§ 545. A treaty, although it has neither expired, nor been dissolved, nor become void, may nevertheless lose its binding force by cancellation. The causes of cancellation are four—namely, inconsistency with International Law created subsequent to the conclusion of the treaty, violation by one of the contracting parties, subsequent change of status of one of them, and war.

§ 546. Just as treaties have no binding force when concluded with reference to an illegal object, so they lose their binding force when through a progressive development of International Law they become inconsistent with the latter. Through the abolition of privateering among the signatory Powers of the Declaration of Paris of 1856, for example, all treaties between any of these Powers based on privateering as a recognised institution of International Law were ipso facto cancelled.[908] But it must be emphasised that subsequent Municipal Law can certainly have no such influence upon existing treaties. On occasions, indeed, subsequent Municipal Law creates for a State a conflict between its treaty obligations and such law. In such case this State must endeavour to obtain a release by the other contracting party from these obligations.[909]

§ 547. Violation of a treaty by one of the contracting States does not ipso facto cancel such treaty, but it is in the discretion of the other party to cancel it on the ground of violation. There is no unanimity among writers on International Law in regard to this point, in so far as a minority makes a distinction between essential and non-essential stipulations of the treaty, and maintains that violation of essential stipulations only creates a right for the other party to cancel the treaty. But the majority of writers rightly oppose this distinction, maintaining that it is not always possible to distinguish essential from non-essential stipulations, that the binding force of a treaty protects non-essential stipulations as well as essential ones, and that it is for the faithful party to consider for itself whether violation of a treaty, even in its least essential parts, justifies the cancelling of the treaty. The case, however, is different when a treaty expressly stipulates that it should not be considered broken by violation of merely one or another part of it. And it must be emphasised that the right to cancel the treaty on the ground of its violation must be exercised within a reasonable time after the violation has become known. If the Power possessing such right does not exercise it in due time, it must be taken for granted that such right has been waived. A mere protest, such as the protest of England in 1886 when Russia withdrew from article 59 of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878, which stipulated the freedom of the port of Batoum, neither constitutes a cancellation nor reserves the right of cancellation.

§ 548. A cause which ipso facto cancels treaties is such subsequent change of status of one of the contracting States as transforms it into a dependency of another State. As everything depends upon the merits of each case, no general rule can be laid down as regards the question when such change of status must be considered to have taken place, or, further, as regards the other question as to the kind of treaties cancelled by such change.[910] Thus, for example, when a State becomes a member of a Federal State, it is obvious that all its treaties of alliance are ipso facto cancelled, for in a Federal State the power of making war rests with the Federal State, and not with the several members. And the same is valid as regards a hitherto full-Sovereign State which comes under the suzerainty of another State. On the other hand, a good many treaties retain their binding force in spite of such a change in the status of a State, all such treaties, namely, as concern matters in regard to which the State has not lost its sovereignty through the change. For instance, if the constitution of a Federal State stipulates that the matter of extradition remains fully in the competence of the member-States, all treaties of extradition of members concluded with third States previous to their becoming members of the Federal State retain their binding force.

§ 549. How far war is a general ground of cancellation of treaties is not quite settled. Details on this point will be given below, vol. II. § 99.

XII RENEWAL, RECONFIRMATION, AND REDINTEGRATION OF TREATIES

Vattel, II. § 199—Hall, § 117—Taylor, § 400—Hartmann, § 51—Ullmann, § 85—Bonfils, Nos. 851-854—Despagnet, No. 456—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 1191-1199—Rivier, II. pp. 143-146—Calvo, III. §§ 1637, 1666, 1669—Fiore, II. Nos. 1048-1049, and Code, Nos. 835-838.

§ 550. Renewal of treaties is the term for the prolongation of such treaties before their expiration as were concluded for a definite period of time only. Renewal can take place through a new treaty, and the old treaty may then be renewed as a body or in parts only. But the renewal can also take place automatically, many treaties concluded for a certain period stipulating expressly that they are considered renewed for another period in case neither of the contracting parties has given notice.

§ 551. Reconfirmation is the term for the express statement made in a new treaty that a certain previous treaty, whose validity has or might have become doubtful, is still, and remains, valid. Reconfirmation takes place after such changes of circumstances as might be considered to interfere with the validity of a treaty; for instance, after a war, as regards such treaties as have not been cancelled by the outbreak of war. Reconfirmation can be given to the whole of a previous treaty or to parts of it only. Sometimes reconfirmation is given in this very precise way, that a new treaty stipulates that a previous treaty shall be incorporated in itself. It must be emphasised that in such a case those parties to the new treaty which have not been parties to the previous treaty do not now become so by its reconfirmation, the latter applying to the previous contracting parties only.

§ 552. Treaties which have lost their binding force through expiration or cancellation may regain it through redintegration. A treaty becomes redintegrated by the mutual consent of the contracting parties regularly given in a new treaty. Thus it is usual for treaties of peace to redintegrate all those treaties cancelled through the outbreak of war whose stipulations the contracting parties do not want to alter.

Without doubt, redintegration does not necessarily take place exclusively by a treaty, as theoretically it must be considered possible for the contracting parties tacitly to redintegrate an expired or cancelled treaty by a line of conduct which indicates apparently their intention to redintegrate the treaty. However, I do not know of any instance of such tacit redintegration.

XIII INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES

Grotius, II. c. 16—Vattel, II. §§ 262-322—Hall, §§ 111-112—Phillimore, II. §§ 64-95—Halleck, I. pp. 296-304—Taylor, §§ 373-393—Walker, § 31—Wheaton, § 287—Moore, V. §§ 763-764—Heffter, § 95—Ullmann, § 84—Bonfils, Nos. 835-837—Despagnet, No. 450—Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 1171-1189—Mérignhac, II. p. 678—Nys, III. pp. 41-43—Rivier, II. pp. 122-125—Calvo, III. §§ 1649-1660—Fiore, II. Nos. 1032-1046, and Code, Nos. 792-816—Martens, I. § 116—Westlake, I. pp. 282-283—Pick in R.G. XVII. (1907), pp. 5-35—Hyde in A.J. III. (1909), pp. 46-61.

§ 553. Neither customary nor conventional rules of International Law exist concerning interpretation of treaties. Grotius and the later authorities applied the rules of Roman Law respecting interpretation in general to interpretation of treaties. On the whole, such application is correct in so far as those rules of Roman Law are full of common sense. But it must be emphasised that interpretation of treaties is in the first instance a matter of consent between the contracting parties. If they choose a certain interpretation, no other has any basis. It is only when they disagree that an interpretation based on scientific grounds can ask a hearing. And these scientific grounds can be no other than those provided by jurisprudence. The best means of settling questions of interpretation, provided the parties cannot come to terms, is arbitration, as the appointed arbitrators will apply the general rules of jurisprudence. Now in regard to interpretation given by the parties themselves, there are two different ways open to them. They may either agree informally upon the interpretation and execute the treaty accordingly; or they may make an additional new treaty and stipulate therein such interpretation of the previous treaty as they choose. In the latter case one speaks of "authentic" interpretation in analogy with the authentic interpretation of Municipal Law given expressly by a statute. Nowadays treaties very often contain the so-called "compromise clause" as regards interpretation—namely, the clause that, in case the parties should not agree on questions of interpretation, these questions shall be settled by arbitration. Italy and Switzerland regularly endeavour to insert that clause in their treaties.

§ 554. It is of importance to enumerate some rules of interpretation[911] which recommend themselves on account of their suitability.

(1) All treaties must be interpreted according to their reasonable in contradistinction to their literal sense. An excellent example illustrating this rule is the following, which is quoted by several writers:—In the interest of Great Britain the Treaty of Peace of Utrecht of 1713 stipulated in its article 9 that the port and the fortifications of Dunkirk should be destroyed and never be rebuilt. France complied with this stipulation, but at the same time began building an even larger port at Mardyck, a league off Dunkirk. Great Britain protested on the ground that France in so acting was violating the reasonable, although not the literal, sense of the Peace of Utrecht, and France in the end recognised this interpretation and discontinued the building of the new port.

(2) The terms used in a treaty must be interpreted according to their usual meaning in the language of every-day life, provided they are not expressly used in a certain technical meaning or another meaning is not apparent from the context.

(3) It is taken for granted that the contracting parties intend something reasonable, something adequate to the purpose of the treaty, and something not inconsistent with generally recognised principles of International Law nor with previous treaty obligations towards third States. If, therefore, the meaning of a stipulation is ambiguous, the reasonable meaning is to be preferred to the unreasonable, the more reasonable to the less reasonable, the adequate meaning to the meaning not adequate for the purpose of the treaty, the consistent meaning to the meaning inconsistent with generally recognised principles of International Law and with previous treaty obligations towards third States.

(4) The principle in dubio mitius must be applied in interpreting treaties. If, therefore, the meaning of a stipulation is ambiguous, such meaning is to be preferred as is less onerous for the obliged party, or as interferes less with the parties' territorial and personal supremacy, or as contains less general restrictions upon the parties.

(5) Previous treaties between the same parties, and treaties between one of the parties and third parties, may be alluded to for the purpose of clearing up the meaning of a stipulation.

(6) If there is a discrepancy between the clear meaning of a stipulation, on the one hand, and, on the other, the intentions of one of the parties declared during the negotiations preceding the signing of a treaty, the decision must depend on the merits of the special case. If, for instance, the discrepancy was produced through a mere clerical error or by some other kind of mistake, it is obvious that an interpretation is necessary in accordance with the real intentions of the contracting parties.

(7) In case of a discrepancy between the clear meaning of a stipulation, on the one hand, and, on the other, the intentions of all the parties unanimously declared during the negotiations preceding the signing of the treaty, the meaning which corresponds to the real intentions of the parties must prevail over the meaning of the text. If, therefore—as in the case of the Declaration of London of 1909—the Report of the Drafting Committee contains certain interpretations and is unanimously accepted as authoritative by all the negotiators previous to the signing of the treaty, their interpretations must prevail.

(8) If two meanings of a stipulation are admissible according to the text of a treaty, such meaning is to prevail as the party proposing the stipulation knew at the time to be the meaning preferred by the party accepting it.

(9) If it is a matter of common knowledge that a State upholds a meaning which is different from the generally prevailing meaning of a term, and if nevertheless another State enters into a treaty with the former in which such term is made use of, such meaning must prevail as is upheld by the former. If, for instance, States conclude commercial treaties with the United States of America in which the most-favoured-nation clause[912] occurs, the particular meaning which the United States attribute to this clause must prevail.

(10) If the meaning of a stipulation is ambiguous and one of the contracting parties, at a time before a case arises for the application of the stipulation, makes known what meaning it attributes to the stipulation, the other party or parties cannot, when a case for the application of the stipulation occurs, insist upon a different meaning. They ought to have previously protested and taken the necessary steps to secure an authentic interpretation of the ambiguous stipulation. Thus, when in 1911 it became obvious that Germany and other continental States attributed to article 23(h) of the Hague Regulations respecting the Laws and Usages of War on Land a meaning different from the one preferred by Great Britain, the British Foreign Office made the British interpretation of this article known.

(11) It is to be taken for granted that the parties intend the stipulations of a treaty to have a certain effect and not to be meaningless. Therefore, such interpretation is not admissible as would make a stipulation meaningless or inefficient.

(12) All treaties must be interpreted so as to exclude fraud and so as to make their operation consistent with good faith.

(13) The rules commonly applied by the Courts as regards the interpretation and construction of Municipal Laws are in so far only applicable to the interpretation and construction of treaties, and in especial of law-making treaties, as they are general rules of jurisprudence. If, however, they are particular rules, sanctioned only by the Municipal Law or by the practice of the Courts of a particular country, they may not be applied.

(14) If a treaty is concluded in two languages, for instance, a treaty between Great Britain and France in English and French, and if there is a discrepancy between the meaning of the two different texts, each party is only bound by the text of its own language. But a party cannot claim any advantage from the text of the language of the other party.

CHAPTER III IMPORTANT GROUPS OF TREATIES

I IMPORTANT LAW-MAKING TREATIES

§ 555. Law-making treaties[913] have been concluded ever since International Law came into existence. It was not until the nineteenth century, however, that such law-making treaties existed as are of world-wide importance. Although at the Congress at Münster and Osnabrück all the then existing European Powers, with the exception of Great Britain, Russia, and Poland, were represented, the Westphalian Peace of 1648, to which France, Sweden, and the States of the German Empire were parties, and which recognised the independence of Switzerland and the Netherlands, on the one hand, and, on the other, the practical sovereignty of the then existing 355 States of the German Empire, was not of world-wide importance, in spite of the fact that it contains various law-making stipulations. And the same may be said with regard to all other treaties of peace between 1648 and 1815. The first law-making treaty of world-wide importance was the Final Act of the Vienna Congress, 1815, and the last, as yet, is the Declaration of London of 1909. But it must be particularly noted that not all of these are pure law-making treaties, since many contain other stipulations besides those which are law-making.

§ 556. The Final Act of the Vienna Congress,[914] signed on June 9, 1815, by Great Britain, Austria, France, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Spain, and Sweden-Norway, comprises law-making stipulations of world-wide importance concerning four points—namely, first, the perpetual neutralisation of Switzerland (article 118, No. 11); secondly, free navigation on so-called international rivers (articles 108-117); thirdly, the abolition of the negro slave trade (article 118, No. 15); fourthly, the different classes of diplomatic envoys (article 118, No. 16).

§ 557. The Protocol of November 21 of the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle,[915] 1818, signed by Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia, contains the important law-making stipulation concerning the establishment of a fourth class of diplomatic envoys, the so-called "Ministers Resident," to rank before the Chargés d'Affaires.

§ 558. The Treaty of London[916] of November 15, 1831, signed by Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia, comprises in its article 7 the important law-making stipulation concerning the perpetual neutralisation of Belgium.

§ 559. The Declaration of Paris[917] of April 13, 1856, signed by Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, is a pure law-making treaty of the greatest importance, stipulating four rules with regard to sea warfare—namely, that privateering is abolished; that the neutral flag covers enemy goods with the exception of contraband of war; that neutral goods, contraband excepted, cannot be confiscated even when sailing under the enemy flag; that a blockade must be effective to be binding.

Through accession during 1856, the following other States have become parties to this treaty: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chili, Denmark, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Hayti, Holland, Peru, Portugal, Sweden-Norway, and Switzerland. Japan acceded in 1886, Spain and Mexico in 1907.

§ 560. The Geneva Convention[918] of August 22, 1864, and that of July 6, 1906, are pure law-making treaties for the amelioration of the conditions of the wounded of armies in the field. The Geneva Convention of 1864 was originally signed only by Switzerland, Baden, Belgium, Denmark, France, Holland, Italy, Prussia, and Spain, but in time all other civilised States have acceded except Costa Rica, Lichtenstein, and Monaco. A treaty[919] containing articles additional to the Geneva Convention of 1864 was signed at Geneva on October 20, 1868, but was not ratified. A better fate was in store for the Geneva Convention[920] of 1906, which was signed by the delegates of thirty-five States, many of which have already granted ratification. Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Nicaragua, Turkey, and Venezuela have already acceded. It is of importance to emphasise that the Convention of 1864 is not entirely replaced by the Convention of 1906, in so far as the former remains in force between those Powers which are parties to it without being parties to the latter. And it must be remembered that the Final Act of the First as well as of the Second Peace Conference contains a convention for the adaptation to sea warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention.

§ 561. The Treaty of London[921] of May 11, 1867, signed by Great Britain, Austria, Belgium, France, Holland, Italy, Prussia, and Russia, comprises in its article 2 the important law-making stipulation concerning the perpetual neutralisation of Luxemburg.

§ 562. The Declaration of St. Petersburg[922] of November 29, 1868, signed by Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Holland, Italy, Persia, Portugal, Prussia and other German States, Russia, Sweden-Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey—Brazil acceded later on—is a pure law-making treaty. It stipulates that projectiles of a weight below 400 grammes (14 ounces) which are either explosive or charged with inflammable substances shall not be made use of in war.

§ 563. The Treaty of Berlin[923] of July 13, 1878, signed by Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Turkey, is law-making with regard to Bulgaria, Montenegro, Roumania, and Servia. It is of great importance in so far as the present phase of the solution of the Near Eastern Question arises therefrom, although Bulgaria became full-sovereign in 1908.

§ 564. The General Act of the Congo Conference[924] of Berlin of February 26, 1885, signed by Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden-Norway, Turkey, and the United States of America, is a law-making treaty of great importance, stipulating: freedom of commerce for all nations within the basin of the river Congo; prohibition of slave-transport within that basin; neutralisation of Congo Territories; freedom of navigation for merchantmen of all nations on the rivers Congo and Niger; and, lastly, the obligation of the signatory Powers to notify to one another all future occupations on the coast of the African continent.

§ 565. The Treaty of Constantinople[925] of October 29, 1888, signed by Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Russia, Spain, and Turkey, is a pure law-making treaty stipulating the permanent neutralisation of the Suez Canal and the freedom of navigation thereon for vessels of all nations.

