Section 3 - Treaty Law

Question 1

What are the main stages of treaty making?

Answer 1

1 - Negotiation
2 - Signature
3 - Ratification
4 - Entry into force
5 - Registration

Question 2

Under what stage of treaty making is an international obligation created?

Answer 2

Ratification

Question 3

What is a reservation? What advisoru opinion did the ICJ give?

Answer 3

they are objections to parts of the treaty, aka putting a limit on what you consent to during the ratification stage.

ICJ, advisory opinion on Geneva convention, created jurisprudence and said that some articles, in the context of the treaty, cannot be reserved if it is a provision which happens to be essential for the treaty to make sense in the first place.

+ cant happen in bilateral treaties

Question 4

What are different ways to end a treaty ?

Answer 4

Prefixed term, ie end date is written into treaty

Unilateral withdrawal (procedural)

Impossibility of performance, object which is essential to compliance has disappeared

disappearance of parties: legal subject to whom i own legal obligation has disappeared and therefore the obligation itself has disappeared.

abrogration by other norms (time rule, new intl customary norms)

material breach (?)

change in circumstance/rebus sic stantibus

Question 5

what does rebus sic stantibus mean?

Answer 5

change in circumstances leading to the interruption of a treaty

Question 6

What was the main context for the Fisheries Jurisdiction case between Iceland and the UK?

Answer 6

The case stemmed from Iceland’s 1959 decision to extend its Exclusive Fishing Zone (EFZ) beyond the 12-mile limit, leading to tensions with the UK, which wanted continued access to fish near Iceland’s coast.

Question 7

What agreement was made in the 1961 Exchange of Notes between the UK and Iceland?
Why did the dispute between Iceland and the UK resurface in 1971?

Answer 7

Iceland allowed the UK to fish beyond the 12-mile limit and both countries agreed to bring any future disputes to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for resolution.

Iceland unilaterally terminated the 1961 Exchange of Notes and extended its EFZ to 50 miles, barring UK and other foreign vessels from fishing within this new zone.

Question 8

What did the ICJ conclude regarding its jurisdiction in the case?

Answer 8

The ICJ held that the 1961 Exchange of Notes was still in effect and could not be unilaterally terminated by Iceland, so the court maintained jurisdiction

Question 9

What was Iceland’s argument regarding the technological changes in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case? What did the court answer?

Answer 9

Iceland argued that advances in fishing technology created new pressures on fish stocks, justifying a longer EFZ beyond the 12-mile limit initially agreed upon. he ICJ acknowledged the validity of Iceland’s concerns but ruled that the treaty was flexible enough to adapt to new technology without terminating the 12-mile limit

Question 10

What was the final decision of the ICJ regarding the Fisheries Jurisdiction case?

Answer 10

The ICJ ruled in favor of the UK, stating that Iceland’s EFZ remained at the 12-mile limit and it could not exclude UK ships, but the UK had to consider Iceland’s fish stock concerns within the existing treaty framework.

Question 11

What led to the 1997 Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project case between Hungary and Czechoslovakia/Slovakia?

Answer 11

Hungary abandoned its part of a joint dam project in 1989 due to environmental concerns. Czechoslovakia began diverting water unilaterally in 1991, and Hungary declared the 1977 Treaty terminated in 1992.

Question 12

What was the main purpose of the 1977 Treaty in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project? On what grounds did Hungary argue for the termination of the 1977 Treaty?

Answer 12

The 1977 Treaty aimed to establish a joint system of dams along the Danube River for energy production, flood control, and navigation between Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

Hungary cited state of necessity, impossibility of performance, rebus sic stantibus (changed circumstances), material breach, abrogation by new norms, and disappearance of a party.

Question 13

What was Hungary’s argument for termination based on the “state of necessity”?
what did the court rule?

Answer 13

Hungary claimed that completing the project would threaten essential environmental interests, creating a state of necessity that justified noncompliance.

he court ruled that the state of necessity was not valid, as Hungary’s survival was not threatened, and the treaty was flexible enough to allow for environmentally friendly modifications.

Question 14

What did Hungary argue regarding “impossibility of performance”? What did the court rule?

Answer 14

Hungary claimed that the socio-political shift away from communism made it impossible to fulfill treaty obligations from the past regime.
The court rejected this argument, noting that inconvenience due to changed circumstances was not equivalent to impossibility.

Question 15

What is “rebus sic stantibus,” and how did Hungary use it in the case? What was the court’s answer?

Answer 15

“Rebus sic stantibus” allows for termination of treaties when fundamental circumstances change. Hungary argued that political, economic, and environmental shifts justified treaty termination.
The court was unconvinced, stating Hungary had to prove the 1977 treaty’s practical meaning had fundamentally changed, which Hungary failed to do.

Question 16

How did Hungary attempt to justify termination through “material breach”? + court answer?

Answer 16

Hungary claimed that Czechoslovakia’s unilateral water diversion constituted a material breach of the treaty.
The court found that since Hungary declared the treaty terminated before Czechoslovakia’s diversion work, the breach argument could not apply retroactively.

Question 17

What was Hungary’s argument based on “abrogation by new norms”? + court answer?

Answer 17

Hungary argued that new environmental norms conflicted with the treaty, rendering it obsolete under superior or customary international law.

The court found no new international norms that prohibited dam construction and ruled that the treaty allowed for flexible environmental considerations.

Question 18

What was Hungary’s argument about “disappearance of a party”? + court answer?

Answer 18

ungary argued that since Czechoslovakia dissolved, the treaty should be void.
The court held that Slovakia was the successor state and thus inherited treaty obligations, so the treaty remained in force.

Question 19

What was the final outcome of the case in terms of obligations for Hungary and Slovakia? + results?

Answer 19

The court held that both parties must negotiate a solution, given mutual breaches, and were obligated to continue working together under the treaty’s framework.
In 2017, Hungary and Slovakia officially discontinued the case, ending the dispute without further court involvement.

Question 20

What is an estoppel?

Answer 20

Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents someone from arguing something or asserting a right that contradicts what they previously agreed to or said. Put simply, estoppel prevents one person from contradicting an action or statement from the past.

Question 21

what is a principle?

Answer 21

General legal concepts used to fill the gaps left by customary or treaty law.
THey’re usually borrowed from domestic law, but some are derived from internaitonal law

Question 22

What are other sources of IL other than customary and treaty law?

Answer 22

Principles
Judicial decisions, renowned jurists’ work
Soft law (political agreements)
Exchange of notes
Unilateral pronouncements
Oral agreements