Article 60

Giegerich, Thomas

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_63

Thomas Giegerich³

4994 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

Justice requires that a contracting party cannot continue to demand contractual fidelity from the other parties when it defaults on its own obligations and thus upsets the synallagma (reciprocity) of performance and return (do ut des). That simple truth, which one might call negative reciprocity, is well-known from the national contract law principle inadimplenti non est adimplendum, and must also be applied in international relations. Accordingly, the ICJ has spoken of “the general principle of law that a right of termination on account of breach must be presumed to exist in respect of all treaties” except for those of a humanitarian character. This principle can, however, not easily be translated into manageable provisions of the international law of treaties, although treaties are undoubtedly subject to the principle of reciprocity, which itself follows from the principle of sovereign equality of States. This is because the function of treaties in the international legal order differs widely from the function of contracts in national law. Treaties are usually more than exchanges of quid pro quo—they are often instruments of international legislation whose termination or suspension requires the balancing of various divergent individual and collective interests.

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.
Simma and Tams (2011a), Art 60 MN 3.
2.
PCIJ Diversion of Water from the Meuse (dissenting opinion Anzilotti) PCIJ Ser A/B No 70, 50 (1937).
3.
ICJ Namibia Opinion [1971] ICJ Rep 16, paras 96, 98.
4.
Statement by de Luna [1966-I/1] YbILC 62.
5.
Cf Rosenne (1985), p. 117 et seq.
6.
Capotorti (1971), p. 550.
7.
ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, paras 123, 163. The term “juridical figleaf” was used in the plural form in the Separate Opinion by Judge Simma (ibid 745, para 3).
8.
See Arts 49–54 ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, Annex, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.
9.
Cf Moore (1999), p. 887 et seq.
10.
See Preamble 3rd recital UN Charter.
11.
Waldock V 36, para 5.
12.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 57, 254, para 5.
13.
See Preamble 1st recital of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNGA Res 217A (III), 10 December 1948, UN Doc A/810, 71.
14.
Simma and Tams (2012), p. 594 et seq, p. 603.
15.
Tams (2014), p. 484.
16.
See the references in Dahm et al (2002), p. 733. See also the very detailed description of the antecedents and negotiating history of Art 60 by Rosenne (1985), p. 8 et seq.
17.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 57, 254, para 2.
18.
PCIJ Diversion of Water from the Meuse (Judgment) PCIJ Ser A/B No 70 (1937).
19.
Tacna-Arica Question (Chile v Peru) (1922) 2 RIAA 921, 943–944.
20.
Harvard Draft 662.
21.
Harvard Draft 1077. The quote obviously referred to the PCIJ which had been established in 1922, although its jurisdiction was not compulsory.
22.
Ibid 1092–1093.
23.
Waldock II 72 et seq.
24.
Waldock II 75.
25.
Art 25 (Waldock II 86 et seq).
26.
[1963-II] YbILC 204.
27.
Waldock II 36–37.
28.
[1966-I/1] YbILC 127 et seq: an amendment proposed by Yasseen to delete the right to withdraw was adopted by 12 votes to 1.
29.
Final Draft 184.
30.
UNCLOT I 354–355.
31.
UNCLOT III 269.
32.
UNCLOT II 115.
33.
UNCLOT II 167–168.
34.
UNCLOT III 269.
35.
UNCLOT II 115, paras 61, 63.
36.
UNCLOT II 111–112, paras 14–16.
37.
See in particular the intervention by the Israeli delegate (Rosenne) and the reaction by the UK delegate UNCLOT II 113, paras 34, 40.
38.
UNCLOT II 115, para 62. See Rule 36 para 1 of the Conference’s Rules of Procedure UNCLOT I xxviii.
39.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 57, 253–254 para 1. See also Dahm et al (2002), p. 733.
40.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 57, 255, para 9.
41.
Ibid (emphasis original).
42.
Statement by Waldock [1963-I] YbILC 245.
43.
ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, para 106.
44.
Statement by the President (Ago) UNCLOT II 115.
45.
See Simma and Tams (2012), p. 583 as to the differences of opinion within the ICJ as to whether South Africa had repudiated the agreement on which its mandate concerning Namibia was based (Namibia Opinion [1971] ICJ Rep 16).
46.
The present formulation goes back to a proposal by Verdross [1966-I/1] YbILC 63, paras 38, 76: “The repudiation of the treaty if not authorized by another provision of this convention”. See also [1966-I/1] YbILC 127 et seq, paras 14, 16, 23–28.
47.
[1966-I/1] YbILC 127–128, paras 24, 26.
48.
Cf Arts 20 et seq ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, Annex, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.
49.
Simma and Tams (2011a), Art 60 MN 16.
50.
Fitzmaurice and Elias (2005), p. 125 et seq. See also Giegerich (2010), MN 10; para 3.1.5 of the ILC’s Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties 2011.
51.
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction 1974 UNTS 45.
52.
Example taken from Aust (2013), p. 260.
53.
Waldock II 73.
54.
Cf Art 20 et seq ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, Annex, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.
55.
Gomaa (1996), pp. 36, 44.
56.
Feist (2001), p. 135.
57.
Cf Schwelb (1967), p. 314 et seq. But see also Moore (1999), p. 923 et seq. According to the Restatement of the Law Third (1987), p. 217 para 335 comment b, only a “significant” violation of an essential provision amounts to a material breach. Kirgis (1989), p. 550 et seq. But see Gomaa (1996), p. 121; Simma and Tams (2011a), Art 60 MN 18 et seq.
58.
But see Simma and Tams (2012), p. 583 et seq.
59.
UNSC Res 707 (1991), 15 August 1991, UN Doc SC/RES/707, para 1; UNSC Res 1441 (2002), 8 November 2002, UN Doc SC/RES/1441, para 1—both concerning Iraq. See Aust (2013), p. 260.
60.
Murphy (2002), p. 956 et seq.
61.
Aust (2013), p. 261.
62.
See ibid.
63.
See Arts 49–54 ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, Annex, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.
64.
Waldock V 34.
65.
Ibid.
66.
See → MN 54 et seq as to whether lit a is subject to procedural requirements.
67.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 57, 254, para 6.
68.
Harvard Draft 662.
69.
Gomaa (1996), p. 121 et seq; Dahm et al (2002), p. 736; Kirgis (1989), p. 558 et seq (relying alternatively on reciprocity or reprisal). See also Aust (2013), p. 259.
70.
ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, Annex, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.
71.
Jiménez de Aréchaga (1978), pp. 81, 83 (for a material breach of a bilateral treaty and the relationship between the defaulting State and the party specially affected by the material breach of a multilateral treaty), quoted approvingly by Sinclair (1984), p. 188 et seq.
72.
For the question whether Art 60 permits resort to either the exceptio or countermeasures → MN 72–80.
73.
ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, para 108.
74.
Ibid para 110.
75.
Simma and Tams (2011a), Art 60 MN 60.
76.
Moore (1999), p. 957 et seq.
77.
Simma and Tams (2011a), Art 60 MN 54.
78.
Villiger (2009), Art 60 MN 6.
79.
See the comments by Portugal and the United States on Art 42 of the 1963 ILC Draft, Waldock V 34 et seq.
80.
Draft Art 19 as included in Fitzmaurice II 31 et seq, 54 et seq.
81.
Waldock V 35, para 1.
82.
ILC Articles on State Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, Annex, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.
83.
See the ILC’s commentary to Art 42 [2001-II/2] YbILC 117, para 4.
84.
Art 51 ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, Annex, UN Doc A/RES/56/83. It has been argued that the principle of proportionality is a general principle of international law (Crawford (2011), MN 1; Simma and Tams (2011a), Art 60 MN 63 et seq); Villiger (2009), Art 60 MN 6. But see Gomaa (1996), p. 120 et seq: proportionality need not be observed in the context of Art 60 beyond what is already pre-built into the mechanisms of that provision. See also Capotorti (1971), p. 551; Laly-Chevalier (2005), p. 476 et seq.
85.
Villiger (2009), Art 60 MN 9.
86.
Dahm et al (2002), p. 736.
87.
Simma and Tams (2011a), Art 60 MN 28.
88.
Ibid MN 29 et seq.
89.
But see Dahm et al (2002), p. 738.
90.
Aust (2013), p. 259; Jennings and Watts (1992), p. 1302 n 5 (“there is a question whether the procedural provisions in Art 65 apply”). See also Sinclair (1984), p. 189 who questions whether the requirement of unanimous agreement provides adequate guarantees against arbitrary action.
91.
Simma and Tams (2011a), Art 60 MN 68.
92.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 57, 255, para 7.
93.
Waldock V 36.
94.
Ibid 35.
95.
[2001-II/2] YbILC 119, para 12.
96.
Ibid.
97.
The first example is mentioned in Final Draft, Commentary to Art 57, 255, para 8, the second in the commentary to Art 42 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts [2001-II/2] YbILC 119, para 13.
98.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 57, 255, para 8.
99.
See ILC commentary to Art 42 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful [2001-II/2] YbILC 117–118, paras 4–5.
100.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 57, 255, para 8.
101.
Jennings and Watts (1992), p. 1302 n 6.
102.
Simma and Tams (2011a), Art 60 MN 12.
103.
Waldock II 73.
104.
ETS 1.
105.
EU [1994] OJ L 336, 234.
106.
2000 Cotonou Partnership Agreement between the members of the ACP Group of States and the EC and its Member States [2000] OJ L 317, 3.
107.
Simma (1970), p. 82.
108.
ICJ Tehran Hostages Case [1980] ICJ Rep 3, para 80 et seq.
109.
Simma and Tams (2011a), Art 60 MN 50 et seq.
110.
ECJ (CJ) Commission v Italy 52/75 [1976] ECR 277, paras 11–13; Commission v France 232/78 [1979] ECR 2729, para 9; Commission v Germany 325/82 [1984] ECR 777, para 11.
111.
But see Pechstein (2012), MN 18.
112.
Kirgis (1989), p. 569 et seq.
113.
But see ICJ Interim Accord (FYROM v Greece) [2011] ICJ Rep 644, para 161 where the Court found it unnecessary to determine whether the exceptio formed part of contemporary international law because the State invoking it had failed to establish the conditions of the exceptio.
114.
For an example see → MN 8.
115.
But see the Separate Opinion of Judge Simma in the Interim Accord Case (FYROM v Greece) [2011] ICJ Rep 644, who concludes that Art 60 VCLT is an exhaustive codification of the consequences of a treaty breach for purposes of the law of treaties, leaving no room for any application of the exceptio (ibid 695). In contrast to this, Judge ad hoc Roucounas confirmed the continuing validity of the exceptio in his Dissenting Opinion (ibid 745 et seq).
116.
Crawford and Olleson (2001), p. 62 et seq.
117.
Sicilianos (1993), p. 345; Dahm et al (2002), pp. 732–733.
118.
As the ICJ indicated, a treaty violation not amounting to a material breach may justify the taking of countermeasures (which the Court did not specify any further): ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, para 106.
119.
ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, para 47. See Forlati (2012), p. 761 et seq.
120.
ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, Annex, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.
121.
[2001-II/2] YbILC 117, para 4.
122.
Fisler Damrosch (1980), p. 790 et seq.
123.
Simma (1978), p. 85 et seq; id, Separate Opinion in the Interim Accord Case (FYROM v Greece) [2011] ICJ Rep 644, para 22; Jennings and Watts (1992), p. 1302 n 4; Moore (1999), p. 910; Elagab (1999), p. 147 et seq; Simma and Tams (2011a), Art 60 MN 69 et seq.
124.
Art 49 para 2 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, Annex, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.
125.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 57, 255, para 6.
126.
See Art 49 para 2, Art 53 ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, Annex, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.
127.
Simma (1970), p. 14.
128.
Statement by Swiss delegate Bindschedler (Switzerland) UNCLOT I 354–355, para 12.
129.
Art 46 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I 75 UNTS 31; Art 47 Geneva Convention II 75 UNTS 85; Art 13 para 3 Geneva Convention III 75 UNTS 135; Art 33 para 3 Geneva Convention IV 75 UNTS 287. See also Art 20 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 1125 UNTS 3.
130.
Statement by British delegate Vallat (United Kingdom) UNCLOT I 359, para 83.
131.
UNCLOT II 109, 112 et seq.
132.
See Klein (2011), p. 484.
133.
UNCLOT II 167, para 29.
134.
Barile (1987), p. 3 et seq seems to underestimate the practical relevance of para 5.
135.
Feist (2001), p. 156 et seq; Dahm et al (2002), p. 739 et seq. See also Art 50 para 1 lit b and c Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, Annex, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.
136.
Verdross and Simma (1984), p. 518 et seq. See also Simma and Tams (2011a), Art 60 MN 45.
137.
Dahm et al (2002), p. 739 et seq.
138.
As numerous ‘humanitarian’ treaties contain denunciation clauses, such as the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which a party could use instead, this aspect of Art 60 para 5 has little practical relevance. According to Art 43, however, the denunciation will not release the State from its obligations under customary international law of which the humanitarian treaties are declaratory.
139.
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction 1974 UNTS 45.
140.
Gomaa (1996), p. 110 et seq; Simma and Tams (2011a), Art 60 MN 47.
141.
See eg Art 36 para 1 lit b VCCR.
142.
ICJ Construction of a Wall Opinion [2004] ICJ Rep 136, para 94 et seq; Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, paras 46, 99.
143.
Jennings and Watts (1992), pp. 1300–1301; Dahm et al (2002), p. 732.
144.
ICJ Construction of a Wall Opinion [2004] ICJ Rep 136, para 96.
145.
ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, para 109—quoting PCIJ The Factory at Chorzów (Indemnities) (Jurisdiction) PCIJ Ser A No 9, 31 (1927).
146.
Villiger (2009), Art 60 MN 27 et seq.
147.
ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, Annex, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.
148.
See further Simma and Tams (2011b), Art 60 VCLT II MN 2 et seq.

References

Aust A (2013) Modern Treaty Law and Practice, 3rd edn. CUP, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Barile G (1987) The Protection of Human Rights in Article 60, Paragraph 5 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties. In: Le droit international à l’heure de sa codification: études en l’honneur de Roberto Ago, Vol II. Giuffrè, Milan, pp 3 et seq
Google Scholar
Capotorti F (1971) L’extinction et la suspension des traités. RdC 134:417–587
Google Scholar
Crawford E (2011) Proportionality. 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-e1459. Accessed 29 November 2017
Google Scholar
Crawford J, Olleson S (2001) The Exception of Non-Performance: Links between the Law of Treaties and the Law of State Responsibility. AYIL 21:55–74
Google Scholar
Dahm G, Delbrück J, Wolfrum R (2002) Völkerrecht Band I/3, 2nd edn. De Gruyter, Berlin
Google Scholar
Elagab OY (1999) The Place of Non-Forcible Counter-Measures in Contemporary International Law. In: Goodwin-Gill GS, Talmon S (eds) The Reality of International Law: Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 125–152
Chapter Google Scholar
Feist C (2001) Kündigung, Rücktritt und Suspendierung von multilateralen Verträgen. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Google Scholar
Fisler Damrosch L (1980) Retaliation or Arbitration – or Both? The 1978 United States-France Aviation Dispute. AJIL 74:785–807
Article Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice M, Elias O (2005) Aspects of the Law Relating to Material Breach of Treaty. In: Fitzmaurice M, Elias O (eds) Contemporary Issues in the Law of Treaties. Eleven, Utrecht, pp 123–172
Google Scholar
Forlati S (2012) Reactions to Non-Performance of Treaties in International Law. LJIL 25:759–770
Article Google Scholar
Giegerich T (2010) Multilateral Treaties, Reservations to. 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-e1680. Accessed 29 November 2017
Google Scholar
Gomaa MM (1996) Suspension or Termination of Treaties on Grounds of Breach. Nijhoff, The Hague
Google Scholar
Jennings R, Watts A (1992) Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol I Parts 2–4, 9th edn. Longman, Harlow
Google Scholar
Jiménez de Aréchaga E (1978) International Law in the Past Third of a Century. RdC 159:1–344
Google Scholar
Kirgis FL Jr (1989) Some Lingering Questions about Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Cornell ILJ 22:549–573
Google Scholar
Klein E (2011) Denunciation of Human Rights Treaties and the Principle of Reciprocity. In: Fastenrath U, Geiger R, Khan D-E, Paulus A, von Schorlemer S, Vedder C (eds) From Bilateralism to Community Interest. Essays in Honour of Judge Bruno Simma. OUP, Oxford, pp 477–487
Google Scholar
Laly-Chevalier C (2005) La violation du traité. Bruylant, Bruxelles
Google Scholar
Moore JN (1999) Enhancing Compliance With International Law: A Neglected Remedy. VaJIL 39:881–1016
Google Scholar
Murphy SD (2002) Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law. AJIL 96:956–962
Article Google Scholar
Pechstein M (2012) Art 50. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV, 2nd edn. Beck, München
Google Scholar
Restatement of the Law Third: The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Vol 1 (1987). American Law Institute, St. Paul
Google Scholar
Rosenne S (1985) Breach of Treaty. Grotius, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Schwelb E (1967) Termination or Suspension of the Operation of a Treaty as a Consequence of Its Breach. IJIL 7:309–334
Google Scholar
Sicilianos L-A (1993) The Relationship Between Reprisals and Denunciation or Suspension of a Treaty. EJIL 4:341–359
Article Google Scholar
Simma B (1970) Reflections on Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Its Background in General International Law. ZÖR 20:5–83
Google Scholar
Simma B (1978) Termination and Suspension of Treaties: Two Recent Austrian Cases. GYIL 21:74–96
Google Scholar
Simma B, Tams CJ (2011a) Article 60. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 1351–1378
Google Scholar
Simma B, Tams CJ (2011b) Article 60 VCLT II. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 1379–1381
Google Scholar
Simma B, Tams CJ (2012) Reacting against Treaty Breaches. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford Guide to Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 576–604
Google Scholar
Sinclair I (1984) The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn. University Press, Manchester
Google Scholar
Tams CJ (2014) Treaty Breaches and Responses. In: Tams CJ, Tzanakopulos A, Zimmermann A (eds) Research Handbook on the Law of Treaties. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 476–504
Google Scholar
Verdross A, Simma B (1984) Universelles Völkerrecht, 3rd edn. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Book Google Scholar
Villiger M (2009) Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Nijhoff, Leiden
Google Scholar
Villiger M (2011) The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – 40 Years After. RdC 344:9–192
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Professor of EU Law, Public International Law and Public Law, Director of the Europa-Institut, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
Thomas Giegerich

Authors

Thomas Giegerich
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany
Oliver Dörr
Faculty of Law, Department of Public Law/International Law, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
Kirsten Schmalenbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Giegerich, T. (2018). Article 60. 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_63

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_63
Published: 16 January 2018
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