upon all projects submitted for discussion which in any way affect its interests. The proceedings of each session are reduced to writing, and are properly authenticated, and the negotiation continues until an agreement has been reached, or until the impossibility of reaching such an agreement has become apparent. If questions are submitted to vote, nothing short of unanimous consent is sufficient to carry a measure of prime importance. After an essential article or stipulation has been adopted, the majority rule may prevail in the decision of questions of detail, or in accessory stipulations of minor importance.

Language Used in the Preparation of Treaties. The language used in the preparation of treaties is subject to no fixed rule. Each party may, of right, insist upon the use of its own in the preparation of treaties, as in every other public act, or a neutral language may be adopted. In the former case there would be as many original copies as there were participant states. This would be true in form only, and not in fact, since one of these originals would furnish a model upon which the translation of the others would be based. Latin was formerly used, as a convenient and generally understood neutral language; it is still the official language of the Holy See. Towards the close of the seventeenth century it was replaced by the French, which became the general diplomatic language of Europe and America. It still retains that character to a higher degree than any other. Since the beginning of this century the greater part of the treaties which have been negotiated in Europe have been drawn up and signed in French. When France is one of the signatory parties, however, a clause is usually inserted to the effect that the use of that language is not to be regarded as constituting a precedent. Treaties to which England or the United States are parties are usually drawn up in both languages, in parallel columns. Treaties with the Ottoman Porte or Morocco are drawn up in Arabic and French. The convention of August 13, 1906, between the United States and the states of Latin America is drawn up in three parallel columns in Portuguese, Spanish, and English.

Form and Signature. No rigorous form is necessary to be followed in the preparation of these instruments so long as the conditions of the agreement are clearly expressed, and assented to, by the signatory parties. Those entered into by Christian states begin with a solemn invocation to the Deity, though this is less frequently the case than formerly, especially in treaties of a commercial character. The first paragraph contains the name and designation of the contracting parties, followed by a clause stating, in general terms, the object of the treaty or convention, and by the names and titles of the ministers who have been empowered to represent the interested states in the negotiation. Next follows the body of the treaty, which is made up of stipulations mutually agreed to. It is divided into articles and clauses, the last of which fixes the terms of ratification and the date of signature. As many copies are prepared as there are contracting parties; and, in affixing the signatures and seals, the principle of the alternat is resorted to-that is, the representative of each state signs first the copy intended for his own government. The order of the other signatures is determined by lot, or alphabetically, the initial letter of each state determining the order of signature for this purpose the name in French is used.1

Ratification of Treaties.2 On account of the magnitude and importance of the interests involved, treaties acquire binding force only when they have been ratified by the sovereign authority of the states which are parties to their operation, and all modern treaties contain provisions stipulating for such an exchange of ratifications. Ratification by one party does not constrain the others to a similar course; but the act of ratification, when completed by all parties, is retroactive in its operation, and gives effect to the treaty from the date of signature, unless the contrary is expressly stipulated. There

1 Bluntschli, §8 417-424; Vattel, liv. ii. ch. xii. § 156; Klüber, §§ 100106, 166-168; I De Martens, §§ 46, 47; II Ibid. §§ 331-334; I Halleck, p. 106; II. Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 1084-1099; I Twiss, § 251; II Dig. Int. Law, § 130; Hall, § 109.

2 Mr. Samuel B. Crandall, in the second edition of his Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement (Washington, 1916), has clearly outlined the process and conditions of treaty-making.

Although it is true, as a prin

has been considerable discussion as to whether ratification could be withheld, without lack of good faith, in treaties containing no such provision. Some Continental writers, following the rule of the Roman Law, have held that states are bound by the acts of their plenipotentiaries, when they have not exceeded their full powers and confidential instructions, as principals are bound by the acts of their duly authorized agents. Others justly make a distinction, in this respect, between treaties and contracts. Treaties are compacts between sovereign states, involving interests of the greatest magnitude, and often of the most intricate character, far transcending in importance the agreements of individuals, which, however complicated, are relatively simple in comparison. However full and minute the powers and instructions of ministers may be, they are still liable to errors of judgment or mistakes of policy, which can only be discovered and remedied by a careful and disinterested examination of their work, and a full criticism of its provisions from all points of view.1

Accession of Other States. Treaties sometimes contain provisions for the accession of third parties to their operation. The Declaration of Paris, the Treaty of Washington, and the Geneva Convention are examples of this practice. Such accession is had by a formal act on the part of the state desiring participation, by which it assumes, and agrees to be bound by, the obligations of the treaty from the date set forth in its

ciple of international law, that, as respects the rights of either government under it, a treaty is considered as concluded and binding from the date of its signature, and that in this regard the exchange of ratifications has a retroactive effect, confirming the treaty from its date, a different rule prevails where the treaty operates on individual rights. There, the principle of relation does not apply to rights of this character which were vested before the treaty was ratified, and in so far as it affects them it is not

considered as concluded until there is an exchange of ratifications.— Haver vs. Yaker, 9 Wallace, 32; Vattel, liv. ii. ch. xii. § 156; II Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 1100-1119; Hall, § 110; I Halleck, p. 229; II Dig. Int. Law, §§ 131, 132.

1 Bluntschli, § 419-424; Klüber, §§ 142, 326; I De Martens, § 48; II Ibid. §§ 291, 333; Lawrence, Int. Law, § 152; Hall, § 110; II Philli more, pp. 75-77; II Dig. Int. Law, S$ 131, 131a; Heffter, § 87; Dana's Wheaton, §§ 256-262; II Halleck, pp. 229-233.

act of adhesion. This is especially the case in treaties having in view some modification or amendment of the rules of international law. The provisions of the Declaration of Paris, in 1856, have been acceded to by many states in Europe and America. England and the United States, in the Treaty of Washington, of 1871, agreed to use their influence to induce other nations to accept the principles of maritime law laid down in that instrument.' The arbitration convention concluded by the International Peace Conference at the Hague, in 1899, prescribes the conditions in accordance with which non-signatory states may become parties to the operation of that instrument."

Termination of Treaties.

are abrogated:

Treaties cease to be binding or

I. With the mutual consent of the contracting parties. Such consent would ordinarily be expressed in a document of the same dignity and force as the original instrument which it is proposed to abrogate or modify.' The treaty of 1862 between Great Britain and the United States, in respect to the suppression of the African slave - trade, has been modified by three subsequent agreements on the same subject.'

2. When continuance is conditioned upon terms which do not exist. The right to navigate a boundary river which has ceased to be navigable, or to fish in certain waters in which fisheries have ceased to exist are examples of this case.

3. Where either party refuses to perform a mutual stipulation. This will be the case if but a single article has been violated, for the agreement was to observe the treaty in its entirety. In this event the other party is released from his obligations, and the instrument becomes void; or he may insist

1 Klüber, § 161; Heffter, § 88; II Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 1131, 1145–1150. "For text of this Convention see Appendix E.

3 Treaties and Conventions of the United States 1776-1887, pp. 461, 472, 474.

• Wharton's Commentaries on American Law, § 161; Vattel, book

ii. ch. xiii. § 205; Bluntschli, § 452; Klüber, § 164; Heffter, §§ 98, 99; Pradier-Fodéré, § 1210.

Whart. Comm. Am. Law, § 161; Heffter, § 98; Bluntschli, § 456.

Whart. Comm. Am. Law, § 161; Bluntschli, § 455; Klüber, § 165: Vattel, book ii. ch. xiii. § 202; Heffter, § 98.

upon a compliance with the stipulations of the treaty, and may demand indemnities for any injury that has resulted from such failure, on the part of the defaulting state, to observe its agreement. As treaties convert imperfect into perfect obligations, the injured party may resort to force to obtain redress for the injury which he has sustained.'

4. Where all the material stipulations have been performed.'

5. Where a party, having the option to do so, elects to withdraw.' The form and period of notice in such cases is usually made the subject of a clause or stipulation in the original treaty.

6. Where performance becomes physically or morally impossible. A state, for example, enters into treaties of alliance with several powers, all engage in war at the same time; can it in such case comply with its stipulations? (a) if they engage in war with a foreign state; (b) if they engage in war with each other? Three states enter into a triple alliance; war breaks out between two of them; can the third state make good the terms of the alliance with both ?* 7. When a state of things, which was the basis of the

1 "As the engagements of a treaty impose on the one hand a perfect obligation, they produce on the other a perfect right. The breach of a treaty is, therefore, a violation of the perfect right of the party with whom we have contracted; and this is an act of injustice against him."-Vattel, liv. ii. chap. xii. § 164; II De Martens, § 265; I Halleck, pp. 440-442; III Phillimore, § 35.

"Whart. Comm. Am. Law, § 161; Bluntschli, § 450; Klüber, § 165; Vattel, book ii. ch. xiii. § 198; Heffter, § 99; I Halleck, p. 242; Hall, § 116.

'Whart. Comm. Am. Law, § 161; Bluntschli, § 454: Klüber, § 164; Heffter, § 99: I Halleck, pp. 242, 243: II Dig. Int. Law, § 137a.

Whart. Comm. Am. Law, § 161; Bluntschli, § 459; Klüber, § 164;

Heffter, §98; I Lorimer, p. 264: Dana's Wheaton, § 275; Hall, § 116.

All contracts between great states cease to be unconditionally binding as soon as they are tested by the "struggle for existence." No great nation will ever be induced to sacrifice its existence on the altar of fidelity to contract when it is compelled to choose between the two. The maxim "ultra posse nemo obligatur" holds good in spite of all treaty formulas whatsoever, nor can any treaty guarantee the degree of zeal and the amount of force that will be devoted to the discharge of obligations when the private interest of those who lie under them no longer reinforces the text and its earliest interpretation.-II Bismarck's Autobiography, pp. 273, 274.