Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T11:29:20.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflicts between Treaties in International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Jan B. Mus
Get access

Extract

This contribution will focus on conflicts of treaties in public international law. The following question will be addressed: which of two treaties should be given priority according to public international law in the case of a conflict between those two treaties?

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , August 1998 , pp. 208 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. McNair, A.D., The Law of Treaties (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1961) pp. 219–222Google Scholar; Haraszti, G., Some Fundamental Problems of the Law of Treaties, transl. by Decsenyi, J. (Budapest, Akademiai Kiado 1973) pp. 294–306Google Scholar; Elias, T.O., The Modem Law of Treaties (New York, Dobs Ferry 1974) pp. 54–58Google Scholar; Sinclair, I.M., The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Dover, NH, Manchester 1984) pp. 93–98Google Scholar; Bastid, S., Les traités dans la vie international (Paris, Economica 1985) pp. 161–169Google Scholar; Reuter, P., Introduction au droit des traites (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France 1985) pp. 110–133.Google Scholar

2. C. Rousseau, ‘De la compatibilité des normes juridiques contradictoires dans l‘ordre international’, 39 RGDIP (1932) pp. 133–192; W. Jenks, ‘The Conflict of Law-making Treaties’, 30 BYIL (1953) pp. 401–453; Leca, J., Les techniques de révision des conventions internationales (Paris, Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence 1961)Google Scholar; Dahl, K.N., ‘The Application of Successive Treaties Dealing with the Same Subject-matter’, 17 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs (1974) pp. 279–318Google Scholar; M. Zuleeg, ‘Vertragskonkurrenz im Völkerrecht. Teil I: Verträge zwischen souveränen Staaten’, 20 GYIL (1977) pp. 246–276; Karl, W., Vertrag und spätere Praxis im Völkerrecht (Berlin, Springer 1983); M. Zuleeg, ‘Vertragskonkurrenz im Völkerrecht. Teil II: Verträge zwischen beliebigen Völkerrechtssubjekten’, 27 GYIL (1984) pp. 367–385; E.W. Vierdag, ‘The Time of the Conclusion of a Multilateral Treaty: Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Related Provisions’, 59 BYIL (1988) pp. 92–111; W. Czaplinski and G.M. Danilenko, ‘Conflict of Norms in International Law’, 21 NYIL (1990) pp. 12–28.Google Scholar

3. Sinclair, op. cit. n. 1, at p. 93.

4. See Art. 38, para. 1, Statute ICJ, and G.J.H. van Hoof, Rethinking the Sources of International Law (Deventer, Kluwer Law and Taxation 1983).

5. Kelsen, H., ‘Derogation’, in Newman, R.A., ed., Essays in Jurisprudence in Honor of Roscoe Pound (Indianapolis, IN, American Society of Legal History 1962) pp. 339–361Google Scholar (reprinted in Klecatsky, H., et al., Die Wiener Rechtstheoretische Schule, Schriften von H. Kelsen, A. Merkl, A. Verdross, Band 2 (Vienna, Europa Verlag 1968) p. 1439).Google Scholar

6. See also Karl, op. cit. n. 2, at p. 61.

7. Hart, H.L.A., The Concept of Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1961) pp. 78, 79.Google Scholar

8. Kelsen, op. cit. n. 5, at p. 1438.

9. Kelsen, op. cit. n. 5, at p. 1437.

10. Kelsen, op. cit. n. 5, at p. 1429.

11. Karl, op. cit. n. 2, at p. 60.

12. Karl, op. cit. n. 2, at p. 60 (nt. 267); see also Kelsen, op. cit. n. 5, at pp. 1441, 1442.

13. Hart, op. cit. n. 7, at pp. 90, 92.

14. Hart, op. cit. n. 7, at p. 79.

15. Hart, op. cit. n. 7, at pp. 78, 79; Kelsen, op. cit. n. 5, at p. 1429; see also K.C. Wellens, ‘Diversity in Secondary Rules and the Unity of International Law: Some Reflections on Current Trends’, 25 NYIL (1994) p. 7.

16. Kelsen, op. cit. n. 5, at p. 1441; Hart, op.cit. n. 7, at pp. 78, 79.

17. Engisch, K., Einführung in das juristische Denken (Stuttgart, Kohlhammer 1977) pp. 162, 163; Karl, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 61–66.Google Scholar

18. Gentili, A., De iure belli libri tres (1612), translation in Scott, J.B., ed., The Classics of International Law, No. 16, Vol. II (New York, Oceana 1964), Book III, ch. XVIIIGoogle Scholar; Grotius, H., De jure belli ac pacis libri tres (1646), translation in Scott, J.B., ed., The Classics of International Law, No. 3, Vol. II (1964), Book II, ch. XVI, para. 29, pp. 427,428Google Scholar; Pufendorf, S., De iure naturae et gentium (1688), translation in Scott, J.B., ed., The Classics of International Law, No. 17, Vol. II (1964), Book V, ch. XII, para. 23Google Scholar; Vattel, E. de, Le droit des gens (1758), translation in Scott, J.B., ed., The Classics of International Law, No. 4, Vol. III (1964), Book II, ch. XVII, paras. 311–322.Google Scholar

18. In chronological order: Wright, Q., ‘Conflicts between International Law and Treaties’, 11 AJIL (1917) pp. 566–579Google Scholar; Williams, J. Fischer, ‘The New Doctrine of Recognition’, in Transactions of the Grotius Society (London, Grotius Society 1932) pp. 109–129Google Scholar; Rousseau, loc. cit. n. 2; Lauterpacht, H., ‘The Covenant as the Higher Law’, 17 BYIL (1936) pp. 54–65;Google ScholarLauterpacht, H., ‘Contracts to Break a Contract’, 52 LQR (1936) pp. 494–529Google Scholar; Kunz, J.L., ‘The Meaning and the Range of the Norm Pacta Sunt Servanda’, 39 AJIL (1945) pp. 180–197Google Scholar; Kelsen, H., ‘Conflicts between Obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and Obligations under other International Agreements’, 10 University of Pittsburgh Law Review (1949) pp. 284–289Google Scholar; Aufricht, H., ‘Supersession of Treaties in International Law’, 37 Cornell Law Quarterly (1951–1952) pp. 655–700Google Scholar; Jenks, op. cit. n. 2; Schwarzenberger, G., International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 1,3rdedn. (London, Stevens 1957)pp. 472–487Google Scholar; Leca, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 151–235; McNair, op. cit. n. 1, at pp. 219–222; Capotorti, F., ‘Interférences dans l'ordre juridique interne entre la convention et d'autres accords internationaux’, in Meersch, W.J.Ganshof van der, ed., Les droits de l'homme en droit interne et en droit international: actes du 2me colloque international sur la Convention Européenne des Droits de l'homme, Vienne, 18–20 octobre 1965 (Brussels, Presses Universitaires de Bruxelles 1968) pp. 123–132Google Scholar; Dahl, op. cit. n. 2; Elias, op. cit. n. 1, at pp. 54–58; Silva, G.E. do Nascimento e, ‘Le facteur temps et les traités’, RdC (1977) Vol. I, pp. 242–264Google Scholar; Zuleeg (1977), op. cit. n. 2; Barile, G., ‘Structure de l'ordre juridique international’, RdC (1978) Vol. III, pp. 76–78Google Scholar; Opsahl, T., ‘Substantive Rights’, in Proceedings of the Colloquy about the European Convention on Human Rights in Relation to other International Instruments for the Protection of Human Rights Organized by the Government of Greece and the Secretariat General of the Council of Europe, Athens 21–22 September 1978 (Strasbourg, Council of Europe 1979) pp. 21–58Google Scholar; Majoros, F., Les Conventions internationales en matière de droit privé, Abrége théorique et traité pratique, Vol. 2, Partie spéciale 1: Le droit des conflits de conventions (Paris, A. Pedone 1980); Karl, op. cit. n. 2Google Scholar; Karl, W., ‘Conflict between Treaties’, in Bernhardt, R., ed., Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 7 (Amsterdam, North-Holland 1984) pp. 467–473; Sinclair, op. cit. n. 1, at pp. 93–98; Bastid, op. cit. n. 1, at pp. 161–169; Reuter, op. cit. n. 1, at pp. 110–117; Vierdag, op. cit. n. 2; Czaplinski and Danilenko, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 3–42; E.A. Alkema, ‘De reikwijdte van fundamentele rechten - de nationale en internationale dimensies, preadvies’ [The Scope of Fundamental Rights - The National and International Dimensions, Preliminary Report], in E.A. Alkema, et al., De reikwijdte van fundamentele rechten’, Handelingen NJV, 125 (1995–1) pp. 69–74.Google Scholar

20. The Harvard Draft Convention was prepared by the Research in International Law of the Harvard Law School and published in 29 AJIL (1935), Suppl. No. 4, pp. 1024–1029.

