provided for. It is, in substance, a broad and comprehensive rendering of the clauses of a treaty, regard being had to the spirit rather than the letter of the instrument.'

In connection with the subject of interpretation the following definitions are given of terms frequently used in connection with treaties:

Protocol. This is a word of Byzantine origin, and was at first applied to the first, or outer, sheet of a roll of manuscript, upon which was written or impressed the writer's name, the date of the instrument, and the title of the minister from whose office it issued. As a diplomatic term it is applied to the rough draft of a public act, or to the preliminary draft of an agreement between two or more states, which is to constitute the basis of negotiations in a treaty to be subsequently executed; the term is also applied to the formally authenticated minutes of the proceedings of a congress or conference. In a similar sense it is applied to the preliminary acts and agreements entered into by ambassadors in the preparation of a treaty.

Recez. This term is applied to the act of a diet, or congress, in reducing to writing the result of its deliberations upon a particular subject, before final adjournment.

Separate Articles. These are clauses added to a treaty after it has been formally signed and ratified. They are contained in a separate instrument, and are duly authenticated, but are construed in connection with the treaty to which they refer, and of which they form a part.

The Most Favored Nation Clause. The use of this clause is becoming constantly more frequent in treaties, especially in those of a commercial character. It commends itself by its convenience. Its effect is to extend the scope and operation of a treaty to cover any concessions of privileges, of a similar character to those stipulated for, which may be granted in the future, by either party, to other states, or to their citizens or subjects. The clauses of later treaties granting such concessions in this way become an integral part of the early treaty.

1 Vattel, liv. ii. chap. xvii. § 290; II Phillimore, pp. 82-87; I Wild

man, p. 184; II Twiss, § 230; I Halleck, pp. 244, 245.

The following clause, extracted from a recent treaty of the United States, illustrates the principle involved: "Every right, privilege, or immunity that the Egyptian Government now grants, or may grant in future, to the subjects or citizens, vessels, commerce, and navigation of whatsoever other foreign power, shall be granted to citizens of the United States, vessels, commerce, and navigation, who shall have the right to enjoy the same.'

References. The most valuable collection of treaties in the English language is that of Hertslet, vols. i.-iv. This work should be used in connection with "The Map of Europe by Treaty," by the same author. For the treaties of the United States, see " Treaties and Conventions of the United States,” etc., 1776--1889, and “The United States Statutes at Large" (annual vols.), 1889-1899. The Spanish work of Calvo, in six volumes, contains all treaties negotiated by the Latin states of America prior to 1862. There are many valuable collections of treaties to which the Continental states of Europe have been parties. None of them are complete, however. Jenkinson's collection contains most English treaties between 1648 and 1785. See also G. F. De Martens, “Esquisse d'une Histoire Diplomatique des Traités," etc.; "Recueil des Principaux Traités," etc., 1761-1818, by G. F. De Martens, with Murrhard's continuation, bringing the work to 1860; and the “Corps Universal Diplomatique" of J. Dumont, which, with its additions, etc., covers, with more or less fulness the period between 315 and 1738 A.D. Rymer's "Fœdera," etc., contains a collection of treaties, between England and other powers, between the years 1101 and 1654. A supplement to this work, in fifty-seven volumes, is preserved in the British Museum. For a full bibliography of this subject, see Klüber, pp. 424-437. In connection with the general subject of treaties see also Vattel, liv. ii. chapters xii.xvii.; Holtzendorff, §§ 26-28; Heffter, §§ 81-89; Klüber, §§ 141-165; Bluntschli, §§ 402-461; II Phillimore, §§ 44-99; Lawrence, Int. Law, §§ 152-154; Hall, §§ 107-117; I Halleck, chap. viii.; Woolsey, §§ 101-113; Dana's Wheaton, §§ 252-289; I Twiss, §§ 224-264; I Lorimer, pp. 260269; I Wildman, chap. iv.; II Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 886-1224; II Dig. Int. Law, §§ 130-166.

