affairs. The United States, Japan, Spain and Brazil afford instances.

A dependent State is one which by reason of its subordination to another State or States is subjected to external restraint in the control of its foreign or domestic affairs, and thus deprived of those rights of political independence which are commonly exercised by the freest members of the international society.2 Various forms of dependence are seen. While they differ greatly with respect to the extent and manner of the restraint imposed, it may be doubted whether any classification indicates with precision useful distinctions of legal value. General terms have been roughly and equivocally employed to describe relationships manifesting the dependence of one State upon another, and without a common design of attaching to them a signification purporting to refer to any peculiar degree of subordination. For that reason it is believed to suffice to note some of the actual and yet differing forms of dependence which have been established, with a view to observing in each case the nature and manner of the restriction. Inasmuch as the United States has, by virtue of treaties, undertaken in various ways to become the protector of certain neighboring States, the relationships thus established merit close examination.

1 "Independence means freedom from control, and a State like the United Kingdom or France is independent because it is free from all control either over its internal government or over its foreign relations." Westlake, 2 ed., I, 20.

Obviously no State is wholly free from external control. The society of nations, notwithstanding its imperfect organization, imposes restrictions which the individual State is not free to disregard. For that reason it might not be inaccurate to describe an independent State as one which enjoys that freedom from external control which is acknowledged to be the possession of the freest States belonging to the international society.

2 W. W. Willoughby and C. G. Fenwick, "Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy", Dept. of State, confidential document, Jan. 10, 1919; C. G. Fenwick, "Wardship in International Law", Dept. of State, confidential document, 1919.

For sake of convenience, the terms "protectorate" and "protected State" are employed in the text to refer generally to States in a temporary or permanent condition of dependency, and without the design of attaching to either a special significance purporting to illustrate a particular degree or kind of subordination. See, in this connection, Roland R. Foulke, International Law, Philadelphia, 1920, §§ 50-52.

THE IONIAN ISLANDS

(2)

Certain So-called Protectorates and Protected States

15. The Ionian Islands.

[$ 15

A relationship may be established whereby one State, on account of the protection afforded by another, is unable to enter into foreign relations without the consent of its protector. The large restraint imposed upon the inferior State serves to burden its superior with a proportional responsibility in the according of protection,1 and for the conduct of its ward. The Ionian Islands, placed under the protection of Great Britain by virtue of the treaty concluded by that Power with Austria, Prussia and Russia, November 5, 1815, and until annexation to Greece in 1863, are commonly mentioned as illustrative of such a relationship, which is described as constituting a protectorate. Apart from the right to receive commercial agents or consuls, and to display a distinctive trading flag, the Islands possessed no right to control their foreign relations.5

1 Westlake, 2 ed., I, 22-23.

2 "A protectorate, however qualified, assumes a greater or less degree of responsibility on the part of the protector for the acts of the protected State, without the ability to shape or control these acts, unless the relation created be virtually that of colonial dependency, with paramount intervention of the protector in the domestic concerns of the protected community." Mr. Sherman, Secy. of State, to Mr. Powell, Minister to Haiti, No. 97, Jan. 11, 1898, MS. Inst. Haiti, III, 629, Moore, Dig., VI, 475, 476.

3 Brit. and For. State Pap., III, 250; The Ionian Ships, 2 Spinks, 212, 221. Art. VII of the treaty of Nov. 5, 1815, Brit. and For. State Pap., III,

257.

5 Declares Hall: "The head of the government was appointed by England, the whole of the executive authority was practically in the hands of the protecting power, and the state was represented by it in its external relations. In making treaties, however, Great Britain did not affect the Ionian Islands unless it expressly stipulated in its capacity of protecting power; the vessels of the republic carried a separate trading flag; the state received consuls, though it could not accredit them; and during the Crimean War it maintained a neutrality the validity of which was acknowledged in the English Courts." Higgins' 7 ed., 28.

Concerning the Republic of San Marino, under the protection of Italy, see Fernand Daguin, La République de Saint-Marin, Paris, 1904; E. Engelhardt, Les Protectorats Anciens et Modernes, Paris, 1896, 102-105. It may be observed that the United States concluded an extradition treaty with San Marino June 6, 1906. Malloy's Treaties, II, 1598.

Concerning the Republic of Andorra in the Pyrenees under the co-protection of France and Spain (exercised through the Bishop of Urgel) see Joseph Roca, De la Condition Internationale des Vallées d'Andorre, Antibes, 1908; also Bonfils-Fauchille, 7 ed., § 177, and works there cited.

Concerning the Principality of Monaco, see Hall, Higgins' 7 ed., 28, and note 2 by the editor; Bonfils-Fauchille, 7 ed., § 178, with bibliography; W. W. Willoughby and C. G. Fenwick, "Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy", Dept. of State, confidential document, Jan. 10, 1919,

p. 59.

$ 16. The Free City of Danzig.

By the treaty of peace with Germany, of June 28, 1919, the Principal Allied Powers undertook to establish the town of Danzig as a "Free City" to be placed under the protection of the League of Nations. Those Powers agreed to negotiate a treaty between the Polish Government and the Free City of Danzig, whereby the Polish Government should undertake the conduct of the foreign relations of that City, as well as the diplomatic protection of its citizens when abroad.2

(3)

So-called Suzerainties

§ 17. Bulgaria, 1878–1908.

A relationship manifesting the dependence of one State upon another has, in particular cases, been described as a suzerainty.3 Until it proclaimed its independence on October 5, 1908,4 Bul-garia was a vassal State, and, according to the Treaty of Berlin of July 13, 1878, constituted an "autonomous and tributary Principality, under the suzerainty of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan' of Turkey. That agreement provided that the treaties between the Powers and Turkey were to be maintained in the Principality, and that no change should be made in them with regard to any Power without its previous consent. Privileges and immunities of foreigners and rights of consular jurisdiction and protection, "as established by the capitulations and usages ", were to remain in force until modified with the approval of the parties concerned. To Turkey, the suzerain, the Principality was to pay an annual tribute. Save for provisions substituting the Principality for the Sublime Porte in specified engagements in relation to certain railways, and contemplating further conventions in that regard,

1 Art. 102.

2 Art. 104 (6).

3 Declares Professor Moore with respect to the relationship of suzerainty: "The extent of the authority or subordination comprehended by this term is not determined by general rules, but by the facts of the particular case. The foreign relations of a subject State may be wholly and directly conducted through the ministry of foreign affairs of the suzerain. It may, on the other hand, maintain diplomatic relations, and, subject to the veto of the suzerain, conclude treaties of all kinds; but, more frequently, its right of initiative, if it possesses any, is confined to a limited sphere; and a consul-general accredited to it, though he may also bear the title of agent or even of diplomatic agent, exercises only consular powers.' Dig., I, 27.

For. Rel. 1908, 57.

5 Nouv. Rec. Gén., 2 ser., III, 449; Brit. and For. State Pap., LXIX, 749; U. S. For. Rel. 1878, 895; also, T. E. Holland, The European Concert in the Eastern Question, 277.

CUBA

[$ 19 no arrangement was made for the conclusion of treaties by the Principality. Nevertheless, it proceeded to exercise such a right, and maintained direct diplomatic relations with foreign States.2

8 18. Egypt, 1840-1914.

Prior to the establishment of the protectorate proclaimed by Great Britain December 18, 1914, Egypt was said to be subject to the suzerainty of the Sultan of Turkey. By the treaty of July 15, 1840, concluded by Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia and Turkey, and the so-called firman of June 1, 1841,4 Egypt became an hereditary Pashalic under the rule of the family of Mehemet Ali.5 The ruler of the country, who bore the title of Khedive, paid annual tribute to the Sultan. The former was authorized to negotiate with foreign powers non-political treaties not interfering with the political treaties of the Sultan, or with his sovereignty over Egypt. It was required, however, that treaties negotiated by the Khedive should, prior to their promulgation by him, be communicated to the Sultan."

(4)

Relationships Established between the United States and Certain Neighboring States (a)

$ 19. Cuba.

By virtue of a treaty with the United States of May 22, 1903, in pursuance of declarations in the Cuban Constitution of May 20,

1 Arts. I-XII of the Treaty of Berlin, Brit. and For. State Pap., LXIX, 751-755; For. Rel. 1878, 895, 896-899.

2 The United States accredited a diplomatic agent to Bulgaria in the person of its minister to Greece. See Am. J., I, Supp., 86-87, containing List of Diplomatic Officers of the United States, corrected to Jan. 1, 1907.

G. Scelle, "La situation diplomatique de la Bulgarie avant la proclamation de son independence le 5, octobre 1908", Rev. Gén., XV, 524.

3 Now. Rec. Gen., I, 156.

"L'Egypte et les firmans", Rev. Gén., III, 291.

5 For texts of the firmans of the Sultan from 1841 to 1879, illustrative of the international position of Egypt, see T. E. Holland, European Concert in the Eastern Question, 110-205.

See firman of June 8, 1873, Nouv. Rec. Gén., XVII, 629; also that of Aug. 14, 1879, Nouv. Rec. Gén., 2 ser., VI, 508.

It should be observed, however, that for many years prior to 1914, Egypt was occupied by Great Britain, whose influence was predominant in the administration of the government. See generally, Bonfils-Fauchille, 7 ed., 8 189, with extensive bibliography; E. Engelhardt, Les Protectorats Anciens et Modernes, 66–70. See, also, The Charkieh, (1873) L. R. 4 Adm. and Eccl. 59. Concerning the diplomatic relations of the United States with Egypt, cf. Moore, Dig., V, 584-586, and documents there cited.

1902, and in accordance with provisions of an Act of Congress of the United States of March 2, 1901, the Government of Cuba consented:

that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the Treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the Government of Cuba.1

That Republic also agreed never to enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or powers

which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorize or permit any foreign power or powers to obtain by colonization or for military or naval purposes, or otherwise, lodgment in or control over any portion of said island.2

It undertook also not to assume or contract any public debt to pay the interest upon which, and to make reasonable sinkingfund provision for the ultimate discharge of which the ordinary revenues of the island, after defraying the current expenses of the Government, should be inadequate. The Cuban Government agreed to execute, and, as far as necessary, to extend existing plans, or other plans to be mutually agreed upon, for the sanitation of the cities of the Island, with a view to preventing a recurrence of epidemic and infectious diseases, for the protection of the people and commerce of Cuba, and for the benefit also of the commerce of the southern ports of the United States and the people residing therein.4

By the foregoing provisions Cuba is believed to have accepted a status of dependency under the protection of the United States. The rights and undertakings of the latter, and the restrictions acquiesced in by the former with respect also to the exercise of the treaty-making power, compel such a conclusion. It may be observed that the United States has found occasion to intervene for the purposes announced in the convention and with a view 1 Art. III, Malloy's Treaties, I, 364.

2 Art. I, id., 363. See also President Roosevelt, Annual Message, Dec. 3, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, XXXI.

3 Art. II.

Art. V. See, in this connection, Decree of Chas. E. Magoon, Provisional Governor of Cuba, Sept. 27, 1908, For. Rel. 1908, 254.