and to consider, Ist. The duty of a state to enter into relations of intercourse with other states; to send and receive ambassadors, to permit consuls to reside and to perform their duties in its commercial cities, to negotiate treaties, and to permit aliens to travel or reside in its territory. 2d. The duty of commercial intercourse, which consists in permitting foreigners to engage in commerce with its subjects, and to exchange its products for those of other nations.

In the former case a nation, by establishing a rule of strict non-intercourse, shuts itself out from being a party to international law. It declines to be bound by its sanctions, and it cannot of right expect other states to observe them in such casual and irregular intercourse as they may have with it. Aliens who enter its territory do so at their peril; and, as its own citizens in foreign parts cannot look to their own government for protection, many of their wrongs must go unredressed. It is not necessary to discuss the subject further, for the reason that no state now assumes, or has ever assumed, such an attitude of complete isolation. It is only necessary to observe, in this connection, that, in proportion as a nation withdraws itself from intercourse with other states, or hampers its international relations with needless and burdensome restrictions, in the same proportion it withdraws itself from the benefits and privileges of international law. If it ceases to sanction, or formally withdraws, privileges which have been granted to other states, or to aliens resident within its territory, or which they have enjoyed with its tacit consent, it is guilty of a violation of comity which will gain for it the illwill of nations, and, if such a policy be persisted in, may, in the end, result in measures of retaliation.

In respect to the duty of commercial intercourse, it has been contended by some writers that the right to such intercourse is a perfect right, and that a refusal to enter into commercial relations is a just cause for war. Others claim that such intercourse is a perfect right only when an article of commerce is produced by one state which is absolutely necessary to the existence of another. Neither of these views is fairly de

ducible from the fundamental principles of international law. In the first place, while many articles of trade are highly desirable, none have thus far been shown to be so absolutely necessary and indispensable as to justify a resort to forcible methods to obtain them. Such a view is not to be inferred from the theory of state sovereignty and independence, and a refusal to enter into such relations would certainly not justify acts of hostile interference. "Vattel lays down the general rule that every nation, in virtue of its natural liberty, has a right to trade with those which shall be willing to correspond with such intentions, and to molest her in the exercise of her right is doing her an injury."' ""The obligation of trading with a foreign state is imperfect in itself, and gives them only an imperfect right, so that, in cases where the commerce would be detrimental, it is entirely void."2 "China and Japan for a long time declined all commercial intercourse with other nations, and even now permit only a very restricted trade, in particular articles and at particular places. The question was at one time discussed whether these people could not be compelled to open their ports to foreigners, and engage in trade and general intercourse with the rest of the world. But, as a question of international jurisprudence, it scarcely merits consideration. No doubt on this point could arise in the mind of any person except those who contend that the rules of international law adopted by Christian nations are wholly inapplicable to the countries of Asia. But this opinion, although at one time supported by writers of unquestionable ability, is now almost universally rejected by publicists." "

3

THE DUTY OF MUTUAL RESPECT-MILITARY AND MARITIME CEREMONIAL

Nature and Origin of the Practice. An important class of international usages, largely based upon the principle of the

1 Vattel, liv. ii. chap. ii. § 24.

I Halleck, p. 404; Vattel, liv. ii. chap. ii. § 25: Woolsey, §§ 25, 63, 64; I De Martens, § 139.

"I Halleck, p. 405; Heffter, §§ 33, 193; Klüber, §§ 69-71; I Lorimer, pp. 230-235.

equality of sovereign states, properly falls under the head of imperfect rights, or duties, as their observance is now generally held to rest upon the comity of nations. They are not in themselves matters of paramount importance, or even, in most cases, of serious concern; but their due observance facilitates the amicable intercourse of nations, and their neglect frequently leads to international differences, discussions, and enmities, which have sometimes terminated in long and bloody wars.'

A state, in its capacity as a body corporate, has not only a right of reputation, but is entitled to certain external and visible tokens of respect in recognition of its dignity and importance as a member of the great commonwealth of nations. This consideration is also extended to its flag, to its sovereign, or chief executive, and to those persons who represent the state in an official capacity. Within its territorial limits the honors to be paid to its officers are determined largely by custom and tradition; to a certain extent, also, they are recognized and sanctioned in its municipal laws. Without its territorial jurisdiction the question is regulated by the usage of nations, and certain honors which have been received and paid during long periods of time are, by such long-continued usage, recognized as obligatory at international law.

