tinople, when the Great Powers interfered and compelled him to restore the larger part of his conquests. But by the Quadruple Treaty of 1840, and the Sultan's Firman of June, 1841, Egypt was erected into an hereditary Pashalic under the rule of Mehemet Ali and his descendants; and by these and subsequent concessions the title of Khedive was conferred upon the ruler of the country, and he obtained many of the rights of a sovereign prince. He could maintain an army, contract loans, and make non-political conventions with foreign powers; and though by the Firman of 1879 the number of Egyptian soldiers was limited to eighteen thousand, and a few other restrictions were imposed upon Tewfik Pasha, the new Khedive, he was left in possession of many of the powers of external sovereignty. The position of the Khedive is still nominally defined by Firman, but the statepaper suzerainty of the Porte has been practically set aside, owing to the power exercised over Egyptian affairs, first by England and France acting together, and then, after the withdrawal of France from active co-operation in 1882, by England acting alone. Since Great Britain put down in that year the revolt of Arabi Pasha, Egypt has been occupied by British troops, and the country has been governed under British advice. In 1898 the Soudan was reconquered by a British and Egyptian army, whose commander, Lord Kitchener, was made Governor General of the recovered territory. Great Britain pledged herself before her occupation of Egypt to withdraw as soon as she had restored the finances and created a satisfactory native administration. But events have increased her responsibilities so that her retirement would bring ruin on the country. Some way should be found to regularize her position by international agreement. Monaco may perhaps be added to Bulgaria and Egypt in order to complete the list of Part-Sovereign States under the 1 Holland, The European Concert in the Eastern Question, Ch. IV. 2 Debate in House of Commons, Aug. 10, 1882, Hansard, 3d Series, Vol. CCLXXIII.; Annual Register for 1898, Ch. VI., Sec. 1; Speech of Lord Salisbury at Mansion House, Nov. 9, 1898.

authority of a Suzerain belonging to the European statesystem. The superior power in this case is Italy, which has succeeded to the rights given to the King of Sardinia by the Treaty of Turin of 1817. The Prince of Monaco, though practically powerless, does appear to possess some of the rights of external sovereignty; for he occasionally negotiates a treaty, consuls are accredited to him, and the principality has its own commercial flag. The Republic of Andorra in the Pyrenees is another "international atom," devoid of power and consequence, but capable of presenting a curious problem to the international jurist. It negotiated a treaty with Spain as late as 1834, and we must therefore hold that it has the power of dealing directly with foreign states. But it is obvious that a community of ten thousand souls, hidden away in the valleys of the Pyrenees and transacting its own local affairs under the joint protection of the French Republic and the Spanish Bishop of Urgel, will rarely be troubled by foreign complications.1 It is an antiquarian curiosity and a jural puzzle. If we must classify it, we had better place it in the first division of Part-Sovereign States. Its name concludes the list as far as Europe and the European statesystem are concerned. A microscopic examination of the other quarters of the globe might perhaps reveal some civilized communities which stand to one another in the relation of Suzerain and vassal. The relation itself is vague, and the term suzerain is indefinite and unsatisfactory.

§ 51.

We now come to the second kind of Part-Sovereign States; that is, those which are members of the looser form of Con

federation called a Staatenbund. The pecul- Members of a

federated states.

iarity of this sort of Union is that the central system of conauthority does not transact the whole external business of the Confederation, but each confederated state

1 Twiss, Law of Nations, §§ 27 and 35.

reserves to itself the right of dealing directly with foreign powers in matters not expressly removed from its cognizance by the provisions of the Federal Pact. For instance, in the German Confederation which lasted from 1815 to 1866, each member had the right of entering into relations with foreign states provided that it did nothing against the security of any other member or of the Confederation itself. The central authority was vested in a Diet which sat at Frankfort, and was composed of the ministers of the separate states. It had the power of making treaties, sending and receiving ambassadors, and declaring war against foreign powers in case the territory of the Confederation should be threatened by them. But these powers were sparingly exercised. The Diet maintained no permanent legations at the courts of other states, and only the five Great Powers accredited ambassadors to it. On the other hand, the separate states sent representatives both to one another and to foreign states. The full powers of sovereignty over each of the German states were thus, according to the letter of the Federal Bond, divided between the Diet and the home government of that state. The central authority at Frankfort, therefore, as well as the government of each of the separate states must in strictness be accounted part-sovereign. A difficulty may be felt with regard to the application of this term to such powerful states as Austria and Prussia. But nothing more is meant thereby than the assertion that their authority over their territory within the limits of the Confederation was limited, at least on paper, by the authority of Diet. With respect to their non-German possessions they were, of course, fully sovereign; and for all practical purposes they were sovereign in their German dominions also, since they either manipulated the Diet at their pleasure, or, if that was impossible, disregarded its decisions. But by the terms of the Federal Pact their authority was as much limited as was that of Saxony or Baden, and it is impossible to put

1 Wheaton, International Law, §§ 47-51.

them in a different category, considered as members of the Confederation. Had the states which composed it been equal or nearly equal in power, the conclusion to which we have been led by a consideration of its Constitution would have been manifest upon the face of its history. And since the German Confederation is regarded as the type of a Staatenbund, we may give a general application to the deductions we have drawn from our study of it, and lay down with confidence that in all such unions both the central authority and the separate members are to be regarded as Part-Sovereign States. The power of each member is limited by the authority of the central body, and the power of the central body is limited by the rights reserved to each separate member. Inasmuch as both the central authority and the separate states carry on diplomatic intercourse with foreign powers, they must each and all be regarded as Subjects of International Law; and inasmuch as they carry on such intercourse only in a limited degree, they cannot be regarded as fully and absolutely sovereign. But nevertheless a clear line of demarcation separates them from Part-Sovereign States which are under a Suzerain. We cannot properly speak of suzerainty in connection with a Staatenbund. The central authority, being created by the separate states and dependent for its very existence upon their will, can hardly be considered as their superior, and it would be absurd to talk of it as being itself under the suzerainty of the members of the Confederation. It is necessary, therefore, to place Part-Sovereign States which are members of a Confederation in a sub-class by themselves. Such Confederations are from the nature of the case doomed to extinction; since they exist, politically speaking, in a condition of unstable equilib rium. Probably none of them have survived to the present day. Their members either separate and form fresh combinations, as did those of the German Bund, or they tighten the Federal Bond till their union becomes a Bundesstaat, as did those of the Swiss Confederation.

tralized states.

§ 52.

Part-Sovereign States of the third kind have usually been looked upon as fully independent. Yet if the description of sovereignty we have given be correct, it is hard Permanently nou- to see how permanently neutralized states can be so regarded. Their integrity and independence are guaranteed by agreement between the Great Powers, on condition that they do not go to war except for the defence of their own territory when attacked, and do not in time of peace enter into any engagements which might lead them into hostilities for other than purely defensive purposes. Clearly this condition, on which alone they are suffered to have a national existence, is a limitation of the independence which is guaranteed to them. A fully sovereign state can make war for any purposes that seem to it sufficient, and under any circumstances that in the opinion of its rulers call for an appeal to force. To deprive it of that right is to restrict its external sovereignty; and when a political community is shorn of one of the attributes of independence, not temporarily and for a special purpose, but permanently and as a condition of its existence, it can hardly be ranked among fully Sovereign States. That it is called independent in the treaty of guarantee proves nothing. Diplomatists have a habit of disguising unpalatable facts in language calculated to soothe wounded susceptibilities. One of the first lessons to be learnt by a student of statecraft is that words are often used, not because they do, but because they do not, represent the things referred to. We must deal with realities if we are to succeed in making a scientific classification of the Subjects of International Law. It is a fact that the rulers of permanently neutralized states do not exercise all the powers of sovereignty. The states in question are, therefore, part-sovereign, though the powers of which they are deprived are few and unimportant compared with the powers which they possess. They differ, however,