« AnteriorContinuar »
$ 383. When treaties take effect, as to governments and as to individuals.- It is proper at this point to make some reference in regard to the time when treaties take effect both as to the contracting governments and as to individuals who are affected thereby.
The rule in this respect can be broadly stated to the effect that a treaty takes effect when the ratifications are exchanged, but that as to the contracting governments the treaty relations are supposed to date back to the date when the plenipotentiaries concluded it. The basis for this rule seems to be that as a treaty is a contract, it is not complete until it has actually been exchanged, or delivered by both parties, and that the delivery itself is not complete until the highest powers have ratified the act of the Commissioners and the formalities of delivery have been complied with. It has, therefore, been held that private rights are not affected by a treaty until the delivery has actually taken place, as individuals are not entitled to rely on the provisions of a treaty until every formality has been complied with, and the treaty actually proclaimed by the Executive as a law.
As to the contracting governments, however, the rule appears to be different, and the relations are to be considered as established on the basis of the treaty from the time that the treaty is concluded; this is, of course, subject to the possibility of non-ratification, but the ratification when completed is to be considered as having a retroactive effect and dating back to the day of the conclusion of the treaty by the plenipotentiaries. One of the leading cases on this subject involved the question of inheritance under a treaty with Switzerland in which a period of nearly five years intervened between the conclusion of the treaty and the exchange of the ratifications.
inherit but this disability was re1 Haver vs. Yaker, U. S. Sup. Ct. moved by the treaty. Yaker died 1869, 9 Wallace, 32, Davis, J., also in Kentucky in 1853 pending the reported as Jecker vs. Magee. ratification of the treaty; the Ken
The treaty with Switzerland was tucky court, where the Swiss heirs concluded and signed in 1850, but set up this treaty as a basis of their it was not ratified until 1855. title, held that it took effect only
Under the laws of Kentucky when ratified and therefore dein force in 1853, aliens could not cided against their claim. On ap
There are some instances, however, in which the question may arise as to whether rights under a treaty are in their nature governmental or individual. The author is not prepared to admit that in cases of cession of territory the exchange of ratifications can be delayed after the constitutional powers of both governments have actually ratified the treaty,
peal this was affirmed; the opinion bound by it, as the law of the land, says (pp. 34-35):
until it was ratified and proclaimed. “It is undoubtedly true, as a And to construe the law, so as to principle of international law, that, make the ratification of the treaty as respects the rights of either gov- relate back to its signing, thereby ernment under it, a treaty is con- divesting a title already vested, sidered as concluded and binding would be manifestly unjust, and from the date of its signature. In cannot be sanctioned.” this regard the exchange of ratifi Hylton vs. Brown, U. S. Cir. Ct. cations has a retroactive effect, con- Penna. 1806, 1 Wash. 343, WASHfirming the treaty from its date. INGTON, J.: fixing exact date when But a different rule prevails where treaty of 1783 with Great Britain the treaty operates on individual took effect. rights. The principle of relation In re Metzgar, U. S. Dist. Ct. S. does not apply to rights of this char- D. N. Y. 1847, Fed. Cas. 9511, acter, which were vested before the BETTS, J. treaty was ratified. In so far as it United States vs. Reynes, U. S. affects them, it is not considered as Sup. Ct. 1850, 9 How. 127, DANIEL, J., concluded until there is an ex- held that“the treaty of St. Ildefonso change of ratifications, and this we between Spain and the French Reunderstand to have been decided by public, and that of Paris, between this court, in Arredondo's case, France and the United States, reported in 6th Peters. The rea- should be construed as binding on son of the rule is apparent. In this the parties thereto, from the recountry, a treaty is something more spective dates of those treaties.” than a contract, for the Federal Davis vs. Police Jury, etc., Constitution declares it to be the U. S. Sup. Ct. 1850, 9 How. 280, law of the land. If so, before it WAYNE, J. can become a law, the Senate, in Doe (or Clark) vs. Braden, U. S. whom rests the authority to ratify Sup. Ct. 1853, 16 How. 635, TAit, must agree to it. But the Sen- NEY, CH. J. ate are not required to adopt or re Ex parte Ortiz, U. S. Cir. Ct. ject it as a whole, but may inodify Minn. 1900, 100 Fed. Rep. 955, LOCHor amend it, as was done with the REN, J. treaty under consideration. As the See Glenn on Int. Law, $ 107, individual citizen, on whose rights p. 149. of property it operates, has no See Rule II for construction of means of knowing anything of it treaties; U. S. Treaties and Con., · while before the senate, it would Ed. 1889, p. 1227. See Davis' Rules be wrong in principle to hold him I in note 6, § 391, p. 145, post.
and that meanwhile individual rights are either suspended or actually negatived by this delay.?
This subject is within the domain of a treatise on the construction of treaties rather than that of a book of this nature; a few cases bearing on this point are referred to in the notes to this section, but the leading authorities on international law should be consulted.
$ 384. Abrogation of treaties, various methods. In the cases cited which have involved treaty stipulations and Federal Statutes, treaties have either been, or have not been, carried into effect by subsequent legislation of Congress; or statutes subsequently passed in conflict with treaties have been held to be constitutional, and to have superseded or modified the treaty, although in many instances clearly in violation of the stipulations therein contained. There are other instances, however, in which the Court has held that the treaty is not superseded or modified, but is entirely abrogated and ceases to bind either nation or the citizens and inhabitants thereof. Treaties, which expressly so provide, may expire by limitation of time, determined by the treaty itself; they may also be abrogated, so far as the United States is concerned, by Congressional action in several different methods.1
First: Either by a formal resolution or act of both Houses 2 In the Insular Cases the Su- BROWN, J. And see extract from preme court has cited Haver vs. opinion, $61f, p. 124, Vol. I. Yaker as authority for limiting the See also cases on this point colright of recovery of duties exacted lated in INSULAR CASES APPENDIX on goods brought into Porto Rico at end of volume I. to those brought in after the ex
§ 384. change of ratifications on April 11, 1 In this connection only the mu1899, although the treaty had been nicipal, or internal law, of the Uniratified by the governments of both ted States is under consideration, nations long prior thereto and the the abrogation of a treaty by some formal exchange was delayed until of the methods referred to in this the Spanish ambassador arrived in section might be made the basis of the country. See argument of Ex- reclamations by the other contractSecretary John G. Carlisle on this ing government, and lead to interpoint in the Insular Cases Record, national complications more pp. 821, et seq.
less serious in their nature. But Dooley, Smith & Co. vs. United although the abrogation might States, No. 1. U. S. Sup. Ct. 1901. be a breach of contract for which, (Insular Cases) 182 U. S. 222. before an international tribunal,
of Congress approved by the President, or, in case of his refusal to approve it, passed over his veto by two thirds of both Houses, in which case it becomes the latest expression of the Legislative department of the Government, and, therefore, the supreme law of the land, and the Executive department is bound to carry out the wishes of the Legislature in express terms.
Second : By legislation, not abrogating the treaty in terms, but terminating the relations existing thereunder, or rendering them impossible of continuance, by enacting legislation hostile thereto, or conflicting therewith, and which may supersede the treaty as to the special stipulations affected, or in effect abrogate it altogether.
Third: By legislation, which, while it does not directly, in terms, abrogate the treaty, either in whole or in part, or by direct words suspend the operation of any of the provisions, so conflicts therewith that the doctrine of repeal by implication applies thereto as it would to statutory provisions similarly affected; it having been held by the Supreme Court that when a statute cannot be rationally construed without repealing conflicting clauses of a previously existing treaty, the treaty must fall and the statute must remain as the latest expression of the legislative will.4
Fourth: By a declaration of war in which case treaties with the hostile power are either by force of the declaration suspended during the war or abrogated altogether
The instances given in the foot notes heretg, in which
the United States would be ad-| 3 The Chinese exclusion laws are judged to have acted improperly, the best illustration of conflicting the power exists to abrogate the statutes of this class. See note 2 treaty and to conduct the affairs of to $ 379, pp. 91 et seq., ante. this country on the basis of the ab 4 See Ward vs. Race Horse, rerogation and the courts of the Uni- ferred to in $ 386 for illustration ted States would be bound to up- of this method. hold the acts of the Legislative 5 The extent to which treaties are department of the Government in suspended or abrogated by war is this respect.
discussed by nearly every writer on 2 See statutes in 1798 and resolu- international law and many divertions in 1883 abrogating treaties gent views have been expressed in with France and Great Britain, re- regard thereto. There are certain spectively referred to in notes 1 and treaties which cannot be suspended 2 to the next section.
or abrogated by war; some, be
these various methods of abrogating treaties in whole or in part have been adopted, are only a few instances but they illustrate the practical application of each rule.
The effect of the abrogation of a treaty on private rights created or affected by the treaty is a matter of judicial determination.?
$ 385. Direct abrogation by Congressional action.-Congress has on more than one occasion exerted its legislative
cause they provide for a permanent In the compilation of Treaties condition of affairs, as, for instance, in Force, edition of 1899, the statecession of territory; others, be- ment is made (p. 592) that: “The cause they provide for a condition treaties with Spain were annulled of affairs during war, as, for in- by the war of 1898." stance, our treaty with Italy of 1871 See Wharton's Digest, Int. Law, provides for the treatment of pri- vol. 2, § 137a, pp. 58, et seq. vate property on the sea during .6 See the notes on abrogation of war. On the other hand all provi. Treaties in Appendix to Treaties sions for extradition, treatment of and Conventions of the United litigants in court, and others in- States, edition of 1889. volving the exercise of friendly For other instances of abrogation relations must necessarily be sus- see also the views of the Supreme pended; the better opinion now Court on abrogation of treaties and seems to be that commercial treat- the effect thereof as expressed in ies must be revived after war. A the Chinese Exclusion cases, and controversy arose after the war quoted in notes to $379, p. 96, and of 1812 as to whether or not the p. 105, ante. treaties existing prior thereto be ? Continuing personal rights tween this country and Great Bri- would undoubtedly cease and if tain were or were not abrogated, the abrogation were improper a especially as to fishery rights of citizen of the unoffending nation this country off the coasts of the would have a claim against the British North American posses- abrogating government but it could sions. Great Britain (Lord Aber- only be enforced diplomatically; deen) took the position they were; vested property rights can, howwe contended they were not. The ever, be protected by the courts afquestion was never satisfactorily ter the termination of a treaty. settled, but the new treaty of 1815 Society, etc., vs. New Haven, superseded the older treaties as to U. S. Sup. Ct. 1823, 8 Wheaton, commercial relations and some of 464, WASHINGTON, J., held that the fishery questions were settled the termination of a treaty does by the treaty of 1818. The right not divest rights of property alof Great Britain to navigate the ready vested under it. Mississippi under the treaty of Chirac vs. Chirac, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1783 has never been recognized 1817, 2 Wheaton, 259, MARSHALL, since the war of 1812 by the United CH. J., held that State statutes States.
enacted in consequence of a treaty