Suzerainty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with sovereignty.
Suzerainty ('sju?z?r?nti, 'sju?z?r?nti and 'sju?zr?nti) is a back formation from
the late 18th-century word suzerain, an artificial formation meaning upper-
sovereign, derived from the French sus (meaning above) + -erain (from souverain,
meaning sovereign).

It was first used to refer to the dominant position of the Ottoman Empire in
relation to its surrounding regions; the Ottoman Empire being the suzerain, and the
relationship being suzerainty. The terminology gradually became generalised to
refer to any relationship in which one region or people controls the foreign policy
and international relations of a tributary state, while allowing the tributary
nation to have internal autonomy.[1] Modern writers also sometimes use the term
suzerain to refer to a feudal lord, in regard to their relationship to their
vassals.

Suzerainty differs from true sovereignty, as the tributary stateperson is

technically independent, and enjoys self-rule (though usually limited in practice).
Although the situation has existed in a number of historical empires, it is
considered difficult to reconcile with 20th- or 21st-century concepts of
international law, in which sovereignty either exists or does not. While a
sovereign nation can agree by treaty to become a protectorate of a stronger power,
modern international law does not recognize any way of making this relationship
compulsory on the weaker power. Suzerainty, therefore, describes the practical, de
facto situation, rather than the legal, de jure one.

Contents [hide]
1 Imperial China
1.1 Unequal treaties
2 Ancient Israel and Near East
2.1 Hittite suzerainty treaty form
3 Indian subcontinent
3.1 British paramountcy
3.2 Sikkim
3.3 Lakshadweep
4 Pakistan
5 South African Republic
6 Second World War
7 German Empire
8 United States
8.1 Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823)
8.2 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
8.3 Worcester v. Georgia (1832)
8.4 United States v. Kagama (1886)
9 Historical suzerainties
10 See also
11 References
11.1 Inline citations
11.2 Sources referenced
Imperial China[edit]
See also List of tributaries of Imperial China
Historically, the Emperor of China saw himself as the centre of the entire
civilized world, and diplomatic relations in East Asia were based on the theory
that all rulers of the world derived their authority from the Emperor. The degree
to which this authority existed in fact changed from dynasty to dynasty. However,
even during periods when political power was distributed evenly across several
political entities, Chinese political theory recognized only one emperor and
asserted that his authority was paramount throughout the world. Diplomatic
relations with the Chinese emperor were made on the theory of tributary states,
although in practice tributary relations would often result in a form of trade
under the theory that the emperor in his kindness would reward the tributary state
with gifts of equal or greater value.

This system broke down in the 18th and 19th centuries in two ways. First, during
the 17th century, China was ruled by the ethnically Manchu Qing Dynasty which ruled
a multi-ethnic empire and justified their rule through different theories of
rulership. While not contradicting traditional Han Chinese theories of the emperor
as universal ruler, the Qing did begin to make a distinction between areas of the
world which they ruled and areas which they did not. Second, the system further
broke down as China was confronted by European powers whose theories of sovereignty
were based on international law and relations between separate states.

Unequal treaties[edit]
Main article Unequal treaty
A series of unequal treaties (including among others the Treaty of Nanjing, 1842;
the treaties of Tianjin, 1858; and the Beijing Conventions, 1860) forced China to
open new ports, including Canton, Amoy, and Shanghai. They allowed the British to
set up their own colony at Hong Kong and established international settlements in
these ports that were controlled by the foreigners. They required China to
permanently accept diplomats at Peking; provided for the free movement for foreign
ships in Chinese rivers; imposed European regulation of Chinese tariffs and opened
the interior to Christian missionaries. Ever since the 1920s the unequal treaties
have been a centerpiece of Chinese grievances against the West.[2]

For centuries China had claimed suzerain authority over numerous adjacent areas.
The areas had internal autonomy but were theoretically under the protection of
China in terms of foreign affairs. By the 19th century the relationships were
nominal, and China exerted little or no actual control. The Western powers rejected
the concept and one by one seized the suzerain areas. Japan took Korea[3] and the
Ryukyu Islands; France took Vietnam; Britain took Upper Burma.[4] Only Tibet was
left, and that was highly problematic because the Tibetans did not accept it.[5]
Each case represented yet another humiliation and demonstration of weakness.

One way European states attempted to describe the relations between the Qing
Dynasty and its outlying regions was in terms of suzerainty, although this did not
completely match the traditional Chinese diplomatic theory. Since the Great Game,
the British Empire has regarded strategic Tibet under Chinese suzerainty, but in
2008 British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in a statement called that word an
anachronism, and joined the European Union and the United States in recognizing
Tibet as a part of China.[6]

Ancient Israel and Near East[edit]

Suzerainty treaties and similar covenants and agreements between near-eastern
nations were quite prevalent during the pre-monarchic and monarchy periods in
Ancient Israel. The Hittites, Egyptians and Assyrians had been suzerains to the
Israelites and other tribal kingdoms of the Levant from 1200600 BCE. The structure
of Jewish covenant law was similar to the Hittite form of suzerain.[7]

Each treaty would typically begin with an Identification of the Suzerain, followed
by an historical prologue which catalogues the relationship between the two groups,
with emphasis on the benevolent actions of the suzerain towards the vassal.[7]
Following the historical prologue came the stipulation. This includes tributes,
obligations and other forms of subordination that will be imposed on the
Israelites.[7] According to the Hittite form, after the stipulations were offered
to the vassal, it was necessary to include a request to have copies of the treaty
that would be read throughout the kingdom periodically.[7] The treaty would have
divine and earthly witnesses purporting the treaty's validity, trustworthiness and
efficacy. This also tied into the blessings that would come from following the
treaty and the curses from breaching it. For disobedience, curses would be given to
those who had not remained steadfast in carrying out the stipulations of the
treaty.[8][9]

Hittite suzerainty treaty form[edit]

Below is a form of a Hittite Suzerainty Treaty.[7]

Preamble Identifies the parties involved in the treaty, the author, the title of
the sovereign party, and usually his genealogy. It usually emphasizes the greatness
of the king or dominant party.[10]
Prologue Lists the deeds already performed by the Su