Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T16:44:37.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Unequal Treaties to Differential Treatment: Is There a Role for Equality in Treaty Relations?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2013

Alice DE JONGE
Alice DE JONGE*
Affiliation:
Monash University, AustraliaAlice.DeJonge@monash.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2005, Matthew Craven noted that “[t]he phenomenon of unequal treaties [has] largely evaporated as an issue from the domain of international law”. In Craven's opinion, international lawyers have demonstrated an “unwillingness to engage effectively with the problem of equality”. This paper argues that states have, in fact, addressed issues of inequity in recent treaty negotiations. When states have had to unite around common goals, various methods of according special and differential treatment have been used to address concerns about substantive equality. Drawing upon precedents from environmental law and international trade, this paper proposes the recognition of a principle of equality in treaty relations. It is suggested that the persistence of inequality should provide grounds for seeking the renegotiation of a treaty, and that a general principle in favour of remedying unacceptable levels of inequality should be applied to build flexibility and stability into treaty relationships.

Type
Articles
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 125 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © Asian Journal of International Law 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Senior Lecturer, Department of Business Law and Taxation, Monash University, Australia.

References

1. HARRIS, D.J., Cases and Materials on International Law (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2004) at 786Google Scholar

AUST, Anthony, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980), online: UN 〈http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf〉 [VCLT].

3. Aust, supra note 1Google Scholar

4. MCDADE, Paul V., “The Effect of Article 4 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969” (1986) 35 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 499 at 511CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Harris, supra note 1 at 787Google Scholar

6. MALAWER, Stuart S., Imposed Treaties and International Law (Buffalo, NY: William S. Hein & Co., 1977)Google Scholar

7. MOELLENDORF, Darrel, “Treaty Norms and Climate Change Mitigation” (2009) 23 Ethics and International Affairs 247 at 249−253CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. FARER, Tom, “Political and Economic Coercion in Contemporary International Law” (1985) 79 American Journal of International Law 405 at 406CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Malawer, supra note 6 at 107−108Google Scholar

10. VCLT, supra note 2, art. 51.

11. Ibid., art. 52.

12. Ibid., art. 53.

13. CULLET, Philippe, “Differential Treatment in International Law: Towards a New Paradigm of Inter-state Relations” (1999) 10 European Journal of International Law 549CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 9 May 1992, online: UNFCCC 〈http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf〉.

15. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), [1997] I.C.J. Rep. 7 at 65 [Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project].

16. Malawer, supra note 6Google Scholar

NOZARI, Fariborz, Unequal Treaties in International Law (Stockholm: S-Bryan Sundt & Co, 1971)Google Scholar

DETTER, I., “The Problem of Unequal Treaties” (1966) 15 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 847CrossRefGoogle Scholar

CAFLISCH, L., “Unequal Treaties” (1992) 35 German Yearbook of International Law 52Google Scholar

17. Malawer, supra note 6 at 9ffGoogle Scholar

18. VCLT, supra note 2, art. 52.

19. SCOTT, G.L., Chinese Treaties: The Post-Revolutionary Restoration of International Law and Order (New York: Oceania Publications, 1975) at 86Google Scholar

Richard WILDMAN, Institutes of International Law, Vol. 1 (London: William Benning & Co., 1849) at 67Google Scholar

20. GILBERT, Rodney, The Unequal Treaties: China and the Foreigner (Arlington: University Publications of America, Inc., 1929)Google Scholar

SIMPSON, Gerry J., Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Jerome Alan COHEN and Hungdah CHIU, People's China and International Law: A Documentary Study. Vol. 2 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974) at 1114Google Scholar

WESLEY-SMITH, Peter, Unequal Treaty 1898−1997: China, Great Britain and Hong Kong's New Territories (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1980)Google Scholar

22. AUSLIN, Michael R., Negotiating with Imperialism: The Unequal Treaties and Culture of Japanese Diplomacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004)Google Scholar

23. J.E. HOARE, “Book Reviews East Asia, Michael R. AUSLIN, Negotiating with Imperialism: The Unequal Treaties and Culture of Japanese Diplomacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004)” (2006) 65 Journal of Asian Studies 429Google Scholar

24. Simpson, supra note 20 at 245Google Scholar

25. CHIU, Hungdah, The People's Republic of China and the Law of Treaties (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972) at 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Dong, WANG, “The Discourse of Unequal Treaties in Modern China” (2003) 76 Pacific Affairs 399Google Scholar

27. CHENG, C.K., “The Philippines: America's Show Window of Democracy in Asia?” (1965) 8 Peking Review 21Google Scholar

28. Treaty of Alliance Between His Majesty in Respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and His Majesty The King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, 15 March 1948, 77 U.N.T.S. 77 (entered into force 30 April 1948). This treaty was denounced in Renmin Ribao [People's Daily] (29 November 1966).

29. See e.g. Renmin Ribao [People's Daily] (8 March 1963) at 1, which also denounced allegedly unequal treaties with countries other than the USSR, including the Treaties of Nanking (1842) and Tianjin (1858), the Protocol of Lisbon (1887), the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895), and the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong (1898).

30. Chiu, supra note 25 at 69−70Google Scholar

31. For a collection of documents on this topic, see (1968) 7 International Legal Materials 1 at 1265−339.

32. Harris, supra note 1 at 855Google Scholar

KOZHEVNIKOV, F.I.ed., International Law (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, 1961) at 248Google Scholar

33. Ibid.

34. HERCZECH, Gerza, General Principles of Law and the International Legal Order (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1969) at 73Google Scholar

35. BIERZANEK, R., “Legal Principles of Peaceful Co-existence and their Codification” (1967) 1 Polish Yearbook of International Law 17Google Scholar

36. VARGHESE, Payapilly Itty, International Law and Organisation (Lucknow: Eastern Book Co, 1952)Google Scholar

37. TUNKIN, G.I., Theory of International Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. VASSILENKO, V.A., “State Sovereignty and International Treaty” (1971) Soviet Yearbook of International Law 77Google Scholar

39. TALALAYEV, A.N., “Some Questions on the Theory of International Treaty at the UN Vienna Conference” (1970) Soviet Yearbook of International Law 125Google Scholar

40. WANG Yao Tien, Guo-ji mao-yi tiao-yue he xie-ding [International Trade, Treaties and Agreements] (Cai-chan jing-ji chu-ban she, 1958)Google Scholar

SCOTT, G.L., Chinese Treaties: The Post-Revolutionary Restoration of International Law and Order (New York: Oceania Publications, 1975) at 89Google Scholar

Harris, supra note 1Google Scholar

41. ANGHIE, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005) at 85−87CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DETTER, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties” (1966) 15 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42. Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, GA Res. 2625 (XXV), UN Doc. A/RES/25/2625 [Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations].

43. Malawer, supra note 6 at 124−125Google Scholar

44. Malawer, supra note 6 at 125Google Scholar

45. VCLT, supra note 2.

46. ELIAS, T.O., The Modern Law of Treaties (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, 1974)Google Scholar

47. For more detailed coverage, see Anne PETERS, “Treaties, Unequal”, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, online: 〈http://www.mpepil.com/〉 (last accessed 25 April 2013).

48. LINOWITZ, Sol M., “Hong Kong Solution?” New York Times (22 August 1983)Google Scholar

49. MALAWER, Stuart S., “ ‘Unequal Treaties’ are not Necessarily Illegal”, New York Times (12 September 1983)Google Scholar

50. CRAVEN, Matthew, “What Happened to Unequal Treaties? The Continuities of Informal Empire” (2005) 74 Nordic Journal of International Law 335 at 335−336CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51. Moellendorf, supra note 7 at 249−253Google Scholar

52. TRAXLER, Martino, “Fair Chore Division for Climate Change” (2002) 28 Social Theory and Practice 101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53. Craven, supra note 50 at 337−338Google Scholar

54. Ibid., at 335 and 389.

55. Cullett, supra note 13 at 557Google Scholar

56. SHEEHY, Elizabeth A., Personal Autonomy and the Criminal Law: Emerging Issues for Women (Ottawa: Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, 1987) at 3−9Google Scholar

