Abstract
It cannot be doubted that political treaties have traditionally been generally regarded as terminated as a result of war.1 But beyond this general statement it is difficult to find much agreement as to which treaties are included in the category “political,” as well as to when and why the termination occurred.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Any number of authorities, official and unofficial, may be cited in support of the proposition. Professor Garner’s suggestion that a treaty is at most suspended by war and comes into operation again with the return of peace unless contrary provision is made at the end of the war still has not found much support. Harvard Research, p. 1183. Professor Hyde characterizes this part of the Harvard Draft as nothing more than a proposal for acceptance by interested states. 2 Hyde 1551.
Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503 (1947). But cf. Argento v. North in which a federal court reverted in dicta to emphasis upon the character of the provision as determinative of the effect of war upon it: “The cases cited indicate … that war abrogates entirely those treaties of amity or friendship having a political character.” 131 F. Supp. 538, 540 (1955).
Signed August 29, 1921, effective November 11, 1921. 42 Stat. (pt. 2) 1951, III Treaties (Redmond) 2693.
Signed August 25, 1921, effective November 11, 1921. 42 Stat. (pt. 2) 1939, III Treaties (Redmond) 2596.
40 Stat. 105.
The Resolution, which was approved by the President July 2, 1921, stated that the war “is hereby declared at an end.” When Harding promulgated the 1921 treaty with Germany as in force, he proclaimed on November 14, 1921 “that the war between the United States and Germany terminated July 2, 1921.” But Germany took the view that the war terminated with the entry into force of the 1921 treaty (November 11, 1921). Department of State, The Treaty of Versailles, Pub. 2724, Conf. Series 92, p. 21 (1947). The presidential proclamation of the entry into force of the 1921 treaty with Hungary contained no reference to the termination of the war.
For. Rel., Paris Peace Conf. 1919, XIII, 27 (1947).
Official Journal, Supp. 125, p. 66 (1934).
In a speech at Danzig on October 24, 1939, the German Foreign Minister said: “Since January 30, 1933 the aim of Germany’s foreign policy has been to abolish the Treaty of Versailles and its consequences … As a matter of fact, in recent years the Führer has done nothing but remedy the most serious consequences which this most unreasonable of all dictates in history imposed upon a nation and, in fact, the whole of Europe, in other words, repair the worst mistakes committed by none other than the statesmen of the western democracies.” For. Rel., Paris Peace Conf. 1919, XIII, 27(1947).
Germany Nationality (Alsace-Lorraine) Case, People’s Court, Annual Digest, 1919–1942 (supp. vol.), Case No. 115, pp. 218, 219.
Note of March 9, 1948, pursuant to the 1947 Treaty of Peace with Hungary. Department of State, United States Treaty Developments, Appendix III (A).
According to information received by Dr. Rank, the position of the Federal Republic of Germany is: “But the preexisting peace treaties, to the extent that their provisions have already been executed, will not be considered as abrogated. Whethe also the other parts of the peace treaties which are not yet executed are still in force, and if so, to what extent, will be decided upon by the present German Government separately in any special case.” Rank, p. 355.
The Department of State includes the treaty in its Treaties in Force, 1955, Pub. 6346 (1956). See infra, p. 340. n. 1.
During the war Japan had seized German holdings in Shantung, China. Early in 1915 she had presented to the Chinese Government the notorious Twenty-One Demands which appeared to represent an effort of Japan to close the Open Door. The United States was strongly opposed to such an effort. For. Rel., 1915, 146. For the subsequent Lansing-Ishii agreement see For. Rel., 1917, 264; Ibid., 1922, II, 595 (secret Protocol). Griswold, The Far Eastern Policy of the United States, pp. 218-19 (1938); Bailey, A Diplomatic History of the American People, 683-84 (1955). See also, Baker, Woodrow Wilson, vol. VII, 329-30, 336 (1939). In order to prevent economic penetration of China, Wilson in November, 1917 revived the Four Power consortium. For. Rel., 1920, I, 576-80; Griswold, op. cit., p. 224; Bailey, op. cit., p. 686.
Griswold, op. cit., pp. 247-52; Bailey, op. cit., pp. 685-87; Graves, America’s Siberian Adventure, 1918–1920 (1931).
For a careful review of information on the Yap controversy, see For. Rel., 1921, II, 263-87. Also Bailey, op. cit. pp. 685-87; Griswold, op. cit.-68; infra, p. 59.
Sprout, Harold, Toward a New Order of Sea Power (1940).
Signed December 13, 1921, effective August 17, 1923. 43 Stat, (pt. 2) 1646, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 4883.
Article 1.
Signed February 6, 1922, effective August 17, 1923. 43 Stat. (pt. 2) 1652, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 4886.
Signed February 6, 1922, effective August 5, 1925. 44 Stat. (pt. 3) 2113, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 4872.
Articles 1, 3, 4.
Also, the Kellogg-Briand Pact; infra, p. 83. See Statement by the Secretary of State Before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, January 15, 1941, 5 D.S. Bull. 85 (1941); For. Rel., Japan, 1931–1941, II, 132,329. Also, ibid., I, 45, 80-87, 382-83.
Griswold, op. cit., p. 324.
Again on October 28, 1937, Japan admitted the continuing validity of the treaty. Department of State Pub. 1232, Conf. Series 37, p. 8 (1938). The statements of each of the member governments at the conference reflected the belief that the treaty was still in full force. Ibid., pp. 21-45, 76, 81-82.
Ibid.; see also For. Rel., op. cit., II, 764.
For. Rel., op. cit., I, 404-22. This conclusion was in accord with the League of Nations Assembly statement of October 6, 1937. See p. 63, n. 2, infra.
Statement of Japanese special representative in the informal conversations with the United States Government. For. Rel., op. cit., II, 754.
In a telegram from the American Ambassador in Japan to the Secretary of State the former said: “The United States contends that Japan has ignored the Nine Power Treaty, etc., but the Japanese Government does not admit this contention. Neither the Japanese Government nor the Minister for Foreign Affairs have recognized this contention from the outset.” February 29, 1940, For. Rel., op. cit.. II. 55.
E.g., see the statements of Ambassador Philip C. Jessup before Committee I of the General Assembly and in debate before the General Assembly. General Assembly, Official Records of the Fourth Session, Committee I, meeting of November 28, 1948, Summary Record, p. 349; General Assembly, Official Records of the Fourth Session, Plenary Meeting of December 7, 1949, p. 569. At the December 8, 1949, meeting of the General Assembly a resolution requesting states to “respect treaties relating to China” was adopted. For text of the resolution see Doc. A/C. 1/552.
Signed February 11, 1922, effective July 13, 1922. 42 Stat. (pt. 2) 2149, III Treaties (Redmond) 2723.
Griswold, op. cit., p. 265.
Bailey, op. cit., p. 686.
United States Naval War College, International Law Documents, 1946–47, p. 146.
League of Nations Secretariat, The Mandates System, Ser. L.o.N.P. 1945. VI.A. 1. Throughout World War II the Secretariat tried to keep up to date with reports from mandated territories. Communications from some governments were received. Report on the Work of the League, 1942–1943, L.o.N.P. Gen. 1945.2. The mandates system continued to exist. Cf. International Status of South-West Africa, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 128.
United States Naval War College, loc. cit.
Articles 40, 43 of the Italian Treaty; Paris Conference of 1946, Doc. C. P. (PLEN) Doc. 24, Annex, p. 2; European Peace Treaties after World War II, ed. by Leiss and Dennett, p. 66 (1954). Article 2 (d) of the Japanese Treaty.
Article 2 (d).
Signed February 6, 1922, effective August 17, 1923, 43 Stat. 1655, III Treaties (Redmond) 3100.
The same article also contained an escape clause for neutral signatories in the event that one of the belligerents invoked suspension for itself.
For. Rel., Japan, 1931–1941, I, 253-59. The Washington Conference treaties sought to freeze the status quo of 1921 indefinitely. Professor Griswold, op. cit., p. 331, has remarked: “The treaties went as far as pen and ink could go to preserve a peace founded on such antithetical elements as inherent in the status quo in the Far East.”
For. Rel., op. cit., 273-76; ibid., II, 132.
