Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties pp 539–555Cite as

Article 30

Application of successive treaties relating to the same subject matter

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 4908 Accesses

Abstract

Conflicts between norms relating to the same subject matter are no peculiarity of public international law. However, while such conflicts can be solved quite easily in domestic law due to its hierarchical structure, the same problem gives rise to many difficulties at the international level. Public international law is characterized by the lack of a central legislator and, therefore, by the lack of a comprehensive hierarchical order as well as by the lack of continuity and systematic congruency in international law-making. Public international law is a ‘fragmented’ legal order where the probability of contradictions and the need for rules of conflict resolution is extremely high. Colliding treaties are, therefore, no new phenomenon in public international law. The rapidly increasing number of treaties, however, has aggravated the dimension of the problem dramatically.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    In 2002, the ILC established a Study Group to examine the topic of “Fragmentation of International Law”. In 2006, the Study Group presented its report (13 April 2006, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682) and its conclusions (18 July 2006, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.702). One of the sub-topics of fragmentation was the question of the application of successive treaties, see report, p. 115 et seq, conclusions, p. 17 et seq.

  2. 2.

    See Zuleeg (1977), p. 246; Sinclair (1984), p. 93; Boyle and Chinkin (2007), p. 248; Alschner (2014), p. 271 et seq (concerning investment treaty law).

  3. 3.

    See Karl (2000), pp. 936–937; Matz-Lück (2010), MN 14. Sinclair (1984), p. 96 refers to Nascimento e Silva and lists two further principles: the principle of autonomous operation and the principle of legislative intent.

  4. 4.

    See Sinclair (1984), p. 96; Dahm et al (2002), p. 687; Matz-Lück (2006), MN 3.

  5. 5.

    An overview of the negotiating history of Art 30 is given by Orakhelashvili (2011a), Art 30 MN 8–18; Karl (2000), pp. 937–938 and (briefly) by Sinclair (1984), pp. 93–94; Matz-Lück (2010), MN 12.

  6. 6.

    Lauterpacht I 156.

  7. 7.

    Orakhelashvili (2011a), Art 30 MN 13.

  8. 8.

    Lauterpacht II 133.

  9. 9.

    Fitzmaurice III 26–27.

  10. 10.

    Waldock II 53.

  11. 11.

    Waldock III 34.

  12. 12.

    UNCLOT II 252–253.

  13. 13.

    UNCLOT II 57.

  14. 14.

    Sinclair (1984), p. 93.

  15. 15.

    Lauterpacht I 156; Waldock II 57, 60; Orakhelashvili (2011a), Art 30 MN 22; Aust (2013), p. 192 with further references.

  16. 16.

    See PCIJ Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions PCIJ Ser A No 2, 31 (1924); Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube (Advisory Opinion) PCIJ Ser B No 14, 23 (1927); Oscar Chinn PCIJ Ser A/B No 63, 80 (1934) together with the dissenting opinion of Judge Hurst 122–123.

  17. 17.

    Mus (1998), pp. 211–212; Orakhelashvili (2011a), Art 30 MN 22; Aust (2013), p. 202. However, not all scholars agree: According to Matz (2005), p. 316, Art 30 does not reflect customary international law. According to Villiger (2009), Art 30 MN 21, however, “Art 30 may be considered as being customary as a whole”.

  18. 18.

    Orakhelashvili (2011a), Art 30 MN 29–30; Aust (2013), p. 203; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 216 para 9.

  19. 19.

    Karl (2000), p. 940; Matz-Lück (2010), MN 8.

  20. 20.

    ECJ (CJ) Commission v United Kingdom C-466/98 [2002] ECR I-9427.

  21. 21.

    See Ličková (2008), p. 469 et seq.

  22. 22.

    See the very clear questions and examples provided by Sinclair (United Kingdom), UNCLOT I 165. For a detailed reproduction of the discussions within the ICJ, see Vierdag (1988), p. 92 et seq.

  23. 23.

    See the proposal of Sinclair (United Kingdom), UNCLOT II 222 and the confirmation by the Expert Consultant Waldock, UNCLOT II 253. See also the statement of Pinto (Ceylon), UNCLOT II 56.

  24. 24.

    See Aust (2013), p. 204; Zuleeg (1977), p. 256; Matz-Lück (2010), MN 26; Borgen (2012), p. 461. According to Vierdag (1988), p. 96, however, the date of entry into force is the decisive one. This view is strongly criticized by Mus (1998), pp. 221–222.

  25. 25.

    Sinclair (1984), p. 98; Aust (2013), p. 204; Zuleeg (1977), p. 256.

  26. 26.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 214 para 1, 217, para 13.

  27. 27.

    Karl (2000), p. 936; Orakhelashvili (2011a), Art 30 MN 27 et seq.

  28. 28.

    Zuleeg (1977), p. 257.

  29. 29.

    The explanation was that such cases constituted questions of interpretation rather than questions of application of treaties, see Sinclair (1984), UNCLOT II 222; Sinclair (United Kingdom) 98. SR Waldock confirmed this view, see UNCLOT II 253.

  30. 30.

    Aust (2013), p. 204; Boyle and Chinkin (2007), p. 251.

  31. 31.

    Often, the decision is left to courts and tribunals. See eg some decisions in the area of investment law. In several cases, investment tribunals had to decide whether EU (foreign investment) law and bilateral investment treaties or the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty (2080 UNTS 95) respectively shared the same subject matter; they denied it, see Eastern Sugar (B.V. v The Czech Republic (Partial Award) SCC Case No 088/2004 (2007) IIC 310, para 159; Eureko B.V. v The Slovak Republic (Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension) PCA Case No 2008-13 (2010) 145 ILR 1, paras 245, 258; ICSID Electrabel S.A. v Republic of Hungary (Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability) ARB/07/19, 30 November 2012, para 4.176. For more details see Reinisch (2012), p. 1205 et seq.

  32. 32.

    See Karl (2000), p. 936; Matz-Lück (2010), MN 5; Orakhelashvili (2011a), Art 30 MN 30; Ghouri (2012), p. 250. A detailed analysis of the notion of conflict is made by Sadat-Akhavi (2003), p. 5 et seq. Borgen (2012), p. 455 et seq suggests a wider concept (“frustrating” the goals of another treaty already constitutes a conflict).

  33. 33.

    Aust (2013), p. 192 et seq; Matz-Lück (2010), MN 20; Sadat-Akhavi (2003), p. 25 et seq.

  34. 34.

    Karl (2000), p. 936; Matz (2005), p. 249 et seq; Matz-Lück (2010), MN 9; Villiger (2009), Art 30 MN 9.

  35. 35.

    Most scholars agree that there is no general hierarchy either between the different sources or between the different treaties in public international law. Some scholars, however, classify the UN Charter as the “Constitution” of public international law that has a higher rank than the other treaties, see eg Fassbender (1998); Dupuy (1997), pp. 1–33.

  36. 36.

    See Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 214, para 3.

  37. 37.

    For more details, see Dahm et al (2002), p. 689 et seq; Mus (1998), pp. 216–217; Wilting (1996), p. 56 et seq.

  38. 38.

    Dahm et al (2002), p. 687.

  39. 39.

    See Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 214, para 4; Sinclair(1984), p. 97; Orakhelashvili (2011a), Art 30 MN 23; Aust (2013), p. 202.

  40. 40.

    Matz-Lück (2006), MN 1.

  41. 41.

    Karl (2000), p. 939.

  42. 42.

    For further examples see Hollis (2012), p. 726 et seq; Borgen (2012), p. 459.

  43. 43.

    1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 596 UNTS 261.

  44. 44.

    Manzini (2001), p. 782. The interpretation of the scope of Art 351 TFEU by the European Court of Justice and by arbitral tribunals corresponds to Art 30 para 4 VCLT (→ MN 24).

  45. 45.

    Karl (2000), pp. 939–940; Dahm et al (2002), p. 701 et seq.

  46. 46.

    2080 UNTS 95.

  47. 47.

    For further examples in the area of investment treaty law see Alschner (2014), p. 295 et seq.

  48. 48.

    For the different types of conflict clauses, see Aust (2013), p. 195 et seq; Matz-Lück (2006), MN 7 et seq; Mus (1998), p. 214 et seq; Dahm et al (2002), p. 696 et seq; Wilting (1996), p. 67 et seq; Sadat-Akhavi (2003), p. 84 et seq; Villiger (2009), Art 30 MN 11 et seq.

  49. 49.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 214 et seq; Matz-Lück (2006), MN 10.

  50. 50.

    For further examples see Hollis (2012), p. 724 et seq; Borgen (2012), p. 458.

  51. 51.

    1949 North Atlantic Treaty 34 UNTS 243.

  52. 52.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 214, para 2.

  53. 53.

    Conclusions of the ILC Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law, 18 July 2006, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.702, p. 19 para 30.

  54. 54.

    Matz-Lück (2006), MN 4; Mus (1998), p. 216.

  55. 55.

    Matz-Lück (2006), MN 10.

  56. 56.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 216, para 9; Matz-Lück (2006), MN 15.

  57. 57.

    The only exception may be Art 103 UN Charter. According to some legal scholars it has the effect of making treaties void where they are not compatible with the UN Charter, see Dahm et al (2002), pp. 685–686. Most legal scholars do not share this view, see eg Mus (1998), p. 216; Orakhelashvili (2011a), Art 30 MN 41.

  58. 58.

    For a historical overview of the development of the lex posterior principle in public international law, see Karl (2000), p. 937 and (briefly) Matz-Lück (2010), MN 15.

  59. 59.

    Mus (1998), p. 9; Orakhelashvili (2011a), Art 30 MN 65.

  60. 60.

    PCIJ Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions PCIJ Ser A No 2, 31 (1924).

  61. 61.

    Conclusions of the ILC Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law, 18 July 2006, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.702, p. 17 para 24; Borgen (2012), p. 462.

  62. 62.

    Vierdag (1988), pp. 95–96; Mus (1998), p. 219.

  63. 63.

    Karl (2000), p. 938; Wilting (1996), p. 99 et seq.

  64. 64.

    This differentiation has also influenced the interpretation of conflict clauses. The most famous example concerns Art 351 TFEU. In the Electrabel case the tribunal referred to ECJ Commission v Slovakia C-264/09 ECLI:EU:C:2011:580, para 41 and stated obiter that Art 351 TFEU (formerly Art 307 EC) is only the expression in the EU law of Art 30 para 4 lit. b VCLT to the effect that if there are two successive treaties not having the same parties, the applicable treaty is the one to which both States are parties. If two States are both parties to a pre-accession treaty and the EU Treaties, in case of incompatibility between the two, it is the later treaty which applies, in conformity with Art 30 para 3 VCLT to which Art 30 para 4 lit. b VCLT refers (ICSID Electrabel S.A. v Republic of Hungary (Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability) ARB/07/19, paras 4.176–4.190).

  65. 65.

    Orakhelashvili (2011a), Art 30 MN 75. The Final Draft suggested the inclusion of two separate provisions, one for earlier treaties (lit b) and one for later treaties (lit c). The Drafting Committee, however, united lit b and lit c in one single lit b, see UNCLOT II 252–253.

  66. 66.

    For the three constellations regulated by para 3 lit b and the problems resulting in each case, see Karl (2000), pp. 938–939. See also Conclusions of the ILC Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law, 18 July 2006, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.702, p. 17 para 25 et seq; Matz-Lück (2006), MN 24. It is worth mentioning that the Secretary-General as depositary of UN Conventions has in a way ‘capitulated’ in view of the large number and the complexity of possible situations that may result from the application of both the earlier and the later treaty by various States. He declared that he “does not specify between which States the treaties apply and, when notifying the parties of the deposit of an instrument in respect of the said treaties, restricts himself to recalling the relevant provisions of the treaties concerned”, see 1999 Summary of Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties, UN Doc ST/LEG/7/Rev.1, para 262.

  67. 67.

    Mus (1998), p. 225; Karl (2000), p. 939.

  68. 68.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 217, para 11; Aust (2013), p. 203; Karl (2000), p. 938; Ghouri (2012), p. 255.

  69. 69.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 217, para 11.

  70. 70.

    Mus (1998), p. 225 et seq.

  71. 71.

    Orakhelashvili (2011a), Art 30 MN 91.

  72. 72.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 30, 217, para 11.

  73. 73.

    See eg Boyle and Chinkin (2007), p. 250 et seq; Sinclair (1984), p. 98; Vierdag (1988), p. 110; Mus (1998), p. 227 et seq; Yamada (2002), p. 768 and especially Borgen (2005), p. 573 et seq. A different but related question is how to solve regime (not treaty) conflicts, see Finke (2014), p. 415 et seq.

  74. 74.

    van Asselt (2012), p. 1251.

  75. 75.

    Mus (1998), p. 227 et seq; Sadat-Akhavi (2003), p. 70 et seq; Dahm et al (2002), p. 694.

  76. 76.

    Report of the ILC Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law, 13 April 2006, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682, p. 125, para 241; Ghouri (2012), p. 248.

  77. 77.

    Sinclair (1984), p. 98; Vierdag (1988), p. 110; Benzing (2004), p. 226; Sadat-Akhavi (2003), p. 82 et seq.

  78. 78.

    Yamada (2002), p. 763 et seq; Zapatero (2005), p. 63 et seq. Consequently, Yamada pleads for the preparation of new guidelines to supplement Art 30 in order to allow for an adequate choice of dispute settlement procedures in a single and identical dispute falling under two compatible treaties.

  79. 79.

    Borgen (2005), p. 583 et seq, 634 et seq; Sadat-Akhavi (2003), p. 99 et seq, 197 et seq. The principles, however, are not helpful in all cases, see Ghouri (2012), p. 251 et seq with further references.

  80. 80.

    See eg the solutions found in the area of investment treaty law presented by Alschner (2014), p. 280 et seq.

  81. 81.

    See Borgen (2012), p. 459 et seq; Finke (2014), p. 420 et seq. Further (theoretical) solutions have been developed by scholars, see eg Ghouri (2012), p. 256 et seq (“treaty characterization” as a possible solution).

  82. 82.

    Final Draft VCLT II, Commentary to Art 30, para 1.

  83. 83.

    Final Draft VCLT II, Commentary to Art 30, para 1; Orakhelashvili (2011b), Art 30 VCLT II MN 2.

References

  • Alschner W (2014) Regionalism and Overlap in Investment Treaty Law: Towards Consolidation or Contradiction? JIEL 17:271–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Asselt H (2012) Managing the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law: Forests at the Intersection of the Climate and Biodiversity Regimes. NYUJILP 44:1205–1278

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Benzing M (2004) US Bilateral Non-Surrender Agreements and Article 98 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court: An Exercise in the Law of Treaties. MPYUNL 8:181–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgen CJ (2005) Resolving Treaty Conflicts. GWashILR 37:573–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgen CJ (2012) Treaty Conflicts and Normative Fragmentation. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford Guide to Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 448–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle A, Chinkin C (2007) The Making of International Law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahm G, Delbrück J, Wolfrum R (2002) Völkerrecht Band I/3, 2nd edn. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy P-M (1997) The Constitutional Dimension of the Charter of the United Nations Revisited. MPYUNL 1:1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender B (1998) The United Nations Charter as Constitution of the International Community. ColJTL 36:529–619

    Google Scholar 

  • Finke J (2014) Regime-Collisions: Tensions between Treaties (and How to Solve Them). In: Tams CJ, Tzanakopulos A, Zimmermann A (eds) Research Handbook on the Law of Treaties. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 415–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghouri AA (2012) Is Characterization of Treaties a Solution to Treaty Conflicts? ChinJIL 11:247–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollis DB (2012) Applying the Treaty. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford Guide to Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 708–740

    Google Scholar 

  • Karl W (2000) Treaties, Conflicts between. In: EPIL, pp 935–941

    Google Scholar 

  • Ličková M (2008) European Exceptionalism in International Law. EJIL 19:463–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manzini P (2001) The Priority of Pre-Existing Treaties of EC Member States within the Framework of International Law. EJIL 12:781–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matz N (2005) Wege zur Koordinierung völkerrechtlicher Verträge: Völkervertragsrechtliche und institutionelle Ansätze. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matz-Lück N (2006) Treaties, Conflict Clauses. 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-e1466. Accessed 29 November 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Matz-Lück N (2010) Treaties, Conflicts between. 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-e1485. Accessed 29 November 2017

  • Mus JB (1998) Conflicts between Treaties in International Law. NILR 45:208–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2011a) Article 30. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 764–800

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2011b) Article 30 VCLT II. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 801–803

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2012) Articles 30 and 59 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in Action – The Decisions on Jurisdiction in the Eastern Sugar and Eureko Investment Arbitrations. LIEI 39(2):157–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadat-Akhavi SA (2003) Methods of Resolving Conflicts between Treaties. Nijhoff/Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Vierdag EW (1988) The Time of the ‘Conclusion’ of a Multilateral Treaty: Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Related Provisions. BYIL 59:75–111

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilting WH (1996) Vertragskonkurrenz im Völkerrecht. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamada C (2002) Priority Application of Successive Treaties Relating to the Same Subject Matter. In: Ando N, McWhinney E, Wolfrum R (eds) Festschrift Oda. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 763–771

    Google Scholar 

  • Zapatero P (2005) Modern International Law and the Advent of Special Legal Systems. ArizJICL 23:55–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuleeg M (1977) Vertragskonkurrenz im Völkerrecht, Teil I: Verträge zwischen souveränen Staaten. GYIL 20:246–276

    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 30. 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_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_33

  • 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