(2) Diplomatic Agents of Foreign States.

They are for most purposes free from the local jurisdiction when residing abroad as the accredited representatives of their country. Their immunities will be considered when we come to the subject of Legation and Negotiation.

(3) Public Armed Forces of Foreign States.

The forces of one State peacefully passing through the territory of another are exempt in a greater or less degree from the local jurisdiction. Land forces and sea forces must be dealt with separately.

(a) Land forces may not pass through the territory of a friendly State without express permission. In the absence of special agreement on the subject of the jurisdiction to be exercised over them they are not amenable to the local law; but their own officers are responsible for their good behaviour.

(b) Sea forces require no special permission to enter the territorial waters of a friendly State; but they can be excluded from the ports and harbours of any power which gives formal notice of its intention not to allow them to enter. Within foreign territorial waters they are for most purposes exempt from the local jurisdiction. They ought, however, to

respect the local law as far as possible; but the better opinion seems to be that it cannot be enforced on board the ship in cases where it conflicts with the law of the country which owns the ship, such, for instance, as the reception of fugitive slaves on board a British man of war lying in a port of a country which allows slavery.

(4) Subjects of Western States Resident in Eastern Countries.

They have obtained by special treaties exemption from the local jurisdiction, and are subject instead to the jurisdiction of Consular Courts or Mixed Tribunals. The system rests entirely upon convention, and varies considerably in different Oriental countries.

C. Extradition.

Extradition is the surrender by one State to another of an individual who is found within the territory of the former, and is accused of having committed a crime within the territory of the latter. The better opinion seems to be that in the absence of special treaty stipulations such surrender cannot be demanded as a right, though it may be granted as a matter of comity. Most civilised States are now bound to one another by Extradition Treaties, which generally, though not invariably, contain the following stipulations :

(1) No one will be surrendered unless primá
facie evidence of his guilt is given.
(2) No political offenders will be surrendered.
(3) No surrender will be made unless adequate
assurances are given that the accused will
not on that occasion be tried for any offence
other than the crime for which he is sur-
rendered.

Each treaty contains a list of the crimes on account of which surrender will be made. The chief difficulty arises in clearly distinguishing political from other offences. At present no satisfactory solution of it has been reached.

QUESTIONS.

1. Over what classes of persons does a State possess jurisdiction?

2. What is meant by naturalization? Discuss the question whether a general Right of Expatriation is known to International Law.

3. For what reasons are Europeans exempt from the local jurisdiction in Oriental countries? Describe briefly the system of jurisdiction under which they live.

4. What conditions have to be fulfilled before Great Britain will surrender to a foreign State a fugitive criminal found on British territory?

HINTS AS TO READING.

Hall in Part II., Chapters IV., V., and VI. covers the subjects touched on in our present chapter. Wheaton

deals with them in Part II., Chapter II. Dana's notes to this portion of Wheaton's treatise are very valuable, especially those on Piracy. Baker's note at the end of Chapter VII. of Halleck may be referred to for information about Slavery, and in Chapter XII. will be found a discussion of the questions connected with National Character and Domicile. Towards the end of Part II., Chapter II., Section II. of Woolsey there is a good historical account of the efforts made by States to suppress the Slave Trade. Chapter III. of Abdy's Kent contains much information with regard to Consular Courts in the East. The paper on The Territoriality of the Merchant Vessel in the Letters of Historicus is an able exposure of the fallacious theory that a ship is a floating part of the territory to which it belongs. Some valuable remarks on Extradition will be found in Stephen's History of the Criminal Law, Chapter XVI.

CHAPTER IV.

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS CONNECTED WITH
EQUALITY.

A. The Doctrine of Equality.

By the doctrine of the Equality of States is meant that all of them who are fully independent have equal rights in the eye of International Law, not that all are equal in power or influence. The great

publicists who founded modern International Law made equality one of the fundamental principles of their system; but it may be questioned whether it is still applicable without qualification. During the present century the Great Powers have exercised in many matters of European interest a primacy inconsistent with it. They have, for instance,

(1) Established and neutralized the kingdom of Belgium.

(2) Made periodical settlements of the Eastern Question.

(3) Received States previously accounted barbarous, such as Turkey, within the pale of International Law.

(4) Received a new power, Italy, within the ranks of the Great Powers.

These proceedings, which are only examples taken from many of a similar kind, altered the legal position of other powers without their express consent; and the fact that the altered state of things was tacitly accepted by the smaller States seems to shew that a superintending authority of some sort is regarded by them as vested in the Great Powers. It is analogous to political control in a State, and is quite consistent with equality in such matters as jurisdictional and proprietary rights. It is, moreover, in a very rudimentary condition; but it is sufficiently marked to be noted as modifying the generally received doctrine of perfect Equality.