Preamble

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winfried Tilmann
Keyword(s):  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Unified Patent Court ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Law

According to the introductory clause to Art 31(2) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), the preamble forms part of the international treaty to which it belongs. Pursuant to the specified provision, the interpretation of a treaty is primarily governed by its ‘text, including its preamble and annexes’. Consequently, the Preamble to the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), in terms of its interpretation, is at the same level as the text of the Rules of Procedure itself. It forms an integral part of the UPCA Rules of Procedure (UPCARoP) which for such purposes is to be regarded as a treaty within the meaning of the VCLT, but in any event forms part of the UPCA.

scholarly journals The Cognitive Psychology of Rules of Interpretation in International Law

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 258-262
Author(s):  
Anne van Aaken
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Psychology ◽  
International Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
Psychology Perspective ◽  
The Law ◽  
Biases And Heuristics ◽  
The Way

While Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) prescribe the rules of interpretation for international treaty law as “disciplining rules,” the rules of interpretation themselves are understudied from a cognitive psychology perspective. This is problematic because, as Jerome Frank observed, “judges are incurably human,” like everybody else. I submit that behavioral approaches could provide insights into how biases and heuristics affect the way judges and other interpreters use the VCLT rules.

scholarly journals A CHANGE OF TREATIES IN INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE

2021 ◽  
pp. 83-94
Author(s):  
O. I. Ilinskaya
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Current Problem ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
The Law ◽  
Historical Comparative ◽  
The Moment

Any international treaty provides balanced obligations for its parties. Modification of some fundamental circumstances, existing by the moment of conclusion of a treaty, leads to necessity of its adaptation to new conditions. In this regard, the author was concentrated on the investigation of the current problem of modification of international treaties. The author focuses on different international treaties for the purpose of identification general and specific ways of modification of treaties, which have been formed by international practice. The article deals with the treaty practice of states on modification of treaties. Particular attention is paid to the norms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969. The author uses different methods of scientific research: systematic, structural, historical, comparative analysis. As a result of the study, the author came to the conclusion concerning the most typical ways of modification of treaties. Despite widespread treaty practice of inclusion of special measures of modification of treaties, there are some other ways of modification of treaties. For example, a treaty can be revised by subsequent practice of states or periodic conferences of its participants.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winfried Tilmann
Keyword(s):  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Unified Patent Court ◽  
The Law

The Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) of 18 February 2013 is a treaty within the meaning of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 23 May 1969. It is therefore subject to the rules of that Treaty as regards its creation, interpretation, including its uniform practice supporting the interpretation, and the possibility of withdrawing from or terminating the Agreement. For the relevant provisions of the VCLT, reference is made to Appendix 13 of this Commentary in which the Treaty is reproduced. Reference is also made to the statements regarding ‘uniform practice’ according to the VCLT in the Introduction (→ Introduction to this Commentary, mn 133).

FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES AS THE GROUND FOR THE TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mykyta Antonov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Fundamental Change ◽  
Highly Qualified ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law

In this article the author examines a fundamental change of circumstances as the ground for the termination or suspension of the operation of an international treaty in accordance with Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Customary International Law. The interpretation of the application of the fundamental change of circumstances is analyzed in accordance with the practice of the International Court of Justice and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists in international law of various nations.

Part II Commentaries to Typical Sofa Rules, 33 Termination

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Burkhardt Frank
Keyword(s):  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
The Law ◽  
One Year

This chapter discusses the denunciation and termination of status-of-forces agreements (SOFAs). Art. 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requires as a general prerequisite that all signatories of an international treaty have to be informed if one of the signatories wants to withdraw from the treaty. According to Art. XIX (2) NATO SOFA the US government as the Depositary has to be informed about the decision to withdraw and it shall notify such denunciation to all other Parties. According to Art. XIX (3) NATO SOFA the period until a denunciation takes effect is one year.

The Law Governing Treaty Relations between Parties to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and States Not Party to the Convention

1982 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 779-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. W. Vierdag
Keyword(s):  
Large Majority ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Law

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (the Convention), concluded on May 23, 1969, entered into force on January 27, 1980. It thus took more than 10 years for 35 states to ratify the instrument or to accede to it. Although its entry into force may hasten ratification and accession somewhat in other states, it will probably be a very long time before a large majority of states are parties to the Convention. Therefore, international treaty practice will long be faced with the conclusion of treaties between or among states that are parties to the Convention and other states.

A Call for Public Participation in the Treaty-making Process in South Africa: What can South Africa Learn from the Kingdom of Thailand?

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Retselisitsoe Phooko
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Future Situation ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

On 2 August 2002 South Africa signed the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Tribunal and the Rules of Procedure Thereof, thus effectively recognising and accepting the jurisdiction of the SADC Tribunal. Among the cases received by the SADC Tribunal was a complaint involving allegations of human rights violations by the government of Zimbabwe. It ruled that the government of Zimbabwe had violated human rights. Consequently, Zimbabwe mounted a politico-legal challenge against the existence of the Tribunal. This resulted in the review of the role and functions of the Tribunal in 2011 which resulted in the Tribunal being barred from receiving new cases or proceeding with the cases that were already before it. Furthermore, on 18 August 2014, the SADC Summit adopted and signed the 2014 Protocol on the Tribunal in the SADC which disturbingly limits personal jurisdiction by denying individual access to the envisaged Tribunal, thus reducing it to an inter-state judicial forum. This article critically looks at the decision of 18 August 2014, specifically the legal implications of the Republic of South Africa’s signing of the 2014 Protocol outside the permissible procedure contained in article 37 of the SADC Protocol on the Tribunal. It proposes that South Africa should correct this democratic deficit by introducing public participation in treaty-making processes in order to prevent a future situation where the executive unilaterally withdraws from an international treaty that is meant to protect human rights at a regional level. To achieve this, this article makes a comparative study between South Africa and the Kingdom of Thailand to learn of any best practices from the latter.

Fun v. Pulgar and Albergrin

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 722-727
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Domestic Servant ◽  
The Law ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity

Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic agents — Immunity from jurisdiction — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Article 31(1)(c) — Action by domestic servant alleging that she had been trafficked and forced to work by former employers — Certification of diplomatic status of former employers — Whether diplomatic immunity continuing despite subsequent termination of diplomatic status — Whether commercial activity exception applicable to hiring of domestic servant — Whether subsequent attempts at service defective — Whether Court lacking jurisdiction — The law of the United States

Case Analysis: The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case: The Law of Treaties

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malgosia Fitzmaurice
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Fundamental Change ◽  
Unilateral Termination ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

The subject-matter of this article are the issues of treaty law as expounded in the Judgment in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case. The following problems are discussed: unilateral suspension and abandonment of obligations deriving from the binding treaty; the principle of fundamental change of circumstances; unilateral termination of a treaty; applicability of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in this case; legal status of so-called ‘provisional solution’; impossibility of performance and material breach of treaty; the application of the principle of ‘approximate application’; and the principle pacta sunt servanda. The issues arc discussed at the background of the Drafts of the International Law Commission.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document