CHAPTER II 

 The Plebiscite in Ancient and Feudal Times 



When a territory is transferred from the sovereignty of 

 one state to that of another, the consent of the inhabitants 

 of the territory thus aflfected is required to make the trans- 

 fer vaHd. Such is in essence and extent the doctrine of 

 popular consent, commonly called the right of self-determi- 

 nation or self-definition.^ 



Under the existing rules of international law, the inhabi- 

 tants of the territory ceded cease to be subjects or citizens 

 of the ceding state and become, or are forced to become, 

 sooner or later, subjects or citizens of the acquiring state.' 

 It is this enforced change of the personal relation to the 

 states involved, rather than the change of the state's sover- 

 eignty over the territory itself which provides the incentive 

 to, and the justification for, the demand that the voice of 

 the people be heard when such territorial changes are 

 effected.* 



^ See note 3. 



2 " As the object of cession is sovereignty over the ceded territory, 

 all such individuals domiciled thereon as are subjects of the ceding 

 State become ipso facto by the cession subjects of the acquiring 

 State" (L. Oppenheim, International Law, 2nd ed., New York, 

 1912, vol. i, p. 289). See also A. Rivier, Principes du droit des 

 gens, Paris, 1896, vol. i, p. 204. The privilege of option, a more 

 recent development, permitting inhabitants to choose between the 

 acceptance of the new and the retention of the old citizenship, will 

 be discussed later. 



8 "The hardship involved in the fact that in all cases of cession 

 the inhabitants of the territory lose their old citizenship and are 

 handed over to a new Sovereign whether they like it or not, has 

 created a movement' in favour of the claim that no cession shall be 

 valid until the inhabitants have by a plebiscite given their consent 

 to the cession. . . ." (Oppenheim, vol. i, pp. 289-290.) The same view 

 prevails among American writers on international law. In Ameri- 

 can Insurance Co. v. Canter, the United States Supreme Court states 

 that " the same act which transferred their territory transferred 

 the allegiance of those who remain in it," and in Boyd v. Thayer the 



28 



