Law Flashcards
Vienna Convention, Article 31
“General rule of interpretation” (objective interpretation)
- a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context 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 the text, including its preamble and annexes": a. Any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connexion with the 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 other parties as an instrument related to the treaty (consent of all parties needed) 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; (as in national law, the interpretation is provided by those who make the law; the interpretation comes from the parties involved in the convention) b. any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties ragarding its interpretation; (we talk here about CUSTOMARY LAW established among the agreeing states) 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
Vienna Convention, Article 32 (supplementary means of interpretation)
Supplementary means (subjective interpretation)
recourse 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
(subjective interpretation helps to reconstruct the will of the parties taking part into the covenant that might be different from one another due to different interpretations. This happens only about certain provisions; the general purpose of the treaty must be clear in any case)
Vienna Convention, Article 33.4 (authentication on more languages)
in case of treaties authenticated in two or more languages:
“…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.
Interpretation process not included in the Vienna Convention
- Rules of legal logic:
“when a treaty is open to two interpretations one of which does and the other does not enable the treaty to have appropriate effects, good faith and the ojbects and purposes of the treaty demand that the former interpretation should be adopted”- General principles of law:
favor debitoris= favour for the weaker party
Instance: human rights treaties– there are extensive interpretations to favour the individual - Implied powers’ doctrine:
when one delegates duties to a third party, it comes along with them the capacity to engage in all those activities that are necessary for the accomplishment of these with power
- General principles of law:
Third parties, Article 34
“pacta sunt servanda”= treaties do not produce any effecst for third parties
Vienna Convention, Article 34:
“a treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent.”
Articles 35-37:
they indicate the ways and means to attribute rights or obligations to a third State with its consent
Vienna Convention, Article 2 (definition of reservation)
“Reservation means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to atreaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State”.
(it makes sense in multilateral treaties. This principle contradicts "pacta sunt servanda": it allows conventaning States to make unilateral declarations about not agreeing on certain provisions of the treaty)
ILC, guide to practice on reservations to treaties (interpretative declarations)
1.2. “Interpretative declaration”= unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State or an international organization, whereby that State or that organization purports to specify or clarify the meaning or scope of a treaty or of certain of its provisions.
(it is about providing a mere interpretation of that provision, without legal effects
Tradition rule about reservations
ICJ, reservations to the Convention of Genocide
The reservation must be accepted by all States, otherwise it cannot take part into the convention
“a State which has made and maintained a reservation which has been objected to by one or more of the parties to the Convention but not by others, can be regarded as being a party to the Convention if the reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention; otherwise, that State cannot be regarded as being a party to the Convention.”
- if a party to the Convention objects to a reservation which it considers to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, it can...consider that the reserving State is not a party to the Convention - if...a party accepts the reservation as being compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, it can...consider that the reserving State is a party to the Convention
1.4. Conditional interpretative declarations
- A conditional interpretative declaration is a unilateral statement formulated by s State or an international organization when signing, ratifying, formally confirming, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, or by a State when making a notification of succession to treaty, whereby the State or international organization subjects its consent to be bounf by the treaty to a specific interpretation of the treaty or of certain provisions thereof
- Conditional interpretative declarations are subject to the rules applicable to reservations
(conditional interpretative declarations= reservations)
- Conditional interpretative declarations are subject to the rules applicable to reservations
Vienna Convention, Article 19 (invalidity of reservations)
“A State may, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, formulate a reservation unless:
- the reservation is prohibited by the treaty; - the treaty provides that only specified reservations, which do not include the reservation in question, may be made; or - in cases not falling under sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty
Vienna Convention, Article 20 (objection to reservation)
- “An objection by another contracting State to a reservation does not preclude the entry into force of the treaty as between the objecting and reserving States, unless a contrary intention is definitely expressed by the objecting State”
- “…a reservation is considered to have been accepted by a State if it shall have raised no objection to the reservation by the end of a period…”
Vienna Convention, Article 21 (relations with the reserving State)
- a reservation established with regard to another party in accordance with articles 19, 20,…;
a. modifies for the reserving State in its relations with that other party the provsisions 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
(this means that in the relation between the objecting and the reserving States, the provisions addressed by those reservations are not valid for both; still the rest of the agreement must be complied to by both. The provisions addressed by the reservations cannot be applied in the relations between the reserving and the objecting States to the extent indicated by the reservation itself. Practically the reserving State wins)
3. when a State objecting to a reservation has not opposed the entry into force of the treaty between itself and the serving State, the provisions to which the reservation relates do not apply as between the two States to the extent of the reservation
(invalid reservations happen under conditions specified by Article 19; in this case only the reservation falls while the reserving State can still remain in the treaty. Anyways, the State might also want to leave. Such declarations can be made at any time.
