2 Treaties

download 2 Treaties

of 26

  • date post

    03-Apr-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    217
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of 2 Treaties

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    1/26

    DEFINITION OF TREATY

    Art 2 (1) (a) VCLT

    1. For the purposes of the present Convention:

    (a) "treaty" means an international agreementconcluded between States in written form andgoverned

    by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments

    and whatever its particular designation;

    Applicable only for VCLT

    3 elements

    1. Concluded between States

    IGOs can also enter (CIL principle)

    o VCLT will not govern these. Art 3 expressly preserves legal force reg by CIL

    Article 3 - International agreements not within the scope of the present Convention

    The fact that the present Convention does not apply to international agreements concluded between

    the States and other subjects of international law or between such other subjects of international

    law, or to international agreements not in written form, shall not affect:

    (a) the legal force of such agreements;(b) the application to them of any of the rules set forth in the present Convention to which they

    would be subject under international law independently of the Convention;

    (c) the application of the Convention to the relations of States as between themselves under

    international agreements to which other subjects of international law are also parties.

    VCLTSIO (not in force) designed to reg non-State treaties. Provs reflective of CIL

    K between State and foreign company not reg by VCLT or CIL.Anglo-Iranian Oil Case

    BUT parties may be able to make K disputes subject to international arbitration law. Texaco

    Overseas Petroleum Co v Libya

    Does not transform K into treaty

    2. In written form

    not necessary for legally binding agreement, just necessary for VCLT to apply

    Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case (Norway v Denmark)

    PCIJ Rep (1933) Series A/B No 53

    Denmark had established colonies in other parts of Greenland

    Eastern part of Greenland remained uncolonised harsh environmental conditions

    Norway sent expedition to eastern Greenland and claimed sovereignty with possession in 1931

    Proof of conversations between Norwegian Foreign Minister and Danish Minister accredited toNorway at the peace conferences after WW1 to the effect that:

    o Denmark proposed that it would allow Norway to claim Spitzbergen if Norway agreed

    not to challenge any Danish claim to the whole of Greenland

    o At a later meeting, Norwegian Minister told the Danish Minister that Norway would

    not create any difficulty concerning the Danish claim

    Denmark claimed that this constituted a binding treaty under international law and thus Norways

    1931 claim was in breach of their obligation

    HELD

    Norwegian Ministers words affirmed a commitment by Norway not to object to Danish claims to

    sovereignty of the whole of Greenland

    Minister for Foreign Affairs can by verbal commitment bind the state he represents when answering

    a question in the context of diplomatic relations which falls within his province of authority

    Norway was thus under an obligation to refrain from challenging Danish claims of sovereignty and

    thus was obliged not to occupy any part of Greenland

    1

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    2/26

    Took into account that Norway received a quid pro quo the promise of Denmark not to object to

    Norway claiming Spitzbergen

    Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v France, New Zealand v France)

    ICJ Rep (1974) 253

    Australia and NZ brought cases against France seeking an order from the court preventing Frances

    atmospheric nuclear testing in the Pacific

    France (through authoritative sources) had since made representations that it would cease its

    atmospheric testing:

    1. President of Republic issued communiqu stating that France was in a position to change to

    underground testing after that summer

    2. President of Republic stated at a press conference that France was committed to ending

    their atmospheric nuclear tests

    3. Foreign Minister made statement to General Assembly of UN that France was moving to

    underground testing of its nuclear weapons

    France claimed these unilateral declarations constituted a binding obligation on it not to carry out

    any more atmospheric tests (and further than the court had no issue to decide if they were right)

    Australia and NZ objected because they wanted the court to declare the atmospheric tests to be

    against international law

    HELD

    When states makes declaration with the intention that it should be bound, that intention makes the

    statement legally binding and the state will be required by international law to act consistently with

    its undertaking

    In the case of unilateral undertakings, nothing in needed such as quid pro quo or affirmation or

    acceptance by any other state, and the undertaking will be directed to all states

    Not all unilateral acts will draw an inference of a binding obligation, it is a matter of intention

    Where statement restricts a states freedom of action, the approach of the court should be restrictive

    Trust and confidence is part of international law and states should be able to rely on declarations

    made by other states

    The undertaking cannot be said to subject to an arbitrary power of reconsideration

    Frontier Dispute Case (Burkina Faso v Mali)

    ICJ Rep (1986) 554

    Mediation Commission of African Unity recommended a solution in a not released report for the

    dispute over the border between the two states

    President of Mali made a statement that they would accept the decision even if the frontier runs

    though Bamako [the capital of Mali]

    Burkina Faso claimed that this constituted a binding obligation to accept the Commissions report

    and findings on the border

    HELD In theNuclear Tests case there were many countries concerned with the atmospheric testing, not

    just the applicants to the ICJ

    In those circumstances, the only way France could show an intention to be bound was through

    unilateral declarations

    The current case is distinguishable in that it would be appropriate for the parties to enter into formal

    recognition of the agreement between them on the basis of reciprocity

    Harder to find existence of legal obligation where the subject matter of the unilateral declaration is

    of interest to only one state, rather than having an international audience

    As they have not concluded such an agreement, the statements by the President of Mali do not

    constitute a unilateral act with legal implications

    Art 3 VCLT expressly preserves legal force of oral treaties.

    See Art above

    Railway Traffic between Lithuania and Poland Case

    2

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    3/26

    Advisory opinion of PCIJ HELD

    participation by 2 States in adoption ofresolution of Council of League of Nations calling

    upon them to enter into negotiations was capable of constituting binding ament between them.

    VCLT & CIL no prescribed requirements for written form

    ICJ emphasis on intention of parties where no prescribed law; parties free to choose

    appropriate form to express their intentions. Temple of Preah Vihear Case

    Ct will look at intention to see if oral agreement is binding in same way as treaty

    Context surrounding will be important

    3. Governed by international law

    VCLT no express req in Art 2 (1) (a) to look at intention of parties as to whether they are

    governed by international law, however the requirement is said to be embraced by this element.

    YBILC (1996) ii, p 189

    TREATY MAKING PROCESS

    1. Capacity

    Art 6 VCLT every State has capacity

    Article 6 - Capacity of States to conclude treaties

    Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties

    2. Full Powers

    Definition Art 2 (1) (c)

    (c) "full powers" means a document emanating from the competent authority of a State designating a

    person or persons to represent the State for negotiating, adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty,

    for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act withrespect to a treaty;

    Natural persons must have these to bind the State they represent

    Document designates person with these powers

    Article 7 - Full powers

    (1) A person is considered as representing a State for the purpose of adopting or authenticating the

    text of a treaty or for the purpose of expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty if:

    (a) he produces appropriate full powers; or

    (b) it appears from the practice of the States concerned or from other circumstances that their

    intention was to consider that person as representing the State for such purposes and to dispensewith full powers.

    (2) In virtue of their functions and without having to produce full powers, the following are considered

    as representing their State:

    (a) Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of

    performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty;

    (b) heads of diplomatic missions, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty between the

    accrediting State and the State to which they are accredited;

    (c) representatives accredited by States to an international conference or to an international

    organization or one of its organs, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty in that

    conference, organization or organ.

    3. Adoption of text

    Practically important step re: concluding multilateral requirements in Art 9

    3

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    4/26

    Article 9 - Adoption of the text

    The adoption of the text of a treaty takes place by the consent of all the Statesparticipating in its

    drawing up except as provided in paragraph 2.

    The adoption of the text of a treaty at an international conference takes place by the vote of two

    thirds of the States present and voting, unless by the same majority they shall decide to apply

    a different rule.

