Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

agreement with Spain, reached by exchange of notes June 29, 1892, extending on the part of the Italian government to Spanish products the advantages of the conventional tariff contained in the treaties with AustriaHungary, Germany and Switzerland, and on the part of the Spanish government, to Italian products the minimum tariff, was authorized by the special law of June 28, the day preceding the exchange of notes. The reciprocity convention with the United States, signed February 8, 1900, expressly provided that it should be approved by the Italian Parliament. Approval was given by the law of July 12; and the agreement became effective July 18. In the United States it was made effective by executive proclamation by virtue of section 3 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897.”

The class of commercial treaties submitted to the chambers for approval does not include purely consular conventions. Thus on September 28, 1896, separate treaties were signed with Tunis through the government of France, one relative to commercial intercourse, and another defining the duties and privileges of consuls. The former was approved by the law of January 28, 1897, while the latter was ratified and put into force by by a royal decree.3 Extradition conventions are likewise not submitted to Parliament for approval.

The important modification of territorial limits stipulated for in the treaty of Turin of March 24, 1860– the cession to France of Nice and Savoy-received the approval of the Italian Parliament. Of the various boundary agreements with Switzerland, the less import

"Brit, and For. State Papers, vol. Ixxxiv, p. 1318.
* Trattati e Convenzioni, vol. xvi, p. 162.
* Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 314, 337.

* See Art. VII.

ant ones have been made and ratified on executive authority. The limitation has also not been construed as applying to changes of colonial boundaries or to the acquisition or relinquishment of protectorate influences. Of these may be noted the treaties of May 2, 1889, and October 26, 1896, with the king of Abyssinia. By the former favorable boundaries and a protectorate influence were acquired,' by the latter, yielded.'

Laws were passed for the execution of the postalunion conventions signed at Vienna, July 4, 1891, and at Washington, June 15, 1897.3 The act additional to the Paris convention of March 20, 1883, for the protection of industrial property, signed at Brussels, December 14, 1900; and the act additional to the Madrid agreement of April 14, 1891, signed at Brussels, December 14, 1900, were both approved by laws of December 12, 1901, prior to the exchange of ratifications, June 14, 1902. Special conventions upon these subjects, which do not for their execution require a modification of the existing laws, require no action on the part of Parliament. The telegraphic convention signed at Budapest, July 22, 1896, was ratified and promulgated by decree without special legislative approval.“

The convention signed, March 18, 1885, with the leading powers of Europe guaranteeing an Egyptian loan,

"Art. XVII. * Hertslet's Map of Africa by Treaty, p. 12. Brit. and For. Slate Papers, vol. lxxxviii, p. 481. Trattati e Convenzioni, vol. xiv, p. 356. Leggi, etc., 1892, p. 1805. Trattati e Convenzioni, vol. xv. p. 128. Ibid., vol. xvi, p. 204. • The special postal agreements signed July 11, 1896, with Great Britain; Mar. 23, 1898, with Tunis; Apr. 26, 1898, with Costa Rica, and Oct. 18, 1898, with Montenegro, were not approved by Parliament. Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 172; vol. xv, pp. 386, 390, 430. Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 269.

while not specifically stipulating for a payment of money, involved a possible pecuniary obligation. The consent of Parliament was given by a law of November 25, 1886, which authorized the King to give effect to the convention in conjunction with the other contracting powers in so far as there might arise eventually any charges upon the treasury.' The claims convention signed with Chile, December 7, 1882, providing for the settlement of claims of Italian subjects against the Chilian government, did not require legislative sanction.”

There remains within the competency of the King the conclusion of all the so-called political conventions. Of these, especially to be noted are the treaties of alliance. While the clause requiring the concurrence of Parliament in treaties involving financial obligations has received so comprehensive a construction, the King through his power to conclude treaties of alliance may incur the most onerous obligations of that character. It would be impossible to find in the list of treaties four others that have entailed greater financial burdens than the alliances entered into in 1855 against Russia, in 1858 with France against Austria, in 1866 with Prussia against Austria, and in 1882 with Germany and Austria—the Triple Alliance. The expense of a war was an immediate consequence of each of the first three, and a burden hardly less great has resulted from the fourth.

GERMANY Article XI of the constitution of 1871 provides that the Emperor has the power to represent the Empire internationally, to enter into alliances and other treaties with foreign powers; but so far as treaties with foreign

· Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. lxxvii, p. 817. * Trattati e Convenzioni, vol. ix, p. 76.

countries refer to matters which, according to Article IV, belong in the field of imperial legislation, for their conclusion the consent of the Bundesrath is necessary, and for their validity the approval of the Reichstag.'

The Bundesrath, or Federal Council, as organized in the constitution, consists of 58 members apportioned among the states somewhat arbitrarily, and appointed by the several state executives. The members of the Reichstag are apportioned according to population, and are elected by direct vote of the people.

In a study of the formation of the constitution of the North German Union, which, with the alterations made necessary by the establishment of the German Empire in 1871, serves as the present constitution, the proceedings of two separate bodies are to be considered the convention of delegates from the several state executives, and the convention of representatives of the peoplewhich assembled at Berlin in 1866–7. The former drew up a plan of a constitution which, after having been amended in numerous particulars by the convention of the people, was adopted and submitted to the several states for ratification.3 The original Prussian project

1"Der Kaiser hat das Reich völkerrechtlich zu vertreten, im Namen des Reichs Krieg zu erklären und Frieden zu schliessen, Bündnisse und andere Verträge mit fremden Staaten einzugehen, Gesandte zu beglaubigen und zu empfangen. * Insoweit die Verträge mit fremden Staaten sich auf solche Gegenstände beziehen, welche nach Art. 4 in den Bereich der Reichsgesetzgebung gehören, ist zu ihrem Abschluss die Zustimmung des Bundesrathes und zu ihrer Gültigkeit die Genehmigung des Reichstages erforderlich.” Reichsverfassung, Art. XI. English translation, Larned, History for Ready Reference, vol. i, p. 549.

*Of the 58, Prussia has 17, Bavaria 6, Saxony 4, Wurtemberg 4, Baden 3, Hesse 3, Mecklenburg-Schwerin 2, Brunswick 2, and the others I each. Art. VI.

'Burgess, vol. I, p. 116.

considered the right to conclude treaties a prerogative of the President of the Union, subject to the qualification that treaties of commerce and navigation should be submitted to the Bundesrath for approval. The representatives of the states in their deliberations so modified the provision as to require the consent of the Bundesrath to the conclusion of all treaties touching upon matters in the field of legislation. To this the representatives of the people added, without entering into any explanation, the further condition that for their validity the approbation of the Reichstag should be necessary.'

The question has been much mooted by German writers whether the action of the Reichstag is essential to the validity of the treaty as an international compact, or is only requisite in the execution of the treaty so far as it relates to matters which can be regulated only by legislation. Of the advocates of the latter view is the eminent jurist Laband. However this may be, the usual procedure is to withhold the ratification of such treaties until the Bundesrath and the Reichstag have both acted upon them.3 Enumerated in Article IV as under the imperial superintendence and legislation are the protection of literary and industrial property, commerce, customs duties, citizenship, and postal, telegraphic and

Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reichs (1901 ed.), vol. ii, p. 125. Meier, Abschluss von Staatsverträgen, p. 268.

*Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reichs, vol. ii, p. 136. See Meiere. p. 275. Von Mohl, Das deutsche Reichsstaatsrecht, p. 303. Von Rönne, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reichs, p. 298.

* Laband, vol. ii, p. 130. Meier, p. 284. Laband notes as exceptions the treaties of Dec. 16, 1878, with Austria, and of July 12, 1883, and Dec. 30, 1893, with Spain, which touched upon matters regulated by legislation, and which were ratified by the Emperor before they had been acted upon by the Reichstag. Vol. ii, p. 136.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »