be collected to illustrate such a tendency; but, in general, writers seem to feel that they are on the defensive. They

distinguish juridical equality from inequalities of fact, form, influence, or policy, with many refinements of reasoning, rather than admit that the true distinction is between the ideal and the actual.

VI

THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF STATE EQUALITY

The practical application of the principle of equality in the positive law of nations has not been much considered. Discussion in the books is usually confined to questions of precedence, ceremonial, and diplomatic etiquette, 65the

essence of which is inequality, albeit, according to most authorities, a social rather then a juridical inequality.

Phillimore and Pomeroy expressly derive from the principle of equality the state's right to protect its citizens

65 Bluntschli, Völkerrecht, secs. 81-04; pp. 96-101; Bonfils, Droit int. pab., secs. 272-278, pp. 161-165; Calvo, Droit int, secs. 210-259, Vol. I, pp. 356-381; Carnazza Amari, Droit int. pab., Vol. I, pp. 384-406; Chrétien, Droit int. pab., secs. 165-174, pp. 167-175; Despagnet, Droit int. pub., secs. 167-171, pp. 218-224; Fiore, Froit int. pab., secs. 439-451, Vol. I, rp. 381-389; Halleck, Int. Law PP. 97-118; Heffter, Völkerrecht, sec. 28 sec. 28, p. 49: Klüber, Droit des gens, secs. 89-122, pp. 132-172; F. de Martens, Droit int., Vol. I, pp. 380-387; Oppenheim, Int. Law, secs. 117-122, Vol. I, pp. 164-170; Piédelièvre, Droit int. pab., secs. 272-278, 'Vol. I, pp. 248-253; Pomeroy, Lectures, pp. 313-322; PradierFodere, Droit int. pub., secs. 442-594, Vol. II, pp. 5-117; Rivier, Droit des gens, Vol. I, pp. 123-131; Ullmann, Völkerrecht, sec. 37 , p. 138.

at home and abroad, including the question of debts due to citizens from the government of another state, the right to

have

of

its government recognized, the right to external marks honor and respect, and the right to make treaties, to which Pomeroy adds the right of diplomatic and consular 66 representation. Most publicists, however, simply take equality for a general principle underlying all rales of international intercourse, and give little attention to its concrete application in relation to special topics.

cists.

The two most important subdivisions of the law of nations in which the application of the principle of state equality has special significance, viz., (1) the law of international persons, and (2) the law of supernational organization, have received scant attention from the publiPerhaps, in view of the rudimentary development of positive law of nations in relation to these subjects, they have received as much attention as could be expected; ye t one cannot help feeling that adequate consideration of both subjects has been considerably retarded by the influence of naturalist theories,

the

The law of international persons has been treated in a radimentary fashion by the writers, with the result that several categories of international persons of qualified

66 Phillimore, Commentarios, Vol. II, p. 1; Pomeroy, Lectures, p. 83.

status have been recognized.67 The completely sovereign

state is taken as the normal type, and all qualifications are admitted grudgingly. As Lawrence remarks, "the classificatory skill of jurists toils far behind the constructive ingenuity of statesmen. "Nevertheless, the books take account in one way or another of personal unions, confederations, neutralized states, guaranteed states, protectorates, states under suzerainty, partially civilized states, civilized belligerent communities, and civilized insurgent communities. Almost all writers recognize that the principle of equality of capacity can only apply among international persons of the 69 same status, Thus a number of difficulties involved in the

67 Bonfils, Droit int. pab., secs. 165-194, pp. 91119; Calvo, Droit, Int., secs. 39-77, Vol. I, pp. 168-225; Carnazza Amari, Droit int. pab., Vol. 1, pp. 259-321; Cobbott, Cases, Vol. I, pp. 44-68; Despagnet, Droit int. pab., secs. 75-78, pp. 94-103; Fiore, Droit int. pab secs. 332-347, Vol. I, pp. 290-304; Fontenay, Des droits et des devoirs des états entre eux, pp. 15-27; Halleck, Int. Law, pp. 63-72; Hershey, Essentials, pp. 99-114; Holtzendorff, Völkerrechts, Vol. 1, pp. 98-117, secs, 24-27; Liszt, Völkerrecht, sec. 6, pp. 50-60; F. de Kartens, Droit int., Vol. I, pp. 311-356; Oppenheim, Int. Law, secs. 63-111, Vol. I, pp. 99-157; Phillimore, Commentaries, Vol. I, pp. 94-155; Piédelièvre, Droit int. pab., secs. 71-114, Vol. I, pp. 61-95; Pomeroy, Lectures, pp. 45-78; Pradier-Fodéré, Droit int. pab., secs. 86-123, Vol. I, pp. 158-215; Rivier, Droit des gens, Vol. I, pp. 79-123; Ullmann, Völkerrecht, secs. 19-27, pp. 86-118; Wilson, Fandbook, secs. 6-19, pp. 21-52.

68 Int. Law, sec. 37, p. 59.

69 See Bonfils, Droit int. pub., sec. 273, p. 162; Cobbett, Cases, Vol. I, p. 50; Chrétien, Droit int. pab., sec. 175, p. 176; Fiore, Droit int. pub., secs. 433-435, Vol. T pp. 376-379; Kebeagy, in Z... (1900) Neue Folge, Vol. XIX, pp. 88-90; Piedelièvre, Droit int. pab., secs. 282 ff., Vol. I, pp. 255 ff.