Volume I Part 72 (2/2)

XII

RENEWAL, RECONFIRMATION, AND REDINTEGRATION OF TREATIES

Vattel, II. -- 199--Hall, -- 117--Taylor, -- 400--Hartmann, -- 51--Ullmann, -- 85--Bonfils, Nos. 851-854--Despagnet, No.

456--Pradier-Fodere, II. Nos. 1191-1199--Rivier, II. pp.

143-146--Calvo, III. ---- 1637, 1666, 1669--Fiore, II. Nos.

1048-1049, and Code, Nos. 835-838.

[Sidenote: Renewal of Treaties.]

-- 550. Renewal of treaties is the term for the prolongation of such treaties before their expiration as were concluded for a definite period of time only. Renewal can take place through a new treaty, and the old treaty may then be renewed as a body or in parts only. But the renewal can also take place automatically, many treaties concluded for a certain period stipulating expressly that they are considered renewed for another period in case neither of the contracting parties has given notice.

[Sidenote: Reconfirmation.]

-- 551. Reconfirmation is the term for the express statement made in a new treaty that a certain previous treaty, whose validity has or might have become doubtful, is still, and remains, valid. Reconfirmation takes place after such changes of circ.u.mstances as might be considered to interfere with the validity of a treaty; for instance, after a war, as regards such treaties as have not been cancelled by the outbreak of war.

Reconfirmation can be given to the whole of a previous treaty or to parts of it only. Sometimes reconfirmation is given in this very precise way, that a new treaty stipulates that a previous treaty shall be incorporated in itself. It must be emphasised that in such a case those parties to the new treaty which have not been parties to the previous treaty do not now become so by its reconfirmation, the latter applying to the previous contracting parties only.

[Sidenote: Redintegration.]

-- 552. Treaties which have lost their binding force through expiration or cancellation may regain it through redintegration. A treaty becomes redintegrated by the mutual consent of the contracting parties regularly given in a new treaty. Thus it is usual for treaties of peace to redintegrate all those treaties cancelled through the outbreak of war whose stipulations the contracting parties do not want to alter.

Without doubt, redintegration does not necessarily take place exclusively by a treaty, as theoretically it must be considered possible for the contracting parties tacitly to redintegrate an expired or cancelled treaty by a line of conduct which indicates apparently their intention to redintegrate the treaty. However, I do not know of any instance of such tacit redintegration.

XIII

INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES

Grotius, II. c. 16--Vattel, II. ---- 262-322--Hall, ---- 111-112--Phillimore, II. ---- 64-95--Halleck, I. pp.

296-304--Taylor, ---- 373-393--Walker, -- 31--Wheaton, -- 287--Moore, V. ---- 763-764--Heffter, -- 95--Ullmann, -- 84--Bonfils, Nos.

835-837--Despagnet, No. 450--Pradier-Fodere, II. Nos.

1171-1189--Merignhac, II. p. 678--Nys, III. pp. 41-43--Rivier, II.

pp. 122-125--Calvo, III. ---- 1649-1660--Fiore, II. Nos. 1032-1046, and Code, Nos. 792-816--Martens, I. -- 116--Westlake, I. pp.

282-283--Pick in R.G. XVII. (1907), pp. 5-35--Hyde in A.J. III.

(1909), pp. 46-61.

[Sidenote: Authentic Interpretation, and the Compromise Clause.]

-- 553. Neither customary nor conventional rules of International Law exist concerning interpretation of treaties. Grotius and the later authorities applied the rules of Roman Law respecting interpretation in general to interpretation of treaties. On the whole, such application is correct in so far as those rules of Roman Law are full of common sense.

But it must be emphasised that interpretation of treaties is in the first instance a matter of consent between the contracting parties. If they choose a certain interpretation, no other has any basis. It is only when they disagree that an interpretation based on scientific grounds can ask a hearing. And these scientific grounds can be no other than those provided by jurisprudence. The best means of settling questions of interpretation, provided the parties cannot come to terms, is arbitration, as the appointed arbitrators will apply the general rules of jurisprudence. Now in regard to interpretation given by the parties themselves, there are two different ways open to them. They may either agree informally upon the interpretation and execute the treaty accordingly; or they may make an additional new treaty and stipulate therein such interpretation of the previous treaty as they choose. In the latter case one speaks of ”authentic” interpretation in a.n.a.logy with the authentic interpretation of Munic.i.p.al Law given expressly by a statute. Nowadays treaties very often contain the so-called ”compromise clause” as regards interpretation--namely, the clause that, in case the parties should not agree on questions of interpretation, these questions shall be settled by arbitration. Italy and Switzerland regularly endeavour to insert that clause in their treaties.

<script>