treaty, and one of its tacit conditions no longer exists. A particular treaty is entered into by two states having in mind. the continued existence of a particular form of government, the continuance of friendly relations; the existence, or absence of emigration, or the like. In this case as a particular state of affairs has changed or ceased to exist, the obligatory character of the instrument undergoes a corresponding change. The same case arises when one of the contracting parties ceases to exist as an independent state, or where the internal constitution of either state is so changed as to render the treaty inapplicable under circumstances different from those in view of which it was concluded.'

When the absorption of one state in the corporate existence of another results from treaty stipulations, the obligations of the state which ceases to exist are, as a rule, provided for in the treaty of cession; and pass, with its territories, to the state which has acquired them. When territory is lost as a result of conquest, the rule as to the passing of obligations is not uniform; in some instances debts have been assumed by the conqueror; in others, however, they have been repudiated; the amount of the debt being regarded as in the nature of an indirect contribution, levied by the conqueror upon the vanquished belligerent party.

from any cause whatever, it loses its national quality, or that of a political and independent society. Thus when a state is destroyed and the people are dispersed, or when they are subdued by a conqueror, all their alliances and treaties fall to the ground with the public power that contracted them."-Vattel, liv. ii. chap. xiii. §§ 203, 204. The rule respecting the passing of obligations, where territory is lost by conquest, in the extreme form in which it is stated by Vattel (liv. ii. chap. xiii. § 203), may, perhaps, be accepted as the rule of international law applicable to the case, subject, however, to the qualification above stated, that the failure of a conqueror

8. Where the stipulations of the treaty limit the period of its operation to a definite period of time, or to a fixed date. In this case, however, the agreement is said to be renewed if the parties avail themselves of its provisions subsequent to the date fixed for its expiration, such action constituting a tacit renewal of the treaty.' The treaties of 1785 and 1789 between the United States and Prussia; that of 1816 with Sweden; and that of 1824 with Colombia were terminated, in each case, at the expiration of a period of limitation prescribed in the treaty at the time of its negotiation.

Effect of War on Treaties. Treaties are suspended, and by some authorities are cancelled, by the occurrence of war between the contracting parties. They remain suspended during the period of the war, from the outbreak of hostilities until the negotiation of a treaty of peace, The least effect of war is to interrupt peaceful relations; it therefore suspends the operations of all treaties not permanent in character, or which do not contemplate a state of war. The belligerent states resume friendly relations by the execution of a treaty of peace, and that treaty should determine to what extent treaty relations between them shall be resumed.

The following treaties, however, are not suspended by the outbreak of war between the contracting parties:"

to recognize and assume, or otherwise provide for, the obligations of the conquered state, is, in substance, the levy of a contribution, or indemnity, to the extent of the obligation repudiated; their omission from the treaty constituting a tacit or indirect imposition of the contribution in question.

Bluntschli, §451; Klüber, § 164; Vattel, liv. ii. ch. xiii. §§ 198, 200; I Halleck, p. 243; II Pradier-Fodéré, § 1213j; II Dig. Int. Law, § 137a; Hall, 116; Pomeroy, § 289.

Bas vs. Tingey, 4 Dallas, 37; Sutton vs. Sutton, 1 R. & M. 663; I Halleck, p. 242; Riquelme, Der. Pub. Int. liv. i. tit. i. chap. xv.;

Hall, § 125; I Twiss, § 252; Woolsey, § 160; II Pradier - Fodéré, § 1215; Dana's Wheaton, § 275, note, p. 143. The termination of a treaty by war does not divest rights of property already vested under it. Treaties stipulating for a permanent arrangement of territorial and other national rights are at most suspended during war and revive at peace, unless they are waived by the parties, or new and repugnant stipulations are made.-Society, etc. vs. New Haven, 8 Wheaton, 464; Dana's Wheaton, § 275, note 143.

'I Halleck, p. 242; Dana's Wheaton, § 275, note 143; Heffter, § 141; Lawrence, Int. Law, 166.

(1.) Treaties of a permanent character, executed with full knowledge that war may occur, but given a permanent character by special stipulation.

(2.) Treaties entered into with a view of modifying or amending the rules of international law. Of this the Declaration of Paris, modifying the rules of maritime war, and the rules of war on land adopted by the peace conference at the Hague in 1899 are examples.

(3.) Treaties which contemplate the occurrence of war, and which come into effect only at the outbreak of hostilities. Such are treaties of alliance, or subsidy, or treaties regulating the operations of war, or defining contraband of war or guaranteeing the neutrality of a place, as a state, a city, or a ship-canal.

Classification of Treaties.

Treaties are susceptible of

classification, according to their subject-matter, into: (a.) Treaties, properly so-called.

(b.) Cartels.

(c.) Capitulations.

(d) Suspensions of arms, or truces..

Those of the first class, or treaties proper, are again subdivided into:

(a.) Transitory Agreements or Conventions. These are treaties the immediate execution of which is essential, and which are complete when the stipulated act has been performed; their effects only are permanent. Such are boundary conventions, treaties of cession, etc., corresponding to executed contracts at common law.

(b.) Permanent Treaties. These have continuing effect, and regulate the future relations and actions of the contracting parties. Treaties of friendship and commerce, of neutrality, extradition, and naturalization, and postal and customs conventions are examples of this class. These treaties may be of perpetual or limited duration. They may go into effect at a fixed date in the future, and may expire at a certain date, at the expiration of a certain period, or may be terminated at the will of either party, upon due notification. Their exist

ence may be terminated by war, or they may come into effect only during hostilities between the interested parties.

Cartels are agreements entered into in time of war, for the exchange of prisoners. They are made by the commandersin-chief of the belligerent forces, with the express or presumed consent of their governments. They may be transitory in character, or for the period of the war. In some European states this term is applied to an agreement entered into in time of peace for the extradition of deserters from the military service.

Capitulations are agreements entered into, in time of war, by the commanders of hostile fleets or armies, for the surrender of a fortified place or fleet, or of a defeated army. The proposition may originate with the commander of the place, fleet, or army, or may be in the nature of a demand made upon him by the opposite, or successful, party. Upon either of these, as a basis, the capitulation is drawn up, the terms being modified, and the conditions of surrender determined, by the relative strength and resources of the belligerent parties. Every general commanding a besieged place or separate army is presumed to have authority to enter into arrangements of this kind, though his power may be restricted in some way by the sovereign authority of his own state. In such an event his action would be subject to the approval of his government, and he should notify his opponent that such is the case.' Cartels and capitulations are drawn up in the same form as treaties. The latter are signed first by the successful party.

Objects of Treaties. The purpose or object of a treaty is, in most cases, sufficiently determined by its title. There are some, however, which require additional explanation. Treaties of Alliance. These are agreements undertaken

'II Halleck, p. 354; III Phillimore, § 112.

'Vattel, liv. iii. chap. xvi. §§ 261263; II Halleck, p. 348; III Phillimore, § 123.

'For a discussion of the duty of the commanding officer of a besieged place in the matter of surrender, see the chapter relating to the operations of war.

by two or more states with a view to secure concerted action for a certain purpose. They may be either temporary or permanent in character, and are entered into by states which are menaced by a common danger, or whose mutual interests are threatened. Alliances are created by treaty stipulations, and, however slight the concert of action may be, the resulting combination possesses some of the essential features of a league or confederation; the terms of the treaty of alliance determining the conditions of the union. Alliances may be equal or unequal, offensive or defensive, or both. Allied states may guarantee the continuance of a certain state of affairs in a third state, or in one of the states of the alliance. They are defensive when their object is to secure a common interest against aggression. Such alliances are conservative in character, and, by aggregating the influence and resources of a number, aim to secure respect for the sovereign rights of each of the component states. Offensive alliances are formed for the purpose of attacking a state, or league of states, either directly, or upon the occurrence of certain conditions. From their nature they are a constant menace to the peace of nations. The leagues organized to resist the schemes of Louis XIV. and Napoleon, though offensive in form, were really defensive in character, and tended to preserve the principle of balance of power. If alliances of this class be excepted, it will be found that the offensive combinations of which history has preserved the records, whatever may have been the real or assumed necessity of their organization, and however wisely they may have been administered, have rarely secured the prevalence of justice, or contributed to the advancement of any righteous cause.

Equal Alliances stipulate for the same or similar contributions of force or resources, or for a proportionate contribution based upon the resources of each ally. Unequal Alliances are those in which the contributions stipulated for are unequal in character or amount, or in which the allied powers enjoy dif ferent degrees of consideration or influence. Each party to a treaty of alliance is the sole judge as to when the case con