The Law of Treaties Flashcards
Art 12 of the Vienna Convention on the on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969
signature can ammount to agreement to a treaty/ can show consent to be bound by the treaty
* however it usually won’t consitute a binding agree ment and is ususaly more of a formality
* if a signature is enough to amount to a binding agree the parties must state this/ it must be clear from the agreement
* if ratification is required then a signature usually means that a state should refrain from doing things that go against the objcect and purpose of thr treaty
Art 13 of the Vienna Convention on the on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969
Exchange of documents can ammount to a binding treaty
* This happens when the documents explicitly state that they are being exchanged to create a binding agreement or when it is clear that the countries intended the exchange to have that effect
Art 14 of the Vienna Convention on the on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969
Ratification can prove consent to be bound by a treaty when
* 1. The treaty specifies that ratification is needed.
* 2. The negotiating countries agreed that ratification is required.
* 3. A country’s representative signed the treaty with the understanding that it needs ratification, which is evident from their authority or was mentioned during the negotiations
bilateral treaties - to complete ratification the requisite intruments need to be exchanged
Multilateral treaies - to complete rectification the signed instruments shall be sent to one party, who will keep all other parties informed. The UN Secretary General is increasing holding this role
Art 26 of the Vienna Convention on the on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969
fundamental principle of treaty law is that treaties are binding upon the parties to them and must be performed in good faith
Art 7 of the Vienna Convention on the on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969
To have the capacity to make agreements on behalf of a state, an individual must possess ‘full powers’
preliminary objections to jurisdiction phase of Application of the Genocide Convention (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) - law of treaties
‘according to international law, there is no doubt that every head of state is presumed to be able to act on behalf of the state in its international relations’ - heads of state do not need to produce full powers
Belilos v Switzerland; Lozidou v Turkey- ECHR
Switzerland’s invalid reservation to the European Convention on Human Rights was severed, but Switzerland remained fully bound by the treaty.
Both cases are examples of when a state’s invalid reservation wasn’t fundamental to its consent to be bound by the treaty, so the reservation was severed and the states still became parties to their respective tresties
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project Case (ICJ, 1997)
Dispute between Hungary and Czechoslovakia after they agreed to build a joint dam system for energy. Hungary abandoned its obligations, citing ecological necessity. Czech reacted with countermeasures, implamenting Variant C (a modified project)
ICJ ruled that:
* Hungary’s unilateral termination of the treaty was invalid because the political/economic changes were not “fundamental” enough to justify termination under VCLT Art. 61 (supervening impossibility) or Art. 62 (fundamental change of circumstances). It should have instead sought amendment/renegotation
* Czechoslovakia’s operation of Variant C was unlawful as Variant C deviated substantially from the treaty and was a disproportionate countermeasure (violating VCLT Art. 60 on material breach).
* Treaty Remained in Force: The ICJ ordered parties to renegotiate in good faith, integrating modern environmental standards (reflecting evolving international law).
