Skip to main content

Full text of "A guide to diplomatic practice"

See other formats


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