Page 155 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

that its objection precludes treaty relations only as to a part received by the reserving state. If a reservation was made
of the treaty. One authority believes this is possible, when signing the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance,
however, on the ground that ". . . there would appear to or approval, it must be formally confied by the reserv-
be no reason why an objection to a reservation may not ing state when expressing its consent to be bound and
produce this effect, provided the treaty is of such a nature shall be considered as having been made on the date of its
that separability of its provisions is a practical proposi- confiiation.
tion." 66 Soviet doctrine has favored a liberal reservations rule,
e. Articles 22 and 23 provide procedures for making holding that ". . .a signatory to a multilateral treaty has an
and withdrawing reservations, acceptances, and objec- undeniable right to make such reservations to the treaty as
tions. A reservation or objection may be withdrawn at any it deems necessary, and that this right, which stems from
time and must be in writing. Withdrawal does not require the sovereignty of a state, can be limited only by the state
consent of a state which has accepted it, and becomes itself." 67 Notwithstanding this fact, Soviet writers have
operative when notice of it is received by the other con- expressed their approval of the I.C.J.'s advisory opinion
tracting state. However, withdrawal of an objection to a concerning the Genocide Convention. 68
reservation becomes operative only when notice of it is
Section IV. THE VALIDITY AND EFFECT OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
8-12. The Binding Force of International Agreements. law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty." 72
An international agreement is basically a contract between b. One of the most troubling aspects of the pacta sunt
states, and elements of obligation akin to those found in servanda doctrine concerns the period of time a treaty is to
municipal contract law are present. However, as discussed remain in force. A countervailing doctrine, Rebus sic
in Part I, a treaty is nota contract in the common law stantibus (basically, change of circumstances), permits
sense of an agreement requiring consideration. It is the as- noncompliance with a treaty when a change of circum-
sent to be bound and not reciprocity or quid pro quo that stances has been so extreme as to violate the intentions of
obligates the parties. As one writer has observed, ". . . it the parties. This will be discussed in the section of the
is merely a question of fact whether, in a concrete in- chapter dealing with termination and modification of
stance, a subject of international law has made a declara- agreements. 73
tion of intention, which in the circumstances, can be con- 8-14. Validity and Invalidity of International Agree-
sidered by other international persons or by international ments. a. Agreements Concluded in Violation of Munici-
organs as meant to produce legal consequences in interna- pal Law. Disagreement has existed in the past as to
tional law." 69 whether a state could invalidate its consent to a treaty on
8-13. Pacta Sunt Servanda. a. Legal ordering could noi the grounds that it was given in violation of the state's
be achieved in international law if states were free to dis- own municipal law. 74 Article 46 of the Vienna Conven-
regard their treaty agreements. However, due to the ab- tion states that
sence deffective enforcement mechanisms within the in- . . . a state may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a
ternational community, there has been some doubt as to treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law
the scope and effectiveness of the doctrine of pacta sunt regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent
servanda (treaties are to be observed). It has been said by unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal
some to require that agreements be performed "in good law of fundamental importance.
faith," while others, in reliance upon a differing in- A violation is said to be "manifest" if it would be objec-
terpretation of the Latin, maintain that the doctrine re- tively evident to a negotiating state acting in accordance
quires that performance must be "with utmost with normal practice and in good faith. Article 47 of the
fidelity." 70 Article 26 of the Vienna Convention adopted Convention further stipulates that if the authority of a rep-
the former interpretation, stating: "Every treaty in force is resentative to express the consent of his state is subject to
binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by
them in good faith." Some delegates had wanted this arti- 66. I. Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of ~reaties 49
cle to state that only "valid treaties in force" should be (1973) [hereinafter cited as Siclair].
biding, while others wanted to confiie it to "treaties in 67. J. Triska and R. Slusser, The Theory, Law, and Policy of Soviet
Treaties 84 (1962).
force in conformity with the Convention." This latter ap-
68. Id. at 87-88.
proach, while perhaps desirable, would have raised a 69. G. Schwanenberger, A Manual of International Law 224
problem of retroactivity. 71 The Convention thus took a (1960).
middle position, neither requiring a stricter standard of 70. N. Leech, C. Oliver & J. Sweenty, The International Legal
performance than good faith nor limiting the doctrine to System: Cases and Materials 93 1-32 (1973).
71. Id. at 932.
absolute requirements of "in force" and "in conformity
72. Vienna Convention, art. 27.
with the Convention." It also provides smcally that 73. Iqfra, para.
". . . a party may not invoke the provisions of it~intemal 74. Sinclair, supra, note 66 at 22-23; 30-31; 64; 89-91.