53 encyclopedia of public international law 7 history of international law foundations and principles of international law sources of international l

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
7
HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW' FOUNDATIONS AND
PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW· SOURCES OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW· LAW OF TREATIES


EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

Rudolf Dolzer, Dr. iur., S.J.D. (Harvard)
Robert E. Hollweg, J.D. (Univ. of Michigan)
Jonathan S. Ignarski, M.A. (Cantab.), Barrister
Peter Macalister-Smith, B.A. (Kent), Ph.D. (Birmingham)
Ann Rustemeyer, M.A. (Oxon.), Dip.Lib. (Univ. of N.S.W.)
Anne M. Trebilcock, J.D. (Berkeley)
Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, J.D. (Harvard), Dr. phil. (Univ. of Gottingen)

EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE

Robert C. Lane, B.A., M.A. (Carleton)
Charles J. Turpin, M.A. (Cantab.), Solicitor

The articles in this Encyclopedia should be cited (until publication of the final edition) according
to the following example:
H.-J. Schlochauer, Arbitration, in: R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International
Law, Instalment 1 (1981), p. 13.


ENCYCLOPEDIA
OF
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE
MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR COMPARATIVE
PUBLIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
RUDOLF BERNHARDT

ADVISORY BOARD
RUDOLF L. BINDSCHEDLER . THOMAS BUERGENTHAL . KARL DOEHRING
JOCHEN ABR. FROWEIN . GUNTHER JAENICKE· HERBERT MIEHSLER
HERMANN MOSLER· FRITZ MUNCH· DANIEL P. O'CONNELL t
KARL JOSEF PARTSCH . PIERRE PESCATORE· HENRY G. SCHERMERS
ULRICH SCHEUNER t . HANS-JURGEN SCHLOCHAUER . MAX S0RENSEN t
HELMUT STREBEL

7
HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW· FOUNDATIONS AND
PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW· SOURCES OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW· LAW OF TREATIES

~tt
~

~
1984

NORTH-HOLLAND
AMSTERDAM· NEW YORK· OXFORD


© ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERS B.V. -1984

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise. without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN: 0444 86238 2

Publisher:
ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERS B.V.
P.O. BOX 1991
1000 BZ AMSTERDAM
THE NETHERLANDS

Sole distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada:
ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHING COMPANY INC.
52 V ANDERBILT AVENUE
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017, U.S.A

Ubnry 01 Conp-ea CIIt8Jo&Ina III Publkallon

o.ta

Main entry under title:
Encyclopedia of public international law.
Issued in parts.
Includes index.
1. International law - Dictionaries.
I. Bernhardt, Rudolf, 1925II. Max-Planck-Institut fUr
auslandisches offentIiches Recht
und VOIkerrecht (Heidelberg, Germany)
JXl226.E5

341'.03
81-939
AACR2

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS


INTRODUCTORY NOTE
The seventh instalment of the Encyclopedia of Public International Law contains 102 articles
devoted to the history of international law, and to the foundations, principles and sources of
international law. As in previous instalments, articles which relate to more than one subject area
are included in the most appropriate volume. Thus, the entry entitled War, Laws of, History can
be found in Instalment 4 which deals with the use of force, and the history of the law of the sea
will be treated in Instalment 11. Similarly, the entry on the League of Nations is found in
Instalment 5, where it belongs with the other articles on international organizations in general
and universal international organizations.
The division of the articles included here under the title History of the Law of Nations
presented various and unique problems, to which the solution adopted is apparent from the list
of entries on p. ix, the table of contents appearing on p. 126 and the subdivisions printed at the
head of each article. Several specialized historical subjects have their own separate entries in this
instalment, for example Aix-Ia-Chapelle, Congress of (1818) and Westphalia, Peace of (1648). In
addition, of course, many articles throughout the Encyclopedia have a section dealing with
historical developments in the particular area concerned.
To facilitate the use of the Encyclopedia, two kinds of cross-references are used. Arrowmarked cross-references in the articles themselves refer to other entries, and are generally
inserted at the first relevant point in an article (e.g. The case was submitted to the
- International Court of Justice). For other topics for which a separate entry might be expected
but which are discussed elsewhere or under a heading which does not immediately suggest itself,
the title of the topic appears in the alphabetical sequence of articles with a cross-reference to the
article where it is discussed (e.g. INQUIRY see Fact-Finding and Inquiry).
At the end of each instalment there is an updated list of articles for the entire Encyclopedia.

Articles which have already appeared have a number in brackets identifying the instalment in
which they may be found.
The manuscripts for this instalment were finalized in early 1984.



CONTENTS
List of Entries for this Instalment (with Names of Authors)
List of Abbreviations

IX

xiii

Articles in Alphabetical Order
List of Articles for the Entire Encyclopedia

545



LIST OF ENTRIES

Abuse of Rights (Alexandre C. Kiss) . . . . . . . . . .

1

Acquiescence (Jorg Paul Muller and Thomas Cottier)

5

Aix-Ia-Chapelle, Congress of (1818) (Stephan Verosta)

7

Algeciras Conference (1906) (Horst Blomeyer-Bartenstein)

8

American Civil War (Peter Malanczuk)

...... .

11

Balance of Power (Alfred Vagts and Detlev Vagts)

13

Balkan Wars (1912/1913) (Fritz Munch)

15

Berlin Congress (1878) (Fritz Munch)

18

Berlin West Africa Conference (1884/1885) (Fritz Munch)

21

Clausula rebus sic stantibus (Georg Schwarzenberger)

22

Codes of Conduct (Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann) . . . .

28

Codification of International Law (Shabtai Rosenne)

34

Comity (Peter Macalister-Smith)

41

.

Concordats (Heribert Franz Kock)

44

Conferences of Ambassadors (Horst Blomeyer-Bartenstein)

48

Consensus (Erik Suy)

49

Contracts between International Organizations and Private Law Persons (Georges
van Hecke) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52

Contracts between States and Foreign Private Law Persons (Georges van Hecke)

54

Crimean War (Theodor Schieder)

59

Customary International Law (Rudolf Bernhardt)

61

Declaration (Carl-August Fleischhauer)

67

Depositary (Jutta Stoll)

68

Effectiveness (Karl Doehring)

70

Equity in International Law (M.V. Janis)

74

Estoppel (Jorg Paul Muller and Thomas Cottier)

78

Executive Agreements (Luzius Wildhaber)

81

Fashoda Incident (Karl Josef Partsch)

86

...

Frankfurt Peace Treaty (1871) (Theodor Schieder)

87

General Principles of Law (Hermann Mosler)

89

Gentlemen's Agreement (Wilfried Fiedler)

105

Good Faith (Anthony D' Amato) . . . . . .

107


LIST OF ENTRIES

x

Guarantee (George Ress)

109

Guarantee Treaties (Georg Ress)

117

Historic Rights (Yehuda Z. Blum)

120

History of the Law of Nations
Basic Questions and Principles (Wolfgang Preiser)

126

Ancient Times to World War I
In General
Ancient Times to 1648 (Wolfgang Preiser)

132

1648 to 1815 (Stephan Verosta) . . . . . .

160

1815 to World War I (Hans-Ulrich Scupin)

179

Regional Developments
Africa (T.O. Elias) . .

205

Far East (Shigeki Miyazaki)

215

Islam (Ahmed S. EI-Kosheri)

222

Latin America (Antonio Truyol y Serra)

231

South and South-East Asia (Nagendra Singh)

237

World War I to World War II (Wilhelm G. Grewe)

252

Since World War II (Otto Kimminich)

262

Holy Alliance (Stephan Verosta) .

273

Interdependence (Karl Zemanek)

275

International Law (Sir Robert Y. Jennings)

278

International Law, Doctrine and Schools of Thought in the Twentieth Century
(Henry J. Steiner). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

297

International Legal Community (Hermann Mosler) . . . . . . .

309

International Organizations, Implied Powers (Manfred Zuleeg)

312

International Public Order (Gunther Jaenicke) . . . . .

314

Interpretation in International Law (Rudolf Bernhardt)

318

....

327

Locarno Treaties (1925) (Werner Morvay)

330

Methodology of International Law (Christian Dominice)

334

Monroe Doctrine (Peter Malanczuk)

339

Natural Law (Jose Puente Egido) . .

344

New States and International Law (Michael Schweitzer)

349

Non-Binding Agreements (Fritz Munch) . . . . . . . . .

353

Jus cogens (Jochen Abr. Frowein)


LIST OF ENTRIES

xi

Non-Intervention, Principle of (Meinhard Schroder)

358

Nullity in International Law (lochen Abr. Frowein)

361

Pacta sunt servanda (Manfred Lachs)

364

Pactum de contrahendo, pactum de negotiando (Ulrich Beyerlin)

371

Paris Peace Treaty (1856) (Theodor Schieder)

376

Peaceful Change (Wilhelm G. Grewe)

378

Positivism (Roberto Ago) . . . . . . .

385

Preamble (Hans-Dietrich Treviranus)

393

Proces-verbal (Hans-Dietrich Treviranus)

394

Proportionality (lost Delbriick)

396

Reciprocity (Bruno Simma) ..

400

Regional International Law (Dietrich Schindler)

404

Reinsurance Treaty between Germany and Russia (1887) (Hans-liirgen Schlochaller)

409

Sei Fujii v. California (Anne M. Trebilcock)

411

.....

Self-Executing Treaty Provisions (Albert Bleckmann)

414

Socialist Conceptions of International Law (Theodor Schweisfurth)

417

Sources of International Law (Riccardo Monaco)

424

Spanish Civil War (Alfred-Maurice de Zayas)

434

Status quo (Wilhelm G. Grewe)

438

...... .

Subjects of International Law (Hermann Mosler)

442

Treaties (Rudolf Bernhardt) . . . . . . . . . . . .

459

Treaties, Conclusion and Entry into Force (Shabtai Rosenne)

464

Treaties, Conflicts between (Wolfram Karl) . . . . . .

467

Treaties, Effect of Territorial Changes (Eckart Klein)

473

Treaties, Effect on Third States (Hans Ballreich)

476

Treaties, Multilateral (Luzius Wildhaber)

480

....

Treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (Dieter Blumenwitz)

484

Treaties, Registration and Publication (Wilhelm Karl Geck)

490

Treaties, Reservations (Rudolf L. Bindschedler)

496

Treaties, Revision (Wilhelm G. Grewe)

499

Treaties, Secret (Karl Zemanek)

505

....

Treaties, Termination (Michael Akehurst)

507

Treaties, Territorial Application (Michael Akehurst)

510


xii

LIST OF ENTRIES

Treaties, Validity (Meinhard Schroder)

511

Unequal Treaties (Werner Morvay)

514

Unilateral Acts in International Law (Wilfried Fiedler)

517

Vienna Congress (1815) (Fritz Munch) . . . . . . . . . .

522

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Shabtai Rosenne)

525

Waiver (Anne M. Trebilcock) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

533

Westphalia, Peace of (1648) (Alfred-Maurice de Zayas)

536

Wilson's Fourteen Points (Ann Rustemeyer)

539

.....

Zollverein (German Customs Union) (Werner Meng)

542


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACHR
AFDI
AJCL
AJIL
AnnlDI
Annual Digest
Australian YIL
AVR

BILC
BYIL
CahDroitEur
CanYIL
CJEC
Clunet
CMLR
CMLRev
ColJTransL
Comecon

crs
DeptStateBull
Dirlnt
EC
ECHR
ECOSOC
ECR
ECSC
EEC
EFTA
ESA
ETS
EuR
Euratom
Eurocontrol
FAO
Fontes
GAOR
GATT

GYIL
Harvard ILJ
IAEA
lATA
IBRD
ICAO
ICJ
ICLQ
ICRC

American Convention on Human Rights
Annuaire Franc;ais de Droit International
American Journal of Comparative Law
American Journal of International Law
Annuaire de I'Institut de Droit International
Annual Digest and Reports of International Public Law Cases
Australian Yearbook of International Law
Archiv des Volkerrechts
British International Law Cases (c. Parry, ed.)
British Year Book of International Law
Cahiers de Droit Europeen
Canadian Yearbook of International Law
Court of Justice of the European Communities
Journal du Droit International
Common Market Law Reports
Common Market Law Review
Columbia Journal of Transnational Law
Council for Mutual Economic Aid
Consolidated Treaty Series (c. Parry, ed.)
Department of State Bulletin

Diritto Internazionale
European Community or European Communities
European Convention on Human Rights
Economic and Social Council of the United Nations
Reports of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (European Court Reports)
European Coal and Steel Community
European Economic Community
European Free Trade Association
European Space Agency
European Treaty Series
Europa-Recht
European Atomic Energy Community
European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Fontes luris Gentium
General Assembly Official Records
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
German Yearbook of International Law
Harvard International Law Journal
International Atomic Energy Agency
International Air Transport Association
Intemational Bank for Reconstruction and Development
International Civil Aviation Organization
International Court of Justice
International and Comparative Law Quarterly
International Committee of the Red Cross


XIV

ICSID
IDA
IDI
IFC
ILA
ILC
ILM
ILO
ILR
IMCO
IMF
IMO
Indian JIL
IntLawyer
IntRel
ItalYIL
JIR
LNTS
LoN
Martens R
Martens R2
Martens NR
Martens NS
Martens NRG
Martens NRG2
Martens NRG3
NATO
NedTIR
NILR
NordTIR

OAS
OAU
OECD
PCIJ
PolishYIL
ProcASIL
RdC
Res.
RevBelge
RevEgypt
RevHellen
RGDIP
RIAA
RivDirInt
SAYIL
SchweizJIR
SCOR
SEATO
Strupp-Schlochauer,
Worterbuch

LIST OF ABBREVIA nONS

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
International Development Association
Institut de Droit International
International Finance Corporation
International Law Association
International Law Commission
International Legal Materials

International Labour Organisation
International Law Reports
Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization
International Monetary Fund
International Maritime Organization
Indian Journal of International Law
International Lawyer
International Relations
Italian Yearbook of International Law
Jahrbuch flir Internationales Recht
League of Nations Treaty Series
League of Nations
Martens Recueil de Traites
Martens Recueil de Traites, 2me ed.
Martens Nouveau Recueil de Traites
Martens Nouveau Supplement au Recueil de Traites
Martens Nouveau Recueil General de Traites
Martens Nouveau Recueil General de Traites, 2me Serie
Martens Nouveau Recueil General de Traites, 3me Serie
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht
Netherlands International Law Review
Nordisk Tidsskrift for International Ret
Organization of American States
Organization of African Unity
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Permanent Court of International Justice
Polish Yearbook of International Law
Proceedings of the American Society of International Law
Academie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours

Resolution
Revue BeIge de Droit International
Revue Egyptienne de Droit International
Revue Hellenique de Droit International
Revue Generale de Droit International Public
Reports of International Arbitral Awards
Rivista di Diritto Internazionale
South African Yearbook of International Law
Schweizerisches Jahrbuch filr internationales Recht
Security Council Official Records
South-East Asia Treaty Organization
Strupp-Schlochauer, Worterbuch des Volkerrechts (2nd ed., 1960/62)


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Supp.
Texas ILJ
UN
UN Doc~

Supplement
Texas International Law Journal
United Nations
United Nations Document

UNGA

United Nations General Assembly

UNCTAD
UNEP
UNESCO
UNIDO
UNITAR
UNTS
UPU
UST
WEU
WHO
WMO
YILC
ZaoRV

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
United Nations Institute for Training and Research
United Nations Treaty Series
Universal Postal Union
United States Treaties and Other International Agreements
Western European Union
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Yearbook of the International Law Commission
Zeitschrift fur ausHindisches offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht

xv

ABUSE OF RIGHTS

result, for example, from the inconsiderate use of
a shared natural resource, such as an international
watercourse or a migratory species or the radioelectronic spectrum. Here, the States sharing the
same resource suffer a reduction in their enjoyment of the resource to which they are entitled. In
reality, however, the existing rights and the legitimate interests of the States concerned have to
be balanced in such cases. It can be considered
that an abuse of rights exists only when the injury
suffered by the aggrieved States exceeds the
benefit resulting for another State from the
enjoyment of its own right.
In the second case, a right is exercised intentionally for an end which is different from that
for which the right has been created, with the
result that injury is caused. This is the concept of
detournement de pouvoir, well known in administrative practice within States. It has been
identified in general inter-State practice, and it
plays a growing role inside international
organizations, since the competences conferred
upon member States or the organs of the institutions themselves may be exercised in a way
very different from that originally intended.
In the third case, the arbitrary exercise of its
rights by a State, causing injury to other States
but without clearly violating their rights, can also
amount to an abuse of rights. In contrast to the
preceding situation, bad faith or an intention to
cause harm are not necessary to constitute this
form. Broader objectives concerning the social

function of the right which has been exercised are
at stake here, for example in the case of unjustified if not illegal measures imposed upon
- aliens,
including
arbitrary
expulsion
(- Aliens, Expulsion and Deportation) or
- expropriation.

1. Notion
(a) General concept
In international law, abuse of rights refers to a
_ State exercising a right either in a way which
impedes the enjoyment by other States of their
own rights or for an end different from that for
which the right was created, to the injury of
another State (see also - Internationally Wrongful Acts).
The concept of abuse of rights implies the
negation of a rigid conception of international
law, and of law in general, summarized by the
maxim neminem laedit qui suo jure utitur, meaning
that nobody harms another when he exercises his
own rights. Summum jura, the maximum of law,
may thus become summa injuria, a maximum of
injustice. The principle of Roman law, sic utere
jure tuo ut alienum non laedas, prescribing the
exercise of individual rights in such a way that
others would suffer no injury, is therefore the
very fundament of the concept of abuse of rights.
A clear violation of an existing specific obligation

cannot constitute an abuse of right, since in such a
case the State which acted had no right at all.
There should thus be no confusion between abuse
of rights and situations where a State acts ultra
vires, since in the latter case it has exceeded the
limits of its rights, i.e. it has no right at all.
The concept also implies a distinction between
the existence of an individual right and the exercise of such a right. Some authors consider such a
distinction artificial. In reality, the distinction
seems to be generally adopted in practice not only
in international law, but also in municipal law
systems, and in civil as well as in administrative
law. The distinction is illustrated by control exercised on the way individuals or authorities make
use of their rights or competences, such as property rights or decisions of administrative organs.

2. Prohibition of Abuse of Rights
On the whole, it may be considered that international law prohibits the abuse of rights.
However, such prohibition does not seem to be
unanimously accepted in general international
law, while it is not contested in the law of international institutions. Hence the two aspects have
to be examined separately.

(b) Specific situations
A closer inquiry shows that the concept of
abuse of rights may arise in three distinct legal
situations. In the first case, a State exercises its
rights in such a way that ano~her State is hindered
in the enjoyment of its own rights and, as a
consequence, suffers injury. Such a situation can

(a) General international law
As far as international law doctrine is concer-

1


2

ABUSE OF RIGIITS

ned, many publicists, including practically all the
earlier ones, do not even mention prohibition of
the abuse of rights. The principle prohibiting
abuse of rights seems to have been formulated for
the first time at an inter-State level by the Committee of Jurists preparing the Draft Statute of
the -+ Permanent Court of International Justice
(PCIJ) in 1920. In their attempt to define the
-+ general principles of law which would form the
legal basis for the Court's decisions, that Committee referred to the prohibition of abuse of
rights as an example, together with the principle
of res judicata.
Following this reasoning, several writers have
reviewed different municipal law systems in order
to find out whether such a prohibition could be
considered as general, i.e. whether it was to be
considered as relevant to Art. 38(1) of the Statute
of the PCIJ. This wording (which is the same as
that of Art. 38(1) (c) of the Statute of the -+ International Court of Justice) lists among the
sources of international law the "general principles of law recognized by civilized nations".
Most of these authors came to the conclusion that

in civil law countries, whether European or not,
as well as in socialist countries, the abuse of rights
was, along with detournement de pouvoir, prohibited. As far as common law countries are
concerned it was submitted that, although a
decision in a given case may be based upon
principles of the law of torts, when a court looks
into the motives of an actor the legal theory
applicable is indistinguishable from that of abuse
of rights. This, it was held, supports the contention that the theory is accepted in the private law
of common law countries. In addition, the existence of controls over the discretionary powers of
public authorities should be taken into account,
though there are many variants on the means or
methods of such controls. Some have concluded,
therefore, that since the concept of abuse of rights
is known in many countries it may be said to be a
general principle of law.
However, even among writers who accept the
principle of the prohibition of the abuse of rights,
there is no agreement on the analysis of its
significance and theoretical basis. This divergence
of opinion results at h~ast partly from the different
forms in which the exercise of an existing right
can cause injury to another Stal..!, amounting to a

summa injuria. Some distinguished authors question the importance of the principle in international relations, or object to its lack of precision
for practical use. Others consider it to be lacking
in value as an independent rule, asserting that it
consists essentially of an application of other uncontested concepts such as -+ good faith, reasonableness, good neighbourliness or even equity
(-+ Equity in International Law).
In inter-State practice, abuse of rights has often

been alleged by governments. Diplomatic discussions and opinions of legal advisors in various
ministries of foreign affairs show that the prohibition of the abuse of rights has been used not
only as an argument against other States, but also
to impose upon the State concerned the duty to
avoid acts which would amount to a violation of
this principle. The most complete collection of
arguments based on this principle can be found in
memorials submitted to international tribunals as
well as in oral statements made before such tribunals. Abuse of rights was expressly made the
basis of a claim before the ICJ in the -+ Barcelona Traction Case (ICJ Reports (1970) p. 3, at
p. 17). It has also been submitted that the British
claim against Belgium in the -+ Chinn Case was
essentially an allegation of abuse of right (PCIJ,
Series AlB, No. 63, at p. 70).
However, no international judicial decision or
arbitral award has so far been explicitly founded
on the prohibition of abuse of rights. The principle has been mentioned in several cases as a
possible basis for a condemnation for violation of
international law, but without having been actually used for that purpose. In one of ~he -+ German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia cases, the
PCIJ concluded that a misuse had not taken place
(PCIJ, Series A, No.7, at pp. 30 and 37 to 38). In
the -+ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and Gex Case
the Court stressed that a reservation had to be
made regarding the case of abuses of rights, but it
added that an abuse could not be presumed by
the Court (PCIJ, Series AlB, No. 46, at p. 167).
On the other hand, a series of decisions and
awards can be mentioned where the court or
arbitral tribunal examined the way in which a
State exercised a right, the existence of which was

not contested. Authors refer in this regard in
particular to the -+ United States Nationals in
Morocco Case (ICJ Reports (1952) p. 176, at p.


3

ABUSE OF RIGHTS

212) in the practice of the IC] as well as to
arbitral awards in the ~ Trail Smelter Arbitration, the ~ Delagoa Bay Railway Arbitration,
the ~ El Triunfo Case and to some of the
Venezuelan arbitrations (reported in RIAA,
Vols. 9 and 10; ~ Preferential Claims against
Venezuela Arbitration). Dissenting opinions of
judges at the PCIJ and at the IC] have also
frequently adverted to the principle, but some of
them expressed hesitation before applying it,
without ever rejecting outright its place in international law.
The provisions of certain ~ treaties enunciate
the principle prohibiting the abuse of rights in
inter-State relations, even outside the area of
international institutions. States sharing a river or
a lake have often entered into bilateral and
multilateral conventions for the purpose of utilizing to mutual advantage the natural resource
represented by such surface waters. In a sense,
treaty clauses providing for the application and
implementation of the measures agreed in good
faith may be considered as involving the prohibition of any abuse of the rights which those
treaties confer upon the contracting parties. In

this connection, it should be noted that Art. 26 of
the ~ Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
declares that every treaty in force must be performed in good faith by the parties.
However, more specific prohibitions have also
been provided for. One may consider as such the
obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of
a treaty prior to its entry into force, set out in Art.
18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties. It may also be recalled that Art. 2 of the
1958 Convention on the High Seas adds to the
definition of the various aspects of freedom of the
~ high seas that these freedoms, and others
which are recognized by the general principles of
international law, are to be exercised by all States
with reasonable regard to the interests of other
States. The most explicit recognition of the prohibition of any abuse of rights is to be found in
the Convention adopted in 1982 by the Third
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea
(~ Conferences on the Law of the Sea) in Art.
300:
"States Parties shall fulfil in good faith the
obligations assumed under this Convention and
shall exercise the rights, jurisdictions and

•

freedoms recognized in this Convention in a
manner which would not constitute an abuse of
right" (UN Doc. A!CONF. 62/122).
Inter-State practice and international judicial

proceedings show that the main fields where
abuse of rights have been alleged are the law of
the sea, ~ international rivers and lakes,
~ transfrontier pollution, international trade,
~ nationality, the non-application of certain
foreign legislative provisions and the treatment of
aliens in general, but in particular alien property
rights and expulsion.
(b) International institutions
Within international institutions, competences
and discretions are granted to the member States
and to specified organs. The abuse of rights is a
danger to be avoided. A general tendency is
therefore found to prohibit such abuse in two of
its principal forms: arbitrary use of rights and
detournement de pouvoir. Here again, it may be
recalled that the general obligation to fulfil in
good faith the rights and obligations resulting
from membership or from institutional competences is the overall basis for the prohibition of
the abuse of rights (see ~ United Nations Charter, Art. 2(2)).
The prohibition of abuse of rights was
emphasized, as far as the rights of member States
of the ~ United Nations are concerned, in dissenting opinions by five judges in the Advisory
Opinion on the ~ Admission of a State to
Membership (IC] Reports (1947-1948) p. 57, at
pp. 91-92 and (1950) p. 1, at pp. 15 and 20) and in
the ~ South West Africa Cases (Second Phase)
by Judge Forster (IC] Reports (1966) p. 6, at pp.
480-481). The 1951 Treaty instituting the
~ European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)

(Art. 10) explicitly authorized the ~ Court of
Justice of the European Communities (CJEC) to
declare null and void abusive ~ vetos by member
States in the designation of the members of the.
High Authority.
In other institutional frameworks, prohibitions
are found of certain abuses of rights which can be
enjoyed by other than member States. Art. 86 of
the Treaty instituting the ~ European Economic
Community (EEC) prohibits any States' abuse of
dominant position within the Common Market.
Art. 27 of the ~ European Convention on


4

ABUSE OF RIGHTS

Human Rights states that the ~ European
Commission of Human Rights must consider inadmissible any petition submitted by individuals
or groups of individuals which it considers an
abuse of the right of petition.
The principle prohibiting the abuse of rights
within international organizations is quite
frequently applied in order to control the exercise
of powers by international organs. Art. 33 of the
Treaty instituting the ECSC provides for jurisdiction of the CJEC over appeals by a member
State or by the Council for the annulment of
decisions and recommendations of the High
Authority, on the grounds of abuse of power. The

same principle appears in Art. 173 of the EEC
Treaty and in Art. 146 of the Treaty establishing
the ~ European Atomic Energy Community.
In reality, most cases where international
organs are found to have abused their rights
concern the exercise of their competences and
discretions in relation to members of their staff. In
a number of decisions of the ~ United Nations
Administrative Tribunal, of the ~ International
Labour Organisation Administrative Tribunal and
of the CJEC, it has been held that the prejudice
suffered by the plaintiffs resulted from a detournement de pouvoir.

tion which has exceeded its powers could not have
committed an illegal act, having simply exercised
its proper rights, once it is admitted that a general
principle exists in international law prohibiting
abuse of rights, a principle which is thus superior
to specific rules recognizing individual rights. Of
course, the second condition of international responsibility, namely, conduct attributable to the
State concerned, has also to be fulfilled. It does
not seem, however, that intention to harm other
States is required: an injurious or arbitrary use of
rights, competences or discretions can be considered sufficient in this regard.
The problem of the proof of the existence of an
abuse of rights is a fundamental one. In both
cases where the PCB referred to the possibility of
an abuse of rights, it was stressed that such an abuse
cannot be presumed by the Court (German Interests Case, PCB, Series A, No.7, at p. 30 and Free
Zones Case, PCB, Series A/B, No. 46, at p.

167). In the German Interests Case, the Court
added that the burden of proof rested with the
party alleging an abuse of rights. When arbitrary
use of powers or a detournement de pouvoir is
alleged, proof should also be brought that the
right has been used in disregard of the purpose
for which it was originally intended.

3. Implementation of the Prohibition

4. Conclusion

It seems that the fact of injury resulting from an
abuse of rights is a fundamental element in the
implementation of that principle. The arbitrators
in the Trail Smelter arbitration stressed that the
abuse should be "of serious consequence" and the
injury "established by clear and convincing evidence" (RIAA, Vol. 3, p. 1907, at p. 1965). When
an injury is alleged, an ~nternational body or
States, through diplomatic inquiry, may examine
the circumstances in which the relevant rights
have been exercised. Such a procedure of
verification appears in several cases submitted to
the ICJ, including the ~ Nottebohm Case (ICJ
Reports (1955) p. 4, at pp. 21-24) and the United
States Nationals in Morocco Case (ICJ Reports
(1952) p. 176, at p. 212).
Abuse of rights provides a ground for international responsibility (~Responsibility of
States: General Principles; ~ International
Organizations, Responsibility). There can be no

defence that a State or an international organiza-

The idea that a subject of rights and competences (~ Subjects of International Law) can
misuse them seems to be inherent to legal thinking and to have roots in all legal systems. The idea
leads to the establishment of controls on the use
of recognized rights. However, the prohibition of
abuse of rights in international law is problematic
because of differences in the content of the
concept itself: it may include, indeed, a conflict of
sovereign rights, an arbitrary exercise of competences or discretions or a detournement de pouvoir. Nevertheless these last two forms seem to
play a growing role within the framework of the
law of international institutions.
The evolutive role of the concept of prohibition
of abuse of rights has been stressed by several
authors. Conflicts where an abuse of rights is
alleged or is likely to exist can lead the States
involved to adopt specific rules which are designed to solve the problem for the future. At a
general level, the concern to avoid such conflicts


5

ACQUIESCENCE

can result in the long term in the emergence of
new customary rules, for example, in the case of
the development of international law concerning
transfrontier pollution (see also ~ Customary
International Law).
POLITIS, Le probleme des limitations de la souverainete et la theorie de l'abus des droits dans les

rapports internationaux, RdC, Vol. 6 (1925 I) 1-121.
A.c. KISS. L'abus de droit en droit international (1953).
F. MONCONDUIT, L'abus du droit de recours individuel
devant la Commission europeenne des droits de
l'homme, AFDI, Vol. 17 (1971) 347-365.
B.O. ILUYOMADE, The Scope and Content of a Complaint
of Abuse of Right in International Law, Harvard IU,
Vol. 16 (1975) 47-92.
V. PAUL, The Abuse of Rights and Bona Fides in International Law, Osterreichische Zeitschrift fUr offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht, Vol. 28 (1977)
N.

States from playing "fast and loose" with situations affecting other States (Lauterpacht).
The doctrine of acquiescence, eo nomine, is a
concept well known in Anglo-American law.
Acquiescement in French law has a similar meaning, although limited in scope to procedural law.
In contemporary international law, acquiescence
has consistently been applied, either expressly or
impliedly, as a principle of substantive law (see
~ Rann of Kutch Arbitration (Indo-Pakistan
Western Boundary) and grounded in the general
concepts or - good faith and ~ equity. It has
played an important role in the process of shaping
customary international law (see ~ Lotus. The:
~ Tinoco Concessions Arbitration; ~ Haya de
la Torre Cases).

2. Case Law

107-130.
ALEXANDRE C. KISS

ACQUIESCENCE
1. Notion
The international legal system, lacking centralized law-making institutions, permanently
develops, confirms and modifies general rules and
legal relations among its suhjects in a process of
continuous interaction of demand and response
(McDougal). Such interaction takes place in the
process of treaty-making. But it also occurs in a
great variety of unilateral or quasi-contractual
courses of conduct which are either formal, such
as ~ recognition and ~ protest, or informal, such
as acquiescence (see also ~ Unilateral Acts in
International Law). The doctrine of acquiescence
represents the proposition of binding effect resulting from passivity and inaction with respect to
foreign claims which, according to the general
practice of States (see ~ Customary International
Law), usually call for protest in order to assert,
preserve or safeguard rights (see the separate
opinion of Judge Alfaro in the ~ Temple of
Preah Vihear Case). The doctrine finds expression
in the adage Qui tacet consentire videtur si loqui
debuisset ac potuisset (referred to in the Temple
Case). The far-reaching effect of creating legal
obligation by silence and inaction is an essential
element in the promotion of stability in international relations, and is intended to prevent

Silence and toleration in face of foreign claims
or expectations do not always produce legally
binding effects. Acquiescence is a type of qualified

inaction (qualifiziertes Stillsch weigen). The main
problem in the day-to-day operation of the doctrine is to find appropriate and reasonably defined
prerequisites which are necessary to establish a
binding effect of silence. Although not relying
expressly upon the doctrine. the ~ Fisheries Case
(U.K. v. Norway) provides some guidance as to
the point at which silence and toleration become
"law-making" acquiescence - or in other words.
the point at which international law requires
protest or some other form of action in order to
preserve legal positions. The Court in essence
stressed the following prerequisites: notoriety of
claims challenging a legal situation or asserting
alleged rights, or a State must at least be expected
in good faith to have had knowledge of such
claims; a general toleration of the claims by the
international community and prolonged abstention from reaction, especially by States particularly interested, concerned and affected. These
elements were central to the issue of whether the
Norwegian base-line was consistent with international law due to acquiescence.
Although acquiescence applies to all kinds of
claims and toleration (see e.g. ~ Arbitral Award
of 1906 Case (Honduras v. Nicaragua), concerning
the legality of the award). the law of acquiescence
has arisen mainly in the context of territorial
disputes concerning bilateral relations or local


6

ACQUIESCENCE

custom (see -+ Right of Passage over Indian Territory Case). In the -+ Grisbadarna Case, special
weight was given to the fact that recent Swedish
installations for the security of navigation in the
disputed area had given rise to no protests from
Norway. This case reveals that a short lapse of
time may be compensated by the intensity of the
claims and assertions on the one side and by
obvious toleration on the other ("instant acquiescence"). In the Temple of Preah Vihear Case,
acquiescence was established and binding effect
was ascribed to active conduct, namely by accepting and using -+ maps defining the boundary
without submitting any reservation. The case also
raises the issue of the extent to which acquiescence may even modify relations settled by
agreement if subsequent deviating conduct and
claims remain unchallenged by the other party
(see -+ France-United States Air Transport
Arbitration (1963». Interesting contributions to
the case law of acquiescence can also be found in
interstate disputes of -+ federal States (see e.g.
California v. Nevada, 447 U.S. 125, 131 (1980),
Ohio v. Kentucky, 410 U.S. 641 (1973), and in
Swiss Law, Wallis c. Ticino, Arrets du Tribunal
federal suisse, 106 1b, 154, 166 (1980».

3. Acquiescence, Estoppel and Prescription
An unsettled problem of acquiescence is its
relation to the doctrines of -+ estoppel and
-+ prescription (see also -+ Waiver).
Some authors consider the concepts of
acquiescence and estoppel to have identical

requirements and identical legal effects. Their
similarity is supported by terms such as estoppel
by silence and estoppel by inaction, as used in
Anglo-American law. It is due primarily to their
immediate foundation in the common denominators of good faith and equity. Silence and toleration, if clear and unambiguous, may well be construed as representation within the meaning of
estoppel. In good faith such conduct may induce
reliance and expectations which deserve protection of the law. The problem, however, is that
prevailing restrictive concepts of estoppel- in
contrast to any doctrine of acquiescence - require
a showing of prejudice or detriment to the party
invoking the doctrine. The unclear relationship of
estoppel and acquiescence became obvious in the
Arbitral Award of 1906 Case. Referring to broad

concepts of estoppel, Honduras attempted to
preclude Nicaragua's challenge to the legality of
the arbitral award. There was no evidence of
specific detriment to Honduras in the event of
nullification of the award. The -+ International
Court of Justice, without discussing estoppel in its
opinion (but see separate opinion of Judge Spender), relied upon acquiescence to bar the
Nicaraguan claim. The decision supports the view
that estoppel can only be applied if its rather strict
requirements are met. In other cases, a party may
still be foreclosed for reasons of acquiescence,
provided that its prerequisites, still in the process
of being evolved, are fulfilled. For acquiescence,
the time factor and the gradual accumulation of
indications symbolizing the seriousness of the
claim may be the very justification for the legal

protection of reliance and confidence, and may
replace the requirements of detriment and of
clear and unequivocal representation, which are
typical for estoppel. Unlike the law of estoppel,
binding effects of silence and toleration may be
considered to be founded in quasi-contractual
links gradually and informally developing between
interacting States.
With regard to the relationship of acquiescence
to prescription, traditional concepts of acquisitive
prescription generally require a "continuous and
peaceful display of state authority" (-+ Palmas
Island Arbitration). Modern doctrines primarily
emphasize the historical consolidation of rights
and titles in the continuous process of assertion,
recognition and acquiescence in such claims.
Acquiescence, as suggested by several authors
(e.g. Johnson), is the essential and typical feature
of informal acquisition of territory and renders
specific notions of prescription, as drawn from
domestic law, dispensable (-+ Territory, Acquisition).

