A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as: (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, exchange of letters, etc. Regardless of the terminology, all of these international agreements under international law are equally treaties and the rules are the same. (Note that in United States constitutional law, the term "treaty" has a special meaning which is more restricted than its meaning in international law; see below.)
Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law. The central principle of treaty law is expressed in the maxim pacta sunt servanda—"pacts must be respected".
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties has codified the customary international law on treaties, entering into force in 1980. States that have not ratified it yet may still recognize it as binding in as much as it is a restatement of customary law.
A multilateral treaty has several differences, and establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party. Multilateral treaties are often, but not always, open to any state; others are regional.
Bilateral treaties by contrast are negotiated between a limited number of states, most commonly only two, establishing legal rights and obligations between those two states only. It is possible however for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties; consider for instance the bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) following the Swiss rejection of the European Economic Area agreement. Each of these treaties has seventeen parties. These however are still bilateral, not multilateral, treaties. The parties are divided into two groups, the Swiss ("on the one part") and the EU and its member states ("on the other part"). The treaty establishes rights and obligations between the Swiss and the EU and the member states severally; it does not establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member states. However, there are situations that legality may interfere with the treaty, causing unreasonable arrests. (IBIOP-AC)
Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. Reservations are an unilateral statement purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on the reserving state. These must be included at the time of signing or ratification—a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty.
Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations, rejecting them unless all parties to the treaty accepted the same reservations. However, in the interest of encouraging the largest number of states to join treaties, a more permissive rule regarding reservations has emerged. While some treaties still expressly forbid any reservations, they are now generally permitted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty.
When a state limits its treaty obligations through reservations, other states party to that treaty have the option to accept those reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them. If the state accepts them (or fails to act at all), both the reserving state and the accepting state are relieved of the reserved legal obligation as concerns their legal obligations to each other (accepting the reservation does not change the accepting state's legal obligations as concerns other parties to the treaty). If the state opposes, the parts of the treaty affected by the reservation drop out completely and no longer create any legal obligations on the reserving and accepting state, again only as concerns each other. Finally, if the state objects and opposes, there are no legal obligations under that treaty between those two state parties whatsoever. The objecting and opposing state essentially refuses to acknowledge the reserving state is a party to the treaty at all.
There are three ways an existing treaty can be amended. First, formal amendment requires States parties to the treaty to go through the ratification process all over again. The re-negotiation of treaty provisions can be long and protracted, and often some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty. When determining the legal obligations of states, one party to the original treaty and one a party to the amended treaty, the states will only be bound by the terms they both agreed upon. Treaties can also be amended informally by the treaty executive council when the changes are only procedural, technical, or administrative (not principled changes). Finally, a change in customary international law (state behavior) can also amend a treaty, where state behavior evinces a new interpretation of the legal obligations under the treaty. Minor corrections to a treaty may be adopted by a procès-verbal; but a procès-verbal is generally reserved for changes to rectify obvious errors in the text adopted, i.e. where the text adopted does not correctly reflect the intention of the parties adopting it.
In international law and international relations, a protocol is generally a treaty or international agreement that supplements a previous treaty or international agreement. A protocol can amend the previous treaty, or add additional provisions. Parties to the earlier agreement are not required to adopt the protocol; sometimes this is made clearer by calling it an "optional protocol", especially where many parties to the first agreement do not support the protocol.
Some examples: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established a framework for the development of binding greenhouse gas emission limits, while the Kyoto Protocol contained the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon.
Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require 'implementing legislation'—a change in the domestic law of a state party that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations. An example of a treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes.
The division between the two is often not clear and is often politicized in disagreements within a government over a treaty, since a non-self-executing treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law. If a treaty requires implementing legislation, a state may be in default of its obligations by the failure of its legislature to pass the necessary domestic laws.
The language of treaties, like that of any law or contract, must be interpreted when the wording does not seem clear or it is not immediately apparent how it should be applied in a perhaps unforeseen circumstance. The Vienna Convention states that treaties are to be interpreted “in good faith” according to the “ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” International legal experts also often invoke the 'principle of maximum effectiveness,' which interprets treaty language as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish obligations between the parties.
No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. Consent may be implied, however, if the other parties fail to explicitly disavow that initially unilateral interpretation, particularly if that state has acted upon its view of the treaty without complaint. Consent by all parties to the treaty to a particular interpretation has the legal effect of adding an additional clause to the treaty - this is commonly called an 'authentic interpretation'.
International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.
One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.
Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.
The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.
Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Other treaties are silent on the issue, and so if a state attempts withdrawal through its own unilateral denunciation of the treaty, a determination must be made regarding whether permitting withdrawal is contrary to the original intent of the parties or to the nature of the treaty. Human rights treaties, for example, are generally interpreted to exclude the possibility of withdrawal, because of the importance and permanence of the obligations.
If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force between the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.
If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.
A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. The issue must be presented to an international tribunal or arbiter (usually specified in the treaty itself) to legally establish that a sufficiently serious breach has in fact occurred. Otherwise, a party that prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspends or terminates its own obligations due to an alleged breach itself runs the risk of being held liable for breach. Additionally, parties may choose to overlook treaty breaches while still maintaining their own obligations towards the party in breach.
Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.
A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.
There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.
A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a “manifest” violation is required such that it would be “objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.
Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.
According to the preamble in The Law of treaties, treaties is a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.
Articles 46-53 of the Vienna Convention set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.
A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.
Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.
A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against genocide, slavery, torture, and piracy, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.
The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. The Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.
After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force.
In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some, giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.
Article 84 of the Brazilian federal constitution of 1988 sets out, in its clause VIII, that the president is the only one capable of signing international treaties; its internal implementation, however, demands the approval of the Congress (Chamber of Deputies, together with the Senate), according to Article 49, paragraph I of the constitution.
In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from treaty executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.
Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S.
See the article on the Bricker Amendment for history of the relationship between treaty powers and Constitutional provisions.
Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.
In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.
In other cases, such as New Zealand and Canada, treaties allowed native peoples to maintain a minimum amount of autonomy. In the case of indigenous Australians, unlike with the Māori of New Zealand, no treaty was ever entered into with the indigenous peoples entitling the Europeans to land ownership, under the doctrine of terra nullius (later overturned by Mabo v Queensland, establishing the concept of native title well after colonization was already a fait accompli). Such treaties between colonizers and indigenous peoples are an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century, the treaties being discussed have international standing as has been stated in a treaty study by the UN.
Prior to 1871 the government of the United States regularly entered into treaties with Native Americans of the United States but the Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871 (ch. 120, 16 Stat. 566) had a rider (25 U.S.C. § 71) attached that effectively ended the President’s treaty making by providing that no Indian nation or tribe shall be acknowledged as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty. The federal government continued to provide similar contractual relations with the Indian tribes after 1871 by agreements, statutes, and executive orders.
TREATIES. A treaty is a contract between two or more states. The Latin term " tractatus," and its derivatives, though of occasional occurrence in this sense from the 13th century onwards, only began to be commonly so employed, in lieu of the older technical terms " conventio publica," or " foedus," from the end of the r7th century. In the language of modern diplomacy the term " treaty " is restricted to the more important international agreements, especially to those which are the work of a congress; while agreements dealing with subordinate questions are described by the more general term " convention." The present article will disregard this distinction.
The making and the observance of treaties is necessarily a very early phenomenon in the history of civilization, and the theory of treaties was one of the first departments of international law to attract attention. Treaties are recorded on the monuments of Egypt and Assyria; they occur in the Old Testament Scriptures; and questions arising under vvvBijrcar, and foedera occupy much space in the Greek and Roman historians.' Treaties have been classified on many principles, of which it will suffice to mention the more important. A " personal treaty," having reference to dynastic interests, is contrasted with a " real treaty," which binds the nation irrespectively 1 For the celebrated treaty of 509 B.C. between Rome and Carthage, see Polybius iii. 22; and, on the subject generally, Barbeyrac's full but very uncritical Histoire des anciens traitez, (1739); Muller-Jochmus, Geschichte des Volkerrechts im Alterthum (1848); E. Egger, Etudes historiques sur les traites publics chez les grecs et chez les romains (new ed., 1866).
of constitutional changes; treaties creating outstanding obligations are opposed to " transitory conventions," e.g. for cession of territory, recognition of independence, C/assificat i and the like, which operate irrevocably once for 1".
