We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
The diplomatic protection of citizens abroad is a comparatively modern phenomenon in the evolution of the state, in constitutional and in international law. Not until the legal position of the state toward individuals, both its own citizens and aliens, and of states between themselves, had become clearly denned in modern public law, did diplomatic protection become a factor in international intercourse. A discussion of the subject therefore involves a preliminary study of three distinct legal relations, first, between the state and its own citizen; secondly, between the state and aliens resident within it; and, lastly, the relations of states among themselves with respect to their rights over and their international responsibility for delinquencies toward aliens.
Published with permission of the Banks Law Publishing Company.
1 The growth of the state and of modern political society can not be here discussed. The subject is ably treated by Professor Edward Jenks in his History of Politics, London, New York, 1900, and in his Law and Politics in the Middle Ages, London, 1898.
2 Bar, L. von, Theory and practice of private international law (Gillespie’s translation), Edinburgh, 1892, p. 12; Bernheim, A. C., History of the law of aliens, New York, 1885, p. 7, et seq., p. 18; Frisch, Hans von, Das Fremdenrecht, Berlin, 1910, pp. 5–22. For the legal position of aliens in early law see the following works: Demangeat, Charles, Histoire de la condition civile des étrangers en France dans l’ancien et dans le nouveau droit, Paris, 1844; Sapey, C. A., Les étrangers en France sous l’ancien et le nouveau droit, Paris, 1843; Catellani, E., // diritto internazionale privato e sui recenti progressi, Torino, 1895, 2nd ed., v. 1, p. 13 et seg.; Weiss, A., Traté de droit international privé, 2nd ed., Paris, 1908, v. 2, chap. 1.
3 Bar, L. von., op. cit., p. 18.
4 Continental Legal History Series, v. l, General survey of events, sources, persons, and movements in continental legal history, Boston, 1912, pp. 60et seq.
5 At the present day we may note the survival of the system of personal laws in the fact that Europeans live in various parts of the world (Turkey, India, the Malay peninsula, the Barbary States) under their own law, as do the Indians while on their reservations in this country. See also Asser–Rivier, Elements de droit international prive, Paris, 1884, p. 7, footnote. In the conflict of laws there are numerous cases in which a legal relation is judged by the so–called “personal statute,” either the law of the domicil or of nationality of the individual in question, though this is rather an outgrowth of the jus gentium of the Romans than an illustration of the modem survival of the personality of laws. See also Savigny, F. C., >A treatise on the conflict of laws, translation of v. 8 of his System des heutigen romischen Rechts (1849) by William, Edinburgh, 1880, p. 58, pp. 60–62Google Scholar.
6 General survey of continental legal history,pp.80–83; Savigny, op. cit. pp. 63–64.
7 Walker, T. A., A history of the law of nations, v. 1, Cambridge, 1899, p.148 et seq.Google Scholar
8 Brissaud, J., A history of French private law, Boston, 1912, p. 874.Google Scholar
9 Gerber, C. F., Grundrage des deutschen Staatsrechts, Leipzig, 1880, 3rd ed., p. 229 Google Scholar; Morse, A. P., A treatise on citizenship, Boston, 1881, p. x, p. 4, p. 36Google Scholar; Foote, J. A., Foreign and domestic law, Private international jurisprudence, London, 1904, 3rd ed., p. 1.Google Scholar
10 Willoughby, W. W., Citizenship and allegiance in constitutional and international law, Amer. Journ. Int. Law, v.1 (1907), pp. 914, 915.Google Scholar
11 Crane, Robert T., The state in constitutional and international law, Baltimore, 1907, p. 69 Google Scholar; Hall, , International law, 6th ed., Oxford, 1909, pp. 17, 19.Google Scholar
12 Congress exercises the right to regulate certain acts of United States citizens abroad and attach prescribed consequences to those acts. E. P. Wheeler, The relation of a citizen in a foreign country, in Amer. Journ. Int. Law, v. 3 (Oct. 1909), p. 871 and cases cited. In England this right rests on Crown prerogative, acts of Parliament and common law. See Hall, W. E., Foreign powers and jurisdiction of the British Crown, Oxford, 1894, pp. 8-13. See also Fiore, P., Nouveau droit international public (Antoine’s trans.), Paris, 1885, v. 1, sec. 644; Lomonaco, G., Trattato di diritto internazionale pubblico, Napoli, 1905, p. 166; Martens, F. de, Traite de droit international, Paris, 1883, v. 1, p. 442; Despagnet, Frantz, Cours de droit international public, 4th ed., Paris, 1910, p. 467.
13 The notion that citizens, resident abroad, by virtue of their allegiance, still fall under the operation of the laws of their national state, is a fallacy often encountered in the writings of publicists. They are subject only to such national laws as the legislature expressly makes binding upon them. See Piggott, Nationality, Lon don, 1906, v. 1, p. 3.
14 Willoughby in Amer. Journ. Int. Law, 1907, p. 925; Heilborn, P., System des Volkerrechts, Berlin, 1896, p. 75 d seq., and opinions of Gierke, Oertmann, Gerber and Laband there cited.
15 Willoughby in Amer. Journ. Int. Law, 1907, p. 924.
16 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, v. 13 (1894), p. 162 et seq.
17 Stoerk, F., Lea changements de nationalité et le droit des yens in Revue Gen. D. I. P., v. 2 (1895), p. 273 at seq. See also Nye, E., Le drat international, 2nd ed., Bruxelles, 1912, p. 257 Google Scholar.
18 Piggott, F. T., Nationality, London, 1906, v. 1, pp. 5–10.Google Scholar
19 Laband, Paul, Das Staatarecht des deutschen Reichs, 5th ed., Leipzig, 1911, p. 177; Jellinek, Georg, System der subjectiven offentlichen Rechte, 2nd ed., Tubingen, 1905, p. 198. The majority of publicists deny that the conceptions of private law furnish any analogy to the peculiar relations created by public law. See Stoerk, Felix, Zur Methodilt des offentlichen Rechts, Wien, 1885, and authorities there cited.
20 Stoerk in Rev. Gen. D. I. P., v. 2 (1895), p. 288.
21 Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 3 Peters (1830), p. 124; Talbot v. Janson, 3 Dallas (1795), 162. See also cases cited by Wise, J. S., American citizenship, Northport, 1906, pp. 263–264. While not a mutual compact, it is true that as a status imposed by the state, citizens10 and allegiance could only be renounced when permitted by the state. In most modern states, except Russia and Turkey, municipal legislation has granted the individual this power.
22 On this entire subject see Jellinek, G.,The declaration of the rights of man and of citizens, New York, 1901 (Max Farrand’s translation), pp. 80, 90 and 95.Google Scholar
23 Mr. Justice Field in Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wallace, p. 147, at p. 154; adopted by Willoughby in Amer. Journ. Int. Law, 1907, p. 924.
24 The works of Daniel Webster, Boston, 1851, v. VI, p. 518, at p. 526, cited also in Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall. p. 155; see also Mr. Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.
25 Bar, op. cit., p. 111; Stoerk in Holtzendorff’s Handbuch des Völkerrechts, Berlin, 1885, II, pp. 589–591.
26 Stoerk in Holtzendorff’s Handbuch, II, pp. 630–636; Heilborn, op. cit., p. 75 et seq.; Oppenheim, International Law, London, 1912, sec. 291; Gareis, K., Inatitutionen des Völkerrechts, Giessen, 1901, sec. 53; Cockburn, Alexander, Nationality, London, 1869, p. 186; Nys, E., op, cit., p. 257.
27 Stoerk in Holtzendorff’s Handbuch, II, sec. 114, p. 589; Oppenheim, op. cit., I, sec. 291; Bar, op. cit., p. 111.
28 For the history of natural rights and the modern theories see Ritchie, D. G., Natural rights, London, 1895, ch. 1 and 2. An analysis of the so–called rights is undertaken by Ritchie, ch. 6 et seq.
29 For a summary account of the history of legal theory and the various schools of legal thought see Borchard, E. M., Guide to the law and legal literature of Germany, Washington, 1912, p. 25 et seg.
30 See Muirhead, James, Historical introduction to the private law of Rome, London, 1899, 2nd ed., p. 283. See also Annuaire of the Institute of Int. Law, v. 1, p. 124.
31 Rougier, La théorie de l’intervention d’humanité in Rev. Gen. D. I. P., 1910, p. 472. Thus intervention on behalf of co-religionists in the Orient and elsewhere has on numerous occasions been undertaken. Pillet, A., Principes de droit international privé, Paris, 1903, p. 171.
32 There had been a definite declaration of rights in Virginia in 1776, and the preamble and first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 was in the nature of a declaration of rights. These documents with the French Declaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen of 1789, as prefixed, with amendments, to several French constitutions, are to be found in the appendix to Ritchie, op. cit. See also the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.
These rights of man had been the subject of discussion by political philosophers of France and England for many years before 1789. They received most forceful expression in the American colonies in numerous pamphlets and tracts, notably those of James, Otis and Samuel, Adams. See Jellinek, G., The declaration of the rights of man and of citizens (translated by M., Farrand), New York, 1901, pp. 80–84.Google Scholar
33 Martens, F. de, Traite de droit international, Paris, 1883, v. 1, p. 440. See also Gareis, op. cit., p. 150.
34 Stoerk in Holtzendorff’s Handbuch, v. 2, sec. 113–114; Gareis, op. cit., sec. 53.
35 Extracts printed in Wheaton’s History of the law of nations, New York, 1845, pp. 329–331.
36 Stoerk in Rev. Gen. D. I. P., supra, v. 2 (1895), p. 277 et seq.
37 Weiss in Annuaire de l’Institut, v. 13, p. 174–176, has mentioned eight cases in which conflicts in municipal law have most frequently caused cases of double nationality. See also Cockburn, op. cit. pp. 108, 186, 187. Many publicists consider municipal penalties of loss of nationality as wrong in principle, as they increase the number of persons without nationality.
38 Wolfman, Nathan, Status of a foreigner who has declared his intention of becoming a citizen of the United States, in American Law Review, v. 41 (1907), p. 499; Jr.Coudert, Frederic R., Our new peoples: citizens, subjects, nationals or aliens, Columbia Law Review, v. 3 (1903), pp. 13–32.Google Scholar
39 Van Dyne, F., Citizenship of the United States, Rochester, 1904, p. 111.
40 Sargant, E. B., British citizenship in United Empire, v. 3 (May, 1912), p. 366, 373.Google Scholar
41 Stoerk in Holtzendorff’s Handbuch, v. 2, pp. 630 et seq.; Bluntschli, Droit international codifie (Lardy’s ed.) 5th ed., Paris, 1895, sec. 375; Martens, F. de, op. cit., p. 442; Bonfils, H., Manuel de droit international public, 6th ed. (by Fauchille), Paris, 1912, sec. 433.
42 Stoerk in Holtzendorff’a Handbuch, v. 2, p. 631; Bluntschli, op. cit., sec. 376.
43 Wittman, Ernö, Double imposts, in 24th Report of the International Law Association (at Portland), London, 1908, pp. 214-229; Bar, op. cit., p. 245 et seq.
44 Germany, by the law of July 1, 1870, Art. 20, reserves the right to punish with denationalization the failure to heed the summons to return. Art. 22 provides the same penalty for those who, having entered the service of a foreign state do not, on demand, resign their office. The Hungarian law of Dec. 20, 1879 (Art. 50, Annuaire de legislation etrangere, 1880, p. 351) makes a similar provision. See also French civil code, Art. 17, sec. 4, as amended by law of June 26, 1889 and Art. 17, sec. 3. See also Chretien, Principes de droit international public, Paris, 1893, p. 218.
45 An exhaustive comparative study of the subject of extraterritorial crime with extracts from the statutes of the more important countries and quotations from the writings of publicists is to be found in John Bassett Moore’s Report on extraterritorial crime and the Cutting case, Washington, 1887, 129 p. See also Chretien, op. cit., p. 221.
46 Stoerk in Holtzendorff’s Handbuch, v. 2, p. 631; Chrétien, op. cit., p. 218; Law of Costa Rica, Dec. 20, 1886, Art. 4, Annuaire de législation étrangère, 1887, p. 869.
47 Renton, A. W. & Phillimore, G. G., The Comparative law of marriage and divorce, London, 1910, pp. 253–254.
48 Buzzati, G. C., Le droit international privé d’ après les conventions de la Hoye, French translation by Francis, Rey, Paris, Larose & Tenin, 1911.Google Scholar
49 Bluntschli, op. cit., sec. 379; Roth; A., Principes de droit international privé,Paris, 1897, v. 1, p. 114.
50 Bar, op. cit., p. 112; see also Savigny, op. cit., p. 88 et seg.
51 These conventions established rules concerning the adjustment of conflicts of law in matters of marriage, divorce and guardianship. With but slight qualifications, the law of the nationality was adopted as the law governing these legal relations. See Meili, F.andMamelok, A., Das internationale Privat-und Zivilprozessrecht auf Grund der Haager Konventionen, Zurich, 1911 Google Scholar. See also Westlake, J., A treatise on private international law, 4th ed., London, 1905, p. 27 at seq.Google Scholar
52 Martitz, F. von, Do,s Hecht der Staatsangehörigkeit im internationcilen Verkehr in Hirth’s Annualen des deutschen Reichs, 1875, p. 794, Stoerk in Rev. Gen. D. I. P., 1895, p. 288; also in Holtzendorff’s Handbuch, II, sec. 119; Gareis, op. cit., p. 163.
53 Bar, op. cit., p. 139.
54 Hall, W. E.,Foreign powers and jurisdiction, Oxford, 1894, pp. 4–6.Google Scholar
55 Heilborn, op. cit., p. 75 et seq.
56 The assassination of the King of Servia by certain nobles and of President Madero by rebels was of no special international concern, in view of the immediate establishment of a government having the power to fulfill the international obligations of the state.
57 Hall, W. E., Foreign powers and jurisdiction, p. 4; Bluntschli, op. cit., sec. 380.Google Scholar
58 Address before the American Society of International Law, April 29, 1910, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting, p. 46; Heilborn, op. cit., p. 64 et seq; Pillet, A., Recherches sur les droits fondamentaux des états, Paris, 1899, p. 19 et seq., particularly at p. 28.
59 McKechmie, S. W., The state and the individual, Glasgow, 1896, p. 52.
60 Bluntschli, J. K.; The theory of the state, Oxford, 1898, p. 305.Google Scholar
61 Duguit, L., Etudes de droit public. 1. L’etat, le droit objectif et la /oi positive, Paris, 1901, p. 288 Google Scholar. See the theories of Kant and Humboldt as discussed in Bluntschli, op. cit., p. 68.
62 McKechmie, op. cit., p. 77; Ritchie, op. cit., p. 87.
63 Duguit, op. cit., p. 290.
64 McKechmie, op. cit., p. 74; Bluntschli, op. cit., p. 319 et seq. For an account of the contributions of a long line of publicists to political theory and philosophy, especially as involved in the relation of the state to the individual, and the struggle between authority and liberty, see the works of McKechmie, Bluntschli, and Duguit cited above, and Yeaman, G. H., The study of government, Boston, 1871, and Leroy-Beaulieu, P., The modern state in relation to society and the individual, London, 1891.
65 See e. g., Martens, op. cit., sec. 75; Holtzendorff’s Handbuch, I, sec. 15; and Huber, Beitrdge zur Kenntnis der soziologischen Grundlagen des Volkerrechts u. Staatengesellschaft in Jahrbuch des Offentlichen Rechts, v. 4 (1910), pp. 56-134; Hobhouse, Leonard T., Social evolution and political theory, New York, 1911, Chap. IX; Wilson, Roland K., The province of the state, London, 1911, Chap. I and II.
66 illet, A., Le droit international public, ses tlements constitutifs, domain et objet, Rev. Gen. D. I. P., v. 1 (1894), p. 5.