BENDOR, Ariel L., “On Aristotelian Equality, the Fundamental Right to Equality, and Governmental Discretion” (2003) 8 Review of Constitutional Studies 1Google Scholar

CHEMERINSKY, E., “In Defense of Equality: A Reply to Professor Westen” (1983) 81 Michigan Law Review 575CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57. ACKRILL, J.L. and URMSON, J.O.eds., Aristotle: Introduction to the Nichomachean Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980) at 112−117Google Scholar

58. WESSON, Murray, “Equality and Social Rights: An Exploration in Light of the South African Constitution” (2007) Public Law 748 at 751Google Scholar

59. The Equal Rights Trust, “The Ideas of Equality and Non-Discrimination: Formal and Substantive Equality” (22 November 2007), online: The Equal Rights Trust 〈http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/The%20Ideas%20of%20Equality%20and%20Non-discrimination,%20Formal%20and%20Substantive%20Equality.pdf〉.

60. SEN, Amartya, Inequality Reexamined (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992) at 1Google Scholar

61. Ibid.

62. Craven, supra note 50Google Scholar

SCOTT, Shirley V., “The Problem of Unequal Treaties in Contemporary International Law: How the Powerful Have Reneged on the Political Compacts Within which Five Cornerstone Treaties of Global Governance are Situated” (2008) 4 Journal of International Law and International Relations 101Google Scholar

63. Craven, supra note 50 at 382Google Scholar

64. GALLAGHER, J. and ROBINSON, R., “The Imperialism of Free Trade” (1953) 6 Economic History Review 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

SEMMEL, Bernard, The Rise of Free Trade Imperialism: Classical Political Economy, the Empire of Free Trade and Imperialism 1750−1850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

KINLEY, David and NOLAN, Justine, “Trading and Aiding Human Rights: Corporations in the Global Economy” (2008) 25 Nordic Journal of Human Rights 353Google Scholar

65. VCLT, supra note 2.

66. Declaration on the Prohibition of Military, Political or Economic Coercion, supra note 46.

67. Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations, supra note 42, para. 1. See also art. 20 of the Charter of the Organization of American States (1948), online: Organization of American States 〈http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_A-41_Charter_of_the_Organization_of_American_States.htm〉, which states the same principle in similar terms.

68. Scott, supra note 62 at 103−104Google Scholar

69. Simpson, supra note 20Google Scholar

70. Scott, supra note 62 at 121Google Scholar

71. Ibid.

72. KINLEY, David, Civilising Globalisation: Human Rights and the Global Economy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

STIGLITZ, Joseph E., Globalization and its Discontents (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2002)Google Scholar

STIGLITZ, Joseph E., Making Globalization Work (London: Allen Lane, 2006)Google Scholar

Kinley and Nolan, supra note 64Google Scholar

73. Kinley, supra note 72Google Scholar

74. Simpson, supra note 20Google Scholar

75. For an even more detailed deconstruction of the notion of “sovereign equality” in international law, see ibid.

76. Cullett, supra note 13Google Scholar

77. Ibid.

78. HURT, S.R., “Co-operation and Coercion? The Cotonou Agreement Between the European Union and the ACP States and the End of the Lomé Convention” (2003) 24 Third World Quarterly 161CrossRefGoogle Scholar

PANAGARIYA, A., “EU Preferential Trade Arrangements and Developing Countries” (2002) 25 World Economy 1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79. Cullett, supra note 13 at 551−552Google Scholar

80. Ibid., at 552, citing art. 5.1 of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, 16 September 1987, online: UNEP 〈http://ozone.unep.org/pdfs/Montreal-Protocol2000.pdf〉.

81. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 11 December 1997, online: UNFCCC 〈http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf〉.

82. Cullett, supra note 13 at 552Google Scholar

83. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, “APEC Non-Binding Investment Principles” (November 1994)Google Scholar

84. Cullett, supra note 13 at 552Google Scholar

85. Ibid., at 552−3.

86. Ibid., at 564. See VCLT, supra note 2, art. 19.

87. See UN Charter, supra note 43, especially arts. 2(1), 18(1), 78.

88. Malawer, supra note 6 at 108Google Scholar

89. 3 UNCIO Doc 254, 239 (1945) [emphasis added].

