Table Of ContentTHE RISE OF THE DOUBLE DIPLOMATIC CORPS
IN ROME
N.V. VAN DE GARDE & CO'S DRUKKERIJ, ZALTBOMMEL
UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE
INSTITUT UNIVERSITAIRE DE HAUTES ETUDES INTERNATIONALES
THE RISE
OF THE
DOUBLE DIPLOMATIC CORPS
IN ROME
A STUDY IN INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE (1870-1875)
THEsE
PRESENTEE A L'UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE
POUR OBTENIR LE GRADE DE DOCTEUR ES SCIENCES POLITIQUES
PAR
ROBERT A. GRAHAM, S.].
(ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE)
THESE No. 82
LA HAYE
MARTINUS NI]HOFF
1951
ISBN 978-94-015-0409-6 ISBN 978-94-015-1023-3 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-015-1023-3
La Commission Mixte, composee des Doyens des Facultes de
Droit, des Lettres, et des Sciences economiques et sociales, et des
Directeurs de l'Institut Universitaire de Hautes Etudes Interna
tionales, sur Ie preavis de M. Maurice Bourquin, professeur a
l'Universite et a l'Institut Universitaire, et de MM. Paul Mantoux
et Hans Wehberg, professeurs a l'Institut, autorise l'impression
de la presente these, sans entendre par la exprimer d'opinion
sur les propositions qui y sont enoncees.
Geneve, Ie 19 juillet 1951. Pour la Commission Mixte
WILLIAM E. RAPPARD
Directeur de 1'1 nstitut Un iversitaire
These No. 82
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE •••••• IX
I. INTRODUCTION
II. THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS AND THE CRISIS OF SEPTEM-
BER • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • S
III. ITALY'S ASSURANCES TO THE GOVERNMENTS. 10
IV. THE POLICY OF FRANCE • • • 20
V. BISMARCK AND THE HOLY SEE 33
VI. THE POLICIES OF THE OTHER STATES S2
VII. THE TRANSFER OF THE ITALIAN CAPITAL TO ROME 6S
VIII. THE LAW OF GUARANTEES AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO
DIPLOMATIC PRACTICE 81
CONCLUSION 97
BIBLIOGRAPHY 102
INDEX 107
ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED
A.E.Fr. Archives du Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres.
Paris.
A.E.It. Archivio Esteri. Roma.
A.M.A.E.B. Archives du Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres.
Bruxelles.
F.O. Public Record Office. (Foreign Office General
Correspondence). London.
H.H.St.A. Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv. Wien.
PREFACE
So many books, monographs and articles have been written
around the "Roman Question" that a word of explanation or
even of apology for the present study may be called for. Before
as well as after 1929, the year in which the Lateran Treaty
declared resolved the conflict which had divided Italy and the
Papacy for nearly sixty years, professors and their students in a
dozen lands have one after the other committed to the learned
world their particular analysis of the international position
of the Papacy. The variety of opinions which can be found in
these studies is itself a remarkable testimony to the unique cha
racter of the Holy See in the modern organization of international
society. Even today, more than two decades after the dispute
between the Quirinal and the Vatican had been finally resolved,
it cannot be said that perfect uniformity of views yet prevails
among writers in international law. Even today, when partisan
passions have had time to cool and to leave the court clear for
objective studies, there are many questions that cannot be
adequately explained by any of the conventional criteria.
Perhaps, indeed, the reason for the apparent futility of many
of these writings has been the belief that the Papacy could
really be forced into everyone of the categories developed by
modern international law. The attempt to systematize if not
to codify international law has led to the creation of concepts
and the establishment of principles that do not always correspond
to the needs and realities of international intercourse. The
contention so current before the first World War that "only
states" could be considered as international persons might be
instanced as a case in point. This principle, the fruit of an almost
a priori concept of the international community made up exclusi
vely of entities called states, died hard in the face of the exigencies
of modern times. Another juridical concept which has been
x PREFACE
a stumbling block is that of sovereignty. Here again, taking a
theoretical position for granted, writers soon found themselves
in a quandary when they attempted to apply the concept to
the position of the Papacy.
This quandary, caused by the refusal of the facts to correspond
to the theory, has been partcularly conspicuous on the Continent.
In the Anglo-Saxon countries, where the juridical spirit is more
pragmatic, a more realistic position has generally been adopted
in regard to the Papacy. In Great Britain, for example, the views
of writers have tended to be less doctrinaire. This is due, in part,
to the fact that Britain has remained aloof from the conflicts
that rage across the channel over religious questions. But it is
also due to the fact that in England more attention is paid to
fact and less to theory.
There is no other way of explaining why, from 1870 to 1929,
and even afterwards, juridical opinion on the subject of the
international position of the Pope was in flat contradiction with
the practice of governments. At a time when virtually all writers
asserted that the Temporal Power had come to an end, the states
nevertheless continued to treat the Pope as if nothing had been
changed in his status of sovereign. And, on the other hand, at a
time when all juridical writers, including and especially the
partisans of the papal cause, scoffed at the notion of "spiritual
sovereignty" as a juridical monstrosity, the foreign ministries
showed in their actions that, if they continued to have official
relations with the Pope after 1870 it was not because they
regarded him as a territorial sovereign.
The present study is an attempt to depict the diplomatic
practice of the governments in the crucial years immediately
following the crisis of 1870. At this period it was in the foreign
ministries and not in the faculties of law that decisions had to
be reached and reached quickly. The foreign ministers did not
think they were violating old laws or creating new ones. Theirs
was a far more practical task, which was to find some modus
vivendi by which they could balance the powerful factors of a
difficult international situation the governments could not
ignore. If their solution was a unique one that did not make.
it any less an authentic expression of the laws that govern the
modern organization of international society. Diplomatic prac-
PREFACE XI
tice in such matters is more decisive than a priori maxims.
In 1879, Professor E. R. N. Arntz, one of the editors of the
Revue de Droit International et de Legislation Comparee, wrote
in a sharply critical review of a pseudo-juridical thesis on the
diplomatic prerogatives of the Pope: "The law of nations has
for principal source history and the usages and the practice of
civilized nations. International law has not been created by
general and broad formulae nor can it be summarized by such".
The present inquiry has been made with this advice, or rather
reproach, in mind. May it contribute toward unraveling the
tangled problems connected with the international juridical
position of the Holy See, at least in the sector of diplomatic
relations.
* *
*
Studies of the present kind are never possible without the
friendly and distinterested help of literally dozens of librarians,
archivists, government officials, active and retired diplomats
and others who deserve something better than to be grouped
together in anonymity for a general expression of appreciation.
But so it must be. May these good friends in the United States,
France, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Great Britain, The
Netherlands, Germany and the Italian peninsula allow me to
express in these lines my gratitude to each of them.
I should, nevertheless, recognize the special debt lowe to
the directors of the archives of the foreign ministries in Rome,
Paris, London, Brussels and Vienna. And here I must include
Doctor Mario Pastore of the Archivio Storico, Mr. E. K. Timings
of the Public Record Office and Dr. A. H. Lambotte of the
Belgian Foreign Ministry Archives. I am indebted also to Mon
signor Giuseppe de Marchi, archivist of the Secretariat of State
of His Holiness, for his friendly interest and suggestions.
Finally my especial appreciation is owing to Professor Paul
Mantoux, co-director of the Graduate Institute of International
Studies of the University of Geneva, and to his colleagues,
Professors Paul Guggenheim and Maurice Bourquin who, with
patience and objectivity, read the successive drafts presented
to them for comment and correction. It is only proper to add
