Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:16:58.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spheres of Influence: An Aspect of Semi-Suzerainty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Geddes W. Rutherford
Geddes W. Rutherford*
Affiliation:
Iowa State College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Austen Chamberlain, British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, declared in the House of Commons, December 15, 1924, that Great Britain would “ regard as an unfriendly act any attempt at interference in the affairs of Egypt by any other Power, and would consider any aggression against the territory of Egypt as an act to be repelled with all the means at their command.” Similar statements have frequently been made by the responsible ministers of the Powers when discussing “ spheres of influence.” It is probably not possible to give a precise meaning to the phrase “ sphere of influence” because, as Hall says, “ perhaps in its indefiniteness consists its international value.” Nevertheless, the phrase has been applied specifically to characterize the control of portions of Asia and Africa, certain islands in the Caribbean, and of regions in Central America. In these regions are to be found in operation arrangements, some secret and some public, stipulated either by treaty, diplomatic declaration, “ gentlemen's agreements,” or effected, ofttimes, by military or economic penetration, varying greatly in degree and intensity, which enable Powers and their citizens to enjoy advantages in these regions without exercising, necessarily, sovereign control.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 1926 , pp. 300 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1926

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hall,, W. E.,Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown, p. 28. The American Secretary of State, in commenting on the Franco-Moroccan treaty (1912), stated “ that it is not sufficiently detailed and concrete in its provisions to permit of submission to this country's treaty-making power”. ” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1914, p. 906.Google Scholar

2 Ilbert C.Government of India, 3d ed., p. 369, n. 1.

3 Naval War College, International Law Situations, 1902, p. 35.

4 U. S. Sen. Doc. 686, 64th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 5.

5 114 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 207.

6 Ilbert C. op. cit., p.399, n. 1.

7 For example, the Franco-Moroccan treaty, 1912, 106 Br. and For. State Papers, 1027; the Platt Amendment, 1907, 31 U. S. Stat. at Large, p. 897; and the treaty between the United States and Haiti, 1915, Foreign. Relations of the United States, 1915, p. 451.

8 Keane A. H., Stanford's Compendium of Geography and Travel (Africa), Vol.I, p. 20.

9 Colonial Government, p. 103.

10 39 U. S. Stat. at Large, Part II, p. 1658, Art. XI; Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 10, p. 234.

11 106 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 1027.

12 Percy, Lord Eustace, The Responsibilities of the League, pp. 90-92 Google Scholar.

13 Infra, pp. 305-307.

14 Baty T., “Protectorates and Mandates,” The British Year Book of International Law, 1921, p. 110. Ilbert thinks that “ the arrangement on which a ‘ sphere of influence’ is based has, of itself, no international validity,” for it depends on the individual circumstances. Op. cit., p.369, n. 2. On the other hand, Snow states that “ it was by the ‘Hay Proposals', apparently, that the term ‘ sphere of influence’ first received international recognition as a term describing a legitimate international institution.” See “ The Shantung Question and Spheres of Influence,” in his The American Philosophy of Government: Essays, p.350; also the Nation (N. Y.), International Relations Section, Sept. 20, 1919.

15 Cobbett, Leading Cases and Opinions, 2d ed., p.10.Google Scholar

16 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1904, p. 243.

17 Fenwick, C. G.,Wardship in International Law, p.33.>

18 See agreement between Great Britain and Russia respecting Persia, Afghanistan, and Thibet (1907), Mowat, R. B., Select Treaties and Documents, p. 12, 100 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 557.

19 Smith F. E.,International Law, 4th ed. by Wylie J. p. 71; see also Collected Papers by John Westlake on Public nternational Law, ed. by Oppenheim L. , pp.171-177.

20 Willoughby, W. W. andFenwick, C. G., Types of Restricted Sovereignty, p.10.

21 U. S. Sen. Misc. Doc. 1st Sess. 49th Cong. Vol. 2, No. 68, p. 13; 112 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 906.

22 Territorial Propinquity, this Journal , Vol. 12, p. 522.

23 97 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 39.

24 Fenwick, op. cit., p. 33.

25 “ Although considerations of comityor fear may induce (non-contracting powers) to respect such arrangements; yet this is a matter of policy and not of law.” Cobbett, Cases and Opinions, 3d ed., Vol. 1, p. 114.

26 Supra, p. 301.

27 Quoted from the Paris Temps (March, 1903), by Lugard, F. D. “ Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa,” p. 17.

28 112 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 760.

29 81 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 735.

30 20 Br. Peace Handbook, Spanish and Italian Possessions, No. 129, p. 32; Gooch, G. P., History of Europe, 1878-1919, p. 278.

31 Mowat op. cit., p. 12; 100 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 557.

32 Naval War College, International Law Situations, 1912, p. 104.

33 39 U. S. Stat. at Large, (Part II), p. 1654.

34 3 Hertslet, Map of Africa by Treaty, 3d ed., p. 1185 ; 72 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 248.

35 76 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 93. A similar provision is to be found in the treaty between the Rajah of Sarawak and Great Britain (June 14, 1888). In this treaty it was further stipulated that “ if any difference should arise between the Government of Sarawak and that of any other state, the Government of Sarawak agrees to abide by the decision of Her Majesty's Government and to take all necessary measures to give effect thereto.” Ibid., Vol. 79, p. 239. Exactly the same stipulations were agreed to by the Sultan of Brunei in the treaty between himself and Great Britain (1886). Ibid., p. 240.

36 72 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 248.

37 British Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 6010, Morocco, No. 4 (1911), p. 1.

38 Quoted from Beer, G. L., African Questions at the Peace Conference, p.336.

39 Keltie J. S. Statesman's Year Book,1924, p. 1105;1106 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 1027; Foreign Relations of the United States, 1914, p. 451.

40 U. S. Tariff Commission, Colonial Tariff Policies, p. 7.

41 Fenwick, op. cit., p. 9.

42 Quoted from Gooch, op. cit., p. 462.

43 Ibid., p. 483.

44 97 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 41.

45 See, for instance, the protest of the American Minister to Costa Rica in 1914 against the presence of certain Nicaraguan revolutionists who threatened to disturb the peace of Central America, a region “ in which the United States is deeply interested.” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1914, p. 183.

46 As, for example, the diplomatic representations made to the Cuban Government in 1913 by the United States, in conformity with its rights and obligations under the Platt Amendment, when Cuba was threatened by a veterans' war of independence. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1912, p.240

47 The British ultimatum to Egypt, on the occasion of the assassination of the Sirdar, Nov. 19, 1924, was supported by military measures.

48 The “ hampering effect of these foreign immunities” has been given as a reason, at times, for not applying capitulations to spheres of influence, e.g., Sudan, Beer, op. cit, p. 314.

49 14 United States Commerce Report (1920), p. 81.

50 Manchester Guardian Weekly, June 29, 1923, p. iii.

51 25 United States Commerce Report (1922), p. 790.

52 Beer, op. cit., pp. 334-335.

53 Infra, notes 73, 74, 85-90.

54 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1911, pp. xvii, 455.

55 Treaty between the United States and Haiti (1915), 39 U. S. Stat. at Large, 1658; Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 10, p. 234.

56 Proclamations of the President of the United States (1924), Nos. 1689, 1693.

57 British Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 1239, Treaty Series (1921), No. 6, p. 164.

58 At the Washington Conference on the Limitation of Armament a resolution was agreed to whereby, upon the request of the Chinese Government, a commission should undertake a full, and impartial inquiryconcerning the presence of armed forces in China.However, it was further provided that the Powers agreeing to the resolution should be deemed free to accept or reject any or all the findings of fact or opinion of the commission. See Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 16, p. 78.

59 Blakeslee G. H., Mexico and the Caribbean, p. 233.

60 3 Hertslet,op. cit., p. 210.

61 97 United States Commerce Report (1921), p. 520.

62 Because of severe defeats suffered by Spanish troops in Spanish Morocco in 1923, the military administration of the zone has been under the direct control of the Spanish War Office. This control, as well as that exercised by France in her zone of influence in Morocco, at present (1925) is being hotly contested by the native tribes under the leadership of Abdel-Krim.

63 London Times Weekly, Nov. 27, 1924, p. 584.

64 76 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 783. Hershey and Willoughby suggest that the phrase “ sphere of influence” possesses a political, “ sphere of interest” an economic significance. Secretary Lansing, when testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in regard to the Lansing-Ishii Agreement (relative to Japan's interests in China), stated that the phrase “ special interests” meant political interests. See Hearings before Senate Committee on For. Rel. Treaty of Peace with Germany, U. S. Sen. Doc. 106, 66th Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 223-224. The delegates attending the Conference on the Limitation of Armament used the phrases ‘ sphere of influence’ and ‘ sphere of interest’ interchangeably asapplying alike to economic and political privileges in China.

65 97 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 39.

66 3 Hertslet, op. cit., p. 873; 76 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 777.

67 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1914 , p. 912.

68 88 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 571.

69 Conference on the Limitation of Armament, p. 380.

70 U. S. Tariff Commission, op. cit., p. 206.

71 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 696, p. 1. Similar arrangements have been concluded with the Dominican Republic, Treaty Series, No. 700; and with Nicaragua, Treaty Series, No. 697, Printed also in Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 135, 145, 168.

72 39 U. S. Stat. at Large (Part 2) p. 1657; Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 10, p. 234. Also Agreement between Great Britain and Johore, 1914, 107 Br. and For. State Papers, (Part 1), p. 519.

73 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1911, p. 141 ff.

74 Ibid.

75 Conference on the Limitation of Armament, pp. 1152-1160.

76 1 MacMurray, Treaties with and Concerning China, p. xiv.

77 114 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 295. In Johore, “ the collection and control of revenues” are “ regulated under the advice of the General Advisor” (a British Officer). 107 Br. and For. State Papers, (Part 1), p. 519.

78 272 United States Commerce Report (1919), p. 1002; 3 ibid., (1921), p. 167.

79 Conference on the Limitation of Armament, pp. 1152-1160.

80 Ibid., p. 1626.

81 Ibid., pp. 1218-1234.

82 International Conciliation, No. 166 (Sept. 1921), p. 314.

83 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1914, p. 912.

84 Quoted from the Anglo-French Agreement concerning Egypt and Morocco (1904), 97 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 39.

85 “ Agreements between Great Britain and Sarawak (1888) and Brunei (1888) provided that the British Government had power to determine any question that might arise as to succession to the throne. 79 Br. and For. State Papers, p. ‘239.

86 During the incumbency of Huerta as President of Mexico, President Wilson announced that it was “ his immediate duty to require Huerta's retirement from the Mexican Government” and that the American Government would “ employ such means as may be necessary to secure this result.” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1915, p. 856. “ Zaghul Pasha, twice exiled from Egypt by direct British action, is now kept out of office by indirect British influence.” This is the view expressed by Dr. A. H. Lybyer in CurrentHistory, May, 1925, p. 326.

87 The existing electoral scheme in Egypt is described by Dr. Lybyer as resting “ upon the scarcely concealed support of the British garrisons in Cairo and Alexandria.” Current History, May, 1925, p. 326.

88 See reference to judicial reforms in Morocco instituted by virtue of the provisions in paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Franco-German treaty, November, 1911. 104 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 948. ‘

89 101 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 519.

90 Du Protectorat Colonial et de La Sphère D’Influence (Hinterland), 14 Revue Generate de Droit International Public,p. 152.

91 “Foreign Relations of the United States”, 1914, pp. 905-923.

92 “Oppenheim, International Law”, Vol. 1, pp. 139-140.

93 British Parliamentary Paper, Egypt, No. 1 (1922), pp. 8, 19-22, 24.

94 New York Times, Friday, Dec. 5, 1924, p. 10.

95 “ It should be noted that this process was not continuous, for, at times, England lessened her grip on Egypt very considerably. Beer, G. L., op. cit., p. 338.

96 “ New York Times, Friday, Dec. 5, 1924, p. 10.

97 Ibid. It has been observed (supra, n. 47) that the British ultimatum of Nov. 19, 1924, had the effect of considerably stiffening the degree of control exercised by England in Egypt. At the same time, the London Times Weekly (Apr. 23, 1925, p. 458), contained an accountof the discussion between the Italian and Egyptian Governments on the delimitation of the frontier between Egypt and Libya. The statement continues: “ The British Government, though in recognizing Egyptian independence they retained a large measure of control over Egyptian foreign affairs, decided some time ago that the settlement of the frontiers with Libya might well be made the subject of direct negotiations between the Egyptian and Italian Governments.”

98 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1914, p. 915; ibid., (galley proof), 1917.

99 “Quoted from Gooch, op. cit., p. 75.

100 poreign Relations of the United States, 1914, p. 906.

101 In a supplemental preface to Alvarez's Monroe Doctrine, Dr. J. B. Scott takes issue with the Almanack de Gotha for 1924 for endowing the United States with a series of protectorates (Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Liberia, and Panama) “ contrary to the express and solemn declarations of the authorities of the United States.” See in this connection Secretary Lansing's statement, supra, p. 301. Some difference of opinion has arisen in regard to whether the United States, by virtue of the Monroe Doctrine assumes responsibility over these Caribbean and Central American countries where her control is felt. Mr. Root; when Secretary of State, took the view that since the United States, under the Monroe Doctrine, asserts no control over any American nation, the Doctrine “ imposes upon the United States no duty … to exercise such control.” On the other hand, President Roosevelt, in 1904, asserted that “ chronic wrongdoing” or “ impotence” in America might “ force the United States … to exercise an international police power.”

102 Naval War College, International Law Situations, 1912, p. 106.

103 Ibid., p. 107.

104 Ibid. Italics mine.

105 Ibid., pp. 106-107.

106 Ibid.,

107 Naval War College, op. cit., 1907, p. 9, ibid., 1902, p. 32, ibid., 1912, p. 95.

108 Ibid., 1912, p. 96.

109 Conference on the Limitation of Armament, 1922, p. 1062.

110 10 United States Commerce Report (1925), p. 593.

111 Conference on the Limitation of Armament, p. 1060.

112 Naval War College, op. cit., p. 96.

113 U. S. Sen. Doc. 266, 63d Cong. 1st Sess., p. 4.

114 Wright, “ Sovereignty of the Mandates,” this Journal , Vol. 17, p. 694.

115 The Journal of the League of Nations, Third Assembly, 1922, No. 65, p. 12.

116 Ibid., p. 12. Lord Robert Cecil expressed his agreement with Sir Edgar as follows:“From the point of view of administration, the point of view of the unity of the administration between South West Africa and South Africa, it is, in that sense equivalent to annexation.”

117 Current History, May, 1925, p. 327.

118 The Journal of the League of Nations, Third Assembly, 1922, No. 65, p. 12.

119 London Times, July 3, 1923.

120 Wright, op. dt., this Journal , Vol. 17, p. 694.

121 United States Tariff Commission, op. dt., p. 12.

122 The provisions of the military agreement are printed in the Manchester Guardian Weekly, May 9, 1924, p. 380.