Acquisitive Prescription in International
Law, BYIL, Vol. 27 (1950) 332-354.
H. LAlITERPACHT, Sovereignty over Submarine Areas,
BYIL, Vol. 27 (1950) 39~398.
D.W. BOWETI, Estoppel before International Law and its
Relations to Acquiescence, BYIL, Vol. 33 (1957) 197D.H.N. JOHNSON,

201.

MACGmBON, Customary International Law and
Acquiescence, BYIL, Vol. 33 (1957) 115-145.
I.C. MACGIBBON, Estoppel in International Law, ICLQ,
Vol. 7 (1958) 501-512.
I.C.


AIX-LA-CHAPPELLE. CONGRESS OF (1818)

M. WAELBROECK.

L'acquiescement en droit des gens,

RivDirInt, Yol. 44 (1961) 38-:53.
J. BENTZ.

Le silence comme manifestation de volonte en

droit international public, RGDIP, Vol. 67 (1963)
44-91.

The Acquisition of Territory in International Law (1%3) 36-51.
G. VENTURINI, La portee et les elfets juridiques des
attitudes et des actes unilateraux des Etats, RdC, Vol.
RY. JENNINGS.

112 (1964 II) 367-394.
lP

MULLER.

35~7,

Vertrauensschutz im Volkerrecht (1971)

171-190.

VALLEE, Quelques observations sur l'estoppel en droit
des gens, RODIP, Vol. 77 (1973) 983-989.
R. BERNHARDT. Ungeschriebenes Volkerrecht, ZaoRV.
Vol. 36 (1976) 51-76.
A. MARTIN, L'estoppel en droit international public

c.

(1979).
JORG PAUL MULLER
THOMAS COTTIER

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, CONGRESS
OF (1818)
In the Paris Treaty of Alliance and Friendship
of November 20. 1815 which supplemented the
~ alliance treaties of Chaumont (March 1, 1814)
and Vienna (March 25, 1815), Great Britain,
Austria, Prussia and Russia had agreed "to renew
their Meetings at fixed periods ... for the purpose
of consulting upon their common interests. and
for the consideration of the measures which at
each of those periods shall be considered the most
salutary for the repose and prosperity of Nations.

and for the maintenance of the Peace of Europe"
(Art. VI). On the basis of this provision. the
Concert of Europe convened their first meeting in
Aix-Ia-Chapelle from September 27 to November
21, 1818. At the "Congress of Aix-Ia-Chapelle",
as it came to be caIled, the Concert of Europe
reached decisions on a wide range 'If subjects;
other topics were merely discussed.
Changes of title made by a State or a ruler on
behalf of himself and his line would only be
recognized after common agreement of the
~ great powers. The request of the Elector of
Hesse to be granted the title of king was refused.
The title of "Royal Highness" was granted to the
heads of Grand-ducal houses, including the Elector of Hesse, and to their heirs.
Supplementing the rules on the rank of

7

diplomatic representatives of March 3, 1~15
(Annex XVII to the Final Act of the ~ Vienna
Congress), ministers resident were recognized as a
separate category and given the rank between
envoys and charges d'affaires. This category of
ministers resident has long fallen into disuse and
does not appear in the ~ Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961.
The powers agreed on the evacuation of troops
from French territory and on a reduction of
France's ~ reparations payments (Convention of

October Y. iSI8. CTS. Vol. 69, p. 283). Napoleon
was to be regarded as the prisoner of all the allies.
and Great Britain. as the sovereign ruler of St.
Helena. was to respect the wishes of the other
powers regarding his treatment.
France was to be accorded the "place that she
merits in the system of Europe"; the Conference
Protocol of November 15, 1818 (CTS, Vol. 69. p.
3n.'i), signed also hy France, used wording
reminiscent of the text of the ~ Holy Alliance.
The Union of the four powers, "rendered m(\re
strong and indissoluhle by the bonds of Christian
fraternity". was to have as its object "the maintenance of general peace, founded on a religious
respect for the engagements contained in the
Treaties. and for the whole of the rights resulting
therefrom" (~ Treaties). Further. "France, associated with the other powers by the restoration of
the legitimate monarchical and constitutional
power, engages henceforth to concur in the maintenance and consolidation of a system which has
given peace to Europe. and which can alone
ensure its duration".
If the meetings provided for anew in point 4 of
the Protocol should have as their object "affairs
specially connected with the interests of other
State~ of Europe", they could only take place
pursuant to a formal invitation to the States concerned and under the express reservation of their
right of direct participation therein.
The contents of this Protocol were communicated to all the other European States in a
declaration signed on the same day, although with
somewhat different wording (CTS, Vol. 69, p.
377). It is stated, for example, that the union of

the sovereigns had as its basis the resolution
"never to depart ... from the strictest observation
of the principles of the law of nations; principles
which ... can alone effectively guarantee the in-


8

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, CONGRESS OF (1818)

dependence of each government, and the stability
of the general association".
In a secret protocol of November 15, 1818
(CfS, Vol. 69, p. 369; - Treaties, Secret) Great
Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia renewed their
alliance in case of future French - aggression; it
was agreed where the troops were to be mustered
should the - casus foederis be established; with
the consent of the King of the Netherlands, to
whose territory Belgium at that time belonged,
Belgian fortifications were to be occupied by British and Prussian troops, Brussds by British
troops.
Concerning the pacification of the rebellious
Spanish colonies it was only possible to agree to
offer collective mediation (- Conciliation and
Mediation) between them and Spain; Spain
rejected the offer. The - piracy of the North
African (Barbary) States was to be countered by a
plan adopted on November 7, 1818.
Negotiations on measures to combat slave

trading (- Slavery) led to no positive result. The
decisive right of search (- Ships, Visit and
Search) in prescribed "suspicious zones" in the
Atlantic and Indian Oceans was not accepted
until the signing in London of the British-proposed Quintuple Agreement of December 20,
1841.
The Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle initiated a
long series of European conferences of Statesmeeting as the organ of the Concert of Europewhich attempted consistently to maintain the
- balance of power in Europe. These conferences admittedly failed to prevent wars, but
they did lead to the conclusion of international
agreements on a large number of subjects and
thus contributed to the development of international law.

COMTE D'ANGEBERG

[pseud.], Le Congres de Vienne

(1863).
The Confederation of Europe (2nd ed.
1920, Repr. 1966).

W.A. PHILLIPS,

H.G. NICOLSON, The Congress of Vienna:

A Study in Allied

Unity 1812-1822 (1946).
M. BOURQUIN,

Histoire de la Sainte Alliance (1954).
STEPHAN VEROSTA

ALGECIRAS CONFERENCE (1906)
1. Background
In the second half of the 19th century, Morocco
was the only African State, apart from Ethiopia
and Liberia, that had escaped the division of
Africa among the European colonial powers
(- Berlin West Africa Conference (1884/1885)).
When France annexed Algeria (- Annexation),
the Sherifian Empire became her immediate
neighbour. Although Morocco was in a state of
unrest, the country seemed a promising and
potentially important trade partner to the European Powers and the United States.
The Western Powers had laid the basis for their
trade relations with the Sherifian Empire in a
series of bilateral treaties, France having concluded one as early as 1682. Various agreements
were concluded during the 19th century, for
example, by the United States on September 16.
1836; by Great Britain on December 9, 1856; by
the Netherlands in 1858; by Spain on November
20, 1861; by Belgium on January 4, 1862; and by
France on August 19, 1863. These agreements
granted to the Western signatories safety of
commerce, freedom of religious practice for nonMuslims, the prerogatives of - consuls including
their immunity, jurisdiction and the right to
protect certain Moorish nationals against their
own government (- Diplomatic Protection of
Foreign Nationals; - Consular Jurisdiction).

These treaties often contained a - mostfavoured-nation clause, and their provisions
exemplify the extent of the - concessions wrought
from the Sultans over the course of time by the
Western Powers.
The Madrid Convention of July 3, 1880 (CTS,
Vol. 156, p. 487) consolidated the rights of the
Western Powers in a single instrument, the signatories of which were Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain,
Italy, Morocco, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain,
Sweden-Norway and the United States. Among
the matters settled in this Convention were the
right of protection and the right of foreigners to
acquire property (- Aliens, Property). An important development was the collective recognition of the most-favoured-nation clause and of
the common interests of the Western Powers in


ALGECIRAS CONFERENCE (1906)

Morocco, which acquired a droit de regard over
certain aspects of Moroccan internal policy. The
Sherifian Empire thus accepted a sort of international tutelage (- Protectorates). The implementation of the Madrid Convention was
supervised by the diplomatic representatives of
the signatory States in Tangier.
Germany had expected that the open door policy established at Madrid would safeguard her
position in Morocco which was next in importance
to that of France and Spain and equal to that of
Britain. However, French influence was growing
steadily under a policy of penetration pacifique,
and it soon became evident that France aimed at
the establishment of a protectorate similar to that
of 1881 over Tunisia. After concluding an

arrangement with Italy concerning reciprocal disinterestedness over Tripoli and Morocco (1900),
France gained the support of Great Britain in a
declaration signed on April 8, 1904 (with a secret
annex); in exchange for this support the British
were granted a free hand in Egypt. On October 3,
1904 an agreement with Spain was also concluded
concerning spheres of interest m Morocco
(- Spheres of Influence).
Not having been consulted or even properly informed on the British-French agreement, Germany feared for her position in Morocco. During
a surprise visit to Tangier on March 31, 1905
Emperor William II declared that he regarded the
Sultan as an independent sovereign (- Sovereignty) and that he hoped that under his rule a free
Morocco would be open to peaceful competition
by all nations, without monopolies or exclusions.
On April 12, 1905 Chancellor von Bulow called
for an international conference on Morocco. The
Sultan was willing, but France and Great Britain
initially refused. At the end of the ensuing crisis,
Germany recognized in an exchange of - notes
dated July 8, 1905 that France enjoyed a special
position because of her long common frontier
with Morocco.
The detailed programme for the international
conference was fixed on September 28, 1905.
Thus, even before the conference opened, a
compromise was reached between the principle of
equal free access for the Western Powers and the
primacy of French interests. This compromise was
to be reflected in the General Act of Algeciras.

9

2. The Algeciras Conference
The representatives of the 13 participant States
of the Madrid Conference, with the omission of
Denmark and the addition of Russia, convened in
Algeciras on January 16, 1906. After 18 plenary
meetings the Conference ended on April 7, 1906
with the signature of the General Act (CTS, Vol.
201, p. 39). The Act contained six main chapters:
- a declaration on the organization of the police
force, which was to be trained by French and
Spanish officers and non-commissioned officers
and controlled by a senior Swiss officer;
- regulations on the surveillance and suppression of
illicit weapons imports;
- a concession by the Sultan for a State Bank of
Morocco under which each signatory State except
the United States was entitled to one share of the
capital, three shares, however, being in French
hands;
- a declaration on the improvement of tax collection and on the creation of new revenue;
- regulations on customs administration and on
the suppression of fraud and smuggling;
- a declaration concerning impartial adjudication
of public services and public works contracts
without reference to the nationality of the bidder.
A number of articles of the General Act dealt
with existing capitulatory rights. As a whole, the
Act reaffirmed the economic equality of all signatory States and underlined the independence of

the Sultan, while maintaining the capitulatory
system.
The Algeciras Conference was a success for
France and the 1906 agreement recognized her
pre-eminence in the political field as well as in
regard to the State Bahk. The German Reich,
together with Austria-Hungary, found itself
isolated and confronted by the positions of
France, Great Britain, Italy and Spain, who had
reached a state of equilibrium in the pursuit of
their respective North African interests. The
desire for equal rights (- States, Equal Treatment) on the part of an economically powerful
newcomer was interpreted as expansionist interference in areas already demarcated and as such
was met by a common front of opposition.

3. Subsequent Developments
The further consolidation of the French

POSI-