Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2017
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the product of two lengthy sessions of the hundred-and-ten-nation conference held in 1968 and 1969 and of preparatory work extending over fifteen years by the International Law Commission, is the first essential element of infrastructure that has been worked out in the enormous task of codifying international law pursuant to Article 13 of the United Nations Charter. The previous codification treaties, the four conventions on the Law of the Sea, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, did not, despite their intrinsic importance, grapple with the fundamentals of constructing a world legal order.
1 63 A.J.I.L. 875 (1969); 8 Int. Legal Materials 679 (1969).
2 The Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the High Seas, Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, and the Continental Shelf.
3 McNair described the treaty as “the only and sadly overworked instrument with which international society is equipped for the purpose of carrying out its multifarious transactions.” “The Functions and Differing Legal Character of Treaties,” 11 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int. Law 101 (1930); reprinted in McNair, The Law of Treaties 739, 740 (1961).
4 See, e.g., the smallpox vaccination certificate regulations of 1956, 11 U.S. Treaties 133; or the regulations on the health part of the aircraft general declaration of 1960, 12 ibid. 2950.
5 Korff, , “An Introduction to the History of International Law,” 18 A.J.I.L. 246, 249 (1924)Google Scholar.
6 Research in International Law Under the Auspices of the Faculty of the Harvard Law School, Law of Treaties, 29 A.J.I.L. Supp. 653 at 666 (1935).
7 See, League of Nations Committee of Experts Report to the Council on Questionnaire No. 5(1927).
8 Survey of International Law in Relation to the Work of Codification of the International Law Commission, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/I/Rev. 1, at 52 (1948).
9 Ibid.
10 1949 I.L.C. Yearbook 58, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SR.7 (1949).
11 Ibid. at 238, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SR.33 (1949).
12 See 1952 I.L.C. Yearbook (I) 220-222, 224-227, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A (1952). Cf. Statute of the International Law Commission, Art. 16 (f), General Assembly Res. 174, General Assembly, 2nd Sess., Official Records, U.N. Doc. A/519 at 105 (1947).
13 1961 I.L.C. Yearbook (I) 256, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A (1961).
14 See, e.g., Jenks, “Hersch Lauterpacht-The Scholar as Prophet,” 36 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int. Law 88-89 (1960).
15 Brierly, (First) Report on the Law of Treaties, 1950 I.L.C. Yearbook (II) 223, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/23 (1950).
16 Lauterpacht, (First) Report on the Law of Treaties, 1953 I.L.C. Yearbook (II) 92, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/63 (1953).
17 Fitzmaurice, (First) Report on the Law of Treaties, 1956 I.L.C. Yearbook (II) 109, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/101 (1956).
18 Waldock, First Report on the Law of Treaties, 1962 I.L.C. Yearbook (II) 35-36, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/144 (1962).
19 I.L.C. Stat., Art. 8.
20 I.L.C. Report, U.N. General Assembly, 21st Sess., Official Records, Supp. 9, at 6, U.N. Doc. A/6309/Rev. 1 (1966).
21 Ibid, at 10-100. Reprinted in 61 A.J.I.L. 263-285 (1967).
22 Waldock, note 18 above.
23 I.L.C. Report, U.N. General Assembly, 17th Sess., Official Records, Supp. 9 at 7, U.N. Doc. A/5209 (1962).
24 1962 I.L.C. Yearbook (I) 59, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/Ser.A/1962.
25 The Index to the U.S. Code requires three and a half columns to list the Federal enactments on various aspects of fraud. 18 U.S.C. 1341 on Mail Fraud, for example, begins, “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises …” and continues in the same way for another seventeen lines of very small type.
26 1963 I.L.C. Yearbook (I) 37, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/ Ser.A/1963.
27 See II Analytical Compilation of Comments and Observations Made in 1966 and 1967 with Respect to the Final Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties [hereinafter cited as Analytical Compilation] 235-387 passim. U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 39/5 (1968).
