Treaty Practice Research Articles

The Treaty Practice of the European Communities in 1990

The Treaty Practice of the European Communities in 1990

New Zealand Treaty Practice with Particular Reference to the Treaty of Waitangi

New Zealand Treaty Practice with Particular Reference to the Treaty of Waitangi

Some Features of Dutch Treaty Practice

Since 1813 the Kingdom of the Netherlands has concluded over 6,000 treaties. It has a long standing practice, which took shape particularly after World War II, when international relations became part of the daily life of nations and the number of treaties increased dramatically, and again after the revision of the Dutch Constitution in 1953, when the relationship between the powers of the Government and Parliament regarding treaties was finally established. Current practice is determined by two characteristics. The first is the constitutional provision that, except in certain specified cases, consent for the Kingdom of the Netherlands to be bound by a treaty cannot be given unless the treaty has been approved by Parliament. In practice the rule is interpreted in such a way as to strike a balance between the Government's need to conduct an efficient and effective foreign policy and Parliament's need to exercise proper supervision over that policy. The second characteristic is that, in applying these constitutional provisions (for text see Appendix 1), the term ‘treaty’ is interpreted substantively. Whether an instrument substantively constitutes a treaty is also a matter of interpretation, since international instruments vary so much in form and content that many of them are scarcely covered by the brief constitutional provisions on treaties.

Offenses of International Concern: Multilateral State Treaty Practice in the Forty Years Since Nuremberg

Offenses of International Concern: Multilateral State Treaty Practice in the Forty Years Since Nuremberg

Aspects of United Kingdom Treaty Practice with Respect to Newfoundland, 1926-1934

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.

Recognition of Arbitration Agreements in Postwar Soviet Bilateral Treaty Practice

Recognition of Arbitration Agreements in Postwar Soviet Bilateral Treaty Practice

The SDR in Treaty Practice: a Checklist

The SDR in Treaty Practice: a Checklist

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

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.

Succession and continuation, A study on treaty practice in post-war Germany

The disappearance of the Third Reich from the international scene and the emergence of two German States was accomplished by such unorthodox means that the literature on the subject often resorts to the qualification “sui generis” when describing situations and facts, for which there are no precedents. Furthermore, the legal problems connected with the status of the German Democratic Republic (G.D.R.) and the Federal Republic of Germany (F.R.G.) are so closely related to the development of political relations in Europe, that they cannot be considered in isolation from political elements.

Correspondence

The first sentence of Professor Murase’s article “The Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Japan’s Treaty Practice During the Period 1854-1905” which appeared in the April issue of the Journal is incorrect. He asserts that “[i]t can be said today that a unilateral most-favored-nation (MFN) clause is only of historical significance.” However, even today, Japan lives under the threat of a unilateral unconditional most-favored-nation clause.

The Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Japan’s Treaty Practice during the Period 1854–1905

It can be said today that a unilateral most-favored-nation (MFN) clause is only of historical significance. The first unilateral MFN clauses appeared in the seventeenth century in the capitulation treaties with the Ottoman Empire and in the agreements between the French East India Company and the Mogul Empire. However, it was in the latter half of the nineteenth century that unilateral MFN clauses were most extensively concluded between the European Powers and Asian countries. These unilateral clauses served as an instrument for securing “equality in exploitation” in the economically backward regions of Asia where several of the capital exporting countries were in competition and conflict with each other.

Execution of Foreign Commercial Awards in Post-War Soviet Bilateral Treaty Practice

In 1945, H. J. Hilton, Jr., published an excellent article in the Department of State Bulletin entitled “Commercial Arbitration in the Treaties and Agreements of the U.S.S.R.” which assessed the Soviet record in this area up to the end of the Second World War. The purpose of the present study is to carry the inquiry forward to the present, concentrating, however, exclusively on the problem of execution of foreign commercial arbitral awards in Soviet bilateral treaty practice during this period.Before proceeding though, a quick review of the salient points of Mr. Hilton’s survey will furnish useful background information.First, in analyzing the corpus of Soviet treaties and agreements that feature statements concerning arbitration of commercial disputes, the author found that, while the relevant provisions ranged in detail from a single phrase to comprehensive conventions containing as many as 15 articles, the data did not reveal a pattern of historic evolution in the type of formulas regarding arbitration. In other words, although the Soviet regime passed through several phases of development between 1921, when such a reference initially appeared in a treaty signed by the R.S.F.S.R., and 1945, this did not entail technical changes reflecting specific policy shifts; the various approaches used recur throughout the span of observation without any determinable regularity and no correlation could be fixed between the choice of a particular solution and the prevailing conditions at home or abroad at a given juncture. The conclusion here, then, was that “the provisions referring to arbitration included in the treaties and agreements of the U.S.S.R. vary considerably in content; however, these variations cannot be established precisely by periods of time.”

Some Recent Developments in Commonwealth Treaty Practice

Some Recent Developments in Commonwealth Treaty Practice

Certain Legal Aspects of Communist China's Treaty Practice

Certain Legal Aspects of Communist China's Treaty Practice

Option of Nationality in Soviet Treaty Practice, 1917–1924

Option of nationality in its various forms played an important rôle in the international law and diplomacy of the second half of the nineteenth century and the first quarter of the twentieth. The concept undoubtedly reached a peak in popularity and demand in connection with the territorial settlements arising from the first World War, only to fall into disuse in subsequent years. The heyday of the idea of option in general international law and relations in the years following 1918 also coincided with the high point of the usage of the principle in Soviet diplomatic practice. Indeed, perhaps in the diplomatic repertoire of no other nation was option of nationality as frequently resorted to in this or any other comparable period as in the Soviet treaty arrangements of 1917–1924. Option in all its various juridical expressions occupied from the very first an extremely important place in the legal and political acts of the Soviet regime in its search for a modus vivendi with Russia’s neighbors. What is more, the experience of these first years firmly established option as an active and operative principle of Soviet foreign policy, in which capacity it has remained until the very present, whereas in the rest of the international community option has but rarely been revived since World War I.

Soviet Treaty Practice on Commercial Arbitration Since 1940

Soviet Treaty Practice on Commercial Arbitration Since 1940

Treaty Practice in Chile, Argentina, and Mexico

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.

The Use of the Term “Acceptance” in United Nations Treaty Practice

The Use of the Term “Acceptance” in United Nations Treaty Practice

The Most-Favored-Nation Clause: an Analysis with Particular Reference to Recent Treaty Practice and Tariffs

The Most-Favored-Nation Clause: an Analysis with Particular Reference to Recent Treaty Practice and Tariffs