No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
In states which possess a written constitution and a constituent power, constitutional laws are, as early writers on international law expressed it, fundamental laws. In them is the source of the several governmental powers; they determine the form of the state, and of its organs and their functions, and they regulate the exercise of the legislative power. Briefly, they are the fundamental and the essential act of national sovereignty, the expression of the will of a self-organizing people.
Unlike other provinces detached from the Ottoman Empire and endowed with autonomy, the Island of Crete, for example, which the Powers furnished with a constitution prepared by themselves, Bulgaria received at Berlin the power to undertake the elaboration of its own constitution.
Translated from the French by Charles G. Fenwick, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
1 See Vattel Droit des Gens, Book I, Chap. III.
2 The Bulgarian Government on the 20th of November, 1909, laid a “Green Book” on the subject before the Sobranje, which on the 1st of December ratified the conventions with Russia and Turkey.
3 Coup d’Etat of April 27, 1881.
4 Sofia was greatly exercised over a congratulatory despatch from the German Emperor which gave to King Ferdinand the title of “King of Bulgaria.”
5 See a circular from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gen. Paprikoff, to the diplomatic representatives at Sofia, dated 25 April/8 May, 1909.
6 These principles were incorporated in Articles XXVII, XXXVII and XLIV of the treaty.
7 Protocols Nos. 5 and 7. See Yellow Book, Congress of Berlin.
8 It remains to be seen whether the sanctions which the Powers have at their command will be efficacious in this matter. Looking at the social status imposed upon the Jews, for instance, in Roumania, it does not seem that the guarantees spoken of are very substantial.
9 See Art. 3. See this text in Young’s, George “Corps de droit ottoman,” Vol. II, p. 4, Oxford, 1905 Google Scholar.
10 See Organic Law, Chap. IX, Art. 37 and note.
11 See the “Temps” of the month of September, 1909.
12 See further.
13 The text reads “of the Imperial Commissioners;“ but this would seem to overlook the fact that the result of the agreement was to he independence; there will no longer be in Sofia an Imperial Commiseiarat, but a diplomatic agency.
14 See Chapter II, Sec. IV.
15 Merignhac, Les Capitulations et l’incident franco-bulgare de 1891, dans la Revue de droit international et de legislation comparée, 1. XXIV (1892), p. 147.
16 Here is the text of the Circular:
Sofia, April 24/May 7, 1909 — Sir: At the time of the formation of the Bulgarian State, the Great Powers, signatories to the Treaty of Berlin, thought it necessary to extend to the new Principality the immunities and privileges of foreign subjects as well as the rights of consular jurisdiction, such as had been established by the existence of the capitulations then in force in the Turkish Empire. The maintainance in the case of Bulgaria of this exceptional state of affairs was explained at that time as due not only to the imperfection of the political and judicial organizations of the Principality which had just been created, but also to consideration for Turkey, where this exceptional treatment of foreigners still continued to exist. Nevertheless during thirty years of autonomy and various political stages through which she has passed, Bulgaria, thanks to an uninterrupted progressive transformation, has succeeded in endowing herself with a political organization and a body of laws which constitute a guarantee for the equitable administration of justice both in the affairs of its own nationals and in those of foreign subjects. Hence, the primary causes which are responsible for the existence of capitulations in Bulgaria have disappeared, and it would be difficult to invoke any motive to justify for the future the maintainence of the last vestiges of a state of affairs already virtually abrogated. The commercial treaties and the various conventions concluded by Bulgaria with the Great Powers, which have brought about considerable modifications in the application of the capitulations are proofs of this. Moreover, the sympathy shown to Bulgaria by the great Powers at the time of the execution of the Act of Tirnova, and the promptness which they displayed in recognizing its independence, go to show how incompatible the continuance of such a state of affairs is with the spirit of international law and the modern conception of sovereignty. Under these conditions, the inconveniences of such a system, the application of which has raised so many difficulties for the local authorities as well as for the foreign nationals who benefit from them, will become even more apparent, especially since in view of the considerable development of the political and commercial relations of Bulgaria with the several foreign countries, it is important that these relations instead of being hampered shall on the contrary be regulated by the most modern principles, so that they may follow their natural development. Taking advantage of the considerations above mentioned, and hoping that your Excellency will be good enough to recognize their justice, I have the honor to beg, Sir, that you may interpose your good offices with your government, in order that it may be willing to consent that the system of Capitulations, such as it exists in Bulgaria, shall be definitely abolished. Awaiting a favorable reply from you, I am encouraged to believe that in its spirit of justice and equity the Government of will be pleased to consent that a consular convention as well as a treaty of extradition shall be concluded be tween and Bulgaria, with the object of regulating the reciprocal situation of their nationals and of prescribing the conditions of the extradition of fugitives. I am, sir, etc.,
17 See on this point Réné Pinon, L’Europe et l’Empire Ottoman, Chap. XII and XIII; d’Avril, Negotiations relatives au traité de Berlin.
18 The Bulgarian ill-feeling towards the protectorate was manifested in Bulgaria in a hundred ways: offensive articles in the press when French agents attended Catholic processions, fiscal persecutions, etc. * * * The kavasses of the legation have had to be mobilized to prevent the seizure of lands adjacent to the Catholic church of Sofia.