Some Questions of International Ltvw, ous sovereignty.1 In such cases the terri tories or districts in question owe a nominal allegiance to one sovereign, but are really subject to the commands of another who is in actual possession. It is possible for such a place or region to possess a belligerent and a neutral character at the same time—bellig erent in respect to the belligerents and neu trals, and neutral in respect to the nominal sovereign and his relations with other States. "The precise legal position of these territories, is very difficult, and perhaps im possible, to determine."2 One modern pub licist, who has carefully examined the ques tion, has come to the conclusion that "a jur istic examination of these relations can onlv lead to negative results; it is a political provi sional arrangement in which law and fact are in contradiction to each other."3 The law which should govern in all such anomalous cases is, however, reasonably clear. "The belligerency or neutrality of terri tory subject to a double sovereignty must be determined for external purposes, upon the analogy of territory under military occupa tion, by the belligerent or neutral character of the State de facto exercising permanent military control within it. ... When a place is militarily occupied by an enemy, the fact that it is under his control, and that he con sequently can use it for the purposes of his war, outweighs all considerations founded on the bare legal ownership of the soil. In like manner, but with stronger reason, where sovereignty is double or ambiguous a bellig erent must be permitted to fix his attention upon the crude fact of the exercise of power. He must be allowed to deal his enemy blows wherever he finds him in actual military pos1 Other examples of double or ambiguous sovereignty are Bosnia, Herzegovina, Cyprus, and Effypt. These territories or districts are under the nominal sovereignty of the Sultan of Turkey, but are really administered by Austrian and English officials. 3 Hall, Treatise, note on p. 509 of 3d ed. 3 Holzendorf, Handbuch, П., § Si—quoted by Hall in note cited above.
377
session, unless that possession has been given him for a specific purpose, such as that of securing internal tranquillity, which does not carry with it a right to use the territory for his military objects. On the other hand, where a scintilla of sovereignty is possessed by a belligerent State over territory where it has no real control, an enemy of the State, still fixing his attention on facts, must re spect the neutrality with which the territory is practically invested."4 In view of the anomalous position of China in respect to Manchuria, and also because of the vast interests involved and the greatdanger to the peace of the world which might result from any violation ot Chinese neu trality (whether by either or both bellig erents or by China herself), it is not surpris ing that the Press of all countries (and par ticularly of our own) has shown itself very sensitive to any charges of a violation of the neutrality of China (especially by Rus sia), and that much has been said by way of criticism and denunciation which is either unjust or impolitic. Several weeks after the outbreak of the war, Admiral Alexieff issued a somewhat quaint and curious proclamation to the in habitants of Manchuria, of which there has been much unfair criticism. This manifesto, which contained "six regulations which all must tremblingly obey" (after charging the Japanese with treachery in covertly attack ing the Russian fleet while peaceful nego tiations were in progress) lays especial stress upon the indissoluble unity of Russian and Chinese interests. He expresses the opinion that "on the principle of mutual connection between the cart-prop and the cart, the duty of China should be to join in attacking and destroying the invader wherever he is en countered;" but, "since China has announced her resolve to remain neutral and to look on with her hands in her sleeves," Admiral Alex4 Hall, op. cit., p. 511.
