SUZERAINTY. "Suzerain," a term of feudal law, is now used to describe persons or States in positions of superiority to others. Suzerain has been defined as "Qui possede un fief dont d'autres fiefs relevent" (Littre and Dictionnaire de l'academie francaise). The term was rare in feudal times in England. But it was used in France to describe a feudal lord, the supreme suzerain being the king.
In modern times the term has come to be used as descriptive of relations, ill-defined and vague, which exist between powerful and dependent States; its very indefiniteness being its recommen dation. According to feudal law the vassal owed certain duties to the lord; he promised fidelity and service; and the lord was bound to perform reciprocal duties, not very clearly defined, to the vassal —Dominus vassallo conjux et amicus dicitur. The relation be tween a lord and his vassals, implied in the oath of fealty, has been extended to States of unequal power; it has been found con venient to designate certain States as vassal States, and their superiors as suzerains. Originally and properly applicable to a status recognized by feudalism, the term vassal State has been used to describe the subordinate position of certain States once parts of the Ottoman empire. Such were Egypt and Bulgaria.
M. Gairal (Le Protectorat international) distinguishes suzer ainty from protectorate in these respects : (a) suzerainty proceeds from a concession on the part of the suzerain (p. 112) ; (b) the vassal State is bound to perform specific services; and (c) the vassal State has larger powers of action than those belonging to a protected State; (d) there is reciprocity of obligation. According to M. F. Despagnet the term suzerain is applicable to a case in which a State concedes a fief, in virtue of its sovereignty (Essai sur le protectorat international, p. 46), reserving to itself certain rights as the author of this concession.
W. E. Hall thus defines vassal States : "States under the suzer ainty of others are portions of the latter which during a process of gradual disruption or by the grace of the sovereign have acquired certain of the powers of an independent community, such as that of making commercial conventions, or of confer ring their exequatur on foreign consuls. Their position differs from that of the foregoing varieties of States (protectorates, etc.), in that a presumption exists against the possession by them of any given international capacity" (International Law, 4th ed., p. 31).
On the whole, usage seems to favour this distinction: while a protectorate flows from, or is a reduction of, the sovereignty of the protected State, suzerainty is conceived as derived from, and a re duction of, the sovereignty of the dominant State.
As to the power of making treaties, a vassal State cannot, as a rule, conclude them; such power does not exist unless it is spe cially given. On the other hand, a protected State, unless the contrary is stipulated, retains the power of concluding treaties.
Definitions of suzerainty are of little use. Each instrument in which the word is used must be studied in order to ascertain its significance. Even in feudal times suzerainty might be merely nominal, an instance in point being the suzerainty or over-lordship of the papacy over Naples. In some cases it may be said that suzerainty brings no practical advantages and implies no serious obligations. Among the instances in which the term is actually used in treaties are these : the General Treaty, Peace of Paris, 1856 (arts. 21 and 22), recognized the suzerainty of Turkey over the Danubian principalities Moldavia and Wallachia, modifying the "sovereignty" of Turkey recognized by the Treaty of Adrian ople. The convention of Aug. 19, 1858 (Hertslet x. 1052) or ganized the then principalities "under the suzerainty of the sultan." The internal government was to be exercised by a hospodar, who received his investiture from the sultan, the sign of vassalship. The autonomy of these vassal States was fully recognized by the Treaty of Berlin of 1878. In the Interpretation Act 1889, s. (5), "suzerainty" is used to describe the authority of the sovereign over native princes.
The word suzerain is used in the Pretoria convention of 1881 between the British Government and the late South African repub lic. The convention (by its preamble) granted to the inhabitants complete self-government, "subject to the suzerainty of her Majesty," and this suzerainty was reaffirmed in the articles. Even when the convention was being negotiated doubts arose as to its meaning, and legal authorities were divided as to its effect. It was doubtful whether territory could be ceded by the Crown of its own authority; and if the power existed the cession could, it was said, be made only by virtue of clear words. From the articles substituted in the London convention of 1884 for those of 1881, the word "suzerainty" was omitted. Fresh doubts arose as to the effect of this omission; before the outbreak of hostilities in South Africa, the British Government maintained that the preamble of 1881, by which alone any self-government was granted, was still in force, and therefore that the suzerainty--whatever it involved—re mained; the Transvaal Government, on the other hand, contended that the suzerainty had been abolished by the substitution of the 1884 convention for that of 1881. (See MANDATE, PROTECTORATE, SOVEREIGNTY, SPHERES OF INFLUENCE, STATE.)