28 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 16.
29 II Analytical Compilation, note 27 above, at 269-287.
30 Ibid, at 269.
31 Ibid, at 286.
32 Cf. U.N. General Assembly, 22nd Sess., Official Records, Sixth Committee (1967), 967th meeting (Mr. Darwin).
33 Ibid. “It was very important to the smaller countries that there should be only one main committee, so that they could participate effectively in the revision of [the] draft….” (Mr. Mwenda [Kenya]).
34 See I Analytical Compilation, note 29 above, at 40-41 (Tunisia); cf. ibid, at 39-40 (Thailand).
35 I Analytical Compilation 24.
36 Ibid, at 14.
37 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 39/ C.1/L.15 (1968).
38 United Nations Conference on tke Law of Treaties, First Session, Vienna, March 26-May 24, 1968, Official Records, Summary Records of the plenary meetings and of the meetings of the Committee of the Whole 13, U.N. Doc. A/CONF 39/11 (hereinafter cited as Official Records, First Session).
39 See Restatement (Second), Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 115, comment a (1965).
40 Art.1(b), 29 A.J.I.L. Supp. 657 (1935).
41 I.L.C. Report, U.N. General Assembly, 17th Sess, Official Records, Supp. 9, at 4 U.N. Doc. A/5209 (1962
42 Ibid
43 In response to the comments of a number of governments, the Commission had reexamined the concept of a treaty in simplified form and concluded that it lacked the degree of precision necessary to provide a satisfactory criterion for distinguishing between different categories of treaties in formulating rules relating to full powers and expression of consent to be bound. It therefore decided to recast those articles in terms which did not “call for any precise distinction to be drawn between ‘formal treaties’ and ‘treaties in simplified form'” and to delete the definition of the latter. I.L.C. Report, U.N. General Assembly, 20th Sess., Official Records, Supp. 9, at 5 (par. 23), U.N. Doc. A/6009 (1965); 60 A.J.I.L. 155 (1966).
44 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 10.
45 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.22.
46 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.25 (1968).
47 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.33 and Add. 1 (1968).
48 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/SR. 87, at 3-4 (1969). It should be noted that this and subsequent footnotes cite the provisional records of the second session of the Conference, since the final records were not available at the time of preparation of this article.
49 Report of the Committee of the Whole on its Work at the Second Session of the Conference, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/15, at 13, par. 24 (1969).
50 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/SR.105, at 8-9 (1969).
51 Unless otherwise indicated, all number references are to the Convention on the Law of Treaties rather than to the draft articles proposed by the Commission. A comparative table of the numbering of the two texts is contained in U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/ 28 (1969), 8 Int. Legal Materials 714 (1969).
52 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.21 (1968).
53 Official Records, First Session 42-58 passim.
54 Ibid, at 36-37.
55 Ibid, at 44-45.
56 I Draft Report of the Committee of the Whole on its Work at the First Session of the Conference 49, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.l/L.370/Rev.l (1969).
57 Ibid, at 50.
58 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 11.
59 U.N. Docs. A/CONF.39/C.l/L.54/Rev. 1 (Finland), and A/CONF.39/C.1/L.80 (Congo [Brazzaville]) (1968).
60 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.74 and Add. 1 and 2 (1968). The amendment proposed inserting the following new article …: “The right of participation in treaties “All States have the right to participate in general multilateral treaties in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality.“
61 Official Records, First Session, at 62; cf. U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/SR.7, at 12 (1969).
62 Ibid, at 64.
63 Ibid, at 67.
64 E.g., Franco-Quebec Educational Entente of Feb. 27, 1965. See Fitzgerald, , “Educational and Cultural Agreements and Ententes: France, Canada and Quebec—Birth of a New Treaty-Making Technique for Federal States?”, 60 A.J.I.L. 529, 530-531 (1966)Google Scholar.
