Belgium before the war no longer conformed to the requirements of the situation, consented to their abrogation.1 Events of the War thus served to free Belgium from its status of neutralization.

Luxemburg was neutralized by virtue of Article II of the Treaty of London of May 11, 1867.2 The neutralization of the Independent State of the Congo was accomplished by means of Article X of the General Act of the Berlin Conference, February 26, 1885,3 and by the acceptance by King Leopold II as head of that State, of the terms of the Act. The State was, however, annexed by Belgium by the treaty of November 28, 1907.5

1 Art. XXXI.

2 Am. J., III, Supp., 118.

3 Nouv. Rec. Gén., 2 ser., X, 414, 419.

4 See communication of Administrator General of Dept. of For. Affairs, Aug. 1, 1885, U. S. For. Rel. 1885, 59. See, also, documents in Am. J., III, Supp., 5-96.

Nouv. Rec. Gén., 3 ser., II, 101-109; Am. J., III, Supp., 73. P. Fauchille, "L'Annexation du Congo à la Belgique et le droit international", Rev. Gén., II,

400.

According to Art. I of the General Act of Berlin, of June 14, 1889, concluded by the United States, Great Britain, and Germany, the Samoan Islands were to be "neutral territory in which the citizens and countries of the Three Signatory Powers have equal rights of residence, trade, and personal protection." For. Rel. 1889, 353, 354. The convention concluded by the same Powers, Dec. 2, 1899, providing for the partition of the Islands, declared that all previous agreements relating to Samoa were annulled. For. Rel. 1899, 665,

667.

The structure of a State is not necessarily a matter of international concern. Thus whether it be what is described as simple,1 or composite, is unimportant. Nor is the mode by which a group of political entities have united and formed a person of international law a matter of concern, so long as a single State of international law has resulted. To the outside world, the method by which the United States came into being, with respect at least to the nature of its statehood, is merely a matter of historic interest.

b

Unions of States
(1)

§31. Where International Personality of Members Is Not Relinquished.

States may and oftentimes do unite. In such event it becomes a matter of international concern whether any constituent member of the new State has retained its international personality by not relinquishing wholly its right to participate in foreign affairs. If such be the case the union, however described, is in a strict sense a group of states of international law each of which remains to be regarded as a distinct person in the family of nations. Unions of such a kind have appeared in various forms. In some instances the individual members have retained broadest privileges, reducing proportionally the importance of the bond uniting them.3

1 "The characteristic of the simple State is that it has one supreme government, and exerts a single will, whether it be the individual will of a sovereign ruler, or the collective will of a popular body or of a representative assembly." Moore, Dig., I, 21.

"A composite State is one composed of two or more States." Id., I, 22. It may be noted that the permanence of a State may be affected by the nature of its structure. Thus a composite State is likely to find that its durability is jeopardized by reason of its composition. Nevertheless, while such a State holds its place as a member of the family of nations, its rights as such are not affected by that circumstance.

3 Thus when, in 1885, the King of the Belgians assumed the title of sovereign of the Independent State of the Congo, that State and Belgium, remaining

In others, the union has itself predominated in importance, notwithstanding the definite participation in foreign affairs enjoyed by its constituents. In still others, that predominance has been such as to leave to the individual member slight although technical freedom to deal with the outside world, and to present accordingly for all practical purposes a united front in international affairs. The German Empire under the constitution of April 16, 1871, is illustrative. While the several States comprising it retained rights to enable them technically to preserve their individual membership in the family of nations, to the outside world it was the German Empire -the Bundesstaat which was of chief significance. It may be said to have attained itseparate and distinct, were united only by reason of their having the same monarch. The relationship constituted what has been described as a personal union. See letter of King Leopold to President Cleveland, Aug. 1, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 58.

Cf. also the relationship between Great Britain and Hanover, 1714-1837, as described by Coleridge, C. J., in Isaacson v. Durant, 17 Q. B. D. 54, 59.

Westlake refers to the advance from a personal union to one where "the rules of succession in the two monarchies may be assimilated to one another, so as to exclude the chance of the crowns being separated by their operation", declaring that "this was done for Austria and Hungary by the Pragmatic Sanction of 1723, which provided for the succession of Maria Theresa in both countries in accordance with the Hungarian rule, while enacting the Austrian exclusion of females as the rule in both countries thereafter." He notes also the situation where "the common sovereign, instead of habitually taking international action for his countries separately, may habitually unite them in his international action, so that the one being at war while the other is at peace becomes a contingency which, though theoretically possible, is not dreamed of in practical politics so long as the crowns continue to rest on the same head." Int. Law, 2 ed., I, 32–33.

1 The German Confederation, 1815-1866, may be taken as illustrative. See Dana's Wheaton, §§ 47-51. This union was described as a Staatenbund. 2 See Edwin H. Zeydel, "Constitutions of the German Empire and German States", Dept. of State, confidential document, 1919; also Karl Binding, Deutsche Staatsgrundgesetze, I, 18; U. S. For. Rel. 1871, 383-393; id., 1877, 183. 3 Declared Prof. Moore, in 1906: "The several [German] States preserve the right of legation; they grant exequaturs to foreign consuls within their territories, although all German consuls are sent out by the Empire; they may enter into conventions with foreign powers concerning matters not within the competence of the Empire or of the Emperor, and within the limits fixed by the laws of the Empire; they may conclude concordats with the Holy See. On the other hand, by the constitution of 1871, the laws of the Empire are within their proper sphere supreme. There is one citizenship for all Germany, and all Germans in foreign countries have equal claims upon the protection of the Empire. The supervision of the Empire and its legislature comprehends, among other things, the right of citizenship; the issuing and examination of passports; the surveillance of aliens; colonization and emigration; customs duties and commerce; coinage, and the emission of paper money; foreign trade and navigation, and consular representation abroad; and the imperial army and navy. The Emperor represents the Empire among nations; enters into alliances and other conventions with foreign countries; sends and receives ambassadors; and declares war and concludes peace in the name of the Empire, with the proviso, however, that for a declaration of war, the consent of the federal council is required, except in case of 'an attack upon the territory of the confederation or its coasts."" Dig., I, 25.

PERSONALITY OF MEMBERS IS NOT RELINQUISHED [§ 31

self the status of a person of international law, notwithstanding the character of its constituent members.

The German Republic under the constitution adopted at Weimar, July 31, 1919, appeared to indicate the welding together of a still closer union such that the constituent States almost completely relinquished their international personalities for the sake of the national entity. Thus the Republic became practically if not technically the only State of international law within the limits of its domain.1

The establishment of the Swiss Confederation under the constitution of May 29, 1874,2 did not deprive the constituent Cantons of an international personality. They retained the right to conclude certain minor and specified classes of agreements with foreign States, such as those respecting "the administration of public property and border and police intercourse." All separate alliances and all treaties of a political character between the Cantons were forbidden. To the Confederation was entrusted the "sole right of declaring war or making peace, and of concluding alliances and treaties with foreign powers, particularly treaties relating to tariffs and commerce." Official intercourse between the Cantons and foreign governments, or their represent

1 According to Art. VI, the Government of the Republic was given the exclusive right of legislation over foreign relations. Art. XLV declared that the President should represent the Republic in matters of international law, that he should, in the nation's name, conclude alliances and other treaties with foreign powers, and that he should accredit and receive ambassadors. The declaration of war and conclusion of peace were to be subject to national law. Alliances and treaties with foreign States, in relation to subjects covered by national law, were to require the approval of the Reichstag. Art. LXXVIII announced that the relations with foreign States concerned the nation exclusively. It was there provided, however, that in matters regulated by provincial law, the confederated States might conclude treaties with foreign States. These treaties were, however, to require the consent of the nation. Agreements with foreign States regarding change of national boundaries were to be concluded by the nation on consent of the State involved. In order to assure the representation of interests arising for special States through their special economic relations or their proximity to foreign countries, the Government was to decide on the measures and arrangements required in concert with the States involved.

In March, 1920, the Department of State reported the announcement of the abolishment of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by Bavaria, as part of a movement towards greater centralization of the Government at Berlin.

For an English translation of the federal constitution of the Swiss Confederation, see "Old South Leaflets", General Series, No. 18, reprinted as Appendix II to "Government in Switzerland", by John Martin Vincent, New York, 1900. See, also, Die Schweizerische Bundesgesetzgebung, Basel, 18901891, edited by Prosper Wolf. Also in this connection, S. B. Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, 2 ed., § 148.

3 Art. IX.

4 Art. VII.

Art. VIII. By an Act of Jan. 22, 1892, matters of extradition were placed in the hands of the Federal Council which was authorized to conclude treaties

atives, was to take place through the Federal Council of the Confederation. To the outside world Switzerland appeared to take its stand as itself a State of international law endowed with the right of controlling generally the foreign affairs of the several Cantons, notwithstanding the retention of statehood by the latter.

(2)

§ 32. Where International Personality of Members Is Relinquished.

The terms of the union between two or more States may result in or demand the entire relinquishment by the constituent members of all right to deal with the outside world. In such case the union becomes a person or State of international law of which the composition is a matter of unconcern to foreign powers. They recognize the completeness of the merger, and while it lasts, necessarily regard as non-existent the former States which surrendered their international personality. The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy created in 1867 by a union of the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary was illustrative. Thereafter until its dissolution, the Dual Monarchy was a State of international law, and the only State of that character to represent externally its constituent parts.2

As a result of the World War the Serb, Croat and Slovene peoples of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy united of their own free will with Serbia in a permanent union for the purpose of forming "a single sovereign independent State under the title of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes." 3

with foreign States. Brit. and For. State Papers, LXXXIV, 671. An extradition treaty was concluded with the United States, May 14, 1900. Malloy's Treaties, II, 1771. 1 Art. X.

2 That by the Act of Union of Austria and Hungary, each of those States retained the right to approve of treaties pertaining to it, was not at variance with the circumstance that externally the Dual Monarchy was a person of international law, and that the countries comprising it were not. Neither of the latter was permitted to enter into foreign relations or to maintain an international personality.

See, also, in this connection, S. B. Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, 2 ed., § 142, and documents there cited.

In 1896, the Republics of Honduras, Nicaragua, and Salvador united in forming a "single political entity, for the exercise of their sovereignty as regards their intercourse with foreign nations ", which was known as the Greater Republic of Central America. See text of treaty of union, of June 20, 1895, For. Rel. 1896, 390. Concerning the dissolution in 1898 of the union which had assumed the name of the Republic of the United States of Central America, see For. Rel. 1898, 172-178.

See preamble of treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, signed at Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Sept. 10, 1919, British Treaty Series, 1919 [Cmd. 461].