Signed April 22, 1930, effective December 31, 1930. 46 Stat. (Pt. 2) 2858, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 5268.
The London Naval Conference of 1936 regarded Part IV as “a continuing obligation.” Hudson, Cases on International Law, p. 630, n. 16 (1951).
This invitation was reinforced by a Procés-Verbal of November 6, 1936, and resulted in widerspread acceptance of Part IV. 7 Hudson, International Legislation, p. 790.
Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1946, vol. I, pp. 310 ff. (1948).
Bailey, op. cit., p. 742.
A treaty for the limitation of naval armament and the exchange of information concerning naval construction was signed March 25, 1936, effective July 29, 1937. The United States, France, and Great Britain were parties. 50 Stat. (pt. 2) 1363, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 5548. Modified by Protocol signed June 30, 1938 by same parties. Italy adhered on December 2, 1938 to this Protocol and the agreement it modifies. The Protocol was effective June 30, 1938. 53 Stat. (pt. 3) 1921, E.A.S. 127, 196 L.N.T.S. 481.
For a list of the dates of suspension of the 1936 treaty and the 1938 agreement modifying it, see Department of State, Treaties in Force, 1941, pp. 26-27 (1944). The suspension action was taken under Article 24 of the 1936 treaty, an escape clause.
Bailey, op. cit., p. 743.
The Federal Republic of Germany apparently regards armaments treaties as abrogated by war. Rank, p. 355. No official organ of the United States Government has stated its position on the question, so far as the present writer has been able to discover.
Signed September 7, 1901, effective September 7, 1901. II Treaties (Malloy) 2006. Three enemy countries besides Japan were parties: Germany, Hungary, Italy. Department of State, Treaties in Force, 1941 p. 55 (1944). But Germany and Hungary had relinquished their rights under the Protocol in their peace treaties after World War I. Treaty of Versailles, Article 128; Treaty of Trianon, Article 97.
Signed September 27, 1905, effective September 27, 1905. II Treaties (Malloy) 2013. Two enemy countries besides Japan were parties, namely Germany and Italy.
Signed November 30, 1908, effective November 30, 1908. I Treaties (Malloy) 1045.
Signed March 25, 1937, effective March 25, 1937. 50 Stat. (pt. 2) 1611, E.A.S. 104, 181 L.N.T.S. 217.
Articles 7, 8, 9.
Report Adopted by League of Nations Assembly on October 6, 1937. A.78.1937 VII, Geneva, October 5, 1937; For. Rel., Japan, 1931–1941, I, 384-94. See also ibid., 394-96; A.80.1937. VII, Geneva, October 5, 1937.
Treaty for the Relinquishment of Extraterritorial Rights in China and the Regulation of Related Matters. Effective May 20, 1943. 57 Stat. 767, TS 984.
Article 10. Similarly, Article 24 of the Treaty of Peace with Italy provided: “Italy renounces in favour of China all benefits and privileges resulting from the provisions of the final Protocol signed at Peking on September 7, 1901, and all annexes, notes and documents supplementary thereto, and agrees to the abrogation in respect of Italy of the said protocol, annexes, notes and documents. Italy likewise renounces any claim thereunder to an indemnity.”
Department of State, International Agencies in Which the United States Participates, Pub. 2699, p. 304.
Ibid., p. 312.
Listed in Department of State, Treaties in Force, 1941, p. 46 (1944).
Signed December 2, 1899, effective February 16, 1900. 31 Stat. 1878, II Treaties (Malloy) 1595.
6 Miller, My Diary, p. 344, doc. 497. Miller himself was hostile to the article adopted, Article 288. Ibid., p. 250.
Article 288: “The special rights and privileges granted to Germany by Article III of the Convention of December 2, 1899, relating to Samoa shall be considered to have terminated on August 4, 1914.” Under Article 119 Germany renounced her “rights and titles over her oversea possessions,” which included Samoa, of course.
During World War II thousands of United States’ troops were based on Western Samoa. Report to the Trusteeship Council by United States Mission to Western Samoa, published by the New Zealand Department of External affairs, Pub. 39, p. 62 (1947). For the Trusteeship Agreement, see Yearbook of the United Nations, 1946–47, pp. 203-05.
Germany was listed as a party in Department of State, Treaties in Force, 1941, p. 62 (1944), but the Department pointed out that Germany had renounced her rights and interests in the Islands under Article 119 of the Treaty of Versailles. No mention is made of Article 288. Ibid., p. 63.
Effective August 14, 1925, 43 Stat. (pt. 2) 1892, 2 L.N.T.S. 7.
Including the United States and four enemy powers: Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, and Japan. The Soviet Union declared its approval in 1925 and reaffirmed its acceptance of the treaty again in 1935, but played no part in the formulation of the treaty since it was a product of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Commission on Spitsbergen, Procés-Verbaux, no. 1–16, July 18-September 5, 1919, and the Commission’s Rapport au Conseil Suprême (1919). Preliminary work may be found in The Spitzbergen Conference at Washington in 1912, published by the Department of State (includes plan for international administration of Spitsbergen). See also, Smith, O. M., Le statut juridique des terres polaires (dissertation) Paris (1934).
Article 9.
J. J. Teal asserts it was the result of German action. “Europe’s Northernmost Frontier,” 29 Foreign Affairs 263, 270-71 (1951). An unsigned article in another journal blames the damages on a British attack of 1941. “Spitsbergen: Quandary for a Small State.” 1 American Perspective 106, 108 (1947–1948).
The official Norwegian communique stated that “the Soviet Union could not agree that the Treaty should continue in force.” Some commentators took this to mean that the Soviet Union demanded a repudiation of the treaty by the Norwegian Government, but this may not have been the case. Implied recognition of the treaty by the Soviet Union was given by its statement that it “intended to take up the question of revision officially in the ordinary way” but thought that Norway should be informed first of the desire to revise because of Norway’s sovereignty over Spitsbergen. In its answer the Norwegian Government pointed out that Russia had in 1935 acknowledged the validity of the treaty, which Norway regarded as still in force. Ibid., pp. 107-8.
The situation is somewhat comparable to Belgium being neutralized by treaty in 1839 and then being invaded by Germany, who regarded the treaty as a mere “scrap of paper.” But after World War I Belgium wanted the neutralization to come to an end, whereas Norway does not want to fortify Spitsbergen. When Belgium came to the peace conference she demanded and got recognition of the abrogation of the 1839 treaty system. 4 Miller, My Diary, p. 434. Article 31 of the Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Germany “consents to the abrogation of the said treaties,” and similar clauses appeared in the Austrian and Hungarian treaties. The Preamble of the Locarno treaties stated: “Recognizing the abrogation of the treaties for neutralization of Belgium …” Tobin, Harold, “Is Belgium Still Neutralized?” 26 A.J.I.L. 514, 515-16 (1932). It would appear that the treaty system of 1839 did not come to an end as a result of the war itself.
E.g., see Article 4.
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464, 465 (1823). See supra, p. 31.
Department of State, Treaties in Force, 1941, pp. 54-55, 61-62 (1944).
Signed April 7, 1906, effective December 31, 1906. 34 Stat. (pt. 3) 2905, II Treaties (Malloy) 2157. The United States, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and nine other states were parties to the treaty.
Signed July 3, 1880, effective July 3, 1880. 22 Stat. 817, I Treaties (Malloy) 1220. The United States, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and 10 other states were parties to the treaty. Article 123 of the 1906 treaty provided: “All treaties, conventions, and arrangements of the Signatory Powers with Morocco remain in force.” In case of conflict the 1906 convention would prevail.
President Theodore Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize for 1906, in part for taking the initiative in calling the Algeciras conference. But see Bemis, Samuel Flagg, Diplomatic History of the United States, p. 580 (1936). The calm was broken by the Agadir crisis in 1911, settled by the agreement of November 4, 1911, between Germany and France.
Perhaps the United States would not have become involved at all if it were not for a minor incident which occured in 1904 and involved one Perdicaris, presumed at the time to be a naturalized American citizen but in fact a Greek. Bailey, op. cit., 560-61.
In 1912 France established a protectorate over Morocco. This protectorate was ended by a pact signed on March 2, 1956. N. Y. Times, March 3, 1956, p. 1.
