Suspension of Treaty Relationship: The ANZUS Alliance

Abstract

When states enter into an agreement, they may be formalising a relationship that already existed between them. They will then be shaping in formal terms their preexistent expectations for the sharing of values prescribed by the agreement, rather than establishing an entirely new relationship. An agreement provides a legal environment for what already existed in fact; the anticipation is that it will strengthen and confirm that relationship. This expectation may be furthered by a commitment to permanency in the agreement. However, the expectation of permanency, coupled with a belief that the underlying relationship is sound, may result in the agreement itself being imprecisely worded and seem more like a political commitment rather than a legal one. In these circumstances, the termination or suspension of the original agreement by one or more of the parties against the desires of some or all of the other parties is likely to provoke feelings of frustration and dismay. These feelings will be shared by those parties which did not desire this outcome (which include even the parties which actually terminated or suspended the agreement) as well as third parties which had formulated policies and exercised various options assuming the agreement would continue to be applicable. The termination or suspension of any public agreement is also likely to spawn further claims relating to other situations. The interdependence of relationships means that a single agreement rarely sits and operates alone. Many subsequent developments, both in formal treaty terms and in informal understandings will be made less predictable by the termination. All those affected (even peripherally) will have to reassess their options for future behaviour. A decision to terminate or suspend an agreement may be explained by the parties' original expectations not coinciding as closely as they had thought, a situation that might have been con-