Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 30. Application of successive treaties relating to the same subject matter

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

  • 6149 Accesses

Abstract

Conflicts between norms relating to the same subject matter are no peculiarity of public international law. However, while such conflicts can be solved quite clearly in domestic law due to its hierarchical structure, the same problem gives rise to many difficulties at international level. Public international law is characterized by the lack of a central legislator and, therefore, by the lack of a comprehensive hierarchical order as well as by the lack of continuity and systematic congruency in international law making. Public international law is a ‘fragmented’ legal order where the probability of contradictions and the need for rules of conflict resolution is extremely high. Colliding treaties are, therefore, no new phenomenon in public international law. The rapidly increasing number of treaties, however, has aggravated the dimension of the problem dramatically.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In 2002, the ILC established a Study Group to examine the topic of “Fragmentation of International Law”. In 2006, the Study Group presented its conclusions (18 July 2006, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.702). One of the sub-topics of fragmentation was the question of the application of successive treaties relating to the same subject matter.

  2. 2.

    See M Zuleeg Vertragskonkurrenz im Völkerrecht Teil I: Verträge zwischen souveränen Staaten (1977) 20 GYIL 246; Sinclair 93; W Karl Treaties, Conflicts between (2000) EPIL 935, 936; F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 2; A Boyle/C Chinkin The Making of International Law (2007) 248.

  3. 3.

    See Karl (n 2) 936–937. Sinclair 96 refers to Nascimento e Silva and lists two further principles: the principle of autonomous operation and the principle of legislative intent.

  4. 4.

    See Sinclair 96; G Dahm/J Delbrück/R Wolfrum Völkerrecht Vol I/3 (2nd edn 2002) 687; N Matz-Lück Treaties, Conflict Clauses in MPEPIL (2008) MN 3; Karl (n 2) 938.

  5. 5.

    An overview of the negotiating history of Art 30 is offered by F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 1–15; Karl (n 2) 937–938 and (briefly) Sinclair 93–94.

  6. 6.

    Lauterpacht I 156.

  7. 7.

    F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 5.

  8. 8.

    Lauterpacht II 133.

  9. 9.

    Fitzmaurice III 26–27.

  10. 10.

    Waldock II 53.

  11. 11.

    Waldock III 34.

  12. 12.

    UNCLOT II 252–253.

  13. 13.

    UNCLOT II 57.

  14. 14.

    Sinclair 93.

  15. 15.

    Lauterpacht I 156; Waldock II 57, 60; F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 18; Aust 215.

  16. 16.

    See PCIJ The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions PCIJ Ser A No 2, 31 (1924); Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube PCIJ Ser B No 14, 23 (1927); Oscar Chinn Case PCIJ Ser A/B No 63, 80 (1934) together with the dissenting opinion of Judge Hurst 122–123.

  17. 17.

    JB Mus Conflicts between Treaties in International Law (1998) NILR 208, 211–212; F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 18; Aust 228. However, not all scholars agree: according to N Matz Wege zur Koordinierung völkerrechtlicher Verträge: Völkervertragsrechtliche und institutionelle Ansätze (2005) 316, Art 30 does not reflect customary international law. According to Villiger Art 30 MN 21, however, “Art 30 may be considered as being customary as a whole”.

  18. 18.

    F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 16, 21–22; Aust 228; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 216 para 9.

  19. 19.

    Karl (n 2) 940.

  20. 20.

    ECJ (CJ) Commission v United Kingdom C-466/98 [2002] ECR I-9427.

  21. 21.

    See M Ličková European Exceptionalism in International Law (2008) 19 EJIL 463, 469 et seq.

  22. 22.

    See the very clear questions and examples provided by Sinclair (United Kingdom), UNCLOT I 165. For a detailed reproduction of the discussions within the ICJ, see EW Vierdag The Time of the ‘Conclusion’ of a Multilateral Treaty: Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Related Provisions (1988) BYIL 75, 92 et seq.

  23. 23.

    See the proposal of Sinclair (United Kingdom), UNCLOT II 222 and the confirmation by the Expert Consultant Waldock, UNCLOT II 253. See also the statement of Pinto (Ceylon), UNCLOT II 56.

  24. 24.

    See Aust 229; Zuleeg (n 2) 256; Matz-Lück (n 4) MN 25. According to Vierdag (n 22) 96, however, the date of entry into force is the decisive one. This view is strongly criticized by Mus (n 17) 221–222.

  25. 25.

    Sinclair 98; Aust 229; Zuleeg (n 2) 256.

  26. 26.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 214 para 1, 217 para 13.

  27. 27.

    Karl (n 2) 936; F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 27 et seq.

  28. 28.

    Zuleeg (n 2) 257.

  29. 29.

    The explanation was that such cases constituted questions of interpretation rather than questions of application of treaties, see Sinclair, UNCLOT II 222; Sinclair (United Kingdom) 98. SR Waldock confirmed this view, see UNCLOT II 253.

  30. 30.

    Aust 229; F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 26; Boyle/Chinkin (n 2) 251.

  31. 31.

    F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 24, 28.

  32. 32.

    See Karl (n 2) 936; Paolillo (n 2) 1265–1266; Matz-Lück (n 4) MN 5. A detailed analysis of the notion of conflict is made by SA Sadat-Akhavi Methods of Resolving Conflicts between Treaties (2003) 5 et seq.

  33. 33.

    Aust 216; Matz-Lück (n 4) MN 20; Sadat-Akhavi (n 32) 25 et seq.

  34. 34.

    Matz-Lück (n 4) MN 90; Karl (n 2) 936; Matz (n 17) 249 et seq; Villiger Art 30 MN 9.

  35. 35.

    Most scholars agree that there is no general hierarchy either between the different sources or between the different treaties in public international law. Some scholars, however, classify the UN Charter as the “Constitution” of public international law that has a higher rank than the other treaties, see eg B Fassbender The United Nations Charter as Constitution of the International Community (1998) 36 Columbia JTL 529–619; P-M Dupuy The Constitutional Dimension of the Charter of the United Nations Revisited (1997) 1 Max Planck UNYB 1–33.

  36. 36.

    See Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 214 para 3.

  37. 37.

    For more details, see Dahm/Delbrück/Wolfrum (n 4) 689 et seq; Mus (n 17) 216–217; WH Wilting Vertragskonkurrenz im Völkerrecht (1996) 56 et seq.

  38. 38.

    Dahm/Delbrück/Wolfrum (n 4) 687.

  39. 39.

    See Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 214 para 4; Sinclair 97; F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 19; Aust 227.

  40. 40.

    Matz-Lück (n 4) MN 1.

  41. 41.

    Karl (n 2) 939. For a detailed analysis of the debate within the ILC during the negotiation process, see F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 36.

  42. 42.

    Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 596 UNTS 261.

  43. 43.

    P Manzini The Priority of Pre-Existing Treaties of EC Member States within the Framework of International Law (2001) 12 EJIL 781, 782.

  44. 44.

    Karl (n 2) 939–940; Dahm/Delbrück/Wolfrum (n 4) 701 et seq.

  45. 45.

    For the different types of conflict clauses, see Aust 219 et seq; Matz-Lück (n 4) MN 7 et seq; Mus (n 17) 214 et seq; Dahm/Delbrück/Wolfrum (n 4) 696 et seq; Wilting (n 37) 67 et seq; Sadat-Akhavi (n 32) 84 et seq; Villiger Art 30 MN 11 et seq.

  46. 46.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 214 et seq.; Matz-Lück (n 4) MN 10.

  47. 47.

    North Atlantic Treaty 34 UNTS 243.

  48. 48.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 214 para 2.

  49. 49.

    Matz-Lück (n 4) MN 4; Mus (n 17)) 216; Karl (n 2) 939.

  50. 50.

    Matz-Lück (n 4) MN 10.

  51. 51.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 216 para 9; Karl (n 2) 939; Matz-Lück (n 4) MN 15.

  52. 52.

    The only exception may be Art 103 UN Charter. According to some legal scholars it has the effect of making treaties void where they are not compatible with the UN Charter, see eg Dahm/Delbrück/Wolfrum (n 4) 685–686. Most legal scholars do not share this view, see eg Mus (n 17) 216; F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 34.

  53. 53.

    F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 39.

  54. 54.

    For a historical overview of the development of the lex posterior principle in public international law, see Karl (n 2) 937.

  55. 55.

    Mus (n 17) 9; F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 41.

  56. 56.

    PCIJ The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (n 16) 31.

  57. 57.

    Vierdag (n 22) 95–96; Mus (n 17) 219.

  58. 58.

    Karl (n 2) 938; Wilting (n 37) 99 et seq.

  59. 59.

