De Facto and De Jure Governments. Governments are again classified, according to the opinion or belief of the person using the term, into governments de facto and de jure. A de facto government is one actually existing in a state, and for the time possessing sufficient strength to exercise sovereign powers. Thus the de facto government in France, in 1792, was that carried on by the National Convention. A de jure government is one which the person using the term believes to be the rightful government of the state; and it may or may not be in enjoyment of the power of sovereignty. Thus, in 1792, Austria regarded the government of Louis XVI. as the de jure government of France. From the stand-point of international law the term government is usually applied to the de facto government of a state, and such governments are generally recognized in fact, if not in name.'

SOVEREIGN STATES

THE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF SOVEREIGNTY

Sovereign States. The term "state" has already been defined as a society of persons, organized for a particular purpose, and occupying a particular territory. Within the boundaries of that territory the power of the state may be absolutely supreme, or it may be dependent upon, or exercised in subordination to, that of some other state; in both cases the body politic is a "state" from the point of view of the law of nations, but it is only in the former case, however, that it is regarded as a sovereign state. A sovereign state may therefore be defined as one which retains and exercises in their entirety its essential attributes of sovereignty, which has parted with none of them, but retains them all unimpaired. In

1 Creasy, §§ 103-111; I Halleck, chap. iii. § 21; Wildman, p. 57. See also the title, p. 42, "Recognition of Sovereignty."

2 I Halleck, chap. iii. § 1; Klü

ber, § 21; Bluntschli, § 64; I De Martens, § 23: Bowen, Int. Law, § 9: Wheaton, part i. chap. i. § 20; Vattel, liv. i. chap. i. § 4. Grotius, book i. chap. iii. § 7; Heffter,

this sense Russia, England, France, China, Japan, and the United States are sovereign states.

The Essential Attributes of a Sovereign State. From the point of view of international law, the attributes which are essential to the conception of a sovereign state are three in number-sovereignty, independence, and equality.

Sovereignty. The sovereignty of a state is its inherent right to assume and exercise jurisdiction over all questions arising within its boundaries, and to control and regulate the actions and legal relations of all persons within its territorial limits.' This jurisdiction-in all cases not covered by the principle or fiction of exterritoriality, presently to be explained -extends not only to those who occupy the status of citizens or subjects, but includes all persons whatsoever, whether aliens or domiciled strangers, who, by coming into the territories of the state are presumed to have submitted themselves to the operation of its laws during the period of their residence or sojourn.'

§§ 15-25; Pomeroy, § 51; Manning, p. 93; Westlake, chap. vii.; I Ferguson, 24; Gallaudet, p. 62; Hall, §1; I Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 129-136; Wildman, pp. 38, 39; Ortolan, liv. pp. 10, 11, 46-48.

i.

Heffter, §§ 18, 26; Bluntschli, §§ 64-68; Klüber, § 21; Woolsey, § 37; Manning, pp. 92, 93; I Halleck, chap. iii. §§ 1-9; Creasy, pp. 6, 95.99 Pomeroy, § 51.

In modern text-books the most signal and decisive attributes of a state are usually said to be "sovereignty" and "independence." A formal distinction is not commonly made between the import of these terms, though, from the way in which they are severally used, it would seem that the notion that underlies them is one of which sovereignty represents the positive, and independence the negative side. The sovereignty of a state is its inherent capacity it enjoys to select, to maintain, or to change its

own form of government; to exercise plenary civil and criminal jurisdiction over its own subjects; to alienate or (subject to the claims of other states) to acquire territory; to make, with other states, a fair competitive claim to the use of common things, such as the ocean and unoccupied territory; and to uphold, by every means in its power, the integrity of its existence both against external and internal enemies. It is obvious that the sovereignty here described can only be fully exercised by any one state with the practical concurrence and co-operation of every other state. Thus the positive enjoyment and exercise of sovereignty implies, as its negative and essential correlative, independence; that is, exemption from every species of interference on the part of other states. Manning, Law of Nations (Amos ed.), pp. 92, 93.

Independence. The conception of independence is included in that of sovereignty, of which, indeed, it is the negative view. It involves an immunity from all interference from without in the purely internal affairs of a state, and implies a corresponding obligation to abstain from similar interference in the internal affairs of other states.'

Equality. It has been seen that a state possesses a certain number of sovereign rights and powers. These rights are possessed in precisely the same number and to the same degree by every sovereign state. This is called the equality of states. It is not to be inferred from this definition that all states are equal in dignity, importance, or power. It is only asserted that each state possesses the same number of sovereign rights and powers, and each to the same degree that they are possessed by every other state.' For example: England and Portugal have the same right to borrow money, to send ambassadors, and to make treaties of alliance. But whether one can borrow money at a lower rate of interest than the other, whether the ambassadors of both powers at Berlin have the same influence, and whether an alliance with one will be as advantageous as with the other, are questions that depend upon the financial resources, political influence, and military power of each state, all of which are very unequal.

