The Dutch were very much more business like. They didn't have treaties, which have a status in international law. Instead, they had contracts with the local ruler, regent, regency council or other native authority.

The word "contract" tells you quite a lot about the purpose. Originally, the Dutch East India Company were primarily interested in trade, and more specifically, ensuring a monopoly over trade with the East Indies. The purpose of the original contracts were to secure trade and ensure that the local rulers did not trade with other nations. Each ruler had to sign a new contract on his succession, provided his succession was recognised or agreed with the Governor-General in Batavia. Gradually over time each ruler was required to agree to more and more conditions, which went beyond mere trade.

As contracts, rather than treaties, the local rulers were not recognised as sovereigns, either by Dutch or international law.

Because of the treaty system, the British would only ever recognise a single sovereign authority within a given polity. Which, contrary to the usual nationalist refrain of divide and rule, resulted in the consolidation and unity of states over time.

The Dutch system, on the other hand, meant a willingness to sign contracts with whomever was willing to do so and supply the trading needs of the company. Often, this would mean than in a given polity, contracts would be signed with a multiplicity of local regional magnates, landlords and noblemen, not just the supreme ruler. This led to gradual dismemberment of the original polity into smaller and smaller entities over.

--Previous Message--
: Did the various monarchs in Indonesia during
: the time of the Netherlands control have the
: same powers as the Princes of India &
: the Sultans of Malaya? Did the various
: states have specific boundaries as the
: states in India did? In other words were
: they sovereign internally over specific
: states?
: