§ 602. Echange de Notes en vue de proroger sine die le Modus vivendi commercial existant entre le France et l'Espagne.

(Traducción.)

El Excmo. Sr. Embajador Extraordinario y Plenipotenciario de la República Francesa, al Excmo. Sr. Ministro de Estado.

Madrid, 29 de Noviembre de 1906.

Sr. Ministro: En las conferencias que hemos celebrado estos últimos días hemos reconocido la conveniencia de prorrogar sine die el modus vivendi que rige las relaciones comerciales entre España y Francia.

Tengo el honor de participarle que estoy autorizado por el Gobierno de la República para concertar con V. E. la continuación sine die entre los dos Países del régimen comercial actual, basado en la concesión de la tarifa de Aduana la más reducida. Queda entendido que ambas Naciones gozarán de todas las ventajas que desde esta fecha cada una de ellas pudiera conceder à una tercera Potencia. Queda igualmente convenido que en el caso que una de las Partes denunciara el presente acuerdo, no expirará éste sino tres meses después de su denuncia.1

[Signature.]

The reply simply reproduces the language of the Ambassador's Note.

§ 603. Notes exchanged between Great Britain and France for the renewal of the Modus vivendi in Newfoundland during the Fishery Season of 1892.

M. L'AMBASSADEUR,

Foreign Office, April 4, 1892.

In pursuance of verbal communications which have passed between Your Excellency and me, I have the honour to propose that the modus vivendi of 1890,2 relative to the

1 Nouveau Recueil Général, etc., 3ème série, vi. 292, reprinted from Olivart, Tratados de España, 1906, No. 27.

2 The formal part of this negotiation began with a note from Lord Salisbury of March 10, 1890, to M. Waddington, referring to previous verbal communications which had taken place, enclosing the draft of a document styled “a modus vivendi,” and asking to be informed whether H. E. was authorized to assent to

catching and preparation of lobsters, which was renewed purely and simply for the fishing season of last year, should again be renewed for the fishery season of the present year.

I should esteem it a favour if Y. E. would notify to me the consent of your Government to this arrangement, if accepted by them, in which case H. M. G. will consider the exchange of notes as an agreement between the two Governments, and will give the necessary directions to carry it into execution on behalf of Great Britain.

I have, etc.

[Signature.]

M. LE MARQUIS,

Londres, le 4 avril, 1892.

J'ai reçu la lettre en date de ce jour par laquelle Votre Seigneurie veut bien me proposer de renouveler purement et simplement pour l'année 1892, ainsi que cela a été fait l'année dernière, le modus vivendi de 1890 relatif à la pêche et à la préparation du homard à Terre-Neuve.

Je m'empresse de faire savoir à V. S. que mon Gouvernement consente au renouvellement de cette Convention, et j'accepte en son nom de considérer le présent échange de notes comme une constatation officielle de l'accord des deux Gouvernements à ce sujet.

Veuillez, etc.1

[Signature.]

§ 604. In vol. xc. of the British and Foreign State Papers, p. 10, is a series of Notes exchanged between the Belgian minister for Foreign Affairs and the British Diplomatic Representative at Brussels establishing a provisional modus vivendi pending the conclusion of a treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the two countries, and for the extension of the arrangement to various British Colonies and Possessions.

it on behalf of the Government of the French Republic. To this note M. Waddington replied on the following day, accepting the proposed draft in the name of his government (Brit. and For. State Papers, lxxxii. 993). On March 11, 1891, an Agreement was signed between the two Powers for the submission to arbitration of all the questions of principle concerning the catching and preparation of lobsters on a certain portion of the coasts of Newfoundland. And by Art. 3 of this Agreement the modus vivendi of 1890 was renewed for the fishery season of 1891 (Brit. and For. State Papers, lxxxiii. 415).

1 Brit. and For. State Papers, lxxxiv. 61.

§ 605. In February 1892 a treaty (styled Convention in the preamble) was concluded between Great Britain and the United States for the purpose of submitting to arbitration questions which had arisen between the two governments concerning the jurisdictional rights of the United States in the waters of Behring Sea, the preservation of the fur-seals resorting to the said Sea, and the rights of the subjects and citizens of either country as regards the taking of fur-seals in, or habitually resorting to those waters. This was followed in April by a convention respecting restrictive regulations necessary "during the pendency" of such arbitration, which, though the words modus vivendi do not occur in the document, was clearly of that character. In accordance with the constitutional requirements of the United States it was necessary for this convention to be ratified by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and on behalf of Great Britain it was stipulated that it should be ratified by His Britannic Majesty. The ratifications of both the Arbitration Treaty and the Modus Vivendi were exchanged on May 7.

1 Brit. and For. State Papers, lxxxiv. 48 and 62.

CHAPTER XXXI

TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL COMPACTS (contd.) RATIFICATION, ADHESION AND ACCESSION

RATIFICATION: § 606. Ratification, what it is-§607. British form-§ 608. Russian form-§ 609. German form-§ 610. French form-§ 611. United States form-§ 612. A form to be used between Governments."

ADHESION AND ACCESSION: § 613. General observations-§ 614. Distinction between the two-§ 615. British Accession to Geneva Convention of 1864-§ 616. Turkish Accession to Treaty for Union of the Ionian Islands to Greece -§ 617. British Accession to Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property-§ 618. British Accession to Convention prohibiting use of white phosphorus.

RATIFICATION

§ 606. Ratification is a solemn act on the part of a Sovereign or by the President of a Republic, by which he declares that a treaty, convention or other international compact has been submitted to him, and that after examining it he has given his approval thereto, and undertakes its complete and faithful observance. The whole text of the treaty, etc., should be reproduced in the instrument, which is signed by him and sealed with the Great Seal, and is countersigned by the minister for Foreign Affairs. This document is exchanged for a similar one given by the other party to the treaty, and the fact of the exchange having been effected is then recorded in a protocol or in a procès-verbal. In some countries the exhibition of special full-powers by the officials who make the exchange is insisted on, but as a general rule this is not held to be necessary, the production of the instruments of ratification by a minister for Foreign

Affairs or by an accredited diplomatic representative of the other high contracting party being sufficient evidence that the official who tenders it is duly authorized to proceed to the exchange.

In the case of multinational treaties where there are more than two high contracting parties, and each signatory Power has received a counterpart, it exchanges a separate instrument of ratification with each of the other parties. But where only one original text has been signed by all the plenipotentiaries, and deposited in the archives of the State where it was signed, the other contracting parties send their instruments of ratification to the government of that State, which then delivers an acte d'acceptation" and sends to each of the remaining contracting parties a copy of the whole record.

What circumstances may justify a State in declining to ratify a treaty to which it has become a party is not a question of international law, although writers on that subject discuss it. It is rather one of morals and policy. Where, as in the United States, it is the President under whose direction the Secretary of State concludes and signs a treaty, but ratification is dependent on the advice and approval of the Senate, the refusal to ratify is sometimes consequent on other than the ordinarily recognized motives. In such a case the ratifying power sometimes adds new proposals, which transform the instrument into a new treaty. The other party is justified in refusing to accept the new conditions, or may accept them. This happened in connection with the treaty of 1794 between Great Britain and the United States. The Senate proposed an Additional Article, which was accepted by the British Government.1 But in 1807 the United States returned the treaty signed in London on December 31, 1806, unratified, and proposed alterations thereto. Canning, who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, protested against “a practice 1 Brit. and For. State Papers, i. 803.

VOL. II.

T