Conflicts between Treaties in International Law

Netherlands International Law Review

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 208-232

  Mus, Jan B ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84989260024     PISSN: 0165070X     EISSN: 17416191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0165070X00000218     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Sinclair, Rethinking the Sources of International Law n. 1, at p. 93.
2. See Art. 38, para. 1, Statute ICJ, and G. J. H. van Hoof, Rethinking the Sources of International Law (Deventer, Kluwer Law and Taxation 1983).
3. See also Karl, Rethinking the Sources of International Law n. 2, at p. 61.
4. H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1961) pp. 78, 79.
5. Kelsen, The Concept of Law n. 5, at p. 1438.
6. Kelsen, The Concept of Law n. 5, at p. 1437.
7. Kelsen, The Concept of Law n. 5, at p. 1429.
8. Karl, The Concept of Law n. 2, at p. 60.
9. Karl, The Concept of Law n. 2, at p. 60 (nt. 267); see also Kelsen, The Concept of Law n. 5, at pp. 1441, 1442.
10. Hart, The Concept of Law n. 7, at pp. 90, 92. 14. Hart, op, cit. n. 7, at p. 79.
11. Hart, The Concept of Law n. 7, at pp. 78, 79; Kelsen, The Concept of Law n. 5, at p. 1429; see also K.C. Wellens, ‘Diversity in Secondary Rules and the Unity of International Law: Some Reflections on Current Trends’, 25 NYIL (1994) p. 7.
12. Kelsen, The Concept of Law n. 5, at p. 1441; Hart, n. 7, at pp. 78, 79.
13. Vienna, 21 March 1986, not yet in force.
14. One of the minor differences is that Art. 103 of the UN Charter is not mentioned in para. 1, but in a new para. 6, see Nascimento e Silva, n. 22, at p. 483.
15. Sinclair, The Concept of Law n. 1, at pp. 10–21.
16. ILC, ‘857th Meeting’, ILC Yearbook (1966) Vol. 1, Part II, p. 95; ILC, ‘858th Meeting’, ILC Yearbook (1966) Vol. I, Part II, p. 103; H. Waldock, ‘Sixth Report’, ILC Yearbook (1966) Vol. II, pp. 74–77.
17. About conflict clauses see Rousseau, Sixth Report n. 2, at pp. 154-164; Leca, n. 2, at pp. 169-188; Elias n. 1, at pp. 55, 56; Zuleeg (1977), n. 2, at pp. 251–255, 259; Karl (1984), n. 19, atpp. 471,472; Czaplinski and Danilenko, n. 2, atpp. 13, 14.
18. H. Waldock, ‘Third Report’, ILC Yearbook (1964) Vol. II, pp. 37, 38; Leca called those clauses ‘Clauses de compatibilite’, see Leca, n. 2, at pp. 174-179; and Rousseau, Sixth Report, n. 2, at pp. 154–160.
19. See Art. 34, Elaborated in Art. 30, para. 5, last sentence.
20. Waldock, ILC Yearbook n. 29, at pp. 38-40; Leca called those clauses ‘Clauses d’incompatibilite’, see Leca, n. 2, at pp. 179-187; and Rousseau, Elaborated in Art. 30 n. 2, at pp. 160–163.
21. Waldock, ILC Yearbook n. 29, at p. 37; repeated in ILC Yearbook (1966) Vol. 2, pp. 214, 215. Elias is one of the few authors who extensively discusses the important para. 2, see Elias, n. 1, at p. 55. 35. In full: pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt.
22. E. Scizo, ‘On Art. 103 of the Charter of the UN in the Light of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties’, 38 OZORV (1987) p. 169 and especially nt. 22 of that page.
23. Scizo, On Art. 103 of the Charter of the UN in the Light of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, n. 37, at p. 170.
24. G. Fitzmaurice, ‘Third Report’, ILC Yearbook (1958) Vol. 2, p. 43.
25. ICJ 4 April, provisional measures (Aerial Incident at Lockerbie), ICJ Reports (1992) pp. 3, 114.
26. ICJ 4 April, provisional measures (Aerial Incident at Lockerbie), ICJ Reports (1992) pp. 126, 127; see also V. Gowlland-Debbas, ‘The Relationship between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council in the Light of the Lockerbie Case’, 88 AJIL (1994) pp. 643–677, in particular pp. 647, 648, 660 and nt. 93.
27. Draft Art. 14, para. 1, under b; see H. Waldock, ‘Second Report’, ILC Yearbook (1963) Vol. 2, p. 53.
28. Waldock, ILC Yearbook n. 44, at p. 73.
29. Waldock, ILC Yearbook n. 29, at pp. 34, 35; see also his explanation on pp. 37, 38. 47. ILC, ‘742nd Meeting’, ILC Yearbook (1964) Vol. I, pp. 121-124; ILC, ‘743rd Meeting’, ILC Yearbook (1964) Vol. I, pp. 127, 131.
30. ILC, ‘743rd Meeting’, ILC Yearbook n. 47, at p. 127.
31. PCIJ 30 August 1924, judgment (Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions), PCU (1924), Series A, No. 2, p. 31. See also Zuleeg (1977), n. 2, at p. 256.
32. Schwarzenberger, PCU n. 19, at pp. 472–487.
33. For example Czaplinski and Danilenko, PCU n. 2, at p. 21; Alkema, n. 19, at p. 70.
34. I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 4th. edn. (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1990) pp. 624, 625.
35. F. Vallat, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969’, 40 Annuaire de I’AAA (1970) p. xxiv.
36. ILC, ‘743th Meeting’, ILC Yearbook n. 47, at pp. 127, 131.
37. Vierdag, PCU n. 2, at pp. 95, 96. 57. UNCLOT, ‘First Session, Vienna, March 26th — May 24th 1968’, Official Records (1969) p. 165.
38. UNCLOT, ‘Second Session’, n. 55, at p. 222. 59. UNCLOT, ‘Second Session’, n. 55, at p. 253.
39. Zuleeg (1977), Second Session’ n. 2, at p. 256.
40. Sinclair, Second Session’ n. 1, at p. 98.
41. See Art. 2, para. 1, under g, of the 1969 Vienna Convention.
42. M. Sorensen ‘Leproblemeditdu droit intertemporel dansl'ordre international’, 55Annu-aire de Vldl (1973) p. 54; Dahl, n. 2, at p. 282; Czaplinski and Danilenko, n. 2, at p. 19.
43. Vierdag, Second Session’ n. 2, at pp. 93, 95. 65. Vierdag, Second Session’ n. 2, at p. 97.
44. Czaplinski and Danilenko, Second Session’ n. 2, at p. 13.
45. Zuleeg also keeps those two questions carefully separated, see Zuleeg (1977), Second Session’ n. 2, at p. 256.
46. See Zuleeg (1977), Second Session n. 2, at p. 256.
47. See Draft Art. 16, paras. 1 and 2, see H. Lauterpacht, ‘First Report’, ILC Yearbook (1953) Vol. II, p. 156; repeated in his ‘Second Report’, ILC Yearbook (1954) Vol. 2, p. 133. 70. Lauterpacht, ‘Second Report’, n. 69, at p. 136; see Jenks, n. 2, at pp. 401.
48. Jenks, Second Session’ n. 2.
49. Fitzmaurice, ‘Third Report’, Second Session n. 39, at pp. 41-45; Fitzmaurice, ‘Fourth Report’, ILC Yearbook (1959) Vol. II, pp. 61, 62.
50. Fitzmaurice, Second Session n. 39, at p. 43.
51. Fitzmaurice, Second Session n. 39, at p. 44.
52. See Draft Art. 19; Fitzmaurice, Second Session n. 39, at pp. 27, 28.
53. Fitzmaurice, Second Session n. 39, at p. 44.
54. Fitzmaurice, Second Session n. 39, at p. 44; ‘Reports of The ILC’, Second Session n. 27, at p. 217. 78. ECHR 10 January 1961, dec. adm., 788/60 (Austria/Italy), 4 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (1961) pp. 138–140.
55. E. W. Vierdag, ‘Some Remarks about Special Features of Human Rights Treaties’, 25 NYIL (1994) pp. 124, 125.
56. Vierdag, Second Session’ n. 79, at p. 134.
57. Waldock, Second Session n. 44, at p. 58.
58. See Draft Art. 18, para. 8; Fitzmaurice, Second Session n. 39, at pp. 27, 28. For his doubts on this point, see p. 44.
