Roumania, which was then under Turkish suzerainty, and Russia of April 16, 1877, concerning the passage of Russian troops through Roumanian territory in case of war with Turkey, was practically a treaty of alliance.' Thus, further, the former South African Republic, although, according to the views of the British Government at least, a half-Sovereign State under British suzerainty, concluded an alliance with the former Orange Free State by treaty of March 17, 1897.2 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. kinds of § 571. An alliance may be, as already mentioned, Different offensive or defensive, or both. All three may be Alliances. 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 may, further, 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.3 Alliances. §572. Alliances may contain all sorts of con- Condiditions. The most important are the conditions tions of regarding the assistance to be rendered. It may be that assistance 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 1 See Martens, N.R.G., 2nd ser. III. p. 182. 2 See Martens, N.R.G., 2nd ser. XXV. p. 327. 3 See above, § 505. Casus Fœderis. naval forces only. Assistance 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 constitutes 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 abovementioned treaty of 1877 (§ 570) between Russia and Roumania concerning the passage of Russian troops through Roumanian territory in case of war against Turkey was really a treaty of alliance. § 573. Casus fœderis is the event upon the occurrence of which it becomes the duty of one of the allies to render the promised assistance to the other. Thus in case of a defensive alliance the casus fœderis 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 fœderis, and then the latter is less exposed to controversy. But, on the other hand, there have been enough alliances concluded without such specialisation, and, consequently, later on disputes have arisen between the parties as to the casus fœderis. 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, § 278Bluntschli, §§ 430-439-Heffter, § 97-Geffcken in Holtzendorff, III. pp. 85-112-Bonfils, Nos. 882-893-Pradier-Fodéré, II. Nos. 969-1020-Rivier, II. pp. 97-105-Calvo, III. §§ 1584-1585Martens, I. § 115-Neyron, "Essai historique et politique sur les garanties (1779)-Milovanovitch, "Des traités de garantie en droit international" (1888). tion and Treaties. § 574. Treaties of guarantee are conventions by Concep which one of the parties engages to do what is in its Objects of power to secure a certain object to the other party. Guarante 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.1 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 Constitution; a certain status, as permanent neutrality (Switzerland, Belgium, Luxemburg) or independence; a particular dynastic succession; fulfilment of a treaty concluded by a third State.2 1 What an important part treaties of guarantee play in politics may be seen from a glance at Great Britain's guarantee treaties. See Munro, England's Treaties of Guarantee, in The Law Magazine 2 See above, § 528. Effect of Guaran tee. $575. The effect of guarantee treaties is the Treaties of creation of the duty of the guarantors to do what is in their power to secure the guaranteed objects. The compulsion to be applied by a guarantor for that purpose depends upon the circumstances; it may eventually be war. But the duty of the guarantor to render even by compulsion the promised assistance to the guaranteed depends upon many conditions and circumstances. Thus, first, the guaranteed must request the guarantor to render his assistance. When, for instance, the possession of a certain part of its territory is guaranteed to a State which after its defeat in a war with a third State accepts the condition of peace to cede such piece of territory to the victor without having requested the intervention of the guarantor, the latter has neither a right nor a duty to interfere. Thus, secondly, the guarantor must at the critical time be able to render the required assistance. When, for instance, its hands are tied through waging war against a third State, or when it is so weak through internal troubles or other factors that its interference would expose it to a serious danger, it is not bound to fulfil the request for assistance. So too, when the guaranteed has not complied with previous advice as to the line of its behaviour given by the guarantor, it is not the latter's duty to render assistance afterwards. It is impossible to state all the circumstances and conditions upon which the fulfilment of the duty of the guarantor depends, as every case must be judged upon its own merits. And it is certain that more frequently than in other cases changes in political constellations and the general developments of events may involve such vital change of circum 1 stances as to justify 1 a State in repudiating its interference in spite of a treaty of guarantee. It is for this reason that treaties of guarantee to secure permanently a certain object to a State are naturally of a more or less precarious value for the latter. The practical value, therefore, of a guarantee treaty, whatever may be its formal character, would seem to extend as a rule to the early years only of its existence while the original conditions still obtain. Collective § 576. In contradistinction to treaties constitut- Effect of ing a guarantee on the part of one or more States Guaran severally, the effect of treaties constituting a collective tee. guarantee on the part of several States requires special consideration. On June 20, 1867, Lord Derby maintained 2 in the House of Lords concerning the collective guarantee of the neutralisation of Luxemburg by the Powers that in case of a collective guarantee each guarantor had only the duty to act according to the treaty when all the other guarantors were ready to act likewise; that, consequently, if one of the guarantors themselves should violate the neutrality of Luxemburg, the duty to act according to the treaty of collective guarantee would not accrue to the other guarantors. This opinion is certainly not correct, and I do not know of any publicist who would or could approve of it. There ought to be no doubt that in a case of collective guarantee one of the guarantors alone cannot be considered bound to act according to the treaty of guarantee. For a collective guarantee can have the meaning only that the guarantors should act in a body. But if one of the guarantors themselves violates the object of his own guarantee, the body of the guarantors remains, and 1 See above, § 539. 2 Hansard, vol. 183, p. 150. 3 See Hall, § 113, and Bluntschli, $440. |