Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T06:07:31.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Treaty Background of the Italo-Ethiopian Dispute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

W. B. Stern
W. B. Stern*
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The nineteenth century was for Ethiopia a century of inner consolidation. During that time the Ethiopian rulers step by step restored the power accredited to their dynasty which they had lost in endless feuds during the eighteenth century. On the coast the Porte claimed suzerainty over the strip down to the Strait of Bab el Mandeb and even Zeila. Turkish occupation was actual only at Massawa; from there Turkey controlled the commerce with north Ethiopia; in most other places Turkish control was nominal. The chiefs of the Danakil coastal tribes were practically independent. When, however, about the year 1839, the French Compagnie Nanto-Bordelaise bought from the local Danakil chiefs the village of Edd, which today belongs to Italian Eritrea, with a district extending three leagues inland, the Porte protested, and the French Government repudiated the purchase. But the rights of the purchasers to the soil were not questioned, and a French company still claimed them in 1862.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , April 1936 , pp. 189 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the general history of Ethiopia see, e.g., Budge, E. A. T. W., A History of Ethiopia, London, 1928 Google Scholar; Jones, A. H. M. and Monroe, Elizabeth, A History of Abyssinia, Oxford, 1935 Google Scholar. During the recent discussion of the Italo-Ethiopian dispute before the League of Nations, the Italians laid much stress upon their argument that the modern Ethiopian frontiers comprise Ethiopia proper (i.e., Amhara, Tigré, Gojam and a part of Shoa) and “colonies” which were subjugated by Ethiopian rulers during the last century. League of Nations Official Journal, November, 1935, p. 1393 ffGoogle Scholar; Document C.340.M.171.1935.VII, p. 40 ff. While the Italians failed to consider the extension of Ethiopia in previous centuries and overlooked the fact that the Ethiopian conquests of the nineteenth century essentially were restorations of former rule, the Ethiopians, in their answer to the Italians, were inclined to disregard the disintegration of their country which had destroyed a central régime in the eighteenth century and later had led to repeated struggles among aspirants to the throne. The Ethiopians especially took umbrage at the Italian allegation that Shoa was subdued between 1887 and 1893; they rather asserted the occupation of Shoa about the year of 937. League of Nations Official Journal, November, 1935, p. 1588 ff; Document C.357.M.182.1935.VII, comments by M. Marcel Griaule.

2 See British Foreign Office Handbooks, No. 129, Abyssinia, 1920, pp. 22, 26 Google Scholar.

3 For Italian colonial history, see Mondiani, G., Manuale di Storia e legislazione coloniale del regno d’ltalia, Rome, 1927 Google Scholar; Crispi, F., La Prima Guerra d’Africa , Milano, 1914 Google Scholar.

4 See Hertslet, E., The Map of Africa by Treaty, London, 1909, Vol. III, p. 1086 Google Scholar.

5 Hertslet, The Map of Africa by Treaty, Voi. II, p. 422 Google Scholar.

6 Ibid., p. 448.

7 Rossetti, C., Storia Diplomatica dell’Etiopia, Torino, 1910, p. 23 Google Scholar.

8 Camera dei Deputati, No. XV, Documenti Diplomatici, Seduta del 17 dicembre 1889, Rome, 1890, p. 434; English translation in British and Foreign State Papers, Voi. LXXXI, p. 733.

9 Loe. cit., 6 maggio 1890, p. 19; Br. & For. St. Papers, Voi. LXXXI, p. 736.

10 “His Majesty the King of Kings of Ethiopia consents to make use of the Italian Government for any negotiations which he may enter into with other Powers or Governments.”

11 Camera dei Deputali, No. XV, loc. cit., p. 433.

l2 Ibid., p. 439.

13 Ibid., p. 457.

14 For the following, see Camera dei Deputati, No. XVII, Documenti Diplomatici, Seduta del 14 aprile 1891, Rome, 1891.

15 The Amharic word which Menelik translated with “pense” is “icdallaciual” ; see de Zerbi, Rocco, “Il trattato di Uedotti,” in Nuova Antologia di scienze, lettere ed arti, Terza Serie , Voi. 32, 1891, p. 760 ffGoogle Scholar; Documenti Diplomatici, loc. dt., p. 59; for a reproduction of the Amharic original see Ernest Work, Ethiopia, A Pawn in European Diplomacy, New York, 1935, p. 120.Google Scholar

16 British Foreign Service Handbooks, No. 129, Abyssinia, p. 33.

17 Ibid., p. 104.

18 Hertslet, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 948 Google Scholar.

19 Ibid., p. 949.

20 Ibid., p. 951.

21 Ibid., p. 726.

22 British and Foreign State Papers, Voi. LXXXVIII, p. 481.

23 Ministro degli Affari Esteri, Trattati, Convenzioni, Accordi, Protocolli ed altri documenti relativi all’Africa, Voi. I, Bome, 1906, p. 563.

24 Rossetti, C., op. dt., p. 248 Google Scholar.

25 Ibid., p. 249.

26 League of Nations Document C.49.M.22.1935.VII, p. 5.

27 Norman Dwight Harris, Europe and Africa, Boston, New York, etc., 1927, p. 137 Google ScholarPubMed.

28 Hertslet, op, cit., p. 461 Google Scholar; the concession was modified in the same year in order to make possible a railway to Addis Ababa.

29 Documents Diplomatiques, Affaires du Haut-Nil et du Bakr-el-Ghazal, 1897-1898, Paris, 1898.

30 Hertslet, op. cit., p. 793 ff.

31 Ibid., p. 460.

32 Ibid., p. 433.

33 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. CI, p. 1002.

34 Ibid., p. 1000.

35 British and Foreign State Papers, Voi. Cl, p. 1001.

36 Carlo Citemi, Ai confini meridionali dell’Etiopia, Milano, 1913 Google Scholar.

37 League of Nations, Memorandum by the Italian Government, Document C.340(a).M. 171 (a).1935.VII, p. 5.

38 Citemi, op. dt., p. 160 Google Scholar. This fact does not appear in the documents submitted to the League by Italy (see footnote 37).

39 Hertslet, op. cit., p. 421 Google Scholar.

40 Ibid., p. 423.

41 Ibid., p. 438.

42 Ibid., p. 431.

43 Ibid., p. 434.

44 Hertslet, op. cit., p. 434 Google Scholar.

45 Ibid., p. 997.

46 Malloy, W. M., Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and other Powers, 1910, Vol. I, p. 466 ffGoogle Scholar.

47 Ministero degli Affari Esteri, Trattati, Convenzioni, Accordi, Protocolli ed altri documenti relativi all’Africa, Vol. I, Rome, 1906, p. 697.

48 See, e.g., Foreign Office Handbooks, No. 129, Abyssinia, p. 49.

49 Hertslet, op. cit., p. 963.

50 Ibid., p. 436, English translation, p. 440.

51 See above p. 192.

52 Michel, Charles, “La question d’Éthiopie après l’accord franco-anglo-italien du 13 décembre 1908,” in Revue Politique et Parlementaire, tome LI, p. 48 ff (p. 51)Google Scholar; Rouard de Card, E., L’Éthiopie au point de vue du droit international, Paris, 1928, p. 58 ffGoogle Scholar; League of Nations, Report of the Council of Oct. 7, 1935, C.411(1).M.207(1).1935.VII, p. 11.

53 Work, op. cit., p. 325, concludes that the three Powers could decide at any time that the status quo should not be maintained.

54 The main line was finished in 1918.

55 In 1934 the French railroad company was granted a concession for a railroad west of Addis Ababa. See MacCallum, E. P., Rivalries in Ethiopia, Boston and New York, 1935, p. 38 Google Scholar.

56 MacCallum, op. cit., p. 32, incorrectly speaks about an internationalization of the line.

57 Translation of the Emperor’s letter of Dec. 10,1906, to Great Britain, in British Foreign Office Handbook, No. 129, Abyssinia, p. 51 :

“We have received the arrangement made by the three Powers. We thank them for their communication and their desire to keep and maintain the independence of our Government. But let it be understood that this arrangement in no way limits our sovereign rights.”

Translation of the Emperor’s letter of Dec. 4, 1906, to Italy, in Ministero degli Affari Esteri, Trattati, Convenzioni, Accordi, Protocolli ed altri Documenti relativi all’Africa, Rome, 1906, Voi. 2, p. 1257:

“Mi è pervenuta la Convenzione delle tre Potenze ; io le ringrazio dell’avermela partecipata e della loro volontà di consolidare e mantenere l’indipendenza del Nostro regno. Ma questa attuale convenzione nelle parole di qualunque di esse (Potenze), è sottoposta al Nostro potere sovrano e sia noto che essa non Ci vincola in qualunque Nostra parola.”

58 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. CXIII, p. 740.

59 Ibid., Vol. CXII, p. 973.

60 Ibid., Vol. CXIX, p. 428.

61 Ibid., p. 433.

62 New York Times, July 21, 1934.

63 Ibid., Jan. 9 and 10,1935. According to more recent newspaper reports, this agreement has not yet been put into effect.

64 League of Nations, Records of the Fourth Assembly, Text of the Debates, Geneva, 1923, p. 124 Google Scholar.

65 League of Nations Document A.55.1923.VI. See also telegram of Ras Teferi Mekonen to the League, Document A.25.1923. VII.

66 League of Nations Document A.105.1923.VII.

67 Hertslet, op. tit., p. 488.

68 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. XCIX, p. 252.

69 Ibid., Vol. CXII, pp. 901, 909, 925.

70 League of Nations Document C.586.M.223.1926.VI.

71 Great Britain, Treaty Series, Ethiopia, No. 1 (1930).

72 Fenwick, Charles G., in International Law, 2d ed., p. 9 Google Scholar, is of the opinion that with Ethiopia’s admission to the League, the tripartite agreement of 1906 came implicitly to an end as far as it forbade unilateral intervention in Ethiopia by one of the three Powers. This opinion does not seem to have been accepted by any of the three Powers.

73 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. CXXI, p. 805.

74 See New York Times, June 2 and 15,1935. According to statements of these issues, the Egyptian and the Sudanese Governments, on the one hand, and the Ethiopian Emperor, on the other hand, agreed that the J. G. White Co. of New York should receive the concession. The British Government denied its participation in the negotiations.

75 See de Card, E. Rouard, op. cit., p. 61 Google Scholar.

76 League of Nations Official Journal, Nov. 1926.

77 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. CXXIX, p. 1.

78 Ibid., p. 2.

79 Ibid., p. 3.

80 League of Nations Official Journal, January, 1933. For Ethiopia’s accession to protocols amending the Statute, see League of Nations Official Journal, April, 1935, p. 501.

81 Ibid., October, 1934.

82 United States, Department of State, Treaty for the Renunciation of War, 1933, p. 175.

83 League of Nations Official Journal, April, 1935, p. 501.

84 Ibid,., July-August, 1921.

85 Ibid., January, 1932.

86 United States, Department of State, op. cit., p. 95.

87 League of Nations Official Journal, January, 1932.