For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 4 and unless the treaty otherwise provides, 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 of twelve months after it was notified of the reservation or by the date on which it expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, whichever is later.
Article 21 Legal effects of reservations and of objections to reservations. A reservation established with regard to another party in accordance with articles 19, 20 and The reservation does not modify the provisions of the treaty for the other parties to the treaty inter se. When a State objecting to a reservation has not opposed the entry into force of the treaty between itself and the reserving State, the provisions to which the reservation relates do not apply as between the two States to the extent of the reservation.
Article 22 Withdrawal of reservations and of objections to reservations. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, a reservation may be withdrawn at any time and the consent of a State which has accepted the reservation is not required for its withdrawal. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, an objection to a reservation may be withdrawn at any time. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, or it is otherwise agreed:.
Article 23 Procedure regarding reservations. A reservation, an express acceptance of a reservation and an objection to a reservation must be formulated in writing and communicated to the contracting States and other States entitled to become parties to the treaty. If formulated when signing the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, a reservation must be formally confirmed by the reserving State when expressing its consent to be bound by the treaty.
In such a case the reservation shall be considered as having been made on the date of its confirmation. An express acceptance of, or an objection to, a reservation made previously to confirmation of the reservation does not itself require confirmation. The withdrawal of a reservation or of an objection to a reservation must be formulated in writing.
A treaty enters into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree. Failing any such provision or agreement, a treaty enters into force as soon as consent to be bound by the treaty has been established for all the negotiating States. When the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is established on a date after the treaty has come into force, the treaty enters into force for that State on that date, unless the treaty otherwise provides.
The provisions of a treaty regulating the authentication of its text, the establishment of the consent of States to be bound by the treaty, the manner or date of its entry into force, reservations, the functions of the depositary and other matters arising necessarily before the entry into force of the treaty apply from the time of the adoption of its text.
Article 25 Provisional application. A treaty or a part of a treaty is applied provisionally pending its entry into force if:. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the negotiating States have otherwise agreed, the provisional application of a treaty or a part of a treaty with respect to a State shall be terminated if that State notifies the other States between which the treaty is being applied provisionally of its intention not to become a party to the treaty.
Article 26 Pacta sunt servanda. Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article Article 28 Non-retroactivity of treaties. Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.
Article 29 Territorial scope of treaties. Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory.
Article 30 Application of successive treaties relating to the same subject-matter. Subject to Article of the Charter of the United Nations, the rights and obligations of States parties to successive treaties relating to the same subject-matter shall be determined in accordance with the following paragraphs.
When a treaty specifies that it is subject to, or that it is not to be considered as incompatible with, an earlier or later treaty, the provisions of that other treaty prevail. When all the parties to the earlier treaty are parties also to the later treaty but the earlier treaty is not terminated or suspended in operation under article 59, the earlier treaty applies only to the extent that its provisions are compatible with those of the latter treaty.
When the parties to the later treaty do not include all the parties to the earlier one:. Paragraph 4 is without prejudice to article 41, or to any question of the termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty under article 60 or to any question of responsibility which may arise for a State from the conclusion or application of a treaty, the provisions of which are incompatible with its obligations towards another State under another treaty.
Article 31 General rule of 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. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:.
A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended. Article 32 Supplementary means of 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 Article 33 Interpretation of treaties authenticated in two or more languages.
When a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language, unless the treaty provides or the parties agree that, in case of divergence, a particular text shall prevail. A version of the treaty in a language other than one of those in which the text was authenticated shall be considered an authentic text only if the treaty so provides or the parties so agree. The terms of the treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text.
Except where a particular text prevails in accordance with paragraph 1, 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. Article 34 General rule regarding third States. A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent. Article 35 Treaties providing for obligations for third States.
An obligation arises for a third State from a provision of a treaty if the parties to the treaty intend the provision to be the means of establishing the obligation and the third State expressly accepts that obligation in writing.
