Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 4

Non-retroactivity of the present Convention

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

  • 4805 Accesses

Abstract

As outlined in the 7th recital of the Preamble, the Convention does not only codify existing norms of customary law but achieves a progressive development of the law of treaties as well. It is only the latter category that raises the issue of retroactivity. For the purpose of legal certainty, Art 4—having the character of a conflict rule—explicitly precludes the application of progressive rules to past treaties. Assessed in the light of Art 28, the provision’s main function is to clarify that retroactivity of the VCLT is not intended by the drafters. If, however, the VCLT provisions reflect established customary law, these rules are applicable to treaties concluded by State Parties prior to the entry into force of the Convention on 29 January 1980 or before the date of their accession. In addition, international customary law is qualified for filling gaps of the Convention (8th recital of the Preamble) and supplementing some of its provisions (see eg Arts 38, 43 and 53).

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.

    Cf ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, para 18; Armed Activities Case (DRC v Rwanda) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [2006] ICJ Rep 6, para 125.

  2. 2.

    Rosenne (1970), p. 5 et seq.

  3. 3.

    UNCLOT II 273, para 52.

  4. 4.

    UNCLOT II 316, para 64.

  5. 5.

    So-called five-State proposal (Brazil, Chile, Kenya, Sweden and Tunisia) UNCLOT III 252, para 136; for criticism on the Venezuelan proposal, see eg the statements of the representatives of Uruguay and Spain UNCLOT II 323, para 2, 328, para 42; for details, see McDade (1986), p. 501.

  6. 6.

    UNCLOT III 229, paras 136–143.

  7. 7.

    Yasseen (Chairman of the Drafting Committee) UNCLOT II 165, para 8.

  8. 8.

    The 6th recital of the Preamble also refers to the principle of equal rights, sovereign equality and independence of all States, non-interference, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

  9. 9.

    Cf the statement of the representative of Italy UNCLOT II 320–321, para 36.

  10. 10.

    For many, see SR Woods Second Report on Identification of Customary International Law (2014) UN Doc A/CN.4/672, paras 21–31; Pellet (2012), Art 38 MN 209, both with further references to consistent jurisprudence of the ICJ.

  11. 11.

    Most recently in ICJ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State [2012] ICJ Rep 99, para 55; see also Nicaragua (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 183; Asylum Case [1950] ICJ Rep 266, paras 276–277; North Sea Continental Shelf [1969] ICJ Rep 3, para 77; Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [1996] ICJ Rep 226, para 65 et seq; Continental Shelf (Libya v Malta) [1985] ICJ Rep 13, para 27.

  12. 12.

    See Akehurst (1975), p. 42 et seq; Baxter (1970), pp. 89–101; Thirlway (1972), pp. 80–81; for a critical approach, see Weisburd (1988), p. 11.

  13. 13.

    ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf [1969] ICJ Rep 3, para 73; Asylum Case [1950] ICJ Rep 266, para 277. Boyle (1980), p. 507 rightly criticizes that the tendency to develop customary law by references to a convention, however widely supported, pays insufficient attention to the effects of reservations to the provisions that are considered reflecting customary law.

  14. 14.

    The ILC regarded Art 52 (coercion by the threat or use of force) as lex lata, cf Final Draft, Commentary to Art 49, 247, para 7.

  15. 15.

    Status of 9 November 2017.

  16. 16.

    For France’s resistance to the ius cogens concept in Art 53, see Deleau (1969); for the refusal of the US Senate to give its consent to the Convention, see → Art 2 MN 54.

  17. 17.

    See eg Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) 40 BVerfGE 141, 167, 176 (1975); see also Haratsch and Schmahl (2003), p. 107 n 14.

  18. 18.

    For the United States, see Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law Vol 1 (1987) Introductory Note 144–147; Supreme Court (United States) Weinberger v Rossi 456 US 25 (1982); Sale v Haitian Centers Council (dissenting opinion Blackmun) 509 US 155, 191 (1993); US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (United States) Fujitsu v Federal Express 247 F3d 423, 433 (2001); Chubb & Son v Asiana Airlines 214 F3d 301, 308 (2000); Supreme Court of New Mexico (United States) State v Martinez-Rodriguez 33 P3d 267, 273 n 3 (2001). For France see eg Court of Cassation [2006-I] Bulletin 325 (no 378); [2003-IV] Bulletin 134 (no 117).

  19. 19.

    ECJ Racke C-162/96 [1998] ECR I-3655; ECJ Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR I-6079, 6101 (clausula rebus sic stantibus); ECJ Biret International SA v Council C-93/02 P [2003] ECR I-10497, para 99 (reservation); CFI Greece v Commission T-231/04 [2007] ECR II-63, para 86 (Art 18 VCLT).

  20. 20.

    WTO Appellate Body US – Gasoline WT/DS2/AB/R, at 17 (1996) with regard to the rules of interpretation.

  21. 21.

    ICJ Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal) [2012] ICJ Rep 422, para 113 (Art 27 VCLT); Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland) (Jurisdiction of the Court) [1973] ICJ Rep 3, para 24 (Art 52 VCLT), 36 (Art 62 VCLT); Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v Iceland) (Jurisdiction of the Court) [1973] ICJ Rep 49, para 24 (Art 52 VCLT), 38 (Art 62 VCLT); Namibia Opinion [1971] ICJ Rep 16, para 47; Territorial Dispute (Libya v Chad) [1994] ICJ Rep 6, para 16; Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, paras 46, 99; ECtHR Golder v United Kingdom App No 4451/70, Ser A 18, paras 29, 30 (1975).

  22. 22.

    ICTY Prosecutor v Jelisić (Trial Chamber) IT-95-10-T, 14 December 1999, para 61 (Arts 31–32 VCLT); Prosecutor v Milošević (Trial Chamber) (Decision on Preliminary Motions) IT-99-37-PT, 8 November 2001, para 47 (Art 27 VCLT); Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom and France (United Kingdom v France) (1977) 18 RIAA 3, para 61 (Art 21 para 3 VCLT); Special Tribunal for Lebanon (Appeals Chamber), Case No STL-11-01/I, 16 February 2011, Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide, Perpetration, Cumulative Charging, para 26 (rules of interpretation).

  23. 23.

    ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, para 109: “Both Parties agree that Articles 65 to 67 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, if not codifying customary law, at least generally reflect customary international law and contain certain procedural principles which are based on an obligation to act in good faith.”

  24. 24.

    ICJ Armed Activities Case (DRC v Rwanda) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [2006] ICJ Rep 6, para 125; see already Rosenne (1970), p. 21.

  25. 25.

    See the statement by the representative of Switzerland UNCLOT II 330, para 7.

  26. 26.

    Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands v United States) (1928) 2 RIAA 829, 845; see also Clipperton Island Case (Mexico v France) (1931) 2 RIAA 1105, 1110; Grisbadarna Case (Norway v Sweden) (1909) 11 RIAA 147, 159 (1909); ICJ Western Sahara Opinion [1975] ICJ Rep 12, para 79; Rights of US Nationals in Morocco [1952] ICJ Rep 176, para 189; South West Africa (Second Phase) [1966] ICJ Rep 6, para 19.

  27. 27.

    The year the VCLT entered into force.

  28. 28.

    Elias (1980), p. 286; Fitzmaurice (1953), p. 6; the meaning and the scope of inter-temporal law was extensively raised by Chad in its oral and written pleadings before the ICJ in Territorial Dispute (Libya v Chad), Counter-Memorial of the Government of the Republic of Chad, 27 March 1992 [1992] ICJ Pleadings 94.

  29. 29.

    Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands v United States) (1928) 2 RIAA 829, 845; for an analysis of the Huber dictum, which falls into two parts, a conservative non-retroactivity statement and a progressive resumption of the conservative position, see Kotzur (2008), MN 6; Higgins (1996), pp. 173, 174 and → Art 64 MN 15.

  30. 30.

    See the criticism of Tavernier (1970), pp. 271–276; for the ambiguous position of the ICJ, see Koskenniemi (2005), pp. 456–457.

  31. 31.

    For a dynamic interpretation of a treaty, see ICJ Namibia Opinion [1971] ICJ Rep 16, para 41.

  32. 32.

