Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties pp 9–18Cite as

Preamble

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 4767 Accesses

Abstract

The Preamble of the VCLT introduces the Convention’s core elements (3rd and 8th recital) and builds a bridge between the law of treaties and the principles of the UN Charter (4th, 5th, 6th and 7th recital). With a typically solemn intonation (1st, 2nd, 7th recital), the Preamble spotlights the Convention’s general objects and purposes as well as the UN Charter’s objectives and principles in order to support the interpretation of single treaty provisions. By referring to core objectives and principles of the UN Charter (4th, 5th, 6th and 7th recital), the Preamble incorporates them into the Convention’s own framework in order to avoid conflicts between the treaty regime and the obligations flowing from the UN Charter (cf Art 103 UN Charter).

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf Mbengue (2006), MN 9.

  2. 2.

    ICJ Rights of US Nationals in Morocco [1952] ICJ Rep 176, 184; on different views regarding the legal significance of preambles see Hulme (2016), p. 1285 et seq, You (1941), p. 42.

  3. 3.

    Hulme (2016), p. 1300 et seq.

  4. 4.

    UNCLOT I 7, para 7; see also the statements by the representatives of Ecuador, Romania and Uruguay UNCLOT II 170, para 22, 171, para 29, 171, para 33.

  5. 5.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.4, UNCLOT III 263.

  6. 6.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.5, UNCLOT III 263.

  7. 7.

    The amendment submitted by Ecuador (UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.44, UNCLOT III 271) introduced the phrase “principles of free consent and” to the 3rd recital; the amendment submitted by Sweden (UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.43, UNCLOT III 271) added the phrase “and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law” to the 4th recital; the amendment submitted by Costa Rica and the Netherlands (UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.42 and Add.1, UNCLOT III 271) added the phrase “and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all” to the 6th recital; finally the amendment submitted by Switzerland (8th recital UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.45, UNCLOT III 271) was accepted with a slight but significant modification: the Swiss proposal originally included the words “which have not been expressly regulated by the provisions of the present Convention” (emphasis added).

  8. 8.

    UNCLOT II 178, para 31.

  9. 9.

    See the statement by the representative of Romania UNCLOT II 171, para 29.

  10. 10.

    On the history of international treaties, see Truyol y Serra (1971), p. 512; Altman (2004), p. 43 et seq.

  11. 11.

    Thirlway (1972).

  12. 12.

    See on the pros and cons of putting the draft through the process of a diplomatic conference SR Crawford Fourth Report on State Responsibility, UN Doc A/CN.4/517, paras 22–23.

  13. 13.

    Caron (2002), p. 857 et seq.

  14. 14.

    SR Waldock proposed to include the principles in the Preamble so as to demonstrate their importance [1966-I/2] YbILC 32, 37, para 71.

  15. 15.

    The Ecuadorian amendment (UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.44, UNCLOT III 271) added the phrase “principles of free consent and”; The representative of Iraq interpreted the principle as a component of the notion of good faith, UNCLOT II 174, para 67.

  16. 16.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.43, UNCLOT III 271; see also the statement by the representative of Sweden UNCLOT II 170, para 19.

  17. 17.

    Bilder (1989), p. 474 et seq.

  18. 18.

    Brehio (1998), p. 612 et seq.

  19. 19.

    Matsushita et al (2006), p. 115.

  20. 20.

    Cf Powell and Mitchell (2007), p. 397. Very few universal agreements commit State Parties to obligatory judicial dispute settlement. Examples include the 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Art 22) 660 UNTS 195, with 177 parties but altogether 25 reservations to Art 22; for the VCLT, see Art 66.

  21. 21.

    Or ‘compulsory opinion clauses’; see the comprehensive study on ‘decisive advisory opinion clauses’ of Dominicé (2002), pp. 91–103; the ICJ has stressed that the decisive advisory opinion clause does not change the nature of the advisory opinion, ie it will not assume the nature of a judgment: ICJ Cumaraswamy Opinion [1999] ICJ Rep 62, para 25. If, however, the legal question is specific to the dispute, the opinion rendered by the court de facto has the legal effects of a judgment for the parties to the dispute, including the res iudicata authority flowing exclusively from the contractual clause: cf Bacot (1980), p. 1060 et seq.

  22. 22.

    Ghias (2006), p. 534.

  23. 23.

    For a definition of ‘international arbitration’, see the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, Arts 15 and 37 respectively.

  24. 24.

    Verosta (1969), p. 655.

  25. 25.

    This phrase was introduced by Costa Rica and the Netherlands, UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.42 and Add.1, UNCLOT III 271.

  26. 26.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.45, UNCLOT III 271; the Swiss proposal originally included the words “which have not been expressly regulated by the provisions of the present Convention” (emphasis added), which was criticized as too far-reaching and as a limitation of the Convention’s scope, see the statement by the representative of Iraq UNCLOT II 174, para 68.

  27. 27.

    See eg the preambles of the 1899 Hague Convention with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, the 1907 Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

  28. 28.

    For a different understanding, see the statement by the representative of Poland UNCLOT II 176, para 13; see also the Swiss amendment UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.45, UNCLOT III 271.

  29. 29.

    See the statements by the representatives of Uruguay and Spain UNCLOT II 172, 173.

  30. 30.

    Aust (2006), para 9.

  31. 31.

    See the statement of the United Kingdom in [1981-II/2] YbILC 191; see also Vierdag (1987), p. 84.

  32. 32.

    Brölmann (2011), p. 293.

  33. 33.

    Cf ICJ Reparation for Injuries [1949] ICJ Rep 174, 180.

  34. 34.

    Proposal of the German Democratic Republic, Ukraine, and Czechoslovakia UNCLOTIO II 80; see also Zemanek (1988), p. 672.

  35. 35.

    Manin (1987), p. 463.

References

  • Altman A (2004) The Role of ‘Historical Prologue’ in the Hittite Vassal Treaties: An Early Experiment in Securing Treaty Compliance. JHIL 6(1):43–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Aust A (2006) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. OUP, Oxford. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1498. Accessed 29 November 2017

  • Bacot G (1980) Réflexions sur les clauses qui rendent obligatoires les avis consultatifs de la C.P.J.I. et de la C.I.J. RGDIP 84(4):1027–1067

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilder RB (1989) International Third Party Dispute Settlement. DJILP 17(3):471–503

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehio A (1998) Good Offices of the Secretary-General as Preventive Measures. NYUJILP 30(3-4):589–644

    Google Scholar 

  • Brölmann C (2011) International Organizations and Treaties. In: Klabbers J, Wallendahl A˚ (eds) Research Handbook on the Law of International Organizations. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 285–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Caron DD (2002) The ILC Articles on State Responsibility: The Paradoxical Relationship Between Form and Authority. AJIL 96(4):857–873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dominicé C (2002) Request of Advisory Opinions in Contentious Cases? In: Boisson de Chazournes L, Romano CPR, Mackenzie R (eds) International Organizations and International Dispute Settlement: Trends and Prospects. Transnational Publishers, New York, pp 91–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghias SA (2006) International Judicial Lawmaking: A Theoretical and Political Analysis of the WTO Appellate Body. Berkeley JIL 24(2):534–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme MH (2016) Preambles in Treaty Interpretation. UPaLR 164:1281–1343

    Google Scholar 

  • Manin P (1987) The European Communities and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations. CMLR 24:457–481

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsushita M, Schoenbaum TJ, Mavroidis PC (2006) The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mbengue MM (2006) Preamble. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. OUP, Oxford. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1456. Accessed 29 November 2017

  • Powell EJ, Mitchell SM (2007) The International Court of Justice and the World’s Three Legal Systems. JPol 69(2):397–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway HWA (1972) International Customary Law and Codification: An Examination of the Continuing Role of Custom in the Present Period of Codification of International Law. Sijthoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Truyol y Serra A (1971) Geschichte der Staatsverträge und Völkerrecht. In: Marcic R, Mosler H, Suy E, Zemanek K (eds) Internationale Festschrift für Alfred Verdross. Fink, Munich, pp 509–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Verosta S (1969) Die Vertragsrechtskonferenz der Vereinten Nationen 1968/1969 und die Wiener Konvention über das Recht der Verträge. ZaöRV 29:654–710

    Google Scholar 

  • Vierdag EW (1987) Some Remarks on the Relationship between the 1969 and the 1986 Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. AVR 25(1):82–91

    Google Scholar 

  • You P (1941) Le Préambule des traités internationaux. Librairie de l’Université, Fribourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemanek K (1988) The United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties Between States and International Organizations or Between International Organizations: The Unrecorded History of Its “General Agreement”. In: Böckstiegel K-H, Folz H-E, Mössner JM, Zemanek K (eds) Law of Nations, Law of International Organizations, World’s Economic Law: Liber Amicorum Honouring Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern. Heymann, Cologne, pp 665–680

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Public International Law and European Union Law, Law Faculty, Paris Lodron University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Authors
  1. Kirsten Schmalenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

    Oliver Dörr

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

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schmalenbach, K. (2018). Preamble. In: Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (eds) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55159-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55160-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation