The inner Empire of Morocco and the outer Empire of Morocco must Self-Govern through its three branches of the Constitution of the Empire and adhere to the “general practice” of customary international Law pursuant to the Triple principle of the Act of Algeciras of 1906, the Madrid Convention of 1880 – Article 15, and the U.N. Charter Articles 73 and 74 at Varying stages of advancement or the Moors will forever be colonized and Naturalized by foreign countries in Morocco.
country in northwest Africa, from Italian, from Berber Marrakesh (properly the name of the city of Marrakesh), from Arabic Maghrib-al-Aqsa "Extreme West." Compare French Maroc, German Marokko. In English, the first vowel has been altered, apparently by influence of Moor. Related: Moroccan.
Negro(n.)
Meaning "African-American vernacular, the English language as spoken by U.S. blacks" is from 1704. French nègre is a 16c. borrowing from Spanish negro. Older English words were Moor and blackamoor. A Middle English word for "Ethiopian" (perhaps also "a negro" generally) was blewman "blue man."
What are the 4 basic elements of a contract?
1. Who are the parties to the contract?
2. Who is superior and who is inferior in the contract?
3. What are the terms and conditions of the contract?
4. How do you enforce the contract?
The Moroccan-American Treaty of Peace and Friendship, [28 June 1786]
is the longest unbroken treaty relationship in U.S. history.
The treaty's unbroken status highlights several key facts:
Aspect
What It Means
Duration
Signed in 1786, ratified by the U.S. in 1787, and officially renewed in 1836. It has never been violated or nullified by either party.
Core Obligations
Both nations have consistently upheld the treaty's main provisions on peace, friendly relations, and commercial access.
Symbolic & Strategic Importance
Represents a long-standing strategic partnership, evolving into a modern alliance where Morocco is now a Major Non-NATO Ally.
Context: The Treaty's Unbroken Status in U.S. History
The term "unbroken" is significant because the United States has a complex history with treaties, particularly those with Native American nations. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, hundreds of treaties with Indigenous tribes were routinely broken by the U.S. government through seizure of land, forced removal, and failure to uphold agreed terms. This history of broken promises led to the "Trail of Broken Treaties" protest in 1972. In this context, the Moroccan treaty's endurance stands as a notable exception.
Key Provisions of the 1786-1787 Treaty
Mutual Non-Hostility: Neither nation will fight under the flag of the other's enemy.
Safe Passage & Protection: Ships of each nation can access the other's ports for supplies and repairs, and will be protected from enemies while in port.
Most-Favored-Nation Trade: American merchants were granted trade terms equal to those of the most favored nations trading with Morocco, such as Spain.
Dispute Resolution: Establishes peaceful methods for resolving disagreements, prioritizing diplomacy over immediate conflict.
A Unique Relationship
The treaty is unique not only for its longevity but also because Morocco was one of the very first nations to recognize the newly independent United States in 1777, well before the treaty was even negotiated. U.S. presidents, from George Washington to Ronald Reagan, have publicly acknowledged and celebrated this special diplomatic bond.
I hope this explanation is helpful. If you are interested in learning more about the specific historical context of the treaty's negotiation or its modern implications, I can provide further details.
In the context of Intertemporal international law continuous treaty relations refers to an on going legal relationship under a treaty where its meaning and obligations where its meaning and obligations are subject to legal evolution over time. This concept is directly tied to a key legal principle that distinguishes between the creation of a right and its ongoing existence.
The Core Legal Principle
This idea is famously articulated in the 1928 Island of Pamas case which established a foundational rule in international law.
1.The “First Branch” (Creation): A treaty must be interpreted according to the law that was in forced at the time it was concluded. You judge the original act by the historical rule.
2.The “Second Branch” (Continuation): However, the continued existence and exercise of a right created by that treaty must follow the conditions required by the evolution of law over time.
In similar terms, while a treaty is born under the law of its time, it lives and operates in a changing legal world. Its application can evolve.
How do continuous treaty relations adapt: The treaty itself remains in force but how it is interpreted and implemented can adapt through recognized mechanisms.
Mechanisms:subsequent practice, build a description, the actual consistent behavioral of the treaty party’s in applying it
Roles in continuing relations that can establish an authentic agreement on how to interpret the treaty in modern context.
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Article 38
1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:
a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;
b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.
Evolving Customary International Law: New rules of customary law that developed and are accepted by the international community can fill gaps in the treaty on how its general terms are understood today.
A related modern concept is the living instrument doctrine which holds that some treaty’s like human rights or environmental conventions are designed to be interpreted in light of present-day conditions and values making it there continuous relations inherently dynamic.
Applying the conceptto U.S – Moroccan Treaty
When the U.S says its 1787 Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Morocco is “unbroken” it is stating a historical fact of continuity- neither party has terminated it.
Intertemporal law adds that legal dimension of evolution to this continuing for example the treaty’s core obligation of the Peace and Friendship remains binding, however specific applications like what constitutes legal trade, navigations rights, or dispute resolution are understood and implemented according to the modern framework of international law and diplomacy not Soley by 18th century standards. In short continuous treaty relations means the legal bond persists but is practical life is governed by an evolving legal order the treaty’s skeleton is old but its living tissue is contemporary.
Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States December 26, 1933
ARTICLE 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Question: Have the Moors (i.e. the Moorish subjects) been in the “general practice” of international norms regarding the observation and application of customary relations between Sovereign States or colonial administrative Powers between the years 1956 to 2023?
Answer: No. The Empire of Morocco as a colonized sovereign and independent State, the Moroccan people, and its Moroccan government was not in conformity with the “general practice” of international law norms from 1956 to 2023; a total of 67 years, which prohibited the naturalized [Moorish subjects] from being able to invoke their human rights, State rights, treaty rights, and consular relations or diplomatic relations as Moroccan nationals - because the naturalized [Moorish subjects] failed to recognize the application of the treaty obligations of Madrid, Article 15, the mechanisms of Article 73 of the UN Charter – and the practice of self governance through the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Moorish State Government of the Empire of Morocco. However, from 2024 to Present day - the Declaration of Independence and the reconvening of the Moroccan Moorish Government of the Empire of Morocco have set into motion the “general practice” of customary norms as recognized by our varying stages of advancement of decolonization under Article 15 of the Madrid Convention, the EOM Constitution, Article 73 of the UN Charter, and UN Resolution 1514 etc.
For example, see the “general practice” of norms per the Treaty of Montevideo 1933:
ARTICLE 1 The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
(a) State,
(b) a permanent population,
(c) a defined territory,
(d) government, and
(e) capacity to enter into relations with the other States.
ARTICLE 1 – Treaty of Montevideo 1933 The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
(a) State (emergence of the Empire of Morocco as the sovereign and independent State),
(b) a permanent population (Moroccan nationals who pledged allegiance to the EOM Constitution), (c) a defined territory (inner and outer Empire of Morocco: e.g. see France unique Republic),
(d) government (Moorish 3 branches of Moroccan Government & the Consular Court),
(e) capacity to enter into relations with the other States (Diplomatic & Consular relations).
Inspired by the interest attaching itself to the reign of order, peace, and prosperity in Morocco, and recognizing that the attainment thereof can only be effected by means of the introduction of reforms based upon the triple principle of the sovereignty and independence of His Majesty the Sultan, the integrity of his domains, and economic liberty without any inequality, have resolved, upon the invitation of His Shereefian Majesty,to call together a conference at Algeciras for the purpose of arriving at an understanding upon the said reforms, as well as examining the means for obtaining the resources necessary for their application, and have appointed as their delegates plenipotentiary the following:
Declaration relative to the organization of the police.
ART. 2. The police shall be under the sovereign authority of His Majesty the Sultan. It shall be recruited by the Maghzen from Moorish Mohammedans, commanded by Moorish Kaids, and distributed in the eight ports open to commerce.
in the international court of justice case of the Western Sahara of 1975, what did the Kingdom of Morocco mean by the term "time immemorial"
In the 1975 International Court of Justice (ICJ) proceedings concerning Western Sahara, Morocco used the term "time immemorial" to assert that its sovereignty over the territory was continuous, ancient, and predating modern colonialism. This claim was central to its argument against Spain's colonization.
The Core of Morocco's Argument
In its legal submission, Morocco asked the ICJ to confirm that Western Sahara was terra nullius (land belonging to no one) at the time of Spanish colonization in 1884. Instead, it argued that the territory was under Moroccan sovereignty and had "always" been linked to the Kingdom through historical ties of allegiance between the Sultan and the Saharan tribes.
Aspect of the Claim
What Morocco Argued
Legal Status
Western Sahara was not terra nullius when Spain claimed it.
Nature of Ties
Existence of "legal ties of allegiance" between the Sultan and the tribes.
Temporal Scope
These ties existed from "time immemorial", establishing historical sovereignty.
The ICJ's Advisory Opinion and Its Findings
The Court's ruling, delivered on October 16, 1975, did not accept Morocco's core claim.
The Verdict: The ICJ concluded that at the time of Spanish colonization, Western Sahara was not terra nullius. However, it also found that there were no ties of territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and the Moroccan State or the Mauritanian entity.
What "Legal Ties" Were Found: The Court acknowledged the existence of "legal ties of allegiance" between the Sultan and some of the nomadic tribes living in the territory. Critically, it stated these ties did not amount to territorial sovereignty or establish any Moroccan state authority over the land itself.
Implication: The concept of "time immemorial" was effectively legally insufficient to establish ownership. The ties cited were personal and religious, not constitutive of the modern international law concept of sovereignty over territory.
The Phrase in Contemporary Diplomacy
Despite the ICJ's findings, Moroccan officials continue to use the phrase "since time immemorial" in diplomatic discourse to reinforce the historical legitimacy of their claim. This usage is part of a broader narrative of territorial integrity and pre-colonial nationhood.
Summary
In essence, Morocco used "time immemorial" to argue for ancient and uninterrupted sovereignty based on tribal allegiances. The ICJ recognized those historical links but distinguished them from territorial sovereignty, which it found did not exist. The disconnect between this historical argument and the requirements of international law is at the heart of the ongoing dispute.
RIGHT OF PROTECTION IN MOROCCO-JULY 3, 1880
ART. 15
Any subject of Morocco who has been naturalized in a foreign country, and who shall return to Morocco, shall after having remained for a length of time equal to that which shall have been regularly necessary for him to obtain such naturalization, choose between entire submission to the laws of the Empire and the obligation to quit Morocco, unless it shall be proved that his naturalization in a foreign country was obtained with the consent of the Government of Morocco.
Foreign naturalization heretofore acquired by subjects of Morocco according to the rules established by the laws of each country, shall be continued to them as regards all its effects, without any restriction.