all, leaving nothing more to be done by the contracting parties; and treaties in the nature of a definite transaction (Rechtsgeschaift) are opposed to those which aim at establishing a general rule of conduct (Rechtssatz). With reference to their objects, treaties may perhaps be conveniently classified as (r) political, including treaties of peace, of alliance, of cession, of boundary, for creation of international servitudes, of neutralization, of guarantee, for the submission of a controversy to arbitration; (2) commercial, including consular and fishery conventions, and slave trade and navigation treaties; (3) confederations for special social objects, such as the Zollverein, the Latin monetary union, and the still wider unions with reference to posts, telegraphs, submarine cables and weights and measures; (4) relating to criminal justice, e.g. to extradition and arrest of fugitive seamen; (5) relating to civil justice, e.g. to the protection of trade-mark and copyright, to the execution of foreign judgments, to the reception of evidence, and to actions by and against foreigners; (6) promulgating written rules of international law, upon topics previously governed, if at all, only by unwritten custom, with reference e.g. to the peaceful settlement of international disputes, or to the conduct of warfare.
It must be remarked that it is not always possible to assign a treaty wholly to one or other of the above classes, since many treaties contain in combination clauses referable to several of them.
The analogy between treaty-making and legislation is striking when a congress agrees upon general principles which are afterwards accepted by a large number of states, as, for instance, in the case of the Geneva conventions for improving the treatment of the wounded. Many political treaties containing " transitory conventions," with reference to recognition, boundary or cession, become, as it were, the title-deeds of the nations to which they relate.' But the closest analogy of a treaty is to a contract in private law.
The making of a valid treaty implies several requisites. (r) It must be made between competent parties, i.e. sovereign states. A " concordat," to which the pope, as a spiritual authority, is one of the parties, is therefore not a treaty, nor is a convention between a state and an individual, nor a convention between the rulers of two states with reference to their private affairs. Semi-sovereign states, such as San Marino or Egypt, may make conventions upon topics within their limited competence. It was formally alleged that an infidel state could not be a party to a treaty. The question where the treaty-making power resides in a given state is answered by the municipal law of that state. In Great Britain it resides in the executive (see the parliamentary debates upon the cession of Heligoland in 1890); sometimes, however, it is shared for all purposes, as in the United States, or for certain purposes only, as in many countries of the European continent, by the legislature, or by a branch of it. (2)There must be an expression of agreement. This is not (as in private law) rendered voidable by duress; e.g. the cession of a province, though extorted by overwhelming force, is nevertheless unimpeachable. Duress to the individual negotiator would, however, vitiate the effect of his signature. (3) From the nature of the case, the agreement of states, other than those the government of which is autocratic, must be signified by means of agents, whose authority is either express, as in the case of plenipotentiaries, or implied, as in the case of e.g. military and naval commanders, for matters, such as truces, capitulations and cartels, which are necessarily confided to their discretion. When an agent acts in excess of his implied authority, he is said to make no treaty, but a mere " sponsion," which, unless adopted by his government, does not bind it, e.g. the affair of the Caudine Forks ' Cf. Sir Edward Hertslet's very useful collections entitled: The Map of Europe by Treaty (4 vols., 1875-1891), and The Map of Africa by Treaty (2 vols., 1894).
(Livy ix. 5) and the convention of Closter Seven in 1 757. (4) Unlike a contract in private law, a treaty, even though made in pursuance of a full power, is, according to modern views, of no effect till it is ratified. It may be remarked that ratification, though hitherto not thought to be required for " declarations," such as the Declaration of Paris of 1856, was expressly stipulated for in the case of those signed at the peace conferences of 1899 and 1907. (5) No special form is necessary for a treaty, which in theory may be made without writing. It need not even appear on the face of it to be a contract between the parties, but may take the form of a joint declaration, or of an exchange of notes. Latin was at one time the language usually employed in treaties, and it continued to be so employed to a late date by the emperor and the pope. Treaties to which several European powers of different nationalities are parties are now usually drawn up in French (the use of which became general in the time of Louis XIV.), but the treaties of Aix-la-Chapelle of 1748 and 1784 contain, as does the final act of the congress of Vienna, a protest against the use of this language being considered obligatory. French is, however, exclusively used in the treaties constituting the great " international unions "; and bilingual treaties are sometimes accompanied by a third version in French, to be decisive in case of alleged variances between the other two. A great European treaty has usually commenced " In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity," or, when the Porte is a party, " In the name of Almighty God." (6) It is sometimes said that a treaty must have a lawful object, but the danger of accepting such a statement is apparent from the use which has been made of it by writers who deny the validity of any cession of national territory, or even go so far as to lay down, with Fiore, that " all should be regarded as void which are in any way opposed to the development of the free activity of a nation, or which hinder the exercise of its natural rights." (7) The making of a treaty is sometimes accompanied by acts intended to secure its better performance. The taking of oaths, the assigning of " conservatores pacis " and the giving of hostages are now obsolete, but revenue is mortgaged, territory is pledged, and treaties of guarantee are entered into for this purpose.
