Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:26:25.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Meaning and the Range of the Norm Pacta Sunt Servanda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2017

Josef L. Kunz
Josef L. Kunz*
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The norm pacta sunt servanda, which has constituted “since times immemorial the axiom, postulate and categorical imperative of the science of international law” and has very rarely been denied on principle, is undoubtedly a positive norm of general international law. But the meaning of this norm is controversial. Most writers lay the accent on the term servanda. One school of thought affirms that “treaties” are always binding, whereas a second tells us that the norm can only mean that valid treaties are binding.; Within this second school of thought some writers object that the norm appears as a deus ex machina, as international law does not lay down rules for the validity of international treaties, whereas others maintain, that not all, but only certain treaties are binding, that the norm admits “exceptions,” or speak of the relativité de la règle pacta sunt servanda.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , April 1945 , pp. 180 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1945

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For literature see Research in International Law under the auspices of the Harvard Law School,Part III, Law of Treaties, in this Journal, Vol. 29 (1935), Supplement, and the literature there cited (pp. 671-685). Further recent literature: article “ Traités “in the Dictionnaire de I'Académie Diplomatique Internationale,Vol. II, pp. 954-970 and Vol. Ill, 208 pp. (not numbered); F. Araguez, El tratado como negocio jurídico,Madrid, 1933; H. Kraus, Systéme etfonctions des traités intemationaux,Paris, 1935 (Hague Academy of International Law, Rec. des Cows,1934, Vol. II, pp. 317-399); Frangulis, A. F., Theorie et pratique des traités intemationaux,Paris, 1938 Google Scholar; McNair, A. D., The Law of Treaties: British Practice and Opinions,New York, 1938 Google Scholar; H. Kelsen, Contribution á la théorie des traités intemationaux,in Rev. Intern, de la Théorie du Droit,Vol. X (1936), pp. 253-292, and El Contrato y el tratado analizados desde el punto de vista de la teoria pura del derecho,Mexico City, 1943.

2 M. de Taube, L'inviolabilié des traités,in Rec. des Cours,1930, Vol. II, pp. 295-387; J. B. Whitton, La rhégle pacta sunt servanda(same, 1934), Vol. II, pp. 151-276, and in Rev. de Dr. Int.,Vol, XVIII (1936), pp. 440-480 and Int. Condi,1935, no. 317, pp. 395-430; H. Bauer, Der Orundsatz pacta sunt servanda im heutigen Vdlkerrecht,Marburg, 1934; H. Kaira in Acta Scandinavica Juris Gentium,Vol. VII (1936), pp. 39-67.

3 de Taube,as cited, p. 295.

4 Macchiavelli, Spinoza (on this thinker and international law Cf. Verdross in Zeitschrifl für öffertliches Recht,Vol. VII (1927), pp. 100 etc.;H. Lauterpacht in Br. Y. B. I. L.,Vol. VIII (1927), pp. 89-107). Cf. also Shamasastry R, Kantiliya's Arthasdslra,Mysore, 1923 (2nd ed.).

5 Recently: Ed. Vitta, La validité des traités intemationaux,The Hague, 1940, pp. 29-30. See also Ulpianus de pactis: Dig.II, 14, 7; Code civil français,Art. 1134. Pubis,of the P.C.I.J., Ser. B, No. 10, p. 20: (“A state which has contracted valid international obligations, is bound …“).

6 Thus Brierly, J. L., The Law of Nations,Oxford, 1936 (2nd ed.), p. 208.Google Scholar F. Pfluger, Die einseitigen Rechtsgeschafte-im Völkerrecht,Zurich, 1936, pp. 20-21.

7 Thus Scelle, G., Pricis de Droit des Gens,Vol. II, Paris, 1934, p. 336.Google Scholar

8 Thus Whitton, Rec. des Cours,1934, Vol. II, p. 218. Unequivocally Bourquin: “Pacta sunt servanda n'est qu'une forme particuliére d'un principe plus vaste, d'un prineipe qui s'applique á toutes les normes: dans la mesure de sa compétence spatiale et temporette, la loi doit être obéie univbrsellement et continuellement” ; Régies générals du droit de la paix, Rec. des Cours,1931, Vol. I, pp. 5-229, at p. 80.

9 Thus Baumgarten, , Grundzuge der juristischen Methodenlehre,Berne, 1939, p. 27.Google Scholar Schiffer, W., Die Lehre vom Primal des Völkerrechts in der neueren Literatur,Vienna, 1937, pp. 183, 185, 188.Google Scholar

10 Thus H. Heller, Die Souveränität,p. 132.

11 This insight has been clearly formulated by P. Chailley: “Le traité est la procédure constitutionnelle suivant laqueue sont crées des normes juridiques communesà plusieurs Etats” (La nature juridique des traiés internationaux selon le droit contemporain,Paris, 1932, p. 331). In the same sense the two writings by Kelsen cited above, note 1.

12 The fact that international law can also be created by custom renders the theory according to which the norm pacta sunt servandaconstitutes the fundamental norm of international law untenable. This construction, originally defended by Kelsen and Verdross, has long been abandoned by these writers, while it is still retained by Anzilotti.

13 Carnegie v. Morrison, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1841, 2 Mete. 381.

14 This distinction is very clearly emphasized by Chailley, work cited, above, note 11, p. 123, and in the two writings of Kelsen already cited.

15 Fundamental the observations by Kelsen, (“Contribution,” p. 260, “Contrato,” pp. 11-14, 25-36).

16 See the literature quoted above, note 1. Vitta, work cited above, note 5. G. Conmoul, Des conditions de validité des traités internationaux,Toulouse, 1911; J. H. W.Verzijl, , “La validité et la nullité des actesjuridiques internationaux,” Rev. de Dr. Int., Vol. XV (1935), pp. 284–339 Google Scholar; M. Houlard, La nature juridique des traités internationaux et son application aux théories de la nullité, de la caducité et de la révision des traités,Bordeaux, 1936; A.Verdross, Völkerrecht,Berlin, 1937, pp. 80–90.Google Scholar

17 For example, India as a member of the League of Nations; insurgents recognized as a belligerent party.

18 Such as “treaties” made with native chieftains.

19 We may also mention the problem of treaties made with vassal or protected states; see Bulgarian-Serbian Peace Treaty of 1886; Anglo-Egyptian Sudan Treaty of Jan. 19, 1899; in the case of the Anglo-Thibetan Treaty of Sept. 7, 1904, China protested and Britain concluded, in consequence, the Convention of April 27, 1906, with China.

20 With regard to this problem opinion is divided into at least four different schools of thought: the first distinguishes between the internal and the international validity of a treaty; the second pretends that municipal law alone controls; a third, or intermediary, doctrine holds treaties to be invalid only if constitutional restrictions have been “manifestly” violated. All these doctrines are untenable, as a treaty can only be either valid or not, and as the conditions for the validity of an international treaty can be determined only by international law. But the fourth doctrine, holding constitutional law to be internationally wholly irrelevant (Anzilotti, Verzijl, Vitta) is in contradiction with positive international law.

21 That is why Art. I of the Havanna Convention on Treaties of 1928 is nothing but the restatement of the positive general international law.

22 Problem of the validity of the Colombian-Peruvian Treaty of Frontiers of 1922-1928 in the Leticia Conflict (see P. de Lapradelle in Rev. de Dr. Int.,Vol. XI (1933), pp. 185-209).

23 H. M.Catudal, : “Executive Agreements, a Supplement to the Treaty-making Procedure,” George Washington Law Review, Vol. X (April, 1942), pp. 653-669.Google Scholar

24 So a political agreement concluded by military commanders in time of war.

25 McNair, work cited above, note 1, pp. 38-44.

26 B. Shatsky, La validité des traiés, Rev. de Dr. Int.,Vol. XIII (1933), p. 545; Scialoja, I vizi di volontà nelle leggienei trattati internazionali, Riv.Dir. Pubblico,1929, p. 4; H. Weinschel, WiUensmängel bei völkerrechtlichen Verträgen, Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht,Vol. XV (1930), p. 446; Atassy, Les vices de conseniement dans les traités internationaux à I'exclusion des traités de paix,Geneva, 1930; J.Tomsitch, , La reconstruction du droit international en matiére des traiés, Paris, 1931 Google Scholar; W. Pasching, Augemeine Rechtsgrundsätze über die Elemente der völkerrechtlichen Verträge, Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht,Vol. XIV (1934), pp. 26-61.

27 Roth, Zwang beim Abschluss von völkerrechtlichen Verträgen,1923; Scialoja, Violenza, errore, e dolo nei trattati internazionali, Scritli … in onore di A. Salandra,1928, p. 25; Golbs-Wilms, Erzwungene Staatsverträge,1933; Zanten, Over verdragen totstandgekomen onder den invloed van dwang, Recktsgeleert Magazijn,1934, p. 97; A. Cavaglieri, La violenza como moiivo di nulltà dei trattati, Riv. Dir. Int.,Vol. XXVII (1935), pp. 4-23; A. Verdross, Anfechtbare und nichtige Staatsvertrege, Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht,Vol. XV (1935), p. 289; F. Bleiber, Aufgezwungene Verträge im Völkerrecht, Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht,Vol. XIX (1935), pp. 385-402; P. Sehon, Erzwungene Friedensverträge,same, Vol., XXI (1937), pp. 277-296; L. Buza, Der Zwang im Volkerrecht,same, Vol. XXI (1937), pp. 420-440; H. Widmer, Der Zwang im Völkerrecht,Leipzig, 1936; Moigliano, In tema di vizi di volontà e di trattati imposti con violenza,Turin, 1938.

28 Scelle, while upholding the validity of peace treaties imposed by force, wants to deprive them of their character of treaties. According to him an imposed peace treaty is not a treaty but a unilateral legislative act of the victor; the signature of the vanquished is nothing but the authentic recognition of the greater force of the victor; the peace treaty as unilateral legislation by the victor comes into force on the hypothése de la résignation du bien vaincu (Rec. des Cours,1933, Vol. IV, p. 675; Théorie juridique de la révision des traiés,Paris, 1936, pp. 44, 56, 58; Précis de Droit des Gens,Vol. II, Paris, 1934, pp. 339, 343). This construction has been adopted by Brierly ;Rec. des Cours,1936, Vol. IV, p. 208). But this construction is untenable. The truth is that treaties imposed by force are valid in primitive international law, whereas they are invalid in more advanced legal orders (Cf. Dig.4, 2, quod metus).In municipal law also the vitiation of contracts by duress is a later and gradual development cf.for the Common Law Williston, The Law of Contracts,New York, 1920, Vol. III , p. 2828), a development which even today is, by no means, at an end Cf.J. Gulzell, Duress by economic pressure,in N. C. Law Review,Vol. XX, No. 3 (April, 1942).

29 Russian-Turkish Treaty of March 16, 1921, Art. I: “Neither Contracting Party will recognize treaties which are imposed by force on the other party.”

30 Particular international law may prescribe the written form: Havana Convention on Treaties, 1928, Art. II.

31 Makowski, Théorie et technique de la confection des actes internalionaux,Warsaw, 1921; B. Herzog, Der Begriff der Ratification und die Bedeutung seiner Technik für das Völkerrecht,Kiel, 1929; Dehousse, F., La ratification des traiés,Paris, 1935 Google Scholar; Wilcox, F. 0., The ratification of international conventions,London, 1935.Google Scholar

32 Havana Convention on Treaties, 1928, Art. V.

33 Same, Art. VII.

34 Peace Treaty of Versailles, Arts. 93, 534.

35 Morocco Convention, Madrid, July 3, 1880: Martens, N.R.G.,p. 624, Art. XI, par. 1; German-U.S.S.R. Treaty, Rapallo, April 16,1922, Art. VI (League of Nations Treaty Series,Vol. XX (1923), pp. 247-249); Convention regarding the Regime of the Straits (same, Vol. CLXXIII, pp. 215-241).

36 Some such recent treaties, as the German U.S.S.R. Treaty on the Soviet-German Frontier, of Jan. 10, 1941, provide (Art. IV) that the treaty comes into force at the moment of signature, but that it is subject to ratification New York Times,Jan. 11, 1941, p. 8). The legal significance of ratification in such cases seems to be doubtful.

37 Schaber, Der Beitritt zu völkerrechtliehen Vertràgen,Wttrzburg, 1937.

38 Scheidtmann, K., Der Vorbehalt beim Abschluss völkerrechtlicher Vertràge,Berlin, 1939 Google Scholar; W. Sanders, “Reservations to multilateral treaties,” this Journal, Vol. XXXIII (1939), pp. 488-499.

39 Thus Art. XVIII of the Covenant. See, apart from Commentaries on the Covenant, Adatci-de Visscher in Annuaire de Vlnstitut de Droit International,Vol. XXX (1923), p. 47; C. Sevens, Le régime nouveau des traités internationaux,Gand, 1925; Konig, Völksbefragung und Registrierung beim Völkerbund,Leipzig, 1927; Stieger in Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht,Vol. VII (1928), p. 227; P. Dehousse, L'enregistrement des traités,Liége, 1929; Keydel in Rev. de Dr. Int.(Sattile), Vol. IX (1931), pp. 141-160; Schwab, Die Registrierung der internationalen Verträge beim Völkerbund,Berne, 1932; L. Reitzer in Rev. Gen. Dr. Int. Pub.,Vol. XI (1937), pp. 76-89.

40 Fröhlich, M., Die Sittlichkeit in völkerrechtlichen Verträgen,Zurich, 1924 Google Scholar; Bradner, Pacta contra bonos mores im Völkerrecht, Jahrbuch der Konsularakademie zu Wien,1937, p. 33; A. Verdross, in Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht,Vol. XV (1935), pp. 289-299, and Vol. XVI (1936), pp. 79-86; also Trattoii contra bonos mores,in Rip. di Dir. Int.,1937, pp. 3-11 and “Forbidden Treaties in International Law,” in this Journal, Vol. 31 (1937), p. 571.

41 M. Ohmann, Dissertatio de pactis sub eonditione turpi,Upsala, 1770; Vattel, E., Le Droit des Gens,Paris, 1758, Book LII, Chap. XII, par. 160 and Book LIV, chap. IV, par. 36.Google Scholar

42 G. Scelle in Rec. des Cours,1933, Vol. IV, p. 448; Salvioli, same, p. 75.

43 Thus Oppenheim, who asserts a customary general norm of international law to this effect: International Law,4th ed. (ed. McNair), Vol. I, pp. 713-714.

44 See recent writings, apart from literature already quoted: J. L. Brierly in Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. XI (1926),p. 11;A. D. McNair: La terminaison et la dissolution des traités, Rec. des Cours,1928, Vol. II, p. 463; M. Perlowski, Les causes d'extinction des obligations Internationales contractuelles,Vevey, 1928; Tobin, H. J., The termination of multipartite treaties, New York, 1933 Google Scholar.

45 Kiatibian, , Conséquences juridiques des transformations territoriales des Etats sur les traités,Paris, 1892 Google Scholar; Lariviére, L., Des conséquences des modifications territoriales des Etats sur les traités antérieurs,Paris, 1892.Google Scholar

46 Thus Balladore Pallieri, G., Diritto Internationale Pubblico,Milan, 1938 (2nd ed.), p. 137.Google Scholar

47 Art. VIII of the Locarno Treaty, 1925.

48 Contrary: Kelsen, Contrato,as cited p. 74.

49 M. Sorensen, The modification of collective treaties without the consent of all contracting parties (Acta Scandinavica Juris Gentium,Vol. IX (1938), pp. 150-173). On the question of the abrogation of the permanent neutrality of Belgium by the Versailles Treaty, to which Russia and Holland were no parties, cf. Le Roy, L'abrogation de la neutralité de la Belgique,1923; H. Tobin in this Journal, Vol. XXVI (1932), p. 514; Moscato, Le sorti della neulralizzazione belga dopo la guerra,in Riv. di Dir. Int.,Vol. XXII (1930), pp. 379-395, 526-541, and Vol. XXIII (1931), pp. 54-66, 199-215.

50 Subsequent physical and permanent impossibility as a reason for the termination of treaties is to be distinguished from original impossibility as a reason for the invalidity of treaties.

51 Art. XX of the Covenant: Lauterpacht, H., The Covenant as “Higher Law,” in Br. Y. B. I. L.,1936, pp. 54-65.Google Scholar

52 Yuille Shortridge & Co. (Great Britain v. Portugal) in de Lapradelle-Politis, Recueil des Arbitrages Internationaux,Vol. II, 1932, p. 105; Kunz, J. L., “Observations on the de factorevision of the Covenant,” in New Commonwealth Quarterly, Vol. IV (1938), pp. 131-143.Google Scholar

53 Recently: Kunz, J. L., Kriegsrecht und Neutralirtäsrecht,Vienna, 1935, pp. 41-44Google Scholar; Erades, L., De invloed van oorlog op de geldigheit van verdragen,Amsterdam, 1938.Google Scholar

54 On the other hand, complete execution of a treaty is not a legal reason for the termination of its legal validity, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of many writers. See K. Hofbauer, éxécution, cause d'extincion du traité international, Rev. de Dr. Int.XX (1937), pp. 92-103).

55 Woolsey, this Journal, Vol. XX (1926), pp. 346-353; G. Wackernagel, Zur Lehre von der einseitigen Aufhebung völkerrechtlicher Verträge,1926.

56 Of recent writings see Young Huang, T., The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus in international law,Shanghai, 1935.Google Scholar Ch. Pairman, “Implied resolutive conditions in treaties,” this Journal, Vol. XXIX (1935), pp. 219-236); Fusco, , La clausula rebus sic stantibus nel diritto internazionale,Naples, 1936 Google Scholar; Lipartiti, C., La clausola rebus sic stantibus,Milan, 1938.Google Scholar

57 Pfaff, L., Die Clausel rebus sic stantibus in der Doktrin und der österreichischen Gesetzgebung,Stuttgart, 1898 Google Scholar; Herzfeld, M., Die Stellung der clausula rebus sic stantibus im burgerlichen Gesetzbuch,Greifswald, 1917.Google Scholar On the common law doctrine of “frustration” see Fairman, as cited, note 56. On the French theory of “imprévision” see Bruzin, A., Essai sur la notion d'imprévision et sur son rôle en matiére contractuelle,Bordeaux, 1922 Google Scholar; J. Magnan de Bornier, Essai sur la théorie d'imprévision,Paris, 1924; Louveau, Théorie d'imprévision en droit civil et en droit administratif,Rennes, 1920; Jacquemard, La théorie de l’imprécision,1928.

58 See on this point H. W. Briggs, in this Journal, Vol. XXXVI (1942), pp. 89-96.

59 An enormous literature on this subject has sprung up in the inter-war period. The principal writer on the subject is Verdross: Annuaire de Vlnstitut de Droit International,Vol. 37, Oslo, 1932, pp. 283-298; same, Paris, 1934, pp. 490-507; Luxemburg, 1937, pp. 183-189; Rev. de Dr. Int.,Vol. VIII (1934), pp. 484-498; Rec. des Cours,1935, Vol. II, pp. 195-251; Völkerrecht,Berlin, 1937, pp. 75-79; Rev. de Gen. Dr. Int. Pvb.,Vol. XII (1938), pp. 44-52. See further Heilborn, Rec. des Cows,1926, Vol. I, pp. 5-63; Spiropoulos, Die aUgemeinen Rechtagrundsätze im Völkerrecht,1928; Balladore Pallieri, / prineipi generali del diritto riconosciuti dalle nazioni civili,Turin, 1931; Heydte in Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht,Vol. XVI (1932), pp. 461-478 and in Die Friedenswarte,Vol. XXXIII (1933), p. 289; Wolff in Rec. des Cours,1932, Vol. II, pp. 483-551; Scerni, / prineipi generali di diritto riconoscuti dalle nazioni civili,1932; Harle in Rev. de Dr. Int. Leg. Comp.,1935, pp. 663-687; Ch. de Visscher, same, 1933, pp. 395-420; Ripert in Rec. des Cours,1933, Vol. II, pp. 569-664; Raestad, Droit contumier et principes généraux en droit international,1933; Pasching, in Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht,Vol. XIV (1934), p. 26-61; Kopelmanas, in Rev. Gen. Dr. Int. Pub.,Vol. XV (1936), pp. 285-308; W. Ktinzel, Ungeschriebenes Völkerrecht,Königsberg, 1935; Grapin, P., Valeur internationale des principes généraux du droit,Paris, 1934 Google Scholar; Cegler, Die Bedeutung der aUgemeinen Rechtsgrundsätze fur die Quellenlehre des Völkerrechls,Berlin, 1936.

60 Radnitzky, Dispositives Völkerrecht, ?sterreichische Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht,Vol. I (1914), p. 656; Ch. Rousseau, De la compatibilité des normes juridiques contradictoires dans I'ordre international, Rev. Gen. Dr. Int. Pub.,1932, pp. 133-192; Morelli, Norme dispositive di diritto internazionale,Urbino, 1931; Jurt, J., Zwingendes Völkerrecht,St. Gallen, 1933 Google Scholar; Ch. de Visscher, in Rev. Dr. Int. Leg. Comp.,1933, pp. 395-420; J. Ray, Des conflits entre prindpes abstrails et stipulaiians convenlionnelles Rec. des Cours,1934, Vol. II, pp. 635-707; R. L. Buell, The Suez Canal and League Sanctions, Geneva Special Studies, Vol. VI, No. 3 (1935); H. Lauterpacht, work cited, note 51, above; M. Sorensen, note 49; Vitta, note 5, pp. 172-208.

61 On the last problem see Kelsen, Contrato,pp. 83-111.

62 See the Bryan-Chamorro Treaty (U.S.-Nicaragua) of 1914. In the case of Costa Rica v. Nicaragua the plaintiff state petitioned the Central American Court of Justice to decide that the treaty in question violated the rights of the plaintiff, acquired by the Canas-Jerez Treaty and that this violation rendered the Bryan-Chamorro Treaty void (“que la violación de los derechos de Costa Rica vicia de nulidad el dicho Pacto Bryan-Chamorro“: Amies de la Corte de Justicia Centroamericana,Vol. V, Nos. 14-16, pp. 149, 150). But the Court decided that the Bryan-Chamorro Treaty was illegal, but not void (p. 176). Similar decision in the Case El Salvador v. Nicaragua, (Vol. VI, Nos. 16-18, 1917, pp. 168, 169-170.)

63 Covenant, Art. XXI. Convention to coördinate, extend, and assure the fulfillment of certain treaties between the American states, Buenos Aires, 1936, Art. VII.

64 Hague Convention V of 1907, Art. XII.

65 Hague Convention I of 1907, Arts. 91, 93, 94; convention IV, Arts. 4, 6.

66 General Act of the Brussels Conference relative to the African Slave Trade of July 2, 1890, Art. 96 (Martens, N.R.G.,2nd ser., p. 345), Covenant, Art. XX. See also the article of the Universal Postal Conventions which forbids members to conclude more restricted Unions in derogation of the norms of the Convention.

67 Examples of such modification or abrogation of norms of multipartite treaties without the consent of all the original parties: Treaty of Versailles (abrogation of the permanent neutrality of Belgium); Agreement for the evacuation of the Rhineland 1929; Agreements of the Little Entente with Bulgaria and Hungary, concerning their equality in armaments 1938; Montreux Convention of July 20, 1936, concerning the Regime of the Straits, without the participation of Italy, party to the Lausanne Convention 1923 (but Italy acceded to the 1936 Convention in 1938). See also the Dissenting Opinion of Judge Negolescu in Pubis,of the P.C.I.J., Ser. B., No. 14, pp. 73, 129, and the Separate Opinions of Judges van Eysinga and Schücking in the Chinn Case (Ser. A/B, No. 63, p. 131, pp. 148-150).

68 Covenant, Art. XX.

69 See the language of President Hurst in the Chinn Case, as cited, pp. 122-123.

70 This idea has now become pivotal in the system of Kelsen but see also Scelle: “II exisle un instant entre le moment ou la nullité est alleguée et celui où elle est constatée par l’autorité compiténte“, Précis de Droit des Gens,Vol. II, Paris, 1934, p. 419.

71 Thus Art. 65 of the unratified London Declaration of 1909.

72 Work cited above, note 5, pp. 29-30.

73 Völkerrecht,Berlin, 1937, pp. 89, 95.

74 Anzilotti, D., Corso di Dirilto Internazionale,Vol. III, 1st part. Rome, 1915 Google Scholar, p. 8: Poiché non esiste un potere superiore agli Stati, le loro controversie non hanno che un rnodo di resoluzione, consistente nell'accordo degli Stati medesimi.

75 Thus clearly Oppenheim, although limited to the clausula rebus sic stantibus: “If such abrogation be refused, a conflict arises between the treaty obligations and the right to be released from them, which, in absence of an international Court that could give judgment in the matter, cannot be settled juridically “ (International Law,London, 1928 (4th ed.; McNair), Vol. I, p. 751). See also G. del Vecchio, “The old illusion that the maxim pacta sunt servanda,independently of any jurisdiction which ascertains the subjective and objective requisites of the validity of a contract, is sufficient to regulate the relations between states, is vanishing from the field of international law “ (Pol. Sci. Quar. Vol. L (1935), p. 529). In the same sense Kelsen and Verzijl, as cited. For an excellent treatment of the whole problem see Balladore Pallieri, G., Diritto Internazionale Pubblico,Milan, 1938 (2nd. ed.), pp. 312-313.Google Scholar

76 Kunz, The problem of revision in international law,this Journal, Vol. XXXIII (1939), pp. 40-43.