Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:21:57.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Retroactive Effect of the Ratification of Treaties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

J. Mervyn Jones
J. Mervyn Jones*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The doctrine which is here being discussed has been stated as follows:

A treaty is binding on the contracting parties, unless otherwise provided, from the date of its signature, the exchange of ratifications having, in such case, a retroactive effect, confirming the treaty from that date

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 1935 , pp. 51 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 5 Moore's International Law Digest, 244.

2 Westlake, 1 International Law, 1904, p.281; Hall, International Law, 8th ed., p.389; Woolsey, International Law, 5th ed., p.178; Wheaton, International Law (Lawrence), p.326 (Dana), pp. 336, 718, quoting Martens and Heffter; Wharton, International Law Digest, 1886, § 132; Taylor, International Public Law, 1901, p.389; Hershey, International Public Law, 1912, p.344; Hyde, 2 International Law, 1922, pp. 49-50; Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, p.344; Klüber, Droit des Gens,1861, p.182; Heffter, Das Europäische Völkerrecht,1888, p.193; Von Neumann, Grundriss des heutigen europäischen völkerrechts,1885, p.66; Bluntschli, Das Modeme Völkerrecht,1878, Art. 421; Mérignhac, 2 Traité de droit public international,1907, p.667. The following writers reject the doctrine: Coleman Phillipson, Termination of War and Treaties of Peace, 1916, p.196; Fauchille, Traité de droit international,8th ed., Vol.1, Pt.III , p.319; Pradier-Fodéré, 2 Traité de droit international,1885, § 1118; Rivier, 2 Principes du droit des gens,1896, p. 79; Hoijer, Les traités Internationaux,1928, p.134; Von Liszt, Das Völkerrecht,1925, p.252; Strupp, 2 Droit International,1930, p.270. See also Basdevant, Académie de droit international,15 Recueil des Cours,p.583; Dupuis, 2 loc. cit.,p. 330; McNair, 43 loc. cit.,pp. 298-302; Anzilotti, Cow* de. droit international(Gidel trans.), pp. 357-374.

3 (1806), 1 Wash. C.C. 298, 343.

4 Cited in note 2.

5 Miller, 2 Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America, p.96; Treaty Series No. 102.

6 Martens, 3 Recueil de Traiés,p.503. These articles contained no express provision a to when they should come into force.

7 The case referred to is The Mentor.No citation is given in the argument, but presumably the case is that reported in Prize Cases heard before the Lords of Appeal (1783-84), folio 401. Another case of that name is The Mentor(1799), 1 Rob.179, but this is even less relevant.

8 The court could have presumably made this the ground of decision, and based its judgment upon its interpretation of the intention of the parties as expressed by these words, without resorting to any general rule as to the date from which it took effect.

9 Vattel, Droit des gens,trans, in Classics of International Law series, published by the Carnegie Endowment, Book IV, Chap. 3, § 24.

10 Summary of the Law of Nations, 1795, Book II, Chap. 1, 33. Vattel had stated the same rule, Droit des gens,Book II, Chap. 12, § 156.

11 Martens, Précis du droit des gens,1801, Book II, Chap. 2, § 48. And see his “Essai concernant les armateurs, les prises, etc.,”1795, Chap. 3, §§ 41 and 61, and examples given there.

12 6 Peters, 691.

13 9 Howard, 127.

14 Ibid.,280.

15 De Clercq, 1 Recueil des traités de la France,p.411.

16 Malloy, 1 Treaties, etc., between the United States and other Powers, p.508.

17 The court also (at p.150) introduced the issue of mala fideson the part of Spain in making such grants after the treaty had been signed.

18 9 Howard, 280.

19 Malloy, ibid.

20 (1804), 2 Rob. 106.

21 De Clercq, ibid.,Art.III of the treaty.

22 The court itself, in United States v.Reynes, supra,drew the distinction between the “agreement” and its execution later by Spain.

23 (1804), 5 Rob. 106.

24 Montault v.United States (1851), 12 Howard, 47.

25 ReMetzger (1847), 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9511; United States v.Dauterive (1850), 10 Howard, 609; Shepard v.Northwestern Life Insurance Co. (1889), 40 Fed. Rep. 341; Bush v.United States (1894), 29 Ct. CI. 144; Dooley v.United States (1901), 182 U.S. 223; United States v.Grand Rapids (1907), 165 F. 297.

26 San Lorenzo Title and Improvement Co. v.City Mortgage Co. (1932), 48 S.W. (2d) 310.

27 (1907), 43 Ct.CI.61.

28 (1910), 45 Ct.CI.339.

29 (1832), 6 Peters, 691; also followed in Haver v.Yaker (1870), 9 Wall. 32.

30 5 Moore's Digest, p.245. No report of the tribunal's work or its sentence in this case appears to have been published.

31 8 United States Statutes at Large, p.570.

32 This was the date fixed by Art. 2 of the treaty for the payment of the first instalment. On Oct. 21,1845, the Peruvian Congress voted a law making the first instalment payable on Jan. 1,1846, instead of Jan. 1,1844. This modification of the article was accepted by the United States, but subject to the reservation that interest should run, for all payments, as from January, 1842. Ratifications of the treaty, as thus informally modified, were exchanged on Oct. 31,1846.

33 Sen. Exec. Doc. 58, 31st Cong., 1st Sess. And see Lapradelle & Politis, 2 Recueil des Arbitrages Internationaux,note at p. 250.

34 23 Opinions of the Attorneys-General, 551, quoting Halleck's International Law (1861 ed.) at p.815. Yet Halleck definitely rejects the doctrine of retroactivity as applied to the ratification of treaties.

35 Lafontaine, Pasicrisie Internationale,159; Moore's International Arbitrations, 2091. The arbitrator cites Wheaton (Lawrence's ed.), p.326, but gives no other authority to support his view.

36 Nielsen's Report, p.382.

37 Series A, Judgment No.2, p.33; Series A, Judgment No.5, p.39.

38 Series A, Judgment No.16, pp. 20-21. And see opinion of Judge Moore, Series A, Judgment No. 2, p. 57.

39 Series A, Judgment No. 7

40 Series C, Judgment No. 11 (Vol. 2), pp. 631-632.

41 Series C, Judgment No. 11 (Vol. 2), p.825; and see Series C, Judgment No.11 (Vol. 1), pp. 183, 228.

42 The United States-Mexican Claims Commission, in 1868, rejected all claims arising after the exchange of ratifications of the treaty setting up the commission. But this decision was clearly based on the intention of the parties as expressed in Art. 5 of the convention. See Moore, International Arbitrations, 1352.

43 The Elsebe(1804), 5 Rob. 189.

44 (1813), 1 Dod. 244.

45 British and Foreign State Papers, 1812-1814, Pt.I, p.15.

46 Kotzias v.Tyser (1920), 2. K.B. 69; Lloyd v.Bowring (1920), 36 T.L.R. 398; Rattray v.Holden (1920), 36 T.L.R. 798.

47 See discussion by McNair, Académie de droit international,43 Becueil des Cours,pp. 298-302.

48 As to French doctrine, see Fauchille, Traité de droit international,8th ed., Vol.I, Pt. III , p. 346; Barthélémy et Duez, Droit constitutionnel,pp. 766-766; Esmein, Eléménts de droit constitutionnel,p. 768; Pillaut in Clunet (1919), p. 696. See also decisions of the Cour de Cassationin Dalloz, Recueil périodique(1834), I, 409, Sirey, Recueil générale(1863), I, 353.

49 Swiss and German doctrine are similar. See 34 Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht(1915), pp. 145, 437.

50 Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1925-1926, Case No. 256.

51 Ibid.,1927-1928, Case No. 245.

52 Ibid.,1927-1928, Case No. 274, and see note at p.399.

53 For citations see note 2 above.

54 In such cases the exchange of ratifications possibly has a retroactive effect by virtue of the express proviso. For examples, see the convention respecting Wei-hai-wei between Great Britain and China, 1898; the Treaty of Paris, Dec. 10, 1898; the Treaty of Rapallo, 1922; the Balkan Pact of Non-Agression, Feb. 9, 1934; and various treaties of arbitration such as that between Great Britain and Portugal in 1914.

55 Bynkershoek, Quaestiones juris publici,1737, Book II, Chap. 7, § 234; Vattel, Droit des gens,1758, Book II, Chap. 12, § 156; Martens, Précis du droit des gens,1788, Book II, Chap. 2, §48.

56 This reservation is to be found in the full powers issued for France, Great Britain and the British Dominions, the United States, Germany, Italy, Poland, the Soviet Union, Belgium, Czechoslovakia. See the examples in Satow, Diplomatic Practice (3rd ed.), pp. 79-86, and in Kraus and Rodiger, 1 Urkunden zum Friedensverträge,pp. 149-199.

57 See Satow, op. cit.,p. 407. Also the examples of express promises to ratify in eighteenth century full powers at pp. 80-81, and the full powers given by Prance, Great Britain, and Spain for the Treaty of Paris, 1763, in Martens, 1 Recueil de traités,p. 121 et seq.Vattel was able to say, “Full powers are nothing else than an unlimited power of attorney” (Droit des gens, ibid.,Book II, § 156).

58 This transformation of legal theory is emphasized by Pound, Philosophical Theory and International Law, 1 Bibliotheca Visseriana,pp. 75-78. At p. 78 he says: “When sovereignty passed from the sovereign king to the sovereign people, when kings began to reign but not to rule … a profound change took place in the facts to which international law was to be applied… . Juristically the people as a collective entity took the place of the king.“