Source: http://www.allenzhertz.com/2012/03/13-treaty-obligation-from-reformation.html
Timestamp: 2015-12-01 07:25:26
Document Index: 632440345

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 13', 'art 13', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 8', 'arts 9', 'art 11', 'art 12', 'art 13']

Audi Alteram Partem: 13. Treaty Obligation from the Protestant Reformation to 1919: Part 13 Law Revolution at the Paris Peace Conference
13. Treaty Obligation from the Protestant Reformation to 1919: Part 13 Law Revolution at the Paris Peace Conference
The Part 1: Introduction discusses the thesis that before the First World War the moral and "natural law" principle that "agreements are to be kept" (pacta sunt servanda) was binding in honour alone. Part 2 reviews classical international law’s assessment of the treaty as a legal source. Part 3 shows that, before the First World War, treaties were not always accepted as an integral part of international law. Part 4 explains why treaties were then not seen as legally binding, and describes how international law governed treaties via pacta sunt servanda as a moral and "natural law" requirement. Part 5 illuminates the State’s moral personality with reference to both personification and treaties as “contracts of kings.” Honour is identified as one of the principal features of pre-1914 European civilization and international relations in Part 6. Part 7 portrays the “old diplomacy” as a milieu focusing on honour. Part 8 shows what kings, prime ministers, philosophers and lawyers had to say about treaties binding in honour. The honour of treaties as seen in Britain and the USA is the subject of Parts 9 and 10 respectively. Part 11 recalls that, before 1914, all treaties were a “gentlemen’s agreement” -- an expression which only made sense in public international law after 1919, i.e. as a specific exception to the new rule that treaties are normally binding in law. Part 12 treats the “new diplomacy” that arose during the First World War and discusses the rise of the legal paradigm. Finally, in this posting, Part 13 highlights the law-centered order inaugurated by the 1919 Paris Peace Settlement which created conditions supporting 20th-century discourse about treaties as legally binding. Honour replaced by law in 1919
As a fading theme, discourse about “honour” survived the Paris Peace Conference. For example, France’s honour was said to have been at stake in the June 1940 discussion about whether to abandon Great Britain and make a separate peace with Germany.[1] But, after 1919-20 “honour” was largely vestigial, because — as told to the German delegation at the Paris Peace Conference — “the old era is to be left behind and nations as well as individuals are to be brought beneath the reign of law.”[2] The Covenant of the League of Nations became part of each one of the 1919-20 peace treaties, which as a body established a new international order abandoning the old chivalric archetype for the paradigm of domestic law. Domestic legal systems were the model for the Covenant’s four interrelated innovations — “international peace and security”; a duty to seek peaceful settlement of international disputes; efforts to make treaties legally binding; and restraints on recourse to war.
First, Covenant provisions went a long way toward abrogating what I choose to call “privity of conflict” — i.e. the customary rule that a non-belligerent third party had no right to interfere (locus standi) in a bilateral international dispute.[3] This was replaced by an entirely new juridical concept called “international peace and security”— a communitarian idea which insisted that “any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League.”[4] The “peace of Europe” and the “general peace” had featured in earlier treaties.[5] However, past references to “peace” pointed principally t