Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-17T09:47:09.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Termination of the USSR’s Treaty Right of Intervention in Iran

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

W. Michael Reisman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , January 1980 , pp. 144 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1980

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 Treaty of Friendship between Persia and the Russian Socialist Federal Republic, singed at Moscow, February 26, 1921, 9 LNTS 384. LNTS published the treaty in Farsi and Russian, both original and equally authentic languages according to Article 25, and, in –addition, published French and English translations. The treaty refers to Iran as Persia and to the USSR as the Russian Socialist Federal Republic and Russia. For purposes of consistency and clarity, this comment will use the name “Iran” for all references to Persia and “USSR” for all references to the Russian Socialist Federal Republic or Russia.

2 Art. 6, id. at 403.

3 Soviet World Outlook, November 15, 1979, at 2 (published by Advanced International Studies Institute, University of Miami).

4 Ibid.

5 Art. 1, Treaty of Friendship, supra note 1, at 401.

6 Art. 2, id. at 401.

7 Arts. 8 and 9, id. at 405.

8 Arts. 9, 10, 11, 12, and 16, id. at 406–08.

9 Art. 13, id. at 407.

10 Art. 15, ibid.

11 The treaty incorrectly referred to the treaty of 1881 as a Boundary Commission, and the Persian Government clarified this matter in the exchange of notes on December 12, 1921, which is discussed below. For the texts, see 9 LNTS 411–13.

12 Art. 3, Treaty of Friendship, supra note 1, at 403.

13 Art. 14, id. at 407.

14 Id. at 403.

15 Ibid.

16 Art. 7, id at 405.

17 Id. at 411.

18 Id. at 413.

19 Id. at 411.

20 UN Doc. A/CONF.39/27 (1969), reprinted in 63 AJIL 875 (1969), 8 ILM 679 (1969).

21 Article 103 is much more than an application of the principle of lex posterior derogat priori. That principle is expressed in Article 59 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; indeed it may, by its operation, effect termination of Article 6 of the 1921 treaty because of inconsistency with the UN Charter. Article 59 of the Vienna Convention provides:

  • 1.

    1. A treaty shall be considered as terminated if all the parties to it conclude a later treaty relating to the same subject-matter and:

    • (a)

      (a) it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that the parties intended that the matter should be governed by that treaty; or

    • (b)

      (b) the provisions of the later treaty are so far incompatible with those of the earlier one that the two treaties are not capable of being applied at the same time.

  • 2.

    2. The earlier treaty shall be considered as only suspended in operation if it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that such was the intention of the parties.

Charter Article 103, in contrast, does not superordinate Charter obligations because of a temporal factor (most recent in time prevailing) but because of the legal superiority of those obligations with regard to any others. Hence it can override agreements concluded after 1945.

22 Official Records, UN Conference on the Law of Treaties, Documents of the Conference 67, UN Doc. A/CONF.39/11/Add.2 (1971).

23 GA Res. 2625 (XXV), Oct. 24, 1970, 25 UN GAOR, Supp. (No. 28) 121 et seq. Pertinent provisions are:

The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues. . . .

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

. . . .

The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal. . . .

. . . . .

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

States parties to an international dispute, as well as other States, shall refrain from any action which may aggravate the situation so as to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

. . . . .

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

24 Charter Art. 24. But compare “Uniting for Peace,” Res. 377A (V), November 3, 1950; Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, Paragraph 2 of the Charter), [1962] ICJ Rep. 151; Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), [1971] ICJ Rep. 4.

25 Agreement of Cooperation Between The Government of the United States of America and The Imperial Government of Iran, 1959, TIAS No. 4189, 10 UST 314, 327 UNTS 277.

26 Report and Decision of the Arbitrator in the Claim of Edward J. Ryan . . . , 32 AJIL 593, 613 (1938).