A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law

9.1.3 The international system was complicated by the structure of

empires, which tended to consist of a core state surrounded by vas-

sal kingdoms, over which they exercised varying degrees of control.

Vassal kings would often have not only internal autonomy but also

a measure of freedom in their foreign relations. They could wage

war on their own account, make alliances, and even acquire their

own vassals, provided that their actions were not prejudicial to the

overlord’s interests. Vassal states therefore must also be regarded as

the subjects of international law.

9.2 Treaties

9.2.1 An international treaty derived its binding character from a

solemn oath sworn by the gods. The oath was a standard way of

creating contractual obligations but in a domestic context is seldom

found as the sole constituent of a contract. The reason for its cen-

tral role in treaties is that their provisions related exclusively to future

conduct. It was therefore the only possible form (see the discussion

of contracts, 7 above). The oath could be by the party’s own gods,

the other party’s gods, or both, depending on the political condi-

tions. The promisor was more likely to fear the wrath of his own

gods but an oath by the promisee’s gods gave the promisee the right

to intervene as his gods’ representative to punish violation.

9.2.2 Conclusion of the treaty could be accompanied by ceremonies

solemnizing the bargain, such as a communal meal and sacrifices.

The parties were the kings, or officials acting as their agents when,

as was frequently the case, they did not meet face to face. The pro-

cedure in both cases was oral. Writing was not necessary to the

validity of a treaty, although a written record was often made and

accorded great significance. Copies were sometimes deposited in a

temple, and there are examples of important treaties being recorded

on tablets of silver or gold.

9.2.3 Treaties differed from ordinary contracts in that the witnesses

to the transaction were primarily gods. Unlike human witnesses, the

gods had a dual role: to attest to the oaths and, at the same time,

to be potential avengers of their breach. Long lists of the gods of

one or both parties were appended to treaty documents, which were

sometimes also impressed with seals stated to be those of named

84 

WESTBROOK_F2_1-90 8/27/03 1:39 PM Page 84