Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 6. Capacity of States to conclude treaties

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

  • 5956 Accesses

Abstract

At first glance, the laconic statement on the treaty-making capacity of States (ius tractandi) appears to be rather redundant and self-evident: all parties to the VCLT have sufficiently demonstrated their treaty-making capacity by ratifying the Convention. The provision’s “general jurisprudential character”, however, shall not hide the fact that its adoption has initiated an important legal development. It is the purpose of Art 6 to safeguard the treaty-making capacity of States against any attempts to limit its scope. In contrast, Art 6 does not deal with the competence of States to conclude certain treaties (→MN 8). The legal effects of a lack of that competence or the prohibition to conclude treaties on certain subject matters have to be assessed on the basis of other provisions of the Convention (Arts 27, 46, 53, etc).

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.

    S Rosenne Developments in the Law of Treaties 1945–1968 (1989) 28.

  2. 2.

    McNair 47; Lauterpacht I 138 para 3.

  3. 3.

    Reported by McNair 44.

  4. 4.

    Art 3 Harvard Draft: “Capacity to enter into treaties is possessed by all States, but the capacity of a State to enter into certain treaties may be limited.”

  5. 5.

    Brierly III 50 (Draft Art 1); Lauterpacht I 92 (Draft Art 10); Fitzmaurice III 24 (Draft Art 8 para 5); Waldock I 36 (Draft Art 3 para 3).

  6. 6.

    Tunkin [1962-I] YbILC 59 paras 27 et seq; see in general the discussion in [1962-I] YbILC 57, 59.

  7. 7.

    Tunkin [1965-I] YbILC 250 paras 18–25.

  8. 8.

    Reuter [1965-I] YbILC 25 para 35.

  9. 9.

    Waldock [1965-I] YbILC 251 para 44.

  10. 10.

    Bin Cheng Introduction to Subjects of International Law in M Bedjaoui (ed) International Law: Achievements and Prospects (1991) 23; on the different understandings, see C Brölmann The Institutional Veil in Public International Law (2007) 69.

  11. 11.

    But see I Brownlie Principles of Public International Law (7th edn 2008) 57: “A subject of law is an entity capable of possessing international rights and duties and having the capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims.” This definition is, however, too international-organization-centric to be generally applicable.

  12. 12.

    R Geiger Die völkerrechtliche Beschränkung der Vertragsschlußfähigkeit von Staaten (1979) 62.

  13. 13.

    See Art 84 VCLT II: the UN Council for Namibia expresses Namibia’s accession to the Convention; for further examples, see C Stahn The Law and Practice of International Territorial Administration (2008) 570.

  14. 14.

    Geiger (n 12) 159.

  15. 15.

    SE Nahlik The Ground of Invalidity and Termination of Treaties (1971) 65 AJIL 736, 749.

  16. 16.

    For the agreement-making capacity of component units of federal States, see → Art 3 MN 24–26.

  17. 17.

    ICJ Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident of Lockerbie (Libya v United States) (Provisional Measures) [1992] ICJ Rep 114, para 42.

  18. 18.

    Cf UNSC Res 670 (1990), 25 September 1990, UN Doc S/RES/670, 8th recital: “Affirming that any acts of the Government of Iraq which are contrary to the above mentioned resolutions or to Articles 25 and 48 of the UN Charter, such as Decree No. 377 of the Revolution Command Council of Iraq of 16 September 1990, are null and void”; see also UNSC Res 217 (1965), 20 November 1965, UN Doc S/RES/217 (declaration of independence of Southern Rhodesia); UNSC Res 476 (1980), 30 June 1980, UN Doc S/RES/476 (nullity of legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, which purport the status of Jerusalem).

  19. 19.

    Cf ICJ 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, para 126.

  20. 20.

    V Gowlland-Debbas Security Council Enforcement Action and the Issue of State Responsibility (1994) 43 ICLQ 55, 77.

  21. 21.

    Ibid 75.

  22. 22.

    Ibid 77.

  23. 23.

    Sinclair 21.

  24. 24.

    Cf PCIJ SS ‘Wimbledon’ PCIJ Ser A No 1, 25 (1923).

  25. 25.

    The usage of the terms capacity, power and competence heavily varies in scholarly writings; some authors equate capacities and powers: A Peters Treaty-Making Power in MPEPIL (2008) MN 1; HG Schermers The International Organizations in M Bedjaoui (ed) International Law: Achievements and Prospects (1991) 67, 74; other authors, eg PHF Bekker The Legal Position of Intergovernmental Organizations (1994) 63, 78 consider ‘powers’ as an instrumental tool, available within a given sphere of competences; see for the usage of the term ‘competences’ Brölmann (n 10) 92.

  26. 26.

    HG Schermers/NM Blokker International Institutional Law (2003) § 209.

  27. 27.

    Bekker (n 25) 75.

  28. 28.

    ICJ East Timor (Portugal v Australia) [1995] ICJ Rep 90, para 34 (emphasis added).

  29. 29.

    ICJ Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 66, para 25.

  30. 30.

    A well-known example for the limitation of the competence to conclude treaties is the division of the exclusive external competences between the European Union and its Member States see D Verwey The European Community, the European Union and the International Law of Treaties (2004) 15; F Hoffmeister The Contribution of EU Practice to International Law in M Cremona (ed) Developments in EU External Relations Law (2008) 37, 38.

  31. 31.

    Schermers (n 25) 73; but see C Rousseau L’indépendance de l’État dans l’ordre international (1948) 73 RdC 167, 248 about the unlimited competences of States.

  32. 32.

    Hungdah Chiu The Capacity of International Organizations to Conclude Treaties and the Special Legal Aspects of the Treaties So Concluded (1966) 6.

  33. 33.

    For an exhaustive overview of the treaty-making practice of the League of Nations, see ibid 12–13; predominantly, the League was not itself a party to the treaty but was entrusted by the parties with certain functions (eg guarantor for minorities, cf ibid 10). These treaty-based functions have been subject to the subsequent acceptance of the League Council.

  34. 34.

    Cf Reuter I 173 (“agreement explosion”).

  35. 35.

    Reuter I 174.

  36. 36.

    For the main part, this inactivity is due to the widespread ‘all State’ clauses, which limit the access to many treaties (→ Art 1 MN 11). In addition, most multilateral law-making treaties deal with State-oriented issues – pertaining to sovereignty, inhabitants and territory – and do not concern the limited functions of most international organizations, 1999 Summary of Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties, UN Doc ST/LEG/7/Rev.1, para 98.

  37. 37.

    Arts 33-35 Convention on Biological Diversity 1760 UNTS 79; Art 24 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1998) 37 ILM 22; see also Art II FAO Constitution reprinted in (2011) 1 Basic texts of the FAO 1; a ‘regional economic integration organization’ is commonly defined as “an organization constituted by sovereign States of a given region which has competence in respect of matters governed by this Convention or its protocols and has been duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to the instruments concerned”, cf Art 1 para 6 of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer 1513 UNTS 324.

  38. 38.

    UNGA Res 38/139, 19 December 1983, UN Doc A/RES/38/139.

  39. 39.

    After receiving a mandate from the UNGA in 1969 (Res 2501 (XXIV), 12 November 1969, UN Doc A/7746, 97), Reuter was appointed as Special Rapporteur in 1971. He presented his first of altogether 11 reports in 1972; the ILC finally adopted the Draft Articles in 1982, see [1982-II] YbILC 17.

  40. 40.

    Arts 34, 60 Rules of Procedure for the Conference, UNCLOTIO I xix; see also K Zemanek The United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties Between States and International Organizations or Between Organizations: The Unrecorded History of its ‘General Agreement’ in K-H Böckstiegel et al (eds) Festschrift Seidl-Hohenveldern (1988) 665, 667.

  41. 41.

    UNGA Res 40/76, 11 December 1985, UN Doc A/RES/40/76, Annex III; for details, see JP Dobbert Evolution of the Treaty-Making Capacity of International Organizations, in FAO (ed) Essays in Memory of Jean Carroz (1987) 22.

  42. 42.

    UNCLOTIO I 208 para 29.

  43. 43.

    UNCLOTIO I 209 para 37.

  44. 44.

    The Netherlands and the United Kingdom have submitted a proposal requiring 5 acts of formal confirmation or accession by international organizations in addition to 35 acts of ratification by States. According to Zemanek (n 40) 670–671, the main purpose of the move was to counterbalance the Soviet proposal, which is supported by the fact that the proposal was withdrawn after the Soviet proposal was defeated.

  45. 45.

    For details see JW Schneider Treaty-Making Power of International Organizations (1963) 60–67.

  46. 46.

    For the early view of Soviet writers that international organizations are not subjects of international law, see S Krylov Les notions principales du droit des gens: la doctrine soviétique du droit international (1947) 70 RdC 407, 448.

  47. 47.

    For the analysis of this practice, see Brölmann (n 10) 125–128; Hungdah Chiu (n 32) 8–18.

  48. 48.

    Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 7, 24 para 1.

  49. 49.

    I Seidl-Hohenveldern The Legal Personality of International and Supranational Organisations (1965) 21 Revue égyptienne de droit international 35–72; K Zemanek Das Vertragsrecht der internationalen Organisationen (1957) 20.

  50. 50.

    The main protagonist of this theory is still F Seyersted Common Law of International Organizations (2008) 401–405.

  51. 51.

    For a similar approach of the ILC in the context of the 1969 Convention, see [1961-II] YbILC 164 (Draft Art 3 para 3); unsurprisingly, the decision on Art 6 VCLT II prompted critical remarks by F Seyersted Treaty-Making Capacity of International Organizations: Article 6 of the ILC’s Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations and between International Organizations (1983) 34 ÖZöRV 261; see also E Klein/M Pechstein Das Vertragsrecht internationaler Organisationen (1985) 23.

  52. 52.

    Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 7, 24 para 2

  53. 53.

    [1974-I] YbILC 144; for details on the ILC discussion on the 1969 Convention, see Reuter I 178–182.

  54. 54.

    See Zemanek (n 40) 671.

  55. 55.

    Cf Waldock I 36 (Draft Art 3 para 4): “International capacity to become a party to treaties is also possessed by international organizations and agencies which have a separate legal personality under international law if, and to the extent that, such treaty-making capacity is expressly created, or necessary implied, in the instrument prescribing the constitution and functions of the organizations or agency in question.” See also G Hafner The Legal Personality of International Organizations in A Reinisch et al (eds) Liber Amicorum Neuhold (2007) 81, 99 (“consequence of their mere existence”).

  56. 56.

    ICJ Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) [1949] ICJ Rep 174, 180.

  57. 57.

    Zemanek (n 40) 671; J Klabbers An Introduction to International Institutional Law (2009) 252; see also Peters (n 25) MN 13; I Pernice Völkerrechtliche Verträge internationaler Organisationen (1988) 48 ZaöRV 229, 236.

  58. 58.

    [1966-II] YbILC 281; for a more non-committal approach, see SR Lauterpacht, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.161, 28 para 32 (cited in [1972-II] YbILC 179 n 74): “The capacity to conclude treaties is both a corollary of international personality and a condition of the effective fulfillment of their functions on the part of the international organizations.”

  59. 59.

    ICJ Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) [1949] ICJ Pleadings, Written statement presented by the Government of the United Kingdom 23, 34 para 15.

  60. 60.

    Aide-mémoire des Gouvernements No 2, 6, cited in A Bleckmann Die Benelux-Wirtschaftsunion (1962) 22 ZaöRV 239, 293 footnote 324.

  61. 61.

    Even if it is not embodied in the VCLT, the lex specialis principle is a well-established conflict rule of international law. For an overview of scholarly literature, see E Vranes Lex superior, lex specialis, lex posterior – zur Rechtsnatur der ‘Konfliktlösungsregeln’ (2005) 65 ZaöRV 391.

  62. 62.

    Hungdah Chiu (n 32) 30; for a different approach, see R Higgins Problems and Processes: International Law and How We Use It (1994) 48 (“objective reality”).

  63. 63.

    Hafner (n 55) 87.

  64. 64.

    ICJ Reparation for Injuries (n 56) 179.

  65. 65.

    Cf ICJ Use of Nuclear Weapons (n 29), para 19: “In order to delineate the field of activities or the area of competences of an international organization, one must refer to the relevant rules of the organization and, in the first place, its constitution.”

  66. 66.

    ECJ (CJ) Commission v Council 22/70 [1971] ECR 263; Kramer et al Case 3/76, 4/76 and 6/76 [1976] ECR 1279; Opinion 1/75 (Understanding on a Local Cost Standard) [1975] ECR 1355; Opinion 2/91 (Convention No 170 of the International Labour Convention Concerning Safety in the Use of Chemicals at Work) [1993] ECR I-1061.

  67. 67.

    R Holdgaard External Relations Law of the European Community (2008); P Eeckhout External Relations of the European Union (2004) 85–164; id The European Community’s Implied External Competences of the Open Skies Cases (2003) 8 European Foreign Affairs Review 365, 368; for further references, see n 30.

Selected Bibliography

  • C Brölmann The Institutional Veil in Public International Law, International Organizations and the Law of Treaties (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • JP Dobbert Evolution of the Treaty-Making Capacity of International Organizations in FAO (ed) Essays in Memory of Jean Carroz (1987) 21–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • R Geiger Die völkerrechtliche Beschränkung der Vertragsschlußfähigkeit von Staaten (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • G Hafner The Legal Personality of International Organizations in A Reinisch et al (eds) Liber Amicorum Neuhold (2007) 81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hungdah Chiu The Capacity of International Organizations to Conclude Treaties, and the Special Legal Aspects of the Treaties So Concluded (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  • E Klein/M Pechstein Das Vertragsrecht internationaler Organisationen (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • I Pernice Völkerrechtliche Verträge internationaler Organisationen (1988) 48 ZaöRV 229–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • JW Schneider Treaty-Making Power of International Organizations (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  • I Seidl-Hohenveldern The Legal Personality of International and Supranational Organisations (1965) 21 Revue égyptienne de droit international 35–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • F Seyersted Common Law of International Organizations (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • K Zemanek Das Vertragsrechtder Internationalen Organisationen (1957).

    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 6. Capacity of States to conclude treaties. 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_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation