[Footnote 109: See below, §§ 126-127, where the different kinds of these restrictions are discussed.]
(3) States which become permanently neutralised are thereby also affected in their character as International Persons, although their independence remains untouched. But permanent neutralisation alters the condition of a State so much that it thereby becomes an International Person of a particular kind.
[Sidenote: Extinction of International Persons.]
§ 79. A State ceases to be an International Person when it ceases to exist. Theoretically such extinction of International Persons is possible through emigration or the perishing of the whole population of a State, or through a permanent anarchy within a State. But it is evident that such cases will hardly ever occur in fact. Practical cases of extinction of States are: Merger of one State into another, annexation after conquest in war, breaking up of a State into several States, and breaking up of a State into parts which are annexed by surrounding States.
By voluntarily merging into another State, a State loses all its independence and becomes a mere part of another. In this way the Duchy of Courland merged in 1795 into Russia, the two Principalities of Hohenzollern-Hechingen and Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen in 1850 into Prussia, the Congo Free State in 1908 into Belgium, and Korea in 1910 into Japan. And the same is the case if a State is subjugated by another. In this way the Orange Free State and the South African Republic were absorbed by Great Britain in 1901. An example of the breaking up of a State into different States is the division of the Swiss canton of Basle into Basel-Stadt and Basel-Land in 1833. And an example of the breaking up of a State into parts which are annexed by surrounding States is the absorption of Poland by Russia, Austria, and Prussia in 1795.
Grotius, II. c. 9 and 10--Pufendorf, VIII. c. 12--Hall, §§ 27-29--Phillimore, I. § 137--Lawrence, § 49--Halleck, I. pp. 89-92--Taylor, §§ 164-168--Westlake, I. pp. 68-83--Wharton, I. § 5--Moore, I. §§ 92-99--Wheaton, §§ 28-32--Bluntschli, §§ 47-50--Hartmann, § 12--Heffter, § 25--Holtzendorff in Holtzendorff, II. pp. 33-47--Liszt, § 23--Ullmann, § 32--Bonfils, Nos. 216-233--Despagnet, Nos. 89-102--Pradier-Fodéré, I. Nos. 156-163--Nys, I. pp. 399-401--Rivier, I. § 3, pp. 69-75 and p. 438--Calvo, I. §§ 99-103--Fiore, I. Nos. 349-366--Martens, I. § 67--Appleton, "Des effets des annexions sur les dettes de l'état démembré ou annexé" (1895)--Huber, "Die Staatensuccession" (1898)--Keith, "The Theory of State Succession, with special reference to English and Colonial Law" (1907)--Cavaglieri, "La dottrina della successione di stato a stato, &c." (1910)--Richards in _The Law Magazine and Review_, XXVIII. (1903), pp. 129-141--Keith in Z.V. III. (1909), pp. 618-648--Hershey in A.J. V. (1911), pp. 285-297.