Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 36

Treaties providing for rights for third States

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

  • 4702 Accesses

Abstract

Art 36 VCLT substantiates the general rule laid down in Art 34 in respect of treaties providing for rights of third States. As regards its object and purpose, it is appropriate to refer to the comments made in the context of Art 34. While Art 36 indeed addresses the converse situation, it does not merely repeat the wording of Art 35 but differs from that provision in several ways, the most obvious one being that the beneficiary State need not necessarily accept the right in writing.

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.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 32, 228, para 1 (original emphasis); see also Waldock III 21.

  2. 2.

    Lachs [1964-I] YbILC 83; contra Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 110; Reuter [1964-I] YbILC 113; Yasseen [1964-I] YbILC 113.

  3. 3.

    ILC Report 16th Session [1964-II] YbILC 173, 176; see also ILC Report 18th Session [1966-II] YbILC 172, 177.

  4. 4.

    UNCLOT II 61–62.

  5. 5.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.22, UNCLOT III 268.

  6. 6.

    UNCLOT II 60.

  7. 7.

    UNCLOT II 61. See also the position of the United States (UNCLOT II 62), Switzerland (UNCLOT II 62), Israel (UNCLOT II 62) and New Zealand (UNCLOT II 62).

  8. 8.

    See UNCLOT II 61.

  9. 9.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 21; Villiger (2009), Art 36 MN 10; Reuter (1995), p. 106 et seq; D’Argent (2011a), Art 36 MN 2.

  10. 10.

    Cf UNCLOT II 63.

  11. 11.

    See McNair (1961), pp. 309–321.

  12. 12.

    Fitzmaurice V 81 (Draft Art 20), 102–104; Waldock III 22.

  13. 13.

    Waldock III 21.

  14. 14.

    See, in support of the stipulation pour autrui concept: Verdross [1964-I] YbILC 81; Lachs [1964-I] YbILC 83; Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 86; Briggs [1964-I] YbILC 95. For advocates of the collateral agreement theory, see: Castrén [1964-I] YbILC 81; Paredes [1964-I] YbILC 82; Reuter [1964-I] YbILC 83; Ago [1964-I] YbILC 84; Elias [1964-I] YbILC 84; Yasseen [1964-I] YbILC 85; Tunkin [1964-I] YbILC 85; Pal [1964-I] YbILC 89; El-Erian [1964-I] YbILC 92.

  15. 15.

    Jiménez de Aréchaga [1964-I] YbILC 87; Rosenne [1964-I] YbILC 88.

  16. 16.

    Jiménez de Aréchaga [1966-I/2] YbILC 73; see also Verdross [1966-I/2] YbILC 74.

  17. 17.

    Castrén [1966-I/2] YbILC 74; see also Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 76; Briggs [1966-I/2] YbILC 76; Yasseen [1966-I/2] YbILC 77; El-Erian [1966-I/2] YbILC 77; Waldock VI 70.

  18. 18.

    See the respective proposals made by Castrén [1966-I/2] YbILC 75; Yasseen [1966-I/2] YbILC 77.

  19. 19.

    Verdross [1966-I/2] YbILC 173.

  20. 20.

    Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 173.

  21. 21.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.141.

  22. 22.

    UNCLOT I 196.

  23. 23.

    Note that under Art 36 para 2 VCLT II, assent given by the third organization “shall be governed by the rules of the organization.” See below → MN 35.

  24. 24.

    Waldock III 19.

  25. 25.

    Cf Castrén [1964-I] YbILC 82; Rosenne [1964-I] YbILC 85; Rosenne [1964-I] YbILC 89; Tunkin [1964-I] YbILC 85 et seq: “real consent was necessary”.

  26. 26.

    [1966-II] YbILC 321.

  27. 27.

    [1966-II] YbILC 342.

  28. 28.

    Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 73; Tunkin [1966-I/2] YbILC 75.

  29. 29.

    Jiménez de Aréchaga [1966-I/2] YbILC 73; consenting Verdross [1966-I/2] YbILC 74; Rosenne [1966-I/2] YbILC 77.

  30. 30.

    Castrén [1966-I/2] YbILC 74; Yasseen [1966-I/2] YbILC 77.

  31. 31.

    Reuter [1966-I/2] YbILC 75; de Luna [1966-I/2] YbILC 75.

  32. 32.

    Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 81; consenting Bartoš [1966-I/2] YbILC 81; Yasseen [1966-I/2] YbILC 81; de Luna [1966-I/2] YbILC 82; Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 82.

  33. 33.

    Paredes [1966-I/2] YbILC 171.

  34. 34.

    Yasseen [1966-I/2] YbILC 171; Bartoš [1966-I/2] YbILC 171; Tabibi [1966-I/2] YbILC 172; Tunkin [1966-I/2] YbILC 172; contra Jiménez de Aréchaga [1966-I/2] YbILC 171; Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 172.

  35. 35.

    Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 172.

  36. 36.

    Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 173 (para 33 et seq).

  37. 37.

    Tunkin [1966-I/2] YbILC 174; de Luna [1966-I/2] YbILC 174; Tabibi [1966-I/2] YbILC 174; Yasseen [1966-I/2] YbILC 174; Bartoš [1966-I/2] YbILC 174.

  38. 38.

    Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 174.

  39. 39.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.218, UNCLOT III 153.

  40. 40.

    UNCLOT I 194.

  41. 41.

    See Jiménez de Aréchaga [1966-I/2] YbILC 173.

  42. 42.

    Lachs [1964-I] YbILC 83: “at the first possible opportunity”; Elias [1964-I] YbILC 84; Bartoš [1966-I/2] YbILC 81; Yasseen [1966-I/2] YbILC 81.

  43. 43.

    Castrén [1964-I] YbILC 82; Jiménez de Aréchaga [1964-I] YbILC 88; Rosenne [1964-I] YbILC 89.

  44. 44.

    Bartoš [1964-I] YbILC 92.

  45. 45.

    Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 172.

  46. 46.

    Bartoš [1966-I/2] YbILC 172.

  47. 47.

    Bartoš [1966-I/2] YbILC 173; Yasseen [1966-I/2] YbILC 174.

  48. 48.

    Cf Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 173.

  49. 49.

    Lachs [1964-I] YbILC 83; see also Ago [1964-I] YbILC 84.

  50. 50.

    See Waldock UNCLOT I 196; Reuter (1995), p. 105.

  51. 51.

    Sinclair (1984), pp. 102–103: “a treaty between two States confers a right upon a third State to the use of ports situated in the territories of the States Parties to the treaty in return for a right of passage by the States Parties to the treaty over the territory of the third State.”

  52. 52.

    Lachs [1964-I] YbILC 83; Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 87; Cahier (1974), p. 647 et seq; Fitzmaurice (2002), p. 54; Chinkin (1993), p. 40 et seq; Laly-Chevalier (2011), Art 35 MN 21; D’Argent (2011a), Art 36 MN 9; Sinclair (1984), p. 103; Rozakis (1975), p. 17; Villiger (2009), Art 35 MN 2.

  53. 53.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 32, 229, para 7.

  54. 54.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 18.

  55. 55.

    Arguably, the rules on treaty interpretation contained in the VCLT may be applied by way of analogy (→ Art 35 MN 10).

  56. 56.

    See Verdross [1964-I] YbILC 81.

  57. 57.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 18; see also Fitzmaurice V 102.

  58. 58.

    D’Argent (2011a), Art 36 MN 7.

  59. 59.

    PCIJ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (Judgment) PCIJ Ser A/B No 46, 147 et seq (1932) (emphasis added).

  60. 60.

    In the affirmative, see opinion of Judge Negulesco in PCIJ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (opinion Negulesco) PCIJ Ser A No 22, 37 (1929). The question was re-raised in the course of the Vienna Conference by the delegate of Tanzania; see UNCLOT I 196.

  61. 61.

    Waldock III 25; consenting Lachs [1964-I] YbILC 83. See also Harvard Draft 935; Fitzmaurice V 103; Jiménez de Aréchaga (1956), p. 356.

  62. 62.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 32, 228, para 2.

  63. 63.

    D’Argent (2011a), Art 36 MN 13.

  64. 64.

    D’Argent (2011a), Art 36 MN 14.

  65. 65.

    See Tunkin [1966-I/2] YbILC 76; see also Villiger (2009), Art 36 MN 5.

  66. 66.

    UNCLOT I 196. The Draft Articles mentioned correspond with Arts 34, 35 and 36 VCLT.

  67. 67.

    Castrén [1966-I/2] YbILC 75; see also Tsuruoka [1966-I/2] YbILC 79.

  68. 68.

    Reuter (1995), p. 104; Fitzmaurice (2002), p. 51; contra Sinclair (1984), p. 103. See also Waldock VI 70.

  69. 69.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 18 et seq.

  70. 70.

    David (2011), Art 34 MN 16; Jiménez de Aréchaga (1956), p. 354; see also Final Draft, Commentary to Art 32, 228, para 5; Briggs [1966-I/2] YbILC 76.

  71. 71.

    See D’Argent (2011a), Art 36 MN 4.

  72. 72.

    In the affirmative Verdross [1964-I] YbILC 85; Lachs [1964-I] YbILC 83; Amado [1964-I] YbILC 86; Jiménez de Aréchaga [1966-I/2] YbILC 73; de Luna [1966-I/2] YbILC 81; contra Ago [1964-I] YbILC 84; Ago [1964-I] YbILC 90; Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 76; Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 79; Yasseen [1964-I] YbILC 85; Briggs [1966-I/2] YbILC 78.

  73. 73.

    D’Argent (2011a), Art 36 MN 4 n 5 observes that since the adoption of the Convention in 1969, no relevant State practice has been reported in the respective fora of the United States, France, Germany, United Kingdom and Switzerland.

  74. 74.

    See eg the comments made by the Dutch and Argentine delegations, reproduced in Waldock V, p. 69 et seq; as for the Vienna Conference, see the comments made by representatives of Finland, the Netherlands and Italy UNCLOT I 193–194.

  75. 75.

    Harvard Draft 661 (Art 18 lit b); see also the comment on that provision Harvard Draft 935.

  76. 76.

    PCIJ Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Merits) PCIJ Ser A No 7, 29 (1926) (emphasis added).

  77. 77.

    PCIJ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (Order of 19 August 1929) PCIJ Ser A No 22, 20 (1929).

  78. 78.

    PCIJ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (Judgment) PCIJ Ser A/B No 46, 147 et seq (1932).

  79. 79.

    PCIJ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (Judgment) PCIJ Ser A/B No 46, 147 (1932).

  80. 80.

    See Fitzmaurice (2002), p. 51 et seq.

  81. 81.

    McNair (1961), p. 312.

  82. 82.

    PCIJ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (opinion Nyholm) PCIJ Ser A No 22, 26 et seq (1929).

  83. 83.

    PCIJ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (opinion Negulesco) PCIJ Ser A No 22, 36 et seq (1929).

  84. 84.

    PCIJ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (opinion Dreyfus) PCIJ Ser A No 22, 43 et seq (1929).

  85. 85.

    See, on the other hand, the joint dissenting opinion by judges Altamira and Hurst to the 1932 judgment PCIJ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (joint dissenting opinion Altamira, Hurst) PCIJ Ser A/B No 46, 185 (1932). Note that the relevant passage seems to have been misconceived in the Harvard Draft 935.

  86. 86.

    McNair (1961), pp. 312–315.

  87. 87.

    Forests in Central Rhodopia (Greece v Bulgaria) (1933) 3 RIAA 1405, 1417; see also the Clipperton Island Case (Mexico v France) (1931) 2 RIAA 1105, 1110.

  88. 88.

    See, in particular, the Pablo Nájera Case (France v Mexico) (1928) 5 RIAA 466, 471–473.

  89. 89.

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

  90. 90.

    See Final Draft, Commentary to Art 32, 228, para 2.

  91. 91.

    Cf only Arts 109, 328, 332, 335, 380 and 386 Treaty of Versailles. See Waldock III 24 et seq on the 1948 Finnish Peace Treaty.

  92. 92.

    Waldock III 22; Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 86; Jiménez de Aréchaga [1966-I/2] YbILC 74. The argument raised by Fitzmaurice (2002), p. 51 is of a circular nature, since the author rejects reference to the example of the Suez Canal by referring to the objective regime theory whose applicability in respect of international waterways she subsequently denies; see Fitzmaurice (2002), pp. 86 et seq, 103 et seq.

  93. 93.

    Waldock III, p. 25; Jiménez de Aréchaga [1964-I] YbILC 87 et seq; Jiménez de Aréchaga [1966-I/2] YbILC 74, 78.

  94. 94.

    Jiménez de Aréchaga (1956), p. 353.

  95. 95.

    Jiménez de Aréchaga (1956), p. 353; Chinkin (1993), p. 41.

  96. 96.

    Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 81.

  97. 97.

    Paredes [1966-I/2] YbILC 80.

  98. 98.

    However, see the comment made by the Finnish delegate in the course of the Vienna Conference UNCLOT I 193–194 and the opinion of Judge Nyholm in PCIJ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and District of Gex (opinion Nyholm) PCIJ Ser A No 22, 26 (1929): “The principle of sovereignty is opposed thereto.”

  99. 99.

    Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 80; Waldock III 26.

  100. 100.

    Jiménez de Aréchaga [1966-I/2] YbILC 78; de Luna [1966-I/2] YbILC 75.

  101. 101.

    Fitzmaurice (2002), pp. 70, 102; see also Reuter (1995), p. 103; D’Argent (2011a), Art 36 MN 6.

  102. 102.

    ICJ Nuclear Tests (Australia v France) [1974] ICJ Rep 253, paras 43–46; Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v France) [1974] ICJ Rep 457, paras 46–49.

  103. 103.

    In the affirmative: Jiménez de Aréchaga (1956), p. 348; however, see the critique expressed in the separate opinion of Judge Dreyfus to the 1929 order in PCIJ Free Zones of Upper Savoy and District of Gex (opinion Dreyfus) PCIJ Ser A No 22, 43 et seq (1929); see also Fitzmaurice (2002), p. 51.

  104. 104.

    If a treaty establishes independent rights and obligations simultaneously, the third State must give its consent in writing under Art 35 VCLT (→ MN 12).

  105. 105.

    In this respect, Rozakis (1975), p. 19 correctly states that “the specific requirements of a particular treaty apparently prevail over the general provision of Art 36”.

  106. 106.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 19. Note that where the third State rejects the right altogether, “the right is, of course, destroyed and can then only be re-established by a new agreement” (Waldock III 26; original emphasis).

  107. 107.

    Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 172. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to the time-limits contained in the provisions on denunciation (Art 56) of the VCLT only from the perspective of the collateral agreement theory; see D’Argent (2011a), Art 36 MN 21.

  108. 108.

    Imprecise Rozakis (1975), p. 19; D’Argent (2011a), Art 36 MN 21.

  109. 109.

    Cf Yasseen [1966-I/2] YbILC 77. Chinkin (1993), p. 41 states that “[i]f the right arises through third party assent, that time cannot be definitely ascertained where assent is presumed through silence.”

  110. 110.

    Verdross [1964-I] YbILC 81; Lachs [1964-I] YbILC 83; de Luna [1966-I/2] YbILC 75.

  111. 111.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 20.

  112. 112.

    Cf D’Argent (2011a), Art 36 MN 21.

  113. 113.

    See Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 173.

  114. 114.

    D’Argent (2011a), Art 36 MN 5.

  115. 115.

    Waldock III 26; see also the comment made by the US delegation, reproduced in Waldock VI 70.

  116. 116.

    Fitzmaurice V 81 (Draft Art 14).

  117. 117.

    Fitzmaurice V 92.

  118. 118.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 32, 229, para 8.

  119. 119.

    See Dinstein (2006), p. 336 et seq. Art 35 para 2 UN Charter reads: “A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.”

  120. 120.

    Reproduced in Waldock VI 69.

  121. 121.

    Waldock VI 71.

  122. 122.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 32, 229, para 8.

  123. 123.

    Cf Waldock VI 69.

  124. 124.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 32, 229, para 8; Waldock VI 71.

  125. 125.

    Waldock III 26; Rozakis (1975), p. 20.

  126. 126.

    See Fitzmaurice (2002), p. 53.

  127. 127.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 20.

  128. 128.

    D’Argent (2011b), Art 36 VCLT II MN 3.

  129. 129.

    Reuter VI 128.

  130. 130.

    ILC Report 34th Session [1982-II/2] YbILC 1, 43 n 101.

  131. 131.

    ILC Report 34th Session [1982-II/2] YbILC 1, 43.

References

  • Cahier P (1974) Le problème des effets des traités à l’égard des États tiers. RdC 143:589–736

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Argent P (2011a) Article 36. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 929–940

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Argent P (2011b) Article 36 VCLT II. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 941–942

    Google Scholar 

  • David E (2011) Article 34. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 887–896

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2006) The Interaction between Customary International Law and Treaties. RdC 322:243–427

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez de Aréchaga E (1956) Treaty Stipulations in Favour of Third States. AJIL 50:339–357

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • McNair A (1961) The Law of Treaties. OUP, London

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 36. 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_39

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_39

  • 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