ELEMENTS OF PROCEDURE

The State's will

a) With regard to the conclusion of treaties
In view of their tasks, the following persons are considered to be States' representatives:

- the Head of States,
- the Head of governments and
- the Ministers for foreign affairs.

As a rule, other persons are not allowed to express the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty, unless he or she can produce appropriate full powers which have been issued by the authority authorized to do so according to its domestic legislation (Article 7 (1)(c) and 2 (1)(c). However, it can appear from the practice of the States concerned by a given treaty or from other circumstances that their intention was to consider a particular person as representing his or her State and to dispense with full powers (Article 7 (1)(b)).

Free consent overrules any formality (production of full powers), a situation which is prone to confusion in today's world where one can witness multiple contacts between bureaucracies of all kind.

An act relating to the conclusion of a treaty performed by a person who cannot be considered as authorized to represent a State for that purpose is without legal effect unless afterwards confirmed by that State (Article 8).

b) With regard to the termination of treaties

Symmetrically to the conclusion of a treaty, a withdrawal, suspension or declaration of invalidity must be declared in a document signed

- either by a Head of State,
- a Head of government or
- a Minister of Foreign Affairs.

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 the termination may be called upon to produce full powers (Article 67 (2)).

There is no explicit rule in the Vienna Convention as to whether the termination of a treaty declared without appropriate full powers can be subsequently confirmed; however, there is no reason why Article 8 which foresees such a possibility in the case of conclusion could not be applied by analogy on the basis of the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations (cf. Article 38 (1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice).

The depositary and the registration of treaties

The documents by which States express their consent to be bound by a treaty (instruments of ratification, acceptance etc.) are kept by an organ designated by the respective treaties, the "depositary". His tasks are enumerated in in Article 77 of the Vienna Convention and can be compared to those of notary public in the context of civil law.

The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or the Secretary General of the United Nations are examples of such organs who act, inter alia, as depositaries of various conventions; since 1945 more than 500 multilateral treaties have been deposited with the latter. Nevertheless, this task can also be conferred upon a government as in the case of the Swiss Federal Council which acts as depositary for approximately 60 international conventions. The functions of the depositary of a treaty are international in character and the depositary is under an obligation to act impartially in their performance (Article 76 (2)).

According to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations no party to an international agreement which has not been registered it with the Secretariat of the United Nations may invoke that agreement before any organ of the United Nations and in particular not before the International Court of Justice.

Settlement of disputes
The Vienna Convention considers the invalidity of a treaty being claimed by one or more parties, but contested by other States Parties as the most likely case for a dispute settlement (Article 65 (3)). Since the Vienna Convention does not intend to be prejudicial to other dispute settlement mechanisms which might have been agreed upon between the States (Article 65 (4)), it expresses its preference for a dispute settlement through one of the means listed in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, i.e.

- negotiation,
- enquiry,
- mediation,
- conciliation,
- arbitration,
- judicial settlement,
- resort to regional agencies or arrangements
- or other peaceful means of their own choice

In the special case of a dispute concerning the issue of a conflict between a treaty on one hand and a peremptory norm of general international law on the other (jus cogens, see Articles 53 and 64), the Vienna Convention, as a recourse of last resort, provides for the mandatory settlement of the dispute by the International Court of Justice. Of course, the States Parties can also submit such a dispute by common consent to arbitration (Article 66 (a)).

Any other dispute concerning the invalidity, the termination or the suspension of a treaty can, upon a request addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, be submitted to the conciliation commission foreseen in the Annex to the Vienna Convention (Article 66 (b)). Three out of the five conciliators constituting the conciliation commission must be chosen by the parties from a list held by the Secretary-General. Until today, the conciliation commission has not entered into function.

RESERVATIONS

According to Article 2 (1)(d) the term "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 modify the legal effects of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State.

The legal regime of reservations has been codified in the Articles 19 to 23 of the Vienna Convention. Since this regime does not always give clear answers on how to deal with reservations, the International Law Commission (ILC) together with the international community is currently discussing "draft directives" on this issue.

One of the great difficulties is how to distinguish reservations from interpretative declarations. The Vienna Convention does not explicitely deal with the latter, but since the way a reservation is phrased or named does not matter, a large number of so-called interpretative declarations would seem to be in fact covered by the provisions of the Vienna Convention on reservations.

In the same way as reservations, interpretative declarations are unilateral acts, but unlike the former, such declarations can be made at any time whereas a reservation must be formally confirmed by the State at the time of expressing its consent to be bound by a given treaty (Article 23 (2)), viz. when ratifying, accepting or approving it.

By an interpretative declaration, a State aims at clarifying what meaning or extent it attributes to a given treaty ot to some of its provisions. The qualification of an unilateral declaration as reservation or interpretative declaration depends on the legal effects it intends to produce, a matter which is far from being always clear.

