West India Company. Hostilities were, however, to cease in these places if advice of peace was received earlier.1 With the modern facilities of communication a much shorter period is required. In the armistice signed January 28, 1871, between France and Germany, provision was made for the cessation of military operations on the day of signing in Paris and within three days in the departments.2 Provision was also inserted for the restitution of captures. In the treaty of peace between China and Japan, signed April 17, 1895, it was agreed that offensive military operations should cease upon the exchange of ratifications, which did not take place till May 8.3 The protocol between the United States and Spain, of August 12, 1898, provided that hostilities should cease upon the signing of the protocol and that notice to that effect should be given as soon as possible by each government to the commanders of its forces. Between the signing of the protocol and the receipt of the notice occurred the capitulation, on August 14, of Manila to the American forces. Article III of the protocol provided that, pending the conclusion of a treaty of peace, the United States should occupy and hold Manila, together with the bay and harbor. The Spanish Government sought to maintain that the United States continued the occupation solely by virtue of this article, and that the capitulation of August 14 was 'absolutely null by reason of its having been concluded after the belligerents had signed an agreement declaring the hostilities to be suspended.' The government of the United States was unable to concur in this view and took the ground that, as it had been expressly provided in the protocol that notice should be given of the suspension of hostilities, the suspension was to be considered as having taken effect 'at the date of the receipt of the notice,' which had been immediately given. While this seems to be a natural con 1 Art. VII, "Collection of Treaties," vol. II, p. 340. 2 Art. I, "British and Foreign State Papers," vol. LXII, p. 49. Art. X, "British and Foreign State Papers," vol. LXXXVII, p. 803. "Foreign Relations," 1898, pp. 813, 814, 830. struction of the article-otherwise the clause providing for the immediate notification is redundant-the Spanish Government was not inclined to accept it and in the first conference of the peace commission at Paris, requested the immediate restoration of the status quo at the time of the signing of the protocol. To this request the American commissioners, who had been specifically instructed that the city and suburbs of Manila were held 'by conquest as well as by virtue of the protocol,' refused to yield.” 1 1 Where the treaty fixes a future date for the cessation of hostilities in remote places, it is generally agreed that hostilities must cease upon the receipt of official notice, although the time allowed has not expired. Obviously the notification, in order to be binding on the officer, must be duly authenticated and attested to by his own government.3 TOPICS AND REFERENCES 1. Definition of Treaties-Early Existence of Treaties Hershey's "Essentials," 31, 311. Phillimore's "International Law," 3d ed., vol. II, 67. Montague Bernard's "Lectures on Diplomacy," 164–6. 2. Subjects and Classification of Treaties Phillimore, "International Law," 3d ed., vol. II, 70-72. Hershey's "Essentials," 311-312. Westlake's "International Law," 2d ed., vol. I, 290-1. 3. Parties to Treaties Butler's "Treaty Making Power in the United States." Foster's "American Diplomacy," chap. XII. Phillimore, "International Law," 3d ed., vol. II, 74–77. 4. Validity of Treaties Hershey's "Essentials," 312-314. Moore's "Digest," vol. V, 156175. Lawrence's "Principles," 4th ed., 326-330. 1 Sen. Doc. 148, p. 6, 56th Cong., 2d sess.; Sen. Doc. 62, pp. 13, 15. 2 Wheaton, sec. 548; Halleck, vol. I, p. 319. See "Case of the Swineherd," Hall, p. 582. Making," etc., pp. 215-227. Crandall, "Treaties, Their 5. Form and Ratification of Treaties Hall, 6th ed., 321-6. Foster's "American Diplomacy," chap. 6. Enforcement of Treaties Crandall, "Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement." Bernard's "Lectures on Diplomacy," lect. IV. Moore's "Digest," vol. V, 221-244. 7. Operation of Treaties Crandall's "Treaties," etc., 213-217. Hall, 6th ed., 343-351. Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. I, 561-5. CHAPTER XIV INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES. TERMINATION OF TREATIES 120. Interpretation of Treaties.-As to the interpretation of a treaty it can be said that in a general way the most important matter is to ascertain the real intention of the parties concerned at the time of the making of the treaty. This should be construed equitably and not too technically. Phillimore says: "The imperfection of language as an instrument of expressing intention must occasionally, if there were no other reasons, render interpretation necessary. "But in truth," he goes on to say, "there are other reasons; in all laws and in all conventions the language of the rule must be general and the application of it particular. Moreover, cases arise which have, perhaps, not been foreseen which may fall under the principle but which are not provided for by the letter of the law or contract. Circumstances may give rise to real or apparent contradictions in the different dispositions of the same instrument or of another instrument which may require to be reconciled. These are difficulties which may arise between contracting parties disposed to act honestly toward each other. But they may not be so disposed; one of them may endeavor to avoid his share of the mutual obligation. "The interpretation is the life of the dead letter, but what is meant by the term 'interpretation'? The meaning which any party may choose to affix?-or a meaning governed by settled rules and fixed principles, originally deduced from right reason and rational equity and subsequently formed into laws? Clearly the latter."1 1 Phillimore, 3d ed., vol. II, p. 95. As a further answer to the query of Sir Robert Phillimore the following general rules can be accepted as largely covering the matter of the interpretation of international treaties. They are gathered mainly from Oppenheim with modifications and additions.1 1. All treaties should be interpreted according to their reasonable and customary reading rather than from a strictly literal sense. The interpretation should be derived from a due consideration of the language of the whole instrument rather than from particular portions or sentences. 2. Terms used in a treaty should be interpreted according to the meaning they had at the time in common parlance unless a certain technical or exceptional meaning is required. (All nations, for instance, does not mean some nations.) 3. If 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 to the inadequate, the consistent to the inconsistent. Previous treaty obligations toward other states must be considered as well as the generally recognized principles of international law. 4. If the meaning of a stipulation is ambiguous, the less drastic interpretation is to be preferred to be applied to the party under obligation or whose territorial or other supremacy, would be affected or restricted. 5. The wording of previous treaties between the same parties or between one of the parties and a third party can be referred to for the principle involved or for clearing up the meaning of a phrase or a stipulation. 6. If there is existing a discrepancy between the clear meaning of a stipulation, on the one hand, and the intentions of one of the parties duly stated during the negotiations preceding the signing of the treaty, the decision must depend upon the merits of the particular case, and the interpretation must be in accordance with the real intentions of the contracting parties. 1 Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. I, pp. 583-6. |