1 Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776-1887, p. 272. For a clause placing an interpretation upon a favored nation clause, see the Treaty between the United States and Ecuador, Treaties and

Conventions of the United States 1776-1887, p. 264. See also the article by M. Ernest Lehr, on the most favored nation clause, in vol. xxv. Revue de Droit Int. pp. 313323.

CHAPTER IX

THE CONFLICT OF INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS: THE ADJUSTMENT OF DISPUTES, MEDIATION, ARBITRATION, RETORSION, REPRISALS, PACIFIC BLOCKADE

Procedure in Cases of Conflict. When a conflict of international rights arises, as is the case whenever one state has a cause of difference with another, it is customary for the state whose rights have been denied, or trespassed upon, to make known its cause of complaint to the offending state, and to demand that justice be done for the wrong that has been committed. The urgency of this demand is always proportional to the gravity and importance of the injury sustained. The motive of some violations of perfect or sovereign rights may be so obvious and unmistakable that no explanations are asked for by the offended state, and resort is at once had to forcible measures of redress. On the other hand, the offence may consist in the violation of some minor rule of comity of so little importance that a mere exchange of diplomatic notes is deemed a sufficient remedy. Between these two extremes lie the various methods of settling international disputes.'

Methods of Adjustment. Those most frequently resorted

to are:

(a.) An amicable adjustment of the difference by the interested states.

(b.) Mediation.

(c.) Arbitration.

The Amicable Adjustment of Disputes. A cause of difference between two sovereign states may arise, (a) as a consequence of friction in the relations of the states themselves

' III Phillimore, pp. 1, 2; II Ferguson, p. 220; Walker, Manual, p. 93.

as bodies corporate, or (b) as a consequence of injuries alleged to have been sustained by a citizen of the one from the government of the other. In the latter case it is a rule observed by all states that the citizen or subject who prefers the complaint will be required to show, to the satisfaction of the Foreign Office of the state to which such complaint is presented, that he has resorted to, and exhausted, all local means of redress provided by the state by whom the injury is alleged to have been inflicted, before bringing the matter to the attention of his own government.'

Procedure. Whenever a state has occasion to complain of the action of another towards itself or towards one of its subjects, a statement of the particular act complained of is prepared in the Foreign Office of the offended state. This statement is based upon all the ascertainable facts of the case, which should be so carefully sifted and verified, by those charged with their investigation, as to make it impossible to question their substantial accuracy. This is necessary because it is impossible, in international affairs, to produce evidence in the ordinary legal acceptation of the term. The facts thus ascertained and verified are next examined with a view to ascertaining whether they do, or do not, constitute a violation of international law. If they do a statement of the case is prepared and a formal demand for redress is submitted, through the proper diplomatic channels, to the government by whom the injury was committed. In support of this case reference is made to the works of standard text-writers, to the provisions of treaties, if the case be covered by them, and to precedents in international intercourse, especially to those established by the offending state in its international relations. In conclusion, such explanation, disavowal, or reparation is demanded as is warranted by the circumstances of the case.'

If that government be clearly in the wrong it acknowledges its error, or disavows the act of its subordinate officials; and offers reparation, accompanied by such explanation and apology as the occasion seems to demand. In cases where such a remedy is suitable, money indemnities are agreed upon and paid to injured parties.' It rarely happens, however, that either state, in a particular controversy, is either entirely right, or entirely wrong; and the same facts are, in general, differently regarded by each of two interested states. This leads to controversial discussion, each state advancing arguments and citing authorities in support of that view of the

II De Martens, § 251; Creasy, First Platform, §§ 322-372; III Phillimore, pp. 1-17; Vattel, liv. ii. ch. xviii. §§ 323-326; II Ferguson, § 158; II Dig. Int. Law, §§ 213-222.

2

See, in this connection, the discussion of the right of a state to protect its citizens abroad, pp. 95– 98.