On the contrary. You know as well as I do that treaties are full of "reservations" and "understandings." In earlier posts on this thread, you show examples of "reservations" in individual State's ratifications of the new Constitution. Two parties can read the same passage, such as the one discussed in the Treaty of Paris, and reasonably conclude two different things.
In 1781, the former colonies were acting as a unified country in respect to their foreign policy and international relations. It was in that role that they entered into the Paris negotiations and concluded the provisional agreement and the final agreement. You place way too much emphasis on your reading of the agreement and the issue of State sovereignty. Please tell me who signed the Paris Treaty a total of 13 times, in behalf of each state. I'll make it easy for you. No one. It was signed between Britain and the United States. The Paris agreement did not grant sovereignty - it recognized the sovereignty and independece of the country.
I would say we have 50 sovereign states today - sovereign in state-related functions, but subordinate to the national government in federal affairs.
[CapnR] On the contrary. You know as well as I do that treaties are full of "reservations" and "understandings." In earlier posts on this thread, you show examples of "reservations" in individual State's ratifications of the new Constitution. Two parties can read the same passage, such as the one discussed in the Treaty of Paris, and reasonably conclude two different things.
SHOW ME the reservations of the ratifying parties to the Paris Agreement.
Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.D. HARTLEY (SEAL)
JOHN ADAMS (SEAL)
B. FRANKLIN (SEAL)
JOHN JAY (SEAL)
Article 1:His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES
What is your REASONABLE interpretation of that which you assert will hold up under International Law???
|LINK|
Preliminary Articles of Peace : November 30, 1782
Articles agreed upon, by and between Richard Oswald Esquire, the Commissioner of his Britannic Majesty, for treating of Peace with the Commissioners of the United States of America, in behalf of his said Majesty, on the one part; and John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and Henry Laurens, four of the Commissioners of the said States, for treating of Peace with the Commissioner of his said Majesty, on their Behalf, on the other part. To be inserted in, and to constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded, between the Crown of Great Britain, and the said United States; but which Treaty is not to be concluded, untill Terms of a Peace shall be agreed upon, between Great Britain and France; and his Britannic Majesty shall be ready to conclude such Treaty accordingly.
Whereas reciprocal Advantages, and mutual Convenience are found by Experience, to form the only permanent foundation of Peace and Friendship between States; It is agreed to form the Articles of the proposed Treaty, on such Principles of liberal Equity, and Reciprocity, as that partial Advantages, (those Seeds of Discord!) being excluded, such a beneficial and satisfactory Intercourse between the two Countries, may be establish'd, as to promise and secure to both perpetual
ARTICLE 1
His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, Viz New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free Sovereign and independent States; That he treats with them as such; And for himself, his Heirs and Successors, relinquishes all Claims to the Government, Propriety, and territorial Rights of the same, and every part thereof; and that all Disputes which might arise in future, on the Subject of the Boundaries of the said United States, may be prevented, It is hereby agreed and declared that the following are, and shall be their Boundaries Viz
ARTICLE 2
From the north west Angle of Nova Scotia, Viz that Angle which is form'd by a Line drawn due north, from the Source of St. Croix River to the Highlands, along the said Highlands which divide those Rivers that empty themselves into the River St Laurence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwesternmost Head of Connecticut River; thence down along the middle of that River to the 45th Degree of North Latitude; from thence by a Line due West on said Latitude, untill it strikes the River Iroquois, or Cataraquy; thence along the middle of said River into Lake Ontario; through the middle of said Lake, untill it strikes the Communication by Water between that Lake and Lake Erie; thence along the middle of said Communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said Lake, until it arrives at the Water Communication between that Lake and Lake Huron; thence along the middle of said water communication into the Lake Huron; thence through the middle of said Lake to the Water Communication between that Lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior northward of the Isles Royal & Phelipeaux, to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake, and the water Communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods, thence through the said Lake to the most Northwestern point thereof, and from thence on a due west Course to the River Missisippi; thence by a Line to be drawn along the middle of the said River Missisippi, untill it shall intersect the northernmost part of the 31st Degree of North Latitude. South, by a Line to be drawn due East, from the Determination of the Line last mentioned, in the Latitude of 31 Degrees North of the Equator, to the middle of the River Apalachicola or Catahouche; thence along the middle thereof, to its junction with the Flint River; thence strait to the Head of St. Mary's River, and thence down along the middle of St. Mary's River to the Atlantic Ocean. East, by a Line to be drawn along the middle of the River St Croix, from its Mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its Source; and from its Source directly North, to the aforesaid Highlands which divide the Rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean, from those which fall into the River Se Laurence; comprehending all Islands within twenty Leagues of any part of the Shores of the united States, and lying between Lines to be drawn due East from the points where the aforesaid Boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part and East Florida on the other shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy, and the Atlantic Ocean; excepting such Islands as now are, or heretofore have been within the Limits of the said Province of Nova Scotia.
ARTICLE 3d
It is agreed, that the People of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the Right to take Fish of every kind on the Grand Bank, and on all the other Banks of Newfoundland; Also in the Gulph of St Laurence, and at all other Places in the Sea where the Inhabitants of both Countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the Inhabitants of the united States shall have Liberty to take Fish of every kind on such part of the Coast of Newfoundland, as British Fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that Island,) and also on the Coasts, Bays, and Creeks of all other of his Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America, and that the American Fishermen shall have Liberty to dry and cure Fish in any of the unsettled Bays Harbours and Creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled; but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said Fishermen to dry or cure Fish at such Settlement, without a previous Agreement for that purpose with the Inhabitants Proprietors or Possessors of the Ground.
ARTICLE 4th
It is agreed that Creditors on either side, shall meet with no lawful Impediment to the Recovery of the full value in Sterling Money of all bond fide Debts heretofore contracted.
ARTICLE 5th
It is agreed that the Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the Legislatures of the respective States, to provide for the Restitution of all Estates, Rights, and Properties which have been confiscated, belonging to real British Subjects; and also of the Estates Rights and Properties of Persons resident in Districts in the Possession of his Majesty's Arms; and who have not borne Arms against the said United States: And that Persons of any other Description shall have free Liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States, and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their Endeavours to obtain the Restitution of such of their Estates, Rights and Properties as may have been confiscated; And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States a Reconsideration and Revision of all Acts or I~aws regarding the premises, so as to render the said Laws or Acts perfectly consistent not only with Justice and Equity, but with that spirit of Conciliation which on the Return of the Blessings of Peace should universaly prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States, that the Estates Rights and Properties of such last mention'd Persons shall be restored to them; they refunding to any Persons who may be now in Possession the bond fide Price, (where any has been given,) which such Persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said Lands, Rights, or Properties since the Confiscation.
And it is agreed that all Persons who have any Interest in confiscated Lands, either by Debts, Marriage Settlements or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful Impediment in the prosecution of their just Rights.
ARTICLE 6th
That there shall be no future Confiscations made, nor any prosecutions commenced against any Person or Persons, for or by reason of the Part which he or they may have taken in the present War, and that no person shall on that account suffer any future Loss or Damage either in his Person, Liberty or Property; and that those who may be in confinement on such charges, at the time of the Ratification of the Treaty in America, shall be immediately set at Liberty, and the Prosecutions so commenced be discontinued.
ARTICLE 7th
There shall be a firm and perpetual Peace, between his Britannic Majesty and the said States, and between the Subjects of the one and the Citizens of the other, Wherefore all Hostilities both by Sea and Land shall then immediately cease: All Prisoners on both sides shall be set at Liberty, & his Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient speed, & without causing any Destruction or carrying away any Negroes, or other Property of the American Inhabitants withdraw all his Armies Garrisons and Fleets from the said United States, and from every Port, Place, and Harbour within the same; leaving in all Fortifications the American Artillery that may be therein: And shall also order and cause all Archives, Records, Deeds and Papers belonging to any of the said States, or their Citizens, which in the Course of the War may have fallen into the hands of his Officers to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states and persons to whom they belong.
ARTICLE 8th
The Navigation of the River Mississippi from its Source to the Ocean, shall for ever remain free and open to the Subjects of Great Britain and the Citizens of the United States.
ARTICLE 9th
In case it should so happen that any Place or Territory belonging to Great Britain, or to the United States, should be conquered by the Arms of either, from the other, before the Arrival of these Articles in America, It is agreed that the same shall be restored, without Difficulty, and without requiring any Compensation.
Done at Paris, the thirtieth day of November, in the year One thousand Seven hundred Eighty Two
RICHARD OSWALD [Seal]
JOHN ADAMS. [Seal]
B FRANKLIN [Seal]
JOHN JAY [Seal]
HENRY LAURENS. [Seal]
[On the page of the original next after the above signatures, is the following, the brackets being in the original.]
Witness
The Words [and Henry Laurens] between the fifth and sixth Lines of the first Page; and the Words [or carrying away any Negroes, or other Property of the American Inhabitants] between the seventh and eighth Lines of the eighth Page, being first interlined CALEB WHITEFOORD
Secretary to the British Commission.
W. T. FRANKLIN
Sec. to the American Commission
Source:
Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America.
Edited by Hunter Miller
Volume 2
Documents 1-40 : 1776-1818
Washington : Government Printing Office, 1931.
USMARC Cataloging Record
Once upon a time, CapnR did not like what a formal written international agreement said. So he rewrote it to his liking and played make-believe. And he lived happily ever after.
"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such..."
-- Paris Peace Agreement
II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
-- Articles of Confederation
[CapnR] On the contrary. You know as well as I do that treaties are full of "reservations" and "understandings."
VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES
BETWEEN STATES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OR BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
(21 March 1986)
Use of terms
1. For the purposes of the present Convention:
(a) "treaty" means an international agreement governed by international law and concluded in written form:
* * *
(d) "reservation" means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State or by an international organization when signing, ratifying, formally confirming, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State or to that organization;
Article 23
Procedure regarding reservations
1. A reservation, an express acceptance of a reservation and an objection to a reservation must be formulated in writing and communicated to the contracting States and contracting organizations and other States and international organizations entitled to become parties to the treaty.
2. If formulated when signing the treaty subject to ratification, act of formal confirmation, acceptance or approval, a reservation must be formally confirmed by the reserving State or international organization when expressing its consent to be bound by the treaty. In such a case the reservation shall be considered as having been made on the date of its confirmation.
3. An express acceptance of, or an objection to, a reservation made previously to confirmation of the reservation does not itself require confirmation.
The following is provided just for your reading pleasure.
Contracts - Parol Evidence Rule
When the terms of a contract have been embodied in a writing to which both parties have assented as the definite and complete statement thereof, parol evidence of antecedent agreements, negotiations, and understandings is not admissible for the purpose of varying or contradicting the contract so embodied. This is an attempted statement of the "parol evidence rule." the writing herein referred to has been described by Wigmore as an "integration", a term that has come into common use; but it is still unfamiliar enough to act as a "stop-light," diverting the attention to the phrase itself and away from the subject matter.Although always referred to as the Parol Evidence Rule, it is not a rule as to the admissibility of testimony; instead, it is a rule of substantive law determining the legal operation of the written "integration " above described.
Whether any specific written document has been assented to by the parties as the complete and accurate "integration" of the terms of their contract is an ordinary question of fact.
SOURCE: Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts, One Volume Edition, pp. 534-5.
The parties to a contract often reduce to writing part or all of their agreement, following negotiations during which they have given assurances, made promises, and reached understandings. They do this in order to provide trustworthy evidence of the fact and terms of their agreement and to avoid reliance on uncertain memory. However, should litigation ensue, one party may seek to introduce evidence of the earlier negotiations in an effort to show that the terms of the agreement are other than as shown on the face of the writing. The party will be met with a rule known as the "parol evidence rule," which may bar the use of such extrinsic evidence to contradict and perhaps even to supplement the writing.Gianni v. R. Russel & Co. is a classic example of the rule in operation. Frank Gianni sold tobacco, fruit, candy, and soft drinks in a Pittsburgh office building. when the building was sold, Gianni had discussions with the new owner's rental agent and signed a three-year lease that provided that Gianni could "use the premises only for the sale of fruit, candy [and] soda water" but that he was "not allowed to sell tobacco." Later, when a drugstore leased space in the building and began to sell soft drinks, Gianni sued the owner for breach of an alleged promise that Gianni was to have the exclusive right to sell soft drinks in the building. Gianni sought to show that before he had signed the lease the rental agent had made this promise in return for gianni's promises not to sell tobacco and to pay an increased rent. The Supreme court of Pennsylvania held that it was error to admit testimony to this effect. "As the written lease is the complete contract of the parties and since it embraces the field of the alleged oral contract, evidence of the latter is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. Even if the agent had in fact made the promise, the rule barred Gianni from using evidence of the negotiations to prove it.
The parol evidence rule is universally recognized and is embodied in the Uniform Commercial Code in UCC2-2002, a statutory formula applicable to contracts for the sale of goods.
SOURCE: E. Allan Farnsworth, Contracts, Second Edition, p. 465-6
Mitchill v. Lath
Court of appeals of New YorK, 1928.
247 N.Y. 377, 160 N.E. 646* * *
This requires a discussion of the parol evidence rule -- a rule of law which defines the limits of the contract to be cosntrued. (Glackin v. Bennett, 226 Mass. 316) It is more than a rule of evidence, and oral testimony, even if admitted, will not control the written contract (O'Malley v. Grady, 222 Mass. 202), unless admitted without objection. (Brady v. Nally, 151 N.Y. 258.)
SOURCE: Edward J. Murphy and Richard E. Speidel, Studies in Contract Law, Fourth Edition, p. 755.