MEXICO AND THE SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICAN

STATES

In Article LXXXV, section 10, of the original constitution of Mexico as adopted in 1857, it was provided that the President of the Republic should direct negotiations and conclude treaties, submitting them to the Federal Congress for ratification. By the amendments of 1874 the Federal Congress was divided into two branches, and to the upper branch, or Senate, was given, by amendment to Article LXXII, an exclusive power in the approval of all treaties and diplomatic conventions concluded by the Executive with foreign countries.' The States comprising the republic are prohibited from entering into alliances or treaties with other States or foreign powers. The frontier States may, however, unite with each other for offensive or defensive war against the Indians."

In each of the remaining American states, treaties are negotiated by the President, but, with the exception of Cuba, require for their ratification the approval of the national legislature. With the exception of Panama,

'Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. lxxviii, p. 994.

2 Art. CXI, sec. I.

3 Brazil (1891), Arts. XLVIII, sec. 16, and XXXIV, sec. 12; Argentine Republic (1862), Arts. LXXXVI, sec. 14, and LXVII, sec. 19; Chili (1833), Art. LXXIII, sec. 19; Bolivia (1880), Art. LXXXIX, sec. 1; Peru (1860), Arts. XCIV, sec. 11, and LIX, sec. 16; Ecuador (1896), Art. XCIV, sec. 6; Colombia (1886), Art. CXX, sec. 10; Venezuela (1893, 1901), Art. LIV, sec. 16; Uruguay (1829), Art. XVII, sec. 7; Paraguay (1870), Arts. CII, sec. 12, and LXXII, sec. 18; Panama (1904), Art. LXXVIII, sec. 8; Costa Rica (1871), Art. CII, sec. 9; Salvador (1886), Art. XCI, secs. 6 and 7; Nicaragua (1894), Art. XCVIII, sec. 10; Guatemala (1879), Art. LXXVII, sec. 19; Honduras (1894), Art. CVIII, sec. 14; Dominican Republic (reproclaimed 1896), Art. XXV, sec. 17; and Haiti (1889), Art. CI.

the Dominican Republic, and the five Central American states, in which the national legislature consists of only one branch, the American bicameral legislature obtains. In Cuba, on the other hand, the approval of the Senate alone is required except in case of treaties of peace, which require the approval of Congress. A permanent limitation on the treaty-making power of Cuba is recognized in Article I of the resolutions of the Congress of the United States accepted by the Cuban Constitutional Convention, June 12, 1901. It is there provided "That the government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorize or permit any foreign power or powers to obtain by colonization or for military or naval purposes, or otherwise, lodgment in or control over any portion of said island."

DEPENDENCIES

Although the power to enter into treaties is a characteristic of sovereign states, semi-independent states, or communities, may be intrusted in a limited degree with its exercise. Egypt, while nominally a province of the Ottoman Empire, exercises this power on the authority of firmans granted by the Sublime Porte. The firman granted to the Khedive June 8, 1873, and renewed with slight changes August 2, 1879, and March 27, 1892, to his successors, authorizes the conclusion or renewal, without injury to the political treaties and sovereign rights of the imperial government, of conventions for tariff rates and commerce, and for regulating the protection of foreigners and their relations with

1 (1901) Arts. LXVIII, sec. 7, and LIX, sec. 12.

the government and population of Egypt.' Besides numerous special postal and telegraphic conventions, Egypt is a signatory party to the universal postal conventions signed at Vienna July 4, 1891, and at Washington June 15, 1897, and to the international telegraphic convention signed at Budapest July 22, 1896. Several treaties guaranteeing judicial reform have been entered into. On March 3, 1884, there was signed at Cairo a commercial treaty with Greece which, after providing for reciprocal most-favored-nation treatment, regulated in some detail the tariff rates to be levied on Greek imports into Egypt. This treaty formed the basis of treaties subsequently concluded with Great Britain, the United States, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, and Belgium. Since the Khedive has no diplomatic representative at foreign courts, the treaties have usually been concluded in Egypt by the foreign government through a consul or commercial agent, and by the Khedive through his minister for foreign affairs. The powers of the latter are expressly restricted "within the limits of the powers conferred by the imperial firmans."

Bulgaria, although by the treaty of Berlin nominally a principality under the suzerainty of the Sultan, has concluded on its own responsibility numerous commercial conventions as well as those to facilitate international traffic, such as postal, telegraphic, railway and monetary conventions. The only treaty of a political nature to which Bulgaria is a party, recorded in Ribier's Répertoire des Traités (1879-1897), is the treaty of peace with Servia of March 3, 1886, and it is the only one that

'Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. lxiii, p. 33; vol. lxx, p. 297; vol. lxxxiv, p. 638.

'Ibid., vol. lxxxviii, p. 371; vol. lxxix, pp. 5, 1144.

refers to the suzerainty of the Sultan. It was concluded and signed on the one hand by Bulgaria and the Sultan jointly, and on the other by Servia.'

'Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. lxxvii, p. 634. See for treaties establishing protectorates in Africa, in which the treaty-making power has been assumed by the suzerain, ibid., vol. lxxii, p. 247; vol. lxxv, p. 10; Hertslet's Map of Africa by Treaty, vol. i, p. 14; vol. ii, pp. 763, 791, 995.

PART III

THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

I. DATE OF TAKING EFFECT

The treaty is not definitively binding until the exchange of ratifications has taken place, and is accordingly not finally operative before that date.' If it is expressly provided that it shall go into effect immediately upon the signing, the operation of the treaty is entirely provisional, and acts done in execution of it depend for their ultimate validity upon the subsequent ratification."

1

1 Hall, International Law (4th ed.), p. 349.

'In the convention signed at Madrid, July 3, 1880, relative to the exercise of protection in Morocco, to which the United States is a signatory party, it was agreed that by the exceptional consent of the contracting parties the stipulations of the convention should take effect on the day on which it was signed. Art. XVIII. Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State, in a communication of Aug. 11, 1880, to the American negotiator, Mr. Fairchild, acknowledging the receipt of the convention, observed as to this stipulation that while this government could not accord validity to such an international compact in advance of the consent of the Senate, yet in view of the exceptional circumstances under which the convention had been framed and its limited operation within the territory of Morocco involving apparently no domestic legislation of this country, he deemed it entirely unlikely that any issue would arise pending formal ratification, which would call for diplomatic intervention on the part of our Executive in a sense opposed to the convention. For. Rel. 1880, p. 922. Likewise immediately after signing the treaty of July 15, 1840, for the pacification of the Levant, a protocol was signed by the negotiators providing that Art. II of the treaty should be put into execution without waiting for the exchange of ratifications. Hall, p. 348; Wheaton, sec. 264.

213]

213