The practice originated in the honors shown to sovereigns in early times, when they represented, to a greater degree than is now the case, the majesty and sovereignty of the states which they ruled by hereditary right, and whose territory they regarded as their own. This early view culminated towards the close of the seventeenth century, when Louis XIV. was at the height of his power, and before the principle of popular sovereignty had begun to make itself felt as a political force in state affairs. During this period there was no surer cause for war than a failure in respect towards a great sovereign or his

'I Halleck, p. 107; I Ortolan, chap. xv.; I Twiss, $$ 193-198; Heffter, § 197; Klüber, §§ 89-122; Calvo, $ 296-345; II Pradier

Fodéré, §§ 546–594; Vattel, liv. ii. chap. iii. § 48.

Vattel, liv. i. chap. xiv. §§ 186191; II Pradier- Fodéré, §§ 451455; Wolsey, §§ 18, 82.

representative, and not a few of the many wars waged were caused or prolonged by no better reasons than this. During the eighteenth century the practice began to decline in importance, and merely regal honors began to be less strongly insisted upon, and the power and dignity of the state itself, rather than that of its ruler, began to be regarded as the real object of honor and respect. Within the present century the general tendency of treaties and usage has been to diminish the number and variety of these ceremonial observances, and to simplify and regulate those which have been retained, or whose continued observance is deemed necessary or desirable.'

Present Practice. The observance of these forms is now held to be obligatory in the following cases:

(1.) In the forms of mutual courtesy. This is shown chiefly in the recognition of an existing form of government, including its sovereign, or executive, and other administrative officials, whose functions are provided for by its constitution and laws. In former times none but monarchies were recognized as having the first rank, and an order of precedence was established among them, based largely upon the rank and titles of their respective sovereigns. Republics were, to some extent, disfavored, and in matters of honor and precedence were relegated to a place of secondary or minor importance. This is no longer the case, however, and all sovereign states are now placed upon a footing of perfect equality in all matters of ceremonial.'

(2.) In naval and military ceremonials observed on the high seas, or in the territorial waters of a state, between ships or fleets, between ships in port, and between ships and forts or fortified places.'

(3.) In similar observances, on land, between armies, forts,

'Halleck, pp. 107-113; I Ortolan, liv. ii. chap. xv. p. 335; Klüber, §§ 115-117; I Twiss, §§ 193-195; Lawrence, Int. Law, §§ 137-140.

I Halleck, chap. v. §§ 1-14; I

Phillimore, § 147; Hall, § 13, pp. 16,

62; I De Martens, §§ 126-138.

3

'I Ortolan, pp. 316-332; I Halleck, pp. 107-123; Snow, pp. 70, 71; II Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 549–594.

military and naval officers, and in certain military honors shown sovereigns, or to the higher grades of civil officers in the several departments of government of the state.'

(4.) In the formality and ceremonial observed in diplomatic intercourse and interstate correspondence."

A state, as an incident of its sovereignty, may regulate the honors to be paid, within its jurisdiction, to its own flag and officials, and to those of foreign states. It may also prescribe the conduct of its representatives abroad, subject to the limitation that its instructions cannot be carried into effect if they are opposed to, or inconsistent with, the usages or policy of the state within whose jurisdiction it is attempted to exercise them. In accordance with this principle every state prescribes, in its laws or regulations, the forms of respect to be shown to its flag, or to the person in whom its sovereignty is vested, and no greater honors may be shown to a foreign ruler than are thus prescribed to be paid to its own sovereign or chief executive.'

At the present time all states are regarded as being equal in right and dignity, and the honors now observed are regarded as due:

(1.) To the state itself, in its sovereign capacity. These consist in certain honors paid to its flag, to its sovereign or chief executive, as the representative of its sovereignty, to its shipsof-war in foreign ports or on the high seas, and to organized detachments of its land-forces when in foreign territory.

(2.) To those persons who represent it abroad in an official capacity. Under this head fall certain honors and marks of respect shown to its ambassadors and consuls in their different grades, and to persons in its civil or military service whose duties are performed in foreign territory, or who appear in such territory in an official character.*

1 I Halleck, pp. 107-123.

2 Ibid. p. 106; II De Martens, §§ 206-213; II Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 547, 548.

I Ortolan, liv. ii. chap. xv. p.

335; I Halleck, p. 107; I Twiss, § 193.

41 Ortolan, liv. ii. chap. xv. p. 335: Klüber, § 120; I Halleck, pp. 107-114; I De Martens, §§ 125-138; Heffter, §§ 194–218.