For some reason I found myself skimming the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo this morning. Article XXII states some restrictions on the conduct of war between the two countries, that apparently outlaws the freezing of enemy assets or strategic bombing:
The merchants of either republic then residing in the other shall be allowed to remain twelve months (for those dwelling in the interior), and six months (for those dwelling at the seaports) to collect their debts and settle their affairs; during which periods they shall enjoy the same protection, and be on the same footing, in all respects, as the citizens or subjects of the most friendly nations; and, at the expiration thereof, or at any time before, they shall have full liberty to depart, carrying off all their effects without molestation or hindrance, conforming therein to the same laws which the citizens or subjects of the most friendly nations are required to conform to. Upon the entrance of the armies of either nation into the territories of the other, women and children, ecclesiastics, scholars of every faculty, cultivators of the earth, merchants, artisans, manufacturers, and fishermen, unarmed and inhabiting unfortified towns, villages, or places, and in general all persons whose occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of mankind, shall be allowed to continue their respective employments, unmolested in their persons. Nor shall their houses or goods be burnt or otherwise destroyed, nor their cattle taken, nor their fields wasted, by the armed force into whose power, by the events of war, they may happen to fall; but if the necessity arise to take anything from them for the use of such armed force, the same shall be paid for at an equitable price.
Were such stipulations common in 19th century treaties? It seems like these provisions presuppose the violation of other parts of the treaty, making them irrelevant, but then again:
[I]t is declared that neither the pretense that war dissolves all treaties, nor any other whatever, shall be considered as annulling or suspending the solemn covenant contained in this article. On the contrary, the state of war is precisely that for which it is provided; and, during which, its stipulations are to be as sacredly observed as the most acknowledged obligations under the law of nature or nations.Posted by Ben Brumfield at August 22, 2005 12:52 PM
For some reason I found myself skimming the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo this morning.
Wot, looking for loopholes?
Posted by: Alan Allport at August 22, 2005 02:07 PMI don't know how the Guadalupe Hidalgo language compares with other treaties of the period but FWIW my property law professor placed great emphasis on its grant of greater land rights to Indian tribes. If I remember correctly, the area covered by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is the only part of the U.S. where land titles do not necessarily derive from a European sovereign's claim under the case of Johnson v. M'Intosh.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at August 22, 2005 04:17 PMInteresting. I did notice that the treaty paid particular emphaisis to relations of the United States with border tribes when it came to buying persons or property seized from Mexico, but might have missed anything particular about tribal property.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at August 22, 2005 08:11 PMArticle XXII states some restrictions on the conduct of war between the two countries, that apparently outlaws the freezing of enemy assets or strategic bombing
I wonder though how these restrictions could ever be enforced without the intervention of a third party.
Posted by: Alan Allport at August 23, 2005 03:19 PM