Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties pp 81–88Cite as

Article 4. Non-retroactivity of the present Convention

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

As outlined in the 7th recital of the Preamble, the Convention does not only codify existing norms of customary law but achieves a progressive development of the law of treaties as well. It is only the latter category that raises the issue of retroactivity. For the purpose of legal certainty, Art 4 – having the character of a conflict rule (→Art 28 MN 2) – explicitly precludes the application of progressive rules to past treaties. Assessed in the light of Art 28, the provision’s main function is to clarify that retroactivity of the VCLT is not intended by the drafters (→MN 12). If, however, the VCLT provisions reflect established customary law, these rules are applicable to treaties concluded by States Parties prior to the entry into force of the Convention on 29 January 1980 or before the date of their accession (→ MN 11).

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v Namibia) [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, para 18; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [2006] ICJ Rep 6, para 125.

  2. 2.

    S Rosenne The Temporal Application of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1970) 4 Cornell ILJ 1, 5.

  3. 3.

    UNCLOT II 273 para 52.

  4. 4.

    UNCLOT II 316 para 64.

  5. 5.

    So-called five-State proposal (Brazil, Chile, Kenya, Sweden and Tunisia) UNCLOT III 252 para 136; for criticism on the Venezuelan proposal, see eg the statements of the representatives of Uruguay and Spain UNCLOT II 323 para 2, 328 para 42; for details, see PV McDade The Effect of Article 4 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1986) ICLQ 499, 501.

  6. 6.

    UNCLOT III 229 paras 136–143.

  7. 7.

    Yasseen (Chairman of the Drafting Committee) UNCLOT II 165 para 8.

  8. 8.

    The 6th recital of the Preamble also refers to the principle of equal rights, sovereign equality and independence of all States, non-interference, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

  9. 9.

    Cf the statement of the representative of Italy UNCLOT II 320–321 para 36.

  10. 10.

    For many, see A Pellet in A Zimmermann/C Tomuschat/K Oellers-Frahm (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice (2nd edn 2006) Art 38 MN 209 with further references to consistent jurisprudence of the ICJ.

  11. 11.

    See eg ICJ Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 183; Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru) [1950] ICJ Rep 266, 276–277; North Sea Continental Shelf (Germany v Denmark, Germany v Netherlands) [1969] ICJ Rep 3, para 77; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 226, paras 65 et seq; Continental Shelf (Libya v Malta) [1985] ICJ Rep 13, para 27.

  12. 12.

    See M Akehurst Custom as a Source of International Law (1974/1975) 47 BYIL 1, 42 et seq; RR Baxter Treaties and Custom (1970) 129 RdC 25, 89–101; H Thirlway International Customary Law and Codification (1972) 80–81; for a critical approach, see AM Weisburd Customary International Law: The Problem of Treaties (1988) 21 Vanderbilt JTL 1, 11.

  13. 13.

    ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf (n 11) para 73; Asylum (n 11) 277. AE Boyle The Law of Treaties and the Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration (1980) 29 ICLQ 489, 507 rightly criticizes that the tendency to develop customary law by references to a convention, however widely supported, pays insufficient attention to the effects of reservations to the provisions that are considered reflecting customary law.

  14. 14.

    The ILC regarded Art 52 (coercion by the threat or use of force) as lex lata, cf Final Draft, Commentary to Art 49, 247 para 7.

  15. 15.

    Status of 1 August 2011.

  16. 16.

    For France’s resistance to the ius cogens concept in Art 53, see O Deleau Les positions françaises à la Conférence de Vienne sur le droit des traités (1969) 15 AFDI 7; for the refusal of the US Senate to give its consent to the Convention, see → Art 2 MN 54.

  17. 17.

    See eg Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) 40 BVerfGE 141, 167, 176 (1975); see also A Haratsch/S Schmahl Die Anwendung ratione temporis der Wiener Konvention über das Recht der Verträge (2003) 58 ZÖR 105, 107 footnote 14.

  18. 18.

    For the United States, see Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law Vol 1 (1987) Introductory Note 144–147; Supreme Court (United States) Weinberger v Rossi 456 US 25 (1982); Sale v Haitian Centers Council (dissenting opinion Blackmun) 509 US 155, 191 (1993); US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (United States) Fujitsu v Federal Express 247 F3d 423, 433 (2001); Chubb & Son v Asiana Airlines 214 F3d 301, 308 (2000); Supreme Court of New Mexico (United States) State v Martinez-Rodriguez 33 P3d 267, 273 n 3 (2001). For France see eg Court of Cassation [2006-I] Bulletin 325 (no 378); [2003-IV] Bulletin 134 (no 117).

  19. 19.

    ECJ (CJ) Racke C-162/96 [1998] ECR I-3655; Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR I-6079, 6101 (clausula rebus sic stantibus); Biret International SA v Council C-93/02 P [2003] ECR I-10497, para 99 (reservation); ECJ (CFI) Greece v Commission T-231/04 [2007] ECR II-63, para 86 (Art 18 VCLT).

  20. 20.

    ICJ Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v Iceland) (Jurisdiction of the Court) [1973] ICJ Rep 3, para 24 (Art 52 VCLT), 36 (Art 62 VCLT); Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v Iceland) (Jurisdiction of the Court) [1973] ICJ Rep 49, para 24 (Art 52 VCLT), 38 (Art 62 VCLT); Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (Advisory Opinion) [1971] ICJ Rep 16, 47; Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v Chad) [1994] ICJ Rep 6, 16; Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) [1997] ICJ Rep 7 paras 46, 99; ECtHR Golder v United Kingdom App No 4451/70, Ser A 18, paras 29, 30 (1975).

  21. 21.

    ICTY Prosecutor v Jelisić (Trial Chamber) IT-95-10-T, 14 December 1999, para 61 (Arts 31–32 VCLT); Prosecutor v Milošević (Trial Chamber) (Decision on Preliminary Motions) IT-99-37-PT, 8 November 2001, para 47 (Art 27 VCLT); Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom and France (United Kingdom v France) 18 RIAA 3, para 61 (1977) (Art 21 para 3 VCLT).

  22. 22.

    ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (n 20) para 109: “Both Parties agree that Articles 65 to 67 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, if not codifying customary law, at least generally reflect customary international law and contain certain procedural principles which are based on an obligation to act in good faith.”

  23. 23.

    ICJ Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (n 1) para 125; see already Rosenne (n 2) 21.

  24. 24.

    See the statement by the representative of Switzerland UNCLOT II 330 para 7.

  25. 25.

    Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands v United States) 2 RIAA 829, 845 (1928); see also Clipperton Island Case (Mexico v France) 2 RIAA 1105, 1110 (1931); Grisbadarna Case (Norway v Sweden) 11 RIAA 147, 159 (1909); ICJ Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion) [1975] ICJ Rep 12, para 79; Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v United States) [1952] ICJ Rep 176, 189; South West Africa (Ethiopia v South Africa, Liberia v South Africa) (Second Phase) [1966] ICJ Rep 6, para 19.

  26. 26.

    The year the VCLT entered into force.

  27. 27.

    TO Elias The Doctrine of Intertemporal Law (1980) 74 AJIL 285, 286; G Fitzmaurice Law and Procedures of the International Court of Justice 1951–1954 (1953) 30 BYIL 1, 6; the meaning and the scope of inter-temporal law was extensively raised by Chad in its oral and written pleadings before the ICJ in Territorial Dispute (Libya v Chad), Counter-Memorial of the Government of the Republic of Chad, 27 March 1992 [1992] ICJ Pleadings 94.

  28. 28.

    Island of Palmas (n 25) 845; for an analysis of the Huber dictum, which falls into two parts, a conservative non-retroactivity statement and a progressive resumption of the conservative position, see M Kotzur Intertemporal Law in MPEPIL (2008) MN 6; R Higgins Some Observations on the Inter-Temporal Rules in International Law in J Makarcyk (ed) Essays in Honour of Skubiszewski (1996) 173, 174.

  29. 29.

    See the criticism of P Tavernier Recherches sur l’application dans le temps des actes et des règles en droit international public (1970) 271–276; for the ambiguous position of the ICJ, see M Koskenniemi From Apology to Utopia (2005) 456–457.

  30. 30.

    For a dynamic interpretation of a treaty, see ICJ Namibia (n 20) para 41.

  31. 31.

    ICJ Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (n 1) para 125.

  32. 32.

    F Dopagne in Corten/Klein Art 4 MN 8; for an in-depth discussion on the question whether signature is sufficient or ratification is required, see McDade (n 5) 508–510. Generally on determining the initiation of international treaties, see E Orhuela Calatayud Los tratados internacionales y su aplicación en el tiempo (2004).

  33. 33.

    See eg the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on State Immunity ETS 74A: Austria and Cyprus, both parties to the VCLT, have ratified the Additional Protocol before 1980; the Additional Protocol entered into force in 1985.

  34. 34.

    K Marek Thoughts on Codification (1971) 31 ZaöRV 489, 510–511; M Sørensen The Modification of Collective Treaties without the Consent of All the Contracting Parties, (1938) 9 Acta Scandinavica Juris Gentium 153.

  35. 35.

    M Villiger Customary International Law and Treaties (1997) MN 260.

  36. 36.

    SR Koskenniemi (ILC) Study in the Function and Scope of the lex specialis Rule and the Question of ‘Self-Contained Regimes’ UN Doc ILC(LVI)/SG/FIL/CRD.1 and Add.1 (2004), 4.

Selected Bibliography

  • TO Elias The Doctrine of Intertemporal Law (1980) 74 AJIL 285–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • A Haratsch/S Schmahl Die Anwendung ratione temporis der Wiener Konvention über das Recht der Verträge (2003) 58 ZÖR 105–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • R Higgins Some Observations on the Inter-Temporal Rules in International Law in J Makarcyk (ed) Essays in Honour of Skubiszewski (1996) 173–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • PV McDade The Effect of Article 4 on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 (1986) 35 ICLQ 499–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • E Orhuela Calatayud Los tratados internacionales y su aplicación en el tiempo (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • S Rosenne The Temporal Application of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1970–1971) 4 Cornell ILJ 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • M Villiger Customary International Law and Treaties (1997).

    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 4. Non-retroactivity of the present Convention. 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_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation