and members of their missions (counsellors, first, second, and third
secretaries and attaches — including commercial, financial, military,
and naval) enjoy personal immunity in virtue of which they cannot
be subjected to arrest or to detention of an administrative or judicial
character ; and are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the judicial
institutions of the U.S.S.R. and of the Allied Republics on a
criminal charge, except with the consent of the foreign state
concerned.
Immunity from Local Civil Jurisdiction
§ 329. It is likewise generally recognised that a diplomatic
agent is exempt from the jurisdiction of the local civil tribunals,
though some writers have been inclined to place limitations
on this exemption. In Holland and England their immunity
was recognised as far back as the seventeenth century, and both
there and in France and Prussia special enactments were
passed to safeguard the right.
§ 330. The Statute of 7 Anne, c. 12, declares that :
" all writs and processes that shall at any time hereafter be sued forth
or prosecuted, whereby the person of any ambassador, or other
publick minister of any foreign Prince or state, authorised and
received as such by Her Majesty, Her Heirs or Successors, or the
domestick, or domestick servant of any such ambassador, or other
publick minister, may be arrested or imprisoned, or his or their
goods or chattels may be distrained, seized or attached, shall be
deemed and adjudged to be utterly null and void, to all intents,
constructions, and purposes whatsoever."
§ 331. In 1823, m tne case Novello v. Toogood,1 Lord Chief
Justice Abbott, in speaking of this Act, said that it was only^
declaratory of the common law,2 and that it must therefore be
construed according to the common law, of which the law of
nations must be deemed a part.
1 i B. & c. 554.
2 This is now the subject of controversy : see Adair, The Exterritoriality of
Ambassadors in the i6th and ijth Centuries (1929), 88, 237 et seq., and in Cambridge
Historical Journal, ii. no. 3, 290—7 ; and Berriedale Keith and Adair in Journal of
Comparative Legislation, xii. (1930), 126-8, and xiii. (1931), 133-7.
170 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
" Les agents diplomatiques sont les representants des fitats.
C'est en raison de cette qualite que ces privileges leur sont accordes,
et c'est en raison de cette qualite que des privileges leur sont
reconnus par les fitats sur le territoire desquels ils resident. Cette
matiere releve done exclusivement des relations entre les fitats, et
fait partie par consequent du droit international public." L
§ 332. The corresponding United States statute is § 4063
of the Revised Statutes of the United States :
" Whenever any writ or process is sued out or prosecuted by
any person in any court of the United States, or of a state, or by
any judge or justice, whereby the person of any ambassador or
public minister of a foreign prince or state, authorised and received
as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant
of any such minister, is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or
chattels are distrained, seized or attached, such writ or process
shall be deemed void."
§ 333. In France the law and practice are the same, and
under the decree 13 ventose, an II, a diplomatic agent who
was about to quit his post on presenting his letters of recall,
would not now be subjected to the treatment accorded in
1772 to the Baron von Wrech, minister of Hesse-Cassel, who
was refused his passports until his creditors had been satisfied.2
In Austria the civil code confers on a diplomatic agent what-
ever immunities are established by international law. The
German code exempts from local jurisdiction diplomatic
agents and their suites. In the Soviet Union a decree of
January 14, 1927, declares that diplomatic representatives
and the members of their missions (counsellors, first, second
and third secretaries, and attaches, including commercial,
financial, military and naval) are amenable to the jurisdiction
of the judicial institutions of the U.S.S.R. and of the Allied
Republics, for civil offences only within the limits laid down
by international law or by agreements with the states
concerned.
The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, signed at
Havana, which says in its preamble that it incorporates the prin-
ciples generally accepted by all nations, lays down for the signatory
states the following rules : " Article 19. — Diplomatic officers are
exempt from all civil or criminal jurisdiction of the state to which
they are accredited ; they may not, except in the case when duly
authorised by their government, waive immunity, be prosecuted
or tried unless it be by the courts of their own country."
1 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 141. 2 Gh. de Martens, op. cit., ii. 1 10.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 171
§ 334. Certain noteworthy cases in the English, French
and Belgian courts are given below :
(1) In 1854, in the case Taylor v. Best, Drouet, Sperling and
Clarke, in which M. Drouet, First Secretary of the Belgian Legation
in London, and one of the directors of a mining company, was one
of the defendants, his attorney, upon his instructions, accepted
service on his behalf of a writ issued against the directors to recover
deposits on shares, and entered an appearance thereto. After-
wards M. Drouet claimed privilege. It was held by the court that,
having charge of the executive of the legation, and acting in the
absence of the minister as charge d'affaires, he was a public minister
to whom the privilege of ambassador applied ; that his exemption
(being one at common law) was not lost by his trading in England
(as that of a servant would be under the Act of Anne) ; but that
having submitted to the jurisdiction, he could not succeed in his
application for the action to be stayed or his name to be struck out
of the proceedings.1 The court indicated that if the question of
executing a judgment against M. Drouet had been in question his
privilege would have protected him.
(In the case of In re the Republic of Bolivia Exploration Syndicate,2
1913, Astbury, J., referred to the above case, and said of it:
' Having appeared and taken steps and allowed the action to go
through several stages, he was not allowed subsequently to insist on
his privilege so as to cause the action to abate to the prejudice of the
plaintiff and his co-defendants, who had incurred expense in reliance
on his apparent waiver." See also §§ 334 (6) and 347 (2) (6)).
(2) In 1859, m tne case of the Magdalena Steam Navigation Com-
pany v. Martin, the Guatemalan minister in London claimed
immunity against answering an action for debt, being a call on
shares on the winding-up of the company. The court held that
' the writs and processes described in the 3rd section (of the
Statute of 1708) are not to be confined to such as directly touch
the person or goods of an ambassador, but extend to such as, in
their usual consequences, would have this effect. ... It certainly
has not hitherto been expressly decided that a public minister duly
accredited to the Queen of a foreign state is privileged from all
liability to be sued here in civil actions ; but we think that this
follows from well-established principles, and we give judgment for
the defendant." 3
(3) 1868. — Case of Tchitcherine, before the Court of Appeal at Paris.
A certain Leonce Dupont, manager of a newspaper, La Nation,
having become bankrupt, it was discovered in the course of the pro-
ceedings that he had lent his name to Tchitcherine, counsellor of
the Russian embassy at Paris, who in the interests of his govern-
ment had furnished funds to start the journal, and had undertaken
to support it, on various conditions, of which proof was furnished.
1 14 G. B. 487. 2 L.R. [1914] i Ch. 139. 3 2 El. & El. 94.
172 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
By its judgment of January 15, 1867, the commercial court at Paris
decided that it had jurisdiction in the matter, holding that if the
diplomatic immunities to which Tchitcherine appealed belonged
to the representatives of foreign governments in order that they
should not be molested in the discharge of their functions, these
immunities could not be extended to them when they entered into
commercial transactions in their private interest.
The Court of Appeal reversed this decision on the following
grounds : Seeing that it is an established fact, and not disputed,
that Tchitcherine is attached as counsellor to the embassy of H.M.
the Emperor of Russia to H.M. the Emperor of the French, and that
thus he had in France the character of a foreign diplomatic, agent ;
seeing that it is an established principle of the Law of Nations that
the diplomatic agents of a foreign Government are not subject to
the jurisdiction of the courts of the country to which they are sent ;
that this principle is based on the nature of things which in the
respective interest of the two nations does not allow these agents
to be exposed in their person or property to legal proceedings, which
would not leave to them complete liberty of action, and would
embarrass the international relations of which they serve as inter-
mediaries ; that in France this principle has been specially
recognised by the decree of the I3th ventose, an II, from which it
follows that claims which may be put forward against the envoys
of foreign governments must be stated and pursued through diplo-
matic channels ; seeing that supposing an exception could be
made to this principle in the case of diplomatic agents who devote
their attention to commercial operations and by reason of such
commercial operations, the contract by which Tchitcherine secured
the right of directing the publication of the newspaper La Nation
would be of a character quite other than that of a commercial
speculation entered into in private interest ; it was erroneously
therefore that the court maintained cognisance in the claim made
by the trustee of the bankruptcy of Dupont and by Dupont himself,
and ruling upon the appeal of Tchitcherine says that the com-
mercial court of the Seine was not competent to take cognizance
of the claim put forward by him and Dupont.
(4) 1891. Case of Count Errembault de Dudzeele before the Cour de
Cassation at Paris.
In July 1 889 the Civil Court of the Seine condemned in default
Count Errembault de Dudzeele, counsellor of the Belgian legation,
to payment of a sum of fr. 377.05. As he did not appeal within the
legal period against this decision, an appeal was entered against
it, at the instance of the French Ministry of Justice, in the interest
of the law. The decision of the lower court was reversed by a
judgment of January 10, 1891, from which the following passages
may be quoted :
" La Cour, vu le decret de la Convention nationale du 1 3 ventose,
an II, defendant a toute autorite constitute d'attenter en aucune
maniere a la personne des envoyes des gouvernements etrangers.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 173
Attendu qu'une des consequences du principe rappele dans le
decret susvise est que les agents diplomatiques des puissances
etrangeres ne sont pas soumis en regie generate a la juridiction des
tribunaux francais ; attendu que cette immunite doit s'etendre a
toutes les personnes faisant officiellement partie de la legation.
Attendu que Pincompetence des tribunaux francais en cette matiere
etant fondee sur le besoin d'independance reciproque des differents
fitats et des personnes chargees de les representer, ne peut flechir
que devant 1'acceptation certaine et reguliere que feraient les dites
personnes de la juridiction de cesmemes tribunaux. . . .
;' Les immunites ont etc reconnues de meme aux attaches
d'ambassade par le tribunal de la Seine par jugement du 10 aout,
1855. 'Attendu, dit ce jugement, qu'Aurelio Pinto justifie qu'il
est attache a la legation imperiale du Bresil en France ; que con-
formement aux regies du droit des gens, le caractere dont il est
revetu ne permet pas qu'il soit traduit devant la juridiction francaise
pour une affaire purement personnelle, . . . se declare incom-
petent. . . .' En Allemagne la loi nous dit : 'Les tribunaux natio-
naux n'ont pas juridiction sur les chefs et les membres des missions
diplomatiques accreditees aupres de 1'empire Allemand ' (Code
d'organisation judiciaire de 1'empire Allemand, art. 18). En
Autriche nous trouvons la disposition suivante : ' Les ambassadeurs,
les charges d'affaires, et les personnes qui sont a leur service jouissent
des franchises etablies par le droit des gens et par les traites pub-
lics ' (Code civil autrichien, art. 38). "l
(5) In 1897 the Cour de Cassation at Brussels, at the instance
of the Belgian Ministry of Justice, and after examination of the
authorities and precedents, quashed the decision of the lower court,
which had condemned the military attache of the Turkish legation., in
default, to payment of an amount claimed by a veterinary surgeon
for services rendered.2
(6) 1913. — In re Republic of Bolivia Exploration Syndicate, Ltd.
This was an action in the Chancery Division of the High Court
of Justice at London. The liquidator of the above company having
issued a summons against the directors, among whom was M. R. E.
Lembcke, 2nd Secretary of the Peruvian Legation, and the audi-
tors claiming damages for various acts of misfeasance, M. Lembcke,
on the hearing of the summons, asserted diplomatic privilege, with
the sanction and at the wish of the Peruvian Legation, although
he had previously entered an unconditional appearance to the
summons.
In this case a number of previous cases bearing on the point
came under review, and amongst others that of Taylor v. Best, and
the Magdalena Steam Navigation Co. v. Martin. (See above.)
Held : Both under the common law and under the Diplo-
matic Privileges Act, 1708, a diplomatic agent accredited to the
Crown by a foreign state is absolutely privileged from being sued
1 Clunet (1891), 137. 2 Clunet (1897), 839.
174 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
in the English courts and any writ issued against him is absolutely
null and void.
The diplomatic privilege can be waived, if at all, only with full
knowledge of the party's rights, and only with the sanction of his
sovereign or legation.
Except in cases like Taylor v. Best, where the agent is merely
joined as a formal defendant, it is doubtful if such waiver is possible.
" Whatever the true view of M. Lembcke's conduct in entering
appearance and taking the subsequent steps, it is clear that the
summons must prove abortive against him. No judgment or
execution can be enforced or levied against him, and the authorities
show the impropriety of allowing the action to go on merely for
the purpose of defining his liability." l
§ 335- The immunity of the diplomatic agent extends in
general to events which may have occurred prior to his
reception, and on the termination of his mission it is generally
recognised that it continues for such reasonable time as may
be necessary for him to complete the work of his mission
before departing from the country.
Spanish law appears to prescribe that an envoy, while
exempt from being sued in respect of obligations contracted
before the commencement of the mission, is not so for those
incurred during its continuance. Portuguese law seems
to be to the opposite effect. And in France the immunity
apparently now ceases, at any rate in the case of a member of
the staff, as soon as his appointment terminates, if the action
is begun after that date.
(1) In 1859, in the case of the Magdalena Steam Navigation Com-
pany v. Martin, in the English courts, Lord Chief Justice Campbell
observed : ' There can be no execution while the ambassador is
accredited, nor even when he is recalled, if he only remains a
reasonable time in this country after his recall." 2
(2) In 1894, in the case Musurus Bey v. Gadban, in the English
courts, the question of freedom from suit of ambassadors was raised
in connection with a liability incurred. The plaintiff was the
executof of Musurus Pacha, who had been Turkish ambassador
at London, and had presented his letters of recall on December 7,
1885, but had continued to reside in England until February 1886.
In an action by the plaintiff, as such executor, against the defendants
to recover moneys collected by them, they counterclaimed in respect
of a debt alleged to be due to them by Musurus Pacha, and the
question arose whether their claim was not barred by the lapse of
six years from the date of its accrual. Accordingly it became
necessary to determine whether the defendants had an effective
cause of action against the ambassador during the period between
1 L. R. [1914] i Gh. 139. 2 El. & El. 94. (See 334 (2) above.)
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 175
December 7, 1885, and February 1886, and it was held by the
Court of Appeal that the point was decided in the case of Magdalena
Steam Navigation Co. v. Martin. (See § 334 (2).) " It was there held
that there could be no execution against an ambassador while he is
accredited, nor even when he is recalled, if he only remains a
reasonable time in this country after his recall, and that is precisely
what Musurus Pacha did in the present case. During these two
months Musurus Pacha was in the same position as he was in before
his recall as to immunity from being sued." Accordingly the
plaintiff could not set up the Statute of Limitations against the
defendants' counter claim.1
(3) In 1906, the French Government having broken off diplo-
matic relations with Venezuela, and entrusted their interests to
the United States, the Venezuelan Government contended that
the French Minister became subject to the local law immediately
his representation ceased. The resident diplomatic body entered
a protest against this view.2 (See § 511.)
(4) In 1929 the Netherlands tribunal at The Hague, in the
case Banco de Portugal v. Marang, etc., held that the immunity from
civil jurisdiction enjoyed by a foreign diplomatic representative
ceases on the termination of his mission, except for the time required
by him to liquidate his affairs.3
§ 336. The following are recent French judgments on the
liability of members, or ex-members, of the staff of a diplo-
matic agent.
(1) In 1921 the French Cour de Cassation, at the instance of
the Procureur-General, reversed a judgment pronounced against
the Secretary of the Persian legation, observing : " Attendu qu'il
importe peu que 1'obligation contractee par 1'agent diplomatique
1'ait etc a une date anterieure ou posterieure a son entree en fonc-
tions ; qu'il suffit qu'il soit investi de son caractere officiel au
moment ou des poursuites sont dirigees contre lui." 4
(2) In 1925 the Cour d'Appel at Paris condemned Mr. Belin,
ex-Secretary of the United States Embassy (in an action begun after
he had ceased to be a member of that mission) , to payment of damages
in respect of an accident caused by his motor car, though this
occurred while he was still a member of the mission, observing :
" Attendu que 1'immunite diplomatique erigee dans 1'interet des
gouvernements et non dans celui des diplomates, ne s'etend pas au
dela de la mission ; que la these contraire aboutirait a creer au
profit de 1'agent diplomatique une sorte de prescription et une
irresponsabilite indefinie ; rejette comme mal fondee 1'exception
soulevee par Belin, et le declare civilement responsable." 5
1 L.R. [1894] 2 Q.. B. 352.
2 Foreign Relations of the United States (1906), 1448 ; de Boeck, I' Expulsion et les
difficultly Internationales qu'en souleve la pratique, Cours de La Haye (1927), iii. 509.
3 Hill, American Journal of International Law (1931), 259.
4 Clunet (1921), 922. 6 Glunet (1926), 64.
176 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, signed
at Havana, lays down for the signatory states the following rules :
" Article 20. The immunity from jurisdiction survives the tenure
of office of diplomatic officers in so far as regards actions pertaining
thereto ; it may not, however, be invoked in respect to other
actions except while discharging their diplomatic functions " (sic).
§ 337. A distinction drawn by some writers between acts
performed by the agent in an official capacity and those
performed in a private capacity, and, again, the opinion that
the immunity should not go beyond cases where submission
to the jurisdiction would impair the free exercise of his func-
tions, do not find any general acceptance, though certain
much criticised decisions of the Italian tribunals in 1915 and
1922 may be mentioned.
(1) In 1883 the French Cour d'Appel at Lyons gave the follow-
ing decision in an action brought against the Comte de Bruc, diplo-
matic agent of San Marino at Paris, concerning alterations effected
in his private property situated at Ste. Foy-les-Lyon :
" La Cour, considerant que la position des representants etrangers
en France est reglee par le decret du 13 ventose, an II, qui interdit
a toute autorite d'attenter en aucune maniere a la personne d'un
envoye d'un gouvernement etranger ; considerant que les auteurs
ayant ecrit sur le droit international ont eu quelques divergences
entre eux ; que 1'on a cherche a faire une distinction entre la
personne officielle et la personne privee, de meme qu'entre les
actes accomplis en qualite de representant et pour le compte
d'un gouvernement etranger, et les actes accomplis par le meme
representant dans son interet personnel et prive ; que dans ce
dernier cas, certains auteurs accordent une action en justice ; que
d'autres auteurs, au contraire, la refusent absolument dans quelque
cas et pour quelque cause que ce soit ; considerant que cette
opinion est celle qui a prevalu, et que la jurisprudence n'a jamais
varie sur ce point d'accord en ceci avec les principes du droit des
gens : qu'ainsi il faut reconnaitre que 1'immunite complete de la
juridiction en matiere civile existe en faveur de toute personne
investie d'un caractere officiel, comme representant a un titre
quelconque d'un gouvernement etranger ; que le Comte de Bruc
est done fonde a se retrancher derriere cette immunite." x
(2) In 1888 the Federal Court of Buenos Ayres, in an action
concerning the goods of the Paraguayan minister, rejected the opinion
expressed by certain writers that the immunity accorded to foreign
representatives should be confined to cases where submission to the
jurisdiction hindered the free exercise of their functions, and declared
that the more generally accepted rule was that foreign repre-
sentatives should not be subjected to the local jurisdiction unless they
renounced privilege with the authorisation of their government.2
1 Clunet (1884), 57 ; Hurst, op. cit., ii. 182. 2 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 179.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 177
(3) In 1915 the Court of Cassation at Rome, in the case of one
Rinaldi, who had seized a motor car belonging to the Secretary of
the Prussian legation to the Vatican, reversed the judgment of the
lower courts, and held that private acts accomplished by a diplo-
matic agent are subject to the local jurisdiction ; further, the
secretary was not head of the mission but a subordinate, and the
act of seizure was in a courtyard and not in his abode.1
(4) In 1922 the Italian Court of Cassation, in the case of Cominat
v. Kite, pronounced against the doctrine of absolute immunity,
declaring that this was born of theories long rejected and contrary
to justice and law ; it was inadmissible that a diplomatic agent
should contract a debt, or conclude a contract, without means exist-
ing of making him pay, or obliging him to fulfil his engagements.2
Of these latter decisions M. Deak writes :
" Neanmoins, cette interpretation radicale de Pimmunite de
juridiction est unique dans la pratique des tribunaux, et semble
etre la consequence d'une trop grande importance attachee au
caractere territorial du droit." 3
It appears also that the judgment in the last mentioned
case gave rise to a representation made by the doyen of the
Diplomatic Corps at Rome to the Italian Ministry for Foreign
Affairs.4
But by a subsequent judgment in 1927 the Court of Rome
reversed the rule adopted by the Court of Cassation in these
cases :
(5) In 1927, in the case Lurie v. Steinmann, before the Court of
Rome, an action was brought against the ecclesiastical counsellor
of the German Embassy accredited to the Holy See, in respect of
a commission for having purchased certain property on his behalf,
on the ground that Article 1 1 of the Law of Guarantees, on which
the defendant relied, covered only acts of diplomatic agents
executed in the exercise of their diplomatic functions, but not
acts relating to their private affairs ; and that immunity protected
only the head of the diplomatic mission. The Court held that it
had no jurisdiction ; that it was obvious that when questions of
immunities of diplomatic agents arise, such immunity could only
refer to the persons of diplomatic agents with regard to their private
affairs, since one could hardly speak of immunity in cases where
they act as agents of states ; that the principle of immunity or
exterritoriality of diplomatic agents plainly implies the fact that
diplomatic agents are to be considered outside the jurisdiction of
the country in which they are officially recognised with regard also
to their private affairs ; and that it is similarly recognised by
1 Dedk, op. cit., 205. a Ibid., 205. 3 Ibid., 206.
4 Genet, Traiti de Diplomatic, etc., i. 586 n.
N
178 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
international custom that the immunity comprises the whole of
the official staff of the embassy or legation.1
§ 338. The view that real property privately owned by the
diplomatic agent is subject to the local jurisdiction on the
principle of the lex loci rei sitae, with the exception of the legation
house if owned by him, does not escape criticism.2
In 1925, in the case Montwid-Biallozor v. Ivaldi, before the
Supreme Court of Poland, regarding a contract of lease entered
into by the military attache to the Italian legation, it was held that
municipal courts have jurisdiction in regard to the private im-
movable property of a public minister, except where it is devoted
to the official use of the legation ; and that though it is doubtful
whether immunity from suits covers actions in rem relating to
immovable property, it covers action in personam, and that actions
arising out of a contract of lease are personal actions.3
§ 339. A diplomatic agent will do well to inform himself
of all local legislation respecting diplomatic immunities. But
as he ought carefully to avoid giving rise to any questions
touching the extent of his immunities between his own govern-
ment and that to which he is accredited, the obvious recom-
mendation to make is that he should not acquire any kind of
personal interest, or accept any obligations, likely to give rise
to such questions. It will be better, for more reasons than
one, to eschew all speculation and commercial transactions
of whatever nature in the country where he is accredited, and
to pay his local tradesmen's bills with regularity and despatch.
Suite, etc.
§ 340. The jurisdictional immunities of the diplomatic
agent extend to the personnel of his mission, viz. the official
suite, i.e. counsellors, secretaries and attaches, including naval,
military, air and commercial attaches, appointed to assist him
in his duties ; those engaged in the office work of the mission,
archivists, clerks, etc., and, in the East, dragomans and inter-
preters ; doctor and chaplain where these are bond fide
members of the mission. Also to the wives 4 and families of
the above. And further to such persons as are in his employ-
ment for his personal convenience or that of his family — tutors,
governesses, private secretaries, cooks, chauffeurs, gardeners, etc.
1 Annual Digest (1927-8), Case No. 246.
2 See on this point Hurst, op. cit., ii. 180-4.
3 Annual Digest (1925-6), Case No. 246.
4 Even if living apart, according to French and English decisions : Cottenet
c. Rafalovitch, Clunet (1908), 153 ; Macnaghten v. Coveridias, Annual Practice, etc.
(J923)> vol. i. ; Hurst, op. cit., ii. 158.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 179
" II y a lieu de remarquer que les agents diploma tiques autres
que les chefs de mission (les conseillers, secretaires et attaches) sont
considered comme des ministres publics, jouissant des privileges
dans la meme mesure que les envoyes eux-memes. Bien qu'il
n'existe aucun document international exprimant cette opinion,
des dispositions inscrites dans les legislations nationales rangent ces
agents dans la hierarchic diplomatique. On verra par les exemples
ci-apres qui les tribunaux partagent unanimement 1'avis que les
privileges des agents diplomatiques existent quels que soient le
grade ou le titre de ces agents." l
" La prerogative de ces agents s'etend a tous les fonctionnaires
que les accompagnent et qui leur sont adjoints pour les assister et
les suppleer, soit dans la mission generale qu'ils ont a remplir, soit
dans les branches speciales ressortissant a cette mission ; elle appar-
tient a leurs secretaires, a leurs attaches, au personnel de leur suite,
a leur famille, a tous les gens, en un mot, dont la presence est
necessaire pour leur permettre de representer dignement leur pays,
et d'accomplir completement et utilement leur mission." 2
The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, signed
at Havana, lays down for the signatory states the following rules :
" Article 14. Diplomatic officers shall be inviolate as to their
persons, their residence, private or official, and their property.
This inviolability covers : (a) all classes of diplomatic officers ;
(b) the entire official personnel of the diplomatic mission ; (c) the
members of the respective families living under the same roof;
(d) the papers, archives, and correspondence of the mission."
§ 341. In most countries it is usual for the diplomatic agent
to furnish to the ministry for foreign affairs a full list of the
persons composing his mission for whom immunity is claimed.
In Great Britain this is done annually at the commencement
of each year, and the list is revised from time to time as changes
are notified. By the Act 7 Anne, c. 12, every servant must
be registered in the office of one of the Principal Secretaries
of State, i.e. the Foreign Office.
In 1923, in the case Assurantie Compagnie Excelsior v. Smith,
at London, Mr. Smith, clerk in the United States embassy, whose
name was recorded in the embassy list, was sued for calls on shares.
He held a confidential position in the embassy, outgoing despatches
were handed to him, he had charge of the embassy seal, and con-
trolled the formal clerical work. It was held that, being on the
official staff of the embassy, and carrying out official duties, he was
entitled to the immunity claimed by him.3
1 Dedk, op. cit., 198.
2 Aff. Dientz c. de la Jara (Paris), Clunet (1878), 501 ; Hurst, op. cit., ii. 153.
3 40 T. L. R. (1923), 105.
i8o IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
§ 342. As regards the method of claiming immunity in the
event of an action arising before the local tribunals, practice
may vary. The claim may be made direct to the tribunal, or
the diplomatic agent may address himself to the government
to which he is accredited, with the request that the necessary
action may be taken. As is shown in the cases mentioned in
§ 334 (4)5 (5)> m both France and Belgium the ministry of
justice intervened to safeguard the immunity, and in Great
Britain similar action has been taken.
1928. Engelke v. Musmann. — In this case the House of Lords
gave judgment on appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal.
An action having been brought against Herr Engelke in the King's
Bench Division of the High Court for arrears of rent alleged to be
due under the lease of a dwelling-house, he entered a conditional
appearance, but claimed immunity on the ground that he had
been consular secretary on the staff of the German embassy in
London since 1920, had been notified as such to the Foreign Office,
and that his name appeared in the diplomatic list issued by the
Foreign Office. The plaintiff asked for leave to cross-examine the
deponent on the facts asserted in his affidavit. This the court
refused ; the Judge in Chambers reversed this decision ; the Court
of Appeal concurred ; and the matter was then carried to the
House of Lords.
The questions were (i) whether a statement by the Attorney-
General, at the instance of the Foreign Office, as to the status
of a person claiming diplomatic privilege, was conclusive, and
(2) whether the appellant should be ordered to be cross-examined
in the courts on the affidavits in which his claim was preferred.
The contentions of the Attorney-General were submitted in a
written case, and were to the effect that if a statement made on
behalf of the Crown as to the position of a member of the diplomatic
staff was not conclusive, and if the court by seeking to investigate
the facts, compelled the person for whom immunity was claimed
to submit to legal process, it would be impossible for the Crown to
fulfil the obligations imposed by international law and the comity
of nations, since the steps taken would themselves involve a breach
of diplomatic immunity.
Held : that the statement of the Attorney-General, made at the
instance of the Foreign Office, as to the status of a person claiming
diplomatic privilege, was conclusive.1 Per Viscount Dunedin :
Apart from that statement the cross-examination of the defendant
would have been justified.
In the United States various instances show that a certifi-
cate from the Secretary of State is accepted by the courts as
sufficing to establish the diplomatic status of the person
concerned.
1 L. R. [ 1 928] A. C. 433 ; Hurst, British Tear Book of International Law ( 1 929) , 1 1 .
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 181
§ 343. Inasmuch as a diplomatic agent is the representative
of the state which has accredited him, it is through the govern-
ment of that state that an aggrieved person can in the last
resort obtain satisfaction. If the matter is a civil one, and
a direct request for a settlement proves inefficacious — or, in
the case of a member of the staff, a representation to the
head of the mission — the aggrieved person may lay the facts
before his own government, with a view to all proper measures
being taken to obtain redress, a course which is often successful 1 ;
or he may carry the matter to the tribunals of the country
which has accredited the agent.
" Quoique le centre des affaires de 1'ambassadeur se trouve a
1'endroit de sa mission, dans 1'Etat qui recoit, il n'y acquiert pas un
domicile legal. Toutes les pretentions civiles qui naissent pendant
1'exercice de ses fonctions, et celles qui se sont produites avant, sont
justiciable des tribunaux de 1'Etat qui envoie." 2
In the case of a Belgian diplomatic agent who endorsed letters
of exchange to the profit of an Austrian creditor, and payable in
Austria, the Cour d'Appel at Brussels held that he could only be
sued in Belgium, unless he had accepted the jurisdiction of the
foreign tribunal, and declared that the Belgian law of prescription
applied.3 In Roumania, the High Court of Cassation and Justice
held that the Roumanian commercial attache in Italy could be
proceeded against in Roumania for trqfic d' influence when the latter
was punishable both by Roumanian and Italian law.4 (See also
the case of Dickenson v. Del Solar in the English courts, § 347 (6).)
§ 344. In a criminal matter the recall of the offender would
doubtless be demanded by the state offended.
In 1 88 1 the German ambassador at London claimed privilege
in respect of a secretary of the embassy accused of a criminal
offence. Assurances were given that he would not be retained in
the service of the embassy, and no further proceedings were taken
in England.
In 1915 the United States Government notified the German
ambassador at Washington that the continued presence of Captains
Boy-Ed and Von Papen, German naval and military attaches, would
no longer serve the purpose of their mission, and would be unac-
ceptable, owing to their connection with the illegal acts of certain
persons within the United States. They were recalled, and returned
to Germany under safe-conducts granted by the Allied Powers at
the request of the United States Government.5
1 See Hurst, op. cit., ii. 209. 2 Heyking, op. tit., 272.
3 Hill, American Journal of International Law (1931), 255.
4 Hill, op. cit., 255.
5 Diplomatic Correspondence between the United States and Belligerent Govts., x. 363.
1 82 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
In 1916 Von Igel, former secretary of Von Papen (see above),
was arrested in New York, and his papers seized and copies taken.
They were said to contain evidence of complicity in conspiracies
against the neutrality of the United States ; and it is said that Von
Papen and Von Igel directed and financed an office for procuring
fraudulent passports for German reservists. The German ambas-
sador protested, claiming Von Igel as an attache, and his papers
as embassy papers ; the United States Government replied that the
acts complained of were prior to his connection with the embassy,
and asked the ambassador to identify which papers belonged to
the embassy, but he declined. (The action taken in this case
appears to have met with criticism in the United States.) *
§ 345. In the case of servants it is essential that they should
be actually and bond fide employed, and in Great Britain they
have no immunity if engaged in trade. Often they may be
nationals of the state in which the diplomatic agent resides,
and in some countries distinctions are drawn — in Germany
German nationals so employed are subject to the local juris-
diction ; in the United States, no citizen or inhabitant of
that country has immunity in respect of debts contracted before
entering such service. But the immunity of servants, being
purely derivative, lapses with the termination of their employ-
ment,2 and it would be appropriate, should they come into
conflict with the local law, either that privilege should be
waived, or that they should be dismissed, in order that justice
may be done. As Hall says,3 " No minister wishes to shield
a criminal, and there is no reason to believe that permission
to exercise jurisdiction is refused upon sufficient cause being
shown."
The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, concern-
ing diplomatic officers, makes no mention of servants.
§ 346. Abuses such as existed in the past, as mentioned in
the following extract from a letter written in 1818 by the United
States Attorney-General, are of course highly improbable at
the present day :
" English books abound with instances of attempts on the part
of foreign ministers to screen debtors from their creditors by the
abuse of this privilege, and some of these cases are marked with an
audacity only equalled by their absurdity. Thus in one case an
attempt was made to protect a debtor on the ground of his being
ostler to a foreign minister, who it was proven never kept horses ;
in another, on the ground of the defendant's being coachman to a
1 Hershey, Diplomatic Agents, etc., 149.
2 See, e.g., decision of Supreme Court, Berlin (1899) ; Clunet (1902), 146.
3 Hall, 230.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 183
foreign minister who kept no coach ; in a third, of his being cook
to one who kept no kitchen nor culinary instruments ; in a fourth,
of his being gardener to one who had no garden ; in a fifth, of his
being a physician, although there was no proof that he had ever
prescribed in his life ; and in a sixth, on the ground of his being
English chaplain to the ambassador from Morocco, who was a
Mohammedan." l
In 1823, in the case Novella v. Toogood, in the English courts, the
plaintiff, a British subject, was first chorister in the chapel of the
Portuguese ambassador at London, and had also other occupations
— prompter at a theatre, teacher of music and languages. He
rented a house, letting part in lodgings, and was subjected by a
rate-collector, the defendant Toogood, to a distress for rates. In
an action brought by the plaintiff for trespass, a verdict was found
for him, subject to the opinion of the Court of King's Bench.
Abbott, C.J., in giving judgment against the plaintiff, said that
his opinion was " founded upon one point only, that the action is
for taking the plaintiff's goods and not for arresting his person ;
as to which I give no opinion. ... I am of the opinion that what-
ever is necessary to the convenience of an ambassador, as connected
with his rank, his duties and his religion, ought to be protected ;
but an exemption from the burthens borne by other British sub-
jects ought not to be granted in a case to which the reason of the
exemption does not apply." 2
Renunciation of Privilege
§ 347. The right of a diplomatic agent to waive privilege
and submit to the local jurisdiction is recognised and supported
by various instances. Such renunciation, where given, should
be expressed in regular and definite form.3 It may be a
question whether the consent of his government should not
also be shown. The instructions to United States diplomatic
officers are that immunity from criminal and civil process
cannot be waived except by the consent of the government ;
but doubtless in most cases a diplomatic agent waiving
privilege would only do so on obtaining the consent of his
government.
(i) In 1906, M. C. Waddington, son of the Chilean charge
d'affaires at Brussels, being accused of murder, took refuge in the
legation, which was surrounded by police. Later, the charge
d'affaires informed the Public Prosecutor that he renounced
immunity from the jurisdiction for his son. The Belgian authori-
ties, however, decided that the consent of the Chilean Government
must be awaited, and this having been given, the accused was
1 Moore, iv. 655. 2 i B. & C. 554. 3 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 194.
1 84 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
brought before the Cour d'Assises of Brabant, where, after trial,
he was acquitted.1
(2) 1917. Case of Suarez, v. Suarez,- The Bolivian Minister in
London, in an action brought against him in 1914, concerning the
estate of Francisco Suarez, deceased, of which he was administrator,
waived his privilege and submitted to the jurisdiction, but failed to
comply with an order of the court to pay a certain sum of money
into court, and the question arose whether, notwithstanding
such submission, any writ of execution could be sued out or
issued, whereby his goods, etc., could be seized. It was held by
Eve, J., that a minister accredited to Great Britain by a foreign
state, who has submitted to the jurisdiction, and against whom
judgment has been pronounced, is nevertheless under the Act of
1 708 entitled, when leave to issue execution is applied for, to assert
and obtain immunity from process by way of execution.2
A few months later the Bolivian Government terminated the
defendant's appointment as minister in London, and the plaintiff's
application for leave to proceed to execution and for liberty to issue
a writ of sequestration of the defendant's property was restored to
the list. Eve, J., granted the plaintiff's application, and held
further that, as the defendant had departed secretly from the
country knowing that an order for payment had been made against
him, the sequestration could issue against him, notwithstanding that
service of the order requiring payment had not actually been made
upon him. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.3
(3) In 1925, in the case Drtilek v. Barbier, before the Cour
d'Appel at Paris, the chancellor of the Czechoslovak legation
claimed immunity from distraint. Having rented a flat, he was
two years later given notice to quit ; relying on French legislation
concerning rents, he thereupon applied to the courts for reduction
of rent, and then declined to pay more than the reduced amount
which he alleged to be due as the result of this legislation. It was
held by the court that even had his name appeared in the official
diplomatic list (which it did not) he had waived immunity from
jurisdiction by invoking against his landlord the benefit of French
legislation as to rents ; he could not thereafter shelter himself
against his landlord behind diplomatic privilege.4
(4) In 1925, in the case Montwid-Biallozor v. Ivaldi, before the
Supreme Court of Poland, concerning a contract of lease of a flat
entered into by the military attache of the Italian legation, which
provided that " the diplomatic clause shall not be invoked," the
court held that the courts below should have considered, and that
the Supreme Court must begin with considering, the question of
exterritoriality, which is a question of public law. The immunity
of diplomatic agents from the civil jurisdiction of the receiving
state being a recognised principle of international law, flowing
1 Revue Generate du Droit International Public, xiv. 159.
2 L. R. [1917] 2 Ch. 131. 3 L. R. [1918] i Ch. 176.
4 Clunet (1926), 638 ; Annual Digest (1925-6), Case No. 242.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 185
from the idea of sovereignty and the necessities of international
intercourse, the privilege accorded by it was not a personal privilege
of the diplomatic agent, but of the state itself, and that it could
not therefore be waived in a private contract at the discretion of
the diplomatic agent and without the approval of his government.1
(5) In 1927, in the case Herman v. Apetz, before the Supreme
Court of New York, the wife of the Costa Rican secretary of legation
entered appearance, but afterwards pleaded immunity from
process. The Court observed that there was no doubt that an
envoy might not waive his diplomatic immunity without consent of
the sending state ; whether this inability to waive also applied to
his wife, family and domestic servants, was a matter of conflict
among text writers ; the better view seemed to be that waiver on
the part of such persons did not require the consent of the home
state and was therefore effective.2
(6) 1930. Dickenson v. Del Solar-Mobile and General Insurance Co.,
Ltd., third parties.
This was an action in the King's Bench Division of the High
Court of Justice against the First Secretary of the Peruvian legation
in London for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been
caused by his negligent driving of a motor-car. The defendant was
forbidden by the Peruvian minister to claim diplomatic immunity,
and an unconditional appearance was entered on his behalf. But,
being insured against third party claims, he had called upon the
company to indemnify him in respect of the plaintiff's claim and
his own costs.
A verdict for damages having been given, the insurance company
disputed their liability to indemnify him, alleging that as he
possessed diplomatic privilege, there was no legal liability to the
plaintiff, and so no claim under the policy ; also that by refusing
to claim diplomatic privilege he had acted in breach of the condi-
tions of the policy.
Held : that a person covered by diplomatic immunity is not
immune from legal liability, but only from proceedings in the local
jurisdiction (unless he submits thereto) so long as he possesses
diplomatic status. The defendant was therefore under a legal
liability to the plaintiff, and there was a claim arising under the
policy ;
The privilege of immunity attaching to a person having diplo-
matic status is the privilege not of himself, but of the sovereign
by whom he is accredited, and the right of waiver of such privilege
belongs to such sovereign. The claiming and waiver of the privilege
was not a matter within the volition of the defendant, who, being
forbidden by his official superior to claim immunity, could not do
so, and so his failure to do so could not be said to be a breach of the
conditions of the policy ;
The entry of an unconditional appearance to the proceedings,
1 Annual Digest (1925-6), Case No. 245.
2 130 Misc. (N.T.), 618 ; Annual Digest (1927-8), Case No. 244.
1 86 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
which had been done on the defendant's behalf by the solicitor
of the third parties, was itself a waiver of the privilege and a sub-
mission to the jurisdiction, and privilege could not therefore be
pleaded thereafter by way of defence, and the action must proceed
to judgment.
The court refrained from deciding whether, after a submission
to the jurisdiction, diplomatic immunity could be asserted as a bar
to the execution of the judgment, since, even if it were so, execution
might issue as soon as the defendant ceased to be a privileged
person, and the judgment might be the foundation of proceedings
against him at any time in Peru.1
Proceedings by a Diplomatic Agent
§ 348. If, on the other hand, the diplomatic agent himself
chooses to bring an action before the local tribunals, he obliges
himself, like a sovereign in similar circumstances, to comply
with the rules of the court. He is liable therefore to defences
by way of counterclaim to the action (i.e. relating to the same
matter),2 and to condemnation in costs (concerning which
security may perhaps be required) if the suit fails. If the suit
succeeds, and the defendant prosecutes an appeal, which is
also a mode of defence, the diplomatic agent cannot decline
the jurisdiction of the superior court.
In 1925 a secretary of the Chinese embassy at Berlin, having bought
a motor car and paid part of the price, brought an action to claim
possession, offering to pay the balance ; and a provisional order was
issued decreeing delivery of the car. The defendant, who claimed
that the contract had lapsed, owing to delay in payment, brought
a cross-suit, claiming restitution of the car ; and this was decreed,
the provisional order being revoked. The plaintiff appealed,
objecting to the counter-claim on the ground of exterritoriality, and
the appeal was allowed.
An appeal to the Reichsgericht followed, and it was held that
as the plaintiff was wrongly in possession, and merely availing
himself of his exterritoriality to render perpetual the provisional
decree, thus depriving the defendant of his legal remedies incidental
to the plaintiff's suit, the plea of exterritoriality could not be
recognised. Whether a diplomatic agent by bringing an action
1 L. R. [1930] I K. B. 376 ; British Tear Book of International Law (1930),
231.
2 See Dicey, Conflict of Laws (4th Ed.), 214: "A sovereign or ambassador
who brings an action in the High Court undoubtedly submits himself to its juris-
diction in regard to that action, but no further. This principle decides the extent
to which the court has jurisdiction to entertain a counterclaim against, e.g., an
ambassador who is plaintiff in an action. If the counterclaim is really a defence
to the action, i.e. is a set-off, or something in the nature of a set-off, the court
has a right to entertain it. If the counterclaim is really a cross-action, the
court has no jurisdiction to entertain it." See also Hurst, op. cit., ii. 190.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 187
impliedly accepts the jurisdiction of the court in a cross-suit arising
out of that action depends upon the merits of each particular case.1
Evidence of a Diplomatic Agent
§ 349. A diplomatic agent cannot be required to attend in
court to give evidence of facts within his knowledge, nor can
a member of his family or suite be so compelled. Sometimes
his evidence has been taken down in writing by a secretary of
the mission, or by an official whom the diplomatic agent may
have consented to receive for the purpose, and the evidence
has been communicated to the court in that form. But in
some countries evidence, particularly in a criminal case, may
have to be taken orally and in presence of the accused.
In 1856 the Netherlands minister at Washington was requested
by the Secretary of State to appear in court, to give evidence
regarding a homicide committed in his presence. By the unanimous
advice of his colleagues he refused. Representations were made to
the Netherlands Government by that of the United States, which,
while admitting that in virtue of international usage and of the
law of the United States, the minister had the right of refusal,
appealed to the general sense of justice of the Netherlands Govern-
ment. The latter, however, declined to give the desired instruc-
tions, but authorised the minister to give his evidence in writing,
and he accordingly offered to do so, adding that he could not
submit to cross-examination. The offer was declined, as the district
Attorney-General reported that such a written statement would
not be receivable as evidence.2
In 1 88 1, at the trial of Guiteau in the United States for the
assassination of President Garfield, the Venezuelan minister was
called as a witness for the prosecution, and was authorised by his
government to waive his rights and appear as a witness.?
The instructions to United States diplomatic representatives
are that they cannot be compelled to testify in the country of
their sojourn before any tribunal whatsoever ; the right being
regarded as appertaining to their office, and not to their person,
and one of which they cannot divest themselves except by
consent of their government.
§ 35°- Writers express different views on this subject.
Hall 4 considers that where by the laws of the country evidence
must be given orally before the court, and in the presence of
the accused, it is proper for the minister, or the member of the
mission whose evidence is needed, to submit himself for
1 Annual Digest (1925-6), Case No. 243.
2 Calvo, Le Droit international, etc., § 1520 n.
3 Moore, iv. 644-5. * Hall, 235.
1 88 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
examination in the usual manner ; Calvo, that the principles
of the law of nations did not allow him to refuse to appear in
court and give evidence in the presence of the accused where
the laws of the country absolutely require this to be done ;
Oppenheim,1 that no envoy can be obliged, or even
requested, to appear as a witness in a civil, or criminal, or
administrative court, or to give evidence before a commis-
sioner sent to his house ; and Ullmann,2 that the envoy may,
if he is so disposed, authorise the appearance of a member
of his suite or of his household. The Spanish code formerly
contained provisions to the effect that local magistrates might
compel the evidence of foreign diplomats ; the entire diplo-
matic body protested with success to the Spanish Government
against these provisions.3
The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, concern-
ing diplomatic officers, lays down for signatory states the following
rule : "Article 21. Persons enjoying immunity from jurisdiction
may refuse to appear as witnesses before the territorial courts."
A decree of the Soviet Union of January 14, 1927, declares that
diplomatic representatives and the members of their missions are
not obliged to give evidence in court, and in the event of an agree-
ment to give such evidence they are not obliged to appear in court
for that purpose.
Inquests
§ 351. In the event of members of the diplomatic corps
dying in England, whether within or without the legation, in
circumstances which would normally necessitate the holding
of a coroner's inquest, it appears to have been the practice,
where immunity has been claimed, to waive the proceedings,
or, where consent has been given subject to reservations, to
comply with the latter.
§ 352. On the suicide of the butler of the British embassy at
Madrid in 1921, the ambassador waved exterritorial rights to
the extent of receiving the examining magistrate of the district
at the embassy, the evidence given by him and some of the
servants being embodied in a proces-verbal, which stated that
he had waived those rights for the occasion.
Independence
§ 353- A topic upon which writers, more especially those
of earlier times, have dwelt largely is that of the independence
of the diplomatic agent.
1 Oppenheim, i. § 392. 2 Ullmann, 188 n. i.
3 Foreign Relations of the United States (1877), 492 ; Dedk, op. cit., 206.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 189
We have seen that international law regards the inviolability
of the head of a mission as the chief attribute of the diplomatic
character ; absolute independence is, in principle, its corollary, as
being in itself the consequence of the independence of the nation
of which the public minister is the mandatory.1
And from this it is deduced that the diplomatic agent
should abstain from any act likely in any way to prejudice
that independence.
" II importe qu'il n'ait rien a esperer, ni rien a craindre du
souverain auquel il est envoye." 2
§ 354. A diplomatic agent should be careful to abstain
from all interference in the domestic affairs of the state to
which he is accredited. Instances in which such interference
has led to requests for his recall, or to his dismissal by the state
concerned, are set out in Chapter XXI.
In 1925 M. Volhine, secretary to the Soviet embassy at Paris,
was relieved of his functions in consequence of representations made
by the French Government regarding a speech made by him at a
public meeting in France to commemorate Sun Yat-Sen.3
The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, signed
at Havana, lays down for the signatory states the following rule :
"Article 12. Foreign diplomatic officers may not participate in
the domestic or foreign politics of the state in which they exercise
their functions."
§ 355- On June :5> I93I» m tne House of Commons, London,
questions were asked of the Prime Minister regarding certain addresses
given by members of the Soviet embassy and the Finnish legation
within the precincts of the House, and it was suggested in reply
that Members might consider whether in using the committee
rooms for addresses by members of the diplomatic body upon con-
troversial questions they were not adopting a practice open to grave
objection. In reply to further questions by Sir A. Chamberlain
whether such addresses by foreign diplomats were not contrary to
diplomatic usage, whether the interference of diplomats in the
internal affairs of other countries had not led to their being handed
their passports, and whether it was not right that members of
embassies and legations should refrain in future from delivering
addresses of that kind, the Prime Minister said that that was the
character and nature of the statement he had made, and that he
hoped its complete significance would not be lost.4
Attacks in the Local Press
§ 356. As regards such attacks directed against diplomatic
agents in countries to which they are accredited, in cases
1 de Martens-Geffken, i. 88. 2 Vattel, Droit des Gens, iv., c. 7, § 92.
3 Times, May 12, 1925. * Parliamentary Debates, June 15, 1931.
i go IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
where the publications are under the control of the govern-
ment it is the duty of the latter to prevent this. In 1856 the
Peruvian Government dismissed the editor of a journal under
their control which had published an article offensive to the
resident diplomatic body, and caused their disapproval of his
action to be published. The codes of many European countries
punish with severity such offences defamatory to the reputation
of diplomatic agents.1 But where, as is often the case, the
Press is free from government control, and if the articles do
not transcend the limits fixed by law, the government can
usually only act indirectly in the matter.2 During the war of
1914-18 the Swiss Government found it necessary to prohibit
by decree propaganda directed against the German minister
and military attache.
Jurisdiction over Members of Suite
§ 357- On this point Oppenheim says :
" As the members of an envoy's retinue are considered exterri-
torial, the receiving state has no jurisdiction over them, and the
home state may therefore delegate civil and criminal jurisdiction
to the envoy. But no receiving state is required to grant self-
jurisdiction to an ambassador beyond a certain reasonable limit.
Thus, an envoy must have jurisdiction over his retinue in matters
of discipline, he must be able to order the arrest of a member of his
retinue who has committed a crime and is to be sent home for his
trial, and the like. But no civilised state would nowadays allow
an envoy himself to try a member of his retinue, though in former
centuries this used to happen." 3
§ 358. Recently Baron Heyking observes :
" L'ambassadeur est le chef de tout le personnel de 1'ambassade
et possede en cette qualite une juridiction disciplinaire. Mais
a-t-il encore d'autres droits judiciaires ? Grotius etait de 1'opinion
que 1'fitat qui recoit avait a decider sur 1'admissibilite de la
juridiction personnelle des ambassadeurs. Par centre Bynkershoek
soutenait que 1'Etat qui envoie avait seul le pouvoir d'accorder ce
droit. Une combinaison des deux opinions donne le vrai principe ;
la juridiction personnelle exige un double titre legal et ne peut se
produire que lorsque 1'fitat qui envoie et celui qui re$oit consentent
des deux cotes. Elle se borne aujourd'hui, dans la plupart des
fitats europeens, a la juridiction volontaire en matiere civile et a
ce qu'on appelle ' premier precede ' (erster AngrifT) en matiere
criminelle. C'est-a-dire que Ton precede apres 1'arrestation a la
constatation des faits et le delinquant est renvoye ensuite dans sa
1 Dedk, op. cit., 538. 2 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 132.
3 Oppenheim, i. § 396.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 191
patrie, ou il est 1'objet d'une instruction formelle. L'ambassadeur
est, a cette occasion, en droit de requerir les autorites et les tribunaux
locaux. Pour les delits ou contraventions de police, 1'ambassadeur
ne doit jamais depasser la mesure d'une punition correctionnelle." *
§ 359- But in times gone by diplomatic agents claimed a
more extensive jurisdiction over the members of their suites.
According to early writers, a distinction was to be drawn
between (i) an offence against his own country, or a fellow subject,
committed within the embassy, in which case the agent claimed
the right to send home the accused in fetters to the courts of his
own country for punishment ; and (2) an offence committed outside
the embassy against a subject of the state, or against public order,
in which case, in order to avoid disputes, the envoy either dismissed
the offender from his service, or handed him over to the local
authorities on their requisition. But the latter did not apply to
members of the diplomatic personnel, whom he had no power to
dismiss, and he had either to arrange for their dismissal with his
own government, with a view to the surrender of the culprit to the
authorities, or for an order to send him home for punishment.2
A famous case is that of the Due de Sully, who in 1603 was sent
on a special mission from France to James I. Combault, a
member of his mission, having killed an Englishman, Sully sent a
message to the Mayor of London, saying that he had condemned
the offender to be decapitated, and asking for the services of an
executioner on the following morning. The Mayor having
counselled moderation, Sully replied that he saw no way of satisfy-
ing his own people and the Mayor, but to ask the latter to take
charge of the prisoner, and to inflict on him whatever penalty the
law of England might prescribe. Combault was accordingly
handed over, but was pardoned by James I at the solicitation of
the French ambassador-in-ordinary.3
Civil Jurisdiction
§ 360. Oppenheim says :
'' Negotiation, observation and protection are tasks common to
all diplomatic envoys of every state. But a state may order its
permanent envoys to perform other tasks, such as the registration
of deaths, births, and marriages of subjects of the home state,
legalisation of their signatures, issue of passports for them, and the
like. But, in doing this, a state must be careful not to order its
envoys to perform tasks which are by the law of the receiving
state exclusively reserved to its own officials. Thus, for instance,
a state whose laws compel persons who intend marriage to conclude
1 Heyking, op. cit., ii. 268.
2 Schmelzing, ii. 241 ; Schmalz, Europaisches Vb'lkerrecht, 118.
3 Michaud and Poujoulat, Nouvelle Collection de Memoires, etc., ii. 444.
192 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
it in the presence of its registrars, need not allow a foreign envoy
to legalise a marriage of compatriots before its registration by the
official registrar. So, too, a state need not allow a foreign envoy
to perform an act which is reserved for its jurisdiction, as, for
instance, the examination of witnesses on oath." *
At the present day, however, most of these matters fall
within the province of consular officers, who are often em-
powered, under rules issued for their guidance, to perform
notarial and other acts in respect of their compatriots, within
the limits allowable by the laws of the state wherein they
reside.
§ 361. As regards marriages at foreign embassies and
legations, where such are possible, these, even if valid under
the law of the state which the ambassador or minister repre-
sents, are not necessarily so in the law of the state in which
they are celebrated, and in many instances it is known they
are not.
§ 362. While statements are to be found in text-books of
repute that marriages at foreign embassies and legations in
England would be valid in English law, no decided case
appears to be mentioned in which this has been laid down by
a court of law, and in the circumstances it would be difficult
to say definitely that any such marriages are valid in English
law. In the case of such marriages between persons who are
not both nationals of the country in whose embassy or legation
the marriage was celebrated, the best opinion appears to be
that they are invalid in English law.
Domicile and Nationality
§ 363. Diplomatic agents 2 and their staffs maintain their
domicile in their own country, and children born to them in
the country where they are temporarily residing in the per-
formance of their official duties have as a general rule the
nationality of their parents, and are not claimed as nationals
by the latter country. In English law the children born in
Great Britain of members of foreign missions having diplo-
matic immunity are not deemed to be British subjects, though
their births should be registered in order to comply with the
local law ; while children born abroad of British subjects
who are members of British diplomatic missions are deemed to
be British subjects under statute law, or, in certain cases, the
common law.
1 Oppenheim, i. § 382. 2 Hall, 236.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 193
Extensions
§ 364. While the foregoing paragraphs of this chapter relate
to permanent missions accredited to foreign countries, missions
of a temporary character are sometimes sent, as, for instance,
when a special agent is accredited to represent his sovereign
or country at a coronation or other royal ceremony, to invest
a sovereign with a high decoration, or on the occasion of some
important national celebration. Such representatives also
enjoy diplomatic immunities and privileges both as regards
themselves and their suites. (See §§ 78-9.)
§ 365. As regards delegates to the numerous conferences
now held on a great variety of matters, some doubt might
perhaps be felt, in the absence of cases arising for settlement,
as to the extent of the immunities to which they and the
members of their suites are entitled. Formerly international
congresses and conferences were for the most part attended by
personages of high ministerial rank, or by resident diplomatic
agents who already possessed diplomatic privilege ; now the
plenipotentiaries appointed are often officials or persons
chosen for their special knowledge of the subject to be discussed,
who with their retinues constitute the delegations to the con-
ference. In the view of most writers such representatives are
entitled to full diplomatic privilege.
" Ces personnes n'occupant pas un rang determine dans la
hierarchic diplomatique, leur qualite se trouve essentiellement
attachee a la nature de leur mission, qui est de representer les
interets d'un fitat non point aupres d'un £tat etranger, mais
aupres de tous les fitats participant au congres. Or, la doctrine
moderne admet que la qualite diplomatique est attachee a la
fonction et a la nature de la mission plus qu'au titre. Elle recon-
nait 1'utilite des distinctions de classes et de rangs, mais se refuse
a les considerer comrne substantielles, toutes les personnes qui
representent regulierement leur souverain ou leur pays ayant
egalement un caractere officiel qui leur assure des prerogatives et
immunites analogues. II semble done que Ton ne soit pas fonde a
refuser aux delegues aux congres et conferences la qualite de
ministres publics. . . ." l
" Among the envoys political, again, two kinds are to be dis-
tinguished— namely, (i) such as are permanently or temporarily
accredited to a state for the purpose of negotiating with such state,
and (2) such as are sent to represent the sending state at a congress
or conference. The latter are not, or need not be, accredited to
the state on whose territory the congress or conference takes
1 Secretan, Les Immunitis Diplomatique; des Representants des iZtats Membres et des
Agents de la Socilte des Nations, 8.
o
194 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
place, but they are nevertheless diplomatic envoys, and enjoy all
the privileges of such envoys as regards exterritoriality and the
like which concern the inviolability and safety of their persons
and the members of their suites."1
" The case of negotiators at a congress or conference is exceptional.
Though they are not accredited to the government of the state in
which it is held, they are entitled to complete diplomatic privileges,
they being as a matter of fact representatives of their state and
engaged in the exercise of diplomatic functions." 2
" At a Peace congress or conference, or at such an assembly for
any other purpose, each Power represented may appoint as many
plenipotentiaries as it may consider convenient to itself, who
may be assisted by technical delegates, naval, military, economic
and legal, and by secretaries. The members of the delegation will
enjoy all the ordinary privileges and immunities usually accorded
to diplomatists." 3
The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, signed
at Havana, concerning diplomatic officers, contains the following
articles :
" Art. i. — States have the right of being represented before each
other through diplomatic officers.
Art. 2. — Diplomatic officers are classed as ordinary and extra-
ordinary. Those who permanently represent the government of
one state before that of another are ordinary. Those entrusted
with a special mission or those who are accredited to represent the
government in international conferences and congresses or other
international bodies are extraordinary.
Art. 3. — Except as concerns precedence and etiquette, diplo-
matic officers, whatever their category, have the same rights, pre-
rogatives and immunities. Etiquette depends upon diplomatic
usages in general as well as upon the laws and regulations of the
country to which the officers are accredited.
Art. 4. — In addition to the functions indicated in their creden-
tials, ordinary officers possess the attributes which the laws and
decrees of the respective countries may confer upon them. They
should exercise their attributes without coming into conflict with
the laws of the country to which they are accredited."
" Art. 9. — Extraordinary diplomatic officers enjoy the same pre-
rogatives and immunities as ordinary ones."
§ 366. Within recent times diplomatic privileges and im-
munities have been extended by treaty provisions to certain
officials and persons. Under Article 24 and Article 46 of
the Hague Conventions for the Pacific Settlement of Inter-
national Disputes, of 1899 and 1907 respectively, the members
of arbitration tribunals constituted thereunder enjoy such
1 Oppenheim, i. § 363. 2 Hall, 365.
3 Satow, International Congresses, 13.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 195
privileges and immunities. Under Article 7 of the Covenant
of the League of Nations representatives of the members of
the League and officials of the League when engaged on the
business of the League enjoy them. (See § 830.) Under
Article 19 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of Inter-
national Justice the members of that court, when engaged on
the business of the court, are guaranteed similar rights. (See
§ 837.) The international commissions set up in the case of
certain European rivers also enjoy them. And the repara-
tion articles of the treaties of peace provided for such rights
being enjoyed by members of the reparation commissions set
up thereunder.
§ 367. In a recent article on ' Diplomatic Immunities,
Modern Developments," * Sir C. Hurst, in commenting on
such extensions, refers to the cases mentioned above in
§§ 334 (4)> (5) and 342, where the French, Belgian and British
Governments successively intervened to safeguard the diplo-
matic privilege of the persons concerned, and observes :
" Developments are taking place as regards the tasks imposed
upon diplomatic missions, and as regards the categories of persons
engaged upon international work, who should be free from sub-
jection to the local jurisdiction. The final decision rests with the
executive government, not with the courts, as to what individuals
are entitled to the privilege, and this enables the adjustments in
the application of the fundamental principles, which are necessary
for meeting the new developments, to be made satisfactorily." 2
§ 368. A recent case in the German courts may, however,
be mentioned :
In 1926, in a case before the Oberlandesgericht at Darmstadt,
concerning a person whom the German Foreign Office refused to
recognise as a member of a foreign legation entitled to diplomatic
privilege, the court held that according to German constitutional
and administrative law, German courts are only in certain specific
cases bound by the opinions of government authorities ; the
declaration of the Foreign Office on a question of exterritoriality
does not formally bind the courts, and the Foreign Office has itself
expressed the opinion that a declaration made by it was not binding
on a German court.3
§ 369. But persons charged with particular functions of one
kind or another, and not forming part of the personnel of a
diplomatic mission, such as representatives at exhibitions, or
1 British Year Book of International Law (1929), i.
2 Ibid., 13. 3 Annual Digest (1925-6), Case No. 244.
1 96 IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
who may be deputed to facilitate the application of tariffs in
matters of trade, and in general non-official persons, cannot
claim immunity as of right.1 Such special facilities as may be
accorded to them rest rather on a basis of courtesy, and this
seems also the case where commissioners are appointed for the
regulation of particular matters requiring adjustment which
are outside the scope of the ordinary duties of the diplomatic
representative. Of these Hall says 2 :
" Commissioners for special objects are not considered so to
represent their government, or to be employed in such functions,
as to acquire diplomatic immunities. They are, however, held to
have a right to special protection, and courtesy may sometimes
demand something more. It would probably not be incorrect to
say that no very distinct practice has been formed as to their treat-
ment, contentious cases not having sufficiently arisen."
§ 370. Under the former Trade Agreement of March 16,
1921, between Great Britain and the Russian Soviet Republic,
immunity from search and arrest was provided for in the case
of the official agents appointed thereunder, but not immunity
from civil process. In the civil action Fenton Textile Association
v. Krassin and Others (1921), it was held by the Court of Appeal
in London that as the defendant had not been recognised by
any competent authority in England in any other capacity
than that of official agent under the Trade Agreement, his
status was insufficient to carry with it the immunity accorded
to accredited and recognised representatives of foreign states.
In the course of his judgment Lord Justice Scrutton observed :
" The question of the exact limits of diplomatic privilege is so
important as to justify me in declining to lay down any general
principle unless the facts of the case require it. It is sufficient to
say that so long as our government negotiates with a person as
representing a recognised foreign state about matters of concern as
between nation and nation, without further definition of his posi-
tion, I am inclined to think that such representative may be entitled
to immunity though not accredited or received by the King. If the
question in the present case had been the position of M. Krassin when
he was as representing the Russian Soviet Government negotiating
the Trade Agreement with His Majesty's Government, I should
have been inclined to think that the view expressed by Lord Curzon
in his letter of July 26, 1920, that M. Krassin should be exempted
from the process of the court was correct. But as such representa-
tive he negotiated a Trade Agreement which authorised the appoint-
ment of official trade agents in this country by the Russian Govern-
1 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 155. 2 Hall, 371.
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS 197
merit who should have certain specified and carefully defined
privileges and immunities. These privileges and immunities do
not include immunity from civil process." x
§ 371. The temporary Commercial Agreement between
Great Britain and the Soviet Union, signed at London,
April 1 6, 1930,2 contains the following provisions :
"Art. 2. — (i) In view of the fact that, by virtue of the laws
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the foreign trade of the
Union is a state monopoly, His Majesty's Government in the
United Kingdom agree to accord to the Government of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics the right to establish in London a
Trade Delegation, consisting of the Trade Representative of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and his two deputies, forming
part of the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
(2) The head of the Trade Delegation shall be the Trade
Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the
United Kingdom. He and his two deputies shall, by virtue of
paragraph i of the present Article, be accorded all diplomatic
privileges and immunities, and immunity shall attach to the offices
occupied by the Trade Delegation (5th Floor, East Wing, Bush
House, Aldwych, London) and used exclusively for the purpose
defined in paragraph 3 of the present Article. No member of the
staff of the Trade Delegation, other than the Trade Representative
and his two deputies, shall enjoy any privileges or immunities other
than those which are, or may be, enjoyed in the United Kingdom
by officials of the state-controlled trading organisations of other
countries."
'' (6) Any questions which may arise in respect of commercial
transactions entered into in the United Kingdom by the Trade
Delegation shall be determined by the Courts of the United
Kingdom in accordance with the laws thereof."
Additional Protocol. — " With reference to paragraph 6 of
Article 2, it is understood that the privileges and immunities con-
ferred on the head of the Trade Delegation and his two deputies by
paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the present Agreement shall not be
claimed in connection with any proceedings before the Courts of the
United Kingdom arising out of commercial transactions entered
into in the United Kingdom by the Trade Delegation of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics."
1 38 T. L. R. (1921), 259. 2 Treaty Series, No. 19 (1930).
CHAPTER XVII
IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE
DIPLOMATIC AGENT
§ 372. IMMUNITY attaches to the house of the diplomatic agent
and other premises devoted to diplomatic purposes, and to
any building occupied by him with a view to the execution of
his functions, whether the property of his government, or his
own, or merely rented by him.1 No officer of state, and in
particular no police officer, tax-collector or officer of a court
of law, can enter his residence, nor without consent discharge
any function therein. The immunity extends to carriages
(though not, of course, as regards compliance with the ordinary
regulations governing control of traffic), and also to boats,
and it may yet be to aeroplanes.
The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, signed
at Havana, which in its preamble says that it incorporates the
principles generally accepted by all nations, lays down for the
signatory states the following rule : " Art. 16. — No judicial or
administrative functionary or official of the state to which the
diplomatic officer is accredited may enter the domicile of the latter,
or of the mission, without his consent."
§ 373- The immunity of the agent's residence is so generally
recognised that it is only necessary to mention briefly certain
incidents of the past in which it was called in question.
In 1 808 a servant of Admiral Apodaca, diplomatic agent of the
Supreme Junta of Seville at London, being charged with a criminal
offence, was arrested in the legation. Apodaca said that he had
no objection to the servant being tried, and convicted if he were
found guilty, but he protested against the violation of his diplomatic
privilege in arresting a servant within his house without previous
notice. In his subsequent report to his Government he stated that
the servant had been released, and that he had declared himself
satisfied.2 It seems probable, therefore, that verbal explanations
were made to him and some apology offered.
1 Hurst, Les ImmuniUs Diplomatique*, Cours de La Haye (1926), ii. 131, 162.
3 Villa-Urrutia, i. 304.
IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE 199
In 1827 the coachman of Mr. Gallatin, United States minister
at London, was arrested in the stable of the legation, charged with
assault. The correspondence shows that the British Government
upheld the action taken, and that Mr. Gallatin, who had in the
meantime dismissed the servant, dissented from the views expressed.
As the outcome of this case, steps were taken by the British Govern-
ment to ensure that no similar arrest of the servant of a foreign
minister should in future take place without a previous communica-
tion being made to the minister, in order that his convenience
might be consulted as to the method of putting the warrant into
execution.1
§ 374. But the immunity affords no justification for giving
shelter to criminals, and, in such a case, a government would
be justified in taking measures to compel the surrender of
the criminal. They might surround the house by police, to
prevent the escape of the fugitive, and complain to the govern-
ment which had accredited the agent, and demand his recall.
Neither can the carriage of the agent serve as a refuge.
§ 375. Hall 2 says that in Europe it has been completely
established that the house of a diplomatic agent gives no
protection either to ordinary criminals or to persons accused of
crimes against the state.
" It is agreed that the house of a diplomatic agent is so far ex-
empted from the operation of the territorial jurisdiction as is
necessary to secure the free exercise of his functions. It is equally
agreed that this immunity ceases to hold in those cases in which a
government is justified in arresting an ambassador and in searching
his papers : an immunity which exists for the purpose of securing the
enjoyment of a privilege comes naturally to an end when a right of dis-
regarding the privilege has arisen. Whether, except in this extreme
case, the possibility of embarrassment to the minister is so jealously
guarded against as to deprive the local authorities of all right of
entry irrespective of his leave, or whether the right of entry exists
whenever the occasion of it is so remote from diplomatic interests
as to render it unlikely that they will be endangered, can hardly
be looked upon as settled." 3
§ 376. Oppenheim goes further :
" If an envoy abuses this immunity, the receiving government
need not bear it passively. There is, therefore, no obligation on the
part of the receiving state to grant an envoy the right of affording an
asylum to criminals, or to other individuals not belonging to his
suite. Of course an envoy need not deny entrance to criminals
who want to take refuge in the embassy. But he must surrender
them to the prosecuting government at its request ; and, if he
refuses, any measures may be taken to induce him to do so, apart
1 For the correspondence in the case see the and edition of this work, i. 295.
2 Hall, 233. 3 Hall, 231.
200 IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE
from such as would involve attack on his person. Thus, the embassy
may be surrounded by soldiers, and eventually the criminal may
even forcibly be taken out of the embassy. But such measures of
force are justifiable only if the case is an urgent one, and after the
envoy has in vain been required to surrender the criminal." l
§ 377. Against this may be set the view of Dr. Hannis Taylor,
who, after stating that an envoy must not harbour criminals
not of his suite, and discussing the right of asylum for political
refugees in certain countries, proceeded thus to define the
immunity of the agent's residence :
" Subject to the foregoing exceptions, the general statement may
be made that, while the exact limits of the inviolability of the hotel
are not perfectly defined, a fair result of reasoning on principle and
of a comparison of authorities is that the residence of the minister
should enjoy absolute immunity from the execution of all compul-
sory process within its limits, and from all forcible intrusions. ' If
it can be rightfully entered at all without the consent of its occupant
it can only be so entered in consequence of an order emanating
from the supreme authority of the country in which the minister
resides, and for which it will be held responsible by his government '
(Mr. Buchanan, U.S. Secretary of State, to Mr. Shields, March 22,
i848).2
§ 378. Vattel says : " C'est done au souverain de decider,
dans 1'occasion, jusqu'a quel point on doit respecter le droit
d'asile qu'un ambassadeur attribue a son hotel " 3 ; and it
seems clear that, in any such eventuality, the action should
only betaken with the express authorisation of the government,
and on its direct responsibility.4
§ 379. In 1929 a serious dispute occurred between Nepal and
Tibet, owing to the act of the Tibetan police at Lhasa in entering the
Nepalese legation and forcibly removing a man, claiming to be a
Nepalese, who, having been arrested for an offence against Tibetan
laws, had escaped from gaol, and had taken refuge at the legation.
The matter was eventually terminated by a letter of apology
addressed by the Tibetan Government to the Nepalese Government,
which was accepted by the latter.
§ 380. The immunity of the agent's dwelling extends to
those of his official staff.5
" Pour donner a 1'ambassadeur une complete liberte d'action
dans l'£tat qui le recoit, 1'exterritorialite de sa personne seule ne
suffit pas. Sa charge et ses devoirs representatifs le mettent en
rapport direct avec son entourage, ensemble par le canal duquel
le pouvoir etranger peut agir indirectement sur lui. G'est pourquoi
1 Oppenheim, i. § 390. 2 A Treatise on Public International Law, § 313.
3 Droit des Gens, iv., c. 9, § 1 18.
4 Hurst, op. tit., ii. 214. 5 Nys, Le Droit International, ii. 387.
IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE 201
I'exterritorialite de 1'ambassadeur a etc etendue a certaines per-
sonnes et a certaines choses, ayant toutes une relation intime avec
1'exercice de ses fonctions. Pour cette cause les personnes qui
jouissent de 1'exterritorialite sont : 1'epouse, les enfants, ainsi que
les autres membres de la famille de 1'ambassadeur ; son personnel
de service, savoir — les secretaires et les attaches d'ambassade, et le
personnel de sa maison." l
»
The Pan- American Convention of February 20, 1928, referred
to above in § 372, lays down for the signatory states the following
rules : "Article 14. — Diplomatic officers shall be inviolate as to their
persons, their residence, private or official, and their property.
This inviolability covers : (a) all classes of diplomatic officers ;
(b) the entire official personnel of the diplomatic mission ; (c) the
members of the respective families living under the same roof ;
(d) the papers, archives, and correspondence of the mission."
§ 381. Article 4 of a decree of the Soviet Union of January 14,
1927, framed on a basis of reciprocity, declares that the premises
occupied by diplomatic missions, and also the premises in which the
following persons and their families are living, viz. : counsellors
(including commercial), first, second and third secretaries and
attaches (including commercial, financial, military and naval), enjoy
immunity. In these premises domiciliary search or seizure can
only take place at the request of, or by agreement with, the diplo-
matic representative, provided that when the search or seizure is
carried out, it takes place in the presence of a representative of the
Procurator's department and of a representative of the People's
Commissariat for Foreign Affairs if there should be one in the
given locality. Such premises may not be sealed up. Entry into
them may not take place otherwise than with the consent of the
diplomatic representative. Nevertheless the immunity of these
premises does not confer the right forcibly to detain any person
whatsoever therein, nor does it confer the right to afford asylum
to persons in regard to whom decisions have been taken by the
organs of the Soviet Union and Allied Republics authorised thereto
in regard to the arrest.
§ 382. If a crime is committed within the embassy or
legation by a person from without, the offender should be
handed over to the local authorities.
'' Lorsque les sujets du pays, dans le sens restreint ou etendu,
subditi temporarii ou perpetui, commettent un mefait dans un hotel
d'ambassade, la competence des tribunaux locaux doit etre
absolument reconnue ; ce qui n'empeche pas que 1'hotel de 1'ambas-
sade soit exterritorial, dans le sens d'une exemption du pouvoir
territorial de 1'fitat, autant que cela paraitrait necessaire pour
le libre exercice des fonctions de 1'ambassadeur." 2
1 Heyking, L' Exterritoriality Cours de La Haye (1925), ii. 267.
" Ibid., 269.
202 IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE
The Pan- American Convention of February 20, 1928, referred
to above, lays down for the signatory states the following rule :
"Article 17. — Diplomatic officers are obliged to deliver to the com-
petent local authority that requests it any person accused or con-
demned for ordinary crimes, who may have taken refuge in the
mission." (See also § 396.)
In 1865 a Russian subject named Mickilchenkoff (or Nikits-
chenkow), having obtained admission into the Russian embassy at
Paris, assaulted and wounded an attache, and the police being
applied to, entered the house and arrested him. The ambassador
demanded that the man should be given up to him, to be sent to
Russia for trial. The French Government refused, saying that the
principle did not cover the case of a stranger entering the embassy
and there committing a crime, but that, even if it did, the privilege
had been waived by calling in the police. The Russian Govern-
ment admitted the jurisdiction of the French court, and the
prisoner was tried by the local law.1
In 1880 the tribunal at Berlin gave a decision in the same
sense in the case of an offence committed in a foreign embassy at
Berlin by a foreigner who formed no part of the personnel of the
mission.2
In 1909 a similar attempt was made in the Bulgarian legation
at Paris, against a member of the personnel, by a Bulgarian named
Trochanqff, and the minister himself initiated criminal proceedings
against the offender before the tribunal of the Seine. The court
rejected the theory put forward in defence that the offence having
been committed in the legation should be considered as having
been committed in foreign territory ; so far as regards Trochanoff
the legation formed part of the territory of France.3
Certain other cases in Germany, France and Italy, involv-
ing the exercise of the local criminal or civil jurisdiction in
respect of events which had happened within a foreign embassy
or legation, are referred to by Sir C. Hurst.4 On the other
hand :
In 1928, in a case before the Supreme Court of Hungary, con-
cerning one Zoltan Sz., who had induced the passport authorities
in the Hungarian legation at Vienna to issue a passport by fraudu-
lent means, it was held that the premises, which enjoyed the
privileges of exterritoriality, must be regarded as Hungarian
territory, and that accordingly all acts committed therein must be
judged according to the rules of Hungarian law.5
§ 383. The enforced detention of a private person within
a foreign embassy or legation would call for the intervention
of the government concerned.
1 Wheaton, International Law, 339. 2 Clunet (1882), 326.
3 Clunet (1910), 551. * Op. cit., ii. 147-9.
6 Annual Digest (1927-8), Case No. 252.
IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE 203
In 1896 Sun Tat-Sen, a Chinese national, and political refugee,
was detained as a prisoner in the Chinese legation at London, with
the apparent intention of transporting him to China. On the
matter coming to light, his friends applied to the court for the issue
of a writ of habeas corpus, but the court declined,1 doubting the
propriety of such action where a foreign legation was concerned,
and considering the matter rather one for diplomatic proceedings.
The Chinese minister was thereupon formally requested to release
the man, whose detention was contrary to law, and an abuse of
diplomatic privilege. He was released on the following day.
§ 384. A curious incident, reported in the Press of October
1929,2 related to the counsellor of the Soviet embassy at Paris,
who, having been ordered to return to Russia, escaped from
the embassy, and complained to the police that his wife and
child were detained within it. But, in the absence of the
ambassador, he became temporarily the head of the mission,
and in this capacity, with the assistance of the police, the release
of the family was effected.
§ 385. The immunity of the residence extends also to all
goods requisite for the fulfilment of the mission.
Toutes les choses qui appartiennent a la personne du ministre,
tout ce qui sert a son entretien et a celui de sa maison, tout cela a
1'independance du ministre, et est absolument exempt de toute
juridiction dans le pays. (Vattel.) 3
§ 386. A case to the contrary, which is often mentioned, is
that of Mr. Wheaton, United States minister at Berlin in 1839.
Under the Prussian civil law then in force, the proprietor of the
house in which Mr. Wheaton resided claimed the right of detaining
his goods found on the premises at the expiration of the lease, in
order to secure payment of damages alleged to be due for injuries
to the house during the contract. The Prussian Government
decided that the general exemption, under the law of nations, of the
personal property of foreign ministers from the local jurisdiction
did not extend to the case where, it was contended, the right of
detention was created by the contract itself, and by the legal effect
given to it by the local law. The matter was argued between the
Prussian and the United States governments without their being
able to come to an agreement on the point of law.4
§ 387. The view of the United States Government in such
a matter was shown in the case of an attache to the French
legation at Washington, whose landlord sought to prevent his
1 Mew's Digest of English Law Cases, ii. 306 ; Shortt and Mellor's Practice of the
Crown Office (and ed.), 318.
a Times, Oct. 4, 1929. 3 Droit dts Gens, iv. c. 8, § 1 13. 4 Wheaton, op. cit., 347.
204 IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE
departure. The United States attorney-general said it was
impossible to have recourse to force to seize the property of
a public minister, whether personal or official, against his
will, by process or otherwise ; neither international law nor
American law recognised any difference.1
§ 388. The inviolability of the agent's residence extends to
goods therein, though not the property of a person having
claim to diplomatic immunity ; execution cannot therefore be
levied on such goods without the agent's consent.2
§ 389. While it is generally recognised that a diplomatic
agent preserves his immunity on the termination of his
mission for such reasonable time as may be necessary to enable
him to complete and dispose of the affairs of his mission, yet
on his departure goods left by him become, in the event arising,
subject to the local jurisdiction.3
§ 390. As regards inquests, in the case of deaths which may
occur within an embassy or legation, see §§ 351-2.
Right of Asylum
§ 391. It is now an established doctrine in Europe that no
right to give asylum to political refugees in the house of a
diplomatic agent exists.4 But formerly the practice was
extensively exercised, and in Spain during the civil war
between Christines and Carlists, and in 1848, and between
1865 and 1875. And at Constantinople in 1895 a former
Turkish grand vizier took shelter at the British embassy there
until an assurance was received that his life was in no danger.
§ 392. Among notable cases of the past are the following :
In 1726 the Duke de Ripperda, a Dutch officer, and minister of
the States-General at Madrid, who afterwards became Spanish
minister of finance and foreign affairs, fell into discredit, and,
alarmed at the readiness with which his resignation was accepted,
fled to the British embassy. The ambassador gave an assurance
that he would not allow Ripperda to leave until he had given up
certain important papers of state said to be in his possession.
Nevertheless, soldiers were posted in the vicinity of the embassy,
with orders to examine all persons and carriages issuing from it,
and the Spanish Council of Castile having been invoked, held that
the Duke had been guilty of lese-majeste, and that he could be taken
by force from the embassy without infringing the privileges awarded
to ambassadors or violating the law of nations. Ripperda was
thereupon arrested within the embassy by armed force and his
1 5 Op. of Alt. -Gen., 69 ; Dedk, Classification, etc., des Agents diplomatiques, Revue
de Droit International (1928), 536.
2 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 192. 3 Ibid., 240. * Hall, 233.
IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE 205
papers seized. In the correspondence which followed, the British
Government protested that only an extreme necessity could justify
the violation of the immunity of an ambassador's house, and
expressed the hope that the Spanish King would see that it was to
his own interest to make the necessary reparation. But on receiving
the reply that the Spanish King saw no reason to concern himself
further about the affair, the correspondence assumed a bitter tone.
Hostilities having broken out in the following year, peace was not
restored till the signature of the Treaty of Seville in 1729, in
Article I of which it was stipulated that there should be " an
oblivion of all that is past." x
§ 393-
In 1747 one Springer, a Russian subject, domiciled at Stockholm,
being accused of high treason against the King of Sweden, took
refuge in the hotel of the British minister at Stockholm. Under
threats of compulsion, the minister consented to surrender the man,
but protested against the violation of the law of nations and the
privileges of diplomatists. On receiving his report, the British
Government instructed him to address to the King of Sweden
a memorial, in which it was laid down as an incontrovertible
maxim that the residence of a foreign minister ought to enjoy
the right of asylum, so long as the right was not abolished by
mutual consent. In reply, the Swedish Government denied the
assertions of the minister as to the treatment he had received, and
sought to lay the whole blame on him for what had occurred. As
a result, the minister was instructed to leave Stockholm as soon as
possible, without taking leave of the King, and the Swedish minister
in London received similar orders in consequence.2
§ 394. In Latin-American countries asylum has often been
sought at foreign legations by political refugees on the occasion
of revolutionary outbreaks, and the custom exists up to the
present day. A report from the Times correspondent at
Rio de Janeiro of November 15, IQ3O,3 after the recent civil
disturbances in Brazil, says :
" The Secretary of the Cattete Palace 4 announces that political
refugees in foreign embassies and legations will, in accordance with
international law, be granted permission to leave for some place
abroad, so long as they do not go to neighbouring countries. The
Provisional Government is working with the embassies and lega-
tions concerned to settle the date of departure. When this has
been accomplished, the refugees will leave by the first available
steamers, without prejudice to the actions and trial which some of
them will have to answer later for alleged offences committed
against federal and state treasuries."
1 C. de Martens, Causes celebres, etc., i. 1 74 ; Jenkinson, ii. 307.
2 C. de Martens, op. cit., i. 326. 3 Times, Nov. 16, 1930.
4 The official residence of the Federal President.
2o6 IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE
§ 395. In 1889 a convention regarding international
criminal law was concluded between the Argentine Republic,
Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, by Article 1 7 of which
it was provided that asylum in a legation should be respected
in the case of persons prosecuted for political offences, with
the obligation for the head of the legation immediately to
acquaint the government of the state to which he was accredited
with the fact, which government could demand that the refugee
should be sent out of the national territory with as little delay as
possible. The head of the mission could, in his turn, demand
the necessary guarantees for the fugitive being allowed to leave
the territory without interference. The same principle was
to be observed with respect to refugees who found asylum on
board vessels of war lying within territorial waters. But this
Article only applied as between the contracting parties.
Nevertheless, non-signatory Powers, such as the United
States, Great Britain and France, besides others, have on
various occasions granted diplomatic asylum to political
refugees. During the civil war in Chile in 1891 as many as
eighty were received in the United States legation, as many
more in that of Spain, five in the French, two in the German
and eight in the Brazilian legations.1
§ 396. At the Pan-American conference at Havana in 1928
a convention was signed between the American republics repre-
sented, with a view of fixing the rules to be observed in their
mutual relations for the grant of asylum. This convention of
February 20, 1928, provides :
" Art. i. — It is not permissible for states to grant asylum in
legations, warships, military camps or military aircraft, to persons
accused or condemned for common crimes, or to deserters from the
army or navy.
Persons accused of or condemned for common crimes taking
refuge in any of the places mentioned in the preceding paragraph
shall be surrendered upon request of the local government. . . .
Art. 2. — Asylum granted to political offenders in legations, war-
ships, military camps or military aircraft, shall be respected to
the extent to which allowed, as a right, or through humanitarian
toleration, by the usages, the conventions, or the laws of the
country in which granted, and in accordance with the following
provisions :
(i) Asylum may not be granted except in urgent cases and for
the period of time strictly indispensable for the person
who has sought asylum to ensure in some other way his
safety ;
1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1891.
IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE 207
(2) Immediately upon granting asylum, the diplomatic agent,
commander of a warship or military camp or aircraft,
shall report the fact to the minister of foreign relations
of the state of the person who has secured asylum, or to
the local administrative authority, if the act occurred
outside the capital ;
(3) The government of the state may require that the refugee
be sent out of the national territory within the shortest
time possible ; and the diplomatic agent of the country
who has granted asylum may in turn require the guaran-
tees necessary for the departure of the refugee, with due
regard to the inviolability of his person, from the country ;
(4) Refugees shall not be landed in any point of the national
territory nor in any place too near thereto ;
(5) While enjoying asylum, refugees shall not be allowed to
perform acts contrary to the public peace ;
(6) States are under no obligation to defray expenses incurred
by one granting asylum."
" The delegation of the United States of America in signing the
present convention establishes an explicit reservation, placing on
record that the United States does not recognise or subscribe to, as
part of international law, the so-called doctrine of asylum."
§ 397. In matters of the kind the general recommendation
would seem to be that the practice of affording asylum to
political refugees in countries where this custom still exists
should be confined within the narrowest limits, and that the
persons concerned should not be allowed to communicate
with partisans outside the legation, while their departure
should be insisted on as soon as possible, or as soon as their
departure from the country can be arranged with the consent
of the local authorities. If compelled to receive persons of
his own nationality exposed to acts of violence, the same
principles should as far as possible be followed by the diplo-
matic agent.1
Franchise du Quaftier
§ 398. This was an ancient custom in Europe which has but
a historical interest. The expression covered two privileges
formerly claimed by ambassadors in several countries, namely
the right to prevent the arrest of persons dwelling in the
vicinity of their embassy, and the exemption from octroi tax of
supplies brought in nominally for their use. Sismondi says :
1 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 2 1 7.
208 IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE
" Les ambassadeurs ne voulaient permettre 1'entree de ces
quartiers a aucun officier des tribunaux et des finances du Pape.
En consequence, ils etaient devenus 1'asile de tous les gens de
mauvaise vie, de tous les scelerats du pays ; non seulement ils
venaient s'y derober aux recherches de la justice, ils en sortaient
encore pour commettre des crimes dans le voisinage ; en meme
temps ils en faisaient un depot de contrebande pour toutes les
marchandises sujettes a quelques taxes." 1
§ 399. A case of the sort in which France was involved
during the pontificate of Alexander VII may serve as an
example :
In 1660 two or three constables went to arrest for debt a trader
lodged near the palace of the Cardinal d'Este, who was cardinal-
comprotecteur des affaires de France. In that character he claimed
the franchises du quartier, together with the right of fixing its
limits. Several of His Eminence's people tried to prevent the
police from executing the warrant on the pretext of the franchises,
and, on their persisting, the Cardinal's servants drew their swords
and forced the officers to withdraw. Don Mario Chigi, brother of
the Pope, and commander of the Papal troops, alleging that the
principle of the Cardinal's palace did not extend so far as was
asserted, ordered the Chief of Police to proceed to the trader's
house with sufficient men to effect the arrest. On this becoming
known to the Cardinal's people, they hastened to the spot in great
force, attacked the Chief of Police, killed three of his men, wounded
several others, and rescued the prisoner. The Cardinal, appre-
hensive of the consequences to himself, sent his chamberlain to
Don Mario to offer an apology, alleging that he had had no share
in what had passed. The apology was received very coldly, but
the affair was hushed up, the Pope consenting to grant absolution
for the offence.
Other incidents of a similar kind are set out in the second
edition of this work.
§ 400. Pope Innocent XI induced the Emperor, the Kings of
Spain (in 1683), Poland (in 1680), England (in 1686), and the
Republic of Venice to agree to the abolition of the privileges
claimed, but it was not till 1693 that the King of France
formally consented to abandon them, when the question was
finally laid to rest.2
§ 401. But in China, after the Boxer outrages of 1899, the
final protocol of September 7, 1901, between the foreign
Powers and that country, for the resumption of friendly
relations, provided 3 :
1 Histoire des Franfais, xxv. 552.
2 Flassan, iv. 97 ; Gerin, Revue des questions historiques, xvi. 3, 8.
3 Treaty Series, No. 17 (1902).
IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE 209
" Art. 7. — Le Gouvernement Chinois a accepte que le quartier
occupe par les legations fut considere comme un quartier speciale-
ment reserve a leur usage et place sous leur police exclusive, ou
les Chinois n'auraient pas le droit de resider, et qui pourrait etre
mis en etat de defense.
Les limites de ce quartier ont etc ainsi fixees sur le plan ci-joint
(Annexe No. 14). . . .
Par le Protocole annexe a la lettre du 16 Janvier, 1901, la Chine
a reconnu a chaque Puissance le droit d'entretenir une garde
permanente dans le dit quartier pour la defense de sa legation."
§ 402. In 1927, when the Chinese Government sought to
search certain premises of the Soviet embassy at Pekin, they
asked and obtained permission of the diplomatic corps to
enter the reserved quarter for the purpose ; but the troops
employed having exceeded the terms of the permission, the
Powers demanded that the offenders should be brought to
trial, and the prefect of police gave an assurance to the doyen
of the diplomatic corps that this would be done.1
Bast
§ 403. Within modern times a custom existed in Persia of
taking " bast," or shelter, in a foreign legation as a means of
asserting grievances, and the principles of courtesy prevailing
in that country precluded the denial of hospitality in this way,
whatever inconvenience might be caused.2 The following
account of an incident of the kind is quoted from " The
Biography of Sir Mortimer Durand," formerly British minister
at Tehran 3 :
" One day a royal eunuch came galloping into the legation In
great haste to see me on most important business. The message
was that the Shah's wives had taken umbrage at his decision to
marry a girl who was sister of one of his wives. The new favourite
was a daughter of a gardener whom the uxorious monarch had seen
in one of his many gardens and loved, to the great indignation of
her sister, and against Persian custom.
The other wives took up the matter hotly, and issued an ulti-
matum that if the Shah would not forgo his purpose they would
all leave the Palace, and take bast at the legation, which was, they
declared, a place of refuge for slaves like themselves, and a sanctuary
for the oppressed.
I expressed myself as being highly honoured at this proof of
their confidence, and declared that the legation was at the service
of the ladies. Upon enquiring the size of the party, I was somewhat
1 Yoshitomi, Revue Genlrale de Droit International Public (1928), 184.
2 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 218. 3 By Brig.-Genl. Sir P. Sykes, 233.
210 IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE
staggered to learn that there would be about three hundred in all.
I said that the legation would hardly hold so many, but with a sweep
of his hand towards the lawn, the eunuch replied that a tent was all
that was required, and, as for food, a few sheep and some bread
would suffice.
The eunuch then galloped off, and returned two hours later,
by which time tents had been pitched on the lawn, sheep had also
been purchased, together with the entire contents of a baker's shop.
He declared that the arrangements were excellent, that the Shah
was furious, and that the ladies were getting into their carriages.
He again galloped off, and we awaited the arrival of the refugees
with keen interest, when the eunuch reappeared like a whirlwind,
and shouted out, wild with excitement, ' The Shah has yielded,
the ladies are getting out of their carriages, and send you their
grateful thanks ! ' "
§ 404. On another occasion, in 1906, no fewer than fourteen
thousand merchants and others took " bast ':i at the British
legation, and remained there for over a week, as a method of
asserting their demands for constitutional reforms on the part
of the Persian Government.1
Right of Chapel
§ 405. It is universally recognised that a diplomatic agent
is entitled to have a chapel within his residence, wherein the
rites of the religion which he professes may be celebrated by
a priest or minister. Usually bells were not permitted,2 and
formerly, in Spain, it was required that the exterior of the
building should not indicate the purpose to which it was
devoted. The spread of religious toleration in modern times
has rendered possible the erection of public places of worship
other than that professed by the state, and in general the
right of the agent to the free exercise of his religion is now
unquestioned. But formerly it was hedged with certain
restrictions, and is the subject of examination by writers on
international law.
' Tous les Ambassadeurs, les Envoyez & les Residens ont droit
de faire librement dans leurs maisons 1'exercice de la Religion du
Prince ou de 1'fitat qu'ils servent, & d'y admettre tous les sujets
du meme Prince qui se trouvent dans le pais ou ils resident. " 3
§ 406. Phillimore deduces this right of the agent as a corol-
lary from the right to enjoy the most perfect and uncontrolled
liberty of action within the precincts of his hotel (which
1 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 220.
2 Calvo, Le Droit international, etc., ii. 326 ; Ullmann, 189.
3 Callieres, 160.
IMMUNITIES OF THE RESIDENCE 211
excluded the keeping of a gambling table in countries where
gambling is prohibited, or of any kind of shop) :
" Strictly speaking, however, this privilege is confined to himself,
his suite, his fellow-countrymen commorant in the foreign land ;
for, although he cannot be prevented from receiving native subjects
who come to his hotel, yet it is competent to the state to prohibit
them from going to the hotel for this or any other purpose." 1
§ 407. According to Wicquefort,2 the state might require
that the religious service be performed in the native language
of the ambassador. But this does not seem tenable, for the
sanctity of the hotel must be violated in order to ascertain
the language, and there never could have been any reason
for preventing the ambassador or his chaplain from the use of
the universal or Latin language in their devotions. The
restraint must be placed by the state, if at all, on its own
subjects.
" Since the period of the Reformation, general international usage
has sanctioned the right of private domestic devotion by a chaplain
in the hotel, which, so long as it is strictly private, seems to claim
the protection of natural as well as conventional international law.
Two conditions, however, have formerly accompanied the per-
mission to exercise this right ; one, that it should be permitted to
only one minister at a time from one and the same court ; another,
that there should not be already a public or private exercise of the
religion existing and sanctioned without the limits of the hotel.
Having regard to this latter condition, the Emperor Joseph II,
in 1781, having permitted to the Protestants of Vienna the liberty
of meeting for the private exercise of their devotion, insisted on the
chapels of the Protestant ambassadors being closed. The right to
have places of worship was subject to certain restrictions, e.g. the
ringing of a bell was prohibited.
There does not, however, seem to be any foundation in principle
for this very arbitrary act ; more especially as Protestant is a mere
term of negation, under which are included worshippers of very
different tenets.
The only sound principle of law on this subject is that already
mentioned, viz. : Religious rites privately exercised within the
ambassadorial precincts, and for his suite and countrymen, ought
not to be interfered with.
The erection of a chapel or church, the use of bells, and of any
national symbol, is a matter entirely of permission and courtesy." 3
The Papal Government informed the Prussian envoy, in
1846, that services in the Italian language in the chapel of the
legation would not be tolerated.4
1 Phillimore, ii. 244. • i. 417.
3 Phillimore, ii. 244 ; Holtzendorff, iii. 659. 4 Holtzendorff, iii. 659.
CHAPTER XVIII
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION
§ 408. HALL says l :
" The person of a diplomatic agent, his personal effects, and
the property belonging to him as representative of his sovereign,
are not subject to taxation. Otherwise he enjoys no exemption
from taxes or duties as of right. By courtesy, however, most, if not
all, nations permit the entry free of duty of goods intended for his
private use."
§ 409. And Oppenheim 2 :
" The fifth privilege of envoys in reference to their exterritoriality
is exemption from taxes and the like. As an envoy, through his
exterritoriality, is considered not to be subjected to the territorial
supremacy of the receiving state, he must be exempt from all direct
personal taxation, and therefore need not pay either income tax
or other direct taxes. As regards rates it is necessary to draw a
distinction. Payment of rates imposed for local objects for which
an envoy himself derives benefit, such as sewerage, lighting, water,
night-watch and the like, can be required from the envoy, although
often this is not done. Other rates, however, such as poor-rates
and the like, he cannot be requested to pay. As regards customs
duties international law does not claim the exemption of envoys
therefrom. In practice, and by courtesy, however, the municipal
laws of many states allow diplomatic envoys, within certain limits,
to receive free of duty goods intended for their own private use.
If the house of an envoy is the property of his home state, or his
own property, the house need not be exempt from property tax,
although it is often so by the courtesy of the receiving state. Such
property tax is not a personal and direct, but an indirect, tax."
§ 410. Rivier observes 3 :
" En vertu d'une coutume qui varie, et qui est, en certains pays,
consacree par la loi, et a moins de suspicion motivee de fraude,
on ne visite pas leurs efTets a la douane.
1 Hall, 235. 2 Oppenheim, i. § 394.
3 Principes du Droit des Gens, i. 503.
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 213
" En revanche et sauf dispenses conventionnelles speciales, ils
payent comme tout le monde les impots fonciers et autres charges
reelles pour les immeubles qu'ils possedent dans le pays ; les contri-
butions municipales imposees a 1'habitant comme tel ; les impots in-
directs frappant les objets de consommation qu'ils achetent dans le
pays ; les droits qui ont le caractere d'une remuneration due a l'£tat
ou a la commune, ou a des particuliers, pour des objets a 1'usage des-
quels 1'agent participe ; peages de chaussees et de ponts, taxes tele-
graphiques, taxes de chemin de fer, port de lettres, etc. ; enfin, les
droits qui sont exiges a 1'occasion de certains actes ou transmissions,
droit de mutation, d'enregistrernent."
§ 41 1. Recently M. Deak writes :
" L'exemption fiscale, bien qu'elle soit generalement admise en
theorie, rencontre des difficultes dans la pratique et dans son applica-
tion. Les opinions sont divergentes sur le point de savoir si la
propriete privee d'un agent diplomatique doit etre exempte
d'impots. Une autre difficulte surgit lorsque 1'agent est un res-
sortissant du pays ou il reside ; la discussion entre le Secretariat
de la Societe des Nations et le Gouvernement suisse portait princi-
palement sur ce point." 1
The Pan-American Convention of February 20, 1928, lays
down for the signatory states the following rules : "Article 18. —
Diplomatic officers shall be exempt in the state to which they
are accredited : (i) from all personal taxes, either national or
local ; (2) from all land taxes on the building of the mission,
when it belongs to the respective government ; (3) from customs
duties on articles intended for the official use of the mission, or for
the personal use of the diplomatic officer or of his family."
§ 412. That the privilege of free entry of goods, intended for
the use of the envoy, was formerly much abused can well be
believed. Callieres said :
" II y aplusieurs ministresqui abusentdu droit de franchise qu'ils
ont en divers pays touchant I'exemption des imposts sur les denrees
& sur les marchandises necessaires a 1'usage de leur maison, & qui
sous ce pretexte en font passer quantite d'autres pour des Marchands
dont ils tirent des tributs en leur pretant leur nom pour frauder les
droits du Souverain. Ces sortes de profits sont indignes d'un
Ministre public, & le rendent odieux a 1'Etat qui en souffre du
prejudice, ainsi que le Prince qui les autorise. Un sage Ministre
doit se contenter de jouir des franchises qu'il trouve etablies dans
le pais ou il est envoye, sans jamais en abuser pour son profit
particulier par des extensions injustes, ou en participant a des
fraudes qui se font sous son nom.
Le Conseil d'Espagne a ete oblige depuis quelques annees de
1 Classification, etc., des Agents diplomatique*, Revue de Droit International (1928),
565-
214 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION
regler ces droits de franchise pour tous les Ministres Strangers qui
resident a Madrid, moyennant une somme par an qu'on y donne a
chacun d'eux a proportion de leur caractere, pour empecher ces
abus ; & la Republique de Genes en use de meme a 1'egard des
Ministres des Couronnes qui resident chez elle." l
§ 413. Bismarck said one day, a propos of Morny :
When he was appointed ambassador at Petersburg, he arrived
with a whole string of fine, elegant carriages, and a host of trunks,
boxes and chests, full of laces, silk-stuffs and ladies' dresses, for which
as ambassador he had no duties to pay. Each servant had his own
coach, each attache or secretary two at least, and he himself quite
five or six ; and, as he was there for a few days, he auctioned the
lot — carriages and laces and wearing apparel. He must have made
eight hundred thousand roubles. He was unscrupulous but amiable,
he could really be most amiable.2
Let us hope this story is at least an exaggeration.
§ 414. Exemptions accorded in Great Britain to diplomatic
agents are :
Customs Duties
The privilege granted to heads of missions to receive free of duty
articles imported for their private use is not held to be in the nature
of a right, but is conceded as a matter of international courtesy.
The ordinary scale is :
(a) On first arrival. Exemption from examination of their
baggage and that of their wives and families.
(b) On subsequent arrivals. Exemption from examination on
production of a baggage pass, which may be obtained by the head
of the mission, on application to the Foreign Office, for his personal
use on occasions when returning to Great Britain from abroad.
(c) Delivery duty free of imported packages for their personal
use and that of their families.
An extension of (a) and (c) to counsellors, secretaries and
attaches is permissible, but only on condition of reciprocity. While
no restriction is placed on the amount of dutiable goods imported,
it is expected that the privilege will not be abused. Articles such
as official furniture, stationery, office supplies, etc., for use in the
mission are at present admitted without examination.
Foreign Ministers of State, or members of special diplomatic
missions, visiting or passing through Great Britain, are accorded
every consideration and facility consistent with the Customs
regulations.
In all the above cases except (b), where the exhibition of the
baggage pass suffices, application must, in each instance, be ad-
1 Callieres, 163. 2 Busch, Bismarck, Some Secret Pages, etc., i. 503.
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 215
dressed to the Foreign Office in a note bearing the personal signature
of the head of the mission, giving all necessary details for identifica-
tion of the goods, such as place and date of importation, name of
ship, name of agents entrusted with clearance, etc. Arrangements
for handling and removing the goods must be made by and at the
expense of the importer. Packages arriving by post are handed to
the postal officers for delivery as soon as the relevant application is
received.
Packages addressed to heads of missions, bearing the seal of
their Foreign Office, and claimed as despatches, are ordinarily
passed without examination or other formality.
Motor Cars
Cars for the personal use of heads of missions and their families
are admitted free of duty. Cars for the personal or family use of
counsellors, secretaries or attaches, are also admitted free of duty,
either as a result of reciprocal arrangement or on undertakings
signed by them that if the cars are sold in the United Kingdom, or
retained there after their appointment in the mission terminates,
the duty chargeable on importation will be paid. Cars which are
the property of a foreign government, and intended for the official
use of members of the mission, are admitted free of duty, provided
reciprocal treatment is accorded, but subject to an undertaking,
signed by the head of the mission, that if sold in the United Kingdom
any duty chargeable will be paid. In such cases this is calculated
on the sale value of the vehicle.
Income Tax
Diplomatic emoluments, salary or wages paid to any member
of the official or domestic staff of a foreign mission — except a British
subject on the official staff — in respect of his duties in connection
therewith, are exempt from income tax. But no exemption is
recognised in respect of other earnings in the United Kingdom.
Income from investments outside the United Kingdom, even
if payable therein, is exempt, and repayment made if taxed before
receipt of income. Income derived from investments in the United
Kingdom is not exempt, except in the case of the head of the
mission if the interest or dividends arise out of any British Govern-
ment security.
In the case of houses or land, occupied by an individual for
diplomatic purposes, he is exempted from any charge to income
tax in respect of his occupation, and also, if he owns the property,
from income tax in respect of his ownership.
No title to exemption is recognised in any other circumstances,
but where there is income liable to assessment, the usual reliefs are
given to the same extent as in other cases.
216 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION
Motor Car Licence Duty
Exemption from payment is accorded, on condition of reci-
procity, to the cars of all heads of missions, as well as to the cars
used for official purposes of senior counsellors, or (if there is no
senior counsellor) the senior secretary, and also to the cars so
used of naval, military, and air attaches, whether the cars be owned
by them or their government, provided the head of the mission
personally certifies that the cars for which exemption is claimed are
used by diplomatists of the specified ranks, and are necessary for
the discharge of their official duties. Members of the diplomatic
body not so entitled are at present allowed one-third rebate of the
duty, viz. : the proportion normally accruing to the Exchequer for
national purposes.
Local Taxation Licences
Members of the diplomatic body are accorded as an act of
courtesy exemption from payment of duty on firearms, and also on
the following licences :
To employ male servants ; to keep carriages ; to use armorial
bearings ; to keep dogs ; to kill game ; to employ a gamekeeper to
kill game.
Municipal Rates
Under a reciprocal arrangement proposed to heads of foreign
missions in 1892, heads of missions and the members of their diplo-
matic and official staffs are exempted from payment of municipal
rates leviable on the premises occupied by them, in respect of
services not of direct benefit to them. Where this arrangement is
accepted, the British Government undertakes (except in the case
of honorary attaches and consular officers holding diplomatic rank)
to bear the charges for :
Guardians of the poor, i.e. poor relief proper ;
Police rate ;
Baths and washhouses ;
Public libraries and museums ;
Burial board ;
Miscellaneous expenses, salaries, printing, etc. ;
Education ;
the following charges being recoverable from members of the
mission, on application through the Foreign Office :
London County Council, i.e. main drainage, street improvements,
fire brigade, etc.
Street lighting.
General rate for cleansing, maintaining and repairing the public
streets, and general expenses under the Metropolitan Local
Management Act.
Public sewers rate.
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 217
§ 415. Exemptions accorded to diplomatic agents in certain
other countries, so far as ascertained, are as follows :
BELGIUM
Exemption is granted from the greater part of state taxation,
on a basis of reciprocity, and if the persons concerned are bond fide
members of the mission ; but not if, being resident in Belgium,
their functions are merely auxiliary or provisional. The exemption
extends to heads of missions, counsellors, secretaries, attaches,
chancellors and chancery clerks, interpreters and dragomans,
plenipotentiaries, military and commercial attaches, legal coun-
sellors and attaches, chaplains and doctors.
Customs duties. — Heads of missions, on their entry into Belgium,
and on making themselves known to the customs, are exempted
from visit and payment of duty in respect of baggage and other
articles accompanying them, belonging to and claimed by them ;
and also, on a basis of reciprocity, from payment of duties on goods
addressed to them. The privilege extends to charges d'affaires.
Counsellors, secretaries and attaches enjoy exemption only when
acting ad interim as head of the mission ; but on first arrival their
goods and effects are admitted free.
Property tax. — Exemption is accorded in respect of the tax on
revenue from real property occupied by diplomatic agents, where
such property belongs to the state represented and forms the seat of
the mission ; but not as regards revenue derived from other real
property in Belgium.
Income Tax. — Exemption is accorded in respect of income
derived from abroad. In the case of income derived from invest-
ments in Belgium rebate may be accorded in certain instances if
the investments are on the account of and to the profit of the
government concerned. Exemption from supertax is accorded.
Exemption is also accorded from Taxe de Luxe and Taxe de
Transmission (conditionally), and from taxes on motor-cars, servants,
horses and carriages, dogs and bicycles, sporting guns and furni-
ture ; also from death duties in respect of diplomats dying in
Belgium, except as regards real property situated in Belgium. On
the other hand, " taxes de salubrite publique," " adresses telegra-
phiques ': and " droits d'enregistrement et de transcription de
mutation " are payable.
§ 4l6. FRANCE
Customs duties. — On a reciprocal basis heads of missions are
accorded exemption from visit and payment of duty on goods
accompanying them on their arrival in France, or imported within
a period of six months thereafter ; subsequent importations require
special application to the ministry for foreign affairs.
Exemptions are also accorded in respect of income tax, billeting,
and the following : contribution personnelle et mobiliere, contribution
des portes et fenetres, taxes assimilees aux contributions directes (taxes de
2i8 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION
viabilite, pavage, trottoirs, raccor dements, taxes sur Us chiens, contributions sur
les voitures, les chevaux, taxe des billards, etc.}. These exemptions are
extended to official secretaries of the mission resident without the
embassy or legation.
§ 417. GERMANY
Customs Duties. — Complete exemption is accorded to heads of
missions for goods imported by them for their personal use. Exemp-
tion is accorded to members of their staffs on a basis of reciprocity.
Income Tax. — Complete exemption is accorded to heads of
missions and members of their staffs.
Motor Taxation. — Complete exemption is accorded to heads of
missions. In the case of members of their staffs one-third of the
tax is remitted.
Local Taxes. — Where these represent definite services rendered,
such as drainage, water-supply, street-cleaning, dust cart and similar
services, they are chargeable both on the embassy building and on
the residences of members of the diplomatic staff.
§ 418. ITALY
Customs Duty (Dazio Consumo}. — Parcels for members of the
diplomatic corps are exempted from payment of duty, on applica-
tion made on special forms furnished by the ministry for foreign
affairs ; such applications must be signed by the head of mission,
and give details of the number and weight of the parcels and a
rough description of contents.
Tobacco Monopoly. — Foreign manufactured tobacco, destined for
heads of missions and other members of the diplomatic corps, is
exempted without limitation from customs and octroi duties, if
reciprocal treatment is accorded. The customs are, however,
authorised to sequestrate any tobacco in excess of 300 cigarettes
found in the luggage of diplomatic representatives, this quantity
being considered a generous allowance.
Tax on Personal Property (Richezz.a mobile}. Diplomatic agents
are exempt. This tax covers income from all sources except real
property, i.e. revenue from interest on capital, profits on industry,
salary, etc. They are also exempt from supplementary graduated
income tax (supertax).
Carriage Tax., Motor Tax, and Servant Tax. — Exemption accorded
on condition of reciprocity.
Land and House Property Tax. — On condition of reciprocity, the
residences of foreign diplomatic representatives, when these are
the property of foreign states, are exempt.
Residence Tax (Imposta di soggiorno] and Stamp Tax on foreign
bonds. Exemption is accorded.
Local Rates ( Tassa sul valore locativo} . — Consuls are automatically
exempt, and instructions have been given to ensure exemption of
foreign diplomats ; this applies to the sites of foreign embassies
and legations.
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 219
Extraordinary Inheritance Tax. — Diplomatic agents are only called
upon to pay on lands and buildings and capital held in their private
capacity.
Registration Tax. — Diplomatic and consular representatives are
subject to payment of the tax on contracts concluded by them in
Italy (except representatives of countries where reciprocal treat-
ment is accorded to Italian representatives) relating to the acquisi-
tion of house or land property destined to become the site of
foreign representation in Italy.
Tax on Electricity, Gas, Light and Water. — Requests for exemption
have always been refused, largely in consideration of the fact that
in most countries the supply of these commodities is in the hands
of private enterprise.
All rules regarding privileges and immunities accorded to
diplomatic agents are, by old international custom, strictly subject
to condition of reciprocity.
§ 419. NETHERLANDS
Customs, Excise and Statistical x Duties. — Subject to reciprocal
treatment, the following are exempt :
Diplomatic representatives of foreign countries and members
of their diplomatic staffs. Exemption applies to articles imported
at the time of arrival in the Netherlands as well as to goods imported
later.
Similar treatment is accorded to representatives of the League
of Nations (e.g. the Registrar of the Permanent Court of Interna-
tional Justice and his staff, if not of Dutch nationality) ; and to
members of the Permanent Court of International Justice of foreign
nationality.
Though heads of states and their suites, and foreigners of dis-
tinction, such as ministers of state, high officials, and members of
temporary official missions, are not entitled to such treatment, the
customs authorities receive instructions to afford every possible
facility to them.
Similarly diplomatic couriers, who are entitled to exemption
from examination of packages closed by official seals, are usually
accorded exemption in respect of their other baggage as well.
The families of diplomatic representatives and of their diplo-
matic staffs are entitled to the same customs privileges as the heads
of those families.
Furniture, flags, and stationery intended for the official use of
legations are admitted free of import duty.
Direct State Taxes. — Heads of missions, members of their diplo-
matic and non-diplomatic staff, and servants residing in the houses
of heads of missions are exempt from direct state taxes, subject to
reciprocity, and provided they are of foreign nationality and do not
exercise any business or trade in the Netherlands. In the cases of
1 I.e. tax levied for the cost of keeping statistics.
220 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION
income tax and capital tax there are certain exceptions, which may
be summarised as profits arising from landed property and capital
invested in business enterprises in the Netherlands.
Motor Tax. — Diplomatic, consular, and other representatives
of foreign states, members of their staffs, and servants residing in
the houses of such representatives, if of foreign nationality, are
exempt from the payment of road tax for motor vehicles.
Bicycle Tax. — Diplomatic officers, members of their families,
and the non-diplomatic staff of legations are exempt, provided
they are of foreign nationality.
Municipal Taxes. — Heads of missions, and members of their
diplomatic and non-diplomatic staffs, if of foreign nationality and
not exercising any business or trade in the Netherlands, are exempt.
Municipal dog-licences are granted free of charge to diplomats.
§ 42O. SOVIET UNION
On the basis of the legislation of the U.S.S.R., diplomatic
representatives and also all persons belonging to official diplomatic
staffs on the territory of the U.S.S.R., who are foreign citizens, are
exempt from all direct taxes, general state and local taxes, and also
personal obligations either in kind or in money, on a basis of
reciprocity.
Concerning the admission of packages accompanying foreign
diplomatic and consular representatives and their employees, or
addressed to them or to their premises :
1. Luggage belonging to diplomatic representatives accredited
to the government of the U.S.S.R., and members of diplomatic mis-
sions of foreign governments in the territory of the U.S.S.R., which
accompanies such persons as hand-luggage, or is in the luggage-van
at the time of their passage through the customs establishments
of the U.S.S.R., whether on arrival or departure, is, as a general
rule, exempt from customs inspection.
Nevertheless in certain special cases the inspection of luggage of
such persons may be allowed, as an extraordinary measure, on each
occasion by the order of the Chief Directorate of Customs. If so
desired by the persons interested, the inspection may be carried
out at the Moscow customs.
2. Packages and luggage addressed to diplomatic representa-
tives accredited to the government of the Soviet Union and not
accompanied by them, or addressed to the missions, are subject
to examination, but are exempt from the payment of customs
duties and excise within the limits laid down in para. 4 of these
regulations.
3. Packages and luggage which are being sent to the address of
persons other than diplomatic representatives, who are members
of diplomatic missions of foreign governments, are subject to
customs inspection and the payment of customs duties, excise and
other taxes on the basis of general tariff laws and regulations.
4. The amount of the customs duties or excise remitted in
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 221
respect of the packages and luggage referred to in para. 2 is fixed
each year by a special decision of the Commissariat of Commerce.
The admission of this property, in virtue of the above-mentioned
exemption from customs and excise, is carried out by means of
special booklets, in which are entered both the amounts of the taxes
or excise which are remitted, together with the period of validity
of the booklets.
(Note. — Packages and luggage which are admitted for diplo-
matic representatives without the payment of customs or excise are
not subject to storage or poundage charges.)
5. The booklets are issued to diplomatic representatives by the
Commissariat for Foreign Affairs ; a list of the books issued is com-
municated by the Protocol Department to the Chief Directorate of
Customs at the People's Commissariat for Internal and External
Trade. The booklets are valid within the limits of the periods
indicated in them, without reference to the degree to which they
have be£n utilised.
6. Stamps, seals, office stationery, official forms, signs and flags,
which are essential for the official requirements of diplomatic
representatives of foreign states, and also uniforms of diplomatic
representatives, and of the members of diplomatic missions, are
admitted free of duty over and above the limits laid down in
para. 4 of these regulations.
7. Articles of the so-called " first installation " forwarded to the
address of diplomatic missions and members of diplomatic missions
on the first arrival of such persons in the U.S.S.R. for the fulfilment
of their official duties, as for instance household furniture, cutlery
and chinaware, table linen, etc., may be admitted duty free after
inspection, though on each occasion with the special permission of
the Chief Directorate of Customs.
8. Packages and luggage of diplomatic missions and members
of diplomatic missions of foreign governments forwarded inde-
pendently when the owners leave for abroad are subject to inspec-
tion at the nearest customs house. On final departure abroad of
the above-mentioned persons, packages and luggage which are
forwarded independently can be passed through the customs
establishments of the Union free of taxes and other charges men-
tioned in the note to para. 4 above, but only within a period of
six months from the day of the actual departure of such persons out
of Soviet territory.
9. In order to obtain permission under Nos. i, 2, 3 and 8 of
these regulations for the export and import of the prohibited articles,
diplomatic missions must request in each particular case, through
the intermediary of the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, the prior
authorisation of the Chief Directorate of Customs.
10. If, when on the inspection of luggage carried out in virtue
of para. 2 of the first section of these regulations, articles the import
and export of which are forbidden, or articles which, although their
importation is not forbidden, are discovered in a quantity exceeding
222 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION
the personal needs of the diplomatic officer, the question of the
admission of the articles, or of recovery in respect of them, will be
settled in accordance with the existing laws and ordinances.
§ 421. SPAIN
In general, heads of missions are exempt from all taxation of
whatever nature, except in respect of private property which they
may happen to hold in Spain. They must, however, pay customs
duty on their motor cars at the time of sale, if sold within three
years.
As regards the treatment of officers other than heads of missions,
the general practice is :
Customs Duties. — These are payable by all junior members of
diplomatic staffs, except in the case of premiere installation. This
phrase includes motor cars, which, on a reciprocal basis, are con-
sidered to form a bond fide part thereof, and are thus allowed to
enter duty free, though duty must be paid if they are sold within
three years. Motor cars imported subsequently are liable to pay
duty in the ordinary way.
Income Tax, Motor Taxation, Local Taxes and Municipal Rates.
— In respect of these, complete exemption is granted on a reci-
procal basis.
But in the absence of reciprocal treatment, the above is subject
to modification accordingly.
§ 422. SWITZERLAND
Practice is based on general principles of law, usages of inter-
national courtesy, and reciprocity.
Customs Duties. — Heads of missions are accorded free entry of
goods for their personal use and that of their families. Counsellors,
secretaries, and attaches, on premiere installation only, subject to an
undertaking that the goods are for their personal use, and that if
sold locally duties will be paid. This includes motor cars.
According to a circular of February 14, 1921, the personnel of
missions are classified thus :
1 i ) The diplomatic personnel proper (corps diplomatique sensu
lato] and the head of the chancery. As " exterritorial," these
enjoy full diplomatic privileges and immunities, jurisdictional and
fiscal.
(2) The rest of the official personnel, whether technical or manual
(auxiliary), while subject to the local laws and jurisdiction as " non-
exterritorial," are by courtesy exempt from taxes, whether direct
and personal or sumptuary. This applies to such as are employed
and paid by the state, and are in the exclusive service of the
mission ; but not to the domestic personnel.
Exemption is accorded on a reciprocal basis from direct per-
sonal taxes, viz. : the federal extraordinary and temporary war tax,
the only tax levied by the Confederation ; and taxes upon capital
and income, levied by the Cantons and Communes. No exemption
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 223
is accorded from tax on real property, or from taxes for public services
rendered. But, as an exception, Article 7 of the ordinance of
December 6, 1920, provides that, on a reciprocal basis, foreign
states and heads of missions are exemp.t from tax on real property,
if the latter is exclusively devoted to the purposes of the mission.
Motor Tax. — Exemption is accorded, and by courtesy the Canton
of Berne issues gratis local permits.
Dog Tax. — Exemption is accorded.
Stamp Tax on coupons, being an indirect tax, is leviable.
§ 423. UNITED STATES
Customs Duties. — Articles 404 and 405 of the United States
Customs Regulations, 1923, provide as follows l :
Article 404. Baggage. — The privilege of free entry is extended
to the baggage and other effects of the following officials, their
families, suites, and servants :
Foreign ambassadors, ministers, charges d'affaires.
Secretaries and naval, military and other attaches at embassies
and legations, high commissioners and consular officers accredited
to this government, or en route to and from other countries to which
accredited, and whose governments grant reciprocal facilities to
American officials of like grade accredited thereto. . . . Other
high officials of this and foreign governments, and such distin-
guished foreign visitors as may be designated by the Department
of State.
Applications should be made to the Department of State for the
free entry of the baggage of, and extension of courtesy to, all foreign
ambassadors and other foreign officers. ... In the absence of
special authorisation from the Department prior to the arrival of
foreign diplomatic and consular officers, collectors of customs may
accord the privileges of this article to them upon presentation of
their credentials, or by otherwise establishing their identity. Col-
lectors will keep a record of the privileges granted, whether the
subject of instructions from the Department or not, containing the
name of the person to whom granted, his rank or designation, the
name of the vessel and date of arrival. If by accident or unavoid-
able delay in shipment the baggage or other effects of a person of any
of the classes mentioned in this article shall arrive after him, the
same may be passed free of duty upon his declaration.
Article 405. Imported articles. — Members and attaches of foreign
embassies and legations 2 may receive articles imported for their
personal or family use free of duty upon the Department's instruc-
tions in each instance, which will be issued only upon the request
of the Department of State.
Packages bearing the official seal of a foreign government,
1 Only nationals of the country they represent are entitled to the benefit.
2 May be extended by reciprocal agreement to consular officers and non-
commissioned personnel of embassies and legations.
224 EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION
containing only official communications, documents, and office
equipment, when accompanied by a certificate to that effect under
such seal, may be admitted without customs examination. Costumes,
regalia, and other articles for the official use of diplomatic or con-
sular officers of a foreign government will be admitted free of duty.1
Collectors will take charge of all packages addressed to diplo-
matic officers of foreign nations which arrive in advance of the
receipt of instructions for free duty. Notification of such arrivals
should be sent to the Secretary of the Treasury.
(High Commissioners and trade commissioners (or trade
representatives) whose status is similar to consular officers, are
accorded the same treatment as consular officers, with respect to
their baggage and effects, and articles imported for official use).
Federal Income Tax. — Ambassadors and ministers accredited to
the United States and the members of their households (including
secretaries, attaches, and servants) who are not citizens of the
United States, are exempt from payment of Federal Income Tax
upon their salaries, fees or wages. The income from investments
in the United States in bonds and stocks and from interest on bank
balances received by ambassadors and ministers accredited to the
United States, who are not citizens of the United States, is exempt
from tax, but income from any business carried on by them in the
United States is taxable. In addition, such ambassadors and
ministers, for the purposes of the tax, are treated as non-resident
aliens and are therefore exempt from income tax with respect to
income from sources without the United States. These provisions
are also applicable to the wives and minor children of foreign
ambassadors and ministers and the members of their households,
including secretaries, attaches and servants.
Federal Miscellaneous Taxes. — Ambassadors and ministers of
foreign governments accredited to the United States are exempt
from : the tax upon passage tickets ; the tax upon dues, member-
ship fees, or initiation fees to any social, athletic or sporting
organisation ; the tax upon admission to places of public enter-
tainment ; and the tax upon tobacco, snuff, cigars or cigarettes
imported into the United States, in any case where customs
regulations authorise free entry of such articles. In the latter case
the requirements of the regulations in respect to size of packages
of tobacco, snuff, cigars or cigarettes are waived. The above ex-
emptions are also applicable to the members of the families and
households of the ambassadors and ministers.
No exemption from Federal estate tax is allowed by reason of
the fact that the decedent was in the diplomatic service of a foreign
government. Decedents who were in the diplomatic service of
foreign governments, however, are treated as non-residents, and
the liability of their estates for the tax determined accordingly. In
the case of a non-resident decedent the net estate, which is the sub-
ject of the tax, is that part of the gross estate which is situate in the
1 Based on reciprocity.
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION 225
United States less certain deductions, but no specific exemption is
allowed, as in the case of a resident decedent.
The taxes referred to under this heading include substantially
all of the Federal excise taxes which would be likely to have any
direct appreciable effect upon foreign diplomatic representatives.
Local Taxes in the District of Columbia. — Ambassadors and
ministers accredited to the United States and the members of their
families and households are exempt in the district of Columbia from
the tax upon personal property, but are not exempt from the tax
upon real property.
While no exemption is available with respect to the tax on
gasoline, upon proper certification by the State Department,
ambassadors and ministers accredited to the United States are
exempt from the payment of fees covering the issuance of licence
plates for automobiles.
CHAPTER XIX
POSITION OF DIPLOMATIC AGENT IN REGARD TO
THIRD STATES
§ 424. IN proceeding to his post, or in returning to report to
his government, a diplomatic agent often has to traverse the
territory of a third state, and questions have from time to time
arisen as to his position therein.
Passage in Time of Peace
§ 425. Schmelzing laid it down that :
Envoys enjoy the totality of diplomatic privileges only in the
territory of the state to which they are sent and to which they are
accredited. They cannot consequently claim the privileges of
inviolability in a third country which they touch on their journey
through, in going or returning, or in which they stay for a lengthened
period, unless they deliver credentials to the sovereign. The diplo-
matist is only a private person when he traverses a third state, and
as such he is not entitled to claim diplomatic privileges for himself,
his suite or his property.
It is, however, the custom that in time of peace foreign envoys
traverse the territory of a third state freely and without hindrance,
and may pass a time there, and that certain privileges and marks of
respect are accorded to them similar to those enjoyed by regularly
accredited diplomatists. This political courtesy rests upon no
legal obligation, and, consequently, in case of dispute with the state
from which it is claimed, reliance will be had on the essential
difference between an envoy formally accredited, and one who is
not accredited.1
§ 426. Rivier, however, was of opinion that
the agent passing through a third state when going to or returning
from his post is more than a mere distinguished traveller. He is
exercising his own state's right of legation in passing through under
the circumstances indicated. By hindering or molesting him you
interfere with the rights of both states. Consequently, as soon as
his character is revealed the agent becomes entitled to claim for
1. 222.
POSITION OF AGENT IN THIRD STATES 227
himself and his suite, in all matters involving the rights of those two
states, respect and complete security, i.e. inviolability. There is,
however, no need to regard him as entitled to exterritoriality. If
he stays in a third state, certain favours, such as the exemption
from the payment of import duties and other taxes, may be accorded
to him as an act of courtesy, without his having any right to demand
it. The passage or stay of the agent will be allowed only if it is
harmless, of which the state in whose territory he is can alone be
the judge. That state will adopt such precautions as it may deem
to be suitable. If passage is accorded, the state can impose a limit
on its duration, fix the route to be taken, and prohibit the agent
from stopping en route. ... It is assumed that the agent is travelling
or sojourning in the character of a public personage. If he is there
solely for his own pleasure, or in pursuit of some merely private
object, he is merely a distinguished personage, neither more nor
less.1
§ 427. Halleck observes :
"He has a right of innocent passage through the dominions of all
states friendly to his own country, and to the honours and protec-
tion which nations reciprocally owe to each other's diplomatic
agents, according to the dignity of their rank and official character.
If the state through which he proposes to pass has just reason to
suspect his object to be unfriendly, or to apprehend that he will
abuse this right by inciting its people to insurrection, furnishing
intelligence to its enemies, or plotting against the safety of the
government, it may very properly, and without just offence,
refuse such innocent passage. But if an innocent passage is granted
(and it is always presumed to be by a friendly Power, unless
specially denied) he is entitled to respect and protection, and any
insult or injury to him is regarded as an insult or injury both to the
state which sends him and that to which he is sent." 2
§ 428. At the present day it is so much to the interest of all
nations that their diplomatic representatives should be allowed
to pass freely and without hindrance through such countries
as they may have to traverse in order to reach, or to return
from, their posts, that it is usual to afford all reasonable
facilities and courtesies for the purpose. The only pre-
cautions to be recommended are that the agent should provide
himself with a passport, duly vise where necessary, in which
his official character is fully detailed, and obtain from the
diplomatic agent of the third state in his own country a
laisser-passer to enable his baggage to pass through the customs
of that state with the usual respect. When returning from
the capital to which he is accredited, he will usually be able to
obtain the same privilege from his colleague there.
1 Principes du Droit des Gens, i. 508. 2 International Law, i. 389.
228 POSITION OF AGENT IN THIRD STATES
§ 429. But as regards the immunity of the diplomatic agent
from the jurisdiction of a third state, writers differ, and it
cannot be said that any well-established rule of international
law exists.
§ 430. Recently Baron Heyking writes :
" Le but de 1'exterritorialite est de debarrasser les fonctions diplo-
matiques de tous les obstacles de la part du pouvoir de 1'Etat
etranger. Ce but ne peut etre rempli que dans 1'fitat qui recoit
1'ambassadeur et ou les fonctions diplomatiques doivent etre
exercees. II est clair par consequent que les privileges d'exterri-
torialite n'ont pas de raison d'etre dans les Etats que I'ambassadeur
ne fait que traverser. Us ne peuvent etre reclames par lui que dans
le cas oil une loi speciale existerait a ce sujet, loi etablie par
deference, motu proprio, comme, par exemple, 1'edit des Pays-Bas
du 9 septembre 1679. En 1'absence d'une disposition speciale de
ce genre, 1'Etat qui sert de passage jouit a 1'egard de I'ambassadeur
de tous les droits qu'il peut avoir centre une personne privee ; il
peut meme, lorsqu'il il le soupgonne dangereux ou suspect, lui
interdire le sejour dans les limites de ses frontieres." x
§ 431. And M. Deak :
" Bien que le droit international n'impose pas aux £tats 1'obliga-
tion d'accorder I'immunite diplomatique aux personnes qui
traversent leur territoire, on peut considerer que c'est une coutume
generalement admise de leur accorder une protection speciale.
Mais il n'existe pas de regies definies, et moins encore d'opinion
unanime en droit international sur cette question, qui est devenue
plus importante depuis 1'etablissement dela Societe des Nations."2
§ 432. As shown too in the foregoing quotations, distinctions
are drawn by writers between the case where the agent passes
through the third country on his way to or from his post, and
those in which he prolongs his stay, or is there merely for his
own pleasure. In the latter case it is not apparent that he
has immunity.
Nevertheless, the Pan-American Convention of February 20,
1928, the preamble of which says that it incorporates the principles
generally accepted by all nations, lays down for the signatory
states the following rules : ;' Article 23. — Persons belonging to the
mission shall also enjoy the same immunities and prerogatives 3
in the states which they cross to arrive at their post or to return
to their own country, or in a state where they may casually be
during the exercise of their functions and to whose government
they have made known their position."
1 L'Exterritorialite, Cours de La Haye (1925), ii. 266.
2 Classification, etc., des Agents Diplomatiques, Rev. de Dr. Int. (1928), 558.
3 Inter alia, exemption from all civil and criminal jurisdiction (Art. 1 9) .
POSITION OF AGENT IN THIRD STATES 229
§ 433. As regards other aspects, Halsbury's " Laws of
England " states :
" Whether process issued by the courts of this country can be
served in a foreign country upon a foreign minister accredited to
and received at the court of such foreign country must be taken to
be doubtful." 1
§ 434. In France it has been held that the local courts have
jurisdiction in the case of a foreign diplomatic officer who is
accredited to another state in respect of an action against
him relating to the building of a chalet within French terri-
tory 2 ; and in respect of proceedings in divorce instituted
against him by his wife in France.3 (See also § 836.)
§ 435. Certain incidents and cases are set out below,
dating from ancient times up to the present.
In 1541 Rincon and Fregoso, French ambassadors to Turkey and
Venice, while on their journey down the River Po, were seized by
the Governor of Milan and murdered, and their papers seized.4
In 1572 du Cros, French envoy to Scotland, was arrested in
England, at a time when the passage of Frenchmen through
England to Scotland was forbidden. It was contended that he
should have asked for a passport.5
On September 9, 1679, an ordinance of the States-General
accorded inviolability to diplomatic agents passing through the
United Provinces, just as if they were accredited there.
In 1793 the French revolutionary government sent Marat and
Semonville on a mission to Switzerland. In passing through the
territory of the Grisons they were arrested by order of the Austrian
Government, stripped of their property, and confined in the citadel
of Mantua.6
(i) In 1839, in the case Holbrook v. Henderson, before the
Superior Court of New York, the minister of the republic of Texas
in France and England, while returning to his own country, was
arrested in the United States for debt. The court held that the
privilege of an ambassador extended to immunity against all civil
suits sought to be instituted against him in the courts of the country
to which he was accredited as well as in those of a friendly country
through which he was passing on the way to his post, and that he
was entitled to this as representative of his sovereign, and also
because it was necessary for the free and unimpeded exercise of his
diplomatic duties.7
1 vi. 431.
2 Leon c. Diaz, Clunet (1892), "37; Hurst, Les Immunitls Diplomatique*, Cours
de La Haye (1926), ii. 228.
3 Stoiesco c. Stoiesco, Clunet (1918), 656 ; Hurst, op. cit., ii. 229.
4 Flassan, iii. 9. 8 Ward, Law of Nations, 560.
6 Sorel, L' Europe et la Revolution Franfaise, iii. 43 1 .
7 4 N. Y. Super. Ct. 619 ; Hudson, Cases on International Law, 854.
23o POSITION OF AGENT IN THIRD STATES
(2) In 1840 Mr. Beylen, United States consul, who was employed
by his government as a courier to Genoa, was, while crossing France,
cited for recovery of debts. The Civil Tribunal of the Seine held
that he was exempt from French jurisdiction under the decree
13 ventose, an II, which, in consecrating the inviolability of diplo-
matic agents, made no distinction between those accredited to France
and those traversing France in order to reach their posts elsewhere.1
(3) In 1854 the French Government refused to Mr. Soule,
United States minister at Madrid (of French origin, but naturalised
in the United States, and said to have been " of a fiery tempera-
ment ") permission to stay in France on his way to his post, on the
ground that his antecedents had attracted the attention of the
authorities charged with public order ; they had no objection to
his merely passing through, but as he had not been authorised to
represent his adopted country in his native land, he was for the
French Government merely a private person, and as such subject
to the ordinary law.2
(4) In 1888, in the case New Chile Gold Mining Co. v. Blanco and
another, in the English courts, an action was begun against
M. Blanco, Venezuelan minister at Paris, and an order for the
service of the writ out of the jurisdiction having been made, an
application was made to the Court of Queen's Bench to set the
order aside. In the result, and although the general question was
not decided, the court set aside the order, and held that as a matter
of discretion it would not allow service of a writ out of England on
the minister of a friendly Power accredited to a foreign state.3
(5) In 1889, in the case Wilson v. Blanco in the United States,
M. Blanco, Venezuelan minister at Paris, was served, while passing
through, on his way to his post, with process in connection with a
civil claim against him, and in default of appearance judgment was
given against him for the sum of $2,194,535.34. On a motion to
set aside the judgment and vacate the summons, the Superior Court
of New York, in referring to the case of Holbrook v. Henderson in the
same court, and to the views of numerous jurists of recognised
authority, as set forth in Wheaton, granted the application to
vacate the judgment and set aside the summons upon him.4
(6) In 1900 the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, in answer
to an enquiry addressed to him by the Spanish ambassador, con-
cerning the Due de Veragua, said : " L'agent diplomatique, ou
meme la personne chargee temporairement d'une mission diploma-
tique qui traverse la territoire francaise pour accomplir sa mission
a 1'etranger ou retourne pour rendre compte a son gouvernement,
doit etre assimile a 1'agent diplomatique accredite, et par suite
doit etre exempte de la juridiction locale." 5
1 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 223.
2 de Martens-Geffken, i. 119; Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, 53.
3 4 T. L. R. (1888), 346. * Scott, Cases on International Law, 293
6 Clunet (1901), 342 ; Hurst, op. cit., ii. 225.
POSITION OF AGENT IN THIRD STATES 231
(7) In 1910, in the case Sickles v. Sickles, at Paris, concerning
divorce proceedings instituted against the secretary of the United
States legation at Brussels, the Civil Tribunal of the Seine declared
itself incompetent, as the defendant had never been domiciled in
France. But on the general question of his liability to the local
jurisdiction in the circumstances of his stay in Paris for non-official
reasons, they observed : " Que si ces prerogatives (immunites
diplomatiques) doivent etre etendues au cas ou ces agents traver-
sent un autre pays pour l'accomplissement de leur mission, ou
apres son execution, ces envoyes ne peuvent reclamer les memes
immunites lorsqu'ils se trouvent sur un territoire etranger sans etre
appeles pour des affaires se rattachant a leurs fonctions ; que les
raisons superieures et d'ordre public qui justifient ces immunites
diploma tiquesne se rencontrent pas dans cettedernierehypothese." l
(8) In 1924, in the case Carbone v. Carbone, in the United States,
an action was brought against an attache of the legation of Panama
in Italy in respect of proceedings in divorce. The court held that
there was a marked difference between immunity from civil pro-
ceedings and immunity from arrest. A country which a diplomatic
agent crosses in going to or coming from the country to which he is
accredited, owes to him only that it shall not hinder the fulfilment
of his mission by restraining his personal liberty. The warrant of
arrest against him was therefore annulled, but not the writ to enter
appearance.2
(9) In 1926 Madame Kollontai, who had been appointed by the
Soviet Government as minister at Mexico, was refused permission
to pass through the United States (which was not in diplomatic
relations with that government) on her way to her post.
§ 436. The treaty concluded between Italy and the Holy
See on February n, 1929, provides as follows :
Article 12. — Italy recognises the right of the Holy See to active
and passive legation in accordance with the general rules of inter-
national law. Envoys of foreign governments to the Holy See
shall continue to enjoy in the Kingdom all the privileges and immu-
nities appertaining to diplomatic agents in virtue of international law,
and their headquarters may remain in Italian territory and shall
enjoy all the immunities due to them in accordance with interna-
tional law, even if the states to which they belong maintain no
diplomatic relations with Italy. It is understood that Italy under-
takes always and in every case to leave free the correspondence from
all states, including belligerents, to the Holy See, and vice versa. . . .
In virtue of the sovereignty recognised, and without prejudice to
the provisions of Article 19 below, diplomatists of the Supreme
Pontiff shall enjoy in Italian territory, even in time of war, the
treatment due to diplomatists and carriers of despatches of other
1 Clunet (1910), 529.
2 206 N. Y. Super. Gt., 40 (1924) ; Dedk, op. cit., 530.
232 POSITION OF AGENT IN THIRD STATES
foreign governments, in accordance with the rules of international
law.
Article 19. — Diplomatic officers and envoys of the Holy See,
diplomatic officers and envoys of foreign governments accredited
to the Holy See . . . possessing passports issued by their state of
origin and vises by Papal representatives abroad, shall be admitted
without further formality to the City across Italian territory. The
same shall apply to the above-mentioned persons, who, being
furnished with regular Papal passports, are proceeding abroad
from the Vatican City.
Passage in Time of War
§ 437. When the state by which the agent is accredited is at war
with the third state.
A Power which during war arrests the envoy of a hostile
state who is found within its territory, and treats him as a
prisoner of war, commits thereby no breach of international
law.1 As Rivier says : "If the two states are at war, the
agent may in default of a safe-conduct be made prisoner." 2
If he travels on board a neutral ship, the vessel may be seized
and brought in for adjudication in the prize court.3
(1) In 1744 France declared war against the King of England,
Elector of Hanover, and Hanover was consequently enemy territory
for France. Marshal Belleisle, then at Frankfort as French ambas-
sador to the Emperor Charles VII (Elector of Bavaria), was ordered
to proceed to Berlin as minister. In crossing Hanover, he and his
brother were made prisoners of war. Orders were sent from
London to remove them to England, where they were retained for
several months, until released conditionally.4
(2) In 1 744 Holdernesse, ambassador of Great Britain to Venice,
was arrested near Nuremberg by order of the Emperor Charles VII.
Since, as late as January 1 745, the latter had a minister in London,
there was no justification for this arrest, and on learning of it, the
Bavarian commander-in-chief ordered his release and preferred
an apology.5
(3) In 1915 Dr. C. Dumba, Austrian ambassador at Washington,
on his recall, and Captains Boy-Ed and Von Papen, German naval and
military attaches, on their recall, owing to the dissatisfaction of the
United States Government with their proceedings, were, at the
request of that government, granted safe-conducts by the Allied
Powers for their return journeys to Europe.
(4) In 1917, on the entry of the United States into the war,
Count Bernstorff, German ambassador at Washington, was, at the
request of the United States Government, granted safe-conduct by
the Allied Powers to enable him to return to Germany.
1 Hall, 365. 2 Op. cit., 509. 3 Hurst, op. cit., ii. 235.
4 Ch. de Martens, Causes ctlebres, etc., i. 285. 5 Ibid., 300 n.
POSITION OF AGENT IN THIRD STATES 233
(5) In 1917 Herr von Heinriclis, former secretary to the German
embassy at Madrid, while on his way to Mexico to take up another
appointment, was made prisoner on landing in Cuba, then at
war with Germany.1
(6) In 1918 Captain von Krohn, naval attache to the German
embassy at Madrid, was, at the request of the Spanish Government,
granted safe-conduct by the French Government, to permit of his
return to Germany through France, a prescribed route being
enjoined.2
§ 438. When Italy declared war against Austria-Hungary
in 1915, the diplomatic representatives of the Central Powers
accredited to the Pope, who resided outside the exempted
buildings occupied by His Holiness, avoided all difficulty by
retiring beyond the Italian frontier. The Law of Guarantees
of May 13, 1871 (now abrogated by the Treaty of February 1 1,
1929), however, provided (Article n) as follows3 :
The envoys of foreign governments accredited to His Holiness
will enjoy in the Kingdom all the prerogatives and immunities
appertaining to diplomatic agents, in accordance with international
law.
The penal sanction for offences against such representatives
shall be the same as that which would be applied in respect of
foreign envoys accredited to the Italian Government.
The envoys of His Holiness to foreign governments shall possess
within the territory of the Kingdom the usual prerogatives and
immunities, in accordance with the same law, both in going to
their posts and in returning.4
§ 439. When the state to which the agent is accredited is at war
with the third state.
An old case of 1 702 is recorded, when, during the war between
Sweden and Poland, the Marquis de Bonnac, French envoy to Sweden,
was arrested in passing through Polish territory. In reply to the
serious representations of the French Government, it was said in
extenuation that he should have provided himself with a passport.5
§ 440. If the state to which the agent is accredited is
invaded by the armed forces of the third state, various questions
may arise.
(a] If the government of the invaded state is transferred
from the capital to a town in the country (as when in 1914
the French Government transferred its seat from Paris to
Bordeaux), the question whether the diplomatic agent should
also transfer his residence to that town, or continue to reside
1 Oppenheim, i. § 398. 2 Genet, Traitt de Diplomatic, etc., i. 596.
3 For certain provisions of the treaty of February n, 1929, between Italy and
the Holy See, see § 436.
4 de Castro y Casaleiz, ii. 456. 5 Flassan, iv. 239.
234 POSITION OF AGENT IN THIRD STATES
at the capital, is one for himself and his government to
decide.1
(b) If the state to which the agent is accredited is occupied
by the military forces of the third state, the obligation of
withdrawal naturally falls upon diplomatic agents of states who
may be in alliance with the former. The representatives of
neutral states might also be required to withdraw, unless
charged by their governments with special functions with the
consent of the occupying state.2
In 1914, on the occupation of Luxemburg by German forces,
the German Government insisted on the withdrawal of the French
and Belgian ministers accredited to Luxemburg.3
In 1914, on the occupation of the greater part of Belgium by
German forces, the Belgian Government transferred its seat to
French territory, whither most of the diplomatic agents accredited
to Belgium followed it. The Spanish and United States ministers,
being charged with special functions, were, with some others,
allowed by the German Government to remain in Brussels, in the
enjoyment of diplomatic privilege. The United States minister
withdrew shortly before the entry of the United States into the war.4
In 1916, on the invasion of Roumania, and its occupation in
great part by the Central Powers, the latter insisted on the repre-
sentatives of neutral states leaving Bucharest, and on January 13,
1917, they left on a special train placed at their disposal for the
purpose.5
(c) If the seat of government is besieged by the military forces of
the third state.
Siege of Cadiz, 1823. — During the French invasion of Spain, the
Cortes retired to Cadiz, and the King went with them. The
French forces laid siege to the city. The instructions to the British
minister, as given in a despatch from Canning of September 18,
1823, were 6 :
" You have judged wisely in declining their (the Spanish
Government's) solicitation to repair under the present circum-
stances to Cadiz. It is obvious that one object at least (if not the
single object) of that solicitation is to produce a state of things fertile
in sources of misunderstanding with the blockading belligerent ;
and of questions which, as it would be difficult to solve, it would be
most inconvenient unnecessarily to stir : questions, of which the
usually admitted authorities in matters of international law have
not even contemplated the occurrence ; and for the decision of
which history affords no practical example. Who has laid down,
and, in the absence of authority and precedent, who shall lay down
what are the rights and privileges of the minister of a neutral Power
1 Hurst, op. cit., 233. 2 Ibid., 232. 3 Ibid., 231.
4 Ibid., 232. 6 Ibid., 232.
6 Quoted in Stapleton's Political Life of the Rt. Hon. George Canning, i. 465.
POSITION OF AGENT IN THIRD STATES 235
in a town besieged and blockaded by sea and land ? Has he a
right of unlimited communication with his Court ? Is he to direct
the vessel which he may employ to submit to search, or to resist it
in the execution of this object ? These and a hundred other ques-
tions of the like difficulty must arise in a situation so new and
anomalous ; and questions between nations which are not referable
to preconcerted agreements, or to settled principles and acknow-
ledged law, what power is to decide but the sword ? If we had
been disposed to go to war with France, and in behalf of Spain, we
would have done so openly, and either on the merits of the case, or
in vindication of some intelligible interest. But after professing and
maintaining a perfect and scrupulous neutrality throughout the
contest, to be betrayed at this stage of it into hostilities with France
through an uncalled for and unprofitable discussion upon abstract
points of international jurisprudence, would be a weakness unworthy
of any government, and such as must make us the laughing stock
of Europe. Your presence at Gibraltar places you quite as much
within the reach of the Spanish Government for all purpose of
active friendship and utility (as indeed the late transaction has
shown) as if you were shut up within the walls of Cadiz and
exposed (gratuitously as must be admitted) to the dangers and
sufferings of a siege."
Siege of Paris, 1870-1. — During the siege of Paris by the German
forces certain diplomatic agents remained in the city. Among
these were the nuncio, and the United States, Swiss, Swedish,
Danish, Belgian and Netherlands ministers. Having requested
permission to send out a diplomatic courier through the German
lines, they were informed that letters would be allowed to pass if
unclosed, provided they contained nothing objectionable from a
military point of view. On a further representation that the condi-
tion of sending open despatches would render official relations with
their governments impossible, Count Bismarck's reply, addressed
to the nuncio, observed, " II a ete cree a Paris un etat de choses
auquel 1'histoire moderne, sous le point de vue du droit interna-
tional, n'offre aucune analogic precise. Un gouvernement en
guerre avec une Puissance qui ne 1'a pas encore reconnu, s'est
enferme dans une forteresse assiegee, et s'y trouve entoure d'une
partie des diplomates qui etaient accredited aupres du gouverne-
ment a la place duquel s'est mis le Gouvernement de la Defense
Nationale. En face d'une situation aussi irreguliere, il sera difficile
d'etablir sur la base du droit des gens des regies exemptes de
controverse sous tous les points de vue."
The United States minister alone, who had charge of the pro-
tection of German nationals, was on this ground allowed the
privilege of despatching and receiving closed bags once a week.
The United States Secretary of State l appears in the meantime
to have claimed for the representatives of neutral states in Paris
1 Foreign Relations of the United States (1871).
236 POSITION OF AGENT IN THIRD STATES
the right of free intercourse with their governments on the ground
that such intercourse is in itself one of the privileges of envoys.
Count Bismarck replied :
" The right of unhindered written intercourse between a
government and its diplomatic representative, especially so far as
concerns the government to which he is accredited, is in itself
undisputed. But this right may come in conflict with rights which
of themselves are also beyond dispute, as, for instance, in the case
where a state, to guard against contagious disease, subjects travellers
and papers to a quarantine. So too in war. The universal and
imperative right of self-protection, of which war is itself the expres-
sion, may come in conflict with the diplomatic privileges which,
just because privileges, are, in doubtful case, subject not to an
enlarging, but to a contracting interpretation. ... If the writers
on public law concede to the diplomatic representatives of neutral
states rights as against a belligerent Power, they do so only while,
at the same time, coupling therewith the right to regulate the corre-
spondence of such persons with a besieged town, according to
military exigencies. Vattel says :
" ' Elle (la guerre) permet d'oter a 1'ennemi toutes ses ressources,
d'empecher qu'il ne puisse envoyer ses ministres pour sollicker des
secours. II est meme des occasions ou 1'on peut refuser le passage
aux ministres des nations neutres qui voudraient aller chez 1'ennemi.
On n'est point oblige de souffrir qu'ils lui portent peut-etre des avis
salutaires, qu'ils aillent concerter avec lui les moyens de 1'assister,
etc. Cela ne souffre nul doute, par exemple, dans le cas d'une
ville assiegee. Aucun droit ne peut autoriser le ministre d'une puissance
neutre ni qui que ce soit ay entrer malgre Vassiegeant, mais pour ne point
offenser les souverains, il faut leur donner de bonnes raisons du
refus que Ton fait de laisser passer leurs ministres, et ils doivent
s'en contenter s'ils pretendent demeurer neutres.'
" What is true of ministers will be all the more so of messengers
and despatches. . . . The military necessity of cutting off a
besieged town from outside intelligence appears a sufficient ground
for subjecting to control, from a military point of view, the corre-
spondence of diplomatic persons remaining in the town in its passage
through territory occupied by the besiegers, and temporarily sub-
ject to their war sovereignty. It is not perceived that these persons
are thereby treated as enemies, nor that they are thereby prevented
from continuing neutral, or that wars are thereby indefinitely pro-
longed. On the contrary, the end of a war is all the sooner to be
expected the more strictly the isolation of the hostile capital is
carried out." 1
In General
§441. The diplomatic agent accredited to a state, and in
the absence of a mission or permission of his government, is
1 Translation from the German.
POSITION OF AGENT IN THIRD STATES 237
in no way authorised to interpose in the differences which that
state may have with another. If he interferes, the state to
which he is accredited, or the other, or both, may complain
to his own government. Either government entitled to com-
plain may take such measures as it may judge to be appro-
priate, within the limits imposed by diplomatic privileges and
immunities.1
In 1733 the Marquis de Monti, French envoy in Poland, took
an active part, after the death of Augustus II, in supporting the
election of Leczinski, and when the latter was driven from Warsaw
by Russian and Saxon troops, followed him to Danzig, which was
besieged, whereupon Monti surrendered to the Russian com-
mander. To intercessions made on his behalf by France, Great
Britain and Holland, the Russian reply was that only those
ministers who do not transgress the limits of their functions can
claim inviolability, and that only at the hands of the court to which
they are accredited, and where they have been received and
recognised as ministers. Monti had taken part in hostilities
against the Russian forces ; his powers expired with the death of
Augustus II, and so it was doubtful if he was entitled to be regarded
as an ambassador after that event ; and, lastly, he had surrendered
to the Russian commander, ready, as he said, to undergo all the
misfortunes that might await him.2
In 1746 Van Hoey, envoy of the United Provinces at Paris,
wrote to the Duke of Newcastle, then Secretary of State, after the
battle of Culloden, asking that the Pretender's life should be spared
if he was captured. This interference was much resented by the
British Government, who complained to the States-General, demand-
ing public satisfaction proportioned to the scandal caused by this
proceeding to every friend of the honour, religion and liberty of
the two Powers. The States-General administered a severe rebuke
to Van Hoey, whom they ordered to write a polite and proper
letter to the Duke of Newcastle, to acknowledge his own impru-
dence and the fault of which he had been guilty, and to promise to
conduct himself more prudently for the future.3
1 Rivier, op. cit., ii. 51 1.
2 Ch. de Martens, op. cit., i. 210 ; Flassan, v. 72.
3 Rivier, op. cit., i. 512 ; Ch. de Martens, op. cit., i. 312-25.
CHAPTER XX
THE DIPLOMATIC BODY
§ 442. THE Diplomatic Body comprises all the heads of
missions, counsellors, secretaries and attaches, both paid and
honorary, including military, naval, air and commercial
attaches, chaplains and all other members who are on the
diplomatic establishment of their respective countries. In
Oriental countries many embassies and legations have corps
of student interpreters (interpretes eleves], who are destined to
be attached to the consular service when they have completed
their studies. Whether these are to be included in the diplo-
matic body depends on the decision of the head of the mission
concerned. At many capitals a list of the diplomatic body,
compiled from lists furnished by each mission, is published
from time to time. This generally includes the wives and
children of the members of the missions.
§ 443. The doyen is the senior diplomatic representative of
the highest category. His functions are of a limited character
in most countries, and are chiefly of a ceremonial description.
He is the mouthpiece of his colleagues on public occasions.
He is the defender of the privileges and immunities of the
diplomatic body from injuries or encroachments on the part
of the government to which they are accredited. He is some-
times used as a channel for communication on ceremonial
matters to the other heads of missions. Whatever records
belong to the body as a whole are in his keeping. In some
Oriental countries he may have more important duties to
perform, as the channel through which joint representations
regarding the treaty rights of foreigners in general are for-
warded to the government. But he is in no case entitled to
write or speak on behalf of his colleagues without having
previously consulted them and obtained their approval of
the step which it is proposed to take, and of the wording of
any written or spoken representations on their behalf. No
head of a mission will take part with his colleagues in a joint
representation to the government of the country without
THE DIPLOMATIC BODY 239
special authorisation from home, or accept a summons from
the doyen to attend a meeting for the discussion of international
matters unless he has received instructions to take joint action.
At Washington such joint demarches of the diplomatic body
have been generally declined by the Department of State ;
an apparent exception occurred just before the outbreak of
the war with Spain in 1898, when the European ambassadors
were received by the President to make a joint representation
in favour of peace.1
§ 444. The wife of the senior diplomatic representative of
the highest category is called the doyenne. Her functions are
limited to presenting at court ladies of the diplomatic body
who have no one else to perform this office for them, i.e. if
the head of the mission to which their husbands belong is
unmarried.
§ 445. Precedence among Heads of Missions. In each category
of diplomatic agents seniority depends on the date of official
notification of arrival at the capital. This is the rule laid
down in the Reglement de Vienne (§ 277). Some authors say
that it depends on the date of the presentation of credentials.2
§ 446. Owing to the necessity of obtaining new credentials
on the occasion of the death of either the accrediting sovereign
or of the sovereign to whom the head of a mission is accredited,
differences of opinion sometimes arose as to the necessity of
a change of precedence among diplomatists, consequent on
the difference of date on which the new credentials came into
their hands, which, of course, might affect the order in which
they were enabled to give official notification to the minister
for foreign affairs. In March 1818 a controversy occurred
at Copenhagen in the following circumstances : The envoy of
a certain Power was the doyen of the diplomatic body at the
Danish court. In consequence of changes at his own court,
he received new credentials. Some of his colleagues main-
tained that he had thereby lost his seniority and must take
rank after the others. The majority, however, took the
opposite view.3 In 1830 it was agreed among the heads of
missions at Paris that, notwithstanding the date of delivery of
their new credentials, they should continue to rank among
themselves as before. The same arrangement was maintained
in 1848, on the establishment of the second Republic, and in
1852, on the assumption of the title of Emperor by Prince
Louis Napoleon. Similarly in Belgium, on the accession of
1 Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, 124.
2 Ibid., 70 ; de Martens-Geffken, i. 53 j Garcia de la Vega, 209, 422.
5 Schmelzing, ii. 128.
240 THE DIPLOMATIC BODY
King Leopold II, in consequence of the death of Leopold I
on December 10, 1865 ; and the Belgian diplomatic repre-
sentatives in foreign countries also preserved their former
relative seniority.1 At the accession of King Alfonso of Spain,
in 1875, tne British minister had been doyen, but the ministers
of Portugal and Russia, having presented their new credentials
before he did, claimed precedence. After much discussion it was
decided that the previous order of precedence should prevail.2
§ 447. It seems obvious that whatever arrangements the
heads of missions may make among themselves, these cannot
affect the rules of precedence at court which are adopted by
the sovereign to whom they are accredited, or, in the case of
republics, by those similarly adopted. Where there is any
doubt as to the rules of precedence, the regulations of the par-
ticular court or state are decisive on the point. And while in
some places it is held that the date of presentation of credentials
regulates the rank in each category, this cannot very well happen
in countries which were parties to the Reglement de Vienne.
§ 448. It has sometimes been said that charges d'affaires
accredited to the minister for foreign affairs rank among
themselves according to the date of the presentation of their
letters of credence (which is contrary to the Reglement de Vienne},
and that it is for this reason that a charge d'affaires ad interim,
acting in the absence of the head of the mission, ranks after
those belonging to the permanent category. But this can
hardly be the reason, for occasionally a charge d'affaires ad
interim may bear a letter of credence as such. The existence
of charges d'affaires ad interim cannot be said to have been taken
into account at Vienna in 1815. The distinction is now,
however, generally recognised. (See § 297.)
§ 449. It was formerly usual to confer the rank of minister
plenipotentiary on the counsellor to the British embassy at
Paris in the absence of the ambassador, and up to 1906,
whenever the ambassador first went on leave, the counsellor
presented his credentials as such to the French Government.
But in 1 906 the counsellor of the British embassy at Paris was
definitely appointed as minister plenipotentiary, and in 1929
as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, a course
which had previously been adopted in 1924 in the case of the
counsellor to the British embassy at Washington.
§ 450. Wives of diplomatists enjoy the same privileges,
honours, precedence and title as their husbands. The wife of
an envoy consequently is entitled to :
1 Pradier-Fodere, i. 290 ; Garcia de la Vega, 210.
2 Foreign Relations of the United States, cited by Foster, op. cit., 71,
THE DIPLOMATIC BODY 241
1 . A higher degree of protection than what is assured to
her in virtue of her birth and sex.
2. The same personal exemptions as belong to her
husband.
She accords to ladies of position at the court equality in
matters of ceremony, only if her own husband accords equal
rank to the husbands of those ladies.
She claims precedence and preference in respect of presen-
tation, reception at court, visits and return visits, over other
ladies, only if her husband enjoys precedence over the husbands
of those other ladies.1
§ 45 1 . The rules as to presentations at court and to members
of reigning families, or in a republic to the head of the state,
as well as to official visits which diplomatic representatives
should pay, and visits to which they are entitled, are laid down
with much precision at every capital, and can be learnt by
inquiry in the proper official quarter.
§ 452. Ambassadors and other heads of missions, when
invited to national or court festivities, are entitled to a place of
honour among the persons invited, which is fixed by local
regulation or usage. Neglect of this ceremonial obligation,
in itself of minor importance, in the past sometimes led to
strained relations. In 1750 the Russian envoy at Berlin was
omitted from the list of persons invited to a certain court
festivity, because he was supposed to be absent from the
capital. The incident led to a strong protest from his court,
and diplomatic relations between the two states were con-
sequently suspended for a long period.2
§ 453. In monarchical countries the diplomatic body come
after the members of the reigning family. In republics their
precedence is not uniformly settled. In Great Britain foreign
ambassadors yield precedence, so far as personages of British
nationality are concerned, only to members of the Royal
Family who are Royal Highnesses ; ambassadresses are
usually given a similar position. Foreign envoys and ministers
are by courtesy given precedence after dukes and before
marquesses, and their wives after duchesses and before
marchionesses. The precedence of charges d'affaires is not
officially laid down and rests upon courtesy.
In France the diplomatic body come after the Presidents of
the Senate and Chamber of Deputies ; at Washington after
the Vice-President. In South American republics it is believed
they take rank after the members of the cabinet and the
presidents of the legislative chambers.
1 Schmelzing, 159. * Ibid., ii. 126.
242 THE DIPLOMATIC BODY
§ 454. At the Court of St. James, heads of missions are
expected to attend Levees. They and the personnel of their
missions have the entree, and are expected to appear at court
and on state occasions in the uniforms or dress prescribed
by the regulations of their own court for functions of a cofre-
sponding character. The ambassador and personnel of the
embassy from the United States, and of some other embassies
and legations accredited to the Court of St. James, wear
evening dress, with breeches and stockings, at courts, state
balls and evening state parties, but evening dress with trousers
when Levee dress is worn.1
Heads of missions in Great Britain are supplied with a pass
entitling them to break the line and to be accorded other
exceptional facilities on occasions when the police are regu-
lating the traffic at state functions, and are also accorded the
privilege of a carriage pass entitling them to use the gates
leading into and out of St. James's Park.
§ 455. Political significance has sometimes been attached
to the absence of an envoy from a state ceremony. In 1818
the omission of the Prussian envoy to attend the diplomatic
circle on the French King's birthday gave rise to public
comment, and the inference was drawn that the two govern-
ments had been unable to come to an agreement about certain
claims advanced by one of them. The allusions to these claims
in both legislative chambers, combined with a new law of
recruiting, excited a hope in the minds of certain hotheads
that the claims would be referred to the arbitrament of arms.
" Payez les etrangers du fer ': was a common expression
used in certain circles.2 In 1823 Canning forbade the
British ambassador in Paris to be present at any rejoicings
given in celebration of the French successes in the Peninsula.3
§ 456. Order of Precedence on the Occasion of Personal Meetings.
If the ceremony is one at which the diplomatic body has
to take what may be termed an active part, its members,
ranged according to the order of precedence prescribed by
the Reglement de Vienne, are placed on the right of the centre or
post of honour occupied by the most eminent person present,
i.e. usually the head of the state. If, however, the part taken
by the diplomatic body is merely passive, i.e. that of spectators,
a special place is set apart for it, such as a tribune in a church,
boxes at a theatre for a gala performance, etc.4 :—
1 Dress and Insignia worn at His Majesty's Court (1929), 88.
8 Schmelzing, ii. 227.
* Stapleton, Political Life of George Canning, i. 482.
4 de Martens-Geffken, i. 127. -
THE DIPLOMATIC BODY
243
As regards seats, the place of honour and consequently the
precedence attributed to the persons forming the company : — At a
four-cornered table of which all four sides are occupied, or at a
round or oval table, the first place is usually considered to be facing
the entrance, and the last place is that nearest to it. Counting
from the first place, the order of seats is from right to left, and so on.
©
In standing, sitting or walking, the place of honour is at the
right, i.e. when the person entitled thereto stands or walks at the
right. Precedence is when the person entitled goes a step before
the other, who is at his left side, as in ascending a flight of stairs or
entering a room.
Amongst the Turks, and also at Catholic religious ceremonies,
the left hand has often been regarded as the place of honour, so
also among the Chinese.
In a lateral arrangement, i.e. when the persons present stand
side by side in a straight line, the outside place on the right, or the
central place, is the first according to circumstances. When there
are only two persons, the right hand is the first (© ©) ; if there
are three, the middle place is the first (© © ©), the right hand
the second, the left hand the third. If the number is four, the
furthest to the right is the first place, the next is the second, the
left of the latter is the third, and then the fourth (0 © © ©).*
Of five persons, the first is in the middle, immediately to the right
is the second, to the left is the third, further to the right is the fourth,
and the fifth is the furthest to the left (© © © © ©). If six or
more, the same principles are observed, according as the number
is odd or even.
In perpendicular order, i.e. when one comes after the other, the
foremost place is sometimes the most honourable, sometimes the
last, the next person who follows or precedes has the second and
so on. If there are only two, the front place is the first { x: ] ;
if three, the midmost is the first, the second is in front, the third
is behind
If four, the front place is the fourth, the next is
the second, the next to that the first, the hindmost is the third
1 de Martens-Geffken, i. 131, puts the order thus
244 THE DIPLOMATIC BODY
If five, the midmost is the first, the second is immediately in front,
the third is behind, the foremost is the fourth and the hindmost the
(Tl
fifth 0. If there are six or more, the same principle is observed
according as the number of persons is even or odd.1
§ 457. In a diplomatic house precedence is accorded to
officials of rank belonging to the country, provided no ambas-
sadors are present. The latter yield precedence only to the
minister for foreign affairs.
On the other hand, in the house of an official or dignitary
of the country, the diplomatists go before every one, except the
minister for foreign affairs.
In a diplomatic house the host gives precedence to his
foreign colleagues over his own countrymen, no matter what
the rank of the latter.
§ 458. Rules, as set forth in ' Dress and Insignia worn
at His Majesty's Court," 2 specify occasions upon which
orders, miniature decorations and medals are to be worn
with evening dress, viz. " At all parties and dinners given in
houses of Ambassadors and Ministers accredited to ^this
Court, unless otherwise notified by the Ambassador or Minister
concerned. (A decoration of the country concerned should
be worn in preference to a British one, and if both are worn,
the former should take precedence of the latter)."
§ 459. In former times the question whether an ambassador,
or other person of high rank, such as a cardinal, should give
the peat of honour to a person of lower rank paying him an
official visit was held to be one of vital importance. Thus, in
the instructions given to the Hon. Henry Legge, when he
was being despatched to Berlin, in 1748, as envoy to the great
Frederick, occurs the following passage :
Whereas Our Royal Predecessor King Charles the Second did,
by his Order in Council, bearing date the 26th Day of August, 1668,
direct, that his Ambassadors should not, for the future, give the
Hand [i.e. the seat of honour] in their own Houses to Envoys, in
pursuance of what is practised by the Ambassadors of other Princes,
and did therefore think it reasonable, that His Envoys should not
pretend to be treated differently from the Treatment He had
directed his Ambassadors to give to the Envoys of other Princes ;
We do accordingly, in pursuance of the said Order in Council,
1 Miruss, Europdisches Gesandschaftsrecht.
2 Issued with the authority of the Lord Chamberlain, 151.
THE DIPLOMATIC BODY 245
hereby direct you, not to insist to have the Hand from Any Ambas-
sador, in his own House, who may happen to be in the Court where
you reside.1
Callieres, too, on this subject, says :
Les Ambassadeurs du Roy ont differens ceremoniaux selon
les coutumes etablies dans les diverses Cours ou ils se trouvent,
1'Ambassadeur de France a Rome donne la main chez luy aux
Ambassadeurs des Couronnes & de Venise, & ne la donne point
aux Ambassadeurs des autres Souverains, ausquels les Ambassadeurs
du Roy la donnent dans les autres Cours ; 1'Ambassadeur de France
a le premier rang sur tous les Ambassadeurs des autres Couronnes
dans toutes les ceremonies qui se font a Rome, apres 1'Ambassadeur
de 1'Empereur. Ces deux Ambassadeurs y rec.oivent en tout des
traitemens egaux & se traitent entr'eux avec la meme egalite.
Les Ambassadeurs des Couronnes a Rome sont assis et decou-
verts durant les Audiances que le Pape leur donne.
II y a plusieurs Cours ou les Ambassadeurs du Roy donnent
la main chez eux aux gens qualifiez des pays ou ils se trouvent,
comme a Madrid aux Grands d'Espagne & aux principaux Officiers,
a Londres aux Lords Pairs du Royaume, en Suede & en Pologne aux
Senateurs, & aux grands Officiers, & ils ne la donnent point en
aucun pays aux Envoyez des autres Couronnes.
L'Empereur re9oit les Envoyez du Roy debout & couvert, &
demeure en cet etat durant toute 1'Audiance, 1'Envoye etant seul 2
avec 1'Empereur debout & decouvert.
Les Electeurs Laiques les regoivent & leur parlent debout &
decouverts durant les Audiances publiques qu'ils leur donnent, &
ils sont assis & couverts lorsqu'ils ont Audiance des Electeurs
Ecclesiastiques.
Les Souverains d'ltalie se couvrent & les font couvrir, excepte
le Due de Savoye, qui ne les faisoit pas couvrir, avant meme qu'il
fut parvenu a la Couronne de Sicile, & qui leur parlait debout &
couvert, eux etant debout & decouverts.3
Les Nonces du Pape en France, donnent la main chez eux au
Secretaire d'Etat des affaires etrangeres, & ne la donnent point
aux Eveques ni aux Archeveques lorsqu'ils recoivent leurs visites
en ceremonie.4
Ils donnent la main chez eux aux Ambassadeurs des Couronnes
& a celuy de la Republique de Venise qui sont dans la meme Cour,
et tous les Ambassadeurs leur cedent la main en lieu tiers, excepte
ceux des Roys Protestans, qui n'ont point de commerce public
avec eux ; on leur donne le titre de Seigneurie Illustrissime, en leur
parlant, & en leur ecrivant, il y en a qui leur donnent le titre
d' 'Excellence, comme aux Ambassadeurs, & ils le regoivent d'ordinaire
assez volontiers quoyque ce soit un titre Lai'que.5
1 P.R.O.. King's Letters, Prussia, 1737-1760, 2.
2 This was formerly the rule at Vienna.
3 Callieres, 107. * Ibid., 131. 6 Ibid., 132.
246 THE DIPLOMATIC BODY
Les Envoyez se rendent entr'eux les memes civilitez que les
Ambassadeurs a leur arrivee a 1'egard des complimens des visites,
les Envoyez de France & des autres Couronnes donnent la main
chez eux dans toutes les Cours a tous les Envoyez des autres
Souverains.1
§ 460. And the instructions given to the Marquis d'Hautefort
in 1750, on his appointment by the King of France to represent
him at Vienna, stated that :
Le sieur Morosini, ambassadeur de la republique de Venise
aupres du Roi, a refuse de visiter le Cardinal Tencin,2 sous le pre-
texte que ce prelat ne voulait pas lui donner la main chez lui. Ce
refus a paru d'autant plus singulier de la part de ce ministre que
ses deux predecesseurs immediats n'avoient fait nulle difficulte de
remplir ce devoir de politesse envers cette eminence. Comme le
Comte de Kaunitz 3 voudra vraisemblablement suivre 1'exemple
du sieur Morosini, 1'intention du Roi est que le marquis de Hautefort
ne fasse point de visite aux cardinaux allemands, a moins que
ceux-ci ne lui donnent la main chez eux ou qu'il soit bien assure que
le comte de Kaunitz aura recu 1'ordre de sa cour de se conformer
en France au ceremonial observe jusqu'a present par rapport aux
cardinaux.4
It is to be hoped that such pretensions on the part of cardinals
and ambassadors have not survived to the twentieth century.
§ 461. Conduct of Diplomatic Representatives of Belligerents
towards each other during War-time.
Les Ministres des Princes qui sont en guerre & qui se trouvent
dans une meme Cour ne se visitent point tant que la guerre dure,
mais ils se font des civilitez reciproques en lieu tiers lorsqu'ils se
rencontrent, la guerre ne detruit point les regies de 1'honnetete ny
celles de la generosite, elle donne meme souvent occasion de les
pratiquer avec plus de gloire pour le Ministre qui les met en usage,
& pour le Prince qui les approuve.5
The custom would seem to be that diplomatic agents of
belligerent states accredited to neutral countries ignore each
other, unless circumstances compel them to meet. During the
late war the German ambassador at Washington is said to have
ignored the British ambassador, while conceding to the French
ambassador such courtesy as the latter was entitled to as doyen
of the diplomatic corps.
Callieres relates the story of the Sieur de Gremonville,
French representative at Rome during hostilities between
France and Spain, who, learning of a plot to kill the Spanish
ambassador, warned the latter, and earned much praise for this
1 Callieres, 193. 2 Who was also Foreign Minister.
3 Appointed ambassador at Paris in 1 750.
4 Recueils des Instructions, etc., Austria, i. 326. 6 Callieres, 194.
THE DIPLOMATIC BODY 247
action. The story recalls the incident of Fox communicating
to Talleyrand, in 1806, information regarding a scheme for the
assassination of Napoleon, disclosed to him by a Frenchman.1
§ 462. Visits. Flags. At some capitals it was formerly, and
may still be in some cases, the usage for diplomatists to visit
each other and offer congratulations on their respective
national fete-days, such as July 14 for France, July 4 for the
United States. Where diplomatic houses have a flagstaff on
the roof or in the grounds, the national flag is flown as a
compliment to the other friendly Power, and it will also be
hoisted on the national fete-day of the country represented.
§ 463. The flag flown by British diplomatic missions abroad
is the Union Jack, with the Royal Arms in the centre on a
white shield, surrounded by a green garland, and is flown
either over the house of the mission, or at the bow of the boat
or other vessel, if His Majesty's representative is afloat. It is
customarily flown on the King's birthday, the Queen's birth-
day, the Prince of Wales' s birthday, Empire day (May 24), on
the occasion of the accession or on the birthday of the sovereign
to whom the mission is accredited, and on the national holiday
of the country in which the mission resides, amongst other occa-
sions ; and it is flown at half-mast on the occasion of the deaths
of members of the British Royal family, or the death of the
sovereign or head of state to whom the mission is accredited.
§ 464. Signing Treaties and other Documents. — If the treaty is
a bilateral one, prepared in duplicate, each country has
precedence in the preamble of the original to be retained by it,
and in its signature. A usual method, where there are two
texts, is to give each country precedence in the preamble of
its own text, and then, to avoid further change, give priority
to each of the two countries in turn by printing its text in the
left-hand column of the original to be retained by it. If the
treaty is a multilateral one between heads of states, the latter
are mentioned in the preamble in the alphabetical order of
the states over which they preside ; if between governments,
the contracting countries may be ranged in alphabetical order
in the preamble. Signatures are appended in the same order.
See, however, §§574-581, where the matter is more fully
gone into.
§ 465. Rules of the past, which have largely fallen into
desuetude, are said to have been as follows :
The first named in the text, especially in the preamble, has the
first place in signing, the second named the second, and so on. When
1 Cambridge Modern History, ix. 269 ; Holland Rose, Life of Napoleon I., ii. 70.
248 THE DIPLOMATIC BODY
the signatures are appended in two columns, the first place is at the
top of the left-hand column, the second at the top of the right-hand
column, and so on. But when resident ambassadors sign a protocol,
they sign in the order of their local seniority, and not according to
the alphabetical order of the French names of the country they
represent. If the minister for foreign affairs also signs, his signa-
ture takes the first place. But cases exist where plenipotentiaries
have disregarded all these rules, and have appended their signatures
pele-mele.
§ 466. The title of " Excellency '' is given to Ambassadors
orally as well as in written communications in virtue of their
diplomatic rank.
The title came into general use after the Peace of Westphalia.
It is said to have been adopted by the French plenipotentiaries
d'Avaux and Servien, in order to mark the difference between
the ambassadors of crowned heads and those of lesser poten-
tates.1 After the Congress of Vienna it became general at all
European courts. Of course, an ambassador of princely rank
is addressed by the corresponding title he bears ; if he is a
cardinal by that of " Eminence."
§ 467. English usage does not accord it to Secretaries of
State.2 His Majesty's ambassadors, the Governors-General of
His Majesty's Dominions, the Viceroy and Governor-General
of India, and the Governors of the Provinces of India are
officially addressed as " Excellency." The Governors of His
Majesty's colonies receive the title by courtesy locally.
In French practice it is accorded to ambassadors,
presidents of foreign republics, and in general to foreign great
dignitaries, officers and ministers of state.
§ 468. Callieres says :
On donne le titre ^Excellence aux Ambassadeurs extraordinaires
et ordinaires, & on ne le donne point aux Envoyez, a moins qu'ils
ne le pretendent par quelqu'autre qualite, comme celle de Ministre
d'fitat, de Senateur ou de Grand Officier d'une Couronne. Ce
titre d' 'Excellence n'est point en usage a la Cour de France, comme il
est en Espagne, en Italic, en Allemagne & dans les Royaumes du
Nord, & il n'y a que les Strangers qui le donnent en France aux
Ministres & aux Officiers de la Couronne, & qui le re^oivent d'eux,
lorsqu'ils ont des litres, ou des qualites qui leur donnent droit de
la pretendre.3
§ 469. With respect to envoys extraordinary and ministers
plenipotentiary, Rivier says : " Ce n'est que par cour-
1 Flassan, iii. 93.
2 See letter of C. Amyand to Colonel Yorke of July 4, 1751 (S. P. France,
242, P.R.O.).
3 125.
THE DIPLOMATIC BODY 249
toisie qu'on leur donne, ainsi qu'a leurs femmes, le titre
d' Excellence." 1 Garcia de la Vega said that it was not
due to any person in Belgium, but that the minister for
foreign affairs accorded it to the ministers for foreign affairs of
crowned heads, to ambassadors and to foreign envoys of the
second category. Ministers and the foreign diplomatic body
gave it to the king's ministers.2
§ 470. In Spain " Excellency " has been given to ministers
of the crown, councillors of state, the Archbishop of Toledo,
to Knights of the Golden Fleece, Collar Knights and Knights
Grand Cross of the Order of Carlos III, to Knights Grand
Cross of several other orders, and to a host of other personages,
including Spanish and foreign ambassadors and ministers
plenipotentiary of the first class. Senoria ilustrisima was
given to third-class functionaries of the diplomatic body, and
Senoria to the fourth and fifth classes of the same.3
§471. The Peruvian reglement of November 19, 1892, for
the reception of foreign ministers and cognate matters, gave
directions to address an envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary as Vuestra Excelencia, a minister resident as
Vuestra Senoria Honorable, a charge d'affaires en titre or ad
interim as Vuestra Senoria,
Uniforms. British Practice
§ 472. The uniform worn by members of His Majesty's
diplomatic service is the civil uniform, which is worn only
during tenure of office, or on retirement by special permission
of the sovereign. The classes are the following :
First Class. — Ambassadors (with the addition of em-
broidered seams and sleeves).
Second Class. — Ministers.
Third Class. — Counsellors and commercial counsellors.
Fourth Class. — First secretaries, second secretaries, com-
mercial secretaries (Grades I and II).
Fifth Class. — Third secretaries, honorary attaches, com-
mercial secretaries (Grade III).4
§ 473. Evening Dress. — Evening dress coat of blue cloth with
black velvet collar (the collar cut with notched ends), black
silk linings ; four buttons on each front, two at the waist
behind, and one on each tail ; also two small buttons on a
3-inch cuff, and one above. The facings are of the same
1 Principes du Droit des Gens, i. 450. 2 Guide Pratique, 243.
3 de Castro y Casaleiz, i. 360. * Foreign Office List (1931), 145.
250 THE DIPLOMATIC BODY
material as the body of the coat. Buttons : gilt, mounted,
the Royal Arms with supporters. Dress waistcoat : single-
breasted, of white marcella, with four small gilt buttons to
match. Trousers : plain black evening dress material.
This dress is worn abroad by members of His Majesty's
diplomatic service at the discretion of the ambassador or
minister ; it is worn at official dinners and parties (a) in the
presence of members of the British Royal Family who are
Royal Highnesses, and may also be worn if in accordance
with local custom ; (b] in the presence of members of the
Royal Family of the court to which the ambassador or minister
is accredited. It is never worn in Great Britain.1
§ 474. White Uniform to be worn in Hot Climates.
The uniform is made of white drill, with embroidery on the
cuffs and collar of the same width and material as that worn
by diplomatic officers, but worked on white cloth and detach-
able ; two breast pockets, each buttoned with a small gilt
button ; buttons full dress or undress ; white drill trousers
without lace ; white gloves and black boots. It is worn with
a white helmet, bearing on the front a gilt badge with the
Royal Arms with supporters.
Note. — The sword is worn on paying or returning official
visits and on other occasions of ceremony. It is carried in
a white frog, projecting through a slit on the left side of the
coat, and attached to a belt worn under the coat. On these
occasions a spike is worn on the helmet.2
§ 475. Dress to be worn by His Majesty's Representatives on
Official Naval Visits.
(a] When calling officially on a flag officer or on officers
commanding His Majesty's ships, Levee dress should be worn
by His Majesty's representatives, or alternatively white
uniform in countries where such uniform is worn in lieu of
Levee dress. On receiving visits from flag officers or officers
commanding His Majesty's ships, however, His Majesty's
representatives may use their discretion as to the dress to be
worn, but if they do not wear uniform they should wear a
frock coat or morning coat with star, in cases where the
representative has received the first or second class of one of
the British orders of knighthood.
(b) An ambassador or minister accompanying a naval
commander-in-chief on a visit to pay his respects to the head
of a state should wear Levee dress, or, where circumstances
render such an alternative appropriate, white diplomatic
uniform.3
1 Foreign Office List (1931), 146. 2 Ibid., 147. 3 Ibid., 147.
THE DIPLOMATIC BODY 251
§ 476. Precedence of Naval, Military and Air Attaches, Com-
mercial Counsellors, etc.
At British missions abroad precedence as between members
of the diplomatic service and naval, military and air attaches,
and commercial counsellors, is regulated as follows :
(i) Naval, military and air attaches at His Majesty's Embassies
and Missions abroad, irrespective of their rank, have place and
precedence next in succession after the Diplomatic Counsellor, but
before the Commercial Counsellor, or, at posts where the staff does
not include a Diplomatic or a Commercial Counsellor, next in
succession after Diplomatic First Secretaries, but before Commercial
Secretaries First Grade.
(ii) Assistant naval, military and air attaches at His Majesty's
Embassies or Missions abroad, irrespective of their rank, have place
and precedence next in succession after Diplomatic Second Secre-
taries, but before Commercial Secretaries Second Grade, excepting
at posts where such assistant attaches are the only resident naval,
military or air representatives, in which case their place and
precedence will be governed by the provisions of paragraph (i)
above as though they held substantive appointments.
(hi) Excepting in the cases provided for above, Commercial
Counsellors and First, Second, and Third Grade Secretaries in His
Majesty's Commercial Diplomatic Service will rank respectively
with, but after, Diplomatic Counsellors and Diplomatic First,
Second, and Third Secretaries.
(iv) It is to be clearly noted, however, that, notwithstanding
the above provisions, the charge of any of His Majesty's Embassies
or Missions abroad will invariably devolve upon the senior diplo-
matic member of the staff, unless other arrangements are specially
authorised by the Secretary of State.1
§ 477. In the case of other countries it is not apparent what
relative precedence is accorded to such special attaches.
In the diplomatic lists of the personnel of the foreign missions
accredited to Great Britain, their names are as a rule ranged
after the members of the diplomatic service, and usually in the
order : military, naval, air and commercial attaches.
§ 478. Decorations and Presents.
In former days when a diplomatist left the court at which he
had represented his sovereign, either on a permanent or temporary
mission, he usually received a decoration. A gold snuff-box set
with brilliants was a very usual gift.
§ 479- Queen Elizabeth objected to her subjects wearing foreign
insignia of knighthood. Two young Englishmen, Nicolas Clifford
and Antony Shirley, had been admitted by Henri IV to the Order
i
Foreign Office List (1931), 131.
252 THE DIPLOMATIC BODY
of St. Michael as a reward for their services. On their return to
England they appeared at court displaying the insignia of the
order, which provoked the Queen's anger, because the French
king, without consulting her, had allowed these her subjects
to take the oath to him on their admittance, and she threw them
into prison. Nevertheless, she was too merciful to put the law in
force against them, seeing that they were ignorant youths, and also
because she entertained a special goodwill towards the King of
France, who had conferred so great an honour upon them. She
therefore ordered that they should return the insignia and take care
to have their names removed from the register of the Order.
Henri IV is said to have wittily replied : "I wish the Queen would
do me a corresponding favour in return. I should like her to
appoint to the Order of King Arthur's Round Table any aspiring
Frenchman whom she might see in England." That Order, so
celebrated in fable, disappeared long ago, just as that of St. Michael,
in consequence of the disturbed state of affairs, had sunk so low,
that a French nobleman said : " The chain of St. Michael, which
was formerly a distinction for very noble personages, is now a
collar for every kind of animal."
In 1596, when the title of Count of the Holy Roman Empire
was conferred on Thomas Arundel of Wardour, with remainder to
all his male and female descendants, it was argued in the House of
Lords that an action for theft would lie against any one who branded
with his mark the sheep of another, and an action of deceit against
any one who by scattering food before the sheep of another enticed
them into his own flocks.1 Queen Elizabeth is reported by Camden
to have said, in connection with this case : " There is a close bond
of affection between princes and their subjects. As it is not proper
for a modest woman to cast her eyes on any other man than her
husband, so neither ought subjects to look at any other prince
than the one whom God has given them. I would not have my
sheep branded with any other mark than my own, or follow the
whistle of a strange shepherd." 2
§ 480. During the lifetime of Queen Victoria diplomatic servants
of the crown were not allowed to accept foreign decorations, except
in the case of special complimentary missions to foreign sovereigns.
In all such cases the Queen's permission to accept and wear had
to be obtained ; the intention to confer had to be notified to the
Secretary of State through the British Minister accredited at the
court of the foreign sovereign or through his minister accredited
at the court of Her Majesty. By an order of 1898 permission could
only be obtained by the chief of a complimentary mission from
Her Majesty, or by a military or naval attache on the termination
of his appointment.3 In 1911 the regulation was relaxed in so far
1 Camden, Annales Rer. Angl., Ludg., Batav., 1639, 734.
2 The story is reproduced by Wicquefort in L'Ambassadeur, nouv. 6dit., augm.,
1730, v.ii. 33, andBk. ii. 99.
3 There is a well-known story that when Castlereagh, at Vienna in 1814,
appeared in his ordinary dress-coat with only the riband of the Garter among a
THE DIPLOMATIC BODY 253
that private permission might be given to accept and wear on
certain specified occasions, in a case where the decoration was
more or less of a complimentary character. The rules of 1914
stated that permission in such cases would only be given on excep-
tional occasions, when in the public interest it was deemed expedient
that acceptance should not be declined.
§ 481. The rules issued in 1930, however, are more stringent,
and members of the British Diplomatic Service cannot ordinarily
expect to be allowed to accept and wear foreign decorations.
The only exceptions which the rules allow are for the grant of
unrestricted permission in the case of decorations conferred
for distinguished services in the saving of life ; and for the
grant of restricted permission, enabling the decorations to be
worn on certain specified occasions alone, in the case of
foreign honours conferred upon (i) British ambassadors or
ministers when the King pays a state visit to the country to
which they are accredited ; (2) members of special missions
when the King is represented at a foreign coronation, wedding,
funeral or similar occasion ; or (3) any diplomatic represen-
tative when specially accredited to represent His Majesty on
such occasions (but not on the members of his staff). Per-
mission is no longer granted to British ambassadors or ministers
abroad to accept decorations when leaving their posts on final
retirement.
It is not the practice in England to offer a decoration to
a foreign ambassador or other diplomatic agent on quitting
his post.
§ 482. The Constitution of the United States prohibits
persons holding any office of profit or trust under them from
accepting, without the consent of Congress, any presents,
emoluments, office or title of any kind whatever from any
king, prince or foreign state. The printed instructions of the
Department of State are that the offer of presents, orders or
testimonials shall be respectfully but decisively declined.1
§483-
In 1834 a rule was made in Great Britain prohibiting all persons
in H.M. employment, in diplomatic, consular, naval or military
capacities, from receiving from a foreign Government any presents,
whatever might be the occasion on which presents might be offered.
This rule has occasionally been relaxed by special permission of
the Secretary of State. But in the " good old times " presents in
crowd of foreign ambassadors in full uniform and covered with orders, Talleyrand
exclaimed, " Mafoi ! C'est distingue' ! " Croker, Correspondence and Diaries, iii. 191,
puts the scene at Chatillon.
1 Foster, op. cit., 144, 150.
254 THE DIPLOMATIC BODY
money to members of the Foreign Office were usually made on
the occasion of the exchange of ratifications of an important
treaty. Thus, in 1786, in connection with the commercial treaty
between Great Britain and France, 500 guineas were given by
the French Government, of which six-tenths went to the under-
secretaries, one-tenth to the chief clerk, and three-tenths to the
junior clerks. In 1793 the Russian Government made a present
of £1000 in connection with conventions relating to commerce and
to the war with France, of which the two under-secretaries received
each £300, and the remainder was shared among ten other clerks.
In the same year £500 were presented by the Sardinian chancery
to the under-secretaries and clerks for the ratification of a treaty
between King George III and the King of Sardinia, and similar
sums were received from the German Emperor and the Spanish,
Prussian and Sicilian chanceries, which were divided in the same
proportions. Thus each under-secretary received in that year £900
from this source, in addition to his salary. Similar presents were
made by the British Government to foreign chanceries in the King's
name. The usual present to an ambassador on his retirement was
of the value of £1000, and to an envoy of £500. l
§ 484. From this usage the transition to gifts intended to influence
the course of politics in any particular country was easy. In
1727 the four Swedish commissioners who signed the Swedish
accession to the Treaty of Hanover received 40,000 thalers from the
English and French Courts.2 This was probably in excess of the
usual scale of such presents. Between 1765-6 England, France
and Russia spent huge sums in endeavouring to influence the
Swedish Diet. France alone, in eight months, distributed among
its members nearly 1,830,000 livres, of which Denmark provided
100,000, but nevertheless France did not succeed in obtaining a
majority in her favour.3
The practice of giving presents of this character upon the
exchange of the ratifications of treaties and conventions, or to
ambassadors or ministers of foreign courts sent to the King of
England on missions of congratulations or condolence, or to the
permanent representatives of foreign Powers on their taking leave
on the termination of their appointments, was abolished in 1831
by a circular from Lord Palmerston.4
The United States, for a short period, from 1790 to 1793,
adopted the practice of giving a gold chain to a foreign diplomatic
agent on the termination of his appointment.5
§ 485. At the Congress of Vienna it was agreed that the plenipo-
tentiaries should receive neither presents nor decorations, but each
of the Powers concerned gave presents to Gentz, the principal secre-
tary, and to others who had helped in drawing up the protocols.
On the proposal of the British it was decided to present Gentz
1 J. Q,. Adams, Memoirs, iii. 527, cited by Foster, op. cit., 147.
2 Miruss, op. cit., 200. 3 Flassan, vi. 560.
4 Hertslet, Old Foreign Office, 174-6. 5 Foster, op. cit., 143.
THE DIPLOMATIC BODY 255
with a snuff-box and 800 gold ducats, to four of his assistants snuff-
boxes and 500 ducats each, and to two more each 100 ducats, or
3000 ducats in all. This sum would come to over £1200. When
the ratifications were exchanged of the treaty of peace of July 20,
1814, between France and Spain, presents, consisting of a gold
snuff-box with a portrait of Louis XVIII, worth 15,000 francs,
were provided for Labrador, the Spanish plenipotentiary, and a
similar one, with the portrait of Ferdinand VII, for Talleyrand,
besides £1000 (90,000 reals) for the clerks of the French and Spanish
ministries for foreign affairs. On June 8, 9 and 10, 1817, a treaty
was signed between Spain and the five Great Powers with respect
to the succession to Parma on the death of the ex-Empress Marie-
Louise, followed by the accession of Spain to the treaties of Vienna
and Paris (of 1815). On this occasion the Spanish Minister of
State received five gold snuff-boxes with portraits of the respective
sovereigns, and Fernan Nunez, the ambassador in London, received
the same number. To the clerks of the Spanish Ministry of State
a sum of 450,000 reals (10,000 ducats) was given for the treaty of
June 10 (Parma succession). Besides these gifts, various decora-
tions of the order of Carlos III were distributed. As the English
Foreign Office neither gave nor received decorations, a sum of
£1000 was given by the British embassy to the secretaries of the
Spanish embassy, a corresponding amount being assigned to the
secretaries of the British embassy. Presents to the amount of
90,000 reals (£1000) were also given to the chanceries of the five
Great Powers. Care was taken that the decorations given on
both sides to the chancery clerks should be of corresponding
class, a matter always considered to be of the highest importance
even in modern days, when such trinkets are exchanged.1 At
the end of 1817 the amounts of the gifts in money bestowed
by the contracting parties on the occasion of the conclusion of
treaties, of royal marriages, of congresses and other conventions,
and since then instead of jewellers' gold and silver work, mutually
fixed in money, were divided among the officials of the state
chancery at Vienna. The sum accumulated up to that date was
estimated at 28,000 ducats.2
§486. At the Congress of Teschen, in 1779, Repnin and
Breteuil, the representatives of the two mediating Powers, each
received a portrait of Maria Theresa set in diamonds. Frederick
gave to Repnin his portrait, set in diamonds, estimated at 20,000
thalers, and a very fine snuff-box to Breteuil, but of less value.3
Schmelzing states that Metternich, in November 1818, received
the Grand Cross of the Netherlands Lion from the hands of the
King of Holland. This was the twenty-fifth order with which His
Highness was decorated.
1 Villa-Urrutia, iii. 381, 382 n. ; 448, 483.
2 Schmelzing, ii. 208. 3 Temperley, Frederick the Great, etc., 203.
CHAPTER XXI
TERMINATION OF A MISSION
§ 487. THE mission of a diplomatic agent may come to an end
during his lifetime in any one of the following ways :
1 i ) By the expiration of the period for which he has been
appointed, as, for instance, to a congress or a conference,
when that comes to an end ; or, if he has been appointed
ad interim, by the return of the minister en litre. A formal
recall is in these cases unnecessary.
(2) When the object of the mission has been attained, as
in the case of a ceremonial mission ; or by the completion or
failure of a negotiation for which he has been specially
appointed. A formal recall is in these cases unnecessary.
(3) By his recall on his appointment elsewhere, or by his
resignation and its acceptance by his own government. By
British rules the head of a mission is appointed only for five
years, and his appointment ceases at the end of that time,
unless it be specially continued. It is also a rule that every
member of the diplomatic service must retire on attaining the
age limit, though exceptions have occasionally been made to
this rule.
(4) By his recall, owing to the dissatisfaction of his own
government, or at the request of the government to which he
is accredited. To avoid scandal, gossip or loss of reputation
to the official who has been so unfortunate as to incur the
displeasure of his official chief, it is usual to intimate to him
that he may come away on leave of absence, or that his
presence is desired at home in order that he may be consulted.
(5) By the decease of his own sovereign or of the sovereign
to whom he is accredited. The death of a president of a
republic does not produce this effect, nor does the expiration
of the term of office of a president.1 In either of the two former
cases fresh credentials are necessary, unless the letter of the
1 But when the French President, M. Thiers, resigned in 1873, and was
succeeded by President MacMahon, the German Government insisted on new
credentials, and its example was followed by Austria, Italy and Russia (Valfrey,
La diplomatic fran<;aise, ii. 190). Great Britain and other countries did not.
TERMINATION OF MISSION 257
minister's new sovereign notifying his accession expressly states
that the minister is to be continued. During the interval
which may elapse the minister's ordinary relations with the
authorities of the country go on as usual, and if he is engaged
on some particular negotiation he can continue to carry it
on sub spe rati. As a charge d'affaires is accredited only to the
minister for foreign affairs, the death of a sovereign does not
affect his position. Neither does the retirement of a minister
for foreign affairs, and the appointment of a new one, in
either country.
(6) If for some violation of international law with regard
to himself, or on account of some unexpected incident of
serious gravity, the agent assumes the responsibility of breaking
off relations. At the present day, when all capitals where
diplomatists reside are connected by telegraph, such a case
can hardly occur.
(7) When the government to which he is accredited, for
any reason, sends him his passports without waiting for his
recall. This may happen either when, in consequence of
actions committed by him, the government to which he is
accredited no longer regards him as persona grata, or when in
consequence of offence given by his own government the other
resolves to break off relations. Such a rupture of relations
is not necessarily followed by war. If a war has become
inevitable, the accredited minister of one or the other party
is more often instructed, after presenting an ultimatum, to ask
for his passports. The minister of the other party is usually
instructed to take the same step, if his passports have not
already been sent to him.
(8) By a change in the rank of the minister. This more
often occurs by way of an increase of rank, as when an
envoy is promoted to be ambassador, a minister resident to
be envoy, or a charge d'affaires en litre to be minister resi-
dent. This increase of rank may be permanent ; on the
other hand, it may only be temporary, as, for instance,
when an envoy is raised to the rank of ambassador for
the purpose of investing the sovereign with the insignia of
a high order, or to attend such ceremonies as those of a
coronation, Royal marriage, funeral, or some important
national celebration. In the latter cases, once the event is
over, the diplomatic agent simply reverts to his original
rank.
(9) By the outbreak of war between the two states.
(10) By the deposition or abdication of the sovereign of
either state.
258 TERMINATION OF MISSION
(n) By the replacement of a monarchy by a republic, or
a republic by a monarchy, in either state.
(12) By the extinction of either state.
§ 488. Whatever may be the causes that lead to the termina-
tion of a mission, the minister remains in possession of the
immunities and privileges attached to his public character
until he leaves the country to which he has been accredited
within such reasonable time as may be necessary to complete
and dispose of the affairs of his mission. (See §§ 320, 335.)
The Pan-American Convention concerning diplomatic officers,
signed at Havana, February 20, 1928, lays down for the signatory
states the following rules :
" Art. 25. — The mission of the diplomatic officer ends —
(1) By the official notification of the officer's government to
the other government that the officer has terminated
his functions ;
(2) By the expiration of the period fixed for the completion
of the mission ;
(3) By the solution of the matter, if the mission had been
created for a particular question ;
(4) By the delivery of passports to the officer by the govern-
ment to which he is accredited ;
(5) By the request for his passports made by the diplomatic
officer to the government to which he is accredited.
In the above-mentioned cases, a reasonable period shall be
given the diplomatic officer, the official personnel of the mission,
and their respective families, to quit the territory of the state ; and
it shall be the duty of the government to which the officer was
accredited to see that during this time none of them is molested
nor injured in his person or property.
Neither the death or resignation of the head of the state, nor
the change of government or political regime of either of the two
countries shall terminate the mission of the diplomatic officers."
§ 489. When a minister is about to quit his post, whether on
account of his being transferred elsewhere, or because he is
being retired on account of age, or at his own request, he
asks for a farewell audience in order to present his letters of
recall. This is done through the minister for foreign affairs,
by a note enclosing a copy of the letter of recall. The farewell
audience is usually a private one. But at distant posts, and if
he is being transferred elsewhere, he may have to take his
departure before the letter of recall can reach him. In this
case it will be a matter within his own discretion whether to
ask for a farewell audience. Unless his new appointment has
been already gazetted at home it may be better not to mention
TERMINATION OF MISSION 259
the probability of his not returning. In such circumstances
his letter of recall will be delivered by his successor at the
same time as the latter presents his own credentials. The same
course will be followed when he has been recalled in con-
sequence of the dissatisfaction of his own government.
§ 490. On receiving the letter of recall, the sovereign or
president of republic to whom he has been accredited
customarily addresses to the agent's own sovereign or president
what is termed a recredential, expressing his satisfaction with
the agent's conduct and regret at his departure. (See § 125.)
He does not ask for a farewell audience if he breaks off
relations himself, or if his own government resolves on a
rupture of diplomatic intercourse. If the latter is the cause of
his return home, it may happen that he is instructed to come
away without taking leave.
§ 491. If the mission terminates by the death of the minister
at his post, and if he is to be buried in the country where he
was accredited, it was formerly usual to offer a public funeral
in his honour, the religious ceremony depending on local law
and usage. At the present day all ceremonial marks of
respect befitting the representative character of the deceased
would doubtless be shown on such an occasion. An excep-
tional mark of respect has sometimes been paid by conveying
the body of the deceased to his own country on a warship.
If his family desire to remove the corpse for interment else-
where, their wishes must be respected, but in such a case
they should be made known without delay, before temporary
interment has taken place on the spot, as the laws of most
countries render it difficult and troublesome to obtain an order
for exhumation.
The secretary of legation, if there is one, will at once
become charge d'affaires, and it will be his duty to ensure that
no political documents or cyphers are left with the private
papers of the deceased, which latter devolve on his legal
representatives. If there is no secretary, the consul should be
authorised to perform this duty. It is by no means desirable
to admit the intervention of a colleague of the deceased, even
though he be the representative of a friendly or allied Power,
as seems to be assumed by many writers will be done. The
representative of another Power has no such right. Nor has
the local authority any right to meddle with the papers.
Questions regarding the succession to the personal property
of the deceased must be regulated by the laws of his own
country. It may be prudent for a diplomatist to make one of
260 TERMINATION OF MISSION
his staff an executor of his will in respect of his personal
property in the country. His movable property can be re-
exported without the payment of customs duties, or what are
known in some countries as droits d' extraction. These rules, of
course, do not apply when the deceased was a subject or
citizen of the country where he was accredited. The suc-
cession to any real property which the deceased may have
possessed there, and any legal formalities are, of course,
regulated by the lex loci rei sita.
It is customary to accord to the widow and family of the
deceased minister, for a reasonable time, the immunities which
they enjoyed during his lifetime.1
The Pan-American Convention concerning diplomatic officers,
signed at Havana, February 20, 1928, lays down for the signatory
states the following rule : " Article 24. — In case of death of the
diplomatic officer, his family shall continue to enjoy the immunities
for a reasonable term, until they may leave the state."
Persona non grata
§ 492. Numerous instances of a diplomatic agent becoming
persona non grata are recorded in the books, and others are known
to have occurred without being made public. In European
countries such matters have often been covered up with
official secrecy. In the present chapter the term is used to
denote cases in which a diplomatic agent, after having been
accepted and having entered upon his functions, has in some
way given offence to the government to which he is accredited,
so as to induce them to ask for his recall. In some instances
the request has been granted, with more or less readiness ; in
others it has been declined. In the latter case it has usually
happened that the offended government has informed the
agent that no further official intercourse would be held with
him and has sent him his passports.
Request for Recall
§ 493. The following are instances in which a request for
the recall of a diplomatic agent having been made, the request
was complied with :
In 1792 M. E. C. Genest was appointed French minister
to the United States. On his arrival, and before pre-
senting his credentials, he began to fit out privateers to
1 The substance of these paragraphs is largely taken from de Martens-Geffken,
chap. ix.
TERMINATION OF MISSION 261
prey on British commerce, in violation of United States
neutrality. French consuls, sitting as courts of admiralty,
condemned prizes, some of them being captured in United
States waters. When remonstrated with, he expressed con-
tempt for the opinions of the President and questioned his
authority. Mr. Morris, the United States representative in
Paris, was instructed to ask for Genest's recall, which was im-
mediately granted.1 The French Republican Government
took advantage of the occasion to ask for the withdrawal of
Mr. Morris, who had taken part in the effort to effect the
escape of Louis XVI from Paris. This was at once conceded.2
§ 494. In 1804 the Spanish Government asked for the recall
of Mr. C. Pinckney, the United States minister at Madrid.
The reason assigned was a threatening note which he had
addressed to the Spanish Minister of State. This note
contained an intimation that he would inform American
consuls of the critical state of the relations between the two
countries, and direct them to notify American citizens to be
ready to withdraw with their property. Mr. Pinckney was
instructed to come away on leave of absence.3
§ 495. In 1809 Mr. E. J. Jackson, British minister at Washing-
ton, in a correspondence with the Department of State,
respecting the repudiation by the British Government of an
arrangement entered into by his predecessor, Mr. Erskine,
for the settlement of the Chesapeake case and the withdrawal
of the Orders in Council, intimated that when the agreement
was concluded the United States Government were fully aware
that Mr. Erskine had exceeded his instructions. The Secretary
of State had already protested against this insinuation, and,
on its being renewed, wrote to Mr. Jackson that no further
communication would be received from him. Shortly after-
wards the United States minister in London was instructed
to ask for Mr. Jackson's recall. This was consented to by the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who, however, main-
tained that Mr. Jackson did not appear to have committed
any intentional offence against the United States Government.4
§ 496. In 1829 tne United States Government had come to
the conclusion that the prejudices entertained by a portion of
the inhabitants of Mexico against their envoy, Mr. Poinsett, had
greatly diminished his usefulness, and had decided to authorise
his return home, if it appeared to him expedient. But before
instructions to this effect could be despatched, the Mexican
charge d'affaires presented a request for his recall, which was
1 Moore, iv. 485. 2 Ibid., iv. 489.
3 Ibid., iv. 490. * Ibid., iv. 514.
262 TERMINATION OF MISSION
promptly granted, and a charge d'affaires was appointed to
Mexico in place of a minister.1
§ 497. In 1846 Mr. Jewett, the United States charge d'affaires
at Lima, became involved in a dispute with the Peruvian
Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the course of which he charac-
terised a decree which had been officially communicated to
him as " a compound of legal and moral deformities presenting
to the vision no commendable lineament, but only gross and
perverse obliquities." He also omitted to address the minister as
" Excellency" or" Honourable " in his written communications.
He was recalled in consequence of a reiterated request from the
Peruvian Government. In the despatch to Mr. Jewett, the
Secretary of State laid it down that "if diplomatic agents
render themselves so unacceptable as to produce a request for
their recall from the government to which they are accredited,
the instances must be rare indeed in which such a request
ought not to be granted. To refuse it would be to defeat the
very purpose for which they are sent abroad, that of cultivating
friendly relations between independent nations. Perhaps no
circumstances would justify such a refusal unless the national
honour were involved." 2
§ 498. In 1863 M. H. Segur, minister of Salvador at Washing-
ton, was alleged to have attempted to violate the neutrality
laws of the United States during a conflict between Salvador
and two other Central American republics. Without stating
their grounds of objection, the United States Government,
through their minister to the Central American States, inti-
mated that it would be agreeable if M. Segur could be
relieved of his official functions and an unobjectionable person
appointed in his place. The minister, encountering some
unwillingness on the part of the Salvadorean President, said
that matters had come to the knowledge of the United States
President which rendered M. Segur's recall " necessary in
the highest degree." The Foreign Minister of Salvador
thereupon replied that " the presence of M. Segur being
required ' in Salvador, the President had been pleased to
authorise his recall in order that he might " render important
services." 3
§ 499. In 1871 Mr. Fish, the United States Secretary of
State, informed the United States minister at St. Petersburg that
the conduct of M. Catacazy, Russian minister at Washington,
both officially and personally, had for some time past been such
as " materially to impair his usefulness to his own government
and to render intercourse with him, for either business or social
1 Moore, iv. 491. 2 Ibid., iv. 492. 3 Ibid., iv. 500.
TERMINATION OF MISSION 263
purposes, highly disagreeable " ; that in these circumstances
the President was of opinion that the interests of both countries
would be promoted if the head of the Russian legation were
changed ; and it was hoped that an intimation to this effect
would be sufficient. The President eventually consented to
tolerate M. Catacazy until after the intended visit of the
Grand Duke Alexis to the United States. On this occasion the
Secretary of State reaffirmed the United States view that an
official statement that a diplomatic agent had ceased to be
persona grata is sufficient for the purpose of obtaining his recall.
" The declaration of the authorised representative of the Power
to which an offending minister is accredited is all that can
properly be asked, and all that a self-respecting Power can
give." Finally, M. Catacazy wrote to the Secretary of State
that he had received orders to sail for Russia immediately
after the end of the Grand Duke's tour. Mr. Fish replied that
this was understood to be a practical compliance with the
request for his recall.1
§ 500. In 1898 a translation of a private letter from Senor
Dupuy de Lome, the Spanish minister at Washington, to a
Spanish journalist friend in Cuba, which had been abstracted
from the mails at Havana, was published in a New York
paper.2 The letter described President McKinley as " weak
and a bidder for the admiration of the crowd, besides being
a would-be politician (politicastro] who tries to leave open a door
behind himself while keeping on good terms with the jingoes
of his party," and it intimated that it would be a good thing
for Spain " to take up, even if only for effect, the question of
commercial relations." The United States minister at Madrid
was instructed to ask for his immediate recall, on the ground
that the letter contained " expressions concerning the President
of the United States of such a character as to end the minister's
utility as a medium for frank and sincere intercourse between
this country and Spain." The minister sought an interview
with the Minister of State, who replied that the Spanish
Government sincerely regretted the indiscretion of their
representative, who had already offered his resignation. The
United States minister subsequently addressed a note to the
Minister of State, reminding him that he had not yet had
the satisfaction of receiving any formal indication that the
Spanish Government regretted and disavowed the language
and sentiments employed. The Minister of State replied
that at the interview referred to he had stated that the Spanish
1 Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, 433.
2 Johnson, America's Foreign Relations, ii. 249.
264 TERMINATION OF MISSION
Government sincerely regretted the incident, adding that " the
Spanish ministry, in accepting the resignation of a functionary
whose services they had been utilising and valuing up to that
time, left it perfectly well established that they did not share,
and rather, on the contrary, disauthorised, the criticisms
tending to offend or censure the chief of a friendly state,
although such criticisms had been written within the field of
personal friendship, and had reached publicity by artful and
criminal means." Two days later the Spanish Government
appointed a new minister.1
§ 501. In 1915 the United States Government requested
the recall of Dr. Constantin Dumba, the Austro-Hungarian
ambassador at Washington, who admitted that he had
proposed to his government plans for instigating strikes in
American munition factories. This information had reached
the United States Government through a copy of a letter
borne by a United States citizen, and a further charge against
the ambassador was that he was employing a United States
citizen, protected by a United States passport, as a secret
bearer of official despatches through the lines of the enemy of
Austria-Hungary. Dr. Dumba was therefore no longer
acceptable to the United States Government, who had no
alternative but to ask for his recall on account of his improper
conduct, which they did with deep regret, while assuring the
Austro-Hungarian Government that they sincerely desired to
continue the existing cordial and friendly relations.2 On his
departure, Dr. Dumba was, at the request of the United States
Government, granted safe conduct by the Allied Powers to
enable him to return to his own country. (See § 437.)
§ 502. In 1927 the French Government addressed a protest
to the Soviet Government against the action of M. Rakovsky,
their ambassador at Paris, in signing a public declaration, which,
in the event of any future war against the Soviet Union,
incited the workers of capitalist countries to work for the
defeat of their governments, and their soldiers to join the
ranks of the Red Army. This action, the French Government
alleged, was a flagrant violation of engagements undertaken
by the Soviet Government at the time of their recognition
in 1924. The Soviet Government having disavowed the
action of M. Rakovsky, the latter afterwards made a com-
munication to the Press with the evident intention of aligning
particular interests against the policy of the French Govern-
1 Moore, iv. 507 : Foreign Relations of the United States, 1898, 1007.
2 Diplomatic Correspondence between the United States and Belligerent Govts. —
Neutral Rights and Commerce, x. 361.
TERMINATION OF MISSION 265
ment in regard to the settlement of Russian debts. The
French Government thereupon deemed it impossible, in the
interests of the two governments and of the success of their
negotiations, that M. Rakovsky should continue his am-
bassadorial functions at Paris, and as the Soviet Government
declined to take the initiative in recalling him, they formally
demanded his replacement by a more suitable representative.
In complying with this request, the Soviet Government asked
for the agrement of the French Government to the appointment
of M. Dovgalevsky as his successor.1
§ 503. The following are instances in which the recall of
a diplomatic agent was asked for and refused, whereupon his
dismissal followed or he was no longer received :
In 1804 the Marques de Casa Trujo, Spanish minister to the
United States, proposed to the editor of an American news-
paper to oppose certain measures and views of the government,
and advocate those of Spain. The government censured his
action, as constituting a violation of an Act of Congress
known as the " Logan Statute." 2 He defended his conduct in
a note, which he caused to be published in the newspapers.
On the ground of this attempt to tamper with the Press his
recall was asked for, through the United States minister at
Madrid. The Spanish Government replied that he had asked
leave of absence to return home at a season convenient for
making the voyage, and the President acquiesced in their request
to let the object sought be thus accomplished. The minister
remained, however, in the United States, and even returned
to Washington. He was, therefore, informed that his remain-
ing was " dissatisfactory " to the President, who expected him
to leave the country as soon as the season permitted. In reply
he maintained that he was still in possession of all his rights
and privileges, and stated that he intended to remain in
Washington as long as it might suit " the interests of the King "
and his own " personal convenience." He followed this up
with a somewhat intemperate protest, which he communicated
to his colleagues and also caused to be published in the Press.
The United States Government sent printed copies, together
with a statement of the facts, to their representative at Madrid,
instructing him to lay them before the Spanish Government.
To their surprise, the Minister of State not only defended
1 Le Temps, Oct. 15, 1927.
2 The violation of the Logan Act was alleged to have been committed by
certain American lawyers, who had furnished Yrujo with a legal opinion adverse
to the view of the United States Government (H. Adams, History of the United
States, ii. 259).
266 TERMINATION OF MISSION
Casa Yrujo, but also declared that the communication of the
papers without explanation was a disrespectful mode of
addressing the Spanish Government. Yrujo's official relations
with the Department of State ceased, and another Spanish
diplomatist was received as charge d'affaires.1
§ 504. In 1847 tne Brazilian Government pressed for the
recall of Mr. Wise, the United States minister at Rio. As this
would, by implication at least, have involved a censure on his
action in connexion with the imprisonment of a lieutenant
and three sailors of the United States navy, the President
declined to accede to the request. At the same time, the
Brazilian diplomatic agent was informed that the United
States minister having some time previously asked to be
relieved, his request would be granted, and he would quit
Rio during the following summer.2
§ 505. The Paris revolution of 1848 led in Spain to the
adoption of reactionary measures by the government, and
the reports received by Lord Palmerston from the British
minister, Mr, Bulwer, induced him to recommend " earnestly to
the Spanish Government the adoption of a legal and consti-
tutional course of government." After holding up as a warning
to the Spanish Cabinet the recent fall of the French king, he
added, " It would then be wise for the Queen of Spain, in the
present critical state of affairs, to strengthen the Executive by
enlarging the basis upon which the administration is founded,
and by calling to her councils some of those men who possess
the confidence of the Liberal party." Mr. Bulwer addressed
an official Note to the Duque de Sotomayor, Minister for
Foreign Affairs, enclosing a copy of Palmerston's despatch,
and advising the Spanish ministry " to return to the ordinary
form of government established in Spain without delay."
Sotomayor returned to him both documents, accompanied
by a strongly worded note, expressing resentment at this
interference in the domestic affairs of the country. He
quoted also a paragraph which seemed to indicate that the
contents of Bulwer's note were known outside, even before it
reached the Minister of State. Bulwer replied, denying
that the journal in question had any knowledge of his note,
and justifying his own action. This drew from Sotomayor
a further response, refusing to recognise him as competent to
discuss subjects affecting the internal policy of Spain. At the
same time, he despatched instructions to the Spanish minister
in London to ask for Bulwer's recall, which Palmerston refused.
1 Moore, iv. 508 ; H. Adams, op. cit., ii. chaps, xi. and xvi.
2 Moore, iv. 495.
TERMINATION OF MISSION 267
The minister repeated the request in writing, but withdrew it
on the following day, in consequence of fresh instructions
from Madrid. Shortly afterwards, a fresh insurrection broke
out in Madrid, and Bulwer addressed another note to Soto-
mayor, justifying the original note that had given so much
offence, and complaining of the hostile language of the
government Press. Sotomayor sent him a private letter,
suggesting that he should anticipate as much as possible the
leave of absence which he was contemplating. Bulwer replied
that he could not " hasten his departure in consequence of
a system of slander and libel to which no British minister or
gentleman could make the slightest concession." Thereupon
Sotomayor sent him his passports, and despatched an agent to
London to offer explanations to the British Government, but
Palmerston declined to receive him, as he was not provided
with any credentials and possessed no diplomatic character.
Isturiz, the Spanish minister, then presented a formal note to
Palmerston, enclosing copies of his instructions, and adding
that the Spanish ministry were convinced that Bulwer had
been making use of his official position in favour of a party
which aimed at obtaining possession of power. This had led
them to ask for his recall, but as that was refused, the dispute
had ended by the delivery of his passports to the British
minister. Palmerston replied, calling on him to present in
writing forthwith a statement of the grounds on which the
Spanish Government had proceeded. Two more argumenta-
tive notes were exchanged, in the last of which Isturiz was
informed that it was impossible for the Queen to continue to
receive him as the minister of the Queen of Spain, or for Her
Majesty's Government to continue to hold official intercourse
with him. Isturiz thereupon quitted England, and diplomatic
intercourse between the two countries was interrupted until
its renewal in the early part of 1850 at the request of the
Spanish Government.1
§ 506. In 1849 M. Poussin, French minister at Washington,
in the course of a correspondence respecting the detention by
Commander Carpenter, U.S.N., of a French ship until his
claim for her salvage was satisfied, asked that the United
States Government should disavow his conduct and reprove
him. The Secretary of State, in transmitting Commander
Carpenter's explanations, declined to comply with this demand.
On this M. Poussin wrote :
" His [Comr. Carpenter's] opinions have little interest in our
eyes, when we have to condemn his conduct. I called on the
1 Correspondence presented to Parliament, 1848.
268 TERMINATION OF MISSION
Cabinet of Washington, Mr. Secretary of State, in the name of the
French Government, to address a severe reproof to that officer of
the American Navy, in order that the error he has committed, on
a point involving the dignity of your national marine, might not
be repeated hereafter. From your answer, Mr. Secretary of State,
I am unfortunately induced to believe that your government sub-
scribes to the strange doctrines professed by Commander Carpenter
. . . ; and I have only to protest, in the name of my government,
against these doctrines."
The Secretary of State, in reply, acquainted him that the
correspondence had been sent to the United States Minister
in Paris, for submission to the French Government. As the
latter did not consider that it furnished sufficient ground for
M. Poussin's recall, the President caused him to be informed
that the United States Government would hold no further
correspondence with him as the minister of France, and that
this decision had been made known to his government.
M. de Tocqueville, the French minister for foreign affairs,
who had conducted the correspondence with the Secretary
of State in reference to this affair, shortly afterwards
left office, and his successor dropped the matter. No inter-
ruption took place in the diplomatic intercourse of the two
countries.1
§ 507. In 1852 the United States Government asked for
the recall of Senor Marcoleta, the Nicaraguan minister, which
was refused by that Republic. The Secretary of State then
informed Senor Marcoleta that instructions had been sent to
Mr. Kerr, the United States minister to Central America, to
renew the request for his recall and the appointment of a
successor, and that meanwhile no communication could
be received from him in his official capacity. The charge
against him was that he had communicated to the Press the
contents of certain proposals in regard to an inter-oceanic
canal, which had been shown to him unofficially and in
confidence. He not only endeavoured to frustrate the negotia-
tion, but also boasted of his influence with certain senators
and threatened to use it. The Secretary of State wrote on
this occasion to the United States minister at Nicaragua that
" such a request can never be refused between governments
that desire to preserve amicable relations with each other ;
for a minister whose recall has been asked loses, by that fact
alone, all capacity for usefulness. If previously unacceptable,
he must become doubly so by being retained in office in
opposition to a distinct wish expressed for his recall. . . . The
1 Moore, iv. 530.
TERMINATION OF MISSION 269
gravity of the step is a sufficient safeguard against its being
rashly taken." Mr. Kerr was told that, without stating why
the recall was asked for, he was at liberty to explain why such
a statement could not be made with propriety. A year after-
wards, however, a new President of the United States having
been elected, Sefior Marcoleta presented fresh credentials as
minister from Nicaragua, and continued to hold that position
until April I856.1
§ 508. In 1855, during the Crimean War, the United States
Government complained to the British Government that
British officials and agents had organised and were carrying
out in the United States an extensive plan for enlisting recruits
for the British army, in violation of the neutrality laws and in
infringement of the sovereign rights of the United States. The
British Secretary of State disclaimed any intention of sanction-
ing a violation of the United States laws by British officials,
but the correspondence shows that his views of what might
legally be done in that way differed from those of the United
States Government. Prosecutions begun against some persons
alleged to be acting as agents produced a written confession
by one of the accused, implicating the British minister,
Mr. Grampian, and the British consuls at New York, Cincinnati
and Philadelphia. The United States Secretary of State
thereupon asked for the recall of the minister and the removal
of the consuls. Lord Clarendon, in reply, communicated
declarations of the officials concerned, denying that they had
committed the acts attributed to them, and expressed the hope
that this would satisfy the United States Government. The
latter, being unable to accept this conclusion, discontinued
further intercourse with Mr. Crampton and sent him his
passports (the exequaturs of the three consuls were also
revoked) . Lord Clarendon subsequently replied that the British
Government retained their high opinion of the zeal, ability
and integrity of Mr. Crampton, and believed that in many
important particulars the President had been misled by
erroneous information, and by the testimony of witnesses
unworthy of belief. Such a conflict of opinion on such a
matter must necessarily be the subject of serious deliberation
by both parties. If Her Majesty's Government had been
convinced that Her Majesty's officers had in defiance of their
instructions violated the laws of the United States, they would
have removed these officers. In the present case Her Majesty's
Government were bound to accept the formal and repeated
declaration of the President of his belief that the British
1 Moore, iv. 497.
270 TERMINATION OF MISSION
officials in question had violated the laws of the Union, and
were on that account unacceptable organs of communication,
and " they could not deny to the United States a right similar
to that which, in a parallel case, Her Majesty's Government
would claim for themselves, the right, namely, of forming their
own judgment as to the bearings of the laws of the Union
upon transactions which have taken place within the Union."
The British Government, " while regretting a proceeding on
the part of the President of the United States, which cannot
but be considered as of an unfriendly character," did not
suspend relations with the United States minister in London,
and in January 1857 Lord Napier was appointed to represent
Great Britain at Washington.1
§ 509. In 1875 Mr. Russell, United States minister at
Caracas, addressed a despatch to his government, in which he
said : "I feel bound to add that there are, in my opinion,
only two ways in which the payment of so large an amount
can be obtained. The first is by sharing the proceeds with
some of the chief officers of this government ; the second by
a display, or at least a threat, of force. The first course, which
has been pursued by one or more nations, will, of course,
never be followed by the United States. The expediency of
the second it is not in my province to discuss." This despatch
having been published in a report to the House of Representa-
tives, was resented by the Venezuelan Government, who
thereupon sent Mr. Russell a note breaking off official
relations with him, and informing him that the ground for
this action was that in the despatch referred to " an opinion is
advanced and statements are made which constitute a most
violent attack, because they insult the administration most
grievously, besides involving a falsehood." Mr. Russell's
passports were sent to him a fortnight later. The Venezuelan
Government did not at first offer any explanation to the United
States of the step they had taken, and the Secretary of State,
therefore, wrote to the Venezuelan minister at Washington,
informing him that unless he should have been authorised to
make one which might be regarded as satisfactory, the dignity
of the United States Government would require that his
relations with it should also terminate. The minister at first
replied that he was instructed to offer the required explanation,
but was unable to do so because of the loss of important papers
by shipwreck. Three months later he wrote that he was
instructed to withdraw and cancel the note to Mr. Russell
breaking off relations with him. Later he communicated
1 Moore, iv. 534 ; Br. and For. State Papers, xlvii. and xlviii.
TERMINATION OF MISSION 271
instructions from his government, intimating that Mr. Russell
would no longer be persona grata. The latter eventually
resigned, but, having proceeded to Caracas, with the authorisa-
tion of the Department of State, to present his letters of recall,
the Venezuelan minister for foreign affairs declined to receive
him.1
§ 510. In 1888 Lord Sackville, British minister at Washington,
received a letter purporting to come from a naturalised citizen
of English birth, named Murchison, asking for advice as
to the way he, and many other individuals in his position,
should vote in the pending election of the President. Lord
Sackville replied that " any political party which openly
favoured the mother country at the present moment would
lose popularity, and that the party in power was fully aware
of the fact " ; that with respect to the " questions with Canada,
which have been unfortunately reopened since the rejection of
the [fisheries] treaty by the Republican majority in the Senate,
and by the President's message alluded to [by the writer of
the letter], allowance must be made for the political situation
as regarded the presidential election," and he enclosed an
extract from a newspaper in which electors were distinctly
advised to vote for Mr. Cleveland. This letter of Lord
Sackville found its way into the newspapers, and caused a
lively discussion in the Press. The New York Tribune published
a report of an interview with him, in which he was represented
to have said that " both the action of the Senate and the
President's letter of retaliation were for political effect," but
in a private note to Mr. Bayard, the United States Secretary of
State, he said that his words were so turned as to impugn the
action of the executive, and added : "I *beg to emphasise
that I had no thought or intention of doing so, and I most
emphatically deny the language which is attributed to me by
other papers of ' clap-trap ' and ' trickery ' as applied to the
government to which I am accredited." Mr. Bayard tele-
graphed to the United States minister at London, complaining
of the letter and of the language used at interviews with news-
paper reporters, and suggested that Her Majesty's Government
should take appropriate action without delay. Lord Salisbury
declined to act until he should be in receipt of the precise
language of Lord Sackville and his explanation. Lord
Salisbury appears to have said also that the minister's recall
would end his diplomatic career, which would not necessarily
be the case if he were dismissed by the United States, for
which there were precedents. Mr. Bayard thereupon addressed
1 Moore, iv. 535.
272 TERMINATION OF MISSION
a note to Lord Sackville, informing him, by the instructions of
the President, that he was convinced that " it would be
incompatible with the best interests and detrimental to the
good relations of both governments that you should any
longer hold your present official position in the United States,"
and enclosing a passport.1
§511. In 1905 M. Taigny, French minister at Caracas,
in a note to the Venezuelan Government, protested against
the act of the Venezuelan authorities in summarily closing,
under a decree of September 4, 1905, the offices of the
French cable company at Caracas and elsewhere, constituting,
in the view of the French Government, a violation of the rights
of the company. In their reply the Venezuelan Government
asserted that the matter was one solely within the competence
of the local authorities, and that to treat it through the diplo-
matic channel was derogatory to Venezuelan sovereignty ; that
the use of the diplomatic channel in such matters was only
justified where there was denial of justice ; this was not the
case, a judicial decision had been rendered as the outcome of
legal procedure. Further, the company had been the accomplice
of those concerned in the last civil war ; and in supporting the
company the French Government appeared to assume the
responsibilities incurred by the company. The note ended
by saying that the Venezuelan Government would not treat
further " des affaires d'un caractere diplomatique et de bonne
amitie avec le gouvernement fran£ais par rintermediaire de
son representant actuel a Caracas, 1'honorable M. Olivier
Taigny, jusqu'a ce qu'il ait rec.u les explications satisfaisantes
qu'exige la bonne amitie entre les nations qui la cultivent avec
respect et convenance mutuels." The French Government
requested the withdrawal of the final part of this note, regard-
ing the interruption of all negotiations until Venezuela had
obtained satisfaction. The Venezuelan Government there-
upon suggested the withdrawal of both notes, and this was
agreed to by the French Government on condition that
an agreement was come to between Venezuela and the
company. But in declaring, through the intermediary of the
United States minister, that its note would be withdrawn,
the Venezuelan Government added that it was hoped that the
French Government would send a representative with whom
more agreeable relations could be entertained. M. Taigny,
however, remained in charge ; but on the occasion of the
1 Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the U.S., 1888, pt. ii. ; Br. and For,
State Papers, Ixxxi. 479 ; Moore, iv. 536.
TERMINATION OF MISSION 273
New Year official reception of the diplomatic corps by
the President he was not invited to attend, and it appeared,
that only on condition of his recall would the Venezuelan
Government resume official relations. In the meantime
the last remaining office of the company was closed. The
French Government thereupon announced M. Taigny's
recall, leaving their interests in charge of the United States
minister. But on M. Taigny going on board the French
s.s. Martinique to ascertain the instructions of his govern-
ment he was refused permission to return on shore, and thus
virtually expelled from the country. The diplomatic body
protested against this act as contrary to diplomatic immunity,
but the Venezuelan Government maintained that immunity
had lapsed with his actual recall.
As a consequence, the French Government on January 18,
1906, notified the Venezuelan charge d'affaires at Paris that his
mission was regarded as terminated, and that he should leave
French territory the same day ; he departed that evening
for Liege, being accompanied to the frontier by the head
official of the French Surete generate.1 Diplomatic relations
between the two countries were suspended for several years.
§ 512. In 1921, during the acute civil disturbances in
Guatemala, Mr. H. Gaisford, the British minister, took
part in giving assistance to certain ex-ministers and func-
tionaries of the former government who were imprisoned and
whose lives were in danger, and afforded shelter in the legation
to some persons who had sought refuge there. In 1922, on
the expulsion of the Roman Catholic Archbishop, Mr. Gaisford,
who was also of the Roman Catholic faith, called at the Episcopal
Palace, but was refused admission by the police agent in charge
of the building. The Guatemalan minister for foreign
affairs, thereupon, on the strength of a report from the chief
of police, addressed a note to him accusing him of having
struck the policeman and of having used abusive language ;
it was added that the substance of the note had been com-
municated to the other diplomatic representatives for their
information. The accusation was denied by Mr. Gaisford ;
and the diplomatic body protested against an act taken on
the simple word of a police agent, and without asking the
British minister for his version of the matter. The Guatemalan
Government nevertheless requested the recall of Mr. Gaisford,
alleging that besides the incident in question he had intervened
1 de Boeck, U Expulsion et les difficultes Internationales qu'en souleve la pratique.
Cours de La Haye (1927), iii. 502.
274 TERMINATION OF MISSION
in favour of Guatemalan citizens accused of conspiracy, and
had afforded asylum to accused persons. Mr. Gaisford was
instructed to come away on leave of absence, and the legation
remained closed until September i, 1924 when Mr. W. E.
O'Reilly was appointed minister.
§ 513. In 1924 the Mexican Government requested the
recall of Mr. H. A. C. Cummins, who was in charge of the
British legation (Charge des Archives], and whose energetic
efforts on behalf of British owners of property in Mexico
during the civil disturbances then raging in that country had
rendered him persona non grata. It was added that if he did not
depart within ten days compulsion would be used. The
British Government had already decided to accredit Sir T.
Hohler to Mexico on a special mission, in order to be furnished
with an independent report, so as to enable them to come to
a decision as to recognising General Obregon's administration.
The Mexican Government were so informed, but while
welcoming this proposal, they professed to be unable to await
his arrival, alleging that Mr. Cummins had shown discourtesy
throughout in his communications with them. They urged
as an elementary principle that a government had at any time
the right to request, with or without explanation, the recall
of any diplomatist or agent of another country, and that
it was due to international courtesy then to withdraw him.
In the meantime Mr. Cummins reported that no food or any-
thing else was permitted to enter the legation, that telephonic
communication had been cut, and that even members of the
diplomatic corps were not allowed to enter. Matters having
reached this pass, no alternative was possible but to instruct
Mr. Cummins to withdraw, and the good offices of the United
States Government were sought to convey an intimation to
him to this effect, and to obtain facilities for him to do so.
These were courteously afforded by the United States Govern-
ment, and on Mr. Cummins' departure the archives and
effects of the legation were taken charge of by the United
States charge d'affaires.1 In August 1925 Mr. Norman King
was appointed British charge d'affaires at Mexico, and in
December 1925 Mr. E. Ovey was appointed envoy.
§514. The Times of June 9, 1931, published the following
message from its correspondent at Riga : " Mgr. Riccardo
Bartolini, Titular Archbishop of Laodicea of Syria, and Papal
nuncio, quitted Lithuania yesterday. Mgr. Bartolini had long
ceased to be persona grata in Kovno owing to his alleged
undue interference with the internal affairs of the country,
1 Parliamentary Paper, Mexico, No. I ( 1 924) .
TERMINATION OF MISSION 275
and the Lithuanian Government had repeatedly intimated the
desirability of his recall to the Vatican, but the nuncio
remained until the Lithuanian authorities unambiguously told
him to go, threatening otherwise to restrict his movements or
expel him."
Dismissal without notice
§ 515. The following are instances of dismissal without
notice :
In 1584 one Francis Throkmorton was arrested in
England, in consequence of a letter he had written to Mary,
Queen of Scots, which was intercepted, and the investigation
showed that Don Bernardino de Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador,
was party to a plot which aimed at the deposition of Queen
Elizabeth. Camden 1 relates that while Throkmorton was
under examination ' Don Bernadino de Mendoza, the
Spaniards Embassadour in England, secretly crossed the seas
into France, in a great rage and fury, as if hee had been thrust
out of England with breach of the privilege of an Embassadour,
whereas he himselfe being a man of a violent and turbulent
spirit, abusing the sacred privilege of an Embassage to the
committing of treason, was commanded to depart the land,
whereas by the ancient severity, he was to be prosecuted
(as many thought) with fire and sword. For he had his
hand in those lewd practises with Throkmorton and others for
bringing in of forreiners into England, and deposing the
Queene . . . But yet lest the Spaniard should thinke, that
not Mendoza's crimes were punished, but the priviledges
of his Embassadour violated, William Waad Clerke of the
Councell, was sent into Spaine, to inform the Spaniard plainly
how ill he had performed the office of his Embassie ; and withal
to signifie (lest the Queene by sending him away might seeme
to renounce the ancient amity betwixt both kingdomes) that
all offices of kindnesses should be shewed, if he would send
any other that were desirous to preserve amity, so as the same
kindnesses might in like sort be shewed to her Embassadour
in Spaine."
Waad, however, was refused an audience of the Spanish
King and " returned home unheard."
§ 516. In 1587 L'Aubespine, the French ambassador in
England, was alleged, on the confession of his secretary, to be
implicated in an attempt on the life of Queen Elizabeth.
1 Camden's Annales Rerum Anglicarum, et Hibernicarum regnante Eliza-
betha ; Translated into English by jf?.JV.5 Gent. London, 3rd edit., 1635, 263, 264.
276 TERMINATION OF MISSION
Camden relates that he was a man wholly devoted to the
Guisian faction, and that " supposing it best to provide for
the captive Queene's safety, not by arguments, but by arti-
ficiall and bad practises, tampered first covertly for taking away
Queene Elizabeths life with William Stafford, a young gentle-
man, and prone to apprehend new hopes, whose mother was
one of the Queenes honorable Bed-Chamber, and his brother
at that time Embassadour Legier in France ; and there he
dealt with him more overtly by Trappy his secretary, who
promised him, if he would effect it, not onely infinite glory and
great store of mony, but also especiall favour with the Bishop
of Rome, the Duke of Guise, and in generall with all the
Catholicks. Stafford, as detesting the fact, refused to do it ;
Yet commended one Moody, a notable hackster, a man
forward of his hands, as one who for money would without
doubt dispatch the matter resolutely." Stafford afterwards
disclosed the plot, and L'Aubespine was sent for and con-
fronted with the other parties to the conspiracy. His denials
were unsatisfactory, and he affirmed that if he had been
accessory yet he ought not to make discovery to any but the
King his master. He was gravely admonished not to commit
treason again, nor to forget the duty of an ambassador and the
Queen's clemency, and told that he was not exempted from the
guiltiness of the offence though he escaped punishment.1
(Though given as a case of dismissal without notice, it
does not appear from this account as if dismissal actually
followed. Oppenheim reads it that he was simply warned
not to do it again.)
§517. In 1624 the Marquesse de Inojosa and Don Carlos
Coloma, the two Spanish ambassadors then resident in England,
informed James I that a dangerous conspiracy against his
authority was being fomented by the Duke of Buckingham,
whose influence, for political reasons, they wished to under-
mine. This accusation having, after investigation, proved
entirely unfounded, they were called upon to furnish explana-
tions and particulars, but failed to afford any. The King of
Spain was thereupon informed, through the English ambassador
at Madrid, of their grave offence, and was asked to punish
them for it. It appears, however, from the narrative that the
ambassadors quitted England after receiving intimation that
the King would no longer hold intercourse with them ; and
that " matters growing daily worse and worse betwixt the
two Crownes, they were rather rewarded than reprehended,
Inojosa being promoted to be Governour of Milan, while
1 R.N.'s translation of the Annales, 3rd edit., 1635, 337, 338.
TERMINATION OF MISSION 277
Coloma received additions of employment and honours in
Flanders." *
§ 518. In 1654 Le Bas (called Baron de Baas in the French
documents) was sent to England to assist the President de
Bordeaux, charged with a mission to re-establish friendly
relations between France and England. In an interview
with Naudin, a French doctor,2 he proposed to the latter to
foment " divisions and dissentions in this land," 3 and to
procure funds for the purpose from France. Naudin gave
information, and Cromwell sent for Le Bas, taxed him with
his complicity in the plot, and ordered him to leave the country
within three days. Bordeaux protested and told the Pro-
tector that His Highness should first complain to the King of
France and ask for his recall. But Cromwell replied that Bas
was more guilty than Bordeaux supposed, and that such a
person could not be suffered to remain any longer in England.4
§ 519. In 1720 Bestoujew-Rioumine, the newly appointed
Russian resident in London, was instructed by Peter the
Great to deliver memoires, recounting the wrongs the Tsar
had suffered at the hands of the British Government. These
were published simultaneously with their delivery. The
King of England and his ministers naturally were profoundly
irritated by this proceeding of the Tsar, and it was decided
to suggest to Bestoujew that he should quit the country within
a week. This he accordingly did, and diplomatic relations
were not re-established until 1731, when Rondeau was
appointed British resident at Petersburg.5
§520. In 1726 the following announcement was made in
the London Gazette :
Whitehall, March 4th.
" This day Mr. Inglis Marshal and Assistant Master of the
Ceremonies in the absence of Sir Clement Cotterel Master of the
Ceremonies went by His Majesty's order to M, de Palm the Emperor's
Resident, and acquainted him that he having in the audience he
had of the King on Thursday last delivered into the Hands of His
Majesty a Memorial highly injurious to His Majesty's Honour and
the Dignity of his Crown ; in which Memorial he has forgot all
Regard to Truth and the due Respect to His sacred Majesty ; and
the said Memorial being also publickly dispers'd next Morning in
Print together with a letter from the Count de Sinzendorff to him
1 Sir John Finett, Finetti Philoxonis : Som choice observations, etc., London, 1656.
2 Gardiner, History of the Commonwealth, etc., iii. 113, 121, 126, 151.
3 Thurloe's State Papers, ii. 309, 351.
4 Guizot, Histoire de la Republique d'Angleterre, etc., ii. 406, etc. ; Thurloe, State
Papers, 406, etc.
5 F. de Martens, Recueil des Traite's, etc., ix. (x.) 52.
278 TERMINATION OF MISSION
the said Palm still more insolent and more injurious than the
Memorial if possible ; His Majesty had thereupon commanded him
to declare to him the said Resident Palm that His Majesty looked
upon him no longer as a public Minister and required him forthwith
to depart out of this Kingdom."
The origin of this affair is to be found in the alleged secret
treaty between the Emperor and the King of Spain for the
restitution of Gibraltar and Minorca to the latter, and the
re-establishment of the Stuart dynasty on the throne of Great
Britain, which was disclosed by Ripperda (§ 392) to the British
minister at Madrid.1 Allusion was made to this secret
treaty in the King's speech on the opening of Parliament,
January 17, 1 726-7. 2 Palm thereupon received instructions
from Count Sinzendorf to present a memorial to the King,
protesting against the statements contained in the King's
speech, as " manifest falsehoods," and " insulting and injuring,
in the most outrageous manner, the majesty of the two
contracting Powers, who have a right to demand a signal
reparation and satisfaction proportioned to the enormity of
the affront."3 The memorial4 presented by M. de Palm
declared the statements quoted to be founded on the falsest
reports, and concluded by demanding on behalf of " his
sacred Imperial Majesty ''' " that reparation which is due to
him by all manner of right, for the great injuries which have
been done to him by these many imputations." On the day
following, printed copies of translations of both documents
into English and French were sent by him to members of both
Houses, aldermen of London and other persons.5 Palm had
been instructed to publish the memorial, but the whole pro-
ceeding was justly resented by the King, who requited the
insult by expelling the Emperor's resident and thus breaking
off diplomatic relations.
§ 521. In 1788 Gustavus III, King of Sweden, wishing to
take his revenge for the intrigues carried on by Catherine II
among the malcontent Swedish nobles, saw his opportunity
when his enemy, engaged in war against Turkey, had equipped
a fleet destined to proceed to the Mediterranean. He pro-
ceeded then to send his own fleet to sea and to despatch
a considerable land force into Finland. On this, Count
Rasoumoffsky, Russian envoy at Stockholm, by order of the
Empress, addressed a note of protestation to the Chancellor
Oxenstierna, in which he declared " to the minister of His
1 Cobbett, Parliamentary History, viii. 505, 509. 2 Ibid., 524.
3 Ibid., 557, 558, 599 n., and P.R.O., S.P. Foreign, Germany, vol. Ix.
4 Ibid., 555-7 n., and P.R.O., same vol. 5 Ibid., 554.
TERMINATION OF MISSION 279
Swedish Majesty, as well as to all those of the nation who had
any share in the administration, that his mistress had no
hostile intentions towards her neighbours." The King of
Sweden, regarding the expression used in this note, in
addressing it both to his ministry and " to all those of the
nation who shared in the government," as a personal insult,
and as intended to create disunion between the government
and the nation by recalling the anarchy to which the revolu-
tion of 1772 had put an end, caused the writer to be notified
that he must quit the kingdom. The attempt was made to
compel him to embark on board a Swedish yacht which would
have transported him to St. Petersburg, but he refused, and
remained at Stockholm for seven weeks. An answer to
RasoumofTsky's note was despatched to Nolcken, Swedish
ambassador at St. Petersburg, for delivery to the Russian
Government. But Nolcken had already been informed that the
Empress would no longer recognise him, and he was ordered
to leave in a week's time.1
§ 522. In 1814 a Spanish subject named Espoz y Mina,
who had failed in an attempt to seize the fortress of Pampeluna,
took refuge in France. The Spanish charge d'affaires, Conde de
Casa Florez, having heard that he was staying at an hotel in
Paris, proceeded to arrest him and some other Spanish sub-
jects, who were probably his accomplices, with the aid of
a commissaire de police, without applying first to the French
Government. This gave great offence to the Government of
Louis XVIII. Mina, having been set at liberty, was expelled
from France, and Florez' passports were sent to him, instead
of asking for his withdrawal. A complicated negotiation
followed to which an end was put by Napoleon's escape from
Elba.2
§ 523. In 1895 the Italian Government published a protocol
signed at Caracas some time previously by the diplomatic
representatives of Belgium, France, Germany and Italy, which in the
opinion of the Venezuelan Government contained " gratuitous
and defamatory statements reflecting on the honour of the
State and the integrity of the Executive." Without taking
the preliminary step of asking for the withdrawal by their
governments of the two out of the original four diplomatists
who were still resident, the Venezuelan Government sent
them their passports. Simultaneously an explanation was
addressed to the two Powers concerned. France, which was
one of these, broke off diplomatic relations, while Belgium,
the other, refrained from accrediting any one in place of the
1 Ch. de Martens, op. cit., ii. 275. 2 Villa-Urrutia, iii. 407.
s8o TERMINATION OF MISSION
minister who had been dismissed. Eventually Venezuela
invoked the good offices of the United States to bring about
the restoration of diplomatic relations, her government
declaring that Venezuela had intended no affront to France
or Belgium, whose flags she had conspicuously saluted on the
same day that she dismissed their personally objectionable
agents.1
§ 524. In 1916 illicit acts of espionage carried on from
Greek territory, and communications with enemy submarines
operating in Greek waters, to the detriment of Greek, Allied
and neutral shipping, made it necessary to give notice to the
German, Austro-Hungarian, Bulgarian and Turkish ministers at
Athens to quit Greece and betake themselves, on November 22,
with their staffs, on board a steamer which would convey
them to a port whence they could return to their respective
countries. This notification was conveyed to them by the
French naval commander, the facts having been communi-
cated to the Greek Government, and they departed from
Greece accordingly.
§ 525. In 1917 the United States Government published
certain intercepted telegrams, addressed by Count Luxburg,
German minister at Buenos Aires, to the German Government,
and transmitted by the Swedish legation there via the
Swedish Government. These telegrams advocated the sink-
ing of Argentine vessels then on their way to Europe, without
leaving any trace (" spurlos versenkt"). The publication of these
telegrams aroused intense indignation in the Argentine
Republic, and the Argentine Government sent Count Luxburg
his passports, informing him at the same time that he
had ceased to be persona grata. Meanwhile the German
Government expressed keen regret at the incident and their
disapproval of the methods suggested, which, they said, were
personal to Count Luxburg. The publication of further
telegrams, however, revealed even more serious machinations,
and Count Luxburg, who had endeavoured to escape into the
interior of the country, was arrested and interned. Eventually,
at the request of the Argentine Government, who were anxious
to effect his speedy departure from the country, the British
Government consented to grant him a safe-conduct to return
to Germany, but his health having given way under the strain,
he was admitted to a German hospital suffering from mental
and nervous breakdown.2
1 Moore, iv. 548.
8 Times History oflhe War, xv. 20 ; American Journal of International Law, xii.
(1918), 135-140.
TERMINATION OF MISSION 281
§ 526. Besides the incidents mentioned, references to others
are found in various works, as follows :
In 1884 the Argentine Republic dismissed the Papal nuncio
for opposing a law on education1; in 1895 the Hawaiian
agent in the United States was dismissed for criticism of United
States policy 2 ; in 1 906 the secretary left in charge of the
nunciature of the Holy See at Paris was expelled for infringing
laws concerning the activities of the clergy 3 ; Rustem Bey, the
Turkish ambassador to the United States, was sent home early
in the war for publishing indiscreet newspaper and magazine
articles 4 ; Prince Henry of Reuss, German minister to Persia,
who engaged in military activities in that country, was
dismissed.5
§ 527. The recorded cases in which a diplomatic agent has
either been dismissed or his recall demanded are of a wide
variety, and while in some of these cases there can be no doubt
that summary action was called for, in others there appears
less justification for the steps taken.
On the general question Dr. Hannis Taylor has written 6 :
" when a sovereign dismisses an envoy without waiting for his
recall, on the ground of his misconduct, not only the dignity of the
envoy, but that of his state is so involved that justice and courtesy
alike demand that reasons should be given sufficient to warrant
a proceeding of such gravity. In justice to itself the dismissing
state should formulate the grounds upon which its action is based—
injustice to its agent the accrediting state should ascertain whether
such grounds rest upon adequate proof. There is no reasonable
foundation for the position assumed by Halleck,7 and reproduced
by Calvo,8 that a state is in duty bound to recall an envoy who
has become unacceptable to the government to which he is
accredited simply upon its statement that he is so ; and that such
state has no right to ask for reasons to be assigned why such envoy
has become unacceptable since his reception as persona grata. Dana
also falls into obvious confusion when he assumes that a dismissal
or demand for recall may be rested upon the identical grounds
upon which a state may object to receive a particular person in the
first instance.9 After all special objections to the personality of an
envoy have been waived by his reception, it is obviously unjust
1 Calvo, Traite, t. iii., § 1517.
2 Hill, American Journal of International Law (1931), 257.
3 de Boeck, L'Expulsion, etc., Cours de La Haye (1927), iii. 510.
4 Life and Letters of Walter H. Page, ii. 49 n.
5 Genet, Traite de Diplomatie, etc., i. 595.
6 A Treatise on International Public Law, 350.
7 International Law, i. 393. 8 Droit International, § 1365.
9 Dana's Wheaton, Note 137.
282 TERMINATION OF MISSION
that he should be expelled and disgraced without a reasonable and
provable cause. As Hall has fairly expressed it : ' Courtesy to a
friendly state exacts that the representative of its sovereignty shall
not be lightly or capriciously sent away ; if no cause is assigned, or
the cause given is inadequate, deficient regard is shown to the per-
sonal dignity of his state ; if the cause is grossly inadequate or false,
there may be ground for believing that a covert insult to it is
intended. A country, therefore, need not recall its agent, or
acquiesce in his dismissal, unless it is satisfied that the reasons
alleged are of sufficient gravity in themselves.' x No more just or
reasonable rule can be formulated as a standard by which the
merits of particular cases of dismissal or forced recall, past or
present, may be tested."
The author adds in a footnote :
" The government of the U.S. has, however, given its sanction
to the view maintained by Halleck, Calvo and Dana : ' The
official or authorised statement that a minister has made himself
unacceptable, or even that he has ceased to be persona grata, to the
government to which he is accredited, is sufficient to invoke the
deference of a friendly Power and the observance of the courtesy
and the practice regulating the diplomatic intercourse of the
Powers of Christendom for the recall of an objectionable minister "
(Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, to Mr. Curtin, November 16, 1871,
with reference to the Catacazy case, § 499) .
There appears, however, to be some inconsistency between
the latter view and the action of the United States Govern-
ment a few years later in the case mentioned in § 509.
§ 528. The Pan-American Convention of February 20,
1928, concerning the rights and duties of diplomatic officers,
which in its preamble declares that it incorporates the principles
generally accepted by all nations, says in Article 8 : " States
may decline an officer from another or, having already
accepted him, may request his recall, without being obliged
to state the reasons for such a decision."
It can hardly be said, however, that the latter clause of this
Article is in accordance with the principles generally accepted
by all nations, or in accordance with their practice, since it
can scarcely be imagined that in requesting the recall of an
ambassador or minister, the government taking this step
would omit the courtesy of informing the government of the
state which had accredited him of their reasons for doing so.
On the whole, the conclusion to be drawn would seem to
be that any government has the right of asking for the recall
of a foreign diplomatic agent on the ground that his con-
1 Hall, 359.
TERMINATION OF MISSION 283
tinuance at his post is not desired, and the government
which has appointed him has an equal right of declining to
withdraw him. In judging of any controversy that may arise
regarding the demand and the refusal to comply, the grounds
on which recall was asked for and those on which it was
refused must be carefully weighed. If the government which
asked for the recall is dissatisfied with the grounds of refusal,
it can send the diplomatic agent his passports. As long as
the diplomatic agent of the dismissing government has not ren-
dered himself persona ingrata there is no reason for dismissing
him. That would only be done if the dismissal was intended
to we'ar the aspect of a national affront. But if the grounds
of dismissal appear insufficient to the government which
accredited the diplomatist, it can indicate its view by entrust-
ing the mission for a while to a charge d'affaires. In any case
of the kind a government asked to recall its agent will naturally
desire to ascertain whether he has exceeded or acted contrary
to his instructions, and thereby rendered himself responsible
for the offence he has given. If it finds that he has not, it
cannot, out of self-respect, consent to the demand, and must
leave it to the other government to dismiss him. It is a tenable
opinion that the agent's government is entitled to satisfaction
on this point. It may prove difficult for the historian, who
has only official documents before him, to pronounce in each
instance what was the determining factor in the decision to
ask for a recall. Ostensibly taken on political grounds, it
may also have been influenced in some cases by the general
conduct of the agent.
BOOK III
INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS
CHAPTER XXII
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
§ 529. FROM the point of view of international law there is
no essential difference between congresses and conferences.
Both are meetings of plenipotentiaries for the discussion and
settlement of international affairs ; both include meetings
for the determination of political questions, and for the treat-
ment of matters of a social-economic order. The term
congress has in the past been more frequently applied to
assemblies of plenipotentiaries for the conclusion of peace
and the redistribution of territory which in most cases is one
of the conditions of peace, as, e.g., the Congress of Vienna
(1814-15) after the Napoleonic wars, the Congress of Paris
(1856) after the Crimean war, and the Congress of Berlin
(1878) for the settlement of affairs in the East, following the
Russo-Turkish war ; but sometimes it has been conference,
as, e.g., the Conference of London (1830-3) after the revolt
of Belgium, the Conferences of London (1912-13) to arrange
terms of peace between Turkey and the Allied Balkan States,
and the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. At the Congress of
Paris (1856) the assemblage began by styling itself a confer-
ence, and then, apparently without discussion of its title,
assumed the name of " congress."
§ 530. In earlier times congresses were ordinarily held at
a neutral spot, or at some place expressly neutralised for the
purpose of the meeting. There were often mediators, who
presided over the discussions, whether carried on orally or in
writing. Before the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire
in 1806 the principal representative of the Emperor discharged
the functions of president. In the nineteenth century
congresses were mostly held at the capital of one of the Powers
concerned, and then the chancellor or minister for foreign
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 285
affairs of that Power usually presided. On these occasions,
besides the specially deputed plenipotentiaries, the local
diplomatic representatives of the respective Powers were also
appointed.
§ 531. The first international gathering to which the name
of conference was given was that on the affairs of Greece,
held at London in 1827-32. Conferences were usually held
at the capital of one of the Powers taking part, the presidency
being nearly always offered to the minister for foreign affairs
of that Power, the other members being ordinarily the local
diplomatic representatives of the other Powers.
§ 532. The statement is ascribed to Canning in 1824 that
the plenipotentiaries at a congress are arbiters, and at a con-
ference advisers only. The Duke of Argyll said of a congress
that it was essentially a court of conciliation — an assembly in
which an endeavour is made to settle high matters in dispute
by discussion and mutual conciliation.1 At the present day
the term "conference" is habitually used to describe all inter-
national assemblages in which matters come under discussion
with a view to settlement. The treaties of peace concluded
after the war of 1914-18 resulted from the deliberations of
the Peace Conference of Paris, which in its broad outlines
resembled the Congress of Vienna of 1814-15. The Universal
Postal Convention, however, continues to be revised periodi-
cally at congresses of the states forming the Postal Union.
§ 533- The place of meeting of an international conference
may be determined in various ways. Sometimes it is the
capital of the state which proposes this means of adjusting the
questions at issue ; or, it may be, that of the state most
concerned in their settlement. Sometimes it is chosen as a
convenient centre for all parties to meet ; or to enable dis-
cussions to be carried on in a neutral atmosphere. In the
case of a multilateral treaty about to undergo revision, it may
be determined by the place of the former meeting., by a pro-
vision in the treaty itself, or by an understanding reached at
the previous conference.
Instances may be found in the Conference of London
(1850-2), Great Britain acting as mediator in the pending
dispute between Denmark and Prussia over Schleswig and
Holstein ; in the Congress of Paris (1856), the French Emperor
having taken a prominent part in the peace preliminaries after
the Crimean war ; in the Hague Peace Conference (1899),
the Emperor of Russia, at whose initiative the conference was
summoned, having proposed this meeting-place in view of its
1 The Eastern Question from 1836, ii. 97.
286 CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
detachment from localities where political interests might
supervene ; in the Conference of Algeciras (1906), in view of
its proximity to Morocco, the subject of the discussions ; in
the London Naval Conference (1908-9), having regard to
the predominant naval position of Great Britain ; in the
Paris Peace Conference of 1919 ; and in the Conference of
Locarno (1925), chosen, with the concurrence of the Swiss
Government, in virtue of its being in neutral territory.
The Geneva Conference of 1864, for the amelioration of
the condition of the wounded in armies in the field, was
convened by the Swiss Government, and the subsequent
conferences of 1868, 1906 and 1929, for the successive revisions
of the Red Cross Convention, took place also at Geneva ; on
the last occasion the work of the conference was extended to
the framing of a convention for the treatment of prisoners of
war, in amplification of the rules of the Hague Land War
Convention of 1907. The Second Peace Conference of 1907,
for the revision of the conventions concluded at the former
Hague Conference of 1899 and their amplification, similarly
met also at The Hague. In the case of the Universal Postal
Convention and the Radiotelegraph Convention, which are
subject to periodical revision, the place of the next meeting
is on each occasion determined by agreement at the conference.
§ 534. Invitations to a conference are usually preceded by
an exchange of views between the governments concerned, or
at any rate those chiefly affected ; and in the case of a con-
ference for the conclusion of peace normally by the conclusion
of preliminaries of peace or an armistice between the belli-
gerents. It is always desirable, wherever possible, that the
scope of the intended conference should be determined before-
hand, so as to provide a definite basis for the discussions.
Failure to reach an agreement has sometimes resulted from
want of due initial preparation, and a preliminary step should
be the formulation of a programme of the matters which are
to be brought under discussion with a view of arriving at a
settlement. As the Duke of Argyll observed :
" It was reasonable too, as it always must be, not to go into Con-
gress without some previous understanding with the Powers to be
there assembled. Every man conversant with the conduct of
affairs knows very well that public and formal discussions cannot
be conducted with any hope of a successful issue unless such
preliminary understandings have been arrived at." 1
1 Op. cit., ii. 128.
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 287
§ 535- Ordinarily the invitations to a conference are issued
by the government of the state wherein it is to be held, but
cases may, of course, occur in which another government does
so, after the consent of the former has been given to the
conference being held in its territory. In the case of the
Peace Conference of 1899 at The Hague, the proposals were
made by the Emperor of Russia, but the invitations were
issued by the Netherlands Government, which took part in
the conference. In the case of the Algeciras Conference of
1906, an invitation was addressed to the Powers by the Sultan
of Morocco, but the meeting took place in Spain, which was
a party to the conference. In the case of the Locarno Con-
ference of 1925, the concurrence of the Swiss Government,
which was not a party to the conference, was a necessary
preliminary to the meeting being held in Swiss territory. In
the case of the conference for the Codification of International
Law held at The Hague in March-April, 1930, the invitations
were issued by the Council of the League of Nations, and the
conference was held in the territory of the Netherlands, one of
the members of the League.
§ 536. On important occasions congresses or conferences
have often been attended by Prime Ministers or other high
personages of the states concerned. Lord Beaconsfield, when
Prime Minister, with Lord Salisbury, Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, attended the Congress of Berlin, 1878, which
was presided over by Prince von Bismarck, German Chancellor.
The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, was attended by the
President of the United States, the Prime Ministers of Great
Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South
Africa, the French President of the Council, etc. The Locarno
Conference of 1925 was attended by the Italian (on one
occasion) and Polish Prime Ministers, the German Chan-
cellor, and the British, French, German, Belgian and Czecho-
slovak Ministers for Foreign Affairs.
§ 537- But more often, and normally in the case of the
numerous conferences of non-political or semi-political character
held in modern times, diplomatic representatives are appointed
as chief plenipotentiaries, assisted sometimes by others ; or the
plenipotentiaries may be officials or persons having special
knowledge of the subject or subjects to be discussed. The
importance of the occasion will determine the numbers of
their suites, which often include officials or persons having
necessary legal or technical qualifications, secretaries, trans-
lators, etc.
288 CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
§ 538. The plenipotentiary (or plenipotentiaries) of each
state, with his (or their) staff, constitute what is called the
delegation of that state to the conference ; if there is more than
one plenipotentiary for a state, the senior is usually designated
as first plenipotentiary, and he and the others will sit together
as a group. If the agenda range over a wide field, the staff
may amount to a considerable number of persons, more
especially on the part of the receiving state. At the Washington
Conference of 1921-22 on the Limitation of Armament and
Pacific and Far Eastern questions, the four plenipotentiaries
of the United States were assisted by an advisory committee of
twenty-one persons : a secretariat of sixteen persons ; for
ceremonial, protocol, etc., five persons. There was a technical
staff for the limitation of armament of twenty ; a staff on
chemical warfare, consisting of a professor of chemistry and
officers of the army and navy ; a staff of sixteen on Pacific
and Far Eastern questions ; a staff of four for legal questions ;
a staff of two on economic questions and merchant marine ; a
staff on communications of four civilians and officers of the army
and navy ; two cartographers ; two officers for Press work ;
one for archives ; one disbursing officer ; and two editors.
§ 539- The plenipotentiaries at an international conference
are, as their name implies, furnished with full powers from the
head of the state or the government they represent, empower-
ing them to take part in the negotiations, and to conclude,
subject if necessary to ratification, any treaty instrument which
may result from the deliberations. (See § 135.) Where a state
appoints more than one plenipotentiary, full powers may be
issued to each, or, on the other hand, their names may be
included in a single document, authorising them to act jointly
or severally. As regards diplomatic privileges, see § 365. The
names of the plenipotentiaries should be communicated in
advance to the government of the state wherein the conference
is to be held. If they have to traverse a third state on their
journey thither, it is well also to advise the government of
that state of their intended mission.
§ 540. The language employed at an international con-
ference is usually French, but there is a growing tendency to
use English also. On recent occasions, such as the Paris
Peace Conference of 1919, and the Washington Conference
of 1921-22, both English and French were officially used.
At League of Nations conferences both French and English
have equal validity. At Pan-American conferences, French,
English, Spanish and Portuguese appear to have been em-
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 289
ployed in the treaties concluded. And where but a limited
number of states take part the language of one or other of
them is sometimes adopted as the official language. At Brest-
Litovsk, in the peace negotiations of 1917—18 between Russia
and the Central Powers, the German, French, Russian, Turkish
and Bulgarian languages appear to have been from time to
time employed.
§ 541. The president of an international conference is
usually, but not always, the principal representative of the
country in which it is held, if that country is a participant.
Often he is the minister for foreign affairs. His election may
be moved by the representative of the country which comes
first in alphabetical order, or by the doyen d'dge, or sometimes
by some other specially chosen for the occasion.
At the Congress of Vienna (1814-15) Count Metternich,
Austrian minister for foreign affairs, was elected president
on the proposal of the French plenipotentiary. At the London
Conferences of 1830-33 and 1850-52, concerning Belgian and
Danish affairs, respectively, the British Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs presided. At the Congress of Paris, 1856, the
French minister for foreign affairs presided, on the motion
of the Austrian plenipotentiary. At the Congress of Berlin,
1878, Prince von Bismarck was elected president on the pro-
posal of the Austro-Hungarian plenipotentiary. At the
Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, the Netherlands
minister for foreign affairs proposed the election of the
Russian first plenipotentiary, who on the first occasion (1899)
proposed that the Netherlands first plenipotentiary should be
honorary president ; on the second occasion (1907) the
Netherlands minister for foreign affairs was appointed
honorary president, the Netherlands first delegate being
effective vice-president. At the Algeciras Conference of 1906,
the Spanish minister for foreign affairs was elected, on the
proposal of the German first plenipotentiary. At the London
Naval Conference of 1908-9, Lord Desart, the British first
plenipotentiary, was elected on the proposal of the French
plenipotentiary, the doyen d'dge. At the Peace Conference of
Paris, 1919, M. Clemenceau, President of the Council and
minister for foreign affairs, naturally presided. Other
instances will be found in the examples appended to the
present chapter.
§ 542. The functions of the president of an international
conference are to open the proceedings by a speech setting
forth the purposes and objects of the conference ; to name the
u
2go CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
members of the secretariat, previously agreed to informally
by the representatives in general ; to direct the course of the
discussions throughout the continuance of the conference ;
and ultimately to declare the conference closed. At the final
meeting it is customary to propose a vote of thanks to him for
his services.
§ 543. Precedence among the plenipotentiaries is custom-
arily determined by the alphabetical order in French of the
states represented, unless some other order is agreed upon.
The order in which they sit is alternately to the right and to
the left of the president. (See § 456.) At a peace conference
the representatives of the belligerent states may fall into two
opposite groups.
§ 544. The course of procedure at a conference varies with
the importance or degree of complexity of the matters under
discussion. Rules of procedure are framed at the outset for
guidance. Where, as often happens, committees are set up
to discuss particular items on the agenda, these in turn appoint
a chairman, frame if necessary rules of procedure, and in
addition to a secretary or secretaries, often appoint a " rap-
porteur," to prepare the report to be furnished to the plenary
body. Sub-committees may be formed from the members of a
committee to deal with special points arising, and these in turn
report to the committee. As apart from the main work of
discussion, a small committee to examine the full powers of the
representatives is desirable, and a drafting committee to prepare
the text of the treaty instrument resulting from the work of
the conference is nearly always necessary.
§ 545- When a " rapporteur " is appointed by a committee
which has been charged with the discussion of a particular sub-
ject, he may or may not be also the chairman of the committee ;
and his functions as " rapporteur " are to summarise the dis-
cussions in the form of a report, showing the conclusions
arrived at by the committee in the matter. This report, which
is first submitted to the members of the committee, is then
communicated by him to the plenary body, and he is the
mouthpiece of the committee in placing their decision before
that body. And similarly in the case of a sub-committee which
has been appointed to report to the committee itself.
§ 546. Plenary meetings of the whole body of representatives
take place from time to time as the work proceeds. The first
plenary meeting is of an introductory character, for the
election of president, naming of the secretariat, framing of
the lines on which the conference is to be organised, the
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 291
appointment of committees, etc. Thereafter plenary meetings
are held, as may be required, to receive and consider the
reports of the committees. In a typical case, where the results
of the discussions are embodied in a treaty, and where the
issues involved are free from special difficulties, the successive
stages might, for instance, be — a first reading of the draft
treaty prepared ; followed by a further reading, should
modifications have been proposed and referred back to the
committees ; and then a final reading of a formal character,
at which the finished result would be submitted for the
signatures of the plenipotentiaries.
§ 547. At all important conferences much care is devoted
to the preparation of a formal record of the proceedings.
A prices-verbal is prepared by the secretary or secretaries on
the occasion of each sitting, setting forth the date, hour and
place of meeting, the names of the plenipotentiaries and their
staffs, and the states represented ; followed by a statement
of the deliberations carried on and the conclusions reached,
and the hour at which the sitting closed. To this are attached
any draft projects which may have come under consideration,
declarations made, etc. The proces-verbal is signed by all the
plenipotentiaries present, and usually by the president and
secretary-general or secretaries. Sometimes it is read at the
following sitting and adopted, but it is more usual first to
submit proofs to the plenipotentiaries for any necessary
amendments, when the president states the fact of agreement
at the next sitting and pronounces its adoption, whereupon it
is signed. The original is preserved by the government of
the state in which the conference is held, which supplies
certified copies to the representatives of the others.1
§ 548. In modern practice, the signatures to a treaty, drawn
up at the conclusion of a conference as the outcome of its
deliberations, are appended, in the case of a compact between
heads of states, in the alphabetical order of the states over
which they preside ; in the case of a compact between govern-
ments, in the alphabetical order of the states represented.
But in the case of a treaty of peace the signatories on each side
may be classed separately, as in the Treaty of Versailles and
other treaties of peace resulting from the Paris Peace Con-
ference of 1919.
§ 549. In the past a great part of the work of a congress
1 Basdevant, La Conclusion et la Redaction de trails, Cours de La Haye (1926),
v. 629.
292 CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
or conference might relate to the nice adjustment of matters
of ceremonial and precedence, the due observance of the
alternat (see § 39) and other points of strict etiquette, such as
whether negotiations should be carried on by means of written
pro-memorid or viva voce, whether certain Powers should be
admitted or not, the wording of safe-conducts and full powers,
the use of the distinction " Excellency," and the recognition of
titles assumed by certain sovereigns. At the Congress of
Nijmegen (1676-9) it is recorded that on the signature of the
treaty of peace between France and Spain, two copies of the
treaty having been prepared, one in French and the other
in Spanish, and laid on the table at which sat the English
mediators, the three French plenipotentiaries entered by one
door at the same moment as the three Spanish plenipotentiaries
entered at the other ; they sat down simultaneously in exactly
similar armchairs, and signed both copies respectively at the
same instant.
§ 550. The question what states shall be admitted to take
part in a conference is, however, one that may occasionally
arise. Of the Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Professor Temperley
says :
" The first question was to decide what Powers were to be
represented at the conference, and what number of plenipoten-
tiaries were to be allowed to each. It was finally determined to
admit all those who had declared war on, or had broken off rela-
tions with, Germany, though the neutrals were to be allowed to take
part in discussions which affected their special interests." 1
§551. The principal secretary at a conference is usually an
official of the country in which it is held, if that country is
a participant, and the other members of the secretariat are
also often furnished by it, supplemented, it may be, by others
drawn from among the suites of the various representatives.
The secretariat comes under the control and authority of the
president of the conference, and while its main duties are
the preparation of the proces-verbaux and official records of the
conference, they comprise also the arrangement of all matters
of routine, and such other duties as may be assigned to it.
Translations of speeches and documents are often required,
and communications may have to be issued to the Press.
The bureau in which these activities are carried on is placed
under the guidance of the president and vice-presidents,
assisted by the secretary-general.
§ 552. The proceedings of the conference, and the results
1 History of the Peace Conference of Paris, i. 247.
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 293
arrived at, are on important occasions sometimes recorded
in a Final Act, more especially when these results are embodied
in a number of treaty instruments, the titles of which are set
out, with, it may be, certain " vceux " or recommendations,
in the Final Act, which is presented for signature by the pleni-
potentiaries at the last meeting of the conference. (See § 614.)
§ 553- As regards conferences held under the auspices of the
League of Nations, no general rules of procedure have been
framed applicable to all such conferences. Generally speaking,
the rules adopted are published in the minutes of the particular
conference, as was done, e.g.., in the case of the conference
regarding the Codification of International Law, held at
The Hague in igso.1 The Rules of Procedure of the Assembly
of the League of Nations itself are shown in § 808.
§ 554. Lists of the more important congresses and con-
ferences from the middle of the seventeenth century onwards
were given in the former edition of this work ; and in his
further treatise, " International Congresses," from which many
of the details in the present chapter have been drawn, the
late Sir E. Satow dealt more fully with those held since the
beginning of last century. It is not proposed in the present
edition to recount these former proceedings, which in many
cases have now but a historical value, but rather to give, by
way of illustration, a few of the more important of the numerous
conferences held within recent years.
PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE, 1919
§ 555- The usual preliminary of a treaty of peace is an armis-
tice. On October 5, 1918, the German Government transmitted
through the Swiss Government their request to the President
of the United States to assist in the restoration of peace. The
President, on October 23, sent the papers to the governments
with which the United States was associated, with a suggestion
that the military advisers should be asked to submit to the
governments associated against Germany the necessary terms
of such an armistice as would ensure to them the unrestricted
power to enforce the details of the peace to which the German
Government had agreed. On November 5, having received
the necessary reply from the Allied governments, he informed
the German Government that Marshal Foch had been autho-
rised to receive properly accredited representatives of the
German Government and to communicate to them the terms
of an armistice.
1 Document C. 351, M. 145, 1930 V.
294 CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
During the days immediately preceding, Marshal Foch
had discussed the terms of an armistice with the generals of
the Allies, and the naval authorities had added suggestions.
Then a meeting of the Supreme Council of the Allies, together
with Colonel House (United States), MM. Venizelos (Greece),
Vesnitch (Bulgaria) , Marshal Foch, Admiral Wemyss, Generals
Sir H. Wilson, Bliss (United States) and de Robilant (Italy),
was held at Versailles on October 31. On November 2
M. Clemenceau raised the question of adding the words
" reparation of damages." The Belgian, Italian and British
representatives thought the subject out of place in an armistice
convention, but it was nevertheless agreed to. Then the
French Minister of Finance proposed to preface those words
by the addition of: "With the reservation of all ulterior
claims and reclamations on the part of the Allies and the
United States " (sous reserve de toutes revendications et reclamations
ulterieures de la part des Allies et des Etats-Unis). This was like-
wise adopted. On November 4 the consideration of the terms
was resumed, and the text of an article respecting surface
ships adopted. Thereupon on November 5 the Allies informed
the President of the United States of their willingness to make
peace on the terms laid down in his address of January 8,
1918 (the Fourteen Points), and the principles of settlement
enunciated in his subsequent addresses. On clause 2, relating
to what is usually described as the freedom of the seas, they
reserved to themselves complete freedom in the Peace Con-
ference, and they declared that by the restoration of invaded
territories they understood compensation made by Germany
for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allies
and their property by the aggression of Germany by land, by
sea, and from the air.
On November 8 the two delegations met at Rethondes
station in the forest of Compiegne. The German Government
intimated their acceptance on the loth, and signature of the
armistice convention followed at 5 a.m. on November n.
It came into force at noon that day (i i a.m. Greenwich time).1
Thereafter, the Five Great Powers assumed the exclusive
direction of the proceedings (just as at Vienna in 1815).
Up to the time of delivery of the terms of peace to the German
delegates on May 7, 1919, the meetings of the Plenum, i.e.
the representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers, were
1 Tardieu, La Paix, 66 -8 1. Geschichte des Waffenstillstands, published by the
German Government, and Mermeix, Les negotiations secretes et les quatre Armistices,
Paris, 1 92 1 ; also Die deutsche Waffenstillstands-Kommissions-Bericht fiber ihre Tdtigkeit
vom Abschluss des Waffenstillstandes bis z.um Inkrafttreten des Friedens. Charlottenburg,
1920.
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 295
eight in number, besides a secret session. At the first of these
plenary assemblies the Prime Minister of France was chosen
permanent chairman, in accordance with precedent. A
principal secretary-general and five others bearing the title
of " secretary " were appointed for the respective Great Powers,
besides four vice-presidents. The Great Powers began their
private and confidential conversations before any general
meeting of plenipotentiaries.
At the plenary session of January 25, five resolutions were
submitted and adopted, appointing committees or commis-
sions.1— i. To work out the details and constitution of the
proposed League of Nations ; 2. To inquire into and report
on the responsibility of the authors of the war and the enforce-
ment of penalties ; 3. To examine and report on the amount
which the enemy countries ought to pay by way of reparation
and what they were capable of paying ; 4. To inquire into
the conditions of employment from the international aspect ;
5. To inquire into and report on the international control of
ports, waterways and railways. There was a general discus-
sion before these resolutions were adopted, and it was agreed
that representatives of minor powers with special interests
should meet to elect members of these commissions in addition
to those nominated by the Five Great Powers.2 There was
also a drafting commission. Minutes of these meetings were
kept and printed from stenographic notes.
Although each of the Great Powers was entitled to five
plenipotentiaries, and each of the minor Powers to two,3 the
Supreme Council which actually carried on the main work
of the conference was a much smaller body. It consisted at
first of the President of the United States and the Prime
Ministers of France, Great Britain and Italy, with their
ministers for foreign affairs, and the Japanese ambassadors
at Paris and London, ten in all. This lasted from January 1 2
till March 24. From that time onward it was reduced to a
council of four, the President and the three Prime Ministers.
During the absence of the Italian delegation from April 24 to
May 5 it became a council of three. Of their very numerous
daily conversations it seems that stenographic records4 were
made in French and English, and sometimes, as in matters
1 66th Congress ist session, Document No. 106, Hearings before the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, 300.
2 List of members, ibid., 309.
3 See the Preamble to the Treaty of Versailles in History of the Peace Conference
of Paris, Temperley, v. iii. 105.
4 Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate,
1235-
296 CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
concerning Austria, they were also translated into Italian.1
A distinction seems to have been made between stenographic
reports and proces-verbaux. Copies of the latter, which were
sometimes very detailed, were supplied to the plenipotentiaries.
The record of a discussion on January 1 6 regarding the situation
in Russia has been printed, besides one of January 2i.2 On
the latter occasion, in addition to the members of the council
of ten, there were present twelve other persons, including
three out of the five secretaries of the delegations and the
official interpreter. Under such circumstances it was not
possible to prevent the leakage of information that" the
principals wished to keep secret, and this led to measures of
restriction. The memoranda of the debates on the League
of Nations were not taken down in shorthand. They
were regarded as confidential, and so, it may be presumed,
were those of other sittings of the Supreme Council. By
January 25 one of the delegates from Japan, besides three
ambassadors, had arrived. But the protocol of the plenary
sitting of that date was signed by M. Clemenceau and the six
secretaries alone. The third plenary meeting, at which a
draft Covenant of the League of Nations was read, was held
on February 14. The commission on that subject met on
April 10 and n,3 and definitely agreed on the text to be
presented to the conference, which was done at the fifth
plenary sitting on April 28.
The United States Secretary of State was appointed chair-
man of the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of
the War and the Enforcement of Penalties,4 and its work was
divided among three sub-commissions.
The so-called Council of Four, representing the Principal
Allied and Associated Powers, was in reality a Council of Five,
as it included a Japanese member.5 The matters discussed
were summarised, and the conclusions arrived at were recorded
in a proces-verbal, copies of which were distributed within
twenty-four hours, and it was open to the members to correct
anything it might contain. Every decision required the unani-
mous consent 6 of the Peace Conference, which never decided
any question by a majority vote. In the commission on the
League of Nations voting was resorted to, on at least one
occasion.
By the Treaty of Versailles the territories renounced by
Germany were to be apportioned by the Principal Allied and
1 Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, 171.
2 Ibid., 1240. 3 Ibid., 270. * Ibid., 314.
5 Ibid., 521. 6 Ibid., 527.
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 297
Associated Powers (Art. 118), just as, by the separate articles
of the Treaty of Paris of May 30, 1814, the disposition of the
territories ceded by France was left to the Four Powers.
The Economic Commission was composed of delegates of
the Great Powers, representatives of certain of the minor
Powers being associated with them from time to time. The
work was shared among sub-committees, which considered
different branches of the subject.1 The members met from
time to time to compare notes, and the whole of the economic
clauses were gone over and subjected to criticism by this
group. The sub-commissions sat frequently and towards the
end almost continuously, and when they arrived at a con-
clusion they presented a report to the commission for approval,
amendment, or rejection. When finally adopted these reports
were put together to form a whole. Then the reports of the
commission were presented to the Supreme Council and were
accepted. After that they were handed over to the drafting
commission,2 and emerged substantially in the form in which
they appear in the text of the treaty. The decisions of the
commission were taken unanimously.
The records of the Financial Commission were not steno-
graphic, for there was a good deal of discussion not necessary
to put on the minutes. The latter, containing the substance of
the agreements arrived at, were kept in French and English,
were presented to the members, and at each subsequent
meeting were approved with whatever alterations were
necessary.
In addition to the committees already mentioned, a
Supreme Economic Council was formed, territorial com-
missions were set up for Czechoslovakia, for Poland, for
Roumania and Yugoslavia, for Greece and Albania, for
Belgium and Denmark, besides military, naval and air com-
missions. Perhaps the most important of all was the drafting
commission, on which the five principal Powers were repre-
sented. Subordinate to this were the economic and financial
drafting commissions. Besides this machinery, a Council of
Five was formed out of the ministers for foreign affairs.
This was the organ for the insertion in the treaty of clauses
omitted by oversight, and, while the Four were occupied
with the negotiation of the treaty with Germany, it was able
to proceed with the discussion of the Austrian treaty.
The whole treaty with Germany having thus been framed,
there was in the first place the exchange of credentials on
1 Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, 9.
z Ibid., 12. "
298 CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
May i , next the delivery of the terms to the German delegates
on May 7. This was followed by discussion between the
parties, in the shape of notes delivered by Germany and
answered by the Allies. Finally, on May 30, Germany
put in a lengthened criticism of the draft, which was answered
on June 16 by a note signed by the president of the con-
ference, covering the " Reply of the Allied and Associated
Powers to the observations of the German delegation on the
conditions of peace." l
Some minor concessions were made, but the original text
was on the whole maintained, and signature followed on
June 28, together with that of a supplementary protocol,2
indicating precisely the conditions in which certain pro-
visions of the treaty were to be carried out. The deposit in
Paris of the required number of instruments of ratification did
not take place till January 10, 1920, being impeded mainly
by the difficulties encountered by the Allies in obtaining
satisfaction from Germany for failure to execute the provisions
of the armistice of November n, 1918, of which the chief
violation was the scuttling of the German fleet at Scapa Flow
on June 21, 1919, a week before the signature of the treaty of
peace. On November 6 the Allies sent a note to Germany,
accompanied by a protocol relating to the unexecuted pro-
visions of the armistice of which they required the signature
before the Peace Treaty could come into operation. It was
not till January 10 that the German Government was induced
to sign this document, and on the same day the deposit of
ratifications was accomplished at the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs at Paris in a plenary sitting of the signatories of the
treaty.
After the signature of the Treaty of Peace with Germany
the Council of Four was broken up, and its members, except of
course the French member, left Paris. The current business
in connection with the execution of its provisions, and the
framing of the treaties with the other belligerents, was com-
mitted to the five ministers for foreign affairs. This council
also came to an end after the deposit of ratifications, and was
succeeded by a Conference of the Ambassadors of the Allies
accredited at Paris.
The Treaty of Versailles embraced an extensive series of
provisions. The duty of enforcing their execution devolved
1 See Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers, 1919 [Cmd. 258], also International
Conciliation, November, 1919, No. 144. For the Comments by the German Delegation
on the Conditions of Peace, see No. 143 of the same publication.
2 Temperley, A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, iii. 345.
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 299
on various constituted bodies. The boundaries of the new
states had to be delimited ; in some cases a plebiscite had to be
resorted to in order to determine the line of partition. Of
a permanent nature was the constitution of the League of
Nations and the organisation for the international regulation of
labour conditions. The international commissions for the
traffic on the Elbe, Oder, Niemen, Danube, Rhine and Moselle
presented the same character. The clearing offices and
mixed arbitral tribunals set up under the economic clauses
were provisional, also the inter-allied commissions of control
for the execution of the military, naval and air clauses pro-
viding for disarmament, and the inter-allied Reparation
Commission.
Although the uninterrupted presence of the Prime Ministers
in Paris was no longer considered imperative after the signa-
ture of the Treaty of Versailles, they still continued to meet
from time to time in France, Great Britain and elsewhere for the
discussion of matters of common concern arising out of that
treaty and for the consideration of other treaties with enemy
belligerents. No leading representative of the United States
was present at these gatherings until President Harding
authorised the attendance of the American ambassador at
Paris in August 1921. Germany maintained a Peace Delega-
tion in Paris, the head of which corresponded with the
chairman or the secretary-general of the Supreme Council
and with the Council of Ambassadors. The decisions arrived
at by the Supreme Council on each occasion were made
public in the form of official communiques.^
WASHINGTON CONFERENCE, 1921-2
§ 556. Invitations were addressed by the United States
Government on August 1 1, 1921, to Great Britain, France, Italy
and Japan, for a Conference on the Limitation of Armament, to
be held in Washington on November n, 1921, in connection
with which Pacific and Far Eastern questions would also be
discussed ; to China, to participate in the latter discussion ;
and also on October 4, to Belgium, the Netherlands and
Portugal. Acceptances were received from all.
The conference opened on November n, 1921, the
respective countries being represented as follows :
United States : Mr. C. E. Hughes, Secretary of State ; Mr. H. C.
Lodge, Senator ; Mr. O. W. Underwood, Senator ; Mr. Elihu
Root, former Secretary of State and Senator.
1 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. 15, 1921. Protocols and Correspondence [Cmd. 1325].
300 CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
Belgium : Baron de Carder de Marchienne, ambassador at
Washington.
Great Britain : Mr. A. J. Balfour, Lord President of the Privy
Council ; Baron Lee of Fareham, First Lord of the Admiralty ;
Sir A. Geddes, ambassador at Washington.
Canada : Sir R. L. Borden, Prime Minister.
Australia : Mr. G. F. Pearce, Minister.
New Zealand : Sir J. W. Salmond, Judge of the Supreme Court.
South Africa : Mr. A. J. Balfour.
India : Mr. V. S. S. Sastri, Member of the Indian Council of
State.
France : M. Briand, President of the Council ; M. Viviani,
former President of the Council ; M. Sarraut, Minister for the
Colonies ; M. Jusserand, ambassador at Washington.
Italy : M. C. Schanzer, Senator ; M. V. Rolandi-Ricci,
ambassador at Washington ; M. F. Meda.
Japan : Baron Kato, Minister for the Navy ; Baron Shidehara,
ambassador at Washington ; Mr. M. Hanihara.
China : Mr. S. A. Sze, envoy at Washington ; Mr. V. K.
Wellington Koo, envoy at London ; Mr. Chung-Hui Wang ;
Mr. Chao-chu-Wu.
Netherlands : Jonkheer H. A. van Karnebeek, Minister for
Foreign Affairs ; Jonkheer Beelaerts van Blokland, envoy ; Dr. E.
Moresco.
Portugal : Viscount d'Alte, envoy at Washington ; M. E. J. de
Carvalho e Vasconcellos.
Each delegation was accompanied by a large staff of special
advisers, technical experts, secretaries, clerks, etc.
The agenda for the conference were thus framed :
Limitation of Armament
One. — Limitation of Naval Armament, under which shall
be discussed :
(a] Basis of limitation.
(b] Extent.
(c] Fulfilment.
Two. — Rules for control of new agencies of warfare.
Three. — Limitation of land armament.
Pacific and Far Eastern Questions
One. — Questions relating to China.
First : Principles to be applied.
Second : Application.
Subjects :
(a] Territorial integrity.
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 301
(b) Administrative integrity.
(c] Open door. — Equality of commercial and in-
dustrial opportunity.
(d] Concessions, monopolies or preferential economic
privileges.
(e) Development of railways, including plans re-
lating to Chinese Eastern Railway.
(/) Preferential railroad rates.
(g) Status of existing commitments.
Two. — Siberia. (Similar headings.)
Tkree. — Mandated islands. (Unless questions earlier
settled.) Electrical communications in the Pacific.
Under the heading of" Status of Existing Commitments,"
it is expected that opportunity will be afforded to consider
and to reach an understanding with respect to unsettled
questions involving the nature and scope of commitments
under which claims of rights may hereafter be asserted.
The places of the plenipotentiaries at the hollow square
of tables were arranged according to the diplomatic rule
governing such matters. The United States Secretary of
State had his seat at the middle of the top table, with the other
three United States delegates on his right ; at his left were the
British delegates ; next on the right came the French dele-
gates ; next on the left came the Italian delegates, and last
on the right came the Japanese delegates. At the subsequent
sessions the seats at the top of the table were moved one place
to the left, so that the Secretary of State occupied a seat to
the left of the middle, and so a seat was assigned to one of the
French delegates at the right end of the top row.
Apart from the public sessions, the main part of the business
was transacted in committees. These were the Committee
on Limitation of Armament and the Committee on Pacific and
Far Eastern questions. The former, composed of the pleni-
potentiary delegates of the Five Great Powers, held twenty-
one sittings, the latter, composed of the plenipotentiary
delegates of the the nine Powers that took part in the conference,
thirty-one sittings. Each had power to appoint such sub-
committees as it might from time to time deem advisable.
At the plenary sessions, practically every speech was
repeated in French. Records of the speeches made in com-
mittees were kept ; official communiques in a condensed form
were published.
Besides the secretary-general of the conference there were
302 CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
six other secretaries and assistant secretaries, drawn from the
United States service, two interpreters, etc.
At the first plenary session an introductory speech was
delivered by the President of the United States, printed copies
of which in French and English were laid on the desks of the
delegates. The President having withdrawn after delivering
his speech, the British first delegate proposed that the United
States Secretary of State should be permanent head of the
conference, in accordance with the usual practice. This
being agreed, the Secretary of State, in his capacity as chair-
man, delivered a speech in which he proposed a scheme for
the execution of heading one of the section Limitation of Naval
Armament of the agenda, and briefly mentioned the second
part of the agenda, Pacific and Far Eastern questions. This
he followed by a concrete proposal for the limitation of the
United States, British and Japanese navies.
The Chairman then proposed as secretary-general
Mr. J. W. Garratt, a former minister plenipotentiary, and
that the heads of missions of the Five Great Powers, or such
representative as each Power might respectively select for the
purpose, should constitute a committee on programme and
procedure with respect to the limitation of armament ; further
that the heads of missions of the Five Powers and of the other
Powers invited to take part in the discussion of Pacific and
Far Eastern questions, or such representatives as they might
respectively designate, should form a committee on pro-
gramme and procedure for the discussion of those questions.
He suggested that the credentials of the delegates should be
left with the secretary-general at the close of the session.
These proposals were agreed to.
At the second session the record of the first session, having
been previously distributed to the delegates for any corrections
necessary, was unanimously approved. This procedure was
followed at each subsequent session. The British and Japanese
first delegates intimated their acceptance in principle of the
United States proposals, and speeches followed from the Italian
and French leading delegates. Further discussion was carried
on in the committee, aided by a sub-committee of experts.
At the third plenary session the French Prime Minister
explained the French view with regard to land armament, and
was followed by the British, Italian and United States repre-
sentatives. It came ultimately to be recognised that an agree-
ment on this question was impossible. Two days later the
committee which had this matter in hand had a private
general discussion on subjects relating to it and to new agencies
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 303
of warfare. These were referred to the sub-committee, con-
sisting of the heads of delegations, with instructions to bring in
an order of proceeding with regard to those subjects, and with
power to appoint sub-committees to deal with the questions
relating to poison gas, aircraft, and rules of international law.
After this the matter of land armament disappeared from the
agenda, and the conference resumed the discussion of the
limitation of naval armament. The important point to be
settled was the ratio to be fixed between the naval strengths
of the United States, Great Britain and Japan, and concurrently
those of France and Italy. These were finally, after much
discussion, fixed at 5, 5, 3, i • 75 and i • 75 for the Five Powers.
The discussion on the tonnage of submarines, carried on in
committee, led to no agreement, nor was any arrived at on the
tonnage of other auxiliary craft.
An important part of the agenda consisted of questions
relating to China, some of them interesting Japan in particular.
The questions at issue between those two Powers were adjusted
with the help of the United States Secretary of State and the
British first delegate, in thirty meetings. These matters were
disposed of by two treaties and various resolutions.
The results achieved at the conference may be summarised
thus :
(1) The treaty between the United States, the British
Empire, France, Italy and Japan, limiting naval armament,
signed February 6, 1922, was the most important. It confined
the size of battleships thereafter constructed to 35,000 tons,
and the calibre of guns to 16 inches, and specified the existing
battleships which might be retained by each of the contracting
Powers. All other battleships possessed by the United States,
Great Britain, or Japan were to be scrapped, in accordance
with the rules laid down in the treaty. There were also rules
governing the replacement of ships more than twenty years old.
The total tonnage to be retained by the United States was
525,850 tons, by the British Empire 558,950 tons, by France
221,170 tons, by Italy 182,800 tons, by Japan 301,320 tons.
Article 23 provided for the treaty remaining in force
until December 31, 1936, and in case none of the contracting
Powers should have given notice two years before that date
of its intention to terminate the treaty, then until the expira-
tion of two years from the date on which such notice might
be given.
(2) A treaty between the same Powers designed to render
more effective the rules adopted by civilised nations for the
protection of the lives of neutrals and non-combatants at sea
304 CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
in time of war, and to prevent the use in war of noxious gases
and chemicals.1
(3) A treaty between the same Powers relating to their
insular possessions and insular dominions in the Pacific Ocean,
was not included among the agenda. It was designed to
terminate and supersede the Anglo-Japanese alliance, of
which the necessity was recognised as no longer existing.
The discussion of this compact was carried on by the heads of
the delegations concerned. A doubt having arisen with respect
to the words " insular possessions and insular dominions," it
was found necessary to conclude a supplementary treaty
defining the application of these terms in relation to Japan.
(4) A treaty between the United States, Belgium, British
Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and
Portugal, relating to principles and policies to be followed
in matters concerning China.
(5) A treaty between the same countries relating to the
Chinese customs tariff.
A number of resolutions were also adopted :
(i) For a commission to be constituted to consider amend-
ments of the laws of war.
(ii) Excluding from the purview of the above commission
rules or declarations relating to submarines or the use of
noxious gases and chemicals already adopted by the Powers in
this conference.
(iii) Regarding a Board of Reference for Far Eastern
questions.
(iv) Regarding exterritoriality in China, under which a
commission was to be established in China.
(v) Regarding foreign postal agencies in China, and under-
taking that their withdrawal should be effected not later than
January i, 1923.
(vi) Regarding armed forces in China, by which the
Powers declared their intention to withdraw their armed forces
on duty in China, whenever China should assure the protec-
tion of the lives and property of foreigners in China.
(vii) Regarding radio stations in China, with accompany-
ing declarations.
(viii) Regarding the unification of railways in China,
with accompanying declaration by China.
(ix) Regarding the reduction of Chinese military forces.
(x) Regarding existing commitments of China or with
respect to China, i.e. the political and other international
1 This treaty failed to secure the number of ratifications required to bring it
into force.
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 305
obligations of China and of the several Powers in relation to
China.
(xi) Regarding the Chinese Eastern Railway, approved by
all the Powers, including China.
(xii) Regarding the Chinese Eastern Railway, approved by
all the Powers other than China.
There was also signed by China and Japan a treaty
settling outstanding questions relative to Shantung, which
had been pending ever since China refused to sign the Treaty
of Versailles, Article 156 of which provided that Germany
should renounce in favour of Japan all her rights, title and
privileges which she acquired in virtue of her treaty with
China of March 6, 1898, and disposing of all other arrange-
ments relative to the province of Shantung, together with all
Japanese rights of whatever kind relating to the Tsingtao-
Tsinanfu railway. The announcements in Article i that
Japan would restore to China the former German leased
territory at Kiaochow, and in section iii with regard to the
withdrawal of Japanese troops, were followed by the British
First Delegate's declaration of the British Government's
intention to hand back Wei-hai-wei to China. This was
confirmed by an exchange of letters of February 3 between
Mr. Balfour and Mr. Sze. France also declared in committee
her willingness to restore Kwang-chow-wan to China under
certain conditions.
The closing session of the conference was held on Feb-
ruary 6, 1922, when the President of the United States
delivered a farewell address to the delegates.
Siberia, Mandated Islands and Electrical Communications
in the Pacific, with which subjects the agenda terminated, do
not seem to have been discussed by the whole conference.
But a convention between the United States and Japan,
relative to the Island of Yap, was arrived at by those Powers
outside the conference, and was signed February n, 1922.
It appears to come under the last two subjects on the agenda.1
GENOA CONFERENCE, 1922
§ 557- This conference originated in a resolution of
January 6, 1922, approved at a meeting of the Supreme
1 Authorities : Senate Document No. 126, 67th Congress, 2nd Session ; Papers
published by the American Association for International Conciliation, Nos. 169 of
December 1901 and 172 of March, 1922 ; Mark Sullivan, The Great Adventure at
Washington, London, 1922 ; Sir John N. Jordan, Article in the Quarterly Review
for July 1922 ; White Paper presented to Parliament [Cmd. 1627], Miscellaneous,
No. I (1922), entitled Conference on Limitation of Armament (Treaties, Resolutions, etc.).
306 CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
Council at Cannes, to the effect that the Allied Powers were
unanimously of opinion that an Economic and Financial
Conference should be summoned, to which all European
countries, including Germany, Russia, Austria, Hungary and
Bulgaria, should be invited ; this they regarded as an urgent
and essential step towards the economic reconstruction of
Central and Eastern Europe, and the hope was expressed that
the Prime Ministers of every nation would attend in person.
Fundamental conditions were stated broadly as follows :
1 . Nations can claim no right to dictate to each other regarding
the principles on which they are to regulate their system of owner-
ship, internal economy, and government. It is for every nation
to choose for itself the system which it prefers in this respect.
2. Before, however, foreign capital can be made available to
assist a country, foreign investors must be assured that their pro-
perty and their rights will be respected and the fruits of their
enterprise secured to them.
3. The sense of security cannot be re-established unless the
governments of countries desiring credit freely undertake (a) that
they will recognise all public debts and obligations which have
been or may be undertaken by the state, by municipalities, or by
other public bodies, as well as the obligation to restore or com-
pensate all foreign interests for loss or damage caused to them
where property has been confiscated or withheld ; (b) that they will
establish a legal and juridical system which sanctions and enforces
commercial and other contracts with impartiality.
4. An adequate means of exchange must be available, and
generally, there must be financial and currency conditions which
afford sufficient security for trade.
5. All nations should undertake to refrain from propaganda
subversive of order and the established political system in other
countries than their own.
6. All countries should join in an undertaking to refrain from
aggression against their neighbours.
If, in order to secure the conditions necessary for the develop-
ment of trade in Russia, the Russian Government demands official
recognition, the Allied Powers will be prepared to accord such
recognition only if the Russian Government accepts the foregoing
stipulations.
The main purpose, it may be said, was to bring about,
if possible, harmonious relations between Russia and the
other nations of Europe.
It was also agreed that the conference should meet at
Genoa ; terms of invitation to Russia were drawn up ; and
it was decided that invitations should be addressed to all
European countries and to the United States. An outline of
the agenda was approved, a committee being set up to prepare
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 307
a more detailed programme and to draft resolutions, while
a Press notice was issued setting out the general objects and
conditions of the proposed conference, which included the
establishment of a basis of stable and enduring peace, and the
discussion of financial and economic questions, with a view
of reaching a satisfactory settlement of all such matters.
The invitations were issued by the Italian Government, in
whose territory the conference was to be held, and in April
1922 the delegates assembled at Genoa, the following countries
taking part : Albania, Austria, Belgium, British Empire, with
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India,
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Holland, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Roumania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Yugoslavia.
The United States did not participate.
At the opening meeting in the Palazzo Reale on April 10
the chair was taken provisionally by Signer Facta, Prime
Minister of Italy, who welcomed the representatives, and read
a cordial message from the King of Italy. Mr. Lloyd George,
Prime Minister of Great Britain, then proposed the appoint-
ment of Signer Facta as president of the conference. Monsieur
Barthou, head of the French Delegation, seconded, and the
motion being carried unanimously, Signor Facta delivered
his inaugural address as president, being followed by the
representatives of all the more important states. Some little
friction arose at this meeting between the French and Soviet
delegates regarding the scope of the intended discussions, but
the president closed the matter by declaring that the Cannes
resolutions formed the basis, which the countries assembled
had agreed to.
Four commissions were then set up under the following
heads : Political, Financial, Economic and Transport, to deal
with all respective questions. These in turn set up sub-
commissions to deal with the special items. The general
secretariat was conducted by Italy, at whose invitation the
conference had met. The rules of procedure were as follows,
and show generally the manner in which the work of the
conference was carried on :
Art. i. Delegates. — The International Economic Conference
convened at the invitation of the Italian Government on behalf
of the Powers represented at the Cannes Conference, consists of
plenipotentiary delegates appointed by the states invited to attend.
The numbers of these delegates is five for the Powers which con-
vened the Conference, Germany and Russia, and two for the
3o8 CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
remaining Powers. Each delegation will have one vote only.
Written notice of the appointment of the delegates must be sent to
the Italian Government or to the President of the Conference.
Art. 2. Deputies. — Each state represented at the Conference
is entitled to appoint deputies of the same number as its pleni-
potentiary delegates.
Art. 3. Technical Advisers. — The plenipotentiary delegates
of each state may be accompanied by technical advisers. Written
notice of the appointment of these advisers must be sent to
the Italian Government or to the Secretary-General of the
Conference.
Art. 4. Credentials. — All plenipotentiary delegates are re-
quested to hand in their credentials at the earliest possible moment
to the Secretary-General's office. A committee for the verification
of credentials, consisting of one delegate from each of the Powers
convening the Conference, will at once proceed to verify the
credentials of the delegates.
Art. 5. Order of Precedence. — Votes will be cast according to
the Italian alphabetical order of the names of the Powers.
Art. 6. Bureau of the Conference. — The appointment of the
regular President will be made at the first meeting. In the absence
of the President, the duties of his office will be performed by the
head of the delegation to which the President belongs. The Prime
Minister of Italy will provisionally act as President of the Con-
ference until the regular President has been appointed. The con-
trol of the debates of the Conference will be exercised by the
President. The President is empowered by the Assembly to take
any measures which he may consider necessary for the conduct of
the debates. The President, together with presidents of the Com-
missions, will form the bureau entrusted with the duty of drawing
up the agenda and with the consideration of all questions of
procedure.
Art. 7. The Secretariat. — The Secretariat will be directed by
an Italian Secretary-General, assisted by the chiefs of the secre-
tariats of the delegations of the Powers convening the Conference.
The Secretariat is placed under the control and authority of the
President. The secretaries designated by the delegations to follow
the work of the Conference and to collaborate in drafting the
minutes will also be attached to the Secretariat. The Secretariat is
especially entrusted with the duty of receiving communications and
translating the documents, reports, and resolutions bearing on the
labours of the Conference, translating the speeches delivered during
the meetings, drafting and communicating the minutes of the meet-
ings, and, generally, of performing any tasks which the Conference
may see fit to assign to it. Members of the Conference will always
have access to the records.
Art. 8. Publicity of Proceedings. — The publicity of the pro-
ceedings will be provided for by means of official communiques
drawn up by the Secretariat, with the approval of the President of
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 309
the Conference. The plenary meetings only will be public, except
when otherwise notified. Members of the public will be admitted
on production of cards issued by the Secretariat-General.
Art. 9. Commissions. — Commissions will be formed to con-
sider the questions on the agenda. Each delegation may appoint
one delegate to sit on each of the commissions ; the Powers which
have five delegates at the Conference will appoint two delegates
each for this purpose. The same delegate may sit on several com-
missions. All the commissions will be empowered to divide
themselves into sub-commissions.
Art. 10. Official Languages. — The official languages of the
Conference are Italian, French and English. Speeches delivered
in one of these three languages will be translated into the other
two by an interpreter attached to the Secretariat. Any delegate
speaking in another language will have to make provision for the
translation of his speech into Italian, French or English. All
documents, proposals and reports communicated to members of
the Conference by the President or by the Secretariat will have to
be drawn up in Italian, French and English. Any delegate will
be entitled to distribute documents written in other languages than
Italian, French or English, but the Secretariat will not be required
to provide for their translation and printing.
Art. n. Documents, Proposals, etc. — (i) Documents, proposals,
etc., must be communicated in writing to the President, who
will cause copies to be distributed to the delegates. Documents and
proposals can only be submitted by or on behalf of a plenipotentiary
delegate. (2) Except in the case of proposals relating to questions
on the agenda, or which arise out of the debates, delegates who
desire to submit proposals must hand them in twenty-four hours
in advance in order to facilitate their discussion. Exception may,
however, be made to this rule in the case of amendments or
secondary questions. (3) Petitions, memoranda, and documents
addressed to the Conference and emanating from any other person
than a plenipotentiary delegate must be handed in to the Secretariat,
which will communicate them to the President's bureau. All these
papers will be preserved in the records of the Conference.
Art. 12. Minutes of the Meetings. — The provisional minutes
of the meetings, drawn up by the Secretariat, will be distributed
to the delegations as early as possible. The minutes, with any
amendments and corrections which the delegates may make, must
be returned to the Secretary-General's office within twenty-four
hours after distribution. In order to expedite the proceedings, this
distribution will be considered as equivalent to the reading of the
minutes at the opening of each meeting. If no correction is asked
for by the plenipotentiary delegates the text, as distributed, will be
considered as having been approved and will be placed in the
records. If a correction affecting the substance of a report is asked
for, the President will read the proposed modification at the opening
of the next meeting.
3io CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
The Plenary Conference met on three occasions : on
April 10, May 3 and May 19. By the time of the second
meeting the Financial and Transport Commissions had con-
pleted their reports, while the Economic Commission furnished
its report before May 19. The reports furnished by these
committees were described by the president as real and
positive contributions to the re-building of the world. But the
work of the First Commission on the political questions
involved proved more difficult, and as the findings of the
other three commissions depended for their accomplishment
on a solution of these questions no final results could be
achieved at the conference. In the meantime the conclusion
at Rapallo on April 16 of a treaty between Germany and
Russia mutually renouncing as between themselves reparation
claims, and agreeing to resume normal relations, clouded the
outlook ; further difficulties developed from differences of
view between some of the Allied Powers regarding claims for
the restitution of privately-owned property in Russia. In such
circumstances the conference concluded on May 19 by agreeing
that the further consideration of the outstanding differences
between the Soviet Government and the other governments
represented should be delegated to a mixed commission of
experts which would meet at The Hague in June 1922.
At the final meeting on May 1 9 a resolution of thanks was
adopted, on the proposal of Mr. Lloyd George, to the president
of the conference ; to Signer Schanzer, the president of the
political sub-commission ; and to the Italian people for their
hospitality.1
The proposed mixed commission duly met at The Hague
and sat from June 26 to July 20, 1922, without, however,
achieving any further useful result.
LOCARNO CONFERENCE, 1925
§ 558. While the conference which assembled at Locarno
on October 5, 1925, originated in certain proposals made by
the German Government in a memorandum which they
communicated to the French Government on February 9,
I925,2 the efforts of previous years had had an appreciable
effect in paving the way for the entertainment of some definite
means of bringing about a solution of the political problems
involved.
1 Authority : J. Saxon Mills, The Genoa Conference.
2 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. 7, 1925 ; see also § 102.
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 311
The German memorandum, in considering the various
forms which a pact of security might take, suggested, as
possible methods, specific engagements into which the Powers
concerned in the inviolability of the existing territorial status
on the Rhine might enter, coupled with treaties of arbitration
for the peaceful settlement of disputes.
These proposals received the careful consideration of the
French, British and Belgian Governments, and on June 16
the French Government addressed a reply to the German
Government, in which, in agreement with their allies, they
expressed a general approval of the motives underlying
the German proposals, but asked for a fuller explanation of
the views of that government on a number of points. In
particular, emphasis was placed on the necessity of Germany
entering the League of Nations, of the proposed pact in no way
modifying the settlements made by the Treaty of Versailles,
of Belgium being included as a party to the pact, and of the
proposed arbitration treaties being of the most comprehensive
kind.
The correspondence proceeded until August 27, when the
negotiations reached a stage at which it was proposed that
a meeting of experts of Belgium, France, Great Britain and
Germany should be held in London, in order to afford the
German experts an opportunity to become acquainted with
the views of the Allied experts as regards the legal and
technical aspects of the problems under discussion. At this
meeting, which took place in London from September i to 4,
views were exchanged, and, as the outcome, a note was
addressed to the German Government on September 15, on
behalf of Belgium, France and Great Britain, to the effect that
it appeared to them that the nations concerned had a common
interest in the negotiations being no longer postponed, and
suggesting that a conference of the ministers for foreign affairs
of the interested states should be held at an early date in
neutral territory, preferably Switzerland. It was then arranged
that the conference should take place at Locarno on October 5.
The conference accordingly met at Locarno on October 5,
and lasted until October 16. The following were the principal
representatives of the various states :
Germany : Dr. H. Luther, Chancellor ; Dr. C. Stresemann,
Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Belgium : M. E. Vandervelde, Minister for Foreign
Affairs.
France : M. A. Briand, President of the Council, Minister
for Foreign Affairs.
312 CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
Great Britain : Mr. A. Chamberlain, Principal Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs.
Italy : M. B. Mussolini, President of the Council of
Ministers.
Poland : M. A. Skrzynski, Prime Minister, Minister for
Foreign Affairs.
Czechoslovakia : Dr. E. Benes, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The proceedings of the conference do not appear to have
been governed by any strict rules of formality or procedure,
and, as a result of the consultations, there were drawn up in the
French language and initialled :
(1) A Treaty of Mutual Guarantee between Germany,
Belgium, France, Great Britain and Italy.
(2) An Arbitration Convention between Germany and
France.
(3) An Arbitration Convention between Germany and
Belgium.
(4) An Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Poland.
(5) An Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Czecho-
slovakia.
The final protocol signed by the representatives on
October 16, 1925, was as follows :
Les representants des Gouvernements allemand, beige, britan-
nique, francais, italien, polonais et tchecoslovaque, reunis a
Locarno du 5 au 16 octobre 1925, en vue de rechercher d'un
commun accord les moyens de preserver du fleau de la guerre leurs
nations respectives, et de pourvoir au reglement pacifique des
conflits de toute nature qui viendraient eventuellement a surgir
entre certaines d'entre elles,
Ont donne leur agrement aux projets de traites et conventions
qui les concernent respectivement et qui, elabores au cours de la
presente conference, se referent reciproquement les uns aux autres :
Traite entre 1'Allemagne, la Belgique, la France, la Grande-
Bretagne et 1'Italie (Annexe A).
Convention d'arbitrage entre 1'Allemagne et la Belgique (An-
nexe B).
Convention d'arbitrage entre 1'Allemagne et la France (An-
nexe C).
Traite d'arbitrage entre 1'Allemagne et la Pologne (Annexe D).
Traite d'arbitrage entre 1'Allemagne et la Tchecoslovaquie
(Annexe E).
Ces actes, des a present paraphes ne varietur, porteront la date de
ce jour, les representants des parties interessees convenant de se
rencontrer a Londres le i er decembre prochain, pour proceder, au
cours d'une meme reunion, a la formalite de la signature des actes
qui les concernent.
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 313
Le Ministre des Affaires etrangeres de France fait connaitre qu'a
la suite des projets de traites d'arbitrage ci-dessus mentionnees, la
France, la Pologne et la Tchecoslovaquie ont egalement arrete, a
Locarno, des projets d'accords en vue de s'assurer reciproquement le
benefice desdits traites. Ces accords seront regulierement deposes a
la Societe des Nations, mais des a present M. Briand en dent des
copies a la disposition des Puissances ici representees.
Le Secretaire d'fitat aux Affaires etrangeres de Grande-
Bretagne propose qu'en reponse a certaines demandes d'explica-
tions concernant 1'article 16 du Pacte de la Societe des Nations et
presentees par le Chancelier et le Ministre des Affaires etran-
geres d'Allemagne, la lettre, dont le projet egalement est ci-joint
(Annexe F), leur soit adressee en meme temps qu'il sera precede a
la formalite de la signature des actes ci-dessus mentionnes. Cette
proposition est agreee.
Les representants des Gouvernements ici representes declarent
avoir la ferme conviction que 1'entree en vigueur de ces traites et
conventions contribuera grandement a amener une detente morale
entre les nations, qu'elle facilitera puissamment la solution de
beaucoup de problemes politiques ou economiques conformement
aux interets et aux sentiments des peuples et qu'en raffermissant
la paix et la securite en Europe elle sera de nature a hater d'une
maniere efficace le desarmement prevu par 1'article 8 du Pacte de
la Societe des Nations.
Us s'engagent a .donner leur concours sincere aux travaux deja
entrepris par la Societe des Nations relativement au desarmement
et a en rechercher la realisation dans une entente generale.
Fait a Locarno, le 16 octobre I925-1
Signatures were appended to the treaties and conventions
at the meeting at the Foreign Office, London, on December i,
1925, the place and date, " Locarno, October 16, 1925," being
preserved in the instruments signed. On the same occasion
were also signed the treaties between France and Poland, and
between France and Czechoslovakia, referred to in the final
protocol, for mutual aid in the event of failure of the under-
takings entered into by the former treaties.
The original signed treaties and conventions were deposited
with the League of Nations, and the deposit of ratifications was
effected at Geneva on September 14, 1926, and recorded by
proces-verbaux, signed by the representatives of the states
concerned.
GENEVA RED CROSS CONFERENCE, 1929
§ 559- On January 17, 1925, the Swiss Government
addressed a circular note to states parties to the Geneva Red
1 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. n, 1925.
314 CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
Cross Conventions of 1864 or 1906, asking whether they were
prepared to participate in a conference for the revision of the
International Red Cross Convention of 1906, as well as for the
elaboration of a code regarding the treatment of prisoners
of war in amplification of the rules laid down in the Hague
Convention (No. IV) of 1907. All countries having agreed to
these proposals, the Swiss Government then requested their
observations upon two draft conventions, intended to serve as
bases for the discussions — that relating to the Red Cross Con-
vention of 1906 having been adopted by the Eleventh Inter-
national Red Cross Conference in 1923, and that relating to
prisoners of war having been prepared by the International
Red Cross Committee. Finally, on March 26, 1929, the Swiss
Government announced that the conference would take place
at Geneva on July i, and asked to be furnished with the names
of the representatives who would attend, it being understood
that those authorised to sign would be provided with full powers.
It was added that two general commissions would be set up, to
sit alternately, one for each of the two subjects to be discussed.
On July i, 1929, the conference met at Geneva. The
representatives of forty-seven countries attended, including
those of Great Britain, Australia, Canada, India, the Irish
Free State, New Zealand and South Africa. Besides the
delegates of the respective countries parties to the conventions
of 1864 or 1906, the League of Nations, the Sovereign and
Military Order of Malta, and the International Red Cross
Committee sent representatives, who participated to an extent
in the discussions.
The conference was opened on July i, 1929, by M. Haab,
President of the Swiss Confederation, whose speech, welcoming
the delegates, was followed by that of M. Boissonas, President
of the Geneva Council of State. Then, on the proposal of
M. Riad, the Egyptian delegate, M. Dinichert, minister
plenipotentiary, and head of the Swiss delegation, was
appointed president of the conference. M. Dinichert having
delivered his inaugural address, proposed M. Doude
van Troostwijk, the senior Dutch representative, as vice-
president, in consideration of the great part taken by Holland
in the Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 ; and M. Paul
des Gouttes (formerly assistant-secretary-general at the 1906
conference) as secretary-general, with a secretarial staff drawn
mainly from the Swiss Foreign Office and the International
Red Cross Committee, to which any of the delegations might
attach one of their own secretaries. These proposals were
adopted unanimously.
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 315
A committee set up to examine full powers reported that
the representatives of 28 out of the 47 countries were so pro-
vided ; the committee was therefore maintained in existence
in order to examine the others as received.
The rules of procedure were as follows :
Art. I . — La Conference est formee de tous les delegues des pays
parties aux conventions de Geneve du 22 aout, 1864, et du 6 juillet,
1906. Ont etc, en outre, conviee a s'associer aux travaux de la
Conference les delegues du Comite international de la Croix Rouge
et de 1'Ordre souverain de Make.
Art. 2. — Les delegues plenipotentiaires remettent, aussitot que
possible, leurs pleins pouvoirs au Secretariat de la Conference.
Une commission de verification des pouvoirs, composee de huit
membres, est elue par la Conference ; elle fait immediatement
son rapport.
Art. 3. — Les membres des delegations peuvent tous prendre
part aux deliberations. Dans les scrutins, chaque pays ne dispose
que d'une voix. La Conference vote par assis et leve, sauf dans le
cas ou elle decide que le vote doit se faire par appel nominal, ou,
le cas echeant, au scrutin secret. Les decisions de la Conference
et des commissions sont prises a la majorite absolue des voix.
Art. 4. — II est constitue deux commissions generales, dont 1'un
traitera la question de la revision de la Convention de Geneve de
1906, et 1'autre celle de 1'elaboration d'une Convention relative au
traitement des prisonniers de guerre. Ces commissions sont
formees par les delegues de tous les pays represented. Chaque
commission a la faculte de constituer, a son tour, des sous-com-
missions. Les commissions generales siegent alternativement.
Art. 5. — La Conference et chacune des commissions generales
nomment un President et un Vice-President. Ces Presidents et
Vice-Presidents, assistes du Secretaire-General, constituent le
Bureau de la Conference, charge de tout ce qui concerne la marche
generale des travaux. Le President prononce 1'ouverture, la
cloture et, le cas echeant, la suspension des seances. II assure
1'observation du reglement, dirige les debats, donne la parole dans
1'ordre ou elle est demandee, declare la discussion close, met les
questions aux voix et proclame le resultat du scrutin. Si, au cours
de la discussion d'une question, un delegue presente une motion
d'ordre, le President provoque une decision immediate a ce sujet.
Art. 6. — Les textes des propositions et amendements sont com-
muniques par ecrit au President, qui en fait distribuer des exem-
plaires aux delegues, prealablement a toute discussion.
Art. 7. — Le Secretariat de la Conference est compose d'un
secretaire-general et de secretaires. II assure le service tant de
la Conference que des commissions et sous-commissions. Le
secretariat est charge de recevoir, imprimer, et communiquer les
propositions et rapports, de rediger, imprimer et distribuer les
proces-verbaux des seances, et, en general, d'assumer toutes les
316 CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES
taches que la Conference et les commissions jugent bon de lui
confier.
Art. 8. — II est public : (i) un compte rendu in extenso des
seances plenieres de la Conference et des seances des commissions
generates ; (2) un compte rendu analytique des seances des sous-
commissions. Ces comptes rendus sont imprimes et distribues aux
delegues, autant que possible, des la seance suivante de la Con-
ference, des commissions ou des sous-commissions. Les delegues
qui auraient des corrections a apporter aux comptes rendus en
informeront le secretariat dans les vingt-quatre heures qui suivront
la distribution de ces documents. Passe ce delai, les comptes
rendus sont consideres comme definitifs.
Art. 9. — La langue francaise est adoptee comme langue officielle
pour les discussions et les actes de la Conference. Les discours qui
seraient prononces dans une autre langue seront resumes en
frangais par les soins de la delegation a laquelle appartient 1'orateur,
le cas ecneant, avec la collaboration du secretariat.
Art. 10. — Le receuil des actes de la Conference sera public
apres la cloture de celle-ci par les soins du Secretaire-General.
Art. n. — Le public est admis aux seances plenieres de la Con-
ference et des commissions generates sur cartes distributes par le
secretariat. La Conference et les commissions peuvent, cependant,
decider que certaines seances determinees ne sont pas publiques.
As regards Article 9, certain of the British Empire delega-
tions having expressed the wish that, as at League of Nations
conferences, English should also be a language of the con-
ference, the president maintained that, apart from that
exception, French was the language of international con-
ferences ; arrangements would, however, be made to present
summaries of the proceedings in English.
The two commissions were thereupon constituted, the
first of which was to deal with the revision of the Geneva Red
Cross Convention of 1906, in the light of the experience
derived from subsequent events, and the second to draw up
the convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of
war, in the light of similar experience. M. Dinichert was
elected president of the first commission, and M. Scavenius,
Danish minister at Berne, and head of the Danish delegation,
president of the second.
The first commission, on which Mr. G. R. Warner,
Counsellor, of the Foreign Office, represented Great Britain,
began its work on July 2, and between that date and July 26,
when it completed its labours, held twenty-one sittings, a
number of questions of detail of particular difficulty being
dealt with by sub-committees. The new convention, entitled
" Convention de Geneve pour 1' Amelioration du sort des
CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES 317
Blesses et des Malades dans les Armees en campagne, du
27 juillet 1929," which resulted from the discussion of the
terms of its thirty-nine articles in their various clauses, was
approved by the conference at its fourth plenary session on
July 26.
The second commission, on which Sir H. Rumbold,
British ambassador at Berlin, represented Great Britain, met
also on July 2, and completed its labours on July 24, after ten
sittings, in the course of which two sub-committees were set
up to deal with particular questions. The convention of
ninety-seven articles resulting from the discussions, and
entitled " Convention relative au Traitement des Prisonniers
de Guerre, du 27 juillet 1929," was also approved at the
fourth plenary session of July 26.
At the fifth and final plenary session on July 27, the Final
Act (see § 617), together with the two conventions in their
completed form, were presented for signature by the pleni-
potentiaries. The Final Act was signed by the representatives
of thirty-eight countries, while thirty-three signed the two
conventions, which by their terms remained open for signature
by the remaining countries until February i, 1930.
The president then delivered an address and declared the
conference closed. The French plenipotentiary expressed the
thanks of the representatives to the Swiss Government and
the local authorities for their hospitality, and to the president
of the conference for his eminent services, being followed by
the United States plenipotentiary and by those of Italy and
Egypt.1
1 Authority : Actes de la Conference Diplomatique de Geneve, Juillet 1 929.
CHAPTER XXIII
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL
COMPACTS
TREATY, CONVENTION, ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, FINAL ACT,
GENERAL ACT, CONCORDAT
§ 560. INTERNATIONAL compacts or engagements embrace a
great diversity of subjects, and are placed on record in a variety
of shapes. Consequently, they may be classed according to
either matter or form.
§ 561. The principal forms they assume may be enumerated
as follows :
1. Treaty.
2. Convention.
3. Additional Articles.
4. Final Act.
5. General Act.
6. Declaration.
7. Agreement.
8. Protocol.
9. Proces-verbal.
10. Exchange of Notes.
1 1 . Modus Vivendi.
12. Compromis d' Arbitrage.
13. Reversale.
14. Ratification.
15. Accession.
§ 562. Of these, the terms Treaty and Convention appear
formerly to have been mainly employed for compacts con-
cluded between heads of states ; now the latter term is often
used for compacts between governments. The terms Addi-
tional Articles and Final Act imply the existence of a treaty
or convention, or more than one, which they supplement.
A General Act does not differ essentially from a Treaty.
Declarations, Agreements, Protocols, Exchanges of Notes,
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 319
and arrangements styled Modus Vivendi ordinarily relate to
compacts between governments. Reversales and Compromis
d'Arbitrage may be either between heads of states or govern-
ments. Ratification is the formal confirmation of a compact
which has been signed, and Accession its formal acceptance
by a non-signatory state. In this and the following chapters
the use made of these terms will be more fully examined, and
examples appended in each case.
§ 563. Which of the above forms shall be used in a particular
case is partly a matter of usage, partly of convenience, partly
also of choice. The treaty form is always adopted for the final
result of peace negotiations, and for the compacts concluded
on the occasion of marriages between members of Royal
Families . The Treaties of Peace of 1 9 1 9—20, like those of 1 8 1 5,
were supplemented by various conventions. International
compacts relating to commerce and navigation, delimitation
of boundaries, arbitration, extradition of criminals, and some
other matters are found in the shape of treaties or conventions
indifferently.
§ 564. According to Garcia de la Vega,1 it was the length
of time for which a compact was concluded that should
determine whether it was to be styled a treaty or a con-
vention. But commercial arrangements are usually concluded
for a limited number of years, yet they are frequently denomi-
nated treaties, while instances occur in which, though there
is no time limit, the convention or another form has been
used.
§ 565. The Gum prdctica del Diplomdtico Espanol 2 classified
treaties as treaties of peace, alliance, friendship, subsidy,
guarantee, neutrality, cession of territory, limits, establish-
ment, working of forests, river navigation, easements, repatria-
tion, relief of destitute subjects, jurisdiction, extradition,
execution of judgments, judicial assistance. But this classifi-
cation does not correspond with present practice, for on most
of these subjects conventions or other forms of compact have
been concluded.
§ 566. A collection of treaty engagements concluded between
various states from 1920 to 1926 shows that on the following
subjects the arrangements made took these forms :
Commerce : 20 treaties, 15 conventions, i treaty with a
convention, 19 agreements.
Arbitration : 1 1 treaties, I convention.
Air Navigation : i treaty, 3 conventions, i agreement.
Extradition : 5 treaties, 9 conventions.
1 250 n. 2 de Castro y Casaleiz, i. 386.
320 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
§ 567. Generally speaking, it might be said that the more
important the subject matter — perhaps also the more
numerous the provisions required to deal with it — the more
likely is it that it will be embodied in a treaty or con-
vention, and that the relative importance decreases as we go
down the list in § 561. But at the present day it cannot be
said that any precise rules of nomenclature exist. A treaty
between heads of states may relate to such a matter as extra-
dition, or an agreement between heads of states regulate the
export of hides and bones, while a declaration between
governments may constitute an alliance in time of war, or
a protocol establish the Permanent Court of International
Justice. International compacts for the delimitation of
boundaries are to be found as treaties, conventions and
agreements. Treaties are sometimes concluded between
governments, and conventions are often now so concluded,
while treaties between heads of states are sometimes amended
by means of agreements between governments.
§ 568. Within modern times a great number of multilateral
conventions have been concluded on such matters as the
protection of literary and industrial property ; collisions at
sea and salvage ; commercial statistics ; agriculture ; sanitary
regime; mo tor traffic; freedom of transit ; aerial navigation ;
radiotelegraphy ; safety of life at sea ; international exhibi-
tions ; load-line certificates, etc. ; to say nothing of conven-
tions aimed at the definition of rules of international law, like
those of the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907.
Many of these are between heads of states and many between
governments. And conventions of a similar wide variety have
been concluded, with the same diversity of form, under the
auspices of the League of Nations, to which reference is made in
Chapter XXX.
§ 569. While it is difficult, therefore, in present practice to
discern any consistency in the use made of forms and titles for
international compacts, in this and the following chapters they
will be treated in accordance with the classification in § 561.
In the past, treaties and conventions were more particularly
associated with compacts between heads of states, whilst agree-
ments and other forms served for compacts between govern-
ments, according to their respective titles, and it may be that
a return to a more systematic procedure may yet be found on
these lines.
§ 570. Originally the expression " treaty ' was applied to
the negotiation ; the practice has prevailed of applying it to
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 321
the final proceeding which closes the negotiation. Hence
the complete term would be " traite et appointement " to denote
a treaty.1 The verb trailer means to negotiate.
Convention is an adaptation of the Latin word conventio,
compact, covenant.
" Stipulate 5: and " stipulation ' are properly used with
reference to the clauses of a contract. As is well known,
the etymology is from stipula, a straw, which was broken
between the parties to a bargain, and the bringing together of
the two ends of the fracture symbolised accordance in its
terms. It is incorrect to employ these words to denote a
demand for a particular condition ; but anyone who wishes
to justify their misuse can quote the passage from Rabelais
given in Littre's Dictionary of the French Language, s.v. " stipuler."
§ 571. Treaties and conventions concluded between heads
of states do not differ as regards their structure. Their
principal parts are :
(1) The preamble, beginning with (a) the names and titles
of the high contracting parties ; (b] a summary of the objects
contemplated, or, in other words, a statement of the purpose ;
(c] the names and official designations of the plenipotentiaries
appointed by the high contracting parties ; [d] a paragraph
stating that the plenipotentiaries have produced their full
powers, which were found to be in good and due form, and
that they have agreed upon the following articles.
(2) The various stipulations or articles, usually beginning
with the most general, next the particular ones, and finally the
articles, if any, providing for the means of executing them.
(3) An article, or articles, where necessary, defining the
application or non-application of the treaty to oversea terri-
tories ; often this takes the form of provisions for accession and
eventual termination.
(4) The duration of the treaty, if, as is usual, it is to be
subject to termination on notice being given by one or other
party. This often takes the form of a provision that the
treaty shall remain in force for a specified number of years,
and that unless a year's notice (or less) of termination is given
in advance by one or other party it shall thereafter continue
in force pending such notice.
(5) A provision for ratification, and for the place (normally
that where the treaty is signed) and time of the exchange of
ratifications (often " as soon as possible ").
(6) Mention of the date when the treaty is to come into
effect.
1 de Maulde-la-Claviere, i. 193.
322 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
(7) A clause stating " In witness whereof'1 (" En foi de
quoi ") the respective plenipotentiaries have affixed their
signatures and seals.
(8) Locality and date (" Done at ... the . . . day of
. . . ,19 . .").
(9) Seals and signatures.
§ 572. If a treaty covers more than a single sheet of paper,
the sheets are taped together, and the ends of the tape brought
together and imbedded in the seals of the plenipotentiaries.
If a plenipotentiary has no special seal it is customary for the
seal to bear his initials.
§ 573. As regards paragraphs (i) and (3) above, the forms
of treaties concluded by members of the British Commonwealth
of Nations are dealt with more fully in Chapter XXVIII.
As regards (4) it is important to bear in mind that omission
to provide means for the termination of a treaty may give rise
to future difficulty. The Protocol of January 17, 1871, of the
London Conference of that year ran :
" Les plenipotentiaires de 1'Allemagne du Nord, de PAutriche-
Hongrie, de la Grande-Bretagne, de 1'Italie, de la Russie, et de la
Turquie, reunis aujourd'hui en conference, reconnaissent que c'est
un principe essentiel du droit des gens qu'aucune Puissance ne
peut se delier des engagements d'un traite, ni en modifier les
stipulations, qu'a la suite de 1'assentiment des Parties contractantes,
au moyen d'une entente amicale."
Writers on the subject, it is true, deal with certain
eventualities in which a treaty may be deemed to have become
void, and tribunals have in certain instances made pronounce-
ments on such matters.1 But it is best, wherever called for,
to include a provision in the treaty as to its future termination,
on notice being given to that effect.
Shortly before the war of 1914 an instance occurred in
which a treaty between a foreign Power and Zanzibar having
been terminated, that Power claimed that a former treaty on
the same subject, which contained no provision for termination,
thereupon revived. The outbreak of war, however, rendered
further discussion of the matter unnecessary.
As regards (6), unless the treaty contains a provision pre-
scribing the time or conditions of its entry into force (a usual
provision is that it shall take effect on the exchange of ratifica-
tions), it is assumed that it becomes operative on the date of the
exchange of ratifications, or, should there be no provision for
ratification, then on the date of signature.
1 See, e.g., Annual Digest (1925-6), 352-8 ; (1927-8), 420-3.
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 323
Under Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
however, every treaty or international engagement entered
into by any member of the League shall be forthwith registered
with the Secretariat of the League, and shall not be binding
until so registered.
§ 574. International compacts between two countries are as
a rule drawn up in two texts, viz., the languages of the respec-
tive countries, printed in parallel columns, and are prepared in
duplicate, in order that each country may retain a signed
original version of the treaty instrument. Each of the two
countries is entitled to precedence in the original retained by
it, i.e. its language appears in the first, or left-hand, column ;
its sovereign or president (or it may be government) and its
plenipotentiary are named first in the preamble ; and its
plenipotentiary signs first, above the signature of the pleni-
potentiary of the other country ; or if the signatures are
affixed on the same line, then on the left-hand side, which is
the place of honour. But in ordinary practice the inconvenience
of reprinting the preamble of a treaty for this purpose is
avoided by giving each country precedence in its own language,
and then, without further amendment, inverting the order of
the two texts, as required, so that the language of each country
appears in the left-hand column of the original retained by it.
§ 575- Sometimes a treaty or convention between two coun-
tries is signed in one language only, and in this case changes
in the preamble are necessary, so as to give the required
precedence to each country in the original retained by it.
This is ordinarily the case in treaties between Great Britain
and the United States, and usually in treaties between Great
Britain and Japan or Siam. The Agreement between China
and the Soviet Union of May 31, 1924, for the settlement of
pending questions, together with the declarations attached
thereto, was signed in English alone, as was also the Con-
vention of Friendship and Economic Co-operation between
Japan and the Soviet Union of January 20, 1925.
§ 576. Other cases occur in which a treaty may be signed
in languages which are not those of the contracting parties.
The Treaty of Peace between Japan and Russia of August 23/
September 5, 1905, was signed in English and French.
§ 577. Sometimes again there may be more than two texts.
The Treaty of Extradition between Great Britain and Austria-
Hungary of December 3, 1873, was signed in English, German
and Hungarian. Treaties concluded by Finland contain both
Finnish and Swedish texts. The Protocol of October 7, 1929,
324 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
between Finland and the Soviet Union regarding postal matters
was signed in four texts, Finnish, Swedish, Russian and
French.
§ 578. Where an international compact is signed in two or
more languages, it may be presumed that much care is taken
to effect the closest correspondence possible between the
respective texts. But this may sometimes be difficult, more
especially when the languages differ widely in character. In
such cases it is desirable that it should be specified in the
treaty which of the languages is to be regarded as authoritative,
to provide for the possibility of a difference of opinion sub-
sequently arising as to the precise meaning of a stipulation.
This can, however, only be done by consent, which may be
withheld. Sometimes indeed both texts are declared authentic,
as in the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919 (French and
English texts) . In the Treaty of Peace with Austria of Sep-
tember 10, 1919 (French, English and Italian texts) it was
agreed that the French text should (with certain exceptions)
prevail in cases of divergence. The Treaty of Peace between
Japan and Russia of August 23/September 5, 1905 (English
and French) contained a similar provision. In the case of
the Treaty between Great Britain and Persia of May 10, 1928,
respecting Persian Tariff Autonomy (English and Persian
texts) a French text was afterwards prepared and agreed to
as an authoritative version. A provision occasionally em-
ployed in a treaty is that, in the event of dispute, questions of
interpretation and application shall be referred for settlement
to the Permanent Court of International Justice (see also 852).
§ 579- When an international compact is concluded between
more than two countries there may be one counterpart for
each, and in this event the rules of the alternat would be
followed and each country be given precedence in the original
retained by it. But in modern times the ordinary practice,
and that habitually followed when a treaty or convention is
concluded between many heads of states, is to range their names
and titles in the preamble in the alphabetical order of the
countries over which they preside, and to have a single signed
original, to which the signatures of their plenipotentiaries are
appended in the same order, and which is then deposited in
the treaty archives of the headquarters government, viz. that
of the country in which the treaty is signed, each of the other
countries being furnished by that government with a copy of
the treaty, certified by it as correct. In the case of treaty
arrangements signed at Geneva under the auspices of the
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 325
League of Nations, a similar procedure is followed, the original
treaty being deposited with the Secretariat of the League.
§ 580. Multilateral treaties, conventions, etc., are often signed
in a single French text, but there is an increasing tendency to
use both French and English texts for such compacts, as is done
in the case of those concluded under the auspices of the League
of Nations. While such treaties, if between heads of states,
follow in general the form described in § 571, the participation
of many states therein often renders necessary the insertion of
special provisions dealing with such matters as the successive
deposits of ratifications, times and manner of entry into force
for the respective countries, notices of termination, etc.
Usually also provision is made for the accession of non-signatory
states in the event of their desiring to become parties.
§ 581. Treaties and conventions were formerly usually ex-
pressed as concluded between sovereigns of monarchical states,
or between presidents of republics, or between sovereigns
and presidents. The practice may be more clearly stated
by saying that they were usually concluded between
sovereigns, seeing that a republic is itself sovereign. But, as
mentioned in § 568, at the present day conventions, to which
many countries are parties, are often concluded between
governments. In these, the governments of the contracting
countries are sometimes recited in alphabetical order in the
preamble ; or, on the other hand, the preamble may be a
simple statement that the undersigned, on behalf of their
respective governments, have agreed as follows. In either
case signatures are appended in the strict alphabetical order
of the countries taking part. An instance of such a con-
vention— the International Exhibitions Convention — with its
abbreviated preamble, and its many clauses relating to
deposits of ratifications, scope, entry into force, accessions,
notices of termination, etc., is shown in § 604. Declarations,
agreements and protocols, on the other hand, are ordinarily
concluded between governments. And when in such cases
ratification is provided for, it would seem appropriate that the
ratification should be that of the government in whose name
the compact has been signed. The form of ratification used
in Great Britain for such purposes is shown in § 727.
§ 582. In a treaty or convention between heads of states,
these are styled the high contracting parties ; if the compact
is between governments, the latter are ordinarily referred to
as the contracting parties.
§ 583. The following examples of treaties and conventions
on the subjects of Alliance, Annexation, Arbitration,
326 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
Boundaries, Commerce, Mutual Guarantee, Naval Armament,
Peace, Royal Marriage, illustrate the actual forms assumed
by these compacts in cases of a more important nature.
§ 584. Examples are also given in § 605 of a form of compact
styled Concordat, between the Pope and the head of a foreign
state, which has for its purpose to safeguard the interests of the
Roman Catholic Church in the state concerned. Post-war
arrangements of this nature have been concluded by the
Holy See with Bavaria, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Prussia and Roumania.
In Chapters XXIV to XXVII examples are given of
Declarations, Agreements, Protocols, and other forms of
compact.
§ 585. As shown in these various examples, international
compacts signed by the plenipotentiaries of heads of states
require the exhibition of full powers from the respective
heads of states before signatures are appended to the compact.
Compacts between governments may similarly require the
exhibition of full powers on the part of those signing on their
behalf. But in the case of compacts of a less important nature,
such as are concluded by means of exchanges of notes, ex-
pressions such as " duly authorised thereto," " on behalf of
the government of . . .," often occur ; or an agreement of
this nature may simply imply by its terms that it is concluded
by the respective governments named, and is signed by their
representatives on their behalf. In such cases full powers are
not as a rule issued.
ALLIANCE
§ 586. Treaty between Austria-Hungary and Germany. Vienna,
October 7, iSyg.1 (German text.}
( Translation.}
Inasmuch as Their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, King
of Hungary, and the German Emperor, King of Prussia, consider
it their imperative duty as monarchs to provide for the security
of their Empires, and the peace of their subjects, under all
circumstances ;
Inasmuch as the two Sovereigns, as during the federal relation-
ship formerly existing, will be enabled by the close association
of the two Empires to fulfil this duty more easily and more
efficaciously ;
Inasmuch as, finally, intimate co-operation between Germany
and Austria-Hungary can menace no one, but is rather calculated
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxi. 1014.
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 327
to consolidate the peace of Europe as established by the Berlin
stipulations ;
Their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary, and
the German Emperor, while solemnly promising each other never
to allow their purely defensive agreement to develop an aggressive
tendency in any direction, have determined to conclude an alliance
of peace and mutual defence.
For this purpose Their Most Exalted Majesties have designated
as their plenipotentiaries : [names]
Who, having met this day at Vienna and exchanged their full
powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following
articles :
Art. i. — Should, contrary to the hope and the sincere desire
of the two High Contracting Parties, one of the two Empires be
attacked by Russia, the High Contracting Parties bind themselves
to come to the assistance of each other with the whole military
strength of their Empire, and accordingly only to conclude peace
in common and by mutual agreement.
2. Should one of the High Contracting Parties be attacked
by another Power, the other Party binds itself hereby not only to
refrain from assisting the aggressor against its high ally, but to
observe at least a benevolent neutral attitude towards its fellow
contracting party.
Should, however, the attacking party in such a case be sup-
ported by Russia, either by active co-operation or by military
measures which constitute a menace to the party attacked, the
obligation of reciprocal assistance with the whole righting force
which is stipulated in Article i of this treaty becomes equally
operative, and the conduct of the war by the two High Contracting
Parties shall in this case also be joint until the conclusion of a
common peace.
3. The duration of this treaty shall be provisionally fixed at
five years from the date of ratification. One year before the
expiration of this period the two High Contracting Parties shall
consult together concerning the question whether the conditions
serving as basis for the treaty still prevail, and shall reach an
agreement in regard to the further continuance or possible modifica-
tion of certain details. If, in the course of the first month of the
last year of the treaty, no invitation has been received from either
side to open these negotiations, the treaty shall be considered as
renewed for a further period of three years.
4. This treaty shall, in conformity with its peaceful character,
and to avoid any misinterpretation, be kept secret by both High
Contracting Parties, and only communicated to a third Power upon
a joint understanding between the two parties and according to the
terms of a special agreement.
The two High Contracting Parties cherish the hope, after the
sentiments expressed by the Emperor Alexander at the meeting
at Alexandrowo, that the armaments of Russia will not in reality
328 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
prove to be menacing to them, and have on that account no reason
for making a communication at present ; should, however, this
hope, contrary to their expectations, prove to be erroneous, the two
High Contracting Parties would consider it their loyal obligation
to acquaint the Emperor Alexander, at least confidentially, that
they must consider an attack on one of them as directed against
both.
5. This treaty shall derive its validity from the approbation of
the two exalted Sovereigns and shall be ratified within fourteen days
after this approbation has been granted by Their Most Exalted
Majesties.
In witness whereof the plenipotentiaries have signed this treaty
with their own hands and affixed their seals.
Done at Vienna, October 7, 1879.
[Seals and signatures.]
§587. Military Convention between France and Russia. St. Peters-
burg, August 17, 1892. 1 (French text.}
La France et la Russie, etant animees d'un egal desir de con-
server la paix, et n'ayant d'autre but que de parer aux necessites
d'une guerre defensive provoquee par une attaque des forces de la
Triple Alliance contre 1'une ou 1'autre d'entre elles, sont convenues
des dispositions suivantes :
1. Si la France est attaquee par l'Allemagne, ou par 1'Italie
soutenue par 1'Allemagne, la Russie emploiera toutes ses forces
disponibles pour attaquer 1'Allemagne.
Si la Russie est attaquee par l'Allemagne, ou par 1'Autriche
soutenue par l'Allemagne, la France emploiera toutes ses forces
disponibles pour combattre 1'Allemagne.
2. Dans le cas ou les forces de la Triple Alliance, ou d'une des
Puissances qui en font partie, viendraient a se mobiliser, la France
et la Russie, a la premiere annonce de 1'evenement, et sans qu'il
soit besoin d'un concert prealable, mobiliseront immediatement et
simultanement la totalite de leurs forces et les porteront le plus pres
possible de leurs frond eres.
3. Les forces disponibles qui doivent etre employees contre
1'Allemagne seront du cote de la France, de 1,300,000 homines, du
cote de la Russie, de 700,000 a 800,000 hommes.
Ces forces s'engageront a fond, en toute diligence, de maniere
que l'Allemagne ait a lutter, a la fois, a Test et a 1'ouest.
4. Les fitats-majors des armees des deux pays se concerteront
en tout temps pour preparer et faciliter 1'execution des mesures
prevues ci-dessus.
Us se communiqueront, des le temps de paix, tous les renseigne-
ments relatifs aux armees de la Triple Alliance qui sont ou
parviendront a leur connaissance.
Les voies et moyens de correspondre en temps de guerre seront
etudies et prevus d'avance.
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxi. 1079.
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 329
5. La France et la Russie ne concluront pas la paix separement.
6. La presente Convention aura la meme duree que la Triple
Alliance.
7. Toutes les clauses enumerees ci-dessus seront tenues rigou-
reusement secretes.
[Signatures.]
§ 588. Treaty of Defensive Alliance between Italy and Albania.
Tirana, November 22, 1927. 1 (Italian and Albanian texts.}
(Translation.}
Italy and Albania, being desirous of solemnly re-affirming and
strengthening the solidarity which happily exists between the two
states, and of devoting all their efforts to the removal of any causes
which might disturb the peace between them, and between them
and other states,
Recognising the benefits of close co-operation between the two
states,
And once more confirming the fact that the interests and the
security of each are bound up with those of the other,
Have decided to conclude a defensive alliance by this Treaty,
with the sole object of stabilising the natural relations which happily
exist between the two states and thus ensuring a policy of peaceful
development,
And have accordingly apointed as their plenipotentiaries :
His Majesty the King of Italy : [name]
His Excellency the President of the Albanian Republic :
[name]
Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and
due form, have agreed as follows :
(Six Articles. Art. 2 provides for a defensive alliance of twenty
years duration.)
Art. 7. — The present Treaty shall be ratified, and shall there-
after be registered with the League of Nations. The ratifications
shall be exchanged at Rome.
D6*ne at Tirana, this 22nd day of November, 1927.
[Signatures.]
ANNEXATION
§ 589. Treaty between Japan and Corea. Seoul, August 22, igio.2
(Translation.}
His Majesty the Emperor of Japan and His Majesty the Emperor
of Corea, having in view the special and close relations between
their respective countries, desiring to promote the common weal
of the two nations and to assure permanent peace in the Extreme
East, and being convinced that these objects can be best obtained
1 League of Nations Treaty Series, Ixix. 349.
2 Br. and For. State Papers, ciii. 992.
330 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
by the annexation of Corea to the Empire of Japan, have resolved
to conclude a Treaty of such annexation, and have, for that purpose,
appointed as their plenipotentiaries, that is to say : [names] ;
Who, upon mutual conference and deliberation, have agreed
to the following articles :
(Articles i to 7.)
Art. 8. — This Treaty, having been approved by His Majesty the
Emperor of Japan and His Majesty the Emperor of Gorea, shall
take effect from the date of its promulgation.
In faith whereof, etc.,
[Date and signatures.]
§ 590. Treaty between the British Empire, France, Italy and
Japan (the Principal Allied Powers], and Roumania, relative to
Bessarabia. Paris, October 28, igso.1 (French text.)
L'Empire Britannique, la France, PItalie, le Japon, principales
Puissances alliees, et la Roumanie,
Considerant que dans 1'interet de la paix generale en Europe
il importe d'assurer des maintenant sur la Bessarabie une souve-
rainete repondant aux aspirations de la population, et y garantis-
sant aux minorites de race, de religion ou de langue la protection
qui leur est due ;
Considerant que, des points de vue geographique, ethno-
graphique, historique et economique, la reunion de la Bessarabie
a la Roumanie est pleinement justifiee ;
Considerant que la population de la Bessarabie a manifeste son
desir de voir la Bessarabie reunie a la Roumanie ;
Considerant enfin que la Roumanie a, de sa propre volonte, le
desir de donner de sures garanties de liberte et de justice, sans
distinction de races, de religions ou de langue, conformement au
Traite signe a Paris le 9 decembre 1919, aux habitants de 1'ancien
Royaume de Roumanie aussi bien qu'a ceux des territoires
nouvellement transferes :
Ont resolu de conclure le present Traite et ont, a cet effet,
designe pour leurs plenipotentiaires, sous reserve de la faculte de
pourvoir a leur remplacement pour la signature, savoir : {names etc.]
Art. i. — Les Hautes Parties Contractantes declarent recon-
naitre la souverainete de la Roumanie sur le territoire de la
Bessarabie compris entre la frontiere actuelle de Roumanie, la
Mer Noire, le cours du Dniester depuis son embouchure jusqu'au
point ou il est coupe par 1'ancienne limite entre la Bukovine
et la Bessarabie et cette ancienne limite.
(Arts. 2 to 8 set forth steps to be taken, and conditions to be
observed, while Art. 9 states that the High Contracting Parties
will invite Russia to accede to the Treaty, when there exists a
Russian Government recognised by them.)
Le present Traite sera ratifie par les Puissances signataires.
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxiii. 647. Ratified by the British Empire,
France, Italy and Roumania.
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 331
II n'entrera en vigueur qu'apres le depot de ses ratifications et a
partir de 1'entree en vigueur du Traite signe par les principales
Puissances alliees et associees et la Roumanie le 9 decembre, 1919.
Le depot des ratifications sera effectue a Paris. . . .
Fait a Paris le 28 octobre, 1920. . . .
[Seals and signatures.]
ARBITRATION
§591. Arbitration Convention between France and Germany.
Locarno, October 16, IQ25.1 (French text.)
LES soussignes dument autorises,
Charges par leurs Gouvernements respectifs de fixer les modalites
suivantlesquellesilsera, ainsi qu'il est prevu dans Particle 3 du traite
conclu en date de ce jour entre I'Allemagne, la Belgique, la France,
la Grande-Bretagne et 1' Italic, precede a la solution pacifique de
toutes les questions qui ne pourraient etre resolues a 1'amiable
entre 1'Allemagne et la France,
Ont convenu des dispositions suivantes :
Art. ier. — Toutes contestations entre l'Allemagne et la France,
de quelque nature qu'elles soient, au sujet desquelles les parties se
contesteraient reciproquement un droit, et qui n'auraient pu etre
reglees a 1'amiable par les precedes diplomatiques ordinaires, seront
soumises pour jugement soit a un tribunal arbitral soit a la Cour
permanente de Justice Internationale ainsi qu'il est prevu ci-apres.
II est entendu que les contestations ci-dessus visees comprennent
notamment celles que mentionne 1'article 13 du Pacte de la
Societe des Nations.
Cette disposition ne s'applique pas aux contestations nees de
faits qui sont anterieurs a la presente convention et qui appartien-
nent au passe.
Les contestations pour la solution desquelles une procedure
speciale est prevue par d'autres conventions en vigueur entre
l'Allemagne et la France seront reglees conformement aux disposi-
tions de ces conventions.
Art. 2. — Avant toute procedure arbitrale ou avant toute pro-
cedure devant la Cour permanente de Justice internationale, la
contestation pourra etre, d'un commun accord entre les parties,
soumise a fin de conciliation a une commission internationale
permanente, dite Commission permanente de Conciliation,
constitute conformement a la presente convention.
(Arts. 3 to 1 6 : Composition of commission, procedure, etc.)
Art. 17. — Toutes questions sur lesquelles le Gouvernement
allemand et le Gouvernement francais seraient divises sans pouvoir
les resoudre a 1'amiable par les precedes diplomatiques ordinaires,
dont la solution ne pourrait etre recherchee par un jugement ainsi
qu'il est prevu par 1'article ier de la presente convention et pour
lesquelles une procedure de reglement ne serait pas deja prevue
par d'autres conventions en vigueur entre les parties, seront
1 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. n (1925).
332 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
soumises a la Commission permanente de Conciliation, qui sera
chargee de proposer aux parties une solution acceptable et, dans
tous les cas, de presenter un rapport.
La procedure prevue par les articles 6 a 15 de la presente
convention sera appliquee.
Art. 1 8. — Si, dans le mois qui suivra la cloture des travaux de la
Commission permanente de Conciliation, les deux parties ne se sont
pas entendues, la question sera, a la requete de 1'une ou de 1'autre
partie, portee devant le Conseil de la Societe des Nations, qui
statuera conformement a 1'article 15 du Pacte de la Societe.
Art. 1 9. — Dans tous les cas et notamment si la question au sujet de
laquelle les parties sont divisees resulte d'actes deja effectues ou
sur le point de 1'etre, la Commission de Conciliation ou, si celle-ci
ne s'en trouvait pas saisie, le Tribunal arbitral ou la Cour per-
manente de Justice Internationale, statuant conformement a
Particle 4 1 de son statut, indiqueront, dans le plus bref delai possible,
quelles mesures provisoires doivent etre prises. II appartiendra
au Conseil de la Societe des Nations, s'il est saisi de la question,
de pourvoir de meme a des mesures provisoires appropriees. Les
Gouvernements allemand et franc.ais s'engagent respectivement a
s'y conformer, a s'abstenir de toute mesure susceptible d'avoir une
repercussion prejudiciable a 1'execution de la decision ou aux
arrangements proposes par la Commission de Conciliation, ou
par le Conseil de la Societe des Nations, et, en general, a ne proceder
a aucun acte, de quelque nature qu'il soit, susceptible d'aggraver
ou d'etendre le differend.
Art. 20. — La presente convention reste applicable entre 1'Alle-
magne et la France encore que d'autres Puissances aient egalement
un interet dans le differend.
Art. 21. — La presente convention sera ratifiee. Les ratifications
en seront deposees a Geneve a la Societe des Nations en meme
temps que les ratifications du traite conclu en date de ce jour entre
PAllemagne, la Belgique, la France, la Grande-Bretagne et 1'Italie.
Elle entrera et demeurera en vigueur dans les memes conditions
que ledit traite.
La presente convention, faite en un seul exemplaire, sera
deposee aux archives de la Societe des Nations, dont le Secretaire
general sera prie de remettre a chacun des deux Gouvernements
contractants des copies certifiees conformes.
Fait a Locarno, le 16 octobre 1925.
[Seals and signatures.]
§ 592. Treaty of Conciliation and Arbitration between Belgium
and Finland. Stockholm, March 4, 1927. 1 (French text.}
Sa Majeste le Roi des Beiges et Son Excellence M. le President
de la Republique de Finlande, animes du desir de developper les
relations amicales qui unissent les deux pays, decides a donner, dans
leurs rapports reciproques, une large application aux principes
1 Monileur Beige, December 31, 1927.
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 333
dont s'inspire la Societe des Nations, ont resolu de conclure un
traite de conciliation et d'arbitrage, et ont nomme a cet effet pour
leurs plenipotentiaires, savoir :
Sa Majeste le Roi des Beiges : [name]
Son Excellence M. le President de la Republique de Finlande :
[name]
Lesquels, apres avoir echange leurs pleins pouvoirs reconnus
en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes :
Art. I. — Toutes contestations entre la Belgique et la Finlande,
de quelque nature qu'elles soient, au sujet desquelles les Parties se
contesteraient reciproquement un droit, et qui n'auraient pu etre
reglees a 1'amiable par les precedes diplomatiques ordinaires,
seront soumises pour jugement a la Cour permanente de Justice
Internationale, ainsi qu'il est prevu ci-apres.
Cet engagement ne s'applique qu'aux contestations qui s'eleve-
raient apres la ratification du present traite au sujet de situations
ou de faits posterieurs a cette ratification.
Les contestations pour la solution desquelles une procedure
speciale est prevue par d'autres conventions en vigueur entre la
Belgique et la Finlande seront reglees conformement aux disposi-
tions de ces conventions.
Art. 2. — Avant toute procedure devant la Cour permanente
de Justice internationale, la contestation pourra etre, d'un commun
accord entre les Parties, soumise a fin de conciliation a une
commission internationale permanente, dite Commission per-
manente de conciliation, constitute conformement au present traite.
Art. 3. — La Commission permanente de conciliation prevue a
1'article 2 sera composee de cinq membres, qui seront designes
comme il suit, savoir : Le Gouvernement beige et le Gouvernement
finlandais nommeront chacun un membre de la commission, choisi
parmi leurs nationaux respectifs, et designeront, d'un commun
accord, les trois autres membres de la commission parmi les res-
sortissants de tierces Puissances ; ces trois membres de la commis-
sion devront etre de nationalites differentes, et, parmi eux, les
Gouvernements beige et finlandais designeront le president de la
commission.
Les membres de la commission sont nommes pour trois ans ;
leur mandat est renouvelable. Us resteront en fonctions jusqu'a
leur remplacement et, dans tous les cas, jusqu'a I'achevement de
leurs travaux en cours au moment de 1'expiration de leur mandat.
II sera pourvu, dans le plus bref delai, aux vacances qui vien-
draient a se produire, par suite de deces, de demission ou de quelque
autre empechement, en suivant le mode fixe pour les nominations.
(Then follow Arts. 4 to 14 relating to procedure.)
Art. 15. — A defaut de conciliation devant la Commission per-
manente de conciliation, la contestation sera soumise, par voie de
compromis, a la Cour permanente de Justice internationale, dans
les conditions et suivant la procedure prevue par son statut.
A defaut d'accord entre les Parties sur le compromis et apres
334 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
un preavis d'un mois, 1'une ou 1'autre d'entre elles aura la faculte
de porter directement, par voie de requete, la contestation devant
la Cour permanente de Justice internationale.
Art. 1 6. — Toutes questions autres que celles visees a
1'article premier, sur lesquelles le Gouvernement beige et le
Gouvernement finlandais seraient divises sans pouvoir les resoudre
a 1'amiable par les precedes diplomatiques ordinaires, et pour
lesquelles une procedure de reglement ne serait pas deja prevue
par un traite en vigueur entre les Parties, seront soumises a la
Commission permanente de conciliation, qui sera chargee de
proposer aux Parties une solution acceptable et, dans tous les cas,
de presenter un rapport.
La procedure prevue par les articles 5 a 14 du present traite
sera appliquee.
Art. 17. — Si, dans le mois qui suivra la cloture des travaux
de la Commission permanente de conciliation, les deux Parties
ne se sont pas entendues, la question sera, a la requete de 1'une
ou 1'autre Partie, soumise pour decision a un tribunal d'arbitrage,
constitue, a moins d'accord special entre les Parties, conformement
aux dispositions de 1'article 45 de la Convention de La Haye du
1 8 octobre 1907 pour le reglement pacifique des conflits inter-
nationaux. Ce tribunal suivra, dans la mesure ou elle s'y prete,
la procedure prevue au titre IV, chapitre III, de ladite con-
vention. Toutefois, si, dans un delai de six mois a dater du jour
ou 1'une des Parties aura adresse a 1'autre une demande tendant
a soumettre le differend a 1'arbitrage, le compromis vise par ladite
Convention de La Haye n'a pas etc signe, il sera etabli, a la demande
de 1'une des Parties, par le Tribunal arbitral.
Le tribunal statuera ex cequo et bono.
La sentence arbitrale specifiera, s'il y a lieu, les modalites
d'execution, notamment en fixant des delais d'execution.
(Arts. 1 8 to 21 : General provisions.)
Art. 22. — Le present traite sera ratifie par S.M. le Roi des Beiges,
apres approbation des Chambres, et par S.E.M. le President de la
Republique de Finlande. L'echange des ratifications aura lieu a
Stockholm aussitot que faire se pourra.
Le traite est conclu pour une duree de dix ans, a compter de la
date de 1'echange des ratifications. S'il n'est pas denonce six mois
au moins avant 1'expiration de ce terme, il demeurera en vigueur
pour une nouvelle periode de cinq ans, et ainsi de suite.
En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires ont signe le present traite.
Fait a Stockholm, le 4 mars 1927.
[Signatures.]
BOUNDARIES
§ 593- Treaty between His Britannic Majesty and the United
States respecting Boundaries in Passamaquoddy Bay, etc. Washington,
May 21, 191 o.1 (English text.}
1 Br. and For. State Papers, ciii. 319.
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 335
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor
of India, and the United States of America, being equally desirous
of fixing and defining the location of the international boundary
line between the United States and the Dominion of Canada in
Passamaquoddy Bay and to the middle of Great Manan Channel,
and of removing all causes of dispute in connection therewith, have
for that purpose resolved to conclude a Treaty, and to that end
have appointed as their plenipotentiaries :
His Britannic Majesty : [name]
The President of the United States of America : [name]
Who, after having communicated to each other their respective
full powers, which were found to be in due and proper form, have
agreed to and concluded the following articles :
(Arts, i to 3.)
This Treaty shall be ratified by His Britannic Majesty and by
the President of the United States, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate thereof; and the ratifications shall be
exchanged in Washington as soon as practicable.
In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed
this treaty in duplicate and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done at Washington the 2ist day of May, 1910.
[Seals and signatures.]
§ 594. Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands
respecting Boundaries in Borneo. The Hague, March 26, IQ28.1
(English and Dutch texts.}
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and Her Majesty
the Queen of the Netherlands,
Being desirous of further delimiting part of the frontier established
in Article 3 of the Convention signed at London on the 2Oth June,
1891, for the delimitation of the boundary line between the States
in the Island of Borneo which are under British protection and the
Netherlands territory in that island,
Have resolved to conclude a Convention for that purpose, and
have appointed as their plenipotentiaries ;
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India,
for Great Britain and Northern Ireland : [name]
Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands : [names]
Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and
due form, have agreed as follows :
(Then follow the two Articles of the Convention setting forth
the boundary, as shown also on the signed map attached.)
The present Convention shall be ratified and shall come into
1 Treaty Series, No. 32 (1930).
336 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
force three months after the exchange of the acts of ratification,
which shall take place at The Hague as soon as possible.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed
the present Convention and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done in duplicate at The Hague, the 26th day of March, 1928.
[Seals and signatures.}
COMMERCE
§ 595- Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain
and Turkey. Angora., March i, I93O.1 (English and Turkish
texts.)
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His Excellency
the President of the Republic of Turkey,
Desiring to facilitate the development of the trade and com-
merce of their respective countries, and to regulate by means of a
treaty the commercial relations between the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and such other territories
under the sovereignty, protection and authority of His Britannic
Majesty as he may desire should be bound by the treaty on the one
side, and Turkey on the other side,
Have resolved to conclude a treaty for this purpose, and have
appointed as their plenipotentiaries ;
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India ;
for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland : [name]
His Excellency the President of the Republic of Turkey :
[names]
Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and
due form, have agreed as follows :
Art. i. — The territories to which the present treaty applies are,
on the part of His Britannic Majesty, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and the territories in respect of which
notification of accession is given under Art. 38 or notice of applica-
tion is given under Art. 37.
(Arts. 2-36.)
Art. 37. — His Britannic Majesty may, through His Britannic
Majesty's Representative in Turkey, give notice of his desire that
the stipulations of the present Treaty shall apply to any British
colony or protectorate or to any mandated territory administered
by his Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, and from the date of such notice the Treaty shall
be in force as between Turkey and the territory specified in such
notice.
As regards any such territory in respect of which the stipulations
of the present Treaty shall have been made applicable under this
1 Treaty Series, No. 40 ( 1 930) .
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 337
Article, either of the High Contracting Parties shall have the right
to terminate the application of the said stipulations on giving
twelve months' notice to that effect.
Art. 38. — His Britannic Majesty may, by a notification made by
His Britannic Majesty's Representative in Turkey, accede to the
present Treaty in respect of any of His Majesty's self-governing
Dominions or India.
After the expiry of a period of four years from the coming into
force of the present Treaty, either of the High Contracting Parties
may, by giving twelve months' notice, terminate the application
of the Treaty to any territory in respect of which His Majesty has
notified his accession under paragraph i of this Article.
Any notification made under paragraph i of this article may
include any dependency or mandated territory administered by the
Government of the territory in respect of which His Majesty has
notified his accession ; and any notice of denunciation given under
paragraph 2 shall be applicable to any such dependency or man-
dated territory which was included in such notification of accession.
Art. 39. — The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifica-
tions shall be exchanged at Angora as soon as possible. It shall
come into force immediately on the exchange of ratifications, and
shall be binding during a period of five years from the date of its
coming into force.
In case neither of the High Contracting Parties shall have given
notice to the other twelve months before the expiration of the said
period of five years of its intention to terminate the Treaty, it shall
remain in force until the expiration of one year from the date of
such notice.
In the absence of an express provision to that effect, such notice
shall not affect the operation of the Treaty as between Turkey and
any territory in respect of which notification of accession has been
given under Art. 38.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed
the present Treaty and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done at Angora, in English and in Turkish, both texts having
equal force, the ist day of March 1930.
[Seals and signatures.]
MUTUAL GUARANTEE
§ 596. Treaty of Mutual Guarantee between Germany, Belgium,
France, Great Britain and Italy. Locarno, October 16, IQ25.1
(French text.}
LE President de 1'Empire allemand, Sa Majeste le Roi des
Beiges, le President de la Republique fran9aise, Sa Majeste le Roi
du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande et des Terri-
toires britanniques au dela des Mers, Empereur des Indes, Sa
Majeste le Roi d'ltalie ;
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxi. 923.
338 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
Soucieux de satisfaire au desir de securite et de protection qui
anime les nations qui ont eu a subir le fleau de la guerre de 1914-18 ;
Constatant 1'abrogation des traites de neutralisation de la
Belgique, et conscients de la necessite d'assurer la paix dans la zone
qui a ete si frequemment le theatre des conflits europeens ;
Et egalement animes du sincere desir de donner a toutes les
Puissances signataires interessees des garanties complernentaires
dans le cadre du Pacte de la Societe des Nations et des traites en
vigueur entre elles ;
Ont resolu de conclure un traite a ces fins et ont designe pour
leurs plenipotentiaires, savoir : [names]
Lesquels, apres avoir echange leurs pleins pouvoirs, reconnus en
bonne et due forme, ont convenu les dispositions suivantes :
Art. ier. — Les hautes parties contractantes garantissent indi-
viduellement et collectivement, ainsi qu'il est stipule dans les
articles ci-apres, le maintien du statu quo territorial resultant des
frond eres entre PAllemagne et la Belgique et entre 1'Allemagne et
la France, et 1'inviolabilite desdites frontieres telles qu'elles sont
fixees par ou en execution du Traite de Paix signe a Versailles le
28 juin 1919, ainsi que 1'observation des dispositions des articles
42 et 43 dudit traite, concernant la zone demilitarisee.
(Arts. 2 to 6.)
Art. 7. — Le present traite, destine a assurer le maintien de la
paix et conforme au Pacte de la Societe des Nations, ne pourra
etre interprete comme restreignant la mission de celle-ci de prendre
les mesures propres a sauvegarder efficacement la paix du
monde.
Art. 8. — Le present traite sera enregistre a la Societe des Nations
conformement au Pacte de la Societe. II restera en vigueur
jusqu'a ce que, sur la demande de 1'une ou de 1'autre des hautes
parties contractantes notifiee aux autres Puissances signataires trois
mois d'avance, le Conseil, votant a la majorite des deux tiers au
moins, constate que la Societe des Nations assure aux hautes parties
contractantes des garanties suffisantes, et le traite cessera alors ses
effets a 1'expiration d'un delai d'une annee.
Art. 9. — Le present traite n'imposera aucune obligation a
aucun des Dominions britanniques ou a ITnde, a moins que le
Gouvernement de ce Dominion ou de PInde ne signifie qu'il accepte
ces obligations.
Art. 10. — Le present traite sera ratifie et les ratifications seront
deposees a Geneve dans les archives de la Societe des Nations
aussitot que faire se pourra.
II entrera en vigueur des que toutes les ratifications auront ete
deposees et que I'Allemagne sera devenue membre de la Societe des
Nations.
Le present traite, fait en un seul exemplaire, sera depose aux
archives de la Societe des Nations, dont le Secretaire general sera
prie de remettre a chacune des hautes parties contractantes des
copies certifiees conformes.
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 339
En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires susnommes ont signe le
present traite.
Fait a Locarno, le 16 octobre 1925.
[Seals and signatures.]
NAVAL ARMAMENT
§ 597- Treaty between the United States, France, the British
Empire, Italy and Japan, for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval
Armament. London, April 22, 1930. 1 (English and French texts .}
The President of the United States of America, the President of
the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain,
Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of
India, His Majesty the King of Italy, and His Majesty the Emperor
of Japan,
Desiring to prevent the dangers and reduce the burdens inherent
in competitive armament, and
Desiring to carry forward the work begun by the Washington
Naval Conference, and to facilitate the progressive realisation of
general limitation and reduction of armaments,
Have resolved to conclude a Treaty for the limitation and
reduction of naval armament, and have accordingly appointed as
their plenipotentiaries :
The President of the United States of America : [names]
The President of the French Republic : [names]
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India
for Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the
British Empire which are not separate Members of the League of
Nations : [names]
for the Dominion of Canada : [names]
for the Commonwealth of Australia : [name]
for the Dominion of New Zealand : [name]
for the Union of South Africa : [name]
for the Irish Free State : [name]
for India : [name]
His Majesty the King of Italy : [names]
His Majesty the Emperor of Japan : [nam^]
Who having communicated to one another their full powers,
found in good and due form, have agreed as follows :
(Then follow in twenty-six articles the provisions of the Treaty,
which in Art. 23 provides that, with certain specified exceptions,
it shall remain in force till December 31, 1936 ; in Art. 24 that it
shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties " in accordance
with their respective constitutional methods, and the ratifications
shall be deposited at London as soon as possible " ; in Art. 25 that,
after all ratifications have been deposited, Part IV (regarding rules
of international law concerning submarines) shall be communicated
1 Treaty Series, No. I (1931).
340 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
by Great Britain to all non-signatory states, inviting them to accede
to that Part definitely and without limit of time) .
Art. 26. — The present Treaty, of which the English and French
texts are both authentic, shall remain deposited in the archives of
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland. Duly certified copies thereof shall be
transmitted to the Governments of all the High Contracting Parties.
In faith whereof, etc.
Done at London, the 22nd day of April, 1930.
[Seals and signatures.]
PEACE
§ 598. It was formerly usual to preface a treaty of peace by
a first article undertaking that it should be perpetual. Thus
Article I of the Treaty of Versailles of September 3, 1 783 1
(headed :
Au nom de la Tres-Sainte et Indivisible Trinite, Pere, Fils,
et Saint Esprit. Ainsi soit-il),
ran thus :
II y aura une paix Chretienne, universelle et perpetuelle, tant
par mer que par terre, et une amide sincere et constante sera
retablie, entre Leurs Majestes Britannique et tres Chretienne, et
entre leurs heriders et successeurs, royaumes, etats, provinces, pays,
sujets, et vassaux, de quelque qualite et condition qu'ils soient,
sans exception de lieux ni de personnes ; en sorte que les hautes
parties contractantes apporteront la plus grande attention a main-
tenir entre elles, et leurs dits etats et sujets, cette amide et corre-
spondance reciproque, sans permettre dorenavant que, de part ni
d'autre, on commette aucunes sortes d'hostilites, par mer ou par
terre, pour quelque cause ou sous quelque pretexte que ce puisse
etre : Et on evitera soigneusement tout ce qui pourroit alterer,
a 1'avenir, 1'union heureusement retablie, s'attachant au contraire a
se procurer reciproquement, en toute occasion, tout ce qui pourroit
contribuer a leur gloire, interets, et avantages mutuels, sans donner
aucun secours ou protection, directement ou indirectement, a ceux
qui voudroient porter quelque prejudice a 1'une ou a 1'autre des
dites hautes parties contractantes. II y aura un oubli et amnisde
generale de tout ce qui a pu etre fait ou commis, avant ou depuis
le commencement de la guerre qui vient de finir.2
Notwithstanding, in 1793 the recently established French
Republic declared war against Great Britain, a war which
was carried on, with the slight intermission which followed
on the Peace of Amiens, between France and Great Britain,
the latter often with, sometimes without, allies, until 1815.
