Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 28

Non-retroactivity of treaties

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

  • 4725 Accesses

Abstract

The scope of a treaty between States has various limits. They emanate from its parties (application ratione personae), its content (application ratione materiae), its territorial application (application ratione loci) and its temporal applicability (application ratione temporis). Therefore, each treaty has a personal, a material, a territorial and a temporal scope. While the territorial scope is governed by one provision of the Vienna Convention only (Art 29), many articles refer (explicitly or implicitly) to the personal (see eg Arts 6–18, 34–38, 41), the material (see eg Arts 19–23, 31–33, 39–40) and the temporal scope of treaties (see eg Arts 24 28, 54–63). Art 28 constitutes the basic norm regulating the beginning of the temporal applicability of a treaty.

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.

    Linderfalk (2011), p. 152; Karagiannis (2012), p. 305.

  2. 2.

    For more details see Kotzur (2014), p. 159 et seq.

  3. 3.

    von Hoffmann and Thorn (2007), p. 177.

  4. 4.

    Bleckmann (1973), p. 41.

  5. 5.

    See eg Draft Art 57 as proposed by SR Waldock in 1964 (Waldock III 10 et seq). Art 28 para 1 was retroactive; Art 28 para 2 was prospective.

  6. 6.

    Concurring in respect of the unilateral, retroactive and negative character of the conflict rule contained in Art 28 Kotzur (2014), p. 170.

  7. 7.

    See McDade (1986), pp. 501–502. Similarly Villiger (1997), p. 253 by pointing out that Art 4 does not constitute an exception to Art 28.

  8. 8.

    Sinclair (1984), p. 86; Dopagne (2011a), Art 28 MN 19. During the Vienna Conference, however, Finland proposed to include a reservation referring to Draft Art 15 (the later Art 18). But this proposal was rejected since Draft Art 15 did not relate to the retroactive application of a treaty, UNCLOT II 428, para S 1.

  9. 9.

    See Kotzur (2014), p. 169 et seq.

  10. 10.

    See ICJ Ambatielos Case [1952] ICJ Rep 28, 40; Dopagne (2011a), Art 28 MN 5.

  11. 11.

    Federal Court (Australia) Victrawl Pty Ltd v AOTC Ltd et al 117 ALR 347, No 37 (1993); Briggs (1968), p. 172; Schabas (2010), p. 38.

  12. 12.

    See Art 1 of the IDI Resolution, The Intertemporal Problem in Public International Law (1975) 56 AnnIDI 536; ECommHR de Becker v Belgium App No 214/56 [1958–1959] YbECHR 214, 231 (1958); Bindschedler-Robert (1968), p. 185.

  13. 13.

    See eg PCIJ Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions PCIJ Ser A No 2 MN 204, 216 (1924); ICJ Ambatielos Case [1952] ICJ Rep 28, 41.

  14. 14.

    Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. A closer look at domestic law, however, shows that the principle of non-retroactivity is not accorded the same degree of respect and the same mode of operation in every State and in every subject matter, see Woodhouse (1955), p. 69 et seq.

  15. 15.

    Similarly Dopagne (2011a), Art 28 MN 5. Concurring Kotzur (2014), p. 161 et seq.

  16. 16.

    ICJ Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal) [2012] ICJ Rep 422, para 100.

  17. 17.

    Bleckmann (1973), pp. 38–40.

  18. 18.

    See Draft Art 42, para 6, Fitzmaurice I 116.

  19. 19.

    Bradley (2012), p. 211. In the United States, the retroactive entry into force of a treaty was deduced from the retroactive entry into force of national laws, see Kisker (1963), p. 9 et seq. A comprehensive list of writers supporting this theory is to be found in the Harvard Draft 799 et seq.

  20. 20.

    Draft Art 21 para 1 lit c, Waldock I 71.

  21. 21.

    Draft Art 20 para 4, [1962-I] YbILC 258. Draft Art 20 para 4 became Draft Art 23 para 4, [1965-I] YbILC 99.

  22. 22.

    [1965-I] YbILC 273, 285.

  23. 23.

    Waldock III 10 et seq.

  24. 24.

    [1966-I/2] YbILC 38.

  25. 25.

    Final Draft, Art 24, 211.

  26. 26.

    UNCLOT II 55, para 48.

  27. 27.

    See Final Draft, Commentary to Art 24, 212, para 4. The inclusion of cases in which the retroactivity does not emanate from the text of the treaty itself, was not uncontested. See eg the objections of Turkey that proposed the phrase “unless the treaty stipulates otherwise” in order to limit the retroactivity to specific and definite cases, [1966-II] YbILC 63, para 4.

  28. 28.

    Haak (1967), p. 540.

  29. 29.

    Dopagne (2011a), Art 28 MN 28 et seq; Bleckmann (1973), p. 51.

  30. 30.

    Sometimes, even though there is an explicit clause on retroactivity, its interpretation might lead to difficult questions, see eg WTO Appellate Body Brazil – Desiccated Coconut WT/DS22/AB/R, para 15 et seq (1997) where the retroactivity clause of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures had to be considered in its context and in light of the object and purpose of the WTO Agreement.

  31. 31.

    1946 UNTS 3.

  32. 32.

    823 UNTS 231.

  33. 33.

    For more details see Januszkiewicz (2015), p. 358 et seq.

  34. 34.

    This example is given by Dopagne (2011a), Art 28 MN 27.

  35. 35.

    Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America, for the Amicable Settlement of All Causes of Difference between the Two Countries (‘Alabama’ Claims; Fisheries; Claims of Corporations, Companies or Private Individuals; Navigation of Rivers and Lakes; San Juan Water Boundary; and Rules Defining Duties of a Neutral Government During War) 61 BFSP 40.

  36. 36.

    This example is given by Schabas (2010), p. 40 et seq.

  37. 37.

    1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 78 UNTS 277.

  38. 38.

    Schabas (2010), p. 40 et seq.

  39. 39.

    Dopagne (2011a), Art 28 MN 28.

  40. 40.

    International Boundary Commission International Title to the Chamizal Tract (United States v Mexico) 5 AJIL 785 et seq (1911).

  41. 41.

    Protocol Relating to Certain Concessions Granted in the Ottoman Empire, and Declaration by Turkey [1924] ATS 14.

  42. 42.

    Treaty of Peace [with Turkey] [1924] ATS 9.

  43. 43.

    PCIJ Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions PCIJ Ser A No 2, 34 (1924).

  44. 44.

    Bleckmann (1973), p. 43; Kotzur (2014), p. 173.

  45. 45.

    Briggs (1968), pp. 171–174.

  46. 46.

    Bleckmann (1973), p. 44; Buyse (2006), p. 72.

  47. 47.

    Bleckmann (1973), p. 44; Buyse (2006), p. 72. An example for an “act or fact” is the existence of a valid countervailing duty decision, see GATT Panel United States – Countervailing Duties on Non-Rubber Footwear from Brazil SCM/94, BISD42 S/208, para 4.10 (1995).

  48. 48.

    Bleckmann (1973), p. 44.

  49. 49.

    See ibid. An example for a “situation” is the continued levying of countervailing duties, see WTO Panel United States – Countervailing Duties on Non-Rubber Footwear from Brazil SCM/94, BISD42 S/208, para 4.10 (1995). Another example is a patent that arose from a prior act, see WTO Appellate Body Canada – Patent Term WT/DS170, para 72 (2000). Concurring Kotzur (2014), p. 173 et seq.

  50. 50.

    Bleckmann (1973), p. 45; Dopagne (2011a), Art 28 MN 10.

  51. 51.

    Buyse (2006), p. 72.

  52. 52.

    See, with many examples, Gallus (2007), p. 491 et seq.

  53. 53.

    ECtHR Loizidou v Turkey (GC) (Preliminary Objections) App No 15318/89, Ser A 310, para 99 et seq (1995).

  54. 54.

    ECtHR Yağcı and Sargın v Turkey (Preliminary Objections) App No 16419/90, 16426/90, Ser A 319-A, para 49 (1995).

  55. 55.

    Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) UN Doc A/56/10.

  56. 56.

    Crawford (2002), p. 144.

  57. 57.

    Gallus (2007), p. 503 et seq. See also ICSID MCI Power Group LC and New Turbine Inc v Ecuador Case ARB/03/6, 31 July 2007, para 45 et seq.

  58. 58.

    Kotzur (2014), p. 175 with further references.

  59. 59.

    See eg Art 2 Code Napoléon: “La loi ne dispose que pour l’avenir; elle n’a point d’effet rétroactif.”

  60. 60.

    This question is discussed in detail by Bleckmann (1973), p. 46 et seq.

  61. 61.

    Dopagne (2011a), Art 28 MN 11.

  62. 62.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 21, 212, para 3.

  63. 63.

    [1966-I/2] YbILC 38.

  64. 64.

    [1966-I/2] YbILC 169.

  65. 65.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 24, 213, para 5.

  66. 66.

    See ICSID Mondev International Ltd v United States ARB(AF)/99/2, 11 October 2002, para 72; Gallus (2007), p. 499; Aust (2013), p. 157. Some writers classify the application of a treaty to facta pendentia as an exception to the principle of non-retroactivity, see eg Chua and Hardcastle (1997), pp. 414–415; Buyse (2006), pp. 70–71.

  67. 67.

    Other important aspects and problems are analyzed by Kotzur (2014), p. 176 et seq.

  68. 68.

    Under the pre-reform system of the ECHR, eg, both the individual complaint with the Commission and the jurisdiction of the Court were subject to an explicit recognition by the States Parties. Some of them included a limitation in time in their declaration in order to allow jurisdiction only for incidents that took place after the date of the declaration. The problems arising out of this situation are described by Tavernier (1997), p. 115 et seq.

  69. 69.

    ECommHR X v Germany App No 254/57 [1955–1957] YbECHR 150 (1957); ECommHR de Becker v Belgium App No 214/56 [1958–1959] YbECHR 214, 231 (1958); X v Belgium App No 369/58 [1958–59] YbECHR 376 (1959); X v Belgium App No 347/58 [1958–59] YbECHR 407, 412 (1959); X v Belgium App No 458/59 [1960] YbECHR 222; X v Germany App No 655/59 [1960] YbECHR 280; X v Belgium App No 793/60 [1960] YbECHR 444; Decision of the Commission as to the Admissibility of Application No 788/60 Lodged by the Government of the Federal Republic of Austria Against the Government of the Republic of Italy [1961] YbECHR 116, 132–145; X v Germany App No 892/60 [1961] YbECHR 240, 248–251; X v Belgium App No 1028/61 [1961] YbECHR 324.

  70. 70.

    ECommHR de Becker v Belgium App No 214/56 [1958–1959] YbECHR 214, 230–235 (1958); X v Germany App No 655/59 (n 56) 284–289.

  71. 71.

    Buyse (2006), p. 83 et seq.

  72. 72.

    See eg ECtHR Loizidou v Turkey (GC) (Preliminary Objections) App No 15318/89, Ser A 310, para 99 et seq (1995); Kalashnikov v Russia App No 47095/99 [2002-VI] ECHR 93, para 111; Posti and Rahko v Finland App No 27824/95 [2002-VII] ECHR 301, para 39; Blečić v Croatia (GC) App No 59532/00, 29 July 2004, para 73 et seq (2004).

  73. 73.

    HRC Gueye et al v France Comm No 196/1985, UN Doc Supp No 40 A/44/40, 189, 191–192 (1989).

  74. 74.

    Chua and Hardcastle (1997), p. 418 et seq.

  75. 75.

    ICJ Genocide Case (Preliminary Objections) [1996] ICJ Reports 595, 617. This judgment has been criticized by some scholarly writers, see eg Maljean-Dubois (1996), pp. 372–373; Dopagne (2011a), Art 28 MN 13. In their view, the ICJ applied the Genocide Convention retroactively.

  76. 76.

    SR Waldock explained that the term “entry into force” covered both the entry into force generally and the entry into force provisionally and proposed to include such a clarification (Waldock III 10). This proposal was rejected by the Drafting Committee since the term seemed self-evident and since the introduction of a clarification would make the article unnecessary complicated ([1966-I/2] YbILC 39 et seq).

  77. 77.

    Final Draft VCLT II, Commentary to Art 28.

  78. 78.

    Dopagne (2011b), Art 28 VCLT II MN 3.

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bindschedler-Robert D (1968) De la rétroactivité en droit international public. In: Faculté de droit de l’Université de Genève (ed) Festschrift Guggenheim. Faculté de Droit de l’Université de Genève, Genève, pp 184–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleckmann A (1973) Die Nichtrückwirkung völkerrechtlicher Verträge: Kommentar zu Art. 28 der Wiener Vertragsrechtskonvention. ZaöRV 33:38–55

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs HW (1968) Reflections on the Non-Retroactivity of Treaties. In: Essays on International Law. Festschrift de Luna. Instituto Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid, pp 172–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Buyse A (2006) A Lifeline in Time – Non-Retroactivity and Continuing Violations under the ECHR. Nordic JIL 75:63–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua A, Hardcastle R (1997) Retroactive Application of Treaties Revisited: Bosnia-Herzegovina v Yugoslavia. NILR 44:414–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2002) The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dopagne F (2011a) Article 28. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 718–728

    Google Scholar 

  • Dopagne F (2011b) Article 28 VCLT II. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 729–730

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallus N (2007) Recent BIT Decisions and Composite Acts Straddling the Date a Treaty Comes into Force. ICLQ 56:491–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haak V (1967) ‘Unless the Treaty Otherwise Provides’ and Similar Clauses in the International Law Commission’s 1966 Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties. ZaöRV 27:540–561

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hoffmann B, Thorn K (2007) Internationales Privatrecht einschließlich der Grundzüge des Internationalen Zivilverfahrensrechts, 9th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Januszkiewicz K (2015) Retroactivity in the 1970 UNESCO Convention: Cases of the United States and Australia. BrookJIL 41:329–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Karagiannis S (2012) The Territorial Application of Treaties. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford Guide to Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 305–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Kisker G (1963) Die Rückwirkung von Gesetzen: Eine Untersuchung zum anglo-amerikanischen und deutschen Recht. Mohr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotzur M (2014) The Temporal Dimension: Non-retroactivity and its Discontents. In: Tams CJ, Tzanakopulos A, Zimmermann A (eds) Research Handbook on the Law of Treaties. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 153–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Linderfalk U (2011) The Application of International Legal Norms over Time: The Second Branch of Intertemporal Law. NILR 58:147–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maljean-Dubois S (1996) L’Affaire relative à l’application de la Convention pour la Prévention et la Répression du Crime de Génocide (Bosnie-Herzégovine c. Yougoslavie) Arrêt du 11 juillet 1996, exceptions préliminaires. AFDI 42:357–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA (2010) Retroactive Application of the Genocide Convention. USTJLPP 4(2):36–59

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavernier P (1997) L’actualité du principe de non-rétroactivité dans le cadre de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. In: Flauss J-F, Salvia M (eds) La Convention Européenne des Droits de l’Homme: Développements récents et nouveaux défis. Droit et Justice, Brussels, pp 113–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Villiger M (1997) Customary International Law and Treaties: A Manual on the Theory and Practice of the Interrelation of Sources, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse JT (1955) The Principle of Retroactivity in International Law. TGS 41:69–89

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Public Law, Public International Law and European Union Law, Director of the Walther-Schücking-Institute for International Law, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany

    Kerstin von der Decken

Authors
  1. Kerstin von der Decken
    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

von der Decken, K. (2018). Article 28. 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_31

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_31

  • 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