Article 141. The corresponding article in the Treaty of Trianon was 80. Despite these provisions, the Department of State thereafter continued to regard Germany and Hungary as parties. Treaties in Force, 1941, p. 62 (1944).
35 D. S. Bull. 844 (1956); 51 A.J.I.L. 402, 466 (1957).
Judgment of August 27, 1952, I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 176.
I. C. J. Pleadings, Morocco Case (France v. U.S.A.), vols. I and II, passim.
October 27, 1950, application instituting proceedings, ibid., vol. I, p. 11.
Ibid., vol. II, pp. 410-15. The obligation of the Registrar was based on Article 63 of the Statute of the Court.
The Federal Republic of Germany did not have diplomatic representation at The Hague, but a Consul-General and a Vice-Consul were present from that country. Hungary was represented by a Minister and the Soviet Union by an Ambassador. This was the situation of February 1, 1951. Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, Vertegenwoordigingen van Vreemde Mogendheden in Nederland, pp. 11, 26 (1951). Probably the Registrar did not notify Hungary and the Federal Republic because of the post-World War I peace treaty provisions under which they remounced their rights under the Algeciras convention. Also, with respect to the Federal Republic there was the additional problem of state succession.
Judgment of August 27, 1952, I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 199.
Cf. Article 2 of the Anglo-French Agreement of August 31, 1945, for the reestablishment of the international administration of Tangier. British Treaty Series No. 24; also in 3 UST 5509.
Effective July 31, 1920; as to the United States, October 29, 1934. 49 Stat, (pt. 2) 3027, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 4849. The treaty is a revision of the General Act of Berlin of February 26, 1885, and the General Act and Declaration of Brussels of July 2, 1890. The United States, Italy, Japan, and five other states were parties to the 1919 treaty. The United States was not a party to the 1885 treaty, but was a party to the Brussels Declaration, 27 Stat. 886, II Treaties (Malloy) 1964. Article 126 of the Treaty of Versailles provided: “Germany undertakes to accept and observe the agreements made or to be made by the Allied and Associated Powers or some of them with any other Power with regard to the trade in arms and spirits, and to the matters dealt with in the General Act of Berlin of February 26, 1885, the General Act of Brussels of July 2, 1890, and the conventions completing or modifying the same.”
See Article 7 of each agreement. T/Agreement/3, 9 June 1947; T/Agreement/2, 9 June 1947.
E.g., see Rapport soumis par le Gouvernement Belge a l’Assemblée Generale des Nations Unies au sujet de l’administration du Ruanda-Urundi pendant l’Année 1947, Annexe II, p. 215 (1948), and Report of the Government of the United Kingdom on the Administration of Tanganyika for the Year 1947, Colonial No. 220, p. 19 (1948).
According to Mr. Georges Caprasse, Economic Affairs Officer, Africa Section, Division of Information from Non-Self Governing Territories, Trusteeship Section of the Secretariat of the United Nations. Mr. Caprasse related this information to the author in a conversation of May 21, 1956.
21 D.S. Bull. 852 (1949).
Ibid.
Signed May 8, 1937, effective October 15, 1937, effective as to the United States August 29, 1938. 53 Stat. (pt. 3) 1645, T.S. 939, 182 L.N.T.S. 37. For Senatorial consideration of the convention see Sen. Exec. C. 75th Cong., 3d sess.; Sen. Exec. Rept. No. 4, 75th Cong., 3d sess.
The reservations were made in respect to Article 9.
Letter from Secretary of State Hull to President Roosevelt dated March 19, 1937. 5 Hackworth 342. But cf. the 1912 and 1913 exchange of notes with Italy by which the United States recognized the termination of its extraterritorial rights in Libya. Infra, p. 73.
Protection of French nationals in Egypt, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 59. The letter from the French Agent was cited on p. 60, ibid.
E.g., the Mixed Court of Appeal in Egypt held in 1927 that the Cairo Court of First Instance was in error in deciding that the war by Egypt against Germany suspended the capitulations vis-a-vis German nationals so as to prevent a German plaintiff from bringing an action. The Court pointed out that the Mixed Courts had never been closed to German nationals and the case should have been dealt with on purely juridical, non-political grounds. Heinrich Finch v. Egyptian Government, March 1, 1927, Annual Digest, 1927–1928, Case No. 25, pp. 44-46, 534-35.
The severance took place June 12, 1940. 13 D.S. Bull. 230, 233 (1945).
Effective November 1, 1912. III Treaties (Redmond) 2698.
Article 23 provided: “ 1. Italy renounces all right and title to the Italian territorial possessions in Africa, i.e. Libya, Eritrea and Italian Somaliland. 2. Pending their final disposal, the said possessions shall continue under their present administration. 3. The final disposal of these possessions shall be determined jointly by the Governments of the Soviet Union, of the United Kingdom, of the United States of America, and of France within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty, in the manner laid down in the joint declaration of February 10, 1947, issued by the said Governments, which is reproduced in Annex XI.” Under para. 3 of Annex XI the Four Powers agreed that if they were unable to decide within the year upon the disposal of the colonies they would be bound by a recommendation made by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the matter.
E.g., even though Turkey had expressly denounced certain capitulations at the outbreak of World War I, they were held by a Syrian court to have survived the war and remained in force at least until Article 28 of the Treaty of Lausanne came into force. Syrian Capitulations (Denunciation by Turkey) Case, Court of Appeal, Beirut, Syria, June 16, 1926, Annual Digest, 1927’1928, Case No. 126, pp. 192-93.
McNair, Arnold, The Law of Treaties, p. 546 (1938).
Realities of American Foreign Policy, p. 18 (1954).
The request was made November 10, 1941. 87 Cong. Rec. 8736.
This is not surprising for, as Sir Arnold McNair has said, “it cannot be denied that the last sphere of inter-State relations which will be wholly subjected to purely legal arbitrament is the sphere of their political relations.” The Law of Treaties, p. 369(1938).
The first convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes was signed July 29, 1899, effective September 4, 1900. 32 Stat. (pt. 2) 1779, II Treaties (Malloy) 2016. The second convention, signed October 18, 1907, effective January 26, 1910, provided that it would replace the 1899 convention as between its contracting parties (Article 91). 36 Stat. (pt. 2) 2199, II Treaties (Malloy) 2220. The enemy states party to the 1899 convention but not to the 1907 treaty were Bulgaria and Italy. Hungary never adhered to or ratified either convention, but apparently she is a party since Austria-Hungary is a party. At least she is listed as a party by the Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in its 1945 Report covering the war years. Rapport du Conseil Administratif de la Cour Permanente d’Arbritage, 1940–1944, The Hague, p. 6 (1945).
The last time was in 1932 when Sweden complained of the detention by the United States of some ships during World War I. 2 United Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards 1241.
All of the enemy powers were parties to the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice but the United States was not. For information concerning the Court in the war period, consult Sixteenth Report of the Court, June 15, 1939-December 31, 1945, Series E, No. 16, Leyden, p. 8 (1946); and Hudson, Manley O., The Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920–42 (1943), and his articles on the Court appearing annually in the A.J.I.L.
The compromis for submission of this dispute to arbitration by a special arbitral tribunal was signed July 15, 1931 by France and Greece. The first session of the tribunal was held August 2, 1954. Rapport du Conseil Administratif de la Cour Permanente d’Arbitrage, The Hague, pp. 6-7, 32 (1955).
Article 22. The Bureau was maintained under Article 44 of the 1907 convention.
In a cablegram giving the amendments of Mr. Root to the League Covenant, reference is made to the “existing permanent court of arbitration at The Hague.” 7 Miller, My Diary, p. 330, doc. 652. The British draft of the Covenant, dated January 14, 1919, included reference to the “existing Hague organisation.” 3 Miller, My Diary, p. 346, doc. 189. Lord Cecil made exactly the same reference in a memorandum on which document 189 was based. Ibid., p. 86, doc. 111.
Commission on the Society of Nations, 10th sess., February 13, 1919. 5 Miller, My Diary, p. 367, doc. 407. In the Italian Draft Convention for the Constitution of the League of Nations, Article 20 provided that the Office of the Permanent Court of Arbitration should act as the secretariat of the proposed Permanent Court of International Justice. The Italians obviously regarded the Hague Conventions as continuing in force and this was not disputed by any other delegation. Ibid. p. 78, doc. 320.
Ibid., p. 217, doc. 365.
A compromis between Spain, France and Great Britain on the one side and Portugal on the other was signed July 31, 1913, and the case was decided September 4, 1920. Elihu Root was Chairman of the Tribunal. The other compromis was signed by France and Peru on February 2, 1914, and the case was decided October 11, 1921. For reports of the cases see Scott, J.B., The Hague Court Reports, pp. 1-30, 31-38 (1932).
For list see Rapport du Conseil Administratif de la Cour Permanente d’Arbitrage, 1954, The Hague, pp. 31-32 (1955).
Ibid., 1940–1944, pp. 33-42(1945).
The present author has not been able to discover just what these were, but Fl. 1,000 were spent each year for printing. Ibid.
Department of State, Participation of the United States Government in International Conferences, 1941–1945, p. 214 (1946). The Administrative Council has met annually since 1945.
Rapport du Conseil Administratif de la Cour Permanente d’Arbitrage, 1940–1944, The Hague (1945).
Bureau International de la Cour Permanente d’Arbitrage, Liste Mise a Jour Jusqu’au 1er Novembre 1946, The Hague (1946).
Rapport du Conseil Administratif, op. cit., pp. 5-6.
Department of State, Participation of the United States Government in International Conferences, 1941–1945, p. 214, note 1 (1946).
54 Stat. 187.
Hearings on 3d Deficiency Appropriation Bill, 1946, before the House Committee on Appropriations, 79th Cong., 2d sess., vol. 171 of Hearings, pp. 183-85.
Under Article 44 of the 1907 convention the terms were for six years and were renewable. Since 1945 numerous changes have been made in the United States panel. As of April 22, 1955, the American members of the court were Francis Biddle, Edwin Dickinson, Thomas K. Finletter, and Adrian S. Fisher.
Hungary’s four nominations were made August 14, 1947; her peace treaty came into force September 15, 1947. On January 1, 1955, three of these persons were replaced and one was held over. Japan’s four nominations were made April 5, 1952; her peace treaty came into force April 28, 1952.
The four nominations by the Federal Republic of Germany were made May 28, 1954. The “Peace Contract” of 1952, as revised by the Paris Protocols of October 23, 1954, entered into force May 5, 1955. 32 D.S. Bull. 826 (1955).
Signed October 18, 1907, effective January 26, 1910. 36 Stat. (pt. 2) 2241, II Treaties (Malloy) 2248.
This was required by Articles 1 and 2.
This action was taken under Directive No. 6 of the Allied High Commission, dated March 10, 1951. As was done with all other treaties revived under this Directive, the United States included the statement that the notice given “is without prejudice to the previous status of any portion of the convention which may have remained operative at any time since the outbreak of hostilities between the United States and Germany.” Letter from Charles I. Bevans, Assistant Legal Adviser, Department of State, dated June 8, 1953; printed in Rank, p. 345.
Signed January 15, 1909, effective May 13, 1909, 36 Stat. 2156, I Treaties (Malloy) 49, extended by agreement of May 6, 1914, 38 Stat. 1783.
Bulgaria: Signed January 21, 1929, effective July 22, 1929. 46 Stat. (pt. 2) 2332, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 3978. Germany: Signed May 5, 1928, effective February 25, 1929. 45 Stat. (pt. 2) 2744, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 4210. Hungary: Signed January 26, 1929, effective July 24, 1929. Italy: Signed April 19, 1928, effective January 20, 1931. 46 Stat. (pt. 2) 2890, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 4383. Rumania: Signed March 21, 1929, effective July 22, 1929. 46 Stat. (pt. 2) 2336, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 4611.
Bulgaria: Note dated March 8, 1948. Hungary: Note of March 9, 1948. Italy: Note of February 6, 1948. Rumania: Note of February 26, 1948. Department of State, United States Treaty Developments, Appendix III (A).
In February 1951 the Federal Republic of Germany requested reactivation of this treaty by the Allied High Commission. On June 23, 1951 the Commission replied that it would not object if the Federal Republic entered into contact with the United States concerning reactivation. Plischke, p. 258. The Department of State included the treaty in its Treaties in Force, 1955, Pub. 6346 (1956). Thus, the Department regards the treaty as presently in force. See infra, p. 340, n. 1.
Bulgaria: Signed January 21, 1929, effective July 22, 1929. 46 Stat. (pt. 2) 2334, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 3979. Germany: Signed May 5, 1928, effective February 25, 1929. 45 Stat. (pt. 2) 2748, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 4212. Hungary: Signed January 26, 1929, effective July 24, 1929. 46 Stat. (pt. 2) 2353, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 4333. Italy: Signed May 5, 1914, effective March 19, 1915. 39 Stat. (pt. 2) 1618, III Treaties (Redmond) 2701. The time allowed for the appointment of the Commission under Article 2 of this treaty was extended by an agreement signed September 18, 1915. T.S. 6154, III Treaties (Redmond) 2703. The terms of Article 2 of the May 5, 1914 treaty with Italy were modified by a treaty signed September 23, 1931, effective July 30, 1932. 47 Stat. (pt. 2) 2102, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 4385. Rumania: Signed March 21, 1929, effective July 22, 1929. 46 Stat. (pt. 2) 2339, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 4612.
They were revived by the same notes as used for the arbitration treaties. See p. 80, n. 4 supra. The agreement of September 18, 1915 with Italy (p. 81, n. 2 supra) was not revived, apparently because of the modification of Article 2 of the 1914 treaty by the later treaty. It had ceased to be meaningful when the 1931 treaty came into force.
The facts stated in p. 81, n. 1 are exactly the same in respect to the conciliation treaty with Germany.
For identification of the personnel of the Commissions as of June 30, 1941, see Department of State, American Delegations to International Conferences, etc., Pub. 1718, Conf. Series 51.
Department of State, International Agencies in which the United States Participates, Pub. 2699, p. 313 (1946).
See also agreement signed with Italy on February 12 and 13, 1951, regarding appointment of the third member of the new Commission. TIAS 2232, 2 U.S.T. 807.
42 Stat. 2200, III Treaties (Redmond) 2601.
45 Stat. 2698, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 4213.
Department of State, American Delegations to International Conferences, etc., Pub. 1718, Conf. Series 51, p. III (1941).
Rank, p. 355.
Ibid., p. 354.
Signed August 27, 1928, effective July 24, 1929. 46 Stat. (pt. 2) 2343, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 5130. Germany, Japan and Italy signed and ratified; Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania adhered.
Effective September 9, 1934. 49 Stat. (pt. 2) 3363, IV Treaties (Trenwith) 4793. At the outbreak of World War II 25 states were parties, including the United States, Bulgaria, and Rumania.
Of the Pact of Paris of 1928 George F. Kennan has recently said: “And let us not forget the Kellogg Pact: one of strangest and most bizarre of the episodes of modern diplomacy.” Realities of American Foreign Policy, p. 21 (1954).
Note of June 23, 1928. Quoted in In re Beale, 2 F. Supp. 899, 901-02 (1933).
United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625 (1931).
In the 1930’s the Department of State complained time after time about the violations of the Pact by Japan. For citations see For. Rel., Japan, 1931–1941, I (index: Treaties, sub-title Kellogg-Briand.)
Statement of Sir Hartley Shawcross, Chief Prosecutor for Great Britain. International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1946, p. 103 (1948).
For example, ibid., vol. 17, pp. 462-63, 468, 470-71.
Ibid., vol. 22, p. 463. But since aggressive war was defined as a crime in its Charter, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to rely upon the Pact for authority in its Judgment except to give added weight to its decision. Ibid., p. 459.
“Fifty Years of Progress in International Law,” 34 D.S. Bull. 663, 664 (1956).
Infra, pp. 162 ff.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1958 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McIntyre, S.H. (1958). Political Treaties in Force with Enemy States at the Outbreak of World War II. In: Legal Effect of World War II on Treaties of the United States. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9265-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9265-1_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8522-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9265-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive