Treaties are terminated in various ways. They cease to be binding with the mutual consent of the parties thereto; or with the denunciation of either party if that right has been reserved; when the object of the treaty has been attained, as in the case of a boundary treaty, an arbitra tion treaty, o• convention for the settlement of claims; when the operation of the treaty is con ditioned upon terms which no longer exist, as in the case of a treaty allowing free navigation on a river which has ceased to be navigable; and when either party refuses to perform mutual stipulations. In the latter ease the other party may consider itself released from its obligations, or it may demand a fulfillment of the treaty and require an indemnity for injuries resulting from any infractions thereof. By the usages of in ternational law the refusal of either party to abide by a treaty, however burdensome, is a suf ficient cause of war, since; as in the ease of an ordinary contract, it is binding upon both parties until mutually abrogated. Finally, it is to be said that a treaty is terminated when the state of things contemplated by the parties and hence its real basis no longer exists. Thus a treaty is entered into in contemplation of the continuance of a particular form of government which in the course of time is displaced by an other. Or the basis of the treaty may be changed by the absorption of one State by another, as in the ease of Algeria, a State with which the United States had a treaty previous to the French con quest begun in 1830. Similarly the establishment of the German Empire in 1871 put an end to the treaties between the United States and the sev eral German States with which she had entered into treaty relations. When a State is destroyed or loses its national character by other means its treaties fall to the ground, but ordinarily a mere change in the form of government will not affect its obligations to other States. In case of war between the contracting parties all treaties are suspended while certain of them are terminated. Treaties stipulating for a permanent arrange ment of territorial and other national rights are at most simply suspended during the war and revieT at peace. Such are treaties which reeog nize within certain territorial limits the inde pendence of one of the contracting parties; treaties which establish new rules or modify old rules of international law, such as the Declara tion of Paris of 1856; and treaties which contem plate a state of war and which come into effect only at the outbreak of hostilities, such as treaties of alliance and treaties which regulate blockades, and define contraband of war, regulate rules of capture, etc. Treaties of commerce and navigation and postal conventions are usually extinguished by war.
Sir Travers Twiss says that Great Britain in practice admits of no exception to the rule that all treaties as such are put an end to by subse quent war between the contending parties. In pursuance of this rule the treaties of Westphalia and Utrecht were several times reversed by the signatory powers after they had engaged in war with one another. A notable diplomatic dis cussion between Great Britain and the United States arose after the War of 1812 over the question of whether the treaty of 1783, in so far as it granted to the colonists fishery rights at Newfoundland, w•as suspended by the subsequent war between the contracting parties. The United States claimed that the treaty provision in ques tion was not extinguished, it being the recognition of a preexisting right which the colonies had al ways enjoyed in common with the mother coun try. Great Britain claimed, on the other hand, that the permission to fish on British coasts was in the nature of a grant of a special privilege and therefore terminated by the war.
As in the case of private contracts, certain rules for the interpretation of treaties have grown up. Pbillimore arranges the rules of
interpretation under three heads: (I) Au thentic interpretation, that is, the inter pretation supplied by the lawgiver himself ; (2) usual interpretation, based on usage and prece dent; and (3) doctrinal interpretation, or the interpretation founded upon scientific exposi tion of the terms of the treaty itself. The fol lowing are the commonest rules of interpreta tion: Words are presumed to have been used in their ordinary sense, but technical terms are used in the sense and with the meaning applied to them in the particular art to which they belong: the provision of a treaty can have but one true meaning and the interpretation must be mutual; the interpretation should he made with regard to the context and spirit of the whole treaty; terms peculiar to the language of one of the contracting parties must be given the meaning which they have in that language; clauses defining grants, privi leges, and favors should he strictly interpreted; an interpretation which renders a treaty in operative is to be avoided special clauses are to be preferred to general. prohibitory to permissive; earlier clauses are explained by later ones and obscure clauses by clearer ones in later treaties. as later treaties explain and modify earlier ones on the same subject. The rule has been laid down by the United States Supreme Court that a treaty is on the same plane of equality with a statute of Congress, so that a later statute may supersede a prior treaty, while a subsequent treaty may supersede a prior statute on a given subject. A notable instance was the supersession in 1882 of a treaty with China by the act of Con gress for excluding Chinese laborers. This mode of terminating treaties, however, is not sanc tioned by international law and does not affect the responsibility of either contracting party for the fulfillment of its obligations. In the United States treaties go into effect from the date of signature, so far as the contracting parties are concerned, but only from the date of ratification so far as the rights of the individual are in volved. Another rule of interpretation in the United States is that the Supreme Court will not undertake to enforce a treaty which requires Congressional legislation for its execution. Un til such legislation is forthcoming the individual concerned must address himself to the political departments of the Government.
To secure the enforcement of treaties, it was formerly the custom to demand and receive host ages, the last instance of the kind being in 1748 to secure the execution of the Treaty of Aix-la Chapelle. Solemn oaths accompanied by religious rites on the occasion of ratification were once common. but are no longer resorted to. Pledges are sometimes required, as in the case of the treaty of peace between Germany and France in 1871, when certain French fortresses were re tained by the Germans as security for the pay ment of the large indemnity exacted from France. The organs for the enforcement of a treaty are the courts, the legislature, the executive, and the army and navy. Thus treaties of peace, of ces sion, of commerce, etc., are enforced for the most part by the legislative branch assisted by the executive, while in the case of treaties of naturali zation, extradition, and treaties affecting the rights of foreigners the judicial branch plays an important part.
The most complete collection of treaties in Eng lish is that of llertslet, four volumes. See also The Map of Europe by Treaty, by the same author; Treaties and Conventions of the United States (1776-1889) ; De Martens, Recueil des prineipaux traites. etc. (1761-1818). For a gen eral discussion of the subject of treaties, see the authorities cited under the article INTERNA TIONAL LAW, and Butler, The Treaty Making Power (2 vols., New York, 1902).