    F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 47. The Final Draft suggested the inclusion of two separate provisions, one for earlier treaties (lit b) and one for later treaties (lit c). The Drafting Committee, however, united lit b and lit c in one single lit b, see UNCLOT II 252–253.

  60. 60.

    For the three constellations regulated by para 3 lit b and the problems resulting in each case, see Karl (n 2) 938–939. See also Matz-Lück (n 4) MN 24. It is worth mentioning that the Secretary-General as depositary of UN Conventions has in a way ‘capitulated’ in view of the large number and the complexity of possible situations that may result from the application of both the earlier and the later treaty by various States. He declared that he “does not specify between which States the treaties apply and, when notifying the parties of the deposit of an instrument in respect of the said treaties, restricts himself to recalling the relevant provisions of the treaties concerned”, see 1999 Summary of Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties, UN Doc ST/LEG/7/Rev.1, para 262.

  61. 61.

    Mus (n 17) 225; Karl (n 2) 939.

  62. 62.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 217 para 11; Aust 228; Karl (n 2) 938.

  63. 63.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 217 para 11.

  64. 64.

    F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 56.

  65. 65.

    Mus (n 17) 225 et seq.

  66. 66.

    F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 57.

  67. 67.

    Particularly critical remarks on this point are made by F Paolillo in Corten/Klein Art 30 MN 60–61.

  68. 68.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 217 para 11.

  69. 69.

    See eg Boyle/Chinkin (n 2) 250–251; Sinclair 98; Vierdag (n 22) 110; Mus (n 17) 227 et seq; C Yamada Priority Application of Successive Treaties Relating to the Same Subject Matter in N Ando/E McWhinney/R Wolfrum (eds) Festschrift Oda (2002) 763, 768 and especially CJ Borgen Resolving Treaty Conflicts (2005) 37 George Washington International Law Review 573 et seq.

  70. 70.

    Mus (n 17) 227 et seq; Sadat-Akhavi (n 32) 70 et seq; Dahm/Delbrück/Wolfrum (n 4) 694.

  71. 71.

    Sinclair 98; Vierdag (n 22) 110; M Benzing US Bilateral Non-Surrender Agreements and Article 98 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court: An Exercise in the Law of Treaties (2004) 8 Max Planck UNYB 181, 226; Sadat-Akhavi (n 32) 82 et seq.

  72. 72.

    Yamada (n 69) 763 et seq; P Zapatero Modern International Law and the Advent of Special Legal Systems (2005) 23 AJICL 55, 63 et seq. Consequently, Yamada pleads for the preparation of new guidelines to supplement Art 30 in order to allow for an adequate choice of dispute settlement procedures in a single and identical dispute falling under two compatible treaties.

  73. 73.

    Borgen (n 69) 583 et seq, 634 et seq; Sadat-Akhavi (n 32) 99 et seq, 197 et seq.

Selected Bibliography

  • CJ Borgen Resolving Treaty Conflicts (2005) 37 George Washington International Law Review 573–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • W Karl Treaties, Conflicts between (2000) 4 EPIL 935–941.

    Google Scholar 

  • N Matz Wege zur Koordinierung völkerrechtlicher Verträge: Völkervertragsrechtliche und institutionelle Ansätze (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • N Matz-Lück Treaties, Conflicts between in MPEPIL (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • JB Mus Conflicts between Treaties in International Law (1998) NILR 208–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • SA Sadat-Akhavi Methods of Resolving Conflicts between Treaties (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • EW Vierdag The Time of the ‘Conclusion’ of a Multilateral Treaty: Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Related Provisions (1988) BYIL 75–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • WH Wilting Vertragskonkurrenz im Völkerrecht (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • M Zuleeg Vertragskonkurrenz im Völkerrecht, Teil I: Verträge zwischen souveränen Staaten (1977) 20 GYIL 246–276.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, 49069, Osnabrück, Germany

    Professor Dr. Oliver Dörr LL.M. (Lond.)

  2. Faculty of Law Department of Public Law/International Law, University of Salzburg, 5020, Salzburg, Austria

    Professor Dr. Kirsten Schmalenbach

Authors
  1. Professor Dr. Oliver Dörr LL.M. (Lond.)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Professor Dr. Kirsten Schmalenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Dörr LL.M. (Lond.) .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, 49069, Germany

    Oliver Dörr

  2. , Law Faculty, University of Salzburg, Churfürst Strasse 1, Salzburg, 5020, Austria

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (2012). Article 30. Application of successive treaties relating to the same subject matter. In: Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (eds) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19291-3_33

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation