INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PEACE S9 



to a government department of the enemy state, if the circumstances show that the goods 

 cannot in fact be used for the purposes of the war, it is not liable to capture. 1 



Thus Russia and Turkey have adopted the rules of the Declaration of London relat- 

 ing to contraband, and Italy has applied it practically in full, although it has not yet 

 been ratified by any Power, 2 and this has been done without any question whatsoever 

 of the existence or non-existence of an International Prize Court. The obvious conclu- 

 sion is that its provisions are becoming an authoritative statement of international law 

 adjusted to the needs of civilised mankind, and, whether ratified or not, and whether an 

 International Prize Court ever comes into being or not, they seem destined to become, 

 like the Declaration of Paris, part of the public law of Europe and the world. 



//. Disregard of Treaties. 



The value of international treaties has been much discussed in connection with 

 Russia's action in Persia and Italy's attack on Turkey. As regards Persia, under the 

 Anglo-Russian agreement of August 31, 1907, the parties, having " mutually engaged 

 to respect the integrity and independence of Persia," entered into purely negative cove- 

 nants not to seek or promote concessions of a political or commercial character in zones 

 neighbouring each others' territories north and south of certain lines of demarcation, 

 with an intermediate zone open to both. The occupation of Tabriz and other Persian 

 towns by Russian troops, the hanging by Russian military authorities of the leaders of 

 the progressive party under martial law, 3 the imposing of the resignation of an American 

 Treasurer-General (Mr. Shuster) employed by the Persian Government, all were 

 cases of intervention in apparent violation of the agreement of 1007. 



The. Italian aggression against Turkey, of whose " independence and territorial 

 integrity"'* she was one of the guarantors, and the annexation of Tripolitana and 

 Cyrenaica, were similarly violations of her treaty engagements which may some day be 

 explained, but, nevertheless for the present remain ill-omened precedents. The 

 breaches were not confined to a violation of Turkey's territorial integrity. When Rus- 

 sia in 1871 proposed that, circumstances having changed since 1856, a modification in 

 certain of the provisions of the Treaty of Paris was necessary, the subject was submitted 

 to a fresh conference of the Powers, who thought the occasion a suitable one for recording 

 a solemn contractual pledge as to the sanctity of treaties. The protocol, which forms 

 part of the existing public law of Europe, runs as follows: 



It is an essential principle of the law of nations that no Power can liberate itself from the 

 engagements of a treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, vinless with the consent of the 

 contracting Powers, by means of an amicable arrangement. 



This was undoubtedly intended to prevent any party to the Treaty of Paris from 

 setting up the rule rebus sic stantibus, which is supposed to be a tacit condition attaching 

 to all treaties, enabling parties to them to escape from their provisions when the circum- 

 stances under which they were entered into have so changed as to render them obsolete 

 or incapable of application. Italy was a party to this protocol. Moreover, the Treaty 

 of Paris (Art. 8) provides that : 



If any difference arise between the Sublime Porte and one or more signatories threatening 

 the maintenance of their good relations, the Sublime Porte and any or each of these Powers, 

 before resorting to force, will place the other contracting parties in a position to prevent 

 recourse to such an extremity by their mediating influence. 



An official denial was given to the statement 5 that Italy had given an opportunity to 



1 Barclay, Turco-Italian war (1912), p. 99. , : 



2 See Barclay, op. cit. p. 99. 



* See Prof. E. G. Browne, The Reign of Terror at Tabriz (Oct. 1912). 



4 Art. 7 of the Treaty of Paris of 1856 provides that: Their majesties undertake, each for 

 himself, to respect the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, to 

 guarantee in common the strict observance of this undertaking, and consequently they will 

 consider any act of a nature which might infringe it as a question of general interest. 



5 On November 3d, in reply to a question, Sir. E. Grey^said: "The first communication of 

 any intention to seize Tripoli which H.M. Government received was the notification of the 

 declaration of war on September 3Oth." See Barclay, op. cit. p. 37. 



