Good tion. Intervention. Accession. participation of third States in treaties. Such participation can occur in five different forms-namely, good offices, mediation, intervention, accession, and adhesion.1 § 530. A treaty may be concluded with the help of the good offices, or through the mediation, of a third State, whether these offices be asked for by the contracting parties, or be exercised spontaneously by a third State. Such third State, however, does not necessarily, either through good offices or through mediation, become a real party to the treaty, although this might be the case. A great many of the most important treaties owe their existence to the good offices or mediation of third Powers.2 § 531. A third State may participate in a treaty in such a way that it interposes dictatorially between two States negotiating a treaty, and requests them to drop, or to insert, certain stipulations. Such intervention does not necessarily make the interfering State a real party to the treaty. Instances of threatened intervention of such a kind are the protest of Great Britain against the preliminary peace treaty concluded in 1878 at San Stefano 3 between Russia and Turkey, and that of Russia, Germany, and France in 1895 against the peace treaty of Shimonoseki between Japan and China. § 532. Of accession there are two kinds. Accession means, in the first place, the formal entrance of a third State into an existing treaty, so that it becomes a party to the treaty, with all rights and duties arising therefrom. Such accession can take place only with 1 That certain treaties concluded by the suzerain are ipso facto concluded for the vassal State does not make the latter participate in such treaties. Nor is it correct to speak of participation of a third State in a treaty when a State becomes party to a treaty through the fact that it has given a mandate to another State to contract on its behalf. 2 The difference between good offices and mediation will be discussed below, vol. ii. § 9. 3 See above, § 135 (2). 4 See R. G., ii. (1895), pp. 457-463. Details concerning intervention have been given above, $$ 134-138; see also below, vol. ii. § 50. the consent of the original contracting parties; it always constitutes a treaty of itself. Very often the contracting parties stipulate expressly that the treaty shall be open to the accession of a certain State. And the so-called law-making treaties, as the Declaration of Paris or the Geneva Convention for example, regularly stipulate that all such States as have not been originally contracting parties, shall have an opportunity of acceding. But there is, secondly, another kind of accession. For a State may enter into a treaty between other States for the purpose of guarantee.1 This kind of accession makes the acceding State also a party to the treaty; but the rights and duties of the acceding State are different from the rights and duties of the other parties, for the former is a guarantor only, whereas the latter are directly affected by the treaty. § 533. Adhesion is defined as such entrance of a third Adhesion. State into an existing treaty as takes place, either with regard only to a part of the stipulations, or with regard only to certain principles laid down in the treaty. Whereas through accession a third State becomes a party to the treaty, with all the rights and duties arising from it, through adhesion a third State becomes a party only to such parts or principles of the treaty as it has adhered to. But it must be specially observed that the distinction between accession and adhesion is one made in theory, to which practice frequently does not correspond. Often treaties speak of accession of third States where in fact adhesion only is meant, and vice versa. Thus, Article 6 of the Hague Convention with respect to the laws and customs of war on land stipulates the possibility of future adhésion of non-signatory Powers, although accession is meant.2 1 See above, § 528. Although the French text uses the term 'adhésion,' the official Expira tion and Dissolution in contradistinc tion to Fulfil ment. Expiration IX EXPIRATION AND DISSOLUTION OF TREATIES Vattel, ii. §§ 198-205-Hall, § 116-Westlake, i. pp. 295-297-Lawrence, § 134-Halleck, i. pp. 314-316-Taylor, §§ 394-399-Wharton, ii. § 137a -Wheaton, § 275-Moore, v. §§ 770-778-Bluntschli, §§ 450-461Heffter, § 99-Ullmann, § 85—Bonfils, Nos. 855-860–Despagnet, Nos. 453-455-Pradier-Fodéré, ii. Nos. 1200-1218-Mérignhac, ii. p. 788Rivier, ii. § 55-Nys, ii. pp. 531-535-Calvo, iii. §§ 1662-1668-Fiore, ii. Nos. 1047-1052-Martens, i. § 117-Jellinek, Die rechtliche Natur der Staatenverträge (1880), pp. 62-64-Nippold, op. cit., pp. 235-248Olivi, Sull' Estinzione dei Trattati internazionali (1883)—Schmidt, Ueber die völkerrechtliche Clausula Rebus sic stantibus, etc. (1907)—Kaufmann, Das Wesen des Völkerrechts und die Clausula Rebus sic stantibus (1911)— Bonucci in Z. V., iv. (1910), pp. 449-471-Crandall, op. cit., §§ 178-186– Lammasch, Das Völkerrecht nach dem Kriege (1917), pp. 130-171. § 534. The binding force of treaties may terminate in