1 Creasy. §§ 95-99; Pomeroy, § 51; Manning, pp. 93-100; Westlake, chap. vii.; I Lorimer, pp. 139154; I Twiss, §§ 106, 107; I Ferguson, § 28; I Halleck, chap. iv. § 1; Wheaton, part ii. chap. i. § 72; Klüber, §§ 22, 45-50; Bluntschli, §§ 64 -67; I De Martens, § 116; Vattel, prelim. chap. § 15; Hall, §§ 8-10; I Phillimore, § 145; Creasy, $$ 9599; I Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 287-295; Wildman, pp. 38, 39: Ortolan, liv. i. p. 51; Lawrence, Int. Law, § 70.

2

I Halleck, chap. v. §§1,2; Vattel, prelim. chap. § 18; Wheaton, part ii. chap. iii. §§ 152-160; Heffter, §§ 27, 53; Klüber, § 89; Bluntschli. §§ 8194: I De Martens, § 125; Creasy, § 119-129; Pomeroy, § 51; Manning, pp. 100-102; Westlake, chap. vii.; I Ferguson, § 29; Gallaudet, p. 102; I Phillimore, § 147; I PradierFodéré, §§ 442-461; Örtolan, liv. i. pp. 51, 52.

DEPENDENT STATES: CONFEDERATIONS

Dependent States. A sovereign state has already been described; a dependent or semi-sovereign state is one which has lost or surrendered some of its essential attributes of sovereignty, or which was not endowed with perfect sovereign rights when it was constituted a state. The Ionian Islands, placed by the Treaty of Paris under the protection of Great Britain, are cited by Klüber as a perfect example of a semi-sovereign state.' In this sense the Samoan Islands, the Congo Free State, Egypt, and Bulgaria are dependent

states.

Confederations. A confederation is an artificial state, resulting from the more or less complete union of two or more states. This involves the temporary or permanent surrender of some sovereign rights on the part of each of the confederated states which pass to, and are vested in, the artificial state created by the treaty of union, or constitution of the confederacy. The number and importance of the sovereign rights surrendered by the component states will determine the character and strength of the confederacy. If the powers surrendered be few and non-essential, the confederacy is said to be weak; if, on the other hand, the powers so surrendered be numerous and important, the resulting confederation is said to be strong-the strength or weakness of the union being determined, in every case, by the number and importance of the rights vested in the confederate government by the treaty or compact which created it. The United States under the Articles of Confederation, the Holy Roman Empire, the Zollverein, and the German Confederation, as reorganized in 1815, are examples of loose confederations. The present German Empire is a stronger confederation. The Swiss Confederation, the union of England

'I Phillimore, p. 100; Klüber, §§ 24 -26, 33; Bluntschli, §§ 76-80; I De Martens, §§ 20-23; I Halleck, chap. iii. §§ 3-9, 17; Grotius, book i. chap.

iii. §7; Vattel, liv. i. chap. i. §§ 711; Wheaton, part i. chap. ii. §§ 3439; I Phillimore, §§ 70-99; Lawrence, § 49; Westlake, pp. 86-101.

and Scotland, the United States under the present Constitution, are examples of close political union.'

Rule for Determining the Strength of a Confederation or Union. Between these extremes there may exist many kinds of confederacies. To determine the political strength of any particular confederation its constitution must be examined, and an accurate account taken of the powers surrendered and retained by each component state. If the power of making political treaties, of sending and receiving ambassadors, and of making war and concluding treaties of peace are vested in the central government, the confederacy is said to be strong. If a considerable number of these powers are retained by the component states the confederation is said to be weak."

Protectorates. The term "protectorate" is applied to the relation established between a stronger and a weaker state, by which the weaker is protected from foreign aggression and interference, but suffers in consequence some diminution of its rights of sovereignty and independence. This relation is established by treaty, by the terms of which the extent and character of the protectorate are determined. In most protectorates the foreign relations of the protected state, including the power to engage in war, are in great part regulated by the protector. In so far as other nations are concerned, however, the relations of the interested states forming the protectorate are regarded as strictly internal in character; "the two constitute a single system, possessing and exercising all the powers which belong to civilized government, and not subject to the interference of any third state as to the distribution of those powers," which is regulated by the interested states to the exclusion of all others. The republic of San

Wheaton, part i. chap. ii. §§ 3959; I Halleck, chap. iii. §§ 10-17; Klüber, §§ 27, 28; Bluntschli, §§ 7073: I De Martens, §§ 20, 29; I Phillimore, §§ 100-123; Creasy, $$ 140-146; Ortolan, liv. i. pp. 13-38; Lawrence, §§ 45-51.

Lawrence, § 45; Woolsey, § 108;

Pomeroy, § 62: Dana's Wheaton, §§ 44-59; I Lorimer, pp. 182-215.

"Westlake, p. 178; Ibid. 87-89; Lawrence, §§ 102-104: I De Martens, § 16; Hall, § 38, p. 127; I Ortolan, pp. 38-45; I Halleck, chap. iii. § 9; Heffter, § 22, par. iv.