The Major InternationalTreaties of the Twentieth Century

The Major International Treaties of the Twentieth Century surveys the history of treaty-making throughout the twentieth century. It accessibly provides the texts of all themajor treaties that either continue in force today, or are of historical importance.These treaties are essential for an understanding of recent history and for analysisof current international relations.

The Major International Treaties of the Twentieth Century is truly global in scope andcovers treaties of all aspects from political and economic agreements toenvironmental and human rights pacts. From the great many treaties set out anddiscussed, examples include:

• the Treaty of Versailles, • the Pact of Steel, • the Charter of the United Nations, • the North Atlantic Treaty, • the Treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German

Democratic Republic, • the Belfast Agreement, • the Charter of the Organization of African Unity, • the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Drawing on the previous volumes of their books on The Major International Treaties,the authors bring the picture up to date in this definitive work with the events ofthe s and s, many of which have rendered earlier treaties redundant.This is an invaluable resource for all those interested in modern history, politicsand international relations.

J.A.S. Grenville is Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Birming-ham and his books include A History of the World in the Twentieth Century (HarvardU. P., ). Bernard Wasserstein is Professor of History at the Universityof Glasgow and his publications include Vanishing Diaspora (Harvard U. P., ).

This page intentionally left blank

The Major InternationalTreaties of the TwentiethCentury

A History and Guide with Texts

Edited by J.A.S. Grenville andBernard Wasserstein

Volume One

First published by Routledge

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge

© Edited by J.A.S. Grenville and Bernard Wasserstein

Typeset in Baskerville by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted orreproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafterinvented, including photocopying and recording, or in anyinformation storage or retrieval system, without permission inwriting from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataGrenville, J. A. S. (John Ashley Soames), –

The major international treaties or the twentieth century / edited by John Grenville andBernard Wasserstein.

p. cm.Revision of works issued in : The major international treaties, – and

The major international treaties since .Includes bibliographical references and index.. Treaties—Collections. I. Grenville, J. A. S. (John Ashley Soames), –II.

Wasserstein, Bernard. III. Grenville, J. A. S. (John Ashley Soames), – Majorinternational treaties, –. IV. Grenville. J. A. S. (John Ashley Soames), –Major international treaties since . V. Title.

KZ .G �.—dc

–

Published by Routledge Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX RN

Third Avenue, New York, NY, , USA

ISBN : - - - - (hbk)

Contents

Preface xi

Volume One

Introduction: I

The role of treaties The form and structure of treaties The drafting of treaties The vocabulary of treaties

I · T F W W

The Bismarckian foundations: Germany’s allies, – The Dual Alliance: France and Russia Britain, France and Russia: the road to the Triple Entente, – The conflict in the Balkans, – The Powers, China and the Pacific, – The emergence of the United States as a world power

II · S F W W

The Central Powers, – The Allied and Associated Powers, – The Ottoman Empire China, Japan and the Pacific The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: Eastern and Central Europe, –

v

III · T , –

The Treaty of Versailles: the peace settlement with Germany Peace treaties with Austria, Bulgaria and Hungary, – Allied disputes and settlements The League of Nations The Allies, Turkey and Greece, – The settlement in the Middle East China, Japan and the Pacific: the Washington Conference, –

IV · F, B, I G, –

The reparations question The treaties of Locarno, October The Pact of Paris, August Disarmament The Four Power Pact, June

V · F , –

French alliances with Czechoslovakia and Poland, – The Little Entente states and the Polish–Roumanian Alliance, –

VI · T S U , –

Soviet treaties, – Relations between the Soviet Union and Germany Treaties of non-aggression and mutual assistance in Europe, – Soviet treaties in eastern Asia

VII · T V, –

War in Manchuria, –: the League, China and Japan Germany’s military revival, – The formation of the Rome–Berlin Axis: Abyssinia, Spain and Austria,–

VIII · F P E A, –

Europe – Allied diplomacy, –

vi

The Axis powers and the Soviet Union, –: the Winter War Asia: Japan, Russia and China, – Asia: the United States, Britain and Japan, –

IX · T G A, –

Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union, June –June Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, – The Allies and France, – The Allies and Italy, –

X · T J, –

The conferences The surrender of Japan, August

XI · T , –

Peacemaking in Europe Peacemaking in eastern Asia

XII · T U N

The United Nations and its specialized agencies International economic organizations

XIII · T U S

The United States and the Americas The Atlantic Alliance United States treaty relations in the Far East United States treaty relations in the Middle East

XIV · T S

Soviet treaties in eastern Europe Soviet treaties in the Third World

vii

XV · T G

The division of Germany and the three Berlin crises The German question stabilized The reunification of Germany, –

Volume Two

XVI · T I , –

Partition, – Partition and independence, – Violent conflict and the search for a settlement, – From Hillsborough to the ‘Good Friday’ Agreement

XVII · W E , –

The split of Europe into east and west, – Western Europe divides, – The EEC and EFTA, – Expansion and closer integration of the European Community, –

XVIII · E U, –

Fresh dynamism, – The Treaty of European Union The Treaty of Amsterdam Enlargement Institutions

XIX · A

The Indian subcontinent South-east Asia East Asia and the Pacific The Pacific

XX · I A

Problems of decolonization Efforts to achieve African unity

viii

Post-independence turmoil Southern Africa

XXI · T M E E M

The great powers and the Middle East, – Israel and the Arabs after Greece, Turkey and Cyprus The Middle East and the great powers since

XXII · T A, –

Central America The Caribbean South America The South Atlantic

XXIII · D , –

From ‘peaceful coexistence’ to détente, – The road to SALT I, – From SALT I to SALT II,– The dwindling of détente, –

XXIV · H

The International Bill of Human Rights Extension of human rights by treaty Laws of armed conflict Genocide and war crimes

XXV · T

Atomic energy Space Bio-diversity Pollution and climate control The Antarctic The sea

ix

XXVI · T - S E

The collapse of the Soviet Union The Commonwealth of Independent States

XXVII · T Y

XXVIII · N , –

Ending the cold war A new strategic framework

Sources for treaty texts Index

x

Preface

The purpose of this book is to provide a history of international treaty-making inthe twentieth century together with the texts of the major treaties. The treaties inthis volume are of two kinds: those that are of historical importance, for example,the Nazi–Soviet Pact of , and those that continue in force today. The age of atreaty is by itself no indication whether it is only of historical significance orcontinues to play a role in contemporary international relationships. Treaties notso long ago regarded as of fundamental importance in east–west relations, such asthe various agreements concerning Berlin, have been made redundant by Ger-man reunification. Much of the post- Soviet treaty system also becamedefunct in the s. Not so the United States security treaties originating in thelate s and s which retain their validity in Europe and Asia, thoughadapted to new conditions. Thus the treaties discussed in this volume form anessential basis both for the study of history and for analysis of current inter-national relations. This is not meant to be a diplomatic history. The commentarysections have accordingly been limited to the minimum necessary to render thetreaty texts and their context intelligible to the reader.

The first edition of this book, The Major International Treaties –, edited byJ.A.S. Grenville, appeared in . The second edition was published in intwo volumes: Volume One, The Major International Treaties –, edited byJ.A.S. Grenville, and Volume Two, The Major International Treaties since , editedby J.A.S. Grenville and Bernard Wasserstein. That updated the original edition to. This third edition not only updates further until but also includes anexpanded introduction and several new chapters. The entire text has beenchecked, revised, and where necessary rewritten, particularly to take account ofnew developments, notably the end of the cold war, and advances in historicalknowledge.

The most authoritative sources for treaty texts are the League of Nations Treaty

xi

Series in volumes covering the period to and the United Nations TreatySeries, covering the period since . By more than , volumes hadappeared in the UN series. Unfortunately this suffers from some drawbacks. Art-icle of the UN Charter (p. ) requires that ‘every treaty and every inter-national agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after thepresent Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with theSecretariat and published by it.’ Most treaties are so registered but not all: secrettreaties, of course, are neither registered nor published; and many states delaybefore registering treaties. Non-membership of some states in the UN has furtherlimited registration of treaties. Not all treaties that are registered are necessarilypublished in the series: in the UN Secretariat was authorized to excludetreaties judged of ‘limited interest’ from publication. Even in the case of treatiesthat are both registered and published, a further long delay often ensues beforepublication. For example, the most recent volume, number ,, dated (itactually appeared only in ) contained treaties that had been concluded in, , and . By the UN series contained more than ,treaties and about sixty new volumes were being published each year. Yet in spiteof the prodigious scale of the enterprise, the series faces a Sisyphean task asmodern diplomacy churns out ever larger numbers of treaties both bilateral andmultilateral. For all these reasons, the UN series, although the best starting pointfor the collection of treaty texts, is incomplete – and virtually useless for the mostrecent treaties.

Treaty texts in this book have generally been drawn from one of these twoseries or (in the case of more recent treaties which have not yet been reached bythe United Nations series) from the facsimile reproductions in the periodical,International Legal Materials. Many treaties are printed in full. But others are so longthat they have had to be edited. In all cases where excisions have been made thesehave been indicated by an ellipse mark (. . .). In general, the parts omitted havebeen the more technical sections of treaties or those containing purely formalmaterial. To have included the entire texts of treaties discussed or mentionedin this book would have required at least a hundred volumes and wouldhave defeated our purpose which is to highlight the significant and to bring theoperative sections of the major treaties within one manageable volume.

The choice of treaties has been difficult and inevitably subjective. It is esti-mated that over a , treaties have been signed in the twentieth century.Some of these, for example, the Convention on the Law of the Sea, (p. ), fillthousands of pages and many volumes. In this book, even with excisions, we haveroom for the texts of not much more than a hundred treaties. Clearly, therefore,we have had to be highly selective. Our basic criterion has been the long-termpolitical and diplomatic importance of treaties. We have thus excluded thosedealing with purely technical, legal, military, or financial matters. In addition to

xii

providing the texts of many of the most important treaties, however, we havediscussed a large number of other treaties. Specialists in particular areas will nodoubt wish to consult more narrowly defined collections. But for the reader whoseeks a general grasp of the diplomacy of the twentieth century, we hope that thisvolume will provide the necessary documentary basis.

Certain internet sites now contain extensive collections of background materialand texts of treaties. Among those we have found most useful are:

Avalon Project, Yale University http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/Chemical Weapons Convention http://www.opcw.nl/NATO http://www.nato.int/Organization of American States http://www.oas.org/Tufts Multilaterals Project http://www.tufts.edu/fletcher/

multilaterals.html/UN High Commission for Refugees http://www.unhcr.ch/refworld/legal/

instruments/UN Human Rights Website http://www.unhchr.ch/UN Treaty Collection http://www.un.org/Depts/Treaty/US Arms Control and Disarmament

Agency http://www.acda.gov/US State Department http://www.state.gov/World Trade Organization http://www.wto.org/World War I Document Archive http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/

treaties.html

Many of the treaties printed here deal with sensitive territorial issues. In gen-eral we have used geographical designations most familiar to English-speakingreaders (thus Persian rather than Arabian Gulf, Falkland Islands rather thanMalvinas and so on); needless to say, such usages should not be taken to imply anyparticular political view. In their original forms treaties dealing with territorialissues often include large-scale maps; it is not practicable to include these here.

We are grateful to Professor Celia Fassberg for reading and commenting onpart of the manuscript and Dr Elisabeth Albanis for help with proof-reading. Wealso wish to thank the staffs of the various libraries and archives in which we haveworked, as well as our editors at Routledge, Heather McCallum and VictoriaPeters, and our agent, Bruce Hunter of David Higham Associates.

John A. S. GrenvilleBernard Wasserstein

July

xiii

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwitreaties.htmlhttp://www.unhcr.ch/refworld/legal/instruments/http://www.tufts.edu/fletcher/multilaterals.html/http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/treaties.htmlhttp://www.wto.orghttp://www.state.govhttp://www.acda.govhttp://www.un.org/Depts/Treatyhttp://www.unhchr.chhttp://www.unhcr.ch/refworld/legal/instruments/http://www.tufts.edu/fletcher/multilaterals.html/http://www.oas.org/http://www.nato.int/http://www.opcw.nl/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction: International treaties

The role of treaties

Pacta sunt servanda (‘agreements must be kept’) – this precept of Roman law hasbeen recognized as the fundamental principle of modern international law. TheLatin tag heads article of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May (p. ), which provides: ‘Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it andmust be performed by them in good faith.’ Yet international treaties have fre-quently turned out to be no stronger than the paper on which they are written.

How then does one explain the fact that during the five decades after the endof the Second World War more treaties were signed than during the whole of theprevious four centuries? The inflation in the sheer number of the treaties has beenaccompanied in the twentieth century by an expansion in their length and com-plexity. Some post-war treaties, such as the Treaty of Rome, , establishing theEuropean Economic Community, run to hundreds of articles and fill a singlevolume; others occupy several volumes; and still others, with accompanyingamendments, for example, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, signed atGeneva in , fill several shelves.

There are some obvious explanations for the increase in the number and lengthof treaties. There exist now more sovereign nations than ever before; there hasalso been a spectacular growth of international organizations which sign treatiesin the same way as single states; treaties since have moreover been increas-ingly concerned with economic and social questions. The one explanation thatcannot be seriously advanced is that mutual faith in the honourable behaviour ofcountries party to a treaty has been noticeably strengthened over the years. Thesolemn undertakings and promises, the general intentions of friendship andcooperation embedded in the language of the treaties, do not by themselves carrymore conviction now than they did in times past; they are no guarantee of obser-vance. Nor has there developed any fully effective way of bringing to justice a

treaty violator by an international tribunal backed by effective international sanc-tion, especially when the offending nation is a powerful one. That morality as thebasis of international dealings has not been strengthened in the twentieth centuryeven the least cynical observer has to admit.

International lawyers have not had an easy time attempting to reconcile therealities of policy with the notion of the rule of law in international affairs.Ultimately there has to be some moral foundation to law and this is difficult todemonstrate as a fundamental consideration in the formation of national policiesthe world over. There has indeed been an interesting shift in the way in whichinternational lawyers and diplomats have looked upon treaties during this century.A standard work on diplomatic practice was compiled by Sir Ernest Satow in (A Guide to Diplomatic Practice, vols, London, ). The chapters dealing withtreaties in the edition of were based on the principle of the absolute sanctityof treaties once signed; they could not be altered or abandoned by one party tothem without the agreement of the others, national necessities notwithstanding.This Satow was able to assume. By the time a new edition was prepared bySir Nevile Bland, who had served in the Treaty Department of the British ForeignOffice, the whole question of whether or not treaties could be unilaterally termin-ated without violating the normal practice of international law required lengthydiscussion. The world meantime had witnessed the disregard of treaty obligationsby Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and the Japanese in the s. Certain questions nowhad to be posed even if they could not be answered satisfactorily. Is a countrybound by the provisions of a treaty even when the conditions prevailing when thetreaty was made have greatly changed? Can there ever be permanent treaties in arapidly changing world? One distinguished international lawyer replied a littleobscurely with a double negative: ‘There is nothing juridically impossible in theexistence of a treaty creating obligations which are incapable of terminationexcept by agreement of all parties . . . [there is thus a] general presumptionagainst unilateral termination.’ Another authority on international law concludedthat a commercial treaty could ‘always be dissolved after notice, although suchnotice be not expressly provided for’, and he extended this possibility to alliancetreaties. There is in fact no agreement among international lawyers. The lateProfessor Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the most distinguished lawyers, used to askhis students whether international law was law properly so called. Internationallaw is ‘incomplete’ and in a ‘state of transition’, he concluded. Although a body ofcustomary international law is developing, the rule of law among nations in ourown time remains far removed from the rule of law as generally recognized andpractised by civilized communities within their own borders.

There are international judicial institutions such as the International Court ofJustice of the United Nations, the successor of the Permanent Court of Inter-national Justice set up after the First World War. All members of the United

Nations (and also some non-members, such as Switzerland) are parties to theStatute of the International Court of Justice, (see chapter XIV of the United NationsCharter, p. ). Under article of the Statute, states ‘may at any time declarethat they recognize as compulsory . . . the jurisdiction of the Court’. But by July only fifty-nine states had accepted compulsory jurisdiction. Moreover, moststates accepting compulsory jurisdiction did so only with reservations or condi-tions. Some states that had earlier accepted compulsory jurisdiction later with-drew their acceptance when confronted with decisions or the prospect ofdecisions that they disliked. For example, Israel gave notice on November of termination of her acceptance of such jurisdiction effective November ;and the United States gave similar notice on October , effective April. In these circumstances the power of the International Court or of inter-national arbitration tribunals to reach enforceable decisions in serious politicaldisputes is obviously limited. The possibility of international sanctions based on alegal judgment is thus unlikely to prove a serious deterrent to the prospectivetreaty-breaker.

Nor is time on the side of treaty observance. The longer a treaty is intended tolast the more chance there is that it will cease to correspond to national interestsand international conditions. On this the most diverse of men who have guidednational policies in the twentieth century are agreed. This was one of LordSalisbury’s objections to the proposal to conclude an Anglo-German alliance atthe turn of the century: ‘the British Government cannot undertake to declare war,for any purpose, unless it is a purpose of which the electors of this country wouldapprove . . . I do not see how, in conscious honesty, we could invite other nationsto rely upon our aids in a struggle, which must be formidable and probablysupreme, when we have no means whatsoever of knowing what may be thehumour of our people in circumstances which cannot be foreseen.’ He concludedthat national honour as well as good principles of policy required that futuredecisions should not be mortgaged by treaty obligations. By way of contrast,Hitler regarded morality, good faith and principles of international law as deca-dent democratic weaknesses. He wrote in Mein Kampf: ‘No consideration of for-eign policy can proceed from any other criterion than this: Does it benefit ournationality now or in the future, or will it be injurious to it? . . . Partisan, religious,humanitarian and all other criteria in general are completely irrelevant.’ Theconclusion and violation of treaties were decisions of policy, and other statescould be, and were, misled by Hitler’s repeatedly proclaimed readiness to con-clude and abide by the agreements he signed for he broke them without theslightest scruple.

During the inter-war period apologists for treaty-breakers sometimes invokedthe Roman law principle under which every contract carried with it the implica-tion rebus sic stantibus (provided the situation remains the same). National Socialist

:

Germany invoked this doctrine, that an international agreement is binding onlyso long as the state of affairs present at the time of its signature continues toexist, in order to justify its remilitarization of the Rhineland in . Mean-while in the Soviet Union, the doctrine was reformulated to signify that everyinternational agreement was the expression of the established social order andmust be observed only so long as that order endured. The Vienna Conventionon the Law of Treaties expressly excluded (in article ) the rebus sic stantibusdoctrine as a basis for unilateral termination of treaties, declaring: ‘A funda-mental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminat-ing or withdrawing from a treaty.’ (Only very limited exceptions were allowed.)Nevertheless it is still sometimes argued (for example, by Athanassios Vamvou-kos, The Termination of Treaties in International Law, Oxford, , p. ) that ‘therule of rebus sic stantibus is neither an exception to, nor in conflict with, the ruleof pacta sunt servanda’.

After the Second World War, Dean Acheson, the American Secretary of State,grappled with the dilemma of whether treaty obligations could be relied on whenthe passage of time had changed international circumstances. When negotiatingthe North Atlantic Treaty Organization Acheson asked himself, ‘What was thissovereign – the United States of America – and how could it insure faith inpromised future conduct?’ Acheson recognized, as Salisbury had done half acentury earlier, that the fundamental problem did not affect only a governmentdependent on representative institutions. ‘In reality,’ wrote Acheson, ‘the problemwas general and insoluble, lying in inescapable change of circumstances and ofnational leadership and in the weakness of words to bind, especially when thejuice of continued purpose is squeezed out of them and their husks analyzed to adrily logical extreme.’

Important treaties have been and still are signed with much ceremony, with filmand television cameras ensuring some public involvement. The handshakebetween Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin at the signing, in front of a largeaudience, of the joint Declaration of Principles by Israel and the Palestine Libera-tion Organization on September seemed an indispensable part of theritual. Such displays of cooperation may make a temporary impression on publicopinion but are discounted by the professional diplomat. The trappings are even-tually forgotten; the text of the treaty endures.

With the archives of the Foreign Office in London, of the Ministry of ForeignAffairs in Moscow, of the State Department in Washington and every othercapital full of broken treaties, how can treaties be viewed other than in a cynicaland negative way? If the behaviour of the policy-makers is rational – even if,according to the opinion of historians, sometimes misguided – why are scores ofnew treaties negotiated and signed every year?

In the first place, notwithstanding the many well-publicized instances of broken

treaties, the fact remains that most treaties (particularly the large number dealingwith financial or technical matters) are in fact observed – just as most debts arepaid. Nobody would expect a banker to put up his shutters merely because of theexistence of a minority of bad debtors; the prudent banker will instead makeadequate provision for bad debts. Similarly the prudent diplomat makes provision(as adequate as the circumstances may allow) for the faithless treaty-maker – or forthe change in circumstances which might lead to the breaking of a treaty obliga-tion. One example of such ‘provision’ is the device of the ‘treaty of guarantee’whereby one or more powers pledge to ensure that treaty obligations will behonoured. The Cyprus Guarantee Treaty, August (p. ) is an instance of sucha treaty – although subsequent history also demonstrated the limited effectivenessof such arrangements. Another device is the additional side-arrangementwhereby a major treaty (for example, the Israel–Egypt Peace Treaty, March ,p. ) is accompanied by one or more subsidiary agreements, sometimes withthird parties (in the case of the Israel–Egypt Peace Treaty there were several suchagreements involving the United States, some trilateral, some bilateral), designedto secure the better observance of the main treaty.

Even when there is no expectation that a country will remain faithful to itstreaty obligations in perpetuity, calculations of national self-interest may make itprobable that treaty provisions will be kept for a foreseeable future period of time.At least one of the parties has to believe that, whatever the secret plans of theother, or no agreement would be reached. Should there be a presumption thattreaty obligations might be broken then there still has to be the possibility in themind of one of the signatories that they will not be. The claim has been made forChamberlain’s foreign policy that he signed the Munich Agreement with Hitler on September (p. ) to test Hitler’s good faith; but even so, Chamberlain musthave thought that there was a worthwhile chance that Hitler would keep theundertakings of Munich. An open breach of treaty, such as Hitler’s violation ofthis settlement, can (and did) still serve one important purpose in helping to rallypublic opinion and reluctant allies.

Not many treaties are as cynically or immediately broken as the MunichAgreement. An international treaty can be viewed as a bargain or contract. Thereare three inducements for keeping treaty provisions which are generally moreimportant than any other: first, the positive one that a treaty contains a balanceof advantages and the country which violates a treaty must expect to lose itsadvantages. At the simplest level, for example, when one country expels a foreigndiplomat a reciprocal expulsion often follows. More important is the fact that aserious violation of a treaty may end it. Sometimes a violation is not easy toestablish. Treaties on arms limitations are for this reason especially difficult tonegotiate; control of armaments has not proved easy to reconcile with nationalsovereignty. The second inducement for keeping a treaty is the deterrent element

:

it may contain. Before acting, political leaders have to decide whether the viola-tion of a treaty is worth the risk of the possible counter-measures taken by theaggrieved state or states. A third inducement is that a government has to considerits international credibility; failure to fulfil a treaty may well weaken the defaultingcountry’s international position as other states calculate whether treaties still inforce with it will be honoured, and whether new agreements can any longerusefully be concluded.

Treaties are landmarks which guide nations in their relations with each other.They express intentions, promises and normally appear to contain reciprocaladvantages. Treaties represent attempts to reduce the measure of uncertaintyinherent in the conduct of international affairs. In a world of growing inter-dependence, economic, political and strategic, where relations have becomeexceedingly complex and where no nation can prosper and feel secure in com-plete isolation from all its neighbours, the endeavour to reach agreements is anattempt to safeguard at least some vital interests.

Treaties concluded many decades ago are less likely to have remained in forcethan more recently concluded treaties. Yet this is not necessarily the case. Treatiessigned long ago may evolve to meet the changed conditions of later times. Thereare many examples of such agreements: NATO, the European Union, the UScommitments to defend South Korea and Taiwan, for instance. There are alsotreaties in force in their evolved forms that were first concluded in the nineteenthor early twentieth centuries, such as those covering the International Red Cross,the International Postal Union and the Geneva Conventions. Then we have thecases of agencies of the League of Nations, for example, the International LabourOrganization, that have been incorporated into the United Nations. There arealso many treaties that are now defunct: the pre- alliances, the agreementsconcerning western access to post- Berlin, the Warsaw Pact, and so on. ThusThe Major International Treaties of the Twentieth Century encompasses treaties essentialfor the understanding both of the history of diplomacy and of contemporary inter-national relations.

It must be remembered that the signing of the actual treaty is only the startingpoint of the relationship it purports to establish. Cooperation and further detailedagreements based on the principles of the original treaty, as for instance was thecase with the development of the European Union, may strengthen it. On theother hand, a treaty may be drained of its effectiveness by disuse or mutualsuspicions long before it is actually broken or abandoned. An example of this isthe SEATO Treaty (p. ). Despite appearances the treaty does not ‘freeze’ rela-tionships; they remain fluid, and the treaty may become more meaningful or just aform of words. No one would judge the strength of a marriage by the form ofvows exchanged at a ceremony. So it is with treaties; they may prosper andencompass an increasingly wide range of agreements as time passes or they may

end in disillusionment. The contents of the treaty may indeed be less importantthan the relationship that is established as the result of agreement.

Some political scientists have spoken of the ‘treaty trap’ – the false hope ofbasing foreign policy on the expectation that the legal requirements of a treatywill be fulfilled. When measured against historical evidence this reliance is seen tobe a ‘trap’. Such a trap exists, however, only for those who divorce the signing of atreaty from the necessary continuous vigilance over the relations that develop afterits signature. Careful assessment has to be made of how ‘national interests’ areviewed by the leaders of other countries, the personalities of the leaders andfuture leaders, and all the likely influences including public opinion which canaffect their policies, because it is against this ‘total’ policy background that thecontinuing strength of a treaty, once signed, has to be judged. When this isneglected, or when serious miscalculations are made, then one party may betaken by surprise by the other’s breach of a treaty, as was Stalin when, in spiteof the Nazi–Soviet Pact of (p. ), Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in .No practising diplomat can sensibly view a treaty merely from a juridical pointof view, in a kind of legal vacuum separated from all those influences whichactually shape the conduct of foreign policies. The treaty may be one of the veryimportant influences on that policy; it can never be the sole consideration.

The alternative to imperfect agreements is either anarchy or completeuncertainty. Treaties do not by themselves assure peace and security, but far moreoften than not they have contributed to stability for a measurable and worthwhileperiod of years. The spectacular instances where they have become instrumentsof aggression should therefore not blind us to the utility of treaties in general.

A fundamental rule of international conduct is that of non-interference by onestate or a group of states in the internal affairs of another. In the early nineteenthcentury Metternich had claimed the right to put down revolution abroad. Castle-reagh, in response, set out the ‘doctrine of non-intervention’ as the norm ofrelations between states. Article of the League of Nations Covenant excludedthe right to recommend settlement in a dispute which arose ‘out of a matter whichby international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party’. Thiswas reaffirmed in by article : of the Charter of the United Nations butwith the significant proviso that ‘this principle shall not prejudice the applicationof enforcement measures under Chapter VII’, that is, action with respect tothreats to peace. Also article empowered the Security Council to ‘investigateany dispute likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and secur-ity’. Nevertheless, the potential implications for state sovereignty have restrainedsuch interventions. Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge forces committed genocide in Cam-bodia in the s with impunity and Vietnam was condemned for intervening tooust his regime. Only in the s were there some signs of change as jurists andconcerned humanitarian bodies asserted a droit d’ingérence, a right of interference.

:

Humanitarian intervention was given international authority in December by resolution / of the UN General Assembly, permitting ‘access to victims’of natural disasters. The UN then went a step further, authorizing the establish-ment of corridors through war zones to provide food and essential supplies tovictims. The conflicts in southern Sudan and former Yugoslavia in the sreinforced the new trend in thinking. Interventions in Somalia in – and theprotection of the Kurds of northern Iraq from the regime of Saddam Husseinwere further evidence that the prohibition against intervention in internal affairshad weakened when overwhelming humanitarian considerations applied. Thedroit d’ingérence is an area of evolving international law still controversial but ofincreasing importance.

The form and structure of treaties

The most significant generally agreed formulation of the law of treaties is to befound in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May (p. ). Thisagreement was to enter into force (under its penultimate article, number ) whenthirty-five states had deposited instruments of accession or ratification. Althoughthirty-two states signed immediately, not all of these ratified it. The United States,for example, signed in , but never ratified the convention. More than a decadepassed before the convention finally entered into force on January , follow-ing the accession of Togo. By , states were parties. The USSR acceded,with reservations, in that year and Russia, as legal successor to the Soviet Union,remained a party to the Convention, and in enacted a Federal Law onInternational Treaties, that gave effect in the country’s internal legislation to itscommitment to the Convention. Of the major powers, France and China stillwere not parties but China acceded in . By the number of parties to theVienna Convention had risen to ninety – still under half the membership of theUnited Nations. Although the United States did not ratify the Convention, the USState Department nevertheless declared that the convention was ‘generally recog-nized as the authoritative guide to current treaty law and practice’. It thereforecarries considerable international authority in spite of the fact that only a minor-ity of states are parties to it.

The convention was preceded and succeeded by other international agree-ments that have a bearing on its contents. The most important of these were theVienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, April , the Vienna Convention on Con-sular Relations, April , and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties betweenStates and International Organizations or between International Organizations, March.

D

A treaty is defined by the Vienna Convention as ‘an international agreementconcluded between States in written form and governed by international law,whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instrumentsand whatever its particular designation’.

International treaties are generally concluded between sovereign states and pre-suppose their existence. There have been a few exceptions to this simple workingdefinition: states under the suzerainty of another state have sometimes concludedinternational treaties; the degree of a state’s sovereignty may be in dispute, as forinstance in the case of the two Boer Republics, the Transvaal and the OrangeFree State, which in went to war with Britain to assert their completeindependence. There are other exceptions, but the overwhelming number oftreaties are concluded between sovereign states; in the twentieth century they arealso concluded between an organization of states such as the European Unionand another state. Here the organization of states acts in a collective capacity asone party to a treaty.

Until the late nineteenth century most treaties were bilateral rather than multi-lateral. The main exceptions were treaties ending wars (such as the Treaty of Paris,ending the Napoleonic wars, signed on May by Britain, Austria, France,Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Spain and Sweden), treaties of alliance (such as the HolyAlliance treaty signed by Austria, Prussia and Russia on – September – andlater by other states) or treaties of guarantee (such as the treaty guaranteeing Belgianindependence and neutrality signed by Britain, Austria, France, Prussia and Russia – aswell as Belgium – on April ). In the late nineteenth century, however,multilateral treaties, dealing with both political and other subjects, became morecommon. The twentieth century brought a further increase and the post-warperiod witnessed a veritable explosion of such treaties. In the period –alone, more than multilateral treaties were recorded by the United Nations.Some of the most important of such post-war multilateral treaties, such as theUnited Nations Charter (p. ), are printed in this volume.

The major treaties discussed and printed in this book are those that areintended to create legal rights and obligations between the countries that areparty to them. Whether there can be ‘treaties’ properly so called which do notcreate such rights and obligations depends on definition. The Atlantic Charter of August was a ‘Joint Declaration’ by Roosevelt and Churchill setting out certainagreed principles of policy; no legal obligations were incurred by Britain and theUnited States, though Churchill’s signature as prime minister had been approvedby the War Cabinet. Was it a genuine treaty or a press communiqué? The pointneed not be laboured. Not all diplomatic agreements of importance need be‘treaties’ in the conventional sense: it has been established in international law

:

that even oral undertakings may be enforceable as international agreements –even where such validity is contested by one of the parties.

In the nineteenth century and earlier, treaties were always concluded betweenthe heads of state, whether monarchs or presidents. This still remains true formany treaties. But equally important treaties may be concluded between govern-ments rather than heads of state, as was the North Atlantic Treaty of April (p. ) and the Peace Treaty with Italy of February (p. ).

It is generally accepted that unless there are contrary provisions laid down bythe signatories of a treaty not inconsistent with overriding principles of inter-national law, all questions concerning the interpretation and execution of treaties,their validity and how they may be ended, are governed by international customand where appropriate by general principles of law recognized by civilizednations.

F

What a treaty is called may be a matter of chance or design but it is not significantin itself. The obligations and rights have to be studied in each case with equal care:for example, an ‘alliance’ may not create the relationship and obligations whichthe common meaning of the word would lead one to expect. The Alliance forProgress of (p. ) was not, in fact, an ‘alliance’ in the conventional meaningof the word. On the other hand, not all alliance treaties are so named. It istherefore not possible to distinguish treaties, or the rights or obligations arisingfrom them, or their relative importance, by their particular form or heading. Onehas to work from the other end and disentangle from the contents of the treaty theprecise obligations and rights. This is a point of great importance in the under-standing of international relations. The historian, for instance, will be especiallyconcerned to discover whether a treaty contains commitments to go to war, ormerely promises support in more general terms avoiding any automatic commit-ment to go to war in conditions specified by the treaty. Whether the treaty is calledan ‘Alliance Treaty’ or a ‘Declaration’ makes no difference. Treaties have beencalled by many other names and each type of treaty is usually cast in its ownconventional form. Some of the more common types of treaties are headedConvention, Acte Final, Pact, Agreement, Protocol, Exchange of Notes, ModusVivendi, or Understanding, as well as Treaty, with some prefix such as alliance,boundary, etc.; and this list is not comprehensive. It also has to be noted that untilthe actual contents of a document are examined it cannot be assumed that anylegal rights or obligations arise, and so the document may not be a treaty at alldespite appearances. The historian thus has to exercise extreme caution in dis-tinguishing between the ‘content’ and the ‘form’ or ‘packaging’ of diplomaticagreements.

L

The language of treaties varies. Until the seventeenth century most treaties (at anyrate, most treaties involving European states) were in Latin. Thereafter Frenchbecame the major language of diplomacy and of treaties. Hence the frequency ofLatin and French expressions in the vocabulary even of current diplomacy andtreaty-making. In the twentieth century English has emerged as the dominantlanguage in treaty-making. Nationalistic considerations have often, particularlysince , dictated the use of a particular language as the ‘authentic’ text of atreaty. The Vienna Convention specifies that ‘when a treaty has been authenti-cated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language,unless the treaty provides or the parties agree that, in case of divergence, aparticular text shall prevail’. A case in point of such agreement was the Israel–Egypt Peace Treaty of which was written ‘in triplicate in the English, Arabic,and Hebrew languages, each text being equally authentic’ – with the added pro-viso that ‘in case of any divergence of interpretation, the English text shall pre-vail’. All the treaties in this book are, of course, printed in English. It shouldtherefore be borne in mind by the reader that, in cases where the ‘authentic’ text isnot English, the version given here in a technical sense is not legally binding –even where it is an ‘official’ translation.

T

It is not necessary that states have diplomatic relations with each other in order toconclude treaties (although it helps). This book contains a number of agreementsconcluded between states which had no diplomatic relations at the time of signa-ture. The Cuba–United States agreement on hijacking of February (p. ) is a casein point. An interesting example of such an agreement was the arrangementbetween Iran and the United States for settlement of the hostage crisis in January (p. ). Here relations between the two parties were so strained that theagreement took the form of a declaration by a third party (Algeria). It was nonethe less regarded as legally binding on the USA and Iran.

There is a wide range of choice as to the means by which a country mayassume treaty obligations. There is no one answer to the question of what needs tobe done before a treaty becomes binding and precisely when this moment occurs.If the treaty is in the form of an exchange of notes it usually comes into force assoon as the documents have been signed, and only rarely is additional ratificationprovided for. The number of treaty agreements under this heading has becomelarge. Such treaties are not necessarily confined to questions of a technical natureor of minor importance. Exchanges of notes may deal with questions of majorimportance or with delicate issues which the parties may prefer not to magnify by

:

the conclusion of a ‘treaty’. An example of the latter was the Anglo–Argentineagreement on the Falklands in (p. ).

Most treaties do not come into force immediately upon signature but requireratification. In some cases, normally emergency situations, however, treaties maybe concluded which expressly stipulate that they come into force at the moment ofsignature and require no ratification. This can sometimes be the case even instates whose normal constitutional practices require ratification by a legislativebody.

In practice, a government has to choose how it will assume treaty obligations.Even where a country has a written constitution which requires the submissionand consent of a representative assembly to a treaty, as is the case in the UnitedStates where Senate is required to approve treaties by a two-thirds majority, meansmay be found to circumvent the powers of such assemblies. Senator WilliamFulbright, the former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,once observed that since , ‘the beginning of this age of crisis . . . the Senate’sconstitutional powers of advice and consent have atrophied into what is widelyregarded as, though never asserted to be, a duty to give prompt consent with aminimum of advice’. Presidents have resorted to ‘executive agreements’ at timeswhen the consent of Senate to a treaty appeared doubtful. The important Anglo–American destroyers/bases agreement, September (p. ) was concluded in thisform.

A treaty is concluded when signed, but where ratification is necessary becomesbinding only when ratified. Traditionally, ratification signified the consent of thesovereign to a treaty negotiated by the sovereign’s plenipotentiary, who might haveno means of consulting the sovereign when negotiating in distant countries. Inmodern times speed of communication has made it possible to submit the actualtext of a treaty to the government before it is signed. The practical importance ofratification now lies in the need to secure the consent of a parliament or otherelected assembly before the government is ready to advise ratification of a treaty.In Britain, though treaty-making powers are vested in the sovereign, the realdecision lies with the government and, where legislation is required to adaptBritish law to bring it into line with that required by the treaty, also with parlia-ment, for the necessary enabling legislation must first be passed by parliamentbefore the treaty can be ratified ‘by the sovereign’ on the advice of the govern-ment. The legislative and treaty-making process of Britain’s adhesion to theEuropean Economic Community provides a good example. It is the practice inBritain for the texts of all treaties requiring ratification to lie on the table of theHouse of Commons for twenty-one days before ratification by the sovereign. InFrance, the constitution, though vesting treaty-making power in the presi-dent, required that a wide range of treaties did not become valid unless embodiedin a law passed by the French parliament. The precise powers of representative

assemblies differ widely, and the constitution and practice of each country have tobe considered separately.

Non-ratification need not necessarily destroy the political effectiveness of atreaty (although it prevents it from having any legal enforceability). The SALT IIAgreement, June (p. ) was never ratified by the US Senate, but the UnitedStates nevertheless undertook voluntarily until to comply with its provisions.The ratification process may, on the other hand, introduce significant modifica-tions into treaties (though these are not binding on other parties except by agree-ment). The reservations attached by the US Senate to its acceptance of thePanama Canal Treaties of (p. ) are a case in point.

Ratification is therefore not always a formality; important treaties may have tobe submitted to the approval of elected assemblies before the government of thestate concerned is able to give its consent to the treaty becoming binding. Thismay be due to constitutional custom or constitutional requirement, or to a gov-ernment’s desire to retain the support of a majority of the elected representativesin order to continue in power.

The drafting of treaties

By this stage it will have become clear that there are no rules as to how a treatyhas to be drawn up. This is a question on which the participants have free choice.But it is possible to speak of some widely adopted conventions which tend to givetreaties certain common forms. Many diplomats in the world’s various foreignministries are employed in treaty drafting: their task is to put the intentions ofthe parties to a treaty in acceptable professional legal phraseology, which can attimes strike the reader as rather stylized and even archaic. By way of example, acommon form of treaty is here considered.

Such a treaty commences with a descriptive title, as for instance the ‘Treaty ofMutual Cooperation and Security between the United States of America andJapan’. Then follows the preamble, beginning with the names or description of theHigh Contracting Parties as ‘The United States of America and Japan’; next thegeneral purpose is set out, ‘Desiring to strengthen the bonds of peace and friend-ship traditionally existing between them etc . . . Having resolved to conclude atreaty of mutual cooperation and security, therefore agree as follows. . . . ’ Thepreamble often includes also, though not in the particular treaty here cited, thenames and designation of the plenipotentiaries who have produced their fullpowers, which have been found in good order, and have agreed as follows. . . . Nextfollow the substantive articles each with a numeral, I, II, III, etc. which constitute theobjectives, the obligations and the rights of the signatories; these articles arefrequently arranged beginning with the more general and leading to the morespecific. Where appropriate, an article follows which sets out the provisions for

:

other states which may wish to accede to the treaty. Next follows an article (orarticles) concerning ratification where this is provided for, the duration of the treatyand provisions for its renewal. Finally a clause is added stating ‘in witness whereof’the undersigned plenipotentiaries have signed this treaty; the place where thetreaty is signed is given, together with a statement as to the authentic languages of thetreaty texts; and last the date is written in, followed by the seals and the signatures ofthe plenipotentiaries. Conventions, Protocols and other types of treaties each havetheir own customary form.

The vocabulary of treaties

Some terms used in treaty-making – a few of them in French and Latin – havespecial meanings.

Accession or adhesion: these terms are used interchangeably to describe the practicewhere a state which is not a party to a treaty later on joins such a treaty. No statehas a right to accede to a treaty; the possibility and method of accession are oftencontained in a clause of the treaty as signed by the original parties to it.

Aggression: the common meaning of the term is an unjustified attack, and effortshave been made to define aggression by means of treaties. For example, a conven-tion was signed in July by Russia, Afghanistan, Estonia, Latvia, Persia,Poland, Rumania and Turkey which defined aggression as having been commit-ted by the state which first (a) declares war on another state, or (b) invades anotherstate with its armed forces, or (c) attacks with its armed forces the territory, navalvessels or aircraft of another state, or (d) initiates a naval blockade of coasts orports of another state; or (e), most interestingly of all, renders ‘aid to armed bandsformed on the territory of a state and invading the territory of another state, orrefuses, despite demands on the part of the state subjected to attack, to take allpossible measures on its own territory to deprive said bands of any aid andprotection’. On December the UN General Assembly adopted a reso-lution which defined aggression as ‘the use of armed force by a state against thesovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or inany other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations’. Thedefinition went on to specify invasion, bombardment, blockade, or the sendinginto another state of ‘armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries’ asexamples of aggression. But it specified that the list was not exhaustive and that‘the Security Council may determine that other acts constitute aggression underthe provisions of the Charter’. Despite the existence of such declarations,however, in the last resort each state or international tribunal has to judge onthe merits of the facts before it decides whether particular actions constituteaggression or not.

Bilateral treaties are those between two states; multilateral treaties are concludedbetween three or more states.

Casus foederis is literally the case contemplated by the treaty, usually one of alliance;it is the event which when it occurs imposes the duty on one or more of the alliesto render the assistance promised in the treaty to the other; casus belli has adifferent meaning frequently confused with casus foederis; casus belli is the provoca-tive action by one state which in the opinion of the injured state justifies it indeclaring war.

Compromis in diplomacy has a meaning different from the everyday modern mean-ing of ‘compromise’. Deriving from the Latin word compromissum, meaning ‘mutualpromise’, a compromis in diplomacy is an agreement to abide by an arbitrator’saward.

Convention is often used as a synonym for treaty. But in recent years it has tended tobe used for multilateral rather than bilateral treaties, as in Genocide Convention (p.), Convention on the Law of the Sea (p. ), etc.

Charter, in the context of treaty-making, is generally used of a treaty that is also aconstitutive document, as in Charter of the United Nations (p. ).

A treaty may also take the form of a Declaration, as in the Israel–PLO Declaration ofPrinciples, September (p. ). It may be bilateral as in that case or multi-lateral as in the case of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (p. ). A declarationmay also be a statement made by a signatory in order to clarify (but not modify) itsposition in relation to the treaty.

Delimitation and demarcation of boundaries: boundaries of state territories are thelines drawn to divide the sovereignties of adjoining states. They form the fron-tiers of each country. Concern for frontiers is the basis of the majority ofpolitical treaties, and the cause of many conflicts and wars. When a boundarycan be drawn on a map and is accepted by the states which are divided by it,even though the boundary has not been physically marked out on the ground byfrontier posts, then it is said to have been delimited. The frontier is also demarcatedwhen it has been physically set out on the ground and not just marked on a map.The distinction between delimitation and demarcation is an important one.European frontiers have all been both delimited and demarcated. The same isnot true of all boundary lines in the world, especially in difficult andunpopulated regions. There are no settled principles of demarcation, thoughthere are certain common practices, such as to draw boundary lines through themiddle of land-locked seas and rivers where they lie between two states. Estuar-ies and mountain ranges, however, cause more difficulty. In the absence ofspecific agreements the demarcation of an actual frontier based on a general

:

boundary treaty signed much earlier – quite possibly when the state of geo-graphical knowledge was imperfect – can become a matter of serious dispute. Toavoid such disputes countries sometimes sign treaties setting out how a boundaryis to be demarcated; an example is the boundary treaty between Great Britainand the United States of April respecting the demarcation of theboundary between Canada and the United States. In other cases of dispute thetwo nations may resort to arbitration by a third party; or a commission of twostates or an international commission may have the power to demarcate bound-aries. There are still boundaries which have been neither delimited nor demar-cated; instead there is a de facto line. This is true of many stretches of boundariesin Asia. Sometimes boundaries have been arbitrarily drawn by cartographersover country so difficult that it has not been surveyed and mapped with completeaccuracy.

Demilitarization is an agreement between two or more states by treaty not to fortifyor station troops in a particular zone of territory; such zones are known asdemilitarized zones.

Denunciation is the giving of notice by a state of its intention to terminate a treaty.Some treaties provide for termination by one of the parties on giving of a certainperiod of notice. Others contain no such provision but are neverthelessdenounced. Denunciation of treaties is a common occurrence after revolutionarychanges in government, where the incoming régime adopts a different diplomaticstance from its predecessor. But international law recognizes no automatic right tosuch unilateral denunciation.

Internationalization refers to the placing under multilateral control of land or seaareas. Rivers (such as the Danube) have also often been the subject of suchagreements.

L.S. = loco sigilli, ‘[in] place of the seal’, formula sometimes used by signatories offormal agreements.

Modus vivendi usually refers to a temporary or provisional agreement which it isintended shall later be replaced by a more permanent and detailed treaty.

Most-favoured-nation clause: many commercial treaties between countries containthis clause, the effect of which is that any commercial advantages either state hasgranted in the past to other nations, or may grant in the future, have to be grantedalso to the signatories of a treaty which contains a most-favoured-nation clause.The intent is therefore that the commercial advantages of two states which havesigned a treaty with this provision shall never be less than those of any third statewhich is not a signatory. The United States has not recognized quite sounconditional an operation of this clause.

Procès-verbal is the official record or minutes of the daily proceedings of a confer-ence and of any conclusions arrived at, and is frequently signed by the partici-pants; a Protocol is sometimes used in the same sense but more accurately is adocument which constitutes an international agreement.

Ratification is the act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound by a treaty.Often the internal laws or constitutions of a state prescribe the particular form orprocedure for ratification.

Registration is required under article of the Charter of the United Nations forall treaties entered into by UN members. The non-registration of a treaty does notaffect its validity – although non-registered treaties may not be invoked before anyorgan of the UN.

Reservation is defined in the Vienna Convention as meaning ‘a unilateral statement,however phrased or named, made by a state, when signing, ratifying, accepting,approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify thelegal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State’.The International Court of Justice, in an advisory opinion in concerningreservations to the Genocide Convention (see p. ), declared that ‘no reserva-tion was valid unless it was accepted by all the contracting parties’. The ViennaConvention does provide for reservations, and lays down rules (articles –)concerning their formulation, acceptance, legal effects, withdrawal, andprocedure.

Revision of treaties (save where the treaty itself specifically provides for subsequentchanges) is generally permissible only by agreement of the parties.

Where a negotiator signs a treaty ad referendum, this means that his signature isconditional upon confirmation by his government.

Sine qua non describes a condition or conditions that have to be accepted byanother party to a proposed agreement; it implies that without such acceptancethe agreement cannot be proceeded with.

Status quo: the common meaning is the state of affairs existing, but an agreementcan refer specifically to a previous state of affairs as for instance in the phrase statusquo ante bellum which means the state existing before the war began, for example,as relating to frontiers.

Succession has been the subject of a further Vienna Convention on the Succession ofStates in Respect of Treaties, which was opened for signature on August . Thisstates that ‘ “succession of states” means the replacement of one State by anotherin the responsibility for the international relations of territory’.

:

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May

The States Parties to the present Conven-tion

Considering the fundamental role oftreaties in the history of internationalrelations,

Recognizing the ever-increasing im-portance of treaties as a source of inter-national law and as a means of developingpeaceful co-operation among nations,whatever their constitutional and socialsystems,

Noting that the principles of free consentand of good faith and the pacta sunt servandarule are universally recognized,

Affirming that disputes concerning treat-ies, like other international disputes, shouldbe settled by peaceful means and in con-formity with the principles of justice andinternational law,

Recalling the determination of thepeoples of the United Nations to establishconditions under which justice and respectfor the obligations arising from treaties canbe maintained,

Having in mind the principles of inter-national law embodied in the Charter ofthe United Nations, such as the principlesof the equal rights and self-determinationof peoples, of the sovereign equality andindependence of all States, of noninterfer-ence in the domestic affairs of States, of theprohibition of the threat or use of force andof universal respect for, and observance of,human rights and fundamental freedomsfor all,

Believing that the codification and pro-gressive development of the law of treatiesachieved in the present Convention willpromote the purposes of the UnitedNations set forth in the Charter, namely, themaintenance of international peace andsecurity, the development of friendly rela-tions and the achievement of co-operationamong nations,

Affirming that the rules of customaryinternational law will continue to governquestions not regulated by the provisions ofthe present Convention,

Have agreed as follows:

Part I · Introduction

Article . Scope of the present Convention. Thepresent Convention applies to treatiesbetween States.

Article . Use of terms. . For the purposes ofthe present Convention:

(a) ‘treaty’ means an internationalagreement concluded between States inwritten form and governed by internationallaw, whether embodied in a single instru-ment or in two or more related instrumentsand whatever its particular designation;

(b) ‘ratification’, ‘acceptance’, ‘approval’and ‘accession’ mean in each case theinternational act so named whereby a Stateestablishes on the international plane itsconsent to be bound by a treaty;

(c) ‘full powers’ means a documentemanating from the competent authority ofa State designating a person or persons torepresent the State for negotiating, adopt-ing or authenticating the text of a treaty, forexpressing the consent of the State to bebound by a treaty, or for accomplishing anyother act with respect to a treaty;

(d) ‘reservation’ means a unilateral state-ment, however phrased or named, made bya State, when signing, ratifying, accepting,approving or acceding to a treaty, wherebyit purports to exclude or to modify the legaleffect of certain provisions of the treaty intheir application to that State;

(e) ‘negotiating State’ means a Statewhich took part in the drawing up andadoption of the text of the treaty;

(f) ‘contracting State’ means a Statewhich has consented to be bound by thetreaty, whether or not the treaty has enteredinto force;

(g) ‘party’ means a State which has con-sented to be bound by the treaty and forwhich the treaty is in force;

(h) ‘third State’ means a State not a partyto the treaty;

(i) ‘international organization’ means anintergovernmental organization.

. The provisions of paragraph re-garding the use of terms in the present

Convention are without prejudice to theuse of those terms or to the meaningswhich may be given to them in the internallaw of any State.

Article . International agreements not within thescope of the present Convention. The fact thatthe present Convention does not apply tointernational agreements concludedbetween States and other subjects of inter-national law or between such other subjectsof international law, or to internationalagreements not in written form, shall notaffect:

(a) the legal force of such agreements;(b) the application to them of any of the

rules set forth in the present Convention towhich they would be subject under inter-national law independently of theConvention;

(c) the application of the Convention tothe relations of States as between them-selves under international agreements towhich other subjects of international laware also parties.

Article . Non-retroactivity of the present Conven-tion. Without prejudice to the application ofany rules set forth in the present Conven-tion to which treaties would be subjectunder international law independently ofthe Convention, the Convention appliesonly to treaties which are concluded byStates after the entry into force of the pre-sent Convention with regard to such States.

Article . Treaties constituting internationalorganizations and treaties adopted within aninternational organization. The presentConvention applies to any treaty which isthe constituent instrument of an inter-national organization and to any treatyadopted within an international organiza-tion without prejudice to any relevant rulesof the organization.

Part II · Conclusion and entry intoforce of treaties

S · C

Article . Capacity of states to conclude treaties.Every State possesses capacity to concludetreaties.Article . Full powers. . A person is con-

sidered as representing a State for the pur-pose of adopting or authenticating the textof a treaty or for the purpose of expressingthe consent of the State to be bound by atreaty if:

(a) he produces appropriate full powers;or

(b) it appears from the practice of theStates concerned or from other circum-stances that their intention was to considerthat person as representing the State forsuch purposes and to dispense with fullpowers.

. In virtue of their functions and with-out having to produce full powers, the fol-lowing are considered as representing theirState:

(a) Heads of State, Heads of Govern-ment and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, forthe purpose of performing all acts relatingto the conclusion of a treaty;

(b) heads of diplomatic missions, for thepurpose of adopting the text of a treatybetween the accrediting State and the Stateto which they are accredited;

(c) representatives accredited by States toan international conference or to an inter-national organization or one of its organs,for the purpose of adopting the text of atreaty in that conference, organization ororgan.

Article . Subsequent confirmation of an act per-formed without authorization. An act relating tothe conclusion of a treaty performed by aperson who cannot be considered underarticle as authorized to represent a Statefor that purpose is without legal effectunless afterwards confirmed by thatState.

Article . Adoption of the text. . The adoptionof the text of a treaty takes place by theconsent of all the States participating in itsdrawing up except as provided in para-graph .

. The adoption of the text of a treaty atan international conference takes place bythe vote of two-thirds of the States presentand voting, unless by the same majoritythey shall decide to apply a different rule.

Article . Authentication of the text. The text

:

of a treaty is established as authentic anddefinitive:

(a) by such procedure as may be providedfor in the text or agreed upon by the Statesparticipating in its drawing up; or

(b) failing such procedure, by the signa-ture, signature ad referendum or initialling bythe representatives of those States of thetext of the treaty or of the Final Act of aconference incorporating the text.

Article . Means of expressing consent to be boundby a treaty. The consent of a State to bebound by a treaty may be expressed by sig-nature, exchange of instruments constitut-ing a treaty, ratification, acceptance,approval or accession, or by any othermeans if so agreed.

Article . Consent to be bound by a treaty expressedby signature. . The consent of a State to bebound by a treaty is expressed by the signa-ture of its representative when:

(a) the treaty provides that signature shallhave that effect;

(b) it is otherwise established that thenegotiating States were agreed that signa-ture should have that effect; or

(c) the intention of the State to give thateffect to the signature appears from the fullpowers of its representative or wasexpressed during the negotiation.

. For the purposes of paragraph :(a) the initialling of a text constitutes a

signature of the treaty when it is establishedthat the negotiating States so agreed;

(b) the signature ad referendum of a treatyby a representative, if confirmed by hisState, constitutes a full signature of thetreaty.

Article . Consent to be bound by a treaty expressedby an exchange of instruments constituting a treaty.The consent of States to be boundby a treaty constituted by instrumentsexchanged between them is expressed bythat exchange when:

(a) the instruments provide that theirexchange shall have that effect; or

(b) it is otherwise established that thoseStates were agreed that the exchange ofinstruments should have that effect.

Article . Consent to be bound by a treaty expressedby ratification, acceptance or approval. . The

consent of a State to be bound by a treaty isexpressed by ratification when:

(a) the treaty provides for such consent tobe expressed by means of ratification;

(b) it is otherwise established that thenegotiating States were agreed that ratifica-tion should be required;

(c) the representative of the State hassigned the treaty subject to ratification; or

(d) the intention of the State to sign thetreaty subject to ratification appears fromthe full powers of its representative or wasexpressed during the negotiation.

. The consent of a State to be bound bya treaty is expressed by acceptance orapproval under conditions similar to thosewhich apply to ratification.

Article . Consent to be bound by a treaty expressedby accession. The consent of a State to bebound by a treaty is expressed by accessionwhen:

(a) the treaty provides that such consentmay be expressed by that State by means ofaccession;

(b) it is otherwise established that thenegotiating States were agreed that suchconsent may be expressed by that State bymeans of accession; or

(c) all the parties have subsequentlyagreed that such consent may be expressedby that State by means of accession.

Article . Exchange or deposit of instruments ofratification, acceptance, approval or accession.Unless the treaty otherwise provides,instruments of ratification, acceptance,approval or accession establish the consentof a State to be bound by a treaty upon:

(a) their exchange between the contract-ing States;

(b) their deposit with the depositary; or(c) their notification to the contracting

States or to the depositary, if so agreed.

Article . Consent to be bound by part of a treatyand choice of differing provisions. . Withoutprejudice to articles to , the consent ofa State to be bound by part of a treaty iseffective only if the treaty so permits or theother contracting States so agree.

. The consent of a State to be bound bya treaty which permits a choice between dif-fering provisions is effective only if it is

made clear to which of the provisions theconsent relates.

Article . Obligation not to defeat the object andpurpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force. AState is obliged to refrain from acts whichwould defeat the object and purpose of atreaty when:

(a) it has signed the treaty or hasexchanged instruments constituting thetreaty subject to ratification, acceptance orapproval, until it shall have made its inten-tion clear not to become a party to thetreaty; or

(b) it has expressed its consent to bebound by the treaty, pending the entry intoforce of the treaty and provided that suchentry into force is not unduly delayed.

S · R

Article . Formulation of reservations. A Statemay, when signing, ratifying, accepting,approving or acceding to a treaty, formulatea reservation unless:

(a) the reservation is prohibited by thetreaty;

(b) the treaty provides that only specifiedreservations, which do not include the re-servation in question, may be made; or

(c) in cases not falling under sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), the reservation isincompatible with the object and purposeof the treaty.

Article . Acceptance of and objection to reserva-tions. . A reservation expressly authorizedby a treaty does not require any subsequentacceptance by the other contracting Statesunless the treaty so provides.

. When it appears from the limitednumber of the negotiating States and theobject and purpose of a treaty that theapplication of the treaty in its entiretybetween all the parties is an essential condi-tion of the consent of each one to be boundby the treaty, a reservation requires accept-ance by all the parties.

. When a treaty is a constituent instru-ment of an international organization andunless it otherwise provides, a reservationrequires the acceptance of the competentorgan of that organization.

. In cases not falling under the preced-

ing paragraphs and unless the treaty other-wise provides:

(a) acceptance by another contractingState of a reservation constitutes the reserv-ing State a party to the treaty in relation tothat other State if or when the treaty is inforce for those States;

(b) an objection by another contractingState to a reservation does not preclude theentry into force of the treaty as between theobjecting and reserving States unless a con-trary intention is definitely expressed by theobjecting State;

(c) an act expressing a State’s consent tobe bound by the treaty and containing areservation is effective as soon as at leastone other contracting State has acceptedthe reservation.

. For the purposes of paragraphs and and unless the treaty otherwise provides, areservation is considered to have beenaccepted by a State if it shall have raised noobjection to the reservation by the end of aperiod of twelve months after it was noti-fied of the reservation or by the date onwhich it expressed its consent to be boundby the treaty, whichever is later.

Article . Legal effects of reservations and ofobjections to reservations. . A reservation estab-lished with regard to another party inaccordance with articles , and :

(a) modifies for the reserving State in itsrelations with that other party the provi-sions of the treaty to which the reservationrelates to the extent of the reservation;and

(b) modifies those provisions to the sameextent for that other party in its relationswith the reserving State.

. The reservation does not modify theprovisions of the treaty for the other partiesto the treaty inter se.

. When a State objecting to a reserva-tion has not opposed the entry into force ofthe treaty between itself and the reservingState, the provisions to which the reserva-tion relates do not apply as between the twoStates to the extent of the reservation.

Article . Withdrawal of reservations and ofobjections to reservations. . Unless the treatyotherwise provides, a reservation may bewithdrawn at any time and the consent of a

:

State which has accepted the reservation isnot required for its withdrawal.

. Unless the treaty otherwise provides,an objection to a reservation may be with-drawn at any time.

. Unless the treaty otherwise provides,or it is otherwise agreed:

(a) the withdrawal of a reservationbecomes operative in relation to anothercontracting State only when notice of it hasbeen received by that State;

(b) the withdrawal of an objection to areservation becomes operative only whennotice of it has been received by the Statewhich formulated the reservation.

Article . Procedure regarding reservations. . Areservation, an express acceptance of a re-servation and an objection to a reservationmust be formulated in writing and com-municated to the contracting States andother States entitled to become parties tothe treaty.

. If formulated when signing the treatysubject to ratification, acceptance orapproval, a reservation must be formallyconfirmed by the reserving State whenexpressing its consent to be bound by thetreaty. In such a case the reservation shallbe considered as having been made on thedate of its confirmation.

. An express acceptance of, or an objec-tion to, a reservation made previously toconfirmation of the reservation does notitself require confirmation.

. The withdrawal of a reservation or ofan objection to a reservation must be for-mulated in writing.

S · E -

Article . Entry into force. . A treaty entersinto force in such manner and upon suchdate as it may provide or as the negotiatingStates may agree.

. Failing any such provision or agree-ment, a treaty enters into force as soon asconsent to be bound by the treaty has beenestablished for all the negotiating States.

. When the consent of a State to bebound by a treaty is established on a dateafter the treaty has come into force, the

treaty enters into force for that State on thatdate, unless the treaty otherwise provides.

. The provisions of a treaty regulatingthe authentication of its text, the establish-ment of the consent of States to be boundby the treaty, the manner or date of itsentry into force, reservations, the functionsof the depositary and other matters arisingnecessarily before the entry into force of thetreaty apply from the time of the adoptionof its text.

Article . Provisional application. . A treaty ora part of a treaty is applied provisionallypending its entry into force if:

(a) the treaty itself so provides; or(b) the negotiating States have in some

other manner so agreed.. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or

the negotiating States have otherwiseagreed, the provisional application of atreaty or a part of a treaty with respect to aState shall be terminated if that State noti-fies the other States between which thetreaty is being applied provisionally of itsintention not to become a party to thetreaty.

Part III · Observance, applicationand interpretation of treaties

S · O

Article . Pacta sunt servanda. Every treaty inforce is binding upon the parties to it andmust be performed by them in good faith.

Article . Internal law and observance of treaties.A party may not invoke the provisions ofits internal law as justification for its failureto perform a treaty. This rule is withoutprejudice to article .

S · A

Article . Non-retroactivity of treaties. Unless adifferent intention appears from the treatyor is otherwise established, its provisions donot bind a party in relation to any act orfact which took place or any situation whichceased to exist before the date of the entryinto force of the treaty with respect to thatparty.

Article . Territorial scope of treaties. Unless adifferent intention appears from the treatyor is otherwise established, a treaty is bind-ing upon each party in respect of its entireterritory.

Article . Application of successive treaties relatingto the same subject-matter. . Subject to article of the Charter of the United Nations,the rights and obligations of States partiesto successive treaties relating to the samesubject-matter shall be determined inaccordance with the following paragraphs.

. When a treaty specifies that it is subjectto, or that it is not to be considered asincompatible with, an earlier or later treaty,the provisions of that other treaty prevail.

. When all the parties to the earliertreaty are parties also to the later treaty butthe earlier treaty is not terminated or sus-pended in operation under article , theearlier treaty applies only to the extent thatits provisions are compatible with those ofthe later treaty.

. When the parties to the later treaty donot include all the parties to the earlier one:

(a) as between States parties to both treat-ies the same rule applies as in paragraph ;

(b) as between a State party to both treat-ies and a State party to only one of thetreaties, the treaty to which both States areparties governs their mutual rights andobligations.

. Paragraph is without prejudice toarticle , or to any question of the termina-tion or suspension of the operation of atreaty under article or to any question ofresponsibility which may arise for a Statefrom the conclusion or application of atreaty, the provisions of which areincompatible with its obligations towardsanother State under another treaty.

S · I

Article . General rule of interpretation. . Atreaty shall be interpreted in good faith inaccordance with the ordinary meaning tobe given to the terms of the treaty in theircontext and in the light of its object andpurpose.

. The context for the purpose of theinterpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in

addition to the text, including its preambleand annexes:

(a) any agreement relating to the treatywhich was made between all the parties inconnexion with the conclusion of thetreaty;

(b) any instrument which was made byone or more parties in connexion with theconclusion of the treaty and accepted bythe other parties as an instrument related tothe treaty.

. There shall be taken into account,together with the context:

(a) any subsequent agreement betweenthe parties regarding the interpretation ofthe treaty or the application of itsprovisions;

(b) any subsequent practice in the appli-cation of the treaty which establishes theagreement of the parties regarding itsinterpretation;

(c) any relevant rules of international lawapplicable in the relations between theparties.

. A special meaning shall be given to aterm if it is established that the parties sointended.

Article . Supplementary means of interpretation.Recourse may be had to supplementarymeans of interpretation, including the pre-paratory work of the treaty and the cir-cumstances of its conclusion, in order toconfirm the meaning resulting from theapplication of article , or to determinethe meaning when the interpretationaccording to article :

(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous orobscure; or

(b) leads to a result which is manifestlyabsurd or unreasonable.

Article . Interpretation of treaties authenticated intwo or more languages. . When a treaty hasbeen authenticated in two or more lan-guages, the text is equally authoritative ineach language, unless the treaty provides orthe parties agree that, in case of divergence,a particular text shall prevail.

. A version of the treaty in a languageother than one of those in which the textwas authenticated shall be considered anauthentic text only if the treaty so providesor the parties so agree.

: