RELATIONS BETWEEN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY 547 



action, the union of the two nations for that purpose, is called Austria- 

 Hungary, or, since their ruler is physically one monarch, the 

 Austro-Hungarian monarchy, though that term, as being apt to 

 misinterpretation, is not very felicitously chosen and will probably 

 fall into desuetude. Austria-Hungary, then, as is shown by the 

 double term itself, does not mean one empire, but the permanent 

 union of two nations for certain international purposes. In all 

 international affairs not belonging to the sphere of national defense 

 (such as railway conventions, extradition treaties, copyright con- 

 ventions, etc.), the international personality of Hungary not only can, 

 but must act separately, because with respect to them there is no 

 union with Austria, and, therefore, their joint action cannot even 

 be juridically constructed, except on the grounds of some (ad hoc) 

 convention between them. In fact, some treaties belonging to this 

 category have been concluded jointly by " Austria-Hungary," but 

 this was done by an inadvertence which is not likely to occur again. 



It may be difficult practically to draw a precise boundary-line 

 between the matters in which the international personality of Hun- 

 gary acts separately, and those in which, as long as the present 

 law remains effective, she can act only in connection with Austria; 

 but juridically the distinction exists, and Hungary has availed 

 herself of it in several international treaties which she has independ- 

 ently concluded, and even where joint action is necessary it is not 

 the action of one empire (which, having no substance, is hardly 

 capable of action of any sort), but the joint action of two. Being 

 bound to such joint action in certain matters, the union of these 

 two constitutes one great power; because what is power but 

 potentiality of action - - in our case of joint action? But it is not 

 necessary to invest that great power with a juridical personality of 

 its own; the fact that it represents a permanent obligation of two 

 personalities to act jointly in matters of peace and war answers to 

 all lequirements, theoretical and practical. 



We can easily see now the chief source of the erroneous views 

 generally prevailing about the legal status of Hungary. Our country 

 usually appears in joint international action with Austria, she has a 

 common representation with her; these facts are apt, by themselves, 

 to spread a false impression, which could be prevented only if the 

 forms of such joint action and common representation would clearly 

 indicate, as they ought to do, the two sovereignties which, though 

 acting in conjunction, are possessed each of its own personality. 



of practical expediency which we need not discuss here. Some new scheme 

 might be devised, or the guarantee contained in the physical identity of the 

 monarch, whom both constitutions invest with an efficient prerogative in foreign 

 affairs, might be thought sufficient for the purpose. At all events, contrary to 

 a widespread and artificially fostered opinion, the European system of powers 

 would remain undisturbed. 