In the case of a State not qualifying itself its declaration as reservation or interpretative declaration, it is sometimes the depositary who chooses one of the two designations when communicating the declaration to the other States Parties in accodance with Article 77 (1)(e) or with any other provision of a particular treaty relevant in the given circumstances.

The favor contractus principle has a double impact on the legal regime of reservations:

- In order to facilitate both the entry into force of a convention and

a wide participation to it, the Vienna Convention establishes

practically no obstacles to the declaration of reservations,

although this is done at the price of the integrity of the treaties.

Furthermore, silence amounts to agreement (Article 20 (5))

so that in the reality of treaty relations, in particular with regard

to universal treaties, the entry into force of a reservation can be

almost automatically assumed.

- However, a return to treaty integrity is made even easier, since a

reservation can be withdrawn at any time even without the

consent of those States which had previously accepted

(Article 22 (2)). In that case, the favor contractus principle

supersedes the free consent rule.

In accordance with the free consent principle the issue of the permissibility of reservations does not arise when a treaty straightforwardly prohibits them.

The issue is of minor importance when a treaty accepts only specific reservations; in that case one has to question whether a specific reservation is still covered by the authorization expressed in the treaty.

The matter gets complicated when one has to decide whether a reservation is compatible with object and purpose of the treaty in question (see Article 19 (c)).

Since the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 concerning Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

it is this compatibility with object and purpose of the treaty which constitutes the touchstone of its admissibility.

Despite its vague content - but in default of a better alternative - the "incompatibility with the object and purpose of the treaty"-formula

has been included into the Vienna Convention not in its Article 19(c) but also in its Articles 18, 20 (2), 31 (1) and 33 (5). According to this formula the States decide for themselves whether the reservation declared by another State Party is to be considered compatible with the object and purpose of a given treaty or not.

If a State Party comes to the conclusion that the reservation made by another State is not permissible, then it can raise an objection by the end of a period of twelve months after it was notified of the reservation (Artikel 20 (5)). The objection's effect is that the provisions to which the reservation relates do not apply to the extent of the reservation as between the State which has made the reservation and the one which has raised an objection.

However, if the State which raises the objection wants to exclude the entry into force of the whole treaty between itself and the reserving State, it has to do do it explicitly (Article 21 (3)). It is only in that case that there is a difference between the legal effects following from the acceptance of a reservation and those which are the consequences of objecting to it. Paradoxically, the legal consequences are otherwise the same.

Eventually, disputes concerning the admissibility of reservations can only be solved through a dispute settlement mechanism. Such a procedure has to be foreseen either in the concerned treaty or in an agreement otherwise entered into by the States Parties.

A very controversial issue in this regard is whether a reservation incompatible with the aim and purpose of a treaty is to be considered as lack of agreement or whether it is only the reservation itself which has to be considered null and void.

This is a particularly thorny issue in case of reservations made to human rights treaties.

This question can even lead to ideological confrontations when a State makes a reservation which declares the priority of islamic law (Sharî'a) over the provisions of such treaties.

In general, the procedure to be followed in case of reservations is characterized by the fact that for reasons of legal security the various unilateral declarations, i.e.

- the reservations themselves, the objections to them

as well as

- the withdrawal of reservations and objections

must be formulated in writing (Article 23 (1) and (4)).

If a reservation is formulated when signing the treaty without expressing at the same time the consent of the State to be bound by it, the reservation must be formally confirmed when the State expresses its consent to this effect (Article 23 (2)).

In multilateral treaty practice, it is the task of the various depositaries to receive the reservations, the objections and the withdrawals and to inform the other States Parties about these communications (Article 77 (1)(c) and (e)).

APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF FREE CONSENT AND GOOD FAITH

a) The expression of free consent

the Vienna Convention which governs agreements concluded in written form between States, confirms in its Article 6 that every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties. The will of a State finds its expression through persons who are authorized to do so or who are considered to be state representatives.

Since international treaty law in its entirety is subject to the free consent principle. it is quite logical that the Vienna Convention offers a broad choice of possibilities to express consent (Article 11), i.e.

• - signature,
  - exchange of instruments constituting a treaty
• - (in the case of bilateral treaties this often happens through the
• - exchange of notes),
• - ratification,
• - acceptance,
• - approval,
• - accession or
• - by any other means if so agreed.
  

A typical clause of entry into force can be found in Article 84 of the Vienna Convention itself which reads:

"1. The present Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or accession.

2. For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification or accession."

The States Parties - primarily the contracting States (see Article 2 (1)(f)) - can also agree to apply a treaty provisionally pending its entry into force (Article 25). This agreement can be laid down in the treaty itself or in another way. If this done in the treaty itself, the agreement enters into force with its signature (and which in this case remains, of course, subject to ratification).

For reasons to be found in their own domestic legislation it is not possible for some States - Austria, for instance - to apply international conventions provisionally.

Finally, it should be mentioned that there are constitutions like that of Portugal (see Artikel 8) which do not authorize States to express their consent through all of the means enumerated in Article 11 of the Vienna Convention; hence, for Portugal there is only a possibility to ratify or approve a treaty. Since this is the result of a domestic provision, a consent which would be expressed in a different manner would not be flawed from point of view of international treaty law, because the ways and means to express consent are already determined by customary international law and not only by the Vienna Convention to which, by the way, Portugal is not a party.

with regard to the conclusion of treaties

b) Pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt

A treaty binds the parties and only the parties; it does not create obligations for a third State without its consent (Article 34), since sovereignty implies that there is no agreement without free consent. "Third State" means a State which not a party to a given treaty (Article 2 (1)(h)).

The acceptance of an obligation by a third State must be expressed both expressly and in writing (Article 35), in order to avoid doubts as to the extent of the obligation which had been previously defined by others.

A consent which as been expressed in such a way can be qualfied as quasi-contractual. Hence, it is only logical that the obligation can only be revoked or modified with the consent of all parties to the treaty as well as of the third State, unless it is established that they had otherwise agreed (Article 37(1)).

Although a third State cannot be granted a right without its approval, its assent is nevertheless presumed (Article 36(1)). A third State which exercising such a right is under an obligation to comply with the conditions for its exercise provided for in the treaty or established in conformity with the treaty (Article 36(2)). The rights granted to a third State can be revoked by the States Parties unless it is established that the right was intended not to be revocable or subject to modification without the consent of the third State. In such a case, the burden of proof lies with the third party benefiting from the right or rights.

The principle according to which a treaty cannot create rights or obligations for a third party without its consent is expressed in Latin by the phrase "pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt". This rule also applies when two or more parties of a multilateral convention conclude an agreement to modify the convention only in relation to each other, since they hereby exclude third States from their agreement in spite of the fact that the latter are parties to the original treaty (see Article 41).

with regard to the conclusion of treaties

c) The designation of treaties

As it appears from the definition of Article 2 (1)(a) of the Vienna Convention, the legally binding nature of a treaty is not affected by its particular designation. In order to be legally binding, the parties must have had the intention to be bound legally and not "only" through a political commitment.

Nevertheless, the designation of a particular agreement indicates thepolitical importance the parties attach to it, though it cannot be considered as conclusive evidence.

With regard to bilateral agreements, the term "Treaty" suggests that the agreement so designated is considered to be of great importance. Friendship treaties, although outdated in many cases today, are an example thereof. The nowadays most utilized designation seems to be "Agreement". It is utilized so often that it is impossible to conclude from there which political value it has for the parties. The term "memorandum of agreement" is widespread, too.

With regard to multilateral agreements, the terms "Charter" or, here again, "Treaty" are chosen in general for the most important conventions as it is the case for

- the Charter of the United Nations of 1945,
- the Charter of the Organization of American States(1948),
- the Charter of the Organization of African Unity (1963)

or

- the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992).

In spite of its solemn title, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the

European Union, which has been proclaimed in Nice on 7 March 2000 is not a legally binding instrument, although it is designed to become the common reference of fundamental values on which the members of the European Union intend to develop their further integration.
As to the designation of a text as "Treaty", here are some examples:

- the North Atlantic Treaty (the NATO-Treaty) of 1948,
- The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear Weapons (NPT - 1968) and
- the Treaty on the European Union of 1992 (as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997).

In most cases, multilateral treaties are called "Conventions". This is the most general designation which is also used by Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. They are often concluded under the auspices of an international organization such as

- the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (so-called European Human Rights Convention concluded under the auspices of the Council of Europe),

- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982)
- the Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971 (concluded under the auspices of theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

- UNESCO)

As in the case of bilateral treaties, the very general term "Agreement" is also frequently used for multilateral conventions. It has been used in the following examples:

- the European Agreement on continued Payment of Scholarships for Students studying abroad of 1969,

- the Agreement on a Comprehensive Political Settlement of the Cambodia Conflict (1991) or
- the North American Free Trade Agreement (1992).

The designation "Protocol" is usually used for legally binding agreements which are additional or complementary to main agreements or which have a supporting role.

As additional agreements they are added to the original treaties as it is the case with the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949

As complementary agreement, they are in general already foreseen in the original convention. This technique is frequently used in environmental treaties where the protocols set out detailed provisions on the basis of an more general article in a framework agreement as it is the case of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity which has been adopted in 1999 on the basis of Article 19 (3) of the convention dating from 1992 (the Protocol has not entered ino force, yet).

Finally, As supporting agreements, they help to implement the main agreement as in the case of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, through which access to an intergovernmental body has been given to individuals.

In the present context, it is worthwhile mentionning that on this website we have also encountered the terms

- "Statute" (Statute of the International Court of Justice, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998) and

- "Covenant" (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)

with regard to the termination of treaties

a) By consensus

In the same way as States can conclude treaties, they can also terminate them by mutual consent. Their consent can be expressed either in the treaty itself which they had originally concluded (expiry date, denunciation clause) or thereafter (article 54), in particular through the conclusion of a later treaty aiming at achieving this very purpose (Article 59, explicit termination), or through the conclusion of a treaty relating to the same subject-matter (see Article 30 (3), implicit termination). The same rules apply for the termination as well as for the suspension of treaties (Article 57 and 59 (2)).

With regard to multlateral treaties, the Vienna Convention authorizes two or more parties to suspend the operation of treaty provisions

- temporarily and

- as between themselves alone,

as long as this does not entail a limitation of rights or obligations of the other parties (Article 58 (1); applicaton of the principle "pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt").

Unless the treaty otherwise provides, the parties in question have to 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 (Article 58 (2)).

As a matter of course, where a treaty contains a denunciation clause, the parties can avail themselves of the possibility offered by it and withdraw from the treaty. The unilateral denunciation is not in contradiction to the principle of free consent, since the possibility of such a denunciation had been agreed upon by the parties in the treaty.

b) Termination of treaties as a consequence of a defect of consent

Every person invested with appropriate full powers has the authority to express the consent of the State which he represents to be bound by a given treaty. If this authority has been made subject to a specific restriction which has then not been observed by the representative, the State may invoke this fact as invalidating its consent. However, this possibility only exists, if the restriction had been notified to the other negotiating States before the expression of consent (Article 47), because if this prior notification did not take place, it would be easy to invoke defect of consent by mere political opportunism which, in return, would constitute a behaviour contrary to the principle of good faith.

The other defects of consent are enumerated exhaustively in the Articles 48 to 52 of the Vienna Convention. They are the consequence of

- an error (Article 48)

- deceit (Articles 49 and 50)

- or coercion (Articles 51 and 52).

Defects Of Consent

Error

An error (Article 48) is a mistaken impression of facts which nullifies consensus. A State may invoke an error if it 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 (Article 48). This provisions echos the adage "omnis conventio intelligitur sic stantibus": A genuine consensus only exists where all essential facts were equally known by all parties. Nevertheless, a State may only invoke an error, if it has not contributed to it by his own conduct.

Deceit
Like an error, fraud (Article 49) leads to a mistaken impression of reality, but unlike the former it is the consequence of a deception by the other pary or parties. The State Party victim of such an act is entitled to invoke fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

The corruption of a State representative (Article 50) perverts the relationship of agency existing between this person and the State from which he has the authorization to act on its behalf. Corruption can occur either directly or indirectly, and in order to be invoked, it must be at the origin of the expression of a consent to be bound by a given treaty.

Within the boundaries set by Article 44 (4) deceived States are entitled to invalidate either the whole treaty or only parts thereof. In cases of coercion (see below) or of treaties conflicting with jus cogens, the possibility of making such a choice is not foreseen; hence, only the treaty as a whole is voidable (Artikel 44 (5)).

Coercion

The most quoted example of a coercitive measures taken against a State representative (Article 51) are the threats formulated against the Czechoslovak President Hacha in order to have him agree on the end of a independent Czechoslovakia.

"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." (Article 52). Such a coercion is indeed prohibited by Article 2 (4) of the Charter of the United Nations. Since consensus for the inclusion of a definition of "threat" in the Vienna Convention itself was lacking, the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties adopted at together with the Vienna

Convention a "Declaration on the Prohibition of Military, Political or Economic Coercion in the Conclusion of Treaties". Paragraph one of this legally non-binding declaration "solemnly condems the threat or use of pressure in any form, whether military, political, or economic, by any State in order to coerce another State to 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".

However, in the context of diplomatic protection the question of the legitmacy of the use of force is disputed. Therefore, for some there is no defect in the consent of a State which has been brought about under such circumstances. As a matter of course, such an argumentation is very dangerous, since it furthers aggressive behaviour shown under the pretext that is is legitimated by the international law of diplomatic protection. But how are peace treaties to be judged in the light of Article 52, since most of them are the result of armed

conflicts ?

c) No derogation of jus cogens

With the exception of the provision contained in Article 22, para.1 which emanates from the favor contractus principle, only peremptory norms of general international law (Latin: jus cogens) can stand in the way of an agreement which has been freely entered into. Indeed, Article 53 of the Vienna Convention specifies that a treaty conflicting with jus cogens at the time of its conclusion is void. Similarly, a treaty becomes void and terminates, if it is in contradiction with a peremptory norm of international law which has newly emerged (jus cogens superveniens - Article 64)

In that context we are in the presence of quite obscure provisions despite the definition of jus cogens contained in Article 53: According to it, 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.

