Ratifica tion cannot be Partial and Con § 517. It follows from the nature of ratification, as a necessary confirmation of a treaty already concluded, that ratification must be either given or refused, no ditional. conditional or partial ratification being possible. That occasionally a State tries to modify a treaty in ratifying cannot be denied; but conditional ratification is no ratification at all, but equivalent to refusal of ratification. Nothing, of course, prevents the other contracting party from entering into fresh negotiations in regard to such modifications; but it must be emphasised that such negotiations are negotiations for a new treaty, the old treaty having become null and void through its conditional ratification. On the other hand, no obligation exists for such party to enter into fresh negotiations, it being a fact that conditional ratification is identical with refusal of ratification, whereby the treaty falls to the ground. Thus, for instance, when the Senate of the United States on December 20, 1900, in consenting to the ratification of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, added amendments which modified it, Great Britain did not accept the amendments, and considered the treaty have fallen to the ground. Quite particular is the case of a treaty to which a greater number of States are parties, and which is only partially ratified by one of the contracting parties. Thus France, in ratifying the General Act of the Brussels Anti-Slavery Conference of July 2, 1890,3 excepted 1 This is the correct explanation of the practice on the part of States, which sometimes prevails, of acquiescing, after some hesitation, in alterations proposed by a party to a treaty in ratifying it; see examples in Pradier-Fodéré, ii. No. 1104, and Calvo, iii. § 1630. 2 It is of importance to emphasise that the Senate of the United States, in proposing an amendment to a treaty before its ratification, does not, strictly speaking, ratify such treaty conditionally, since it is the President, and not the Senate, who possesses the power of granting or refusing ratification; see Willoughby, Can The Constitutional Law of the United States (1910), i. p. 462, n. 14. The President, however, according to Article 2 of the Constitution, not grant ratification without the consent of the Senate, and so the proposal of an amendment to treaty on the part of the Senate amounts to a proposal of a new treaty. 3 Which is no longer in force, see below, § 566. from ratification Articles 21 to 23 and 42 to 61, and the Powers acquiesced in this partial ratification, so that France was not bound by these twenty-three articles.1 But it must be emphasised that ratification is only partial and conditional if one or more stipulations of the treaty which have been signed without reservation are exempted from ratification, or if an amending clause is added to the treaty during the process of ratification. It is therefore quite legitimate for a party who, in signing a treaty, made reservations against certain articles 2 to except those articles from ratification, and it would be incorrect to speak in this case of partial ratification. Again, it is quite legitimate-and one ought not in this case to speak of conditional ratification-for a contracting party, who wants to secure a certain interpretation for certain terms and clauses of a treaty, to grant ratification upon the understanding only that they should bear a particular interpretation. Thus when, in 1911, opposition arose in Great Britain to the ratification of the Declaration of London on account of the fact that the meaning of certain terms was ambiguous, and that the wording of certain clauses did not agree with the interpretation given to them by the Report of the Drafting Committee, the British Government declared that they would only ratify upon the understanding that the interpretation contained in the Report should be considered as binding, and that the ambiguous terms concerned should bear that interpretation.3 In such cases ratification does not introduce an amendment or an alteration, but only fixes the meaning of otherwise doubtful terms and clauses of a treaty. 1 See Martens, N.R.G., 2nd Ser. xxii. p. 260. 2 See below, § 519. 3 In fact, the Declaration has not been ratified at all. Effect of Ratification. § 518. The effect of ratification by the parties is to make a treaty binding. If one party executes an instrument of ratification, and the other does not, the treaty falls to the ground. But the question arises whether the effect of ratification is retroactive, so as to make a treaty binding from the date when it was duly signed by the representatives. No unanimity exists among publicists as regards this question. As in all important cases treaties themselves stipulate the date from which they are to take effect, the question is chiefly of theoretical interest. The fact that ratification imparts the binding force to a treaty seems to indicate that ratification has regularly no retroactive effect. Different, however, is, of course, the case in which the contrary is expressly stipulated in the treaty itself, and, again, the case where a treaty contains stipulations to be executed at once, without waiting for the necessary ratification. Be this as it may, ratification makes a treaty binding only if the original consent was not given in error, or under a delusion.1 If, however, the ratifying State, having discovered such error or delusion, ratifies the treaty nevertheless, such ratification makes the treaty binding. And the same is valid as regards a ratification given to a treaty, although the ratifying State knows that its representatives have exceeded their powers by concluding the treaty. VI EFFECT OF TREATIES Hall, § 114-Lawrence, § 134-Halleck, i. pp. 299-302-Taylor, $$ 370-373— 1 See above, § 500. 1009, and Code, Nos. 773-783-Martens, i. §§ 65 and 114-Nippold, op. cit., pp. 151-160-Wright in A.J., x. (1916), pp. 706-736, and xi. (1917), pp. 566-577-Crandall, op. cit., §§$ 155-159-Roxburgh, International Conventions and Third States (1917). Treaties Parties. § 519. By a treaty the contracting parties in the first Effect of place are concerned. The effect of the treaty upon upon Conthem is that they are bound by its stipulations, and that tracting they must execute it in all its parts. No distinction should be made between more and less important parts of a treaty as regards its execution. Whatever may be the importance or the insignificance of a part of a treaty, it must be executed in good faith, for the binding force of a treaty covers all its parts and stipulations equally. If, however, a party to a treaty concluded between more than two parties signs it with a reservation as regards certain articles, such party is not bound by these articles, although it ratifies 1 the treaty. Treaties upon the of the § 520. It must be specially observed that the binding Effect of force of a treaty concerns the contracting States only, Trent the and not their subjects. As International Law is a law Subjects between States only and exclusively, treaties can have Parties. effect upon, and can bind, States only and exclusively. If treaties contain stipulations with regard to rights and duties of the subjects of the contracting States, their courts, officials, and the like, these States have to take such steps as are necessary, according to their Municipal Law, to make these stipulations binding upon their subjects, courts, officials, and the like. It may be that, according to the Municipal Laws of some countries, the official publication of a treaty concluded by the Government is sufficient for this purpose, but in other countries other steps are necessary, such as, for example, special statutes to be passed by the respective Parliaments.3 1 See above, § 517. 2 See above, § 289. The distinction between Inter national and Municipal Law as Effect of § 521. As treaties are binding upon the contracting Changes in Gov. States, changes in the Government, or even in the form ernment of government, of one of the parties can, as a rule, have Treaties. no influence whatever upon the binding force of treaties. upon Effect of Treaties upon Third States. Thus, for instance, a treaty of alliance concluded by a be decided whether international 1 See below, § 542. Not to be full sovereign State becomes half or part sovereign, or vice versa, or if a State merges entirely into another, and the like. This is a case of succession of States which has been discussed above, §§ 82-84; see also below, § 548. The matter is exhaustively discussed by Roxburgh, International Conventions and Third States (1917). |