Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:55:59.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United Nations Report of the International Law Commission. Covering the Work of Its Fifteenth Session, May 6-July 12, 1963

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

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
Official Documents
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , January 1964 , pp. 241 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © The American Society of International Law 1964

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 Yearbook of the International law Commission, 1953, Vol. II, pp. 137-159.

2 Ibid., 1954, Vol. II, pp. 133-139.

3 Ibid., 1958, Vol. II, pp. 20-16.

4 Ibid., 1957, Vol. II, pp. 16-70.

5 Official Records of the General Assembly, 17th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/5209 and Corr.l).

6 See United Nations Legislative Series, Laws and Practices concerning the Conclusion of Treaties (ST/LEG/SER.B/3).

7 E.g., P. Chaffley, La nature juridique des traités internationaux selon le droit contemporain, pp. 175 and 215; S. B. Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, pp. 13-14; C. De Visseher, Bibliotheea Visseriana, Vol. 2 (1924), p. 98.

8 Article 2 : “A treaty becomes binding in relation to a State by signature, ratification, accession or any other means of expressing the will of the State, in accordance with its constitutional law and practice through an organ competent for that purpose. “(Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1951, Vol. II, p. 73.)

9 E.g., McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), Ch. III; Paul De Visscher, De la conclusion des traités internationaux (1943), p. 275; P. Guggenheim, Recueil des cours de l’Académie de droit international, Vol. 74 (1949), p. 236; Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, First Report on the Law of Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1953, Vol. II, pp. 141-146.

10 SirLauterpacht, Herseh, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1953, Vol. II, p. 143 Google Scholar; see also Lord McNair, op. cit., p. 77; Research in International Law, Harvard Law School, Part III, Law of Treaties, Art. 21.

11 E.g., Anzilotti, , Cours de droit international (translation Gidel), Vol. 1 (1929), pp. 366–367 Google Scholar; SirFitzmaurice, Gerald, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 15 (1934), pp. 129–137 Google Scholar; Blix, Treaty-Making Power (1960), Ch. 24; and see UNESCO, Survey of the Ways in which States interpret their International Obligations (P. Guggenheim), pp. 7-8.

12 J. Basdevant, for example, while holding that states must in general be able to rely on the ostensible authority of a state agent and to disregard constitutional limitations upon his authority, considered that this should not be so in the case of a “Violation manifeste de la constitution d’un Etat”; Eeeueil des cours de l’Académie de droit international, Vol. XV (1926), p. 581; see also UNESCO, Survey of the Ways in which States Interpret their International Obligations, p. 8.

13 Moore, International Arbitrations, Vol. 2, p. 1946.

14 United Nations Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. V, p. 327.

15 Ibid., Vol. XI, p. 411.

16 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 724.

17 Foreign Relations of the United States (1901), p. 262.

18 P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 53, pp. 56-71 and p. 91.

19 P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 46, p. 170.

20 H. Blix, op. cit., Ch. 20.

21 H. Blix, op. cit., p. 267.

22 E.g., Prosecution for Misdemeanours (Germany) case (International Law Reports, 1955, pp. 560-561); Belgian State U. Leroy (ibid., pp. 614-616). National courts have sometimes appeared to assume that a treaty, constitutionally invalid as domestic law, will also be automatically invalid on the international plane. More often, however, they have either treated the international aspects of the matter as outside their province or have recognized that to hold the treaty constitutionally invalid may leave the state in default in its international obligations.

23 See generally H. Blix, op. cit., pp. 5-12 and 76-82.

24 Hackworth’s Digest of International Law, Vol. IV, p. 467. Cf. also the well-known historical incident of the British Government’s disavowal of an agreement be tween a British political agent in the Persian Gulf and a Persian minister which the British Government afterwards said had been concluded without any authority what ever; Adamiyat, Bahrein Islands, p. 106.

25 For further cases, see H. Blix, op. cit., pp. 77-81.

26 See Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 5, p. 719.

27 See Harvard Law School: Research in International Law, III, Law of Treaties, pp. 1127-1128; Hyde, A.J.I.L. (1933), p. 311; and Kiss, Répertoire français de droit international public, Vol. I, pp. 55-56.

28 P.C.I.J., A/B, No. 53, pp. 71 and 91.

29 Ibid., p. 92.

30 I.C.J. Reports, 1961, p. 30.

31 Ibid., p. 26; see also the individual opinion of Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice (ibid., p. 57).

32 P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 11.

33 E.g., in the Asylum, Eight of Passage and U.S. Nationals in Morocco cases.

34 McNair, op. cit., pp. 207-209.

35 Ibid., pp. 1155-1159.

36 See for example Schwarzenberger, G., International Law (3rd edition). Vol. I, pp. 426–427 Google Scholar.

37 See McNair, op. cit., pp. 213-214.

38 See Handbook of Final Clauses (ST/LEG.6), pp. 54-73.

39 United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 193, p. 135, Art. 8.

40 Handbook of Final Clauses (ST/LEG.6), p. 58.

41 Ibid., pp. 72-73.

42 Cf. Giraud, E., “Modification et terminaison des traités collectifs,” Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international, Vol. 49, Tome I, 1961, p. 62 Google Scholar.

