STATES UNIONS. – Two or more States may voluntarily, and in a more or less stable manner, cooperate for general purposes of common interest: if the cooperation is regulated by norms of internal law, a federal State is created, which internationally has relevance as such, whereas the Confederation, leaving the confederated States as autonomous and independent entities, holds them together by bonds of international law, but internationally such a profile has no relevance, inasmuch as, in the name and on behalf of the Confederation, as long as it exists, the federal organs act.
If, instead, the cooperation is regulated by norms of particular international law, the so-called States unions (U. di S.) are formed.
I. UNION ON AN INEQUALITY BASIS
The position of the States may be twofold: namely, it may be ordered on a basis of equality or of inequality. If the States cooperate on a basis of legal inequality, the figures of protectorate and vassalage arise (the cooperation is regulated by the protectorate pact, which determines its conditions, it not being excluded that the protectorate is autonomously represented diplomatically), and that of mandate (in its three forms A, B, C), born and dead with the Covenant of the League of Nations (art. 22), and now replaced by trusteeship administrations.II. UNION ON AN EQUALITY BASIS
If the cooperative relations are based on the principle of equality among the States of the union, the two forms of personal union and real union arise.1. Personal union
Personal union arises from the accidental and temporary sharing of the sovereign, deriving from internal arrangements, so that it has been doubted (Kuntz) whether it can be qualified as a union in the strict sense. Although it creates no direct bond between the two States, each retaining its own form of government (the king of Belgium, constitutional in Belgium, was an absolute sovereign in the Congo), its own responsibilities, its own citizens (a citizen of one State is a foreigner in the other), it cannot be denied that the sovereign may find himself in difficulties in certain situations, being able to find himself having to adopt measures contrary to one of the States of which he is sovereign in favor of the other, which is why some constitutions expressly forbid II. Among these may be recalled the union of England and Hanover (1714–1838), lasting over 120 years; that of Prussia and Neuchâtel, lasting a century and a half (1702–1857); that of Holland and Luxembourg (1815–90); and that of Belgium and the Congo (1885–1908). Personal unions have also been qualified as that of Iceland and Denmark (1918–44) and that of Italy and Albania (1939–43), but these were real unions. At present, no personal unions exist. It must nonetheless be noted that these leave intact the personality and action of the individual States, which is not the case for real unions.2. Real union
A real union is distinguished by the fact that it is organized in a stable manner, according to norms deriving from parallel national laws, confirmed by custom and practice, or by virtue of an international treaty (union pact), which permanently regulates the relations of union. There is not only a common head of State, but also certain organs, certain fundamental services, and the union also has repercussions on a special situation of the citizens of the united countries.Hence, it is essential to take into account the union pact. The so-called Compromise of 1867 was the foundation of the dualist arrangement of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which placed at the head of the coalition of States included in the monarchy (1867–1918) the emperor-king of Hungary. By the Treaty of Moss (1815), the crown of Norway was attributed to the king of Sweden. The two States had in common the minister of Foreign Affairs and diplomatic representation. In 1905 (Treaty of Karlstad), they peacefully dissolved the Union. By the law of 30 Nov. 1918, no. 619, the two free sovereignties of Denmark and Iceland—though Iceland retained its neutrality—formed a union, reserving to Denmark the management of certain Icelandic interests (supreme court, currency, fishing, foreign policy), which Denmark did with great understanding of Icelandic interests, so much so that, when sanctions were adopted against Italy for the conflict with Ethiopia, Denmark adhered to the sanctions, while Iceland abstained. The Danish-Icelandic union pact was due to expire in 1940. The independence movement had made progress, and in that year Denmark was occupied by German forces, while the Americans occupied Iceland. The Althing (16 May 1941) proclaimed Iceland’s independence, and in Feb. 1944 the Act of Union was declared lapsed and the independent Republic was proclaimed (17 June 1944). Brief was the union of Italy and Albania (law of 16 Apr. 1939, no. 580), which was regulated by a series of conventions (citizenship and customs, 20 Apr. 1939; diplomatic representation, 3 June 1939, etc.).
Personal unions come to an end either through changes in internal arrangements, or through renunciation by the head of State of one of the two sovereignties, or through the extinction of one of the States. Real unions come to an end either by mutual consent, or through the end of one of the States, or through the breaking of the union by the act of one of the States, suffered by the other.
III. NEW FORMS OF UNION
All these unions have fallen away. The Soviet arrangements and those of the British Commonwealth have inspired some new forms of union. In the Dutch-Indonesian Agreement of Batavia of 15 Nov. 1946, an attempt was made to constitute a Union of the Netherlands with the United States of Indonesia, with Sri Lanka and Curaçao. But the unitary formation of Indonesia subsequently prevailed, and the general development of situations leaves one very perplexed about the real consistency of the Union, which is increasingly oriented toward the symbolic communion of the Dutch crown, as, that is, the British Commonwealth may be considered a particular typical form of States unions, very evanescent.Neither the French Union, as programmed in the Constitution of 1946, nor the USSR can be considered as States unions, inasmuch as, despite the apparent state of equality of the united States, there is a pilot State, and it is this State that gives importance to the Union and assumes its diplomatic representation, even if direct diplomatic representation of the individual States is not excluded (in fact, in the USSR only the two Russian States of Byelorussia and Ukraine, and in France only those of Indochina, have such representation).
Finally, mention must be made of certain unions of limited or particular scope, called simple unions, inasmuch as one State acts in representation of another State for specific purposes (e.g., Belgium for the customs union of Belgium and Luxembourg, Brussels Convention of 1921; Switzerland for Liechtenstein, Berne Convention of 29 Mar. 1923) or the States form unions for specific effects (e.g., Benelux, a union for the time being economic of Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg; attempt at an Italo-French customs union). One would slip toward particular administrative unions if their political character did not prevail. Among unions must finally be included certain forms of alliances (political-military). States unions are also both the League of Nations (1920–46) and the UNO, but these must rather be considered as Societies of States for general cooperation with the tendency to become the juridical organization of the international community. This purpose, however, was lacking in the League of Nations, inasmuch as it failed to become universal, which was partly due to