    4. Authentication of text

    Once adopted, need to prepare final version requirements in Art 10

    Article 10 - Authentication of the text

    The text of a treaty is established as authentic and definitive:

    (a) by such procedures as may be provided for in the text or agreed upon by the Statesparticipating in its drawing up; or

    (b) failing such procedure, by the signature, signature ad referendum or initialling by therepresentatives of those States of the text of the treaty or of the Final Act of a conference

    incorporating the text.

    5. Consent to be bound

    Most critical step in treaty formation

    Activates treaty and produces legal effects for consenting State

    NO State is bound by treaty unless manifests its consent to be bound

    Article 11 - Means of expressing consent to be bound by a treaty

    The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments

    constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed.

    Art 2 (1) (b) procedures in Art 11 mean consent

    (b) "ratification", "acceptance", "approval" and "accession" mean in each case the international act sonamed whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty;

    (i) Signature Art 12

    Article 12 - Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by signature

    The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative

    when:

    (1) the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect;

    (a) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed thatsignature should have that effect; or

    (b) the intention of the State to give that effect to the signature appears from thefull powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.

    (2) For the purposes of paragraph 1:

    (a) the initialling of a text constitutes a signature of the treaty when it isestablished that the negotiating States so agreed;

    (b) the signature ad referendumof a treaty by a representative, if confirmedbyhis State, constitutes a full signature of the treaty.

    Art 14 (1) (c)

    1. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when:

    the representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification; or

    (ii) Exchange of instruments (usually bilateral) Art 13

    Article 13 - Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by an exchange of instruments

    constituting a treaty

    4

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    5/26

    The consent of States to be bound by a treaty constituted by instruments exchanged between

    them is expressed by that exchange when;

    (a) the instruments provide that their exchange shall have that effect; or

    (b) it is otherwise established that those States were agreed that the exchange ofinstruments should have that effect.

    (iii) Ratification, acceptance, approval Art 14

    Article 14 - Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by ratification, acceptance or

    approval

    The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when:

    (a) the treaty provides for such consent to be expressed by means of ratification;

    (b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that

    ratification should be required;

    (c) the representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification; or

    (d) the intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from

    the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.

    The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by acceptance or approval

    under conditions similar to those which apply to ratification. Ratification originally a device to ensure State agreed as Rep would have negotiated

    and signed with little contact

    need has largely evaporated

    now serves as purpose for permitting some measure of democratic control

    domestic scrutiny etc permitted (dom procedures for approving treaty) Acceptance, approval less formal than ratification procedure

    @ int law 3 terms do not have separate legal effects Art 14,

    Art 16 procedure for all 3

    Article 16 - Exchange or deposit of instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or

    accession

    Unless the treaty otherwise provides, instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval oraccession establish the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty upon:

    (a) theirexchangebetween the contracting States;

    (b) theirdeposit with the depositary; or

    (c) theirnotification to the contracting States or to the depositary, if so agreed.

    Failure to complete act of ratification (in accordance with Art 16) on int plane results in State

    failing to signify consent to be bound, even ifall domestic law procedures have bee properly

    concluded. Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua

    (iv) Accession Art 15

    Normal means of becoming party to multilateral treaty that have not signed

    Eg when time for signature expires

    Mode of accession will be specified in treaty

    Article 15 - Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by accession

    The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by accession when:

    (a) the treaty provides that such consent may be expressed by that State by means ofaccession;

    (b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that such consentmay be expressed by that State by means of accession; or

    (c) all the parties have subsequently agreed that such consent may be expressed by thatState by means of accession.

    5

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    6/26

    ENTRY INTO FORCE

    Bilateral usually when both States have definitively expressed their consent to be bound, or on some

    specified date thereafter.

    Multilateral usually designates number of signatures, ratifications or accessions reqd before treaty

    enters into force

    THEN indicates entry into force when # achieved, or on some specified date thereafter.Eg Art 308 (1)Law of Sea

    Article 24 - Entry into force

    1. A treaty enters into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the

    negotiating States may agree.

    2. Failing any such provision or agreement, a treaty enters into force as soon as consent to be

    bound by the treaty has been established for all the negotiating States.

    3. When the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is established on a date after the treaty

    has come into force, the treaty enters into force for that State on that date, unless the treaty

    otherwise provides.

    4. The provisions of a treaty regulating the authentication of its text, the establishment of the

    consent of States to be bound by the treaty, the manner or date of its entry into force, reservations,the functions of the depositary and other matters arising necessarily before the entry into force of

    the treaty apply from the time of the adoption of its text.

    Effect of treaty before entry into force

    Art 18 obliges States to refrain from acting contrary to the treaty after signing subject to

    ratification or express consent pending entry into force.

    Otherwise no full effect until entry into force

    CIL principle of good faith

    Art 18 States can escape when manifests clear intention not to ratify unsigning. Or if entry

    into force is unduly delayed, can revoke consent.

    Article 18 - Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force

    A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when:

    (a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to

    ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a

    party to the treaty; or

    (b) it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of the treaty

    and provided that such entry into force is not unduly delayed.

    Effect of treaty after entry into force

    Binds parties pursuant to general principle of law pacta sunt servanda

    Article 26 -Pacta sunt servanda

    Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.

    As between the parties, rule contained in treaty will prevail over any inconsistent rule of CIL

    except rules ofjus cogens

    To the extent that treaty rule is identical in content to a CIL rule, both rules apply

    simultaneously.

    Effect on third States

    Exceptionally possible for parties to confer rights/impose obligations on States who are not parties.

    Article 34 - General rule regarding third States

    A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent.

    6

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    7/26

    Consent of 3rd State is necessary

    Must establish that States parties to the treaty actually intended to create rights or obligations

    for the 3rd State

    Obligations imposed by treaty

    That consent is necessary is a strict rule Art 35 VCLT

    Article 35 - Treaties providing for obligations for third States

    An obligation arises for a third State from a provision of a treaty if the parties to the treaty intend

    the provision to be the means of establishing the obligation and the third State expressly accepts

    that obligation in writing.

    Not possible for 3rd State to assume binding obligation by acquiescence, oral consent or

    implication from conduct.

    Obligation arisen under Art 35 may be revoked or modified only with the consent of the

    treatys parties and 3rd State, unless they had all agreed otherwise. Art 37 (1) VCLT

    Rights conferred by treaty

    Easier to establish consent of 3

    rd

    State usually presumed

    Article 36 - Treaties providing for rights for third States

    1. A right arises for a third State from a provision of a treaty if the parties to the treaty

    intend the provision to accord that right either to the third State, or to a group of States

    to which it belongs, or to all States, and the third State assents thereto. Its assent shall

    be presumed so long as the contrary is not indicated, unless the treaty otherwise

    provides.

    2. A State exercising a right in accordance with paragraph 1 shall comply with the

    conditions for its exercise provided for in the treaty or established in conformity with

    the treaty.

    Not presumed where expressly/impliedly rejected conferral Not presumed where treaty requires 3rd State to perform an act signifying its

    acceptance of the conferred right (State will need to comply with treatys requirements in

    order for the right to be effectively conferred)

    A right under Art 36 may not be revoked or modified by subsequent agreement of

    treatys parties if shown that original intention in conferring right was that revocation or

    modification could occur only with consent of 3rd State Art 37 (2) VCLT

    Article 37 - Revocation or modification of obligations or rights of third States

    1. When an obligation has arisen for a third State in conformity with article 35, the obligation may

    be revoked or modified only with the consent of the parties to the treaty and of the third State,

    unless it is established that they had otherwise agreed.2. When a right has arisen for a third State in conformity with article 36, the right may not be

    revoked or modified by the parties if it is established that the right was intended not to be

    revocable or subject to modification without the consent of the third State.

