Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:39:44.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United Nations Report of the International Law Commission*

Covering the Wore of its Sixteenth Session, May 11-July 24, 1964**

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Official Documents
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , April 1965 , pp. 434 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1965

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.)

Footnotes

*

Obtained and prepared by E. E. Baxter of the Board of Editors.

**

U. N. General Assembly, 19th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/5809). The first part of this report, comprising Ch. I and Ch. II, Sec. I, Application and Effects of Treaties, published in the January, 1965, issue of this Journal, was printed from U. N. Doc. A/CN.4/173 (1964). The remainder of the report, reprinted herein, is taken from the final printed document of the General Assembly Official Records as indicated above.

References

87 Lord McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), p. 534.

88 Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international, Vol. 49, Tome 1 (1961), pp. 229-291.

89 In this connexion it may be recalled that the Commission at its Fifteenth Session in 1963 suggested that the General Assembly should take the necessary steps to initiate an examination of general multilateral treaties concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations with a view to determining what action might be necessary to adapt them to contemporary conditions. Official Records of the General Assembly, 18th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/5509), par. 50(e).

90 Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international, Vol. 49, Tome 1 (1961), pp. 95-153.

91 E. C. Hoyt, The Unanimity Rule in the Revision of Treaties (1959), pp. 28-51.

92 Arts. 108 and 109 of the Charter; see also Handbook of Final Clauses (ST/LEG/ 6), pp. 130 and 150.

93 Thus, while Ch. XVIII of the Charter is entitled “ Amendments , “ Art. 109 speaks of “ reviewing “ the Charter.

94 ST/LEG/6, pp. 130-152.

95 B. Giraud, Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international, Vol. 49, Tome 1 (1961), pp. 95-103.

96 See C. W. Jenks, Ibid .,pp. 254-264.

97 Well-known examples are the Conventions of 1923, 1928 and 1956 dealing with the status of Tangier, the revision of the Acts of Berlin (1885) and Brussels (1890) by the Treaty of St. Germain, the revision of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) by the Montreux Convention (1936).

98 E.C. Hoyt, The Unanimity Rule in the Revision of Treaties (1959), p. 250.

99 p.C. Jessup, in a foreword to E. C. Hoyt's book, at p. VII.

100 Jean Leca, Les Techniques de revision des conventions Internationales (1961), p. 204.

101 E.g .,Italy, the Soviet Union, Sweden, Spain, at various times in regard to the revision of one of the Tangier treaties.

102 See the Handbook of Final Clauses (ST/LEG/6), pp. 135-148; E. Giraud, Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international, Vol. 49, Tome 1 (1961), pp. 139-149.

103 I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 6; and see Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951-1954,” British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 33 (1957), pp. 252-253.

104 Decided at Geneva on 22 December 1963, the arbitrators being E. Ago (President), P. Reuter and H. P. de Vries (mimeographed text of decisions of the Tribunal, pp. 104-105).

105 See Art. 69, par. 1(6).

106 Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. II, p. 845.

107 See Harvard Law School, Research in International Law, Fart III, Law of Treaties (Art. 19), p. 939.

108 Ibid .,p. 946.

109 Lord McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), p. 366.

110 J. L. Brierly, Law of Nations (6th ed., 1963), p. 325. Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, Rapport a l'Institut de droit international, Annuaire de l'Institut, Vol. 43, Tome 1 (1950), pp. 336-374.

111 For example, C. Rousseau, Principes généraux du droit international public (1944), pp. 676 et seq.; Sir E. Beckett, Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international, Vol. 43, Tome 1 (1950), pp. 435-444; V. M. Shurshalov, Fundamental Questions of Theory of the International Treaty (1959), pp. 383-402; C. De Visscher, Problémes d'interpretation judiciaire en droit international public (1963), pp. 50 et seq.

112 '’ The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951-54,'’ British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 33 (1957), pp. 210-212.

113 Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international, Vol. 46 (1956), p. 359.

114 For example, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international, Vol. 43, Tome 1 (1950), pp. 377-402.

115 For example, L. Cavaré, Le droit international public positif, 2d ed. (1962), Vol. II, p. 112; Judge Alvarez in the Reservations to the Genocide Convention Case, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 53.

116 See Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, British Tear Book of International Law, Vol. 28 (1951), p. 1, and Vol. 33 (1957), p. 203; C. Rousseau, Principes généraux du droit international public (1944), pp. 676-764; and V. D. Degan, L'interprétation des accords en droit international (1963), pp. 76-148.

117 See G. Hackworth, Digest of International Law, Vol. 5, pp. 232-234; C. De Visseher, Problémes d'interprétation judiciaire (1963), pp. 84-92 and 104-113; Lord McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), Chs. 20-22.

118 See also the formulations of general rules of treaty interpretation by the Institute of International Law, Annuaire, Vol. 46 (1956), pp. 364-365, and by Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, British Tear Book of International Law, Vol. 33 (1957), pp. 211-212.

119 For example, C. Rousseau, Principes généraux du droit international public (1944), p. 677.

120 For example, the contra proferentem principle or the use of travaux préparatoires.

121 For the special problem of the effect of the subsequent practice of an international organization on the interpretation of its constituent instrument, see par. 14 of the present commentary.

122 See generally C. Rousseau, Principes généraux du droit international public (1944), pp. 680-688; V. D. Degan, L'intérpretation des accords en droit international (1963), pp. 103-106; C. De Visscher, op. cit., pp. 84-92.

123 I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 24.

124 P.C.I.J. (1929), Series A, No. 22, p . 13; of. Acquisition of Polish Nationality, P.C.I.J. (1923), Series B, No. 7, pp. 16-17 and The Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations, P.C.I.J. (1925), Series B, No. 10, p . 25.

125 See C. De Visscher, Problémes d'interpretation judiciaire en droit international public, pp. 87-88; Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court (1958), p. 229.

126 I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 229.

127 Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. At the final discussion of the subject in 1956 Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, having been elected to the Court, was replaced by Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice who, in common with the majority of the members, favoured the textual approach.

128 See in particular Sir E. Beckett, Annuaire, Vol. 43, Tome 1 (1950), pp. 435-444; Max Huber, Annuaire, Vol. 44, Tome 1 (1952), pp. 198-202; and the deliberations in Annuaire, ibid., Tome 2, pp. 369-382.

129 Max Huber, Annuaire de l'Institude droit international, Vol. 44, Tome 1 (1952), p. 199.

130 See examples in V. D. Degan, L ‘interprétation des accords en droit international (1963), pp. 79-83; and Fitzmaurice in British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 28 (1951), pp. 10-11 and Vol. 33 (1957), pp. 212-214.

131 For example, in the United States Nationals in Morocco Case, I.C.J. Reports 1952, pp. 196 and 199.

132 gee instances cited in V. D. Degan, L'interprétation des accords en droit international (1963), pp. 96-98; and in British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 28 (1951), pp. 10-11 and 18.

133 I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 8.

134 Competence of the ILO to Regulate Agricultural Labour, P.O.I.J. (1922), Series B, Nos. 2 and 3, p . 23; and see Lord McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), pp. 381-382.

135 For example, United States Nationals in Morocco Case, I.C.J. Reports 1952, pp. 183-184 and pp. 197-198.

136 Reports of International Arbitral Awards, “Vol. II , p. 845.

137 Ibid . , Vol. XI, pp. 159-160. English translation in J. B. Scott, The Hague Court Reports (1916), p. 129.

138 Ibid.,Vol. XI, p. 196.

139 “So-called” because in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case the International Court rejected the pretensions of this “ rule “ to be a customary rule of international law; I.C.J. reports 1951, p. 131.

140 Cf. the Abu Dhabi Arbitration (International Law reports, 1951, p. 144), where Lord Asquith, as arbitrator, refused to interpret an oil concession granted in 1938 by reference to the continental shelf doctrine which only made its appearance in international law a few years later.

141 I.C.J. reports 1952, p. 189.

142 See C. Rousseau, Principes généraux du droit international public (1944), pp. 717-719.

143 Ambatielos Case (Preliminary Objection), I.C.J. reports 1952, pp. 43 and 75.

144 Cf. the Conditions of Admission to Membership case, I.C.J. Reports 1948, p. 63.

145 (Preliminary Objection), I.C.J. reports 1952, p. 44

146 See Lord McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), Ch. 24; C. De Visseher, Problemes d ‘interpretation judiciaire en droit international public (1963), pp. 121-127.

147 See Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, British Tear Book of International Law, Vol. 33 (1957), p. 223. In the Russian Indemnity case the Permanent Court of Arbitration said: ” … l”exécution des engagements est, entre Etats, comme entre partieuliers, le plus sur commentaire du sens de ces engagements.” Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XI, p. 433. (”… the fulfilment of engagements between States, as between “ndividuals, is the surest commentary on the effectiveness of those engagements.“ English translation from J. B. Scott, The Hague Court Reports (1916), p. 302).

148 See examples in Lord McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), Ch. 24; C. De Visseher, op. cit., pp. 121-127 and V. D. Began, L'interpretation dea accords en droit international (1963), pp. 130-132.

150 P.C.I.J. (1922), Series B, No. 2, p. 39; see also Interpretation of the Treaty of Lausanne, P.C.I.J. (1925), Series B, No. 2, p. 24; the Brazilian Loans case, P.C.I.J. (1929), Series A, Nos. 20-21, p. 119. “o !*.,p p . 40-41.

151 I C.J. Reports 1949, p. 25.

152 I.C.J. Reports 1950, pp. 135-136.

153 For example, The Competence of the I.L.O. Opinions, P.C.I. J. (1922), Series B, Nos. 2 and 3, pp. 38-40; Competence of the General Assembly regarding Admission, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 9; Composition of the Maritime Safety Committee of IMCO, I.C.J. Reports 1960, pp. 167 et seq.

154 I.C.J. Reports 1962, pp. 157 et seq.

155 This question is examined in the separate opinion of Judge Spender in the Expenses case (at pp. 187 et seq.); and also, although less directly, by Judge Fitzmaurice (pp. 201 et seq.).

156 I.C.J. Reports 1948, p. 63.

157 For example, The Interpretation of the Peace Treaties (second phase), I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 229; the Wimbledon, P.C.I.J. (1923), Series A, No. 1, pp. 24-25.

158 P.C.I.J. (1932), Series A/B, No. 50, p. 380; of. the Serbian and Brazilian Loans cases, P.C.I.J. (1929), Series A, Nos. 20-21, p. 30.

159 For example, Polish Postal Service in Danzig, P.C.I. J. (1925), Series B,No. 11, p. 39; Competence of the General Assembly regarding Admission to the United Nations, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 8.

160 I.C.J. Reports 1962, pp. 335-336.

161 P.C.I.J. (1929), Series A, No. 23.

162 See S. Rosenne, ‘ ‘ Travaux préparatoires,'’ International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 12 (1963), pp. 1378-1383.

163 P.C.I.J. (1933), Series A/B, No. 53, p. 49.

164 I.C.J. Reports 1947-1948, p. 63.

165 The Commission requested the Secretariat to furnish further information regarding the practice of the United Nations in drawing up the texts of multilingual instruments.

166 For example, the Italian text of the Treaty of Peace with Italy is “official,” but not “authentic,” since Art. 90 designates only the French, English, and Russian texts as authentic.

167 See generally the valuable study by J. Hardy, ‘ ‘ The Interpretation of Plurilingual Treaties by International Courts and Tribunals,” British Tear Book of International Law, Vol. 37 (1961), pp. 72-155

168 Lord McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), p. 61; L. Ehrlich, “L'interpretation des traités,” Recueil des Cours de l'Acadtoie de droit international, Vol. 24 (1928), Vol. IV, p. 98.

169 See the commentary to Art. 7.

170 See the Peace Treaties with Italy (Art. 90), Bulgaria (Art. 38), Hungary (Art. 42), Romania (Art. 40) and Finland (Art. 36).

171 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk of 1918 (Art. 10).

172 United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 325, p. 91; see other examples mentioned by J. Hardy, op. cit., pp. 126-128.

173 The treaty actually said “official,” but it seems clear that in this instance by “official” was meant “authentic“; Hertslet, The Map of Africa by Treaty (3rd ed.), Vol. 2, pp. 424-427; cf. the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules concerning Collisions in Inland Navigation, Hudson, International Legislation, Vol. 5, pp. 819-822.

174 See Summary of the Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties (ST/LEG/7), p. 8.

175 See J. Hardy, op. cit, pp. 91-111, for some of the relevant jurisprudence of international tribunals.

176 A few treaties, while not designating a particular text as having decisive authority, prescribe a method of interpretation which is to prevail in ease of divergence.

177 For the cases see J. Hardy, op. cit., pp. 128-136.

178 P.C.I.J. (1924), Series A, No. 3.

179 For example, De Paoli v. Bulgarian State, Tribunaux arbitraux mixtes,Recueil des decisions, Vol. 6, p. 456.

180 Annual Digest of International Law Cases, 1929-1930, Case No. 235.

181 Lord McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), p. 435.

182 P.C.I.J. (1924), Series A, No. 2, p. 19.

183 J. Hardy, op. cit., pp. 76-81, where there is a thorough examination of this precedent.

184 Cf. Venezuelan Bond cases, Moore, International Arbitrations, Vol. 4, p. 3623; and German Separations under Article 260 of the Treaty of Versailles (1924), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. I, pp. 437-439.

185 See also J . Hardy, op. cit., pp. 113-115.

186 Official Records of the General Assembly, 13th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/3859), par. 51.

187 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, Vol. II , doc. A/CN.4/129.

188 Ibid , p. 179.

189 Resolution 1504 (XV).

190 The Sub-Committee was composed of the representatives of Ecuador, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Senegal, USSB, United Kingdom, United States and Yugoslavia. See doc. A/CN.4/155, p. 20.

191 United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, Official Records, Vol. II (doc. A/CONF.20/C.1/L.315), p. 45.

192 Ibid , (doc. A/CONF.20/10/Add.l, resolution I ) , p. 89.

193 Official Records of the General Assembly, 17th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/5209), par. 76.

194 A/CN.4/155.

195 Official Records of the General Assembly, 18th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/5509), p. 37, par. 65.

196 Ibid., par. 64.

197 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, Vol. I, 565th meeting, par. 26.

198 Official Records of the General Assembly, 18th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/5509), p. 37, par. 63.

199 A/CN.4/166.

200 Arts. 1 to 12 were adopted by the Commission at its 768th and 769th meetings, on 17 July 1964, and Arts. 13 to 16 were adopted at the 770th meeting, on 20 July 1964.

201 The Commission decided that this article would be preceded by a definitions article.

202 See Article 12.

203 Official Records of the General Assembly, 17th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/5209), Arts. 4 and 5 (pp. 7-9). [57 A.J.I.L. 205 (1963).]

204 For the contrary view, see Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, Vol. II, pp. 112-117.

205 This was also the opinion of the International Law Commission in 1960. See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, Vol. II, pp. 112-115 and p. 180.

206 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, Vol. II, p. 109 and p. 180.

207 Ibid., p. 116.

208 See pars. 4-11 of this commentary.

209 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, Vol. II, p. 116 and pp. 179-180.

210 Ibid., p. 110 and pp. 179-180. Mr. Sandström, the Special Rapporteur, was even of the opinion that this had no bearing on special missions.

211 Ibid., p. 113 and pp. 179-180.

212 Ibid., p. 116.

213 Baoul Genet, Traité de diplomatic et de droit diplomatique, Paris, 1931, Vol. I, p. 86.

214 Sir Ernest Satow, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 4th ed., London, 1957, p. 41.

215 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, Vol. LT, p. 109.

216 Thus, Jimenez de Aréchaga; see Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, Vol. II, p. 116, par. 13.

217 This cumulation of the functional and the representative character is confirmed by the fourth paragraph of the Preamble and by Art. 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

218 Mr. Sandström too used this method in dealing with the question of the participation of ad hoc diplomats in congresses and conferences (Chap. II, Art. 6).

219 In order to bring the practice further into line with the principle of equality, it is now customary for lots to be drawn, the initial letter of the name of the state thus chosen indicating the beginning of the ad hoe alphabetical order. At United Nations meetings and meetings organized by the United Nations, lots are drawn at the opening of the session, to assign seats to the participating states for the duration of the session and whenever a roll-call vote is taken.

220 A/CN.4/166, Article 9.

221 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, Vol. II, p. 116 and p. 180.

222 Ibid., pp. 179-180.

223 This addition was proposed by Mr. Jiménez de Aréchaga; see ibid., p. 115.

224 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, Vol. II, p. 116 and pp. 179-180.

225 Ibid., pp. 179-180.

226 Sir Ernest Satow, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 4th ed., London, 1957, pp. 138-141.

227 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, Vol. II, p. 108, p. 180.

228 Ibid, p. 116.

229 The discussion of the report was begun at the Fifteenth Session of the Commission and a working paper (A/CN.4/L.103) was submitted by the Special Rapporteur. It was intended to continue the discussion at a session in January 1964, which session, however, was not held.

230 Official Records of the General Assembly, 18th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/5509), par. 70.