Grounds ance. X VOIDANCE OF TREATIES See the literature quoted at the commencement of § 534. § 540. A treaty, although it has neither expired, nor of Void- been dissolved, may nevertheless lose its binding force by becoming void. And such voidance may have different grounds-namely, extinction of one of the two contracting parties, impossibility of execution, realisation of the purpose of the treaty otherwise than by fulfilment, and, lastly, extinction of such object as was concerned in a treaty. tion of Extinc- § 541. All treaties concluded between two States One of the become void through the extinction of one of the conTwo Contracting parties, provided that they do not devolve Parties. upon the State which succeeds to the extinct State. tracting Impossibility of Execu tion. That some treaties devolve upon the successor has been shown above (§ 82); but many treaties do not. On this ground all political treaties, such as treaties of alliance, guarantee, neutrality, and the like, become void. § 542. All treaties, the execution of which becomes impossible subsequently to their conclusion, are thereby rendered void. A frequently quoted example is that of three States concluding a treaty of alliance, and subsequent war breaking out between two of them. In such a case, it is impossible for the third party to execute the treaty, and it becomes void. It must, however, be added that the impossibility of execution 1 But such voidance must not be confounded with the voidance of a treaty from its very beginning; see above, § 501. * See also above, § 521, where the case is mentioned in which a treaty essentially presupposes a certain form of government, and for this reason cannot be executed when this form of government undergoes a change. may be temporary only, and that then the treaty is not void, but merely suspended. tion of other than § 543. All treaties the purpose of which is realised Realisaotherwise than by fulfilment become void. For example, Purpose of a treaty concluded by two States for the purpose of Treaty inducing a third State to undertake a certain obliga- by Fulfiltion becomes void, if the third State voluntarily under- ment. takes the obligation before the two contracting States - have had an opportunity of approaching it with regard to the matter. tion of was con § 544. All treaties, the obligations of which concern Extinca certain object, become void through the extinction such of such object. Treaties, for example, concluded in Object as regard to a certain island become void, when such cerned in island disappears through the operation of nature; so do treaties concerning a third State, when such State merges in another. a Treaty. ΧΙ CANCELLATION OF TREATIES See the literature quoted at the commencement of § 534. of Cancel § 545. A treaty, although it has neither expired, nor Grounds been dissolved, nor become void, may nevertheless lose lation. its binding force by cancellation. The causes of cancellation are four-namely, inconsistency with International Law created subsequently to the conclusion of the treaty, violation by one of the contracting parties, subsequent change of status of one of them, and war. § 546. Just as treaties have no binding force when Inconsist concluded with reference to an illegal object, so they lose their binding force when through a progressive sequent development of International Law they become incon- national sistent with the latter. A valuable example is the ency with sub Inter Law. Violation the Con 1 abolition of privateering by the Declaration of Paris of 1856, in consequence of which any previous treaties based on privateering as a recognised institution of International Law were ipso facto cancelled, provided that all the parties to such treaties were signatory Powers of the Declaration of Paris. This must be maintained in spite of the fact that Protocol No. 24 of the Congress of Paris 1 contains the following: 'Sur une observation faite par MM. les Plénipotentiaires de la Russie, le Congrès reconnaît que la présente résolu tion, ne pouvant avoir d'effet retroactif, ne saurait invalider les conventions antérieures.' This expres sion of opinion can only mean that previous treaties with such States as were not and would not become parties to the Declaration of Paris were not ipso facto cancelled by the declaration. Be that as it may, subsequent Municipal Law can certainly have no derogating influence upon existing treaties. On occasions, indeed, subsequent Municipal Law does create for a State a conflict between its treaty obligations and such law. In such a case this State must endeavour to obtain & release by the other contracting party from these obligations.2 § 547. Violation of a treaty by one of the contracting by one of States does not ipso facto cancel the treaty; but it is tracting within the discretion of the other party to cancel it on Parties. this ground. There is indeed no unanimity among 4 writers on International Law in regard to this point, since a minority make a distinction between essential 1 See Martens, N. R. G., xv. pp. 768769. 2 That municipal courts must apply the subsequent Municipal Law, although it conflicts with previous treaty obligations, there is no doubt, as has been pointed out above, § 21. See The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall 616; Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190; Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238. See also Moore, v. § 774. 3 See Myers in A.J., xi. (1917), pp. 794-819, and xii. (1918), pp. 90161, where a number violations are discussed. treaty This was recognised in 1913 by the United States Supreme Court Kelly, 229 U.S. 447. in Charlton v. and non-essential stipulations of the treaty, and maintain that only violation of essential stipulations creates a right for the other party to cancel the treaty. But the majority of writers rightly oppose this distinction, maintaining that it is not always possible to distinguish essential from non-essential stipulations, that the binding force of a treaty protects non-essential as well as essential stipulations, and that it is for the faithful party to consider for itself whether violation of a treaty, even in its least essential parts, justifies its cancellation. The case, however, is different, when a treaty expressly stipulates that it should not be considered broken merely by violation of one or another part of it. And it must be emphasised that the right to cancel the treaty on the ground of its violation must be exercised within a reasonable time after the violation has become known. If the Power possessing such a right does not exercise it in due time, it must be taken for granted that such right has been waived. A mere protest, such as the protest of England in 1886 when Russia withdrew from Article 59 of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878, which stipulated the freedom of the port of Batoum, neither constitutes a cancellation, nor reserves the right of cancellation.1 sequent One of the ing § 548. A cause which ipso facto cancels treaties is Subsuch subsequent change of status of one of the con- Change of tracting States as transforms it into a dependency of Status of another State. As everything depends upon the merits Contractof each case, no general rule can be laid down as regards Parties. the question when such change of status must be considered to have taken place, or, further, as regards the other question as to the kind of treaties cancelled by such change.2 Thus, for example, when a State becomes a member of a Federal State, it is obvious that all its This was recognised in 1913 by the United States Supreme Court in Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447. 2 See Moore, v. § 773, and above, § 82, pp. 147, n. 1, and § 521. War. treaties of alliance are ipso facto cancelled, for in a Federal State the power of making war rests with the Federal State, and not with the several members. And the same is valid as regards a hitherto full sovereign State which comes under the suzerainty of another State. On the other hand, a good many treaties retain their binding force in spite of such a change in the status of a State,-all such treaties, namely, as concern matters in regard to which the State has not lost its sovereignty through the change. For instance, if the constitution of a Federal State stipulates that the matter of extradition remains wholly within the competence of the member-States, all treaties of extradition concluded by members with third States, previously to their becoming members of the Federal State, retain their binding force. § 549. How far war is a general ground of cancellation of treaties is not quite settled. Details on this point will be given below, vol. ii. § 99. Treaties. XII RENEWAL, RECONFIRMATION, AND REDINTEGRATION Vattel, ii. § 199-Hall, § 117-Taylor, § 400-Hartmann, § 57-Ullmann, Renewal § 550. Renewal of treaties is the term for the prolongaof tion, before their expiration, of such treaties as were concluded for a limited period of time. Renewal can take place through a new treaty, and the old treaty may then be renewed as a whole, or only in part. But the renewal can also take place automatically, since many treaties concluded for a certain period stipulate |