500.A4a/41a
The Assistant Secretary of State (Dearing)47 to Senator Medill McCormick
Dear Senator McCormick: In reply to your telephone conversation of the 11th when you requested copies of any treaties analogous to the Four Power Treaty with regard (a) to provisions mutually to respect rights in relation to insular territories and (b) to provisions to arbitrate or meet in conference, I beg to say that nations have occasionally concluded treaties which are essentially different from treaties of alliance, which Oppenheim describes as follows:
“Different from real Guarantee Treaties are such treaties as declare the policy of the parties with regard to the maintenance of their territorial statics quo. Whereas treaties guaranteeing the maintenance of the territorial status quo engage the guarantors to do what they can to maintain such status quo, treaties declaring the policy of the parties with regard to the maintenance of their territorial status quo do not contain any legal engagements, but simply state the firm resolution of the parties to uphold the status quo. In contradistinction to real guarantee treaties, such treaties declaring the policy of the parties may fitly be called Pseudo-Guarantee Treaties, and although their political value is very great, they have scarcely any legal importance. For the parties do not bind themselves to pursue a policy for maintaining the status quo, they only declare their firm resolution to that end. Further, the parties do not engage themselves to uphold the status quo, but only to communicate with one another, in case the status quo is threatened, with a view to agreeing upon such measures as they may consider advisable for the maintenance of the status quo.” (International Law, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 602–603).
The following, of which copies are attached,48 are examples of agreements or understandings of this character:
- (1)
- The Declarations exchanged on May 16, 1907, between, on the one hand, France and Spain and, on the other hand, Great Britain and Spain concerning the status quo in the Mediterranean;
- (2)
- The Declarations concerning the maintenance of the territorial status quo in the North Sea, signed at Berlin on April 23, 1908, by Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, France, Holland and Sweden;
- (3)
- The Declarations concerning the maintenance of the territorial status quo in the Baltic, signed at St. Petersburg on April 23, 1908, by Germany, Denmark, Russia and Sweden.
The Root-Takahira Agreement49 contains among its provisions the following:
“They are accordingly firmly resolved reciprocally to respect the territorial possessions belonging to each other in said region.”
and
“Should any event occur threatening the status quo as above described or the principle of equal opportunity as above defined, it remains for the two Governments to communicate with each other in order to arrive at an understanding as to what measures they may consider it useful to take.”
A question arising in the Pacific with regard to the Samoan Islands was dealt with in an agreement concluded at Berlin June 14, 1889, by the United States, Great Britain and Germany.50 The purpose of the agreement was to provide for the security of life and property of the nationals of the Contracting Powers in the Islands of Samoa and to establish orderly Government in the Islands. The agreement contained a declaration respecting the independence and neutralization of the Islands. This agreement was annulled by a treaty concluded December 2, 1899, between the United States, Great Britain and Germany51 which divided the Islands between the United States and Germany, Great Britain accepting in compensation from Germany other Islands in the South Pacific. The agreement was concluded with a view to settling very acute dissensions between the three Powers with respect to the rights of their nationals in Samoa.
The arbitration or mediation treaties to which the Government of the United States is a party can be briefly described. In 1908, arbitration treaties were concluded with several nations. A copy of a typical form of these treaties is attached.52 These agreements obligate the Contracting Parties to arbitrate differences of a legal nature or relating to the interpretation of treaties which it may not be possible to settle by diplomacy; provided that they do not affect the vital interests, the independence or the honor of the two Contracting States and do not concern the interests of third parties.
The United States is a signatory to the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed at The Hague October 18, 1907.53 Pursuant to the provisions of this treaty the United States has submitted a number of agreements to the court at The Hague.
[Page 53]Treaties for the advancement of peace which differ considerably from arbitration treaties were concluded by the United States with several countries in 1914. A copy of one of these treaties is attached.54
These treaties obligate the Contracting Parties to refer all disputes between them, other than those the settlement of which is provided for under existing agreements, for investigation and report to an international commission, and the Contracting Parties are required not to declare war or begin hostilities during such investigation and before a report is submitted. The report is not binding on the Contracting Parties as an arbitral decision.
I trust that this information meets your wishes and beg you to believe me,
Yours very sincerely,
- Appointed Minister to Portugal Feb. 10, 1922, but continued his duties in the Department for several weeks before proceeding to his post.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1908, p. 510.↩
- Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. ii, p. 1576.↩
- Ibid., p. 1595.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. ii, p. 2220.↩
- Not printed.↩