There are certain usages or ceremonials of respect shown by one nation to another in certain circumstances, and these are founded on the theory of the equality of sove reign states. As regards the right of precedence among kings, emperors, and princes, there is nothing settled and binding, except, perhaps, that Catholic powers concede the precedency to the pope. But as regards minor matters, it is the settled courtesy for one nation to salute by striking the flag or the sails, or by firing a certain number of guns on approaching a fleet or a ship of war, or entering a fortified port or harbor. Sometimes these ceremonials are regulated by express treaty, as, for example, as regards the mari time honors formerly exacted by Denmark from vessels passing the sound and belts at the entrance of the Baltic sea.
The rights of states in time of peace consist of the rights of legation and of negotia tion. Every independent state has a right, in point of courtesy and usage, to send public ministers or representatives to, and receive ministers from, any other sovereign state with which it desires to maintain relations of peace and amity. See AMBASSADOR; ENVOY; CHARGES D'AFFAIRES; CONSUL.
When war is commenced between two countries, there are certain rights acknowl edged to exist _towards each other. Before war is proclaimed, intermediate methods are sometitnes adopted, with a view to avoid that last necessity; these are laying an embargo on the ships or property of the offending state found in the territory of the offended state; also taking forcible possession of the thing in controversy, also retaliating and making reprisals. When war is once declared, the first step is to seize and confiscate all the enemy's property within the territory. It becomes unlawful for the subjects of each belligerent state to trade with the subjects of the other belligerent. The test of whether a person is a subject of either state is generally his domicile; so the character of ships depends on the national character of the owner, as ascertained by his domicile. As regards the conduct of one belligerent state against the other, some writers have laid it down, that every thing is fair against an enemy, and that no means of punishment are too severe: but this rigid rule has been qualified by the more humane practice of modern times. Instead of putting prisoners of war to death, the practice is to exchange or discharge them on conditions. Instead of indiscriminate destruction of the enemy's property, temples. public edifices, monuments of art and science, are spared. The laws of war are inure unsparing at sea than on land; the practice prevails of commissioning privateers to prey on the commerce of the enemy, the captor being in general entitled to the property. When property.taken is recaptured, states differ as to the mode of dealing with the
property recaptured. The validity of a capture at sea must be determined in a prize court of the captor's country or of an ally, and the prize court professes to act on universal principles applicable to all countries.
As regards neutrals in time of war. the leading doctrines are stated under the heads CONTRABAND OF WAR; BLOCKADE; FOREIGN ENLISTME`'T ACT.
At the congress of Paris, 1856, the ambassadors of ,-treat Britain, France, Russia, Austria, Prussia, Turkey, and Sardinia. agreed to a joint declaration, modifying the state of the laws of war as follows: 1. To abolish privateering; 2. To adopt the maxim, "free ships, free goods"—i.e., an enemy's goods shall not be taken in a neutral ship miless they are contraband of war; 3. To allow a neutral's goods in an enemy's ship to be free except as to contraband; 4. To abolish blockades unless they are real and kept up by an effective force. These declarations were not acceded to by America, because It objected to the abolition of privateering, so that though, in the event of war between the countries which agreed in the declaration, the above modifications will probably be adopted, this will not be the case ih the event of America being at war with one or other of these parties. See Wheaton's International Law; Mackenzie's Studies in Roman Law; Macqueen's Chief Points in the Laws of War.
2. Private International Law is that collection of laws that regulates the mode in which ordinary courts of justice administer the remedies and give effect to the rights of parties where such rights were acquired partly or wholly in a foreign country, and where different remedies must otherwise have necessarily applied. In such cases, the court which administers the remedy, acting on what is called the courtesy of nations, or comitas gentium, endeavors to put the parties in the same position as if they were still bound by the foreign laws, and gives effect to those laws so far as they do not conflict With the native laws in essential principles, The fundamental doctrine which underlies this breach of law is, that each subject of a foreign independent state is entitled to have the protection of his own laws, so far as is compatible with the equal independence of the state whose courts administer the remedy, and hence, though a court can In general only administer the laws of its own state, it may, pro hac vice, incorporate part of the foreign laws as part of its own remedies. Accordingly, in carrying out this doctrine, certain fair and equitable rules are adopted in dealing with foreigners in certain situa tions, the chief of which arise out of the heads of marriage, death, intestacy, and reme dies generally.