Were secret treaties ratified? How did they become official while remaining secret?

Question

Up to early 20th century, secret treaties or secret protocols seemed to be common. For example:

• The Russian-French alliance before WW I was partly based on a "a secret treaty in 1894"
• The secret Treaty of London in which Britain, France and Russia offered Italy territories in exchange for joining World War I on the side of the Allies
• The Soviet-German Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact included a secret protocol on the partition of Poland and other countries between the two powers' spheres of influence

How were these treaties ratified or made official if they were to be secret? Especially if some parties were democracies (e.g. Britain, France) where parliaments—which might include opposition parties—are expected to ratify treaties? Weren't it going to leak once hundreds of politicians knew about it?

If not ratified, how were they made official and enforceable? In countries where government can change hands, how does a government even know their treaty obligations made by previous governments of different political parties? How were they expected to honor the treaty?

Answer 1

There are some misconceptions about what ratification means. Though it is now common for treaties to be ratified by a legislature, that has never been essential to the ratification process.

In actuality, the reason for treaty ratification is that the negotiator doesn't always have the authority to bind the nation to a treaty. In most countries, historically, the Sovereign alone held that authority. Treaties were thus ratified when the Sovereigns approves of the terms. This can easily be done in secret, since there is no need to involve large numbers of people.

Traditionally, ratification signified the consent of the sovereign to a treaty negotiated by the sovereign's plenipotentiary, who might have no means of consulting the sovereign when negotiating in distant countries.

_{Grenville, John, and Bernard Wasserstein, eds. The Major International Treaties of the Twentieth Century: a history and guide with texts. Routledge, 2013.}

In fact, treaty ratification remains a Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom. Even today Parliament does not get to ratify British treaties, although as @Henry noted, HM Government is now legally required to lay most treaties before Parliament for 21 days. There was no such law in 1894 or 1915.

While I'm not familiar with French constitutional law, it seems that the same is true of France during this period. Under the Third Republic, in matters of foreign affairs the President apparently inherited much of the executive powers of previous French monarchs:

According to the Constitution of 1875, the president had the power to "dispose of the armed forces," to "negotiate and ratify treaties," and in case of emergency to "declare war" . . . the French Senate never developed its constitutionally privileged position to ratify treaties or to declare war analogous to the American Senate.

_{Hamilton, Richard F., and Holger H. Herwig. Decisions for War, 1914-1917. Cambridge University Press, 2004.}

(Even with the United States, it is technically the President, not the Senate, who ratifies treaties by signing the instruments of ratification. The common misunderstanding stems from the fact that the former can only do so with the "advice and consent" of the latter.)

In the case of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, the approval of Hitler and Stalin functionally ratifies a treaty, given their autocratic control over their respective countries.

Answer 2

They high command is the only one who knows about them. They become official but not public. I wonder how many there have been we don't even know about. Then they make up some reason. In the poland case it was "to supress rebel activit and to deescalate" or smth like that