originally contracted. This, of course, excludes such divorces as are obtained in fraudulent evasion of the laws of one State, by parties removing into another for the sole purpose of procuring a divorce.2 1 Dorsey v. Dorsey, Chandler's Law Reporter, vol. i. p. 287. 18. CHAPTER III. of States RIGHTS OF EQUALITY. § 1. Natu- THE natural equality of sovereign States may be ral equality modified by positive compact, or by consent implied modified by from constant usage, so as to entitle one State to supeor usage. riority over another in respect to certain external objects, such as rank, titles, and other ceremonial distinctions. compact § 2. Royal honors. Thus the international law of Europe has attributed to certain States what are called royal honors, which are actually enjoyed by every empire or kingdom in Europe, by the Pope, the grand duchies in Germany, and the Germanic and Swiss Confederations. They were also formerly conceded to the German empire, and to some of the great republics, such as the United Netherlands and Venice. These royal honors entitle the States by which they are possessed to precedence over all others who do not enjoy the same rank, with the exclusive right of sending to other States public ministers of the first rank, as ambassadors, together with certain other distinctive titles and ceremonies.1 3. Pre cedence among Among the princes who enjoy this rank, the Catholic powers concede the precedency to the Pope, or soveprinces and reign pontiff; but Russia and the Protestant States of joying royal Europe consider him as Bishop of Rome only, and honors. a sovereign prince in Italy, and such of them as enjoy royal honors refuse him the precedence. States en 1 Vattel, Droit des Gens, tom. i. liv. ii. ch. 3, § 38. Martens, Précis du Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, liv. iii. ch. 2, § 129. Klüber, Droit des Gens Moderne, pt. ii. tit. 1, ch. 3, §§ 91, 92. Heffter, Europäische Völkerrecht, § 28. The Emperor of Germany, under the former constitution of the empire, was entitled to precedence over all other temporal princes, as the supposed successor of Charlemagne and of the Cæsars in the empire of the West; but since the dissolution of the late Germanic constitution, and the abdication of the titles and prerogatives of its head by the Emperor of Austria, the precedence of this sovereign over other princes of the same rank may be considered questionable.1 The various contests between crowned heads for precedence are matter of curious historical research as illustrative of European manners at different periods; but the practical importance of these discussions has been greatly diminished by the progress of civilization, which no longer permits the serious interests of mankind to be sacrificed to such vain pretensions. The text-writers commonly assigned to what were The great called the great republics, who were entitled to royal Republics. honors, a rank inferior to crowned heads of that class; and the United Netherlands, Venice, and Switzerland, certainly did formerly yield the precedence to emperors and reigning kings, though they contested it with the electors and other inferior princes entitled to royal honors. But disputes of this sort have commonly been determined by the relative power of the contending parties, rather than by any general rule derived from the form of government. Cromwell knew how to make the dignity and equality of the English Commonwealth respected by the crowned heads of Europe; and in 'the different treaties between the French Republic and other powers, it was expressly stipulated that the same ceremonial as to rank and etiquette should be observed between them and France which had subsisted before the revolution.2 Those monarchical sovereigns who are not crowned heads, but who enjoy royal honors, concede the precedence on all occasions to emperors and kings. 1 Martens, § 152. Klüber, § 95. 2 Treaty of Campo Formio, art. 23, and of Luneville, art. 17, with Austria. Treaties of Basle with Prussia and Spain. Schoell, Histoire des Traités de Paix, tom. i. p. 610. Edit. Bruxelles. Monarchical sovereigns who do not enjoy royal honors yield the precedence to those princes who are entitled to these honors. Semi-sovereign or dependent States rank below sovereign States.1 Semi-sovereign States, and those under the protection or Suzeraineté of another sovereign State, necessarily rank below that State on which they are dependent. But where third parties are concerned, their relative rank must be determined by other considerations; and they may even take precedence of States completely sovereign, as was the case with the electors under the former constitution of the Germanic empire, in respect to other princes not entitled to royal honors.2 These different points respecting the relative rank of sovereigns and States have never been determined by any positive regulation or international compact: they rest on usage and general acquiescence. An abortive attempt was made at the Congress of Vienna to classify the different States of Europe, with a view to determine their relative rank. At the sitting of the 10th December, 1814, the plenipotentiaries of the eight powers who signed the treaty of peace at Paris, named a committee to which this subject was referred. At the sitting of the 9th February, 1815, the report of the committee, which proposed to establish three classes of powers, relatively to the rank of their respective ministers, was discussed by the Congress; but doubts having arisen respecting this classification, and especially as to the rank assigned to the great republics, the question was indefinitely postponed, and a regulation established determining merely the relative rank of the diplomatic agents of crowned heads.3 nat. Where the rank between different States is equal or § 4. Usage of the alter- undetermined, different expedients have been resorted to for the purpose of avoiding a contest, and at the same time reserving the respective rights and pretensions of the parties. Among these is what is called the usage of the alternat, by which the rank and places of different powers are changed from time to 1 Klüber, § 98. 2 Heffter, Das Euröpäische Völkerrecht, § 28, No. III. 3 Klüber, Acten des Weiner Congresses, tom. viii. pp. 98, 102, 108, 116. time, either in a certain regular order, or one determined by lot. Thus, in drawing up public treaties and conventions, it is the usage of certain powers to alternate, both in the preamble and the signatures, so that each power occupies, in the copy intended to be delivered to it, the first place. The regulation of the Congress of Vienna, above referred to, provides that in acts and treaties between those powers which admit the alternat, the order to be observed by the different ministers shall be determined by lot.1 Another expedient which has frequently been adopted to avoid controversies respecting the order of signatures to treaties and other public acts, is that of signing in the order assigned by the French alphabet to the respective Powers represented by their ministers.2 § 5. Lan The primitive equality of nations authorizes each nation to make use of its own language in treating guage used with others, and this right is still, in a certain degree, tic interin diplomapreserved in the practice of some States. But general course. convenience early suggested the use of the Latin language in the diplomatic intercourse between the different nations of Europe. Towards the end of the fifteenth century, the preponderance of Spain contributed to the general diffusion of the Castilian tongue as the ordinary medium of political correspondence. This, again, has been superseded by the language of France, which, since the age of Louis XIV., has become the almost universal diplomatic idiom of the civilized world. Those States which still retain the use of their national language in treaties and diplomatic correspondence, usually annex to the papers transmitted by them a translation in the language of the opposite party, wherever it is understood that this comity will be reciprocated. Such is the usage of the Germanic Confederation, of Spain, and the Italian courts. Those States which have a common language generally use it in their transactions with each other. Such is the case between the Germanic Confederation and its different members, and between the respective members them 1 Annexe, xvii. à l'Acte du Congrès de Vienne, art 7. 2 Klüber, Uebersicht der diplomatischen Verhandlungen des Wiener Congresses, § 164. |