Contractualism in the Law of Treaties

O. Dajani
{"title":"Contractualism in the Law of Treaties","authors":"O. Dajani","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2038463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, provides that “[a] treaty is void” if it has been “procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations” or if it “conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law” – i.e., jus cogens. In the more than three decades since the Vienna Convention entered into force, however, neither of these provisions has been successfully invoked even once to challenge the validity of a treaty. In this Article, I undertake to explain why that is so – and why it should concern us. I argue that constraints on contractual freedom serve functions as critical to the law of treaties as they are to the law of contracts in domestic legal systems. But while such constraints won recognition in Vienna Convention, the procedures established by the Convention for their enforcement are radically contractualist: the International Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction over treaty invalidity claims unless the parties have consented to the Convention’s dispute resolution mechanism; moreover, third parties lack standing to challenge the validity of a treaty that was coerced or conflicts with peremptory norms, even though these rules implicate interests shared by the international community as a whole. This procedural framework saps the rules of much of their mandatory effect. Although a number of features of the international legal system make it unlikely in the foreseeable future that mandatory rules will serve all of the functions at the international level that they have come to serve in domestic law, I submit that some of their functions are of particular importance to international law. Accordingly, because post-hoc judicial invalidation of agreements – the primary means employed by domestic jurisdictions for enforcing mandatory rules – is ill suited to the decentralized structure of the international legal system, the international community should promote adherence to them through individual and collective action by states prior to the conclusion of treaties and through political, as well as judicial, processes and institutions.","PeriodicalId":331401,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Journal of International Law","volume":"218 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2038463","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, provides that “[a] treaty is void” if it has been “procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations” or if it “conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law” – i.e., jus cogens. In the more than three decades since the Vienna Convention entered into force, however, neither of these provisions has been successfully invoked even once to challenge the validity of a treaty. In this Article, I undertake to explain why that is so – and why it should concern us. I argue that constraints on contractual freedom serve functions as critical to the law of treaties as they are to the law of contracts in domestic legal systems. But while such constraints won recognition in Vienna Convention, the procedures established by the Convention for their enforcement are radically contractualist: the International Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction over treaty invalidity claims unless the parties have consented to the Convention’s dispute resolution mechanism; moreover, third parties lack standing to challenge the validity of a treaty that was coerced or conflicts with peremptory norms, even though these rules implicate interests shared by the international community as a whole. This procedural framework saps the rules of much of their mandatory effect. Although a number of features of the international legal system make it unlikely in the foreseeable future that mandatory rules will serve all of the functions at the international level that they have come to serve in domestic law, I submit that some of their functions are of particular importance to international law. Accordingly, because post-hoc judicial invalidation of agreements – the primary means employed by domestic jurisdictions for enforcing mandatory rules – is ill suited to the decentralized structure of the international legal system, the international community should promote adherence to them through individual and collective action by states prior to the conclusion of treaties and through political, as well as judicial, processes and institutions.
条约法中的契约主义
《维也纳条约法公约》规定,如果条约是“违反《联合国宪章》所载原则,以武力威胁或使用武力取得的”,或“违反一般国际法的强制性规范”,即“强制法”,则“条约无效”。然而,在《维也纳公约》生效以来的三十多年里,这两项规定甚至没有一次被成功地援引来挑战条约的有效性。在这篇文章中,我承诺解释为什么会这样,以及为什么我们应该关注它。我认为,对合同自由的限制对条约法的作用与对国内法律体系中的合同法的作用一样重要。但是,虽然这些限制在《维也纳公约》中得到承认,但《公约》为执行这些限制所规定的程序完全是契约主义的:除非当事方同意《公约》的争端解决机制,否则国际法院对条约无效索赔缺乏管辖权;此外,即使这些规则涉及整个国际社会的共同利益,第三方也没有资格对强迫条约或与强制性规范相冲突的条约的有效性提出质疑。这一程序性框架削弱了规则在很大程度上的强制效力。虽然国际法律制度的一些特点使强制性规则在可预见的将来不太可能在国际一级发挥它们在国内法中发挥的所有功能,但我认为,它们的一些功能对国际法来说是特别重要的。因此,由于协定的事后司法无效- -国内司法机关用来执行强制性规则的主要手段- -不适合国际法律制度的分散结构,国际社会应通过各国在缔结条约之前的个别和集体行动以及通过政治和司法程序和机构促进遵守这些协定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信