In Full Flower 319imperialism. It was, like so many of the terms, rather loosely used, generally
to mean that the subordinate state could act in de pen dently, but subject to an
obligation to do nothing incompatible with the interests or wishes of the su-
perior (or suzerain). Some countries were described as tributary states.
Sometimes, native states were nominally in de pen dent but with the rulers re-
ceiving “advice” from major powers. Th ere were also “sphere of infl uence”
arrangements, in which powers agreed to allow one another a free hand,
without interference, in a designated area. Th ese were essentially agreements
not to compete— but not involving any purported conferring of legal title.
Lawmaking in Action
It has been observed that, to the mainstream positivist lawyers of the nine-
teenth century, international lawmaking was a bottom- up rather than a top-
down pro cess. Th e two principal mechanisms for this do- it- yourself law-
making were customary practice (suitably fortifi ed by opinio juris) and
treaty making. Th ere were some important innovations in the nineteenth
century, though. Most outstanding was the practice of concluding multilat-
eral treaties— a pro cess that reached its highest pitch at the Second Hague
Peace Conference of 1907. Th ere were also some who favored— and others
who opposed— the codifi cation of international law itself.
Multilateral Treaties
One of the most striking features of the nineteenth- century international
legal scene was the prevalence of multilateral conventions. Th ey were not
actually an invention of the nineteenth century, but their widespread use
dates from that period. Important early examples were the Treaties of Paris
of 1814– 15. Prior peace arrangements at the conclusions of multistate wars
had generally consisted of sets of bilateral treaties. Th e earliest major multi-
lateral convention devoted to international law points was the Declaration
of Paris of 1856, which was a side initiative at the Paris Peace Conference of
that year (the chief task of which was to end the Crimean War). In providing
for the principle that “free ships make free goods,” the declaration was rep-
licating the common bilateral treaty practice of the Eu ro pe an maritime