Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T23:33:39.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modernization of the law of International Contractual Agreements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Philip C. Jessup
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Diplomacy has developed a large amount of formalistic ritual much of which is reflected in international law. The titles and ranking of diplomats constitute the most striking example. Curiously enough this tendency is not wholly reflected in the modern law and practice of treaty-making. It is of no legal consequence, for example, whether an agreement between or among states is called a treaty, a convention, a statute, an agreement, a protocol or a covenant or charter. Certain labels are used with a degree of consistency to signify the informal or temporary character of an agreement such as modus vivendi and “exchange of notes,” while others, such as “covenant” and “charter,” have been utilized to suggest the basic and over-all importance of the instrument. The labels do not, however, indicate whether the agreement registers a boundary settlement, the conclusion of peace, a political and military alliance, provisions for the extradition of fugitive criminals, arrangements for the distribution of radio frequencies, adjustment of double taxation, respect for copyrights, or facilities for travelling salesmen. The applicable substantive law similarly fails to distinguish among such diverse subjects and covers them all with the same rules concerning conclusion, interpretation, and termination. Such uniformity is convenient for the student, the statesman, and the judge, but it is not responsive to the needs of the international community in some important respects which will be discussed in this chapter.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , April 1947 , pp. 378 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1947

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 Harvard Research in International Law, Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties, Introductory Comment, p. 667.

2 Westlake, J., International Law, 1910 (2nd ed.), Vol. I, p. 322.Google Scholar

3 M. O. Hudson, International Legislation, Vol I, p. xiii.

4 Only some aspects of the law of treaties, selected with a view to illustrating modern problems are treated here. Other aspects of the modernization of the law of nations are reserved for subsequent treatment.

5 See H. F. Briggs, The Law of Nations, 1938, p. 24; Kunz, The Meaning and the Range of the Norm Pacta Sunt Servanda, this Journal, Vol. 39 (1945), p. 180.

6 The title of an able article by Prof. Quincy Wright illustrates the common use of the terms: “Conflicts between International Law and Treaties,” this Journal, Vol. 11 (1917), p. 566.

7 Hyde, C. C., International Law, 1945 (2nd ed.), p. 1429 Google Scholar.

8 For discussion of various methods which may constitutionally be utilized by the United States in order to conclude an international agreement, see McDougal, and Lans, , “Treaties and Congressional-Executive or Presidential Agreements : Interchangeable Instruments of National Policy,” in Yale Law Journal, Vol. 54 (1945), pp. 181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and 534.

9 See J. Mervyn Jones, “International Agreements Other Than ‘Interstate Treaties,’ Modern Developments,” in British Yearbook of International Law, 1944, p. iii.

10 See Report to the President on the Results of the San Francisco Conference by The Chairman of the United States Delegation, p. 154. On Art. 18 of the Covenant see Hudson in (this Journal, Vol. 19 (1925), p. 275, and Vol. 28 (1937), p. 546; L. Oppenheim, International Law 1937 (5th ed.), p. 721. See also claim of Pablo Najéra, French-Mexican Mixed Claims Commission, 1927-28 Annual Digest Case No. 271.

11 UN Doc. A/67.

12 Hudson as cited above, note 3, p. 224.

13 Food and Agriculture Organization, Report of the First Session of the Conference, 1946, p. 87.

14 Final Acts of the International Health Conference (1946), UN Doc. E/155.

15 The Defenses of Peace, Documents Belating to UNESCO, Part I, Department of State, Publication 2457 (1946), p. 20.

16 Suggested Charter for an International Trade Organization of the United Nations, Department of State, Publication 2598 (1946), p. 43.

17 International Civil Aviation Conference, Chicago, 1944, Final Act and Belated Documents, Department of State, Publication 2282 (1945), p. 78.

18 H. Finer, The united Nations Economic and Social Council, 1946.

19 UN Doc. A/266.

20 See the opinion of Judge Huber, sole arbitrator in the Palmas Island Case, the United States v. the Netherlands (1928), J. B. Scott, The Hague Court Reports (Second series, 1932), p. 83, 115.

21 See Refugee Settlement in the Dominican Republic, A Survey Conducted Under the Auspices of the Brookings Institution, 1942.

22 M. O. Hudson, International Tribunals, Past and Future, 1944, pp. 220-222 ; G. Schwarzenberger, International Law, Vol. I, p. 477.

