The Theory And Practice Of Informal International Instruments

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 1986, Pages 787-812

  Aust, Anthony ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84976003024     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclqaj/35.4.787     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Baxter, “International Law in Her Infinite Variety” (1980) 29 I.C.L.Q. 549.
2. See Eisemann, “Le gentlemen's agreement comme source du droit international” (1979) 106 Journal du droit international 326–348.
3. See Münch, “Comments on the 1968 Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties; Non-binding Agreements” (1969) 29 ZaöRV 1-11; and Schachter, “The Twilight Existence of Non-binding International Agreements” (1977) 71 A.J.I.L. 296–304.
4. Cmnd.2713. It was not published in the UK Treaty Series.
5. The Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux are now in the process of being reconstituted by a treaty.
6. Cmnd.3008.
7. See Fawcett, The British Commonwealth in International Law, pp.144-194; and R. Y. Jennings, “The Commonwealth and International Law” (1953) 30 B.Y.I.L. 320.
8. See Dale, “Is the Commonwealth an International Organisation?” (1982) 31 I.C.L.Q. 451.
9. Where the content is purely administrative or procedural in nature, or the subject is a gift or grant (e.g. of aid funds) which is in essence a unilateral promise, this could be said to be a substantive reason against using a treaty.
10. In relation to international economic organisations, see Roessler, op. cit. supra n.4, at pp.50-53.
11. Very occasionally, due to an oversight, a treaty may not be published.
12. An example is the exchange of interpretative letters regarding the UK/US Air Services Agreement (“Bermuda 2”) of 23 July 1977 (U.K.T.S. No.76 of 1977, Cmnd.7016).
13. See Fawcett, op. cit. infra n.25, at pp.389-396, where he argues that Art. 102 is drawn widely enough to include agreements which do not create legal relations. He had in mind the several “political” agreements registered in the late 1940s.
14. See Fawcett, op. cit. infra n.25, at p.388.
15. U.K.T.S. No.59 of 1963 (Crand.2108) (emphasis added).
16. U.K.T.S. No.39 of 1985 (Cmnd.9590) (emphasis added).
17. Op. cit. supra n.l, at pp.302-303.
18. Oppenheim, International Law (8th ed.), pp.899-900.
19. McNair, Law of Treaties (1961), p.15.
20. Fawcett, “The Legal Character of International Agreements” (1953) 30 B.Y.I.L.381, 385
21. U.K.T.S. No.58 of 1980 (Cmnd.7964).
22. [1966] II Yearbook of the ILC 188.
23. [1962] II Yearbook of the ILC 161.
24. [1965] I Yearbook of the ILC 307.
25. Op. cit. supra n.24, at pp.3-4.
26. [1966] II Yearbook of the ILC 188–189. For a history of the drafting of the phrase see Eisemann, op. cit. supra n.2, at pp.340-343.
27. Op. cit. supra n.2, at p.331.
28. Op. cit. supra n.2, at p.336 (emphasis added).
29. I U.S.C. 112a.
30. Public Law 92—403, as amended by I U.S.C. 112b.
31. I.e. “executive agreements for the purpose of US constitutional law.
32. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 181; see 46 Federal Register 35917 of 13 July 1981.
33. U.N.T.S. 99.
34. German trade marks in Italy (U.K.T.S. No.52 of 1956); Claims by British Nationals under Art.78 of the Treaty of Peace (U.K.T.S. No.51 of 1957); German assets in Italy (U.K.T.S. No.52 of 1957).
35. Op. cit. supra n.24, at pp.3-4.
36. U.K.T.S. No.24 of 1985 (Cmnd.9536).
37. U.K.T.S. No.60 of 1973 (Cmnd.5316).
38. U.K.T.S. No.4 of 1961 (Cmnd.1252); see the Exchange of Notes, pp.95-100.
39. See supra n.42.
40. (1985) XXIV I.L.M. 679.
41. Cmnd.6198.
42. See Fawcett, op. cit. supra n.25, at pp.387-388.
43. Institut du Droit International, Annuaire, Vol.60, Tome I, p.357.
44. See Goodrich, Charter of the United Nations (3rd ed.), p.612. See also Fawcett, op. cit. supra n.25, at pp.389-390.
45. See also Roessler, op. cit. supra n.4, at pp.55-56.
46. [1984] 1 W.L.R. 877; for a general study of the courts attitude, see Anson and Guest, Principles of the English Law of Contract (1979), p. 66 et seq.
47. [1919] B.S.P. 7. Art.18 provided that no “treaty or international engagement” would be binding until it had been registered with the League.
48. Op. cit. supra n.2, at p.344 (emphasis added).
49. U.N.T.S. 196.
50. U.N.T.S. 148.
51. See Whiteman, Digest of International Law (2nd ed.), p.311 et seq.
52. Op. cit. supra n.l, at p.556.
53. See the Portendic case (1843) 42 B.F.S.P. 1377–1378, and the discussion of it in Cheng, General Principles of Law as applied by International Courts and Tribunals, pp. 137–140.
54. [1974] I.C.J.Rep. 267–268. An identical passage is to be found in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) case [1974] I.C.J.Rep. 472-473.
55. (1933) P.C.I.J. Series A/B, No.53, 71.
56. [1962] I.C.J.Rep. 402–404, 417-418; see also Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (2nd ed.), p.616; and Fitzmaurice, “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951-4: Treaty Interpretation and other Treaty Points” (1957) 33 B.Y.I.L. 229–230.
57. [1974] I.C.J.Rep. 269.
58. See op. cit. supra n.22.
59. [1962] I.C.J.Rep. 6.
60. Idem, pp.63-64.
61. Idem, pp. 143–144. See also the judgment in the Argentine-Chile Frontier Arbitration (1966) XVI Reports of International Arbitral Awards 109, 164; Bowett, “Estoppel before International Tribunals and its Relation to Acquiescence” (1957) 33 B.Y.I.L. 176; MacGibbon “Estoppel in International Law” (1958) 7 I.C.L.Q. 468.
62. See Fawcett, op. cit. supra n.25, at pp.396-398.
63. On the Bonn Declaration, see Busuttil, “The Bonn Declaration on International Terrorism: A Non-Binding International Agreement on Aircraft Hijacking” (1982) 31 I.C.L.Q. 474.
64. Op. cit. supra n.2, at p.347 (emphasis added).