43 See Article 34 of the Harvard Research Draft, pp. 1173-1183; C. Rousseau, Principes généraux du droit international public, pp. 526-548.

44 See Hall, International Law, 8th Edition, p. 405; Oppenheim, International Law, 8th Edition, Vol. 1, p. 938; McNair, Law of Treaties, 1961, pp. 501-505; SirFitzmaurice, Gerald, Second Report on the Law of Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1957, Vol. II, p. 22 Google Scholar.

45 United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, Vol. II, pp. 19, 56 and 58.

46 See an observation of the United States representative at the 49th meeting of the Social Committee of the Economic and Social Council (E/AC.7/SR.49, p. 8), to which Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice drew attention.

47 P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 77, p. 92.

48 See Harvard Law School, Eeseareh in International Law, III, Law of Treaties, pp. 1081-1083; McNair, op. cit., p. 553. C. Rousseau seems to have doubted whether customary law recognizes a right to denounce a treaty on the ground of other party’s non-performance, because claims to do so have usually been objected to; but for the reasons given in paragraph 2 this can hardly be regarded as sufficient evidence of the non-existence of any such customary rights.

49 E.g., Hall, op. cit., p. 408; S. B. Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, p. 456; A. Cavaglieri “Règles générales du droit de la paix,” Becueil des cours de l’Académie de droit international (1929-1), Vol. 26, p. 535.

50 See Oppenheim, op. cit., p. 947.

51 E.g., McNair, op. cit., p. 571; C. C. Hyde, International Law, Vol. 2, p. 1543; E. Giraud, op. cit., p. 28.

52 See Harvard Law School, Researeh in International Law, III, Law of Treaties (Article 27), pp. 1077 and 1091-1092.

53 Hackworth, Digest of International Law, Vol. 5, pp. 342-348; Harvard Law School, Researeh in International Law, III, Law of Treaties, pp. 1083-1090; McNair, op. cit., pp. 553-569; A. C. Kiss, Répertoire français de droit international, Vol. 5, pp. 102-121; Fontes Juris Gentium, Series B, Sectio 1, Tomus I, part I (2), pp. 791-2.

54 E.g., Ware v. Hylton (1796), 3 Dallas 261; Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447; Lepeachkin U. Gosweiler et Cie., Journal du droit international (1924), Vol. 51, p. 1136; In re Tatarko, Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases, 1949, No. 110, p. 314.

55 P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 70.

56 Ibid., p. 50; cf. Judge Hudson, pp. 76-77.

57 Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. II, pp. 929 and 943-944.

58 President Coolidge.

59 E.g., Oppenheim, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 938-944; McNair, op. cit., pp. 681-691; F. I. Kozhevnikov, International Law (Academy of Sciences of the USSB), p. 281; C. Rousseau, Principes généraux du droit international public, Tome I, pp. 580-615; Harvard Law School, Research in International Law, III, Law of Treaties, pp. 1096-1126; Chesney Hill, The Doctrine of Bebus Sic Stantibus, University of Missouri Studies (1934).

60 P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 46, pp. 156-158.

61 E.g., in the Nationality Decrees Opinion (P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 4, p. 29), where it merely observed that it would be impossible to pronounce upon the point raised by France regarding the “principle known as the clausula rebus sic stantibus” without recourse to the principles of international law concerning the duration of treaties.

62 E.g., Hooper v. United States, Hudson, Cases on International Law, Second Edition, p. 930; Lucerne v. Aargau (1888), Arrêts du Tribunal fédéral suisse, Vol. 8, p. 57 ; In re Lepeschkin, Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1923-1924, Case No. 189; Bremen v. Prussia, ibid., 1925-1926, Case No. 266; Rothschild and Sons v. Egyptian Government, ibid., 1925-1926, Case No. 14; Canton of Thurgau v Canton of St. Gallen, ibid., 1927-1928, Case No. 289 ; Bertaco v. Bancel, ibid., 1935-1937, Case No. 201; Stransky v. Zivnostenska Bank, International Law Reports, 1955, pp. 424-427.

63 Lucerne v. Aargau ; Canton of Thurgau v. Canton of St. Gallen ; Hooper v. United States.

64 In re Lepeschkin ; Stransky v. Zivnostenska Bank.

65 Canton of Thurgau U. Canton of St. Gallen.

66 Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1925-1926, Case No. 266.

67 See the accounts of the state practice in Chesney Hill, op. cit., pp. 27-74 ; C. Kiss, op. cit., pp. 381-393; C. Rousseau, op. cit., pp. 594-615; Harvard Law School, Research in International Law, III, Law or Treaties, pp. 1113-1124; H. W. Briggs, A.J.I.L. 1942, pp. 89-96, and 1949, pp. 762-769.

68 P.C.I.J., Series C., No. 2, pp. 187-188.

69 Ibid. pp. 208-209.

70 Ibid., No. 16, I, p. 52.

71 Ibid., pp. 22-23; the case was ultimately settled by the conclusion of a new treaty.

72 Ibid., Series A/B, No. 46.

73 Ibid., Series C, No. 58, pp. 578-579, 109-146, and 405-415 ; see also Series 0, No. 17, I, pp. 89, 250, 256, and 283-284.

74 Ibid., Series C., No. 58, pp. 463-476.

75 Ibid., pp. 136-143.

76 E/CN.4/367, p. 37.

77 C. Rousseau, op. cit., p. 584; Sir John Fischer Williams, A.J.I.L., 1928, pp. 93-94; C. De Visscher, Théories et réalités en droit international publie, p. 391 ; J. Basedvant, “Bègles générales du droit de la paix,” Recueil des Cours 1936, Vol. IV, pp. 653-654; SirFitzmaurice, Gerald, Second report, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1957, Vol. II, par. 149Google Scholar.

78 C. Rousseau, op. cit., p. 586.

79 E.g., Art. 21 of the Treaty on Limitation of Naval Armament, signed at Washington, 6 February 1922 (Hudson, International Legislation, Vol. II, p. 820) ; Art. 26 of the Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armament, signed at London, 25 March 1936 (ibid., Vol. VII, p. 280) ; and Convention regarding the Régime of the Straits, signed at Montreux, 20 July 1936 (L.N.T.S., Vol. 173, p. 229).

80 For the text of the resolution, see C. Kiss, op. cit., pp. 384-385.

81 See Harvard Law School, Research in International Law, III, Law of Treaties, Art. 30, pp. 1134-1139; McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), Ch. 28.

82 E.g., the Free Zones Case, Series A/B, No. 46, p. 140 ; the Wimbledon Case, Series A, No. 1, p. 24.

83 The Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain, I.C.J. Reports, 1960, pp. 213-214; The Temple of Preah Vihear, I.C.J. Reports, 1962, pp. 23-32.

84 See generally D. W. Bowett, British Yearbook of International Law, 1957, pp. 176-202; Bin Cheng, General Principles of Law, pp. 141-149; Judges Alf aro and Fitzmaurice in The Temple of Preah Vihear, I.C.J. Reports, 1962, pp. 39-51, 62-65.

85 Signed at Brussels on 25 May 1962.

86 Article 65, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 213, p. 252.

87 E.g., the Genocide Convention, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 78, p. 277.

88 Resolution 1766 (XVII).

89 Official Records of the General Assembly, 17th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/5209 and Corr. 1) [57 A.J.I.L. 190, 215-216 (1963)].

90 Ibid., Annexes, Agenda Item 76, Doc. A/C.6/L.498.

91 In one case, the Convention Regarding the Measurement of Vessels Employed in Inland Navigation, the treaty was also open to states having a common frontier with one of the states invited to the Conference.

92 League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Supplement No. 194, p. 57 (Resolution of 18 April 1946).

93 See “Resolutions of the General Assembly concerning the Law of Treaties “(A/CN.4/154), pp. 15-17.

94 See ibid. (A/CN.4/154), p. 16.

95 See Summary of the Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Agreements (ST/LEG/7), pp. 65-68.

96 Official Becords of the General Assembly, 17th Sess., Annexes, Agenda Item 76, Doc. A/C.6/L.504/Rev.2.

97 See protocols mentioned in paragraph 28 above.

98 See paragraphs 10-13 of memorandum.

99 A/C.6/L.506.

100 For the various views expressed by the members of the Commission during the discussion, see A/CN.4/SR.712 and 713.

101 See Annex I to the present report.

102 See Annex II to the present report.

103 Official Records of the General Assembly, 17th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/5209 and Corr. 1), par. 73 [57 A.J.I.L. 262 (1963)].

104 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, Vol. I, 565th meeting, par. 26.

105 Ibid., par. 25.

106 Official Records of the General Assembly, 17th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/5209 and Corr. 1), par. 83 [57 A.J.I.L. 263 (1963)].

107 Ibid., pars. 84 and 85.

a Official Becords of the General Assembly, 17th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/5209 and Corr. 1), par. 68 [57 A.J.I.L. 261 (1963)].

b The Sub-Committee suggested that the question of the responsibility of other subjects of international law, such as international organizations, should be left aside.

c The question of possible responsibility based on “risk,” in eases where a state’s conduct does not constitute a breach of an international obligation, may be studied in this connexion.

d It would be desirable to consider whether or not the study should include the very important questions which may arise in connexion with the proof of the events giving rise to responsibility.

e These summary records and memoranda will appear in the Yearbook of the Inter national Law Commission, 1963.

a Official Records of the General Assembly, 17th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/5209 and Corr. 1), par. 72 [57 A.J.I.L. 261 (1963)].

b These annexes will appear in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1963.