Official Spanish history treated the 1500 revolt as erasing all prior treaty obligations

Evidence

Thus we have two opposing truths with no possibility of compromise between them. N´u˜nez Muley was stating the position as he and his fellow Granadans perceived it: the Capitulations of 1492 had been infringed by the Castilian Crown, and his generation had not freely accepted conversion. Deza adhered to the official Spanish line: the first revolt of the Alpujarras of 1500 had wiped the slate clean, so that conversion, when it came, had been offered as a generous concession to people who otherwise would have had to accept expulsion or slavery as the condign punishment for taking up arms against their sovereign. Of course, N´u˜nez Muley’s attempt to reopen the question of conversion got nowhere. — L. P. Harvey, Muslims in Spain, 1500 to 1614, 1001

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘revolt wipes the slate clean’ legal move parallels how colonial powers used rebellion as legal basis to void treaties — echoes in Milgrom’s work on institutions and in settler-colonial legal history.
• QUESTION: How did Spanish jurists justify retroactively voiding royal capitulations on the basis of a later rebellion? Was there a developed legal doctrine here?