Shih Shun Liu

Extraterritoriality
Its Rise and Its Decline

(1925)

 


 

CHAPTER III : IN THE LEVANT AND AFRICA AFTER 1453


I. ORIGIN OF EXTRATERRITORIALITY IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND THE LEVANT

II. CAPITULATIONS AND TREATIES WITH THE LEVANT AND AFRICA

Notes by the Author

 


 

I. ORIGIN OF EXTRATERRITORIALITY IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND THE LEVANT (^)

In explaining the development of consular jurisdiction in the Ottoman Empire and the Levant, writers have attached an almost undue amount of importance to the differences between the Christian and Mohammedan religions. They have sought to ascribe the special status of the foreigner in Turkey principally, if not wholly, to the fundamental discrepancies between the two faiths. A typical pronouncement to this effect is that made by M. Féraud-Giraud:

When there exists between two peoples a very great difference in respect of religion, manners, laws, and customs, lasting and proper [suivis] relations are possible only when one of these peoples, drawn to the territory of the other by their activity, finds there exceptional guarantees, without which security of person and property cannot exist [1].

In the footsteps of this eminent jurist has followed many a subsequent writer [2].

It is true that the Mohammedan religion makes certain discriminations against the infidel, but to say that this was the principal ground on which the right of extraterritoriality was imposed upon or wrested from the sultans would be inconsistent with the facts of the case. The first Capitulations granted to France, on which all later claims of Europe to extraterritorial jurisdiction in the Ottoman Empire are chiefly based, bear the date of 1535. In the instructions which Francis I issued to his envoy in Constantinople, M. Jean de la Forêt [3], one would look in vain for the slightest intimation of a demand for special judicial status. As a matter of fact, had any demand of the sort been made, it would have been categorically rejected, for it must be remembered that when it granted the Capitulations of 1535, Turkey was at the zenith of its power. True, the idea of exclusive sovereignty had not yet emerged, but had it been suggested that the rights accorded were to be a derogation from Ottoman sovereignty, they could scarcely have been acceded to. No such suggestion was ventured, however, no exorbitant demand was made upon the Porte, which gratuitously conferred upon the Christians their judicial rights. And it is of great interest to note in this connection that seven years before France obtained her first Capitulations in the Ottoman Empire, Sultan Suleyman II confirmed the treaty between the Mameluke Sultans and the French and Catalonian consuls, at a time when Francis I was in captivity at Madrid and was in no position to ride roughshod over the Turks.

That the Capitulations were not imposed upon the sultans at the beginning and were but gratuitous concessions on their part may further be corroborated by the exemption of the sultan's non-Moslem subjects from Ottoman justice. Immediately after the conquest of Constantinople, Sultan Mohammed II granted to the Armenians, Greeks and Jews their special rights of jurisdiction. At Constantinople, a Greek patriarch was chosen as chief of the nation, president of the synod, and supreme judge of all the civil and religious affairs of the Greeks. The Armenians had at Constantinople, Caesarea, and Jerusalem three patriarchs invested with the right of deciding civil disputes. The Jews likewise had their courts, and a triumvirate composed of three rabbis served as their supreme court at Constantinople [4]. This was in accord with the Mohammedan theory that those who were outside the pale of religion were also outside the pale of law.

The influence of religious differences on the development of extraterritoriality in the Ottoman Empire can, of course, hardly be denied. But what these differences did was not to furnish the Franks with a ground for demanding special concessions, but rather to give the sultans an additional impetus to make these concessions [5].

The aversion of the Mohammedans to overseas commerce has been referred to above. Its effect on the attitude of the Sultans towards foreigners was, to say the least, considerable, but its importance as a factor in bringing about their special status is assuredly second to yet other considerations.

Of all the explanations which have been given for the existence of the capitulatory régime in the Ottoman Empire, none is as near an approximation to the truth as the one based on the force of custom. Whatever may have been the intention of the Sultans in doling out privileges to their foreign residents without exacting any consideration, the motivating force of long-established custom must have been the strongest and the most persuasive. Here was an institution of several centuries of standing. It had been in vogue in Christian as well as in non-Christian countries and prominent in the relations between non-Christians and Christians and even between Christians and Christians. Furthermore, it was a system in perfect accord with Mohammedan theories of law and religion. Was the Ottoman Empire to throw overboard this long prevalent usage? The answer to this question was self-evident, and the sultans chose the line of least resistance.

In discussing the same question, M. Renault makes the following observation:

Suleyman the Magnificent, with whom Francis I sought an alliance in 1535, did not make a concession which could have been regarded as humiliating. It must be considered that in the early days, territorial sovereignty had a less exclusive character than it does to-day and was not repugnant to the exercise of jurisdiction by foreign authorities. Thus, the curious fact has been noted that sixty years before Constantinople passed under the domination of the Turks, a Mussulman community had resided there under the administration of the Cadi who rendered justice according to Mohammedan laws. It is then not surprising that Mohammed II, after the conquest, accorded to the merchants of Genoa and of Venice the continuation of the privileges which they had enjoyed under the Christian emperors [6].

Another writer goes even farther than. M. Renault and dismisses all the other explanations, expressing himself in favor of the customary origin of the Capitulations in the Levant.
He says:

I repeat that there has existed no period in the history of Constantinople in which foreigners have not enjoyed the advantages, and been subject to the disabilities, of exterritoriality. The existing system of Capitulations is a survival rather than, as it is generally represented, a new invention specially adapted to Turkey. Still less is it a system, as it is often said to be, of magnanimous concessions made by far-sighted sultans of Turkey in order to encourage foreigners to trade with and reside in the empire. The Capitulations were neither badges of inferiority imposed on foreigners, as they have been described, nor proofs of exceptional wisdom peculiar to the sultans. As a fact, foreigners have never held so important a position in the capital under Ottoman rule as under that of the Christian emperors, and especially at the close of the twelfth century [7].

 

II. CAPITULATIONS AND TREATIES WITH THE LEVANT AND AFRICA (^)

Having dealt with the circumstances which have conduced to the maintenance of the capitulatory régime in the Ottoman Empire, we may now proceed to examine the individual acts which have established the rights of the various European Powers in Turkey and in the Levant and Africa.

The first document which conferred extraterritorial rights on Christians in the Ottoman Empire was the firman of 1453 respecting the Genoese in Galata, On May 29, a few days after the conquest of Constantinople, the firman was issued, which granted to the Genoese the right of retaining their own laws and customs and of choosing from among themselves an ancien to decide their own disputes [8]. This act was renewed in 1612 [9].

In 1454, a treaty was concluded with Venice, giving the latter the right to send to Constantinople a consul or bailo, with his customary suite, who should exercise civil jurisdiction over Venetians of every description, the Grand Seigneur engaging to accord to him protection and assistance whenever necessary [10]. The privileges were renewed in 1479, 1482, 1502, 1517, 1539, 1575, and 1595 [11].

On September 20, 1528, Sultan Suleyman II entered into a treaty with France, which confirmed the jurisdictional rights of the French and Catalonian consuls in Egypt granted to them by the Mameluke Sultans [12].

So far as the Ottoman Empire as a whole was concerned, however, the first instrument which established the French régime in Turkey was the Capitulations of February, 1535 [13]. It was the earliest treaty defining in detail the rights to which the foreigners were entitled in Turkey.

As it was the Turkish theory that treaties should not last longer than the lifetime of a single sultan, this document was renewed by each sultan in succession [14], with occasional modifications, until, in 1740 [15], the treaties were given their final form, to constitute the principal basis of the European claim to extraterritorial privileges in Turkey.

The Capitulations of 1740 were also renewed repeatedly in 1802, 1838, and 1861 [16]. The document of 1802 was the first engagement between France and Turkey in modern treaty form. Article 2 provided that "The treaties or capitulations which, before the War, determined respectively relations of every kind existing between the two Powers, are hereby renewed in their entirety."

For a long time after France obtained her first Capitulations, she was the protector of European, merchants, who were required to trade under her flag [17]. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the English sought to dispute the right of the French to protect non-treaty interests and to arrogate to themselves the same authority [18]. But these attempts were for a time fruitless, and as late as the Capitulations of 1740, France was allowed to retain the right [19]. It was only in 1607 that England herself was exempted from the obligation of trading under the French flag [20]. In 1675, however, Great Britain was given the authority to exercise protection over the merchants of Spain, Portugal, Ancona, Sicily, Florence, Catalonia and the Netherlands [21].

Following the example of France, other Powers obtained capitulatory rights from the Ottoman Empire in rapid succession. These included Great Britain [22], the Netherlands [23], Austria-Hungary [24], Sweden [25], Italy [26], Denmark [27], Prussia and later Germany [28], Russia [29], Spain [30], Persia [31], Belgium [32], Portugal [33], Greece [34], the United States [35], Brazil [36], and Mexico [37].
The extraterritorial rights conferred by these treaties were formally abolished in 1923 [38].

Outside of the Ottoman Empire, extraterritoriality has also existed in the following States of the Levant and Africa: Algiers [39], Morocco [40], Tripoli [41], Tunis [42], Persia [43], Muscat [44], Zanzibar [45], Senna (in Arabia) [46], Egypt [47], Congo [48], Ethiopia [49], and Madagascar [50].

The rights of jurisdiction granted by the above Capitulations and treaties may be summarized in three categories: (1) in cases between foreigners of the same nationality; (2) in cases between natives and foreigners; and (3) in cases between foreigners of different nationalities. In none of these agreements was there any provision made for the jurisdiction over cases between natives exclusively, the implication being, however, that it was reserved to the local authorities.

(1) In cases between foreigners of the same nationality, all the treaties conferred the jurisdiction upon the diplomatic or consular representative of their own country, to be exercised according to its laws, all interference and molestation on the part of the local magistrates being disallowed [51].

(2) Mixed cases between natives and foreigners were assigned by the earlier treaties, as by the Turkish, to the competence of the local authorities, who should, however, try them in the presence of the foreign diplomatic or consular officer concerned; but it was expressly provided that the pretext of the absence of the foreign representative should not be abused [52]. In general, the principle actor sequitur forum rei was adhered to, and in a number of the treaties mentioned, it was laid down that in all mixed cases, civil or criminal, the plaintiff should be brought under the jurisdiction and laws of the defendant's courts, an officer of the plaintiff's nationality being deputed to attend the proceedings in the interests of justice [53].

(3) Finally, mixed cases involving foreigners of different nationalities were left to be disposed of by their respective diplomatic or consular officers, all local interference being disallowed [54].

 


 

Notes by the Author (^)

[1] De la Juridiction française dans les Eschelles du Levant et de Barbarie, vol. i., p. 29.

[2] See, e.g., Pradier-Fodére, Traité de droit international (Paris, 1885-1906), vol. iv, p. 713; Bonfils, Manuel de droit international public (Paris, 1914), p. 514.

[3] Charrière, Négociations de la France dans le Levant, vol. i, pp. 255 et seq.

[4] Féraud-Giraud, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 31-32.

[5] Cf. Twiss, On Consular Jurisdiction in the Levant, p. 4.

[6] L. Renault, Article on "Capitulations," Grand Encyclopédie, vol. ix, p. 213.

[7] Pears, Fall of Constantinople (New York, 1886), p. 152.

[8] The text, with a French translation, is given in Hammer, Histoire de L'Empire Ottoman (Paris, 1835-43), vol. ii, pp. 523 et seq.

[9] Noradhounghian, Recueil, vol. i, p. 111.

[10] Daru, Histoire de Venise (2nd ed., Paris, 1821), vol. ii, p. 514; Miltitz, op. cit., vol. ii, pt. i, pp. 217-218.

[11] Ibid., pp. 76-77.

[12] Testa, Recueil des traités de la Porte Ottomane (Paris, 1864-1901), vol. i, p. 24; Charrière, op. cit., vol. i, p. 116.

[13] Noradounghian, Recueil, vol. i, p. 83.

[14] Prior to 1740, renewals were made in 1569, 1581, 1597, 1604, 1607, 1609, 1618, 1624, 1640, 1673, and 1684. See Noradounghian, Recueil, vol. i, pp. 88, 35, 37, 93, 108, 40, 43, 45, 47, 49, 136, 54.

[15] Arts. 15, 26, 52, 65, ibid., pp. 282, 285, 290, 294.

[16] Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 52, 257, vol. iii, p. 131.

[17] See article I of the Capitulations of 1581: "That henceforth Venetian, Genoese, English, Portuguese, Catalonian, Sicilian, Anconian, Ragusian merchants, and all those who have traded [cheminé] under the name and flag of France, from antiquity to to-day, shall trade in the same manner." Hauterive et Cussy, Recueil des traités de commerce et de navigation (Paris, 1834-44), vol. ii, pt. i, p. 446.

[18] On the controversy between France and England regarding the privilege of protection, see Mémoires de St. Priest (Paris, 1877), p. 287; Ambassade en Turquie de Jean de Contaut Biron, Baron de Salignac, 1605 à 1610 (Paris, 1888-89), pp. 136, 143, 146, 155, 156, 160, 184, 415, 419, 422; Additional Act of 1607, Noradounghian, op. cit., vol. i, p. 108.

[19] Arts. 32, 38, ibid., pp. 286, 288.

[20] Ibid., p. 110.

[21] Art. 33, ibid., p. 154.

[22] Treaty of June, 1580, Hakluyt, op. cit., vol. v, p. 264; Oct. 28, 1641, Noradounghian, op. cit., vol. i, p. 48; Sep., 1675 (arts. 15, 16, 24, 42), ibid., pp. 140, 151, 156. The last was renewed in 1838 and 1861, ibid., vol. ii, p. 249; vol. iii, p. 136.

[23] 1612 (arts. 3, 11, 38), Dumont, Corps univ. dip., vol. v, pt. ii, pp. 207, 208, 211; renewals in 1680, 1840, and 1862, Noradounghian, op. cit., vol. i, p. 169; vol. ii, p. 298; vol. iii, p. 180.

[24] July 27, 1718 (art. 5), ibid., vol. i, p. 224; renewals in 1784, 1862, ibid., p. 379; vol. iii, p. 194.

[25] Jan, 10, 1737 (arts, 6, 8), ibid., vol. i, p. 240; renewals in 1840 and 1862, ibid., vol. ii, p. 298; vol. iii, p. 182.

[26] Treaty with the Two Sicilies, April 7, 1740 (art. 5), ibid., vol. i, p 272, which was renewed in 1851, ibid., vol. ii, p. 395; treaty with Tuscany, May 25, 1747 (art. 4), Martens, Supplément au Recueil, vol. i, p. 293, which was renewed in 1833 and 1841, Noradounghian, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 219, 338; treaty with Sardinia, Oct. 25, 1823 (art. 8), ibid., p. 101, which was renewed in 1839 and 1854, ibid., pp. 283, 425. The Kingdom of Italy succeeded to all these treaties by virtue of article I of the treaty of July 10, 1861, ibid., vol. iii, p. 152.

[27] Oct. 14, 1746 (art. 10), ibid., vol. i, p. 311; renewals in 1841 and 1862, ibid., vol. ii, p. 330; vol. iii, p. 183.

[28] Treaty with Prussia, Mar. 23, 1761 (art. 5), ibid., vol. i, p. 317, which was renewed in 1840 and 1862, ibid., vol. ii, p. 314; vol. iii, p. 185; treaty with the Hanseatic League, 1839 (art. 8), State Papers, vol. xxviii, p. 450, which was renewed in 1841 and 1862, Noradounghian, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 345; vol. iii, p. 206. The German Empire succeeded to these treaties by virtue of article 24 of the treaty of Aug. 26. 1890, ibid., vol. iv, p. 493.

[29] July 10/21, 1774 (art. II), ibid., vol. i, p. 325; June 10/21, 1783 (art. 63), p. 369; renewals in 1792, 1812, 1829, 1846, and 1862, ibid., vol. ii, pp. 16, 86, 166, 371; vol. iii, p. 171.

[30] Sept. 14, 1782 (art. 5), ibid., vol. i, p. 345, which was renewed in 1840 and 1862, ibid., vol. ii, p. 298; vol. iii, p. 184.

[31] July 28, 1823 (art. 2), State Papers, vol. xi, p. 838; May 20, 1847 (art. 7), Noradounghian, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 384; Dec. 20, 1875 (arts. 1, 7, 10), ibid., vol. iii, pp. 391, 393, 394.

[32] Aug. 3, 1838 (art. 8), ibid., vol. ii, p. 245; renewals 1839, 1840, 1861, ibid., pp. 276, 302; vol. iii. p. 160.

[33] March 20, 1843 (art. 8). ibid., vol. ii, p, 356; renewal in 1868, ibid., vol. iii, p. 263.

[34] May 23, 1855 (arts. 24, 25), ibid., vol. ii, p. 443.

[35] May 7, 1830 (art. 4), Malloy, vol. ii, p. 1319; renewal in 1862, ibid., p. 1321.

[36] Feb. 5, 1858 (art. 7), Noradounghian, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 107.

[37] May 6, 1866 (arts. 10, 13), ibid., p. 249.

[38] See Chapter X.

[39] Great Britain, April 10, 1682 (arts. 15, 16), State Papers, vol. i, p. 358; April 5, 1686 (arts. 15, 16), ibid., p. 364; France, May 17, 1666 (art. 11), Rouard de Card, Les Traités de la France avec les pays d'Afrique du Nord (Paris, 1906), p. 36; April 25, 1684 (arts. 17, 19, 22), ibid., p. 49; Sep. 24, 1689 (arts. 18, 21, 24), ibid., p. 58; Dec. 28, 1801 (arts. 2, 12), ibid., pp. 83, 84; U.S., Sep. 5, 1795 (arts. 15, 16), Malloy, vol. 1, p. 4; June 30/July 6, 1815 (arts. 19, 20), ibid., p. 10; Portugal, June 14, 1813 (art. 10), State Papers, vol. i, p. 187; Sicily, April 3, 1816 (art. 9), ibid., vol. iii, p. 525. When France occupied Algiers in 1830, these treaties came to an end. See Chapter V.

[40] France, Sep. 17, 1631 (art. 9), Dumont, op. cit., vol. vi, pt. i, p. 20; Sep. 24, 1631 (arts. 9, 10, 12), ibid.; Jan, 29, 1682 (arts. 12, 13, 16), Rouard de Card, op. cit., p. 318; May 28, 1767 (arts. 12, 13). ibid., p. 324; Great Britain, Jan. 23, 1721 (art. 9), State Papers, vol. i, p. 430; Add. Articles, July 10, 1729 (art. 3), ibid., p. 431; Jan. 15, 1750 (art. 3), ibid., p. 433; Feb. 1, 1751 (art. 3), ibid., p. 435; July 28, 1760 (art. 9), ibid., p. 439; April 8, 1791 (arts. 7, 8), ibid., pp. 447, 448; June 14, 1801 (arts. 7, 8), ibid., pp. 456, 457; Jan. 19, 1824, ibid., vol. xiv, p. 641; Dec. 9, 1856 (arts. 8, 9, 14), ibid., vol. xlvi, pp. 179-181; U.S., Jan., 1787 (arts. 20, 21), Malloy, vol. i, p. 1210; Sep. 16, 1836 (arts. 20, 21), ibid., p. 1215; The Netherlands, May 26, 1683 (arts. 15, 16), Dumont, op. cit., vol. vii, pt. ii, p. 68; Denmark, July 25, 1767 (art. 14), State Papers, vol. ci, p. 285; Spain, March 1, 1799 (art. 6), Martens, Recueil des principaux traités, vol. vi, p. 585; Nov. 20, 1861 (arts. 9, 10, 11), State Papers, vol. liii, p. 1093; Sardinia, June 30, 1825 (art. 22), ibid., vol. xcviii, p. 979. The majority of these States, except Great Britain and the United States, have suspended their extraterritorial rights in Morocco. See Chapter VIII.

[41] Great Britain, Oct. 18, 1662 (arts, 8, 10), State Papers, vol. i, p. 712; March 5, 1675 (arts. 14, 15), ibid., p. 716; July 19, 1716 (arts. 11, 12), ibid., p. 722; Sep. 19, 1751 (arts. 11, 12), ibid., p. 727; France, Jan. 29, 1685 (arts. 18, 20, 23), Rouard de Card, op. cit., pp. 249, 250; July 4, 1720 (arts. 15, 17, 20), ibid., pp. 259, 260; June 9, 1729 (arts. 23, 25, 29), ibid., pp. 268, 269; June 18, 1801 (arts. 18, 19, 23), ibid., pp. 281, 282, 283; Aug. 11, 1830 (art. 8), ibid., p. 292; Spain, Sep. 10, 1784 (arts. 31, 32, 34), Martens, Recueil de traités, vol. iii, pp. 773, 775; U.S., Nov. 4. 1796 (art. 9), Malloy, vol. ii, p. 1786; June 4, 1805 (arts. 18, 19), ibid., p. 1792. When Tripoli was annexed by Italy in 1912, the extraterritorial régime in that country came to an end. See Chapter V.

[42] France, Nov. 25, 1665 (arts. 21, 22, 23), Rouard de Card, op. cit., pp. 121, 122; June 28, 1672 (arts. 21, 22, 23), ibid., p. 135; Aug. 30, 1685 (arts. 18, 21, 24), ibid., pp. 146, 147; Dec. 16, 1710 (arts. 13, 16, 19), ibid., p. 159; Feb. 20, 1720 (arts. 14, 16, 19), ibid., pp. 166. 167; Nov. 9. 1742 (arts. 13, 16, 19), ibid., pp. 177, 178; renewals in 1743 (art. 1), 1802 (art. 2), 1824 (art. 2), and 1830 (art. 7), ibid., pp. 182, 204, 208, 215; Great Britain, Oct. 5, 1662 (art. 8), State Papers, vol. i, p. 734; Aug. 30, 1716 (art. 8), ibid., p. 736; Oct. 19, 1751 (art. 8), ibid., p. 740; July 19, 1875 (arts. 24-26), ibid., vol. lxvi, p. 101; U.S., Aug., 1797 (arts. 20, 21, 22), Malloy, vol. ii, p. 1709. The texts or extracts of all the principal treaties between Tunis and the European Powers prior to the year 1881 are given in Documents diplomatiques, revision des traités tunisiens, 1881-1897, pp. 7-41. Since that date, the majority of the Powers have suspended their rights of jurisdiction in Tunis. Great Britain claims, however, that these rights are subject to resumption. See Chapter VIII.

[43] France, Sep., 1708 (arts. 16, 18, 24), Hauterive et Cussy, Recueil des traités (Paris, 1834-44), pt. i. vol. ii, pp. 385, 386, 388, confirmed in 1715 and 1808, ibid., pp. 402, 410; July 12, 1855 (art. 5). Martens et Cussy, Recueil manuel et pratique, (Leipzig, 1885-88), vol. vii, p. 578; Russia, Feb. 10/22, 1828 (arts. 7, 8), State Papers, vol. xlv, pp. 867, 868; Great Britain, July 2, 1763 (art. 4), Martens, N. R. G., vol. xvi, pt. ii. p. 94; Spain, March 4, 1842 (art. 5), State Papers, vol. lviii, p. 594; U.S., Dec. 13, 1856 (art. 5), Malloy, vol. ii, p. 1372; Sardinia, April 26, 1857 (art. 5), State Papers, vol. xlix, p. 1343; Austria, May 17, 1857 (art. 9), ibid., vol. xlvii, p. 1162; Prussia, June 25, 1857 (art. 5), ibid., vol. lix, p. 910; Belgium, July 31, 1857 (art. 5), ibid., vol. xlvii, p. 624; Greece, Oct. 16/28, 1861 (art. 9), ibid., vol. li, p. 537; Italy, Sept. 24/29, 1862 (art. 5), ibid., vol. lvii, p. 319; Germany, June 11, 1873 (art. 13), ibid., vol. lxiii, p. 49; Switzerland, July 23, 1873 (art. 5), ibid., p. 626; Turkey, Dec. 16, 1873 (arts. 7, 10), Archives diplomatiques, 1875, vol. iv, p. 142. The extraterritorial privileges of the following States in Persia rest on most-favored-nation clauses: Great Britain, March 4, 1857 (art. 9), State Papers, vol. xlvii, p. 44; Sweden & Norway, Nov. 17, 1857 (art. 3), ibid., vol. lxxv, p. 907; Denmark, Nov. 30, 1857 (art. 3), ibid., vol. xlvii, p. 1157; Argentina, July 27, 1902 (art. 3), ibid., vol. xcvi, p. 1240; Mexico, May 14, 1902 (art. 3), ibid., p. 174; Chile, Mar. 30, 1903 (art. 3), ibid., vol. c, p. 827.

[44] U. S., Sep. 21, 1833 (art. 9), Malloy, vol. i, p. 1230; Great Britain, May 31, 1839 (art. 5), State Papers, vol. xxviii, p. 1082; March 19, 1891 (arts. 13, 14), ibid., vol. lxxxiii, pp. 15-16; France, Nov. 17, 1844 (art. 6), ibid., vol. xxxv, p. 1012.

[45] Hanseatic Republics, June 13, 1859 (art. 12), ibid., vol. 1, p. 1121; Portugal, Oct. 25, 1879 (art. 12), ibid., vol. lxx, p. 1249; Italy, May 28. 1885 (art. 5), ibid., vol. lxxvi, p. 270; Belgium, May 30, 1885 (art. 1.), ibid., p. 291; Germany, Dec. 20, 1885 (art. 16), ibid., p. 253; Great Britain, April 30, 1886 (arts. 16, 17), ibid., vol. lxxvii, p. 60; U. S., July 3, 1886, (art. 2), Malloy, vol. ii, p. 1900; Austria-Hungary, Aug. 11, 1887 (art. 1), State Papers, vol. lxxviii, p. 943. Extraterritoriality ended in Zanzibar soon after the British protectorate over that country took effect in 1890. See Chapter VIII.

[46] Great Britain, Jan. 15, 1821 (art. 6), State Papers, vol. xii, p. 503; France, Firman of the Iman, Dec. 26, 1824, Martens et Cussy, Recueil manuel et pratique, vol. iii, p. 616.

[47] Sec. 5 of the Separate Act annexed to the Convention of London, 1840, stipulated for the application of all the treaties and laws of the Ottoman Empire in Egypt. State Papers, vol. xxviii, p. 346. Since Egypt was placed under British protection in 1914, some of the Powers have abandoned their capitulatory rights in Egypt. See Chapter VIII.

[48] Great Britain, Dec. 16, 1884 (arts. 5-8), State Papers, vol. lxxv, p. 32; Sweden & Norway, Feb. 10, 1885 (arts. 7-9), ibid., vol. lxxvi. p. 581; Turkey, June 25, 1885 (art. 6), ibid., vol. ci, p. 632. Most-favored-nation treatment was extended to Germany, Nov. 8, 1884 (art. 2): Italy, Dec. 19, 1884 (art. 2) ; the Netherlands, Dec. 27, 1884 (art. 2); Austria-Hungary, Dec. 24, 1884 (art. 2); Spain, Jan. 7, 1885 (art. 2); Russia, Feb. 5, 1885 (art. 2) ; France. Feb. 5, 1885 (art. 1); Portugal, Feb. 14, 1885 (art. 1); Denmark, Feb. 23, 1885 (art. 3); and the United States, Jan. 24, 1891 (art. 1). For these treaties see State Papers, vol. lxxv, pp. 355, 634, 323, 991; vol. lxxvi, pp. 576, 1010, 578, 583, 587; Malloy, vol. i, p. 329. The régime of extraterritoriality in Congo came to an end when the country was placed under the sovereignty of Belgium in 1908. See Chapter V.

[49] Great Britain, Nov. 2, 1849 (art.17), State Papers, vol. xxxvii, p, 6; Italy, May 2, 1889 (arts. 10, 12), ibid., vol. lxxxi, pp. 734, 735; U.S., Dec. 27, 1903 (art. 3), Malloy, vol. i, p. 466; June 27, 1914 (art. 3), ibid., vol. iii (Washington, 1923), p. 2578. The American treaties contain most-favored-nation clauses "in respect to customs duties, imposts and jurisdiction."

[50] France, Sep. 12, 1862 (art. 9), State Papers, vol. liii, p. 155; Aug. 8, 1868 (arts. 6, 7), ibid., vol. lviii, p. 192; Great Britain, June 27, 1865 (art. 11), ibid., vol. lv, p. 23; U.S., Feb. 14, 1867 (art. 5), Malloy, vol. i, p. 1060; May 13, 1881 (art. 6), ibid., p. 1067. The following treaties contained most-favored-nation clauses: Germany, May 15, 1883 (art. 2), State Papers, vol. lxxiv, p. 717; Italy, July 6, 1883 (art. 2), ibid., vol. lxxvi, p. 301. The system of consular jurisdiction ceased to operate in Madagascar soon after the island was occupied by France in 1896. See Chapter V.

[51] Turkey: France, 1535; 1604 (arts. 24, 43); 1673 (arts. 16, 37); 1740 (art. 15); Great Britain, 1675 (art. 16); the Netherlands, 1612 (art. 11), 1680 (art. 5); Austria, 1718 (art. 5); Sweden, 1737 (art. 6); Sicily, 1740 (art. 5); Sardinia, 1823 (art. 8); Tuscany, 1833 (art. 6); Denmark, 1746 (art. 10); Prussia, 1761 (art. 5); Hanseatic League, 1839 (art. 8); Russia, 1783 (art. 63); Persia, 1823 (art. 2); 1875 (art. 7); Greece, 1855 (art. 24); Mexico, 1866 (art. 10).
Algiers: Great Britain, 1682 (art. 15); 1686 (art. 15); France, 1684 art. 17); 1689 (art. 18); U.S., 1795 (art. 15); 1815 (art. 19) ; Portugal, 1813 (art. 10); Sicily, 1816 (art. 9).
Morocco: France, Sep. 17, 1631 (art. 9); Sep. 24, 1631 (art. 9); 1682 (art. 12); Great Britain, 1721 (art. 9); 1760 (art. 9); 1791 (art. 7); 1856 (art. 8); U.S., 1787 (art. 20); 1836 (art. 20); the Netherlands, 1683 (art. 15); Spain, 1861 (art. 10).
Tripoli: Great Britain, 1662 (art. 8); 1675 (art. 14); 1716 (art. 11); 1751 (art. 11); France, 1685 (art. 18); 1720 (art. 15); 1729 (art. 23); 1801 (art. 18); Spain, 1784 (art. 34); U.S., 1805 (art. 18).
Tunis: France, 1665 (art. 23); 1672 (art. 23); 1685 (art. 18); 1710 (art. 13); 1720 (art. 14); 1742 (art. 13); Great Britain, 1716 (art. 8); 1751 (art. 8); 1875 (art. 24); U.S., 1797 (art. 20).
Persia: France, 1708 (art. 16); 1855 (art. 5); Russia, 1828 (arts. 7, 8); U.S., 1856 (art. 5); Sardinia, 1857 (art. 5); Austria, 1857 (art. 9); Prussia, 1857 (art. 5); Belgium, 1857 (art. 5); Italy, 1862 (art. 5); Germany, 1873 (art. 13); Switzerland, 1873 (art. 5); Turkey, 1873 (art. 7).
Muscat: U.S., 1833 (art. 9); Great Britain, 1839 (art. 5); 1891 (art. 13); France, 1844 (art. 6).
Zanzibar: Hanseatic Republics, 1859 (art. 12); Portugal, 1879 (art. 12); Italy, 1885 (art. 5); Germany, 1885 (art. 16); Great Britain, 1886 (art. 16).
Congo: Great Britain, 1884 (art. 5); Sweden and Norway, 1885 (art. 6); Turkey, 1885 (art. 6).
Ethiopia: Great Britain, 1849 (art. 17); Italy, 1889 (art. 10).
Madagascar: France, 1862 (art. 9); 1868 (art. 6); Great Britain, 1865 (art. 11); U.S., 1867 (art. 5); 1881 (art. 6, § 2).

[52] Turkey: France, 1535; 1604 (art. 42); 1673 (art. 36); 1740 (arts. 26, 65); Great Britain, 1675 (arts. 24, 42); the Netherlands, 1612 (art. 38); 1680 (art. 36); Sweden, 1737 (art. 8); Sicily, 1740 (art. 5); Sardinia, 1823 (art. 8); Denmark, 1746 (art. 10); Prussia, 1761 (art. 5); the Hanseatic League, 1839 (art. 8); Russia, 1783 (art. 63); Spain, 1782 (art. 5); Belgium, 1838 (art. 8); Portugal, 1843 (art. 8); U.S., 1830 (art. 4); Mexico, 1866 (arts. 10, 13).
Algiers: France, 1666 (art. 11); 1684 (art. 22); 1689 (art. 24); 1801 (art. 12); U.S., 1815 (art. 20); Portugal, 1813 (art. 10); Sicily, 1816 (art. 9).
Morocco: France, 1682 (art. 16); 1767 (art. 13); Great Britain, 1750 (art. 3); 1791 (art. 7); 1801 (art. 7); 1824 (art. 7); U.S., 1787 (art. 21); 1836 (art. 21); Denmark, 1767 (art. 14); Sardinia, 1825 (art. 22).
Tripoli: France, 1685 (arts. 20, 23): 1720 (arts. 18, 20); 1720 (arts. 25, 29); 1801 (arts. 19, 23); Spain, 1784 (arts. 31, 32); U.S., 1805 (art. 19).
Tunis: France, 1685 (arts. 21, 24); 1710 (arts. 16, 19); 1720 (art. 19); 1742 (arts. 16, 10); Great Britain, 1875 (arts. 25, 26); U.S., 1797 (arts. 21, 22).
Persia: France, 1708 (art. 18); 1855 (art. 5); Russia, 1828 (arts. 7, 8); Spain, 1842 (art. 5); U.S., 1856 (art. 5); Sardinia, 1857 (art. 5); Belgium, 1857 (art. 5); Greece, 1861 (art. 9); Italy, 1862 (art. 5); Germany, 1873 (art. 13); Switzerland, 1873 (art. 5).
Ethiopia: Italy, 1889 (art. 11).
Madagascar: France, 1862 (art. 9); 1868 (art. 6); Great Britain, 1865 (art. 11); U.S., 1867 (art. 5).
In many cases, it was specified that only the higher authorities of the native administration could have cognizance of mixed cases between foreigners and natives. See the following treaties:
Algiers: Great Britain, 1682 (arts. 15, 16); 1686 (art. 11); France, 1666 (art. 11): 1684 (art. 19); 1689 (arts. 21, 24); 1801 (art. 12); U. S., 1795 (arts. 15, 16).
Morocco: France, 1682 (art. 13); 1767 (art. 12); Great Britain, 1721 (art. 9): 1760 (art. 9): 1791 (art. 8); 1801 (art. 8); 1824 (art. 8).
Tripoli: Great Britain, 1675 (art. 14); 1716 (art. 11); 1751 (art. 11).
Tunis: France, 1665 (art. 22); 1672 (art. 22); 1685 (art. 21); 1710 (art. 16); 1720 (art. 16).

[53] Morocco: Great Britain. 1856 (art. 9); Spain, 1861 (art. 11).
Muscat: Great Britain, 1839 (art. 5); 1891 (art. 13); France, 1844 (art. 6).
Zanzibar: Hanseatic League, 1859 (art. 12); Portugal. 1879 (art. 12); Italy, 1885 (art. 5); Germany, 1885 (art. 16); Great Britain. 1886 (art. 16).
Madagascar: U.S., 1881 (art. 6, §§ 7-14).

[54] Turkey: France, 1740 (art. 52).
Algiers: U.S., 1815 (art. 19).
Morocco: Great Britain, 1856 (art. 14).
Tunis: France, 1665 (art. 23); 1672 (art. 23); Great Britain, 1875 (art. 24).
Persia: France, 1855 (art. 5); Sardinia, 1857 (art. 5); Austria, 1857 (art. 9); Prussia, 1857 (art. 5); Belgium, 1857 (art. 5); Italy, 1862 (art. 5); Germany, 1873 (art. 13); Switzerland, 1873 (art. 5).
Muscat: Great Britain, 1839 (art. 5); 1891 (art. 13); France, 1844 (art. 6).
Zanzibar: Hanseatic League, 1859 (art. 12); Portugal, 1879 (art. 12); Italy, 1885 (art. 5); Germany, 1885 (art. 16); Great Britain. 1886 (art. 16).
Ethiopia: Great Britain, 1849 (art. 17).
Madagascar: France, 1862 (art. 9); 1868 (art. 6); Great Britain, 1865 (art. 11); U.S., 1881 (art. 6, § 3).

 


[Home] [Top]