Talk:Suzerainty

India
No mention is made of the Indian Princely States which were under the Suzerainty of the British Indian Empire until 1947 Lakshadweep was never a suzerain state of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.177.246 (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan
The Princely States which acceded to Pakistan maintained their soverignity 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.

United States
Is there a reason why the listings at the bottom of the page are reversed for the United States? For all of the other dependancy relationships, the larger power is listed first, but this is reversed for the United States. - Fasrad 16:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Suzerain
I dont know what this is but a Suzerain should not link here. A suzerain is a chief or head general. Get rid of the redirection to this page.freestylefrappe 23:29, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * While suzerain can mean a chief of some sort, what is described on this page is one of the definitions of a suzerain, and thus suzerain should redirect here. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 01:12, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

In that case a disambiguation page should be created with links to Suzerainty and a dead link to Suzerain. freestylefrappe 20:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make sense. I don't understand why you want to, as you say, "create a dead link to suzerain". What good is a dead link?


 * If you are suggesting having a "suzerain (disambiguation)" page which links to "suzerainty" and "suzerain", that is not a good idea. The definition of suzerain as chief is essentially derived from the definition of suzerainty, and what is one to write on the "suzerain" article other than a dictdef, e.g., "Suzerain is a word that can mean a chief."? mdash;Lowellian (talk) 00:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Monaco.
Monaco, while it is under French protection, it is not, however under French suzerainty. Monaco is a fully independent state, & French law has no force there. - (Aidan Work 05:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

The souverainity of Monaco was in question because in July 1918, a treaty was signed providing for limited French protection over Monaco. The treaty, part of the Treaty of Versailles, established that Monegasque policy would be aligned with French political, military, and economic interests. That means that Monaco was not only following French interests by its own will and as long as it wanted but that Monaco was mandatory bound by this treaty in foreign and some internal affairs (e.g. its prime minister). Monaco could not not abrogate this treaty`s obligations by its own will. Therefore it could not fulfil its international obligations as a sovereign state without the consent of France. That means that Monaco was not souveraign or otherwise called independent. Meanwhile the legal status and the relations with France have changed - but only with the consent to this change by the suzerain France. --213.55.131.23 21:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
Is there any truth in suggesting that recent devloution in the U.K. has created a Suzerainty ? Frelke 08:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Scotland and Wales are territories with autonomous rights by British law inside the kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the House of Commons can abrogate their autonomous rights by an ordinary bill and without the consent of Scotland or Wales. Before the union of Scotland and England in 1707 Scotland was a separate territory with its own souvereign which was the same as in the kingdom of England since King James I. Then Scotland was formally a sovereign nation but in fact without an independent foreign and military policy i.e. England was suzerain in Scotland.

Today Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a suzerain to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man which are autonomous crown dependencies and not integrated territories of Great Britain like Wales, Cornwall or Scotland.

--213.55.131.23 21:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Shimonoseki
Removed that text since that isn't what the treaty stated

Article 1 states


 * China recognises definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea, and, in consequence, the payment of tribute and the performance of ceremonies and formalities by Korea to China, in derogation of such independence and autonomy, shall wholly cease for the future.

Pronunciation, please...
Any word like this needs to have its pronunciation made clear at the outset. Please include its pronunciation at the beginning of the article.


 * It is not a difficult word to pronounce, and there are dictionaries for that purpose, like Wiktionary. Please sign your comments. Elfred (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottomans
Is there any reason why the ottoman empire is not included in the list of suzerainty's? It is such an excellent example and was organized so well, it seems to be to the detriment of the article that the ottoman's aren't included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.181.78.204 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

What about Palestine vis-a-vis the Ottoman Empire?

Does the relationship between Rome and Jerusalem in 30 AD with Pontius Pilate as prefect or procurator, and the Sanhedrin and High Priest as local government, qualify as Suzerainty?DanB 05:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

China
some one seems to have a political agenda concerning china and the qing...i have included references to the ethnic distinction between manchurian qing and the chinese as well as to the notion of their empire to further the discussion of problems of modern suzerainty and sovereignty in light of history. my contributions are accurate and lend themselves to completing a broader picture of the opinions of the various non-chinese parties involved in the debate over modern china's territorial claims. yet, my contributions are repeatedly changed to a version which aligns itself with a reading of history more amenable to the the peoples republic of china. whoever it is who insists on concealing the facts, could you maybe just cut it out? i see people contributing to hundreds and hundreds of entries. i, instead, contribute only to those discussion about which i have some expertise. if you dispute something i am saying, comment on it, but if you just revert over and over to your old saved version, i can only imagine that you have an agenda but no expertise. this being the case, go mess around in one of your 500 or so entries, mr. expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmyandy (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to point out that the article says that the Qing signed treaties with Britain over the suzerainty of Tibet. The Qing never signed anything like that, but the Nationalists after the Qing did go to a meeting that was similar, called the Simla Convention. However, they never signed this treaty, although they went to the meetings. This is due to that they see themselves as the sovereign of Tibet, and don't see Tibet as the suzerain. Only Tibet, India, and Britain signed this treaty. Thus the statement would be inaccurate. The Qing did sign treaties with Britain over Tibet, but nowhere in these treaties did the word suzerain(or sovereign for that matter) exist. Gnip 2:54, 23 November 2007


 * I have deleted "This is important because it establishes a history of rule over Tibet as well as providing a legal theory of Chinese rule of Tibet under international law, albeit one which is disputed by supporters of Tibetan independence." in the Tibet part. This quote is by no way proven by international law that suzerainety induce any rights such as invasion of a country. Tibet was independent indeed (since 1911) when it was invaded. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * While it might be proper to use the term "invade" since the same term was use to descript the union invasion of the confederacy during the US civil war, it does not however mean Tibet was an independent state between the period of ROC, lhasa has never made such a proclamation(declaration of independence) to the ROC government, there is no need for "rights to invade" when you are part of the civil war. it is well documented that chinese forces were in tibet prior to the founding of PRC due to infighting among the tibetan factions, the idea that Tibet was free and under lhasa's control during this period is questionable and it attempts to deny the fact that the tibetan did not all heed to lhasa's domination neither. Akinkhoo (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The UK-Qing convention of 1906 strengthened Chinese rights in Tibet, according to Warren Smith's Tibetan Nation(p162) and Alastir Lamb's The McMahon Line: A Study in the Relations Between India, China and Tibet(Volumn 1), the treaty was interpreted, although not mentioning the exact word, as an implicit recognition of Chinese sovereignty:

"The Government of Great Britain engages not to annex Tibet territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet. The Government of China also undertakes not to permit any other foreign state to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet" (emphasis added) 219.79.27.59 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Microhermit?
When searching for 'suzerainty' I came into this page, obviously an 'alternative' Wiki page with lots of errors. What does this mean? And why does it say 'microhermit' in the adress?

http://microhermit.com/index.php/Suzerainty Antipoeten (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian discusses term
That was my introduction -- some may find it interesting to look up the section in which the term is found.--Jrm2007 (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mesopotamia
The governance of city-states in Mesopotamia is not mentioned here, however "suzerain" appears throughout C. Leonard Woolley's description of Sumerian/Akkadian power struggles. Suzerainty was a common system in Mesopotamia as different cultural groups dominated other groups and city-states, but apparently allowed conquered peoples a great deal of autonomy. Some tributary city-states even had governors that measured time according their own reigns, as opposed to the reigns of the suzerain. This article focuses on more modern examples of suzerainty, perhaps because of the lack of material evidence of the system in the Ancient Near East. I would encourage anyone with the requisite expertise (perhaps me in a few months, should I get that grad school offer!) to add this to the article, should it be valid.128.42.158.152 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition
[Suzerainty] differs from sovereignty in that the tributary has some (limited) self-rule.

I'm fairly certain that this is not the difference between suzerainty and sovereignty. The autonomous regions of Spain have limited self-rule. So does Scotland. But no one disputes that Spain has sovereignty over Andalusia, or that the UK has sovereignty over Scotland. So obviously this is not the difference between sovereignty and suzerainty. For that matter, the various states of the United States are themselves sovereign entities, but no one disputes that the United States of America exercises sovereignty over them.

Beyond that, to describe suzerainty as pertaining to only "limited" self-rule seems very weak. The classic examples of suzerainty in the Ottoman Empire were instances where there were governments that had virtually complete self-rule, and only very limited bonds attaching them to the Sublime Porte - usually some sort of annual tribute and an acknowledgement of suzerainty. Egypt under the Khedives, or Bulgaria after the Congress of Berlin, were certainly under Ottoman suzerainty, but said suzerainty had only very limited application.

I would add, why don't we have a section talking about states over which the Ottoman Empire had suzerainty? We say that the term derived from that (which is not, I think, actually true - 1911 Britannica describes it as a term from feudal law, which is my understanding as well), but we don't actually describe that situation.

At any rate, I think we ought to go back to older sources that were written at a time when situations of suzerainty were more common.

The aforementioned 1911 Britannica gives a couple of definitions historically used:
 * from Martens' Treatise on International Law (I have translated this from the original French, which Britannica gives without translating): "Suzerainty is the limited sovereignty exercised by the supreme power of a state over a mi-souverain (roughtly "dependent") government. [Britannica notes that this definition would include a protectorate as well as true instances of suzerainty]
 * from Lord Kimberley, British Colonial Secretary, who was using it in reference to the South African Republic: ''Superiority over a state possessing independent rights of government subject to reservations with reference to certain specified matters'.'

There's much more. At any rate, in general, the Britannica 1911 account is far, far superior to this one, which is always disappointing. john k (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The existing definition doesn't seem adequate: "a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which controls its foreign affairs while allowing the tributary some limited domestic autonomy." This would make any federal state a sovereignty/suzerainty relationship, which doesn't seem right. The word "tributary" is also odd - countries gave up paying tribute long ago. Among the examples given, Bhutan is a sovereign nation - it has a seat in the UN - but Sikkim is not. Not just India either - Nauru also has a seat in the UN, but Norfolk Island is iundependent enough that citizens of Australia need special documents to go there. Sorry that all I can do is point out problems, I really don't have any solution. PiCo (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article is confused, I fear. It starts off with a dictionary definition, and attempts to assign a number of modern countries to the definition without references to indicate that the term is in fact used in international law to describe those countries. Some points to note:


 * 'Suzerainty' is first a concept in the feudal system of the Middle Ages. And it concerned persons, not countries. A suzerain lord was the lord who had first rights of fealty over a subject. For example, suppose a duke in France owed fealty to both the King of France and the King of England (it frequently happened that a person might be a vassal of two or more lords with opposing interests). If England and France went to war, to whom is that duke first bound? To solve the problem, one of the feudal superiors was designated the 'suzerain', or the lord to whom obedience was first due. The article makes no reference to this first meaning of suzerainty.
 * If one wishes to transpose suzerainty to modern nations (dubious-no references to indicate that the term is in fact used) then suzerain would refer to the dominant state, not the subject state, according to the explanation just given.
 * The article seems to be talking about protectorates or client states, in which case it would be more helpful to refer to them as such.

I suggest that the term be properly referenced. A dictionary definition will not do. The article needs to explain the feudal concept. Then it needs to demonstrate how, if at all, any modern countries fit the definition, and how, if at all, the concept is used in international law.Gazzster (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Suzerainty in Modern Politics
The page should include a list of current suzerains, such as Greenland, Andorra, Gibraltar, and possibly Scotland and Wales. Bufinidas (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it should not. The concept of suzerainty does not apply to modern forms of dependencies. Henning Blatt (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wherefore, then, not a link to a list of modern dependencies, along with an explanatory note? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bufinidas (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Near East
Is there a reason this explanation of who has studied the subject belongs in this section, or anywhere in this article?:


 * "While the structure of ancient Hittite treaties was recorded by Victor Korošec,[7] the first application of the Suzerainty structure to Israel was presented by George E. Mendenhall in 1955.[8]"

I suggest it be deleted from the article. It could be retained on this Talk page and/or repurposed as a reference (where needed).

Zulu Kane (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Near East
I am a student at Miami University studying the Hebrew bible and we are discussing covenants. I feel there should be a more indepth description of the sections founds within the treaty.

In a suzerain treaty, the second section of the written agreement was called the historical prologue. This section would outline the relationship the two groups had up until that point with historical detail and facts that are very beneficial to scholars today, such as scholar George Mendenhall who focuses on this type of covenant as it pertained to the Israelite traditions. The suzerain would document previous events in which they did a favor that benefitted the vassal. The purpose of this would show that the more powerful group was merciful and giving, therefore, the vassal should obey the stipulations that are presented in the treaty.It discusses the relationship between them as a personal relationship instead of a solely political one. TWloveandhonor (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea to improve this article. Add the course banner, pls. And Mendenhall was a scholar, not a theologian :) Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Soviet Bloc?
Wouldn't the Soviet Bloc be the epitome of suzerainty in the 20th century? The USSR was the suzerain, and the other countries (Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.), while not part of the Soviet Union proper, were essentially at its mercy in regards to foreign policy. Even domestic policy was a suzerainty. These bloc countries had their own heads of state, but the USSR pulled the strings and kept them one-party communist.

I could be misunderstanding suzerainty altogether, but it seems like the suzerain is the dominant force, and the technically independent countries that orbit around it and are bound by its decisions are like vassal/puppet-states, even if technically independent and being allowed some degree of self-governance.

I don't think it's quite accurate to apply this concept to the federal states of the USA or the constituent countries of the UK or the autonomous regions of Spain. The Soviet Bloc seems like the best example.

Generalising
The introductional description of suzerainity is generalizing too much and is wrong for many feudal contracts. In many situations the overlord gave the (leading) rules for the governing. The definition makes it look like there does / did exist a kind of global law for all contracts that didn't change over ages. What exactly the rules in a certain relationship were, did differ very much, over the ages, depending on the region, on local (feudal) law / customs or the de facto powerpositions of overlord and vassal etc. It is a must to mention that the relationship in the middle ages mostly was based on an individual contract. Maybe give a few examples that differ much in time, place and content. 2001:9E8:4431:8B01:42E:47BB:A8AA:A1FF (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You cannot just focus on the medieal meaning, to the exclusion of the present day meaning. Please feel free to add a section on the medieval usage, and we can think later about how to summarise it in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)