Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 1

Scope of the present Convention

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

  • 4802 Accesses

Abstract

Due to their far-reaching international and national legal capacities, States are capable of concluding agreements with all types of legal entities, ie with other States and with non-State actors (eg international organizations, corporations, NGOs, individuals). Therefore, the sole purpose of Art 1 is to limit the scope of the VCLT ratione materiae to interstate treaties and—in view of the potential diversity of signatories—ratione personae to States alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    But see Rosenne (1989), p. 22.

  2. 2.

    Sinclair (1984), p. 6; Haak (1967), pp. 544–547; for detail see also → Art 5 MN 15–19.

  3. 3.

    As of July 2017, 31 States have ratified the VCLT II which falls short of the 35 ratifications required by Art 85 VCLT II. International organizations, which are party to the Convention, are not counted for entry into force purposes, pursuant to Art 85.

  4. 4.

    See eg the 1989 Postal Convention with Austria öBGBl No 447/1989 and the 1979 Postal Agreement between the Philippines and the Sovereign Order of Malta 1195 UNTS 411.

  5. 5.

    See eg the 2006 Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the International Committee of the Red Cross on Visits to Persons Deprived of Liberty Pursuant to the Jurisdiction of the ICC, ICC Official Journal ICC-PRES/02-01-06.

  6. 6.

    Villiger (2009), Art 3 MN 7; see generally Vierdag (1982), p. 779; Vierdag (1987), p. 91.

  7. 7.

    For a detailed analysis, see Vierdag (1982), pp. 786–801.

  8. 8.

    Brierly I 223–248.

  9. 9.

    ILC Report 11th Session [1959-II] YbILC 87, 96, para 6.

  10. 10.

    Brierly I 223, Draft Art 1 lit c: “The term ‘treaty’ does not include an agreement to which any entity other than States or international organizations is or may be a party.” The wording closely follows Art 1 lit c of the 1935 Harvard Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties.

  11. 11.

    Brierly I 229.

  12. 12.

    With regard to component units of federal States, the proposed litmus test was the existence of an “international personality” (Brierly I 229).

  13. 13.

    Lauterpacht I 90.

  14. 14.

    Lauterpacht I 94.

  15. 15.

    See also Brierly III 50.

  16. 16.

    Lauterpacht I 92, Draft Art 10: “An instrument is void as a treaty if concluded in disregard of the international limitations upon the capacity of the parties to conclude treaties.”

  17. 17.

    Lauterpacht I 95.

  18. 18.

    Waldock IV 10; see the discussion and decision of the ILC [1965-I] YbILC 9–16; disagreeing: Menon (1992), pp. 17, 18.

  19. 19.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 1, 187, para 4.

  20. 20.

    China (Taiwan) proposed at the UN Conference to add a definition of State to mean “a sovereign State”. The proposal was rejected by the Drafting Committee on the basis of the lack of necessity for such a definition (UNCLOT III 112); the proposed definition relies on Art 4 Harvard Draft.

  21. 21.

    UNCLOT I 11, para 3.

  22. 22.

    UNCLOT I 12, para 7, 13, para 26.

  23. 23.

    See the VCLT II.

  24. 24.

    See the Resolution of the Vienna Conference relating to Art 1, UNCLOT II 178, annexed to the Final Act of the Conference, UNCLOT III 285:

    “The United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties,

    Recalling that the General Assembly of the United Nations, by its Resolution 2166 (XXI) of 5 December 1966, referred to the Conference the draft articles contained in chapter II of the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its eighteenth session,

    Taking note that the Commission’s draft articles deal only with treaties concluded between States,

    Recognizing the importance of the question of treaties concluded between States and international organizations or between two or more international organizations,

    Cognizant of the varied practices of international organizations in this respect, and

    Desirous of ensuring that the extensive experience of international organizations in this field be utilized to the best advantage,

    Recommends to the General Assembly of the United Nations that it refers to the International Law Commission the study, in consultation with the principal international organizations, of the question of treaties concluded between States and international organizations or between two or more international organizations.” (footnote omitted)

  25. 25.

    UNCLOT II 3, para 14.

  26. 26.

    For a broad definition, see Brierly I 229 (Draft Art 2 lit a); cf also Fitzmaurice I 107 (Draft Art 3).

  27. 27.

    See eg Arts 3 and 4 UN Charter, Art 36 para 1 ICJ Statute, Arts 1–3 Articles on State Responsibility UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.

  28. 28.

    Koskenniemi (2005), pp. 240–245; Bartelson (2006), p. 463; Krasner (2004), p. 1075.

  29. 29.

    On the difficulties of defining the term “State”, see Harvard Draft 706. For an overview on statehood Crawford (2006); Acquaviva (2005), pp. 346–375; Grant (1999), p. 403.

  30. 30.

    See the controversial debate of the ILC within the framework of the Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States [1949] YbILC 61–68.

  31. 31.

    In contrast to the ‘all States formula’, applied eg by the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid 1015 UNTS 243; see 1999 Summary of Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties, UN Doc ST/LEG/7/Rev.1, para 79.

  32. 32.

    The statement of the Final Draft, Commentary to Art 5, 192, para 4 that the term “State” is used with the same meaning as in the UN Charter, the ICJ Statute, the Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations—treaties which do not define the term—must be seen in the light of Art 81 VCLT.

  33. 33.

    For example the World Intellectual Property Organization; see UNGA Res 58/314, 1 July 2004, UN Doc A/RES/58/314 for an overview of the international engagements of the Holy See.

  34. 34.

    For considerations of the ILC, see ILC Report 11th Session [1959-II] YbILC 87, 96; Araujo (2001), p. 293, 323 et seq; Abdullah (1996), p. 1835.

  35. 35.

    As the Ukrainian SSR lacked the characteristics of statehood in an international legal sense, it was agreed on by the UN Founding Conference that statehood (Art 4 UN Charter) was not a constitutive feature for founding members, irrespective of the wording of Art 3 UN Charter, Fastenrath (2012), Art 3 MN 6.

  36. 36.

    Namibia was internationally represented by the UN Council for Namibia until its independence in 1990.

  37. 37.

    But see Argentina’s declaration upon ratification of the VCLT 1155 UNTS 502: “The application of this Convention to territories whose sovereignty is a subject of dispute between two and more States, whether or not they are parties to it, cannot be deemed to imply a modification, renunciation or abandonment of the position heretofore maintained by each of them.”

  38. 38.

    Grewe (2000), p. 90.

  39. 39.

    See eg the 1952 Exchange of Notes Constituting an Agreement Giving Effect to the Convention of 31 March 1931 between His Majesty, in Respect of the United Kingdom, and the Federal President of the Republic of Austria, Regarding Legal Proceedings in Civil and Commercial Matters 236 UNTS 245.

  40. 40.

    For reference, see n 30.

  41. 41.

    In 1960 Somaliland, a former British colony, joined the former Italian Somalia to form the Somali Republic. Somaliland declared its independence in 1991 and requested recognition by the African Union in December 2005. The subject of State secession is still a matter of ongoing conflict and hampers international recognition as an independent State.

  42. 42.

    See the Declaration of Independence of Turkish Cypriot Authorities, 15 November 1983, UN Doc A/38/586-S/16148. UNSC Res 541, 18 November 1983, UN Doc S/RES/541 (1983) considered the attempt to create and present the TRNC as being “legally invalid”: it called for the withdrawal of the declaration of independence and asked all countries not to recognize the new republic.

  43. 43.

    Cf UNGA Res 2064 (XX), 16 December 1965, UN Doc A/RES/2064 (XX) on the not-yet-sovereign status of the Cook Islands; see also [1979] UNJYB 172.

  44. 44.

    For reference see n 30.

  45. 45.

    (2012) 51 ILM 606–629.

  46. 46.

    Gaja (1987), p. 259: “strong feeling of déjà vu”.

  47. 47.

    ECJ Racke C-162/96 [1998] ECR I-3655, para 19, 45 et seq.

  48. 48.

    By way of example, see the 1947 UN Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies 33 UNTS 261; Under-Secretary for Administration and Management, Guidelines for the Preparation of Host Government Agreements, Annex: Model Agreement, Art X, UN-Doc ST/AI/342, 8 May 1987; Standard Agreement on Operational Assistance, concluded between the United Nations and Panama 774 UNTS 142.

  49. 49.

    See generally Verwey (2004).

  50. 50.

    2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2515 UNTS 3.

References

  • Abdullah Y (1996) The Holy See at United Nations Conferences: State or Church ColLR 96(7):1835–1875

    Google Scholar 

  • Acquaviva G (2005) Subjects of International Law: A Power-Based Analysis. VandJTL 38(2):345–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Araujo RJ (2001) The International Personality and Sovereignty of the Holy See. CathULR 50(2):291–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartelson J (2006) The Concept of Sovereignty Revisited. EJIL 17(2):463–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2006) The Creation of States in International Law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Fastenrath U (2012) Article 3. In: Simma B, Khan D-B, Nolte G, Paulus A (eds) The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 3rd edn. OUP, Oxford, pp 335–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaja G (1987) A “new” Vienna Convention on Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations: A Critical Commentary. BYIL 58(1):253–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant TD (1999) Defining Statehood: The Montevideo Convention and its Discontents. ColJTL 37(2):403–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewe WG (2000) The Epochs of International Law. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haak V (1967) “Unless the Treaty otherwise provides” and Similar Clauses in the International Law Commission’s 1966 Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties. ZaöRV 25(3):540–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (2005) From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasner SD (2004) The Hole in the Whole: Sovereignty, Shared Sovereignty, and International Law. MichJIL 25(4):1075–1102

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon PK (1992) The Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations. Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne S (1989) Developments in the Law of Treaties 1945–1986. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair I (1984) The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn. University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Verwey DR (2004) The European Community, the European Union and the International Law of Treaties: A Comparative Legal Analysis of the Community and Union’s External Treaty Making Practice. The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vierdag EW (1982) The Law Governing Treaty Relations between Parties to the VCLT and States not Party to the Convention. AJIL 76(4):779–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vierdag EW (1987) Some Remarks on the Relationship between the 1969 and the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. AVR 25(1):82–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Villiger M (2009) Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Public International Law and European Union Law, Law Faculty, Paris Lodron University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Authors
  1. Kirsten Schmalenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

    Oliver Dörr

  2. Faculty of Law, Department of Public Law/International Law, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schmalenbach, K. (2018). Article 1. In: Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (eds) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55159-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55160-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation