by S. Lloyd, London, 1904); A. M. Low, Protection in the United
States (London, 1904); H. O. Meredith, Protection in France (London,
1904); S. N. Patten, Economic Basis of Protection (Philadelphia,
1890); Ugo Rabbeno, American Commercial Policy (London, 1895);
Ellis H. Roberts, Government Revenue, especially the American System,
an argument for industrial freedom against the fallacies of free trade
(Boston, 1884); R. E. Thompson, Protection to Home Industries
(New York, 1886); E. E. Williams, The Case for Protection (London,
1899); J. P. Young, Protection and Progress: a Study of the Economic
Bases of the American Protective System (Chicago, 1900).
PROTECTOR, a Latin word (formed from protegere, to cover in front) adopted into English. In post-classical Latin the protectores were the body-guards of the emperors, and of the Praetorian prefects until, under Constantine the Great (306–337), they ceased to exercise military functions. The protectores, with the domestic, continued to form the body-guard and household troops of the emperor. They were veterans selected from the legions, and were capable of being appointed to high commands. In the Roman curia the protectores regnorum are cardinals who take charge of the affairs of the “province” to which they are named which come before the Sacred College, and to present them for consideration. In England “protector” was used first for the regent during a minority (e.g. the Protector Somerset, and then by Oliver Cromwell when he assumed the government in 1653). The name thus acquired a revolutionary significance, and has not since been officially used in England. In Spanish America the bishops were officially protectors of the Indians. The title is convenient for a ruler who wishes to exercise control outside the limits of his direct sovereignty. Thus Napoleon called himself protector of the Confederation of the Rhine. The kings of France, and the governments which have arisen out of the Revolution, were protectors of the Latin. Christians in the Turkish Empire, while the tsars of Russia have claimed the same position towards the Orthodox Christians.
See App. B. to vol. ii. of Bury’s edition of the Decline and Fall (London, 1896); Du Cange, Glossarium lat.; Sorel, L’Europe et la révolution française, vol. vii. (Paris, 1904).
PROTECTORATE, in international law, now a common term to describe the relation between two states, one of which exercises
control, great or small, direct or indirect, over the other.
It is significant of the rare use of the term until recent times
that the word does not occur in Sir G. C. Lewis’s book on The
Government of Dependencies. Yet the relation is very ancient.
There have always been states which dominated their neighbours,
but which did not think fit to annex them formally. It
has always been, politic for powerful states to facilitate and hide
schemes of aggrandizement under euphemistic expressions; to
cloak subjection or dependence by describing it in words inoffensive
or strictly applicable to other relations. A common
problem has been how to reduce a state to submission or subordination
while ostensibly preserving its independence or existence;
to obtain power while escaping responsibility and the
expenditure attending the establishment of a regular administration.
Engelhardt (Les Protectorats anciens et modernes) and
other writers on the subject have collected a large number of
instances in antiquity in which a true protectorate existed, even
though the name was not used. Thus the Hegemony of Athens
as it existed about 467 B.C., .was a form of protectorate; though
the subject states were termed allies, the so-called “allies”
in all important legal matters had to resort to Athens (Meyer,
Geschichte des Alterthums, vol. iii. § 274).
In dealing with dependent nations Rome used terms which veiled subjection (Gairal, Les Protectorats internationaux, p. 26). Thus the relationship of subject or dependent cities to the dominant power was described as that of clientes to the patronus (Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 80). Such cities might also be described as civitates foederatae or civitates liberae. Another expression of the same fact was that certain communities had come under the power of the Roman people; in deditionern or in fidem populi romani venire (Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 73, 81). The kingdoms of Numidia, Macedonia, Syria and Pergamum were examples of protected states, their rulers being termed inservientes. The Romans drew a distinction between foedera aequa and foedera iniqua. The latter created a form of protectorate. But the protected state remained free. This is explained in a passage of the Digest 49. 15. 7: “Liber autem populus est is, qui nullius alterius populi potestati est subject us, sive is foederatus est; item sive aequo foedere in amicitiam venit, sive foedere comprehensum est, ut is populus alterius populi majestatem comiter conservaret. Hoc enim adjicitur, ut intelligatur alterum populum superiorern esse: non ut intelligatur alterum non esse liberum” (Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, and ed., vol. i. p. 46, Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, vol. iii. pt. I, p. 645, and the instances collected by Pufendorf, 8 c. 9. 4).
In medieval times this relation existed, and the term “protection” was in use. But the relation of subordination of one state to another was generally expressed in terms of feudal law. One state was deemed the vassal of another; the ruler of one did homage to the ruler of another. In his book De la République Bodin treats of ceux qui sont en protection (1. c. 7), or, as the Latin text has it, de patrocinio et clientele. In Bodin's view such states retain their sovereignty (1. c. 8). Discussing the question whether a prince who becomes a. cliens of another loses his majestas, he concludes that, unlike the true vassal, the cliens is not deprived of sovereignty: “Nihilominus in foederibus et pacis actionibus, quae inter principles aut populos societate et amicitia conjunctissimos sancientur; eam vim habet ut nec alter alteri pareat, nec imperet: sed ut alter alterius majestatem observare, sine ulla majestatis minutione teneatur. Itaque jus illud clientelare seu protection is omnium maximum ac pulcherrimum inter principles censetur” (1 c. 7). Elsewhere Bodin remarks, “le mot de protection est special et n’emporte aucune subjection de celuy qui est en protection.” He distinguishes the relation of seigneur and vassal from that of protecteur and adherent. As to whether the protected state or prince is sovereign, he remarks, “je tiens qu’il demeure soverain, et n'est point subject.” He makes clear this conception of protection by adding “l’advoué on adherent doit estre exempte de la puissance du protecteur s'il contrevient aux traictes de protection. Voila donc la plus grande seureté de la protection, c'est empescher s'il est possible que les protecteurs ne soyent saisis des fortresses” &c. (p. 549, ed. 1580). Sometimes letters of protection were granted by a prince to a weak state, as e.g. by Louis XIII. in 1641 to the prince of Monaco (Gairal, p. 81).
Reverting to the distinction in Roman law, Grotius and Pufendorf, with many others, treat protection as an instance of unequal treaties; that is, “when either the promises are unequal, when either of the parties is obliged to harder conditions” (De jure belli et pacis, 1 c. 13. 21; De jure naturae, 8. c. 9).
The following are some definitions of “protectorate”: “Principis
privilegium, quo ne alicui vis inferatur, cavetur, eumque in protectionem
suscipit.” Du Cange: “La situation d'un
état a l’egard d'un autre moins puissant auquel il a
promis son appui d'une maniere permanent” (Gairal,Definitons
of Protectorate.
p. 52); a definition applicable only to certain simple
forms of this relation. “Pour le protégé, une condition de misouveraineté
substitute a la pleine indépendance que comporte le
régime de simple protection” (p. 58). “La situation respective de
deux états de puissance inégale, dont l'un contract l'obligation permanent
de défendre l’autre, et en outre de le diriger” (p. 62).
“Unter einem Protektorat versteht man ein Schutzverhiiltniss
zwischen zwei Staaten des Inhalts dass der eine Staat, der Oberstaat
oder schutzherrliche Staat, zum dauernden Schutze des anderen
Staates—des Schutzstaates oder Unterstaates—verpflichtet ist;
wofiir ihm ein mehr oder weniger weitgehender Einliuss auf die
auswartigen Angelegenheiten desselben und theilweise such auf
dessen innere Verhaltnisse eingeratimt ist" (von Stengel, Die
deutschen Schutzgebiete, 11). “Das Verhältnis von zwei (oder
mehreren) Staaten, das in materieller Beziehung auf dem dauernden
Bedürfniss des Schutzes eines schwächeren Staates durch einen
stärker en beruht” (Ullmann, s. 26).
“The one common element in Protectorates is the prohibition of all foreign relations except those permitted by the protecting state. What the idea of a protectorate excludes, and the idea of annexation, on the other hand, would include, is that absolute ownership which was signified by the word dominium in Roman law, and) which, though not quite satisfactorily, is sometimes described as ‘territorial sovereignty.’ The protected country remains, in regard to the protecting state, a foreign country; and
