Volume I Part 75 (2/2)

[Sidenote: Parties to Alliance.]

-- 570. Subjects of alliances are said to be full-Sovereign States only.

But the fact cannot be denied that alliances have been concluded by States under suzerainty. Thus, the convention of April 16, 1877, between Roumania, which was then under Turkish suzerainty, and Russia, concerning the pa.s.sage of Russian troops through Roumanian territory in case of war with Turkey, was practically a treaty of alliance.[936]

Thus, further, the former South African Republic, although, at any rate according to the views of the British Government, a half-Sovereign State under British suzerainty, concluded an alliance with the former Orange Free State by treaty of March 17, 1897.[937]

[Footnote 936: See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. III. p. 182.]

[Footnote 937: See Martens, N.R.G. 2nd Ser. XXV. p. 327.]

A neutralised State can be the subject of an alliance for the purpose of defence, whereas the entrance into an offensive alliance on the part of such State would involve a breach of its neutrality.

[Sidenote: Different kinds of Alliances.]

-- 571. As already mentioned, an alliance may be offensive or defensive, or both. All three kinds may be either general alliances, in which case the allies are united against any possible enemy whatever, or particular alliances against one or more individual enemies. Alliances, further, may be either permanent or temporary, and in the latter case they expire with the period of time for which they were concluded. As regards offensive alliances, it must be emphasised that they are valid only when their object is not immoral.[938]

[Footnote 938: See above, -- 505.]

[Sidenote: Conditions of Alliances.]

-- 572. Alliances may contain all sorts of conditions. The most important are the conditions regarding the a.s.sistance to be rendered. It may be that a.s.sistance is to be rendered with the whole or a limited part of the military and naval forces of the allies, or with the whole or a limited part of their military or with the whole or a limited part of their naval forces only. a.s.sistance may, further, be rendered in money only, so that one of the allies is fighting with his forces while the other supplies a certain sum of money for their maintenance. A treaty of alliance of such a kind must not be confounded with a simple treaty of subsidy. If two States enter into a convention that one of the parties shall furnish the other permanently in time of peace and war with a limited number of troops in return for a certain annual payment, such convention is not an alliance, but a treaty of subsidy only. But if two States enter into a convention that in case of war one of the parties shall furnish the other with a limited number of troops, be it in return for payment or not, such convention really const.i.tutes an alliance. For every convention concluded for the purpose of lending succour in time of war implies an alliance. It is for this reason that the above-mentioned[939] treaty of 1877 between Russia and Roumania concerning the pa.s.sage of Russian troops through Roumanian territory in case of war against Turkey was really a treaty of alliance.

[Footnote 939: See above, -- 570.]

[Sidenote: _Casus Foederis._]

-- 573. _Casus foederis_ is the event upon the occurrence of which it becomes the duty of one of the allies to render the promised a.s.sistance to the other. Thus in case of a defensive alliance the _casus foederis_ occurs when war is declared or commenced against one of the allies. Treaties of alliance very often define precisely the event which shall be the _casus foederis_, and then the latter is less exposed to controversy. But, on the other hand, there have been many alliances concluded without such specialisation, and, consequently, disputes have arisen later between the parties as to the _casus foederis_.

That the _casus foederis_ is not influenced by the fact that a State, subsequent to entering into an alliance, concludes a treaty of general arbitration with a third State, has been pointed out above, -- 522.

III

TREATIES OF GUARANTEE AND OF PROTECTION

Vattel, II. ---- 235-239--Hall, -- 113--Phillimore, II. ---- 56-63--Twiss, I. -- 249--Halleck, I. p. 285--Taylor, ---- 350-353--Wheaton, -- 278--Bluntschli, ---- 430-439--Heffter, -- 97--Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 85-112--Liszt, -- 22--Ullmann, -- 83--Fiore, Code, Nos. 787-791--Bonfils, Nos.

882-893--Despagnet, No. 461--Merignhac, II. p. 681--Nys, III. pp.

36-41--Pradier-Fodere, II. Nos. 969-1020--Rivier, II. pp.

97-105--Calvo, III. ---- 1584-1585--Martens, I. -- 115--Neyron, ”Essai historique et politique sur les garanties”

(1779)--Milovanovitch, ”Des traites de garantie en droit international” (1888)--Erich, ”Ueber Allianzen und Allianzverhaltnisse nach heutigem Volkerrecht” (1907)--Quabbe, ”Die volkerrechtliche Garantie” (1911).

[Sidenote: Conception and Object of Guarantee Treaties.]

-- 574. Treaties of guarantee are conventions by which one of the parties engages to do what is in its power to secure a certain object to the other party. Guarantee treaties may be mutual or unilateral. They may be concluded by two States only, or by a number of States jointly, and in the latter case the single guarantors may give their guarantee severally or collectively or both. And the guarantee may be for a certain period of time only or permanent.

The possible objects of guarantee treaties are numerous.[940] It suffices to give the following chief examples: the performance of a particular act on the part of a certain State, as the discharge of a debt or the cession of a territory; certain rights of a State; the undisturbed possession of the whole or a particular part of the territory; a particular form of Const.i.tution; a certain status, as permanent neutrality[941] or independence[942] or integrity[943]; a particular dynastic succession; the fulfilment of a treaty concluded by a third State.

<script>