Article 36 Treaties providing for rights for third States. A right arises for a third State from a provision of a treaty if the parties to the treaty intend the provision to accord that right either to the third State, or to a group of States to which it belongs, or to all States, and the third State assents thereto.
Its assent shall be presumed so long as the contrary is not indicated, unless the treaty otherwise provides. A State exercising a right in accordance with paragraph 1 shall comply with the conditions for its exercise provided for in the treaty or established in conformity with the treaty. Article 37 Revocation or modification of obligations or rights of third States.
When an obligation has arisen for a third State in conformity with article 35, the obligation may be revoked or modified only with the consent of the parties to the treaty and of the third State, unless it is established that they had otherwise agreed. When a right has arisen for a third State in conformity with article 36, the right may not be revoked or modified by the parties if it is established that the right was intended not to be revocable or subject to modification without the consent of the third State.
Article 38 Rules in a treaty becoming binding on third States through international custom. Nothing in articles 34 to 37 precludes a rule set forth in a treaty from becoming binding upon a third State as a customary rule of international law, recognized as such.
Article 39 General rule regarding the amendment of treaties. A treaty may be amended by agreement between the parties. The rules laid down in Part II apply to such an agreement except in so far as the treaty may otherwise provide. Article 40 Amendment of multilateral treaties. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, the amendment of multilateral treaties shall be governed by the following paragraphs.
Any proposal to amend a multilateral treaty as between all the parties must be notified to all the contracting States, each one of which shall have the right to take part in:. Every State entitled to become a party to the treaty shall also be entitled to become a party to the treaty as amended.
The amending agreement does not bind any State already a party to the treaty which does not become a party to the amending agreement; article 30, paragraph 4 b , applies in relation to such State. Any State which becomes a party to the treaty after the entry into force of the amending agreement shall, failing an expression of a different intention by that State:. Article 41 Agreements to modify multilateral treaties between certain of the parties only. Two or more of the parties to a multilateral treaty may conclude an agreement to modify the treaty as between themselves alone if:.
Unless in a case falling under paragraph 1 a the treaty otherwise provides, the parties in question shall notify the other parties of their intention to conclude the agreement and of the modification to the treaty for which it provides. Article 42 Validity and continuance in force of treaties. The validity of a treaty or of the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be impeached only through the application of the present Convention.
The termination of a treaty, its denunciation or the withdrawal of a party, may take place only as a result of the application of the provisions of the treaty or of the present Convention. The same rule applies to suspension of the operation of a treaty. Article 43 Obligations imposed by international law independently of a treaty. The invalidity, termination or denunciation of a treaty, the withdrawal of a party from it, or the suspension of its operation, as a result of the application of the present Convention or of the provisions of the treaty, shall not in any way impair the duty of any State to fulfil any obligation embodied in the treaty to which it would be subject under international law independently of the treaty.
Article 44 Separability of treaty provisions. A right of a party, provided for in a treaty or arising under article 56, to denounce, withdraw from or suspend the operation of the treaty may be exercised only with respect to the whole treaty unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree. A ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty recognized in the present Convention may be invoked only with respect to the whole treaty except as provided in the following paragraphs or in article If the ground relates solely to particular clauses, it may be invoked only with respect to those clauses where:.
In cases falling under articles 49 and 50 the State entitled to invoke the fraud or corruption may do so with respect either to the whole treaty or, subject to paragraph 3, to the particular clauses alone. In cases falling under articles 51, 52 and 53, no separation of the provisions of the treaty is permitted. Article 45 Loss of a right to invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty.
A State may no longer invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty under articles 46 to 50 or articles 60 and 62 if, after becoming aware of the facts:. Article 46 Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties. 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.
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 47 Specific restrictions on authority to express the consent of a State. If the authority of a representative to express the consent of a State to be bound by a particular treaty has been made subject to a specific restriction, his omission to observe that restriction may not be invoked as invalidating the consent expressed by him unless the restriction was notified to the other negotiating States prior to his expressing such consent.
A State may 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 to be bound by the treaty.
Examples of ius cogens are the prohibition of the use of force in Art. Also, the concept of ius cogens needs to be distinguished from that of obligations erga omnes , especially so because some norms of international law are suggested to belong to both categories. The erga omnes quality of a norm becomes relevant in the field of State responsibility, and concerns the question of legal standing in case of their violation.
More precisely, Art. Traditionally, the view was expressed that the legal status of bilateral and multilateral treaties during the armed conflict should be distinguished. As a principle, peace treaties provide for the solution in relation to the pre-war treaties.
The ILC took the view that the somewhat outdated doctrine from the past, which tended to impair such continuity, should not be rigidly relied on. The ILC also endorsed the view that it is better to review the problem of the effect of the armed conflict on treaties from the point of view of particular provisions and circumstances than to rely on any general rules, holding it more useful to identify the considerations which a State should take into account in the circumstances, rather than attempting to establish definite inflexible rules that States must always follow.
Thus they reflect the general principle that treaties are not, in and of themselves, terminated or suspended as a result of armed conflict. Arts 4—7 derive from the general principle in Art. The armed conflict influences not only the law of treaties but also other areas of international law. The framework of this entry does not allow for analysis of all aspects of the Draft Articles, such as an important departure from the VCLT in relation to the termination, withdrawal, or suspension of a treaty as a result of armed conflict as a matter not only of treaty interpretation but also of other factors external to a treaty Art.
The General Assembly also decided to return to the topic in in order to decide on the form to be given to the Draft Articles. In , the General Assembly decided to return to the issue in with a view to examining the form to be given to the Articles and to inviting Governments to comment on any future action in relation to them.
It will be of importance in practice only in relation to bilateral treaties. This means that the termination of a treaty may be implied if it is clear from the conduct of the parties that they no longer consider the treaty as binding. There are very few cases relating to the application of the principle underlying Art.
There is no case-law directly addressing Art. In case no agreement is reached under Art. Finally, according to Art. One of the questions which is still unresolved is the customary character of these rules. These are as follows: Principle I: of actuality—that treaties have to be interpreted as they stand, on the basis of their actual text. Principle II: the natural and ordinary meaning—that subject to the principle of contemporaneity where applicable , particular words and phrases are to be given their normal, natural, and unrestrained meaning in the context in which they occur.
This principle can only be displaced by direct evidence that the terms used are to be understood in a manner different to their natural and ordinary meaning, or if such an interpretation would lead to an unreasonable or absurd result.
Principle III: integration—that treaties are to be interpreted as a whole. This principle is of fundamental importance and means that individual parts, chapters, or sections of a treaty are not to be interpreted out of their overall context.
The remaining principles take effect subject to the three principles outlined above. These are: Principle IV: effectiveness ut magis valeat quam pereat —that treaties are to be interpreted with reference to their declared or apparent objects and purposes; and particular provisions are to be interpreted so as to give them the fullest effect consistent with the normal sense of the words and with the text in such a way that a reason and meaning can be attributed to every part of the text.
Principle V: subsequent practice—that recourse may be had to subsequent practice of parties relating to the treaty. Principle VI: contemporaneity—that the terms of a treaty must be interpreted in the light of linguistic usage current at the time when the treaty was concluded.
These three schools of interpretation are not mutually exclusive and the VCLT draws on all three. However, it is debatable whether the VCLT successfully combined the objective and subjective approaches, which in the view of many appear to be effectively irreconcilable.
The underlying principle is that the treaty is to be interpreted in good faith, which is the embodiment of the principle pacta sunt servanda. Despite frequent references to the criterion, the jurisprudence of several international courts and tribunals including the Permanent Court of International Justice [PCIJ] , the ICJ, and others has not clarified the existing ambiguities. The ILC filled the gap in understanding of Art. One of the innovations was the inclusion of certain subsequent practice in Art.
However, such an inclusion of subsequent agreements and practice in Art. Thus, there is at present subsequent practice in a narrower sense included in Art. In the view of the present author, despite many excellent publications on this subject matter, the lines dividing subsequent agreements and subsequent practice and evolutionary interpretation are often blurred and ill-defined.
The strict application of evolutionary interpretation within the treaty four corners often exceeds such limitations; and subsequent practice does not fulfil strict parameters in order to be used to move the treaty forward.
It may be that such a state of affairs will remain, notwithstanding attempts at untangling this complex and often troubled relationship. This approach, however, has given rise to the view that the ICJ has not always established sufficiently the requisite common intention of the parties see the Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain [ Qatar v Bahrain ] [Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Schwebel] ; Case between Qatar and Bahrain [].
This is, however, a very ill-defined term, making it an unreliable tool for interpretation. The principle of effectiveness is enshrined in the maxim magis valeat quam pereat. Although this principle can operate as an element within the object and purpose principle, it is not limited to this role. The ICJ has used it to ascertain the intention underlying a treaty and as a broader point for discussion. This principle was one of the most neglected issues of treaty interpretation.
However, it gained importance in relation to the fragmentation of international law , its diversification, and expansion. The ICJ in the Advisory Opinion in Legal Consequences of South Africa in Namibia stated that treaties evolve in time and must be interpreted within the framework of the entire legal regime prevailing at the time of interpretation para.
There are several cases in which the Court decided to override the consent of the parties in the name of the interests served by the protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the ECHR, which extend beyond individual interests of the parties concerned.
However, such an interpretative method was a subject of criticism as overriding intention and the consent to be bound of the parties to the Convention and introducing the element of uncertainty for the parties due to much more extensive interpretation of the provisions of the Convention.
There are other international judicial bodies, which to a certain degree adopted such a method, such as, for example, within the World Trade Organization WTO. Thus, whilst the objects and purposes of the Convention are not susceptible to evolution, the regulatory framework through which it achieves those objects and purposes may be so.
As regards the question which of different legal systems prevailing at successive periods is to be applied in a particular case the so-called intertemporal law , a distinction must be made between the creation of rights and the existence of rights. The same principle which subjects the act creative of a right to the law in force at the time the right arises, demands that the existence of the right, in other words its continued manifestation, shall follow the conditions required by the evolution of law at Treaties are res inter alios acta for these States.
This main rule is embodied in Art. An obligation may arise from a treaty for third States if two conditions are fulfilled: the parties to the treaty intended the provision to be the means of establishing the obligation and the third State expressly accepts the obligation in writing.
However, the possibility of concluding a treaty imposing obligations on third States, even on the basis of the above-mentioned conditions, is not without controversy.
Possibly, one of the examples of such a situation would be the most-favoured-nation clause. In the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases , the ICJ described different ways in which treaties and customary international law may interact, and recognized the possibility of the existence of identical rules in international treaty law and customary international law.
On this last point, see also the Nicaragua Case 95— Examples of such treaties are those establishing the demilitarized zones Demilitarization. This rule appears to codify existing international law. Territorial application of treaties may change with a change in the status of the territory.
It is the responsibility of the States Parties to a treaty to register it. Despite the prohibition contained in Art. However, it is not a reliable indicator, as on one hand the UN Secretariat registers almost all documents submitted to it, including unilateral declarations, and on the other hand not all treaties are registered. This is also a view expressed by the ICJ in the Case between Qatar and Bahrain: , in which the fact of non-registration was held not to be decisive as to the character of the document in question at It is questionable whether Art.
To the extent there has been such a reduction, it is rather a result of the changed political climate, and greater transparency in relations between States and modern diplomacy. States or international organizations can act as the depositary of treaties. The UN Secretary-General often acts in this capacity in relation to multilateral treaties. Among these is the receipt of notifications and communications of the parties to the treaty Art. The depositary may also notify the parties of errors and of proposals to correct them.
For this situation to arise, it is possible but not necessary that those treaties relate to the same subject-matter. The question of incompatibility of, or conflict between, treaties is first a matter of interpretation. Relevant in this context is Art. However, certain rules have evolved. There are several maxims relating to conflict of treaties: lex posterior derogat legi priori ; lex specialis derogat legi generali ; prior in tempore, potior in jure.
These were widely used in the jurisprudence of the ICJ. The rules relating to the application of successive treaties contained in Art. In itself, Art. The following questions remain. What is the practical application of Art. Arts 53 and 64 VCLT regulate the special case of the conflict of a treaty with a norm of ius cogens , which links the problem to the invalidity of treaties.
However, the VCLT does not address the question of conflict between treaties relating to different subject-matters. The drafting of Art. It is also unclear to which UN Charter obligations Art.
The possibilities relating to these conflict clauses are quite complex, and in certain of the possible situations, their effect is not entirely clear. In the first place, the conflict clause may be included in either an earlier or a later treaty, or indeed in both. And whichever treaty the clause is included in, it may be aimed either a at ensuring the priority of the later treaty in which case it may in fact do no more than give expression to the general lex posterior rule; b at preserving the effect of the earlier treaty; or c if actually included in the earlier treaty, at preventing States Parties from entering into agreements in the future which conflict with the earlier treaty.
It has to be said that not all potential conflicts can be solved by the application of the relevant principles, in the case of mutually exclusive obligations. In general it may be said that a common feature of such treaties is a deviation from the principle of the sovereign equality of States States, Sovereign Equality.
It may also mean that the principle of reciprocity is not observed. First, it is a complex subject, due to the widely varying circumstances in which a succession of States may occur, the numerous different forms of treaties which may be involved, and the varying stages, in terms of coming into force eg not in force or awaiting ratification which they may have reached.
Secondly, as was recognized by the ILC throughout its work on the subject, there was little, if any, relevant State practice in the field, let alone existing rules of customary international law. Thus instances of succession of States will continue to occur to which rules of customary international law will apply. In this respect, the progressive development solutions of the VCSS-T do accord to some extent with modern views on international law, in particular the weight now given to the sanctity of treaties by comparison to the sovereign independence of States.
But while trends in State practice can be discerned, it is still too early to say that rules of customary international law have yet emerged. For instance in relation to territorial treaties, different rules will govern succession in the case of transfer of territory and different rules apply in relation to so-called objective territorial regimes and boundary regimes, which are excluded from the normal rules of State succession Arts 11 , 12 VCSS-T.
Some provisions of the VCSS-T also make a distinction between multilateral and bilateral treaties, and there are also some special rules relating to treaties constituting international organizations and treaties adopted within international organizations.
The rules of State succession apply if territorial change results in a change of identity of a State or accords treaty rights and obligations to other new or old subjects of international law.
This may be said to be a rule of customary international law and is adopted as well in Art. This principle served as the general rule for all international treaties of Germany and was set out in Art. In general, although widely accepted, the application of this rule is not without difficulties and some problems may arise, such as the implementation of certain localized treaties.
See Van der Weyde v. Ocean Transp. In , Congress passed a resolution requiring the President to abrogate a treaty with China, but President Hayes vetoed it, partly on the ground that Congress as an entity had no role to play in ending treaties, only the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Richardson, supra , at , — For the views of President Taft on the matter, see W. Richardson, supra , at , See 61 Cong. See CRS Study, supra at — For expressions of views preceding the immediate controversy, see, e. In turn, this resolution was amended to state the described sense of the Senate view, but the matter was never brought to final action.
See Cong. Carter, F. Four Justices found the case nonjusticiable because of the political question doctrine, id. The remaining three Justices were silent on the doctrine. Baker v. Carr, U. Allen, U. Carter, U. See L. Justia Legal Resources.
0コメント