This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2010)

Suzerainty ( /ˈsjuːzərənti/ or /ˈsjuːzərɛnti/) occurs where a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which controls its foreign affairs while allowing the tributary vassal state some limited domestic autonomy.^[1] The dominant entity in the suzerainty relationship, or the more powerful entity itself, is called a suzerain. The term suzerainty was originally used to describe the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and its surrounding regions. It differs from sovereignty in that the tributary has only some (often limited) self-rule. A suzerain can also refer to a feudal lord, to whom vassals must pay tribute. Although it is a concept which has existed in a number of historical empires, it is a concept that is very difficult to describe using 20th- or 21st-century theories 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.

Imperial China[link]

Historically, the Emperor of China saw himself as the center 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.^{[citation needed]} The system also broke down as China faced European powers whose theories of sovereignty were based on international law and relations between separate states.

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 at all 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.^[2]

Ancient Near East, specifically Israel[link]

Suzerainty treaties and similar covenants and agreements between near-eastern nations were quite prevalent in the pre-monarchic and monarchy periods of the Ancient Israelites. The Hittites, Egyptians, and Assyrians had been suzerains to the Israelites and other surrounding nation states of the Levant during these periods (1200-600 BCE). The Ancient Israelites reflected the understanding of suzerain to their understanding of their covenant (law) with God. According to Michael Coogan, the structure of the covenant law was structured similarly to the Hittite form of suzerain.^[3] Each treaty would typically begin with an "Identification" of the Suzerain Exodus 20:2, followed by a historical prologue which catalogues the relationship between the two groups Exodus 20:2, "with emphasis on the benevolent actions of the suzerain towards the vassal." ^[4] Following historical prologue comes the stipulations Exodus 20:3-20:17. This includes tributes, obligations, and other forms of subordination that will be imposed on the Israelites.^[5] 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. This section is missing from the initial issuing of the Ten Commandments. What followed that was an addition of authority and further security of the treaty being carried out.^[6] 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. This section is also missing from the initial issuing of the Ten Commandments. For disobedience, curses would be given to those who had not remained steadfast in carrying out the stipulations of the treaty. Coogan offers two verses for the curses and blessings, Exodus 20:5-6Exodus 20:12^[7]

Hittite suzerainty treaty form[link]

Below is a form of a Hittite Suzerainty Treaty.^[8]

• Preamble: Identifies the parties involved in the treaty
• Prologue: Lists the deeds already performed by the Suzerain on behalf of the vassal
• Stipulations: Terms to be upheld by the vassal for the life of the treaty
• 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
• Divine witness to the treaty: These usually include the deities of both the Suzerain and the vassal
• Blessings if the stipulations of the treaty are upheld and curses if the stipulations are not upheld
• Sacrificial Meal: Both parties would share a meal to show their participation in the treaty

India[link]

Sikkim[link]

Following India's independence in 1947, a treaty signed between the Chogyal and the then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru gave India suzerainty over Sikkim in exchange for it retaining its independence. This continued until 1975, when the Sikkimese monarchy was abolished in favour of a merger into India. Sikkim is now one of the states of India.

Bhutan[link]

India no longer looks after the external, defence, communications, and foreign affairs of Bhutan. However India provides substantial support to the Royal Bhutan Army and guarantees its support against external aggression.

Lakshadweep[link]

Located in the Arabian Sea, Lakshadweep is a Union Territory of India off the coast of the southwestern state of Kerala. The Amindivi group of islands (Amini, Kadmat, Kiltan, Chetlat and Bitra) came under the rule of Tipu Sultan in 1787. They passed on to British control after the Third Anglo-Mysore War and were attached to the South Canara district. The rest of the islands became a suzerainty of the Arakkal family of Cannanore in return for a payment of annual tribute. After a while, the British took over the administration of those islands for non-payment of arrears. These islands were attached to the Malabar district of the Madras Presidency. In 1956, the States Reorganisation Act separated these islands from the mainland administrative units, forming a new union territory by combining all the islands.

Pakistan[link]

The Princely States of the British Raj which acceded to Pakistan maintained their sovereignty with the Government of Pakistan acting as the Suzerain until 1956 for Bahawalpur, Khairpur, and the Baluchistan States, 1969 for Chitral and the Frontier States, and 1974 for Hunza and Nagyr.

South African Republic[link]

After the First Boer War (1880–81), the South African Republic was granted its independence, albeit under British suzerainty. During the Second Boer War (1899–1902), the South African Republic was annexed as the Colony of the Transvaal, which existed until 1910, when it became the Province of Transvaal in the Union of South Africa.

United States[link]

When applied to the United States, the concept of Suzeranity also includes the concept of Federalism in the United States and the evolving relationship between the Federal Government, State Governments and the Indigenous peoples in the United States (or Indian tribes.)

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”

The Louisiana Purchase as well as at least four significant United States Supreme Court decisions have provided guidelines in how to interpret the constitutional provisions.

Louisiana Purchase[link]

In 1803 the United States of America agreed to purchase France's claim to the territory of Louisiana. While President Thomas Jefferson doubted the legality of the purchase, the chief negotiator, Robert R. Livingston inserted language in the treaty providing for the Louisiana Purchase that he thought would be acceptable to congress. The treaty’s 3rd article stated, in part:^[9]

the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess. (8 Stat. at L. 202)

The Supreme Court, in Downes v. Bidwell, concluded that this article committed the US government to “the ultimate, but not to the immediate, admission” of the entire territory as multiple states, but allowed for the postponement of “its incorporation into the Union to the pleasure of Congress.”^[9]

“As a sequence to this debate two bills were passed, one October 31, 1803 (2 Stat. at L. 245, chap. 1), authorizing the President to take possession of the territory and to continue the existing government, and the other November 10, 1803 (2 Stat. at L. 245, chap. 2), making provision for the payment of the purchase price. These acts continued in force until March 26, 1804, when a new act was passed providing for a temporary government (2 Stat. at L. 283, chap. 38), and vesting all legislative powers in a governor and legislative council, to be appointed by the President.”^[9]

Much of the land of the Louisiana Purchase was reserved for the forced re-settlement of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. The resettlement of the tribes was initially by treaty, and then by statute after the Civil War. From original Louisiana Territory, Louisiana became a state in 1812 and the remaining territory was renamed Missouri Territory to avoid confusion. Then Missouri became a state in 1821 and the rest of the territory effectively became an unorganized territory. The Indian Intercourse Act of 1834 established the boundaries of Indian Country, one of many Unincorporated territories of the United States. As additional states were carved out of Indian Country and admitted to the Union, the remaining area was referred to as Indian Territory. In 1906 Indian Terrotory ceased to exist when it and Oklahoma Territory were combined to become the state of Oklahoma.

Before the American Civil War, Indian Tribes had governments based on their cultural heritage and signed treaties with the United States government. However, Indian Country never had a formal government. After the war, a Territorial Government was established as a component of the new Reconstruction Treaties that were signed by the various tribes that had sided with the Confederacy. By 1871 the Federal Government dealt with tribes through statute.^[10]

Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823)[link]

In Johnson v. M'Intosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823), the Court applied the rule of conquest and subsequent division that was accepted by the nations of Europe at the time; that title properly belonged to the nation which discovered (or conquered and had dominion over) the new land. This meant that there was a diminishment of the natives’ ability to dispose of their land; natives could live on the land, but that they could not grant the land to a private individual. According to the treaty ending the Revolutionary War (the Treaty of Paris (1783)), Great Britain relinquished any claim to “proprietary and territorial rights of the United States.” Thus, the United States owned the entirety of the lands which were situated within the boundaries of the states existing at that time and those natives who lived within such boundaries did not own title to the land. ^[11] At the end of the Revolutionary War, the land of the United States was east of the Mississippi River excluding the area around New Orleans.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)[link]

In the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 30 U.S. 1 (1831), it was observed that the acts of our Government plainly recognize the Cherokee Nation as a State. Numerous treaties made with the tribe by the United States recognise them as a people capable of "maintaining the relations of peace and war." Therefore, the Courts are bound by those acts. It was concluded that the tribes' relations to the United States resemble that of a ward to his guardian and were a "denominated domestic dependent nation" and not a foreign nation. ^[12]

Worchester v. Georgia (1832)[link]

In Worcester v. Georgia 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832) it was affirmed that the Federal Government inherited the rights of Great Britain as they were held by that nation; it was acknowledged that the exercise of conquest and purchase can give political dominion, but those are in the hands of the federal government and not the states. Specifically, the court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a "distinct community" with self-government "in which the laws of Georgia can have no force." This case established the doctrine that the national government of the United States, and not individual states, had authority in Indian affairs.

United States v. Kagama (1886)[link]

Indian Territory was reduced to the approximate boundaries of the current state of Oklahoma by the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854. During the American Civil War, several Indian Tribes signed treaties with the Confederacy. At the conclusion of the war, the US Government and tribes signed new Reconstruction Treaties and the government changed their policy from Indian removal to assimilation.

The Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 had two significant sections. First, the Act required the Federal Government no longer interact with the various tribes through treaties, but rather through statues by stating, in part,

[n]o Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation . . .”. ^[13]

The 1871 Act also made it a federal crime to commit murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny within any Territory of the United States.

The 1871 Act was affirmed in 1886 by the US Supreme Court, in United States v. Kagama 118 U.S. 375 (1886), which affirmed that the Congress has Plenary power over all Native American tribes within its boarders by rationalization that “The power of the general government over these remnants of a race once powerful… is necessary to their protection as well as to the safety of those among whom they dwell”. ^[14] Before 1871 United States had recognized the Indian Tribes as semi-independent. The Supreme Court affirmed that the US Government “has the right and authority, instead of controlling them by treaties, to govern them by acts of Congress, they being within the geographical limit of the United States… The Indians owe no allegiance to a State within which their reservation may be established, and the State gives them no protection.” ^[15].

Historical suzerainties[link]

To the Ottoman Empire:

• Moldova
• Principality of Serbia
• Wallachia

To the Republic of China:

• Mongolia^[16]
• Tibet

See also[link]

• Associated state
• Hegemony
• Imperialism
• Satrap
• Vassal state
• Mandala (Southeast Asian history)

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Garver, John W. Protracted Contest: Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Twentieth Century. Seattle: U of Washington P, 2001.