1 Text in F. de Martens' Recueil, etc., xiii. 160. 2 Jenkinson, iii. 335.
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 341
§ 599. Treaty between Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, France,
Germany, Italy, Russia and Turkey, for the Settlement of Affairs in
the East. Berlin, July 13, iSyS.1 (French text.}
Au nom de Dieu Tout-Puissant. S. M. la Reine du Royaume-
Uni de la Grande Bretagne et d'Irlande, Imperatrice des Indes ;
le President de la Republique Francaise ; S. M. 1'Empereur
d'Allemagne, Roi de Prusse ; S. M. 1'Empereur d'Autriche, Roi
de Boheme, &c., et Roi Apostolique de Hongrie ; S. M. le Roi
d'ltalie ; S. M. 1'Empereur de Toutes les Russies, et S. M. 1'Empe-
reur des Ottomans, desirant regler dans une pensee d'ordre
Europeen, conformement aux stipulations du Traite de Paris du
30 mars 1856, les questions soulevees en Orient par les evenements
des dernieres annees et par la guerre dont le Traite Preliminaire de
San Stefano a marque le terme, ont etc unanimement d'avis que la
reunion d'un Congres offrirait le meilleur moyen de faciliter leur
entente.
Leurs dites Majestes et le President de la Republique Francaise
ont en consequence nomme pour leurs Plenipotentiaires, savoir :
[names]
Lesquels, suivant la proposition de la Cour d'Autriche-Hongrie
et sur 1'invitation de la Gour d'Allemagne, se sont reunis a Berlin
munis de pleins pouvoirs qui ont etc trouves en bonne et due
forme.
L'accord s'etant heureusement etabli entre eux, ils sont convenus
des stipulations suivantes :
[Articles.]
Le present traite sera ratifie, et les ratifications en seront
echangees a Berlin dans un delai de trois semaines, ou plus tot si
faire se peut.
En foi de quoi, etc.
[Place, date.] [Signatures.]
§ 600. Treaty between the United States and Spain for the Con-
clusion of Peace. Paris, December 10, i8g8.2 (English and
Spanish texts.}
The United States of America and Her Majesty the Queen
Regent of Spain, in the name of Her august son, Don Alfonso XIII,
desiring to end the state of war now existing between the two
countries, have for that purpose appointed as plenipotentiaries :
The President of the United States : [names]
And Her Majesty the Queen Regent of Spain : [names]
Who, having assembled in Paris, and having exchanged their
full powers, which were found to be in due and proper form, have,
after discussion of the matters before them, agreed upon the
following articles :
(Arts, i to 1 6.)
1 Br. and For. State Papers, Ixix. 749. 2 Ibid., xc. 382.
342 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
(Art. 1 7 provided for the exchange of ratifications at Washington
" within six months from the date hereof, or earlier if possible.")
In faith whereof, etc.
Done in duplicate at Paris, the loth day of December, in the
year of our Lord 1898.
[Seals and Signatures. ]
§ 60 1. Treaty of Peace between Japan and Russia. Portsmouth
(U.S.A.], August 23 /September 5, I9O5.1 (English and French
texts.)
Sa Majeste 1'Empereur du Japon, d'une part, et Sa Majeste
1'Empereur de Toutes les Russies, d'autre part, etant animes du
desir de retablir les bienfaits de la paix pour leurs pays et pour
leurs peuples, ont decide de conclure un Traite de Paix, et ont
nomine a cet effet leurs plenipotentiaires, savoir :
Sa Majeste 1'Empereur du Japon : [names]
Sa Majeste 1'Empereur de Toutes les Russies : [names']
Lesquels, apres avoir echange leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouves
en bonne et due forme, ont conclu les Articles suivants :
Art. i. — II y aura a 1'avenir paix et amitie entre Leurs Majestes
1'Empereur du Japon et 1'Empereur de Toutes les Russies, ainsi
qu'entre leurs Etats et sujets respectifs.
(Then follow the other Articles of the Treaty, Art. 14 providing
for ratification within at most fifty days after the date of signature
of the Treaty, the formal exchange to take place at Washington as
soon as possible.)
Art. 15. — Le present Traite sera signe en double, en langues
anglaise et franchise. Les deux textes sont absolument con-
formes ; mais, en cas de divergence d'interpretation, le texte
frangais fera foi.
En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires respectifs ont signe et scelle
de leurs sceaux le present Traite de Paix.
Fait a Portsmouth (New Hampshire) le 5e jour du ge mois de
la 38e annee de Meiji, correspondant au 23 aout/5 septembre de
1'an 1905.
[Signatures and seals.']
§ 602. Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers
and Germany. Versailles, June 28, 1919. 2 (English and French
texts.)
The United States of America, the British Empire, France,
Italy and Japan,
These Powers being described in the present Treaty as the
Principal Allied and Associated Powers,
Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Greece,
Guatemala, Haiti, the Hedjaz, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua,
1 Br. and For. State Papers, xcviii. 735. 2 Ibid., cxii. 7.
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 343
Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, the Serb-Groat-
Slovene State, Siam, Czechoslovakia and Uruguay,
These Powers constituting with the Principal Powers mentioned
above the Allied and Associated Powers, of the one part ;
And Germany, of the other part ;
Bearing in mind that on the request of the Imperial German
Government an armistice was granted on November 1 1 , 1918,
to Germany by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in order
that a Treaty of Peace might be concluded with her, and
The Allied and Associated Powers being equally desirous that
the war in which they were successively involved directly or
indirectly and which originated in the declaration of war by Austria-
Hungary on July 28, 1914, against Serbia, the declaration of war
by Germany against Russia on August I, 1914, and against France
on August 3, 1914, and in the invasion of Belgium, should be
replaced by a firm, just and durable peace,
For this purpose the High Contracting Parties represented as
follows :
(Here follow the names of the plenipotentiaries, of which the
chief are given below.)
The President of the United States of America, by the Hon.
Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, acting in his own
name and by his own proper authority : . . .
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor
of India, by the Rt. Hon. David Lloyd George, M.P., First Lord of
His Treasury and Prime Minister. . . .
for the Dominion of Canada, by the Hon. Charles Joseph
Doherty, Minister of Justice. . . .
for the Commonwealth of Australia, by the Rt. Hon. William
Morris Hughes, Attorney-General and Prime Minister. . . .
for the Union of South Africa, by General the Rt. Hon. Louis
Botha, Minister of Native Affairs and Prime Minister. . . .
for the Dominion of New Zealand, by the Rt. Hon. William
Ferguson Massey, Minister of Labour and Prime Minister. . . .
for India, by the Rt. Hon. Edwin Samuel Montagu, M.P., His
Secretary of State for India ; Major-General H.H. Maharaja Sir
Ganga Singh Bahadur, Maharaja of Bikaner, G. C.S.I., etc.
The President of the French Republic, by M. Georges Clemen-
ceau, President of the Council, Minister of War. . . .
His Majesty the King of Italy, by Baron S. Sonnino, Deputy. . . .
His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, by Marquis Saionzi, formerly
President of the Council of Ministers. . . .
His Majesty the King of the Belgians, by M. Paul Hymans,
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister of State. . . .
(Continuing for the other Allied and Associated Powers in the
order named.)
Germany, by Mr. Hermann Miiller, Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the Empire. . . .
344 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
Acting in the name of the German Empire and of each and
every component state.
Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and
due form, have agreed as follows :
From the coming into force of the present Treaty the state of
war will terminate. From that moment and subject to the pro-
visions of this Treaty official relations with Germany, and with any
of the German states, will be resumed by the Allied and Associated
Powers.
(Then follows, as Part I of the Treaty, the Covenant of the
League of Nations. The remainder of the Treaty, which consists
in all of 440 articles, is divided into the following parts : (2) Bound-
aries of Germany ; (3) Political Clauses for Europe ; (4) German
rights and interests outside Germany ; (5) Military, Naval, and
Air clauses ; (6) Prisoners of War and Graves ; (7) Penalties ;
(8) Reparation ; (9) Financial Clauses ; (10) Economic Clauses ;
(n) Aerial Navigation; (12) Ports, Waterways and Railways;
(13) Labour ; (14) Guarantees ; (15) Miscellaneous provisions.)
The present Treaty, of which the French and English texts are
both authentic, shall be ratified.
The deposit of ratifications shall be made at Paris as soon as
possible.
Powers of which the seat of government is outside Europe will
be entitled merely to inform the Government of the French Republic
through their diplomatic representative at Paris that their ratifica-
tion has been given ; in that case they must transmit the instrument
of ratification as soon as possible.
A first proces-verbal of the deposit of ratifications will be drawn
up as soon as the Treaty has been ratified by Germany on the one
hand, and by three of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers
on the other hand.
From the date of this first proces-verbal the Treaty will come
into force between the High Contracting Parties who have ratified
it. For the determination of all periods of time provided for in the
present Treaty this date will be the date of the coming into force
of the Treaty.
In all other respects the Treaty will enter into force for each
Power at the date of the deposit of its ratification.
The French Government will transmit to all the signatory
Powers a certified copy of the proces-verbaux of the deposit of
ratifications.
In faith whereof the above-named plenipotentiaries have signed
the present Treaty.
Done at Versailles, the 28th day of June, 1919, in a single copy,
which will remain deposited in the archives of the French Republic,
and of which authenticated copies will be transmitted to each of
the signatory Powers.
(The Treaties of Peace with Austria,1 signed at St. Germain-en-
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxii. 317.
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 345
Laye, September 10, 1919 ; with Bulgaria,1 signed at Neuilly,
November 27, 1919 ; and with Hungary,2 signed at Trianon,
June 4, 1920, were drawn on similar lines, being prefaced in each
case by the Covenant of the League of Nations, and were signed
by the United States, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan,
Belgium, and other Allied and Associated Powers. The ratifica-
tions of the Treaties with Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, and Hungary,
were duly deposited with the French Government from January 10,
1920, onwards, by the countries on whose behalf they were signed,
with the exception of the United States, Ecuador and the Hedjaz,
which did not ratify. A Treaty of Peace with Turkey 3 was not
finally reached till July 24, 1923, when it was signed at Lausanne.
Unlike the others, it was not prefaced by the Covenant of the League
of Nations.)
ROYAL MARRIAGE
§ 603. Treaty for the Marriage of H.M. the King of Spain with
H.R.H. Princess Victoria Eugenie Julia Ena. London, May 7,
igo6.4 (English and Spanish texts.}
Be it known to all men by these Presents that whereas His
Catholic Majesty Alfonso XIII, King of Spain, has judged it
proper to announce his intention of contracting a marriage with
H.R.H. Princess Victoria Eugenie Julia Ena, niece of H.M.
Edward VII, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of
India, and daughter of H.R.H. the Princess Beatrice Mary Victoria
Feodore (Princess Henry of Battenberg), in order therefore to treat
upon, conclude and confirm the Articles of the Treaty of the said
marriage, His Britannic Majesty on the one part, and His Catholic
Majesty on the other part, have named as their plenipotentiaries,
that is to say ;
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor
of India : [name]
And His Majesty the King of Spain : [name]
Who, after having communicated to each other their full powers,
found in good and due form, have agreed upon and concluded the
following Articles :
Art. i. — (For the solemnisation of the marriage at Madrid.)
Art. 2. — (Annual grant to the bride, and annual grant in case
of widowhood. The private settlements to be made on either side
to be agreed upon and expressed in a separate contract, which shall
be deemed to form an integral part of the present treaty.)
Art. 3. — (Forfeiture by the bride of all hereditary rights of
succession to the Crown and Government of Great Britain and
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxii. 781. 2 Ibid., cxiii. 486.
3 Ibid., cxvii. 543. 4 Treaty Series, No. 6 (1906).
346 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of
the same).
The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall
be exchanged at London as soon as possible.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed
the same, and have affixed thereto the seal of their arms.
Done in duplicate at London, the yth day of May, in the year
of Our Lord 1906.
[Seals and signatures.]
GOVERNMENTAL CONVENTION
§ 604. International Convention relative to International Exhibitions.
Paris, November 22, I928.1 (French text.}
( Translation.}
THE undersigned, plenipotentiaries of the Governments here-
inafter enumerated, having met in conference at Paris from
November 12 to 22, 1928, have, by common consent and subject
to ratification, agreed as follows :
(Then follow thirty-two Articles under the heads of Definitions,
Frequency of Exhibitions, International Exhibitions Bureau,
Obligations of an Inviting Country and of Participating Countries,
Awards.)
Art. 33. — The present convention shall be subject to ratification :
(a) Each Government, as soon as it is ready to take part in
a deposit of ratifications, shall so notify the French
Government. As soon as seven Governments shall have
so declared themselves ready, the deposit of ratifications
shall take place, on a day appointed by the French
Government, within a month of the date of the receipt
by that Government of the last notification.
(b) The ratifications shall be deposited in the archives of the
French Government.
(c) The deposit of ratifications shall be verified by a proces-
verbal signed by the representatives of the Governments
taking part therein and by the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the French Republic.
(d) The Governments of signatory countries which have not
been ready to deposit their ratifications under the condi-
tions set forth in paragraph (a) of the present article,
may do so subsequently by means of a written notifica-
tion addressed to the Government of the French Republic
and accompanied by the instruments of ratification.
(e) Certified copies of the proces-verbal of the first deposit of
ratifications, and of the notifications referred to in the
preceding paragraph, shall be immediately transmitted,
1 Treaty Series, No. 9 (1931).
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 347
through the intermediary of the French Government,
by the diplomatic channel to the Governments which
have signed the present convention or have acceded
thereto. In the case of notifications received under the
preceding paragraph, the French Government shall also
state the dates on which they have been received.
Art. 34. — (a) The present convention applies ipso facto to the
metropolitan territories only of the contracting countries.
(b) If a country desires the convention to apply to its colonies,
protectorates, overseas territories, and territories under suzerainty
or mandate, a statement to that effect shall be included in its
ratification, or form the subject of a notification addressed in writing
to the French Government. Any such notification shall be
deposited in the archives of that Government.
If the latter procedure is adopted, the French Government shall
transmit to the Governments of signatory or acceding countries
a certified copy of such notification, showing the date at which it
was received.
(c) Exhibitions which include only the products of a metro-
politan country and of its colonies, protectorates, overseas terri-
tories and territories under suzerainty or mandate shall be con-
sidered as national exhibitions, and, in consequence, not subject
to the present convention, whether or not the convention may be
in force in such territories.
Art. 35. — (a) At any time after the coming into force of the
present convention any non-signatory country may accede thereto.
(b} Such accession may be effected by a notification in writing
transmitted through the diplomatic channel to the French Govern-
ment. Such notifications of accession shall be deposited in the
archives of that Government.
(c) The French Government shall transmit immediately to
the Governments of all signatory and acceding countries certified
copies of any such notifications, showing the dates on which they
were received.
Art. 36. — The present convention shall come into force, in
respect of the countries which have taken part in the first deposit
of ratifications, one month after the date of the proces-verbal thereof.
In the case of countries which ratify subsequently or accede thereto,
and in respect of colonies, protectorates, overseas territories and
territories under suzerainty or mandate not included in ratifications,
the convention shall take effect one month after the date of receipt
of the notifications provided for in articles 33, paragraph (d] ; 34,
paragraph (b) ; 35, paragraph (b}.
Art. .37. — The present convention shall not be capable of being
denounced until a period of five years has elapsed since the date
of its coming into force.
Thereafter notifications of denunciation may be addressed to
the Government of the French Republic and shall take effect
one year after the date of their receipt. Certified copies of such
348 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
notifications, showing the date on which they were received, shall
be immediately transmitted by the Government of the French
Republic to the Governments of all countries which have signed or
acceded to the present convention.
The provisions of the present article apply also to colonies,
protectorates, overseas territories and territories under suzerainty
or mandate.
Art. 38. — If, by reason of denunciations, the number of con-
tracting countries is reduced to less than seven, the Government of
the French Republic shall immediately summon an international
conference to consider what measures shall be taken.
Art. 39. — The Government of the French Republic shall com-
municate to the International Bureau copies of all ratifications,
accessions and denunciations.
Art. 40. — The present convention shall remain open for signa-
ture at Paris until the 3Oth April, 1929.
In faith whereof the undermentioned plenipotentiaries have
signed the present convention.
Done at Paris on the 22nd November, 1928, in one copy which
shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the French
Republic, and of which certified copies shall be transmitted through
the diplomatic channel to the Governments of all countries repre-
sented at the Conference of Paris.
[Signatures of plenipotentiaries of the
respective Governments of the
countries participating, which
follow in alphabetical order in
French.]
CONCORDAT
§ 605. Concordat between the Holy See and Poland. Rome,
February 10, I925-1
Au nom de la Tres-Sainte et Indivisible Trinite.
Sa Saintete le Pape Pie XI et le President de la Republique
de Pologne, M. Stanislas Wojciechowski,
Animes du desir de determiner la situation de 1'eglise catholique
en Pologne et d'etablir les regies qui regiront d'une maniere digne
et stable les affaires ecclesiastiques sur le territoire de la Republique,
Ont decide a ces fins de conclure un concordat.
En consequence Sa Saintete le Pape Pie XI et le President de
la Republique de Pologne, M. Stanislas Wojciechowski, ont nomme
leurs plenipotentiaires respectifs : [names]
Les plenipotentiaires susnommes, apres 1'echange de leurs
pleins pouvoirs, ont arrete les dispositions suivantes, auxquelles
desormais les hautes parties contractantes s'engagent a se conformer.
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxii. 835.
CONCORDAT 349
Art. ier. — L'eglise catholique, sans distinction de rites, jouira
dans la Republique de Pologne d'une pleine liberte. L'fitat
garantit a 1'eglise le libre exercice de son pouvoir spirituel et de sa
juridiction ecclesiastique, de meme que la libre administration et
gestion de ses affaires et de ses biens, conformement aux lois
divines et au droit canon.
(Arts. 2 to 26.)
Art. 27. — Le present concordat entrera en vigueur 2 mois
apres Pechange des actes de sa ratification.
[Seals and signatures.]
Concordat between the Holy See and Italy. Rome, February n,
(Translation.)
In the name of the Most Holy Trinity.
Whereas from the commencement of the negotiations between
the Holy See for the settlement of the " Roman question," the
Holy See itself proposed that the treaty relating to that question
should be accompanied, as a necessary complement, by a concordat
for the regulation of the conditions governing religion and the
Church in Italy ;
And whereas the treaty for the settlement of the " Roman
question " has this day been concluded and signed :
His Holiness Pius XI, the Supreme Pontiff, and His Majesty
Victor Emmanuel III, King of Italy, have resolved to conclude a
concordat, and for that purpose have appointed the same pleni-
potentiaries who were delegated for that treaty, viz. : [names], who,
having exchanged their full powers, which were found to be in
good and due form, have agreed on the following articles :
Art. I. — In accordance with Article i of the treaty, Italy shall
assure to the Catholic Church the free exercise of spiritual power
and the free and public exercise of worship, as well as of its juris-
diction in ecclesiastical matters, in accordance with the provisions
of the present concordat. Where it is necessary Italy shall afford
to ecclesiastics the protection of her authorities for the acts of their
spiritual ministry.
Having regard to the sacred character of the Eternal City, the
Episcopal See of the Supreme Pontiff, the centre of the Catholic
world and the goal of pilgrimages, the Italian Government shall
adopt measures to prevent in Rome all that may conflict with that
character.
(Arts. 2 to 44.)
Art. 45. — The present concordat shall enter into operation on
the exchange of ratifications, at the same time as the treaty con-
cluded between the same high parties for the elimination of the
" Roman question." . . .
Rome, the nth February, 1929.
[Seals and Signatures.]
350 ADDITIONAL ARTICLES
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES
§ 606. These are sometimes appended to a treaty in relation
to some subsidiary matter, or in qualification of a provision
in the main instrument, and signed at the same time as the
latter. At the Congress of Vienna, Additional Articles were
signed on May 30, 1814, and November 2, 1815, each to the
effect that it " aura la meme force et valeur que s'il etait insere
mot-a-mot au traite de ce jour. II sera compris dans la
ratification dudit traite." 1
§ 607. Occasionally they are incorporated in the treaty
itself. The Protocol of October 13, 1921, between Austria
and Hungary, relative to Western Hungary, has an Additional
Article included within, and signed with, the Protocol.2 More
often they form a subsidiary compact, signed with, and
regarded as an integral part of, the main instrument, and
subject to like conditions as to ratification. They are even
to be found styled " Annex," as in the example appended,
but this is unusual, for most annexes to a treaty are referred to
in the body of the treaty itself, and are attached to it in virtue
of such reference.
§ 608. Additional Article to the Extradition Treaty of January 19,
1922, between the United States and Venezuela. Caracas, January 2 1 ,
1922.
The undersigned [names of plenipotentiaries] have agreed upon the
following Additional Article to the Treaty of Extradition signed by
the aforesaid on the i gth instant :
It is agreed that all differences between the Contracting Parties
relating to the interpretation or execution of this treaty shall be
decided by arbitration.
In witness whereof they have signed the above Article, and
have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate at Caracas, this 2ist day of January, ig22.3
[Seals and signatures.]
§ 609. Annex to Provisional Agreement between Great Britain and
the Netherlands relating to Air Navigation. The Hague, July n,
Annex
I . For the purpose of flights within the limits of and above its
own territory each of the contracting parties has the right to refuse
to recognise certificates of competency and licences granted to one
of its nationals by the other contracting state.
2. It is agreed that the establishment of a regular service to and
1 Brit, and For. State Papers, i. 172 ; iii. 292. 2 Ibid., cxiv. 624.
3 Ibid., cxviii. 1 141.
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES 351
from one of the contracting states and within that state may be
made subject to special regulations by that state.
3. The present Annex shall be considered as an integral part of
the above agreement.1
§ 610. Additional Articles are sometimes concluded at
a later date, as agreements between Governments, and
occasionally styled Additional Act, in amplification or modifi-
cation of the provisions of a former treaty ; in this event they
may or may not provide for ratification. More often, however,
these objects are accomplished by means of supplementary
conventions, agreements or protocols, though in the case of
postal, telegraphic or monetary Agreements, when these are
modified, the term Additional Articles is frequently applied.
§ 611. Additional Articles to the Franco-Danish Commercial Con-
vention of February 9, 1842. Copenhagen, February 9, 1910.
Les Soussignes [names and official designations] , dument autorises a
cet effet, sont convenus des articles additionnels suivants a la Con-
vention de Commerce et de Navigation, signee a Paris, le 9 fevrier,
1842.
(Articles i and 2.)
3. Les presents articles auront la meme force et valeur que s'ils
faisaient partie integrate de la Convention precitee du 9 fevrier,
1842 ; ils seront appliques dans les memes limites geographiques
et cesseront leurs effets en meme temps que ladite Convention en
cas ou celle-ci viendrait a etre denoncee.
4. Les presents articles, expedies en double, entreront en
vigueur un mois apres leur signature.2
[Place, date.] [Seals and signatures.]
§ 6 1 2. Additional Act to the Italo-Swiss Fishery Convention of
June 13, 1906. Rome, February 8, 1911.
(Preamble.)
Allo scopo di risolvere alcune questioni sorte nella applicazione
della convenzione fra 1'Italia e la Svizzera, conclusa a Lugano il
13 giugno 1906 e le cui ratifiche furono scambiate il 27 luglio
1906 in Roma, per 1'esercizio della pesca nelle acque comuni ai
due Stati,
i sottoscritti, in nome dei loro governi, e debitamente all'uopo
autorizzati, hanno convenuto quanto segue :
(Articles i to 8.)
9. II presente atto addizionale sara ratificato e le ratifiche
saranno scambiate il piu presto possibile.
Fatto a Roma, in doppio esemplare, 1'8 febbraio 191 1.3
[Official designations and signatures.'}
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxix. 453. 2 Ibid., ciii. 417.
3 Nouveau Recueil Central, 3me Serie, vii. 867.
352 FINAL ACT
§ 613. Additional Act to the British-Bolivian Convention of April 5,
1920, respecting False Indications of Origin. La Paz, March 14,
1921.
Whereas certain errors have been found to exist in the text of
the Convention respecting false indications of origin as signed
between Great Britain and the Republic of Bolivia on the 5th April,
1920, [names of plenipotentiaries'] having met together at the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs at La Paz, have agreed upon the
following corrections to be made in the text of the said Convention :
(Two corrections.)
In faith whereof the undersigned, duly authorised to this effect,
have signed the present Additional Act in the City of La Paz, this
1 4th day of March, 1921, and have affixed thereto their respective
seals.1
[Seals and signatures.]
FINAL ACT
§ 614. Final Act (Acte Final) is usually a formal statement or
summary of the proceedings of a congress or conference,
enumerating the treaties or conventions drawn up as the result
of its deliberations, with, it may be, certain recommendations,
or " voeux," deemed to be desirable. The signature of an
instrument of this kind commits the signatories to no more
than it contains, and does not in itself entail acceptance of the
treaties or conventions so enumerated, which require separate
signature, as, e.g., the Acte Final of the Lausanne Conference
concerning the Turkish Peace Settlement, signed at Lausanne,
July 24, 1923. At the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 it
was debated whether the instrument in which the results were
to be summed up should be styled Acte, Protocole, or Proces-Verbal
Final ; the phrase Acte Final was eventually preferred.2
§ 615. Final Act of the First International Peace Conference held
at The Hague, 1899.
(The Preamble relates how the Conference was invited, and how
it met.
Then follow the names of the delegates representing each
Power taking part.
Enumeration of the Conventions and Declarations annexed,
which remained open for signature until December 31, 1899.
Resolution adopted : That the Conference considered the
limitation of the charges which lay heavy on the world greatly to
be desired for the increase of the material and moral welfare of
humanity.
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxiv. 189.
2 Satow, International Congresses, 20.
GENERAL ACT 353
Six recommendations (voeux) ) .
" En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires ont signe le present acte,
et y ont appose leurs cachets.
" Fait a La Haye le 29 juillet, 1899, en un seul exemplaire, qui
sera depose au Ministere des Affaires fitrangeres, et dont des
copies, certifiees conformes, seront delivrees a toutes les Puissances
representees a la Conference."
§ 6 1 6. The Final Act of the Second Peace Conference at
The Hague in 1907 was drawn up in precisely the same form.
§ 617. Final Act of the Geneva Conference, 1929, regarding the
Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, and the Treatment of
Prisoners of War.
The Preamble states the purpose of the Conference, viz. : the
revision of the Red Cross Convention of 1906, and the elaboration
of a code relating to prisoners of war.
Then follows a list of the countries represented, with the names
of the delegates and their staffs, a short recital of the proceed-
ings, viz. : the appointment of a president, the formation of two
commissions to deal with the respective subjects, together with the
names of those who presided over them, and the fact that the
second commission divided into two sub-divisions, with the names
of their presidents.
A statement that the Conference has drawn up for signature by
the plenipotentiaries two conventions, bearing to-day's date
(July 27, 1929), with their titles. (These Conventions by their
terms remained open for signature until February i, 1930.)
Six recommendations (vaeux).
" En foi de quoi les delegues ont signe le present Acte final.
" Fait a Geneve, le 27 juillet 1929, en un seul exemplaire, qui
sera depose aux archives de la Confederation Suisse, et dont des
copies, certifiees conformes, seront remises a tous les Pays represented
a la Conference." x
GENERAL ACT
§ 6 1 8. But sometimes, as in the case of the Acte Final of the
Congress of Vienna, 1815, the instrument may itself become
a treaty by declaring that the separate treaties and conventions,
which are annexed, have the same force as if they were
textually included. Or, as in the Acte General of the Berlin
Conference of 1885, concerning African matters (spoken of as
the Acte Final, until in the course of the ninth protocol its
designation was changed), the various declarations, etc., are
incorporated in a single instrument and styled " General Act."
Such a General Act does not differ essentially from a treaty.
1 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. 7 (1931).
2 A
354 GENERAL ACT
§ 619. Further instances of the use of the term are the
General Act of the Brussels Conference of 1890 relative to the
African Slave Trade, and the General Act of the Algeciras
Conference of 1 906 relative to the Affairs of Morocco ; while
a recent one is the General Act of September 26, 1928, for the
Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, prepared under
the auspices of the League of Nations, and providing, not for
signature by plenipotentiaries, but for accessions thereto, to
the extents set out therein, and subject, if necessary, to certain
specified reservations.1
1 Treaty Series, No. 32 (1931).
CHAPTER XXIV
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL COMPACTS
(continued]
DECLARATION, AGREEMENT
DECLARATION
§ 620. THE term Declaration is used in various senses. It
may relate to communications made by states as " an explana-
tion and justification of a line of conduct pursued by them in
the past, or an explanation of views and intentions concerning
certain matters " ; or to such acts as declarations of war, or
of neutrality, or concerning contraband, etc.1
Here it is used as
" the title of a body of stipulations of a treaty according to which
the parties undertake to pursue in future a certain line of
conduct." 1
" The attempt to distinguish fundamentally between a ' declara-
tion ' and a ' convention ' by maintaining that, whereas a ' con-
vention ' creates rules of particular international law between the
contracting states only, a ' declaration ' contains the recognition,
on the part of the best qualified and most interested Powers, of
rules of universal international law, does not stand the test of
scientific criticism." 2
§ 621. International compacts involving matters of high
importance are sometimes recorded in the form of a Declara-
tion. The Declaration of Paris, 1856, the Declaration of
St. Petersburg, 1868, and the Declaration of London, 1909, are
notable instances of Declarations aimed at the definition of
rules of international law.
Of equal importance are the Declaration between the
British and French Governments of April 8, 1904, relating to
Egypt and Morocco, and the Declaration between the British,
French and Russian Governments of September 5, 1914,
undertaking not to conclude peace separately.
1 Oppenheim, i. § 487. 2 Ibid., i. § 508.
356 DECLARATION
§ 622. Declaration of Paris, April 16, 1856.
Les Plenipotentiaires qui ont signe le Traite de Paris du 30 mars
1856, reunis en Conference,
Considerant :
Que le droit maritime, en temps de guerre, a ete pendant long-
temps 1'objet de contestations regrettables :
Que 1'incertitude du droit et des devoirs en pareille matiere,
donne lieu, entre les neutres et les belligerants, a des divergences
d'opinion qui peuvent faire naitre des difficultes serieuses et meme
des conflits ;
Qu'il y a avantage, par consequent, a etablir une doctrine
uniforme sur un point aussi important ;
Que les Plenipotentiaires assembles au Congres de Paris ne
sauraient mieux repondre aux intentions dont leurs Gouvernements
sont animes, qu'en cherchant a introduire dans les rapports
internationaux des principes fixes a cet egard ;
Dument autorises, les susdits Plenipotentiaires sont convenus
de se concerter sur les rnoyens d'attendre ce but ; et etant tombes
d'accord ont arrete la Declaration solennelle ci-apres :
1. La course est et demeure abolie.
2. Le pavilion couvre la marchandise ennemie, a 1'exception
de la contrebande de guerre.
3. La marchandise neutre, a 1'exception de la contrebande de
guerre, n'est pas saisissible sous pavilion ennemi ;
4. Les blocus, pour etre obligatoires, doivent etre effectifs, c'est-
a-dire, maintenus par une force suffisante pour interdire reellement
1'acces du littoral ennemi.
Les Gouvernements des Plenipotentiaires soussignes s'engagent a
porter cette Declaration a la connaissance des Etats qui n'ont pas ete
appeles a participer au Congres de Paris, et a les inviter a y acceder.
Convaincus que les maximes qu'ils viennent de proclamer ne
sauraient etre accueillis qu'avec gratitude par le monde entier, les
Plenipotentiaires soussignes ne doutent pas que les efforts de leurs
Gouvernements pour en generaliser 1'adoption ne soient couronnes
d'un plein succes.
La presente Declaration n'est et ne sera obligatoire qu'entre
les Puissances qui y ont ou qui y auront accede.
Fait a Paris, le 16 avril, 1856.
Extract from Protocole No. 24 —
Seance du 16 avril, 1856.
Sur la proposition de M. le Comte Walewski, et reconnaissant
qu'il est de 1'interet commun de maintenir 1'indivisibilite des
quatre principes mentionnes a la Declaration signee en ce jour,
MM. les Plenipotentiaires conviennent que les Puissances qui
1'auront signee ou qui y auront accede, ne pourront entrer, a
1'avenir, sur 1'application du droit des neutres en temps de guerre
en aucun arrangement qui ne repose a la fois sur les quatre principes
objet de la dite Declaration.
DECLARATION 357
§ 623. Declaration between Great Britain and France respecting
Egypt and Morocco. London, April 8, igc^.1
Art. i. — His Britannic Majesty's Government declare that they
have no intention of altering the political status of Egypt.
The Government of the French Republic, for their part, declare
that they will not obstruct the action of Great Britain in that
country by asking that a limit of time be fixed for the British occupa-
tion or in any other manner, and that they give their assent to the
draft Khedivial Decree annexed to the present Arrangement, con-
taining the guarantees considered necessary for the protection of
the interests of the Egyptian bondholders, on the condition that,
after its promulgation, it cannot be modified in any way without
the consent of the Powers Signatory of the Convention of London
of 1885.
It is agreed that the post of Director-General of Antiquities in
Egypt shall continue, as in the past, to be entrusted to a French
savant.
The French schools in Egypt shall continue to enjoy the same
liberty as in the past.
Art. 2. — The Government of the French Republic declare that
they have no intention of altering the political status of Morocco.
His Britannic Majesty's Government, for their part, recognise
that it appertains to France, more particularly as a Power whose
dominions are conterminous for a great distance with those of
Morocco, to preserve order in that country, and to provide assist-
ance for the purpose of all administrative, economic, financial, and
military reforms which it may require.
They declare that they will not obstruct the action taken by
France for this purpose, provided that such action shall leave intact
the rights which Great Britain, in virtue of Treaties, Conventions,
and usage, enjoys in Morocco, including the right of coasting trade
between the ports of Morocco, enjoyed by British vessels since 1901.
(Arts. 3 to 8, relating to French treaty rights in Egypt, com-
mercial liberty in Egypt and Morocco, French officials in Egypt,
Suez Canal, Straits of Gibraltar, Spanish interests in Morocco.)
Art. 9. — The two Governments agree to afford to one another
their diplomatic support, in order to obtain the execution of the
clauses of the present Declaration regarding Egypt and Morocco.
In witness whereof his Excellency the Ambassador of the
French Republic at the Court of His Majesty the King of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His Majesty's
Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, duly authorised
for that purpose, have signed the present Declaration and have
affixed thereto their seals.
Done at London, in duplicate, the 8th day of April, 1904.
[Seals and signatures.]
1 Treaty Series, No. 6 ( 1 905) .
358 DECLARATION
§ 624. Declaration between the French, Russian and British Govern-
ments after the Outbreak of War. London., September 5, igi^1
The undersigned, duly authorised thereto by their respective
Governments, hereby declare as follows :
The French, Russian and British Governments mutually engage
not to conclude peace separately during the present war.
The three Governments agree that when terms of peace come
to be discussed no one of the Allies will demand conditions of peace
without the previous agreement of each of the other Allies.
In faith whereof the undersigned have signed this Declaration,
and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done at London in triplicate, this 5th day of September, 1914.
[Seals and signatures.]
(Japan acceded to this declaration by an exchange of notes,
October 19, 1915. A declaration was signed by the representatives
of the above four Powers and of Italy, in quintuplicate, November 30,
1915, containing the same undertaking.)
§ 625. Declaration recognising the Right to a Flag of States having
no Sea Coast. Barcelona, April 20, i92i.2
The undersigned, duly authorised for the purpose, declare that
the states which they represent recognise the flag flown by the
vessels of any state having no sea coast which are registered at some
one specified place situated in its territory ; such place shall serve
as the port of registry of such vessels.
Barcelona, the soth April, 1921, done in a single copy, of which
the English and French texts shall be authentic.
[Signatures. ]
(The above simple declaration was signed by the representatives
of thirty-one countries, and was ratified, and acceded to, though
there is no actual provision in it for either formality.)
§ 626. Declarations are often appended to a treaty or con-
vention, to form a subsidiary compact, or to place on record
some understanding reached, or some explanation given.
The Treaty of Peace with Turkey, signed at Lausanne,
July 24, 1923, is supplemented by four Declarations, relating
respectively to amnesties, Moslem properties in Greece,
sanitary matters, and administration of justice, in addition to
a number of conventions and protocols on other matters.
§ 627. Declaration annexed to " L'Acte preliminaire de Paix ':
between Turkey and Greece of September 6/18, 1897. 3
En procedant a la signature des Preliminaires de Paix en date
de ce jour, S.E. le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres de S.M.I, le
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cviii. 365. 2 Ibid., cxvi. 544. 3 Ibid., xc. 549.
DECLARATION 359
Sultan declare que dans la pensee du Gouvernement Ottoman la
mediation qui vient d'etre exercee par les Six Grandes Puissances
pour le retablissement de la paix et pour la fixation de la base des
relations futures entre la Turquie et la Grece ne doit en rien influer
sur le mandat d'arbitre que les Representants des dites Puissances
peuvent etre appeles eventuellement a remplir en vertu de
1'Article IX de ces Preliminaires de Paix, et en consequence les
arbitres auront, comme de regie, la plus parfait plenitude d'appre-
ciation des points ou des questions qui leur auront etc soumis par
les Parties.
LL. EE. les Ambassadeurs prennent acte de cette observation
et reconnaissent qu'elle est conforme au sens de 1'Article IX.
[Signatures.]
§ 628. Declaration between Germany and Poland on the Exchange
of Ratifications of the Convention of May 15, 1922, relative to Upper
Silesia. Oppeln, June 3, I922.1
Au moment de proceder a 1'echange des ratifications sur la
Convention germano-polonaise relative a la Haute-Silesie, faite
a Geneve le 15 mai 1922, le representant du gouvernement
polonais et le representant du gouvernement allemand, dument
autorises a cet effet, declarent d'un commun accord, que le principe
enonce au § 3 de 1'Article I de ladite Convention du maintien en
vigueur de lois allemandes posterieures a Pentree en vigueur du
Traite de Versailles, lorsque ces lois ont regu 1'assentiment tacite
de la Commission interallied, s'applique seulement aux lois dont
le maintien en vigueur, conformement aux dispositions du § 3,
alinea 3, de 1'annexe a 1'article 88 du Traite de Versailles, a
fait I'objet d'un decret regulierement pris par la Commission
interallied, et promulgue par elle au "Journal Officiel " de la
Haute-Silesie.
La presente declaration constitue partie integrante de la Con-
vention precitee, et, par consequent, est comprise dans les ratifica-
tions respectives, sous reserve de 1'approbation ulterieure par les
autorites competentes de chaque Etat.
Fait a Oppeln, en double expedition, le 3 juin, 1'an 1922.
[Signatures.'}
§ 629. Declaration appended to the Treaty of Commerce between
Great Britain and Austria. London, May 22, I924-2
It is understood that nothing in the Treaty signed this day can
be invoked by Austria to support a claim for exemption from the
following disabilities to which Austrian nationals (in common with
the nationals of other Powers with which His Britannic Majesty
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxviii. 585.
2 Ibid., cxix. 336.
360 DECLARATION
was at war) are subject by Acts of Parliament of the United
Kingdom, so long as those Acts remain in force, namely :
(Three clauses.)
Done at London in duplicate, in English and German texts,
the 22nd May, 1924.
[Seals and signatures.]
§ 630. Declaration annexed to the Treaty of Commerce and Navi-
gation between Great Britain and Greece. London, July 16,
It is well understood that the Treaty of Commerce and Naviga-
tion between Great Britain and Greece of to-day's date does not
prejudice claims on behalf of private persons based on the pro-
visions of the Anglo-Greek Commercial Treaty of 1886, and that
any differences which may arise between our two Governments as
to the validity of such claims shall, at the request of either Govern-
ment, be referred to arbitration, in accordance with the provisions
of the Protocol of November 10, 1886, annexed to the said treaty.
Done at London, the 1 6th July, 1926.
[Signatures.]
§ 631. The title Declaration is also frequently given to
agreements between governments regarding some minor matter,
and has been used in this way for a considerable number of
agreements on such subjects as modification of a former con-
vention, execution of letters of request, recognition of tonnage
certificates, fishery regulations, etc. These may or may not
provide for ratification.
§ 632. Declaration modifying the North Sea Fisheries Convention
of May 6, 1882. The Hague, February i, i88g.2
Les Gouvernements signataires de la Convention conclue a La
Haye le 6 mai 1882, pour regler la police de la peche dans la Mer
du Nord, en dehors des eaux territoriales, ayant juge utile de
modifier la teneur du paragraphe 5 de 1'article 8, sont convenus
de ce qui suit :
Art. i. — Le paragraphe 5 de 1'article 8 de la Convention du
6 mai 1882 est remplace par la disposition suivante :
Art. 2. — La date de 1'entree en vigueur de la presente declara-
tion sera fixee lors du depot des ratifications, qui aura lieu a La
Haye aussitot que faire se pourra, et de la meme maniere dont
s'est effectue le depot des ratifications de la Convention du 6 mai
1882.
En foi de quoi, les Plenipotentiaires respectifs ont signe la
presente Declaration et y ont appose leur cachets.
Fait a la Haye, le ier fevrier 1889 en six exemplaires.2
[Seals and signatures.]
1 Treaty Series, No. 2 (1927).
2 Nouveau Recueil Central, 2me s6rie, xv. 568.
DECLARATION 361
§ 633. Declaration regarding the Delimitation of the Frontier
between the Cameroons and French Equatorial Africa. Paris,
September 28, 1912. 1
Le Gouvernement de S.M. 1'Empereur d'Allemagne, Roi de
Prusse [in the German text " Die Kaiserlich Deutsche Regierung "],
et le Gouvernement de la Republique Francaise, desirant, en vue
de 1'Execution de la Convention signee a Berlin le 4 novembre 1911,
determiner la frontiere entre le Cameroun et 1'Afrique fiquatoriale
Frangaise, preciser les conditions de la remise des territoires echanges
et regler certaines questions connexes, ainsi qu'il a ete prevu par les
articles 3 et 5 de la convention du 4 novembre 1911 precitee, sont
convenus de ce qui suit :
[Consisting of
(i) Arrangement relatif a la delimitation entre le Cameroun
et 1'Afrique Equatoriale Frangaise conformement a 1'accord du
4 novembre 1911 (37 articles in 4 chapters) ; (2) Arrangement
relatif a la remise des territoires a echanger entre le Cameroun et
1'Afrique Equatoriale Frangaise (20 articles) ; (3) Convention
relative au regime des concessions (50 articles).]
En foi de quoi les Soussignes ont dresse la presente Declaration
qu'ils ont revetue de leur sceau.
Fait a Paris, en double exemplaire, le 20 septembre 1912.
[Seals and signatures.]
§ 634. Declaration by Great Britain and France respecting Oyster
Fisheries outside Territorial Waters in the English Channel. Paris,
September 29, 1 923.2
The Government of His Britannic Majesty and the Government
of the French Republic, desiring to regulate the period for Oyster
dredging outside territorial waters in the English Channel, have
agreed upon the following provisions :
(Arts, i to 4.)
5. It is understood that the foregoing stipulations are also
applicable to the Irish Free State, the Government of which has
given its assent thereto.
6. The present declaration shall come into force on the
ist October, 1923. It shall be read as one with the regulations for
the guidance of fishermen prepared in pursuance of Art. 2 of the
Convention of 1839 above referred to.
In witness whereof the undersigned have signed the present
declaration in duplicate, and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done at Paris the 2gth September, 1923.
[Seals and signatures.]
1 Nouveau Recueil Central, 3me serie, vii. 135-88.
* Br. and For. State Papers, cxvii. 311.
362 DECLARATION
§ 635. Declaration between Austria and France regarding Trans-
mission of Legal Documents, and Execution of Letters of Request.
Paris, March 4, IQ25.1
Le Gouvernement de la Republique francaise et le Gouverne-
ment de la Republique d'Autriche ayant resolu de conclure un
accord au sujet de la transmission des actes judiciaires et de 1'execu-
tion des commissions rogatoires en matieres civile et commerciale,
les soussignes, dument autorises a cet effet, sont convenus des
dispositions suivantes :
(Arts, i to 7.)
8. Toutes les difficultes resultant de la presente declaration
seront reglees par la voie diplomatique.
9. La presente declaration entrera en vigueur i mois apres
sa signature. Ses effets cesseront a 1'expiration d'un delai de
6 mois a partir de la denonciation notifiee par 1'une ou 1'autre
par tie contractante.
En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires soussignes ont signe la
presente declaration et y ont appose leurs cachets.
Fait a Paris, le 4 mars 1925, en double exemplaire.
[Seals and signatures.]
§ 636. Declaration between Denmark and Sweden for the Reci-
procal Recognition of Tonnage Certificates. Stockholm, November 2 1 ,
( Translation} .
We, the undersigned, thereto duly empowered by our respective
Governments, have jointly agreed to the following declaration
concerning the reciprocal recognition of Swedish and Danish
tonnage certificates issued on the basis of the rules for ship measure-
ment adopted in Sweden and Denmark, in Sweden the so-called
German rule, and in Denmark the so-called British rule.
(Arts, i to 7.)
In witness whereof we have signed this declaration and affixed
thereto our seals.
Done in duplicate at Stockholm, the 2ist November, 1925.
[Seals and signatures^
§ 637. Declaration between Great Britain, with the Irish Free
State, and France, regarding French Fisheries in Granville Bay. London,
December 20, ig28.3
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the Government of the Irish Free State on
the one hand, and the Government of the French Republic on the
other hand,
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxii. 81 , 2 Ibid., cxxii. 405.
s Treaty Series, No. 2 (1929).
AGREEMENT 363
Considering that since the time of conclusion of the Anglo-
French Convention of the 2nd August, 1839, and the Regulations
of the 24th May, 1843, concerning the fisheries in the waters
situated between the coasts of France and the coasts of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and of the Irish Free State, changes
have occurred in the condition of the places in which are situated
the marks used to define the limiting line of the zone reserved for
French fishers in Granville Bay,
Considering that, in consequence, it is necessary to re-define the
bearings employed to determine the various salient points of this
limiting line,
Have agreed to substitute for Article I (paragraphs 2 and
following) of the Convention of the 2nd August, 1839, and for
Article 4 (paragraphs 3 and following) of the Regulations of the
24th May, 1843, the subjoined text :
(Bearings specified.)
The present declaration shall come into force on the 2Oth
January, 1929.
It shall be incorporated with the said articles of the Convention
of the 2nd August, 1839, and of the Regulations of the 24th May,
1843, enacted to carry that Convention into effect.
In witness whereof the undersigned have signed the present
declaration in triplicate, and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done at London, the 2Oth December, 1928.
[Seals and signatures.}
AGREEMENT
§ 638. The same absence of strict formality is to be found
in international compacts entitled Agreements, or sometimes
Arrangements. The former term might seem to imply an
undertaking somewhat more definite than the latter, but this
is not apparent. What in English is styled Agreement may
be Accord or Arrangement in French. In international compacts
concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations, where
both English and French texts have equal validity, " arrange-
ment " in the French text is usually rendered " agreement 3:
in the English text. In German, Vereinbarung is used for both,
also Abkommen. In Spanish, arrangement is rendered proto-
colo ; convenzione in Italian, and convenio in Spanish are found
as equivalents of the English " agreement," though doubtless
a more accurate translation for both would be " convention."
§ 639. Agreements are ordinarily concluded between govern-
ments ; occasionally between heads of states. General agree-
ments, to which many states are parties, have been concluded
on such subjects as false indications of origin of goods ; sup-
pression of obscene publications ; public health ; pharma-
copceial formulas ; venereal disease, etc. ; while similar
364 AGREEMENT
agreements, some of which are between heads of states, have
been concluded, under the auspices of the League of Nations,
concerning such matters as the manufacture of and trade in
prepared opium ; export of hides, skins and bones ; transit
cards for emigrants, etc.
§ 640. International Agreement regarding False Indications of
Origin on Goods. The Hague, November 6, I925-1
Les Soussignes, dument autorises par leurs Gouvernements
respectifs, ont, d'un commun accord, arrete le texte suivant, qui
remplacera 1'arrangement de Madrid du 14 avril 1891, revis6 a
Washington le 2 juin 1911, savoir : .
(Arts, i to 5.)
Art. 6. — Le present Acte sera ratifie et les ratifications en seront
deposees a La Haye au plus tard le ier mai 1928.
II entrera en vigueur, entre les pays qui 1'auront ratifie, un mois
apres cette date et aura la meme force et duree que la Convention
generale. Toutefois, si auparavant il etait ratine par six pays au
moins, il entrerait en vigueur, entre ces pays, un mois apres que
le depot de la sixieme ratification leur aurait etc notifiee par le
Gouvernement de la Confederation suisse et pour les pays qui rati-
fieraient ensuite, un mois apres la notification de chacune de ces
ratifications.
Le present Acte remplacera, dans les rapports entre les pays qui
1'auront ratifie, 1' Arrangement conclu a Madrid le 14 avril 1891 et
revise a Washington le 2 juin 1911. Ce dernier restera en vigueur
dans les rapports avec les pays qui n'auront pas ratifie le present
Acte.
En foi de quoi, les Plenipotentiaires respectifs ont signe le
present Arrangement.
Fait a La Haye, en un seul exemplaire, le 6 novembre 1925.
[Signatures in alphabetical order of countries.]
§ 641. Agreements are occasionally appended to treaties or
conventions, in completion of their stipulations. The Treaty of
Alliance between Great Britain and Iraq of October 10, 1922,
was accompanied by four agreements, subsidiary to Articles
2, 7, 9 and 15, and relating to British officials, military, judicial
and financial arrangements, which were signed by the pleni-
potentiaries of the respective heads of states, and were included
in the ratifications exchanged on December 19, 1924. The
Treaty of Friendship between Germany and the Soviet Union
of October 12, 1925, comprised seven agreements, relating to
conditions of residence and business, economic, railway,
navigation and fiscal matters, commercial courts of arbitration,
and protection of industrial property ; these agreements, with
1 Treaty Series, No. 15 (1928).
AGREEMENT 365
the general clauses of the treaty, constituting a single whole,
so that the expression " treaty " included the agreements. The
International Convention for the Abolition of Import and
Export Prohibitions and . Restrictions, signed at Geneva,
November 8, 1927, has appended to it an agreement also
between heads of states, signed at Geneva, July 11, 1928,
intended to supplement and to form an integral part of it.
§ 642. The Agreement form is that commonly used for
compacts between governments, and may relate to any matter
not sufficiently important to be enshrined in a treaty or con-
vention. But exceptional cases occur, and among these must
be included the Agreement between Great Britain and Japan
of July n, 1911, extending the provisions of the alliance
concluded in 1902, and renewed in 1905. The preliminaries
of peace between Italy and Turkey in 1912 took the form of
an agreement between heads of states.
Agreements between governments sometimes provide for
ratification, but more often do not.
§ 643. Agreement between Great Britain and Japan relative to
China, Eastern Asia and India. London, July 13, 191 1.1
The Government of Great Britain and the Government of Japan,
having in view the important changes which have taken place in the
situation since the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese Agreement of
the 1 2th August, 1905, and believing that a revision of that Agree-
ment responding to such changes would contribute to general
stability and repose, have agreed upon the following stipulations
to replace the Agreement above mentioned, such stipulations having
the same object as the said Agreement, namely :
(a) The consolidation and maintenance of the general peace in
the regions of Eastern Asia and of India ;
(b) The preservation of the common interests of all Powers in
China by insuring the independence and integrity of the Chinese
Empire and the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce
and industry of all nations in China ;
(c) The maintenance of the territorial rights of the High Con-
tracting Parties in the regions of Eastern Asia and of India, and the
defence of their special interests in the said regions :
(Arts, i to 5.)
Art. 6. — The present Agreement shall come into effect imme-
diately after the date of its signature, and remain in force for ten
years from that date.
In case neither of the High Contracting Parties should have
notified twelve months before the expiration of the said ten years
the intention of terminating it, it shall remain binding until the
expiration of one year from the day on which either of the High
1 Br. and For. State Papers, civ. 173.
366 AGREEMENT
Contracting Parties shall have denounced it. But if, when the date
fixed for its expiration arrives, either ally is actually engaged in
war, the alliance shall, ipso facto, continue until peace is concluded.
In faith whereof the undersigned, duly authorised by their
respective Governments, have signed this Agreement, and have
affixed thereto their Seals.
Done in duplicate at London, the i3th day of July, 1911.
[Seals and signatures.]
§ 644. Agreement between Italy and Turkey for the Preliminaries
of Peace. Lausanne, October 15, 191 2. l
S.M. le Roi d'ltalie et S.M. 1'Empereur des Ottomans, animes
par un egal desir de faire cesser 1'etat de guerre existant entre les
deux Pays et en vue de la difficulte d'y parvenir, provenant de
1'impossibilite pour 1'Italie de deroger a la loi du 25 fevrier 1912
qui a proclame sa souverainete sur la Tripolitaine et sur la Cyre-
naique, et pour I'Empire Ottoman de formellement reconnaitre
cette souverainete,
ont nomme Leurs Plenipotentiaires : [names]
lesquels, apres avoir echanges leurs pleins pouvoirs respectifs,
trouves en bonne et due forme, sont convenus du modus procedendi
secret suivant—
(Arts, i to 7.)
8. Les deux Hautes Parties Contractantes s'engagent a main-
tenir secret le present Accord.
Toutefois les deux Gouvernements se reservent la faculte de
rendre public cet Accord au moment de la presentation du Traite
public (Annexe n. 4) aux Parlements respectifs.
Le present Accord entrera en vigueur le jour meme de sa
signature.
9. II est bien entendu que les Annexes mentionnees dans le
present Accord en forment partie integrante.
En foi de quoi les Plenipotentiaires ont signe le present Accord
et y ont appose leurs cachets.
Fait a Lausanne en deux exemplaires, le 15 octobre 1912.
[Seals and signatures.]
§ 645. Political Agreement between France and Poland. Paris,
February 19,
Le Gouvernement polonais et le Gouvernement frangais, egale-
ment soucieux de sauvegarder, par le maintien des traites qui ont
etc signes en commun ou qui seront ulterieurement respectivement
reconnus, 1'etat de paix en Europe, la securite et la defense de leur
territoire ainsi que leurs interets mutuels politiques et economiques,
ont convenu ce qui suit :
(Arts, i to 4.)
1 Nouveau Recueil Gfafral, vii. 3. 2 Br. and For. State Papers, cxviii. 342.
AGREEMENT 367
Le present Accord n'entrera en vigueur qu'apres la signature
des accords commerciaux actuellement en negotiation.
Paris, le 1 9 fe vrier, 1 92 1 .
[Signatures.]
§ 646. Agreement between Great Britain and the United States for
the Renewal of the Arbitration Convention of April 4, 1 908. Washing-
ton, June 23, 1 923.!
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor
of India, and the President of the United States of America, being
desirous of extending for another five years the period during which
the Arbitration Convention concluded between them on the
4th April, 1908, extended by the Agreement concluded between the
two Governments on the 3ist May, 1913, and further extended by
the Agreement concluded between the two Governments on the
3rd June, 1918, shall remain in force, have respectively authorised
the undersigned, to wit : [names], to conclude the following
Articles :
(Art. i.)
2. The present Agreement shall be ratified by His Britannic
Majesty, and by the President of the United States, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and it shall become
effective upon the date of the exchange of ratifications, which shall
take place at Washington as soon as possible.
Done in duplicate this 23rd day of June, 1923.
[Seals and signatures.]
§ 647. Commercial Agreement between Germany and Spain.
Madrid, July 25, 1 924.2
(Translation.}
The Government of the German Reich and the Government of
His Majesty the King of Spain, desirous of fostering commercial
relations between the two countries and of placing them on a more
solid basis, have decided to replace the modus vivendi in force up
to the 3Oth June, 1924, by a commercial agreement, and have
appointed for this purpose as their plenipotentiaries : [names]
Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good
and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions :
(Arts, i to 8.)
9. The present agreement shall be ratified and the instru-
ments of ratification shall be exchanged at Madrid as soon as the
formalities prescribed by the legislation of the two states have
been complied with.
The agreement shall come into force on the date of the exchange
of the instruments of ratification and shall be operative until the
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxvii. 372. 2 Ibid., cxxii. 768.
368 AGREEMENT
expiry of a period of three months from the date of its denunciation
by either of the contracting parties.
In faith whereof the plenipotentiaries of the two parties have
signed the present agreement and have thereto affixed their seals.
Done at Madrid in duplicate, one copy in Spanish and the
other in German, the 25th July, 1924.
[Seals and signatures.]
§ 648. Agreement between Latvia and Norway respecting Tonnage
Certificates. Riga, June 10, IQ25.1
Considerant que la methode anglaise pour le jaugeage des
navires (systeme Moorsom) est en vigueur tant en Norvege qu'en
Lettonie, les soussignes, dument autorises a conclure un arrange-
ment relatif a la reconnaissance mutuelle des certificats de jaugeage
entre les deux pays, sont convenus de ce qui suit :
(Provisions.)
Le present arrangement entrera en vigueur a partir de la date
de sa signature.
Chacune des deux parties contractantes pourra en tout temps
denoncer le dit arrangement en donnant un preavis de 6 mois.
En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires ont signe le present
arrangement.
Fait en double, a Riga, le 10 juin, 1925.
[Signatures.]
§ 649. Agreement between Great Britain and Nejd regarding the
Transjordan-Nejd Frontier. Bahra, November 2, IQ25.2
The High British Government on its own part and H.H.
'Abdu'1-Aziz ibn 'Abdu'r-Rahman-al-Faisal Al Sa'ud, Sultan
of Nejd and its dependencies, on behalf of the Government
of Nejd, on his part, in view of the friendly relations which exist
between them, being desirous of fixing the frontier between Nejd
and Transjordan and of settling certain questions connected there-
with, the High British Government have named and appointed
Sir Gilbert Clayton, K.B.E., C.B., C.M.G., as their commissioner
and plenipotentiary, to conclude an agreement for this purpose
with Sultan 'Abdufl-Aziz ibn 'Abdu'r-Rahman-al-Faisal Al Sa'ud
on behalf of Nejd.
In virtue of which the said Sultan 'Abdufl-Aziz ibn'Abdu'r-
Rahman-al-Faisal Al Sa'ud and the said Sir Gilbert Clayton have
agreed upon and concluded the following articles :
(Arts. 1-13.)
Art. 14. — This agreement will remain in force for so long as
H.B.M. Government are entrusted with the mandate for Trans-
Jordan.
Art. 15. — The present agreement has been drawn up in two
languages, English and Arabic, and each of the High Contracting
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxii. 913. a Ibid., cxxi. 818.
AGREEMENT 369
Parties shall sign two English copies and two Arabic copies. Both
texts shall have the same validity, but in case of divergence between
the two in the interpretation of one or other of the articles of the
present agreement, the English text shall prevail.
The present agreement will be known as " the Hadda Agree-
ment."
Signed at Bahra Gamp on the 2nd November, 1925 (corre-
sponding to the 1 5th Rabi Thani 1344).
[Signatures.]
§ 650. Agreement between Great Britain and Germany respecting
Air Navigation. Berlin, June 29,
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and the President
of the German Reich, desiring to enter into an agreement relating
to air navigation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland on
the one hand and Germany on the other, have appointed as their
plenipotentiaries for this purpose :
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, for Great Britain
and Northern Ireland : [name]
The President of the German Reich : [name]
who, after having communicated to each other their full powers,
found in good and due form, have agreed as follows :
Art. i .... For the purpose of the present Agreement the term
" territory " means Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the one
hand and Germany on the other including in both cases the terri-
torial waters adjacent thereto, and the term " aircraft " means civil
aircraft (including State aircraft used exclusively for commercial
purposes) duly registered in the territory of either of the High
Contracting Parties.
(Arts. 2 to 21.)
Art. 22. — The present Agreement shall be ratified, and the
instruments of ratification shall be exchanged in Berlin, as soon as
possible. This Agreement shall come into force on the day on
which the instruments of ratification are exchanged.
In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed
the present Agreement and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done at Berlin in duplicate, in the English and German lan-
guages, which are equally authentic, the 2gth June, 1927.
[Seals and signatures.]
1 Treaty Series, No. i (1928).
2 B
CHAPTER XXV
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL COMPACTS
(continued)
PROTOCOL, PROCES-VERBAL, EXCHANGE OF NOTES
PROTOCOL
§651. THE word Protocol is derived from the Low-Latin
protocollum, Gr. TrpcuroKoXXov, the " first glued-in " to the
book ; originally a register in which public documents were
stuck. It then came to mean the form used in drawing up
such documents, and in diplomacy the register in which the
minutes of a conference are kept. It is also employed to
signify the forms to be observed in the official correspondence
of the minister for foreign affairs, and in the drafting of
diplomatic documents, such as treaties, conventions, declara-
tions, full powers, ratifications, letters of credence and other
letters addressed by one head of state to another. In France
le bureau du protocole is the sub-department charged with the
preparation of such papers and the regulation of ceremonial
in all such matters. In Great Britain it is the Treaty Depart-
ment of the Foreign Office.
§ 652. Used to denote the form taken by an international
compact, the word is regarded as describing the record of an
agreement less formal than a treaty or convention.
§ 653. But in present practice international compacts of the
highest importance may be cast in this form. No treaty could
be of greater importance than the Protocol of December 16,
1920, establishing the Permanent Court of International
Justice.
§ 654. Another Protocol of high importance is that con-
cluded between " States " at Geneva on September 24, 1923,
regarding the validity of agreements to submit to arbitration
differences in connection with contracts concerning com-
mercial matters, or any other matter capable of settlement by
arbitration. This protocol is supplemented by a convention
PROTOCOL 371
between heads of states, signed at Geneva on September 26,
1927 ; probably a unique combination of forms.
§ 655. The Covenant of the League of Nations has been
amended in various articles by a series of protocols, in which
" the undersigned, being duly authorised, declare that they
accept, on behalf of the Members of the League which they
represent, the above amendment."
§ 656. The Air Navigation Convention between heads of
states, signed at Paris, October 13, 1919, has been amended
by a similar series of protocols, in which " the undersigned,
duly authorised, declare their acceptance, on behalf of the
states which they represent, of the foregoing amendment,
which is proposed for the definitive approval of the contracting
states."
§ 657. Protocol establishing the Permanent Court of International
Justice. Geneva, December 16, I92O.1
The Members of the League of Nations, through the under-
signed, duly authorised, declare their acceptance of the adjoined
Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, which
was approved by a unanimous vote of the Assembly of the League
on the 1 3th December, 1920, at Geneva.
Consequently, they hereby declare that they accept the juris-
diction of the Court in accordance with the terms and subject to
the conditions of the above-mentioned Statute.
The present Protocol, which has been drawn up in accordance
with the decision taken by the Assembly of the League of Nations
on the 1 3th December, 1920, is subject to ratification. Each Power
shall send its ratification to the Secretary-General of the League of
Nations ; the latter shall take the necessary steps to notify such
ratification to the other signatory Powers. The ratifications shall
be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat of the League of
Nations.
The said Protocol shall remain open for signature by the
Members of the League of Nations and by the states mentioned in
the Annex to the Covenant of the League.
The Statute of the Court shall come into force as provided in
the above-mentioned decision.
Executed at Geneva, in a single copy, the French and English
texts of which shall both be authentic.
December 16, 1920.
[Signatures.]
Optional Clause
The undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, further declare,
on behalf of their Government, that, from this date, they accept as
compulsory, ipso facto and without special Convention, the jurisdiction
1 Treaty Series, No. 23 (1923).
372 PROTOCOL
of the Court in conformity with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the
Statute of the Court, under the following conditions : . . .
§ 658. Protocol for the Revision of the Statute of the Permanent
Court of International Justice. Geneva, September 14, igsg.1
1 . The undersigned, duly authorised, agree, on behalf of the
Governments which they represent, to make in the Statute of the
Permanent Court of International Justice the amendments which
are set out in the Annex to the present Protocol and which form
the subject of the resolution of the Assembly of the League of
Nations of September i4th, 1929.
2. The present Protocol, of which the French and English
texts are both authentic, shall be presented for signature to all the
signatories of the Protocol of December i6th, 1920, to which the
Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice is annexed,
and to the United States of America.
(Arts. 3 to 7, providing for ratification, entry into force, etc.)
Done at Geneva, the I4th day of September, 1929, in a single
copy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat of
the League of Nations. The Secretary-General shall deliver
authenticated copies to the Members of the League of Nations and
to the states mentioned in the Annex to the Covenant.
[Signatures in alphabetical order of countries in French.'}
§ 659. Protocol regarding the Accession of the United States to the
Protocol establishing the Permanent Court of International Justice.
Geneva, September 14, 1 929.2
The states signatories of the Protocol of Signature of the Statute
of the Permanent Court of International Justice, dated Decem-
ber 1 6th, 1920, and the United States of America, through the
undersigned duly authorised representatives, have mutually agreed
upon the following provisions regarding the adherence of the United
States of America to the said Protocol subject to the five reservations
formulated by the United States in the resolution adopted by the
Senate on January 27th, 1926.
(Arts, i to 6.)
Art. 7. — The present Protocol shall be ratified. Each state shall
forward the instrument of ratification to the Secretary-General of
the League of Nations, who shall inform all the other signatory
states. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited in the
archives of the Secretariat of the League of Nations.
The present Protocol shall come into force as soon as all states
which have ratified the Protocol of December i6th, 1920, and also
the United States, have deposited their ratifications.
(Art. 8.)
Done at Geneva, the 1 4th day of September, 1 929, in a single copy,
of which the French and English texts shall both be authoritative.
[Signatures in alphabetical order of countries in French.'}
1 Treaty Series, No.ji4 (1930). a Treaty Series, No. 13 (1930).
PROTOCOL 373
§ 660. It may happen that on the conclusion of a multi-
lateral treaty or convention, it is found desirable to supply
simultaneously observations, declarations and agreements
elucidatory of the text, and that these are recorded in a
Final Protocol (Protocol Final, Schluss-Protokoll, or Protocole de
Cloture} which becomes part of the compact.
§ 66 1 . Protocole de Cloture, annexed to the International Industrial
Property Convention, signed at Washington, June 2, 191 1.1
Au moment de proceder a la signature de 1'Acte conclu a la
date de ce jour, les Plenipotentiaires soussignes sont convenus de
ce qui suit : . . .
Le present Protocole de cloture, qui sera ratine en meme temps
que 1'Acte conclu a la date de ce jour, sera considere comme
faisant partie integrante de cet Acte, et aura meme force, valeur
et duree.
En foi de quoi, etc.
§ 662. Protocol of Signature of the International Convention
regarding Measurement of Vessels employed in Inland Navigation.
Paris, November 27, 1 925.2
At the moment of signing the Convention of to-day's date
relating to the measurement of vessels employed in inland naviga-
tion, the undersigned, duly authorised, have agreed as follows :
(Arts, i to 6.)
The present Protocol shall have the same force, effect and
duration as the Convention of to-day's date of which it is to be con-
sidered as an integral part.
In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries hereinafter named have
signed the present Protocol.
Done at Paris, the 27th day of November, 1925, in a single copy
which will remain deposited with the Secretariat of the League of
Nations ; certified copies will be transmitted to all the States
represented at the Conference.
[Signatures.'}
§ 663. Protocol of Signature of the International Convention
relating to Economic Statistics. Geneva, December 14, ig28.3
At the moment of signing the Convention of this day's date,
the undersigned Plenipotentiaries declare that they have agreed
on the interpretations of the various provisions of the Convention
set out hereunder in the first part of this Protocol, and that they
accept the reservations made in virtue of the first paragraph of
Article 1 7 of the said Convention which are set out in the second
part of this Protocol.
1 Br. and For. State Papers, civ. 1 16. 2 Treaty Series, No. 26 (1927).
3 Treaty Series, No. 43 (1930).
374 PROTOCOL
(Parts i and 2.)
In faith whereof the undersigned have affixed their signatures
to the present Protocol.
Done at Geneva this I4th day of December, 1928, in a single
copy, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat of
the League of Nations, and of which authenticated copies shall be
delivered to all Members of the League of Nations and non-Member
states represented at the Conference.
[Signatures.}
§ 664. Similarly, in the case of a bilateral treaty, protocols
are often appended, supplementing, amending or qualifying
the treaty.
§ 665. Additional Protocol to the Treaty between Germany and
Austria, respecting Air Navigation. Vienna, May 19, I925-1
( Translation.}
When signing the treaty concluded this day between the German
Reich and the Austrian Republic relating to Air Navigation, the
undersigned, being duly authorised by their Governments, have
made the following concordant statements :
(Arts, i to 3.)
The present Additional Protocol, which is done in duplicate,
shall form an integral part of the treaty, and shall enter into force
at the same time.
Done at Vienna, May 19, 1925.
[Signatures.]
§ 666. Protocol amending the Extradition Treaty of November n,
1924, between Great Britain and Czechoslovakia. London, June 4,
1926.2
It being considered necessary to amend Article 12 of the
Extradition Treaty between His Majesty the King of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions
beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and the President of the
Czechoslovak Republic, which was signed at London on Novem-
ber II, 1924, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have agreed that
that Article shall be amended to read as follows : . . .
The present Protocol shall have the same force and duration
as the Extradition Treaty of November 1 1, 1924, to which it relates.
It shall be ratified at the same time as that Treaty, of which it shall
be regarded as an integral part.
In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed
the present Protocol and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done in duplicate at London, the 4th June, 1926.
[Seals and signatures.}
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxii. 87. 2 Treaty Series, No. 31 (1926).
PROTOCOL 375
§ 667. Protocol annexed to the Treaty of Commerce and Navi-
gation between Great Britain and Panama. Panama, September 25,
1928.!
At the moment of signing the Treaty of Commerce and Naviga-
tion of this day's date the undersigned Plenipotentiaries of His
Britannic Majesty and of the Republic of Panama agree as follows :
The said Treaty of Commerce and Navigation shall not apply
to the Canal Zone ; nor shall the most-favoured-nation provisions
of the said Treaty be invoked by His Britannic Majesty in respect
of stipulations agreed to or which may in the future be agreed to
between Panama and the United States of America for the con-
struction, maintenance, operation, sanitation or protection of the
Panama Canal.
The present Protocol shall be ratified and the ratifications shall
be exchanged at Panama at the time of the ratification of the said
Treaty of Commerce and Navigation or as soon as possible there-
after. It shall come into force immediately on ratification.
In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed
the present Protocol and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done at Panama in duplicate, in the English and Spanish
languages, the 25th day of September, 1928.
{Seals and signatures.]
§ 668. Protocols relating to subsidiary matters are also often
attached to treaties. To the Treaty of Peace with Turkey,
signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923, are appended six protocols
on various matters, as well as a number of conventions,
declarations, etc., concluded at the same time as the main
instrument.
§ 669. Compacts between two governments in regard to some
particular matter are sometimes styled " protocols," though
differing in no other respect from those styled agreements.
The form has been used to conclude an armistice (Protocol
between the United States and Spain, August 12, 1898 ;
between Poland and Lithuania, November 29, 1920) ; to
interpret the provisions of a former treaty (Protocol between
the Argentine Republic and Brazil, October 22, 1878 ;
between the United States and Venezuela, February 27, 1915) ;
to provide for the delimitation of a boundary (Protocol between
Germany and Belgium — Congo-German East Africa— June 25,
1911) ; to record the work of a Boundary Commission (Protocol
of August 5, 1924 — Tanganyika-Ruanda Urundi — approved
by exchange of notes between Great Britain and Belgium,
May 17, 1926) ; to re-establish diplomatic relations (Protocol
between the Netherlands and Venezuela, April 19, 1909) ;
1 Treaty Series, No. 12 (1929).
376 PROTOCOL
to prolong an alliance (Protocol between Germany and Austria,
June i, 1902) ; to regulate some matter of commerce (Protocol
between Germany and Italy, October 12, 1926) ; as well as
for a great variety of other matters.
§ 670. Protocol for Renewal of Diplomatic Relations between
Germany and Bolivia. La Paz, July 20, I92I.1
(Translation.}
His Excellency Frederick-Charles von Erckert, Envoy Extra-
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Germany in Chile,
specially authorised for this purpose by his Government, and
His Excellency M. Alberto Gutierrez, Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Bolivia, specially authorised for this purpose by his
Government,
Having met at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in the City of
La Paz on the soth July, 1921, declared that the Governments of
Bolivia and the German Reich, being desirous of resuming the
friendly relations which formerly existed between the two countries,
agree to appoint as soon as possible their respective diplomatic
and consular representatives.
In faith whereof they sign the present Protocol in duplicate.
[Signatures.]
§ 671. Protocol prolonging the Defensive Alliance of April 23,
1921, between Czechoslovakia and Roumania. Prague, May 7,
1923.2
Les resultats de la Convention d'alliance defensive du 23 avril
1921, ayant etc reconnus comme bienfaisants pour la cause de la
paix et son maintien juge ainsi necessaire, les plenipotentiaires
soussignes, munis des pleins pouvoirs respectifs du President de la
Republique Tchecoslovaque et de Sa Majeste le Roi de Roumanie,
trouves en bonne et due forme, sont convenus de ce qui suit ;
(Provisions prolonging former Conventions.)
Le present Protocole sera communique a la Societe des Nations
(Pacte de la Societe des Nations).
Le present Protocole sera ratifiee, et les ratifications seront
echangees a Prague le plus tot possible.
En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires 1'ont signe et y ont appose
leurs sceaux.
Fait a Prague, en double expedition, le 7 mai, 1923.
[Seals and signatures.}
PROCES- VERBAL
§ 672. This term is applied to a formal record of proceedings.
During a congress or conference the minutes of meetings of
plenipotentiaries are sometimes styled protocol or proces-verbal
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxvi. 776. * Ibid., cxviii. 119.
FROCKS-VERBAL 377
indifferently ; the latter is the more suitable term for this
purpose.
§ 673. When a treaty or convention is signed between a
number of states, or when ratifications are deposited, a formal
record of the proceedings is often prepared and signed. For
such a record as a simple statement of fact, the term proces-
verbal is appropriate, but if it embodies provisions or con-
ditions which constitute a further agreement between the
parties, it becomes a subsidiary compact, and would better
be styled protocol. It cannot be said, however, that the
distinction is closely observed in practice.
§ 674. Proces-Verbal recording Amendment made on Exchange of
Ratifications of the Commercial Convention of October 23, 1922,
between Poland and Yugoslavia. Warsaw, April 5, I924-1
Les soussignes s'etant reunis au Ministere des Affaires etran-
geres a Varsovie, pour proceder a 1'echange des ratifications de
S.E. le President de la Republique polonaise et de Sa Majeste le
Roi des Serbes, Creates et Slovenes sur la convention commer-
ciale entre la Pologne et le Royaume des Serbes, Creates et Slovenes,
signee a Varsovie le 23 octobre, 1922, les instruments ont ete pro-
duits et ayant ete apres examen trouves en bonne et due forme,
1'echange en a ete opere.
Les pleiaipotentiaires soussignes croient necessaire de constater
que, par 1'echange de notes entre la Legation de Pologne a Beograd,
en date du 27 fevrier, et le Ministere des Affaires etrangeres a
Beograd, en date du 2 juin, 1923, 1'amendement a ete apporte au
texte de la premiere partie de 1'article i de la convention com-
merciale, en remplacant le mot " nationaux " dudit article par la
formule " ressortissants de la nation la plus favorisee." Ainsi la
redaction definitive de 1'article en question est la suivante :
(Text.)
En foi de quoi les soussignes, dument autorises a cet effet, ont
dresse le present proces-verbal et y ont appose leurs cachets.
Fait a Varsovie en double exemplaire, le 5 avril, 1924.
[Seals and signatures.']
§ 675. Proces-Verbal de Signature. Treaty of Friendship between
Bulgaria and Turkey. Angora, October 18, 1 925.2
Les soussignes delegues plenipotentiaires turc et bulgare se sont
reunis cejourd'hui le 18 octobre 1925, au Ministere des Affaires
etrangeres a Angora pour proceder a la signature des actes qui ont
ete negocies entre les deux gouvernements, a savoir : . . .
Reconnaissant Futilite de mieux preciser le sens de 1'article (D)
du protocole annexe et ne laisser aucun doute sur la bonne volonte
reciproque de leurs gouvernements, ils declarent, au nom de ceux-ci,
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxii. 1044. * Ibid., cxxii. 216.
378 PROCES-VERBAL
que la restitution des biens prevue dans les clauses de ce para-
graphe sera effectuee sans qu'il soit eleve de part et d'autre aucune
objection.
Le present proces-verbal a ete dresse en deux exemplaires.
[Signatures.]
§ 676. Prods-Verbal. Deposit of Ratifications of the International
Convention of April 24, 1926, respecting Motor Traffic. Paris,
October 24, I92Q.1
Conformement aux dispositions de 1'article 1 1 de la Convention
Internationale relative a la circulation automobile, signee a Paris le
24 avril 1926, les soussignes representants de la Belgique, de la
Bulgarie, de 1'Espagne, de la Finlande, de la France, de la Grande-
Bretagne et de 1'Irlande du Nord, de la Grece, de la Hongrie, de
1'Italie, de 1'Etat libre d'Irlande, du Luxembourg, du Maroc, du
Monaco, de la Norvege, des Pays-Bas, de la Pologne, du Portugal, de
la Roumanie, du Territoire du Bassin de la Sarre, de la Tunisie, —
Puissances liees par la Convention Internationale relative a la circu-
lation automobile de 1909 anterieurement a la date du 24 avril
1926, — se sont presentes aujourd'hui au Ministere des Affaires
etrangeres de la Republique Fran£aise et ont depose les instru-
ments de ratification de leurs Souverains ou Chefs d'fitats sur cet
acte international.
D'autre part, les soussignes representants de Cuba, de 1'figypte,
de 1'Estonie, de la Lettonie, du Siam, de 1'Uruguay, de 1'Union des
Republiques Socialistes Sovietistes et de la Yougo-Slavie ont
accompli ce meme jour la meme formalite.
Ces instruments ayant ete, apres examen, trouves en bonne et
due forme, ont ete confies au Gouvernement de la Republique
Francaise pour rester deposes dans ses archives.
En execution de 1'article 15 de la Convention du 24 avril 1926
chacun des representants des fitats signataires de la Convention du
ii octobre 1909 declarent denoncer cette derniere Convention.
Une expedition authentique du present proces-verbal sera
adressee aux Puissances contractantes.
En foi de quoi, les soussignes ont dresse le present proces-verbal
qu'ils ont revetu de leurs cachets.
Fait a Paris, le 24 octobre 1929.
[Signatures.}
§677. Proces-Verbal. Deposit of Ratifications of the International
Treaty of April 22, 1930, for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval
Armament. London, October 27, I93O.2
The undersigned, having met together for the purpose of pro-
ceeding to the deposit of ratifications of the Treaty for the Limita-
tion and Reduction of Naval Armament, signed at London, the
22nd day of April, 1930 ;
1 Treaty Series, No. n (1930). 2 Treaty Series, No. I (1931).
EXCHANGE OF NOTES 379
Having produced the instruments whereby the said Treaty has
been ratified by the President of the United States of America, by
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, in respect of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all
parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the
League of Nations, of the Dominion of Canada, of the Common-
wealth of Australia, of the Dominion of New Zealand, of the Union
of South Africa, and of India ; and by His Majesty the Emperor
of Japan ;
And the respective ratifications of the said Treaty having been
carefully compared and found to be in due form, the said deposit
in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 (i) of the Treaty
took place this day in the customary form.
The representative of the United States of America declared
that the instrument of ratification of the United States of America
was deposited subject to the distinct and explicit understandings
set forth in the resolution of the 2ist July, 1930, of the Senate of
the United States of America advising and consenting to ratification,
that there are no secret files, documents, letters, understandings or
agreements which in any way, directly or indirectly, modify, change,
add to, or take from any of the stipulations, agreements or statements
in said Treaty ; and that, excepting the agreement brought about
through the exchange of notes between the Governments of the
United States, Great Britain and Japan, having reference to
Article 19, there is no agreement, secret or otherwise, expressed
or implied, between any of the parties to said Treaty as to any
construction that shall hereafter be given to any statement or
provision contained therein.
In witness whereof they have signed this proces-verbal, and have
affixed thereto their seals.
Done at London, the 2yth day of October, 1930.
[Seals and signatures.]
EXCHANGE OF NOTES
§ 678. Agreements on topics of minor importance are
frequently concluded by means of formal notes exchanged
between the minister for foreign affairs, acting on behalf of
his government, and the resident diplomatic agent of the other
country, similarly authorised. It is not usual to exhibit full
powers for such exchanges of notes.
§ 679. Agreements in this form sometimes result from oral
discussion of the subject matter, but are more often the outcome
of a correspondence in which the proposal has been put
forward and discussed in advance. Usually the notes ex-
changed recording the agreement bear the same date, in
which case, unless they provide otherwise, the agreement has
380 EXCHANGE OF NOTES
effect from that date. If they bear different dates, that of the
last note, or at any rate the date of its receipt, is the governing
date (unless it is otherwise provided), since the agreement
cannot be regarded as completed until it is plain that it has
been accepted on both sides. Sometimes several notes may
pass before a final agreement is reached ; in this case " corre-
spondence " is a more suitable term than exchange of notes.
§ 680. Agreements concluded in the form of an exchange of
notes range over a great variety of matters, such as the estab-
lishment or prolongation of a commercial modus vivendi,
renewal of an arbitration or other convention, confirmation of
the work of a boundary commission, recognition of tonnage
certificates, exemption from double taxation, recognition of
trade marks, commercial travellers' samples, to mention but
a few.
§ 68 1. The following examples show in general the form
adopted in an exchange of notes constituting a simple
agreement :
Exchange of Notes between Germany and Bolivia regarding Pro-
tection of Trade Marks. La Paz, February 20, I925-1
(Translation.} (i)
La Paz, February 20, 1925.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
I have the honour, on behalf of the German Government, to
declare to Your Excellency that the following rules shall be valid
in future as regards the reciprocal protection of trade marks in the
German Reich and in Bolivia.
(Three articles.)
4. The present agreement shall come into force on the expira-
tion of three months from to-day and shall remain in force until the
expiration of six months after its denunciation by either of the
two states.
I avail myself, etc.
(2)
La Paz, February 20, 1925.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
In conformity with your note of to-day's date I have the honour
to inform you that my Government agrees to apply the following
rules in future as regards the reciprocal protection of trade marks
in Bolivia and in the German Reich.
(Arts, i to 4 as in German note.)
I avail myself, etc.
§ 682. Notes renewing the Arbitration Convention between Great
Britain and the Netherlands of February 15, 1905. London, July 12,
I925-2
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxxii. 199. 2 Treaty Series, No. 36 (1925).
EXCHANGE OF NOTES 381
(0
Foreign Office,
London, July 1 2, 1 925.
SIR,
I have the honour to state that His Britannic Majesty's Govern-
ment are prepared to renew for a further period of five years from
the present date the Arbitration Convention signed at London on the
1 5th February, 1905, and successively renewed by Conventions
signed at London on the i6th December, 1909, the 25th March,
1915, and the ist June, 1920.
2. It is understood, however, that in place of reference to the
Permanent Court of Arbitration as provided for in articles I and 2
of the aforesaid Convention of the i5th February, 1905, the refer-
ence shall in any case arising be made to the Permanent Court
of International Justice, in accordance with the procedure laid
down in the Statute of that Court and the Rules of Court adopted
thereunder.
3. If this proposal is agreeable to the Netherlands Government,
the present note and the reply in similar terms will be regarded as
giving legal validity to and as placing on record the understanding
between the respective Governments in the matter.
I have, etc.
(2)
Legation neerlandaise,
Londres, le 12 juillet 1925.
M. LE SECRETAIRE D'ETAT,
En reponse a la note que votre Excellence a bien voulu m'adresser
ce jourd'hui, j'ai 1'honneur de porter a sa connaissance que le
Gouvernement neerlandais est pret a renouveler une fois de plus,
pour une periode de cinq ans a partir du 12 juillet 1925, la Con-
vention d'Arbitrage signee a Londres le 15 fevrier 1905, renouvelee
successivement par les Conventions signees a Londres le 1 6 decembre
1909, le 25 mars 1915 et le ier juin 1920.
(Paragraph 2 as in British note.)
3. II est convenu que la note de votre Excellence et la presente
reponse seront considerees comme etablissant et constatant 1'accord
entre les Gouvernements respectifs dans cette matiere.
Veuillez agreer, etc.
§ 683. Notes exchanged between Great Britain and Portugal, con-
firming the Protocol defining a Section of the Boundary between
Angola and Rhodesia, Lisbon, November 3, IQ25.1
(i)
His Britannic Majesty's Embassy,
Lisbon, November 3, 1925.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
His Britannic Majesty's Government have received the ori-
ginal signed version, in the English and Portuguese texts, of the
1 Treaty Series, No. 55 (1925).
382 EXCHANGE OF NOTES
Protocol, with its accompanying map, which was signed at Cape
Town on the 5th March, 1915, by the commissioners appointed by
our respective Governments to carry out, in accordance with the
arbitration award of His Majesty the King of Italy, the delimitation
of the frontier between the Portuguese colony of Angola and
Rhodesia, from the intersection of the 24th meridian east of
Greenwich and the Congo-Zambesi watershed to the intersection
of the 22nd meridian east of Greenwich and the " bord oriental du
lit des hautes eaux du Kwando (Cuando)."
I have the honour to inform your Excellency that I am autho-
rised by His Britannic Majesty's Government to confirm on their
behalf this Protocol, as set forth in the accompanying printed copy
and map, duly certified by me, and to state that they would be
glad to receive a similar assurance on the part of the Portuguese
Government.
It is understood that with a view to exact conformity between
the map and article 41 of the Protocol, the boundary pillar marked
" M. i " on the map is to be regarded as marked " L. 25~M. i '
referred to in the said article 41.
The present Note and your Excellency's reply in identic terms
will constitute the agreement between the British and Portuguese
Governments in the matter.
I avail, etc.
(2)
(Translation.}
Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Lisbon, November 3, 1925.
MR. AMBASSADOR,
The Government of the Portuguese Republic have received the
original text, in Portuguese and English, of the Protocol with its
respective map annexed, which was signed at Cape Town on the
5th March, 1915, by the commissioners appointed by our respective
Governments to carry out, in accordance with the arbitration award
of His Majesty the King of Italy, the delimitation of the frontier
between the Portuguese colony of Angola and Rhodesia, from the
point of contact of the 24th meridian east of Greenwich with the
line of division of the waters Congo-Zambesi to the point of contact
of the 22nd meridian east of Greenwich with " le bord oriental du
lit des hautes eaux du Kwando (Cuando)."
(Paragraphs 2 and 3 in terms similar to British note.)
The present note and your Excellency's reply in identic terms
will constitute the agreement between the Portuguese and British
Governments on the subject.
I avail, etc.
§ 684. Notes exchanged between Great Britain and Spain for the
Reciprocal Recognition of Proof Marks on Fire-arms, Madrid,
September 8, IQ27.1
1 Treaty Series, No. 27 (1927)
EXCHANGE OF NOTES 383
(0
British Embassy,
San Sebastian, September 8, 1927!
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
I have the honour to state, on behalf of His Britannic Majesty's
Government in Great Britain, that they agree to the following
provisions, as constituting an Agreement on a reciprocal basis
between them and the Spanish Government :
(Three articles.)
4. Subject to the right of termination above mentioned, this
Agreement shall remain in force for a period of three years. If
neither of the Governments shall have notified the other not less than
six months before the expiration of the said period of three years
of its intention to terminate the Agreement, this Agreement shall
continue in force for a further period of three years, and so forth
for further periods of three years in the same manner.
5. His Britannic Majesty's Government in Great Britain and
the Spanish Government reserve the right to add, by mutual con-
sent, such modifications to this Agreement as experience may show
to be useful.
The present note and your Excellency's reply of the same date
in a similar sense shall be regarded as placing on record the under-
standing arrived at between the two Governments.
I avail, etc.
(2)
(Translation.)
Ministry of State,
Madrid, September 8, 1927.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
I have the honour to inform your Excellency that, as a result
of the communications exchanged between your Excellency and this
Ministry of State, and in the last instance your note of this date,
His Catholic Majesty's Government agree to the following pro-
visions, as constituting an Agreement with His Britannic Majesty's
Government for the reciprocal recognition of proof marks on
fire-arms :
(Five articles as in British note.)
The present note and your Excellency's note of the same date
in a similar sense shall be regarded as concluding the present
Agreement between the two Governments.
I avail, etc.
§ 685. Notes exchanged between the Union of South Africa and
Portugal confirming the Report of the Boundary Commission appointed
to define a Portion of the Boundary between the Union and Mozam-
bique. Lisbon, October 6, 1927. a
l Treaty Series, No. 8 (1928).
384 EXCHANGE OF NOTES
(i)
His Britannic Majesty's Embassy,
Lisbon, October 6, 1927.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
His Britannic Majesty's Government in the Union of South
Africa have received the original signed versions in the English and
Portuguese texts of the report, with its accompanying annex and
maps, which was signed on the i8th February, 1926, by the Commis-
sioners appointed to define by beacons that portion of the boundary
line between the territories of the Union of South Africa and of
the Province of Mozambique which lies between a point a few
kilometres north of the Singwetsi River and the junction of the
Limpopo and Pafuri Rivers.
I have the honour to inform your Excellency that I am now
authorised to confirm, on behalf of His Britannic Majesty's Govern-
ment in the Union of South Africa, the aforesaid report as set forth
in the accompanying printed copies and maps duly certified by me
and to state that they will be glad to receive a similar assurance on
the part of the Portuguese Government.
In order to remedy certain minor defects in the signed report of
the 1 8th February, 1926, it is understood that
(List of corrections.)
The present Note and your Excellency's reply in a similar sense
will be regarded as giving validity to, and as placing on record, the
understanding between the respective Governments in the matter.
I avail, etc.
(2)
(Translation.]
Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Lisbon, October 6, 1927.
M. LE CHARGE D'AFFAIRES,
The Government of the Portuguese Republic has received
the original text, in Portuguese and English, of the report, with
its accompanying annex and maps, which were signed on the
1 8th February, 1926, by the Commissioners appointed to define
by beacons that portion of the boundary line between the territories
of the Union of South Africa and the Province of Mozambique
which lies between a point a few kilometres north of the Singwetsi
River and the junction of the Limpopo and Pafuri Rivers.
(Continuing in similar terms to the above note.)
The present Note and your Excellency's reply in identical
terms will validate and constitute the agreement between the two
respective Governments in the matter.
I avail, etc.
§ 686. Notes extending the Extradition Treaty between Great
Britain and Belgium to Mandated Territories. London, June 28 /
July 2, 1928.'
