26. Corporations

From the point of view of international law, corporations are generally of two kinds: corporations organized for private purposes, and corporations organized for purposes involving the exercise of delegated sovereign powers.

(a) Corporations organized for private purposes come within the field of international law, when in time of war their property or other rights are impaired, when maritime law, whether of peace or war, may have been infringed, and when their rights are involved in the domain of private international law.

Corporations organized for private purposes.

Corporations exercising

(b) Corporations organized for purposes involving the exercise of political powers have from time to time, for several centuries, been chartered and have often acquired a quasi-international status. While repolitical powers. stricted to the performance of functions intrusted to them by their charters, the home governments have often sanctioned acts for which their charters gave no warrant. The companies that early entered America, India, Africa, and the later African companies, are of this kind. The development of the doctrine of "the sphere of influence "gave an important position to the companies organized within those states desirous to share in "the partition of Africa."

Among the most notable of the earlier companies was the English East India Company, which received its first charter English East in 1600. During more than two hundred and India Company. fifty years this company exercised practically sovereign powers, until by the act of August 2, 1858, the government heretofore exercised by the company was transferred to the crown, and was henceforth to be exercised in its name.

In the late nineteenth century, African companies chartered by the European states seeking African dominions had very elastic charters in which the home governments generally re

African companies.

served the right to regulate the exercise of authority as occasion might demand. These companies advanced and confirmed the spheres of influence of the various states, governed under slight restrictions great territories, and treated with native states with full authority. The British South Africa Company, chartered in 1889, was granted liberal powers of administration and full capacity, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to treat with the native states. The field of operations of this company was extended in 1891, so that it soon included over six hundred thousand square miles of territory. The acts of these companies became the basis of subsequent negotiations among the various European states, and the companies had a very important influence in molding the character of African development.

In recent years commercial companies have secured special concessions for the construction of railways, opening of mines, etc., in many regions. These companies have often received the approval of their governments and have sometimes had government subsidies. The areas in which these companies operated or in which they had concessions were considered within the spheres of interest of their states.

Other companies.

27. Individuals

Without entering into discussion of "the doctrine of the separability of the individual from the state," it is safe to affirm that individuals have a certain degree of competence under exceptional circumstances, and may come under the cognizance of international law. By the well-established dictum of international law a pirate may be captured by any vessel, whatever its nationality. General admiralty and maritime procedure against a person admit the legal status of an individual from the point of view of international law. The

extension of trade and commerce has made this necessary. This is particularly true in time of war, when individuals wholly without state authorization, or even in contravention of state regulations, commit acts putting them within the jurisdiction held to be covered by international law, as in the case of persons brought before prize courts. The principles of private international law cover a wide range of cases directly touching individuals.

Definition.

1

28. Insurgents

(a) Insurgents are organized bodies of men who, for public political purposes, are in a state of armed hostility to the established government. There may be war in the "material sense " which, because belligerency has not been recognized, has not become war in the “legal sense"; nevertheless those engaged may have legal status. (b) The practice of tacitly admitting insurgent rights has become common when the hostilities have assumed such proportions as to jeopardize the sovereignty of the parent state over the rebelling community, insurgency. or seriously to interfere with customary foreign

Effect of admission of

intercourse.2

In general, it may be said that: 3

(1) Insurgent rights cannot be claimed by those bodies seeking other than political ends.1

1 "The distinction between recognition of belligerency and recognition of a condition of political revolt, between recognition of the existence of war in a material sense and war in a legal sense, is sharply illustrated by the case before us. For here the political department has not recognized the existence of a de facto belligerent power engaged in hostility with Spain, but has recognized the existence of insurrectionary warfare prevailing before, at the time, and since this forfeiture is alleged to have been incurred." The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1. 2 Wheat. D., note 15, p. 34.

3 For full discussion see Wilson,

College, 1900.

Insurgency" lectures, U. S. Naval War

Wilson, Insurgency and International Maritime Law, 1 A. J. I. L., p. 46. Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U. S. 250.

(2) Insurgent acts are not piratical, as they imply the pursuit of "public as contrasted with private ends." 1

(3) The admission of insurgent rights does not carry the rights of a belligerent, nor imply official recognition of the political status of the insurgent body.2

(4) The admission of insurgent rights does not change the responsibility of the parent state for acts committed within its jurisdiction.3

(5) When insurgents act in a hostile manner toward foreign states, they may be turned over to the parent state, or may be punished by the foreign state.1

(6) A foreign state must in general refrain from interference in the hostilities between parent state and insurgents, i.e. cannot extend hospitality of its ports to insurgents, extradite insurgents, etc., though it may intern them.5

(7) When insurgency exists, the armed forces of the insurgents must observe and are entitled to the advantages of the laws of war in their relations to the parent state.

(c) During the struggles between the parties in the United States of Colombia in 1885, the President of Colombia decreed :

(1) That certain ports held by the insurgents were closed to foreign commerce under penalties prescribed by Colombian laws, and (2) that insurgent vessels flying the Colombian flag were beyond the pale of international law."

The United States refused to recognize the validity of the

12 Moore, §§ 329-335; United States v. Ambrose Light, 25 Fed. Rep. 408. Snow cases, 203, Montezuma. The Itata, 56 Fed. Rep. 505. See the Virginius, U. S. For. Rel. 1875, vol. II. p. 1178.

2 President Cleveland's Message Dec. 8, 1885. 8 Richardson Messages and Papers of the Presidents, pp. 324, 326. U. S. For. Rel. 1885, pp. 254, 273.

Parl. Papers, 1887, 1 Peru, 18. China in 1901 agreed to pay various states more than $335,000,000 as indemnity for the injuries suffered during the Boxer uprising of the previous year (U. S. For. Rel. 1901, Appendix). See also Spanish Treaty Claims Commission, Opinion No. 8 (1903).

42 Moore, § 331, Huascar. Lawrence, § 142.

Ex Parte Toscano, 208 Fed. Rep. 938.

71885, For. Rel. U. S. 252, 264.

decree.1 President Cleveland's message of December 8, 1885, stated: "The denial by this (U. S.) Government of the Columbian proposition did not, however, imply

Practice

of the

United States

the admission of a belligerent status on the part of the insurgents."

During the rebellions in Chile in 1891 and in Brazil in 1894, the insurgents, while not recognized as belligerents by foreign powers, were nevertheless given freedom of action by these

powers.

The President's messages of December 2, 1895, December 7, 1896, and December 6, 1897, distinctly mention a status of insurgency as existing in Cuba.

In 1913 and later insurgent troops from Mexico crossing into the United States were interned in accordance with the Hague Convention.

By a joint resolution of the Congress of the United States approved March 14, 1912, it was provided:

"That whenever the President shall find that in any American country conditions of domestic violence exist which are promoted by the use of arms or munitions of war procured from the United States, and shall make proclamation thereof, it shall be unlawful to export except under such limitations and exceptions as the President shall prescribe any arms or munitions of war from any place in the United States to such country until otherwise ordered by the President or by Congress."

Congress on January 31, 1922, passed a joint resolution similar to that of March 14, 1912, but applying to states where the United States exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction, and under this resolution President Harding on March 6, 1922, owing to disturbed conditions prevailing there, prohibited export of arms to China.

1 Ibid., pp. 254 et seq.; 2 Moore, § 332; see also Parl. Deb. H. C., June 27, 1861; Bluntschli, § 512; Hall, p. 39.