fullest degree and are endowed with the rights and burdened with the duties arising from international law. But it must be observed that certain restrictions upon sovereignty, such as the act of neutralization, are not regarded as relegating the State to the class of semi-sovereign States which are excluded from the family of nations. On the other hand, certain States which possess full sovereignty, but whose civilization is regarded as backward in comparison with that of Europe, are excluded from the family of nations because it is believed that they have not reached that stage of political development at which it is possible for them adequately to fulfill the obligations which international law imposes upon the adult international person.

PROTECTED INDEPENDENT STATES.

The history of international relations affords a number of instances in which States, without sacrificing their independence and their formal sovereignty, have been placed under the protection of single powers or a group of powers. It would appear that "independence" as a technical term employed in treaties relating to such protected States does not mean full freedom of action as a positive attribute, but rather the absence of any such restrictions upon the protected State as would amount to an infringement of its international personality and take from it a certain theoretical legal competence to be the arbiter of its own destiny. These States retain their domestic autonomy, and in general their right of control over their foreign relations with such exceptions, however, as the treaties they have entered into with the protecting State or States happen to call for.

A special class of protected independent States consists of several petty sovereignties whose political importance is too insignificant to merit more than a passing reference to them. Andorra, Lichtenstein, Monaco, and San Marino have succeeded in maintaining their integrity and individuality unimpaired in the midst of powerful neighbors, but they may be regarded as relics of a past age and they are of no value as models for the possible disposition of future small communities.

Of other protected independent States a few are under the protection of the Great Powers as a body, while others are under the protection of single States. Morocco was recognized by the general act of the Algeciras Conference as an independent State, but the provisions made for reforms in the administration of the country and in the disposition of its commercial facilities amount to the creation of an international protectorate over it. Albania was recognized as autonomous by the London Ambassadorial Conference of 1912, and given a special form of government under international control. In the case of China a number of treaties have been en

tered into between that State and the Great Powers by which a variety of restrictions have been placed upon the exercise of functions belonging to the normal State, but they are not to be regarded as placing China in the position of a protected State. At the same time the exterritorial jurisdiction of foreign powers in China, the foreign concessions or settlements in a number of its cities, and the administration by foreigners of certain services, such as the salt tax and the maritime customs, present problems of such great interest in connection with the subject of the present report that it has been thought useful to present in an appendix a survey of the restrictions to which China is subject. (See Appendix 3.) The presence of capitulations, however, has not been regarded as sufficient of itself to warrant the inclusion of States such as Turkey in the present report.

Cuba represents perhaps the best example of an independent State under the protection of a single power. The restrictions placed upon Cuba by the Platt Amendment have not been regarded as an infringement of its international personality and have not excluded that State from a place within the family of nations or deprived it of representation at international conferences. What is to be the ultimate position of the Dominican Republic and of Haiti in consequence of the treaties entered into by those countries with the United States in 1907 and 1915 it is difficult to determine at present. So also the position of Persia, which, in 1907, was forced to submit to having "spheres of influence" inscribed within its territory by Great Britain and Russia, is for the present uncertain. Abyssinia still remains nominally independent under the joint guaranty and protection of Great Britain. France, and Italy.

GUARANTEED STATES.

There are now in force a number of treaties in which the signatory powers have undertaken to guarantee the independence and territorial integrity of a particular State without at the same time imposing such restrictions upon it as to amount to placing it in the condition of a protected State. Such is the character of the treaty of 1907 by which Great Britain, Germany, France, and Russia agreed themselves to respect the integrity of Norway and to protect it against attacks by others, but without making any demands upon Norway in return. This agreement falls short of putting Norway in the position of a neutralized State, but it at least assures Norway of protection as an independent State. Cuba, by contrast with Norway, has received a guaranty of its independence from the United States, but the restrictions accepted by Cuba upon its free conduct in certain matters actually place it in the status of a protectorate,

though it is not thereby excluded from membership within the family of nations. The independence of Panama has been guaranteed by the United States without imposing upon it any formal restrictions other than those involved in the right of the United States to maintain order in the cities of Panama and Colon in case the Republic of Panama should be unable to do so. Montenegro, Serbia, and Roumania received an informal guaranty of their independence when they were "recognized as independent" by the Congress of Berlin. In return for this recognition the signatory powers imposed upon those States certain restrictions upon the exercise of their new sovereignty which had in view the maintenance both of the domestic peace of those States and of the general peace of the Balkan Peninsula.

NEUTRALIZED STATES.

This category embraces a special class of guaranteed States upon which the status of permanent neutrality has been imposed by other powers and which have undertaken in return. to engage in no wars. except for self-defense. As a rule the act of neutralization is accompanied by a guaranty of the independence and territorial integrity of the neutralized State. Although restricted in the exercise of the sovereign right to resort to the procedure of war, neutralized States remain in other respects sovereign and their position within the family of nations is in no way impaired. They are, however, under an implied obligation not to enter upon enterprises or to enter into international arrangements which may give rise to war or which involve what would amount to a political alliance with other powers. Switzerland has been permanently neutralized since 1815 and Belgium since 1839. In some cases, as in that of Luxemburg, it is provided that the neutralized State shall not erect or maintain fortresses or other military works. The Ionian Islands were neutralized during the period from 1815 to 1863; Cracow from 1815 to 1846.