1 Treaty Series, No. 20 (1928).
EXCHANGE OF NOTES 385
(0
Foreign Office,
June 28, 1928.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
By the Convention signed at London on the 8th August, 1923,
the provisions of the Extradition Treaty between Great Britain and
Belgium of the sgth October, 1901, and the Conventions supple-
mentary thereto of the 5th March, 1907, and the 3rd March, 1911,
were extended to the Belgian Congo and certain named British pro-
tectorates. It was further provided that if, after the signature of
that Convention, it was considered advisable to extend its provisions
to British protectorates other than those mentioned, or to territories
in respect of which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has
been accepted by His Britannic Majesty, then, after agreement
arrived at between the respective Governments, its provisions
should apply also to these other protectorates, or to such territories,
from the date prescribed in the notes to be exchanged for the purpose
of effecting such extension.
2. It is the desire of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain
that the provisions of the Convention of the 8th August, 1923, should
now be extended to Palestine (excluding Transjordan) , Tanganyika
Territory, the British Cameroons, and the British sphere of Togo-
land, in respect of which mandates on behalf of the League of
Nations have been accepted by His Britannic Majesty, and to
Nauru. His Majesty's Governments in the Commonwealth of
Australia, in New Zealand, and in the Union of South Africa,
respectively, desire that the provisions of the said Convention
should similarly be extended to the mandated territories of New
Guinea, to Western Samoa, and to South-West Africa. It is
accordingly agreed by the present exchange of notes that the pro-
visions of the said Convention shall apply to the above-mentioned
territories as from the ist August, 1928.
3. It is further agreed by the present exchange of notes that as
from the ist August, 1928, the provisions of the Extradition Treaty
of the 29th October, 1901, and the Conventions supplementary
thereto of the 5th March, 1907, and the 3rd March, 1911, shall
apply to the territories of Ruanda-Urundi, in respect of which a
mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted by
His Majesty the King of the Belgians, subject to the same conditions
as those set forth in Articles 2 and 3 of the aforesaid Convention of
the 8th August, 1923.
I have, etc.
(2)
Ambassade de Belgique, Londres,
le 2 juillet 1928.
M. LE SECRETAIRE D'ETAT,
Par la Convention signee a Londres, le 8 aout 1923, les disposi-
tions du Traite d'Extradition du 29 octobre 1901 entre la Belgique
et la Grande-Bretagne, ainsi que les Conventions additionnelles
2 c
386 EXCHANGE OF NOTES
audit Traite, des 5 mars 1907 et 3 mars 1911, ont etc etendues au
Congo beige et a certains protectorats britanniques designes nomi-
nativement. II avait, de plus, etc entendu que si, apres la signature
de cette Convention, il etait considere comme desirable d'etendre
ses dispositions a des protectorats britanniques autres que ceux qui
sont mentionnes, ou a des territoires au sujet desquels un mandat
de la part de la Societe des Nations a ete accepte par Sa Majeste
britannique, ses dispositions, apres accord entre les Gouvernements
respectifs, s'appliqueraient aussi a ces autres protectorats ou a ces
territoires, a partir de la date fixee dans les notes devant etre
echangees en vue de realiser pareille extension.
(Continuing as in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the above note.)
Je saisis, etc.
§ 687. Notes exchanged between Great Britain and the Soviet Union
on the Occasion of the Resumption of Diplomatic Relations, London,
December 20, 1929.!
(0
Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, London, December 20, 1929.
SIR,
By clause 7 of the protocol signed on the 3rd October last by
the Soviet Ambassador in Paris on behalf of the Government of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and His Majesty's Principal
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on behalf of His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, both Governments engaged themselves to confirm the
pledge with regard to propaganda contained in Article 16 of the
General Treaty signed on the 8th August, 1 924, between the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics and Great Britain and Northern
Ireland.
The terms of that article were as follows :
" The contracting parties solemnly affirm their desire and
intention to live in peace and amity with each other, scrupu-
lously to respect the undoubted right of a State to order its
own life within its own jurisdiction in its own way, to refrain
and to restrain all persons and organisations under their direct
or indirect control, including organisations in receipt of financial
assistance from them, from any act overt or covert liable in
any way whatsoever to endanger the tranquillity or prosperity
of any part of the territory of the British Empire or the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics, or intended to embitter the rela-
tions of the British Empire or the Union with their neighbours
or any other countries."
It was further agreed that effect should be given to this clause
1 Treaty Series, No, 2 (1930),
EXCHANGE OF NOTES 387
of the aforesaid protocol not later than the day on which the
respective ambassadors presented their credentials.
Having this day presented to His Royal Highness the Prince
of Wales the letters accrediting me as Ambassador of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics to His Majesty the King, I have the
honour, by the direction of the People's Commissary for Foreign
Affairs and on behalf of the Government of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, to confirm the undertaking contained in the
article quoted above, and to inform you that the Government of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regard that undertaking
as having full force and effect as between themselves and His
Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland and the Government of India.
I am instructed to add that the Government of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics will be happy to receive, in accordance
with clause 7 of the protocol of the 3rd October, a corresponding
declaration from His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of
India.
I have, etc.
(2)
Foreign Office,
London, December 20, 1929.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note, dated
to-day, in which your Excellency confirms, on behalf of the Govern-
ment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the pledge regard-
ing propaganda contained in Article 16 of the General Treaty
signed on the 8th August, 1924, between Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
2. In taking due note of this declaration, I have the honour to
inform your Excellency that, in accordance with the understand-
ing between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom
and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
as recorded in the protocol of the 3rd October, 1929, His Majesty's
Ambassador in Moscow has been instructed to inform the Govern-
ment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of India,
for their part, also regard the undertaking contained in Article 16
of the treaty signed on the 8th August, 1924, as having full force
and effect as between themselves and the Government of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics.
I have, etc.
§ 688. Notes exchanged between Great Britain and Liberia re-
garding the Boundary between Sierra Leone and Liberia. Monrovia,
January 16/17, IQ3O.1
1 Treaty Series, No. 17 (1930).
388 EXCHANGE OF NOTES
(0
British Legation, Monrovia,
January 16, 1930.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
I have the honour to refer to your note of the i6th December
last informing me that the Government of Liberia are prepared to
agree to the following proposals of His Majesty's Government for
adjusting the situation on the Sierra Leone-Liberian boundary
between the Mauwa and Moro rivers :
1. His Majesty's Government undertake to withdraw from the
area in Liberian territory which has been incorrectly
regarded as forming part of the Sierra Leone Protectorate.
2. In order to prevent the recurrence of any such mistake, His
Majesty's Government will arrange as soon as possible for
a redemarcation of the boundary between the Mauwa and
Moro rivers, and will bear the whole cost of this work,
including the expenses of a representative of the Liberian
'Government.
3. The inhabitants of the area in question shall be given the
option of moving into Sierra Leone territory not later than
the 3Oth June, 1930, taking with them their portable
property and harvested crops.
I have the honour to inform your Excellency that I have now
been authorised by His Majesty's Government to confirm on their
behalf this agreement, and to state that they would be glad to
receive a similar confirmation on the part of the Government of
Liberia.
The present note on behalf of His Majesty's Government and
your Excellency's reply in similar terms on behalf of the Govern-
ment of Liberia will accordingly be regarded as placing on record
the agreement arrived at between our respective Governments in
the matter.
I avail, etc.
(2)
Department of State, Monrovia, Liberia,
January 17, 1930.
MR. CHARGE D'AFFAIRES,
I have the honour to acknowledge your note of the i6th instant
informing me that His Majesty's Government are prepared to
agree to the following proposals for adjusting the situation on the
Sierra Leone-Liberian boundary between the Mauwa and Moro
rivers :
(As set forth above.)
I have the honour to inform you that I am authorised to confirm
on behalf of the Government of Liberia this agreement, and to say
that they regard the present note and the Legation's note of the
1 6th January, 1930, as placing on record the agreement arrived at
between our respective Governments in this matter.
With sentiments of high consideration,
I have, etc.
EXCHANGE OF NOTES 389
§ 689. Exchanges of notes often accompany the conclusion
of a treaty or convention, in explanation of some provision of
the latter, or as constituting a subsidiary agreement on some
relevant point. The Treaty of Commerce and Navigation
between Great Britain and Turkey,1 e.g., has appended to it
six such exchanges of notes, relating respectively to Article 16
(2), Article 24, and Article 37 of the Treaty, the extension of
its provisions to British colonies, etc., the position of British
schools and hospitals in Turkey, and the position in Turkish
ports of shipping agents, etc.
§ 690. Notes appended to the Agreement between Great Britain and
Portugal for the Mutual Recognition of Load-Line Certificates.
London, January 27, I928.2
(0
Foreign Office, London,
January 27, 1928.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
With reference to the agreement signed this day between His
Majesty's Government in Great Britain and the Government of the
Portuguese Republic for the mutual recognition of load-line certifi-
cates, I have the honour to state that this agreement shall be con-
sidered as applying also to ports in the British Colonies, on the
understanding that the Portuguese Government recognise as equally
valid for the purposes of the agreement certificates issued to British
ships in certain British Colonies which, by virtue of an Order-in-
Council under section 444 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894,
have been declared to have the same effect as if they had been
issued under Part V of that Act.
2. On their side, His Majesty's Government in Great Britain,
taking into consideration the fact that legislation in the Portuguese
Colonies is identical to that which is in force on the continent of the
Portuguese Republic, recognise as equally valid for the purpose of
the agreement load-line certificates issued in the Portuguese Colonies
in accordance with the laws and regulations in force in Portugal and
her Colonies.
3. The present note and your Excellency's reply will accordingly
be regarded as placing this understanding on record.
I have, etc.
(2)
(Translation.}
Portuguese Embassy, London,
January 27, 1928.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
In reply to the note which your Excellency addressed to me
to-day with regard to the application to ports in the Portuguese
Colonies and to ports in British Colonies of the agreement signed
1 §595. z Treaty Series, No. 4 (1928).
390 EXCHANGE OF NOTES
this day between the Government of the Portuguese Republic
and His Majesty's Government in Great Britain for the mutual
recognition of load-line certificates, I have the honour to state that
(following in substance the terms of the above note) .
2. The present note and your Excellency's note, to which I have
the honour to reply, will accordingly be regarded as placing this
understanding on record.
I have, etc.
§ 691. Notes appended to Treaty of Commerce between Great
Britain and Panama. Panama, September 25,
(Translation.}
Ministry of Foreign Relations,
Panama, September 25, 1928.
SENOR MINISTRO,
Referring to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Treaty of Commerce and
Navigation signed to-day by us, permit me to confirm to your
Excellency the understanding which we arrived at during the
negotiations, namely, that the stipulations of those articles do not
in any way affect the laws and regulations of the contracting parties
relative to immigration.
I avail, etc.
(2)
British Legation, Panama,
September 25, 1928.
M. LE MlNISTRE,
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's
note of the 25th instant, in which you refer to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of
the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation signed by us to-day, and
confirm the understanding which we arrived at during the negotia-
tions, namely, that the stipulations of those articles do not affect,
in any way, the laws and regulations of the contracting parties
relative to immigration.
I avail, etc.
1 Treaty Series, No. 12 (1929).
CHAPTER XXVI
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL COMPACTS
(continued)
MODUS VIVENDI, COMPROMIS D'ARBITRAGE, REVERSALES
MODUS VIVENDI
§ 692. THIS is the title given to a temporary and provisional
agreement, usually intended to be replaced later on, whenever
it may prove feasible, by one of a more permanent and detailed
character ; or, it may be, pending a reference to arbitration.
It is not, however, always so designated in the document by
which it is established. This sometimes consists of an agree-
ment, signed by both parties, or even of a convention, but
more often of an exchange of notes.
§ 693. Provisional Agreement between Great Britain and the
Netherlands relating to Air Navigation. The Hague, July n,
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor
of India, and Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, being
desirous of entering into a provisional agreement relating to air
navigation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the
Netherlands, have appointed as their plenipotentiaries for this
purpose : [names]
who, after having communicated to each other their full powers,
found to be in good and proper form, have agreed as follows :
(Arts, i to 15.)
1 6. The present agreement shall be ratified and the ratifications
shall be exchanged as soon as possible. It will come into force on
the date of exchange of the ratifications.
1 7. The present agreement, which is of a provisional character,
may be denounced by either of the contracting parties at any time
by giving notice three months in advance.
Furthermore, each of the contracting parties reserves to itself
the right to denounce the present agreement, such denunciation to
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxix. 450.
392 MODUS VIVENDI
take immediate effect, after the two contracting parties have
ratified the International Air Convention signed at Paris the
1 3th October, 1919.
In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed
the present agreement, and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done at The Hague in duplicate in the English and Dutch
languages, the nth July, 1923.
[Seals and signatures.']
§ 694. Notes exchanged between Great Britain and Spain respecting
the Duration of the Commercial Treaty 0/1922. Madrid, October 22,
1926. 1
(0
British Embassy, Madrid,
October 22, 1926.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
I have the honour, under instructions from His Majesty's
Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to inform your
Excellency that, in order to avoid the situation which might
arise if the forthcoming negotiations for the revision of the
Anglo-Spanish Commercial Treaty were unduly prolonged or led
to no agreement, His Britannic Majesty's Government are agreed
that, in spite of the provisions of Article 25 of the said Treaty, it
shall be open to either the British Government or the Spanish
Government to give notice at any time from the 23rd October
onwards of the abrogation of the Treaty as from the 23rd April,
1927.
I have, etc.
(2)
(Translation.)
Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Madrid,
October 22, 1926.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
I have the honour to inform your Excellency that, in order to
avoid the situation which might arise if the course of the negotia-
tions for the revision of the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Commerce
were unduly prolonged or if they led to no agreement, His Catholic
Majesty's Government are agreed that, in spite of the dispositions of
Article 25 of the said Treaty, both the Spanish Government and
the English Government are at liberty to notify at any time from
the 23rd October onwards the abrogation of the Treaty as from the
23rd April, 1927.
I avail, etc.
§ 695. Notes exchanged between Great Britain and Hayti for the
Establishment of a Commercial Modus Vivendi. Port-au-Prince,
February 25, I928.2
1 Treaty Series, No. 27 (1926). 2 Treaty Series, No. 17 (1928).
MODUS VIVENDI 393
(0
British Legation, Port-au-Prince,
February 25, 1928.
MONSIEUR LE MINISTRE,
It being the desire of His Britannic Majesty's Government in
Great Britain and the Government of the Republic of Hayti to
establish close commercial relations between Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and Hayti, I have the honour to refer to the
proposals which I submitted to your Department by my letter of the
syth December last to place on record the mutual understanding
between the two Governments which has been arrived at and is to
the effect that in respect of import and export duties and other duties
and charges affecting commerce, as well as in respect of transit,
warehousing and other facilities, and the treatment of commercial
travellers' samples, Great Britain and Northern Ireland will accord
to Hayti, and Hayti will accord to Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, unconditional most-favoured-nation treatment, and that
in matters of licensing or prohibitions of import and export each
country, so far as it at any time maintains such a system, will accord
to the commerce of the other treatment as favourable with respect to
commodities, valuations and quantities as that which may be
accorded to the commerce of any other foreign country.
In particular it is understood that —
(Detailed provisions.)
The present arrangement shall become operative on March ist,
1928, and, unless sooner terminated by mutual agreement, shall
continue in force for one year and thereafter until six months after
notice of its termination shall have been given by either party.
I have, etc.
(a)
Secretairerie d'fitat des Relations
Exterieures, Port-au-Prince,
le 25 fevrier 1928.
MONSIEUR LE CHARGE D'AFFAIRES,
J'ai 1'honneur de vous informer que le Gouvernement ha'itien
accepte les conditions d'un modus vivendi commercial entre la
Republique d'Haiti et la Grande-Bretagne et 1'Irlande du Nord,
telles que ces conditions sont stipulees dans vos lettres des 27 de-
cembre 1927 et 25 fevrier de cette annee.
Je vous confirme, en consequence, 1'entente intervenue entre
nous, d'apres laquelle (as in above note)
Veuillez agreer, etc.
§ 696. Temporary Commercial Agreement between Great Britain
and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. London, April 16,
I930-1
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union
1 Treaty Series, No. 19 (1930).
394 MODUS] VIVENDI
of Soviet Socialist Republics, being mutually desirous to conclude as
soon as possible a formal Treaty of Commerce and Navigation
between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, have meanwhile agreed
upon the following temporary Agreement to serve as a modus vivendi
pending the conclusion of such a Treaty.
(Arts, i to 6 respecting most-favoured-nation treatment, func-
tions of Soviet Trade delegation, shipping, extension to British
Dominions, colonies, etc.)
Art. 7. — The present Agreement comes into force on this day
and shall remain in force until the coming into force of a commercial
treaty between the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, subject, however, to the right of either Party
at any time to give notice to the other to terminate the Agreement,
which shall then remain in force until the expiration of six months
from the date on which such notice is given.
So far as concerns any of His Majesty's self-governing Dominions,
India or any colony, possession, protectorate or mandated territory
in respect of which notes have been exchanged in virtue of Article 4
above or in respect of which notice of the application of this Agreement
has been given in virtue of Article 5 above, the Agreement may be
terminated separately by either Party at the end of the sixth month
or at any time subsequently on six months' notice to that effect
being given either by or to His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow or,
in his absence, by or to His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires.
In witness whereof the undersigned, duly authorised for that
purpose, have signed the present Agreement, and have affixed
thereto their seals.
Done in duplicate at London in the English language the i6th
day of April, 1930.
A translation shall be made into the Russian language as soon
as possible and agreed upon between the Contracting Parties.
Both texts shall then be considered authentic for all purposes.
[Seals and signatures.'}
§ 697. Exchange of Notes between Great Britain and Egypt
temporarily regulating Commercial Relations. Cairo, June 5/7, 1 930. T
(0
The Residency,
Cairo, June 5, 1930.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
With reference to the discussions which have taken place with
regard to the conclusion of a Provisional Commercial Agreement to
regulate the commercial relations between the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Egypt, I have the honour
to inform you that His Majesty's Government in the United
1 Treaty Series, No. 31 (1930).
COMPROMIS D'ARBITRAGE 395
Kingdom are prepared to enter into an Agreement to the following
effect :
(Provisions.)
2. The present Note and a Note from Your Excellency con-
firming the acceptance by the Egyptian Government of an agree-
ment to this effect shall constitute an Agreement between the two
Governments which shall come into force immediately on receipt of
Your Excellency's Note and shall remain in force until the i6th
February, 1931, unless previously replaced by a Treaty regulating
definitely the commercial relations between the United Kingdom
and Egypt.
I avail, etc.
(2)
Ministere des Affaires fitrangeres,
Le Caire, le 7 juin 1930.
MONSIEUR LE HAUT-COMMISSAIRE,
J'ai 1'honneur d'accuser reception de la lettre de Votre Excel-
lence du 5 juin 1930, ainsi concue :
[Above note quoted in extenso.~]
En reponse, je m'empresse de confirmer a Votre Excellence
1'accord de mon Gouvernement sur les bases ci-dessus et je
saisis, etc.
Le Ministre des Affaires fitrangeres,
[Signature.]
COMPROMIS D'ARBITRAGE
§ 698. This term, which denotes an agreement to refer to
arbitration some matter or matters in dispute, is applied to a
form of compact adopted for the purpose, prescribing, so far
as necessary, the course of procedure to be followed.
§ 699. Since the conclusion of the Hague Conventions of
1899 and 1907 for the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes, a considerable number of such agreements have
been entered into, variously styled " Compromis," " Agree-
ment," " Special Agreement," etc.
§ 700. Under the Statute of the Permanent Court of Inter-
national Justice, adjoined to the Protocol of December 16, 1920,
establishing that Court, the procedure to be followed in cases
brought before the Courtis set out in Chapter III of the Statute.
Since that Court was established a great number of compacts,
in the form of treaties or conventions of conciliation and arbi-
tration, have been concluded between various states. The
treaty between Belgium and Finland, e.g., mentioned in § 592,
prescribes that disputes of every kind, which it may not have
been found possible to settle amicably by diplomacy, may, by
agreement between the parties, be submitted to a Permanent
396 COMPROMIS D'ARBITRAGE
Conciliation Commission, the constitution of which is set out,
as well as the procedure to be followed before it ; failing
settlement in this way, the dispute is then to be submitted,
by means of a special agreement, to the Permanent Court of
International Justice, under the conditions, and according to
the procedure laid down by its statute ; and in the event of
the parties being unable to agree on the terms of this special
agreement, either of them may, after a month's notice, bring
the dispute direct before the Permanent Court.
Several recent instances of special agreements for the settle-
ment by arbitration of particular matters in dispute are appended .
§ 701. Special Agreement between the United States and Norway
for the submission to Arbitration of Certain Claims of Norwegian
Subjects. Washington, June 30, igsi.1
The United States of America and His Majesty the King of
Norway, desiring to settle amicably certain claims of Norwegian
subjects against the United States, arising, according to contentions
of the Government of Norway, out of certain requisitions by the
United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation ;
Considering that these claims have been presented to the United
States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, and that the
said Corporation and the claimants have failed to reach an agree-
ment for the settlement thereof ;
Considering therefore that the claims should be submitted to
arbitration conformably to the Convention of the i8th October,
1907, for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes and the
Arbitration Convention concluded by the two Governments,
April 4, 1908, and renewed by Agreements dated the 1 6th June,
1913, and the 3Oth March, 1918, respectively.
Have appointed as their plenipotentiaries, for the purpose of
concluding the following Special Agreement : [names]
Who, after having communicated to each other their respective
full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed on the
following articles :
(Arts, i to 5 respecting the composition of the tribunal ;
presentation of cases and counter-cases ; oral proceedings ;
language ; time and form of decision ; expenses, etc.)
Art. 6. — This Special Agreement shall be ratified in accordance
with the constitutional forms of the Contracting Parties, and shall
take effect immediately upon the exchange of ratifications, which
shall take place as soon as possible at Washington.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed
this Special Agreement and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate at Washington, this 3Oth day of June, 1921.
[Seals and signatures.']
1 Br. and For. State Papers, cxiv. 895.
COMPROMIS D'ARBITRAGE 397
§ 702. Compromis between France and Switzerland for the sub-
mission to Arbitration of the Question of the Status of the Free ^ones
of Upper Savoy and Gex. Paris, October 30, IQ24.1
Le President de la Republique franchise et le Conseil federal
suisse,
Considerant que la France et la Suisse n'ont pas pu s'entendre
au sujet de 1'interpretation a donner a Particle 435, alinea 2, du
Traite de Versailles, avec ses annexes, et que 1'accord prevu par ces
textes n'a pas pu etre realise par voie de negotiations directes,
Ont resolu de recourir a 1'arbitrage pour fixer cette interpreta-
tion et regler 1'ensemble des questions qu'implique 1'execution de
1'alinea 2 de 1'article 435 du Traite de Versailles ;
Et, desireux de conclure un compromis temoignant de 1'egale
volonte de la France et de la Suisse de se conformer loyalement a
leurs engagements internationaux,
Ont nomme pour leurs plenipotentiaires, savoir : [rca/n&y]
Lesquels, apres s'etre communique leurs pleins pouvoirs,
trouves en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions
suivantes :
(Arts, i to 4 providing fof submission of question to the
Permanent Court of International Justice, periods for presentation
of cases, counter-cases, etc.)
5. Le present compromis sera ratifie et les ratifications en
seront echangees a Paris aussitot que faire se pourra.
Fait a Paris, en double exemplaire, le 30 octobre, 1924.
{Seals and signatures.']
§ 703. Compromis d' Arbitrage between France and Turkey
regarding the Case of the s.s. " Lotus." Geneva, October 12, 1926.
Le Gouvernement de la Republique francaise et le Gouverne-
ment de la Republique Turque s'etant mis d'accord pour soumettre
a la Cour permanente de Justice internationale la question de com-
petence judiciaire qui s'est elevee entre les deux gouvernements
a la suite de la collision survenue le 2 aout, 1926, entre les vapeurs
"Bozcourt" et "Lotus,"
Les soussignes, dument autorises, sont convenus du compromis
ci-apres ;
Art. i. — La Cour permanente de Justice internationale sera
price de statuer sur les questions suivantes :
(Questions ; notification to Court ; periods for deposit of cases
and counter-cases ; proceedings and judgment to be in French.)
Art. 5. — Le present compromis sera ratifie ; les ratifications
seront echangees a Paris dans le plus court delai possible. II
entrera en vigueur des 1'echange des ratifications.
Art. 6. — Pour tout ce qui n'est pas prevu par le present
1 Br. and For, State Papers, cxxii. 620.
398 COMPROMIS D'ARBITRAGE
compromis, les dispositions du Statut de la Cour permanente de
Justice internationale seront appliquees.
Fait en double a Geneve, le 12 octobre 1926.
[Signatures.]
§ 704. Agreement between Germany, Great Britain, Denmark,
France, Sweden, Czechoslovakia, and Poland to submit the question
of the Territorial Limits of the Jurisdiction of the International Com-
mission of the Oder to the Decision of the Permanent Court of
International Justice. London, October 30,
Les Gouvernements de 1'Allemagne, du Danemark, de la
France, de Sa Majeste Britannique en Grande-Bretagne, de la
Suede et de la Tchecoslovaquie, d'une part, et le Gouvernement
de la Pologne d'autre part, n'etant pas d'accord sur la determina-
tion, dans 1'Acte de navigation de 1'Oder, des limites territoriales de
la juridiction de la Commission internationale de 1'Oder, ont
convenu de soumettre cette question a la decision de la Cour per-
manente de Justice internationale, et, a cet effet, ont designe pour
leurs plenipotentiaires : [names]
Qui ont arrete les dispositions suivantes ;
Art. i. — La Cour permanente de Justice internationale est
price de statuer sur les questions suivantes :
La juridiction de la Commission internationale de 1'Oder,
s'etend-elle, aux termes des stipulations du Traite de Versailles, aux
sections des affluents de 1'Oder, la Warthe (Warta) et la Netze
(Notec1) situees sur le territoire polonais, et, dans 1 'affirmative, sur
quels elements de droit doit-on se baser pour fixer les points amont
jusqu'ou s'etend cette juridiction ?
Art. 2. — Les Parties sont d'accord pour prier la Cour de vouloir
bien, s'il lui est possible, statuer sur cette affaire dans sa session
ordinaire de 1928.
Art. 3. — Le present compromis sera notifie a la Cour par 1'une
ou 1'autre des Parties.
En foi de quoi les soussignes ont signe le present compromis,
et y ont appose leurs sceaux.
Fait a Londres, le 30 octobre, 1928.
[Seals and signatures.]
§ 705. Agreement between Great Britain and Portugal for Arbitra-
tion of Major Campbell's Claim for Damages suffered in Mozambique.
Lisbon, August i, 1930.2
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the Government of the Portuguese Republic
declare as follows :
(i) Whereas there has arisen between them a difference with
regard to the question of an indemnity which the Government of
1 Treaty Series, No. i (1929). 2 Treaty Series, No. 36 (1930).
RfiVERSALES 399
the Portuguese Republic agreed to grant to Major Campbell, a
British subject, and
(2) Whereas the Portuguese Government on the one hand con-
tend that they have already completely fulfilled the terms of their
agreement and that no further indemnity is due thereunder to
Major Campbell, and
(3) Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland on the other hand contend that an
indemnity is still due to Major Campbell, and
(4) Whereas the two Governments are actuated by a lively
desire to reach, within that spirit of cordial friendship which has
always inspired their relations, a speedy settlement of the question
in accordance with the principles of justice and equity, and
(5) Whereas the two Governments are agreed that this end can
best be attained by the submission of the case to a single arbitrator,
whose decision each of them undertakes to accept as final and to
carry out without delay, and
(6) Whereas the two Governments are agreed in choosing
Count Carton de Wiart, Ministre d'£tat, as arbitrator, and
(7) Whereas Count Carton de Wiart has intimated that he is
willing to accept the office of arbitrator,
They have, therefore, decided to conclude an agreement defining
the questions to be submitted to the arbitrator and regulating the
procedure to be followed in the arbitration and have appointed for
that purpose the following : [names]
Who, duly authorised by their respective Governments, have
agreed as follows :
(Arts, i to 14 — questions for decision ; language to be French ;
appointment of agents ; presentation of memorials, counter-
memorial and replies ; oral arguments ; award ; time limits ;
expenses.)
Done at Lisbon, in the English and Portuguese languages, this
ist day of August, 1930.
[Seals and signatures.']
REVERSALES
§ 706. Lettres Oversales, according to Pradier-Fodere, con-
stitute a declaration that an alteration in ceremonial practice
is effected without prejudice to the general rule.1 Calvo
defined them as " Declaration par laquelle un fitat s'engage
a ne pas contrevenir a des arrangements convenus anterieure-
ment, ou a un usage etabli ; ou acte par lequel un £tat fait
une concession en retour d'une autre ; ordinairement par les
lettres reversales une cour reconnait qu'une concession speciale
qui lui est faite par une autre cour ne devra prejudicier en
rien aux droits et prerogatives anterieurs de chacune d'elles." 2
1 Cows de Droit diplomatique, i. 51 n, * Dictionnaire du Droit International, s.v.
400 RfiVERSALES
§ 707. Ducange is the original authority for the definition
of these terms, which might nowadays be explained as a
declaration that an error of etiquette or draughtsmanship shall
not serve as a precedent, or that a concession is made either
in return for another or beyond the established usage.
§ 708. In 1 700, when the Elector of Brandenburg was con-
templating the assumption of the title of "King" in Prussia,
he entered into a secret negotiation with the Republic of
Poland with a view to obtaining their consent. It was given,
on his undertaking that the new title should not prejudice the
rights of the Republic, in this form :
Fredericus Tertius, Dei Gratia, etc. Omnibus quorum interest
notum facimus, cum Titulum & Dignitatem Regalem, quibus ante
plura saecula fulgebat Ducalis nostra Prussia, reassumendum merito
censeamus, nihil ex hac Majestatica praerogativa Prussiae Nostrae
quae nunc Ducalis appellatur, praejudicii inferendum nee inferri
posse juri ac possession! Regalis Prussiae, qua Serenissimus Rex &
Respublica Poloniae gaudent, neque ullam in eamdem Prussiam
Regalem praetentionem a nobis ac Successoribus Nostris inde
vindicandam ; Pacta quoque Bydgostiensia x perpetui Foederis
Serenissimam Regiam Majestatem, inclitamque Rempublicam &
nos inter, praecipue vero Art. VI. quo cautum est ut deficientibus
masculis ex linea legitima Divi quondam Parentis Nostri Descen-
dentibus Serenissimis Regibus & Reipublicae Poloniae jus suum
integrum in alte memoratam Prussiam Ducalem reservetur, plane
& sacrosancte servanda, neque ullatenus vel in toto vel in parte a
Nobis ac Successoribus Nostris infringenda ac violanda, in quorum
fidem Dat. Coloniae ad Spream 2 de 8 Junii i7oo.3
East Prussia, hitherto a dukedom, and until the Treaty of
Wehlau, September 19, 1657, a fief of Poland, was a possession
of the Elector of Brandenburg, while West Prussia was still
Polish and therefore Royal. Hence the Elector Frederick, to
dispel any suspicion of his motives for taking the title of King
in [East] Prussia, declares that it will not imply any prejudice
to the rights of the King and Republic of Poland in West
Prussia. And by Article VI of the Treaty referred to under
the name of " Bydgostiense," the House of Hohenzollern had
agreed that in the case of failure of male heirs, East Prussia
should revert to Poland, which Treaty is solemnly confirmed
by these Lettres reversales.
§ 709. Other instances of the past are the reversales given
1 Bydgostia is the Latin name of Bromberg (Bydgoszcz).
2 Kolln an der Spree, now a part of Berlin.
3 Lamberty, i. 95. This title was changed in 1773, by Frederick the Great,
into Konig von Preussen (Koch and Schoell, Brussels edit., iv. 313) after the
acquisition of West Prussia by the first partition of Poland in 1772.
RfiVERSALES 401
to Prussia in 1722 and France in 1745 on their recognition of
the imperial titles of the Tsar and Tsaritza of Russia.1
§ 710. Lettres rever sales seem almost to have become an
obsolete form of compact, but a recent instance where the term
is used is appended.
Notes reversales concerning the Treaty of December 25,1 928, between
Brazil and Bolivia, respecting Boundaries and Railway Communi-
cations. Rio de Janeiro, August 30, 1 929.2
.
The Bolivian Minister at Rio de Janeiro to the Brazilian Minister
for Foreign Affairs.
[ Translation.]
Note Rever sale.
Bolivian Legation,
Rio de Janeiro, August 30, 1929.
SIR,
With reference to the conversations which I have had the
honour to hold with Your Excellency regarding the matters con-
templated in Article 5 of the Treaty of December 25, 1928, and also
to the understandings reached after a prolonged and reasoned
exchange of views, I venture to put on record the following points :
1. As the commercial development between Brazil and Bolivia
requires the early construction of the railway from Gochabamba
to Santa Cruz, which is required to be extended on the one hand
to the Amazon region, and on the other to the River Paraguay, and
as the portion from Puerto Grether (on the River Ichilo) to Santa
Cruz constitutes an important section of the main line, and is par-
ticularly contemplated in Article 5 of the treaty of December 25,
1928, it has been decided that the assistance of Brazil, consisting
of one million pounds sterling, shall be wholly and exclusively used
for the construction of the said line, the extent of which is 175 kilo-
metres. This decision is without prejudice to the provisions of the
said Article 5, relating to the construction by Bolivia of the other
sections of the principal line, consisting, as regards the extension to
the River Paraguay, of a modern transport road, subsequently
convertible into a railway, according to the terms and under the
conditions laid down in the said article.
2. The works will be carried out by the Bolivian Government.
They shall commence within the period of six months from this
date, and shall be completed in three years. The assistance agreed
upon shall be rendered by the Brazilian Government placing one
million pounds sterling at the disposition of the Bolivian Govern-
ment at a banking house in London, within the period laid down in
Article 5 of the treaty above referred to. This sum will be adminis-
tered by the banking house in London in a current account opened
1 Flassan, vi. 332 ; F. de Martens, Recueil des Traites, etc., v. 205.
2 Boletin del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores (de Bolivia), Sept.-Oct. 1929, p. 20.
2 D
402 R OVERSALES
in the name of the Bolivian Government, on which the latter will
draw, through its paying offices, the sums necessary to carry out
the railway works as they are constructed.
3. For the purposes of control in the employment of the assistance
advanced by Brazil, no sum shall be withdrawn from the current
account except by drafts of the National Treasury of Bolivia in
favour of the constructors of the railway. For the same purpose
the drafts shall be endorsed before payment by the Financial
Delegate of Brazil in London.
4. It being to the mutual interest that the cost of the railway
works in question be reduced to the lowest indispensable limit, both
Governments agree that their departments and competent authori-
ties shall grant the utmost facilities and exemptions possible in order
that the works may be carried out with the maximum promptitude
and minimum cost.
I have, etc.
(2)
The Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Bolivian
Minister at Rio de Janeiro.
(Substance similar to No. i.)
CHAPTER XXVII
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL COMPACTS
(continued]
RATIFICATION, ACCESSION, RESERVATIONS, NOTICE OF
TERMINATION
RATIFICATION
§711. RATIFICATION is a solemn act on the part of a sovereign
or by the president of a republic, by which he declares that
a treaty, convention or other international compact has been
submitted to him, and that after examining it he has given
his approval thereto, and undertakes its complete and faithful
observance. The whole text of the treaty, etc., should be
reproduced in the instrument, which is signed by him and
sealed with the seal of state.
§ 712. In the case of a bilateral treaty the instrument of
ratification is exchanged for a similar one given by the other
party to the treaty, and the fact of exchange is recorded in
a certificate of exchange, which is ordinarily drawn up in the
respective languages of the two parties, and signed in duplicate,
each party retaining an original, in which it is given the
customary precedence. As a rule the exchange is effected by
the minister for foreign affairs of the one country and the
diplomatic agent of the other. The issue of full powers for
such a purpose is unnecessary, unless, as has occasionally
happened, one of the parties should insist on this additional
formality, the production of the instruments of ratification by
a minister for foreign affairs or by an accredited diplomatic
representative of the other high contracting party being suffi-
cient evidence that the official who tenders it is duly authorised
to proceed to the exchange.
§ 713. The form of certificate of exchange used in Great
Britain is as follows :
The undersigned having met together for the purpose of
exchanging the ratifications of between His
404 RATIFICATION
Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions
beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and
signed at on the day of and the
respective ratifications of the said having been
carefully compared and found to be exactly conformable to each
other, the said exchange took place this day in the usual form.
In witness whereof they have signed the present certificate, and
have affixed thereto their seals.
Done at London, the day of
If the treaty arrangement is between governments, and
entails ratification, the above certificate is modified accordingly.
§ 714. In the case of an agreement concluded between
governments, which provides for ratification, it seems appro-
priate (see § 581) that the ratification should be in the name
of the government on whose behalf it was signed, and in British
practice such a form of ratification is provided, and is shown
in § 727. But in some countries the constitution may only
admit of ratification being effected by the head of the state.
§ 715. When there are more than two contracting parties,
and each has received a signed counterpart, a separate instru-
ment of ratification is exchanged with each of the other
parties, unless the treaty provides otherwise. But when a
number of states participate, it is customary to have but one
original text of the treaty, which is signed by the pleni-
potentiaries and deposited in the archives of the state wherein
it was signed, each of the other parties being furnished by that
state with a copy of the treaty as signed, certified by it as correct.
(See § 579.) The instruments of ratification are then as a rule
deposited with the government of that state, which, on the
occasion of each successive deposit, delivers a formal acknow-
ledgment, acte d' acceptation or proces verbal of deposit, to the
state concerned, and at the same time notifies the fact of such
deposit to all the other signatory states. The procedure to be
followed in these cases is, however, ordinarily laid down in
the treaty itself, and may sometimes entail a meeting of repre-
sentatives of the signatory states for the purpose of depositing
ratifications, and the signature ofaproces-verbaldedepot, or record
of the proceedings, specifying the ratifications deposited, and
any declarations, reservations, etc., made, a certified copy of
suchproces-verbal being communicated to each of the contracting
states. (See, e.g., § 676.)
A similar procedure is followed as regards the deposit of
ratifications with the Secretary-General of the League of
Nations in the case of treaties signed under the auspices of the
League.
RATIFICATION 405
§ 716. While as a matter of strict procedure the text of the
treaty should, as mentioned above, be reproduced in the
instrument of ratification, the non-observance of this rule
does not necessarily invalidate the ratification, provided the
intention to confirm and ratify the treaty is fully expressed.
On this point Oppenheim observes :
" Sometimes the whole of the treaty is recited verbatim in the
ratifying documents, but sometimes only the title, preamble and
date of the treaty and the names of the signatory representatives
are cited. As ratification is only the necessary confirmation of an
already existing treaty, the essential requirement in a ratifying
document is merely that it should refer clearly and unmistakably
to the treaty to be ratified." *•
But as there can be no difficulty in following the more
exact procedure, it is better to do so in all cases.
§ 717. In Great Britain the treaty-making power is vested
in the sovereign, and the ratification of a treaty signed as
between heads of states is effected by means of an instrument
signed by the sovereign and sealed with the Great Seal. In
practice the sovereign acts on the advice of his responsible
ministers, and where the execution of the treaty involves a
grant of the national funds, or a cession of territory, the
approval of Parliament is first sought. If legislation is required
to carry out the provisions of the treaty, the passing of such
legislation is a preliminary. And within recent years, during
Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's first premiership, a rule was made
that the texts of all treaty instruments requiring ratification
should lie on the Table of the House for twenty-one days before
being ratified.2
§ 718. In France, Article 8 of the law of July 16, 1875,
prescribes that the President of the Republic negotiates and
ratifies treaties. He communicates them to the French
Chambers as soon as the interest and the security of the state
permit. Treaties of peace, commerce, and such as affect the
status of French citizens or their property rights abroad, are
only definitive when voted by the two Chambers. No cession,
exchange or acquisition of territory can take place except in
virtue of a law.
In the United States, § 2 of Article II of the Constitution
gives power to the President, by and with the advice of the
Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators
present concur.
1 i- § 5i5-
2 See British Tear Book of International Law (1924), 190, 191. This rule is still in
force.
406 RATIFICATION
§ 719. What circumstances may justify a state in declining
to ratify a treaty which has been negotiated and signed on its
behalf by its authorised plenipotentiary is not a question of
international law, although writers on that subject discuss it.
It is rather one of morals and policy. Speaking of the Hague
Conferences of 1899 and 1907, Dr. J. B. Scott observes :
" The signing of a Convention by the delegates at The Hague
creates no legal obligation. As the delegates act under instructions
it does, however, create a moral obligation to submit the Conven-
tions and signed Declarations to the appropriate branch of the
Government in order to be duly approved by this body and to
invest them with the force of law in so far as the particular country
is concerned." l
§ 720. Where, as in the United States, it is the President
under whose direction the Secretary of State concludes and
signs a treaty, but ratification is dependent on the advice and
approval of the Senate, the refusal to ratify is sometimes
consequent on other than the ordinarily recognised motives.
In such a case the ratifying power sometimes adds new pro-
posals, which transform the instrument into a new treaty
entailing signature afresh. The other party is justified in
refusing to accept the new conditions ; or may accept them.
This happened in connection with the treaty of 1 794 between
Great Britain and the United States. The Senate proposed
an Additional Article, which was accepted by the British
Government.2 But in 1807 the United States returned
unratified the treaty signed in London on December 31,
1806, and proposed alterations therein. Canning, who was
then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, protested against
" a practice altogether unusual in the political transactions of
states," and he announced that the King had no option, under
the circumstances, but to acquiesce in the refusal of the
President to ratify the treaty in question.3 The first Hay-
Pauncefote treaty of 1900 was modified by the United States
Senate in consenting to its ratification, and in consequence it
fell through. And more recently the treaties of peace signed
by the United States representatives as the outcome of the
Peace Conference at Paris in 1919 were not ratified by that
country. In countries where the administration is the creation
of a parliamentary majority such a contingency is less likely
to arise, even when the consent of the legislature is necessary.
§ 721. In former times it was not the practice to make a
1 The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1 899 and 1 907, x.
2 Br. and For. State Papers, i. 803. 3 Ibid., i. 1 187.
RATIFICATION 407
reserve of ratification in a full power. Thus in the British
full power given in § 133 there is a promise to hold as grata,
rata et accepta in the fullest manner, and not to suffer anything
to be done, in whole or in part, contrary to what the pleni-
potentiary may have agreed to and concluded. French,
Spanish and Dutch full powers of those times were to the same
effect. Nevertheless, it was from an early time customary, and
was recognised by Bynkershoek as forming an established
usage, to look upon ratification by the sovereign as necessary
to impart validity to a treaty concluded by his plenipotentiary,
and full powers were interpreted as conferring a general power
of negotiating, subject to instructions received from time to
time, and of concluding agreements, subject to the ultimate
approval or otherwise of the sovereign.
§ 722. The practice of reserving the ratification of the
sovereign had formerly its use when the plenipotentiary of
one of the high contracting parties was negotiating at such
a distance that he might perhaps not have time to refer the
text of the instrument agreed upon to his government before
signing. In modern times, when all the capitals of the civilised
world are in telegraphic communication, it is the usual practice
for plenipotentiaries to submit the precise wording of the
proposed treaty to their governments for approval before
signature, so that to withhold ratification can rarely be
justified, except where the negotiating and ratifying authorities
are distinct. At the present day the inclusion of a statement
in the full powers given to plenipotentiaries that the acceptance
of the treaty they may sign is " subject if necessary to ratifica-
tion " is, however, of common occurrence, though the same
fact is as a rule expressed in the treaty itself, or can be if
desired. But the ratification of a treaty signed as the outcome
of negotiations with another country or countries should not
be capriciously withheld, and if refused it should be for solid
reasons only.1
§ 723. Occasionally a treaty instrument which contains no
provision for ratification is nevertheless made the subject of
an exchange of ratifications, at the request of one or other
government. Three such cases in 1904 were the Arbitration
Agreements between Great Britain and Spain and Switzerland
respectively, of February 27, 1904, and November 16, 1904,
and the Agreement between Great Britain and France of
October 13, 1904, referring to arbitration certain questions
regarding Muscat Dhows.
§ 724. Sometimes it has been provided that a treaty shall
1 Hall, 386.
4o8 RATIFICATION
enter into operation without waiting for the exchange of rati-
fications. An example is the Treaty of July 15, 1840, between
Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia and Turkey ; a recent
instance is the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between
Great Britain and Roumania of August 6, 1930, which by
exchange of notes was brought into provisional operation on the
following day, pending its definitive entry into force upon the
exchange of ratifications.
§ 725. The Treaties of Peace with Germany, Austria,
Bulgaria and Hungary, which provided for deposits of ratifi-
cations at Paris, stated :
" Powers of which the seat of the Government is outside Europe
will be entitled merely to inform the Government of the French
Republic through their diplomatic representative at Paris that their
ratification has been given ; in that case they must transmit the
instrument of ratification as soon as possible."
The Treaty between the United Kingdom and China, of
December 20, 1928, relating to the Chinese Customs Tariff,
said in Article 4 :
" The present Treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications shall
be exchanged in London as soon as possible. It shall come into
force on the date on which the two parties shall have notified each
other that ratification has been effected." l
The Commercial Convention between France and Hungary
of October 13, 1925, said in Article 32 :
" Lapresente convention sera ratifiee et les ratifications en seront
echangees a Paris. En vertu des pouvoirs que la legislation
francaise lui confere, le Gouvernement francais consent a ce qu'elle
soit mise en vigueur 8 jours apres que 1'approbation du parlement
hongrois lui aura etc signifiee a Paris."
A similar article (20) appears in the Commercial Conven-
tion between France and Latvia of October 30, 1924.
§ 726. The following is an example of the form of ratification
given by His Majesty in respect of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland :
George by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the
British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith,
Emperor of India, etc., etc., etc.,
To all and singular to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting.
Whereas a Treaty between Us and other Powers and States for
1 Treaty Series, No. 10, 1929.
RATIFICATION 409
the limitation and reduction of naval armament was concluded and
signed at London on the 22nd day of April, in the year of Our Lord
one thousand nine hundred and thirty, by the plenipotentiaries
of Us and of the said Powers and States, duly and respectively
authorised for that purpose, which Treaty is word for word as
follows :
(Texts of Treaty.)
We, having seen and considered the Treaty aforesaid, have
approved, accepted and confirmed the same in all and every one
of its Articles and Clauses, as We do by these Presents approve,
accept, confirm and ratify them, in respect of Our United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British
Empire which are not separate Members of the League of Nations,1
for Ourselves, Our Heirs and Successors ; engaging and promising
upon Our Royal Word that We will sincerely and faithfully perform
and observe all and singular the things which are contained and
expressed in the Treaty aforesaid, and that We will never suffer
the same to be violated by any one, or transgressed in any manner,
as far as it lies in Our power. For the greater testimony and
validity of all which We have caused Our Great Seal to be affixed
to these Presents, which We have signed with Our Royal Hand.
Given at Our Court of St. James, the 2gth day of July, in the
year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty, and in
the twenty-first year of Our Reign.
[Seal.] (Signed) GEORGE R.I.
§ 727. Governmental ratification :
Whereas a Universal Postal Convention with Final Protocol,
and Provisions regarding the conveyance of Letter Mails by Air,
with Final Protocol, and also an Agreement concerning Insured
Letters and Boxes, with Final Protocol, were signed at London
on the 28th day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-
nine, by representatives of the Government of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the Governments of
other Powers and States, which Convention, Provisions, Agreement
and Protocols are word for word as follows :
(Texts.)
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, having considered the Convention, Provisions,
Agreement and Protocols aforesaid, hereby confirm and ratify the
same, and undertake faithfully to perform and carry out all the
stipulations therein contained.
In witness whereof this instrument of ratification is signed and
1 The phraseology varies with the particular treaty, e.g., in respect of Our
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ; in respect of Our
Dominion of . . . ; and in League of Nations treaties : in respect of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire which are not
separate Members of the League of Nations ; in respect of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland ; etc. (See also § 787.)
410 RATIFICATION
sealed by His Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs.
Done at London, the third day of December, One thousand
nine hundred and thirty.
[Seal.] [Signature.]
§ 728. A French example :
Gaston Doumergue, President de la Republique Francaise,
A tous ceux qui les presentes Lettres verront, Salut :
Un Accord ayant etc signe a Londres le 12 Juillet 1926 pour le
remboursement des dettes de guerre de la France envers la Grande-
Bretagne, Accord dont la teneur suit :
(Texts.)
Ayant vu et examine le dit Accord, Nous 1'avons approuve et
approuvons en vertu des dispositions de la Loi votee par le Senat,
et par la Chambre des Deputes, Declarons qu'il est accepte, ratifie
et confirme, et Promettons qu'il sera inviolablement observe.
En foi de quoi Nous avons donne les presentes, revetues du
Sceau de la Republique.
A Paris, le 27 Juillet, 1929.
[Seal.]
(Signed) GASTON DOUMERGUE.
Par le President de la Republique.
Le Ministre des Affaires fitrangeres,
(Signed) A. BRIAND.
§ 729. A Japanese example :
( Translation.)
(Text of Treaty.)
Hirohito,
By the Grace of Heaven, Emperor of Japan, seated on the
Throne occupied by the same Dynasty changeless through ages
eternal,
To all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting !
Having perused and examined the London Naval Treaty, 1930,
signed at London by Our Plenipotentiaries and by the Pleni-
potentiaries of the United States of America, the British Empire,
France and Italy, on the twenty-second day of April in the fifth
year of Showa, We hereby approve, accept and ratify the same.
In faith whereof, We have signed this instrument and have
caused the Great Seal of the Empire to be affixed thereunto at Our
Palace in Tokio, this second day of the tenth month of the fifth
year of Showa, being the two thousand five hundred and ninetieth
year from the Accession of the Emperor Jimmu.
[Seal of the Empire.] (Signed) HIROHITO.
(Countersigned) BARON KIJURO SHIDEHARA,
Minister for Foreign Affairs.
RATIFICATION 411
§ 730. A United States example :
Herbert Hoover, President of the United States of America,
To All to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting ;
Know Ye, That whereas a Treaty for the limitation and reduc-
tion of naval armament was concluded and signed at London on
April 22, 1930, by the respective Plenipotentiaries of the President
of the United States of America ; the President of the French
Republic ; His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the
British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India ; His
Majesty the King of Italy ; and His Majesty the Emperor of Japan ;
a true copy of which Treaty is word for word as follows :
(Text of Treaty.)
And Whereas the Senate of the United States of America by
their resolution of July 21, 1930 (two-thirds of the Senators present
concurring therein) , did advise and consent to the ratification of the
said Treaty, subject to the following understandings :
" That in ratifying said treaty the Senate does so with the
distinct and explicit understanding that there are no secret files,
documents, letters, understandings, or agreements which in any
way, directly or indirectly, modify, change, add to, or take from
any of the stipulations, agreements, or statements in said treaty ;
and that the Senate ratifies said treaty with the distinct and explicit
understanding that, excepting the agreement brought about
through the exchange of notes between the Governments of the
United States, Great Britain and Japan having reference to
Article 19, there is no agreement, secret or otherwise, expressed or
implied, between any of the parties to said treaty as to any con-
struction that shall hereafter be given to any statement or provision
contained therein."
f
Now, therefore, be it known that I, Herbert Hoover, President
of the United States of America, having seen and considered the
said Treaty, do hereby, in pursuance of the aforesaid advice and
consent of the Senate, ratify and confirm the same and every article
and clause thereof, subject to the understandings set forth in the
resolutions of the Senate herein above cited.
In Testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United
States of America to be hereunto affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this twenty-second day of July
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the one
hundred and fifty-fifth.
[Seal.]
(Signed) HERBERT HOOVER.
By the President.
(Signed) HENRY L. STIMSON,
Secretary of State.
4i2 ACCESSION
ACCESSION, RESERVATIONS
§ 731. Treaties and conventions often contain provisions
regarding the accession thereto of the Dominions, colonies,
etc., of the High Contracting Parties, and the manner and
conditions of such accession (see, e.g., § 595 in the case of the
Anglo-Turkish Commercial Treaty of March i, 1930). Such
terms as " application to " or " extension to " are sometimes
used in place of accession. Instances are appended.
§ 732. Multilateral treaties concerning matters of general
interest and concern ordinarily provide for the accession of
non-signatory states. The Conventions of the Second Hague
Peace Conference of 1907, e.g., provided :
" Les Puissances non-signataires sont admises a adherer a la
presente Convention. La Puissance qui desire adherer notifie par
ecrit son intention au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas en lui trans-
mettant 1'acte d'adhesion, qui sera depose dans les archives du dit
Gouvernement. Ce Gouvernement transmettra immediatement a
toutes les autres Puissances copie certifiee conforme de la noti-
fication ainsi que de 1'Acte d'adhesion, en indiquant la date a
laquelle il a rec,u la notification."
§ 733- The International Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property, signed at The Hague, November 6, 1925,
says in Article 16 :
" Les pays qui n'ont point pris part a la presente Convention
seront admis a y adherer sur leur demande.
" Cette adhesion sera notifiee par la voie diplomatique au Gou-
vernement de la Confederation suisse et par celui-ci a tous les
autres.
" Elle emportera, de plein droit, accession a toutes les clauses et
admission a tous les avantages stipules par la presente Convention,
et produira ses effets un mois apres 1'envoi de la notification faite
par le Gouvernement de la Confederation suisse aux autres pays
unionistes, a moins qu'une date posterieure n'ait etc indiquee par
le pays adherent."
§ 734. Sometimes a treaty may remain open for a limited
period, or even indefinitely, for signature by states which
have not originally signed it, thus providing an alternative to
accession. Article 31 of the Red Cross Convention signed at
Geneva, July 27, 1929, e.g., prescribes :
" La presente Convention, qui portera la date de ce jour, pourra,
jusqu'au premier fevrier 1930, etre signee au norn de tous les pays
representes a la Conference qui s'est ouverte a Geneve le ier juillet
1929, ainsi que des pays non representes a cette Conference qui
participent aux Conventions de Geneve de 1864 ou de 1906."
ACCESSION 413
§ 735. Article 22 of the International Opium Convention
signed at The Hague, January 23, 1912, provided :
" Les Puissances non representees a la conference seront admises
a signer la presente convention.
" Dans ce but, le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas invitera, immediate-
ment apres la signature de la convention par les plenipotentiaires
des Puissances qui ont pris part a la conference, toutes les Puissances
de FEurope et de 1'Amerique non representees a la conference, a
savoir : [list of countries']
a designer un delegue muni des pleins pouvoirs necessaires pour
signer, a La Haye, la convention.
" La convention sera munie de ces signatures au moyen d'un
' protocole de signature de Puissances non representees a la con-
ference,' a ajouter apres les signatures des Puissances representees
et mentionnant la date de chaque signature.
" Le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas donnera tous les mois a toutes
les Puissances signataires avis de chaque signature supplementaire."
There are other instances in the case of treaties concluded
under the auspices of the League of Nations, such as the
Protocol of December 16, 1920, establishing the Permanent
Court of International Justice, the Opium Convention of
February 19, 1925, etc.
§ 736. In the cases mentioned above the proper English
equivalents of adherer and adhesion are " accede 5: and
" accession.'
§ 737- Certain writers have in the past drawn a distinction
between accession and adhesion in the sense that accession placed
a state under the same conditions as the states which originally
negotiated and signed the treaty, whereas adhesion did not
constitute a definite acceptance of those conditions.
At the present time any such distinctions appear rather to
rest on the degree to which a state may by reservations qualify
its acceptance of the provisions of a treaty, either when signing
it, acceding to it, or ratifying it.1
§ 738. The question of the admissibility of reservations
to general conventions was recently considered by the Com-
mittee for the Progressive Codification of International Law,2
whose report, approved by the Council of the League of
Nations on June 17, 1927, contains the following passages :
" Although, in principle, treaties are confined, both as regards
their conclusion and their effects, to the parties which have con-
cluded them, they frequently contain clauses allowing third Powers
to accede.
1 See also Oppenheim, i. §§ 532-3.
2 See also Malkin, British Tear Book of International Law (1926), 141.
4i4 RESERVATIONS
With regard to the conditions on which a Power which has not
taken part in the negotiation of a treaty may thus associate itself
with the Powers which have concluded it, the following observations
may be made.
Analysis of the different forms of acquiescence given by a Power
to a treaty concluded by other Powers has led a certain number of
writers on international law to make a distinction between " acces-
sion " and " adhesion," whereby " accession " signifies the full
and entire acceptance of the terms of a treaty concluded by other
Powers, such acceptance precluding the possibility of any conditions
or reservations being made to any of the clauses, and " adhesion "
signifies an acceptance which may cover certain provisions only
of the treaty.
International practice, particularly in modern times, does not
recognise this theoretical distinction, and as a rule no account is
taken of it.
In practice, not only are accession and adhesion commonly
confused, but even " signature " does not now correspond to the
meaning which is described above and which from the nature of
things it might have been expected to retain, and it is for this reason
that the question put to our Committee has arisen.
In the first place, the practice arose between Powers negotiating
a general treaty of allowing a certain period for the signature of the
Act which they drew up on a particular date but which they did not
all sign on that date (cf. the Red Cross Convention of 1864). This
must be regarded as only a sort of tolerance and courtesy among
states and nothing more ; a signature given in such conditions is in
reality ante-dated.
Subsequently, in treaties revising a previous treaty, the con-
tracting parties admitted that the Powers signatory of the original
treaty might sign the new treaty even if they had not taken part in
the revision (cf. the Second Geneva Red Cross Convention of 1 906) ;
and ultimately the stage has been reached of leaving certain treaties
open unconditionally for varying periods for signature by Powers
that did not even participate in the elaboration of the treaty.
Such was the case of the Opium Convention of February igth,
I925- .
A signature appended in these circumstances constitutes nothing
more than an " accession " ; the Power signing in this way simply
associates itself with the Powers which concluded the Treaty. It
therefore accepts the latter under the same conditions as the con-
tracting parties ; what they accepted it accepts. It cannot make
any addition or modification, for such addition or modification
would not be covered by the reciprocal agreement which constitutes
the treaty concluded by the contracting Powers.
It no doubt frequently happens that, in the course of the negotia-
tion of a treaty, agreement is reached between the contracting
parties regarding a reservation which is put forward by one of
them and accepted by the others. In such a case the former party
RESERVATIONS 415
may naturally, when appending its signature to the act concluded,
mention and maintain its reservation. The other contracting
parties, when they also append their signatures, signify thereby
that they have accepted the reservation and consent thereto.
But when the treaty declares, as we have seen above, that it
permits signature by Powers which have not taken part in its
negotiation, such signature can only relate to what has been agreed
upon between the contracting Powers. In order that any reserva-
tion whatever may be validly made in regard to a clause of the
treaty, it is essential that this reservation should be accepted by all
the contracting parties, as would have been the case if it had been
put forward in the course of the negotiations. If not, the reserva-
tion, like the signature to which it is attached, is null and void."
§ 739. The correct principle is therefore that reservations
made by a state as a condition of its signing or acceding to
a treaty must, as an essential preliminary, be brought to the
knowledge of and accepted by the other contracting states.
The same principle would naturally apply to reservations made
at the time of ratifying a treaty, if these had not already been
formulated and accepted by the other contracting states at the
time of signature.
§ 740. Of another order, however, and one to which the
above principle need not apply, are statements regarding the
territorial limits within which a treaty shall apply. A state
may often sign or accede to a treaty with the qualification
that such signature or accession has reference only to a specified
part of the sovereign's territories, or conversely that it does
not apply to specified parts of those territories. In the case of
the British Empire this form of qualification is of quite usual
occurrence.
§ 741. Accession of Great Britain to the Convention signed at
Paris, March 20, 1883, for the Protection of Industrial Property.
Paris, March 17, 1884.
The undersigned, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipoten-
tiary of H.M. the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland to the French Republic, declares that H.B.M., having
had the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial
Property, concluded at Paris on the soth March, 1883, and the
Protocol relating thereto, signed on the same date, laid before her,
and availing herself of the right reserved by Article XVI of that
Convention to states not parties to the original Convention, accedes,
on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to
the said International Convention for the Protection of Industrial
Property, and to the said Protocol, which are to be considered as
inserted word for word in the present Declaration, and formally
engages, as far as regards the President of the French Republic
4i 6 ACCESSION
and the other High Contracting Parties, to co-operate on her part
in the execution of the stipulations contained in the Convention
and Protocol aforesaid.
The undersigned makes this Declaration on the part of H.B.M.
with the express understanding that power is reserved to H.B.M.
to accede to the Convention on behalf of the Isle of Man and the
Channel Islands, and any of H.M.'s possessions, on due notice to
that effect being given through H.M.'s Government.
In witness whereof the undersigned, duly authorised, has signed
the present Declaration of Accession, and has affixed thereto the
seal of his arms.
Done at Paris on the 1 7th day of March, 1 884.
[Seal and signature.']
§ 742. Accession of the United Kingdom to the International Con-
vention of September 26, 1906, for the Prohibition of the Use of
White Phosphorus in the Match Industry.
H.M. Charge d'Affaires at Berne to the President of the
Swiss Confederation.
Berne,
December 28, 1908.
MONSIEUR LE PRESIDENT,
In compliance with telegraphic instructions which I have
received from H.M.'s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I have
the honour to notify to Y.E., as provided in Article V, the accession
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the Con-
vention prohibiting the use of white (yellow) phosphorus in the
manufacture of matches, which was signed at Berne on the 26th
September, 1906.
I am to point out that the above-mentioned accession applies
only to the United Kingdom.
I avail, etc.
{Signature.'}
§ 743- Notification of the Application to India of Certain Articles
of the Treaty between Great Britain and Siam for the Revision of
Treaty Arrangements, and of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation.
March 5, 1928.
British Legation, Bangkok,
March 5, 1928.
SIR,
I have the honour, in accordance with Article 9 of the General
Treaty of July 14, 1925, between Great Britain and Siam, and in
accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty of Commerce and Naviga-
tion of the same date between Great Britain and Siam, to inform
Your Highness that my Government desire that the stipulations
of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the General Treaty, and the stipulations
of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, shall apply to
India.
ACCESSION 417
2. I am instructed to add that this communication is subject
to the following reservations ; firstly, that the privileges granted
by the said treaties in their application to any state in India shall
be subject to such modifications as are necessitated by the laws and
regulations in force in any such state, or by reason of the legitimate
exercise of the powers inherent in the ruler of any such state ; and,
secondly, that the right to appoint consular officers or consular
agents under Article 27 of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation
shall be restricted to seaport towns in British India.
3. I am informed by my Government that the term " privileges "
covers all the advantages conferred by the treaties, and that under
the first of the above reservations Siamese nationals in Indian states
shall enjoy the rights of British subjects but not those of British
protected persons ; and, further, that Calcutta, Rangoon, and
Moulmein are all regarded as seaport towns in British India ; and
that it is the policy of the Government of India to agree to the
appointment of consular officers at seaports only.
4. I shall be glad to learn whether the Royal Siamese Govern-
ment accept these reservations as thus interpreted.
I avail, etc.
§ 744. Notification of Extension to the Commonwealth of Australia.,
etc., of the Anglo-French Civil Procedure Convention, London.,
March 8, 1928.
Foreign Office, London,
March 8, 1928.
SIR,
I have the honour, at the request of His Majesty's Government
in the Commonwealth of Australia, to notify to you that His
Britannic Majesty desires in accordance with paragraph (b) of the
Final Provisions of the Anglo-French Civil Procedure Convention
of February 2, 1922, to extend the Convention to the Common-
wealth of Australia, Papua, Norfolk Island, and the Mandated
Territory of New Guinea.
I have the honour to inform Your Excellency that the authori-
ties to whom judicial and extra-judicial acts and " commissions
rogatoires " should be transmitted are :
(List.)
In requesting that you will be so good as to acknowledge this
communication on behalf of your Government, I have the honour
to suggest that the exchange of notes thus constituted should be
regarded as placing the matter on formal record, and that the
extension of the terms of the Convention to the territories named
should be considered as coming into force one month after the date
of your reply.
I have the honour, etc.
§ 745. Notification to German Government of Extension of Civil
Procedure Convention to Northern Ireland. Berlin, May 4, 1929.
2 E
4i8 ACCESSION
British Embassy, Berlin,
May 14, 1929.
SIR,
I have the honour, on instructions from His Majesty's Principal
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to inform Your Excellency
that His Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland are desirous
that the operation of the Anglo-German Civil Procedure Conven-
tion, signed at London on the 2Oth of March, 1928, should be
extended to the territory under their administration.
2. In making this notification in accordance with Article 17 of
the Convention, I am instructed to state that the Registrar of the
Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland will act as the
authority to which judicial and extra-judicial documents and
" Letters of Request " should be addressed in Northern Ireland,
and that communications and translations should be made in the
English language.
3. I should be grateful if Your Excellency would be so good as
to acknowledge the present notification. I am directed to suggest
that the exchange of notes thus constituted should be regarded as
placing the matter on formal record with effect as from one month
after the date of the present note.
I avail, etc.
§ 746. Declaration made by Great Britain on signing the Optional
Clause of the Protocol establishing the Permanent Court of International
Justice. Geneva, September 19,
On behalf of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom
and subject to ratification, I accept as compulsory ipso facto and
without special convention, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdic-
tion of the court in conformity with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the
statute of the court, for a period of ten years and thereafter until
such time as notice may be given to terminate the acceptance, over
all disputes arising after the ratification of the present declaration
with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the said ratification,
other than :
Disputes in regard to which the parties to the dispute have
agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method
of peaceful settlement ; and
Disputes with the Government of any other member of the
League which is a member of the British Commonwealth of
Nations, all of which disputes shall be settled in such manner
as the parties have agreed or shall agree ; and
Disputes with regard to questions which by international
law fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the United
Kingdom.
And subject to the condition that His Majesty's Government
reserve the right to require that proceedings in the court shall be
1 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. 8 (1929) ; see also Fischer Williams in British
Tear Book of International Law (1930), 63-84.
NOTICE OF TERMINATION 419
suspended in respect of any dispute which has been submitted to
and is under consideration by the Council of the League of Nations,
provided that notice to suspend is given after the dispute has been
submitted to the Council and is given within ten days of the
notification of the initiation of the proceedings in the court, and
provided also that such suspension shall be limited to a period of
twelve months or such longer period as may be agreed by the
parties to the dispute or determined by a decision of all the members
of the Council other than the parties to the dispute.
ARTHUR HENDERSON.
Geneva, September 19, 1929.
NOTICE OF TERMINATION
§ 747. As mentioned in § 571 treaties and conventions as
a rule provide that they shall remain in force for a specified
period, and that when that period is drawing to an end, notice
of termination may be given by one or other party to the
treaty, according to the conditions laid down therein. Others
again may simply provide that notice of termination may be
given at any time, and that, after the interval provided, this
shall take effect.
§ 748. In the case of a bilateral treaty such notice usually
takes the shape of a formal notification addressed to the other
government through the diplomatic agent accredited to the
latter, and may perhaps be accompanied by some statement
of the reasons which render this step desirable or necessary.
Occasionally, after such notice is given, the treaty may be
maintained, on the basis of a modus vivendi, by means of an
exchange of notes, pending its replacement by a new treaty ;
a notable instance is the Convention respecting Commercial
and Maritime Relations between Great Britain and France
of February 28, 1882, concerning which notice of termination
was given by the French Government on September 10, 1918,
but which is still maintained in force subject to a three months'
further notice of termination on either side.
§ 749. In the case of a multilateral treaty it is usually pro-
vided that the notice shall be addressed to the government of
the state wherein the treaty was signed, who shall inform the
other contracting governments ; or, in the case of a treaty
arrangement signed under the auspices of the League of
Nations, that it shall be addressed to the Secretary-General
of the League. In these cases also, the reasons for the step
taken may, or may not, be stated.
§ 750. In the case of the notice of termination given by
Great Britain regarding the Hague Convention (No. VI) of
420 NOTICE OF TERMINATION
1907, concerning the status of enemy merchant ships on the
outbreak of hostilities, it was considered desirable to place on
record, in the form of a published despatch to His Majesty's
representatives abroad, the motives which had compelled His
Majesty's Government to take this step.
§ 75 1 . Notice of Termination by Great Britain of the Hague Con-
vention (No. VI) of October 18, 1907, relative to the Status of Enemy
Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities.
British Legation, The Hague,
November 14, 1925.
MONSIEUR LE MINISTRE,
I have the honour by the present note to give notice of the
denunciation of Hague Convention No. VI of October 18, 1907,
relative to the status of enemy merchant ships at the outbreak of
hostilities, to take effect on the expiry of one year from the present
date, as provided for in Article 10 of the convention.
I request Your Excellency to be good enough to communicate
a duly certified copy of this notification to all the other Powers
signatory to the convention.
I avail, etc.
His Excellency (Signed) CHARLES M. MARLING.
JONKHEER VAN K.ARNEBEEK.
Notice of Termination of the Anglo-Norwegian Agreement of July 1 2,
1 88 1, relative to the relief of distressed seamen. London, November 30,
I931-
Royal Norwegian Legation, London,
November 30, 1931.
SIR,
With reference to previous correspondence, last my note of
October 25, 1926, in regard to the Agreement of July 12, 1881,
relative to relief to be given to distressed seamen, I have the honour,
acting under instructions from my Government, to inform you that
the Norwegian Government, in compliance with the stipulations
contained in the last paragraph of the said Agreement, desire to
denounce the said Agreement as from January i, 1932, the Agree-
ment thus being terminated at the end of the year 1932.
The Norwegian Government simultaneously are denouncing
the similar agreements regarding relief to distressed seamen which
the Government also have contracted with other foreign Powers.
The reason for this step is that my Government have found that
these agreements have not only been subject to very different
interpretations in different countries but also within the different
consulates of the same country. This has been found to create
such a great incongruity and uncertainty as to the application of
these agreements that the Norwegian Government have found
them to be of little service. In the opinion of the Norwegian
Government this disadvantage is not likely to be obviated by the
conclusion of new and more detailed agreements on the subject.
NOTICE OF TERMINATION 421
On the other hand the requirement for agreements of this nature
does not appear to be the same as in previous times. These two
circumstances have caused the Norwegian Government to denounce
all the agreements of this category.
My Government are of opinion that on the termination of the
Norwegian-British Agreement of 1881 the exchange of notes of
1908 between the Norwegian and British Governments regarding
the interpretation of the term of" third state " in the Agreement is
also automatically discontinued.
I shall feel greatly obliged for receiving in due course your kind
acknowledgment of the receipt of my present note.
I have the honour, etc.
[Signature.]
BOOK IV
THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS.
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
CHAPTER XXVIII
THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS *
§ 752. THE British Empire extends over nearly a quarter of the
land surface of the earth, and comprises populations in every
stage of development, governed under various forms.
A main distinction exists between territories under His
Majesty's sovereignty, and those classified as under His
Majesty's protection and authority. Of the territories under
His Majesty's sovereignty the chief divisions are : the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ; the
Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the
Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the
Irish Free State, which are Members of the League of Nations ;
Newfoundland ; Southern Rhodesia ; Malta ; and the
numerous Crown Colonies, geographically widely distributed,
and not possessing responsible government. India, which is
a Member of the League of Nations, comprises territories under
His Majesty's sovereignty and states governed by native Rulers.
THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
§ 753- The Imperial Conference, now composed of repre-
sentatives of the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the
Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand,
the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland
and India, first met in 1911, having been formed under a
resolution of the Colonial Conference of 1907, to the effect
' That it will be to the advantage of the Empire if a Conference,
to be called the Imperial Conference, is held every four years,
1 See also P. Noel Baker, The Present Juridical Status of the British Dominions in
International Law (1929).
BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS 423
at which questions of common interest may be discussed and
considered as between His Majesty's Government and His
Governments of the self-governing Dominions beyond the
Seas. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will be
ex officio President, and the Prime Ministers of the self-governing
Dominions ex officio members of the Conference. The Secretary
of State for the Colonies x will be an ex officio member of the
Conference, and will take the chair in the absence of the
President. He will arrange for such Imperial Conferences
after communication with the Prime Ministers of the respective
Dominions." The Imperial War Conference of 1917 passed a
resolution to permit of India being represented at all future Con-
ferences. The Irish Free State, which became a Dominion in
1922, was first represented at the Imperial Conference of 1923.2
§ 754. At the Imperial Conference of 1923 matters relating
to the foreign policy of the British Empire were discussed, and
a resolution adopted, recommending, for the acceptance of
the Governments of the Empire, a specified procedure for the
negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties.
§ 755. At the Imperial Conference of 1926 questions
affecting Inter-Imperial relations were considered by a Com-
mittee of Prime Ministers and Heads of Delegations, with
Lord Balfour as Chairman. Their report, which was unani-
mously adopted by the conference, contained the following
passages :
" The Committee are of opinion that nothing would be gained
by attempting to lay down a Constitution for the British Empire.
Its widely scattered parts have very different characteristics, very
different histories, and are at very different stages of evolution ;
while, considered as a whole, it defies classification and bears no
real resemblance to any other political organisation which now
exists or has ever yet been tried.
' There is, however, one most important element in it which,
from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all
vital matters, reached its full development — we refer to the group
of self-governing communities, composed of Great Britain and
the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be
readily defined. They are autonomous Communities within the British
Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect
of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance
to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth
of Nations."
'' It will be noted that in the previous paragraphs we have made
no mention of India. Our reason for limiting their scope to Great
1 Now the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.
- Dominions Office and Colonial Office List (1931), Hx.
424 BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
Britain and the Dominions is that the position of India in the
Empire is already defined by the Government of India Act, 1919.
We would, nevertheless, recall that by Resolution IX of the Imperial
War Conference, 1917, due recognition was given to the important
position held by India in the British Commonwealth. Where, in
this report, we have had occasion to consider the position of India,
we have made particular reference to it." 1
§ 756. The committee at the same time made certain recom-
mendations with a view of bringing existing forms into
accordance with the position set forth. Questions of relations
with foreign countries were also considered, and further
recommendations made as regards treaty procedure, repre-
sentation at international conferences and other matters.
§ 757. At the Imperial Conference of 1930 the report of
a special conference which had been convened in 1929 to deal
with questions concerning the operation of Dominion legis-
lation and merchant shipping legislation came under considera-
tion, and various recommendations were made in regard
thereto, as well as on other matters concerning foreign
relations.
§ 758. The results attained as the outcome of these delibera-
tions may be conveniently set out under the heads of Inter-
Imperial Relations, Relations with Foreign States, International
Conferences, and Treaty Procedure.
INTER-IMPERIAL RELATIONS
§ 759. The Royal Style and Titles. — The establishment of the
Irish Free State as a Dominion in 1922 rendered a slight
alteration in the King's title desirable. By the Royal and
Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927, and His Majesty's Proclamation
of May 13, 1927, His Majesty's title now reads : " George V
by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British
Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith,
Emperor of India."
§ 760. In an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom,
entitled the Statute of Westminster (22 Geo. V. ch. 4), which
received His Majesty's assent on December u, 1931, the
following recital appears :
"And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble
to this Act, that inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free
association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations,
and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it
would be in accord with the established constitutional position of
1 Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary of Proceedings, 14, 15.
BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS 425
all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another
that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the
Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require
the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of
the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
§ 761. On the occasion of the illness of King George V in
1928, a Regency was appointed (see § 195). Exception was
taken by the Irish Free State to its creation without Dominion
assent, and only Regents who were members of the Royal
Family signed documents in connection with the Irish Free
State.1
§ 762. Position of Governors-General. — As an essential con-
sequence of the equality of status existing among the members
of the British Commonwealth of Nations, the Governor-
General of a Dominion,2 who is appointed by the Crown on
the direct advice of the responsible Ministers in the Dominion
concerned, is the representative of the Crown, holding in all
essential respects the same position in relation to the adminis-
tration of public affairs in the Dominion as is held by the
King in Great Britain.3
§ 763. A personal flag for the Governor-General has been
sanctioned by His Majesty in the case of the Dominion of
Canada and the Union of South Africa.
§ 764. Official Correspondence. — Having regard to the position
of the Governor-General as above defined, the recognised
official channel of communication between the United King-
dom and the Dominions is between Government and Govern-
ment,3 and in accordance with the wishes of His Majesty's
Governments in Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the
Union of South Africa and the Irish Free State, this course is
now followed. His Majesty's Government in New Zealand have
not, however, expressed any desire to depart from the existing
practice of communication through the Governor-General.
§ 765. Titles of Governments. — The full titles used in formal
documents in referring to the Governments in the United
Kingdom, the Dominions and India are :
" His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland." In cases where no
ambiguity can arise the shorter expression " His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom " is used.
1 Keith, British Constitutional Law, 35.
2 The Governor of Newfoundland is in the same position as the Governor-
General of a Dominion.
3 Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary of Proceedings, 16 ; Imperial Conference,
1930, Summary of Proceedings, 27.
4s6 BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
" His Majesty's Government in Canada."
" His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of
Australia."
" His Majesty's Government in New Zealand."
" His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa."
" His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State."
" His Majesty's Government in Newfoundland."
" The Government of India."
§ 766. Inter-Communication. — The Imperial Conference, 1926,
adopted the following resolution :
" The Governments represented at the Imperial Conference are
impressed with the desirability of developing a system of personal
contact, both in London and in the Dominion capitals, to supple-
ment the present system of inter-communication and the reciprocal
supply of information on affairs requiring joint consideration. The
manner in which any new system is to be worked out is a matter
for consideration and settlement between His Majesty's Govern-
ments in Great Britain and the Dominions, with due regard to the
circumstances of each particular part of the Empire, it being under-
stood that any new arrangements should be supplementary to,
and not in replacement of, the system of direct communication
from Government to Government and the special arrangements
which have been in force since 1918 for communications between
Prime Ministers." *
§ 767. High Commissioners. — All the Dominions and India
are represented in the United Kingdom by High Commis-
sioners. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom
are represented in Canada and the Union of South Africa
by High Commissioners, and a Liaison Officer of the Common-
wealth of Australia resides in London for the purpose of closer
contact with the United Kingdom Government.
§ 768. The High Commissioners for Canada, the Common-
wealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa,
the Irish Free State and Newfoundland in the United Kingdom
have precedence on all ceremonial occasions (other than those
when Ministers of the Crown from the respective Dominions
are present) immediately after Secretaries of State. The same
arrangement applies to the High Commissioner for India.
A Minister of the Crown from a Dominion visiting the United
Kingdom normally has precedence immediately before the
High Commissioner concerned.2
§ 769. Under sect. 19 of the Finance Act, 1923, and sect. 26
of the Finance Act, 1925, the High Commissioners for the
1 Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary of Proceedings, 27.
2 London Gazette, Jan. 27, 1931.
BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS 427
Dominions and India in the United Kingdom, Agents-General
and their staffs enjoy the same immunity from income tax (in-
cluding super-tax) and land tax as that to which an accredited
minister of a foreign state and his staff are entitled. In respect
of other taxes and rates they are in practice accorded similar
exemptions. The position does not appear at present to have
given rise to any further development.
§ 770. Operation of Dominion Legislation. — Under the Act
passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, entitled
the Statute of Westminster (22 Geo. V. ch. 4), which received
His Majesty's assent on December n, 1931, it is, inter alia, in
effect provided :
That Dominion Parliaments have full power to make laws having
extra-territorial operation.
That the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to
any future law made by a Dominion Parliament.
That future laws made by Dominion Parliaments shall not be
void or inoperative on the ground that they are repugnant to the
law of England, or to any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom,
or any order, rule or regulation thereunder ; and that Dominion
Parliaments have power to repeal or amend any such Act, order,
rule or regulation, in so far as the same is part of the law of the
Dominion.
That no future Act of the United Kingdom Parliament shall
extend to a Dominion as part of the law in force there, unless it is
declared in the Act that the Dominion has requested and consented
to its enactment.
That the expression " colony " shall not in any future Act of
Parliament of the United Kingdom include a Dominion or any
province or state thereof.
§ 771. Merchant Shipping Legislation. — The above-mentioned
Act also provides :
That sections 735 and 736 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894,
shall be construed as though reference to the Legislature of a British
possession did not include reference to a Dominion Parliament.
That section 4 of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890,
and part of section 7, shall cease to have effect in any Dominion as
from the commencement of the new Act.
Since the passing of this Act, each Dominion has, amongst
its other powers, full and complete legislative authority over
all ships within its territorial waters, or engaged in its coasting
trade ; and also over its own registered ships both intra-
territorially and extra-territorially. Such extra-territorial
legislation will, of course, operate subject to local laws while
the ship is within another jurisdiction.
428 BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
To maintain uniformity, and to ensure concerted action
between the Members of the British Commonwealth in shipping
matters, an agreement was entered into on December 10, 1931,
between His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom,
Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the
Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland
(but does not yet extend to India), relative to British Common-
wealth merchant shipping (under the heads of Common
Status ; Standards of Safety ; Extra-territorial Operation of
Laws ; Equal Treatment ; Ships' Articles, etc. ; Certificates
of Officers ; Shipping Enquiries ; Relief and Repatriation of
Seamen, Wages and Effects ; Offences on Board Ship ; and
General).1
§ 772. Commonwealth Tribunal. — For the settlement on a
voluntary basis of differences which are justiciable between
Governments, an arbitral tribunal is to be constituted ad hoc
in the case of each dispute, to consist of five members (one
being chairman) drawn from within the British Common-
wealth of Nations, and to be selected — one by each party to
the dispute from states members of the Commonwealth other
than the parties to the dispute ; one by each party to the
dispute from any part of the Commonwealth ; these selecting
another person as chairman. Expenses to be borne equally
by the parties, each party bearing the expense of presenting its
own case, and details as to which agreement may be necessary
being arranged between the Governments concerned.2
§ 773. Issue of Exequaturs to Foreign Consuls. — Applications
which may be received in London from foreign governments
for the issue of exequaturs to persons appointed as consular
officers in the Dominions are referred to the Dominion Govern-
ment concerned for consideration, and if the latter agree to the
issue of the exequatur, this, after signature by His Majesty, is
sent to the Dominion Government for counter-signature by a
Dominion minister.3
§ 774. The Great Seal — The Court Circular of January 18,
1932, announces that the King received that day the High
Commissioner for the Irish Free State in order that he might
receive at the King's hands on behalf of His Majesty's Govern-
ment in the Irish Free State the new Great Seal of the Irish
Free State. A similar announcement was made in the Court
Circular of March 21, 1932, as regards the new Great Seal of
the Union of South Africa.
1 See Imperial Conference, 1930, Summary of Proceedings, 24, 25, 32-7.
- Imperial Conference, 1930, Summary of Proceedings, 22-4.
3 Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary of Proceedings, 26.
BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS 429
RELATIONS WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES
§ 775. Dominion Diplomatic Representation. — Envoys extra-
ordinary and ministers plenipotentiary have been accredited
by His Majesty to certain foreign countries in respect of certain
of the Dominions :
In respect of Canada, to France, Japan and the United
States.
In respect of the Union of South Africa, to Italy, the Nether-
lands and the United States.
In respect of the Irish Free State, to France, Germany, the
United States and the Vatican.
§ 776. Foreign Diplomatic Representation in the Dominions. —
Envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary have
been accredited to His Majesty by certain foreign countries
in respect of certain of the Dominions :
In respect of Canada, by France, Japan and the United
States.
In respect of the Union of South Africa, by Italy, the
Netherlands and the United States.
In respect of the Irish Free State, by France, Germany
and the United States.
The Holy See has also appointed a Nuncio in the Irish
Free State.
§ 777. It seems possible that questions may in future arise
as to the privileges in one part of the Empire of foreign repre-
sentatives accredited to His Majesty in respect of another part.
Such questions might seemingly arise under such heads as
(a) immunity from legal process, or (b) reliefs from taxation.
As regards (a) it might perhaps be deemed that such a
question as, e.g., whether a foreign minister accredited to His
Majesty in respect of the Dominion of Canada would enjoy
immunity in the Irish Free State, would be one for the Govern-
ment or the Courts of the latter to determine ; while as
regards (b} it might be assumed that, if only as a matter of
courtesy, such reasonable facilities as could be accorded would
be given. But until actual cases arise and are settled the
position seems open to some doubt.
§ 778. Diplomatic Representation in General. — In cases other than
where ministers in respect of the Dominion of Canada, the
Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand,
the Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State may be
accredited to foreign countries, or vice versa, the existing
diplomatic channels continue to be used as between those
Dominion Governments and foreign governments in matters
430 BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
of general and political concern. The procedure recom-
mended by the Imperial Conference, 1930, contemplates that if
for reasons of urgency one of His Majesty's Governments in
the Dominions mentioned communicates direct with one of
His Majesty's diplomatic representatives appointed on the
advice of His Government in the United Kingdom, the com-
munication would indicate that, if practicable, he should,
before taking any action, await a telegram from His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom, with whom the Dominion
Government would simultaneously communicate. But as
regards subjects not falling within the category of matters of
general and political concern, while the appropriate channel of
communication primarily concerns the Dominion Government,
it was felt that it would be to the general advantage if com-
munications passed direct between His Majesty's Governments
in the Dominions and the ambassador or minister concerned.1
Such subjects may include the negotiation of commercial
agreements affecting exclusively the Dominion Government
and a foreign Power ; complimentary messages, e.g. of con-
gratulation or condolence from one government to another
(in so far as these are not sent direct from government to
government) ; invitations and replies to invitations to non-
political congresses or conferences ; facilities for British sub-
jects belonging to the Dominions when visiting foreign
countries ; matters relating to civilian flights on recognised
international air routes ; legalisation and certification of
documents ; extradition formalities ; requests for information
of a technical or scientific character (including statistics and
exchange of publications).
§ 779- Notes Addressed to Foreign Governments at the Instance of
Dominion Governments. — Where a note is addressed to a foreign
Government, at the instance of one of the Dominions mentioned
above, by one of His Majesty's representatives abroad appointed
on the advice of His Majesty's Government in the United
Kingdom, the note begins : " At the instance of His Majesty's
Government in (name of Dominion), and under instructions
from His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, I have the honour, etc." As His Majesty's Govern-
ment in the United Kingdom continue to be responsible for
the foreign affairs of all other parts of the Empire, the phrase
is, however, only used in the case of the five Dominions
mentioned.
§ 780. Communication and Consultation in Relation to Foreign
Affairs. — In reviewing the recommendations made by previous
1 Imperial Conference, 1930, Summary of Proceedings s 29.
BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS 431
Imperial Conferences with regard to the communication of
information and the system of consultation in relation to treaty
negotiations and the conduct of foreign affairs generally, the
Imperial Conference, 1930, summarised them as follows :
" (a) Any of His Majesty's Governments conducting negotiations
should inform the other Governments of His Majesty in case they
should be interested and give them the opportunity of expressing
their views, if they think that their interests may be affected ;
(b) Any of His Majesty's Governments on receiving such
information should, if it desires to express any views, do so with
reasonable promptitude ;
(c} None of His Majesty's Governments can take any steps
which might involve the other Governments of His Majesty in any
active obligations without their definite assent." x
§ 781. The Imperial Conference, 1930, emphasised the
importance of ensuring the effective operation of these arrange-
ments, the application of (a] not being confined to treaty
negotiations ; and observed that the fullest possible interchange
of information between His Majesty's Governments in relation
to all aspects of foreign affairs is of the greatest value to all the
Governments concerned. They regarded the appointment
of diplomatic representatives of His Majesty representing
in foreign countries the interests of different members of
the British Commonwealth as furnishing a most valuable
opportunity for the interchange of information, not only as
between the representatives themselves, but also between the
respective Governments. They were impressed with the
desirability of continuing to develop the system of personal
contact between His Majesty's Governments, though the
precise arrangements to be adopted were for the consideration
of the individual Governments. As regards (b), in the absence
of comment, the negotiating Government should, as indicated
in the Report of the Imperial Conference, 1926, be entitled
to assume that no objection will be raised to its proposed
policy.2
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES
§ 782. At the Imperial Conference, 1926, the conclusions
reached as regards representation at International Conferences
were as follows :
" i. No difficulty arises as regards representation at conferences
convened by, or under the auspices of the League of Nations. In
1 Imperial Conference, 1930, Summary of Proceedings, 28.
2 Ibid., 29 ; See also § 788.
432 BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
the case of such conferences all members of the League are invited,
and if they attend are represented separately by separate delega-
tions. Co-operation is secured by the application of paragraph I,
i (c) of the Treaty Resolution of 1923. l
2. As regards international conferences summoned by foreign
governments, no rule of universal application can be laid down,
since the nature of the representation must, in part, depend on the
form of invitation issued by the convening government :
(a) In conferences of a technical character, it is usual and always
desirable that the different parts of the Empire should (if
they wish to participate) be represented separately by
separate delegations, and where necessary efforts should
be made to ensure invitations which will render such
representation possible ;
(b) Conferences of a political character called by a foreign
government must be considered on the special circum-
stances of each individual case.
It is for each part of the Empire to decide whether its particular
interests are so involved, especially having regard to the active
obligations likely to be imposed by any resulting treaty, that it
desires to be represented at the conference, or whether it is content
to leave the negotiation in the hands of the part or parts of the
Empire more directly concerned and to accept the result.
If a Government desires to participate in the conclusion of a
treaty, the method by which representation will be secured is a
matter to be arranged with the other Governments of the Empire
in the light of the invitation which has been received.
Where more than one part of the Empire desires to be repre-
sented, three methods of representation are possible :
(i) By means of a common plenipotentiary or plenipotentiaries,
the issue of Full Powers to whom should be on the advice
of all parts of the Empire participating ;
(ii) By a single British Empire delegation composed of sepa-
rate representatives of such parts of the Empire as are
participating in the conference. This was the form
of representation employed at the Washington Disarma-
ment Conference of 1921 ;
(iii) By separate delegations representing each part of the
Empire participating in the conference. If, as a result
of consultation, this third method is desired, an effort
must be made to ensure that the form of invitation from
the convening government will make this method of
representation possible.
Certain non-technical treaties should, from their nature, be
concluded in a form which will render them binding upon all parts
of the Empire, and for this purpose should be ratified with the con-
currence of all the Governments. It is for each Government to
decide to what extent its concurrence iri the ratification will be
i See § 788 (0-
BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS 433
facilitated by its participation in the conclusion of the treaty, as,
for instance, by the appointment of a common plenipotentiary.
Any question as to whether the nature of the treaty is such that its
ratification should be concurred in by all parts of the Empire is a
matter for discussion and agreement between the Governments." l
§ 783. Where foreign governments address invitations to
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to attend
conferences, without indicating whether or not His Majesty's
Governments in the Dominions are included in the invitation,
or have been separately invited, it is customary to enquire of
the foreign government whether similar invitations to His
Majesty's Governments in Canada, the Commonwealth of
Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and the
Irish Free State may be expected.
TREATY PROCEDURE
§ 784. The Imperial Conference, 1923, adopted a resolution
recommending, for the acceptance of the Governments of the
Empire represented, a specified procedure to be observed in
the negotiation, signature and ratification of international
agreements. The Imperial Conference, 1926, made further
recommendations, in the light of experience, on various points
of procedure. These combined recommendations may be
conveniently set out under the heads of Form of Treaty ;
Negotiation ; Full Powers ; Signature ; Ratification ; Entry
into Force of Multilateral Treaties ; and Governmental
Agreements.
FORM OF TREATY
§ 785. Treaty between Heads of States. — The Resolution of
1923 was prefaced by the following statement :
" The word " treaty " is used in the sense of an agreement which,
in accordance with the normal practice of diplomacy, would take
the form of a treaty between heads of states, signed by plenipoten-
tiaries provided with full powers issued by the heads of the states,
and authorising the holders to conclude a treaty." 2
The Imperial Conference, 1926, added :
'' It is recommended that all treaties (other than agreements
between governments), whether negotiated under the auspices of
the League (of Nations) or not, should be made in the name of
heads of states, and if the treaty is signed on behalf of any or all
1 Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary of Proceedings, 24, 25. 2 Ibid., 20 n.
2. F
434 BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
of the Governments of the Empire, the treaty should be made in
the name of the King, as the symbol of the special relationship
between the different parts of the Empire. The British units on
behalf of which the treaty is signed should be grouped together in
the following order : Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all
parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the
League (of Nations), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa, Irish Free State, India. A specimen form of treaty as
recommended is attached.
" In the case of a treaty applying to only one part of the Empire
it should be stated to be made by the King on behalf of that part." x
§ 786. Specimen Form of Treaty. — The specimen form of
treaty attached was as follows :
The President of the United States of America, His Majesty the
King of the Belgians, His Majesty the King of Great Britain,
Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of
India, His Majesty the King of Bulgaria, etc., etc.
Desiring
Have resolved to conclude a treaty for that purpose and to that
end have appointed as their plenipotentiaries :
The President
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India,
for Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of
the British Empire which are not separate members of
the League of Nations,
A.B.
for the Dominion of Canada,
C. D.
for the Commonwealth of Australia,
E. F.
for the Dominion of New Zealand,
G. H.
for the Union of South Africa,
1-3-
for the Irish Free State,
K.L.
for India,
M.N.
who,
having communicated their full powers, found in good and due
form, have agreed as follows :
1 Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary of Proceedings, 22-3.
BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS 435
In faith whereof the above-named plenipotentiaries have signed
the present treaty.
A.B.
C.D.
E.F.
G.H.
I-J-
K.L.
M. JV.
(or if the territory for which each plenipotentiary signs is to be
specified :
(for Great Britain, etc.) .................. A. B.
(for Canada) ............................ C.D.
(for Australia) .......................... E. F.
(for New Zealand) ...................... G.H.
(for South Africa) ........................ I. J.
(for the Irish Free State) ................ K.L.
(for India) .............................. M.
§ 787. Treaties concluded by the United Kingdom. — While the
formula " for Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all
parts of the British Empire which are not separate members
of the League of Nations " is that generally used in League
of Nations treaties signed in respect of the United Kingdom,
and in certain other treaties of a general character, in other
instances it is cast in the shorter form " for Great Britain and
Northern Ireland " as sufficiently indicating the administration
responsible.
NEGOTIATION
§ 788. The Resolution of the Imperial Conference, 1923,
stated :
" I. i (a) It is desirable that no treaty should be negotiated by
any of the Governments of the Empire without due consideration
of its possible effect on other parts of the Empire, or, if circum-
stances so demand, on the Empire as a whole :
(b) Before negotiations are opened with the intention of con-
cluding a treaty, steps should be taken to ensure that any of the
other Governments of the Empire likely to be interested are
informed, so that, if any such Government considers that its interests
would be affected, it may have an opportunity of expressing its
views, or, when its interests are intimately involved, of participating
in the negotiations :
(c) In all cases where more than one of the Governments of the
Empire participates in the negotiations, there should be the fullest
possible exchange of views between those Governments before and
1 Imperial Conference, 1 926, Summary of Proceedings, 29.
436 BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
during the negotiations. In the case of treaties negotiated at Inter-
national Conferences, where there is a British Empire delegation,
on which, in accordance with the now established practice, the
Dominions and India are separately represented, such representa-
tion should also be utilised to attain this object :
(d) Steps should be taken to ensure that those Governments of
the Empire whose representatives are not participating in the
negotiations should, during their progress, be kept informed in
regard to any points arising in which they may be interested." 1
As regards (a) and (V) the Imperial Conference, 1926,
added :
' This rule should be understood as applying to any negotiations
which any Government intends to conduct, so as to leave it to the
other Governments to say whether they are likely to be interested :
" When a Government has received information of the intention
of any other Government to conduct negotiations, it is incumbent
upon it to indicate its attitude with reasonable promptitude. So
long as the initiating Government receives no adverse comments
and so long as its policy involves no active obligations on the part
of the other Governments, it may proceed on the assumption that
its policy is generally acceptable. It must, however, before taking
any steps which might involve the other Governments in any active
obligations, obtain their definite assent.
" Where by the nature of the treaty it is desirable that it should
be ratified on behalf of all the Governments of the Empire, the
initiating Government may assume that a Government which has
had full opportunity of indicating its attitude and has made no
adverse comments will concur in the ratification of the treaty. In
the case of a Government that prefers not to concur in the ratifica-
tion of a treaty unless it has been signed by a plenipotentiary
authorised to act on its behalf, it will advise the appointment of a
plenipotentiary so to act." 2
FULL POWERS
§ 789. The Imperial Conference, 1926, made the following
recommendation :
: The plenipotentiaries for the various British units should have
full powers, issued in each case by the King, on the advice of the
Government concerned, indicating and corresponding to the part
of the Empire for which they are to sign. It will frequently be
found convenient, particularly when there are some parts of the
Empire on which it is not contemplated that active obligations will
be imposed, but where the position of the British subjects belonging
to these parts will be affected, for such Government to advise the
1 Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary of Proceedings, 20 n. 2 Ibid., 22.
BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS 437
issue of full powers on their behalf to the plenipotentiary appointed
to act on behalf of the Government or Governments mainly con-
cerned. In other cases provision might be made for accession by
other parts of the Empire at a later date." 1
SIGNATURE
§ 790. The Resolution of the Imperial Conference, 1923,
laid down :
" (a} Bilateral treaties imposing obligations on one part of the
Empire only should be signed by a representative of the Govern-
ment of that part. The full power issued to such representative
should indicate the part of the Empire in respect of which the
obligations are to be undertaken, and the preamble and text of the
treaty should be so worded as to make its scope clear ;
(£) Where a bilateral treaty imposes obligations on more than
one part of the Empire, the treaty should be signed by one or more
plenipotentiaries on behalf of all the Governments concerned ;
(c) As regards treaties negotiated at international conferences,
the existing practice of signature by plenipotentiaries on behalf of
all the Governments of the Empire represented at the conference
should be continued, and the full powers should be in the form
employed at Paris and Washington." 2
The Imperial Conference, 1926, added :
" In the cases where the names of the countries are appended to
the signatures in a treaty, the different parts of the Empire should
be designated in the same manner as is proposed in regard to the
list of plenipotentiaries in the preamble to the treaty. The signa-
tures of the plenipotentiaries of the various parts of the Empire
should be grouped together in the same order as is proposed above.3
"The signature of a treaty on behalf of a part of the Empire
should cover territories for which a mandate has been given to that
part of the Empire, unless the contrary is stated at the time of the
signature." 4
§ 791. Mandated Territories. — The territories in respect of
which mandates have been accepted by His Majesty on behalf
of the League of Nations are grouped as follows :
Palestine, Tanganyika Territory, Cameroons (British sphere)
and Togoland (British sphere), under the control of His
Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
New Guinea, and the neighbouring islands in the Pacific
Ocean, under the control of His Majesty's Government in the
Commonwealth of Australia.
1 Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary of Proceedings, 23. 2 Ibid., 20 n.
2 See §786. "
* Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary oj Proceedings, 23.
438 BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
Western Samoa, under the control of His Majesty's Govern-
ment in New Zealand.
South West Africa, under the control of His Majesty's
Government in the Union of South Africa.
A mandate for Nauru was given to the British Empire.
RATIFICATION
§ 792. The Imperial Conference of 1923 recommended that
the existing practice in connection with the ratification of
treaties should be maintained. This practice was set out as
follows :
" (a) The ratification of treaties imposing obligations on one part
of the Empire is effected at the instance of the Government of that
part :
(b] The ratification of treaties imposing obligations on more than
one part of the Empire is effected after consultation between the
Governments of those parts of the Empire concerned. It is for
each Government to decide whether Parliamentary approval or
legislation is required before desire for, or concurrence in, ratifica-
tion is intimated by that Government." l
ENTRY INTO FORCE OF MULTILATERAL TREATIES
§ 793. The Imperial Conference, 1926, recommended :
" In general, treaties contain a ratification clause and a provision
that the treaty will come into force on the deposit of a certain
number of ratifications. The question has sometimes arisen in con-
nection with treaties negotiated under the auspices of the League
of Nations whether, for the purpose of making up the number of
ratifications necessary to bring the treaty into force, ratifications
on behalf of different parts of the Empire which are separate
members of the League should be counted as separate ratifications.
In order to avoid any difficulty in future, it is recommended that,
when it is thought necessary that a treaty should contain a clause
of this character, it should take the form of a provision that the
treaty should come into force when it has been ratified on behalf
of so many separate members of the League." 2
GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS
§ 794. As regards Agreements other than those between
heads of states, i.e. Agreements between Governments, the
Resolution of the Imperial Conference, 1923, stated :
1 Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary of Proceedings, 21 n. 2 Ibid., 24.
BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS 439
" Apart from treaties made between heads of states, it is not
unusual for agreements to be made between governments. Such
agreements, which are usually of a technical or administrative
character, are made in the names of the signatory governments,
and signed by representatives of those governments, who do not
act under full powers issued by the heads of the states ; they are
not ratified by the heads of the states, though in some cases some
form of acceptance or confirmation by the governments concerned
is employed. As regards agreements of this nature the existing
practice should be continued, but before entering on negotiations
the Governments of the Empire should consider whether the
interests of any other part of the Empire may be affected, and, if so,
steps should be taken to ensure that the Government of such part
is informed of the proposed negotiations, in order that it may have
an opportunity of expressing its views." 1
1 Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary of Proceedings, 21 n.
CHAPTER XXIX
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
§ 795. THERE is a very extensive field of literature on the sub-
ject of the League of Nations, in which the origin, constitution
and functions of the League are examined, its work reviewed
and its future discussed. Here only a brief survey is possible.
A list of many of these publications will be found in § i6jA of
the first volume of the fourth edition of Oppenheim's " Inter-
national Law." The author remarks that " the League of
Nations is intended to take the place of what hitherto used to
be called the Family of Nations, namely, the community of
civilised states, for the international conduct of which inter-
national law has grown up. The Covenant of the League is
an attempt to organise the hitherto unorganised community of
states by a written constitution. That this constitution is not
complete and perfect matters as little as that for the moment
there are still some civilised states outside the League, because
this constitution will gradually become more complete and
perfect, and the time may not be very distant when all civilised
states, without exception, will be members." l •"
§ 796. The Covenant of the League was framecV'at the Peace
Conference at Paris in 1919, and forms an integral part of the
Treaties of Peace with Germany (June 28, 1919), Austria
(September 10, 1919), Bulgaria (November 27, 1919) and
Hungary (June 4, 1920). It first became effective with the
initial deposit of ratifications of the Treaty of Peace with
Germany on January 10, 1920. It was not included in the
Treaty of Peace with Turkey, signed at Lausanne on July 24,
1923, though it had been in the former treaty which was signed
at Sevres on August 10, 1920, but never became effective. The
above-mentioned countries were not, however, named in the list
of the original members of the League, or in the list of those
invited to accede, which formed the Annex to the Covenant,
but all, with the exception of Turkey, have since acceded.
On the other hand, the United States, Ecuador and the Hedjaz,
1 § i67c.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS 441
which were named in the former list, have not ratified such of
the above peace treaties as were signed on their behalf, while
Brazil and Costa Rica, which had become members, have since
withdrawn. Applications for membership made by Monaco and
San Marino did not materialise, while those made by Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Liechtenstein and the Ukraine were
refused. Important countries which have remained outside
the League are the United States, Russia and Turkey. Any
fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony may become a
member if its admission is agreed to by two-thirds of the
Assembly, provided that it gives effective guarantees of its
sincere intention to observe its international obligations and
accepts such regulations as may be prescribed by the League in
regard to its military, naval and air forces and armaments.
Any member may withdraw after giving two years' notice of
its intention to do so.
§ 797. Applications for membership of the League are sub-
ject to the following tests : (i) Is the application for admission
in order ? (ii) Is the Government applying for admission
recognised de jure or de facto, and by which states ? (iii) Is the
applicant a nation with a stable government and settled
frontiers ? (iv) Is it fully self-governing ? (v) What has been
its conduct, including both acts and assurances, with regard
to (a) its international obligations ; (b] the prescriptions of
the League as to armaments ? l
§ 798. The Members of the League at present number 55,
viz. :
Abygjii'iia Dominican Republic
Albaiira. Estonia
Argentine Republic Finland
Australia France
Austria G crmany
Belgium Greece
Bolivia Guatemala
British Empire Haiti
Bulgaria Honduras
Canada Hungary
Chile India
China Irish Free State
Colombia Italy
Cuba Japan
Czechoslovakia Latvia
Denmark Liberia
1 Records of First Assembly, Committees, ii. 159, 212.
442 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Lithuania Portugal
Luxemburg Roumania
Mexico Salvador
Netherlands Siam
New Zealand Spain
Nicaragua Sweden
Norway Switzerland
Panama Union of South Africa
Paraguay Uruguay
Persia Venezuela
Peru Yugoslavia
Poland
§ 799. The terms of the Covenant of the League are as
follows :
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve
international peace and security,
by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war,
by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations
between nations,
by the firm establishment of the understandings of interna-
tional law as the actual rule of conduct among Governments,
and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for
all treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples
with one another,
Agree to this Covenant of the League of Nations.
Art. I. — i. The original Members of the League of Nations
shall be those of the Signatories which are named in the Annex
to this Covenant and also such of those other States named in
the Annex as shall accede without reservation to this Covenant.
Such accession shall be effected by a Declaration deposited with the
Secretariat within two months of the coming into force of the
Covenant. Notice thereof shall be sent to all other Members of
the League.
2. Any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony not
named in the Annex may become a Member of the League if its
admission is agreed to by two-thirds of the Assembly, provided that
it shall give effective guarantees of its sincere intention to observe
its international obligations, and shall accept such regulations as
may be prescribed by the League in regard to its military, naval
and air forces and armaments.
3. Any Member of the League may, after two years' notice of
its intention so to do, withdraw from the League, provided that all
its international obligations and all its obligations under this
Covenant shall have been fulfilled at the time of its withdrawal.
Art. 2. — The action of the League under this Covenant shall be
LEAGUE OF NATIONS 443
effected through the instrumentality of an Assembly and of a
Council, with a permanent Secretariat.
Art. 3. — i. The Assembly shall consist of Representatives of
the Members of the League.
2. The Assembly shall meet at stated intervals and from time
to time as occasion may require at the Seat of the League or at
such other place as may be decided upon.
3. The Assembly may deal at its meetings with any matter
within the sphere of action of the League or affecting the peace of
the world.
4. At meetings of the Assembly, each Member of the League shall
have one vote, and may have not more than three Representatives.
Art. 4. — i. The Council shall consist of Representatives of the
Principal Allied and Associated Powers,'* together with Repre-
sentatives of four other Members of the League. These four
Members of the League shall be selected by the Assembly from
time to time in its discretion. Until the appointment of the
Representatives of the four Members of the League first selected
by the Assembly, Representatives of Belgium, Brazil, Spain and
Greece shall be members of the Council.
2. With the approval of the majority of the Assembly, the
Council may name additional Members of the League whose
Representatives shall always be Members of the Council b ; the
Council with like approval may increase the number of Members
of the League to be selected by the Assembly for representation on
the Council.0
2 bis.1 The Assembly shall fix by a two-thirds majority the rules dealing
with the election of the non-permanent Members of the Council, and par-
ticularly such regulations as relate to their term of office and the conditions of
re-eligibility.
3. The Council shall meet from time to time as occasion may
require, and at least once a year, at the Seat of the League, or at
such other place as may be decided upon.
4. The Council may deal at its meetings with any matter
within the sphere of action of the League or affecting the peace of
the world.
5. Any Member of the League not represented on the Council
shall be invited to send a Representative to sit as a member at any
<* The Principal Allied and Associated Powers are the following : The United
States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan (see Preamble of
the Treaty of Peace with Germany). As to the United States of America, see
§ 796 above.
6 In virtue of this paragraph of the Covenant, Germany was nominated as a
permanent Member of the Council on September 8, 1926.
c The number of Members of the Council selected by the Assembly was
increased to six instead of four by virtue of a resolution adopted at the Third
ordinary meeting of the Assembly on September 25, 1922. By a resolution
taken by the Assembly on September 8, 1926, the number of Members of the
Council selected by the Assembly was increased to nine.
1 This Amendment came into force on July 29, 1926, in accordance with
Article 26 of the Covenant.
444 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
meeting of the Council during the consideration of matters specially
affecting the interests of that Member of the League.
6. At meetings of the Council, each Member of the League
represented on the Council shall have one vote, and may have not
more than one Representative.
Art. 5. — i. Except where otherwise expressly provided in this
Covenant or by the terms of the present Treaty, decisions at any
meeting of the Assembly or of the Council shall require the agree-
ment of all the Members of the League represented at the meeting.
2. All matters of procedure at meetings of the Assembly or of
the Council, including the appointment of Committees to investigate
particular matters, shall be regulated by the Assembly or by the
Council and may be decided by a majority of the Members of the
League represented at the meeting.
3. The first meeting of the Assembly and the first meeting of the
Council shall be summoned by the President of the United States
of America.
Art. 6. — i. The permanent Secretariat shall be established at
the Seat of the League. The Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary-
General and such secretaries and staff as may be required.
2. The first Secretary-General shall be the person named in
the Annex ; thereafter the Secretary-General shall be appointed
by the Council with the approval of the majority of the Assembly.
3. The secretaries and staff of the Secretariat shall be appointed
by the Secretary-General with the approval of the Council.
4. The Secretary-General shall act in that capacity at all
meetings of the Assembly and of the Council.
5-1 The expenses of the League shall be borne by the Members of the
League in the proportion decided by the Assembly.
Art. 7. — i. The Seat of the League is established at Geneva.
2. The Council may at any time decide that the Seat of the
League shall be established elsewhere.
3. All positions under or in connection with the League,
including the Secretariat, shall be open equally to men and women.
4. Representatives of the Members of the League and officials
of the League when engaged on the business of the League shall
enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.
5. The buildings and other property occupied by the League
or its officials or by Representatives attending its meetings shall be
inviolable.
Art. 8. — i. The Members of the League recognise that the
maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments
to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforce-
ment by common action of international obligations.
2. The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and
circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction
for the consideration and action of the several Governments.
1 This Amendment came into force on August 13, 1924, in accordance with
Article 26 of the Covenant.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS 445
3. Such plans shall be subject to reconsideration and revision
at least every ten years.
4. After these plans shall have been adopted by the several
Governments, the limits of armaments therein fixed shall not be
exceeded without the concurrence of the Council.
5. The Members of the League agree that the manufacture by
private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to
grave objections. The Council shall advise how the evil effects
attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented, due regard
being had to the necessities of those Members of the League which
are not able to manufacture the munitions and implements of war
necessary for their safety.
6. The Members of the League undertake to interchange full
and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their
military, naval and air programmes and the condition of such of
their industries as are adaptable to warlike purposes.
Art. 9. — A permanent Commission shall be constituted to
advise the Council on the execution of the provisions of Articles i
and 8 and on military, naval and air questions generally.
Art. 10. — The Members of the League undertake to respect and
preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and
existing political independence of all Members of the League. In
case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of
such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which
this obligation shall be fulfilled.
Art. ii. — i. Any war or threat of war, whether immediately
affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby
declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League
shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to
safeguard the peace of nations. In case any such emergency
should arise the Secretary-General shall on the request of any
Member of the League forthwith summon a meeting of the Council.
2. It is also declared to be the friendly right of each Member
of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or of the
Council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations
which threatens to disturb international peace or the good under-
standing between nations upon which peace depends.
Art. I2.1 — •!. The Members of the League agree that if there
should arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture
they will submit the matter either to arbitration or judicial settlement
or to enquiry by the Council, and they agree in no case to resort
to war until three months after the award by the arbitrators or the
judicial decision or the report by the Council.
2. In any case under this Article the award of the arbitrators
or the judicial decision shall be made within a reasonable time, and
the report of the Council shall be made within six months after the
submission of the dispute.
1 The Amendments printed in italics came into force on September 26, 1924,
in accordance with Article 26 of the Covenant.
446 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Art. 13.* — i. The Members of the League agree that whenever
any dispute shall arise between them which they recognise to be
suitable for submission to arbitration or judicial settlement, and which
cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, they will submit the
whole subject-matter to arbitration or judicial settlement.
2. Disputes as to the interpretation of a treaty, as to any question
of international law, as to the existence of any fact which, if
established, would constitute a breach of any international obliga-
tion, or as to the extent and nature of the reparation to be made
for any such breach, are declared to be among those which are
generally suitable for submission to arbitration or judicial settlement.
3. For the consideration of any such dispute, the court to which the case
is referred shall be the Permanent Court of International Justice, established
in accordance with Article 14, or any tribunal agreed on by the parties to the
dispute or stipulated in any convention existing between them.
4. The Members of the League agree that they will carry out
in full good faith any award or decision that may be rendered, and
that they will not resort to war against a Member of the League
which complies therewith. In the event of any failure to carry out
such an award or decision, the Council shall propose what steps
should be taken to give effect thereto.
Art. 14. — The Council shall formulate and submit to the
Members of the League for adoption plans for the establishment of
a Permanent Court of International Justice. The Court shall be
competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international
character which the parties thereto submit to it. The Court may
also give an advisory opinion upon any dispute or question referred
to it by the Council or by the Assembly.
Art. 15. — i.2 If there should arise between Members of the
League any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, which is not
submitted to arbitration or judicial settlement in accordance with
Article 13, the Members of the League agree that they will submit
the matter to the Council. Any party to the dispute may effect
such submission by giving notice of the existence of the dispute to
the Secretary-General, who will make all necessary arrangements
for a full investigation and consideration thereof.
2. For this purpose the parties to the dispute will communicate
to the Secretary-General, as promptly as possible, statements of
their case with all the relevant facts and papers, and the Council
may forthwith direct the publication thereof.
3. The Council shall endeavour to effect a settlement of the
dispute, and if such efforts are successful, a statement shall be made
public giving such facts and explanations regarding the dispute
and the terms of settlement thereof as the Council may deem
appropriate.
1 The Amendments printed in italics came into force on September 26, 1924,
in accordance with Article 26 of the Covenant.
2 The Amendment to the first paragraph of this Article came into force on
September 26, 1924, in accordance with Article 26 of the Covenant.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS 447
4. If the dispute is not thus settled, the Council either unani-
mously or by a majority vote shall make and publish a report
containing a statement of the facts of the dispute and the recom-
mendations which are deemed just and proper in regard thereto.
5. Any Member of the League represented on the Council may
make public a statement of the facts of the dispute and of its
conclusions regarding the same.
6. If a report by the Council is unanimously agreed to by the
members thereof other than the Representatives of one or more of
the parties to the dispute, the Members of the League agree that
they will not go to war with any party to the dispute which complies
with the recommendations of the report.
7. If the Council fails to reach a report which is unanimously
agreed to by the members thereof, other than the Representatives
of one or more of the parties to the dispute, the Members of the
League reserve to themselves the right to take such action as they
shall consider necessary for the maintenance of right and justice.
8. If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them,
and is found by the Council, to arise out of a matter which by inter-
national law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party,
the Council shall so report, and shall make no recommendation as
to its settlement.
9. The Council may in any case under this Article refer the
dispute to the Assembly. The dispute shall be so referred at the
request of either party to the dispute provided that such request be
made within fourteen days after the submission of the dispute to
the Council.
10. In any case referred to the Assembly, all the provisions of
this Article and of Article 1 2 relating to the action and powers of
the Council shall apply to the action and powers of the Assembly,
provided that a report made by the Assembly, if concurred in by
the Representatives of those Members of the League represented
on the Council and of a majority of the other Members of the League,
exclusive in each case of the Representatives of the parties to the
dispute, shall have the same force as a report by the Council con-
curred in by all the members thereof other than the Representatives
of one or more of the parties to the dispute.
Art. 1 6. — i. Should any Member of the League resort to
war in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12, 13 or 15,
it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war
against all other Members of the League, which hereby undertake
immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial
relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals
and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State, and the preven-
tion of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between
the nationals of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals of
any other State, whether a Member of the League or not.
2. It shall be the duty of the Council in such case to recommend
to the several Governments concerned what effective military,
448 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
naval or air force the Members of the League shall severally con-
tribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of
the League.
3. The Members of the League agree, further, that they will
mutually support one another in the financial and economic
measures which are taken under this Article, in order to minimise
the loss and inconvenience resulting from the above measures, and
that they will mutually support one another in resisting any special
measures aimed at one of their number by the covenant-breaking
State, and that they will take the necessary steps to afford passage
through their territory to the forces of any of the Members of the
League which are co-operating to protect the covenants of the
League.
4. Any Member of the League which has violated any covenant
of the League may be declared to be no longer a Member of the
League by a vote of the Council concurred in by the Representatives
of all the other Members of the League represented thereon.
Art. 17. — i. In the event of a dispute between a Member of
the League and a State which is not a Member of the League, or
between States not Members of the League, the State or States not
Members of the League shall be invited to accept the obligations
of membership in the League for the purposes of such dispute, upon
such conditions as the Council may deem just. If such invitation
is accepted, the provisions of Articles 12 to 16 inclusive shall be
applied with such modifications as may be deemed necessary by
the Council.
2. Upon such invitation being given the Council shall immedi-
ately institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the dispute and
recommend such action as may seem best and most effectual in
the circumstances.
3. If a State so invited shall refuse to accept the obligations of
membership in the League for the purposes of such dispute, and
shall resort to war against a Member of the League, the provisions of
Article 16 shall be applicable as against the State taking such action.
4. If both parties to the dispute when so invited refuse to accept
the obligations of membership in the League for the purposes of
such dispute, the Council may take such measures and make such
recommendations as will prevent hostilities and will result in the
settlement of the dispute.
Art. 1 8. — Every treaty or international engagement entered into
hereafter by any Member of the League shall be forthwith registered
with the Secretariat and shall as soon as possible be published by it.
No such treaty or international engagement shall be binding until
so registered.
Art. 19. — The Assembly may from time to time advise the
reconsideration by Members of the League of treaties which have
become inapplicable and the consideration of international con-
ditions whose continuance might endanger the peace of the world.
Art. 20. — i. The Members of the League severally agree that
LEAGUE OF NATIONS 449
this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or under-
standings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and
solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any
engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
2. In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a
Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent
with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member
to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
Art. 21. — Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect
the validity of international engagements, such as treaties of arbitra-
tion or regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine, for
securing the maintenance of peace.
Art. 22. — i. To those colonies and territories which as a con-
sequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty
of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited
by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous
conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the
principle that the well-being and development of such peoples
form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the per-
formance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
2. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle
is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced
nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their
geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and
who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be
exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
3. The character of the mandate must differ according to
the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situa-
tion of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar
circumstances.
4. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish
Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence
as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to
the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Manda-
tory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes
of these communities must be a principal consideration in the
selection of the Mandatory.
5. Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such
a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administra-
tion of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom
of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of
public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave
trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of
the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and
of military training of the natives for other than police purposes
and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities
for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.
6. There are territories, such as South- West Africa and certain
of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their
2 G
450 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres
of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of
the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered
under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory,
subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the
indigenous population.
7. In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the
Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed
to its charge.
8. The degree of authority, control, or administration to be
exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by
the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by
the Council.
9. A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and
examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the
Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.
Art. 23. — Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of
international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon,
the Members of the League :
(a] will endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane
conditions of labour for men, women, and children, both
in their own countries and in all countries to which their
commercial and industrial relations extend, and for that
purpose will establish and maintain the necessary inter-
national organisations ;
(b] undertake to secure just treatment of the native inhabitants
of territories under their control ;
(c] will entrust the League with the general supervision over
the execution of agreements with regard to the traffic in
women and children, and the traffic in opium and other
dangerous drugs ;
(d] will entrust the League with the general supervision of the
trade in arms and ammunition with the countries in
which the control of this traffic is necessary in the common
interest ;
(e] will make provision to secure and maintain freedom of
communications and of transit and equitable treatment
for the commerce of all Members of the League. In
this connection, the special necessities of the regions
devastated during the war of 1914-1918 shall be borne
in mind ;
(/) will endeavour to take steps in matters of international
concern for the prevention and control of disease.
Art. 24. — i. There shall be placed under the direction of the
League all international bureaux already established by general
treaties if the parties to such treaties consent. All such international
bureaux and all commissions for the regulation of matters of inter-
national interest hereafter constituted shall be placed under the
direction of the League.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS 451
2. In all matters of international interest which are regulated
by general conventions but which are not placed under the control
of international bureaux or commissions, the Secretariat of the
League shall, subject to the consent of the Council and if desired by
the parties, collect and distribute all relevant information and shall
render any other assistance which may be necessary or desirable.
3. The Council may include as part of the expenses of the
Secretariat the expenses of any bureau or commission which is
placed under the direction of the League.
Art. 25. — The Members of the League agree to encourage and
promote the establishment and co-operation of duly authorised
voluntary national Red Cross organisations having as purposes the
improvement of health, the prevention of disease and the mitigation
of suffering throughout the world.
Art. 26. — i. Amendments to this Covenant will take effect
when ratified by the Members of the League whose Representatives
compose the Council and by a majority of the Members of the
League whose Representatives compose the Assembly.
2. No such amendments shall bind any Member of the League
which signifies its dissent therefrom, but in that case it shall cease
to be a Member of the League.
ANNEX l
I. Original Members of the League of Nations.
United States of America. Haiti.
Belgium. Hedjaz.
Bolivia. Honduras.
Brazil. Italy.
British Empire. Japan.
Canada. Liberia.
Australia. Nicaragua.
South Africa. Panama.
New Zealand. Peru.
India. Poland.
China. Portugal.
Cuba. Roumania.
Ecuador. Serb-Croat-Slovene State.
France. Siam.
Greece. Czechoslovakia.
Guatemala. Uruguay.
States invited to accede to the Covenant.
Argentine Republic. Persia.
Chile. Salvador.
Colombia. Spain.
Denmark. Sweden.
Netherlands. Switzerland.
Norway. Venezuela.
Paraguay.
1 See now § 798.
452 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
II. First Secretary-General of the League of Nations.
The Hon. Sir JAMES ERIC DRUMMOND, K.C.M.G., C.B.
§ 800. The terms of the Covenant may be thus classified :
(1) Purposes of the League. The Preamble declares these
to be the promotion of international co-operation and the
achievement of international peace and security ; and sets out
conditions for their fulfilment.
(2) Membership. Governed by Articles i, 16 (4) and 26 (2).
(3) Organs. The Assembly and the Council, with the
Permanent Secretariat (Article 2). Their composition, times
of meeting, powers, procedure, etc. (Articles 3 to 6).
(4) Expenses. Contribution of Members (Article 6 (5)).
(5) Seat. At Geneva, but may be elsewhere (Article 7
(0, (2))-
(6) No distinction of sex in positions under or in connection
with the League (Article 7 (3)).
(7) Diplomatic privileges. To be enjoyed by representa-
tives of Members and by officials when engaged on the business
of the League ; buildings to be inviolable (Article 7 (4), (5)).
(8) Reduction of armaments ; control of manufacture of
munitions and implements of war (Article 8) ; permanent
commission (Article 9) ; supervision of trade (Article 23 (</)).
(9) Territorial integrity and political independence of
Members. Obligation to respect and preserve (Article 10).
(10) War or threat of war. Concerns the whole League ;
action to be taken (Article 1 1 ) .
(u) Disputes likely to lead to rupture. Obligation to
submit to arbitration or judicial settlement or to enquiry by
Council (Article 12).
(12) Disputes suitable for submission to arbitration or
judicial settlement ; obligation so to submit (Article 13). Dis-
putes not so submitted, to be submitted to Council ; procedure
in latter case (Article 15).
(13) Permanent Court of International Justice ; establish-
ment (Article 14).
(14) Resort to war in disregard of Articles 12, 13 or 15.
Measures to be taken (Article 16).
(15) Disputes between states of which one or all are not
Members. Invitation to accept obligations of membership for
purposes of settlement ; measures if refused (Article 17).
(16) Treaties. Registration and publication (Article 18) ;
revision or abrogation where inconsistent with Covenant
(Articles 19, 20) ; engagements consistent with Covenant not
affected (Article 21).
LEAGUE OF NATIONS 453
(17) Mandated territories. Tutelage on behalf of the
League ; mandates ; annual reports ; permanent commission
(Article 22).
(18) Tasks to be undertaken by members. Fair and humane
conditions of labour ; just treatment of natives ; supervision
over agreements regarding traffic in women and children,
opium and dangerous drugs ; supervision over trade in arms
and ammunition ; freedom of communication and transit ;
international concern for prevention and control of disease
(Article 23). Co-operation of Red Cross organisations for the
latter purpose (Article 25).
(19) International Bureaux. To be placed under the
direction of the League (Article 24).
(20) Amendments to Covenant. Conditions (Article 26).
§ 80 1. Besides the Covenant there are many treaty pro-
visions which attribute rights and duties to the League,
such as Articles 387-427 of the Treaty of Versailles, and the
corresponding Articles of other Treaties of Peace, relative to
the International Labour Organisation ; Articles 45-50 of
the Treaty of Versailles relative to the Saar territory, which is
administered by the League in the capacity of trustee, 'and is
governed by a commission of five persons, nominated by the
Council, of whom one is appointed President ; Article 80 of
the Treaty of Versailles, regarding the independence of Austria;
Articles 100-108 of the Treaty of Versailles regarding the Free
City of Danzig, which is placed under the protection of the
League, and where a high commissioner appointed by the
Council resides ; Article 73 of the Treaty of Peace with Hun-
gary, regarding the independence of Hungary ; various Articles
in post-war treaties, conventions, declarations, etc., for the
protection of minorities ; Article 19 of the Statute of the
Permanent Court of International Justice, etc. In addition
there are now also many treaties concluded under the auspices
of the League itself which attribute to it rights and obligations
in respect of their provisions.
§ 802. The sphere of action of the League comprises all
rights and duties arising from the Covenant or other treaties,
in so far as they attribute rights and duties to the League
which are accepted by it.
The regular organs of the League are the Assembly and the
Council, together with certain standing committees and other
auxiliary organisations and a permanent Secretariat estab-
lished at Geneva.
§ 803. The Assembly, as the chief organ of the League,
454 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
consists of representatives of all the Members of the League,
which are theoretically equal. It meets annually in
September, but may also meet at other times, or a Special
Session may be summoned. Each Member of the League
may send three representatives, who exercise but a single
vote. The competence of the Assembly, by Article 3 of the
Covenant, extends to any matter within the sphere of action
of the League or affecting the peace of the world. It determines
the lines of policy to be adopted by the League, reviews at its
annual session the work of the preceding year, and deals with
all matters placed on the agenda, prepared in advance by the
Secretary-General with the approval of the President of the
Council. It admits new Members to the League, selects the
non-permanent members of the Council, examines differences
which the Council brings before it, votes amendments to the
Covenant, approves the budget, proceeds conjointly with the
Council to the election of judges of the Permanent Court of
International Justice, etc. The Rules of Procedure governing
its meetings are shown in § 808.
All decisions of the Assembly, except on matters of pro-
cedure, require unanimity. The usual practice is for the
Assembly, after a preliminary general debate in which most
of the principal delegates take part, to resolve itself into six
committees for the purpose of detailed discussions. These
committees, which between them cover the whole field of
League activities, report at the end of their labours to the
plenary session. Decisions are taken in committee by a
majority vote, but the resolutions of the committee must, to
be effective, be accepted unanimously by the Assembly in
plenary session.1
§ 804. The Council of the League is a smaller body, com-
posed of representatives of the five permanent members, viz.
the British Empire, France, Germany, Italy and Japan,
together with representatives of the nine non-permanent
members— at the present time China, Guatemala, the Irish
Free State, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Spain and
Yugoslavia. The latter are elected, on a system of rotation, for
a term of three years, and the Assembly elects three non-
permanent members annually on the expiration of the term
of a corresponding number of those previously elected.
Article 4 (5) of the Covenant provides for the representation
on the Council of one or more additional members in the
circumstances contemplated by that clause, and Article 17
presumably entails a similar procedure. The Council custom-
arily meets in January, May and September of each year — in
1 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. i (1932).
LEAGUE OF NATIONS 455
the latter case sitting concurrently with the Assembly — but
extraordinary sessions are held in cases of necessity. Each
member has a single representative and a single vote.
§ 805. The competence of the Council, like that, of the
Assembly, extends, under Article 4 (4) of the Covenant, to any
matter within the sphere of action of the League or affecting
the peace of the world. Its functions and those of the Assembly
are in general set out in the various Articles of the Covenant,
and these may entail the co-operation of both. But it may
declare itself competent in virtue of any Article of the Covenant. 1
The Council deals directly with the special questions arising
throughout the course of the year, and it has become the
executive organ of the League to give effect to decisions of the
Assembly, and to direct the many permanent activities of the
League and the organisations concerned with their fulfilment.
It takes action on matters remitted to it by the Assembly ;
considers at regular intervals the reports of the technical organs
and advisory committees of the League ; and deals with any
other questions on its agenda. In cases of emergency, any
Member of the League may demand a special meeting of the
Council. Any Member of the League not represented on the
Council has the right to send a representative to sit as a member
of the Council during the consideration of any question specially
affecting the member in question. Except in matters of pro-
cedure, or where otherwise specifically provided, decisions of
the Council must be taken unanimously.2 It presents annually
to the Assembly a report upon the work accomplished.
§ 806. The Secretariat has at its head the Secretary-General,
assisted by a Deputy Secretary-General and three Under
Secretaries-General, and the staff includes nationals of almost
every Member of the League. It comprises eleven sections, a
liaison service, treasury, and twelve auxiliary offices. The
sections are Political ; Administrative and Minorities ; Man-
dates ; Social Questions and Opium Traffic ; Disarmament ;
Legal ; Information ; Economic and Financial ; Communica-
tions and Transit ; Health ; Intellectual Co-operation and
International Bureaux. Each of the sections deals with the
special matters with which it is concerned, and furnishes reports
thereon. The Secretary-General attends the meetings of the
Assembly and the Council ; and the Secretariat makes all
necessary arrangements for these meetings, and for conferences
which are from time to time convoked by the League. It records
the proceedings at these various meetings, prepares and pub-
1 Report of the Committee of the Council, March 15, 1927, approved by the Council,
Dec. 6, 1927.
2 Parliamentary Paper, Misc., No. i (1932).
456 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
lishes the official documents of the League in French and
English, registers and publishes international treaties and en-
gagements, and publishes all other information which is made
available from time to time by the League. It is in close touch
with the delegates and experts of the different countries, with the.
permanent delegations established at Geneva, with organisa-
tions associated with or concerned in the work of the League,
and with public opinion in general. It furnishes a report
annually to the Assembly.
§ 807. The organisations connected with the work of the
League, or closely associated with it, amount to a large number.
They may be classed as technical organisations and con-
sultative commissions, which act as expert advisers to the
Assembly and Council ; administrative or executive
organisations constituted under certain treaty provisions, or
to carry out certain tasks undertaken by the League ; and two
autonomous organisations — the International Labour Organi-
sation and the Permanent Court of International Justice. In
particular there may be mentioned :
The Permanent Court of International Justice, established,
under Article 14 of the Covenant, by the Protocol signed at
Geneva on December 16, 1920, to which is annexed the
Statute of the Court. This Protocol is open also for signature
by states not members of the League but mentioned in the
Annex to the Covenant, while the Court itself is open to
members of the League, states mentioned in the Annex to
the Covenant, and conditionally to other states. The Court
sits at The Hague, and provides the necessary means for giving
effect to Article 14 of the Covenant, i.e. the hearing and
determination of disputes of an international character likely
to affect the peace of the world, and the giving of advisory
opinions upon any disputes or questions referred to it by the
Council or Assembly ;
The International Labour Organisation, founded upon
Articles 387-427 of the Treaty of Versailles and the corre-
sponding Articles of other treaties of peace ;
The Permanent Advisory Commission on Military, Naval
and Air Questions, established under Article 9 of the Covenant ;
The Permanent Mandates Commission, established under
Article 22 of the Covenant ;
The Communications and Transit Organisation, established
in connection with Article 23 (e) of the Covenant ;
The Economic and Financial Commission ;
The Health Commission ;
The Committee on Intellectual Co-operation ;
LEAGUE OF NATIONS 457
The Opium Commission ;
The Committee for the Protection of Children and Youth.
These, with others, constitute in the aggregate a great
organisation commensurate with the extent and importance
of the tasks undertaken by the League in carrying out the
obligations ascribed to it by the Covenant and the various
treaties which form the basis of its activities.
§ 808. Rules of Procedure of the Assembly. [Edition published in
January 1929, containing the Amendments adopted at the Second,
Third, Fourth and Ninth Ordinary Sessions of the Assembly.]
Rule I. — i. The Assembly shall meet in General Session every
year, at the seat of the League of Nations, commencing on the first
Monday in September.
2. Sessions may also be held at such times as the Assembly at a
previous meeting decides, and at such times as the Council, by
a majority vote, decides.
3. If a Member of the League considers a Session to be desirable,
it may request the Secretary-General to summon a Special Session
of the Assembly. The Secretary-General shall thereupon inform
the other Members of the League of the request, and enquire
whether they concur in it. If within a period of one month from
the date of the communication of the Secretary-General, a majority
of the Members concur in the request, a Special Session of the
Assembly shall be summoned.
Rule 2. — The Sessions of the Assembly shall be held at the seat
of the League, or, in exceptional circumstances, at such other place
as is designated by the Assembly or by a majority of the Council,
or approved by a majority of the Members of the League.
Rule 3. — i. The Sessions of the Assembly shall be summoned
by the President of the Council, acting through the Secretary-
General.
2. The summons shall be addressed to the Members of the
League not less than four months before the date fixed for the
opening of the Session. In exceptional circumstances, however,
the Council, by a majority vote, may sanction a shorter period.
3. Nothing contained in paragraph 2 of this Rule shall affect
the provisions, concerning special cases, contained in the Covenant.
Rule 4. — i. The agenda shall be drawn up by the Secretary-
General with the approval of the President of the Council. The
complete agenda shall be circulated as nearly as possible four
months before the date fixed for the opening of the Session.
2. The agenda of a General Session shall include :
(a) A report on the work of the Council since the last Session
of the Assembly, on the work of the Secretariat, and
on the measures taken to execute the decisions of the
Assembly ;
(b] All items whose inclusion has been ordered by the
Assembly, at a previous Session ;
458 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
(c) All items proposed by the Council ;
(d) All items proposed by a Member of the League ; and
(e) The Budget for the next fiscal period, and the report on
the accounts of the last fiscal period.
3. Any Member of the League may, at least one month before
the date fixed for the opening of the Session, request the inclusion
of additional items in the agenda. Such items shall be placed on
a supplementary list, which shall be circulated to the Members of
the League at least three weeks before the date fixed for the opening
of the Session. The Assembly shall decide whether items on the
supplementary list shall be included in the agenda of the Session.
4. The Assembly may in exceptional circumstances place
additional items on the agenda ; but all consideration of such
items shall, unless otherwise ordered by a two-thirds majority of
the Assembly, be postponed until four days after they have been
placed on the agenda, and until a committee has reported upon
them.
5. No proposal for a modification of the allocation of expenses
for the time being in force shall be inserted in the Agenda, unless
it has been communicated to the Members of the League at least
four months before the date fixed for the opening of the Session.
Rule 5. — i. Each Member shall communicate to the Secretary-
General, if possible before the date fixed for the opening of the
Session, the names of its Representatives, of whom there shall be
not more than three. The names of Substitute-Representatives
may be added.
2. Each Representative shall, as soon as possible, and preferably
before the opening of the Session, present his credentials to the
Secretary-General.
3. A Committee of eight members for the examination of the
credentials shall be elected by the Assembly by secret ballot. The
committee shall report without delay.
4. Any Representative to whose admission objection has been
made shall sit provisionally with the same rights as other Represen-
tatives, unless the Assembly decides otherwise.
Rule 6. — i. In addition to the Substitute-Representatives
mentioned in paragraph i of Rule 5, the Representatives of a
Member of the League attending the Assembly, acting together as
a Delegation, may appoint substitutes. Any such appointment
shall be communicated in writing to the President.
2. A Substitute-Representative appointed by a Member of the
League may take the place of a Representative without nomination
by the Representatives.
3. A Substitute-Representative or Substitute may take the place
of a Representative who is absent from a meeting of the Assembly,
or is temporarily prevented from taking part in its deliberations,
but if the Representative is present at the meeting the Substitute-
Representative or Substitute is only entitled to assist him.
4. A Delegation may appoint for service on a committee a
LEAGUE OF NATIONS 459
deputy or technical adviser other than those referred to in the above
paragraphs of this Rule ; but a deputy or adviser so appointed
shall not be eligible for appointment as Chairman or Rapporteur,
or for a seat in the Assembly.
Rule 7. — i. The officers of the Assembly shall consist of a
President and of six Vice- Presidents, together with the Chairmen
of the main Committees of the Assembly, who shall be ex-officio
Vice-Presidents of the Assembly. These officers shall form the
General Committee.
2. The President shall be elected at the beginning of each
Session.
3. Until the election of the President, the President of the
Council shall act as President of the Assembly.
4. The election of the Vice-Presidents shall take place at one
of the early meetings of the Session.
Rule 8. — i. The President shall announce the opening, sus-
pension and adjournment of the meetings of the Assembly, direct
the work of the Assembly, ensure the observance of the Rules of
Procedure, accord the right to address the Assembly, declare the
debates to be closed, put questions to the vote, and announce the
result of the voting.
2. In the general direction of the work of the Assembly, in the
constitution of such committees as the Assembly decides to create,
in deciding on the communications to be made to the Assembly,
in the framing of the agenda for each meeting, and in the deter-
mination of the order of priority for its various items, the President
shall be assisted by the General Committee.
Rule 9. — i. The Secretary-General shall be responsible for the
organisation of the Secretariat of the Assembly and of the Secretariat
of any committees set up by the Assembly.
2. The Secretary-General may be assisted or replaced at the
meetings of the Assembly by a deputy or deputies. The Secretary-
General, or one of his deputies, may at any time, on the invitation
of the President, bring before the Assembly reports concerning any
question which is being considered by the Assembly, and may be
invited by the President to make verbal communications concerning
any question under consideration.
Rule 10. — i. It shall be the duty of the Secretariat, inter alia, to
receive, print, circulate and translate documents, reports and
resolutions ; to translate speeches made at the meeting ; to draft,
print and circulate the Minutes of the Session ; to have the custody
and proper preservation of the documents in the archives of the
Assembly ; to publish the reports of the meetings, and, generally,
to perform all other work which the Assembly thinks fit to entrust
to it.
2. All documents emanating from the Assembly shall be circu-
lated to the Governments of the Members of the League.
Rule 11. — i. The public shall be admitted to the plenary meet-
ings of the Assembly, by cards distributed by the Secretary-General.
460 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
2. The Assembly may decide that particular meetings shall be
private.
3. All decisions of the Assembly upon items on the agenda,
which have been taken at a private meeting, shall be announced
at a public meeting of the Assembly.
Rule 12. — A list of the attendance at each meeting of the
Assembly shall be kept by the Secretariat.
Rule 13. — At the beginning of each meeting the President shall
present to the Assembly all communications addressed to the
Assembly or to the League, the importance of which appears to
him to warrant such action.
Rule 14. — i. The Assembly shall establish such committees as
it thinks fit, for the consideration of the items on the agenda.
Items of the same nature will be referred to the same committee.
2. The Assembly shall not decide items on the agenda in full
meeting until the report of a committee upon them has been
presented and circulated, unless the Assembly itself, by a two-thirds
majority, determines otherwise.
Decisions involving expenditure shall be subject to the rules
laid down in the Regulations for the Financial Administration of
the League of Nations.
Reports by a committee involving the expenditure of money
must indicate whether the expenditure will constitute part of the
general expenses of the League or whether it will be recovered from
the Members of the League particularly concerned.
No resolution involving expenditure shall in any case be voted
by the Assembly before the Finance Committee shall have expressed
its opinion on the advisability of the proposed expenditure from the
point of view of general budgetary resources.
3. Each Delegation may designate one member, and may
nominate technical advisers, for each committee.
4. Each committee shall appoint its Chairman and Rapporteur.
5. Each committee may appoint sub-committees, which shall
elect their own officers.
6. Each committee shall meet in private unless it decides other-
wise. It shall keep a Register of its discussions, and Minutes, which
shall be published at the earliest possible date, but not until they
have been approved by the committee. They may at any time be
consulted by any Member of the Assembly.
7. Every Representative shall have the right to place before
any committee any communication which he considers should be
made to it, but no Representative may, without special leave from
the Chairman, speak at a meeting of any committee of which he is
not a member.
8. The Secretary-General or his deputies may make to any
committee or sub-committee any report or verbal communication
which he or they may consider desirable.
Rule 15. — i. No Representative may address the Assembly
without having previously obtained the permission of the President.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS 461
2. Speakers shall be called upon in the order in which they have
signified their desire to speak. The Chairman and the Rapporteur
of a committee may be accorded precedence for the purpose of
defending or explaining the conclusions arrived at by their com-
mittee. The same principle shall apply to any Member of the
Council.
3. The President may call a speaker to order if his remarks are
not relevant to the subject under discussion. If necessary, he may
direct the speaker to resume his seat.
4. When a motion is under discussion, a Representative may
rise to a point of order, and such point of order shall be immediately
decided by the President in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.
5. The Assembly may limit the time allowed to each speaker.
Rule 1 6. — i. Speeches in French shall be summarised in English,
and vice-versa, by an interpreter belonging to the Secretariat.
2. A Representative speaking in another language shall pro-
vide for the translation of his speech into one of these two languages.
3. All documents, resolutions and reports circulated by the
President or the Secretariat shall be rendered in both French and
English.
4. Any Representative may have documents circulated in a
language other than French or English, but the Secretariat will
not be responsible for their translation or printing.
5. Any Member of the League, or any group of Members, may
require that all documents and publications of the League shall be
regularly translated into, and printed and circulated in, a language
other than French and English, but shall in such case defray all the
necessary expenses.
Rule 17. — i. Resolutions, amendments and motions must be
introduced in writing and handed to the President. The President
shall cause copies to be distributed to the Representatives.
2. As a general rule, no proposal shall be discussed or put to
the vote at any meeting of the Assembly unless copies of it have
been circulated to all Representatives not later than the day
preceding the meeting.
3. The President may, however, permit the discussion and con-
sideration of amendments, or of motions as to procedure, without
previous circulation of copies.
Rule 1 8. — i. During the discussion of any question, any Repre-
sentative may move the previous question or the adjournment.
Any such motion shall have priority in the debate. In addition
to the proposer of the motion, two Representatives may speak in
favour of, and two against, the motion.
2. Parts of a proposal shall be voted on separately, if a Repre-
sentative request that the proposal be divided.
3. A Representative may at any time move the closure of the
debate, whether any other Representative has signified his wish to
speak or not. If application is made for permission to speak against
the closure, it may be accorded to not more than two speakers.
462 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
4. The President shall take the sense of the Assembly on a
motion for closure. If the Assembly decides in favour of the
closure, the President shall declare the closure of the debate.
5. When a number of proposals are before the Assembly, the
proposal furthest removed in substance from the principal one shall
be voted on first.
6. If an amendment striking out part of a proposal is moved,
the Assembly shall first vote on whether the words in question shall
stand part of the proposal. If the decision is in the negative, the
amendment shall then be put to the vote.
7. When an amendment adds to a proposal it shall be voted on
first, and if it is adopted the amended proposal shall then be
voted on.
Rule 19. — i. Except where otherwise expressly provided in the
Covenant or by the terms of a treaty, decisions of the Assembly
shall be taken by a unanimous vote of the Members of the League
represented at the meeting.
2. All matters of procedure at a meeting of the Assembly,
including the appointment of committees to investigate particular
matters, shall be decided by a majority of the Members of the
League represented at the meeting.
3. All decisions taken in virtue of these Rules shall be considered
as matters of procedure.
4. A majority decision requires the affirmative votes of more
than half of the Members of the League represented at the meeting.
5. For the purposes of this Rule, Representatives who abstain
from voting shall be considered as not present.
Rule 20. — The Assembly shall vote by " Appel Nominal," except
when the Members of the League represented at the meeting agree
that the method of voting shall be by heads of Delegations rising
in their seats, and except in the cases provided for in Rule 21.
The " Appel Nominal " shall be taken in one of the following
manners as the Assembly may decide :
(a) The name of each Delegation shall be called, and one of its
members shall reply " Yes," " No," or " Not voting."
The result of the vote shall be recorded and announced
to the Assembly ;
or
(£) The Delegation of each Member of the League represented
at the meeting shall be provided with two voting tickets,
on which the name of the country is written, one red and
one blue, the former being " Aye," the latter " No."
The voting tickets shall be deposited in an urn placed
near the President's platform. When all the votes have
been collected, the President shall declare the ballot
closed, and the Genera] Committee shall proceed to
count the votes. The individual votes shall be com-
municated to the Assembly and the result shall be
announced by the President.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS 463
Rule 21. — i. All decisions relating to individuals shall be taken
by a secret ballot.
2. If, when one person only is to be elected, no one person
obtains at the first ballot an absolute majority of votes, an entirely
new ballot shall be taken ; but on this occasion the voting shall be
confined to the two candidates who obtained the largest number of
votes at the first ballot. If there is at this ballot an equality of
votes for the two candidates, the elder candidate shall be declared
elected.
3. When a number of elective places of the same nature are to
be filled at one time, those persons who obtain an absolute majority
at the first ballot shall be elected. If the number of persons obtain-
ing such majority is less than the number of persons to be elected,
there shall be a second ballot to fill the remaining places, the voting
being restricted to the unsuccessful candidates who obtained the
greatest number of votes at the first ballot, not more than double
in number the places remaining to be filled. Those candidates,
to the number required to be elected, who receive the greatest
number of votes at the second ballot shall be declared elected.
Rule 22. — In case of equality in any voting other than that
referred to in Rule 21, in which a majority is required, a second
vote shall be taken in the course of the next meeting ; this meeting
shall be held within 48 hours from the date on which the first vote
was taken, and it shall be expressly mentioned on the agenda that
a second vote will be taken on the matter in question. Unless
there is at this subsequent meeting a majority in favour of the
proposal, it shall be considered as lost.
Rule 22a. — i. The Members whose representatives are to sit
on the Council as non-permanent Members of that body shall be
selected by the Assembly by secret ballot.
2. Where several seats are to be filled, the election shall be
made by voting a list of names. Any ballot-paper containing more
names than there are seats to be filled shall be null and void.
3. No Members shall be elected at the first or at the second
ballot unless it has obtained at least the absolute majority of the
votes. If, after two ballots, there still remain seats to be filled,
a third ballot shall be held upon a list consisting of the candidates
which obtained most votes at the second ballot, up to a number
double that of the seats still to be filled, and those Members shall
be elected which obtain the greatest number of votes.
4. If two or more Members obtain the same number of votes
and there is not a seat available for each, a special ballot shall be
held between them ; if they again obtain an equal number of votes,
the President shall decide between them by drawing lots.
Rule 23. — i. The President may declare a meeting to be ad-
journed or suspended, if a proposal for adjournment or suspension
made by him does not meet with objection from the Assembly.
2. The President shall declare an adjournment or suspension
of the meeting upon a vote to this effect by the Assembly.
464 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Rule 24. — The General Committee, in cases where it deems it
necessary, may revise the resolutions adopted by the Assembly,
changing their form but not their substance. Any such changes
shall be reported to the Assembly.
Rule 25. — The verbatim report of each meeting shall be drawn
up by the Secretariat and submitted to the Assembly after approval
by the President.
Rule 26. — The resolutions adopted by the Assembly shall be
circulated by the Secretary-General to the Members of the League
within fifteen days after the termination of the Session.
Rule 27. — These Rules of Procedure shall apply to the proceed-
ings of committees of the Assembly.
Rule 28. — These Rules of Procedure may be altered by a decision
of the Assembly ; but no such alteration shall be made except
upon a majority vote of the Assembly, taken after a committee has
reported on the proposed alteration.
ANNEX I.
Recommendations as to the Arrangements for the Debates in the Assembly on
the Annual Report by the Council.
[Communicated by the General Committee to the Delegates to the
Third Ordinary Session of the Assembly on September 2gth,
1922.]
The General Committee, in accordance with the desire expressed
by the Assembly, has carefully investigated the proposals made by
the President with regard to the arrangements for the debates in
the Assembly on the report by the Council. The General Com-
mittee unanimously recognises the utility of these proposals and
has adopted the following recommendations, which may perhaps
serve for guidance in the procedure of future Assemblies and help
their Presidents in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them
in pursuance of Articles 8 and 15 of the Rules of Procedure :
1. The report by the Council on its work of the year shall be
communicated to the Assembly at the beginning of the session, and
as a general rule it shall constitute the first subject on the agenda
after the organisation of the Assembly has been completed.
2. The report by the Council shall be submitted for debate in
the Assembly, to be opened with a general discussion, which may
be followed by consideration of particular subjects dealt with in
the report or arising out of it.
3. The Delegates shall be invited to inform the President before
the beginning of the debate, or as soon thereafter as possible,
whether they desire to participate, indicating at the same time their
wishes as to engaging in the general debate, or more particularly
in the discussion of specific matters covered by the Council's
report ; they should be invited to state also the subjects with which
they wish to deal specially in the specific discussion.
4. The President will propose to the Assembly, as early as
LEAGUE OF NATIONS 465
possible, the subjects to be covered in the specific discussion follow-
ing the general debate, arranging to have speakers on the same
topic heard in succession. The Delegates will be invited to limit
their speeches in the special debates, as far as possible, to the special
topics under discussion at the time. It is in no sense inconsistent
with the present Recommendations that Delegates taking part in
the general discussion should on that occasion refer to subjects on
which a specific discussion will take place.
(Annex II. — Procedure of Adoption of the Budget at Plenary
Meetings of the Assembly.)
(Annex III. — Extract from the Regulations for the Financial
Administration of the League of Nations.)
Rules dealing with the Election of the Nine Non-Permanent Members of
the Council. [Resolution adopted by the Assembly at its Meeting held
on September 15, 1926.]
The Assembly, acting in virtue of Article 4 of the Covenant,
decides as follows :
Article i . — The Assembly shall each year, in the course of its
ordinary session, elect three non-permanent Members of the Council.
They shall be elected for a term commencing immediately on their
election and ending on the day of the elections held three years
later by the Assembly.
Should a non-permanent Member cease to belong to the Council
before its term of office expires, its seat shall be filled by a by-election
held separately at the session following the occurrence of the
vacancy. The term of office of the Member so elected shall end
at the date at which the term of office of the Member whose place
it takes would have expired.
Article 2. — A retiring member may not be re-elected during the
period between the expiration of its term of office and the third
election in ordinary session held thereafter unless the Assembly,
either on the expiration of the Member's term of office or in the
course of the said period of three years, shall, by a majority of two-
thirds of the votes cast, previously have decided that such Member
is re-eligible.
The Assembly shall pronounce separately, by secret ballot,
upon each request for re-eligibility. The number of votes cast
shall be determined by the total number of voting tickets deposited,
deducting blank or spoilt votes.
The Assembly may not decide upon the re-eligibility of a
Member except upon a request in writing made by the Member itself.
The request must be handed to the President of the Assembly not
later than the day before the date fixed for the election ; it shall be
submitted to the Assembly, which shall pronounce upon it without
referring it to a committee and without debate.
The number of Members re-elected in consequence of having
been previously declared re-eligible shall be restricted so as to
prevent the Council from containing at the same time more than
2 H
466 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
three Members thus elected. If the result of the ballot infringes
this restriction to three Members, those of the Members affected
which have received the smallest number of votes shall not be
considered to have been elected.
Article 3. — Notwithstanding the above provisions, the Assembly
may at any time by a two-thirds majority decide to proceed, in
application of Article 4 of the Covenant, to a new election of all the
non-permanent Members of the Council. In this case the Assembly
shall determine the rules applicable to the new election.
Article 4. — Temporary Provisions. — i. In 1926, the nine non-
permanent Members of the Council shall be elected by the Assembly,
three for a term of three years, three for a term of two years, and
three for a term of one year. The procedure of the election shall
be determined by the General Committee of the Assembly.
2. Of the nine Members thus elected in 1926, a maximum of
three may be immediately declared re-eligible by a decision of the
Assembly taken by a special vote by secret ballot, a separate ballot
being held for each Member, and adopted by a majority of two-
thirds of the number of votes cast. Immediately after the announce-
ment of the results of the election, the Assembly shall decide upon
the requests for re-eligibility which have been presented. Should
the Assembly have before it more than three requests for re-
eligibility, the three candidates having received the largest number
of votes, in excess of two-thirds of the votes cast, shall alone be
declared re-eligible.
3. The according in advance in 1926 to one, two or three
Members elected at that date of the quality of re-eligibility shall
not affect the Assembly's right to exercise the power given by
Article 2 in the years 1927 and 1928 in favour of other non-
permanent Members retiring from the Council in those years.
It is, however, understood that, if three Members already possess
the quality of re-eligibility, the Assembly will only exercise this
power in very exceptional cases.
CHAPTER XXX
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS :— MANDATES, TREATIES,
DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES
MANDATED TERRITORIES
§ 809. AMONG the earliest of the tasks undertaken by the League
was the approval of the mandates contemplated by Article 22
of the Covenant for the administration of the territories there
described, and the setting up of a permanent commission to
receive and examine the annual reports of the mandatories,
as also provided for.
§ 810. These territories form three distinct groups, as set
forth in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 22, and the mandates
issued for their administration on behalf of the League are
usually referred to as "A," " B ' and " C " mandates re-
spectively.
§ 8 1 1 . Mandates were issued for the following territories, and
accepted by the countries named :
" A " Mandates :
Palestine — Great Britain.
Syria and the Lebanon — France.
" B " Mandates :
Cameroons (British sphere) — Great Britain.
Cameroons (French sphere) — France.
Togoland (British sphere) — Great Britain.
Togoland (French sphere) — France.
Tanganyika — Great Britain.
Ruanda-Urundi — Belgium.
" C " Mandates :
South- West Africa — Union of South Africa.
Western Samoa — New Zealand.
Nauru — British Empire (Great Britain, Australia, New
Zealand).
Other Pacific Islands and Territories south of the
Equator — Australia.
Pacific Islands north of the Equator — -Japan.
468 LEAGUE OF NATIONS : MANDATES
§ 812. It was originally contemplated that Iraq should form
the subject of a mandate under Article 22 (4) of the Covenant,
to be issued to Great Britain. No actual mandate was, how-
ever issued, but a treaty of alliance was concluded between
Great Britain and Iraq in 1922, which, with a further Agree-
ment of 1923, was accepted by the Council as giving effect to
Article 22 of the Covenant. On June 30, 1930, a new Treaty
was signed between Great Britain and Iraq, and was ratified
on January 26, 1931, on the basis of an alliance between two
independent states, to become operative as soon as Iraq
has become admitted to membership of the League.1
§ 813. The mandate for Palestine is applicable to Trans-
jordan, with the exception of the provisions regarding the
establishment of a national home for the Jewish people. But
while action thereunder is taken in Palestine by the Administra-
tion of Palestine, an Agreement was concluded on February 20,
1928, between His Britannic Majesty and the Amir of Trans-
jordan, setting up an independent and constitutional govern-
ment in Transjordan, the mandatory being represented
there by a British Resident, subordinate to the High Com-
missioner for Palestine and Transjordan.2
§ 814. Several agreements have since been concluded by
the mandatories, and approved by the League, regarding the
definition of the boundaries of the respective mandated
territories. (See, e.g., § 101.)
§ 815. In the caseof the" A " and" B " mandated territories,
equal opportunities for trade and commerce are guaranteed
to other members of the League. The United States having
claimed similar rights, treaty arrangements have been con-
cluded by that country with the mandatories to the same effect.
§ 8 1 6. Nationality Laws have been promulgated in Iraq
(October 9, 1924), Palestine (July 24, 1925), Transjordan
(June i, 1928), Syria (January 19, 1925), and the Lebanon
(January 19, 1925). In South-West Africa persons of German
origin have been locally naturalised under an Act of 1924 of
the Union of South Africa, which allowed them the right of
declining the British nationality offered, but, by an under-
standing with Germany in 1923, persons so naturalised also
retain German nationality.
§ 817. It has been held that British subjects who may
become naturalised as Palestinian citizens under the
Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, do not
thereby cease to be British subjects.
1 Dominions Office and Colonial Office List (1931), 516.
2 Ibid., 524.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS : TREATIES 469
TREATIES
§ 8 1 8. Under Article 18 of the Covenant of the League, the
obligation rests upon every member of the League to register
with the secretariat forthwith for publication every treaty or
international engagement entered into by it ; no such treaty
or international engagement to be binding until so registered.
§ 819. This Article is intended to cover all treaty arrange-
ments, however designated, and all international engagements
or acts establishing legal obligations between one country and
another or others.
§ 820. Publication takes place in the League of Nations
Treaty Series, and where the instrument has no French or
English text, translations into these languages are appended.
§ 82 1 . In the case of bilateral treaties between two members
of the League, both, as a rule, effect registration. Where one
party alone is a member, registration is effected by it. Where
treaties are concluded under the auspices of the League itself,
the Secretariat automatically registers. Occasionally countries
which are not members of the League have registered. The
United States Government, as a matter of courtesy, furnishes
the League with copies of treaties concluded by it, but not for
registration.
All such events as ratification, accession, denunciation, etc.,
are also notified to the secretariat, and are published in the
League Treaty Series.
§ 822. With a view of removing some uncertainties felt at
the outset, the British Government, on September 20, 1920,
suggested, in a circular to other states members of the League,
the adoption of the following procedure :
(1) All treaties or other binding engagements between two
Powers to be notified for registration by both parties, the treaty
to have binding force from the date of the first registration.
(2) All treaties or other agreements between several Powers
to be notified for registration by the government of the Power
in whose country the treaty is signed and ratified, on behalf
of the signatories ; it will therefore devolve upon the head-
quarters government to make the required notification.
(3) All treaties or other engagements intended for regis-
tration to be communicated as far as possible to the secretariat
of the League, in their completed form, i.e., the form in which,
according to their terms, they are completed, whether by
signature only, exchange of notes or by ratification.
These proposals appear to have been generally accepted
at the time as a basis to govern the procedure to be followed.
470 LEAGUE OF NATIONS : TREATIES
§ 823. Of the British Dominions which are members of the
League, Canada, Australia, the Union of South Africa and the
Irish Free State notify to the secretariat for registration treaty
engagements concluded by them ; those concluded by New
Zealand are at present notified for registration by H.M. Govern-
ment in the United Kingdom. Agreements between Great
Britain and Iraq are notified for registration by Great Britain ;
those between territories for which Great Britain holds a
mandate and foreign governments are communicated to the
Permanent Mandates Commission.
§ 824. There are instances where, through inadvertence or
otherwise, a state has failed to effect registration in conformity
with Article 18 of the Covenant, but, so far as is known, no
case has occurred in which the validity of a treaty instrument
has been impugned on this ground.
§ 825. Since the League of Nations was established a great
number of treaties have been signed under its auspices in
furtherance of aims and purposes for which the League was
created, and many of these are international compacts of the
highest importance, often open to participation or accession by
states not members of the League. A recent list issued by
the League shows the following general arrangements which
have been so concluded :
Covenant of the League of Nations.
Protocol of Amendments to Articles 16 and 26 : Geneva,
October 5, 1921.
Protocols of Amendment to Article 16 : Geneva, September 27,
1924 : September 21, 1925.
Permanent Court of International Justice.
Protocol of Signature and Optional Clause : Geneva,
December 16, 1920.
Protocol, Revision of Statute : Geneva, September 14, 1929.
Protocol, Accession of the United States : Geneva, Septem-
ber 14, 1929.
Communications and Transit.
Convention and Statute, Freedom of Transit : Barcelona,
April 20, 1921.
Convention, Statute and Protocol, Navigable Waterways of
International Concern : Barcelona, April 20, 1921.
Declaration, Right to Flag of States having no Sea-Coast :
Barcelona, April 20, 1921.
Convention, Statute and Protocol, International Regime of
Railways : Geneva, December 9, 1923.
Convention and Statute, International Regime of Maritime
Ports : Geneva, December 9, 1923.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS : TREATIES 471
Convention, Transmission in Transit of Electric Power :
Geneva, December 9, 1923.
Convention, Development of Hydraulic Power : Geneva,
December 9, 1923.
Convention, Measurement of Vessels in Inland Navigation :
Paris, November 27, 1925.
Traffic in Women and Children.
Convention : Geneva, September 30, 1921.
Obscene Publications.
Convention : Geneva, September 12, 1923.
Arbitration Clauses in Commercial Matters.
Protocol : Geneva, September 24, 1923.
Convention : Geneva, September 26, 1927.
Simplification of Customs Formalities.
Convention and Protocol : Geneva, November 3, 1923.
Traffic in Opium and other Dangerous Drugs.
Agreement and Protocol : Geneva, February n, 1925.
Convention and Protocol : Geneva, February 19, 1925.
Convention and Protocol, Manufacture and Distribution :
Geneva, July 13, 1931.
Trade in Arms, Ammunition and Implements of War.
Convention : Geneva, June 17, 1925.
Declaration, Territory of Ifni : Geneva, June 17, 1925.
Protocol, Prohibition of Use in War of Asphyxiating, etc.,
Gases, and Bacteriological Methods of Warfare : Geneva,
June 17, 1925.
Slavery.
Convention : Geneva, September 25, 1926.
International Relief Union.
Convention and Statute : Geneva, July 12, 1927.
Abolition of Import and Export Restrictions.
Convention, Agreement and Protocols : Geneva, Novem-
ber 8, 1927-July n, 1928.
Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.
General Act : Geneva, September 26, 1928.
Economic Statistics.
Convention and Protocol : Geneva, December 14, 1928.
Counterfeiting Currency.
Convention and Protocols : Geneva, April 20, 1929.
Transit Cards for Emigrants.
Agreement: Geneva, June 14, 1929.
Refugees.
Convention (Greece and Refugees Settlement Commission) :
Geneva, January 24, 1930.
472 LEAGUE OF NATIONS : TREATIES
Concerted Economic Action.
Commercial Convention and Protocol : Geneva, March 24,
I930-
Codification of International Law.
Convention, Nationality Laws ; Protocol, Double Nation-
ality ; Protocols, Statelessness : The Hague, April 12, 1930.
Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes and Cheques.
Conventions : Geneva, June 7, 1930.
Conventions : Geneva, March 19, 1931.
Financial Assistance.
Convention : Geneva, October 2, 1930.
Buoyage and Lighting of Coasts.
Agreements : Lisbon, October 23, 1930.
Unification of River Law.
Conventions, Collisions, Registration, etc., Flag : Geneva,
December 9, 1930.
Road Traffic.
Convention, Signals, Taxation, etc. : Geneva, March 28-30,
International Agricultural Mortgage Credit.
Convention, Geneva, May 21, 1931.
Regulation of Whaling.
Convention, Geneva, September 24, 1931.
§ 826. International compacts concluded under the auspices
of the League vary to some extent in point of form from the
traditional practice. The term Treaty does not appear in the
above list, even for compacts of the highest importance. On
the other hand, Protocol may be used to denote a treaty instru-
ment of a high order, such as that establishing the Permanent
Court of International Justice ; or to constitute a Declaration
by Governments, as in the case of the Protocol for the prohibition
of the use in war of asphyxiating gases, etc. ; or, again, in its
ordinary sense as a minor or supplementary instrument.
Convention is the term most commonly used for League
compacts, either for compacts between heads of states or for
compacts between governments ; while a similar use is made
of the term Agreement. If these terms are to preserve their
original significance, and not to become merely inter-
changeable counters, a return to former practice would seem
desirable.
§ 827. Originally conventions concluded under the auspices
of the League began with a recital of the names of the states
members of the League, which, considering some purpose
desirable, had decided to conclude a convention for its attain-
DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES 473
ment ; this statement being followed by a list of the heads of
those states with the names of the plenipotentiaries appointed
by those heads. This novel form being found unsuitable, it
was replaced, at the suggestion of the British Government, by
the customary form under which compacts which are con-
cluded between heads of states are concluded in the name of
the latter.
§ 828. Other changes, which have doubtless been prompted
by the desire to secure in advance, or to render easier of attain-
ment, the participation of as many states members of the
League as possible, are :
The system of draft conventions respecting Labour
Organisation, under Article 405 of the Treaty of Versailles and
the corresponding Articles of other Treaties of Peace ; these
conventions are not signed, but their formal ratification is
notified to the Secretary-General of the League. In Great
Britain such ratification takes the form of the issue of an Order
of Council ;
A system under which a state may accede to a convention
ad referendum, or on the understanding that such accession
requires to be perfected by subsequent ratification ;
A method by which a treaty arrangement may remain
open for signature indefinitely, as in the case of the Protocol
establishing the Permanent Court of International Justice ;
A method under which a treaty may not provide for
signature but only for accession, to an extent set out therein,
and subject, it may be, to certain specified reservations, as in
the case of the General Act of 1928 for the Pacific Settlement of
International Disputes.
DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES
§ 829. The immunities of diplomatic agents formed the
subject of Chapter XVI, where it was mentioned (§ 366) that
diplomatic immunities and privileges have been extended by
treaty provisions to certain other officials and persons.
§ 830. Article 7 (4) of the Covenant of the League of Nations
declares that ( i ) representatives of the Members of the League,
and (2) officials of the League when engaged on the business
of the League shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.
This provision, accepted by all members of the League,
appears therefore to apply throughout the territories of all the
members of the League.
§ 831. As regards (i) the term Representatives of the
474 DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES
Members of the League relates primarily to representatives
who may be attending the meetings of the Assembly and
Council ; and it may seemingly apply also to representatives
who attend such international conferences as are convoked
under the auspices of the League for the discussion of matters
of international concern (§ 365). It would appear to have a
more continued application to certain representatives who are
permanently established at Geneva, the seat of the League ;
and it might be held to apply to representatives on the various
organisations, commissions and consultative bodies within the
framework of the League ; or to some of them. The privilege
might further be deemed to extend to the suites of representa-
tives, on the analogy of the principles governing the suites of
diplomatic agents ; though whether it would extend in equal
measure to representatives, or, it may be, to persons com-
posing their suites, who are nationals of the country in which
they are present while engaged on the business of the League,
seems doubtful.
§ 832. As regards (2) the term Officials of the League
relates primarily to officials engaged on the business of the
League at its headquarters in Switzerland, but it doubtless
applies also to officials delegated by the League to perform
functions in other countries members of the League ; or
possibly in other countries not members of the League, by
agreement with the latter. It might be held to relate to all
officials without exception, or only to some, according to the
nature of their functions. Whether the privilege would extend
in equal measure to officials who were nationals of the country
in which they were present when engaged on the business of
the League seems again uncertain.
§ 833. Article 7 (5) of the Covenant declares that the
buildings and other property occupied by the League or its
officials or by representatives attending its meetings shall be
inviolable. This provision relates primarily to buildings and
other property in Switzerland where the League is established ;
but it may also relate to buildings or other property occupied
by its officials in other countries while performing functions
on behalf of the League ; and, on the analogy of the practice
regarding diplomatic agents, it might perhaps be deemed to
extend beyond buildings or other property officially occupied
to those in which the representatives or officials, or, it may be,
persons composing their suites, are for the time being residing ;
or at any rate to some extent.
§ 834. On these various points there is some diversity-ggf
opinion. An excellent exposition of the subject is given in a
DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES 475
recent work by M. J. Secretan.1 It is without doubt necessary,
and may be readily agreed, that a wide immunity and privilege
should attach to those taking part in the international work
of the League, and to those entrusted with the fulfilment of
various functions on its behalf. But until, in process of time,
cases arise for settlement, and rules of practice are more fully
developed, some uncertainty must seemingly exist as to the
precise extent of the application to be given to the provisions
of Article 7 (4) and (5) of the Covenant, and the limitations,
if any, to be assigned to them. Reference has already been
made in § 367 to the view expressed by Sir C. Hurst as regards
the categories of persons now engaged on international work
who should be free from subjection to the local jurisdiction,
viz., that the final decision rests with the Executive Govern-
ment and not with the courts as to what individuals are
entitled to this privilege.
§ 835. Meanwhile the members of the Commission for the
Government of the Saar Territory, with the Secretary-General
and the Assistant Secretary-General of the Commission, are
definitely accorded diplomatic privileges and immunities, as
is also the High Commissioner of the League for the Free City
of Danzig with his suite, official and non-official. And in
Switzerland, where the League has its seat, and where con-
sequently the matter is of primary importance, an Agreement
reached with the Swiss Government in 1926, as constituting
a modus vivendi, is as follows :
Geneva,
September 18, 1926.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE Swiss FEDERAL COUNCIL CONCERNING
THE REGIME OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY OF THE STAFF OF THE
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
Mote by the Secretary-General
The Secretary-General has the honour to submit to the Council
the text of a new modus vivendi concerning the diplomatic immuni-
ties of the Staff of the League Organisations at Geneva. This
text has been accepted both by the Federal Government and by
the Secretary-General and the Director of the International Labour
Office.
i. The Swiss Federal Government recognises that the League
of Nations, which possesses international personality and legal
capacity, cannot, in principle, according to the rules of inter-
national law, be sued before the Swiss Courts without its express
consent.
1 Les Immunity Diplomatiques des Reprtsentants des £tats Membres et des Agents de
la Societe des Nations (1928).
476 DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES
2. The premises in which the services of the League of Nations
(Secretariat and International Labour Office) are installed (in
the case of buildings entirely occupied by League offices, the build-
ings themselves, together with gardens and annexes) are inviolable,
that is to say, no agent of the public authority may enter them, in
the exercise of his duties, without the consent of the Secretariat or
of the International Labour Office.
3. The archives of the League of Nations are inviolable.
4. The Secretary-General of the League of Nations and the
Director of the International Labour Office are entitled to use
couriers for the reception and dispatch of official correspondence
with the Members of the League of Nations and its agents outside
Switzerland.
5. Customs exemption is granted to the League of Nations in
respect of all objects, whether intended to form an integral part of
a building or not, which are the absolute property of the League
and are destined for its exclusive use.
6. The League of Nations shall enjoy complete fiscal exemption
in respect of its bank assets (current and deposit accounts) and its
securities.
In particular, it shall be exempted from the stamp duty on
coupons instituted by the Federal Law of June 25, 1921. The
exemption shall be effected by the repayment to the League of
Nations of the duty levied on its assets.
7. Subject to the provisions of Article 9 below, officials of the
Organisations of the League of Nations at Geneva, who are members
of the Staff of the first category or extra-territorial Staff, shall enjoy
immunity from civil and criminal jurisdiction in Switzerland unless
such immunity is waived by a decision of the Secretary-General or
of the Director of the International Labour Office.
The members of the Staff of the second category shall enjoy
the same privileges in respect of acts performed by them in their
official capacity and within the limits of their functions. They
shall remain subject to local laws and jurisdiction in respect of acts
performed by them in their private capacity.
It is clearly understood, however, that the Organisations of the
League of Nations at Geneva will endeavour to facilitate the proper
administration of justice and execution of police regulations at
Geneva.
8. Officials of the Organisations of the League of Nations who
are members of the Staff of the first category enjoy fiscal immunity.
Consequently they are exempted, in accordance with international
practice, from all direct taxes, with the exception of the charges
attaching to immovable property (the land tax). They are liable
for the payment of indirect taxes and charges. The expression
" direct taxes " shall be understood to mean taxes which are levied
directly upon the taxpayer. ;' Charges " —whatever the expression
employed in the regulations governing the matter may be — shall
only be understood to mean payments in return for the rendering
DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES 477
of a special and definite service by the administration to the person
who pays them, together with those which are paid in order to
cover special expenditure necessitated by an act of the taxpayer.
Members of the Staff of the second category are exempted :
(1) from the tax (" taxe ") on salary (revenu professionel) ;
(2) from the tax (" taxe ") on capital (fortune) or income
(revenu) ;
(3) from the emergency federal war tax.1
9. In the case of members of the Staff of Swiss nationality
the following exceptions are instituted :
(1) Officials of Swiss nationality may not be sued before the
local courts in respect of acts performed by them in their
official capacity and within the limits of their official
duties.
(2) The salaries paid to them by the League of Nations are
exempted from cantonal and municipal direct taxes.
10. The customs examination of packages, etc., addressed to
the officials of the Organisations of the League of Nations shall be
effected in accordance with the regulations (" prescriptions "), the
text of which was communicated to the Secretary-General of the
League by the Head of the Federal Political Department on
January loth, 1926.
11. If the exigencies of training and the interests of the country
permit, exemptions from or postponements of military service shall
be granted to officials of Swiss nationality incorporated in the
Federal Army in cases in which their compliance with an order
calling them up for military service would be likely seriously to
interfere with the normal working of the services of the League.
12. Correspondence relating to the application of the rules of
the modus vivendi between the Organisations of the League of
Nations and the Swiss authorities shall be exchanged through the
intermediary of the Federal Political Department, except in cases
in which some other procedure has been prescribed.
13. The present provisions complete or summarise but do
not abrogate the rules previously established by an exchange of
notes between the Organisations of the League of Nations and the
Federal Political Department.
14. As long as the present arrangement remains in force, the
examination of the legal arguments set forth in the notes of Feb-
ruary 24th and March 5th, 1926, shall not be proceeded with.
The above rules of the modus vivendi can only be modified by
agreement between the Organisations of the League of Nations and
the Federal Political Department. If, however, an agreement
cannot be reached, it shall always be open to the Federal Govern-
ment or the Organisations of the League of Nations to denounce
the whole or part of the rules of the modus vivendi. In this case the
rules mentioned in the denouncement shall remain in force for
one year from the date of such denouncement.
1 As regards the federal war tax, see annexed note.
478 DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES
NOTE CONCERNING THE FEDERAL WAR TAX
Members of the Staff of Swiss nationality
As regards the exemption from the federal war tax granted to
members of the Staff of Swiss nationality, the present position is as
follows :
A letter of July 17, 1926, from the Federal Political Department
shows that the Federal Council is prepared to exempt from this tax
the salary of officials of Swiss nationality until the expiration of the
contracts of service which the persons concerned at present hold
and which make provision for a salary payable free of taxes. By
means of this temporary exemption, the Federal Council desires
to prevent the possibility of the payment of the federal war tax
resulting, through the operation of the clauses of the contracts in
force, in imposing, even indirectly, any charge upon the budget of
the League of Nations. In view of the character and special object
of the federal war tax and certain considerations of principle, the
Federal Council does not feel able to contemplate permanent
exemption.
As the Secretary-General has accepted the arrangement pro-
posed by the Federal Council as regards the contracts at present
in force but considers it necessary to give further consideration to
the various legal and administrative difficulties which might arise
from differentiations in contracts, a final solution has not up to
now been reached.
§ 836. Certain cases which have come before the Swiss
tribunals are the following :
In 1926, in a civil action before the Tribunal de I6re Instance at
Geneva, brought against a permanent delegate to the League of
Nations, the defendant claimed diplomatic immunity, and the
court declared itself incompetent. But in 1927, on the institution
of fresh proceedings, after his appointment as charge d'affaires at
Cairo, the Court declared itself competent to deal with the case
under Swiss law, holding that his diplomatic immunity had ter-
minated before the institution of such proceedings, and that such
diplomatic immunity as he might possess at Cairo in no way
covered him in Switzerland.1
In 1927, in an action for divorce brought before the Tribunal
de I6re Instance at Geneva, by the wife of a foreign official of the
International Labour Bureau, the latter waived immunity, and the
Assistant Director of the Bureau having also declared the immunity
waived, the tribunal held that it was competent to take cognisance
of the suit " le domicile de fait du Sieur P. se confondant des lors
avec son domicile de droit." 2
§ 837. The members of the Permanent Court of International
Justice, which has its seat at The Hague, enjoy diplomatic
1 Secretan, op. cit., 92-3. 2 Ibid., 95-6.
DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES 479
privileges and immunities under Article 19 of the Statute of
the Court, and the Registrar under Article 7 (4) of the Covenant
of the League ; while an Agreement with the Netherlands
Government of May 22, 1928, as shown below, extends to
members of the Court the privileges accorded to heads of foreign
diplomatic missions, and to the higher officials of the Court
privileges similar to those of diplomatic officials attached to
foreign legations, limited in the case of Netherlands subjects
to acts done in their official capacity.
§838.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT AND THE
NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT, MAY 22, 1928
General Principles
I. The diplomatic privileges and immunities which, under
Article 19 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International
Justice, the Netherlands authorities grant to the members of the
Court, are the same as they accord in general to heads of missions
accredited to Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands.
The special facilities and prerogatives which the Netherlands
authorities grant, in general, to heads of missions accredited to
Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands will be extended to the
members of the Court.
As regards both diplomatic immunities and privileges and these
special facilities, the registrar of the Court will be placed on the
same footing as the members of the Court.
II. In view of Article 7, paragraph 4, of the Covenant of the
League of Nations, the higher officials of the Court will be accorded,
in principle, as regards diplomatic immunities and privileges, the
same status as diplomatic officials attached to the Legations at The
Hague.
III. The Permanent Court of International Justice will hold,
in relation to the Netherlands authorities, a position similar to that
of the Corps Diplomatique.
When the Corps Diplomatique and the Court are invited to
attend Netherlands official ceremonies at the same time, the Court
will rank immediately after the Corps Diplomatique.
IV. A member of the Court not a national of the Netherlands
will be given precedence, in relation to the Netherlands authorities,
as though he were an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni-
potentiary accredited to Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands.
The position of the registrar of the Court in this respect will
be the same as that of the Secretary-General of the Permanent
Court of Arbitration, as established by practice.1
1 It was also agreed with the Netherlands Government that the status of the
Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, as established by practice,
is that of an international official.
480 DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES
V. The above principles will be supplemented and defined by
rules of application.
Rules of Application
I.
I. Without prejudice to the rules previously laid down in com-
munications from the Netherlands Ministry for Foreign Affairs and
addressed to the authorities of the Court before November 1927,
the principles governing the external status of the members and
officials of the Court are supplemented and defined by the following
provisions :
A. Members and Registrar of the Court
II.
1 . In general :
As regards the precedence of the members of the Court among
themselves, the Netherlands authorities will observe the regulations
contained in the Rules of Court.
2. Not of Netherlands nationality :
(a) The members and registrar of the Court will enjoy, when
in Netherlands territory, the diplomatic immunities
and privileges granted, in general, to heads of diplo-
matic missions accredited to Her Majesty the Queen
of the Netherlands.
(b} The wife and unmarried children of the members and
registrar of the Court will share the status of the head
of the family if they live with him and have no other
occupation.
(c] The private staff (governesses, housekeepers, private
secretaries, servants, etc.) of the members and registrar
of the Court will enjoy the same position as that
accorded to the private staff of the heads of diplomatic
missions accredited to Her Majesty the Queen of the
Netherlands.
3. Of Netherlands Nationality :
The members and registrar of the Court will not be answerable
in the local courts for acts done by them in their official capacity
and within the limits of their powers. The salaries paid to them
out of the budget of the Court will be exempt from direct taxes.
B. Deputy-Registrar and Officials of the Court
III.
i . In general :
(a] The higher officials of the Court at present include, in
addition to the deputy registrar, the drafting secre-
taries.
DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES 481
(b) Any questions concerning the external status of all cate-
gories of officials of the Court shall, in case of doubt,
be settled by referring, as far as possible, to the pro-
visions duly approved by the competent authorities of
the League of Nations for the corresponding officials
of the League institutions established at Geneva.
(c) The Netherlands authorities will not object to the com-
petent authorities of the Court issuing identity cards to
officials of the Court belonging to the various cate-
gories, so that these officials can, if need be, immediately
furnish evidence of their external status according to
the present principles and rules.
2. Not of Netherlands nationality :
(a] The higher officials of the Court will enjoy, when in
Netherlands territory, the diplomatic immunities and
privileges granted in general to the diplomatic officials
attached to the Legations at The Hague.
(6) The wife and unmarried children of the higher offi-
cials of the Court will share the status of the head of
the family if they live with him and have no other
occupation.
(c) The private staff of higher officials of the Court will enjoy
the same position as that accorded to the private staff
of diplomatic officials attached to the Legations at
The Hague.
(d) In the event of an official of the Court infringing a law
or regulation, the registrar of the Court may, with the
President's approval, after the case has been examined
by the competent national authorities and a detailed
report submitted to the registrar, waive the immunity
accorded to the official.
(e) As regards precedence in the case of higher officials of the
Court, the deputy-registrar will be on the same footing
as a councillor attached to a Legation at The Hague,
and the drafting secretaries as secretaries attached to
Legations at The Hague.
3. Of Netherlands nationality :
Higher officials will not be answerable in the local courts for
acts done by them in their official capacity and within the limits
of their powers. The salaries paid to them out of the budget of the
Court will be exempt from direct taxes.
2 I
CHAPTER XXXI
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS :— ARBITRATION, CONCILIATION,
GOOD OFFICES, MEDIATION
§ 839. THE main purpose of the League of Nations, as set forth
in the Preamble of the Covenant (§ 799), being the achievement
of international peace and security by the acceptance of
obligations not to resort to war, the Articles of the Covenant
are mainly directed towards this end, and to the settlement
of disputes which might endanger international peace and
security.
§ 840. By Article 8 the members of the League recognise
that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of
national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national
safety, and the enforcement by common action of international
obligations.
By Article 10 they undertake to respect and preserve as
against external aggression the territorial integrity and political
independence of all the members ; in case of any such aggres-
sion, or any threat or danger thereof, the Council are to advise
as to the means of fulfilling this obligation.
By Article n, any war or threat of war, whether im-
mediately affecting any of the members of the League or not,
is a matter of concern to the whole League, which will take
any action deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace
of nations ; while it becomes the right of any member to bring
before it any circumstance affecting international relations
which threatens to disturb peace or good understanding.
By Article 12 the members agree that any dispute between
them likely to lead to a rupture will be submitted either to
arbitration or judicial settlement or to enquiry by the Council,
and not to resort to war until three months after the award or
judicial decision or report by the Council.
^ By Article^ 3 all disputes recognised as suitable for sub-
mission to arbitration or judicial settlement, which cannot be
satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, are to be so submitted,
Certain disputes are declared to be among those thus suitable.
The members agree to carry out any award or decision
LEAGUE OF NATIONS : ARBITRATION, ETC. 483
rendered, and not to resort to war against any member com-
plying therewith ; while, in the event of failure to carry out
such award or decision, the Council are to propose what steps
should be taken.
Article 14 relates to the establishment of the Permanent
Court of International Justice, which is competent to hear
and determine any dispute of an international character
submitted to it, and also to give an advisory opinion on any
question referred to it by the Council or Assembly.
By Article 15 any dispute between members likely to lead
to a rupture, and not submitted to arbitration or judicial
settlement in accordance with Article 13, is to be submitted
to the Council, who will endeavour to effect a settlement.
The various circumstances which may arise, and the steps to
be taken, are set forth. Or the Council may refer the dispute
to the Assembly.
Article 16 relates to the measures to be taken against a
member resorting to war in disregard of its covenants under
Article 12, 13 or 15.
Finally, Article 1 7 has reference to disputes between states,
one or all of which are not members of the League ; these are
to be invited to accept the obligations of membership for the
purposes of such dispute, the Council instituting an enquiry into
the circumstances and recommending such action as may seem
best and most effectual ; if such invitation is refused, measures
to be taken are set forth.
§ 841. The foregoing Articles of the Covenant constitute its
most important — indeed its essential — provisions, and they
include and extend all previously recognised methods of
composing international differences, and of averting war,
which, as a matter of concern to the whole League, the League
will take any steps wise and expedient to prevent.
§ 842. The Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of
International Disputes contemplated four methods of settling
such disputes, or of bringing to an end hostilities which might
have ensued, viz., arbitration, international commissions of
enquiry, good offices and mediation. That Convention, con-
cluded in 1899 and revised in 1907, is still in force between
the contracting states.
§ 843. With regard to arbitration, Article 15 of the Hague
Convention of 1899 said :
" International arbitration has for its object the settlement of
differences between states by judges of their own choice, and on the
basis of respect for law."
484 LEAGUE OF NATIONS : ARBITRATION, ETC.
Article 37 of the revised Convention of 1907 repeated this
definition and added (by transfer from Article 18 of the 1899
Convention) :
" Recourse to arbitration implies an engagement to submit
loyally to the award."
§ 844. By the Hague Convention a Permanent Court of
Arbitration was set up at The Hague, and many temporary
arbitration tribunals have since been constituted thereunder
or by agreements between states. By the League of Nations
Protocol of December 16, 1920, the Permanent Court of
International Justice has also been established at The Hague.
Having regard to the desirability of recognising the difference
between the award of a tribunal of arbitration and the judgment
of a court of justice, the present editor of Oppenheim's " Inter-
national Law " defines arbitration as follows :
" Arbitration in the broad sense means the determination of a
difference between states through the decision of one or more umpires or of
a court chosen by the parties. . . . Arbitration in the narrow sense of
the term (and incidentally the sense familiar to Municipal Law)
means the determination of a difference between states by one or more
umpires chosen, usually ad hoc, by the parties ; and their decision is
called an award ; whereas the decision of a court is called a
judgment" l
§ 845. For the settlement of a difference by arbitration an
agreement may be concluded between the states concerned
for the settlement by arbitration of that particular difference ;
or a resort to arbitration may already have been provided for
by a treaty between the parties for the settlement of differences
in this manner. Instances of both kinds are mentioned in
§§ 698-705. Earlier treaties were mostly of the former type.
§ 846. The Hague Convention of 1899 (revised in 1907) set
up the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which, as Oppenheim
remarked, " is not a real court of justice." 2 Under the Con-
vention the parties in dispute may agree to have recourse to the
court, and an arbitral tribunal will thereupon be constituted to
settle the difference ; or they may entrust the arbitration to one
or more arbitrators selected by them, either from the members
of the court, or in some other manner. The Contracting
Parties reserved to themselves the right of concluding agree-
ments, general or particular, with a view of extending com-
pulsory arbitration to all cases they might consider it possible
1 ii. § 12. 2 (3rd ed.), i. § 476b.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS : ARBITRATION, ETC. 485
so to submit. And the Convention also provided for the
institution of international commissions of enquiry, to be
constituted by special agreements between the parties, to
facilitate the solution of disputes involving neither honour
nor vital interests, by means of an impartial and conscientious
investigation.
§ 847. Following the Hague Convention of 1899 many
agreements were concluded between states regarding the settle-
ment of certain classes of differences that might arise between
them. On October 14, 1903, Great Britain entered into an
agreement with France for the settlement by arbitration of
differences, not settled by diplomacy, that might arise of a
legal nature or relating to the interpretation of treaties, and
not affecting the vital interests, the independence or the
honour of the contracting states, or the interests of third
parties. Similar agreements were concluded by Great Britain
with a number of other states. Many countries entered into
such mutual agreements.
§ 848. Later came treaty arrangements, such as those
initiated by the United States in 1913, providing for investi-
gation by permanent commissions of all disputes not settled
by existing agreements or by diplomacy, the states concerned
undertaking not to declare war or to begin hostilities during
such investigation, and before the report of the commission
was submitted.
§ 849. In the meantime certain states had begun to conclude
agreements providing for the settlement by arbitration of all
classes of disputes that might arise between them which were
not settled by diplomacy. By 1917 many such agreements are
said to have been concluded, and the number has since grown.
Among them is one concluded between Great Britain and
Uruguay on April 18, 1918.
§ 850. The institution of the League of Nations gave a great
impetus to this movement, and at the present day large
numbers of treaty arrangements — often described as a net-
work— exist between various states, styled treaties of arbitration ;
or of conciliation and arbitration ; or of conciliation, judicial
settlement and arbitration ; combining these different methods
of settlement ; and many of these are in respect of disputes of
whatever nature that may arise. An instance is shown in
§ 592-
§ 851. The Protocol of December 16, 1920, concluded under
the auspices of the League of Nations, in conformity with
Article 14 of the Covenant, established the Permanent Court
of International Justice at The Hague, the jurisdiction of
486 LEAGUE OF NATIONS : ARBITRATION, ETC.
which is accepted by members of the League in accordance
with the terms, and subject to the conditions, of the Statute
of the Court. Article i of the Statute states that the Court
is in addition to the Court of Arbitration organised by the
Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and to the special
tribunals of arbitration, to which states are always at liberty
to submit their disputes for settlement. It is, however,
nominated in many recent treaties as the court before which
particular matters therein provided for are to be brought.
§ 852. Under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent
Court of International Justice the jurisdiction of the court
comprises all cases which the parties refer to it, and all matters
specially provided for by treaties and conventions in force ;
while, under the same article, and on the lines proposed in
Article 13 (2) of the Covenant of the League, members of the
League and states mentioned in the Annex to the Covenant
may declare that they recognise as compulsory ipso facto, and
without special agreement in relation to any other member
or state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the
Court in all or any of the classes of legal disputes concerning :
(a] The interpretation of a treaty ;
(b] Any question of international law ;
(c] The existence of any fact which, if established, would
constitute a breach of an international obligation ;
(d] The nature or extent of the reparation to be made for
the breach of an international obligation.
Such declaration may be made unconditionally, or on condition
of reciprocity on the part of several or certain members or
states, or for a certain time. This declaration (§657), some-
what awkwardly styled the Optional Clause, seeing that it
relates to the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction, has up to
the present been subscribed by about forty members, under
varying conditions, and for different periods of time. The
conditions on which it was accepted by Great Britain are
shown in § 746.
§ 853. As instancing the various means of settlement which
have thus been made available, there may be mentioned the
Arbitration Conventions between Germany and four contiguous
states which were signed in 1925 at the same time as the
Treaty of Locarno, and which provide in different connections
for reference to an arbitral tribunal, to a permanent concilia-
tion commission, to an arbitral tribunal constituted in
accordance with the Hague Convention of 1907, or to the
Permanent Court of International Justice.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS : ARBITRATION, ETC. 487
§ 854. As regards the efficacy of such methods of settlement,
it has been said that in no case has a dispute once submitted
to arbitration ended in war.
§ 855. Part II of the Hague Convention of 1899 (revised
in 1907), which is still an effective instrument, though largely
superseded by the Covenant of the League of Nations, laid
down certain rules in regard to the exercise of good offices
and mediation, which were subscribed to by the states parties
to that Convention. These provisions have sometimes been
criticised as not sufficiently distinguishing between the two
subjects.
§ 856. Good offices are exerted in order to compose
differences between two states, either (i) to avoid the ex-
acerbation of hostile feeling threatening a rupture and possible
resort to force, or (2) with the object of restoring peace between
belligerents who are thought likely to welcome an opportunity
of laying down their arms and concluding an honourable
peace. The purpose of such good offices on the part of
a friendly state, or it may be states, is, in the first case, to
bring the contending parties together, and to make such
suggestions as may facilitate the removal of causes of disagree-
ment ; or, in the second case, the conclusion of peace. It is
only in cases where the parties consent to the negotiations
being conducted through the channel of the state which has
offered good offices, that the good offices develop into
mediation.
§ 857. Of the distinction between good offices and media-
tion Oppenheim writes :
" Diplomatic practice frequently does not distinguish between
good offices and mediation. But although good offices can easily
develop into mediation, they must not be confused with it. The
difference between them is that whereas good offices consist in
various kinds of action tending to call negotiations between the conflicting
states into existence, mediation consists in direct conduct of negotiations
between the parties at issue on the basis of proposals made by the mediator.
Good offices seek to induce conflicting parties, who are disinclined
to negotiate, to do so ; or those who have negotiated without
effecting an understanding, to renew the attempt. Good offices
may also consist in advice, in submitting a proposal by one of
the parties to the other, and the like, but states tendering them
never take part in the negotiations themselves. On the other
hand, a mediator is a middleman who does take part in the
negotiations. He makes certain propositions on the basis of
which the states at variance may come to an understanding.
He even conducts the negotiation himself, always anxious to
LEAGUE OF NATIONS : ARBITRATION, ETC.
reconcile the opposing claims and to appease the feeling of resent-
ment between the parties. All the efforts of the mediator may often,
of course, be useless, the parties being unable or unwilling to con-
sent to an agreement. But if an understanding is arrived at, the
position of the mediator as a party to the negotiations, although not
a party to the difference, frequently becomes clearly apparent either
by the drafting of a special act of mediation which is signed by the
states at variance and the mediator, or by the fact that in the con-
vention between the conflicting states, which embodies their
understanding, the mediator is mentioned." 1
§ 858. Or, to quote another distinguished author,
" Les anciens auteurs etablissaient une distinction nette entre
1'interposition des bons offices et la mediation. ' L'interpositeur '
ou ' pacificateur ' etait le tiers qui s'interposait sans que son
intervention cut ete admise expressement par toutes les parties
interessees ; le " mediateur " etait celui qui avait recu un veritable
mandat. Actuellement encore les deux institutions different et
c'est meme a tort qu'a la conference de La Haye le projet redige
par la delegation russe a pretendu ramener la distinction a une
portee exclusivement theorique.
' Les bons offices, dit Alexandre Merignac, se traduisent par
des conseils, des actes, des negociations ayant pour but d'amener
la paix, sans que la puissance de laquelle ils emanent s'engage dans
1'examen approfondi du litige.'
' Le mediateur, dit Rivier, s'interpose entre les fitats en conflit ;
il prend part aux negociations et meme il les dirige. C'est par son
intermediaire que sont echangees les declarations des parties. II
s'efforce de moyenner un arrangement amiable ; s'il y a guerre,
d'amener la paix, sans toutefois avoir qualite pour 1'imposer. Les
Etats en conflit restent libres de ne pas accepter ses conseils. Son
action s'exerce soit par des negociations d'fitat, soit dans des congres
ou conferences ou le role principal lui est devolu.'
§ 859. Certain instances of the past in which good offices
or mediation were exerted in order either to avert, or to bring
to an end, conflicts which had arisen between states were set
out in the second edition of this work. It is not proposed,
however, to recapitulate them here ; they, and others, are
conveniently referred to in the books of writers on international
law. All such methods of composing differences, or of
bringing hostilities to an end, are open to the League of Nations,
which, under Article 1 1 of the Covenant, may, in the event of
any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any
of the members of the League or not, take any action deemed
wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.
1 ii. § 9. 2 Nys, Le Droit International, iii. 59.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS : ARBITRATION, ETC. 489
§ 860. On August 27, 1928, there was signed at Paris, on the
initiative of the United States Government, an international
Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of
National Policy l ; this treaty became effective on July 24,
1929, by which time it had been ratified or acceded to by
forty-six countries, including, besides members of the League
of Nations, the United States, the Soviet Union and Turkey.
Although not concluded under the auspices of the League,
this treaty constitutes a noteworthy addition to the efforts of
the League to avert international strife.
The terms of this treaty, after the recital of the heads of
signatory states, continue :
" Deeply sensible of their solemn duty to promote the welfare of
mankind ;
Persuaded that the time has come when a frank renunciation
of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the
end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between
their peoples may be perpetuated ;
Convinced that all changes in their relations with one another
should be sought only by pacific means and be the result of a peaceful
and orderly progress, and that any signatory Power which shall
hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war
should be denied the benefits furnished by this treaty ;
Hopeful that, encouraged by their example, all the other
nations of the world will join in this humane endeavour and by
adhering to the present treaty as soon as it conies into force bring
their peoples within the scope of its beneficent provisions, thus
uniting the civilised nations of the world in a common renunciation
of war as an instrument of their national policy,
Have decided to conclude a treaty and for that purpose have
appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries : [names]
who having communicated to one another their full powers, found
in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles :
Art. I. — The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the
names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to
war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce
it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one
another.
Art. 2. — The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement
or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of
whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall
never be sought except by pacific means.
Art. 3. — The present treaty shall be ratified, etc."
§ 86 1. As the outcome of the correspondence regarding the
invitation addressed to His Majesty's Government in Great
1 Treaty Series, No. 29 (1929) ; see also Brierly, British Year Book of International
Law (1929), 208-10.
490 LEAGUE OF NATIONS : ARBITRATION, ETC.
Britain by the Government of the United States to participate
in the signature of this treaty, His Majesty's Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs addressed the following note to the United
States charge d'affaires.1
Foreign Office,
July 1 8, 1928.
SIR,
I am happy to be able to inform you that after carefully studying
the note which you left with me on the 23rd June, transmitting the
revised text of the draft of the proposed treaty for the renunciation
of war, His Majesty's Government in Great Britain accept the
proposed treaty in the form transmitted by you and will be glad to
sign at such time and place as may be indicated for the purpose
by the Government of the United States.
2. My Government have read with interest the explanations con-
tained in your note as to the meaning of the draft treaty, and also
the comments which it contains upon the considerations advanced
by other Powers in the previous diplomatic correspondence.
3. You will remember that in my previous communication of
the i gth May I explained how important it was to my Government
that the principle should be recognised that if one of the parties to
this proposed treaty resorted to war in violation of its terms, the
other parties should be released automatically from their obliga-
tions towards that party under the treaty. I also pointed out that
respect for the obligations arising out of the Covenant of the League
of Nations and of the Locarno treaties was the foundation of the
policy of the Government of this country, and that they could not
agree to any new treaty which would weaken or undermine these
engagements.
4. The stipulation now inserted in the preamble under which
any signatory Power hereafter seeking to promote its national
interests by resort to war against another signatory is to be denied
the benefits furnished by the treaty is satisfactory to my Govern-
ment, and is sufficient to meet the first point mentioned in the
preceding paragraph.
5. His Majesty's Government in Great Britain do not consider,
after mature reflection, that the fulfilment of the obligations which
they have undertaken in the Covenant of the League of Nations
and in the Treaty of Locarno is precluded by their acceptance of
the proposed treaty. They concur in the view enunciated by the
German Government in their note of the 27th April that those
obligations do not contain anything which could conflict with the
treaty proposed by the United States Government.
6. My Government have noted with peculiar satisfaction that all
the parties to the Locarno Treaty are now invited to become
original signatories of the new treaty, and that it is clearly the wish
of the United States Government that all members of the League
1 Parliamentary Paper, United States, No. 2 (1928).
LEAGUE OF NATIONS : ARBITRATION, ETC. 491
should become parties either by signature or accession. In order
that as many States as possible may participate in the new move-
ment, I trust that a general invitation will be extended to them
to do so.
7. As regards the passage in my note of the igth May relating
to certain regions of which the welfare and integrity constitute a
special and vital interest for our peace and safety, I need not repeat
that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain accept the new
treaty upon the understanding that it does not prejudice their
freedom of action in this respect.
8. I am entirely in accord with the views expressed by Mr.
Kellogg in his speech of the 28th April that the proposed treaty
does not restrict or impair in any way the right of self-defence, as
also with his opinion that each State alone is competent to decide
when circumstances necessitate recourse to war for that purpose.
9. In the light of the foregoing explanations, His Majesty's
Government in Great Britain are glad to join with the United
States and with all other Governments similarly disposed in signing
a definitive treaty for the renunciation of war in the form trans-
mitted in your note of the 23rd June. They rejoice to be associated
with the Government of the United States of America and the other
parties to the proposed treaty in a further and signal advance in
the outlawry of war.
I have, etc.
AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN.
The passage in the note of May 19 which is referred to in
paragraph 7 of the above note was as follows :
10. The language of Article i, as to the renunciation of war as
an instrument of national policy, renders it desirable that I should
remind your Excellency that there are certain regions of the world
the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital
interest for our peace and safety. His Majesty's Government have
been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with
these regions cannot be suffered. Their protection against attack
is to the British Empire a measure of self-defence. It must be clearly
understood that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain accept
the new treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not
prejudice their freedom of action in this respect. The Government
of the United States have comparable interests any disregard of
which by a foreign Power they have declared that they would
regard as an unfriendly act. His Majesty's Government believe,
therefore, that in defining their position they are expressing the
intention and meaning of the United States Government.1
§ 862. In the meantime, on September 26, 1928, the
deliberations of the League of Nations resulted in the framing
1 Parliamentary Paper, United States, No. i (1928).
492 LEAGUE OF NATIONS : ARBITRATION, ETC.
of a General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes,1 which is open to accession by all the heads of states
or other competent authorities of the members of the League
and the non-members to which the Council of the League had
communicated a copy for the purpose.
§ 863. This General Act, which bears a similar title to that
of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, is a much more
definite instrument than the latter. It divides into four
chapters, respectively entitled Conciliation, Judicial Settle-
ment, Arbitration and General, and these subdivide into
47 Articles, dealing with various contingencies, but its purport
may be indicated by quoting the initial articles of each
chapter.
Of Conciliation it is said :
" Art. i. — Disputes of every kind between two or more parties
to the present General Act which it has not been possible to settle
by diplomacy shall, subject to such reservations as may be made
under Article 39, be submitted, under the conditions laid down in
the present Chapter, to the procedure of conciliation.
Art. 2. — The disputes referred to in the preceding Article shall
be submitted to a permanent or special Conciliation Commission
constituted by the parties to the dispute."
Of Judicial Settlement :
" Art. 17. — All disputes with regard to which the parties are in
conflict as to their respective rights shall, subject to any reservations
which may be made under Article 39, be submitted for decision
to the Permanent Court of International Justice, unless the parties
agree, in the manner hereinafter provided, to have resort to an
arbitral tribunal.
"It is understood that the disputes referred to above include in
particular those mentioned in Article 36 of the Statute of the
Permanent Court of International Justice."
Of Arbitration :
" Art. 2 1 . — Any dispute not of the kind referred to in Art. 1 7 which
does not, within the month following the termination of the work
of the Conciliation Commission provided for in Chapter I, form the
object of an agreement between the parties, shall, subject to such
reservations as may be made under Article 39, be brought before
an arbitral tribunal which, unless the parties otherwise agree, shall
be constituted in the manner set out below."
General :
" Art. 29. — Disputes for the settlement of which a special pro-
cedure is laid down in other conventions in force between the parties
1 Treaty Series, No. 32 (1931) ; see also Brierly, British Tear Book of International
Law (1930), 119-33.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS : ARBITRATION, ETC. 493
to the dispute shall be settled in conformity with the provisions of
those conventions.
' The present General Act shall not affect any agreements in
force by which conciliation procedure is established between the
parties or they are bound by obligations to resort to arbitration or
judicial settlement which ensure the settlement of the dispute. If,
however, these agreements provide only for a procedure of concilia-
tion, after such procedure has been followed without result, the
provisions of the present General Act concerning judicial settlement
or arbitration shall be applied in so far as the parties have acceded
thereto."
Articles 38 and 39 are as follows :
" Art. 38. — Accessions to the present General Act may extend :
A. Either to all the provisions of the Act (Chapters I, II,
III and IV) ;
B. Or to those provisions only which relate to conciliation
and judicial settlement (Chapters I and II), together with the
general provisions dealing with these procedures (Chapter IV) ;
C. Or to those provisions only which relate to conciliation
(Chapter I), together with the general provisions concerning
that procedure (Chapter IV).
The Contracting Parties may benefit by the accessions of other
Parties only in so far as they have themselves assumed the same
obligations.
" Art. 39. — i. In addition to the power given in the preceding
article, a Party, in acceding to the present General Act, may make
his acceptance conditional upon the reservations exhaustively
enumerated in the following paragraph. These reservations must
be indicated at the time of accession.
2. These reservations may be such as to exclude from the pro-
cedure described in the present Act :
(a) Disputes arising out of facts prior to the accession either of
the Party making the reservation or of any other Party
with whom the said Party may have a dispute ;
(b) Disputes concerning questions which by international law
are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of States ;
(c} Disputes concerning particular cases or clearly specified
subject-matters, such as territorial status, or disputes
falling within clearly defined categories.
3. If one of the parties to a dispute has made a reservation, the
other parties may enforce the same reservation in regard to that
party.
4. In the case of parties who have acceded to the provisions of
the present General Act relating to judicial settlement or to arbitra-
tion, such reservations as they may have made shall, unless other-
wise expressly stated, be deemed not to apply to the procedure
of conciliation."
494 LEAGUE OF NATIONS : ARBITRATION, ETC.
§ 864. Great Britain acceded to all the provisions of this
General Act on May 21, 1931, subject to the following
conditions :
' (i) That the following disputes are excluded from the proce-
dure described in the General Act, including the procedure of
conciliation :
(i) Disputes arising prior to the accession of His Majesty to
the said General Act or relating to situations or facts
prior to the said accession ;
(ii) Disputes in regard to which the parties to the dispute
have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other
method of peaceful settlement ;
(iii) Disputes between His Majesty's Government in the
United Kingdom and the Government of any other
Member of the League which is a member of the British
Commonwealth of Nations, all of which disputes shall be
settled in such manner as the parties have agreed or shall
agree ;
(iv) Disputes concerning questions which by international law
are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of States ;
and
(v) Disputes with any Party to the General Act who is not a
Member of the League of Nations.
(2) That His Majesty reserves the right in relation to the dis-
putes mentioned in Article 1 7 of the General Act to require that
the procedure described in Chapter II of the said Act shall be
suspended in respect of any dispute which has been submitted to
and is under consideration by the Council of the League of Nations,
provided that notice to suspend is given after the dispute has
been submitted to the Council and is given within ten days of the
notification of the initiation of the procedure, and provided also that
such suspension shall be limited to a period of twelve months or
such longer period as may be agreed by the parties to the dispute
or determined by a decision of all the members of the Council
other than the parties to the dispute.
(3) — (i) That, in the case of a dispute, not being a dispute
mentioned in Article 17 of the General Act, which is brought
before the Council of the League of Nations in accordance with
the provisions of the Covenant, the procedure described in Chapter I
of the General Act shall not be applied, and, if already commenced,
shall be suspended, unless the Council determines that the said
procedure shall be adopted.
(ii) That in the case of such a dispute the procedure described
in Chapter III of the General Act shall not be applied unless the
Council has failed to effect a settlement of the dispute within twelve
months from the date on which it was first submitted to the Council,
or, in a case where the procedure prescribed in Chapter I has been
adopted without producing an agreement between the parties,
LEAGUE OF NATIONS : ARBITRATION, ETC. 495
within six months from, the termination of the work of the Con-
ciliation Commission. The Council may extend either of the
above periods by a decision of all its members other than the
parties to the dispute." x
Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India have acceded
to all the provisions of the General Act subject to the same
conditions as Great Britain. The Irish Free State has acceded
without reservation.
§ 865. Up to the end of 1931 Belgium, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Luxemburg, Norway, Peru
and Spain have acceded to all the provisions of the Act, with,
in the cases of Belgium, Estonia, France, Greece, Italy and
Peru, certain reservations ; while the Netherlands and Sweden
have acceded to Chapters I, II and IV, viz., Conciliation,
Judicial Settlement and General.
1 Treaty Series, No. 32 (1931).
APPENDIX
LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO
ADAIR, E. R. The Exterritoriality of Ambassadors in the i6th and
1 7th Centuries. London, 1929.
Adams, Henry. History of the United States. 9 vols. New
York, 1889-91.
Adams, J. Q,., Life of. Philadelphia, 1871.
Almanach de Gotha.
American Journal of International Law.
Angeberg, Comte d'. Le Congres de Vienne et les Traites de 1815.
Paris, 1864.
Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1925-1926
and 1927-1928 ; edited by A. D. McNair and H. Lauterpacht.
London, 1929 and 1931.
Annual Practice of the Supreme Court. London.
Annuario Pontificio, 1931.
Anson, Sir Wm. The Law and Custom of the Constitution.
Oxford, 1907.
Argyll, Duke of. The Eastern Question from 1 856. London, 1 879.
Ashley, Evelyn. Life of Lord Palmerston. London, 1876.
Baker, P. J. Noel. The Present Juridical Status of the British
Dominions in International Law. London, 1929.
Baruch, B. M. The Making of the Reparation and Economic
Sections of the Treaty. New York and London, 1920.
Basdevant, J. La Conclusion et la Redaction de Traites. Academic
de Droit International. Recueil des Cours, 1926 (vol. v.).
Paris, 1928.
Bluntschli. Das moderne Volkerrecht der civilizirten Staaten als
Rechtbuch dargestellt.
Boeck, Ch. de. L'Expulsion et les difficultes internationales qu'en
so'uleve la pratique. Academic de Droit International.
Recueil des Cours, 1927 (vol. iii.). Paris, 1928.
Bologna, Giacomo. Nozze Busnelli-Ballarin. Schio, 1884.
British and Foreign State Papers.
British Year Book of International Law. Oxford, 1920 to 1931.
Browning, O. The Despatches of Earl Gower. Cambridge,
1885.
Bryce, James. The Holy Roman Empire. London, il
APPENDIX 497
Busch, Moritz. Bismarck und seine Leute wahrend des Kriegs
mit Frankreich, 4th edition. Leipzig, 1878.
- Bismarck, Some Secret Pages of his History. 3 vols. London,
1898.
Callieres, Francois de. De la maniere de negocier avec les
souverains, etc. Paris, also Amsterdam, 1716. Translation
by A. F. Whyte, London, 1919.
Calvo, Carlos. Le Droit international theorique et pratique,
4e edit. 6 vols. Paris and Berlin, 1877-86.
Cambridge Historical Journal.
Cambridge Modern History.
Camden, William. Annales rerum Anglicarum et Hibernicarum
regnante Elizabetha. Lugd. Bat., 1616. Translation by
T. R., 3rd edition, folio, 1635.
Castro y Casaleiz, de. Guia practica del Diplomatic© Espanol,
2nd edition. 2 vols. Madrid, 1886.
Cobbett, W. Parliamentary History. 12 vols. London, 1806-12.
Cussy, Baron Ferd. de. Dictionnaire du Diplomate et du Consul.
Leipzig, 1846.
Deak, F. Classification, Immunites et Privileges des Agents
Diplomatiques. Revue de Droit International et de Legisla-
tion comparee, 1928.
Dicey (Keith). Conflict of Laws (4th edition) . London, 1927.
Diplomatic Correspondence between the United States and Bel-
ligerent Governments relating to Neutral Rights and Com-
merce.
Dominions Office and Colonial Office List, 1931.
Dress and Insignia worn at His Majesty's Court. London, 1929.
Dumont, J. Corps universel diplomatique. Paris, 1725-31.
Durand, Sir M. Biography. By Brigadier-Gen. Sir P. Sykes.
London, 1926.
Evelyn, John. Diary, edit, by H. B. Wheatley. London, 1906.
Ferraris. Prompta Bibliotheca, canonica, juridica, etc. Lutetias
Par., 1852-7.
Finett, Sir John. Finetti Philoxensis : Observations of Sir John
Finett, etc. London, 1656.
Flassan (G. de R. de). Histoire de la diplomatic francaise,
2 e edit. 7 vols. Paris, 1811.
Foreign Office List.
Foreign Relations of the United States.
Foster, J. W. The Practice of Diplomacy as illustrated in the
Foreign Relations of the United States. Boston and New
York, 1906.
A Century of American Diplomacy. Boston, 1900.
Garcia de la Vega, D. Guide Pratique des Agents Politiques, etc.
Bruxelles et Paris, 1873.
2 K
498 APPENDIX
Garden, Comte G. de. Traite complet de diplomatic. 3 vols.
Paris, 1883.
Gardiner, S. R. History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate.
3 vols. London, 1894-1901.
Genet, R. Traite de Diplomatic et de Droit Diplomatique.
Vol. I. Paris, 1931.
Gerin, in Revue des Questions Historiques.
Grotius. De Jure Belli et Pads. Translated by Dr. Whewell.
3 vols. Cambridge and London, 1853.
Guizot, F. P. G. Memoires pour servir a 1'histoire de mon temps.
8 vols. Paris, 1858-67.
- Histoire de la Republique d'Angleterre et de Cromwell.
2 vols. Paris, 1856.
Hall (Pearce-Higgins). A Treatise on International Law. Oxford.
8th edition. 1924.
Halleck, H. W. International Law. 2 vols. Ed. by Sir Sherston
Baker. London, 1908.
Halsbury, Earl of. The Laws of England. 31 vols. London,
1907-17.
Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
United States Senate, Document No. 106, 66th Congress,
ist Session. Washington, 1919.
Heffter, A. W. Das europaische Volkerrecht der Gegenwart.
7th edition. Berlin, 1882.
Hershey, A. S. Diplomatic Agents and Immunities. Washington,
Hertslet, Sir Edw. Recollections of the Old Foreign Office.
London, 1901.
Heyking, Baron A. L'Exterritorialite et ses applications en
Extreme-Orient. Academic de Droit International. Recueil
des Cours. 1925 (Vol. II.). Paris, 1926.
Hill, D. J. A History of Diplomacy in the International
Development of Europe. 3 vols. New York and London,
1911-14.
Holtzendorff, F. v. Handbuchdes Volkerrechts. Leipzig, 1885-9.
Hudson, M. O. Cases on International Law. St. Paul, 1929.
Hurst, Sir C. Les Immunites Diplomatiques. Academic de Droit
International. Recueil des Cours. 1926 (Vol. II.). Paris, 1927.
Imperial Conference, Summary of Proceedings, 1926 and 1930.
Jenkinson, Rt. Hon. C. A Collection of all the Treaties, etc.,
between Great Britain and other Powers. London, 1785.
Johnson, W. F. American Foreign Relations. 2 vols. London, 1916.
Journal du Droit International. (Clunet.) 1915-1931. Paris.
Journal du Droit International Prive et de Jurisprudence comparee.
(Clunet.) 1874-1914. Paris.
Journal of Comparative Legislation.
APPENDIX 499
Keith, A. B. British Constitutional Law. Oxford, 1931.
Kennedy, A. L. Old Diplomacy and New. London, 1922.
King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions.
Kliiber, J. L. Acten des Wiener Congresses, 2nd ed. Erlangen,
I8I7-35-
Kluchevsky, V. O. A History of Russia. 5 vols. London, 1911.
Koch, C. G. de. Histoire abregee des traites de Paix, continuee
jusqu'a 1815 par F. Schoell. 1817-18. Brussels edit., 1837.
Krauske, Otto. Entwickelung der standigen Diplomatic, etc.
Leipzig, 1885.
Lamberty, G. de. Memoires pour servir a 1'histoire du i8e siecle,
etc. Amsterdam, 1733-40.
Lay, T. H. The Foreign Service of the United States. New York,
I925-
League of Nations Treaty Series.
Lefevre-Pontalis. Jean de Witt. Paris, 1884.
Life and Letters of Walter H. Page. 3 vols. Garden City, N.Y.,
1922.
Malmesbury, ist Earl. Diaries and Correspondence. 4 vols.
London, 1844.
Martens, Ch. de. Causes Celebres du droit des Gens. Leipzig,
1827.
Le Guide Diplomatique, 5e edit., par M. F. H. Geffcken.
Leipzig, 1866.
F. de. Recueil des Traites, etc., conclus par la Russie,
1874-1909.
G. F. de. Precis du Droit des Gens. Berlin, 1831.
Recueil des principaux traites, etc., 1791-1801.
Nouveau Recueil general (three series) .
Masson, F. Le Departement des Affaires Etrangeres pendant
la Revolution. Paris, 1877.
Maulde-la-Claviere, R. de. Histoire de Louis XII, 2Sme partie.
Paris, 1893.
Mew's Digest of English Law Cases. 24 vols. London, 1924-8.
Michaud & Poujoulat. Nouvelle Collection de Memoires, etc.,
1850.
Mills, J. Saxon. The Genoa Conference. London, 1922.
Miruss, A. Europaisches Gesandschaftsrecht. 1847.
Montesquieu. Esprit des Lois.
Moore, J. B. Digest of International Law, etc. Washington,
1906.
Nouveau Recueil General des Traites. See G. F. de Martens.
Nys, E. Le Droit International, 2 edit. 3 vols. Brussels and
Paris, 1904-6.
- Les Origines du Droit international. Brussels and Paris, 1894.
5oo APPENDIX
Ollivier, E. L'Empire Liberal, 1895-1915. 16 vols. Paris,
1895-1912.
Oppenheim (McNair). International Law, 4th edition. London,
vol. i. (1928) ; vol. ii. (1926).
Page, W. H., Life and Letters of. 3 vols. Garden City (N.Y.),
1922.
Papers relating to the Negotiations with France, 1806.
Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons.
Pasquier, E. D. due. Histoire de mon temps. 6 vols. Paris,
1893-5-
Peace Proposals and War Aims, Documents and Statements
relating to. London, 1919.
Pearsall Smith, L. Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton. 2 vols.
London, 1907.
Phillimore, Sir Robert. Commentaries on International Law,
1879-89.
Pradier-Fodere, P. Cours de Droit Diplomatique. Paris, 1 88 1.
Prescott, W. H. History of the Reign of Philip II. 1855.
Raabe and Duncan. History of Russia. London, 1854.
Redesdale, Lord. The Garter Mission to Japan. London, 1906.
Reliquiae Wottonianae, 4th edition. London, 1685.
Revue Generale de Droit International Public. Paris.
Revue de Droit International et de Legislation comparee. Paris.
Rivier, A. Principes du Droit des Gens, 1896.
Roederer. De Fapplication des immunites de 1'Ambassadeur au
Personnel de 1'Ambassade. Paris, 1904.
Rose, J. Holland. Life of Napoleon I. 2 vols. London, 1902.
Rymer, T. Foedera. 20 vols. London, 1704-32.
Satow, Sir E. International Congresses. London, 1920.
Schmalz, T. Europaisches Volkerrecht. Berlin, 1817.
Schmelzing,J. Systematischer Grundriss desVolkerrechts. Rudol-
stadt, 1818-20.
Scott, J. B. The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899
and 1907. New York, 1915.
— Cases on International Law.
Secretan, J. Les Immunites Diplomatiques des Representants des
fitats membres et des Agents de la Societe des Nations.
Geneva, 1929.
Segur, Comte Ph. P. de. Memoires et Souvenirs, 2nd edition. 1 873.
Shortt & Mellor. Practice of the Crown, etc. 2nd edit. London,
1908.
Sismondi, J. C. L. de. Histoire des Frangais. Brussels, 1836-46.
Sixth International Conference of American States, Final Act, etc.
Havana, 1928.
Sorel, A. L'Europe et la Revolution Francaise. Paris, 1885-1904.
APPENDIX 501
Stapleton, A. G. Political Life of the Right Hon. George Canning.
3 vols. London, 1831.
George Canning and his Times, London, 1859.
Syveton, G. Une Cour et un aventurier au i8e siecle : le baron
de Ripperda. Paris, 1896.
Talleyrand. Memoires. Edites par le Due de Broglie. 5 vols.
Paris, 1891-2.
Tardieu, A. La Paix. Paris, 1921.
Taylor, Hannis. A Treatise on Public International Law. Boston,
1902.
Temperley, Harold. Frederick the Great and Kaiser Joseph.
London, 1915.
History of the Peace Conference of Paris. 5 vols. London,
1920-4.
Thompson. The Peace Conference Day by Day. New York,
1920.
Thurloe's State Papers. 7 vols., folio, 1742.
Times History of the War. 22 vols. London, 1915-20.
Treaty Series of Parliamentary Papers.
Ullmann, E. v. Volkerrecht. Tubingen, 1908.
Valfrey, Jules. Hugues de Lionne, Ses Ambassades, etc. Paris,
1 88 1. (Also entitled La Diplomatic Fran$aise au i y*me
Siecle.)
Vandal, A. Napoleon et Alexandre ier. 3 vols. Paris, 1891—4.
Vattel. Le Droit des Gens. Nouvelle edition, 3 vols. Paris,
1835-
Villa-Urrutia, W. R. de. Relaciones entre Espafia e Inglaterra
durante la Guerra de la Independencia. 3 vols. Madrid,
1911-14.
Walton, Izaak. Lives.
Ward. Enquiry into the Foundation and History of the Law of
Nations, etc. London, 1795.
Wheaton, Henry. Elements of International Law, 5th edit.
Coleman Phillipson. London, 1916.
Whewell's Grotius. Cambridge and London, 1853.
Wicquefort. L'Ambassadeur et ses Fonctions. Amsterdam, 1730.
INDEX
(The references are to Pages.)
AbUgatus, 152
Absence from state ceremony, 94, 95,
242
Accession : —
to treaties, 412
Dominions, etc., 412
examples, 415-418
Accord, 363
Acte, 107
Acte authentique, 105
Acte d' acceptation, 404
Acte final, see Final Act
Acte general, see General Act
Additional Act, 351
Additional Articles : —
term and uses, 350
examples, 350-352
Address, forms of : —
British usage, 68, 69
diplomatic agent, 66-69
French usage, 65-68
Pope, 31, 36,65
presidents, 37, 70-78
sovereigns, 36, 70—78
Adherer, adhesion, 413
Ad referendum, 104, 473
Advice to diplomatists : —
Callieres', 87
commercial interests, 98
despatches, style, 96, 97
foreign languages, 94
general, 94-98, 1 78
Malmesbury, Lord, 92
Agenda, see Congresses
Agent, see Diplomatic agent
Agent and Consul General, 158
Agreation (see also Persona non grata] : —
appointment of agent, 1 24
refusal, grounds, 125
refusal, ex eo ob quod mittitur, 124
Agreement : —
terms and uses, 363, 364
examples, 364—369
Aix-la-Chapelle, Congress (1818), 41,
149, 150, 157
Albania, King of, 36
Algeciras Conference, 286
Alliance : —
treaties, 325
examples, 326-329
Alternat : —
historical, 28, 29,
modern practice, 29, 247, 323-325
Reglement de Vienne, 28, 150
Altesse, 32, 33
Ambassade d'obtdience, 23
Ambassadors (see also Diplomatic
agents) : —
British, 116
derivation of term, 1 53
extraordinary and plenipotentiary,
.152, 153
historical, 151-154
Reglement de Vienne, 149
representation by, 116
representative character, 154
special, 118, 142, 257
title, 153
United States, 119, 151, 153
Anne, Statute of, 128, 163, 169, 179
Annex, 350
Annexation : —
treaties, 329
examples, 329, 330
Apodaca's servant, 198
Appel, 65-68
Arbitral tribunals, diplomatic privileges,
194
Arbitration : —
award, judgment, 484
compromis d'arbitrage, 395, 396,484
compulsory, 486, 492
Covenant of League of Nations, 452,
482
definition, 483, 484
General Act (1928), 492-495
Hague Conventions, 483—486, 492
historical, 483-486
Optional clause, 486
Permanent Court of Arbitration, 484
Permanent Court of International
Justice, 484-486, 492
treaties, 331-334, 483~494
5°4
INDEX
Archduke, 33
Archives, 132, 163, 259
Armistice, 286, 293, 294
Arrangement, 363
Assurantie Co. Excelsior v. Smith, 1 79
Asylum : —
Brazil (1930), 205
Europe, former cases, 204, 205
Latin-American countries, 205, 206
Pan-American Convention (1928),
206
political offenders, 199, 200, 204-
207, 273
recommendations, 207
Ripperda, 204
Springer, 205
Attaches, naval, etc., 109, 169, 178, 184,
201, 238
precedence, 251
Aubespine, 275
Audience : —
credentials, 135-148
Great Britain, 140-142
recall, 139, 256, 258
Soviet Union, 143
speech, 136-138
Vatican, 143-148
Austria, independence of, 453
B
Bags, official, 167
Bailo, 151
Balfour, Lord, 118
BarbuiCs case, 162
Bartolini, Mgr., dismissal, 274
Bas, Le, dismissal, 277
Bast, former Persian custom, 209, 2 1 o
Belgium, invasion of (1914), 234
Belin, case of, 1 75
Belleisle, Marshal, 232
Berat, 159
Berlin, Congress (1878), 287
BernstorfF, Count, safe-conduct, 232
Bessarabia, 330
Bestoujew-Rioumine, dismissal, 277
Billet en, 66
Birthdays, Royal, etc., 247
Blair, H. W., 127
Boats, 198, 247
Bonnac, Marquis de, 233
Bosnia-Herzegovina, annexation, 56, 57
Boundaries : —
mandated territories, 57-59, 468
treaties, 320, 334
examples, 334, 335, 368, 381, 383
Boxer rising, China, 164, 208
Boy-Ed, recall, 181, 232
Bribery, 99
British Commonwealth of Nations, 422
Imperial Conference, 422
British Commonwealth of Nations — cont.
Inter-Imperial relations, 424
commonwealth tribunal, 428
correspondence, 425
Dominion legislation, 427
exequaturs, 428
Governors-General, position, flag,
425
Great Seal, 428
High Commissioners, precedence,
taxes, 426, 427
inter-communication, 426
merchant shipping agreement, 427,
428
Royal style and titles, 424
Statute of Westminster, 424, 427
titles of governments, 425, 426
International conferences, 431-433,
436, 437
Relations with foreign countries, 429
communication, consultation, 430,
.431
diplomatic representation, 429
Dominion representation, 1 1 5, 429,
43.0
foreign representation, 429
notes to foreign governments, 430
Treaties, 433
form, 433, 434
formulae, 434, 435
full powers, 432, 436, 439
governmental, 438, 439
heads of states, 433
League of Nations, 431, 433, 435,
438
mandated territories, 437, 467, 468
multilateral, 432, 434, 435, 438
negotiation, 435, 436
ratification, 432, 436, 438, 439
registration, 470
signature, 437
United Kingdom, 435
Bruc, Comte de, 176
Bulgaria, King of, 36
Bulwer, dismissal, 266
Bureaux, international, 450, 45 1
Cadiz, siege of (1823), 234
Callieres, qualities, good negotiator, 87
Cameroons, 437, 467
Canning, Sir S., refusal as envoy, 125
Car bone v. Car bone, 231
Cardinals, 40, 66, 248
Carriage pass, 242
Carriages, diplomatic agents, 163, 198,
199
Casa Flores, dismissal, 279
Casa Yrujo, recall, 265
Casus belli, 106
Casus faederis, 106
INDEX
505
Catacazy, recall, 262
Catholic King, title, 34
Celebrations, national (see also Cere-
monial Missions) : —
absence from, 94, 95, 242
flying flags, 42, 44, 47, 247
man-of-war in foreign port, 42, 44, 47
Cellamare, Prince, 168
Ceremonial (see also Maritime
Honours) : —
British Court, 140-142, 241, 242
conferences, 243, 292, 301
death of minister, 259
minister for foreign affairs, 16, 17
presentation at court, 241, 242
presidents abroad, 6, 7
reception, ambassadors, etc., 135,
i 39-1 43
sovereigns abroad, 5, 10, 142
Soviet Union, 143
Vatican, 10, 143
visit of foreign sovereign, 142
Ceremonial missions, 109, 257
diplomatic privileges, 193
precedence, 39, 158
Certificate : —
diplomatic privilege, 180, 195
exchange of ratifications, 403
Chapel, right of, 183, 210
Chaplain, 178, 217, 238
Charge d'affaires (see also Diplomatic
Agents) : —
credentials, 157, 257
death of head of mission, 259
historical, 151
permanent, ad interim, 142, 158
presentation at court, 142
rank, 158, 240
Reglement de Vienne, 149, 157, 240
Children, diplomatic agent, 192, 238
China : — •
legations at Peking, 209
Washington Conference (1921), 299
Civil War, see Revolution
Classification, diplomatic agents : —
Reglement de Vienne, 149-151
Rules, Aix-la-Chapelle, 150, 151
suggested revision, 160
Codification of International Law, 1 60,
287, 293, 472
Collective note, 62
examples, 63
Coloma, dismissal, 276
Commerce : —
treaties, 319, 336
examples, 336
interests, 98
Commercial counsellors, etc., 98, 109,
169, 178, 201, 238, 251
Commissioner and Consul-general, 158
Commissioners, 117, 1 96
Commission of appointment, diplomatic
agent, 132, 133
Commissions of enquiry, see Disputes
Committees, conferences, 290
Common law, see Diplomatic privileges
Communications, see Couriers
Compromis d 'arbitrage : —
term, uses, 395
examples, 396-398
Comprotecteur, 208
Conciliation, see Disputes
Concordat, 326
examples, 348, 349
Condolences, heads of states, 70
Conferences (see also Congresses, etc.) :-
Geneva (1929), Red Cross, 313
Genoa (1922), 305
Locarno (1925), 310
Paris (1919), 293
Washington (1921), 299
Congratulations, etc., heads of states, 70
Congresses and Conferences : —
no essential difference, 284
agenda, 286, 300, 314
British Commonwealth, 43 1 -433, 436,
437
ceremonial, 243, 291, 292, 301
committees, 290, 301, 307, 316
delegations, 288
diplomatic privileges, 193, 194
early practice, 284, 285
final act, 293, 312, 317, 352, 353
full powers, 79, 82-86, 1 1 7, 288, 302,
3°8> 3J5
instructions, 134
invitations, 286, 287, 433
language, 288, 289, 301, 309, 316
League of Nations, 288, 293
peace, 284, 286, 293
place of meeting, 285, 286
plenary meetings, 290, 291
plenipotentiaries, staffs, 288
precedence, 30, 242, 243, 290, 301
president, 289, 295, 302, 307, 314
procedure, 290, 302, 307, 316
proces-verbaux, 291, 292
programme, 286
rapporteurs, 290
records, 291
representation at, 116, 287, 292
rules of procedure, 290, 307, 315
scope, 286
secretariat, 292, 301, 308, 314
secretary, 292, 302, 308, 314
suites, 194, 288
third state, passage, 288
treaties, 291, 316, 317
vceux, 293, 352
vote of thanks, 290, 310, 317
what states admitted, 292
Examples, see Conferences
506
INDEX
Consorts, titles, 31, 32
Contracting parties, 325
Convention (see also Treaties
(General) ) :—
form, 321, 325
governmental, 318, 325, 346
heads of states, 320, 321, 325
term, uses, 318-321, 325
Coronations, 38, 39, 257
Correspondence : —
between diplomats, 69, 163, 167
between governments, 16, 56, 163,
167
British forms of address, 68, 69
collective note, 62
despatch read and copy left, 61
French forms of address, 66-68
identic notes, 64
memorandum, 59, 67
note, formal parts, 56, 65-69
note verbale, 57, 67
between heads of states, 36-39, 70,
71, 72-78
lettres de cabinet, 70, 72-78
lettres de chancellerie, 70, 72-78
Counsel, see Advice
Counsellor, 178, 238
accredited as envoy, 115, 240
rank of minister plenipotentiary, 159,
240
Couriers, 167, 219
besieged town, 235, 236
passports, 167
Court, proceedings in (see also Cases
under Diplomatic privileges ; Resi-
dence ; Third States) : —
by diplomatic agent, 186
by sovereign, 7, 186
counterclaim, 186
Courtoisie, 65-67
Crampton, dismissal, 269
Credentials : —
death of sovereign, 165, 239, 256
essential feature, 74
new, effect on precedence, 239
regency, 1 1 1 , 112
Forms of :
lettres de cabinet, 70-72
lettres de chancellerie, 70, 71, 73
Presentation :
audience, 135-139
ceremonial, 138, 139, 142
Great Britain, 140-142
Soviet Union, 143
speech, 136-138
United States, 139
Vatican, 143
Crete, Greek occupation (1897), 64,
65
Crime by diplomatic agent, 168, 169,
181
Criminals : —
offence in legation, 201, 202
refuge in legation, 199, 200, 206
Cros, du, 229
Cumberland, Duke of, foreign sover-
eign and British peer, 5
Cummins, H. A. C., dismissal, 274
Customs facilities (see also Taxation) : —
agent proceeding to post, 1 34
death of minister, 260
third state, 134, 214, 219, 223, 227,
288
D
Danzig, Free City of : —
commission, 453, 475
diplomatic privileges, 475
Date, 65, 66
Death :—
head of mission, 259, 260
president, 44, 247, 256
sovereign, 44, 158, 165, 239, 247, 256
Declaration : —
term, uses, 355, 358, 360
examples, 356—362
Declaration of Paris (1856), 356
Decorations, see Orders of Chivalry
Deduction, 59
Defender of the Faith, 32, 34
Delegations, 193, 288
Delegatus non potest delegate, 112
Demarche, 106
Denoncer un traite, 1 08
Dtpeche, en, 66
Despatches : —
style, 96, 97
when read and copy left, 61
Dickenson v. Del Solar, etc., 185
Diplomacy : —
definitions, I, 2
etymology, i, 2, 3
scope, functions, 3
Diplomatic agent (see also Ambas-
sadors ; Diplomatic privileges ;
Persona grata ; Residence ; Third
States, etc.) : —
agreation, 124, 125, 126
appointment, sovereign, regent, presi-
dent, in, 112, 1 1 8, 119
audience, credentials, recall, 135-
148, 258
ceremonial mission, 39, 109, 193, 257
ceremony on reception, 135, 138, 139
changes in rank, 116, 257
civil war, revolution, 113, 114, 257,
258
class, exchange of same usual, 116
classification, 149, 150, 151, 160
commission of appointment, 132, 133
conduct in wartime, 94, 246
continuous residence, 116
INDEX
5°7
Diplomatic agent — cont.
correspondence, 66-69, 97>
death of, 259, 260
death of sovereign, 158, 165, 239,
247, 256
definition, 109
delegatus non potest delegare, 1 1 2
dismissal, 257, 265, 275, 281
domicile, 181, 192
duties, functions, 98, 109
expiry of credentials, 158, 239, 256-
258
full powers, 79, 82-86, 134, 326, 403
historical, 151-153
Holy See, 114, 124, 149, 150, 151,
155, 156, 231, 233
in besieged town, 234, 235
in occupied territory, 234
instructions, 134
interference in affairs of state, 189,
236, 237
jurisdiction, civil, 191, 192
jurisdiction over suite, 190, 191
may be accredited to several
states, 115
national of state to which sent, 1 28-
130, 213
nationality, children, 192
notification on arrival, 135, 140, 158,
239
offences against, 163-167,
offences by, 166, 168, 181
ordinary and extraordinary, 39,
I5°-I53> 1 60, 194
permanent, 109, 116, 151
precedence, 39, 149, 150, 151, 158,
I59> 239, 240-242, 244
proceeding to post, 132, 134
proceedings in court by, 186
protection, nationals, 98, 109, 113
protection, subjects of belligerent, 1 1 5
qualifications, 87, 118, 121, 122
recall, 70, 74, 132, 139, 256, 258, 260,
282
redress for grievance against, 181
refusal to accept, 124-128
Reglement de Vienne, 28,149,239,240
Reglement, Aix-la-Chapelle, 150
regulations, various states, 1 1 9
right to send and receive, 109, 161
selection, 118
single at each capital usual, 1 1 5
sovereigns, abdicated, deposed,
prisoner, 112-114, 257, 258
speech, 136-140
suggested revision of classification, 160
suite, 138-140, 178, 188-192, 200,
201, 238, 251
treaty stipulations, past, present,
no, in
visits, 41, 42, 135, 139, 241, 247
Diplomatic body : —
composition, 178, 238
protests, 162, 168, 175, 177, 188,209,
241.273
representation^by, 238, 239
term, 3
Diplomatic lists, 129, 158, 179, 238
Diplomatic missions : —
historical, 151 — 153
right of legation, 109, 116
treaty provisions, no, in
Diplomatic privileges (see also Re-
sidence; Taxation; Third State): —
arbitral tribunals, 194
basis on which rest, 161, 162, 196
breach, reparation, 163-165, 167
ceremonial missions, 1 93
certificate of title to, 1 80, 1 95
chapel, 183, 210
civil jurisdiction, exemption, 169—
182, 196
civil jurisdiction of agent, 191, 192
claims to immunity, 180
commissioners, 196
common law, 169, 170
communication, freedom, 167
congresses and conferences, 193, 194
couriers, 163, 167, 235, 236
criminal jurisdiction, exemption, 168,
169, 181
death of sovereign, 165, 256
developments, modern, 195
domicile, 1*92
duration, 165, 174, 175, 258
events before reception, 1 74
events before departure, 174, 175
evidence, 187, 188
extension by treaty, 194, 195
extent of, 163, 174, 196
exterritoriality, 162, 200, 201
family of agent, 163, 166, 178, 185,
201, 238, 260
Holy See, 1 14, 115, 231, 232
independence of agent, 188, 189
inquests, 188
intervention to safeguard, 172, 173,
1 80, 195
inviolability, 163-166
jurisdiction, agent over suite, 1 90
laws of different countries, 164, 169,
170, 174, 182
League of Nations, 195, 473~475
lease, 178, 198
nationality of children, 1 92
offences by agent, 166, 168, 181
official and private capacity, 176, 177
period during which last, 1 65, 1 74, 258
Permanent Court of International
Justice, 195, 478, 479
police regulations, 166, 198
Press attacks, 189, 190
5o8
INDEX
Diplomatic privileges — cont.
proceedings by agent in court, 186
property, 163, 178,203, 204, 213,259,
260
punishment, offences against, 164,
165, 167
real property, 1 78, 260
reciprocity, 162
renunciation of, 183-186
servants, 128, 163, 178, 179, 182, 188,
2OI
Statute of Anne, 128, 163, 169, 179
subject of receiving state, 128-131
suite of agent, 163, 166, 169, 170,
!78> 179, 190, .192, 201, 238
termination of mission, 165, 174, 175,
258
trade agents, 195-197
war, not affected by outbreak, 166
Cases in English courts :
Assurantie Co. Excelsior v. Smith
Barbuifs case, 162
Dickenson v. Del Solar, etc. (1930),
185
Engelke v. Musmann (1928), 180
Fenton, etc. v. Krassin, etc. ( 1 92 1 ) , 1 96
Macartney v. Garbutt, etc. (1890), 129
Macnaghtenv. Covaridias (1923), 178
Magdalena Steam Navigation Co. v.
Martin (1859), 171, 174
Musurus Bey v. Gadban (1894), 174
Novella v. Toogood (1823), 169, 183
Republic -of Bolivia Exploration Syn-
dicate, In re (1913), 173
Suarez v. Suarez (1917), 184
Taylor v. Best, etc. (1854), 171
(See also cases under Residence ;
Third States)
Other cases :
Attache" of Turkish Legation (Brussels),
173
Banco de Portugul v. Marang, etc.
(Hague), 175
Belin (Paris), 175
Bruc, Cte. de (Lyons), 176
Comina v. Kite (Rome), 177
Cottenet c. Rafalovitch (Paris), 178
Errembault de Dudzeele, Count (Paris),
172
Exchange v. Mac/addon (United
States), 162
Dientz c. de la Jara (Paris), 179
Drtilsk c. Bar bier (Paris), 184
Herman v. Apetz (New York), 185
Luriev. Steinmann (Rome), 177
Montwid-Biallozor v. Ivaldi (War-
saw), 178, 184
Paraguayan Minister (Buenos Aires),
176 '
Rinaldi (Rome), 177
Diplomatic privileges — cont.
Other cases — cont.
Secretary of Chinese Embassy (Berlin),
1 86
Secretary of Persian Legation (Paris),
175
State v. Acuna Araya (Costa Rica),
1 66
TchitMrine (Paris), 171
Waddington (Brussels), 183.
(See also cases under Residence ;
Third States)
Diplomatic Privileges Act (1708),
see Anne, Statute of
Diplomatic relations, resumption, no,
in, 113, 114, 376, 386
Diplomatic service : —
British regulations, 119-121
qualifications, 118, 120
nationals, 121
retirement, 121, 256
selection of agents, 1 1 8
United States, Japan, Soviet Union,
"9
Diplomatist, term, 3
Disputes : —
arbitration, 482-486, 492
commissions of enquiry, 485
conciliation, 485, 492
Covenant of League of Nations, 445-
447, 482, 483
General Act (1928) for Pacific settle-
ment, 491-495
good offices, 487, 488
Hague Conventions, 483-488
judicial settlement, 482, 484, 492
mediation, 487, 488
optional clause, 371, 418, 486
Permanent Court of Arbitration, 484
486
Permanent Court of International
Justice, 456, 484-486, 492
treaties, settlement, 331, 332, 485, 492
Doctor, 178, 217
Domicile, agent, 181, 192
Dominions, see British Commonwealth
Donner acte, 107
Donner la main, 108, 244-246
Doyen : —
d'age, 289
functions, 135, 238
nuncio, 115, 156
senior diplomatic representative, 30,
238
Doyenne, 239
Dragomans, 178
Dressing ship, 47
Dumba, recall, 232, 264
Dument autorisl, 326, 371
Dupuy de Lome, recall, 263
Durchlaucht, 33
INDEX
509
Egypt:—
diplomatic agents, 159
sovereign, 33
Embassy house, see Residence
Eminence, 66, 248
Enemy agent: —
arrest, 232
on neutral ship, 232
safe-conduct, 232, 233
Engelke v. Musmann, 180
Envoy (see also Diplomatic agent) : —
historical, 152
Reglement de Vienne, 149
special, 142
title, 156
Equality, sovereign states, 29, 454
Erlaucht, 33
Errembault de Dudzeele, Count, 1 72
Evidence : —
diplomatic agent, 187, 188
Spain, diplomatic protest, 188
Excellency, 248, 249
Exchange of notes : —
term, uses, 379, 380, 389
examples, 380-390
Exequaturs, 16, 428
Exhibitions, representatives at, 195
Expose de motifs, 59
Exterritoriality : —
diplomatic agent, 162, 201, 228
juridical basis, 162
president, 6
sovereign, 6
staff of agent, 201
Extradition treaties, 319, 385
" Extraordinary," 152, 158, 160, 194
Extraordinary mission, 39, 109, 118,
142, 193, 256, 257
Reglement de Vienne, 39, 150
Fenton Textile Association v. Krassin, etc.,
196
Fidei Defensor, 34
Final Act : —
term, uses, 293, 312, 317, 352
examples, 352, 353
Fin de non-recevoir, 106
Flags (see also Maritime honours) : —
consuls, 50
diplomatic agent, 50, 247
diplomatic house, 247
Governor-General, 425
national ceremony, 42, 247
states without coast, 358
when flown, 42, 47, 49, 50, 247
Foreign Office, 18
Franchise du quartier : —
ancient custom, Europe, 207, 208
China, foreign legations, 208
incident at Peking (1927), 209
Fregoso, 229
Full Powers : —
British Commonwealth, 432, 436,
439
conferences, 79, 82-86, 117, 134, 288,
302, 308, 315
diplomatic agents, 79, 82-86, 134,
326, 403
early examples, 80, 81
essential feature, 82
governmental, 79, 83, 439
reserve of ratification, 82, 407
Secretary of State, 20
verification of, 79, 302, 308, 315
when required, 79, 326, 403
Examples : —
British, 82, 83
French, 84
German, 85
Roumanian, 85
Soviet Union, 86
United States, 84
Vatican, 86
Funeral, diplomatic agent, 259
Gaisford, H., recall, 273
Gallatin's coachmen, 199
Garter mission, 40
General Act : —
term, uses, 318, 353
instances, 353, 354, 492
Genest, recall, 260
Genoa Conference (1922), 305
Gortz, 1 68
Good Offices :—
distinguished from mediation, 487,
488
former instances, 488
Hague Conventions, 483, 487
League of Nations, 488
purpose, 487
Goodrich, 125
Government, see Recognition
Governors-General, 425
Grand Duke, 33
Grand-litre, 36
Great Seal, 20, 403, 428
Greece, dismissal, enemy agents (1916),
280
Greek Republic, recognition, 114
Grey, Viscount, 1 1 8
Guiteau, 187
Gyllenborg, case of (1716), 168
510
INDEX
H
Habsburg, House of, deposition, Hun-
gary, 62-64
Hague Conventions, 194, 483—487
British termination of No. VI, 420
Hautesse, 33
Heinrichs, von, arrest in Cuba, 233
Heirs-apparent, titles, 37
High Commissioner : —
Dominions, 426
Egypt, 159
High Contracting Parties, 325
Hoey, van, case, 237
Hoffnung, A., 128
Hoffnung, S., 128
Hoheit, 33
Holdernesse, arrest, 232
Holy Roman Empire : —
dissolution (1806), 29, 284
King of the Romans, 23, 37
precedence of Emperor, 23, 24
titles of Emperor, 23, 31
Holy See, see Pope ; Vatican
Hopkins, M., 128
House of Commons, question, speech by
agent, 189
Hungary :—
deposition, House of Habsburg, 62-
64
independence of, 453
Identic notes, 64
example, 64
Igel, von, arrest, New York, 182
Immunities, see Diplomatic privileges ;
Residence ; Taxation ; Third
states
Imperial Conference, 422-424
Income Tax, see Taxation
Independence, diplomatic agent, 188
India, see British Commonwealth
Inojosa, dismissal, 276
Inquests, 188
Inscription, 65
Instructions : —
diplomatic agents, 134
representatives at conference, 134
Interference (see also Termination of
mission) : —
affairs of state to which agent ac-
credited, 189
affairs of third state, 236, 237
House of Commons question, 189
Volhine, case of, 189
International compacts, see Treaties
Internuncios : —
countries to which appointed, 157
historical, 156, 157
Internuncios — cont.
precedence, 157
rank, 157
title, 156
Interpreters, 178
Inviolability, diplomatic agent, 163-
167, 226
Invitations, see Congresses and Con-
ferences
Iraq, 468
Isturiz, dismissal, 267
Italy, King of, 36
Jackson, recall, 261
Jewett, recall, 262
Judicial settlement, see Disputes
Jurisdiction : —
diplomatic agent, 191
over suite, 190
Jus legationis, 112, 129
Justice, Permanent Court of Inter-
national, see Permanent Court of
International Justice
K
Keiley, A. M., 126
King George V : —
coronation, 38
regency during illness, 112, 425
titles, 32 424 ; in treaties, 32, 336
King's Regulations and Admiralty
Instructions, Salutes, Visits, Flags,
etc., 42-51
Kollontai, Mme., 231
Krohn, von, passage through France,
233
Labour, International Organisation,
see League of Nations
Laisser-passer, 134, 227
Language : —
conferences, 288, 301, 309, 316
diplomatic intercourse, 52, 55
formerly Latin, then French, 52
historical, 52-55
modern practice, 55
right to use national, 53-55
translations, 55, 292, 309, 459, 469
treaties, early practice, 53
treaties, modern practice, 56, 323-
325
Law of Guarantees (Italy, 1871), 233
League of Nations : —
Arbitration, conciliation, judicial
settlement, 482
INDEX
League of Nations — cont.
Assembly :
competence, 454
constitution, functions, 453, 454
debates on report by Council, 464
decisions, 454
election of members of Council, 465
rules of procedure, 457-464
Bureaux, international, 450, 451
Conferences, 288 293
Council :
competence, 455
constitution, functions, 454, 455
decisions, 455
Covenant :
framing of, 440
summary, 452
terms of, 442-451
Diplomatic privileges :
Article 7 of Covenant, 195, 444,
473^475 .
cases in Swiss courts, 478
Danzig, 475
differences of view, 474, 475
modus vivendi with Swiss Govern-
ment, 475-478
Permanent Court of International
Justice, 479
Saar Territory, 475
Disputes :
General Act (1928) for Pacific
Settlement, 491-495
optional clause, 486
Permanent Court of International
Justice, 456, 484, 485, 492
settlement, 482-495
Good offices, mediation, 487, 488
Languages, 288, 325, 461
Mandated territories :
A, B and C mandates, 467
distribution, 467
Iraq, 468
Palestine, 467, 468
Transjordan, 468
Membership :
applications, 441, 442, 454
list, 441, 442
tests for, 441
Organisations, 453, 456
Registration, treaties :
Article 18 of Covenant, 448, 469
bilateral treaties, 469
failure to effect, 470
multilateral treaties, 469
notifications by Dominions, 470
publication and translation, 469
Secretariat, 455
Sphere of action, 453
Treaties under auspices of:
list, 470-472
peculiarities of form, 472, 473
League of Nations — cont.
Treaty rights and obligations, 453
Leases, 178, 198
Lebanon, 467
Le Bas, see Bas
Legate : —
designation, 149, 155
Reglement de Vienne, 149
to whom sent, 124, 149, 155
Legation, see Residence
Legation, Right of: —
continuous residence, 116
delegatus non potest delegare, 112
Holy See, 114, 115, 231
independent states possess, 109
no obligation to exercise, no
semi-sovereign states, 1 1 1
treaty stipulations, no, in
Legations raised to embassies, etc., 116
Legatus a latere, 155
Legatus natus, 155
Letters of credence, see Credentials
Letters of recall, see Recall
Lettres de Cabinet, 70, 72, 74, 77
Lettres de Chancellerie, 70 72, 73, 75, 76,
?8
Levees, 142, 242
Ligne, en, dans la, 65
Locarno Conference : —
correspondence, 60, 61
proceedings, 310
treaties, 312, 331, 337, 486
" Lotus " case, 397
Luxburg, Count, dismissal, 280
Luxemburg, invasion of, 234
M
Macartney v. Garbutt, 129
Magdalena Steam Navigation Co. v. Martin,
171, 174
Majesty : —
historical, 31
title, 31-33
Malmesbury, Lord, advice to diploma-
tists, 92
Mandated territories,
A, B and C mandates, 467
boundaries, 57-59, 468
distribution, 437, 438, 467
nationality, laws, 468
Palestine, 437, 467, 468
trade and commerce, 468
Transjordan, 468
Marat, 229
Marcoleta, recall, 268
Maritime honours : —
Aix-la-Chapelle Congress (1818),
4i
diplomatic agents, 41, 42, 44-50
512
INDEX
Maritime honours — cent.
King's Regulations and Admiralty
Instructions, 42-51
man-of-war in foreign port, 41, 42,
43-51
official visits, 41, 42, 48, 250
salutes, etc., 41-46
Marriages : —
diplomatic house, 191, 192
royal, 38, 39
royal, treaties, 319, 345
Mathveof, case of (1708), 34, 163
Medals, see Orders of Chivalry
Mediation : —
distinguished from good offices, 487,
functions of mediator, 487, 488
Hague Conventions, 483, 487
League of Nations, 488
purpose, 487, 488
Me'moire, 59
Memorandum : —
term, uses, 59, 67
examples, 60
Mendoza, dismissal, 275
Men-of-war, visits to foreign ports,
4i-5i
Merchant shipping, see British
Commonwealth
Messengers (see also Couriers), 163, 167
Minister for Foreign Affairs : —
diplomatic agents address, 16,17
duties, functions, 16
Foreign Office, 18
historical, England, etc., 19-21
on taking, leaving office, 16, 17
reception, diplomatic corps, 17
records, preservation, 21
titles, various countries, 18
Minister plenipotentiary (see also
Diplomatic agent) : —
conferment on counsellor, 159, 240
historical, 153
Reglement de Vienne, 149
status, 157
Minister Resident (see also Diplomatic
agent) :—
historical, 151, 152
rank, 150, 157
rule, Aix-la-Chapelle, 150
Minorities, protection, 453
Mission : —
ceremonial, see Ceremonial Mission
termination, see Termination
Modus vivendi : —
term, uses, 391
examples, 392-395
Mokhalata, 108
Monomachus, 34
Monti, Marquis de, 237
Morris, recall, 261
Motor-cars, see Taxation
Musurus Bey v. Gadban, 1 74
Mutual guarantee, treaties, 337, 338
N
Nationals : —
League of Nations officials, 474, 478
member of foreign mission, 128, 129
notice in London Gazette (1786),
128
Permanent Court of International
Justice, 479-481
protection of, 98, 109, 113
refusal as diplomatic agent, 128-130
Statute of Anne, 128
term, 108
Nationality : —
children of agent, 1 92
mandated territories, 468
Nauru, 438, 467
Naval Armament : —
Conference (1921), 299
treaties, 303
example, 339
Nepal-Tibet dispute, 200
Neutralisation, 102, 284
Ne varietur, 105
New Chile Gold Mining Co. v. Blanco, 230
New Guinea, 437, 467
Norway, King of, 36
Notarial acts, 98, 191, 192
Note : —
formal parts of, 65-69
term, uses, 56
Note verbale, term, uses, 57, 58
Notice of Termination, see Termination
Novella v. Toogood, 169, 183
Nuncio : —
countries to which appointed, 115,
J24, 155. 156,429
definition, 149, 155
doyen, 115, 156
precedence, 156
Reglement de Vienne, 149, 150
O
O'Beirne, refusal to accept, 130
Occupied territory, 234
Oder, arbitration, 398
Offences, see Diplomatic Agent ; Resi-
dence, etc.
Optional Clause, 371, 486, 492
British declaration on signing, 418
Order, see Precedence
Orders of Chivalry, etc. : —
acceptance, 253
bestowal, 39
INDEX
Orders of Chivalry, etc. — cont.
cancellation, 40
diplomatic service, 253
former practices, 251, 252
Garter mission, 40
when worn, 244
Pacific Islands, mandates, 437, 438, 467
Palestine, 437, 467, 468
Palm, dismissal, 277
Panama Canal Act, correspondence, 61
Pan-American Conventions (1928) : —
asylum, 206, 207
diplomatic officers, 17, in, 125, 131,
166, 170, 176, 179, 182, 188,
189, 194, 198, 201, 202, 213, 228,
258, 260, 282
Pantaleon de Sa, case of, 169
Papen, von, recall, 181, 232
Paris, siege of (1870), 235
Passports, 98, 134, 165, 167, 191,232,257
Peace : —
armistice, 286, 294
Paris Peace Conference (1919), 293
preliminaries of, 286, 358, 366
treaties, examples, 319, 340-345
Treaty of Versailles, 342
Peking, franchise du quartier, 209
Pele-mele, 150
Permanent Court of Arbitration : —
arbitral tribunals, 1 94, 483, 484, 486
diplomatic privileges, 194, 479 n.
Hague Conventions, 484
procedure, 484
Permanent Court of International
Justice : —
advisory opinions, 446, 456, 483
agreement with Netherlands Govern-
ment, 479-481
diplomatic privileges, 195, 478, 479
judgment, 456, 483, 484, 492
jurisdiction, 486, 492
optional clause, 371, 418, 486
protocol, accession of United States,
372
protocol establishing, 371, 453, 470
protocol, revision of statute, 372,470
Persona grata, 1 24
Persona non grata : —
General, 124, 256, 257, 260, 281-283
On appointment, 124
Blair, 127
Canning, Sir S., 125
Goodrich, 125
Hoffnung, 128
Hopkins, 128
Keiley, 126
Martens, Baron v., 125
Persona non grata — cont.
On appointment — cont.
O'Beirne, 130
Westphalen, Graf v., 125
Recall demanded, 260
Bartolini, Mgr., 274
Boy-Ed., 181
Bulwer, 266
Casa Yrujo, 265
Catacazy, 262
Crampton, 269
Cummins, 274
Dumba, 264
Dupuy de Lome, 263
Gaisford, 273
Genest, 260
Jackson, 261
Jewett, 262
Marcoleta, 268
Morris, 261
Papen, v., 181
Pinckney, 261
Poinsett, 261
Poussin, 267
Rakovsky, 264
Russell, 270
Sackville, Lord, 271
Segur, 262
Taigny, 272
Wise, 266
Dismissed, 257, 260, 275
Aubespine, 275
Bas, Le, 277
Belgian and French agents at
Caracas, 279
Bestoujew-Rioumine, 277
Casa Florez, 279
Coloma, 276
enemy agents in Greece, 280
Hawaiian agent in United States,
281
Inojosa, 276
Isturiz, 267
Luxburg, 280
Mendoza, 275
Palm, 277
Papal nuncio in Argentina, 281
Papal secretary at Paris, 281
Rasoumoffsky, 278
Reuss, Prince of, 281
Rustem Bey, 281
Venezuelan charge d'affaires, Paris
273
Volhine, 189
Petit-titre, 36
Pinckney, recall, 261
Plenipotentiary (see also Full Powers),
153
Poinsett, recall, 261
Police regulations, 163, 166, 198
2 L
5*4
INDEX
Political refugees, see Asylum
Pope (see also Vatican) : —
bull of 1516, 24
correspondence, 31, 36
former precedence, 23, 24
formerly fixed precedence of sover-
eigns, 23
mode of address, 31, 36,65
royal titles conferred by, 34
titles of courtesy, 31
Portuguese Republic, 113, 114
Postal diplomatic bags, 167
Postal Union, 285, 286
Poussin, recall, 267
Precedence : —
attaches, 251
cardinals, 40
conferences, 30, 242, 243, 290, 301
Heads of missions :
agent and consul-general, 159
ceremonial missions, 39, 158
charges d'affaires, 149, 158, 240
death of sovereign, 239
diplomatic lists, 158
disagreements, 158
extraordinary mission, 39, 158
former disputes, 25-27, 151, 152,
239
former etiquette, visits, 244, 245
in diplomatic house, 244
in Great Britain, etc., 241, 242
national ceremonies, 39, 241, 242
naval, etc., attaches, 251
new credentials, 158, 239
notification of arrival, 158, 240
personal meetings, 242-244
Pombal's proposals, 27
Reglement de Vienne, 28, 149, 150,
240
rules, Aix-la-Chapelle, 150
rules at Court, 240
wives, 239, 240, 241
high commissioners, 426
internuncio, 157
nuncio, 149, 150, 156
Sovereigns, etc. :
Holy Roman Emperor, 23, 24
King of the Romans, 23
no rule, 37
personal meetings, 37, 38
royal personages, 37, 38
States :
alternat, 28, 29, 247, 323-325
antiquity of royal titles, 24, 25
claims of the past, 25-29
equality of, 29, 454
historical, 23-29
Reglement de Vienne, 28
Treaty of Versailles, 30
United States, 30
treaties, 29, 247, 323-325
Preliminaries of peace, 286
Prendre acte, 107
Presentations at Court, etc., 142,
241, 242
Presents : —
acceptance, 253, 254
former practices, 99, 251-255
President : —
conference, 289, 295, 302, 307, 314
republics :
ceremonial, visits abroad, 6, 7
forms of address, 37, 70-78
position abroad, 6
ex-presidents abroad, 7
Press :—
attacks in, 189, 190
communications to, 98, 99, 292
Proceedings by diplomatic agent, see
Court
Proces-verbal : —
term, uses, 291, 292, 376, 404
examples, 377-379
Pro-memorid, 59, 67
Property (see also Taxation) : —
diplomatic agent, 163, 203, 259, 260
goods within legation, 203, 204
leases, 178, 198
real property, 178, 260
sovereign, 5, 6
Protection : —
nationals, 98, 109, 113,
subjects of belligerent state, 1 15
Protests, see Diplomatic Body
Protocol : —
term, uses, 370, 373~375
examples, 371-376
Protocole, bureau du, 370
Public documents, preservation, 21
Publications by diplomatists, 98
R
Radiotelegraph Convention, 286
Rakovsky, recall, 264
Rapallo, Treaty of (1922), in, 310
Rapporteurs, 290
Rasoumoffsky, dismissal, 278
Rates, see Taxation
Ratification : —
bilateral treaty, 321, 403
British Commonwealth, 432, 436,
438, 439
British, French and United States
practice, 405, 406
certificate of exchange, 403
definition, 403
deposit, 378, 404
exceptional cases, 408
exchange, 403
failure to ratify, 406
INDEX
5*5
Ratification — cont.
governmental treaty, 325, 404, 409,
439
heads of states treaty, 408-411
inclusion of text of treaty, 403, 405
League of Nations treaty, 404
multilateral treaty, 404
on modification of treaty, 406
reserve in full power, 82, 407
when unprovided for, 322, 407
Examples :
British, 408, 409
French, 410
Japanese, 410
United States, 411
Reading, Lord, 118
Recall, Letters of (see also Termination
of mission) I—-
forms of, 74-76
lettres de cabinet, 70, 74
lettres de chancellerie, 70, 71, 75, 76
presentation, 132, 139, 258
when unnecessary, 256, 259
Reclame, 65, 66
Recognition : —
de facto government, 113
methods of according, 113
various cases, 113, 114
Records, diplomatic, 21, 291
Recr dance, 77
Recredential : —
forms of, 77, 78
lettre de cabinet, 70, 77
lettre de chancellerie, 70, 71, 78
when given, 259
Recreditif, 77
Red Cross Conference (1929), 313
Final Act, 353
Redress against diplomatic agent, 181
Regent : —
entitled to sovereign privileges, 6
illness of King George V, 112, 425
issue of credentials, etc., in, 112
Religion (see also Chapel), envoy re-
fused on account of, 125, 126
Renunciation of diplomatic privilege,
183
cases, 183-185
consent of government, 183, 185
Representants plenipotentiaires, 30, 119, 143
Representative character : —
agent, 161, 162, 170
ambassador, 149, 154
Republic of Bolivia Exploration Syndicate,
In re (1913), 173
Reservations, treaties : —
admissibility of, 413-415
correct principle, 415
territorial, 415
Residence of diplomatic agent : —
breach, cases of past, 198, 199
Residence of diplomatic agent — cont.
carriages, boats, 198
crimes within, 201, 202, 206
criminals, shelter, 199, 200
detention within, 202, 203
exterritoriality, 201, 202
goods within, 203, 204
immunity, owned, rented, 198
inquests, 188, 204
League of Nations officials, 474,
official staff, 200, 201
political refugees, 199, 200, 204-207,
„ 273
Soviet decree, 201
views of writers, 199, 200, 201
war, respect for, on outbreak, 166
Cases :
Mickilchenkoff, 202
Nepal-Tibet dispute, 200
Sun Yat-Sen, 203
Trochanoff, 202
Wheaton, 203
Zoltan Sz. 202
Resident, 151, 152
Reuss, Prince, dismissal, 281
Ressortissants, 98, 108
Reversales : —
term, uses, 399, 400
example, 401
Revolutions : —
agents sent to foreign countries, 1 1 3
negotiations with insurgents, 113
position, resident envoy, 113, 257, 258
protection, nationals, 113
recognition, new government, 113,
114
various cases, 113, 114
Right of Legation, see Legation
Rincon, 229
Ripperda, asylum, 204
Roumania, King of, 36
Roumania, invasion of, 234
Royal Marriage treaty, 345
Royal titles (see also Titles) : —
antiquity of, 24, 25
King George V, 32, 424
various cases, 32-37
Ruanda-Urundi, 385, 467
Russell, dismissal, 270
Russian sovereigns, titles, 32, 34, 35
Rustem Bey, 281
Sa, see Pantaleon de Sa
Saar territory,
commission, 453, 475
diplomatic privileges, 475
Sackville, Lord, dismissal, 271
Safe-conduct, enemy agent, 181,232,233
5i6
INDEX
Salutes : —
diplomatic agents, consuls, 41, 44—46
distinguished foreigners, 43-46
foreign sovereigns, 43, 44-46
King's Regulations and Admiralty
Instructions, 42—47
national ceremony, 42, 44
national salutes, 45, 46,
Protocol, Aix-la-Chapelle, 41
visit to warship, 41
warship in foreign port, 41, 42
Samoa, Western, 438, 467
Sanctuary, abolition, Europe, 204
Seals (see also Great Seal) : —
Secretary of State, 20
treaties, 322
Secretary of State, 18-20, 248
Secretary to Oriental mission, 129
Segur, Comte de, 136
Segur, H., recall, 262
Semonville, 229
Semsars, 108
Serbia, King of, 36
SMnissime, 31, 33, 68
Servants :—
diplomatic agents', 128, 135, 163,
178, 179, 182, 185, 188, 201
offences by, 182
Sickles v. Sickles, 231
Siege :—
Cadiz (1823), 234
couriers, 235, 236
^ Paris (1870), 235
Signatures, order in treaties, 29, 247,
323, 324, 325
Sine qua non, 106
Soule, case of, 230
Souscription, 65, 66
South-West Africa, 438, 467 468
Sovereigns (see also Titles) : —
ceremonial abroad, 5, 10, 142
ceremonial, Vatican, 10
correspondence of, 36-39, 70, 71,
72-78
death of, 44, 165, 239, 247, 256
deposed, abdicated, prisoner, 7, 112,
113, 114, 257, 258
immunities abroad, 5
incognito, 5
precedence among, 37
proceedings in foreign courts 7, 186 n.
property abroad, 5-7
regent, 6, in, 112, 425
suite, abroad, 5
visit of foreign, 5, 10, 142
Soviet Union : —
diplomatic representation, 30, 116,
"9
immunities, diplomatic agents, 169,
170, 188, 201, 220
reception of diplomatic agent, 1 43
Soviet Union — cont.
recognition of, 114
resumption of diplomatic relations,
no, 111,386, 387
trade agents, 196, 197
Trade Agreement (1930), 197
Case, Fenton Textile Association v.
Krassin, etc., 196
Spain, revolution (1931), 114
Special Ambassador, Envoy, 39, 109,
118, 142, 193, 257
Speech on presenting credentials, 136-
140, I43-H5
Springer, asylum, 205
Status quo, 102-104
Status quo ante helium, 104
Statute of Westminster (1931), 424, 427
Stipulation, 321
Student interpreters, 238
Suarez v. Suarez, 184
Sub spe rati, 104, 105, 257
Suite, see Diplomatic agent ; Diplomatic
privileges ; Sovereign
Sully, Due de, 191
Sun Yat-Sen, 203
Suscription, 65, 66
Syria, 467
Taigny, dismissal, 272
Tanganyika, 437, 467
Taxation : —
exemptions, diplomatic agents, 163,
212
Great Britain, 214
Belgium, 217
France, 217
Germany, 218
Italy, 218
League of Nations, 476-478
Netherlands, 219
Soviet Union, 220
Spain, 222
Switzerland, 222
United States, 223
high commissioners, 426, 427
third state, customs, 134, 214, 219,
223, 227, 288
views of writers, 212, 213
Taylor v. Best, etc., 1 7 1
Tchitchlrine, case of, 1 7 1
Termination of mission (see also
Persona non grata) : —
ad interim appointment, 256
age limit, 256
appointment elsewhere, 256
breach of relations, 257
ceremonial mission, 256
change in rank, 257
INDEX
Termination of mission — cont.
completion of negotiation, 256
conference, 256
constitutional changes, 257, 258
death of agent, 259
death of sovereign, 165, 256
dismissal, 257
duration of privileges, 165, 174, 175,
258
expiration of appointed period, 256
extinction of either state, 258
letters of recall, 74-77, 256, 258,
259
object of mission attained, 256
outbreak of war, 257
persona non grata, 256, 260-283
recredential, 70, 77, 259
resignation of agent, 256, 258
Termination of treaties : —
League of Nations treaties, 419
multilateral treaty, 321, 419
notice of, 321, 322, 419
provision for, 322, 419
examples, 420
Terna, 124
Third State, Diplomatic agents and :—
Interference in differences, 236
Cases : —
de Monti, 237
van Hoey, 237
In time of peace : —
congresses, 288
customs duties, 134, 214, 219, 223,
227, 288
incidents of the past, 229
jurisdiction, liability to, 228, 229
Law of Guarantees, Italy (1871),
233
Netherlands ordinance (1679), 228,
229
no definite rules, 228
passage through, 226, 227
recommendations, 134, 227
service of writ in, 229
stay within, 226-228
Treaty, Italy and the Holy See
. 0929), 1.15.231-233
views of writers, 226-229
Cases :
Beylen (1840), 230
Carbone v. Carbone (1924), 231
Holbrook v. Henderson (1839), 229
Kollontai, Mme. (1926), 231
Leon c. Diaz. (1892), 229
New Chile Gold Mining Co. v. Blanco
(1888), 230
Sickles c. Sickles (1910), 231
Soule (1854), 230
Stoiesco c. Stoiesco (1918), 229
Veregua, Due di (1900), 230
Wilson v. Blanco (1889), 230
Third State, Diplomatic agents and —
cont.
In time of war :
agent of state at war with, 232
agent to state at war with, 233
arrest of enemy agent, 232, 233
enemy agent on neutral ship, 232
occupation of, 234
passage of enemy agent, 233
safe-conduct, 181, 232, 233
transfer of seat of government, 233,
234
Treaty, Italy and Holy See (1929),
231-233
views of writers, 232
Cases :
Belgium, invasion of (1914), 234
Belleisle, Marshal (1744), 232
Bernstorff, Count (1917), 232
Bonnac, Marquis (1702), 233
Dumba (1915), 232
Heinrichs, von (1917), 233
Holdernesse (1744), 232
Krohn von (1918), 233
Luxemburg, invasion of (1914),
234
Roumania, invasion of (1916), 234
Siege of Cadiz (1823), 234
Siege of Paris (1870), 235
Throkmorton, 275
Tibet, dispute with Nepal, 200
Titles :—
abdicated sovereigns, 32
Altesse, 32, 33
antiquity of royal, 24, 25
Archduke, 33
assumption of new, 34-36, 1 1 3
Austrian sovereigns, etc., 32, 33
British Commonwealth Govern-
ments, 425, 426
claims to, 35
conferred by Pope, 34, 35
consorts, etc., 31, 32
deposed sovereigns, 32
Durchlaucht, 33
Eminence, 66, 248
Erlaucht, 33
Excellency, 248, 249
German sovereigns, etc., 32-35
Grand Duke, 33
grand, moyen, petit litre, 36
Hautesse, 33
heirs apparent, 37
High Commissioner, 159, 426
Hoheit, 33
Holy Roman Emperor, 23
Japanese sovereigns, 32,
King George V, 32, 424
Majesty, 31-33
Minister for foreign affairs, 18
Pope, 31
5i8
INDEX
Titles — cont.
Presidents, 70
recognition of royal, 35
republics, 33, 34
Royal Highness, 35
Russian sovereigns, etc., 32-35, 75
Turkish sovereigns, 33
various sovereigns, 31-36
titre-moyen, 36
Togoland, 57-59, 437. 4^7
Trade-agents, 195-197
Trade Agreements (Soviet Union) , 196,
197
Traffic regulations, 166, 198
Traitement, 65
Transjordan, 368, 468
Translations, 55, 292, 324, 469
Treaties in general (see also Accession ;
Ratification ; Termination, etc.) : —
alternat, 28, 29, 150, 247, 323-
325
bilateral, 323
British Commonwealth, 433-435,
438
classification, 318, 319
correspondence between texts, 324
date of operation, 321, 322, 379, 380
de'noncer, 108
duration, 321, 322
early practice, 28, 29, 53
entry into force, 322, 323, 379, 380
full powers, 79, 82, 326
governmental, 325, 346, 438
heads of states, 321, 325, 433, 434
high contracting parties, contract-
ing parties, 325
languages, 53, 54, 323-325
League of Nations, 470-473
multilateral, 320, 324, 325, 433, 434
nomenclature, no precise rules, 320
principal forms, 318
registration with League of Nations,
323, 469, 470
remaining open for signature, 412,
413
reservations, 413-415
seals, 322
termination, provision for, 321, 322
notice of, 321, 419-421
treaty-making power, 405
Treaties and Conventions : —
terms and uses, 318-321, 325
form, 321
Examples :
alliance, 326-329
annexation, 329-330
arbitration, 331-334
boundaries, 334-335
commerce, 336-337
governmental, 346-348
mutual guarantee, 337-338
Treaties and Conventions — cont.
Examples — cont.
naval armament, 339
peace, 34O~345
royal marriage, 345
Tsar, Tsaritza, 34, 35, 401
Tsarevitch, 33
Turkish sovereigns, 33
U
Ultimatum : —
examples, 100, 101
Hague Convention, No. 3 (1907), 101
instances in 1914, 101-102
term, uses, 100-102, 257
Uniforms : —
British diplomatic service, 249, 250
ceremonial occasions, 242, 250
naval visits, 42, 250
white uniform, 250
United States : —
diplomatic agents, 1 16, 119, 126, 127,
130, 139, 151, 153, 165, 187, 253
diplomatic privileges, 164, 165, 170,
180, 182, 183, 185, 203, 207, 223,
229, 230, 231, 235,
Permanent Court of International
Justice, accession, 372
£7/2 possidetis, 1 02- 1 04
Vatican (see also Pope) : —
ceremonial, sovereigns, 10
ceremonial, ambassadors. etc. , 1 43- 1 48
concordat, 326, 348, 349
diplomatic representation, 114, 115,
124, 149-151, I55-J57, 231-233
full power, 86
internuncios, 156, 157
Law of Guarantees (1871), 233
legates, 124, 149, 155
nuncios, 115, 124, 149, 150, 155, 156,
429
Treaty with Italy (1929), 115, 231,
232
Vattel, on diplomatic immunities, 161,
162, 189, 200, 203
Vedette, en, 65
Versailles, Treaty of ( 1 9 1 9) , 30, 293, 342
Viceroy, 1 12, 248
Vienna, Congress of, Reglement, 28,
149, 240
Visits :—
diplomatic agents, 41, 42, 135, 139,
140, 241, 244, 247
foreign sovereigns, 5, 10, 142
foreign presidents, 6, 7
INDEX
Visits — cont.
King's Regulations and Admiralty
Instructions, 48
warship in foreign port, 41, 42 250
Vaeux, 293, 352, 353
Voikov, assassination, 164
Volhine, dismissal, 189
Vorowski, assassination, 164
W
Waddington, C., 183
Wart-
allied declaration on outbreak (1914),
.358
diplomatic agent :
inviolability not affected by out-
break, 1 66, 258
facilities to depart, 166
enemy agent :
made prisoner, 232
on neutral ship, 232
invasion of Belgium, Luxemburg,
Roumania, 234
War, Renunciation of: —
Treaty of August 27, 1928, 489
War, Renunciation of — cont.
signature by Great Britain, corre-
spondence, 489-491
Warship in foreign port, see Maritime
Honours
War-time, conduct in, 94, 246
Washington Conference (1921),
Limitation of Armament, China, Far
East, 299-305
Westminster, Statute of (1931), 424,
427
Wheaton, United States minister, Ber-
lin, 203
Widow, diplomatic agent, 260
Wise, recall, 266
Wives (see also Consorts) : —
deceased envoys, 260
diplomatic agents, 119, 126, 139, 163,
1 66, 178, 185, 238-241
diplomatic list, 238
doyenne, 239
if living apart, 1 78 n.
precedence, 240, 241
privileges, 178, 185, 201, 214, 219,
240, 241
Wotton, Sir H., 122, 123
Wrech, Baron de, 1 70
Printed in England at THE BALLANTYNE PRESS
SPOTTISWOODE, BALLANTYNE & Co. LTD.
Colchester, London §• Eton
0
•H
K
O
-P
EC
O
fa
J3
erf
O
o
m
DQ
S
ctf
^
s^
y
2 !
0}
(o
O> 0)
g
'
02 a
Q
o ^
H
O5
•H
1
*H
•H
CO
•^o?
1
j,
'X3 pXn
1
SB
•H o
O
s-p
i
cq
nj
w
H
o
! «°
Q
ft
u
s
3
^
H
J
University of Toronto
Library
DO NOT
REMOVE
THE
CARD
FROM
THIS
POCKET
Acme Library Card Pocket
LOWE-MARTIN CO. LIMITED