under the "most favored nation clause" are in the nature of reciprocal concessions, as in fixing of taxes, rights of citizens, etc., other states can only claim such privileges under a "most favored nation clause" through the grant of similar concessions.24

A "most favored nation clause" of a general nature appears in the treaty between the United States and Japan of November 22, 1894, by which nationals of the respective states "shall not be compelled, under any pretext whatsoever, to pay any charges or taxes other or higher than those that are, or may be, paid by native citizens or subjects, or citizens or subjects of the most favored nation." 25

TREATIES OF GUARANTY.

77. Treaties of guaranty are agreements through which one or more powers engage to maintain given conditions or rights.

Treaties of guaranty were particularly common in the nineteenth century. These treaties cover a wide range of subjects, such as the maintenance of neutrality, the maintenance of a particular form of government or a certain status quo, or the performance of a certain act.

The Act of Acknowledgment and Guaranty of the Perpetual Neutrality of Switzerland, and of the Inviolability of Its Territory, Paris, November 20, 1815, states that: "The powers who signed the declaration of the 20th March acknowledge, in the most formal manner, by the present act, that the neutrality and inviolability of Switzerland, and her independence of all foreign influence, enter into the true interests of the policy of

24 This point was fully discussed in the controversy over the interpretation of the treaty of 1803 between the United States and France. France claimed all the privileges granted to any nation, whether or not in exchange for special concessions. The United States contended that "a most favored nation clause' cannot be understood to mean that France should enjoy as a free gift that which is ceded to other nations for a full equivalent." 5 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, 152, ff. Herod, Favored Nation Treatment, cc. 3, 10.

25 Article I.

the whole of Europe." By a declaration of April 6, 1886, Great Britain and the German Empire gave mutual guaranty to respect their spheres of influence in the Western Pacific. The agreement between Great Britain and Japan, signed at London, August 12, 1905, has for its object:

"(a) The consolidation and maintenance of the general peace in the regions of Eastern Asia and of India.

"(b) The preservation of the common interests of all powers in China, by insuring the independence and integrity of the Chinese Empire and the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations in China.

"(c) The maintenance of the territorial rights of the high contracting parties in the regions of Eastern Asia and of India, and the defense of their special interests in the said regions."

These two states propose to secure these objects as follows: "Article I. It is agreed that whenever in the opinion of either Great Britian or Japan any of the rights and interests referred to in the preamble of this agreement are in jeopardy, the two governments will communicate with one another fully and frankly and will consider in common the measures which should be taken to safeguard those menaced rights or interests.

"Art. II. If by reason of unprovoked attack or aggressive action, wherever arising, on the part of any other power or powers either contracting party should be involved in war in defense of its territorial rights or special interests mentioned in the preamble of this agreement, the other contracting party will at once come to the assistance of its ally and will conduct the war in common and make peace in mutual agreement with it."

A treaty of November 7, 1907, respecting the independence and territorial integrity of Norway, provides:

"Article 2. The German, French, British, and Russian governments recognize and undertake to respect the integrity of Norway.

"If the integrity of Norway is threatened or impaired by any power whatsoever, the German, French, British, and Russian governments undertake, on the receipt of a previous communication to this effect from the Norwegian government, to

afford to that government their support, by such means as may be deemed the most appropriate, with a view to safeguarding the integrity of Norway."

OPERATION OF A TREATY.

78. A treaty, if ratified, is binding

(a) Upon the states parties to it,

(b) In general, from the date of a signing, and

(c) Usually, regardless of changes in the form of government.

(a) A treaty is essentially an agreement to which states are parties. Two states cannot properly make a treaty which will deprive a third state of its rights, though many treaties do affect the relations of third states. A treaty is not in itself binding upon the nationals of a state or upon its local officials, but must in general be made thus operative by municipal law. The Constitution of the United States provides that, in addition to the Constitution and laws in accord therewith, "all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." 26 The Supreme Court has said "that 'a treaty may supersede a prior act of Congress, and an act of Congress supersede a prior treaty,' is elementary." 27 Thus in the United States a treaty

26 Const. U. S. art. 6, § 2.

27 Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U. S. 511, 16 Sup. Ct. 1076, 41 L. Ed. 244.

"The second section of the sixth article of the Constitution is: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.' There is nothing in the language of this clause which enables us to say that in the case supposed the treaty, and not the act of Congress, is to afford the rule. Ordinarily treaties are not rules prescribed by sovereigns for the conduct of their subjects, but contracts by which they agree to regulate their own conduct. This provision of our Constitution has made treaties part of our municipal law; but it has not assigned to them any particular degree of authority in our municipal law, nor declared whether laws so enacted shall or shall not be paramount to laws otherwise enacted. No such declaration is made, even in respect to the Constitution itself. It is named in conjunction with treaties and acts of Congress as one

is by the fundamental law rendered operative to the same extent as an act of Congress, and in case of conflict would be interpreted in accord with the same principles as apply in cases of conflict in acts of Congress.

(b) A modern treaty usually contains an article specifying the date upon which it will become operative, and as between the states parties to it is, in absence of such specification, operative from the date of signing. The treaty concluded between the United States and Japan, November 22, 1894, contained the following: "This treaty shall go into operation on the 17th day of July, 1899." 28 Nationals of a state cannot in general be held to be bound by a treaty till it is made known by proclamation.

(c) The change in the form of government, as from one party to another, by the death of a sovereign, from a monarchy to a republic, is not considered as operating to terminate or modify the provisions of a treaty, unless the treaty is made

of the supreme laws, but no supremacy is in terms assigned to one over the other; and when it became necessary to determine whether an act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution could be deemed by the judicial power an operative law, the solution of the question was found by considering the nature and objects of each species of law, the authority from which it emanated, and the consequences of allowing or denying the paramount effect of the Constitution. It is only by a similar course of inquiry that we can determine the question now under consideration.

"In commencing this inquiry I think it material to observe that it is solely a question of municipal as distinguished from public law. The foreign sovereign between whom and the United States a treaty has been made has a right to expect and require its stipulations to be kept with scrupulous good faith; but through what internal arrangements this shall be done is exclusively for the consideration of the United States. Whether the treaty shall itself be the rule of action of the people as well as the government, whether the power to enforce and apply it shall reside in one department or another, neither the treaty itself nor any implication drawn from it gives him any right to inquire. If the people of the United States were to repeal so much of their Constitution as makes treaties part of their municipal law, no foreign sovereign with whom a treaty exists could justly complain, for it is not a matter with which he has any concern." 2 Curtis' U. S. Circuit Court Decis. 454.

28 Article 19.

with reference to such a contingency. The state is regarded as a permanent entity, the organs of which may change, without modifying the relationships of states to one another.

TERMINATION OF TREATIES.

79. A treaty may expire in accord with the terms of the treaty agreement, or may be dissolved, may become void or voidable, or may be annulled.

While the terms of treaties or conventions may cease to be binding in many ways and for different causes, treaties or conventions most often expire in accord with the terms under which they are concluded. Many treaties are concluded for the performance of a specific object or to maintain a certain status for a definite time. Less formal agreements than treaties or conventions are often temporary in nature, and are regarded as at an end if there is not ample evidence that they are still binding. A common provision in modern treaties is that the treaty "shall remain in force until the expiration of one year from the day on which either of the contracting parties shall give notice of its intention to terminate the treaty." A convention for the payment of a certain sum of money, for the cession of a certain territory, or for similar purposes, would ordinarily come to an end by the fulfillment of its stipulations. In the treaty between Great Britain and the United States of November 19, 1794: "It is agreed that the first ten articles of this treaty shall be permanent, and that the subsequent articles, except the twelfth, shall be limited in their duration to twelve years." The date of the exchange of ratifications was fixed as the time when this treaty should become operative. Ratifications were exchanged October 28, 1795, and articles XI to XXVII, mainly relating to commercial relations, expired by their own limitation October 28, 1807.29

29 "Article XXVII. It is agreed that the first ten articles of this treaty shall be permanent, and that the subsequent articles, except the twelfth, shall be limited in their duration to twelve years, to be computed from the day on which the ratifications of this treaty shall be exchanged, but subject to this condition: That whereas the said twelfth article will expire, by the limitation therein contained, WILS. INT.L.-14