Questions about the validity of reservations and the reamning of reserving States in treaties is not yet fully settled)
Invalidity
it has retroactive effects, as the treaty is considered not be valid since its entry into force; TERMINATION: it is instead the act of ending a treaty, which means that such event will have effects only for the future.
according to the Vienna Convention, invalidity can occur in the cases expressed by:
- Atricle 46: violation of domestic law 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." - 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 a whole 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" - Article 48: error 1. "a Statemay 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 ot be bound by the treaty" (instance: treaty concerning the delimitation of a country-- an island may be misunderstood as existent/non-existent 2. "the paragraph above 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)" - 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" - 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"
Coercion Vienna Convention (invalidity)
- Article 51: coercion on the State representative
“the expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its presentative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect”- Article 52: coercion on the State
“a treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations”
- Article 52: coercion on the State
Final Act of the UN Conference on the Law of Treaties
declaration on the prohibition of military, political or economic coercion in the Conclusion of Treaties
“The United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties,…”
1. "solemnly condemns the threat or use of pressure in any form, whether military, political, or economic, by any State in order to coerce another State ro perform any act relating to the conclusion of a treaty in violation of the principles of the sovereign equality of States and freedom of consent"
Statute of the International Law Commission, Article 15 (codification and progressive development)
a. “The progressive development of Internationa Law”= term used to identify the preparation of draft commissions on subject that have not yet been codified (regulated) by International Law or in regard to which the law has not yet been sufficiently developed in the practice of States…”
LACKING COMPREHENSIVE REGULATION
b. "Codification of International Law"= term used to indicate the more precise formualtion and systematization of ruled of International Law in fields where there already has been extensive State practice, precedent and doctrine." PRECISE FORMULATION AND ESTABLISHED RULES
Internationa Law Commission
First permanent international body solely dedicated to the dual tasks of codifying and developing Interional Law and its mandate requires it to navigate the distinction between codification and progressive development. While these concepts are generally understood, the ILC’s work often reveals the complezities in differentiating between the two.
UN codification practice, Technical procedure
- TECHNICAL PROCEDURE:
a. on initiative of the GA (or any member State) some fields are identified as needing codification due to gaps in existing laws or emerging legal issues or state practice
b. special rapporteur: prepares a first written piece suggesting new regulations for a legal field whose codification has been entrusted to the special rapporteur by the ILC
c. codification draft (first reading): legal experts present a preliminary article or proposal to the ILC following discussion and improvement
d. codification draft (second reading); the finalized text is brought from the ILC to the GA with annexes explaining the rationale, specify intent and scope of the legal norms two possible paths:
- General Assembly– Convention. The ILC submits the final draft to the General Assembly, which may decide to adopt it as a formal international convention
- Multilateral Conference– Convention. The draft may be discussed and adopted at a multilateral conference involving representatives from multiple states. This method had been used for major international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea
UN codification process, Political procedure
- POLITICAL PROCEDURE:
○ General Assembly path:
i. General Assembly: may initiate codification processes through resolutions by requesting investigation by the ILC on specific topics
ii. Committee: the General Assembly may establish specialised committees to examine drafts on specific legal issues
iii. Codification Draft: the committee discusses the draft and suggests amendments
iv. General Assembly: the draft is then submitted to the General Assembly for further discussion, revision, and potential adoption as a convention
v. Convention: the GA, after the last examinations, may decide to adopt it as a resolution, which means that it is not legally binding to the States but carries nonethelessmoral and political weight
vi. Implementation: States may then align their laws and practices with the principles outlined, even in abscence of a binding feature○ MULTILATERAL CONFERENCE PATH In some cases, states prefer to negotiate complex issues at a multilateral conference where all interested states participate. The conference elaborates on and negotiates the draft text, with room for diplomatic compromise on contentiuos issues. i. proposal of to convene a multilateral conference to address specific issues; ii. representative of States negotiate the terms of the draft iii. the finalized text is adopted at the conclusion of the conference as an international convention iv. States then proceed to sign and ratify the convention through their domestic legal process v. States are then expected to implement the treaty in their domestic legal system
Types of rules a codification may contain
- rules codifying existing customary law;
- rules crystalizing nascent rules of customary law;
- rules that become an element in the process whereby new rules of customary law come into being;
- rules destined to remain conventional (rules not of custom but destined to remain rules of the treaty only)
Article 54/56 (termination or withdrawal)
The termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place:
a. in conformity with the provisions of the treaty (e.g. final term (instance: European Coal and Steel community) or resolutory condition); or Treaties have a certain duration; over that duration the treaty is not valid anymore. Resolutory condition= it provides that if a certain event takes place the treaty will end. If Italy will lose its sovereignity the treaty will end for example. b. at any time by consent of all the parties States may agree to end the treaty, by consent of all countries involved.
A treaty shall be considered as having been terminated if it provides for a fixed duration, unless the parties agree to extend it.
If the treaty does not provide for a fixed duration, it may be termianted by one of the parties:
- if the treaty provides for such termination; or
- if there is a right to terminate implied by the nature of the treaty
(by this article we mean to underline the fact that international law aims at stability and therefore the maintainance of treaties; in countrary case the modalities of denunciation or withdrawal can be specified by the countries involved. The rule is that there is not the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal unless the States otherwise accept the possibility of doing so; in addition circumstances of denunciation may be guaranteed according to the nature of the treaty (ex. political or military alliance, trade agreements as well.
There are some treaties whose nature instead does not allow for denunciation; example: human rights agreements that concern political rights. The Human Rights Committee has established that such conventions do not allow for denunciation.
Such treaties do not have the character for which denunciation is guaranteed because they concern protection of the individuals.
In reality there are some countries that have got out of the convention but such denunciations are considered invalid)
Vienna Convention, Article 60 (material breach)
- A material breach of a bilateral treaty be 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.
(let this be another condition under which a treaty is terminated) - 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 relations between themselves and the defaulting State, or
ii. as between all parties
(suspend= not terminated; it is not capable of producing its legal effects over a certain period of time as it is not yet expired and the purposes are not yet been achieved. They can decide if the violation is serious enough that hte treaty is so much damaged that the treaty is terminated; or they can decide to expell the violating State from the treaty or to suspend the State from the treaty.
This kind of rules providing for the suspention or the expulsion of a defaulting State are typical of treaties constituting an international organization.
Russia for instance was expelled by the Council of Europe= indipendent organization from the EU involving all european countries which promotes as main objective human rights and the rule of law.
Another organization which provides for the possibility of suspencion is the EU according to certain procedures; another guaranteeing suspencion or expulsion is the UN.)
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
(a part specially affected: think of a treaty like the Charter of the UN which provides the prohibition of force– if a State attacks State B, the latter may invoke suspencion. How can you suspend the treaty between you and another in an international organization? You cannot impede its representation in the council for instance. In fact it has not that much relevance. Let’s consider the protection of the environment and against pollution: a State A may invoke the breach in case the neighbouring country is polluting too much.
c. any party other than the defualting 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 character that a material breacj of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party with repsect to the further performance of its relations under the treaty.
(some treaties contain provisions such that if they are violated this prejudices all other parties in the treaty, therefore anyone of them may invoke suspension of the treaty. So it is not about the relation with the defaulting State. It is for example the case of disarmament treaties (nuclear arsenal): if a State commits violation as it decides to acquire more nuclear weapons, then the position of each of the other States in the treaty is radically modified. It is the case that each country suspends its adherence to the treaty)
material breach= ripudiation of a treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or
the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.
Paragraph 5
Paragraphs 1 and 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.
(you cannot respond to a violation of human rights by committing crimes against human rights yourself. Reprisals nowadays are very limited.)
Supervening impossibility
Article 61
it is an extremely rare case, because the treaty must be interpreted in a very restricted way.
1. a party may invoke impossibility of performing the treaty as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from it if the impossibility results from the 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. (example: two countries conclude a treaty for the exploitation of an island. Then the island disappears; then the treaty is not anymore applicable)
Vienna Convention, Article 62 (change in circumstances)
- a fundamental change of circumstances which has occured 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 bassis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the traety; and
b. the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.
(the effect of the change is to transform he future performance of obligations under the treaty. Such fundamental chane may be war. Still, many treaties still remain into force during war. Even at war nowadays countries do not totally end diplomatic exchanges)- a fundmental 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
(this provision prevents the violation of States’ sovereignity)
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
- a fundmental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty: