Interpretation of Treaties are subject to varying interpretations, because all possible cases that might arise cannot be fore seen. General terms applied to particular ques tions are the occasion for disputes concerning the meaning of the language used. European treaties are generally written in French. If England and the United States are parties they are drawn up in both languages, in parallel columns. The rules of interpretation include the following which are commonly recognized as valid. Interpretation must be mutual; only one true meaning can be given to a clause of a treaty; words are presumed to have been used in their usual sense; in case a treaty is in two languages, each document is regarded as origi nal, and the sense of the treaty is to be drawn from them collectively; matters expressed in detail have precedence over those expressed in general terms; the treaty is to be regarded as a whole, its context and spirit, and each part with reference to others. The spirit of the treaty rather than the letter should govern in cases where literal interpretation fails to yield rea sonable sense. Clauses favoring justice and humanity are to be construed more broadly than those involving cruelty or hard conditions. In general, the interpretation may be drawn from the connection and relation of the different parts; and with the purpose of keeping the treaty in operation, rather than of making it inoperative through disagreement as to de tails.
Treaties cease to be operative, or are ter minated, under the following conditions: by mutual consent of the contracting parties; when terms upon which the treaty was conditioned cease to exist; when either party violates stipu lations; when one party withdraws having the option to do so; when the performance of the treaty becomes impossible, as in the case of a triple alliance, with war breaking between two of the members, and the third state finds itself unable to fulfil its obligations; when a new state of affairs arises, overturning an existing state, the latter being the basis of the treaty; when the stipulations of the treaty limit the period of its operation. War may suspend the operation of a treaty, but not in all cases; for example, one entered into to amend the rules of inter national law, or one guaranteeing the neutrality of a state.
It is the usual, but not uniform practice, for the parties to agree in the treaty of peace to renew treaties existing between them at the outbreak of the war. Even without express stipulation as to renewal, it is generally agreed that certain treaty obligations are not annulled by war, but only suspended by it. For
example acts previously done or rights already transferred under the sanction of a treaty are not nullified by a mere state of war; for example, a treaty in which territory has been ceded and boundaries established. Such rights are, however, subject to the law of conquest.
Enforcement.— The enforcement of trea ties is a subject of great importance, but also of great uncertainty. Unlike private contracts, where either party may compel the submission for a disputed interpretation to an independent tribunal for adjudication, treaties depend upon the good faith and honor of the contracting parties for their enforcement, and their willing ness to agree. In case of disagreement either party determines for itself the nature of its obligations, and the only alternative is recourse to force, or denunciation of the treaty by the aggrieved party. Since contracting parties are sovereign states no tribunal can exercise authority over them without their mutual con sent. Various methods to insure the execution of treaties have been used, such as giving hos tages, pledges, a guarantee by a third state, and military occupation of a territory belonging to the party who is required to fulfil certain de mands within a stipulated time. The agencies for enforcement are the legislature, executive, army and navy and the courts. The first four are more important in the case of treaties of _peace, commerce, etc., and the last in cases of naturalization and extradition.
Bibliography.— Butler, C. H., 'The Treaty making Power of the United States' (2 vols., New York 1902) ; Crandall, Samuel B., 'Trea ties; Their Making and Enforcement) (2d ed., Washington 1916); Devlin, R. T., 'Treaty Power Under the Constitution of the United States) (1908) ; Malloy, W. M., (Treaties, Con ventions, International Acts, Protocols, and Agreements between the United States and Other Powers) (2 vols., Washington 1910) ; Moore, J. B., 'Digest of the International Law of the United States' (8 vols., 1906), and (His tory and Digest of the International Arbitra tions to which the United States has been a Party) (6 vols., Washington 1898) ; Phillimore, W. G. F., 'Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace and Their Teaching' (1918) ; Phillipson, Coleman, 'Termination of War and Treaties of Peace) (New York 1916). Most of the im portant treaties on International Law have a de tailed discussion of treaties, such for example as Wheaton's 'Elements of International Law' (5th English ed., London 1916; revised by Cole man Phillipson) ; and Davis, George B., 'The Elements of International Law) (New York 1909).