Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 35

Treaties providing for obligations for third States

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

Abstract

Art 35 VCLT substantiates the general rule laid down in Art 34 in respect of treaties providing for obligations of third States and is, similar to the vast majority of the provisions of the Convention, based on the principle of consent. Its comparatively strict requirements verbalize the attempt of the ILC to safeguard the traditional role of treaties as a source of international law only for the parties to the treaty. As regards its object and function, it seems appropriate to refer to the comments made in the context of the general rule. One must conclude that Art 35 has, as far as the general necessity of the third State’s consent is concerned, developed into a rule of customary international law.

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.

    Arguably, the rules on ius cogens might be regarded as an exception to the consensual character of the law of treaties (→ Art 53 MN 18–23).

  2. 2.

    PCIJ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex PCIJ Ser A/B No 46, 141 (1932).

  3. 3.

    Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 74; Rosenne [1964-I] YbILC 75; but see the wording of Draft Art 61 para 1 proposed by Waldock III 17: “[e]xcept as provided in article 62 and 63”.

  4. 4.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 10.

  5. 5.

    See Laly-Chevalier (2011a) Art 35 MN 5.

  6. 6.

    Waldock III 19 et seq; for the general historical background, see → Art 34 MN 3–8.

  7. 7.

    ILC Report 16th Session [1964-II] YbILC 173, 181.

  8. 8.

    Elias [1964-I] YbILC 73.

  9. 9.

    Cf Reuter (1995), p. 102; Laly-Chevalier (2011a), Art 35 MN 7.

  10. 10.

    Cf only Art 5 para 4 MARPOL (→ Art 34 MN 16).

  11. 11.

    Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 60.

  12. 12.

    See de Luna [1966-I/2] YbILC 60; Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 62; Reuter [1966-I/2] YbILC 62.

  13. 13.

    Rosenne [1966-I/2] YbILC 62.

  14. 14.

    Cf ILC Report 16th Session [1964-II] YbILC 173, 181–182.

  15. 15.

    Cf [1966-I/2] YbILC 60–73.

  16. 16.

    [1966-I/2] YbILC 72–73; cf also Waldock VI 68 (comments of the USSR and US governments).

  17. 17.

    See ILC Report 18th Session [1966-II] YbILC 172, 227; see also → Art 34 MN 32.

  18. 18.

    ILC Report 34th Session [1982-II/2] YbILC 1, 46 (original emphasis).

  19. 19.

    See also Laly-Chevalier (2011a), Art 35 MN 8.

  20. 20.

    Undecided Fitzmaurice (2002), p. 48 n 19.

  21. 21.

    Chinkin (1993), p. 33 n 44; Laly-Chevalier (2011a), Art 35 MN 8; Rozakis (1975), p. 11.

  22. 22.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 11.

  23. 23.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 11.

  24. 24.

    See only Degan (1997), p. 489.

  25. 25.

    De Luna [1964-I] YbILC 70.

  26. 26.

    Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 20; ILC Report 18th Session [1966-II] YbILC 172, 227.

  27. 27.

    Cf de Luna [1964-I] YbILC 78.

  28. 28.

    Wetzel (1973), pp. 79 et seq, 87; see also Fitzmaurice V 73, 91; Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 74.

  29. 29.

    Fitzmaurice V 79 (emphasis added).

  30. 30.

    Fitzmaurice V 79.

  31. 31.

    Fitzmaurice V 90.

  32. 32.

    Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 20.

  33. 33.

    Cf Jiménez de Aréchaga [1964-I] YbILC 69; Tunkin [1964-I] YbILC 71; Briggs [1964-I] YbILC 72; see also the position of the Czechoslovak government, reproduced in Waldock VI 67.

  34. 34.

    ILC Report 18th Session [1966-II] YbILC 172, 227.

  35. 35.

    Emphasis added. See also Laly-Chevalier (2011a), Art 35 MN 28; Villiger (2009), Art 35 MN 2; Reuter (1995), p. 105.

  36. 36.

    Reproduced in Waldock VI 71–72.

  37. 37.

    Waldock VI 73.

  38. 38.

    De Luna [1964-I] YbILC 70; see also ILC Report 18th Session [1966-II] YbILC 172, 230.

  39. 39.

    But see Chinkin (1993), p. 33; see also Amado [1964-I] YbILC 70: “The entire article was overshadowed by the ghostly presence of that agreement which the Special Rapporteur called ‘collateral’, whereby quasi-parties to a treaty accepted the obligations which the real parties had written into it.”

  40. 40.

    1888 Convention Respecting the Free Navigation of the Suez Maritime Canal, reprinted in (1909) 3 AJIL Supp 123.

  41. 41.

    RoP Supp 2 Vol 3 (1955–1959) 505, 506 (Art 102 paras 5–8).

  42. 42.

    Laly-Chevalier (2011a), Art 35 MN 32; cf also Wetzel (1973), p. 85; the first option is advocated in principle by Villiger (2009), Art 35 MN 4.

  43. 43.

    Fitzmaurice V 79 (Draft Art 11).

  44. 44.

    Fitzmaurice V 91.

  45. 45.

    ILC Report 18th Session [1966-II] YbILC 172, 227; see also Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 20: “Accordingly, it seems appropriate to deal with the case under the present article as a form of exception to the pacta tertiis rule” (original emphasis).

  46. 46.

    PCIJ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex PCIJ Ser A/B No 46, 141 (1932).

  47. 47.

    PCIJ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex PCIJ Ser A/B No 46, 130 (1932).

  48. 48.

    Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 17 (Draft Art 61).

  49. 49.

    Paredes [1964-I] YbILC 68; see also Verdross [1964-I] YbILC 69; de Luna [1964-I] YbILC 70; Lachs [1964-I] YbILC 71; Castrén [1964-I] YbILC 71; Tunkin [1964-I] YbILC 71; Briggs [1964-I] YbILC 72; Pal [1964-I] YbILC 73; Tabibi [1964-I] YbILC 74; Tsuruoka [1964-I] YbILC 76. For the opposite minority view, see Amado [1964-I] YbILC 70 and Ago [1964-I] YbILC 72 stating that “if the Commission retained only the word ‘expressly’, it would be denying forms of consent which were perfectly genuine and acceptable.”

  50. 50.

    Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 77.

  51. 51.

    Amado [1966-I/2] YbILC 66.

  52. 52.

    ILC Report 18th Session [1966-II] YbILC 172, 227.

  53. 53.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.25, UNCLOT III 268.

  54. 54.

    UNCLOT II 59.

  55. 55.

    UNCLOT II 60.

  56. 56.

    UNCLOT II 60.

  57. 57.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 13.

  58. 58.

    Note that if a treaty establishes independent rights and obligations simultaneously, the stricter requirements of Art 35 enjoy priority over those of Art 36 (→ Art 36 MN 12).

  59. 59.

    But see Laly-Chevalier (2011a), Art 35 MN 20.

  60. 60.

    ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf [1969] ICJ Rep 3, para 28.

  61. 61.

    ICTY Prosecutor v Blaškić (Appeals Chamber) (Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997) IT-95-14 AR, 29 October 1997, para 26.

  62. 62.

    ILC Report 24th Session [1972-II] YbILC 219, 245.

  63. 63.

    Laly-Chevalier (2011a), Art 35 MN 20.

  64. 64.

    Yasseen [1964-I] YbILC 79.

  65. 65.

    Cf Rosenne [1964-I] YbILC 75.

  66. 66.

    See Wetzel (1973), p. 86 et seq; Laly-Chevalier (2011a), Art 35 MN 30.

  67. 67.

    Laly-Chevalier (2011a), Art 35 MN 27.

  68. 68.

    The second sentence of Art 35 VCLT II reads: “Acceptance by the third organization of such an obligation shall be governed by the rules of that organization.”

  69. 69.

    Laly-Chevalier (2011b), Art 35 VCLT II MN 1.

  70. 70.

    ILC Report 34th Session [1982-II/2] YbILC 1, 42.

  71. 71.

    Cf El-Erian [1969-I] YbILC 16; Kearney [1969-I] YbILC 18; Ouchakov [1969-I] YbILC 20; Pinto [1973-I] YbILC 217.

  72. 72.

    Reuter II 89.

  73. 73.

    Reuter II 89.

  74. 74.

    Reuter VI 127.

  75. 75.

    For a detailed assessment see Laly-Chevalier (2011b), Art 35 VCLT II MN 7–15.

  76. 76.

    Cf Geiser (1972), p. 181.

  77. 77.

    But see the suggestion submitted by Waldock III 13 et seq.

  78. 78.

    Laly-Chevalier (2011b), Art 35 VCLT II MN 7.

  79. 79.

    Reuter [1973-II] YbILC 215.

  80. 80.

    Laly-Chevalier (2011b), Art 35 VCLT II MN 7.

  81. 81.

    For an assessment of the historical background see Heywood Anderson (2011), Art 74 VCLT II MN 10–15.

  82. 82.

    Consolidated version: [2012] OJ C 326, 47. Art 218 para 2 reads: “Agreements concluded by the Union are binding upon the institutions of the Union and on its Member States.”

  83. 83.

    This need is frequently ignored by those arguing that consent in terms of Art 35 VCLT II is automatically given when States become members of international organizations; cf the references collected by Laly-Chevalier (2011b), Art 35 VCLT II MN 14 n 36. It should be noted in this respect that the internal law of international organizations is not based on a uniform approach. Whether or not membership in an international organization implies consent in terms of Art 35 VCLT II in respect of treaties concluded by the organization ought thus to be answered on a case by case basis.

  84. 84.

    In contrast, Heywood Anderson (2011), Art 74 VCLT II MN 15 and 28 seems to argue in favor of a more flexible approach, depending on the internal rules of the organization concerned.

  85. 85.

    Chinkin (1993), p. 94.

  86. 86.

    1833 UNTS 3.

References

  • Chinkin C (1993) Third Parties in International Law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Degan V (1997) Sources of International Law. Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice M (2002) Third Parties and the Law of Treaties. MPYUNL 6:37–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiser J-J (1972) Les effets des accords conclus par les organisations internationales – Etude en droit international des Organisations Internationales à la lumière de la Convention de Vienne de 1969. IUHEI, Geneve

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood Anderson D (2011) Article 74 VCLT II. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 1665–1674

    Google Scholar 

  • Laly-Chevalier C (2011a) Article 35. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 902–920

    Google Scholar 

  • Laly-Chevalier C (2011b) Article 35 VCLT II. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 921–928

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuter P (1995) Introduction to the Law of Treaties. Kegan Paul International, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozakis C (1975) Treaties and Third States: A Study in the Reinforcement of the Consensual Standards in International Law. ZaöRV 35:1–40

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel RG (1973) Verträge zugunsten und zu Lasten Dritter nach der Wiener Vertragskonvention. Dissertation, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Public Law, Public International Law and European Law, Law Faculty, Trier University, Trier, Germany

    Alexander Proelss

Authors
  1. Alexander Proelss
    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

Proelss, A. (2018). Article 35. 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_38

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_38

  • 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