treaty law - slides Flashcards
Sources of International Law –
Art 38 ICJ Statute
Article 38
1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with
international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:
a) international conventions, whether general or particular,
establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting States;
b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted
as law;
c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
d) subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the
teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations,
as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.[…]
Source of Law of Treaties
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
1969
* in force since 1980
* 2024: 116 parties to the treaty
* Austria acceded in 1979
* Many VCLT provisions are custom & default rules
- The notion of ‘treaty’ (general)
- agreement of a suitably formal character
- between 2 or more States (or other
international legal persons) - intent to create legal relations governed by
international law
- Notion of ‘treaty’ (VCLT)
- agreement of a suitably formal character
- concluded between 2 or more States
- intent to create legal relations governed by
international law - in writing
VCLT’s scope of application limited to treaties postdating VCLT’s entry into force
Bolivia v. Chile, para. 126 - ex
“[…] the Declaration of Charaña […] could be characterized as
a treaty if the Parties had expressed an intention to be bound
by that instrument or if such an intention could be otherwise
inferred. However, the overall language of the Declaration
rather indicates that it has the nature of a political document
[…] The engagement “to continue the dialogue, at different
levels […] cannot constitute a legal commitment to negotiate
Bolivia’s sovereign access to the sea, which is not even
specifically mentioned. [Ministers] did not go beyond
reaffirming “the need of continuing with
the negotiations”.
Self executing vs. non self
executing treaties
Article 86 Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court: General Obligation to Cooperate
‘States Parties shall, in accordance with the
provisions of this Statute, cooperate fully with the
Court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes
within the jurisdiction of the Court.’
Means of expressing consent to
be bound by a treaty
- signature (if no ratification is needed)
- ratification (internal act of approval & declaration of
acceptance) - accession
- exchange of instruments constituting a treaty
- Treaties requiring ratification
1
st Phase: appointment of plenipotentiaries
2
nd Phase: adoption of text
3
rd Phase: signature
4
th Phase: domestic approval
5
th Phase: ratification
6
th Phase: deposit with United Nations
Treaty requiring ratification: VCLT
Article 81 - Signature
The present Convention shall be open for signature by all States Members of the United
Nations or of any of the specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy
Agency or parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other
State invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a party to the
Convention, as follows: until 30 November 1969, at the Federal Ministry for Foreign
Affairs of the Republic of Austria, and subsequently, until 30 April 1970, at United
Nations Headquarters, New York.
Article 82 - Ratification
The present Convention is subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be
deposited with the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Article 83 - Accession
The present Convention shall remain open for accession by any State belonging to any
of the categories mentioned in article 81. The instruments of accession shall be
deposited shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Stages of treaty-making –
no ratification
1
st Phase: Appointment of plenipotentiaries (Art 7)
2nd Phase: Adoption of text
3rd Phase: Signature / exchange of instruments
4th Phase: Deposit with UN (Art 102 UN Charter)
Power to conclude treaties
- State have
plenary capacity
to conclude
treaties (contrast
with IOs) - International legal
persons
determine which
organs may
conclude a treaty - If concluded without full
powers: consent ex post
(otherwise invalid) - Full Powers
by virtue of a
person’s
position - Full powers
(delegated)
Delegated full powers (Art 7(1)
VCLT)
a) if a person produces appropriate full powers
b) a state may dispense with full powers
- authorization to represent a State can be
established if it appears from the practice of the State
concerned
- or from other circumstances that States intended to
consider that person as representing the State for
such purposes
Automatic full powers (Art
7(2) VCLT)
Full Powers by virtue of a person’s functions
automatic, no need to produce full powers
a) Heads of State, Heads of Government and
Ministers of Foreign Affairs
b) Heads of diplomatic missions (adopting a treaty
between the accrediting state and the state they
are accredited to)
c) Representatives accredited by States to
international conferences or organizations or one
of its organs, for the purpose of adopting a treaty
in that conference/organization/organ
Consent to be bound -
Austria
- Conclusion (Art. 50, full powers, President)
- Signature (full powers, President)
- Ratification (after approval by NC, FC)
- Deposit with the depositary / exchange with
contracting States - Entry into force
- Publication BGBl. III
Invalidity
pacta sunt servanda
Art 26 VCLT
a party may not invoke the
provisions of its internal law as
justification for its failure to
perform a treaty (Art 27 VCLT)
except manifest violation of
internal and fundamental law
regarding competence
(Art 27 & 46 VCLT)
Grounds of
Invalidity
Procedure for
invoking
invalidity
Invalidity – lack of competence
- manifest violation of a rule of domestic law
of fundamental importance (Art 46) - Acts of a person lacking the competence to
represent the state
– violation of internal law governing
competence (Art 46)
– omission to observe a restriction of the
authority of a representative (notification
needed) (Art 47)
ICJ, Cameroon v. Nigeria, Land and
Maritime Boundary, 2002 (1)
- Nigeria’s argu[es] that its constitutional rules regarding the conclusion of
treaties were not complied with […] Article 46 (1) VCLT provides that “[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”. It is true that the paragraph goes on
to say “unless that violation was manifest and concerns a rule of its internal law
of fundamental importance”, while Article 46 (2) provides that “[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”. The rules
concerning the authority to sign treaties for a State are constitutional rules of
fundamental importance. However, a limitation of a Head of State’s capacity in
this respect is not manifest in the sense of Article 46, paragraph 2, unless at
least properly publicized
This is particularly so because Heads of State belong to the group of
persons who, in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 2, of the
Convention “[i]n virtue of their functions and without having to produce
full powers” are considered as representing their State. The Court
cannot accept Nigeria’s argument that Article 7, paragraph 2, of the
VCLT is solely concerned with the way in which a person’s function as a
state’s representative is established, but does not deal with the extent of
that person’s powers when exercising that representative function. [As
the ILC said] “Heads of State . . . are considered as representing their
State for the purpose of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a
treaty”.
ICJ, Cameroon v. Nigeria, Land and
Maritime Boundary, 2002 - (2)
[Regarding Nigeria’s argument that Cameroon knew, or ought to have
known] the Court notes that there is no general legal obligation for States
to keep themselves informed of legislative and constitutional
developments in other States which are or may become important for the
international relations of these States. In this case the Head of State of
Nigeria had in August 1974 stated in his letter to the Head of State of
Cameroon that the views of the Joint Commission “must be subject to the
agreement of the two Governments”. However, in the following
paragraph of that same letter, he further indicated: “It has always been
my belief that we can, both, together re-examine the situation and reach
an appropriate and acceptable decision on the matter.“
Contrary to Nigeria’s contention, the Court considers that
these two statements, read together, cannot be regarded
as a specific warning to Cameroon that the Nigerian
Government would not be bound by any commitment
entered into by the Head of State. And in particular they
could not be understood as relating to any commitment to
be made at Maroua nine months later. The letter in
question in fact concerned a meeting to be held at Kano,
Nigeria, from 30 August to 1 September 1974.
This letter seems to have been part of a pattern which
marked the Parties’ boundary negotiations between 1970
and 1975, in which the two Heads of State took the initiative
of resolving difficulties in those negotiations through
person-to-person agreements, including those at Yaoundé
II and Maroua.
…
268. In these circumstances the Maroua Declaration, as
well as the Yaoundé II Declaration, have to be considered
as binding and as establishing a legal obligation on Nigeria.
Other grounds of Invalidity
- error (mistaken impression of facts) (Art 48)
- fraud and corruption (Art 49 & 50)
- coercion of a representative of a State (Art 51)
- coercion of a State by the threat or use of force
(Art 52) - Incompatibility with jus cogens (Art 53)
Notion and types of
reservations
Art 2(1)d VCLT
- excluding a treaty
prov isio n
- m odifyin g the leg al effec t
of a provisio n
- Saudi Arabia’s
reservation to CEDAW
- In case of contradiction between any term of
the Convention and the norms of Islamic Law,
the Kingdom is not under obligation to observe
the contradictory terms of the Convention. - The Kingdom does not consider itself bound
by Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Convention
and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the
Convention.
Austria’s objection to Saudi
Arabia’s CEDAW reservation
[Para. 1 of Saudi Arabia’s] reservation […] does not clearly specify the
provisions of the Convention to which it applies and the extent of the
derogation therefrom raises doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia to the Convention.
Given the general character of this reservation […] Austria considers the
reservation as not affecting any provision the implementation of which is
essential to fulfilling the object and purpose of the Convention […] the
reservation in question is inadmissible to the extent that its application
negatively affects the compliance by Saudi Arabia with its obligations under
the Convention essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose. […]
As to the reservation to Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Convention
Austria is of the view that the exclusion of such an important provision of
non-discrimination is not compatible with object and purpose of the
Convention. Austria therefore objects to this reservation.
This position, however, does not preclude the entry into force in its
entirety of the Convention between Saudi Arabia and Austria.
UK reservation, CEDAW
none of [the UK’s] obligations extend to the
succession to, or possession and enjoyment of,
the Throne, the peerage, titles of honour, social
precedence or armorial bearings, or as
extending to the affairs of religious
denominations or orders or to the admission into
or service in the Armed Forces of the Crown
US reservation, UN-CAT
the United States considers itself bound by the
obligation under Article 16 to prevent “cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,”
only insofar as the term “cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment” means the
cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or
punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth,
and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States.
