Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 69

Consequences of the invalidity of a treaty

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

  • 4776 Accesses

Abstract

Art 69 sets out the legal consequences of the invalidity of a treaty. In essence, treaty law knows two reasons how a treaty and the legal force of its provisions may come to an end, that is, invalidity and termination. While invalidity always affects the conclusion or entry into force of a treaty, termination invariably concerns reasons that have occurred after the treaty has been validly concluded. This distinction also bears on the consequences of invalidity and termination, respectively. Thus invalidity generally raises the question whether the effects of the invalid treaty, especially acts that have been carried out in applying, implementing and executing the treaty, also become invalid. In case of termination, this question does not arise as these acts have been performed under a valid treaty.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Thus, the concept of nullity will for instance vary depending on whether the act is governed by municipal private law or public law. For a discussion, see eg Jennings (1965), pp. 65–68.

  2. 2.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 65, 264, paras 1–3. See also Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 9; UNCLOT I 447.

  3. 3.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 65, 264, para 1.

  4. 4.

    See Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, UN Doc A/RES/56/83. The text of the Articles and the commentaries thereto are included in ILC Report 53rd Session UN Doc A/56/10, paras 76–77 (2001), and are also reproduced in Crawford (2002).

  5. 5.

    See McNair (1961), pp. 206–236.

  6. 6.

    Fitzmaurice II 28 (Draft Art 21). In his commentary, Fitzmaurice stated that this provision did not call for special comments, “although the system propounded [was] probably capable of improvement or refinement” (Fitzmaurice II 45).

  7. 7.

    Waldock II 98 (Draft Art 27 paras 1 and 2).

  8. 8.

    See the discussion in [1963-I] YbILC 229–234.

  9. 9.

    [1963-II] YbILC 216.

  10. 10.

    [1966-II] YbILC 172, 264 (Draft Art 65). For comments of governments see [1966-II] YbILC 53–54.

  11. 11.

    UNCLOT III 159; for the amendment see UNCLOT III 195 (UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.363). Similar amendments were made by Australia and the United States of America, see UNCLOT III (UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.297, A/CONF.39/C.1/L.360).

  12. 12.

    UNCLOT II 126.

  13. 13.

    Art 42 refers in para 2 to termination of a treaty “as a result of the application of the provisions of the treaty”.

  14. 14.

    UNCLOT III 159; for the amendment see UNCLOT III 195 (UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.363). Similar amendments were made by Australia and the United States of America, see UNCLOT III (UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.297, A/CONF.39/C.1/L.360).

  15. 15.

    Verosta (1969), p. 690; Kearney and Dalton (1970), p. 555; Elias (1971), p. 405; Fleischhauer (1971), pp. 229–231; Frowein (1973), p. 117; Verhoeven (2011a), Art 69 MN 6.

  16. 16.

    UNCLOT I 490–492. See generally UNCLOT III 195–196.

  17. 17.

    To the same effect Verhoeven (2011a), Art 69 MN 8.

  18. 18.

    [1963-II] YbILC 214.

  19. 19.

    Rozakis (1974), p. 160, who adds that “[i]t is obvious that the invalidation of a consent or treaty remains a private matter to be settled by the parties alone”.

  20. 20.

    In the French doctrine, this is described as a “faculty” (faculté) which may be resorted to by the parties, see Cahier (1972), p. 686; Verhoeven (2011a), Art 69 MN 10.

  21. 21.

    Cahier (1972), p. 686; contra however Villiger (2009), Art 69 MN 13.

  22. 22.

    Rozakis (1974), p. 161; Cahier (1972), p. 686.

  23. 23.

    See eg the ILC Draft Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities, ILC Report 58th Session, UN Doc A/61/10 (2006) 110, 111. See also Boyle (2010), pp. 95–104.

  24. 24.

    Cf Restatement of the Law Third, Foreign Relations Law of the United States para 338 comment d; Verhoeven (2011a), Art 69 MN 14. See also → MN 23 and → MN 27 (with regard to considerations of good faith) and → MN 34.

  25. 25.

    Schreuer (1974), p. 299; Binder and Schreuer (2009), MN 7.

  26. 26.

    Verhoeven (2011a), Art 69 MN 16.

  27. 27.

    See commentary to Art 35, para 5 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, UN Doc A/RES/56/83. The text of the Articles and the commentaries thereto are included in ILC Report 53rd Session UN Doc A/56/10 (2001), paras 76–77, and are also reproduced in Crawford (2002).

  28. 28.

    Villiger (2009), Art 69 MN 14.

  29. 29.

    Rozakis (1974), p. 163; Frowein (1973), p. 118.

  30. 30.

    See the examples mentioned by Frowein (1973), pp. 109–115.

  31. 31.

    See Art 1 para 4 lit a of the 1947 Peace Treaty with Hungary 41 UNTS 135.

  32. 32.

    Art 25 Peace Treaty with Hungary.

  33. 33.

    1973 Treaty on Mutual Relations 951 UNTS 365.

  34. 34.

    ICJ Namibia Opinion [1971] ICJ Rep 16, para 125.

  35. 35.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 65, 265, para 3.

  36. 36.

    Verhoeven (2011a), Art 69 MN 11.

  37. 37.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 65, 264, para 3; Villiger (2009), Art 69 MN 13.

  38. 38.

    See commentary to Art 35, para 2 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, UN Doc A/RES/56/83. The text of the Articles and the commentaries thereto are included in ILC Report 53rd Session UN Doc A/56/10 (2001), paras 76–77, and are also reproduced in Crawford (2002).

  39. 39.

    PCIJ The Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity) (Merits) PCIJ Ser A No 17, 47 (1928).

  40. 40.

    Rozakis (1984), p. 161. Furthermore, the inclusion of the broad concept of restitution could also mean to include any form of loss of profits that would not have occurred absence the invalidity, at least to the extent this is necessary to counterbalance any form of inequitable benefit.

  41. 41.

    To the same effect Verhoeven (2011b), pp. 318–319. Contra however Villiger (2009), Art 69 MN 15, and Frowein (1973), p. 119, who argue that para 2 lit b excludes any form of compensation where restitution is not possible under para 2 lit a.

  42. 42.

    Schreuer (1974), p. 299; Binder and Schreuer (2009), MN 7. See also the observations of the ICJ in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, paras 152–153 (which however were made in the context of State responsibility).

  43. 43.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 65, 264, para 3.

  44. 44.

    Cahier (1972), p. 687.

  45. 45.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 65, 264, para 3.

  46. 46.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 65, 264, para 3.

  47. 47.

    Frowein (1973), p. 119.

  48. 48.

    See Frowein (1973), pp. 119–120; Verhoeven (2011a), Art 69 MN 21.

  49. 49.

    Cahier (1972), p. 687.

  50. 50.

    PCIJ The Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity) (Jurisdiction) PCIJ Ser A No 9, 31 (1927); see also ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, para 110.

  51. 51.

    This is expressly stated in the ILC commentary to Art 69 VCLT II, Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 69 para 2, 67. See also the comment by the representative of Switzerland UNCLOT I 446; Cahier (1972), p. 687.

  52. 52.

    Cf Schreuer (1974), p. 299.

  53. 53.

    Frowein (1973), p. 120.

  54. 54.

    See generally Binder and Schreuer (2009), passim, especially MN 6–7, 10–11.

  55. 55.

    Frowein (1973), p. 120.

  56. 56.

    This is what Art 69 para 2 lit b stipulates in general terms.

  57. 57.

    Note, however, that the ILC commentary to Art 69 VCLT II states that Art 69 para 3 ‘clearly establishes that (…) fraud, acts of corruption or coercion constitute wrongful acts in themselves’, Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 69 para 2, 67 (→ MN 44 with regard to VCLT II).

  58. 58.

    See Tams (2005), pp. 42–46.

  59. 59.

    For this reason, Greig (2006), p. 90, argues that for the reference to “rules” in para 4 to make sense, “presumably paragraphs (2) and (3) comprise rules, but paragraph (1) cannot be so described”.

  60. 60.

    See also Art 42 lit b (ii) Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (GA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.) and Verhoeven (2011a), Art 69 MN 23–25.

  61. 61.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 62, 263, para 5.

  62. 62.

    Kearney and Dalton (1970), p. 555; Sinclair (1984), p. 233.

  63. 63.

    This is also why ‘the rules of Art 69 should also govern (…) agreements between entities that are neither States nor international organizations, provided that they enjoy a separate legal personality’, Verhoeven (2011b), p. 1584.

  64. 64.

    Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 69 para 2, 67.

  65. 65.

    Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 69 para 2, 67.

  66. 66.

    For a similarly cautious approach see Verhoeven (2011a), Art 69 MN 3.

  67. 67.

    Schröder (2008), MN 24.

  68. 68.

    Villiger (2009), Art 69 MN 24. See also Judge Abraham in his separate opinion in ICJ Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia) (Preliminary Objections) [2007] ICJ Rep 903, para 31 referring to Art 69 para 1 “which indisputably expresses customary law”.

  69. 69.

    Similarly Verhoeven (2011a), Art 69 MN 3.

References

  • Binder C, Schreuer C (2009) Unjust Enrichment. 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-e1002. Accessed 29 November 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle A (2010) Liability for Injurious Consequences of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S (eds) The Law of International Responsibility. OUP, Oxford, pp 95–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahier P (1972) Les caractéristiques de la nullité en droit international et tout particulièrement dans la Convention de Vienne de 1969 sur le droit des traités. RGDIP 76:645–691

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2002) The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility. CUP, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias OT (1971) Problems Concerning the Validity of Treaties. RdC 134(3):333–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischhauer CA (1971) Die Wiener Vertragsrechtskonferenz. GYIL 15:202–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Frowein JA (1973) Zum Begriff und zu den Folgen der Nichtigkeit von Verträgen im Völkerrecht. In: Ehmke H, Kaiser JH, Kewenig WA, Meessen KM, Rüfner W (eds) Festschrift für Ulrich Scheuner. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 107–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Greig DW (2006) Invalidity and the Law of Treaties. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RY (1965) Nullity and Effectiveness in International Law. In: Bowett DW, Fitzmaurice G, Jenks CW, Jennings RY, Lauterpacht E, Parry C, Vallat F (eds) Cambridge Essays in International Law - Essays in Honour of Lord McNair. Stevens, London, pp 64–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearney RD, Dalton RE (1970) The Treaty on Treaties. AJIL 64:495–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozakis CL (1974) The Law on Invalidity of Treaties. AVR 16:150–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer C (1974) Unjustified Enrichment in International Law. AJCL 22:281–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröder M (2008) Treaties, Validity. 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-e1493. Accessed 29 November 2017

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tams C (2005) Enforcing Obligations erga omnes in International Law. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven J (2011a) Article 69. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 1571–1583

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven J (2011b) Invalidity of Treaties: Anything new in/under the Vienna Conventions? In: Cannizzaro E (ed) The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention. OUP, Oxford, pp 297–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Verosta S (1969) Die Vertragsrechtskonferenz der Vereinten Nationen 1968/69 und die Wiener Konvention über das Recht der Verträge. ZaöRV 29:654–710

    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. Associate Professor of Public International Law, Department of European, International and Comparative Law, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Stephan Wittich

Authors
  1. Stephan Wittich
    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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wittich, S. (2018). Article 69. 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_73

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_73

  • 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