59. See Czaplinski and Danilenko, Second Session’ n. 2, at pp. 22–24. 84. See ILC, ‘745th-747th, 754th, 764th Meeting’, ILC Yearbook (1964) Vol. I, pp. 140-157; 198-204; 271–274.
60. ILC, ‘754th Meeting’, Second Session n. 84, at pp. 198-204; ILC, ‘764th Meeting’, Second Session n. 84, at pp. 271–274.
61. ‘Reports of the ILC’, Second Session nc. 27, at p. 235. 88. ILC, ‘746th Meeting’, Second Session n. 84, at pp. 148, 152; ILC, ‘860th Meeting’, ILC Yearbook (1966) Vol. I, Part II, p. 126.
62. The ILC member, Tunkin, was the only one to point to the close relationship, see ILC, ‘860th Meeting’, Second Session n. 88, at p. 126.
63. Waldock, Second Session n. 25, at p. 76.
64. ILC, ‘857th Meeting’, Second Session n. 25, at p. 97.
65. Waldock, Second Session n. 29, at p. 40.
66. ILC, ‘858th Meeting’, Second Session n. 25, at p. 104. 94. Lauterpacht, ‘First Report’, Second Session n. 69, at pp. 90-166; Lauterpacht, ‘Second Report’, Second Session n. 69, at pp. 123–139.
67. Lauterpacht, ‘Second Report’, Second Session n. 69, at p. 133. 96. Gentili, Second Session’ n. 18, Book III, ch. XVIII.
68. Grotius, Second Session’ n. 18, Book II, ch. XVI, para. 29, pp. 427, 428.
69. Pufendorf, Second Session’ n. 18, Book V, ch. XII, para. 23, pp. 820–824.
70. De Vattel, Second Session’ n. 18, Book II, ch. XVII, paras. 311–322, pp. 218–221.
71. For example W.E. Hall, A Treatise on International Law, ed. by A. Pearce Higgins, 8th edn. (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1924) pp. 395-397; G. Scelle, ‘Regies generates du droit de lapaix’, RdC (1933) Vol. IV, p. 472; McNair, n. 1, at p. 222.
72. Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties, witb comment, prepared by the Research in International Law of the Harvard Law School, 29 AJIL (1935) Suppl. No. 4, pp. 661, 662; see for the comment on the Draft Article, pp. 1009–1028.
73. Lauterpacht, ‘First Report’, Second Session n. 69, at pp. 156, 158.
74. Lauterpacht, ‘First Report’, Second Session n. 69, at pp. 156, 158. 104. Lauterpacht, ‘First Report’, n. 69, at p. 158.
75. Fitzmaurice, Second Session n. 39, at pp. 41–43.
76. ILC Yearbook (1958) Vol. 2, p. 42.
77. Waldock, ‘Second Report’, Second Session n. 44, at pp. 53-61; idem, ‘Third Report’, Second Session n. 29, at pp. 34-45; idem, ‘Sixth Report’, Second Session n. 25, at pp. 74–77.
78. Waldock, Second Session n. 44, at p. 56.
79. See especially: PCIJ 8 December 1927, advisory opinion (Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube), PCIJ (1927), Series B, No. 14; PCIJ 12 December 1934, judgment (Oscar Chinn), PCIJ (1934), Series A/B, No. 63 (where Judges Eysinga and Schiicking defended the concept of invalidity in their dissenting opinions, see pp. 132, 148.
80. ILC, ‘743rd Meeting’, Second Session n. 47, at p. 126; Waldock, Second Session n. 29, at p. 35. 111. Zuleeg (1977), n, 2, at p. 250
81. ILC, ‘743rd Meeting’, Second Session n. 47, at p. 126.
82. Draft Art. 65, para. 4, under c; Waldock, Second Session n. 29, at p. 35.
83. See also Zuleeg (1977), Second Session’ n. 2, at pp. 262–265.
84. ILC, ‘743rd Meeting’, Second Session n. 47, at p. 131.
85. ILC, ‘857th Meeting’, Second Session n. 25, at p. 102.
86. Zuleeg (1977), Second Session n. 2, at pp. 267, 268; Karl, n. 2, at pp. 64, 65.