23 Hyde, Sec. 529A and Oppenheim, Sec. 522 and authorities there cited.

24 P. C. I. J., Series A/B, No. 46, p. 147.

25 See Hyde, P. 1467, N. 9; Senator Root Had Taken the same position in 1914: G. Hackworth, Digest, See. 492.

26 Diena, , Der Plan eines neuen interozeanischen Kanals in Nicaragua, in Zeitschrift für Internationales Becht, Vol. 25 (1915), p. 19 Google Scholar. The Convention of Oct. 29, 1888, between eight powers specified the freedom of the Suez Canal (79 Br. and For. State Papers 18), but the United States was unwilling to take the position that it derived rights or duties from the convention: Secretary of State Day to Ambassador Hay, July 14, 1898, 3 Moore’s Digest, p. 267. Compare such treaties as that between Bolivia and Brazil, Aug. 12, 1910, 7 Martens Nouveau Becueil Général, 3rd Series (1913), p. 632, for the free navigation of the Paraguay River; the Argentine-Chilean treaty of July 23, 1881, relative to the Straits of Magellan (3 Moore’s Digest, p. 268), and the Treaty of London of March 13, 1871, on the Black Sea, 61 Br. and For. State Papers 7.

27 See Hoijer, , Le Pacte de la Société des Nations, Commentaire théoriques et pratique, 1926, pp. 319 and ff.Google Scholar; Schwartzenberger, G., The League of Nations and World Order, 1936, Chapter VI Google Scholar; Anzilotti, , Corso di Diritto Internazionale, 1927, (3rd ed.), p. 380 Google Scholar; Schücking, and Wehberg, , Die Satzung des Völkerbundes, 1927, (3rd ed.), p. 370 Google Scholar; Harvard Research in International Law, Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties, this Journal, Vol. 29 (1935), Supplement, p. 921. German criticism of any League claim to universality of legal power is expressed by von Freytagh-Loringhoven, Die Satzung des Völkerbundes, 1926, pp. 16-17, and 202 and ff., and von Bülow, Der Versallier Völkerbund, 1923, pp. 183 and ff. The restrictive view is supported by citing the opinion of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Eastern Carelia case, P. C. I. X, Ser. B, No. 5.

28 Cf. Hyde, p. 1466, and see the reasoning of the Supreme Court of the United States in The Scotia, 14 Wall. 170 (1871), and of the Mixed Tribunal of Port Said in Criohton v. Samos Navigation Co. and others, 1925-26 Annual Digest, Case No. 1.

29 “This pact altered the legal status of a war of aggression”: Opening Statement for the United States of America by Mr. Justice Jackson, The Case Against the Nasi War Criminals (1946), p. 75. See Q. Wright, “The Meaning of the Pact of Paris,” this Journal, Vol. 27 (1933), p. 39. See also G. Schwarzenberger, as cited; Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt, L. of N., Off. J., Sp. Suppl. 150 (1936), p. 328; Budapest Articles of Interpretation, 38 Reports of the Int. Law Assn. (1935), p. 66, and comments thereon by Lauterpacht in 20 Transactions of the Grotius Society (1935), p. 178, and in Harvard Research in International Law, Draft Convention on Bights and Duties of States in Case of Aggression, this Journal, Vol. 33 (1939), Supplement, p. 826.

30 See Kelsen, H., Membership in the United Nations, 46 Col. Law Rev. (1946) 391, 394CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 See Riches, Majority Bide In International Organization, 1940.

32 See Kaufmann, Die EechtsTcraft des Internationalen Hechtes und die Verhältnisa der Staatsgesetzgebungen und der Staatsorgane zu Demselben, 1899, pp. 23-27.

33 P. C. I. J., Series B, No. 15, p. 17, and Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the Permanent Court of International Justice, 1934, pp. 50 ff. But compare Schwarzenberger, International Law, p. 69.

34 1927-1928 Annual Digest, Case No. 287.

35 See Jessup, , “Force under a Modern Law of Nations,” in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 25, (1946), p. 90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 See Jessup, , “The Responsibility of States for Injuries to Individuals,” 46 Columbia Law Mev. (1946), 903 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 See Article 87 of the Charter and Lauterpacht (on right of petition of private persons), An International Bill of the Sights of Man, 1945, pp. 199 and ff.

38 See in general Hyde, Title E, pp. 1468 and ff.

39 See the excellent article by Mann, F. A., “The Law Governing State Contracts,” in British Year Book of International Law, 1944 Google Scholar. See also Feilchenfeld, E. in Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1932, p. 175 Google Scholar.

40 See the Serbian and Brazilian loans cases : Publications of the P. C. I. J., Series A, No. 20/21 (1929), p. 41. See also Lepaulle, , Nature et méthode du droit, international privé, 63 Journal du Droit International (1936), 284 Google Scholar; Sauser-Hall, , Les règles générales des conflits de lois, 43 Die Friedens warte, (1943), 35.Google Scholar

41 See Cheatham, , “Sources of Rules for Conflict of Laws,” in 89 Univ. of Pa. L. Rev. (1941), pp. 430, 437-439Google Scholar.

42 On Inter-American developments in this field, see Carneiro, O Direito Internacional e a Democracia (1945), pp. 381 and ff.

43 For a concise summary of the development see SirMacassey, Lynden, “International Commercial Arbitration: Its Origin, Development, and Importance,” in 24 Transactions of the Grotius Society (1938), p. 179 Google Scholar. See also Report of the French Sub-Committee on Commercial Arbitration, Report of the Fortieth Conference of the International Law Association, (1938), p. 275; Rundstein, , L’Arbitrage International en Matière Privée, in 23 Hague Becueil des Cours (1928), p. 332 Google Scholar.

44 See Hudson as cited in note 22, pp. 297 and ff.; Report of the League of Nations Committee for the Study of International Loan Contracts, League Doc. C. 145, M. 93. 1939 II A., II Economic and Financial. 1939. II A. 10.

45 See Feilchenfeld, p. 177.

46 Tobin, The Termination of Multipartite Treaties, 1933; compare Stephens, Revisions of the Treaty of Versailles, 1939.

47 Report to the President, p. 166.

48 United Nations Information Organizations, Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, p. 267. See Report to the President, p. 49

49 Compare Lauterpacht‘s note 3 in Oppenheim, p. 311.

50 Art. 39 of the Peace Treaty with Italy provides as follows: “Italy undertakes to accept any arrangements which have been or may be agreed for the liquidation of the League of Nations, the Permanent Court of International Justice, and also the International Financial Commission in Greece.” Dept. of State Pub. 2743, p. 16.

51 See Report to the President, pp. 140-141.

52 See Keiff, , “Transition from League of Nations to United Nations,” in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIV, (1946), pp. 691, 739Google Scholar, and The League Hands Over, League of Nations Publications, Geneva. 1946. 1.

53 The League Hands Over, p. 97; also League of Nations Document A.32 (1) 1946. X, p. 12.

54 Doc. A/28, Feb. 4, 1946, adopted Feb. 12, Journal, No. 30, pp. 626-7, No. 34, pp. 706-709.

55 UN DOC. A/194, 15 Nov. 1946; Un Journal No. 38, 21. Nov. 1946, Supp. A-A/P. V./49, p. 328.

56 H. Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community, 1935, p. 273.

57 Compare Bremen v. Prussia, 1925-1926 Annual Digest, Case No. 266, cited by Lauterpacht, pp. 277-8; also the distinction made by Hyde, Sec. 544A.

58 See SirWilliams, John Fischer, “The Permanence of Treaties,” in this Journal, Vol. 22 (1928), pp. 89, 103Google Scholar, and Potter, P. B., Article XIX of the Covenant of the League of Nations, 12 Geneva Studies No. 2 (1941)Google Scholar.

59 See Hyde, Sec. 546.

60 This Journal, as cited above, note 27, p. 1077.

61 Judge Cardozo in Techt v. Hughes, 229 N. Y. (1920) 222.

62 Hyde, Sec. 547; Hurst, “The Effect of War on Treaties,” in British Tear BooĶ 19İ1-1922, pp. 37, 39-40. This approach seems to have been adopted by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in Allen v. Markham, 156 F. (2d) (1946), 653.

63 See Jessup, as cited, note 35, above.

64 League Doc. A. 14. 1927. V. p. 86. See also the circular letter of the Secretary-General of June 14, 1933, concerning measures proposed relative to the non-recognition of “Manchukuo,” Official Journal, 1933, Special Supplement, No. 113.

65 Wright, Q., ‘Collective Rights and Duties for the Enforcement of Treaty Obligations” in American Society of International Law, Proceedings, 1932, p. 101 Google Scholar.

66 Under the authority of Art. 96 of the Charter the General Assembly, on December 11, 1946, adopted a resolution authorizing the Economic and Social Council to request advisory opinions: UN Doc. A/201.

67 See Jessup, “The Subjects of a Modern Law of Nations,” in Michigan Law Review, forthcoming issue.