    ICJ Armed Activities Case (DRC v Rwanda) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [2006] ICJ Rep 6, para 125.

  33. 33.

    Dopagne (2011), Art 4 MN 8; for an in-depth discussion on the question whether signature is sufficient or ratification is required, see McDade (1986), pp. 508–510. Generally on determining the initiation of international treaties, see Orihuela Calatayud (2004).

  34. 34.

    See eg the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on State Immunity ETS 74A: Austria and Cyprus, both parties to the VCLT, have ratified the Additional Protocol before 1980; the Additional Protocol entered into force in 1985.

  35. 35.

    Marek (1971), pp. 510–511; Sørensen (1938), p. 153.

  36. 36.

    Villiger (1997), MN 260.

  37. 37.

    Koskenniemi (2004), p. 4.

  38. 38.

    UNCLOTIO I 11, para 22–25.

  39. 39.

    Generally on the contribution of international organization to the formation of customary law see Wood (2015), pp. 616–618.

  40. 40.

    See for example the practice of the ECJ to refer to the VCLT I in order to verify customary law, ECJ Europäische Schulen v Oberto and O’Leary C-464/13 and C-465/13 ECLI:EU:C:2015:163, para 36; ECJ Helm Düngemittel C-613/12 ECLI:EU:C:2014:52, para 37; ECJ Brita C-386/08 [2010] ECR I-1289, para 41; ECJ Racke C-162/96 [1998] ECR I-3655, para 24.

References

  • Akehurst M (1975) Custom as a Source of International Law. BYIL 47(1):1–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter RR (1970) Treaties and Custom. RdC 129(1):25–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle AE (1980) The Law of Treaties and the Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration. ICLQ 29(2–3):498–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deleau O (1969) Les positions françaises à la Conférence de Vienne sur le droit des traités. AFDI 15(1):7–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dopagne F (2011) Article 4. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 79–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias TO (1980) The Doctrine of Intertemporal Law. AJIL 74(2):285–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice G (1953) Law and Procedures of the International Court of Justice 1951–1954. BYIL 30:1–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Haratsch A, Schmahl S (2003) Die Anwendung ratione temporis der Wiener Konvention über das Recht der Verträge. ZÖR 58(1):105–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1996) Some Observations on the Inter-Temporal Rule in International Law. In: Makarcyk J (ed) Essays in Honour of Skubiszewski. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 173–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (2004) Study on the Function and Scope of the lex specialis Rule and the Question of ‘Self-Contained Regimes’. UN Doc ILC(LVI)/SG/FIL/CRD.1 and Add.1. http://legal.un.org/ilc/sessions/55/pdfs/fragmentation_outline.pdf. Accessed 22 November 2017

  • Koskenniemi M (2005) From Apology to Utopia. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotzur M (2008) Intertemporal Law. 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-e1433. Accessed 29 November 2017

  • Marek K (1971) Thoughts on Codification. ZaöRV 31(3):489–520

    Google Scholar 

  • McDade PV (1986) The Effect of Article 4 on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969. ICLQ 35(3):499–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orihuela Calatayud E (2004) Los tratados internacionales y su aplicación en el tiempo. Dykinson, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellet A (2012) Art 38. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford, pp 731–870

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne S (1970) The Temporal Application of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Cornell ILJ 4(1):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen M (1938) The Modification of Collective Treaties without the Consent of all the Contracting Parties. Nordisk Tidsskrift International Ret 9(1):150–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavernier P (1970) Recherches sur l’application dans le temps des actes et des règles en droit international public. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway HWA (1972) International Customary Law and Codification: An Examination of the Continuing Role of Custom in the Present Period of Codification of International Law. Sijthoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Villiger M (1997) Customary International Law and Treaties. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan Den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd AM (1988) Customary International Law: The Problem of Treaties. VandJTL 21(1):1–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood M (2015) International Organizations and Customary International Law. VandJTL 48(3):609–620

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Public International Law and European Union Law, Law Faculty, Paris Lodron University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Authors
  1. Kirsten Schmalenbach
    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

Schmalenbach, K. (2018). Article 4. 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_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_6

  • 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