lineaments and attributes of sovereignty are majestically outlined. On that which is turned towards the United Kingdom is written subordination and submission." 1 The acts of these companies become the basis of subsequent negotiations among the various European states, and the companies have a very important influence in molding the character of African development.

In recent years commercial companies have secured special concessions for the construction of railways, opening of mines, etc., in Asia. These companies have often received the approval of European states and have sometimes had government subsidies. The areas in which these companies operated or in which they had concessions were considered within the spheres of interest of the European states.

27. Individuals

Without entering into discussion of "the doctrine of the separability of the individual from the state," it is safe to affirm that individuals have a certain degree of competence under exceptional circumstances, and may come under the cognizance of international law. By the well-established dictum of international law a pirate may be captured by any vessel, whatever its nationality. General admiralty and maritime procedure against a person admit the legal status of an individual from the point of view of international law. The extension of trade and commerce has made this necessary. This is particularly true in time of war, when individuals wholly without state authorization, or even in contravention of state regulations, commit acts putting them within the jurisdiction held to be covered by international law, as in the case of persons brought before prize courts. The principles of private international law cover a wide range of cases directly touching individuals.

1 Lawrence, p. 82, § 54.

28. Insurgents

(a) Insurgents are organized bodies of men who, for public political purposes, are in a state of armed hostility to an established government. There may be war in Definition. the "material sense" which, because belligerency has not been recognized, has not become war in the "legal sense." 1

(b) The practice of tacitly admitting insurgent rights has become common when the hostilities have assumed such proportions as to jeopardize the sovereignty Effect of admission of of the parent state over the rebelling cominsurgency. munity, or seriously to interfere with customary foreign intercourse.2 In general, it may be said that:3

(1) Insurgent rights cannot be claimed by those bodies seeking other than political ends.4

(2) Insurgent acts are not piratical, as they imply the pursuit of "public as contrasted with private ends." 5

(3) The admission of insurgent rights does not carry the rights of a belligerent, nor imply official recognition of the insurgent body."

(4) The admission of insurgent rights does not relieve the

"The distinction between recognition of belligerency and recognition of a condition of political revolt, between recognition of the existence of war in a material sense and war in a legal sense, is sharply illustrated by the case before us. For here the political department has not recognized the existence of a de facto belligerent power engaged in hostility with Spain, but has recognized the existence of insurrectionary warfare prevailing before, at the time, and since this forfeiture is alleged to have been incurred." The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1; Scott, 748.

* Wheat. D., note 15, p. 37.

For full discussion see Wilson, "Insurgency" lectures U. S. Naval War College, 1900.

Hall, 5th ed., p. 31 ff.

2 Moore, §§ 329–335; United States v. "Ambrose Light," 25 Fed. Rep. 408. Snow cases, 206, "Montezuma.'

President Cleveland's Message Dec. 2, 1885, U. S. For. Rel. 1885, pp. 254, 273,

parent state of its responsibilities for acts committed within its jurisdiction.1

(5) When insurgents act in a hostile manner toward foreign states, they may be turned over to the parent state, or may be punished by the foreign state.2

(6) A foreign state must in general refrain from interference in the hostilities between parent state and insurgents, i.e. cannot extend hospitality of its ports to insurgents, extradite insurgents, etc.3

(7) When insurgency exists, the armed forces of the insurgents must observe and are entitled to the advantages of the laws of war in their relations to the parent state.a

NOTE. During the struggles between the parties in the United States of Colombia in 1885, the President of Colom bia decreed: (1) That certain Caribbean ports held by the opposing party should be regarded as closed to foreign commerce, and trade with these ports would be considered illicit and contraband, and that vessels, crews, etc., involved in such trade, would be liable to the penalties of Colombian laws. (2) That as the vessels of the opposing party in the port of Car tagena were flying the Colombian flag, it was in violation of right, and placed that party beyond the pale of internationa law.5

The United States refused to recognize the validity of the first decree unless Colombia should support it by an effective blockading force.6 (For similar position on part of Grea Britain, see Parl. Deb. H. C., June 27, 1861.)

The United States also refused to recognize that the vessel of the insurgents were beyond the pale of international law or in any sense piratical.

1 Parl. Papers, 1887, 1 Peru, 18. states more than $335,000,000 as ing the Boxer uprising of the previous 22 Moore, § 331, "Huascar." 4 Lawrence, § 162.

G

Ibid., pp. 254, 273.

China in 1901 agreed to pay variou indemnity for the injuries suffered dur year (U.S. For. Rel. 1901, Appendix) 333 Albany Law Jour., 125. 1885, For. Rel. U. S. 252, 264.

The United States did not deny that closure might be a domestic measure similar to blockade in accord with municipal law, but emphatically maintained that effective blockade could close a port in time of such insurrection only.

It was further maintained that "The denial by this [U. S.J Government of the Colombian proposition did not, however, imply the admission of a belligerent status on the part of the insurgents." Message Pres. Cleveland, December 8, 1885.1

The President's messages of December 2, 1895, December 7, 1896, and December 7, 1897, distinctly mention a status of insurgency as existing in Cuba.

During the rebellions in Chile in 1891 and in Brazil in 1894, the insurgents, while not recognized as belligerents by foreign powers, were nevertheless given freedom of action by these powers.

29. Belligerents

(a) A community attempting by armed hostility to free itself from the jurisdiction of the parent state may, under certain conditions, be recognized as a belligerent.

(b) The general conditions prior to recognition are: (1) That the end which the community in revolt seeks shall be

Conditions prior to recognition.

political, i.e. a mere mob or a party of marauders

could have no belligerent rights; (2) the hostilities must be of the character of war and must be carried on in accord with the laws of war; (3) the proportions of the revolt must be such as to render the issue uncertain and to make its continuance for a considerable time possible; (4) the hostilities and general government of the revolting community must be in the hands of a responsible organization.

As each state, including the parent state, must judge as to the fact whether the conditions warranting recognition of

12 Moore, § 332; Bluntschli, § 512; Hall, p. 31; U. S. For. Rel. (1885), PP, 252, 254, 264, 273.

belligerency exist, there may be great divergency of opinion in cases of recognition,1 but the question of belligerency is a question of fact and never a question of theory.

Grounds of recognition.

(c) A community carrying on, in accord with the rules of war, an armed revolt of such proportions as to make the issue uncertain and acting under a responsible organization may not be recognized without offense to the parent state except upon certain grounds. The generally admitted ground is, that the interests of the recognizing state be so far affected by the hostilities "as to make recognition a reasonable measure of self-protection." 2 "The reason which requires and can alone justify this step [recognition of belligerency] by the government of another country, is, that its own rights and interests are so far affected as to require a definition of its own relations to the parties. . . . A recognition by a foreign state of full belligerent rights, if not justified by necessity, is a gratuitous demonstration of moral support to the rebellion, and of censure upon the parent government." 3

(d) Recognition of belligerency is naturally an act of the executive authority.4

The following is the proclamation of Queen Recognition of Victoria of May 13, 1861:

belligerency an

act of the execu

tive authority.

"Whereas we are happily at peace with all sovereign powers and states:

"And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between the Government of the United States of America and certain states styling themselves the Confederate States of America:

"And whereas we, being at peace with the Government of the United States, have declared our royal determination to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the contest between the said contending parties:

1 See numerous references in 51 Br. and Fr. St. Papers; also Hall, p. 33. * Hall, p. 33. Wheat. D., note 15, p. 34. 1 Moore, §§ 59-70.