Nelson Evening Mail WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1919. PEACE TREATIES REVIEWED.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LIII, Issue 72, 26 March 1919, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1919. PEACE TREATIES REVIEWED.

THE sittings of the Peace Conference invest with renewed „ interest the precedent of centuries of treaty-making between the nations. The matter has been reviewed by F. W. Hosken in an' illuminating manner, and he puts th’ej facts so concisely that it is instructive | to closely follow his remarks. He com-1 menceg by pointing out that when all the points at issue have been fully discussed, and a final decision arrived at. the terms of a new treaty, if between two powers only, are expressed in the language of each country in parallel, columns, and the 1 completed document is signed- in duplicate by -Jthe -plenipotentiaries. TheVe is sometimes a third version in French, and . this is -held- to | be decisive in the event of any alleged: variances in the other, two. The; peace treaty between Japan and Russia ih j i 905 was, expressed, not in Japanese and Russian, but in French and Eng-1 lish, and it was agreed that in case of disputed interpretation the French text should prevail. When a treaty is concluded between several powers it is now, invariably, expressed ip French. Vp to the time of Louis/XIV. Latin was the accepted language. Evely nation' has, however, strictly the; right to require, that its own : version of a treaty shall | be expressed* 1 in its own language. Thus | in the treaty resulting from the Vienna Congress of 1815 the following special, artiHe-. was included French, lan# giiage having been exclusively employed in all the copies of the present treaty j it is • declared by the Powers who have concurred m this act; Thai the use made of that language shall hot be construed, into a precedent for the future; every| Power, therefore, reserves to itself the, adoption in future negotiations-and conventions of the language it has heretofore employed in its diplomatic relations and this treaty shall not be cited as a precedent contrary to the established practice.*' A treaty between several Powers when finally engrossed is usual- , ly, but not necessarily, signed by the plenipotentiaries in the alphabetical or- 1 der of the countries executing it. The j treaty of Vienna (1815) was accordingly signed by the plenipotentiary of Austria first, then followed France, Great Britain, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Sweden'. For centuries it was contend-1 ed that an infidel State could not bo a ; party to a treaty with a Christian power. This tradition had come down from the time of the Crusades, the Moslems being..regarded not only as the enemies of Europe, but of civilisation. It >vas 'not'until the treaty of Paris in 1856, alter the Crimean war, that Turkey was formally admitted to a place# in the public law of Europe. This admission of the Porte entailed an alteration in the stereotyped commencement , of a treaty, which reads as follows*.— .' “In the name ot the Most Holy and In-1 divisible Trinity.” When Turkey is » party this is changed to “In the name of God." I All treaties contain a ratification ar-1 tide, which is usually the final clause, I and is couched as- follows H-“THe pre-' sent treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at (one of the capitals) within the space of. ; weeks, or sooner if possible.” The ratification is invariably signed by the respective Sovereigns or Presidents of the countries concerned. In the ratification article of the treaty between France and ' Germany, following the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. however, it was, owing to the unsettled state of politics in the for.; mer country, stipulated that the treaty should be ratified by the National Assembly a hd by the Chief of the Executive of the French Republic on the one part, and by the German Emperor on the* other, within, ten days. After duo execution by the various rulers, tho ratifications arc sent to the representa- 1 tivea of the other signatory Powers, and. * exchanged"' for a similar document issu- i j ing from the latter, which is then pre-hj served in' the official archives, .When, 1 1 however, a large number of Powers are | j interested, the ratifications arepften.de " l ' posited in the archives of the country in which the treaty is signed, and thus i the multiplication of ratifications is i avoided. The practice of the United.. | Spates in regard to ratifications differ#l,

somewhat from this procedure. According to the constitution of .that country, ihe treaty making power is vested in the Senate, whose approval must be obtained before a treaty can be ratified. There are instances‘on record in which the Senate has introduced amendments as a condition of its acceptance of a treaty. Should the other contracting parties refuse to accept such amendments, the agreement remains inoperative. In 1855 a proposed treaty be- -! tween Great Britain and the United States relating to Central American affairs was altered by the Senate, and, the amendment not being agreed to by Britain, the treaty was not ratified, and was of no effect. Upon the Senate’s duly ratifying a treaty; and the docnIment’s becoming operative, it becomes, | ipso facto, a part of the law of the land. I This is not so in Britain, and British | plenipotentiaries have to take care that ; the stipulations of any proposed agree- | incut''are not antagonistic to the law of i their country, or, if they are,I’that 1 ’that an I undertaking .be given that the law will ! be amended to agree with the proposals jin the treaty. If this were not done, it \ is obvious that a Government might find * itself bound to a foreign Government to j give effect to stipulations which the laws of the country forbid it to carry out. Thus a clause involving a money ■ payment by Great Britain has been cuardedly worded’. “His Majesty undertakes to recommend to his Parliament |to vote a sum of money.” In the ! Anglo-German Agreement of 1890 article | XII. read : “Subject to the assent of the ; British Parliament, the sovereignty over the Island of Heligoland, together with its dependencies, is ceded by Her Bri- . tannic Majesty to His Majesty the Em- | neror of Germany.” In the same year, ; therefore, the necessary act of Parlia- ! «nont was passed assenting to the carrying out’of this arrangement. As a general rule, a peace treaty is abrogated - only by war breaking out between the contracting parties, or by a mutual agreement between all the nations interested. The notice by'one:party to a treaty of its intention or desire to terminate it is referred to as a “denunciation,” and the rule that before such a denunciation can be given effect to. it must be approved by the other countries interested was settled in 1871. In 1870 the Russian Government announced that it held itself to be emancipated from a certain Black Sea article of "ho Treaty of Paris, 1856. France was then staggering under the blow of the Sedan surrender, the Empire had fallen, Paris had been invested, and Russia considered it a favourable opportunity of serving a curt notice of denunication, notwithstanding the fact that the treaty contained an express declaration that “itT cannot be either annulled or modified ■ without the assent of all the Powers signing the Treaty.” Bismarck was too anxious to propitiate Russia to oppose, her, and. secretly urged her to proceed V Austria was powerless to object. Italy was too busy completing her unity by the occupation of Rome to bother, and it was left to Britain to protest against the blow at the respect for .treaties and The public faith of Euorpe. Lord Granville objected with air his power, and as a result Russia was induced to submit the majtter to discussion at a > Congress of lowers held at London in .1871, ; Great Britain was urn able to prevent Russia attaining her desire, and a new treaty was made excluding the Black Sea articles. This, however; contained the important declaration ■ that “it is an essential principle of 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.”