Con tingent Treaties. reigns of Europe, was a union for such vague purposes that it cannot be called an alliance in the strict sense of the term. History relates innumerable alliances between the several States. They have always played an important part in politics. The triple alliance between Germany, Austria, and Italy made in 1879 and 1882, renewed in 1912, and denounced by Italy in 1915, the alliance between Russia and France made in 1899, and that made between Great Britain and Japan in 1902, and renewed in 1905 and 1911, are illustrative examples. 5696. During the Peace Conference at Paris after Defence of the World War, on June 28, 1919, Great Britain signed France a treaty with France by which she undertook, subject to the consent of Parliament, and provided that a similar obligation was entered into by the United States of America, to support France in the case of an unprovoked movement of aggression being made against France by Germany. It was provided that the treaty was to be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations, and was to be recognised by the Council, acting by a majority, as an engagement consistent with the Covenant; it was to continue in force until, on application of one of the parties, the Council, acting by a majority, agreed that the League itself afforded sufficient protection. It was to impose no obligation upon any of the British Dominions until approved by the Parliament of the Dominion concerned. This treaty was approved by the British Parliament and the French Chambers, and was ratified on November 20, 1919. But it has not come into force, because the treaty in similar terms entered into between the United States of America and France on the same day has not been ratified. The Anglo-French Defence of France Treaty is contingent upon the Franco-American Treaty, 1 See Singer, Geschichte des Dreibundes (1914). and will only come into force if, and when, the latter is ratified.1 Alliances. § 570. Subjects of alliances are said to be full sove- Parties to reign States only. But the fact cannot be denied that alliances have been concluded by States under suzerainty. Thus, the convention of April 16, 1877, between Roumania, which was then under Turkish suzerainty, and Russia, concerning the passage of Russian troops through Roumanian territory in case of war with Turkey, was practically a treaty of alliance.2 Thus, further, the former South African Republic, although, at any rate according to the views of the British Government, a half sovereign State under British suzerainty, concluded an alliance with the former Orange Free State by treaty of March 17, 1897.3 A neutralised State can be the subject of an alliance for the purpose of defence, whereas the entrance into an offensive alliance on the part of such State would involve a breach of its neutrality. Kinds of § 571. As already mentioned, an alliance may be Different offensive or defensive, or both. All three kinds may be Alliances. either general alliances, in which case the allies are united against any possible enemy whatever, or particular alliances against one or more particular enemies. Alliances, further, may be either permanent or temporary; in the latter case they expire with the period of time for which they were concluded. As regards offensive alliances, it must be emphasised that they are valid only when their object is not immoral, and 1 Treaty Ser. (1919), No. 6, Cmd. 221. Of course, it may be that, if the Franco-American Treaty is not ratified, Great Britain will enter into a new Defence of France Treaty. Mr. Bonar Law stated in the House of Commons, on behalf of the British Government, on November 21, 1919: As far as any obligation of this country is concerned-I do not say that another situation will not make a new condition of affairs-it is con- 2 See Martens, N.R.G., 2nd Ser. 3 See Martens, N.R.G., 2nd Ser. xxv. p. 327. See above, § 505. Conditions of all alliances which are inconsistent with the Covenant of the League of Nations are ipso facto abrogated, a between members of the League, by Article 20 of the Covenant. The members solemnly undertake that they will not enter into any new engagements inconsistent with the Covenant, and will take immediate steps to procure their release from any such obligations already assumed. However, international engagements for securing the maintenance of peace are valid.1 § 572. Subject, as between members of the League Alliances. of Nations, to the provisions of the Covenant, alliances may contain all sorts of conditions. The most important are the conditions regarding the assistance to be rendered. It may be that assistance is to be rendered with the whole, or a limited part, of the military and naval forces of the allies, or with the whole, or a limited part, of their military forces only, or with the whole or a limited part, of their naval forces only. Assistance may, further, be rendered in money only, so that one of the allies is fighting with his forces, while the other supplies a certain sum of money for their maintenance. A treaty of alliance of such a kind must not be confounded with a simple treaty of subsidy. If two States enter into a convention that one of the parties shall furnish the other permanently, in time of peace and war, with a limited number of troops, in return for å certain annual payment, such a convention is not an alliance, but a treaty of subsidy only. But if two States enter into a convention that, in case of war, one of the parties shall furnish the other with a limited number of troops, be it in return for payment or not, such a convention really constitutes an alliance. For every convention concluded for the purpose of lending succour in time of war implies an alliance. It is for this reason that the above-mentioned 2 treaty of 1877 2 See above, § 570. 1 Article 21. between Russia and Roumania, concerning the passage of Russian troops through Roumanian territory in case of war against Turkey, was really a treaty of alliance. Fœderis. § 573. Casus fœderis is the event upon the occurrence Casus of which it becomes the duty of one of the allies to render the promised assistance to the other. Thus, in case of a defensive alliance, the casus fœderis occurs when war is declared or commenced against one of the allies. Treaties of alliance very often define precisely the event which shall be the casus fœderis, and then the latter is less exposed to controversy. But, on the other hand, there have been many alliances concluded without such precise definition, and, consequently, disputes have arisen later between the parties as to the casus fœderis.1 That the casus fœderis is not influenced by the fact that a State, after having entered into an alliance, concludes a treaty of general arbitration with a third State, has been pointed out above, § 522. IV TREATIES OF GUARANTEE AND OF PROTECTION Vattel, ii. §§ 235-239-Hall, § 113-Phillimore, ii. §§ 56-63-Twiss, i. § 249 -Halleck, i. p. 304-Taylor, §§ 350-353-Wheaton, § 278-Bluntschli, $$ 430-439-Heffter, § 97-Geffcken in Holtzendorff, iii. pp. 85-112— Liszt, § 22-Ullmann, § 83-Fiore, Code, Nos. 792-796-Bonfils, Nos. 882-893-Despagnet, No. 461-Mérignhac, ii. p. 681-Nys, ii. pp. 516520-Pradier-Fodéré, ii. Nos. 969-1020-Rivier, ii. pp. 97-105-Calvo, iii. §§ 1584-1585-Martens, i. § 115-Neyron, Essai historique et politique sur les Garanties (1779) - Milovanovitch, Des Traités de Garantie en Droit international (1888)-Erich, Ueber Allianzen und Allianzverhältnisse nach heutigem Völkerrecht (1907)-Quabbe, Die völkerrechtliche Garantie (1911)-Grosch, Der Zwang im Völkerrecht (1912), pp. 66-75-Idman, Le Traité de Garantie (1913)—Sanger and Norton, England's Guarantee to Belgium and Luxemburg (1915)Lammasch, Das Völkerrecht nach dem Kriege (1917), pp. 159-171Erich in Z. V., vii. (1913), pp. 452-476. 1 Thus, during the World War, Italy declined to recognise that a casus fœderis had occurred under the Triple Alliance (see A.J., viii. (1914), Supplement, p. 368), and VOL. I. ЗА Greece refused to recognise that a Conception and Guarantee § 574. Treaties of guarantee are conventions by Objects of which one of the parties engages to do what is in its Treaties. power to secure a certain object to the other party. Guarantee treaties may be mutual or unilateral. They may be concluded by two States only, or by a number of States jointly. In the latter case, the single guarantors may give their guarantee severally, or collectively, or both. And the guarantee may be for a certain period of time only, or permanent. Guarantee treaties are admissible according to Article 21 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, provided that they are not inconsistent with its terms. Indeed Article 10 of the Covenant itself constitutes a treaty of guarantee. The possible objects of guarantee treaties are numerous.1 It suffices to give the following chief examples: the performance of a particular act on the part of a certain State, as the discharge of a debt,2 or the cession of a territory; certain rights belonging to a State; the undisturbed possession of the whole, or a particular part, of its territory; a particular form of constitution; a certain status, as permanent neutrality, or independence, or integrity; 5 particular dynastic 1 The important part that treaties of guarantee play in politics may be seen from a glance at Great Britain's guarantee treaties. See Munro, England's Treaties of Guarantee, in the Law Magazine and Review, vi. (1881), pp. 215-238. It is important to state that the guarantee by one or more States of the discharge of a debt concerns only a debt between two States, and not a debt of a State to private individuals. Although the latter may likewise be guaranteed by one or more States, such a guarantee is as little an international treaty as the guaranteed loan itself is an obligation according to International Law. See Meyer-Balding in Z.I., xxvi. (1916), pp. 387-426, and the literature there quoted. See above, § 95. • Thus Great Britain, France, and Russia guaranteed, by the treaty with Denmark of July 13, 1863, the independence (but also the monarchy) of Greece (Martens, N.R.G., xvii pt. ii. p. 79). The United States of America has guaranteed the independence of Cuba by the Treaty of Havana of May 22, 1903 (Martens, N.R.G., 2nd Ser. xxxii. p. 79); of Panama by the Treaty of Washington of November 18, 1903 (Martens, N.R.G., 2nd Ser. xxxi. p. 599); and of Haiti by Article 14 of the Treaty of Port-au-Prince of September 16, 1915 (see A.J., x. (1916), Supplement, p. 234). Thus the integrity of Norway was guaranteed by Great Britain, Germany, France, and Russia by the Treaty of Christiania of November 2, 1907 (see Martens, N. R. G., 3rd Ser. |