90. The Covenant of the League of Nations, 28 June 1919, online: The Avalon Project, Yale Law School 〈http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art19〉.

91. Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, GA Res. 3201 (S-VI), UN Doc. A/RES/S-6/3201 (1 May 1974), para. 4(n).

92. Ibid., para. 4(s).

93. COREA, Gamani, Taming Commodity Markets: The Integrated Programme and the Common Fund in UNCTAD (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992)Google Scholar

94. Industrial Development Co-operation Agreement, GA Res. 35/66, UN Doc. A/RES/35/66 (1980), para. 5.

95. International Tropical Timber Agreement, 1994, 26 January 1994, online: International Tropical Timber Organization 〈http://www.itto.int/itta_previous/〉.

96. SANDS, Philippe, Principles of International Environmental Law (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003) at 231CrossRefGoogle Scholar

STEPHENS, Tim, “Multiple International Courts and the ‘Fragmentation’ of International Environmental Law” (2007) 25 Australian Yearbook of International Law 227 at 236−242Google Scholar

Dr Malgosia FITZMAURICE, “XII. Equipping the Court to Deal with Developing Areas of Law: Environmental Law (Presentation)” in Connie PECK and Roy S. LEE, eds., Increasing the Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997), 398 at 410Google Scholar

WEISS, Edith BROWN, In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony and International Equity (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers, 1989)Google Scholar

97. BIRNIE, Patricia W. and BOYLE, Alaneds., Basic Documents on International Law and the Environment (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995)Google Scholar

98. Ibid.

99. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 9 May 1992, 1771 U.N.T.S. 165, online: UNFCCC 〈http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf〉.

100. Ibid., art. 2.

101. Ibid., art. 3(1).

102. Havana Charter for an International Trade Organization, 24 March 1948, online: WTO 〈http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/havana_e.pdf〉. See especially art. 15 “Preferential Agreements for Economic Development and Reconstruction”.

103. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 30 October 1947, online: WTO 〈http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_e.pdf〉 [GATT 1947].

104. Ibid., art. XVIII, which expressly recognizes that it may be necessary for states “in the early stages of development” to take protective or other measures affecting imports “in order to implement programmes and policies of economic development”.

105. See online: UNCTAD 〈http://www.unctad.org/〉.

106. See online: WTO 〈http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/dev2_e.htm〉.

107. GATT 1947, supra note 103, Part IV.

108. World Trade Organization, “Differential and More Favourable Treatment Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries (Decision of 28 November 1979 (L/4903))” (November 1979)Google Scholar

109. Art. 3(f) of the Agreement on the Global System of Trade Preferences among Developing Countries, 13 April 1988, 27 I.L.M. 1204, online: World Integrated Trade Solution 〈http://wits.worldbank.org/GPTAD/PDF/archive/GSTP.pdf〉. See also the history of UNCTAD, online: UNCTAD 〈http://www.unctad.org/〉.

110. World Trade Organization, The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: The Legal Texts (Geneva: GATT Secretariat, 1994)Google Scholar

111. TRIPS, supra note 110.

112. SAMPSON, Gary P. and CHAMBERS, W. Bradneeeds., Developing Countries and the WTO: Policy Approaches (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2008)Google Scholar

113. Agreement on Agriculture, 15 April 1994, online: WTO 〈http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag.pdf〉.

114. See supra note 78.

115. The Lomé Agreements also enshrined EC commitments to provide significant amounts of aid to, and investment in, ACP countries. In Lomé I, the EC committed ECU 3 billion for aid and investment in the ACP Lomé countries. This commitment was increased to ECU 5.5 billion in Lomé II, to ECU 8.5 billion in Lomé III, and to ECU 12 billion for the first five years of Lomé IV. Lomé development aid was dispersed primarily through the European Development Fund, while investment assistance was mainly channelled through the European Investment Bank. Two other important mechanisms were the Stabex and Sysmin schemes, which provided compensatory finance to ACP states for adverse fluctuations in world prices of key agricultural and mineral exports respectively. See ibid.

116. European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R. Original Panel Report of 22 May 1997, available as document WT/DS/R/ECU.

117. This was approved in November 2001 by the Ministerial Conference in Doha: Special Meeting of the Goods Council, 14 November 2001: discussed in A. BASSILEKIN, 2007, New ACP-EC Waiver at the WTO (ECDPM Discussion Paper 71), Maastricht, online: 〈http://www.ecdpm.org/web_ecdpm/web/content/content.nsf/vwPrint/15DD386040D27A31C12572AA003A9D60?Opendocument〉.

118. See European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States AB-2008-9, Report of the Appellate Body of 26 November 2008, WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA; European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador AB-2008-8, Report of the Appellate Body of 26 November 2008, WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU. In both of these decisions, the WTO Appellate Body upheld, albeit for different reasons, the original finding of the Dispute Panel that the EC banana import regime, in particular, its duty-free tariff quota reserved for ACP countries, was inconsistent with art. XIII:1 and art. XIII:2 of the GATT 1994.

119. World Trade Organization General Council, “Preparations for the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference, Proposal for a Framework Agreement on Special and Differential Treatment, Communication from Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe”, WT/GC/W/442 (September 2001)Google Scholar

120. World Trade Organization, “Doha WTO Ministerial 2001: Ministerial Declaration”, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1 (November 2001)Google Scholar

121. Ibid.

122. World Trade Organization, “Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns: Decision of 14 November 2001”, WT/MIN(01)/17 (November 2001)Google Scholar

123. Ibid., para. 12.

124. FERGUSSON, Ian F., “World Trade Organization Negotiations: The Doha Development Agenda” CRS Report for Congress: (Updated 18 January 2008)Google Scholar

125. Sands, supra note 96 at 231Google Scholar

126. Crabb v. Arun District Council (1976), [1976] Ch 179 (EWCA (Civ)).

127. TRIGGS, Gillian D., International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices (Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006)Google Scholar

LOWE, A.V., “The Role of Equity in International Law” (1992) 12 Australia Yearbook of International Law 54Google Scholar

JANIS, M.W., “Equity in International Law” in Rudolph Bernhardt, ed., Encyclopaedia of Public International Law Vol. 7 (Amsterdam; New York: 1992−2000), at 76−77Google Scholar

128. Triggs, supra note 127 at para. 2.70Google Scholar

129. Diversion of Water from the River Meuse case, ibid.

130. North Sea Continental Shelf cases (FRG v. Denmark; FRG v. The Netherlands), [1969] I.C.J. Rep. 3 at 139−40.

131. Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Area Between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), [1993] I.C.J. Rep. 38 at 211−79.

132. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, supra note 15 at 88−119.

133. Cullett, supra note 13Google Scholar

134. VCLT, supra note 2.

135. Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, 15 April 1994, online: WTO 〈http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto_e.htm〉.

136. European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R.

137. See supra note 117.

138. VCLT, supra note 2.

139. World Trade Organization, “Lamy Hails Accord Ending Long Running Banana Dispute” (15 December 2009)Google Scholar

140. See, for example, “Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries 1966” in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1966, Volume II: Documents of the Second Part of the Seventeenth Session and of the Eighteenth Session Including the Reports of the Commission to the General Assembly, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1966/Add.l (1966). See also the commentary on draft art. 59 at 257−8, which eventually became art. 62 of the Vienna Convention.

141. VCLT, supra note 2.

142. Ibid., art. 62(2).

143. Ibid.

144. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, supra note 15, para. 104.

145. Scott, supra note 62 at 6Google Scholar

146. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, supra note 15, para. 106.

147. GALBRAITH, James K., Inequality and Instability: A Study of the World Economy Just Before the Great Crisis (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

148. Report of the International Law Commission, Sixty-third Session, 26 April–3 June and 4 July–12 August 2011. Text of the Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties adopted by the Commission at its sixty-third session (A/66/10/Add.1).