    Effect of national law on treaty obligations

    State party may not invoke provisions of internal law as justification for failure to perform

    Art 27 VCLT

    Article 27 - Internal law and observance of treaties

    A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a

    treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.

    Rule is subject to Art 46 internal laws regarding competence to conclude treaties

    7

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    8/26

    Article 46 - Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties

    1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in

    violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating

    its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of

    fundamental importance.

    2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter

    in accordance with normal practice and in good faith.

    Temporal effect of treaties

    Art 28 VCLT prima facie treaties do not produce retroactive effects

    Article 28 - Non-retroactivity of treaties

    Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not

    bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before

    the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.

    Art 29 Territorial effect of treaties

    Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon

    each party in respect of its entire territory.

    Common practice for States exercising authority over dependent territories etc to specify in

    treatys text or by reservation/declaration when expressing consent to be bound, the extent to

    which the treaty applies to such territories.

    Called a territorial clause

    Where no clause and parties intention cannot be otherwise established, ILC 4th Special

    Rapporteur on law of treaties the general understanding today clearly is thata treaty is

    presumed to apply to all territories for which the contracting States are internationally

    responsible.3rd Report, YBILC (1964) II, p15.

    Effect of inconsistent treaties

    Article 30 - Application of successive treaties relating to the same subject-matter1. Subject to article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, the rights and obligations of States

    parties to successive treaties relating to the same subject-matter shall be determined in accordance

    with the following paragraphs.

    2. When a treaty specifies that it is subject to, or that it is not to be considered as incompatible with,

    an earlier or later treaty, the provisions of that other treaty prevail.

    3. When all the parties to the earlier treaty are parties also to the later treaty but the earlier treaty is not

    terminated or suspended in operation under article 59, the earlier treaty applies only to the extent

    that its provisions are compatible with those of the later treaty.

    4. When the parties to the later treaty do not include all the parties to the earlier one:

    (a) as between States parties to both treaties the same rule applies as in paragraph 3;

    (b) as between a State party to both treaties and a State party to only one of the treaties, the treaty

    to which both States are parties governs their mutual rights and obligations.5. Paragraph 4 is without prejudice to article 41, or to any question of the termination or suspension of

    the operation of a treaty under article 60 or to any question of responsibility which may arise for a

    State from the conclusion or application of a treaty the provisions of which are incompatible with

    its obligations towards another State under another treaty.

    Where all parties to new treaty (inconsistent with existing treaty) are same as existing treaty

    then earlier treaty only applies to extent that its provisions are compatible with those of the later

    treaty. Art 30 (3) VCLT

    Where only some parties to existing are parties to later treaty then as between those States inter

    se, later treaty overrides inconsistent provisions in earlier. Art 30 (4) (a) VCLT

    If one State party to both and another party to only one, then as between the States, only

    governed by the treaty they are both parties to. Art 30 (4) (b) VCLT

    If State enters mutually exclusive treaty obligations (ie both conferring same right on different

    States) then promising State will ordinarily incur responsibility for breach to whichever State it

    does not honour the treaty. Art 30 (5) VCLT

    8

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    9/26

    Registration of treaties

    Art 80 VCLT - Requires treaties to be transmitted to UN Secretariat for registration and publication.

    Article 80 - Registration and publication of treaties

    1. Treaties shall, after their entry into force, be transmitted to the Secretariat of the United Nations for

    registration or filing and recording, as the case may be, and for publication.

    2. The designation of a depositary shall constitute authorization for it to perform the acts specified in

    the preceding paragraph.

    Complements Art 102 UN Charter (included in order to combat practice of concluding and

    maintaining secret treaties)

    Treaties which do not comply with Art 102(2) remain legally binding, but cannot be invoked before

    any organ of UN.

    Notwithstanding ICJ is principal organ of UN (Art 7, UN Charter), unregistered treaties and

    international agreements may be pleaded before ICJ which will give legal effect to them. Case

    concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v

    Bahrain) (Jurisdiction First Phase) ICJ Rep (1994) 112 at para 29

    RESERVATIONS

    1. Definition and Function

    Device employed by States in course of expressing consent to be bound

    Art 2 (1) (d) VCLT

    "reservation" means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when

    signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to

    modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State;

    Where a unilateral declaration made by a State at time of signing is not intended to exclude or

    modify the legal effect of any provisions of the treaty it is not a reservation. interpretative

    declarations do not mean contingent upon other States accepting interpretation

    Where interpretative declaration is made contingent upon other States accepting, then it is a

    reservation, despite the name formally attached to it by the State issuing the statement. Belilos v

    SwitzerlandECtHR (1988) Series A No 132 at para 49.

    Reservations enable State to tailor treaty to its own will

    Almost exclusively to multilateral, but sometimes to bilateral

    More common practice with bilateral is that proposal to modify/amend terms is taken as a proposal

    to amend final text part of treaty negotiation prior to signature

    2. Custom (before VCLT)

    State could not make reservation unless treaty permitted reservation and all other States who had

    already consented accepted.

    Gave other state parties a veto on reservations and on participation of States who wished to make

    reservation

    Multilateral treaties purpose to effect widespread/universal change. Tension between maintaining

    integrity of text and securing most widespread adherence

    Earlier, priority given to integrity of text

    From 1930s onward, shift toward securing widespread acceptance

    No treaty relationship would form between two state where one did not accept the reservation of the

    other

    Reservations to the Genocide Convention Case 1951

    some States made reservations to 1948 Conv

    no provision for reservations in text9

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    10/26

    UN GA req ICJ advisory opinion

    Q1 reserving State still party if reservation objected to by 1+ parties?

    Q2 if yes, what is effect of reservation as between reserving State and those States that object and

    those that accept

    ICJ HELD

    Re: Q1, noted increasing State practice

    Therefore cannot be inferred that absence of reservation provision in treaty means States prohibited

    from making reservations

    Must consider character of multilateral ament, object and purpose

    HERE object and purpose imply intention of GA and States that as many as possible participate

    Complete exclusion of all terms restrict scope and application; detract from authority of moral

    and humanitarian principles which are Convs basis.

    Compatibility of reservation with object and purpose is criterion to judge as to whether reservation

    will be allowed

    Q1 State is party ifreservation compatible with object and purpose, otherwise not a

    party

    Q2- objecting party can consider reserving party not a party and accepting party can

    consider reserving party a party

    NB only ICJ can determine if reservation compatible with object and purpose (until decided 2(a)

    &(b) apply)

    3. Art 19 VCLT codification of position fromReservations to Genocide Convention case

    Article 19 - Formulation of reservations

    A State may, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, formulate a

    reservation unless:

    (a) the reservation is prohibited by the treaty;

    (b) the treaty provides that only specified reservations, which do not include the reservation in

    question, may be made; or

    (c) in cases not falling under sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), the reservation is incompatible with the objectand purpose of the treaty.

    Where treaty prohibits reservation/particular types of reservation State is generally prevented

    from becoming party.

    Where reservation incompatible with object and purpose State is generally prevented from

    becoming party.

    4. Incompatibility with object and purpose

    Art 19 plain that reservation incompatible is invalid.

    Objective legal question

    In absence of J pronouncement, attitude of parties to reservation will have practical evidential value

    no objections reservation compatible with object and purpose

    high # objections reservation incompatible with object and purpose

    eg Art 20(2) Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination incompatible

    if 2/3 object

    5. Acceptance and Rejection

    Article 20 - Acceptance of and objection to reservations

    1. A reservation expressly authorized by a treaty does not require any subsequent acceptance by the

    other contracting States unless the treaty so provides.2. When it appears from the limited number of the negotiating States and the object and purpose of a

    treaty that the application of the treaty in its entirety between all the parties is an essential condition

    of the consent of each one to be bound by the treaty, a reservation requires acceptance by all the

    parties.10

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    11/26

    3. When a treaty is a constituent instrument of an international organization and unless it otherwise

    provides, a reservation requires the acceptance of the competent organ of that organization.

    4. In cases not falling under the preceding paragraphs and unless the treaty otherwise provides:

    (a) acceptance by another contracting State of a reservation constitutes the reservingState a party to the treaty in relation to that other State if or when the treaty is in force

    for those States;

    (b) an objection by another contracting State to a reservation does not preclude the entryinto force of the treaty as between the objecting and reserving States unless a contrary

    intention is definitely expressed by the objecting State;

    (c) an act expressing a State's consent to be bound by the treaty and containing areservation is effective as soon as at least one other contracting State has accepted the

    reservation.

    5. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 4 and unless the treaty otherwise provides, a reservation isconsidered to have been accepted by a State if it shall have raised no objection to the

    reservation by the end of a period of twelve months after it was notified of the reservation or

    by the date on which it expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, whichever is later.

    CIL objection needed to be within reasonable time

    6. Reservations and HR treaties

    argument that impermissible reservations to HR treaties severable from reserving States consent to

    be bound ie reservation disregarded, State still bound

    Art 19 (c) + Art 20 = no specific consequences

    CIL Reservations to Genocide Convention case prohibited reservation nullifies consent even

    where universal and humanitarian object and purpose

    Belilos

    HELD reservation made by Switzerland to European Ct HR 1950 impermissible because violated

    treatys prohibition on making reservation of general character and requirement to make brief

    statement of domestic laws necessitating reservation @ para 60 reservation invalid, but Switzerland is and regards itself bound irrespective of validity

    Severed impermissible reservation, gave no further reasons for departure from CIL (noted in Weber

    v Swtiz)

    7. Effects of reservations

    Article 21 - Legal effects of reservations and of objections to reservations

    1. A reservation established with regard to another party in accordance with articles 19, 20 and 23:

    (a) modifies for the reserving State in its relations with that other party the provisions of the treaty

    to which the reservation relates to the extent of the reservation; and

    (b) modifies those provisions to the same extent for that other party in its relations with the

    reserving State.

    2. The reservation does not modify the provisions of the treaty for the other parties to the treaty interse.

    3. When a State objecting to a reservation has not opposed the entry into force of the treaty between

    itself and the reserving State, the provisions to which the reservation relates do not apply as

    between the two States to the extent of the reservation.

    CIL + gen principles will operate as between objecting and reserving parties where treaty

    provisions excised. English Channel Arbitration (UK v France) @ para 62

    8. Withdrawal of reservations and objections

    Change in legal relations effective upon notification Art 22 (3)

    11

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    12/26

    Article 22 - Withdrawal of reservations and of objections to reservations

    1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, a reservation may be withdrawn at any time and the consent

    of a State which has accepted the reservation is not required for its withdrawal.

    2. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, an objection to a reservation may be withdrawn at any time.

    3. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, or it is otherwise agreed:

    (a) the withdrawal of a reservation becomes operative in relation to another contracting State only

    when notice of it has been received by that State;

    (b) the withdrawal of an objection to a reservation becomes operative only when notice of it has

    been received by the State which formulated the reservation.

    Article 23 - Procedure regarding reservations

    1. A reservation, an express acceptance of a reservation and an objection to a reservation must be

    formulated in writing and communicated to the contracting States and other States entitled to

    become parties to the treaty.

    2. If formulated when signing the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, a reservation

    must be formally confirmed by the reserving State when expressing its consent to be bound by the

    treaty. In such a case the reservation shall be considered as having been made on the date of its

    confirmation.

    3. An express acceptance of, or an objection to, a reservation made previously to confirmation of the

    reservation does not itself require confirmation.4. The withdrawal of a reservation or of an objection to a reservation must be formulated in writing.

    INTERPRETATION

    3 schools 1951 Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice

    1. intention of parties/founding fathers approach - Prime object to ascertain and give effect tointentions

    2. textual/ordinary meaning of words approach - Prime object to establish what text meansaccording to ordinary/apparent meaning

    3. teleological/aims and objects approach - Prime object re: general purpose of treaty establish and construe clauses in this light

    Not exclusive of each other

    1. General rule of interpretation

    Article 31 - General rule of interpretation

    1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to begiven to the terms of the treaty in theircontext and in the light of its object and purpose.

    2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to thetext, including its preamble and annexes:

    (a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connexion withthe conclusion of the treaty;

    (b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connexion with the conclusion of the

    treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.

    3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:

    (a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the

    application of its provisions;

    (b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the

    parties regarding its interpretation;

    (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.

    4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.

    E Ct HR process of interpretation is a unity, single combined operation. Golder v UK(1975)

    Practices not in strict compliance with treaty but performed in intended compliance and habitual by

    all ORby 1 and acceptance/acquiescence

    12

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    13/26

    o Then may agree as to how the treaty is to be interpreted

    o Need to be taken into account. Art 31 (3) (b)

    Eg Art 27(3) UN Charter practice of abstention by State as opposed to object did not defeat of

    resolution (despite Charters silence on this)

    2. Supplementary means of interpretation

    Article 32 - Supplementary means of interpretationRecourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the

    treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the

    application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:

    (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or

    (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.

    preparatory work of the treaty includes

    all records of the negotiations whether in the form of diplomatic correspondence or

    public pronouncements

    proceedings of any international conference convened in connection with preparing the

    treaty

    work of any expert/official body (eg ILC) whose work contributed to treatys adoption ie anything which indicates the intentions of the parties in the course of adopting the treaty

    Lotus Case PCIJ - There is no occasion to have regard to preparatory work if the text of the

    convention is sufficiently clear in itself.

    3. Treaties in different languages

    Usually appear in languages of all State parties

    Article 33 - Interpretation of treaties authenticated in two or more languages

    (1) When a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally

    authoritative in each language, unless the treaty provides or the parties agree that, in case of

    divergence, a particular text shall prevail.(2) A version of the treaty in a language other than one of those in which the text was

    authenticated shall be considered an authentic text only if the treaty so provides or the parties so

    agree.

    (3) The terms of the treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text.

    (4) Except where a particular text prevails in accordance with paragraph 1, when a comparison

    of the authentic texts discloses a difference of meaning which the application of articles 31 and

    32 does not remove, the meaning which best reconciles the texts, having regard to the object

    and purpose of the treaty, shall be adopted.

    An ambiguous, obscure, absurd or unreasonable outcome reached in interpretation of treaty in

    accordance with Art 31 can be removed by reference to other authoritative language versions

    Seems use of Art 32 not avail CF probs arise due to diffs meaning of diff texts see Art 33 (4)

    recourse to Art 31 + 32

    Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case (Greece v UK) 1926

    HELD where 2 versions possess = auth and one is wider, Ct bound to adopt more limited

    interpretation to harmonise both and in accordance with parties intentions

    Wemhoff v Germany (1968)

    E Ct HR

    Diff where interpreting law making treaty

    Where 2 versions not exactly same Ct must interpret so as to reconcile as far as possible

    law making treaty necessary to seek interpretation most appropriate to realise aim and achieveobjects NOT restrict greatest degree of obligations undertaken by parties

    13

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    14/26

    AMENDMENT & MODIFICATION

    Amendment formal alteration, affects all parties

    Modification variation only affects some parties

    Bilateral amendment by subsequent agreement

    Article 39 - General rule regarding the amendment of treaties

    A treaty may be amended by agreement between the parties. The rules laid down in Part II apply tosuch an agreement except in so far as the treaty may otherwise provide.

    Multilateral rules more complex

    Proposal notified to all

    Negotiations and agreement to adopt

    Amend treaty does not bind any State party to 1st and not to amended treaty

    Relations governed by Art 30 (4) (b)

    4. When the parties to the later treaty do not include all the parties to the earlier one:

    (a) as between States parties to both treaties the same rule applies as in paragraph 3;

    (b) as between a State party to both treaties and a State party to only one of the treaties, the treaty

    to which both States are parties governs their mutual rights and obligations.

    New State party after amendment bound by amended version unless contrary intention expressed

    o Re: relations with States to 1st, new party is regulated by 1st treaty

    o Where 1st specifies procedures for amendment must use these Art 40

    Article 40 - Amendment of multilateral treaties

    (1) Unless the treaty otherwise provides, the amendment of multilateral treaties shall be governed by

    the following paragraphs.

    (2) Any proposal to amend a multilateral treaty as between all the parties must be notified to all the

    contracting States, each one of which shall have the right to take part in:

    (a) the decision as to the action to be taken in regard to such proposal;(b) the negotiation and conclusion of any agreement for the amendment of the treaty.

    (3) Every State entitled to become a party to the treaty shall also be entitled to become a party to the

    treaty as amended.

    (4) The amending agreement does not bind any State already a party to the treaty which does not

    become a party to the amending agreement; article 30, paragraph 4(b), applies in relation to such

    State.

    (5) Any State which becomes a party to the treaty after the entry into force of the amending agreement

    shall, failing an expression of a different intention by that State:

    (a) be considered as a party to the treaty as amended; and

    (b) be considered as a party to the unamended treaty in relation to any party to the treaty not bound

    by the amending agreement.

    Modification by agreement

    Notify all unless treaty has otherwise. Art 41 (2)

    If treaty silent, modification only OK if does not affect rights/obligations and compatible with object

    and purpose of treaty as a whole. Art 41 (1)

    Article 41 - Agreements to modify multilateral treaties between certain of the parties only

    1. Two or more of the parties to a multilateral treaty may conclude an agreement to modify the treaty

    as between themselves alone if:

    (a) the possibility of such a modification is provided for by the treaty; or

    (b) the modification in question is not prohibited by the treaty and:

    (i) does not affect the enjoyment by the other parties of their rights under the treaty or theperformance of their obligations;

    (ii) does not relate to a provision, derogation from which is incompatible with the effective

    execution of the object and purpose of the treaty as a whole.

    14

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    15/26

    2. Unless in a case falling under paragraph 1(a) the treaty otherwise provides, the parties in question

    shall notify the other parties of their intention to conclude the agreement and of the modification to

    the treaty for which it provides.

    INVALIDITY

    CIL makes voidable NOT void parties choice to continue treaty

    Art 42 (1) validity only impeached through application of present Conv

    Article 42 - Validity and continuance in force of treaties

    1. The validity of a treaty or of the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be impeached only

    through the application of the present Convention.

    2. The termination of a treaty, its denunciation or the withdrawal of a party, may take place only as a

    result of the application of the provisions of the treaty or of the present Convention. The same rule

    applies to suspension of the operation of a treaty.

    Article 45 - Loss of a right to invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or

    suspending the operation of a treaty

    A State may no longer invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending

    the operation of a treaty under articles 46 to 50 or articles 60 and 62 if, after becoming aware of thefacts:

    (a) it shall have expressly agreed that the treaty is valid or remains in force or continues in

    operation, as the case may be; or

    (b) it must by reason of its conduct be considered as having acquiesced in the validity of the treaty

    or in its maintenance in force or in operation, as the case may be.

    Does not apply in cases of coercion or breach ofjus cogens

    1. Constitutional ultra vires [voidable]

    Pre VCLT if contrary to States internal Const particularly the procedure for consent, validity of

    treaty was uncertain

    Legal Status Eastern Greenland

    N contended any treaty invalid because Foreign Minister forbidden from okaying international

    agreements on matters of importance without prior OK from King-in-Council

    PCIJ violation of domestic law irrelevant

    Spanish Zone of Morocco Claims

    HELD unnecessary to consider Spains contention that agreement not in accord with Moroccos

    law

    Art 46 VCLT

    Rule only invoked by State whose internal law is violated

    Internal law must be one with respect to a persons competence to conclude treaties

    o Art 27 precludes reliance on merely general domestic law (see above)

    Presumption that a States representative possesses authority

    o Removed if manifest (Art 46 (2)) and concerns domestic rule of fundamental importance

    Article 46 - Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties

    1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in

    violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating

    its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of

    fundamental importance.

    2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matterin accordance with normal practice and in good faith.

    2. Ultra vires by representative [voidable]

    15

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    16/26

    Article 47 - Specific restrictions on authority to express the consent of a State

    If the authority of a representative to express the consent of a State to be bound by a particular treaty

    has been made subject to a specific restriction, his omission to observe that restriction may not be

    invoked as invalidating the consent expressed by him unless the restriction was notified to the other

    negotiating States prior to his expressing such consent.

    Operates narrowly

    3. Error [voidable]

    Temple of Preah VihearCase 1962

    1904 agreement between France and Siam settled border between Cambodia & S (Thailand)

    o border to follow watershed line

    o details by mixed Commission

    Commission produced map clearly placed Buddhist temple on C side

    o Prepared with French technical experts, ament of S reps

    o Not endorsed by Commission (ceased before map finished)

    o Received and accepted by F & S authorities

    T took possession of temple (on other side of border) with military, removed artefacts T contended boundary error, temple should be on T side

    C relied on map, sought ruling ICJ

    ICJ HELD

    Error not allowed if

    1. party contributed by conduct

    2. party could have avoided

    3. circumstances put party on notice

    HERE character and qualifications difficult to plead error

    Map drew attention to temple

    S did not accept independent investigation

    Art 48 not identical to ICJ

    Art 48 (2) omits 2 above too wide as to leave little operation of the rule

    Article 48 - Error

    1. A State may invoke an error in a treaty as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty if the

    error relates to a fact or situation which was assumed by that State to exist at the time when the

    treaty was concluded and formed an essential basis of its consent to be bound by the treaty.

    2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if the State in question contributed by its own conduct to the error or if

    the circumstances were such as to put that State on notice of a possible error.

    3. An error relating only to the wording of the text of a treaty does not affect its validity; article 79

    then applies.

    4. Fraud [voidable]

    General principle of law that fraud makes contracts voidable/void

    Article 49 - Fraud

    If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State,

    the State may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

    ILC fraud includes any false statements, misrepresentations, other deceitful proceedings by which

    State induced to give consent which would otherwise not have given.

    5. Corruption [voidable]

    16

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    17/26

    Article 50 - Corruption of a representative of a State

    If the expression of a State's consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption

    of its representative directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, the State may invoke such

    corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

    ILC re: scope strong term

    Only acts calculated to exercise a substantial influence on disposition of representative to conclude

    treaty

    Small courtesy/favour not sufficient to show corruption

    6. Coercion [void]

    Consent must be freely given

    Art 51 Representative

    ILC includes threats to representatives family; threats of blackmail

    Article 51 - Coercion of a representative of a State

    The expression of a State's consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of

    its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

    Art 52 - State

    Article 52 - Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force

    A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the

    principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations

    Fisheries Jurisdiction Case Art 52 VCLT and UN Charter both make an agreement amde under

    threat/use of force void

    Pressures/measure that do not violate UN Charter do not invalidate even if consent direct result

    Eg peace treaty forced on aggressor does not make the treaty invalid CF peace treaty forced on victim will be invalid

    Economic coercion is unlikely to be sufficient

    7. Violation of jus cogens/erga omnes [void]

    UNSC Resolution CH VII, UN Charter both state that a State cannot use a treaty to avoid a rule of

    Jus cogens

    Article 53 - Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)

    A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general

    international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general

    international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as awhole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a

    subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

    ILC no list given so as not to limit

    No international tribunal has invalidated forJC

    What isJC?

    o Aloeboetoe v Suriname 1994 - Not necessary to consider 1762 treaty including

    obligation of capture and return of runaway slaves. HELD treaty today would have

    been held null and void

    o Nicaragua (Merits) Case @ para 190 - ICJ principle against use of force in

    international relations =JCo Barcelona Traction Case @ paras 33-34 - ICJ obiter - Existence of obligations erga

    omnes largely correspond withJCIncludes Outlawing acts of aggression, Genocide,

    Protection from slavery, racial discrimination

    17

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    18/26

    o East TimorCase @ para 29 - ICJ assertion that rights of people to self determination

    as evolved from UN Charter and practise has erga omnes character is irreproachable

    o Also see notes on jus cogens

    8. Unequal treaties

    Argued CIL that where treaty is in violation of principle of sovereign equality, it will be void

    NOT in VCLT

    CIL highly doubtful

    CONSEQUENCES OF INVALIDITY

    Absolute (void) coercion, incompatibility with jus cogens

    1. any State party subject to coercion can invoke invalidity

    2. treaty NOT divided into valid and invalid provisions, fails as a whole (Art 44(5)

    3. acquiescence is irrelevant still void Art 45

    Relative (voidable) error, fraud, corruption, ultra vires, breach internal law

    1. Only invoked by State victim

    2. Cured by acquiescence/express consent ofaggrieved ie if a state has, after becomingaware of the facts, agreed that the treaty remain in force or acquiesces to the treaty by

    conduct, it loses its right to claim the treaty is invalid Art 45

    3. Nullity may only vitiate some provisions

    Art 44 (2) general rule is that where any part of a treaty is invalid, that invalidity affects

    the whole treaty and it falls as a whole

    Art 44 (3) exception where the invalidity arises only with regard to particular clauses,

    they can be severed

    Art 44(5) provisions cannot be severed where the problem relates to coercion or conflict

    with ajus cogens rule

    Art 8 treaty without legal effect if representative no authority and State does not confirmact.

    Article 44 - Separability of treaty provisions

    1. A right of a party, provided for in a treaty or arising under article 56, to denounce, withdraw from

    or suspend the operation of the treaty may be exercised only with respect to the whole treaty unless

    the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree.

    2. A ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty

    recognized in the present Convention may be invoked only with respect to the whole treaty except

    as provided in the following paragraphs or in article 60.

    3. If the ground relates solely to particular clauses, it may be invoked only with respect to those

    clauses where:

    (a) the said clauses are separable from the remainder of the treaty with regard to their application;(b) it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that acceptance of those clauses was not an

    essential basis of the consent of the other party or parties to be bound by the treaty as a whole;

    and

    (c) continued performance of the remainder of the treaty would not be unjust.

    4. In cases falling under articles 49 and 50 the State entitled to invoke the fraud or corruption may do

    so with respect either to the whole treaty or, subject to paragraph 3, to the particular clauses alone.

    5. In cases falling under articles 51, 52 and 53, no separation of the provisions of the treaty is

    permitted.

    Article 8 - Subsequent confirmation of an act performed without authorization

    An act relating to the conclusion of a treaty performed by a person who cannot be considered under

    article 7 as authorized to represent a State for that purpose is without legal effect unless afterwardsconfirmed by that State.

    Invalid treaty/severable provision = void and no legal force Art 69 (1)

    18

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    19/26

    State performance of acts in good faith before treatys invalidity invoked are not unlawful

    merely by reason of invalidity Art 69 (2) (b)

    See Art 69 (2) (a) wrt States resolving respective relations if treaty rendered invalid

    Article 69 - Consequences of the invalidity of a treaty

    1. A treaty the invalidity of which is established under the present Convention is void. The provisions

    of a void treaty have no legal force.2. If acts have nevertheless been performed in reliance on such a treaty:

    (a) each party may require any other party to establish as far as possible in their mutual relations

    the position that would have existed if the acts had not been performed;

    (b) acts performed in good faith before the invalidity was invoked are not rendered unlawful by

    reason only of the invalidity of the treaty.

    3. In cases falling under articles 49, 50, 51 or 52, paragraph 2 does not apply with respect to the party

    to which the fraud, the act of corruption or the coercion is imputable.

    4. In the case of the invalidity of a particular State's consent to be bound by a multilateral treaty, the

    foregoing rules apply in the relations between that State and the parties to the treaty.

    State who performs acts that would have been unlawful but for treaty or not with a bona fidebelief in

    the treatys validity will be liable for those acts if treaty is invalid Art 74

    Article 74 - Diplomatic and consular relations and the conclusion of treaties

    The severance or absence of diplomatic or consular relations between two or more States does not

    prevent the conclusion of treaties between those States. The conclusion of a treaty does not in itself

    affect the situation in regard to diplomatic or consular relations.

    Treaty invalid by conflict withjus cogens

    Parties required as far as possible to eliminate the consequence of any act done in reliance on

    any treaty provision in conflict with jus cogens Art 71(1)(a)

    Parties required to bring their relations in line with jus cogens Art 71(1)(b)

    Article 71 - Consequences of the invalidity of a treaty which conflicts with a peremptory norm of

    general international law

    1. In the case of a treaty which is void under article 53 the parties shall:

    (a) eliminate as far as possible the consequences of any act performed in reliance on any provision

    which conflicts with the peremptory norm of general international law; and

    (b) bring their mutual relations into conformity with the peremptory norm of general international

    law.

    2. In the case of a treaty which becomes void and terminates under article 64, the termination of the

    treaty:

    (a) releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;

    (b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the executionof the treaty prior to its termination; provided that those rights, obligations or situations may

    thereafter be maintained only to the extent that their maintenance is not in itself in conflict with

    the new peremptory norm of general international law.

    Article 75?

    DENUNCIATION & WITHDRAWAL

    Presumption in favour of continuing validity once properly concluded pacta sunt servanda

    States can withdraw (Multi) or denounce (Bilat)

    Withdrawal of one party will not ordinarily terminate Denunciation in a bilateral treaty terminates the treaty

    Art 42 (2) withdrawal/denunciation can only take place as result of application of provisions of treaty

    19

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    20/26

    Provisions in treaty take precedence if VCLT inconsistent

    Article 42 - Validity and continuance in force of treaties

    1. The validity of a treaty or of the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be impeached only

    through the application of the present Convention.

    2. The termination of a treaty, its denunciation or the withdrawal of a party, may take place only as a

    result of the application of the provisions of the treaty or of the present Convention. The same rule

    applies to suspension of the operation of a treaty.

    Art 56 (1) general rule is that States may not withdraw/denounce if treaty has no specific provisions

    2 exceptions

    if intention of parties to allow Art 56 (1) (a)

    if implied by nature of treaty Art 56 (1) (b)

    Article 56 - Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding

    termination, denunciation or withdrawal

    1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for

    denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:

    (a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal;

    or(b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.

    2. A party shall give not less than twelve months' notice of its intention to denounce or withdrawfrom a treaty under paragraph 1.

    ICJ has accepted Art 56 as reflection of CIL

    Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Acts in and Against Nicaragua

    Treaties of alliance, certain types of commercial treaties, conferring jurisdiction on international

    tribunals may be readily implied

    Where treaty silent on period of notice

    CIL requires reasonable notice to be given

    VCLT requires 12 months notice Art 56 (2)

    TERMINATION & SUSPENSION

    Modes of termination

    valid denunciation

    with consent of all parties to treaty

    subsequent conclusion of an incompatible treaty

    occurrence of a material breach

    supervening impossibility of performance

    fundamental change in circumstances - rebus sic stantibus

    severance of diplomatic relations

    emergence of new rule ofjus cogens

    1. Agreement/consent of all parties

    2 ways to terminate/suspend treaty by agreement or consent of parties

    In a way provided within the treaty Art 54(a), Art 57(a)

    Where all other parties have been notified or consulted and give their consent Art 54(b), Art

    57(b)

    2 or more parties can suspend the treatys effect between themselves by consent if the treatyallows or does not prohibit that action [as long as it does not affect the rights/obligations of

    others and is not incompatible with the object/purpose of the treaty] s58(1)

    Notice must be given to all other parties to the treaty

    20

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    21/26

    Article 54 - Termination of or withdrawal from a treaty under its provisions or by consent of the

    parties

    The termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place:

    (a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or

    (b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting States.

    Article 57 - Suspension of the operation of a treaty under its provisions or by consent of the

    parties

    The operation of a treaty in regard to all the parties or to a particular party may be suspended:

    (a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or

    (b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting States.

    Article 58 - Suspension of the operation of a multilateral treaty by agreement between certain of

    the parties only

    (1) Two or more parties to a multilateral treaty may conclude an agreement to suspend the operation of

    provisions of the treaty, temporarily and as between themselves alone, if:

    (a) the possibility of such a suspension is provided for by the treaty; or

    (b) the suspension in question is not prohibited by the treaty and:

    (i) does not affect the enjoyment by the other parties of their rights under the treaty or theperformance of their obligations;

    (ii) is not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.

    (2) Unless in a case falling under paragraph 1(a) the treaty otherwise provides, the parties in question

    shall notify the other parties of their intention to conclude the agreement and of those provisions of

    the treaty the operation of which they intend to suspend.

    2. Incompatible later treaty

    Where later treaty relating to same subject matter:

    Earlier treaty terminates if later provides or it is the intention of parties that the they should be

    governed by the later treaty Art 59 (1) (a)

    Earlier treaty terminates if new provisions so incompatible that not capable of being applied @same time Art 59 (1) (b)

    Suspension of earlier treaty may result if intention established Art 59 (2)

    Article 59 - Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty implied by conclusion of a

    later treaty

    1. A treaty shall be considered as terminated if all the parties to it conclude a later treaty relating to the

    same subject-matter and:

    (a) it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that the parties intended that the

    matter should be governed by that treaty; or

    (b) the provisions of the later treaty are so far incompatible with those of the earlier one that the two

    treaties are not capable of being applied at the same time.

    2. The earlier treaty shall be considered as only suspended in operation if it appears from the later treaty

    or is otherwise established that such was the intention of the parties.

    3. Material Breach

    Article 60 - Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach

    1. A material breach of bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a

    ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.

    2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:

    (a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in

    part or to terminate it either:(i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State, or

    (ii) as between all the parties;

    (b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of

    the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;21

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    22/26

    (c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the

    operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character

    that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every

    party with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.

    3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:

    (a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or

    (b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the

    treaty.

    4. The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the

    event of a breach.

    5. Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person

    contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of

    reprisals against persons protected by such treaties.

    Bilateral ground for termination/suspension in whole or part Art 60 (1)

    Multilateral range of responses available for non-breaching parties

    1. unanimous agreement to terminate or suspend in whole/part either between themselves and

    breacher OR between all parties Art 60 (2) (a)

    2. if 1+ more affected may not be possible to obtain unanimous agreement. VCLT permits Statesspecially affected to invoke breach as termination/suspension treaty relations between them and

    breacher Art 60 (2) (b)

    3. if breach radically changes position of every other State re: further performance of obligations non-

    breacher can suspend (only) treaty in whole/part re: itself Art 60 (2) (c)

    4. Not automatic termination. Non-breachers have option to terminate/suspend. State loses option ifknows facts and expressly agrees to/acquiesces in treatys continuance Art 45

    5. once invoked, procedures in Art 65-67 must be observed before termination/suspension Art 42 (2)

    6. State may forfeit right if has prevented breacher from performing obligations by unlawful act.

    Factory at Chorzw; Gabcikovo-Nagymaros

    (unlawful act may be breach of another treaty/CIL)

    conduct of non-breacher which contributes to creation of situation not conducive to

    breachers performance of obligations may deprive non-breacher of right even ifper se

    NOT unlawful Gabcikovo

    Treaty is not terminated because State breached international law outside treaty

    Gabcikovo Only material breach of treaty itself that gives rise

    Material Breach

    Either a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by VCLT or a violation of a provision of the

    treaty essential to the accomplishment of the object purpose Art 60 (3)

    ILC

    material cf fundamental

    Must be where breach of serious character

    Not only breach where State violates provisions central to object/purpose but also breach of

    ancillary provision essential to effective execution.

    Although it does not specify seriousness, better view seems to be that the breach must beserious

    South West Africa Case

    22

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    23/26

    SA material breach of UN mandate because engaged in deliberate and persistent violation of

    obligations which destroys very object and purpose or agreement

    NB treaty itself can have provisions within itself defining what a material breach is, or under what

    circumstances may a breach be used as a reason to terminate Art 60 (4)

    South West Africa Case 1970

    SA exercising UN mandate over Namibia (SWA)

    1966 UN GA Resolution 2145 (XXI) re: SA breach of mandate (apartheid policy etc)

    Terminated mandate

    SA refused to accept termination

    1970 UNSC Resolution 276 continued presence of SA illegal etc

    SA continued refusal

    UNSC sought advisory opinion ICJ

    ICJ HELD

    mandate validly terminated

    VCLT codifying CIL only allows termination upon material breach

    UNGA Resolution determines both types of breach occurred (Art 60 (3))

    SA disavowed mandate therefore repudiated

    Exercise of right to termination where deliberate and persistent violation of obligations whichdestroy very object and purpose of relationship

    General law principle that party has right to terminate where material breach

    Material breach provisions do not apply to HR Art 60 (5)

    (ie HR are fundamental to global relations and therefore can never be suspended/terminated)

    4. Supervening Impossibility

    Subject matter disappears/destroyed rendering performance is impossible

    State practice to termination (ILC)

    Art 61 does not automatically terminate, must be invoked as ground.

    VCLT procedures must be followed Art 42 (2)

    Article 61 - Supervening impossibility of performance

    1. A party may invoke the impossibility of performing a treaty as a ground for terminating or

    withdrawing from it if the impossibility results from the permanent disappearance or destruction of an

    object indispensable for the execution of the treaty. If the impossibility is temporary, it may be invoked

    only as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.

    2. Impossibility of performance may not be invoked by a party as a ground for terminating,

    withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty if the impossibility is the result of a breach by

    that party either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any

    other party to the treaty.

    5. Fundamental Change of Circumstances

    rebus sic stantibus CIL

    Permanently terminated if fundamental change

    Much narrow doctrine than frustration in K

    Article 62 - Fundamental change of circumstances

    1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time

    of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a

    ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:

    (a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be

    bound by the treaty; and(b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under

    the treaty.

    23

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    24/26

    2. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or

    withdrawing from a treaty:

    (a) if the treaty establishes a boundary; or

    (b) if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation

    under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.

    3. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a

    ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a ground for

    suspending the operation of the treaty.

    Fisheries Jurisdiction Case 1973

    UK alleged violation by Iceland 1961 agreement

    o I not to extend exclusive fish zone beyond distance of 12 miles from coast

    o All disputes referred to ICJ

    1971 I extended to 50 miles

    UK brought to ICJ

    I argued circs changed since 1961 fish technology meant that 12 miles no longer protected I

    interests as State peculiarly dependent on fishing for livelihood and development

    I argued that because of this change, the ability to refer disputes to ICJ was also terminated

    ICJ HELD

    must be fundamental change of circs Apprehended dangers for vital interests cannot constitute fundamental change

    Must show radical transformation

    HERE wholly unsatisfied

    Gabcikovo (Hungary v Slovakia)

    Rejected H submission that 1977 treaty with S re: development scheme spanning mutual border

    was affected by rebus sic stantibus

    H argued change no longer socialist, uneconomic, serious environmental concerns

    HELD

    socialist orientation material factor in concluding BUT not necessary to carry out

    objects/purpose

    Economic concerns- even though the economic viability of the projects diminished, they werenot radically transformed

    Treaty took account of environment, but changes in scientific knowledge are not unforeseen

    That the principle will only apply in exceptional circumstances, and only where the

    fundamental change in circumstances is unforeseen

    existences of circumstances at time of treaty must constitute an essential basis of consent

    6. Severance of diplomatic relations

    Article 63 - Severance of diplomatic or consular relations

    The severance of diplomatic or consular relations between parties to a treaty does not affect the legal

    relations established between them by the treaty except in so far as the existence of diplomatic or

    consular relations is indispensable for the application of the treaty

    7. New norm of jus cogens

    Article 64 - Emergence of a new peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)

    If a new peremptory norm of general international law emerges, any existing treaty which is in conflict

    with that norm becomes void and terminates.

    CONSEQUENCES OF TERMINATION/SUSPENSION

    Treaty itself may provide/parties agree consequences

    Otherwise, generally

    Article 70 - Consequences of the termination of a treaty

    24

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    25/26

    1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under

    its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention:

    (a) releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;

    (b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of

    the treaty prior to its termination.

    2. If a State denounces or withdraws from a multilateral treaty, paragraph 1 applies in the relations

    between that State and each of the other parties to the treaty from the date when such denunciation or

    withdrawal takes effect.

    Where new rule ofjus cogens has developed- Art 71 (2)

    2. In the case of a treaty which becomes void and terminates under article 64, the termination of the

    treaty:

    (a) releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;

    (b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the

    execution of the treaty prior to its termination; provided that those rights, obligations or

    situations may thereafter be maintained only to the extent that their maintenance is not in itself

    in conflict with the new peremptory norm of general international law.

    Article 72 - Consequences of the suspension of the operation of a treaty

    1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the suspension of the operation ofa treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention:

    (a) releases the parties between which the operation of the treaty is suspended from the obligation to

    perform the treaty in their mutual relations during the period of the suspension;

    (b) does not otherwise affect the legal relations between the parties established by the treaty.

    2. During the period of the suspension the parties shall refrain from acts tending to obstruct the

    resumption of the operation of the treaty.

    Article 73 - Cases of State succession, State responsibility and outbreak of hostilities

    The provisions of the present Convention shall not prejudge any question that may arise in regard to a

    treaty from a succession of States or from the international responsibility of a State or from the outbreak

    of hostilities between States.

    India v Pakistan 1972 Procedures

    I unilateral suspension 1994 Convention on Civil Aviation wrt P

    Justified on basis of Ps alleged involvement in hijack

    P challenged before ICAO

    I denied ICAO jurisdiction cl permitting recourse to ICAO in treaty also suspended

    I appealed to ICJ

    ICJ HELD

    mere unilateral suspension does not = jurisdiction cl inoperative

    Need clause (aka jurisdiction cl) to determine validity of suspension/termination

    Jurisdiction clause will not be suspended/terminated along with rest of provisions

    where it permits adjudication as to the validity of the suspension or adjudication

    PROCEDURES FOR INVALIDITY, DENUNCIATION, WITHDRAWAL, TERMINATION

    AND SUSPENSION

    Art 42 points to Arts 65-68

    Art 42 (1) grounds and procedures in VCLT only can support invalidity

    Art 42 (2) term/susp/denun/w/d treaty itself may have provisions see Art 65 (4)

    Party must notify all others in writing Art 65 (1), 67 (1)

    At least 3 months to object Art 65 (2), 67 (2) if no object

    Art 65 (3) if objection resolution in peace Art 33 UN

    12 months for Art 33 Un statement procedures if no resolution, 2 further mechanisms

    25

  • 7/29/2019 2 Treaties

    26/26

    Dispute wrt rules ofjus cogens can go to ICJ or arbitration Art 66 (a)

    Dispute wrt other provisions conciliation through the UN Art 66 (b)

    Failure to notify in accordance with Art 65 (1) does not stop a party notifying other

    partys later at the time for performance or when claimed to be in violation [unless under Art

    45] see Art 65 (5)

    Article 65 - Procedure to be followed with respect to invalidity, termination, withdrawal from orsuspension of the operation of a treaty

    1. A party which, under the provisions of the present Convention, invokes either a defect in its consent

    to be bound by a treaty or a ground for impeaching the validity of a treaty, terminating it, withdrawing

    from it or suspending its operation, must notify the other parties of its claim. The notification shall

    indicate the measure proposed to be taken with respect to the treaty and the reasons therefor.

    2. If, after the expiry of a period which, except in cases of special urgency, shall not be less than three

    months after the receipt of the notification, no party has raised any objection, the party making the

    notification may carry out in the manner provided in article 67 the measure which it has proposed.

    3. If, however, objection has been raised by any other party, the parties shall seek a solution through the

    means indicated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.

    4. Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall affect the rights or obligations of the parties under any

    provisions in force binding the parties with regard to the settlement of disputes.5. Without prejudice to article 45, the fact that a State has not previously made the notification

    prescribed in paragraph 1 shall not prevent it from making such notification in answer to another party

    claiming performance of the treaty or alleging its violation.

    Article 66 - Procedures for judicial settlement, arbitration and conciliation

    If, under paragraph 3 of article 65, no solution has been reached within a period of twelve months

    following the date on which the objection was raised, the following procedures shall be followed:

    (a) any one of the parties to a dispute concerning the application or the interpretation of article 53 or 64

    may, by a written application, submit it to the International Court of Justice for a decision unless the

    parties by common consent agree to submit the dispute to arbitration;

    (b) any one of the parties to a dispute concerning the application or the interpretation of any of the other

    articles in Part V of the present Convention may set in motion the procedure specified in the Annex tothe Convention by submitting a request to that effect to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

    Article 67 - Instruments for declaring invalid, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the

    operation of a treaty

    1. The notification provided for under article 65, paragraph 1 must be made in writing.

    2. Any act declaring invalid, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty

    pursuant to the provisions of the treaty or of paragraphs 2 or 3 of article 65 shall be carried out through

    an instrument communicated to the other parties. If the instrument is not signed by the Head of State,

    Head of Government or Minister for Foreign Affairs, the representative of the State communicating it

    may be called upon to produce full powers.

    Article 68 - Revocation of notifications and instruments provided for in articles 65 and 67

    A notification or instrument provided for in arti