France to England made several times in the eighteenth century not to fortify Dunkirk (these clauses were abrogated in 1783); and the obligation imposed by the Powers upon Russia at the Congress of Paris in 1856 to demolish all fortresses upon the Black Sea and not to maintain a fleet of warships in these waters, -- an intolerable servitude which Russia did not hesitate to declare no longer binding upon the outbreak of the Franco-German War in 1870.24
Nature of Territorial Sovereignty. -- Bluntschli, Arts. 276-77; Bonfils, Nos. 483-89: 1 Calvo, §§ 260 ff.; Despagnet, Nos. 385-86: 1 (2 Pt) Fauchille, Nos. 484-85; 1 and 2 Fiore, Nos. 522 ff., 798; Fricker, Von Staatsgebiet ( 1867); 1 Halleck ( 3d ed.), 150 ff.; * Heilborn, System des Völkerrechts ( 1896), 5-36; Heimburger, Der Ewerb der Gebietshoheit ( 1888); Henrich in 13 Z. V. ( 1924), 28 ff.; Holtzendorff, in 2 Handbuch, 225-28; * Jellinek, Das Recht des modernen Staates ( 2d ed., 1905), 381-93; 1 F. de Martens, § 87; 2 Mérignhac, 352 ff.; 2 Moore, Digest, § 175; 1 Nys, 402-12; * 1 Oppenheim, §§ 168-75; 2 P.-Fodéré, Nos. 595-612; 1 Phillimore, §§ 150-54, * 1 Rivier, 135-42; 1 Twiss, §§ 140-44; Ullmann, § 86; Vattel, liv. I, § 205____________________
Very interesting and important are the obligations for the protection of the racial, linguistic, and religious minorities imposed upon Poland and a number of other States by the Minority Treaties. See supra, note 43, p. 142.
Unless the view of the majority of the authorities prevails to the effect that servitudes must needs be territorial, there would seem to be no good reason for rejecting the author's view that the rights and obligations created by the Minorities Treaties are in the nature of personal servitudes. The only objection that occurs to the writer is that it might be urged that they are not specifically in favor of particular States, but rather in the interest of the international community as a whole. However, it may be replied that they were exacted by particular States and presumably in the several as well as the collective interest. Unlike the rights of innocent passage, they are not, strictly speaking, international in character, and they constitute particular obligations resting upon the servient State.