four different ways, because a treaty may either expire, or be dissolved, or become void, or be cancelled.1 The grounds of expiration of treaties are, first, expiration of the time for which a treaty was concluded, and, secondly, occurrence of a resolutive condition. Of grounds of dissolution of treaties there are threenamely, mutual consent, withdrawal by notice, and vital change of circumstances. In contradistinction to expiration, dissolution, voidance, and cancellation, performance of treaties does not terminate their binding force. A treaty whose obligation has been performed is as valid as before, although it is then of historical interest only. § 535. All such treaties as are concluded for a certain through period of time only, expire with the expiration of such Expira- time, unless they are renewed, or prolonged for another period. Such time-expiring treaties are frequently tion of Time. 1 The distinction made in the text between fulfilment, expiration, dissolution, voidance, and cancellation of treaties is, as far as I know, nowhere sharply drawn, although it would seem to be of considerable importance. Voidance and cancellation will be discussed below, $$ 540544 and 545-549. concluded, and no notice is necessary for their expiration, except when specially stipulated. A treaty, however, may be concluded for a certain period of time only, but with an additional stipulation that the treaty shall, after the lapse of such period, be valid for another period, unless one of the contracting parties gives notice in due time. tion § 536. Different from time-expiring treaties are such Expiraas are concluded under a resolutive condition, which through means under the condition that they shall at once expire Resolutive Conwith the occurrence of certain circumstances. As soon dition. as these circumstances arise, the treaties expire. Consent. § 537. A treaty, although concluded for ever, or for Mutual a period of time which has not yet expired, may nevertheless always be dissolved by mutual consent of the contracting parties. Such mutual consent can become apparent in three different ways. First, the parties can expressly and purposely declare that a treaty shall be dissolved; this is rescission. Or, secondly, they can conclude a new treaty concerning the same objects as those of a former treaty, without any reference to the latter, although the two treaties are inconsistent with each other. This is substitution, and in such a case it is obvious that the treaty previously concluded was dissolved by tacit mutual consent. Or, thirdly, if the treaty is one that imposes obligations upon one of the contracting parties only, the other party can renounce its rights. Dissolution by renunciation is a case of dissolution by mutual consent, since acceptance of the renunciation is necessary. Notice. § 538. Treaties, provided they are not such as are Withconcluded for ever, may also be dissolved by with- drawal by drawal, after notice by one of the parties. Many treaties stipulate expressly the possibility of such withdrawal, and as a rule contain details in regard to form, and period, in which notice is to be given for the purpose of withdrawal. But there are other treaties which, although they do not expressly stipulate the possibility of withdrawal, can nevertheless be dis solved after notice by one of the contracting parties. To that class belong all such treaties as are either not expressly concluded for ever, or apparently not intended to set up an everlasting condition of things. Thus, for instance, a commercial treaty, or a treaty of alliance not concluded for a fixed period only, can always be dissolved after notice, although such notice be not expressly stipulated. Treaties, however, which are apparently intended, or expressly concluded, for the purpose of setting up an everlasting condition of things, and, further, treaties concluded for a certain period of time only, are as a rule not notifiable, although they can be dissolved by mutual consent of the contracting parties. It must be emphasised that all treaties of peace, and all boundary treaties, belong to this class. It cannot be denied that history records many cases in which treaties of peace have not established an everlasting condition of things, since one, or both, of the contracting States took up arms again, as soon as they recovered from the exhausting effect of the previous war. But this does not prove either that such treaties can be dissolved through giving notice, or that, at any rate as far as International Law is concerned, they are not intended to create an everlasting condition of things. § 539. Although, as just stated, treaties concluded Change of Circum- for a certain period of time, and such treaties as are apparently intended or expressly contracted for the purpose of setting up an everlasting condition of things, cannot, in principle, be dissolved by withdrawal of one of the parties, there is an exception to this rule. For it is an almost universally recognised fact that vital changes of circumstances may be of such a kind as to Vital stances. |