Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:15:50.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire and the Question of their Abrogation as it Affects the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Lucius Ellsworth Thayer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

No problem which confronted the Lausanne Conference contributed more to its difficulties than that of “ the capitulations.” For almost four hundred years foreigners have enjoyed extraterritorial rights in the Ottoman Empire—rights which are anomalous when regarded in the light of the recognized principles of international law. Extraordinary privileges and immunities have become so embodied in successive treaties between the great Christian Powers and the Sublime Porte that for most intents and purposes many nationalities in Turkey form a state within a state. This regime has come to be known as “ the capitulations”: a code of legal reconciliation founded upon the immiscibility of Christianity and Islam; and a term of art alone descriptive of extraterritoriality in Turkey.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 1923 , pp. 207 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1923

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 But note Ravndal's free use of the term in Origin of the Capitulations and of the Consular Institution, Sen. Doc. 34,67th Cong., 1st Sess.

2 For extended discussion, see Ravndal, ibid.

3 Law Quarterly Review, Vol. XXI, p. 408.

4 Hyde, International Law chiefly at interpreted and applied by the United States, Vol. I,sees. 269, 260.

5 Paris, Chronique de Nestor, pp. 57-64.

6 Ibid., pp. 39-44.

7 Twiss, The Law of Nations, Chap. XIV, p. 449. For Laws of Wisby, see also, 30 Federal Cases 1189.

8 Mititz, Manuel des Consuls, (London, 1837), Vol. I, p. 141.

9 Pardessus, Lois Maritimes, Vol. I, Chap. 4.

10 Bonfils, Manuel de droit international public, (7th ed.), sec.

11 Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation, (Glasgow, 1903), Vol. II, pp. 297-303, item 4.

12 Twiss, Ibid.

13 Revue de Droit International, 1893, p. 217.

14 De Martens, Le Guide Diplomatique, (Paris, 1837), Vol. I, p. 229, n. I.

15 Muratori, Rerum Italicarum, Vol. 18, p. 700; Translation in Sen. Doc. 84, 67 Cong., 1st Sess., Appendix II.

16 Pears, Law Quarterly Review, Vol. XXI, p. 419.

17 Du Rausas, Le Regime des Capitulations dans VEmpire Ottoman, (2d. ed), Vol. I, p. 21.

18 Sale, Koran, Chap. VIII, verses 12, 13, 40.

19 Ibid., Chap. IX, verse 29.

20 Ibid., verses 72, 73.

21 P. 122.

22 Hamilton's Translation, Vol. II, Bk. IX.

23 D'Ohsson, Tableau gtnfral de VEmpire Ottoman, (Paris, 1788-1824), Vol. IV, p. 37, CodeChapter III.

24 Van Dyck, Report on the Capitulations, Ex. Doc., 46th Cong., Sp. Sess., p. 30.

25 De Testa, TraiUs Ottoman, Vol. I, p. 211, n. V.

26 See Art. 18, U. S. Treaty with Tunis (1797), 2 Malloy, 1798.

27 Foelix, Droit International Privi, sec. 11.

28 Revue de Droit International, 1869, p. 119.

29 Davis, Short History of the Near Bast, p. 226.

30 Ibid., p. 238.

31 Twiss, op. cit., p. 463.

32 Du Rausaa, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 1.

33 See sec. V, infra.

34 Brown, Foreigners in Twrkey, p, 29.

35 TraiUs Ottoman, Vol. I, p. 6.

36 Hyde, op. cit., Vol. I, sec. 269.

37 Sen. Doc. 84, 67th Cong., lit Seas., pp, 44,45.

38 Noradounghian, Actet Internalionavx de VEmpire Ottoman, Vol. I, p. S3.

39 Ibid., p. 277.

40 Noradounghian, Ibid., p. 83.

41 Davis, op. cit., p. 227.

42 Brown, op. cit., p. 37.

43 Noradounghian, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 143.

44 Muratori, op. cit., Vol. 18, p. 700.

45 Noradounghian, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 270.

46 De Testa, op. tit., Vol. I, p. 1.

47 Ibid., p. 186.

48 Noradounghian, op. tit. Vol., I, p. 113.

49 Ibid., p. 146.

50 Noradounghian, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 81.

51 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 169.

52 Ibid., p. 239.

53 Ibid., p. 308.

54 Ibid., p. 315.

55 Ibid., Vol. I l l , p. 296.

56 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 344.

57 Ibid., p. 351.

58 2 Malloy 1318.

59 Noradounghian, op. cit, Vol. II, p. 276.

60 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 28, p. 448.

61 Noradounghian, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 354.

62 Ibid., p. 437.

63 State Papers, Vol. 48, p. 1045.

64 See Scott, The Law affecting Foreigners in Egypt, Chap. IX, for an extended discussion.

65 Vol. II, p. 136.

66 Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent,Chap. VII. For a collection of the Kanoun to 1906, see Young, Corps de Droit Ottoman.

67 Noradounghian, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 288.

68 Cromer, Modern Egypt, Vol. II, p. 136.

69 De Testa, op. tit., Vol. V, p. 132.

70 Davis, op. cit., p. 320,

71 Noradounghian, op. cit., Vol. I l l , p. 73, Art. 7.

72 Ibid., p. 79, Art. 32.

73 Ibid., p. 34, Protocol XIV.

74 Scott, op. cit., p. 68.

75 Noradounghian, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 146.

76 Ibid., Vol. Ill, p. 393, Art. 7.

77 De Testa, op. cit., Vol. VII, p. 542.

78 State Papers, Vol. 61, p. 1198.

79 See See. IV, infra.

80 2 Malloy 1344.

81 Foreign Relations, 1892, pp. 545, 554.

82 State Papers, Vol. 102, p. 180.

83 Martens, Noveau Recueil Generate, 3d ser., Vol, VII, p. 9, Art. 8.

84 Foreign Relations, 1914, p. 1090.

85 Foreign Relations, 1914, p. 1091.

86 Hinckley, American Consular Jurisdiction in the Orient, p. 16.

87 French Capitulations (1740), Arts. 1, 20, 32, 34, 63; English Capitulations (1675),Arts. 1,7; United States Capitulations (1830), Art. 1; Russian Capitulations (1783), Arts. 1,33.

88 French Capitulations, Arts. 1, 32, 34, 36,40, 51, 82; Russian Capitulations, Arts. 55,56;English Capitulations, Art. 29.

89 State Papers, Vol. 69, p. 766.

90 Hinckley, op. cit., pp. 110-118.

91 Foreign Relations, 1888, pt. 2, p. 1594.

92 Ibid., 1891, p. 755,757,765.

93 Ibid., 1893, p. 623.

94 French Capitulations, Arts. 8, 10,13, 24, 25, 55, 67; Russian Capitulations, Arts. 3, 20, 23; English Capitulations, Arts. 13, 32, 52, 54, 57, 67; United States Capitulations, Art. 1.For modification of original capitulations as to the customs duties and commerce see: treaty with Great Britain (1861), Noradounghian, op. cit., Vol. I l l , p. 136; treaty with France (1861), Noradounghian, Ibid., p. 130; protocol between Great Britain, Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Russia, and Turkey (1907). British and Foreign State Papers,Vol. 100, p. 575.

95 Foreign Relations, 1883, p. 819.

96 Foreign Relations, 1883, p. 880.

97 Ibid., 1889, p. 710.

98 Ibid., 1888, pt. 2, p. 1592.

99 Noradounghian, op. tit., Vol. I, p. 168.

100 Brown, op. cit., Chap. I l l ; Mandelstam, Justice Ottoman, Chap. I. For summary of British Law, see Abd-id-Messih v. Farra (1888), 13 App. Cases 431.

101 French Capitulations, Arts. 15, 26, 52; English Capitulations, Art. 16; United States Capitulations, Art. 4; Russian Capitulations, Art. 6.

102 VII Op. Att. Gen. 565.

103 French Capitulations, Arts. 2, 3, 26, 41; Austrian Capitulations, Art. 5; United States Capitulations, Art. 4; English Capitulations, Arts. 10, 16, 24; Russian Capitulations, Arts. 63, 64, 66.

104 See Realty Protocol (1847), supra.

105 Hinckley, op. cit., pp. 152,153; Young, op. cit., Vol. I.

106 French Capitulations, Art. 65; Russian Capitulations, Arts. 73, 74; English Capitulations, Arts. 10, 42.

107 Citations, supra.

108 Mandelstam, op. cit., pp. 146-151.

109 See Hall, Foreign Jurisdiction of the British Crown, p. 133 n.; and also sec. VI, infra.

110 Moore, International Law Digest, Vol. II, pp. 614, 622; Hinkley, op. cit., Chap. 3.

111 9 Stat. 276.

112 12 Stat. 72.

113 Revised Statutes, sees. 4083-4130.

114 See Hinckley, op. cit., App. IX for United States Consular Court Regulations for Turkey.

115 Revised Statutes, sec. 4086.

116 For what common law is to be applied see Forbes vs. Scannell, 13 Cal. 242 (1859),citing 7 Op. Att. Gen. 504.

117 Revised Statutes, sec. 4086.

118 Ibid.

119 French Capitulations, Art. 70; Russian Capitulations, Arts. 5, 7, 67; English Capitulations,Art. 25.

120 Noradounghian, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 143.

121 Ibid., p. 153, Art, 33.

122 Rey, La Protection Diplomatique et Consulaire dans les Eschelles du Levant et de Barbaric,p. 290.

123 Ibid., pp. 220-292.

124 De Testa, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 226. Report of Sir Robert Liston, Ambassador to Turkey.

125 See Moore, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 668-714, for an extended discussion.

126 See letter of Commissioner Rhind to President Jackson, May 10, 1830, House Ex. Doc.860, 22d Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 6, p. 677.

127 S. Cong. Doc., Deo. 16,1830.

128 Porter'a No. 22 2MS. Deep, from Turkey 1831.

129 2 Malloy 1319.

130 Foreign Relations, 1900, p. 917.

131 2 Malloy 1321, Art. 1.

132 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VII, p. 403.

133 Ibid., Vol. VIII, p. 335.

134 Straus, Under Four Administrations, p. 89; Foreign Relations, 1884, pp. 566, 568.

135 Hyde, op. cit., Vol. I, sec. 263.

136 Moore, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 662.

137 Foreign Relations, 1900, p. 914.

138 2 Malloy 1319.

139 Ibid.

140 VII. Op. Att. Gen. 565 (1855).

141 91 U. S. 13, (1875).

142 Wharton, International Law Digest, Vol. II, p. 301.

143 Foreign Relations, 1885, p. 898.

144 P.241.

145 Ramsay, Impressions of Turkey, preface.

146 I Malloy 10.

147 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 1792.

148 IMd., Vol. I, p. 1215.

149 Noradounghian, op. tit., Vol. II, p. 245.

150 Ibid., p. 356.

151 Foreign Relations, 1900, p. 914.

152 Receuil Mensuel de Jurisprudence et de Legislation, 1907, Vol. 22, p. 174.

153 Clunet, Journal du Droit International Priv6, 1907, p. 196.

154 Decision seen by the writer in a document at the U. S. State Department.

155 Noradounghian, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 81.

156 See also Hyde's reference to the capitulations as “unilateral agreements,” op. cit.,Vol. I, sec. 259.

157 Second Russian Orange Book, 1914, No. 43; Foreign Relations, 1914, p. 1092.

158 Second Russian Orange Book, 1914, No. 43.

159 Foreign Relations, 1914, p. 1094

160 Noradounghian, op. at., Vol. I, p. 300, Art. 85.

161 See treaty captions: United States, 1830; Brazil, 1839; England, 1809; Sweden, 1737;Spain, 1782; Russia, 1783; Italy, 1740; Belgium, 1838; Greece, 1855.

162 Muratori, op. at., Vol. 18, p. 700.

163 Bonfils, op. cit, sec. 857; Grotius, War and Peace, Bk. II, Chap. XVI, sec. 25; Hyde, op. cit., Vol. II, sees. 540-546; Oppenheim, International Law, (1st ed.) Vol. I, p. 550; Phillimore,International Law, (1st ed.) Vol. II, p. 109.

164 Hyde, op. at., Vol. II, sec. 541.

165 Droit International Codifie, Bk. VI, sees. 415, 456, 460.

166 See Treaty of Versailles, Art. 232.

167 Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 554; Moore, op. cit., Vol. I l l , pp. 203-219.

168 Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, Vol. I l l , p. 1892.

169 Hyde, op. cit, Vol. II, sec. 542; Moore, op. cit., Vol. V, p. 337.

170 See sec. VI, infra.

171 Oppenheim, op. cit., Vol. II, sec. 99.

172 Phillimore, op. oit., Vol. Ill, p. 796; Phillipson, Termination of War and Treaties of Peace, p. 250; Moore, op. cit., Vol. V, pp. 381-385; Vattel, Law of Nations, Bk. Ill , Chap.X, sec. 175.

173 Wheaton, International Law, (7th ed.), pp. 460, 471, 475.

174 Kent, Commentary on International Law, p. 394.

175 8 Wheaton 464, 494 (1823).

176 1 Russell and Mylne, 663 (1830).

177 229 N. Y. 222 (1920); Certiorari refused, 254 U. S. 643 (1920).

178 Bonfils, op. cit., sees. 337, 693.

179 Piggott, Exterritoriality, p. 17 et seq. See also opinion of Lord Findlay in Casdagli v. Casdagli, (1919) Appeal Cases 146, 161.

180 140 U. S. 453, 464 (1891).

181 Burgess, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 14, p. 9.

182 Hyde, op. cit., Vol. I, sec. 260, n. 2.

183 State Papers, Vol. 46, p. 17.

184 Martens, Nouveau Recueil GSnSrale, 2d ser., Vol. I l l , p. 470.

185 State Papers, Vol. XC, p. 427, Art. IX.

186 Martens, Ibid., 3rd ser., Vol. VII, p. 8.

187 State Papers, Vol. CVII, pt. I, p. 894, Art. II.

188 State Papers, Vol. 61, p. 1198. 1

189 Foreign Relations, 1914, p. 1090.

190 Halleck, , International Law, (4th ed.), Vol. I, p. 314; Wheaton, op. cit., p. 460 et seq.Google Scholar

191 Art. 6, “Nationalist Pact,” Current History, Vol. XVII, No. 2, p. 281.

192 Ibid., p. 278, Art. 7.

193 Reichs-Gesetzblatt, 1918, p. 191. Martens, op. cit, 3rd ser. Vol. IX, pp. 691-738.

194 Hamid, Das Fremdenrecht in der Turkei, p. 22.

195 Peace Treaties, Sen. Doc. No. 1, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 356, 392, Arts. 135, 261.

196 Annex 6, Memorandum submitted on Behalf of Non-Official British Community in Constantinople, 1922.

197 Reported in Orient News, September 20, 1921.

198 See Journal of the British Chamber of Commerce of Turkey Inc., Sept. 1914.

199 Martens, op. tit., 3rd ser. Vol. 10, pp. 748-751.

200 Harbord's Report, Military Mission to Armenia, App. B, p. 43.

201 Cf. British Year Book of International Law, 1920-21, pp. 143, 144.

202 Van Dyck, op. tit., p. 42.

203 P. 19 et seq. See also Bibliotti and Sedad, Legislation Ottomans depute le Retdblissement de la Constitution.

204 Harbord's Report, App. B, p. 24.

205 Pp. 152-156.

206 Harbord's Report, App. B, p. 23.

207 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, Vol. II, 1920, p. 310.

208 Harbord's Report, App. B, p. 19.

209 Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, pp. 114 and 117.

210 See Memorandum of Oct. 4, 1922, sent to their respective High Commissioners by the.British, French and Italian Chambers of Commerce.

211 A copy of this document fell into the hands of the Turkish Nationalists who brought pressure to bear on the French High Commissioner. He in turn compelled a repudiation by the chamber and the resignation of its officers followed.

212 Op. tit., p. 45.

213 Treaty with Korea (1882), Art. 4, 1 Malloy 336; treaty with Japan (1894), Art. 18, 1 Malloy 1035; see also treaty with China (1903), Art. 15, 1 Malloy 269; treaty with Siam (1920), Annex, U. S. Treaty Series No. 655.