A " transitory convention " operates at once, leaving no duties to be subsequently performed, but with reference to conventions. of other kinds questions arise as to the duration of the obligation created by them; in other words, as to the moment at which those obligations come to an end. This may occur by the dissolution of one of the contracting states, by the object-matter of the agreement ceasing to exist, by full performance, by performance becoming impossible, by lapse of the time for which the agreement was made, by contrarius consensus or mutual release, by " denunciation " by one party under a power reserved in the treaty. By a breach on either side the treaty usually becomes, not void, but voidable. A further cause of the termination of treaty obligations is a total change of circumstances, since a clause " rebus sic stantibus " is said to be a tacit condition in every treaty.' Such a contention can only be very cautiously admitted. It has been put forward by Russia in justification of her repudiation of the clauses of the Treaty of Paris neutralizing the Black Sea, and of her engagements as to Batoum contained in the Treaty of Berlin. The London protocol of 1871, with a view to prevent such abuses, lays down, perhaps a little too broadly, " that it is an essential principle of the law of nations that no power can liberate itself from the engagements of a treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting powers, by means of an amicable arrangement." Treaties are in most cases suspended, if not terminated, by the outbreak of a war between the contracting parties (though the Spanish decree of the 23rd of April 1898 went too far when it asserted that the war with the United States had terminated " all conventions that have been in force up to the present between the two countries "), and are therefore usually revived in express terms in the treaty of peace.
' Cf. Bynkershoek, Quest. sur pub. vol. ii. ch. 10. The rules for the interpretation of treaties are not so different from those applicable to contracts in private law as to need here a separate discussion.
Collections of treaties are either (i.) general or (ii.) national.
i. The first to publish a general collection of treaties was Leibnitz, whose Codex juris gentium, containing documents from 1097 to 5497, " ea quae sola inter liberos populos legum sunt loco " appeared in 1693, and was followed in 1700 by the Mantissa. The Corps universel diplomatique du droit des gens of J. Dumont, continued by J. Barbeyrac and Rousset in thirteen folio volumes, containing treaties from A.D. 315 to 1730, was published in 17261 739. Wenck's Corpus juris gentium recentissimi (3 vols. 8vo, 1781-1795) contains treaties from 1735 to 1772. The 8vo Recueil of G. F. de Martens, continued by C. de Martens, Saalfeld, Murhard, K. F. Samwer, K. Hopf, F. Stoerk and H. Triepel, commenced in 1791 with treaties of 1761, and is still in progress. The series in 19to extended to eighty-eight volumes; that for 1910 being the third of the Nouveau recueil general (23 me serie). See also the Recueil international des traites de siecle (1904, sqq.), by Descamps en Renault, and the following periodical publications: Das Staatsarchiv, Sammlung der officiellen Actenstiicke zur Geschichte der Gegenwart (Leipzig, commencing in 1861); Archives diplomatiques (Stuttgart, since 1821); Archives diplomatiques, recueil mensuel de diplomatie et d'histoire (Paris, since 1861); and Hertslet's British and Foreign State Papers, from the Termination of the War of 1814 to the Latest Period, compiled at the Foreign Office by the Librarian and Keeper of the Papers (London, since 1819, and still in progress).
ii. The more important collections of national treaties are those of MM. Neumann and de Plasson from 1855, and of the commission for modern history from 1903, for Austria; Beutner for the German Empire, 1883; C. Calvo for " l'Amerique latine, " 1862-1869; de Clercq for France, 1864-1908; De Garcia de la Vega for Belgium, 1850, &c., Lagemans and Breukelman for the Netherlands, 1858, &c.; Soutzo for Greece, 1858; Count Solar de la Marguerite for Sardinia, 1836-1861; Olivart for Spain, 1890, &c.; Da Castro for Portugal, 1856-1879; Rydberg for Sweden, 1877; Kaiser, 1861, and Eichmann, 1885, for Switzerland; Baron de Testa, 1864, &c., Aristarchi Bey 1873-1874, and Effendi Noradounghian, 1897-1903, for Turkey; F. de Martens for Russia (the 9 vols. published1874-1907contain the treaties made by Russia with Austria, Germany, Great Britain and France respectively); W. F. Mayers for China, 1877.1877. The official publication for Italy begins in 1864 (see also the collection by Luigi Palma, 1879, &c.), for Spain in 1843, for Denmark in 1874. The treaties of Japan were published by authority in 1899. Those of the United States are contained in the Statutes at Large of the United States, and in the Treaties, Conventions, etc., between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1776-1909 (Washington, 1910); also in the collections of J. Elliott (1834) and H. Minot (1844-1850); see also Mr Bancroft Davis's Notes upon the Treaties of the United States with other Powers, preceded by a list of the Treaties and Conventions with Foreign Powers, chronologically arranged and followed by an Analytical Index and a Synoptical Index of the Treaties (1873). In England no treaties were published before the 17th century, such matters being thought " not fit to be made vulgar. " The treaty of 1604 with Spain was, however, published by authority, as were many of the treaties of the Stuart kings. Rymer's Foedera was published, under the orders of the government, in twenty volumes, from 1704 to 1732; but for methodical collections of the earlier British treaties we are indebted to private enterprise, which produced three volumes in 1710-1713, republished with a fourth volume in 1732. Other three volumes appeared in 1772-1781, the collection commonly known as that of C. Jenkinson (3 vols.) in 1785 and that of G. Chalmers (2 vols.) in 1795. The recent treaties made by Great Britain, previously dispersed through the numbers of the London Gazette or embedded in masses of diplomatic correspondence presented to parliament at irregular intervals, are now officially published as soon as ratified in a special 8vo. " Treaty Series " of parliamentary papers commenced in 5902. J. Macgregor published (1841-1844) eight volumes of commercial treaties, but the great collection of the commercial treaties of Great Britain is that of L. Hertslet, librarian of the foreign office, continued by his son, Sir Edward Hertslet, and later holders of the same office, entitled A Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions and Reciprocal Regulations at present subsisting between Great Britain and Foreign Powers, and of the Laws and Orders in Council concerning the same, so far as they relate to Commerce and Navigation, the Slave Trade, Post Office, &c., and to the Privileges and Interests of the Subjects of the Contracting Parties (24 vols., 1820-1907). Sir Edward Hertslet also commenced in 1875 a series of volumes containing Treaties and Tariffs regulating the Trade between Britain and Foreign Nations, and Extracts of Treaties between Foreign Powers, containing the Most Favoured Nation Clauses applicable to Great Britain. Both of these publications are still continued. He also published, in 1891, Treaties, &c., concluded between Great Britain and Persia, and between Persia and Foreign Powers; and, in 1896, a similar work on treaties with China The treaties affecting British India are officially set out, with historical notes, in A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sannuds relating to India and Neighbouring Countries, by C. V. Aitchison. This work, with the index, extends to eight volumes, which appeared at Calcutta in 1862-1866. A continuation by A. C. Talbot was published in 1876, and it was brought up to date by the government of India in 1909. Useful lists of national collections of treaties will be found in the Revue de droit international for 1886, pp. 169-187, and in the Marquis Olivart's Catalogue de ma bibliotheque (1899-1910).
It maybe worth while to add a list of some of the more important treaties, now wholly or partially in force, some of which are List of discussed under separate headings, especially those important to which Great Britain is a party, classified accord- Treaties. ing to their objects, in the order suggested above.
i. The principal treaties affecting the distribution of territory between the various states of Central Europe are those of Westphalia (Osnabruck and Miinster), 1648; Utrecht, 1713;1713; Paris and Hubertusburg, 1763; for the partition of Poland, 1772, 1793; Vienna, 1815; London, for the separation of Belgium from the Netherlands, 1831, 1839; Zurich, for the cession of a portion of Lombardy to Sardinia, 1859; Vienna, as to SchleswigHolstein, 1864; Prague, whereby the German Confederation was dissolved, Austria recognizing the new North German Confederation, transferring to Prussia her rights over SchleswigHolstein, and ceding the remainder of Lombardy to Italy, 1866; Frankfort, between France and the new German Empire, 1871. The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire has been regulated by the Great Powers, or some of them, in the treaties of London, 1832, 1863, 1864, and of Constantinople, 1881, with reference to Greece; and by the treaties of Paris, 1856; London, 1871; Berlin, 1878;1878; London, 1883, with reference to Montenegro, Rumania, Servia, Bulgaria and the navigation of the Danube. The encroachments of Russia upon Turkey, previous to the Crimean War, are registered in a series of treaties beginning with that of Kuchuk-Kainarji, 1774, and ending with that of Adrianople in. 1829. The independence of the United States of America was acknowledged by Great Britain in the treaty of peace signed at Paris in 1783. The boundary between the United States and the British possessions is regulated in detail by the treaties of Washington of 1842, 1846, 1871, 1903 and 1908. The territorial results of the war of 1898 between the United States and Spain are registered in the treaty of 1899, and those of the Russo-Japanese War in the treaty of Portsmouth of 1905. Various causes of possible misunderstanding between Great Britain and France were removed by the convention of 1904; and a similar treaty was concluded with Russia in 1908. The navigation of the Suez Canal is regulated by a treaty of 1888, and that of the future Panama Canal by one of 1901. The boundaries of the territories, protectorates and spheres of influence in Africa of Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and Portugal have been readjusted by a series of treaties, especially between the years 1885 and 1894. Switzerland, Belgium, Corfu and Paxo and Luxemburg are respectively neutralized by the treaties of Vienna, 1815, and of London, 1839, 1864, 1867. A list of treaties of guarantee supposed to be then in force, to which Great Britain is a party, beginning with a treaty made with Portugal in 1373, was presented to parliament in 1859. Treaties of alliance were made between Great Britain and Japan in 1902 and 1905.
ii. For the innumerable conventions, to which Great Britain is a party, as to commerce, consular jurisdiction, fisheries and the slave trade, it must suffice to refer to the exhaustive and skilfully devised index to vols. 1-21 of Hertslet's Commercial Treaties, published in 1905 as vol. 22 of the series.
iii. The social intercourse of the world is facilitated by conventions, such as those establishing the Latin monetary union, 1865; the international telegraphic union, 1865; the universal postal union, 1874; the international bureau of weights and measures, 1875; providing for the protection of submarine cables in time of peace, 1884; the railway traffic union, 1890. Such treaties, now very numerous, are somewhat misleadingly spoken of by recent writers (L. von Stein and F. de Martens) as constituting a " droit administratif international." iv. For the now operative treaties of extradition to which Great Britain is a party, it will be sufficient to refer to the article Extradition. It may be observed that all of them, except the treaty of 1842, now, however, varied by one of 1889, with the United States, are subsequent to, and governed by, the provisions of 33 & 34 Vict. C. 52, The Extradition Act 1870. Before the passing of this general act it had been necessary to pass a special act for giving effect to each treaty of extradition. The most complete collection of treaties of extradition is that of F. J. Kirchner, L'Extradition, Recueil, &c. (London, 1883).
v. General conventions, to which most of the European states are parties, were signed in 1883 at Paris for the protection of industrial, and in 1886 at Bern for the protection of literary and artistic, property, and, from 1899 onwards, a series of general treaties, to none of which is Great Britain a party, have been signed at the Hague, as the result of conferences, invited by the government of the Netherlands, for solving some of the more pressing questions arising out of " the conflict of laws." vi. Quasi-legislation by treaty has been directed mainly to encouraging the settlement of international disputes by peaceful methods, and to regulating the conduct of warfare. The first peace conference, held at the Hague in 1899, devoted much time to producing the generally accepted " Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes." An important achievement of this convention was the establishment at the Hague of an international tribunal, always ready to arbitrate upon cases submitted to it; and the convention recommended recourse not only to arbitration, but also to good offices and mediation, and to international commissions of inquiry. This convention has now been superseded by the revised and amplified edition of it adopted by the second peace conference in 1907. The provisions of neither convention are obligatory, but merely " facultative," amounting only to recommendations. Great efforts were made, especially in 1907, but without success, to drafc a generally acceptable convention, making resort to arbitration compulsory, at any rate with reference to certain classes of questions. In the meantime, however, agreements of this nature between one power and another have multiplied rapidly within the last few years (see Arbitration).
Certain bodies of rules intended to mitigate the horrors of war have received the adhesion of most civilized states. Thus the declaration of Paris, 1856 (to which, however, the United States, Venezuela and Bolivia have not yet formally acceded), prohibits the use of privateers and protects the commerce of neutrals; the Geneva conventions, 1864 and 1906, give protection to the wounded and to those in attendance upon them; the St Petersburg declaration, 1868, prohibits the employment of explosive bullets weighing less than 400 grammes; and the three Hague declarations of 1899 prohibit respectively (I) the launching of projectiles from balloons, (2) the use of projectiles for spreading harmful gases, and (3) the use of expanding bullets. The second Hague conference, of 1907, besides revising the convention made by the first conference, of 18 99, as to the laws of war on land, produced new conventions, dealing respectively with the opening of hostilities; neutral rights and duties in land warfare; the status of enemy merchant ships at the outbreak of war; the conversion of merchant ships into ships of war; submarine mines; bombardment by naval forces; the application of the Geneva principles to naval warfare; the rights of maritime capture; the establishment of an international prize court; and neutral rights and duties in maritime warfare. These conventions, as well as a republication of the first Hague declaration, which had in 1907 expired by efflux of time, have been already largely ratified.
It were greatly to be wished that the official publication of treaties could be rendered more speedy and more methodical than it now is. The labours of the publicist would also be much lightened were it possible to consolidate the various general collections of diplomatic acts into a new Corps diplomatique universel, well furnished with cross references, and with brief annotations showing how far each treaty is supposed to be still in force.
In addition to the works already cited in the course of this article the following are for various reasons important: Joh. Lupus, De confederatione principum (Strassburg, 1511, the first published monograph upon the subject); Bodinus, Dissertatio de contractibus summarum potestatum (Halle, 1696); Neyron, De vi foederum inter gentes (Göttingen, 1778); Neyron, Essai historique et politique sur les garanties, &c. (Göttingen, 1797); Wachter, De modis tollendi pacta inter gentes (Stuttgart, 1780); Dresch, Ueber die Dauer der VOlkervertrcige (Landshut, 1808); C. Bergbohm, Staatsvertreige and Gesetze als Quellen des Volkerrechts (Dorpat, 1877); Jellinek, Die rechtliche Natur der Statenvertrcige (Vienna, 1880); D. Donati, Trattati internazionali nel diritto costituzionale (1907); Holzendorff, Handbuch des Volkerrechts (1887) vol. iii.; Fleischmann, Volkerrechtsquellen in Auswahl herausgegeben (1905); de Lapradelle, Recueil des arbitrages internationaux (1905); J. B. Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States has been a Party (1898) 6 vols. For a list of the principal " concordats," see Calvo, Droit international theorique et pratique t. On the history of the great European treaties generally, see the Histoire abregee des traites de paix entre les puissances de l'Europe, by Koch, as recast and continued by Scholl (1817 and 1818), and again by Count de Garden in 1848-1859, as also the Recueil manuel of De Martens and Cussy, continued by Geffcken. For the peace of Westphalia, Patter's Geist des westphalischen Friedens (1795) is useful; for the congress of Vienna Klaber's Acten des Wiener Congresses (1815-1819) and Le Congres de Vienne et les traites de 1815 precede des conferences de Dresde, de Prague et de Chatillon, suivi des Congres d'Aix-la-Chapelle, Troppau, Laybach et Verone, by Count Angeberg. The last-mentioned writer has also published collections of treaties relating to Poland, 1762-1862; to the Italian question, 1859; to the Congress of Paris, 1856 and the revision of its work by the Conference of London, 1871; and to the Franco-German War of 1870-71. For the treaties regulating the Eastern question see The European Concert in the Eastern Question, by T. E. Holland (1885)(1885) and La Turquie et le Tanzimat, by E. Engelhardt (1882-1884). (T. E. H.)