Champagne and International Law

The connections between international law and champagne are numerous, the most obvious being the international legal protections that exist for the use of the name ‘champagne’.  In April 1891, the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks was adopted, a regime which ‘makes it possible to protect a mark in a large number of countries by obtaining an international registration that has effect in each of the designated Contracting Parties.’  While not mentioning champagne by name, the Madrid Treaty provides for protections of geographical appellations, such as named wine types.  

The provisions on geographical appellations were affirmed later in the Treaty of Versailles which, in addition to formally ending the First World War, also provided that: 

Germany undertakes on condition that reciprocity is accorded in these matters to respect any law, or any administrative or judicial decision given in conformity with such law, in force in any Allied or Associated State and duly communicated to her by the proper authorities, defining or regulating the right to any regional appellation in respect of wine or spirits produced in the State to which the region belongs, or the conditions under which the use of any such appellation may be permitted; and the importation, exportation, manufacture, distribution, sale or offering for sale of products or articles bearing regional appellations inconsistent with such law or order shall be prohibited by the German Government and repressed by the measures prescribed in the preceding Article.

Despite the protections for geographical appellations, usage of the name ‘champagne’, ‘méthode champenoise’ and ‘Champagne method’ for sparkling wines continued around the world, resulting in manifold court cases. 

Beyond the court room, champagne has remained a stalwart in other areas of international law – specifically as a way to celebrate the successful conclusion of treaty negotiations.  Photographs abound of champagne toasts at the end of successful treaty negotiations for the Partial Test Ban Treaty, SALT, and the Maastricht treaty, among others.  

However, toasting some agreements may cause diplomatic and political ructions.  Australia was subject to intense criticism for its champagne toast with Cambodian governmental leaders after signing a refugee agreement with Cambodia.  Under the agreement, recognized refugees, who had sought asylum in Australia but were processed offshore in Nauru, were offered permanent settlement in Cambodia and barred from settlement in Australia.  Australia’s offshore processing regime had already been subject to criticism from the UN High Commission for Refugees, and UNHCR, who called the Australian agreement with Cambodia a ‘worrying departure from international norms’, noting that ‘refugees are persons who are fleeing persecution or the life-threatening effects of armed conflict. They are entitled to better treatment than being shipped from one country to the next.’  Photos of then-immigration minister Scott Morrison and Ambassador Angela Corcoran toasting the immigration deal with Cambodian leaders, in a country known for its violent repression of democracy and human rights, led to civil society organizations and opposition political parties calling the toast ‘crass and sickening’, saying that ‘you don't drink champagne with the dictators.’

While champagne is firmly established as a drink of celebration, another alcoholic drink was considered the customary drink for specifically celebrating concluding international agreements – ratafia.  Ratafia is ‘an old, usually domestically produced wine-based apéritif made in the French countryside by drying grapes to a raisin-like state and then moistening and fermenting them in the spring.’  The name ‘ratafia’ reputedly comes from the Latin Res rata fiat - “it is decided", from which the term ‘ratification’ comes.  As noted by Champagne scholar Patrick Forbes: 

The origin of the word ‘ratafia’ is curious. It is derived from two Latin words, rata fiat, which formed part of the following formula used to validate legal transactions in the Middle Ages: De quibus est res, ut rata fiat, publicum fecimus instrumentum (We have executed a public document concerning the matters with which the transaction deals, so that it may be confirmed). Once these words had been spoken by both parties in front of a notary, the deal was ‘ratified’; custom then required the signatories to drink to the occasion from a bottle provided by the notary, a little ceremony which came to be known as the ‘ratafia'.

Ratafia had seemed to fall out of favour in the 20th century, but there has been something of a ratafia renaissance in the 21st century, seemingly driven in part by desires to reconnect with traditional cultural practices. 

Emily Crawford