§ 566. The General Act of the Brussels Anti-Slavery Conference,[926] signed on July 2, 1890, by Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, the Congo Free State, Denmark, France,[927] Germany, Holland, Italy, Persia, Portugal, Russia, Sweden-Norway, Spain, Turkey, the United States of America, and Zanzibar, is a law-making treaty of great importance which stipulates a system of measures for the suppression of the slave-trade in Africa, and, incidentally, restrictive measures concerning the spirit-trade in certain parts of Africa. To revise the stipulations concerning this spirit-trade the Convention of Brussels[928] of November 3, 1906, was signed by Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, Spain, the Congo Free State, France, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Russia, and Sweden.

§ 567. The Final Act of the Hague Peace Conference[929] of July 29, 1899, was a pure law-making treaty comprising three separate conventions—namely, a convention for the peaceful adjustment of international differences, a convention concerning the law of land warfare, and a convention for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864,—and three Declarations—namely, a Declaration prohibiting, for a term of five years, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons, a Declaration concerning the prohibition of the use of projectiles the only object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases, and a Declaration concerning the prohibition of so-called dum-dum bullets. All these conventions, however, and the first of these declarations have been replaced by the General Act of the Second Hague Peace Conference, and only the last two declarations are still in force. All the States which were represented at the Conference are now parties to these declarations except the United States of America.

§ 568. The so-called Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of Washington[930] between Great Britain and the United States of America, signed November 18, 1901, although law-making between the parties only, is nevertheless of world-wide importance, because it neutralises permanently the Panama Canal, which is in course of construction, and stipulates free navigation thereon for vessels of all nations.[931]

§ 568a. The Final Act of the Second Hague Peace Conference of October 18, 1907, is a pure law-making treaty of enormous importance comprising the following thirteen conventions[932] and a declaration:—

(1) Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. All States represented at the Conference signed except Nicaragua, but some signed with reservations only. Nicaragua acceded later.

(2) Convention respecting the Limitation of the Employment of Force for the Recovery of Contract Debts, signed by Great Britain, Germany, the United States of America, Argentina, Austria-Hungary, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Chili, Columbia, Cuba, Denmark, San Domingo, Ecuador, Spain, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Montenegro, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Holland, Peru, Persia, Portugal, Russia, Salvador, Servia, Turkey, Uruguay; China and Nicaragua acceded later. Some of the South American States signed with reservations.

(3) Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities. All the States represented at the Conference signed except China and Nicaragua; both, however, acceded later.

(4) Convention concerning the Laws and Usages of War on Land. All the States represented at the Conference signed except China, Spain, and Nicaragua, but Nicaragua acceded later. Some States made reservations in signing.

(5) Convention concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. All the States represented at the Conference signed except China and Nicaragua, but some States made reservations. Both China and Nicaragua acceded later.

(6) Convention relative to the Status of Enemy Merchantmen at the Outbreak of Hostilities. All the Powers represented at the Conference signed except the United States of America, China, and Nicaragua, but the last named acceded later. Some States made reservations in signing.

(7) Convention relative to the Conversion of Merchant Ships into War Ships. All the Powers represented at the Conference signed except the United States of America, China, San Domingo, Nicaragua, and Uruguay, but Nicaragua acceded later. Turkey made a reservation in signing.

(8) Convention relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines. The majority of the States represented at the Conference signed. China, Spain, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Portugal, Russia, and Sweden have not signed, but Nicaragua acceded later. Some States made reservations.

(9) Convention respecting Bombardments by Naval Forces in Time of War. Except China, Spain, and Nicaragua all the States represented at the Conference signed, but China and Nicaragua acceded later. Some States made reservations.

(10) Convention for the Adaptation to Naval War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention. All the Powers represented at the Conference signed except Nicaragua, but some made reservations. Nicaragua acceded later.

(11) Convention relative to certain Restrictions on the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Maritime War. All States represented at the Conference signed except China, Montenegro, Nicaragua, and Russia, but Nicaragua acceded later.

(12) Convention relative to the Creation of an International Prize Court. The majority of the States represented at the Conference signed. Brazil, China, San Domingo, Greece, Luxemburg, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Roumania, Russia, Servia, and Venezuela have not signed, and some of the smaller signatory Powers made a reservation with regard to the composition of the Court according to article 15 of the Convention.

(13) Convention concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War. All the States represented at the Conference signed except the United States of America, China, Cuba, Spain, and Nicaragua. Some States made reservations. But the United States of America, China, and Nicaragua acceded later.

(14) Declaration prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. Only twenty-seven of the forty-four States represented at the Conference signed. Germany, Chili, Denmark, Spain, France, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Roumania, Russia, Servia, Sweden, and Venezuela refused to sign, but Nicaragua acceded later.