Interpretation. Treaties of peace are to be interpreted by the same rules with other treaties. Disputes respecting their meaning or alleged infraction may be adjusted by amicable negotiation between the contracting parties, by the mediation of friendly powers, or by reference to the arbitration of some one power selected by the parties. This latter office has recently been assumed, in several instances, by the five great powers of Europe, with the view of preventing the disturbance of the general peace, by a partial infraction of the territorial arrangements stipulated by the treaty of Vienna, in consequence of the internal revolutions which have taken place in some of the States constituted by those treaties. Such are the protocols of the conference of London, by which a suspension of hostilities between Holland and Belgium was enforced, and terms of separation between the two countries proposed, which, when accepted by both, became the basis of a permanent peace. The objections to this species of interference, and the difficulty of reconciling it with the independence of the smaller powers, are obvious; but it is clearly distinguishable from that general right of superintendence over the internal affairs of other States, asserted by the powers who were the original parties to the Holy Alliance, for the purpose of preventing changes in the municipal constitutions not proceeding from the voluntary concession of the reigning sovereign, or supposed in their consequences, immediate or remote, to threaten the social order of Europe. The proceedings of the conference treated the revolution, by which the union between Holland and Belgium, established by the Congress of Vienna, had been dissolved, as an irrevocable event; and confirmed the independence, neutrality, and state of territorial possession of Belgium, upon the conditions contained in the treaty of the 15th November, 1831, between the five powers and that kingdom, subject to such modifications as might ultimately be the result of direct negotiations between Holland and Belgium. Wheaton, pp. 721, 722. Interests of third parties. "In a treaty of peace, also, the interests of powers can be included which took no direct part in the war, but were either auxiliaries, or at least had some interest or other in the war or the peace. It may be (1) That one of the principal contracting powers stipulates something in their favor, whether by comprehending them in the treaty.— so that the peace and amity shall extend to them without thereby rendering them principal contracting powers.-or by inserting a particular point in their favor; in which case it is not necessary that they formally signify their acceptance. Or (2) to the treaty may be added conventions concluded with or between such states, which conventions are declared to be parts of the principal document. Or (3) third powers may be invited to accede, either with a view to obtain their consent or to do them honor. And, on the other hand, sometimes third powers protest formally against a treaty of peace, or against one or more of its articles, and hand over such act of protestation to the principal contracting powers." Thus the Pope protested against the peace of Westphalia, and with the King of Spain. against the final act of the Congress of Vienna. Woolsey, p. 261; De Martens, sec. 336. Although a peace is a return to a state of amity, and, among civilized nations, of intercourse, the conditions on which intercourse is conducted may not be the same as before the war. If a treaty contained no other agreement than that there should be peace between the parties, there would be a fair presumption that everything was settled again on its old basis, the cause of war alone being still unsettled. But treaties usually define anew the terms of intercourse. The general principles which govern the renewal of intercourse cannot be laid down, until it is first known what the effect of a war is upon previous treaties. Woolsey, p. 263. As between the contracting states, a treaty of peace is a final settlement of all matters connected with the war to which it puts an end. If therefore any acts have been done during the course of hostilities in excess or irrespectively of the rights of war under the authority of one of the belligerent states, the enemy state cannot urge complaints or claims from the moment that a treaty is signed, either on its own behalf or on behalf of its subjects. It is possible however that ordinary acts of war may have been done without sufficient authority, that wrongful acts may have been done wholly without authority, and that subjects of one of the two belligerent states, without having committed treason, may yet have compromised themselves with their own government by dealings with the enemy. In order to bury the occurrences of the war in oblivion, and to prevent ill-feeling from being kept alive, in order also to protect men who may only have been guilty of a technical wrong, or who may at any rate have been carried away by the excitement of hostilities, and finally in the common interests of belligerents who may be in occupation of an enemy's country, it is understood that persons acting in any of the ways above mentioned are protected by the conclusion of peace from all civil or criminal processes to which they might be otherwise exposed in consequence of their conduct in the war, ex cept civil actions arising out of private contracts, and criminal prosecutions for acts recognised as crimes by the law of the country to which the doer belongs, and done under circumstances which remove them from the category of acts having relation to the war. Actions, for example, can be brought on ransom bills; if a prisoner of war borrows money or runs into debt he may be sued; or if a prisoner of war or a soldier on service commits a common murder he may be tried and punished. The immunity thus conceded is called an amnesty. Usually, but far from invariably, the rule of law is fortified by express stipulation, and a clause securing an amnesty is inserted in treaties of peace. Though unnecessary for other purposes, it is required as a safeguard for subjects of a state who, having had distinctly treasonable relations with an enemy, are not protected by an amnesty which is only implied. Hall, pp. 584, 585. International Law does not contain any rules regarding the form of peace treaties; they may, therefore, be concluded verbally or in writing. But the importance of the matter makes the parties always conclude a treaty of peace in writing, and there is no instance of a verbally concluded treaty of peace. According to the different points stipulated, it is usual to distinguish different parts within a peace treaty. Besides the preamble, there are general, special, and separate articles. General articles are those which stipulate such points as are to be agreed upon in every treaty of peace, as the date of termination of hostilities, the release of prisoners of war, and the like. Special articles are those which stipulate the special terms of the agreement of peace in question. Separate articles are those which stipulate points with regard to the execution of the general and special articles, or which contain reservations and other special remarks of the parties. Sometimes additional articles occur. Such are stipulations agreed upon in a special treaty following the treaty of peace and comprising stipulations regarding such points as have not been mentioned in the treaty of peace. Oppenheim, vol. 2, p. 330. Usual Stipulations. In addition to the formal establishment of peaceful relations as between the States previously at war, and apart from such special terms as may be necessary or appropriate, a treaty of peace usually provides for the immediate or ultimate evacuation of territory not intended to be ceded; for the actual transfer of territory agreed to be ceded and not already in occupation of the proposed transferee; for the delimitation of boundaries and the protection of the interests of subjects of the ceding State; for the repatriation of prisoners and the payment of any balance that may be due in respect of their maintenance; for the renewal or replacement of treaties abrogated by war; and sometimes also for the granting of an amnesty and the payment of a war indemnity. Cobbett, pt. II, p. 227. The Question of Indemnity.-The exaction of a monetary indemnity, in addition to the cession of territory or other advantages, has become a not infrequent condition of terms of peace in cases where the issue of the struggle leaves the dominant party in a position to exact this. So, in 1871, Germany, in addition to the cession of Alsace and Lorraine, exacted from France an indemnity of 5,000,000,000 francs. In some modern wars, however, the successful belligerent has shown greater magnanimity. So, in 1848, the United States took no war indemnity from Mexico, and even made some payment for territory ceded by the latter under pressure of the war. In 1898, again, the United States exacted no war indemnity from Spain, and even paid to the latter an indemnity in respect to the cession of the Philippine Islands; but no indemnity was paid in respect to Porto Rico, whilst Cuba was not allowed to assume liability for any part of the Spanish debt. Great Britain in 1902-although this was a case of conquest-not only paid for all requisitions made by the Boer forces, but contributed a sum of 3,000,000 7. towards other Boer losses. Where an indemnity is exacted, a part of the territory of the debtor State is sometimes retained in occupation as security for payment. Cobbett, pt. II, p. 229. TREATIES OF PEACE, WHEN THEY TAKE EFFECT. We have now to consider when the Treaty of Peace takes effect, or the date from which the operation of it becomes binding, both upon the public relations of States, and upon the private relations of individual members of States. The exact period of time from which the public Treaty begins to operate is, as in the case of private contracts, the day upon which it has passed through all the necessary forms and been ratified: from that instant all hostilities ought to cease, unless indeed a particular day has been specified for the beginning of the Peace. Vattel is of opinion that the Treaty does not bind the subjects of States until it has been duly notified to them. Phillimore, vol. III, pp. 776, 777. A treaty of peace binds the contracting parties from the moment of its conclusion, and that is understood to be from the day it is signed. A treaty made by the minister abroad, when ratified by his sovereign, relates back to the time of signing; but, like a truce, it cannot affect the subjects of the nation with guilt, by reason of acts of hostility subsequent to the date of the treaty, provided they were committed before the treaty was known. All that can be required in such cases is, that the government make immediate restitution of things captured after the cessation of hostilities; and to guard against inconvenience from the want of due knowledge of the treaty, it is usual to fix the periods at which hostilities are to cease at different places, and for the restitution of property taken afterwards. Kent, vol. I, pp. 184, 185; Hylton v. Brown, 1 Wash, 312. Sovereign power over territory ceded ends at the moment of cession, except for municipal purposes and keeping order, for which it continues until delivery. Kent, vol. I, p. 184, note; United States v. Reynes, 9 How. 127; Davis t. Vested rights. In so far as the treaty affects individual rights which were vested before it was ratified, it is not considered as concluded until there is an exchange of ratifications. Kent, vol. I, p. 184, note; Haver v. Yaker, 9 Wall, 32. |