Jump to content

Suzerainty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected fromSuzerain)
"Suzerain" redirects here. For the video game, seeSuzerain (video game).
Not to be confused withSovereigntismorSovereignty.

Suzerainty(/ˈsuːzərənti,-rɛnti/) includes the rights and obligations of a person, state, or otherpolitywhich controls theforeign policyand relations of atributary statebut allows the tributary state internalautonomy.[1][2]Where the subordinate party is called avassal,vassal state,ortributary state,the dominant party is called asuzerain.The rights and obligations of avassalare called vassalage, and the rights and obligations of a suzerain are calledsuzerainty.

Suzerainty differs fromsovereigntyin that the dominant power allows tributary states to be technically independent but enjoy only limited self-rule. Although the situation has existed in a number of historical empires, it is considered difficult to reconcile with 20th- or 21st-century concepts ofinternational law,in which sovereignty is a binary concept, which either exists or does not. While a sovereign state can agree by treaty to become aprotectorateof a stronger power, modern international law does not recognise any way of making this relationship compulsory on the weaker power. Suzerainty is a practical,de factosituation, rather than a legal,de jureone.

Current examples includeBhutanandIndia.India is responsible for military training, arms supplies, and the air defense ofBhutan.[3][4][5][6]

Imperial China

[edit]
Further information:Tributary system of China;List of tributary states of China;andEmperor at home, king abroad

The tributary system of China orCefengsystem was a network of loose international relations focused on China which facilitated trade and foreign relations by acknowledging China's predominant role in East Asia. It involved multiple relationships of trade, military force, diplomacy and ritual. The other states had to send a tributary envoy to China on schedule, who wouldkowtowto theChinese emperoras a form of tribute, and acknowledge his superiority and precedence. The other countries followed China's formal ritual in order to keep the peace with the more powerful neighbor and be eligible for diplomatic or military help under certain conditions. Political actors within the tributary system were largely autonomous and in almost all cases virtually independent.[7]

The term "tribute system" as applied to China is a Western invention. There was no equivalent term in the Chinese lexicon to describe what would be considered the "tribute system" today, nor was it envisioned as an institution or system. John King Fairbank andTeng Ssu-yucreated the "tribute system" theory in a series of articles in the early 1940s to describe "a set of ideas and practices developed and perpetuated by the rulers of China over many centuries." The Fairbank model presents the tribute system as an extension of the hierarchic and nonegalitarian Confucian social order. The more Confucian the actors, the more likely they were to participate in the tributary system.[8]

In practice the behaviours which were collectively seen as a tributary system, involving tribute and gift exchange in return for symbolic subordination, were only formalized during the early years of theMing dynasty.[9]Tributary members were virtually autonomous and carried out their own agendas despite paying tribute; this was the case with Japan, Korea, Ryukyu, and Vietnam.[10]Chinese influence on tributary states was almost always non-interventionist in nature and tributary states "normally could expect no military assistance from Chinese armies should they be invaded".[11][12]

The Chinese tributary system was upended in the 19th and 20th centuries as a result of Western and Japanesecolonialism.Japan tookKorea[13]and theRyukyu Islands,Francetook Vietnam, and Britain tookUpper Burma.[14]

Since colonial times, Britain had regardedTibetas being under Chinese suzerainty, but in 2008 the British Foreign SecretaryDavid Milibandcalled that word an "anachronism" in a statement, and recognized Tibet as part of China.[15]

Ancient Israel and Near East

[edit]

Suzerainty treaties and similar covenants and agreements between Middle Eastern states were quite prevalent during the pre-monarchic andmonarchyperiods inAncient Israel.TheHittites,Egyptians,andAssyrianshad been suzerains to theIsraelitesand other tribal kingdoms of theLevantfrom 1200 to 600 BC. The structure of Jewish covenant law was similar to the Hittite form of suzerain.[16]

Each treaty would typically begin with an "Identification" of the Suzerain, followed by an historical prologue cataloguing the relationship between the two groups "with emphasis on the benevolent actions of the suzerain towards the vassal".[16]Following the historical prologue came the stipulation. This included tributes, obligations and other forms of subordination that would be imposed on the Israelites.[16]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.[16]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.[17][18]

Hittite suzerainty treaty form

[edit]

Below is a form of a Hittite suzerainty treaty.[16]

  • Preamble:Identifies the parties involved in the treaty, the author, the title of the sovereign party, and usually his genealogy. It usually emphasises the greatness of the king or dominant party.[19]
  • Prologue:Lists the deeds already performed by the Suzerain on behalf of thevassal.This section would outline the previous relationship the two groups had up until that point with historical detail and facts that are very beneficial to scholars today, such as scholar George Mendenhall who focuses on this type of covenant as it pertained to the Israelite traditions.[19]The suzerain would document previous events in which they did a favor that benefitted the vassal. The purpose of this would show that the more powerful group was merciful and giving, therefore, the vassal should obey the stipulations that are presented in the treaty. It discusses the relationship between them as a personal relationship instead of a solely political one. Most importantly in this section, the vassal is agreeing to future obedience for the benefits that he received in the past without deserving them.
  • Stipulations: Terms to be upheld by the vassal for the life of the treaty; defines how the vassal is obligated and gives more of the legalities associated with the covenant.
  • Provision for annual public reading: A copy of the treaty was to be read aloud annually in the vassal state for the purpose of renewal and to inform the public of the expectations involved and increase respect for the sovereign party, usually the king.[19]
  • Divine witness to the treaty: These usually include the deities of both the Suzerain and the vassal, but put special emphasis on the deities of the vassal.
  • Blessings if the stipulations of the treaty were upheld and curses if the stipulations were not upheld. These blessings and curses were generally seen to come from the gods instead of punishment by the dominant party for example.
  • Sacrificial meal: Both parties would share a meal to show their participation in the treaty.

India

[edit]

British paramountcy

[edit]
Further information:Princely state

TheBritish East India CompanyconqueredBengalin 1757, and gradually extended itscontrol over the whole of India.It annexed many of the erstwhile Indian kingdoms ( "states", in British terminology) but entered into alliances with others. Some states were created by the East India Company itself through the grant ofjagirsto influential allies. The states varied enormously in size and influence, withHyderabadat the upper end with 16.5 million people and an annual revenue of 100 million rupees and states like Babri at the lower end with a population of 27 people and annual revenue of 80 rupees.[20]

The principle of paramountcy was explicitly stated in a letter byLord Readingto theNizam of Hyderabad,Mir Osman Ali Khan,in 1926, "The sovereignty of the British Crown is supreme in India and therefore no ruler of an Indian State can justifiably claim to negotiate with theBritish Governmenton an equal footing. "This meant that the Indian states werecrown dependenciesorprotectoratesof the British Indian government. They could not make war or have any direct dealings with foreign states. Neither did they enjoy full internal autonomy. The British government could and did interfere in their internal affairs if the imperial interests were involved or if it proved necessary in the interest of so-stated "good governance". In some cases, the British government also deposed these Indian princes.[21]

According to historiansSugata BoseandAyesha Jalalthe system of paramountcy was a system of limited sovereignty only in appearance. In reality, it was a system of recruitment of a reliable base of support for the imperial state. The support of the Imperial State obviated the need for the rulers to seek legitimacy through patronage and dialogue with their populations. Through their direct as well as indirect rule through the princes, the colonial state turned the population of India into 'subjects' rather than citizens.[22]

TheGovernment of India Act 1935envisaged that India would be a federation of autonomous provinces balanced by Indian princely states. This plan never came to fruition.[23]The political conditions were oppressive in several princely states giving rise to political movements. Under pressure fromMahatma Gandhi,theIndian National Congressresolved not to interfere directly but called on the princes to increase civil liberties and reduce their own privileges.[24]

With the impendingindependence of Indiain 1947, the Governor-GeneralLord Mountbattenannounced that the British paramountcy over Indian states would come to an end. The states were advised to accede to one of the new dominions,IndiaorPakistan.AnInstrument of Accessionwas devised for this purpose. TheCongressleaders agreed to the plan on the condition that Mountbatten ensure that the majority of the states within the Indian territory accede to India. Under pressure from the governor-general, all the Indian states acceded to India save two,JunagadhandHyderabad.[25][26]

Sikkim

[edit]

Following theindependence of Indiain 1947, a treaty signed between theChogyal of Sikkim,Palden Thondup Namgyal,and thePrime Minister of India,Jawaharlal NehrugaveIndiasuzerainty overKingdom of Sikkimin exchange for it retaining its independence. This continued until 1975, when theSikkimese monarchy was abolishedin favour of a merger into India.Sikkimis now one of thestates of India.[citation needed]

Lakshadweep (Laccadives)

[edit]

Located in theArabian Sea,Lakshadweepis aUnion territoryof India off the coast of the southwestern state ofKerala. TheAminidivi group of islands(Amini,Kadmat,Kiltan,ChetlatandBitra) came under the rule ofTipu Sultanin 1787. They passed on to British control after theThird Anglo-Mysore Warand were attached to theSouth Canaradistrict. The rest of the islands became a suzerainty of theArakkal KingdomofCannanorein return for a payment of annual tribute.[citation needed]

After a while, theBritishtook over the administration of those islands for non-payment of arrears. These islands were attached to theMalabar districtof theMadras Presidency.In 1956, theStates Reorganisation Actseparated these islands from the mainland administrative units, forming a new union territory by combining all the islands.[citation needed]

Pakistan

[edit]
Main article:Princely states of Pakistan

Theprincely statesof theBritish Rajwhich acceded toPakistanmaintained their sovereignty with theGovernment of Pakistanacting as the suzerain until 1956 forBahawalpur,Khairpur,and theBalochistan States,1969 forChitraland theFrontier States,and 1974 forHunzaandNagar.All these territories have since been merged into Pakistan. These states were subject to the 'paramountcy' of the British Crown. The term was never precisely defined but it meant that the Indian states were subject to the suzerainty of theBritish Crownexercised through theViceroy of India.[citation needed]

South African Republic

[edit]

After theFirst Boer War(1880–81), theSouth African Republicwas granted its independence, albeit under British suzerainty. During theSecond Boer War(1899–1902), the South African Republic was annexed as theTransvaal Colony,which existed until 1910, when it became the Province of Transvaal in theUnion of South Africa.[citation needed]

German Empire

[edit]

Following theTreaty of Brest-Litovsk(1918), theGerman Empirereceived a very short-lived suzerainty over theBaltic countriesofEstonia,Latvia,andLithuania.New monarchies were created in Lithuania and theUnited Baltic Duchy(which comprised the modern countries of Latvia and Estonia). The German aristocratsWilhelm Karl, Duke of Urach(in Lithuania), andAdolf Friedrich, Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin(in the United Baltic Duchy), were appointed as rulers. This plan was detailed by German Colonel GeneralErich Ludendorff,who wrote, "German prestige demands that we should hold a strong protecting hand, not only over German citizens, but over all Germans."[27]

Second World War

[edit]

Despite being occupied by theAxis powers,several Western and Asian countries were allowed to exercise self-rule. Several states were created in order to facilitate their occupation, includingVichy France,Manchukuo,theEmpire of Vietnam,theIndependent State of Croatiain Croatia and theLokot AutonomyinCentral Russia.[clarification needed]

Historical suzerainties

[edit]

Ottoman Empire

[edit]

Duchy of Prussia/Kingdom of Prussia/North German Confederation/German Empire

[edit]

Qing dynasty

[edit]

Empire of Japan

[edit]

InEurope

[edit]

InIndonesia

[edit]

Suzerainties in fiction

[edit]

In J.R.R. Tolkien'sThe Return of the King,the Mouth of Sauron proposes terms of surrender that would effectively give Mordor suzerainty over Gondor and Rohan: "The rabble of Gondor and its deluded allies shall withdraw at once beyond the Anduin, first taking oaths never again to assail Sauron the Great in arms, open or secret.... West of the Anduin as far as the Misty Mountains and the Gap of Rohan shall be tributary to Mordor, and men there shall bear no weapons, but shall have leave to govern their own affairs."[29]

