ARCHITECTURE OF PEACE — VOLUME F
The Bilingual Treaty: Arabic Text, English Text, and the Architecture of Interpretation
Dr. Yasapa-Al, MD, MBA Consular Economic Attaché Subject of the Empire of Morocco
Architecture of Peace Series First Edition — February 2026
© 2026 Dr. Yasapa-Al. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the author, except as permitted by applicable copyright law. Governing Text: Library of Congress, Statutes at Large of the United States of America, vol. 8, 484–487 (Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 1836). Arabic text via Hunter Miller, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 2 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1931). Citation Style: The Chicago Manual of Style, Notes & Bibliography format. Edition Identifier: VOLUME-F-FIRST-EDITION-2026-02
Preface
Volume F in the Architecture of Peace Series The Architecture of Peace is a multi-volume scholarly commentary on the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Empire of Morocco and the United States — the oldest unbroken treaty relationship in American diplomatic history. Each volume addresses a distinct aspect of the treaty’s structure, vocabulary, and legal architecture. Volume F stands between Volume E (Article 24, Revised Edition) and Volume G (Article 21, Revised Edition). It serves both articles — and the series as a whole — as the bilingual evidentiary foundation. Where Volumes D, E, G, and A cite the bilingual evidence in summary, Volume F is where the complete documentary record lives: the parallel texts, the text-control certification, the translator’s choices, the vocabulary analyses, and the convergence demonstration.
The Bilingual Nature of the 1836 Treaty The Treaty of Peace and Friendship exists in two languages: Arabic and English. This bilingual character is not incidental; it is constitutive of the treaty. The Arabic text was prepared under the sovereign authority of the Emperor of Morocco. The English text was published in the Statutes at Large as the authoritative American version. Both were executed as instruments of the treaty. Both were preserved in the documentary record. Both carry independent legal authority. The other volumes of the Architecture of Peace series reference the Arabic evidence at specific points of analysis. Volume F presents that evidence in full — the complete Arabic vocabulary of Articles 21 and 24, the Hurgronje text-control certification, the Hurgronje literal translations, the Nuñez translation choices, and the bilateral interpretation framework through which both texts are read. A dedicated volume is necessary iv
because the bilingual evidence is the foundation upon which every other volume’s analysis rests. Without the Arabic text, the series has only one vocabulary chain. With it, the series has two — and the convergence between them is the evidentiary fortress that makes the series’ conclusions resistant to challenge.
Authority Hierarchy This volume employs a tiered authority hierarchy. Every source cited in the volume occupies a defined position in this hierarchy, and the hierarchy determines what each source may and may not do within the analysis. Tier 0 — Treaty Texts. The treaty texts themselves are the highest authority. The controlling English text is the Library of Congress Statutes at Large, volume 8, pages 484–487. The Arabic originals are published in Hunter Miller, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, volume 2, Documents 14 and 28. Tier 0 sources are the evidence itself — the words the parties signed. Tier 1 — Period Authorities (English/American). These are the legal sources from the treaty period that determine the meaning of the English treaty vocabulary. The principal Tier 1 authorities are: William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769); Sir Edward Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England (1628– 1644); Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Chitty translation (1834); James Kent, Commentaries on American Law (1826–1830); Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law (1836). Tier 1 authorities determine what English treaty terms meant in the period of the treaty. Tier 1A — Period Authorities (Arabic/Moroccan). These are the legal sources from the Arabic juridical tradition that determine the meaning of the Arabic treaty vocabulary. The principal Tier 1A authorities are the Maliki juridical manuals operative in Morocco at the time of the treaty, together with the classical works on the objectives of the Sacred Law: al-Ghazālī (d. 1111), al-Mustaṣfā; al-Shāṭibī (d. 1388), alMuwāfaqāt. Tier 1A authorities determine what Arabic treaty terms meant within the Maliki tradition. v
Tier 2 — Scholarly Witnesses. These are scholarly sources that confirm facts about the treaty texts without determining their legal meaning. The principal Tier 2 authority is Professor C. Snouck Hurgronje of Leiden, whose text-control certification and literal translations are published in Miller, Treaties, volume 2. Hunter Miller himself is also a Tier 2 authority: his editorial apparatus preserves and contextualizes the documentary record. Tier 2 sources report what the texts say; they do not determine what the texts mean. Tier 3 — Historical Record. These are historical documents that provide context for the treaty’s formation and transmission. Isaac Cardoza Nuñez (the translator of the 1786 English text), diplomatic correspondence, and ratification records occupy Tier 3. They are evidence of the historical circumstances in which the treaty was made.
Governing Statement This volume presents evidence and analyzes it through the period legal vocabularies of both treaty parties. It does not determine meaning independently of those vocabularies. Meaning is determined by the treaty text read through the legal vocabulary of each party, as established by the Tier 1 and Tier 1A authorities cited herein.
The Bilateral Interpretation Principle The governing analytical framework of this volume is the bilateral interpretation principle, stated and developed in Chapter 5. The principle holds that in a bilingual treaty, each language version is authoritative for the party whose legal tradition it expresses. The Arabic text governs the Moroccan understanding. The English text governs the American understanding. Neither party may impose its vocabulary on the other. Where the two texts converge, the convergence strengthens both. Where they diverge, the divergence is a fact of the record that neither party may erase. vi
This principle governs every analytical chapter in the volume. Every claim about the Arabic vocabulary is accompanied by a bilateral caveat: the Maliki tradition describes the Moroccan party’s legal vocabulary; it does not govern the American party’s understanding. Every claim about the English vocabulary is likewise bounded: Blackstone and Coke describe the American party’s legal vocabulary; they do not govern the Moroccan party’s understanding. The reader is invited to test every claim in this volume against the bilateral principle. If a claim appears to import one party’s vocabulary into the other party’s text, it is an error — and the reader should identify it as such.
vii
Governing Doctrinal Locks The following doctrinal locks govern Volume F. They are non-negotiable constraints that apply to every chapter, every section, every footnote, and every claim in the volume. No interpretive move may violate any lock. They are adapted from the series-wide locks established in Volume A. Lock 1: LoC Statutes at Large = Controlling English Text. The Library of Congress Statutes at Large, volume 8, pages 484–487, is the controlling English text. All English-language treaty quotations are verbatim from this source. No paraphrase, modernization, or editorial alteration is permitted. Lock 2: “Empire of Morocco” Naming. The Moroccan state is referred to as the “Empire of Morocco.” The sovereign is the “Emperor.” The designations “Kingdom” and “Sultan” are not used. Lock 3: Period Authorities Only. Tier 1 authorities must be published no later than 1836. Tier 1A authorities must predate the treaty period. No modern dictionary, no modern legal treatise, no post-treaty authority may be cited as a Tier 1 or Tier 1A source. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), the International Court of Justice, and other post-treaty instruments are excluded from the authority hierarchy. Lock 4: Self-Activating Doctrine. The treaty’s protections are self-activating. They take effect upon treaty formation and remain operative for the duration of the treaty relationship. No external recognition, judicial determination, or administrative action is required to activate them. Lock 5: Architecture, Not Enforcement. This volume presents the treaty’s architecture — its structure, vocabulary, and legal viii
meaning. It does not advise on enforcement, litigation strategy, or practical mechanisms for invoking the treaty’s protections. The words “enforce,” “invoke,” “pursue,” “remedy,” “file,” “bring a claim,” and “seek relief” do not appear as prescriptive recommendations. Lock 6: No Recognition-Conditional Framing. No claim in this volume is framed as contingent upon recognition by any court, government, or institution. The treaty’s protections exist because the treaty’s terms create them, not because any external body has acknowledged them. Lock 7: Hurgronje = Tier 2 (Scholarly Witness). Professor C. Snouck Hurgronje is a Tier 2 authority. He certifies what the Arabic text says. He does not determine what it means. His findings are factual evidence; they are not governing interpretations.
ix
Contents
Preface
iv
Governing Doctrinal Locks
viii
The Documentary Record
The Treaty Instruments
The Text-Control Certification
Hurgronje’s Literal Translations
Isaac Cardoza Nuñez and the 1786 Translation
The Interpretive Framework
The Bilateral Interpretation Principle
The Arabic Vocabulary of Article 21
The English Vocabulary of Article 21
The Convergence
The Critique-Response Apparatus
Objections and Answers
x
CONTENTS
The Pedagogical Framework
10 Method — How to Read a Bilingual Treaty
Appendix A: Parallel Text — Article 21
Appendix B: Parallel Text — Article 24
Appendix C: The Five Differences Between 1786 and 1836 Arabic Texts
Appendix D: Authorities Cited
Appendix E: Arabic Transliteration Key
Freeze Declaration
Colophon
xi
CONTENTS
xii
The Documentary Record
The Treaty Instruments The documentary record of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Empire of Morocco and the United States rests upon two principal instruments: the treaty of 1786, negotiated under the authority of Sidi Muhammad ibn Abdallah, Emperor of Morocco, and the treaty of 1836, which renewed and continued the earlier agreement. Both instruments exist in two language versions — an Arabic original prepared under Moroccan authority and an English text. The present chapter establishes the provenance, location, and documentary status of each instrument and identifies the governing editions upon which this volume and the Architecture of Peace series rely. No interpretive claims are advanced in this chapter. The chapter is concerned exclusively with establishing what documents exist, where they are located, who produced them, and which published editions govern the series. The analysis of what these documents say — and what their terms mean within the legal vocabularies of the respective parties — begins in Part II.
1.1 The 1786 Treaty of Peace and Friendship
The Parties and the Negotiation In the year 1786, the Empire of Morocco and the United States of America concluded a Treaty of Peace and Friendship.1 The treaty was negotiated on the Moroccan side under the authority of Sidi Muhammad ibn Abdallah, Emperor of Morocco. The Emperor had initiated diplomatic overtures toward the United States at a time when the young republic, having recently secured its independence from Great Britain, was seeking to establish treaty relationships with the nations of North Africa and the broader Mediter1
Hunter Miller, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 2 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1931), Document 14 (pp. 185–227).
The Treaty Instruments
ranean world.2 Morocco’s recognition of American independence and its willingness to enter into a treaty of peace and friendship preceded similar arrangements with several other North African states. The American negotiator was Thomas Barclay, who had been appointed by the Continental Congress as its agent for the purpose of securing a treaty with the Empire of Morocco.3 Barclay traveled to Morocco and conducted the negotiations that produced the treaty instrument. The diplomatic context of the negotiation — the interests of both parties, the broader Mediterranean situation, and the specific terms agreed upon — is documented in Miller’s editorial notes to Document 14.
The Arabic Instrument The treaty was prepared in Arabic under Moroccan authority. The Arabic text constitutes the original treaty document — the instrument executed under the authority of the Emperor of Morocco and bearing the authentication of the Moroccan sovereign. In the diplomatic usage of the period, this Arabic instrument is referred to as the Bargash text, denoting the Arabic original prepared and authenticated under the direction of the Emperor’s government.4 The Arabic original of the 1786 treaty is preserved in the documentary record and reproduced in Miller’s edition. It is the foundational text from which the English version was derived. The relationship between the Arabic original and the English translation is a matter of central importance to this volume, but the analysis of that relationship is reserved for subsequent chapters. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to establish that an Arabic original exists, that it was prepared under Moroccan sovereign authority, and that it is preserved in the published record.
Miller, Treaties, 2:185–86 (editorial notes to Document 14). Miller, Treaties, 2:185–227 (notes to Document 14, including Barclay’s commission and correspondence). Miller, Treaties, 2:185–86. The designation “Bargash” refers to the Arabic instrument as the authoritative text prepared under Moroccan sovereign authority.
Chapter 1
Isaac Cardoza Nuñez as Translator The English text of the 1786 treaty is a translation from the Arabic original. The translator was Isaac Cardoza Nuñez, who rendered the Arabic into English during the course of the 1786 negotiations.5 Nuñez occupies a position of particular documentary importance in the treaty record. He was a named, identifiable individual who performed a specific function at a specific moment in the diplomatic process. This is a fact of consequence for the documentary chain. When a translation is the work of an anonymous committee or an unnamed institutional process, the specific choices embedded in the translated text cannot be attributed to any particular person’s judgment. When, by contrast, the translator is identified by name — as Nuñez is — each word selected in the English rendering is traceable to a particular person working at a particular point in time, with whatever knowledge of both languages and whatever awareness of English legal vocabulary that person possessed. The English words that appear in the 1786 treaty text are Nuñez’s selections. He stood between the Arabic original and the English-reading audience, and he chose the English terms that would carry the Arabic meanings into the other language. The specific translation choices Nuñez made — and their significance within the English legal vocabulary of the period — are the subject of Chapter 4 of this volume. The present chapter notes only that Nuñez was the translator and that his identity is a matter of documented record.
The Two Language Versions The 1786 treaty thus exists in two language versions from its inception: an Arabic original prepared under Moroccan sovereign authority, and an English translation produced by Isaac Cardoza Nuñez. Both versions are preserved in the published documentary record. The Arabic original and the English translation, together with Miller’s comprehensive editorial notes on the negotiation, ratification, and diplomatic context of the
Miller, Treaties, 2:185–227 (notes to Document 14, identifying Nuñez as translator).
The Treaty Instruments
treaty, appear in Hunter Miller, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, volume 2, as Document 14.6 The existence of two language versions — and the question of how both versions operate within the treaty’s architecture — is the central concern of this volume. That question is not addressed here. This section establishes only the documentary fact: the 1786 treaty exists in Arabic and in English, the Arabic is the original, the English is a translation by Nuñez, and both are published in Miller.
Contents and Duration The 1786 treaty contained twenty-five articles, numbered 1 through 25, governing the terms of peace, commerce, navigation, and mutual treatment of subjects and citizens between the Empire of Morocco and the United States.7 The articles addressed matters including the treatment of persons and property, the adjudication of disputes between Moroccan subjects and American citizens, the privileges and responsibilities of consuls, the handling of shipwrecks and salvage, and the general conditions of amity between the two nations. The treaty did not terminate upon the death of Sidi Muhammad ibn Abdallah. It continued in force across the transition of Moroccan sovereigns and was subsequently renewed by a second instrument — the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1836 — which forms the subject of the next section.
1.2 The 1836 Treaty of Peace and Friendship
The Renewal In 1836, the Empire of Morocco and the United States concluded a second Treaty of Peace and Friendship, renewing and continuing the relationship established by the 1786 instrument.8 The 1836 treaty is not a wholly new agreement negotiated from first prin6
Miller, Treaties, vol. 2, Document 14 (pp. 185–227). Miller, Treaties, vol. 2, Document 14 (text of treaty). Miller, Treaties, vol. 2, Document 28 (pp. 535–607).
Chapter 1
ciples. It is a renewal — a continuation of the existing treaty relationship with such modifications as the parties deemed appropriate to the circumstances of the new period.9 The fact of renewal is documentary, not interpretive. The 1836 treaty carries forward the structure, the article numbering, and — as Chapter 2 of this volume will demonstrate through the text-control certification of Professor C. Snouck Hurgronje — the substantial majority of the Arabic text of the earlier instrument. The relationship between the two instruments is one of continuity, not replacement.
The Two Language Versions As with the 1786 instrument, the 1836 treaty exists in two language versions. An Arabic original was prepared under Moroccan authority. An English text was prepared for the American party. Both language versions were executed as instruments of the treaty.10 The existence of co-equal Arabic and English texts is a structural feature of both the 1786 and 1836 instruments. The treaty relationship between the Empire of Morocco and the United States was, from its inception and through its renewal, a bilingual one. The two language versions are not an accident of diplomatic convenience; they are constitutive features of the treaty record. Both parties executed both instruments. The bilingual character of the treaty is a fact of the documentary record, not an interpretation imposed upon it.
Publication in the Statutes at Large The English text of the 1836 treaty was published in the Statutes at Large of the United States of America, volume 8, at pages 484 through 487.11 This publication constitutes the Library of Congress certified text of the treaty in English. It is the authoritative
Miller, Treaties, 2:535–607 (editorial notes to Document 28, describing the diplomatic context of the renewal). Miller, Treaties, vol. 2, Document 28. Statutes at Large of the United States of America, vol. 8, 484–87.