As the International Law Commission (ILC) nevertheless remarked itself in 1969 in its commentary on the draft articles for the international law of the treaties, there is no simple criterion which would allow to determine whether a rule belongs to jus cogens.

This state of affairs has hardly evolved, although it seems that certain international norms for which criminals will have to stand before the International Criminal Court after having breached them constitute to a large extent the body of these sought jus cogens rules. These penal provisions concern the prohibition of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.

Eventually, jus cogens seems to be a concept invented by international law experts who had been pursuing the aim of allowing natural law ideas to erupt into the legal regime of international treaties.

with regard to the amendment of treaties
The rules concerning the conclusion of treaties (Articles 6 to 25) equally apply for the amendment of treaties (Article 39). Because of the pronciple of free consent, the States Parties are free to create specific norms for the amendment of their treaty or treaties. Such an agreement can be entered into

- either implicitely

- or explicitly,

both orally or in written form (the Vienna Convention, however, is only applicable for agreements concluded in written form). This agreement can authorize the amendment of the original treaty as well as it can prohibit or restrict amendments. Nevertheless, agreements concerning the amendment of treaties can also be subject to amendments themselves.

a) The implicit amendment

An amendment is done implicitly when the States Parties conclude successive treaties relating to the same-subject-matter. Unless otherwise provided for in an agreement, the earlier treaty applies only to the extent its provisions are compatible with the later treaty (in conformity with the latin maxim lex posterior derogat legi priori according to which the later treaty prevails over an earlier one if both regulate the same subject-matter, Article 30 (3)).

In view of the provisions concerning e x p l i c i t amendments between certain parties only (Article 41) the implicit amendment must be considered as problematic, since it does not warrant the same transparency in the course of a negotiation:

In particular, parties which want to modify a treaty in accordance with Article 41, para. 2 have to notify the other parties of their intention. This provisions aims at ensuring that negotiations are conducted in good faith with parties being aware of the relevant circumstances.

b) The explicit amendment

For bilateral treaties the rule incorporated in Article 39 according to which a treaty can be amended by agreement between the parties seems sufficient. As for multilateral treaties, one can envisage two types of situation:

- either two or more States make a proposal for an amendment

designed to enter into force for all States parties

- or they intend to modify the treaty only between themselves.

In both cases, in view of the good faith principle, the acting parties have to notify the others of their intention to conclude the agreement and of the envisaged modification to the treaty (Article 40 (2) and 42 (2)).

According to the principle that agreements do not bind parties which are not privy to it (Article 34, repeated in Article 30 (4)(b) - pacta

tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt), a modification agreed upon between certain States cannot bind other States which have not approved the modification or amendment (Article 40 (4)), despite the fact that the latter are parties to the original treaty.

Out of respect for the principles of free consent and good faith, an agreement aiming at modifying a multilateral treaty only between certain of its parties, must not infringe

- either upon the rights and obligations of the parties to the original treaty

- or upon its object and purpose (Article 41(1)(b)(ii) - a vague concept, which is reiterated in the Articles 18, 19 and 31(1)).

Finally, it is worthwhile noting that the Vienna Convention distinguishes between amendments which are valid for all parties to a given treaty and modifications which are only relevant for a restricted number of them.

with regard to the interpretation of treaties

"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." (Article 31 (1); here again, as in the Articles 18, 19, 20 (2), 41 (1)(b)(ii) and 58 (1)(b)(ii), we find again the vague concept of "object and purpose of a treaty").

The context includes, in addition to the treaty text itself, the preamble and the annexes as well as other agreements and documents which are considered by the parties as being instruments related to the treaty (Article 31 (2)). Furthermore, any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation has to be taken into account, too.

According to the "Appellate Body", the highest dispute settlement organ of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the context of a legal instrument is also constituted by the other treaties its parties adhere to. Hence, in the case concerning "Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline" the Appellate Body explained that the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the "WTO Agreement") "is not to be read in clinical isolation from public international law". That means, in particular, that the trade provisions of the WTO Agreement have also to be interpreted in the light of conventions for the protection of the environment, provided that they are in force between the States Parties of the WTO Agreement.

Finally, there are supplementary means of interpretation as, for instance, the preparatory work of the treaty (so called "travaux préparatoires") and the circumstances of its conclusion (Article 32).

A specificity of international conventions lies in the fact that they are authenticated in several languages (see Article 33). With regard to treaties concluded under the auspices of the United Nations, these languages are regulary: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish and Russian.

The terms of the treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text (Article 33 (3)). In the case of several Protocols to the Convention for the Protection of the Alps (the Alpine Convention) there were so many difrences in the texts authenticated in French, German, Italian and Slovene that a separate conference had to be convened for the purpose of their harmonization (see Article 79 (3)).

The LaGrand case revealed a divergence between the equally authentic English and Fench versions of Article 41 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Hence, the Court had to examine the object and purpose of the Statute together with the context of Article 41. In this way, the Court, in its judgement of 27 June 2001, "reached the conclusion that orders on provisional measures under Article 41 have binding effect".

Specific application of the good faith principle (bona fide)

A State is entitled to invoke a deficiency of intention if the other States

Parties knew that its consent had been expressed in manifest violation of a fundamental rule of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties. In this case, the other parties cannot pretend bona fide that the State genuinely wished to be bound by the treaty in question. According to Article 46 (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 good faith.

In this provision, the meaning of the term "objectively evident " remains to be clarified as well as whether there really is a general practice one can refer to and which is applicable in each and every case. Moreover, the concept of "objective evidence" relies upon the term "good faith" which is a subjective element which therefore is dificult to prove.

Luckily, the value of this provision rests to a large extent with theory. It is almost always in the course of the application and implementation of treaties that the concept of bona fide comes ino play. If a State does not implement a treaty in good faith by violating at least one of its substantial provisions, the Vienna Convention authorizes the other parties to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part (Article 60).

A bona fide application or implementation can also have a legitimizing effect in case the treaty is invalidated: According to Article 69 (2)(b), acts performed in good faith before the invalidity was invoked are not rendered unlawful by reason only of the invalidity of the treaty.

As a matter of course, there cannot be a legitimizing effect for a party to which fraud, an act of corruption or coercion is imputable (Article 69(3)). The injured party or parties are then entitled to 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.

A State Party who wishes to impeach the validity of a treaty, to terminate it, to withdraw from it or to suspend its operation must notify the other parties of its claim in order to give them an opportunity to raise an objection against it. For this purpose, the Vienna Convention foresees a time limit of three months after the receipt of the notification (Article 65(2)). After the end of this time limit, the State can declare the invalidity of the treaty through a document signed by one of its representatives.

With the exception of cases of special urgency, this instrument cannot be communicated before the end of the period of three months foreseen in Article 65 (2). If, however, an objection has been raised by at least one other party, the States Parties are under an obligation to seek a solution through the means indicated in article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.

THE SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, considered by some as the "Bible of the Poor" of those who seek quick answers despite of the complexity of international relations, constitutes nevertheless a good starting point for the understanding of the sources of international law. According to this article, international law finds its origin in the following three sources:

- international conventions of general or particular nature;

- international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

- the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.

Most international law experts would rush to add the "unilateral acts" to these three sources of law and to declare that Article 38 of the Statute has omitted to mention these unilateral acts which the United Nations' International Law Commission (ILC) currently tries to codify. Contrary to this opinion, other international lawyers would maintain that these unilateral acts constitute specific expressions of the will of States leading eventually to agreements which are then governed by the rules applicable to international conventions.

Finally, the idea of justice and equity originating in the philosophy of natural law is not to be discarded as a source of international law, since it is the opinion of the International Court of Justice itself that whatever the legal argumentation of the judge, his or her decisions have to be just and in that sense must correspond to justice and equity. Moreover, the judges of the International Court of Justice are expressly authorized to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto, i.e. to found their judgements on arguments of equity (Article 38 (2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice).

International treaty law as codified by Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 is open for considerations of justice too (Preambular para. 4 and 5 and Article 44 (3)). Moreover, the concept of "jus cogens" seems also to be an angle of incidence for natural law ideas.

Since, on the basis of their sovereignty and therefore independence, the equality of all States consitutes the theoretical foundation of international relations and although public international law, by definition, does not belong to civil law, international legal debates are often reminiscent of the discussions known in the latter area, in particular in the context of the law of contracts.

However, this cannot be said for those measures which are taken on the basis of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Although they are foreseen in an international treaty - in particular by Article 25 of the Charter - these measures deserve to be highlighted because of the legal obligations they impose to the whole world, their political significance and the remarkable development they have undergone since the Gulf War of 1991. The measures taken by the Security Council and which are expressly based on Chapter VII of the Charter encompass

not only military as well as economic sanctions against

- certain States (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iraq, Yougoslavia, Sierra Leone etc.)
- or insurgents (Angola's UNITA, see resolution
1173/1998 of 12 June 1998) or even political parties in government (the Afghan faction of the Taliban, see res. 1267/1999 of 15 October 1999),

but also

- the creation of special tribunal to prosecute war crimes or crimes against humanity in the territory of the former Yougoslavia (res. 827/1993 of 25 May 1993) and in Ruanda
(res. 955/1994 of 8 November 1994)

- or of special administrative zones like in East Timor (see res. 1272/1999 of 25 October 1999) or in Kosovo (see res.1244/1999 of 10 June 1999)

as well as

- measures against terrorism in general (res. 1373/2001 of 28 September 2001).

These sources of international law are supplemented by two subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law (Article 38 (1)(d) of the Statute), i.e. by

- judicial decisions (although even the decisions of the International Court of Justice have binding force only between the parties and in respect of the particular cases submitted to the

Court - Article 59 of the Statute) and
- the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations.

This website, for its part, is devoted to the international law of treaties as codified in the Vienna Convention. The principles of this convention as well as their application constitute its main subject-matter.

PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY LAW

Although it is possible to conclude international conventions orally, almost all of them are concluded in written form.

Orginally, the international treaty rules were either part of customary international law or belonged to the general principles of law; today the rules governing international treaties which are concluded between States in written form are codified. The codification governing this legal area is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention) of 1969 which has entered into force on 27 January 1980. Although the Vienna Convention is not applicable to treaties concluded before its entry into force (Article 4) it is de facto applied to those too, since it incorporates - at least to a large extent - customary rules which were already applicable before this date. Moreover, the Vienna Convention applies only in the absence of other applicable agreements and is therefore of subsidiary character.


A Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations dating from 1986 has reproduced the provisions of the Vienna Convention. It reflects to a large extent international customary law, too; however, it has not yet entered into force.

Finally, a Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, concluded in 1978, entered into force in 1996, but since it has been ratified by 15 States only, it cannot be considered as a source of universal international law. Furthermore, it has hardly had any impact on state practice, the noteworthy exception being that practice widely follows the rule according to which a successor State can establish its status as party of a multilateral treaty to which its predecessor State already belonged through a declaration of succession.

Generally speaking, one can say that customary international law is rather blurred in this regard.

Basically, two types of treaties are two be distinguished:

- bilateral treaties which are concluded between two States only
and
- multilateral treaties concluded between at least three States;
the treaties which have attracted the largest numbers of
parties are called universal.

Amongst multilateral treaties, one can distinguish between "open" and "restricted" treaties. Whereas every State can become a party to the "open" ones, access to the latter category of treaties is excluded for those States which do not belong to the original States Parties, unless an agreement to the contrary has been entered into.

Hence, every State can accede to the Vienna Convention (open treaty), but only the signatory States of the Convention on the Regulation of the Navigation on the Danube River from 1948 could originally ratify this (restricted) treaty: hence the accessions of Austria and Germany had to be approved by the original States Parties in 1960 and 1999, respectively, by way of supplementary agreements with these two countries.

The Vienna Convention which consists of 85 articles, eight parts and an annex includes and materializes five fundamental legal principles.

Free consent and good faith (bona fide in Latin) are the leading principles which ought to be always followed by States in the course of their relations with one another.

The other major principles which also emanate from the Roman Law tradition apply in particular

- either to the conclusion of treaties:
- pacta sunt servanda (a treaty is binding upon the parties)

- or to the interpretation or application of treaties:
- omnia conventio intelligitur rebus sic stantibus
(viz. the clausula rebus sic stantibus according to which a
fundamental change of circumstances jeopardizes the validity
of treaties)
- favor contractus (it is better to seek the maintenance rather
than the termination of a treaty)

These five principles will be subject to closer scrutiny on this website and the application of the two major principles (free consent and good faith) will be the object of a separate chapter. Of course, the delimitation between these principles can be vague, but eventually they are mutually supportive of each other.

• Free consent

• Good Faith

• Pacta sunt servanda

• Clausula rebus sic stantibus

• Favor contractus
  

Free consent

This international principle is embodied in preambular para. 3 of the Vienna Convention. First of all, it is the corollary of the prohibition of the threat and use of force contained in the Charter of the United Nations (Article 2 (4)) which legitimates such behaviour only in specific circumstances. The severance or absence of diplomatic (or consular) relations between two or more States does not prevent the conclusion of treaties between those States (Article 74).

According to the principle of free consent, international agreements
are binding upon the parties and solely upon themselves. These parties cannot create either obligations or rights for third States without their consent (rule of pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt - Article 34). The only explicit exception to this rule appears in Article 22 (1) which is an expression of the favor contractus principle and concerns the withdrawal of reservations.

Another important principle which can be deducted from the free
consent rule is expressed by the latin phrase lex posterior derogat legi
priori. According to this rule, a later treaty prevails over an earlier one when two treaties exist which relate to the same subject-matter (Article 30 para. 3). This principle will be dealt with in the context of treaty amendments.

It is understood that by giving its consent, a State binds itself in respect of its entire territory and not retroactively, unless a different
intention is established (Articles 28 and 29).

Good faith

As well as free consent, good faith is of fundamental importance for the conduct of international relations in general and is therefore recognized as an international principle according to the very terms of the Vienna Convention (Preambular para. 3). If a State do not behave in good faith, peace and international security, the supreme goals of the Charter of the United Nations might eventualy be put in jeopardy.

In a resolution from July 2001, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) which is constituted by more than 40 member countries declared that "good faith requires fairness, reasonableness, integrity and honesty in international behaviour". An abuse of right is contrary to the principle of good faith (see Article 300 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).

Of course, being a subjective element of behaviour, presence or absence of good faith can be difficult to prove. In the last analysis, good or bad faith can only be found in the minds of individuals, in particular of those who happen to have an influence on the conduct of foreign policy and, more specifically, of those whose task it is to negotiate and implement international conventions (see Articles 26, 31 (1) and 62 (2)(b)).

Pacta sunt servanda

Apart from the fact that it is listed together with good faith among the
universally recognized principles (preambular para. 3), this rule is also
enshrined in Article 26:

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

In Paul Reuter's words, this principle can be translated by the following formula: treaties "are what the authors wanted them to be and only what they wanted them to be and because they wanted them to be the way they are".

A party is not authorized to invoke the provisions of its internal law as
justification for its failure to perform a treaty (Article 27). Generally
speaking, this solid legal link is nor even weakened in the case severance of diplomatic relations between the parties to a given treaty (Article 63). The only limit to the "pacta sunt servanda" rule is to be found in the notion of "peremptory norm of general international law" (or jus cogens).

But apparently States expect increasingly out of realism that the treaties they conclude in certain areas, in particular with regard to the protection of the environment, will not be properly implemented by all States parties just out of respect for the "pacta sunt servanda" rule. This is why several recent treaties contain obligations to cooperate in order to facilitate compliance with the treaty obligations (see also Article 8 of the Ottawa Convention on the prohibition of landmines).

The rebus sic stantibus clause

According to this principle (understood in a broad sense), extraordinary circumstances can lead to the termination of a treaty. These circumstances can consist either in a material breach of a given treaty by one of the States Parties (Article 60), in a permanent disappearance of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty (Article 61) or in a fundamental change of circumstances (Article 62, clausula rebus sic stantibus understood in a narrow sense).

A fundamental change of circumstances can also occur in the case of the outbreak of hostilities between the States Parties (see Article 73). However, this fact cannot be invoked as a ground for terminating a treaty, if it has been concluded with regard to the possible outbreak of an armed conflict as in the case of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (so-called Red Cross-conventions) or the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

A further extraordinary circumstance foreseen by the Vienna Convention is the emergence of "jus cogens" , i.e. of a new peremptory norm of general international law. This circumstance is distinct from those enumerated above by the fact that it is of normative and not factual nature. The rebus sic stantibus clause can be considered as an implicit reservation generally affecting the consent expressed by a State to be bound by a treaty. It seems worthwhile mentionning in this context that Argentina has made a reservation to Article 62 in which it made plain that she would not not accept the idea that 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 be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty.

However, according to Article 62 (2)(a) (rebus sic stantibus clause understood in a narrow sense), a fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked in the case of boundary treaties, the reason being that putting into question international boundaries can lead to a peace theatening situation, because it jeopardizes the principle of territorial integrity (see Article 2 (4) of the Charter of the United Nations) which is quite fundamental in international relations.

Hence, the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties of 1978 has restated the rule that a succession of States does not affect as such a boundary or any other territorial regime established by a treaty.

Favor contractus

This principle expresses the preference of international treaty law for the maintenance and the conclusion of traties over expiry for reasons of form.

Hence, unless the treaty otherwise provides, a multilateral treaty does not terminate by reason only of he fact that the number of the parties falls below the number necessary for its entry into force (Article 55).

The Vienna Convention also sanctions the prohibition to denounce a treaty or to withdraw from it, if it does not foresee itself these forms of termination. This applies, of course, unless the parties did not wish, be it by tacit understanding, a different solution (see Article 56).

Likewise, in order to uphold the validity of treaties, Article 68 allows parties to revoke at any time before they take effect notifications or instruments designed to lead to invalidity, even this is done only in relationship to one single other party.

In practice, however, the most important expression of the favor contractus principle is contained in the provisions of the Vienna Convention concerning reservations; this website will devote to them a separate chapter. In particular, whereas a reservation has to be accepted implicitely or explicitely by at least one other State Party (Article 20 (2),(4)(c) and (5)), it can be withdrawn at any time without the consent of the State or States which had accepted it in the first place (Article 22 (1)). This is the only explicit exception to the free consent principle.

The favor contractus principle can be found in Article 74, too. This provision clarifies that the severance or absence of diplomatic or consular relations does not prevent concerned States to conclude treaties between themselves.