65 Official Records, First Session 69.
66 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/SR.8 at 16 (1969).
67 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 31.
68 Official Records, First Session, at 88
69 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 12.
70 The functions of the expert consultant at a U.N. codification conference are nowhere defined. In his first intervention Sir Humphrey Waldock, having adverted to this point, said “that he regarded himself as the servant of the Conference in the same way that he had served the Commission in his capacity as Special Rapporteur on the law of treaties. He was anxious to help in formulating the best possible draft convention and should not be thought of as someone who was attending the Conference simply to defend the Commission's work.” (Official Records, First Session, at 20). Sir Humphrey both answered questions on the draft articles and proposed amendments, and commented, as circumstances required, on issues raised in the debates.
71 Official Records, First Session 104.
72 Ibid, at 106.
73 29 A. J. I. L. Supp. 653, at 659-660 (1935), Arts. 14, 15 and 16.
74 (First Report), note 15 above, at 223.
75 (First Report), note 16 above, at 91-92, 124.
76 11951] I.C.J. Rep. 15, 24.
77 General Assembly Res. 598 (VI), Supp. 20 at 84, U.N. Doc. A/2119 (1952).
78 General Assembly Res. 1452 B, U.N. General Assembly, 14th Sess., Official Records, Supp. 16, p. 56. See, generally, Schachter, , “The Question of Treaty Reservations at the 1959 General Assembly,” 54 A.J.I.L. 372 (1960)Google Scholar.
79 I.L.C. ReportReport, note 20 above, at 38, par. 12 of the commentary
80 Ibid.
81 ibid, at 35.
82 I Analytical Compilation 147; cf. Official Records, First Session 108.
83 Ibid, at 135.
84 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.136.
85 Official Records, First Session 108.
86 Art. 19 of the Convention. See Official Records, First Session 415 (1968), for drafting committee text.
87 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 39, par. 21 of commentary.
88 U.N. Docs. A/CONF.39/C.1/L97 and A/CONF.39/C.1/L.127 (1968).
89 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.85 (1968).
90 U.N. Docs. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.94 and A/CONF.39/C.1/L.115 (1968).
91 Official Records, First Session 135.
92 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/L.3 (1969
93 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/SR.10 at 15 (Mexico) (1969).
94 Ibid. at 21-22 (Jamaica); at 25 (U.K.).
95 Ibid. 24.
96 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/SR.10 at 25 (1969).
97 See U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/L.49 (1969).
98 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 40.
99 103 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International 337 (1961, II).
100 Par. 4.
101 Fitzmaurice, note 17 above, at 116, par. 1 of article on “Entry into force (Legal effects).“
102 1962 I.L.C. Yearbook (I) 259, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/Ser. A/1962.
103 Sir Humphrey Waldock subsequently stated: “The Commission as a whole appeared to be firmly of the opinion that it was dealing with a common phenomenon which had become an ordinary part of existing treaty practice.” 1965 I.L.C. Yearbook (I) 112, 113, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/Ser. A/1965.
104 Ibid. at 106-108
105 Ibid, at 285.
106 Official Records, First Session 140.
107 Ibid.
108 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.185 (dealing with provisional application) (1968).
109 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.194 (adding new paragraph on termination) (1968).
110 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/SR.11, at 24 (1969).
111 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.118 (1968).
112 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.189 (1968)
113 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.173 (1968).
114 Official Records, First Session 151.
115 Ibid, at 158
116 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/SR.12, at 15 (1969).
117 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.181 (1968).
118 29 A. J.I.L. Supp. 653, at 662 (1935), Art. 23, “Excuses for failure to perform.“
119 Restatement, note 39 above, at 430.
120 Official Records, First Session 158 at par. 73 (Sir Humphrey Waldock).
121 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/SR.13, at 3 (1969).
122 Lauterpacht, (First) Report on the Law of Treaties, note 16 above, at 156 (1953) (Art. 16, par. 1).
123 Fitzmaurice, Third Report on the Law of Treaties, 1958 I.L.C. Yearbook (II) 27, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/115 (1958) (Art. 18, par. 8).
124 29 A. J. I. L. Supp. 653, at 661-662 (1935).
125 Waldock, Second Report on the Law of Treaties, 1963 I.L.C. Yearbook (II) 56- 59, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/156 and Add.1-3 (1963).
126 Official Records, First Session 164-166.
127 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 48.
128 Ibid. 49 (par. 2 of commentary).
129 Par. 2.
130 Rosenne, , “Interpretation of Treaties in the Restatement and the International Law Commission's Draft Articles: A Comparison,” 5 Col. J. Transnat'l. Law 205, 221 (1966)Google Scholar.
131 1966 I.L.C. Yearbook (I, Pt. II) 187, 202, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/Ser. A/1966.
132 Ibid, at 204.
133 Ibid, at 187, 205.
134 Ibid, at 200.
135 Ibid, at 202.
136 Analytical Compilation, note 27 above, at 201-202.
137 Ibid, at 203.
138 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.156 (1968).
139 Official Records, First Session 167.
140 Ibid. 170, Jiménez de Aréchaga (Uruguay) citing the remarks of Sir Eric Beckett in the Institute's debates.
141 Cf. Gross, “Treaty Interpretation: The Proper Rȏle of an International Tribunal,” 1969 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 108, 117.
142 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.197 (1968).
143 29 A.J.I.L. Supp. 653 at 661 (1935).
144 The formulation of Art. 36 was calculated to avoid doctrinal arguments as to whether the institution of stipulation pour autrui is recognized in international law. I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 59.
145 Ibid. at 57.
146 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.l/L.305/Rev.l (1968).
147 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.141 (1968).
148 § 156. Consent of Parties An international agreement may be modified, suspended, or terminated by the consent of the parties, except that when an international agreement confers a right, as indicated in § 139, upon a state not a party to the agreement, the consent of that state is required for the modification, suspension, or termination of the right, if either (a) the agreement provides for acceptance of the right and it has been accepted, or (b) there is no such provision but the state has changed its position in reliance upon the continuing existence of the right and its modification, suspension, or termination would be a substantial detriment to the state.
149 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 61.
150 Ibid.
151 Official Records, First Session 201.
152 Ibid.
153 Ibid, at 444.
154 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/SR.15, at 17 (1969).
155 Ibid.; cf. Official Records, First Session 201 (Mr. Khlestou).
156 U.N. Docs. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.366 and A/CONF.39/C.1/L.367 (1968).
157 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 62
158 Ibid, at 65.
159 Ibid.
160 Official Records, First Session 206.
161 Cf. remarks of the French representative (de Bresson) ibid.
162 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 65.
163 Digested in 58 A.J.I.L. 1016 (1964); cf. 3 Int. Legal Materials 668, 713 (1964).
164 Ibid, at 716.
165 1966 I.L.C. Yearbook (I, Pt. II) 168, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/Ser.A/1966.
166 Official Records, First Session 207-215.
167 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 66.
168 Art. 42, par. 2.
169 Official Records, First Session 389.
170 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 68.
171 [1960] I.C.J. Rep. 213-214.
172 [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 23-32.
173 Art. 45.
174 Waldock, note 125 above, at 39-40.
175 Official Records, First Session 398.
176 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 68-69.
177 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.267 and Add.l (1968).
178 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.251 and Add. 1 to 3 (1968).
179 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.272 (1968).
180 Official Records, First Session 401.
181 See, e.g., remarks by Mr. Talalaev, Official Records, First Session 152.
182 II Analytical Compilation, note 27 above, at 242 (1968).
183 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 73.
184 Ibid.
185 29 A. J. I. L. Supp. 653, 1145 (1935).
186 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 39/C.1/L.276 (1968).