In Season 7 ofSupernatural,Castiel briefly attains god-like powers and takes direct control of Heaven.[30]He then meets with the King of Hell, Crowley, to propose an arrangement in which Crowley maintains control over Hell's internal affairs but pledges allegiance to Castiel. He also requires Crowley to give him control over the distribution of souls between Heaven and Hell, as souls are a source of supernatural power that Castiel needs to maintain his dominance. Reasoning that he has no choice, Crowley promptly agrees to this arrangement.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Inline citations

[edit]
  1. ^"Suzerain".Merriam Webster.Archivedfrom the original on 2009-04-22.Retrieved2010-04-30.
  2. ^abZhu, Yuan Yi (2020). "Suzerainty, Semi-Sovereignty, and International Legal Hierarchies on China's Borderlands".Asian Journal of International Law.10(2). Cambridge University Press: 293–320.doi:10.1017/S204425132000020X.S2CID225302411.
  3. ^Warikoo, K (2009).Himalayan Frontiers of India: Historical, Geo-political and Strategic Perspectives.Routledge contemporary South Asia series. Vol. 13.Taylor & FrancisUS. p. 139.ISBN978-0-415-46839-8.Retrieved2011-08-12.
  4. ^"Indo-Bhutan Friendship Treaty"(PDF).Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.1949-08-08.Retrieved2011-08-12.
  5. ^Dorji, Kinley (2007)."Eastern Air Command Chief Visits Bhutan".Kuenselonline. Archived fromthe originalon 2006-11-05.Retrieved2011-11-01.
  6. ^"A Nation Pays Tribute".Kuenselonline. 2004-08-15. Archived fromthe originalon 2011-06-10.Retrieved2011-11-01.
  7. ^Chu 1994,p. 177.
  8. ^Lee 2017,pp. 28–29.
  9. ^Lee 2017,p. 12.
  10. ^Lee 2017,p. 15-16.
  11. ^Smits 1999,p. 35.
  12. ^de Klundert 2013,p. 176.
  13. ^Young Park (2009).Korea and the Imperialists: In Search of a National Identity.AuthorHouse. pp. 49–50.ISBN9781467061407.
  14. ^George D. E. Philip (1994).British documents on foreign affairs—reports and papers from the Foreign Office Confidential Print: From the mid-nineteenth century to the First World War.Great Britain. Foreign Office.ISBN9780890936061.
  15. ^Spencer, Richard (2008-11-05)."UK recognises China's direct rule over Tibet".The Daily Telegraph.Archivedfrom the original on 2022-01-12.Retrieved2010-07-12.
  16. ^abcdeCoogan, Michael D. (2009).A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament.Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 100.ISBN978-0-19-983011-4.
  17. ^Coogan, Michael D. (2009).A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament.Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 103.ISBN978-0-19-983011-4.
  18. ^Hindson, Ed; Yates, Gary, eds. (2012).The Essence of the Old Testament: A Survey.Nashville: B & H Publishing Group. p. 113.
  19. ^abcMendenhall, G. (1954). "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition".The Biblical Archaeologist.17(3). The American Schools of Oriental Research: 49–76.doi:10.2307/3209151.JSTOR3209151.S2CID166165146.
  20. ^Gupta 1958,pp. 145–146.
  21. ^Gupta 1958,p. 148.
  22. ^Bose & Jalal 2004,p. 83.
  23. ^Stein & Arnold 2010,p. 306.
  24. ^Stein & Arnold 2010,pp. 336–337.
  25. ^Stein & Arnold 2010,pp. 357–358.
  26. ^Menon 1956.
  27. ^Ludendorff, Erich von (1920).The General Staff and its Problems.Vol. 2. New York:E. P. Dutton.p. 562.
  28. ^Dickinson, Edwin De Witt,The Equality of States in International Law,p239
  29. ^Return of the King, pages 173-74
  30. ^"Supernatural - 7x01 - Castiel makes Crowley a deal".Archivedfrom the original on 2023-05-04.Retrieved2023-02-08– via youtube.

Sources cited

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzerainty&oldid=1248729732"