Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 19.djvu/507

* TKEATT. 439 TREATY. maritime warfare: and the Congress of Berlin of 1878 in respect to the questions growing out of the war between Turkey and Russia. The language emploj'ed in the preparation of treaties was formerly Latin. Toward the close of the seventeenth century it was replaced by French, which is now the general diplomatic lan- guage of Europe and America. Each signatory power may insist upon the use of its own lan- guage, in which case a copy is prepared for each State in its own language and is usually ar- ranged in parallel columns. Two States having a common tongiie naturally employ that lan- guage. With regard to the form it may be said that no fixed rule prevails except that the stipu- lations of the treaty are usually preceded bj' a recital of the names and titles of the negotiators, with a statement of the purposes which the treaty is intended to accomplish. The treaty is divided into articles and clauses, ending with the terms of ratification and the signatures of the negotiators. A copy is prepared for each contracting party and the signatures follow, usually according to the principle of the alter- nat — that is, the plenipotentiary from each State signs first the copy intended for the use of his ovra Government. After the act of ratifica- tion by each of the parties there follows the formal exchange of ratifications, when the opera- tion of the treaty begins. Treaties sometimes contain provisions for the accession of third par- ties. Such were the Declaration of Paris in 1856, the Geneva Convention of 1868, and the Treaty of Washington of 1871. Treaties are terminated in various ways. They cease to be binding with the mutual consent of the parties thereto ; or with the denunciation of either party if that right has been reserved; when the object of the treaty has been attained, as in the case of a boundary treaty, an arbitra- tion treaty, or convention for the settlement of claims; when the operation of the treaty is con- ditioned upon terms which no longer exist, as in the case of a treaty allowing free navigation on a river which has ceased to be navigable ; and when either party refuses to perform mutual stipulations. In the latter case the other party may consider itself released from its oliligations, or it may demand a fulfillment of the treaty and require an indemnity for injuries resulting from any infractions thereof. By the usages of in- ternational law the refusal of either party to abide by a treaty, however burdensome, is a suf- ficient cause of war, since; as in the case of an ordinary contract, it is binding upon both parties until mutually abrogated. Finally, it is to be said that a treaty is terminated when the state of things contemplated by the parties and hence its real basis no longer exists. Thus a treaty is entered into in contemplation of the continuance of a particular form of government which in the course of time is displaced by an- other. Or the basis of the treaty may be changed by the absorption of one State by another, as in the case of Algeria, a State with which the United States had a treaty previous to the French con- quest begun in 1830. Similarly the establishment of the German Empire in 1871 put an end to the treaties between the United States and the sev- eral German States with which she had entered into treaty relations. When a State is destroyed or loses its national character by other means its treaties fall to the ground, but ordinarily a mere change in the form of government will not alVect its obligations to other States. In case of war between the contracting parties all treaties are suspended while certain of them are terminated. Treaties stipulating for a permanent arrange- ment of territorial and other national riglits are at most simply suspended during the war and revive at peace. Such are treaties which recog- nize within certain territorial limits the inde- pendence of one of the contracting parties; treaties which establish new rules or modify old rules of international law, such as the Declara- tion of Paris of 185G; and treaties which contem- plate a state of war and which come into effect only at the outbreak of hostilities, such as treaties of alliance and treaties which regulate blockades, and define contraband of war, regulate rules of capture, etc. Treaties of commerce and navigation and postal conventions are usually extinguished by war. Sir Travers Twiss says that Great Britain in practice admits of no exception to the rule that all treaties as such are put an end to by subse- quent war between the contending parties. In pursuance of this rule the treaties of Westphalia and Utrecht were several times reversed by the signatory powers after they had engaged in war with one another. A notable diplomatic dis- cussion between Great Britain and the United States arose after the War of 1812 over the question of whether the treaty of 1783. in so far as it granted to the colonists fishery rights at Newfoundland, was suspended by the subsequent war between the contracting parties. The United States claimed that the treaty provision in ques- tion was not extinguished, it being the recognition of a preexisting right which the colonies had al- ways enjoyed in common with the mother coun- try. Great Britain claimed, on the other hand, that the permission to fish on British coasts was in the nature of a grant of a special privilege and therefore terminated by the war. As in the case of private contracts, certain rules for the interpretation of treaties have grown up. Phillimore arranges the rules of interpretation muler three heads : ( 1 ) Au- thentic interpretation, that is, the inter- pretation supplied b}' the lawgiver himself; (2) usual interpretation, based on usage and prece- dent; and (3) doctrinal interpretation, or the interpretation founded upon scientific exposi- tion of the terms of the treaty itself. The fol- lowing are the commonest rules of interpreta- tion : Words are presumed to have been used in their ordinary sense, but technical terms are >iscd in the sense and with the meaning applied to them in the particular art to which they belong; the provision of a treaty can have but one true meaning and the interpretation must be mutual; the interpretation should be made with regard to the context and spirit of the whole treaty; terms peculiar to the language of one of the contracting parties must be given the meaning which thej' have in that language; clauses defining grants, privi- leges, and favors should be strictly interpreted; an interpretation which renders a treaty in- operative is to be avoided : special clauses are to be preferred to general, prohibitory to permissive; earlier clauses are explained by later ones and obscure clauses by clearer ones in later treaties, as later treaties explain and modify earlier