limited international capacity under Russian protection and Chinese suzerainty. An agreement of 1913 between Russia

and China provides:

Russia recognizes that Outer Mongolia is under the suzerainty of China.

China recognizes the autonomy of Outer Mongolia.32 Mongolia's status is farther defined in an agreement of 1915

between China, Russia, and Mongolia, as follows:

Outer Mongolia recognizes China's suzerainty. China and Russia recognize the autonomy of Outer Mongolia forming part of Chinese territory.

Autonomous Mongolia has no right to conclude international treaties with foreign Powers respecting political and territorial questions.

China and Russia... recognize the exclusive right of the Autonomous Government of Outer Mongolia to attend to all the affairs of its internal administration and to conclude with foreign Powers international treaties and agreements respecting all questions of a commercial and industrial nature concerning autonomous Mongolia.3 33 Mongolia is to have complete internal autonomy and its own national army. There is to be no Chinese colonization, and China engages to send neither civil nor military officials nor troops into Mongolian territory. On the other hand, Mongolia is declared to be a part of the territory of China. China is represented at Urga by a Dignitary who enjoys the first place of honor on all ceremonial occasions and who may be accompanied by a military escort not to exceed two hundred men. No customs duties can be levied on goods imported by

247.

32 Arts. 1, 2, in A.J.I.L. Suppl. (1916), Vol. X, p.

33 Arts. 2, 3, 5, in ibid., pp. 251, 252.

Chinese merchants, and China reserves extraterritorial jurisdiction over its' subjects.

The feudal relation of vassal to suzerain has been considerably attenuated in its international application.

This

may have been due to the peculiar conditions prevailing in the Near East and the Far East, where it has received its only important application in recent times. Whatever the reason, it is true that in most cases its significance as a limitation upon the capacity of vassal states has been concerned chiefly with matters of form.

IV

LIMITATIONS INCIDENT TO DIFFERENCES IN CIVILIZATION

Fundamental differences in the character of civilization have always been the source of important limitations on capacity. A few authorities have implied that such differences do not affect the application of the principle of equality,34but this is not the prevailing opinion.

Most

of the modern publicists recognize that equality can be the rule only among states having common standards of civilization. Fiore has stated the prevailing opinion effectively:

The very necessity of things requires, therefore, that certain states should not be called to enjoy international rights in an integral fashion and with perfect equality. So it is reasonable that the states of Europe should not admit perfect equality of right with

34 See Barbosa, supra, p. 226; Carnazza Amari, supra, P. 145; Sir William Scott, supra, pp. 197, 201.