The neutrality of the Congo Free State was not guaranteed by the final act of the Berlin Conference of 1885, but the signatory powers pledged themselves to respect its neutrality, as well as that of the entire Congo Basin, if proclaimed by the States in possession of the territory.

When the Ionian Islands passed under the control of Greece in 1863 the islands of Corfu and Paxo were singled out from the group and declared permanently neutral.

VASSAL STATES.

Vassal States are political communities possessing a greater or less degree of autonomy subject to the suzerainty of another State. The

term suzerainty is borrowed from feudalism, although in its modern international usage the relations to which it is applied often have but slight, if any, similarity to the feudal relations of the Middle Ages. In general suzerainty connotes in the suzerain power a supremacy over the protégé or vassal State which is at once less absolute and less juristic or constitutional than that connoted by sovereignty. The so-called vassal State frequently has the status of an autonomous province, its autonomy being conditioned upon the rendering by it. of certain services in the way of homage or tribute.

The modern use of the term "suzerainty" dates from the Treaty of Paris of 1856, and since then it has been applied especially to the Turkish possessions.

The term "suzerainty" was used in the treaty of August 3, 1881, between Great Britain and the Transvaal, but in fact the relation was a weak protectoral one.

Bulgaria, during the 30 years following the Treaty of Berlin, was under the nominal sovereignty of the Porte. Roumelia entered into the status of Bulgaria when it was annexed by that State in 1885.

From 1840 to 1883 Egypt was under the suzerainty of the Porte, after which time the suzerainty became merely nominal until 1914, when Great Britain proclaimed a formal protectorate over the country.

Cyprus forms an example of a purely nominal subordination to Turkey, which terminated in 1914.

In some cases, as in that of Tunis, for example, the extent of the control of the superior State is sufficiently great to make the relation amount to that of a colonial protectorate.

PROTECTED DEPENDENT STATES.

This category applies for the most part to semi-civilized or at least politically undeveloped communities which are not members of the family of nations. Though called States, and possessing a greater or less degree of nominal independence, they are virtually dependencies of the protecting power. Their relations to the protecting power are fixed by treaties, a fact which distinguishes their position from that of colonies possessing a similar degree of control over their domestic affairs. The best examples of this category are exhibited by the so-called native or protected States of India in their relation to the British Empire. They do not hold political intercourse with other powers, and they admit a certain amount of interference by Great Britain in their domestic affairs.

Distinct from the above group of States, though holding a position bearing a resemblance to them, are what are known as colonial protectorates. These are regions of territory in which there is no or

ganized State recognized at international law and over which the protecting power undertakes to exercise control with the formal consent of the native chiefs or tribes in occupation of the territory. In fact, however, in practically all cases the protectorate itself has had no say with regard to the status imposed upon it. The use of the term "protectorate" by the protecting power is simply one of convenience, and when first applied indicates that the territory has not been effectively occupied so as to give title by right of occupation but that no other State may make any claims to jurisdiction or deal with the region in question except through the protecting State. "Colonial protectorate" is thus a term invented to give control over an area to a State before it is ready actually to annex it. Technically the inhabitants are not citizens or subjects of the protecting State, and the protectorate would not ipso facto cease to be neutral should its protecting State go to war. Owing to the primitive character of the civilization of these African and Asiatic territories it has not been thought necessary to include types of them in the present report.

A "sphere of influence," as distinguished from a colonial protectorate, does not involve occupation of the territory or the establishment there of any machinery of government. It is more in the nature of a claim of first option to the exercise of commercial, industrial, and possibly of political rights within the region in question and operates as a caveat, informing other powers that an attempt on their part to extend their influence into that region will be regarded as an unfriendly act. In some cases the claim of this sphere of influence is founded upon treaties between the power claiming it and the State having sovereignty over the territory, and in other cases upon treaties between that power and other powers that have bordering interests.

ADMINISTERED STATES OR PROVINCES.

The history of international relations furnishes a number of instances in which political areas, while remaining under the nominal sovereignty of one State, have been placed under the exclusive administrative control of one or more other States. The chief instances are to be found in connection with certain provinces of the Turkish Empire which the powers wished to detach from the control of Turkey without formally repudiating its sovereignty over the said provinces. For example, Bosnia and Herzegovina were placed by the treaty of Berlin of 1878 under the administrative control of Austria-Hungary, though still nominally under the sovereignty of the Porte. Cyprus, under the treaty of 1878 between Turkey and Great Britain, was placed under the administrative control of the latter State.