187 Official Records, First Session 265.
188 Ibid. 256-257 (remarks of Mr. Suarez on behalf of the co-sponsors).
189 U.N. Docs. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.259 and Add. 1, and A/CONF.39/C.1/L.261 and Add. 1 (1968).
190 Art. 79 (p. 559 below) applies to an error of the latter character.
191 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 72.
192 Ibid, at 73.
193 29 A. J. I. L. Supp. 653, 1126 (1935).
194 Ibid, at 1131.
195 Waldock, note 125 above, at 48-50.
196 Fitzmaurice, Third Report, note 123 above, at 37 (1958).
197 1963 I.L.C. Yearbook (1)43-45 (par. 60), U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/Ser.A/1963.
198 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.275 (1968).
199 Official Records, First Session 250-254.
200 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 69.
201 For an extended analysis of the genesis of the article see Kearney, , “Internal Limitations on External Commitments—Article 46 of the Treaties Convention,” 4 International Lawyer 1–21 (1969)Google Scholar.
202 Treaty-Making Power (1960).
203 Ibid, at 393.
204 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 71 (pars. 8 and 9 of commentary).
205 Official Records, First Session 246.
206 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.228 (1968).
207 Official Records, First Session 246.
208 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/SR.18, at 11 (1969).
209 Official Records, First Session 249.
210 Ibid, at 260-269 passim.
211 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/SR.18, at 17 (1969).
212 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 75.
213 Ibid.
214 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.l/L.67/Rev.l/Corr.l (1968).
215 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 75.
216 See, e.g., 1963 I.L.C. Yearbook (I) 211-213, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/Ser.A/1963.
217 Official Records, First Session 271.
218 Ibid, at 276.
219 Ibid, at 285.
220 Ibid, at 283.
221 Ibid, at 275.
222 Ibid, at 328-329.
223 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/26.
224 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 77.
225 Restatement, note 39 above, § 116.
226 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 76.
227 Ibid.
228 Waldock, note 125 above, at 52.
229 1963 I.L.C. Yearbook (I) 73-78, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/Ser.A/1963.
230 Ibid, at 214.
231 There are the attacks by Schwarzenberger (43 Texas Law Review 455; 18 Current Legal Problems 191), to which convincing rebuttals were made by, among others, Verdross (60 A. J. I. L. 55 (1966)) and Schwelb (61 A. J. I. L. 946 (1967)).
232 Minagawa, , “ Jus Cogens in Public International Law,” 6 Hitotsubashi Journal of Law and Politics 16, at 17 (1968)Google Scholar.
233 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.302 (1968).
234 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.306 (1968).
235 See, e.g., Official Records, First Session 314 (Ethiopia), 319 (Ceylon), 322 (Zambia), 325-326 (Malaysia).
236 Ibid. 322.
237 See, e.g., Official Records, First Session 323 (Philippines), 298 (Nigeria).
238 Neuhold, , “The 1968 Session of the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties,” 19 Österreichische Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 59, at 86 (1969)Google Scholar.
239 Official Records, First Session 334.
240 Ibid, at 471.
241 Ibid, at 472.
242 Art. 71, par. 1.
243 Art. 71, par. 2.
244 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/SR. 25, at 2 (1969).
245 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 82.
246 Ibid.
247 The commentary to the corresponding article in the Harvard Draft summarizes the traditional international law doctrine regarding breach and demonstrates that the principle has been recognized in United States courts since late in the eighteenth century. 29 A. J. I. L. Supp. 653, 1078 (1935), Comment on Art. 27. For a recent treatment of the subject, see Bhek Pati Sinha, Unilateral Denunciation of Treaty Because of Prior Violations of Obligations by Other Party (1966).
248 Official Records, First Session 354.
249 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.325 (1968).
250 Ibid. Cf. Restatement, note 39 above, § 158 (1) (c), (1965).
251 Ibid., note 39 above.
252 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 84 (1966).
253 1966 I.L.C. Yearbook (I, Pt. I) 129-130, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/Ser.A/1966; cf. ibid. 67-75.
254 Official Records, First Session 362-363.
255 Ibid, at 479.
256 Ibid, at 362.
257 Ibid, at 363.
258 Ibid, at 365.
259 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 85 (1966). Cf. Art. 28 of tke Harvard Draft which provided that a state might be relieved from further performance under “a treaty entered into with reference to the existence of a state of facts the continued existence of which was envisaged by the parties as a determining factor moving them to undertake the obligations stipulated … when that state of facts has been essentially changed.” 29 A. J. I. L. Supp. 662-663 (1935).
260 In his opinion supporting the suspension the Acting Attorney General stated: ”… the implicit assumption of normal peacetime international trade, which is at the foundation of the Load Line Convention, no longer exists. “Under these circumstances there is no doubt in my mind that the convention has ceased to be binding upon the United States. It is a well-established principle of international law, rebus sic stantibus, that a treaty ceases to be binding when the basic conditions upon which it was founded have essentially changed….” 40 Op. Att'y Gen. 119, 121 (1941).
261 “Treaties and Changed Circumstances (Rebus Sic Stantibus),” 61 A. J. I. L. 895, 902-911 (1967).
262 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 18.
263 A/CONF. 39/C.1/L.335 (1968).
264 Official Records, First Session 367.
265 Ibid, at 373.
266 Ibid, at 377.
267 61 A. J. I. L. 916 (1967).
268 Official Records, First Session 382.
269 61 A. J. I. L. 917 (1967).
270 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 86 (par. 6 of commentary).
271 Ibid. (par. 5 of commentary).
272 Official Records, First Session 472-473.
273 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 89.
274 59 Department of State Bulletin 721-722 (1967).
275 Those on the Law of the Sea, on Diplomatic Relations, and on Consular Relations.
276 E.g., as of Jan. 1, 1970, there were 91 parties to the Diplomatic Relations Convention and 38 to the Consular Relations Convention. The Optional Protocols to those Conventions concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes had, respectively, 38 and 15 parties.
277 “The Soviet Union has neither accepted the ‘Optional Clause’ of the Statute of the International Court of Justice nor (generally) the articles of multilateral conventions providing for compulsory jurisdiction of the Court witk respect to disputes arising under those conventions. A Soviet commentator on the Law of the Sea Conference held in 1958 has discussed the provisions for settlement of disputes under the fisheries convention in the following terms: “The provisions of the Convention on the settlement of disputes between states on the question of fishing are unsatisfactory as they establish a procedure under which disputes may be decided on the request of any one of the interested parties in a special arbitration commission composed of five members. Such a procedure is compulsory arbitration and is a serious departure from the principle of the sovereign equality of states. Naturally, the delegation of the Soviet Union and many other delegations took a position vigorously against compulsory arbitration…. ‘ “ Larson, Jenks and others, Sovereignty Within the Law 291 (1965), citing Molodstov, Codification and Further Development of the International Law of the Sea.
278 [1966] I.C.J. Rep. 6.
279 [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 319.
280 General Assembly Res. 2145, General Assembly, 21st Sess., Official Records, Supp. 16 at 2, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966).
281 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 180 (1965 comment on Art. 51).
282 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.l/L.352/Rev.l and Corr.l (English only) (1968).
283 Official Records, First Session 402-441 passim.
284 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.355 (1968).
285 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.347 (1968).
286 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.339 (1968).
287 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.343 (1968).
288 Official Records, First Session 402-415, 418-425, 429-441.
289 Official Records, First Session 411.
290 Ibid. 441.
291 To Arts. 9, 20, 30, 40, 41, 58, 69, and 70.
292 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 22-23, par. 8 of commentary (1966); ibid, at 38, par. 14 of commentary.
293 Official Records, First Session 474, 476.
294 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.l/L.352/Rev. 3 and Add. 1 and 2 and Corr. 1 (English only) (1969).
295 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/SR.99 at 8 (1969).
296 Ibid, at 7.
297 Art. 28 of the convention.
298 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.403 (1969).
299 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/SR.104, at 11 (1969).
300 U.N. Docs. A/CONF.39/C.1/SR.104, at 13, 14; A/CONF.39/C.1/SR.105, at 5 (1969).
301 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/SR.27, at 8 (1969).
302 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/SR.34, at 8-9 (1969).
303 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.394 (1969).
304 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/SR.104, at 13-14 (1969).
305 “This Convention shall be open for signature [for accession] by all States Members of the United Nations or of any of the specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency or parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other State invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a party to the Convention….“
306 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/SR.103, at 27 (1969). Forty-seven countries, including the United States, had signed the convention as of April 30, 1970, the closing date for signature specified in Art. 81. One country, Nigeria, had ratified the convention. The convention remains open for accession by any state belonging to any of the categories mentioned in footnote 305. No “undue delay” in entry into force of the convention is anticipated.
307 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/SR.34, at 27 (1969).
308 Art. 66 (b).
309 Annex, par. 2.
310 General Assembly Res. 2534 (XXIV). For discussion on the item in the Assembly, see Doc. A/PV.1825, at 56-68 (1969).
311 See R. David and J. E. C. Brierley, Major Legal Systems in the World Today 442, 463 (1968).
312 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.355, Art. 5, par. 2 of the Annex (1969).
313 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/SR.105, at 16 (1969).
314 Par. 5.
315 P. 535 above.
316 U.N. Docs. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.297 (Australia), A/CONF.39/C.1/L.363 (France), A/CONF.39/C.1/L.360 (United States) (1968).
317 Official Records, First Session 493.
318 Par. 3.
319 Official Records, First Session 446.
320 Ibid, at 447.
321 Ibid. The final text was slightly revised by the drafting committee.
322 29 A. J. I. L. Supp. 664 (1935).
323 Art. 70, par. 1.
324 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 94.
325 Ibid.
326 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.357 (1968).
327 Official Records, First Session 484.
328 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 95.
329 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.279 (1968).
330 Uruguay.
331 Official Records, First Session 453
332 Ibid, at 383.
333 61 AJ.I.L. 923, 925-926 (1967).
334 Ibid, at 926.
335 I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 96.
336 Official Records, First Session 457.
337 Waldock, Fourth Report on the Law of Treaties, 1965 I.L.C. Yearbook (II) 15, U.N. Doc A/CN.4/177 and Add. 1 and 2 (1965).
338 Official Records, First Session 468.
339 Ibid.
340 Official Records, First Session 467, par. 55, remarks of Sir Humphrey Waldock.
341 Ibid, at 459.
342 Ibid.
343 Official Records, First Session 468. Five of the proposals adopted were sponsored by the United States.
344 P. 529 above.
345 See, e.g., Procèss-verbal of rectification of the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, of Jan. 30, 1969, 20 U.S. Treaties 17; T.I.A.S., No. 6629. A second procèsverbal of rectification of that convention was signed on May 5, 1969, T.I.A.S., No. 6720.
346 In discussing the relationship between Arts. 48 and 79 the Commission noted that an error or inconsistency in the text of a treaty “may be due to a typographical mistake or to a misdescription or misstatement due to a misunderstanding and the correction may affect the substantive meaning of the text as authenticated. If there is a dispute as to whether or not the alleged error or inconsistency is in fact such, the question is not one simply of correction of the text but becomes a problem of mistake which falls under article [48]. The present article only concerns cases where there is no dispute as to the existence of the error or inconsistency.” I.L.C. Report, note 20 above, at 99.
347 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 39/7, at 40, 43-44 (1968).
348 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.376 (1968).
349 Official Records, First Session 470 (1968).
350 Ibid, at 471.
