Page images
PDF
EPUB

The high contracting parties shall have authority to take such steps as may be necessary to insure the complete attainment of any of the objects comprehended in this treaty; and should the necessity occur, the United States will lend an efficient aid for the preservation of Haitian independence and the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property and individual liberty.1

The treaty was to remain in force for the term of ten years from the date of the exchange of ratifications, and for a subsequent term of ten years if, for specific reasons presented by either of the high contracting parties, the purpose of the agreement had not been fully accomplished.2

By clothing the United States with the right to preserve domestic tranquillity and to rehabilitate financial conditions, and by relinquishing certain rights pertaining to the exercise of its normal power to contract or cede territory, the Republic of Haiti appeared to accept the protection of the United States, and to that extent to consent, during the life of the treaty, to an abridgment of its independence.

23. Nicaragua.

(e)

A convention between the United States and Nicaragua, of August 5, 1914, contained a grant in perpetuity to the United States of the exclusive proprietary right necessary and convenient for the construction, operation and maintenance of an interoceanic canal by way of the San Juan River and the great Lake of Nicaragua, or by way of any route over Nicaraguan territory.3 In order to enable the United States to protect the Panama Canal and "the proprietary rights granted to the Government of the United States by the foregoing Article", and also to enable it to "take any measures necessary to the ends contemplated herein", Art. XIII provided for sanitary and public improvements to be made under the supervision and direction of engineers to be appointed by the President of Haiti on nomination by the President of the United States.

1 Art. XIV. Compare Art. III of the convention with Cuba of May 22, 1903, Malloy's Treaties, I, 364.

2 Art. XVI. Ratifications were exchanged at Washington May 3, 1916, on which day the treaty was proclaimed by the President of the United States. 339 Stat. 1661. See, also, in this connection, editorial comment by George A. Finch, in Am. J., X, 344, reviewing the history of this convention. The provisions mentioned in the text are contained in Art. I. It may be noted that the convention was ratified by the President of the United States June 19, 1916, and that ratifications were exchanged at Washington, June 22, 1916. See, also, the terms on which the Senate advised and consented to ratification, 39 Stat. 1664.

CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS

[§ 24

there was leased to it, for a term of ninety-nine years, the islands in the Caribbean Sea known as Great Corn Island and Little Corn Island, and there was granted to it for a like period the "right to establish, operate and maintain a naval base at such place on the territory of Nicaragua bordering upon the Gulf of Fonseca as the Government of the United States may select." It was declared that

the territory hereby leased and the naval base which may be maintained under the grant aforesaid shall be subject exclusively to the laws and sovereign authority of the United States during the terms of such lease and grant and of any renewal or renewals thereof.1

Apart from the right conferred upon the United States to take measures, should occasion arise, necessary to achieve the ends contemplated by the convention, there appears to have been no design to accord to it the rights or functions of a protector. Neither the grant nor the lease sufficed in themselves to reduce Nicaragua to a condition of subordination, although they doubtless yielded to the grantee and lessee privileges likely to be productive of such a result in case of need. Nicaragua did not consent to accept, save under such a contingency, a condition of dependency involving the protection of another State.

24. Certain Conclusions.

(f)

The relationships with Cuba, Panama, the Dominican Republic and Haiti reveal a willingness on the part of those Republics to accept, for the reasons that have been observed, the protection of the United States, and to yield to it broad and definite rights for the maintenance of public order. These rights, whether incidental to the execution of plans for financial rehabilitation, as in the case of the Dominican Republic and Haiti, or to the operation of an interoceanic canal, as in the case of Panama, or to the general establishment and advancement of a new State, as in the case of Cuba, exhibit a readiness on the part of the grantors to relinquish or suspend during the lives and according to the terms of their respective conventions, normal rights of political inde

1 Art. II. For the rights acquired under the convention, the United States agreed to pay to Nicaragua the sum of $3,000,000. Art. III.

2 The convention with Nicaragua is omitted from this summary because of its terms, which, as has been observed, appear in only a faint degree to reveal a design which is common to the other agreements.

pendence. This voluntary yielding to varying degrees of external control is the significant fact to be reckoned with. It has not been accompanied by a surrender also of the agreement-making power to the protector, although these Republics have undertaken not to exercise that power with respect to certain important matters without the approval of the United States. This circumstance does not, however, alter the distinctive character of these relationships which, despite differences between any two of them, with respect to permanence or design, permit the United States to enforce tranquillity and maintain public order as a protector. In so doing it fulfills in the estimation of the outside world a quasi-domestic function for the benefit chiefly of its ward, and is not subject to the principles which generally determine the propriety of intervention in the affairs of independent States.1 In proportion as the United States by virtue of these conventions exercises rights which they confer as a privilege peculiarly its own, and in which no foreign State is permitted to participate, it appears to assume internationally a certain responsibility for conditions of government within the territories concerned.

(5)

25. Protection of Countries Lacking European Civilization.

Not infrequently a so-called protectorate is established by a State over a territory or country unfamiliar with and not possessed of what is known as European civilization, or over a region which may be fairly deemed to be uncivilized. An uncivilized community, while it remains such, lacks the capacity to be a person or State of international law. The outside world regards territory occupied by such a community as subject to the control of the State which exercises in fact a right of protection therein. Thus, in a broad sense, the relationship established between the State and the protected region is not internationally important. An anomalous situation exists, however, when the protector, claiming the right to exclude foreign States from intercourse with the protected territory, does not purport to annex it, or to assume responsibility for the establishment of government therein.3

1 See Intervention, In General, infra, § 69.

2 "Where there is no State, that is to say, in an uncivilized region, there can be no protected State, and therefore no such protectorate as has been described in the last paragraph." Westlake, Collected Papers, 182. See Countries Not Possessed of European Civilization, infra, § 33.

3 See General Act of the Berlin Conference of Feb. 26, 1885, concerning the

COUNTRIES LACKING EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION

[§ 25 Where a so-called protectorate is established over a country possessing a civilization other than European, and occupying territory within definite limits, a situation arises somewhat resembling in theory that which presents itself when the protected political entity is a State. While the protected country by reason of the nature and degree of its civilization may not, in the course of its development, have reached the stage indicative of a capacity for statehood, it may, nevertheless, have previously enjoyed extensive diplomatic intercourse with independent powers, and have concluded treaties with them. In such case, the change wrought by the creation of the protectorate becomes a matter of direct international significance. Thus Tunis was a party to numerous treaties with enlightened States when, in 1881, it became a French protectorate. Likewise Zanzibar2 and Korea had contracted conventions with the outside world when Great Britain and Japan, respectively, established protectorates over them. The States of international law doubtless lack the right to object to the establishment of a protectorate over such a country with which they have concluded treaties, and by virtue of which they have obtained commercial or other benefits. Nevertheless, they are disposed to insist that their contractual privileges shall remain unaffected until at least the protector agrees equitably to supplant them with direct undertakings of its own, or by annexing the protected territory, deals with it as a part of its own domain.1

The point seems to require emphasis that in an international sense, a protectorate, regardless of the degree or kind of civiliza

assumption of protectorates on the African coast by any of the contracting parties, and the requirements incidental thereto in the matter of notification, and in the establishment of governmental authority in regions occupied, Nouv. Rec. Gén., 2 ser., X, 414, 426; Moore, Dig., I, 267-268. See in this connection Westlake, 2 ed., I, 121–129.

Concerning the protected princess of India, cf. William Lee-Warner, The Protected Princess of India, London, 1894; Westake, Collected Papers, 220224.

1 See treaty between France and Tunis of May 12, 1881, Nouv. Rec. Gén., 2 ser., VI, 307; also treaty of June 8, 1883, id., IX, 698. See, also, in this connection, Bonfils-Fauchille, 7 ed., § 184, and literature there cited.

As early as August, 1797, the United States concluded a treaty with Tunis, and did so again Feb. 24, 1824. Malloy's Treaties, II, 1794 and 1800.

2 Brit. and For. State Pap., LXXXII, 654, embracing text of notification of the British protectorate under date of Nov. 4, 1890; also declarations of Great Britain and France, of Aug. 5, 1890, id., 89.

3 See arrangements between Japan and Korea of Aug. 24, 1904, U. S. For. Rel. 1904, 439, and Nov. 17, 1905, id., 1905, 612.

See, for example, treaty between the United States and France, March 15, 1904, in which the former renounced its rights under existing treaties with Tunis, and the latter undertook on its part "to assure these rights and privileges

tion prevailing in the country over which it is exercised, contemplates the retention by that country of a personality recognizable as such by the family of nations. Such retention is manifested by some participation, however slight, in the conduct of foreign relations, or by the continuance of a political entity maintaining, although possibly through the representation of the protector, diplomatic relations with the outside world. When France established its protectorate over Morocco in 1912,1 and Great Britain proclaimed a protectorate over Egypt in 1914,2 neither of the paramount States appeared to thwart the operation of this principle. If a protecting State seeks to destroy the international personality of its ward, and so put an end to its capacity for statehood, it would seem to be obliged to annex the territory concerned, and by such process make known the assertion of supremacy as the territorial sovereign.

(6)

§ 26. Mandatory States under the League of Nations. The Covenant of the League of Nations contemplated a special form of protection for colonies and territories which, as a consein Tunis to the consuls and citizens of the United States and to extend to them the advantage of all treaties and conventions existing between the United States and France." Malloy's Treaties, I, 544, 545.

See convention between the United States and Great Britain of May 31, 1902, concerning import duties in Zanzibar, Malloy's Treaties, I, 784. See declaration between Great Britain and France of Aug. 5, 1890, embracing French recognition of the British protectorate over Zanzibar, and British recognition of the French protectorate over Madagascar, Brit. and For. State Pap., LXXXII, 89. By the agreement between Japan and Korea of Nov. 17, 1905, the former undertook "to see to the execution of the treaties actually existing between Korea and other powers." For. Rel. 1905, 612.

1 See treaty between France and Morocco of March 30, 1912, Am. J., VI, Supp., 207; Nouv. Rec. Gén., 3 ser., VI, 332. Cf., also, convention between France and Spain concerning Morocco, Nov. 27, 1912, id., VII, 323; Am. J., VII, Supp., 81. See, in this connection, N. Dwight Harris, "The New Moroccan Protectorate", Am. J., VII, 245.

2 See British notification of Dec. 18, 1914, that Egypt was placed under the protection of His Britannic Majesty, and would thereafter constitute a British protectorate, Brit. and For. State Pap., CVIII, 185. See British note of Dec. 19, 1914, addressed to His Highness Prince Hussein Kamel Pasha, respecting the establishment of the protectorate, id., CIX, 437. Also "The Egyptian Protectorate", The Law Journal (London), Dec. 24, 1914, XLIX, 710.

It may be noted that the United States did not cease to accredit a diplomatic agent to Morocco, and also to Egypt in consequence of the establishment of a protectorate over the former country in 1912, and over the latter in 1914. See Mr. Lansing, Secy. of State, to the French Ambassador at Washington, Jan. 17, 1917, announcing recognition by the United States "of the French protectorate over the French zone of the Shereefian Empire." Naval War College, Int. Law Documents, 1918, 208.

« PreviousContinue »