« PreviousContinue »
however, was no doubt considered to be an unimportant industry, and was not deemed sufficiently lucrative to be made an object of barter in the peace negotiations. Assuming this view to be correct, the doctrine of Pothier in relation to the construction of treaties, that “when the object of the agreement is universally to include everything of a given nature, the general description will include all particular articles, although they may not have been in the knowledge of the parties,” would seem to be excluded by the actual intention of the parties. * It must be assumed that the lobsters were in the knowledge of the negotiators, since they were known on the treaty shore long before the treaties were made, and it must further be assumed that if it had been intended to include in the treaties the right to take them, either a direct mention of the right would have been made, or, at any rate, the language used would not have been so restricted as it is. But while in strict law the British contention that the French are limited to taking cod would appear to be correct, the entire French Shore Question would seem to be a matter for friendly negotiations rather than for arbitrary assertions of right.
VIII.-CURRENT NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL
The Peace Conference at the Hague.
M. Jules Enthoven, the author of the uncompleted article on the above subject, which appeared in the August number of this Magazine, writes as follows :
“You have had my assurance often that I am quite disposed to write for your Review, but for the present I must ask you
* Phillimore's International Law, vol. ii. p. 108.
to excuse me. I am Dutch, and I cannot, therefore, force myself to write in English for a journal that in the first place will be read by English people, at the moment that these two peoples are fighting for a cause-or rather, say, without cause. And besides, what was the subject? A Peace Conference! What wretched irony! What was the result of this Conference ? Merely the opposition of certain of its members to the abolition of the Dum Dum bullet, and projectiles thrown from balloons. ...
“ Therefore, kindly excuse me for the present, and allow my contribution to be completed by one of your compatriots ; for I really do not possess any special qualification for writing the article, and you must admit that every word that I should have to write on this subject under these circumstances would make my heart bleed.”
British Suzerainty over the Transvaal.
The word “suzerainty,” although strictly applicable only to the relation of a feudal sovereign to his vassals or subordinates, may for all practical purposes be treated as simply equivalent to "supremacy,” in which sense Sir Robert Phillimore applies it to the relation of Turkey to her dependencies, such as Egypt and Bulgaria. Hall describes states under the suzerainty of others as “portions of the latter which during a process of disruption or by the grace of the sovereign have acquired certain of the powers of an independent community, such as that of making commercial conventions or of conferring their exequatur upon foreign consuls. Their position differs from that of protected states in that the presumption exists against the possession by them of any given international capacity. A member of a confederation or a protected State is primâ facie independent, and consequently possesses all rights which it has not expressly resigned : a State under the suzerainty of another, and being confessedly part of
another State, has those rights only which have been expressly granted to it, and the assumption of larger powers of external action than those which have been distinctly conceded to it is an act of rebellion against the sovereign ” (p. 31). A State may acknowledge the suzerainty of another by paying tribute to it or by giving it the control of its foreign relations, which foreign powers recognize by accrediting consuls to it instead of ministers; but, in any case, like a state under a protectorate or belonging to a confederation, such an inferior state is only a semi-sovereign state, not having the complete control of its internal and external affairs; and the fact of possessing internal independence is quite compatible with this inferior position in international politics. Until the annexation of the Transvaal in 1877, it was an independent State, and its relations with Great Britain were defined by the Sand River Convention of 1852, in which the British Commissioners appointed for settling the boundaries of Cape Colony guaranteed in the fullest manner, on behalf of the British Government, to the emigrant farmers beyond the Vaal River, the right to manage their own affairs, and to govern themselves without any interference on the part of the Queen's Government, and that no encroachment should be made by that Government on the territory beyond to the north of the Vaal River, it being understood that this system of non-interference was binding upon both parties, while the Boers undertook to abolish slavery (State Papers, vol. 54, 1112). By the Pretoria Convention of 1881 the Transvaal recovered its internal independence, but became subject to the suzerainty of the British Crown.
The opening words of this Convention are as follows: “Her Majesty's Commissioners for the settlement of the Transvaal territory ... do hereby undertake and guarantee, on behalf of her Majesty, that, from and after August 8, 1881, complete self-government, subject to the suzerainty of her
Majesty, her heirs, and successors, will be accorded to the inhabitants of the Transvaal territory upon the following terms and conditions, and subject to the following reservations and limitations." Then follow Article I., dealing with the Transvaal boundaries; Article II., reserving to her Majesty the right to appoint a British Resident, to move troops through the Transvaal, and the control of the external relations of the said State, including the conclusion of treaties and the conduct of diplomatic intercourse with foreign powers, such intercourse to be carried on through her Majesty's diplomatic and consular officers abroad ; Article IV., providing for the election of a Volksraad, which shall decide as to the further administration of the government of the said State ; and Article XVIII., setting out the duties of the Resident, and providing that with regard to communications with foreign powers, the Transvaal Government shall correspond with her Majesty's Government through the British Resident and High Commissioner. The Convention closes with a declaration that the signatory representatives of the Transvaal burghers "agree to all the above conditions, reservations, and limitations, under which self-government has been restored to the inhabitants of the Transvaal territory, subject to the suzerainty of her Majesty.” The Volksraad, however, desired to amend the Convention by substituting for conduct of foreign relations supervision thereof, by inserting a promise by Great Britain not to interfere with the legislation of the country, and also a clause that the Resident should be representative only of the suzerain, and nothing more; and the wishes of the Transvaal Government in these respects were partly satisfied by a fresh Convention signed in London in 1884. It
opens with a preamble: “Whereas the Government of the Transvaal State . . . have represented that the Pretoria Convention contains certain provisions which are inconvenient, and imposes burdens and obligations from which the said State desires to be relieved, . . . and whereas her
Majesty . . . has been pleased to take the said representations into consideration ;—now, therefore, her Majesty has been pleased to direct, and it is hereby declared, that the following articles of a new Convention ... shall be substituted for the articles embodied in the 1881 Convention.” Article IV. provides that the Transvaal (henceforward to be called the South African Republic) shall conclude no treaty or engagement with any state or nation other than the Orange Free State, nor with any native tribe to the east or west of the Republic until the same has been approved by her Majesty ; and provision is made for a British Resident. In a similar way, the Swaziland Convention between Great Britain and the Transvaal, made on the annexation of Swaziland to the Transvaal, provided that all the external relations of the Transvaal in respect of Swaziland shall be placed in British hands.
The opinion has been expressed by eminent authorities that the 1881 Convention has been completely repealed by that of 1884, including its opening words, whether these latter be regarded as a preamble or an article ; that there is no substance of suzerainty reproduced in the latter Convention ; and that it was the deliberate intention of the British Government, as shown in Lord Derby's utterances, to forego the claim of suzerainty altogether. The language of the two Conventions, and the official correspondence does not, however, seem to bear out this view. The opening words of the Pretoria Convention are not a “preamble,” which is a mere declaration of the intention of the contracting parties, as in the opening words of the London Convention; nor are they an "article," being quite distinct from the numbered articles which follow them ; but they contain the gist of the Convention, of which the articles are, as they are stated to be, the “terms, conditions, reservations, and limitations." The only words in the London Convention which refer to its predecessor are