21. Vienna, 21 March 1986, not yet in force.

22. For a comparison of the two Vienna Conventions, see G.E. do Nascimento e Silva, ‘The 1969 and the 1986 Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Comparison’, in: Yoram Dinstein, ed., International Law at a Time of Perplexity: Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff 1989) pp. 461–487.

23. One of the minor differences is that Art. 103 of the UN Charter is not mentioned in para. 1, but in a new para. 6, see Nascimento e Silva, op. cit. n. 22, at p. 483.

24. Sinclair, op. cit. n. 1, at pp. 10–21.

25. ILC, ‘857th Meeting’, ILC Yearbook (1966) Vol. I, Part II, p. 95; ILC, ‘858th Meeting’, ILC Yearbook (1966) Vol. I, Part II, p. 103; H. Waldock, ‘Sixth Report’, ILC Yearbook (1966) Vol. II, pp. 74–77.

26. ILC, ‘858th Meeting’, supra n. 25.

27. ‘Reports of the ILC’, ILC Yearbook (1966) Vol. II, p. 214.

28. About conflict clauses see Rousseau, loc. cit. n. 2, at pp. 154–164; Leca, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 169–188; Elias, op. cit. n. 1, at pp. 55, 56; Zuleeg (1977), op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 251–255, 259; Karl (1984), op. cit. n. 19, at pp. 471, 472; Czaplinski and Danilenko, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 13, 14.

29. H. Waldock, ‘Third Report’, ILC Yearbook (1964) Vol. II, pp. 37, 38; Leca called those clauses ‘Clauses de compatibilité’, see Leca, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 174–179; and Rousseau, loc. cit. n. 2, at pp. 154–160.

30. See Art. 30, paras. 3 and 4.

31. See Art. 34, elaborated in Art. 30, para. 5, last sentence.

32. Waldock, supra n. 29, at pp. 38–40; Leca called those clauses ‘Clauses d'incompatibilite’, see Leca, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 179–187; and Rousseau, loc. cit. n. 2, at pp. 160–163.

33. For example Art. 103 of the UN Charter; Art. 28, paras. 1 and 2, of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition.

34. Waldock, supra n. 29, at p. 37; repeated in ILC Yearbook (1966) Vol. II, pp. 214, 215. Elias is one of the few authors who extensively discusses the important para. 2, see Elias, op. cit. n. 1, at p. 55.

35. In full: pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt.

36. ‘Reports of the ILC’, supra n. 27, at p. 214; Czaplinski and Danilenko, op. cit. n. 2, at p. 15.

37. E. Scizo, ‘On Art. 103 of the Charter of the UN in the Light of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties’, 38 ÖZÖRV (1987) p. 169 and especially nt. 22 of that page.

38. Scizo, loc. cit. n. 37, at p. 170.

39. G. Fitzmaurice, ‘Third Report’, ILC Yearbook (1958) Vol. II, p. 43.

40. Waldock, supra n. 29, at p. 35.

41. Czaplinski and Danilenko, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 16, 17 and the authors mentioned there; Scizo, loc. cit. n. 37, at pp. 169–176; Verdross, A. and Simma, B., Universelles Völkerrecht, 3rd edn. (Berlin, Duncker & Humboldt 1984) p. 413Google Scholar; Wolfke, K., ‘Jus Cogens in International law (Regulation and Prospects)’, 6 PYIL (1974) p. 157Google Scholar; Sztucki, J., Jus Cogens and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna, Springer Verlag 1974) p. 41.Google Scholar

42. ICJ 4 April, provisional measures (Aerial Incident at Lockerbie), ICJ Reports (1992) pp. 3, 114.

43. ICJ 4 April, provisional measures (Aerial Incident at Lockerbie), ICJ Reports (1992) pp. 126, 127; see also Gowlland-Debbas, V., ‘The Relationship between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council in the Light of the Lockerbie Case’, 88 AJIL (1994) pp. 643–677, in particular pp. 647, 648, 660 and nt. 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44. Draft Art. 14, para. 1, under b; see Waldock, H., ‘Second Report’, ILC Yearbook (1963) Vol. II, p. 53.Google Scholar

45. Waldock, supra n. 44, at p. 73.

46. Waldock, supra n. 29, at pp. 34, 35; see also his explanation on pp. 37, 38.

47. ILC, ‘742nd Meeting’, ILC Yearbook (1964) Vol. I, pp. 121–124; ILC, ‘743rd Meeting’, ILC Yearbook (1964) Vol. I, pp. 127, 131.

48. ILC, ‘743rd Meeting’, supra n. 47, at p. 127.

49. PCIJ 30 August 1924, judgment (Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions), PCIJ (1924), Series A, No. 2, p. 31. See also Zuleeg (1977), op. cit. n. 2, at p. 256.

50. Schwarzenberger, op. cit. n. 19, at pp. 472–487.

51. For example Czaplinski and Danilenko, op. cit. n. 2, at p. 21; Alkema, op. cit. n. 19, at p. 70.

52. Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, 4th. edn. (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1990) pp. 624, 625.Google Scholar

53. F. Vallat, ‘The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969’, 40 Annuaire de l'AAA (1970) p. xxiv.

54. ILC, ‘743th Meeting’, supra n. 47, at pp. 127, 131.

55. UNCLOT, ‘Second Session, Vienna, April 9th - May 22th 1969’, Official Records (1969) p. 253; Sinclair, op. cit. n. 1, at p. 97.

55. Vierdag, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 95, 96.

57. UNCLOT, ‘First Session, Vienna, March 26th - May 24th 1968’, Official Records (1969) p. 165.

58. UNCLOT, ‘Second Session’, supra n. 55, at p. 222.

59. UNCLOT, ‘Second Session’, supra n. 55, at p. 253.

60. Zuleeg (1977), op. cit. n. 2, at p. 256.

61. Sinclair, op. cit. n. 1, at p. 98.

62. See Art. 2, para. 1, under g, of the 1969 Vienna Convention.

63. Sörensen, M., ‘Le problème dit du droit intertemporel dans l'ordre international’, 55 Annuaire de l'Idl (1973) p. 54; Dahl, op. cit. n. 2, at p. 282; Czaplinski and Danilenko, op. cit. n. 2, at p. 19.Google Scholar

64. Vierdag, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 93, 95.

65. Vierdag, op. cit. n. 2, at p. 97.

66. Czaplinski and Danilenko, op. cit. n. 2, at p. 13.

67. Zuleeg also keeps those two questions carefully separated, see Zuleeg (1977), op. cit. n. 2, at p. 256.

68. See Zuleeg (1977), op. cit. n. 2, at p. 256.

69. See Draft Art. 16, paras. 1 and 2, see Lauterpacht, H., ‘First Report’, ILC Yearbook (1953) Vol. II, p. 156; repeated in his ‘Second Report’, ILC Yearbook (1954) Vol. II, p. 133.Google Scholar

70. Lauterpacht, ‘Second Report’, supra n. 69, at p. 136; see Jenks, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 401–453.

71. Jenks, op. cit. n. 2.

72. Fitzmaurice, ‘Third Report’, supra n. 39, at pp. 41–45; Fitzmaurice, ‘Fourth Report’, ILC Yearbook (1959) Vol. II, pp. 61, 62.

73. Fitzmaurice, supra n. 39, at p. 43.

74. Fitzmaurice, supra n. 39, at p. 44.

75. See Draft Art. 19; Fitzmaurice, supra n. 39, at pp. 27, 28.

76. Fitzmaurice, supra n. 39, at p. 44.

77. Fitzmaurice, supra n. 39, at p. 44; ‘Reports of The ILC, supra n. 27, at p. 217.

78. ECHR 10 January 1961, dec. adm., 788/60 (Austria/Italy), 4 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (1961) pp. 138–140.

79. Vierdag, E. W., ‘Some Remarks about Special Features of Human Rights Treaties’, 25 NYIL (1994) pp. 124, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80. Vierdag, op. cit. n. 79, at p. 134.

81. Waldock, supra n. 44, at p. 58.

82. See Draft Art. 18, para. 8; Fitzmaurice, supra n. 39, at pp. 27, 28. For his doubts on this point, see p. 44.

83. See Czaplinski and Danilenko, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 22–24.

84. See ILC, ‘745th–747th, 754th, 764th Meeting’, ILC Yearbook (1964) Vol. I, pp. 140–157; 198–204; 271–274.

85. As distinct from an amendment which is a revision of an existing treaty between all parties to this treaty, see Art. 40 of the 1969 Vienna Convention.

86. ILC, ‘754th Meeting’, supra n. 84, at pp. 198–204; ILC, ‘764th Meeting’, supra n. 84, at pp. 271–274.

87. ‘Reports of the ILC, supra n. 27, at p. 235.

88. ILC, ‘746th Meeting’, supra n. 84, at pp. 148, 152; ILC, ‘860th Meeting’, ILC Yearbook (1966) Vol. I, Part II, p. 126.

89. The ILC member, Tunkin, was the only one to point to the close relationship, see ILC, ‘860th Meeting’, supra n. 88, at p. 126.

90. Waldock, supra n. 25, at p. 76.

91. ILC, ‘857th Meeting’, supra n. 25, at p. 97.

92. Waldock, supra n. 29, at p. 40.

93. ILC, ‘858th Meeting’, supra n. 25, at p. 104.

94. Lauterpacht, ‘First Report’, supra n. 69, at pp. 90–166; Lauterpacht, ‘Second Report’, supra n. 69, at pp. 123–139.

94. Lauterpacht, ‘Second Report’, supra n. 69, at p. 133.

96. Gentili, op. cit. n. 18, Book III, ch. XVIII.

97. Grotius, op. cit. n. 18, Book II, ch. XVI, para. 29, pp. 427, 428.

98. Pufendorf, op. cit. n. 18, Book V, ch. XII, para. 23, pp. 820–824.

99. De Vattel, op. cit. n. 18, Book II, ch. XVII, paras. 311–322, pp. 218–221.

100. For example Hall, W.E., A Treatise on International Law, ed. by Higgins, A. Pearce, 8th edn. (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1924) pp. 395–397Google Scholar; Scelle, G., ‘Règles générales du droit de la paix’, RdC (1933) Vol. IV, p. 472; McNair, op. cit. n. 1, at p. 222.Google Scholar

101. Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties, with comment, prepared by the Research in International Law of the Harvard Law School, 29 AJIL (1935) Suppl. No. 4, pp. 661, 662; see for the comment on the Draft Article, pp. 1009–1028.

102. Lauterpacht, ‘First Report’, supra n. 69, at pp. 156, 158.

103. Lauterpacht, ‘First Report’, supra n. 69, at pp. 156, 158.

104. Lauterpacht, ‘First Report’, supra n. 69, at p. 158.

105. Fitzmaurice, supra n. 39, at pp. 41–43.

106. ILC Yearbook (1958) Vol. II, p. 42.

107. Waldock, ‘Second Report’, supra n. 44, at pp. 53–61; idem, ‘Third Report’, supra n. 29, at pp. 34–45; idem, ‘Sixth Report’, supra n. 25, at pp. 74–77.

108. Waldock, supra n. 44, at p. 56.

109. See especially: PCIJ 8 December 1927, advisory opinion (Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube), PCIJ (1927), Series B, No. 14; PCIJ 12 December 1934, judgment (Oscar Chinn), PCIJ(1934), Series A/B, No. 63 (where Judges Eysinga and Schücking defended the concept of invalidity in their dissenting opinions, see pp. 132, 148.

110. ILC, ‘743rd Meeting’, supra n. 47, at p. 126; Waldock, supra n. 29, at p. 35.

111. Zuleeg (1977), op. cit. n. 2, at p. 250.

112. ILC, ‘743rd Meeting’, supra n. 47, at p. 126.

113. Draft Art. 65, para. 4, under c; Waldock, supra n. 29, at p. 35.

114. See also Zuleeg (1977), op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 262–265.

115. ILC, ‘743rd Meeting’, supra n. 47, at p. 131.

116. ILC, ‘857th Meeting’, supra n. 25, at p. 102.

117. Karl, op. cit. n. 2, at p. 64; see also Karl, op. cit. n. 28, at pp. 470, 471; Zuleeg (1977), op. cit. n. 2, at p. 249; I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Völkerrecht, 6th edn. (Köln, Heymann 1987) p. 105.

118. Zuleeg (1977), op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 267, 268; Karl, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 64, 65.