Abstract
Art 59 regulates the substitution of one treaty by another. The provision supplements Art 54 lit b by its para 1 and Art 57 lit b by its para 2. As stated in the Final Draft 1982, Art 59 lays down “rules which derive from a straightforward consensuality approach”. These rules are declaratory rather than constitutive because they could already be derived from a reasonable interpretation of Art 54 lit b and Art 57 lit b, which also cover treaty terminations and suspensions by way of implicit subsequent consent of all the parties. The conclusion of a later treaty by all the parties is but one instance of the termination or suspension of their earlier incompatible treaty by implicit consent.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
The quote is from Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 59, 58. It was used there as an argument for simply copying Art 59 VCLT into the VCLT II.
- 2.
See Waldock V 31. See also [1966-I/1] YbILC 55 et seq.
- 3.
- 4.
ECJ Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia and ERSA C-347/03 [2005] ECR I-3785, paras 6, 116.
- 5.
Plender (1986), p. 133.
- 6.
See Waldock VI 54 para 41.
- 7.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 56, 253, para 4.
- 8.
See the explanations given in Waldock V 32–33.
- 9.
Waldock II 71.
- 10.
PCIJ Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (Preliminary Objections) PCIJ Ser A/B No 77, 92 (1939).
- 11.
[1963-I] YbILC 119. See also the court cases cited by Dubuisson (2011a), Art 59 MN 10–12.
- 12.
See the statement by Expert Consultant Waldock UNCLOT II 253, para 39. See the detailed account provided by Dubuisson (2011a), Art 59 MN 19 et seq.
- 13.
- 14.
Reinisch (2012), p. 157 et seq.
- 15.
On the question whether under Art 59 para 1 an earlier treaty might be partially terminated in case of partial substantive overlap with the later one → MN 26 et seq.
- 16.
On the problem of partial substantive overlap of successive treaties → MN 28.
- 17.
Statement by Expert Consultant Waldock UNCLOT II 253, para 41, invoking the principle generalia specialibus non derogant.
- 18.
Dubuisson (2011a), Art 59 MN 25.
- 19.
See Waldock V 32–33, para 6.
- 20.
Later renumbered to become Art 59.
- 21.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 56, 253, para 1.
- 22.
Dubuisson (2011b), Art 59 VCLT II MN 3 et seq.
- 23.
Plender (1986), p. 156 et seq.
- 24.
Dubuisson (2011a), Art 59 MN 28 et seq who believes that the ILC’s regulatory intent does not correspond with States practice.
- 25.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 56, 252–253, para 1.
- 26.
Plender (1986), p. 154.
- 27.
See Villiger (2009), Art 59 MN 9, 11.
- 28.
See eg Art 44 of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 520 UNTS 204; Art 311 para 1 of the 1982 UNCLOS 1833 UNTS 3.
- 29.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 56, 252–253, para 1.
- 30.
Waldock V 33 proposed the following more specific formulation of lit a: “It appears from the later treaty, from its preparatory work or from the circumstances of its conclusion […]”. However, that was considered as too narrow, in view of the more comprehensive rules on treaty interpretation (see the remarks by Verdross [1966-I/1] YbILC 55–56).
- 31.
However, see Aust (2013), p. 258 who even in that case considers it likely that the parties intend to terminate the earlier treaty.
- 32.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 56, 253, para 3.
- 33.
For an example, see Dubuisson (2011a), Art 59 MN 36.
- 34.
See Aust (2013), p. 258.
- 35.
[1963-II] YbILC 203.
- 36.
Waldock V 33: “Under the conditions set out in paragraphs 1 and 2, if the provisions of the later treaty relate only to a part of the earlier treaty and the two treaties are otherwise capable of being applied at the same time, that part alone shall be considered as terminated or suspended in operation.”
- 37.
Answer given by Waldock to Castrén [1966-I/1] YbILC 127, paras 96–97.
- 38.
Waldock V 33, para 7.
- 39.
UNCLOT III 180, para 514.
- 40.
Dubuisson (2011a), Art 59 MN 45 et seq.
- 41.
Ibid MN 42.
- 42.
UNCLOT III 180–181.
- 43.
Waldock V 32, para 5.
- 44.
Jennings and Watts (1992), p. 1300 n 4.
- 45.
Capotorti (1971), p. 501 et seq.
- 46.
Reinisch (2012), p. 163 et seq.
- 47.
See Dubuisson (2011b), Art 59 VCLT II MN 1.
References
Aust A (2013) Modern Treaty Law and Practice, 3rd edn. CUP, Cambridge
Capotorti F (1971) L’extinction et la suspension des traités. RdC 134:417–587
Dubuisson F (2011a) Article 59. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 1325–1347
Dubuisson F (2011b) Article 59 VCLT II. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 1348–1350
Jennings R, Watts A (1992) Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol I Parts 2–4, 9th edn. Longman, Harlow
Plender R (1986) The Role of Consent in the Termination of Treaties. BYIL 57:133–167
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
Sadat-Akhavi SA (2003) Methods of Resolving Conflicts Between Treaties. Nijhoff, Leiden
Vierdag EW (1988) The Time of the ‘Conclusion’ of a Multilateral Treaty. BYIL 59:75–111
Villiger M (2009) Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Nijhoff, Leiden
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Giegerich, T. (2018). Article 59. 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_62
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_62
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)