$4. the alter nat. Demi-sovereign or dependent states rank below sovereign states.4 These different points respecting the relative rank of sovereigns and states have never been determined by any positive regulation or international pact: they rest on usage and general acquiescence. An abortive attempt was made at the congress of Vienna to classify the different states of Europe, with a view to determine their relative rank. At the sitting of the 10th December, 1814, the plenipotentiaries of the eight powers who signed the treaty of peace at Paris named a committee to which this subject was referred. At the sitting of the 9th February, 1815, the report of the committee, which proposed to establish three classes of powers, relatively to the rank of their respective ministers, was discussed by the congress; but doubts having arisen respecting this classification, and especially as to the rank assigned to the great republics, the question was indefinitely postponed, and a regulation established determining the relative rank of the diplomatic agents of crowned heads.5 Where the rank between different states is equal or undeUsage of termined, different expedients have been resorted to for the purpose of avoiding a contest, and at the same time reserving the respective rights and pretensions of the parties. Among these is what is called the usage of the alternat, by which the rank and places of different powers is changed from time to time, either in a certain regular order, or one determined by lot. Thus, in drawing up public treaties and conventions, it is the usage of certain powers to alternate, both in the preamble and the signatures, so that each power occupies, in the copy intended to be delivered to it, the first place. The regulation of the congress of Vienna, above referred to, provided that in acts and treaties between those powers which admit the alternat, the order to be observed by the different ministers shall be determined by lot." 4 Kluber, § 98. 5 Kluber, Acten des Wiener Congresses, tom. viii. pp. 98, 102, 108, 116. * Annexe, xvii. à l'Acte du Congrès de Vienne, art. 7. Another expedient which has frequently been adopted to avoid controversies respecting the order of signatures to treaties and other public acts, is that of signing in the order assigned by the French alphabet to the respective powers represented by their ministers." § 5. used in di inter course. The primitive equality of nations authorizes each nation to make use of its own language in treating with others, and Language this right is still in a certain degree preserved in the practice plomatic of some states. But general convenience early suggested the use of the Latin language in the diplomatic intercourse between the different nations of Europe. Towards the end of the fifteenth century, the preponderance of Spain contributed to the general diffusion of the Castilian tongue as the ordinary medium of political correspondence. This, again, has been superseded by the language of France, which, since the age of Louis XIV., has become the almost universal diplomatic idiom of the civilized world. Those states which still retain the use of their national language in treaties and diplomatic correspondence usually annex to the papers transmitted by them a translation in the language of the opposite party, wherever it is understood that this comity will be reciprocated. Such is the usage of the Germanic confederation, of Spain, and the Italian courts. Those states which have a common language generally use it in their transactions with each other. Such is the case between the Germanic confederation and its different members, and between the respective members themselves; between the different states of Italy; and between Great Britain and the United States of America. § 6. All sovereign princes or states may assume whatever titles Titles of of dignity they think fit, and may exact from their own subsovereign jects these marks of honour. But their recognition by other princes states is not a matter of strict right, especially in the case of 7 Kluber, Uebersicht der diplomatischen Verhandlungen des Wiener Congresses, 164. and states. new titles of higher dignity assumed by sovereigns. Thus the royal title of King of Prussia, which was assumed by Frederick I. in 1701, was first acknowledged by the emperor of Germany, and subsequently by the other princes and states of Europe. It was not acknowledged by the Pope until the reign of Frederick William II. in 1786, and by the Teutonic knights until 1792, this once famous military order still retaining the shadow of its antiquated claims to the duchy of Prussia until that period. So also the title of Emperor of all the Russias, which was taken by the Czar Peter the Great, in 1701, was successively acknowledged by Prussia, the United Netherlands, and Sweden in 1723, by Denmark in 1732, by Turkey in 1739, by the emperor and the empire in 1745-6, by France in 1745, by Spain in 1759, and by the republic of Poland in 1764. In the recognition of this title by France, a reservation of the right of precedence claimed by that crown was insisted on, and a stipulation entered into by Russia in the form of a Réversale, that this change of title should make no alteration in the ceremonies observed between the two courts. On the accession of the Empress Catherine II. in 1762, she refused to renew this stipulation in that form, but declared that the imperial title should make no change in the ceremonial observed between the two courts. This declaration was answered by the court of Versailles in a counter-declaration, renewing the recognition of that title, upon the express condition that if any alteration should be made by the court of St. Petersburg in the rules previously observed by the two courts as to rank and precedence, the French crown would resume its ancient style, and cease to give the title of Imperial to that of Russia. The title of emperor, from the historical associations with which it is connected, was formerly considered the most eminent and honourable among all sovereign titles; but it was never regarded by other crowned heads as conferring, except 8 Ward's History of the Law of Nations, vol. ii. pp. 245-248. Kluber, Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, pte. ii. tit. 1, ch. 2, § 107, note c. 9 Flassan, Histoire de la Diplomatie Française, tom. vi. liv. iii. pp. 329— 364. in the single case of the emperor of Germany, any preroga. tive or precedence over those princes. Maritime The usage of nations has established certain maritime ce- § 7. remonials to be observed, either on the ocean or those parts ceremo of the sea over which a sort of supremacy is claimed by a nials. particular state. Among these is the salute by striking the flag or the sails, or by firing a certain number of guns, on approaching a fleet or ship of war, or entering a fortified port or harbour. Every sovereign state has the exclusive right, in virtue of its independence and equality, to regulate the maritime ceremonial to be observed by its own vessels, towards each other, or towards those of another nation, on the high seas, or within its own territorial jurisdiction. It has a similar right to regulate the ceremonial to be observed within its own exclusive jurisdiction by the vessels of all nations, as well with respect to each other, as towards its own fortresses and ships of war, and the reciprocal honours to be rendered by the latter to foreign ships. These regulations are established either by its own municipal ordinances, or by reciprocal treaties with other maritime powers.10 Where the dominion claimed by the state is contested by foreign nations, as in the case of Great Britain in the Narrow Seas, the maritime honours to be rendered by its flag are also the subject of contention. The disputes on this subject have not unfrequently formed the motives or pretexts for war between the powers asserting these pretensions and those by whom they were resisted. The maritime honours required by Denmark, in consequence of the supremacy claimed by that power over the Sound and Belts, at the entrance of the Baltic Sea, have been regulated and modified by different treaties with other states, and especially by the convention of the 15th of January, 1829, between Russia and Denmark, suppressing most of the formalities required by former 10 Bynkershoek, de Dominio Maris, cap. 2, 4. Martens, Précis du Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, liv. iv. ch. 4, § 159. Kluber, Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, pte. ii. tit. 1, ch. 3, §§ 117-122. treaties. This convention is to continue in force until a general regulation shall be established among all the maritime powers of Europe, according to the protocol of the Congress of Aix la Chapelle, signed on the 9th November, 1818, by the terms of which it was agreed by the ministers of the five great powers, Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, that the existing regulations observed by them should be referred to the ministerial conferences at London, and that the other maritime powers should be invited to communicate their views of the subject in order to form some such general regulation.11 11 J. H. W. Schlegel, Staats Recht des Konigreichs Dänemark, 1 Theil, p. 412. Martens, Nouveau Recueil, tom. viii. p. 73. |