Are treaties binding, and when may they be broken?

Translation: quotations from Emer de Vattel are quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852), not his original words.

OCR: 10 cited passage(s) are machine-read (OCR) text of old printings; quotations reproduce the stored OCR text, misreadings included.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that treaties are binding and that their violation is disgraceful. He argued that the faith of treaties does not depend on the difference of religion and that an evidently false interpretation is inconsistent with the faith of treaties. "violation of, disgraceful, ib. faith of treaties docs not depend on the difference of religion, 233. ... an evidently false interpretation incon- sistent with faith of treaties, ib." [1]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that treaties of peace are binding and must be faithfully observed. He argued that a treaty of peace is broken when there is conduct contrary to its nature, by taking up arms for a fresh cause, by a subsequent alliance with an enemy, or by violating any article of the treaty. He also stated that the violation of a single article breaks the whole treaty. (key quote above) [2]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that treaties are binding and may be broken only when the injured party determines to demand just indemnification and the party in fault refuses it, thereby making the treaty necessarily broken and giving the injured party a just cause for taking up arms again. "If he determines on demanding a just indemnification, and the party in fault refuses it, then the treaty is necessarily broken, and the injured party has a very just cause for taking up arms again." [3]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that treaties are binding until their term expires or their purpose is fulfilled, and may be dissolved when their objective is achieved or becomes impracticable. [4]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that treaties of peace are strongly binding on the whole nation and on successors of the sovereign who signed them. He argued that such treaties are obligatory because they concern the public good and bind the state itself. He also stated that treaties of peace cannot be broken by claiming they were extorted by fear or force, as such a plea would undermine the foundation of treaties. [5]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that treaties are binding and that their violation constitutes an act of injustice. He also held that treaties made for unjust or dishonest purposes, or if injurious to a state, are nullities. "violation of, an act of injustice, ib. cannot be made contrary to those previously existing, ib." [6]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that treaties are binding and that the oath accompanying a treaty does not create a new obligation but adds force to the existing one. He argued that where the treaty is valid and obligatory, the oath is also valid, but where the treaty is void, the oath is void as well. "The oath does not then produce a new obligation : it only gives additional force to the obligation imposed by the treaty, and in every thing shares the same fate with it." [7]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that treaties are binding and that a party may break a treaty if the other party violates the terms that constitute the basis of the treaty. He argued that the injured party has the right to either compel the other to fulfill their obligations or declare the treaty dissolved due to its violation. [8]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that treaties are binding and must be faithfully observed. He argued that a breach of treaty may occur in three ways, including by violating any article, and that a violation of a single article breaks the whole treaty. He also stated that the plea of fear or force does not dispense with the observance of treaties. "binds the nation and successors, ib.

to be faithfully observed, ib.

plea of fear or force does not dispense with its observance, ib.

breach of what, 446.

ways in which it may be broken, ib.

maybe violated in three ways, 446 to 450." [9]

• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that treaties are binding as reciprocal promises unless a formal exception is made. He argued that the violation of any one article may cancel the whole treaty, but sometimes a clause is inserted to prevent this in the case of slight offences. "Every thing, therefore, which is comprehended in the same treaty, is of the same force and nature as a reciprocal promise, unless where a formal exception is made to the contrary." [10]

What cuts against it

• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that treaties may be broken by conduct contrary to their nature, such as taking up arms for a fresh cause or by a subsequent alliance with an enemy. [2]

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. Emer de Vattel stated that treaties are binding on the whole nation and successors of the sovereign who signed them, as they concern the public good and bind the state itself [5].

2. He argued that treaties cannot be broken by claiming they were extorted by fear or force, as such a plea would undermine the foundation of treaties [5].

3. Emer de Vattel believed that treaties may be broken when the other party violates the terms that constitute the basis of the treaty, giving the injured party the right to either compel the other to fulfill their obligations or declare the treaty dissolved [8].

4. He also stated that a breach of treaty may occur in three ways, including by violating any article, and that a violation of a single article breaks the whole treaty [9].

5. Emer de Vattel acknowledged that treaties may be dissolved when their objective is achieved or becomes impracticable [4].

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: DIRECT

Extrapolation: Emer de Vattel believed that treaties are binding and must be faithfully observed. He argued that treaties may be broken under specific circumstances, such as when the other party violates the terms, when the injured party determines to demand just indemnification and the party in fault refuses it, or when the objective of the treaty is achieved or becomes impracticable.

Competing readings: The record supports multiple readings, including the idea that treaties may be broken under specific circumstances, such as when the other party violates the terms or when the injured party determines to demand just indemnification and the party in fault refuses it.

Confidence: High, as the record directly addresses the binding nature of treaties and the circumstances under which they may be broken.