on the other hand by sincerity, candor, truth, and prudence, and by a horror of finesse and chicane." It might be well to add to this the words of Montague Bernard when he says that the real end of negotiating is to find a point at which the interests of both parties can be made to coincide.”2 Negotiations generally begin with an oral exchange of views upon the subject under discussion between the minister of foreign affairs and the diplomatic agent of the state with whom he treats. This is generally known as the state of pourparlers. This may be followed by final exchange of notes, written and official in their character and which may settle the matter under treatment between the two states, and which communications are often known as memoranda. At other times a formal convention or treaty duly signed by the diplomatic agents may result, which settles the dispute; or a working agreement may be established of a more or less temporary character-in other words, a "modus vivendi." 112. Congresses and Conferences.-A very important function is performed by the creation of a congress or conference to deal with international negotiation and the settlement of affairs. These bodies have often marked historical epochs and accomplished arrangements of the highest value, even when they mark the triumphant results of sanguinary warfare, for they establish peace and replace brute force by peaceable discussion and a final agreement. Commencing with the congress of Westphalia or, more properly speaking, of those of Münster and Osnabrück, in session from 1644-8; these were followed by the important ones of Utrecht, in 1713, of Vienna, in 1814 and 1815; of Paris, in 1856; and of Berlin, in 1878; after these came the conferences of The Hague in 1899-1907, and of London, in 1908-9, all being of world-wide importance, but marking varying historical epochs and agreements. There is a similarity in the constitution and routine of a 1 American State Papers, "Foreign Relations," 497. 2 "Lectures on Diplomacy," Bernard, p. 150. congress and a conference, but there is a difference in the rank of the delegates and in the dignity of the two bodies. Although sovereigns of states attended by their ministers no longer appear in a congress, yet its representatives are generally prime ministers and ministers of foreign affairs of the various countries represented, and the congress of the present day as a consequence is of more political force and prestige than a conference which is composed simply of authorized envoys and plenipotentiaries of moderate rank. Bluntschli gives as the difference that in a congress the governments themselves in a sense compose the membership of the congress, while, as a rule, the conference is composed of their delegate plenipotentiaries. The tendency both in large congresses and conferences in latter years is to become more and more deliberative assemblies, unknown in former days, with special commissions and committees from the general body to study the complex questions. M. F. de Martens, in speaking of The Hague conferences, draws a picture of a plenary session of that conference, where lengthy discourses were delivered, sometimes very eloquent, which provoked applause and almost ovations, being unexpectedly visited by distinguished diplomatists of the past like Kaunitz, Metternich, Talleyrand, and even the later Bismarck, who, struck with amazement and horror at such extraordinary proceedings, beg to be reconducted to the peaceful kingdom of shades from which they have for the moment appeared. A decided advantage in modern times is the publicity of the proceedings and remarks and the fact that often a running commentary of the results is given by the Comité de Redaction, which reduces the doubt in many cases and aids in the interpretation of the resulting conventions or declarations. In both congresses and conferences the states have but one vote, and all governments are upon an equality, and a unanimous conclusion is generally necessary to become finally ac1 Bluntschli, "Le Congrès de Berlin," etc., R. D. I., LXI, p. 31. cepted. The formal minutes of these bodies are known as the protocol and, though not recording all details, give the votes as well as the reservations, the dissenting opinions, and the protests of the various countries. The language employed in the various conferences and congresses of the present day is French as the language best understood by countries of continental Europe. It has been an accepted usage to keep the minutes, memoranda, and other records of these bodies in that language. Of late, following the procedure of The Hague conferences, in addressing the conferences, etc., the use of the mother tongue of the speaker is permitted, accompanied by a running translation of his remarks in French. No state can be a party to a conference or congress unless it has been invited or admitted upon its own request or that of another participating state. It is customary, however, to invite all important civilized states interested in the objects of the particular congress. It is customary but not mandatory to select as the president the first delegate of the state in whose territory the meeting is held. In case the first delegate is not the foreign minister of this state, the foreign minister generally opens the congress. In the London naval conference the Earl of Desart, the first British delegate, was president of the body; the British delegation presented the programme with the bases and suggestions presented by the other states represented. It is desirable for each delegation with the assistance of experts to study the subjects proposed for the congress or conference at an early date in order to save valuable time and expedite the proceedings of the body. The finished product, convention, or declaration of the conference is signed by the delegates of the states of which they are representatives, the precedence being generally arranged in alphabetical order as their names read in French. A personal seal accompanies the signature of the name of the delegate. The name given to the result of a congress or convention varies, being variously called "the final act," "the general act," "the protocol," "the convention," or "the declaration." The word convention was generally used by The Hague conferences and that of declaration by the London naval confer ence. TOPICS AND REFERENCES 1. International Agreements— Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. I, 512-518, 536-9. Montague Bernard, "Lectures on Diplomacy," lectures II and III. Moore's "Digest," vol. V, 210-214. 2. Negotiations Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. I, 529-532. Foster's "Practice of Diplomacy," 243-261. Phillimore, 3d ed., vol. III, 1–17. 3. Congresses and Conferences— Higgins, "The Hague Peace Conferences." Bernard's "Lectures on Diplomacy," chap. I. Baldwin, I, A. J. I. L., 1907, 569-623. Scott's "The Hague Conferences," chaps. I, II, and III. Nys, "Le Droit International," 2d ed., vol. II, 486-496. CHAPTER XIII INTERNATIONAL TREATIES 113. Definition of a Treaty. Early Existence of Treaties.Treaties between states are formal agreements or contracts, the result of international negotiation, by which we mean in this case such intercourse, discussion, and agreement as become necessary for the attainment of a final understanding between the contracting parties on certain questions of common interest. A treaty is under international law a legal obligation and under the proper rules of conduct a moral obligation. Treaties form one of the sources of international law and are of very early origin. Recent discoveries give accounts of a treaty of alliance concluded before the Christian era between the King of Babylon and the King of Egypt. So far as it can be ascertained this treaty was faithfully observed by both parties concerned. Rome also at a later date in the ante-Christian era through her treaties laid the foundation of Roman domination in Italy. The treaties of these ancient countries, sanctioned by an oath, became almost a religious obligation and were apparently at least as faithfully observed as at the present day. As to the obligations of a treaty, the words of Vattel apply to the present time as well as the times of the writer. He says: "He who violates his treaties violates at the same time the law of nations; for he disregards the faith of treaties-that faith which the law of nations declares sacred; and so far as depends on him he renders it vain and ineffectual. Doubly guilty, he does an injury to his ally, he does an injury to all nations, and inflicts a wound on the great society of mankind.”ı 1 1 Vattel, book II, chap. XV, sec. 221. |