Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 18

Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force

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

Abstract

In modern international practice, the process of concluding a treaty usually runs through different stages, beginning with negotiations, to the adoption of the text, signing and ratification by the parties, and leading up to the entry into force in accordance with the requirements set out in the treaty. Arts 9 to 17 VCLT refer to this process by describing some of its stages and setting up rules for them. The multi-stage treaty-making process can take a considerable amount of time, sometimes years, to be concluded, in which time period the provisions of the treaty are not binding on the parties (unless, of course, a provisional application has been agreed upon in accordance with Art 25 VCLT).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ILC Final Draft, 202 para 1; Morvay (1967), p. 454; Villiger (2009), Art 18 MN 5; Klabbers (2001b), p. 14. Cf also Art 9 Harvard Draft 778: “under some circumstances, however, good faith may require that […]” (emphasis added).

  2. 2.

    CFI Greece v Commission T-231/04 [2007] ECR II-63, paras 85–86.

  3. 3.

    Rogoff (1980), pp. 272 and 288–296. Explicitly undecided McDade (1985), pp. 18 and 27.

  4. 4.

    Sinclair (1984), p. 86; Villiger (2009), Art 18 MN 6.

  5. 5.

    Sinclair (1984), p. 99.

  6. 6.

    Cf Sinclair (1984), p. 43; Boisson de Chazournes et al (2011), Art 18 MN 1 and 7; Klabbers (2001b), p. 12; O’Connell (1970), pp. 223–224.

  7. 7.

    Eg, Morvay (1967), p. 458; Rogoff (1980), p. 284; Charme (1991), pp. 76–85.

  8. 8.

    ILC Final Draft, 202 para 1.

  9. 9.

    Beside the authors named in n 7, Villiger (2009), Art 18 MN 20; Klabbers (2001b), p. 12; Reuter (1995), MN 110; McDade (1985), pp. 13 and 25; Boisson de Chazournes et al (2011), Art 18 MN 21; Bradley (2012), p. 212.

  10. 10.

    Aust (2013), p. 94.

  11. 11.

    Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) 108 BVerfGE 129, 140–141 (2003).

  12. 12.

    ECtHR Öcalan v Turkey App No 46221/99, 12 March 2003, para 185.

  13. 13.

    Case reported by Palchetti (2011), pp. 33–34; the court documents in Spanish can also be found at www.haguejusticeportal.net, accessed 22 November 2017.

  14. 14.

    CFI Greece v Commission T-231/04 [2007] ECR II-63, paras 85–86.

  15. 15.

    CFI Opel Austria v Council T-115/94 [1997] ECR II-39, paras 90–91.

  16. 16.

    Cf CFI Greece v Commission T-231/04 [2007] ECR II-63, para 99; similarly Opel Austria v Council T 115/94 [1997] ECR II-39, para 93.

  17. 17.

    ECJ Greece v Commission C-203/07 P [2008] ECR I-8161, para 64.

  18. 18.

    IACHR Mossville Environmental Action Now v United States, Report No 43/10, 17 March 2010, para 22; see also the earlier Juan Paul Garza v United States, Report No 52/01, Case 12.243, 4 April 2001, para 94 with n 48.

  19. 19.

    165 CTS 485, 502.

  20. 20.

    Cited by McDade (1985), p. 11, and by Hassan (1981), p. 452.

  21. 21.

    25 LNTS 201, 209.

  22. 22.

    Hassan (1981), p. 453.

  23. 23.

    Supreme Court (Poland) Polish State Treasury v von Bismarck [1923/24] 2 AD 80–81 (1923).

  24. 24.

    Eastern Provincial Court (Denmark) Schwerdtfeger v Danish Government [1923/24] 2 AD 81–83 (1923).

  25. 25.

    PCIJ Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Merits) PCIJ Ser A No 7, 39 (1926).

  26. 26.

    Megalidis v Turkey 8 TAM 390, 395 (1928); summary reprinted in (1927–1928) 4 AD 395; French quotation also at McDade (1985), p. 14.

  27. 27.

    Harvard Draft 778.

  28. 28.

    Harvard Draft 780–781.

  29. 29.

    Cf Lauterpacht I 91 and 110.

  30. 30.

    Cf Fitzmaurice I 113 and 122.

  31. 31.

    Waldock I 39–53.

  32. 32.

    [1962-I] YbILC 179, para 3.

  33. 33.

    [1962-II] YbILC 175.

  34. 34.

    Cf eg the comments by the governments of Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden, [1966-II] YbILC 279, 284, 292, 315, 323 and 338.

  35. 35.

    UNCLOT I 97 et seq.

  36. 36.

    Waldock IV 42 et seq.

  37. 37.

    ILC Final Draft, 172. Art 15 lit a ran: “A State is obliged to refrain from acts tending to frustrate the object of a proposed treaty when (a) it has agreed to enter into negotiations for the conclusion of the treaty, while these negotiations are in progress.”

  38. 38.

    The ILC Drafting Committee claimed that the change was only made in the interest of clarity and did not widen the interim obligation, cf UNCLOT I 361.

  39. 39.

    UNCLOT III, 131, para 167.

  40. 40.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.16, UNCLOT III.

  41. 41.

    Cf ICJ Genocide Convention [1951] ICJ Rep 15, 28.

  42. 42.

    Fitzmaurice I 122 para 58; Boisson de Chazournes et al (2011), Art 18 MN 42.

  43. 43.

    Bernhardt (1957/58), pp. 659–660; Cot (1968), p. 150; O’Connell (1970), p. 222; Rogoff (1980), p. 267; McDade (1985), p. 10 in n 20; Verhoeven (2002), p. 385. A proposal to include a duty to submit a signed treaty to ratification was rejected early in the ILC’s work on the law of treaties, cf [1951-I] YbILC 37–39 and 156–157.

  44. 44.

    Harvard Draft 769.

  45. 45.

    Aust (2013), p. 107; Swaine (2003), p. 2061 et seq.

  46. 46.

    McDade (1985), p. 24; Klabbers (2001b), p. 17; Swaine (2003), p. 2082. The point had been raised by the French delegate at the Vienna Conference, cf UNCLOT I 100, para 45.

  47. 47.

    Villiger (1985), MN 472.

  48. 48.

    Cf the information given in Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary General, in ch XVIII No 10, to be accessed at https://treaties.un.org. Accessed 22 November 2017.

  49. 49.

    Document to be found at https://ustr.gov. Accessed 10 November 2017.

  50. 50.

    Michie (2005), pp. 369–370.

  51. 51.

    For both cf Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary General, to be accessed at https://treaties.un.org. Accessed 22 November 2017.

  52. 52.

    Information available at www.energycharter.org. Accessed 22 November 2017.

  53. 53.

    Cf Villiger (2009), Art 18 MN 15–16; Hassan (1981), pp. 456–457, both referring to the fact that, at the Vienna Conference, a Malaysian proposal to change the words to “expressed its intention in the clearest terms” had been refused (UNCLOT I 131).

  54. 54.

    Point raised by Swaine (2003), pp. 2082–2083 in n 96.

  55. 55.

    Morvay (1967), p. 461.

  56. 56.

    SR Waldock had proposed to adopt a time limit of ten years (Waldock IV 45), which did not find much support in the Commission, cf [1965-I] YbILC 88 et seq.

  57. 57.

    Argentina, Ecuador and Uruguay had introduced a time limit of 12 months into the debate, cf UNCLOT III 131, para 164.

  58. 58.

    Cf Klabbers (2001b), p. 17 with regard to the 1993 Chemical Weapon Convention.

  59. 59.

    Aust (2013), p. 110.

  60. 60.

    Both instances reported in 1999 Summary of Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties, UN Doc ST/LEG/7/Rev. 1, para 158.

  61. 61.

    Cf Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary General, to be accessed at https://treaties.un.org, ch XXI No 7, end note 1 for Italy and note 2 Luxembourg. Accessed 22 November 2017.

  62. 62.

    1999 Summary of Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties, UN Doc ST/LEG/7/Rev. 1, para 157.

  63. 63.

    PCIJ Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Merits) PCIJ Ser A No 7, 39 (1926).

  64. 64.

    Villiger (2009), Art 18 MN 8.

  65. 65.

    Villiger (1985), MN 469.

  66. 66.

    Villiger (2009), Art 18 MN 10. For a detailed analysis of the term eg Buffard/Zemanek (1998).

  67. 67.

    → Art 31 MN 53; Villiger (2009), Art 18 MN 10.

  68. 68.

    Concurring Villiger (2009), Art 18 MN 10; for the similar problem in treaty interpretation → Art 31 MN 54.

  69. 69.

    Klabbers (1997), p. 155.

  70. 70.

    Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) 108 BVerfGE 129, 141.

  71. 71.

    Klabbers (2001b), p. 18.

  72. 72.

    Thus Waldock, as expert consultant at the Vienna Conference, UNCLOT I 104, para 26.

  73. 73.

    Villiger (2009), Art 18 MN 11.

  74. 74.

    See Waldock (n 72) and the debate in UNCLOT I 97–106.

  75. 75.

    Rogoff (1980), p. 297.

  76. 76.

    Aust (2013), p. 108.

  77. 77.

    Contra Klabbers (2001b), p. 26.

  78. 78.

    Thus, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Resolution 1300 (25 September 2002), sub 10, and Resolution 1336 (25 June 2003), sub 9, to be found at http://assembly.coe.int. Accessed 22 November 2017.

  79. 79.

    ECtHR Öcalan v Turkey App No 46221/99, 12 March 2003, para 185.

  80. 80.

    On this controversy cf the coverage in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 16 July 2012, p. 13, and of 17 July 2012, p. 9.

  81. 81.

    Villiger (1985), MN 470.

  82. 82.

    Rogoff (1980), p. 297.

  83. 83.

    Villiger (2009), Art 18 MN 14; Aust (2013), p. 108.

  84. 84.

    Thus eg Rogoff (1980), p. 297; Boisson de Chazournes et al (2011), Art 18 MN 62.

  85. 85.

    Example given by Villiger (2009), Art 18 MN 13.

  86. 86.

    Concurring Boisson de Chazournes et al (2011), Art 18 MN 66–67.

  87. 87.

    For the treaty text see p. 1486 et seq.

References

  • Aust A (2013) Modern Treaty Law and Practice, 3rd edn. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt R (1957/58) Völkerrechtliche Bindungen in den Vorstadien des Vertragsschlusses. ZaöRV 18:652–690

    Google Scholar 

  • Boisson de Chazournes L, La Rosa A-M, Mbengue MM (2011) Article 18. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 369–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley CA (2012) Treaty Signature. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford Guide to Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 208–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Buffard I, Zemanek K (1998) The ‘Object and Purpose’ of a Treaty: An Enigma? ARIEL 3:311–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Charme JS (1991) The Interim Obligation of Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Making Sense of an Enigma. GWashJILE 25:71–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Cot J-P (1968) La bonne foi et la conclusion des traites. RBDI 4:140–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan T (1981) Good Faith in Treaty Formation. VaJIL 21:443–481

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (1997) Some Problems Regarding the Object and Propose of Treaties. FinnYIL 8:138–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2001b) Strange Bedfellows: The ‘Interim Obligation’ and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. In: Myjer E (ed) Issues of Arms Control Law and the Chemical Weapons Convention: Obligations Inter Se and Supervisory Mechanisms. Nijhoff, The Hague, pp 11–29

    Google Scholar 

  • McDade PV (1985) The Interim Obligation Between Signature and Ratification of a Treaty. NILR 32:5–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michie A (2005) The Provisional Application of Arms Control Treaties. JCSL 10:345–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Morvay W (1967) The Obligation of a State Not to Frustrate the Object of a Treaty Prior to its Entry into Force. ZaöRV 27:451–462

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell DP (1970) International Law, Vol 1, 2nd edn. Stevens, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Palchetti P (2011) Article 18 of the 1969 Vienna Convention: A Vague and Ineffective Obligation or a Useful Means of Strengthening Legal Cooperation? In: Cannizzaro E (ed) The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention. OUP, Oxford, pp 25–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuter P (1995) Introduction to the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn. Kegan Paul International, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff MA (1980) The International Legal Obligations of Signatories to an Unratified Treaty. Maine LR 32:263–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair I (1984) The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn. University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Swaine ET (2003) Unsigning. StanLR 55:2061–2089

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven J (2002) Droit International Public. Larcier, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Villiger M (1985) Customary International Law and Treaties. Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Villiger M (2009) Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Bradley CA (2007) Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the U.S. Constitution. HarvILJ 48:307–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahier P (1979) L’obligation de ne pas priver un traité de son objet et de son but avant son entrée en vigueur. In: Teitgen P-H (ed) Mélanges Dehousse, Vol I. Nathan, Paris, pp 31–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2001a) How to Defeat a Treaty’s Object and Purpose Pending Entry into Force: Toward Manifest Intent. VandJTL 34:283–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman WM, Arsanjani MH (2007) What is the current value of signing a treaty? In: Breitenmoser S, Ehrenzeller B, Sassòli M, Stoffel W, Wagner Pfeifer B (eds) Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, Festschrift Wildhaber. Dike, Zurich, pp 1491–1511

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Public Law, European Law, Public International Law and Comparative Law, European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

    Oliver Dörr

Authors
  1. Oliver Dörr
    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

Dörr, O. (2018). Article 18. 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_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_20

  • 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