条约文本忠实者对后续国家实践的负担

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
Benedict Abrahamson Chigara
{"title":"条约文本忠实者对后续国家实践的负担","authors":"Benedict Abrahamson Chigara","doi":"10.1007/s40802-021-00185-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The role of subsequent state practice in the procedural law of treaties, and in the determination of consent in the implementation of treaties have become the subject of much scholarly debate in recent times. The UN International Law Commission has devoted copious amounts of study time into these issues under the distinguished guidance of Georg Nolte as Special Rapporteur. Ph.D. theses and research monographs, journal articles and commentaries have appeared on the matter, but the debate persists. At one end of this debate are treaty-text loyalists that reject the potential of subsequent state practice to modify what they regard as ‘solemn oaths’ taken by states when they conclude and adopt a treaty. That ‘temporal declaration of consent’ by states to be bound by a treaty regime is for them sacrosanct. At the other end are analytical jurisprudence scholars who appear to insist upon a purpose test approach to the matter. This article evaluates treaty-text loyalists’ arguments under current state practice on treaty implementation across a number of disciplines. It shows that the view that ‘temporal consent’ supremely prohibits the modification of treaties through subsequent state practice is exaggerated. Moreover, the ‘solemn oaths’ perception of treaties is not supported by recent examples of treaty implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":43288,"journal":{"name":"Netherlands International Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treaty-text Loyalists’ Burden with Subsequent State Practice\",\"authors\":\"Benedict Abrahamson Chigara\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40802-021-00185-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The role of subsequent state practice in the procedural law of treaties, and in the determination of consent in the implementation of treaties have become the subject of much scholarly debate in recent times. The UN International Law Commission has devoted copious amounts of study time into these issues under the distinguished guidance of Georg Nolte as Special Rapporteur. Ph.D. theses and research monographs, journal articles and commentaries have appeared on the matter, but the debate persists. At one end of this debate are treaty-text loyalists that reject the potential of subsequent state practice to modify what they regard as ‘solemn oaths’ taken by states when they conclude and adopt a treaty. That ‘temporal declaration of consent’ by states to be bound by a treaty regime is for them sacrosanct. At the other end are analytical jurisprudence scholars who appear to insist upon a purpose test approach to the matter. This article evaluates treaty-text loyalists’ arguments under current state practice on treaty implementation across a number of disciplines. It shows that the view that ‘temporal consent’ supremely prohibits the modification of treaties through subsequent state practice is exaggerated. Moreover, the ‘solemn oaths’ perception of treaties is not supported by recent examples of treaty implementation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Netherlands International Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Netherlands International Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-021-00185-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Netherlands International Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-021-00185-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

后来的国家实践在条约程序法中的作用,以及在条约执行中同意的确定,近年来已经成为许多学术辩论的主题。联合国国际法委员会在特别报告员乔治·诺尔特的杰出指导下,对这些问题进行了大量的研究。关于这个问题的博士论文、研究专著、期刊文章和评论已经出现,但争论仍在继续。争论的一方是条约文本的忠实拥护者,他们反对随后的国家实践修改他们认为各国在缔结和通过条约时所作的“庄严誓言”的可能性。对他们来说,各国接受条约制度约束的“暂时同意声明”是神圣不可侵犯的。另一端是分析法学学者,他们似乎坚持用目的测试的方法来解决这个问题。本文评估了条约文本忠实者在当前国家实践中跨多个学科实施条约的观点。它表明,“暂时同意”绝对禁止通过随后的国家实践修改条约的观点被夸大了。此外,最近的条约执行实例并不支持对条约的“庄严宣誓”看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Treaty-text Loyalists’ Burden with Subsequent State Practice

The role of subsequent state practice in the procedural law of treaties, and in the determination of consent in the implementation of treaties have become the subject of much scholarly debate in recent times. The UN International Law Commission has devoted copious amounts of study time into these issues under the distinguished guidance of Georg Nolte as Special Rapporteur. Ph.D. theses and research monographs, journal articles and commentaries have appeared on the matter, but the debate persists. At one end of this debate are treaty-text loyalists that reject the potential of subsequent state practice to modify what they regard as ‘solemn oaths’ taken by states when they conclude and adopt a treaty. That ‘temporal declaration of consent’ by states to be bound by a treaty regime is for them sacrosanct. At the other end are analytical jurisprudence scholars who appear to insist upon a purpose test approach to the matter. This article evaluates treaty-text loyalists’ arguments under current state practice on treaty implementation across a number of disciplines. It shows that the view that ‘temporal consent’ supremely prohibits the modification of treaties through subsequent state practice is exaggerated. Moreover, the ‘solemn oaths’ perception of treaties is not supported by recent examples of treaty implementation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) is one of the world’s leading journals in the fields of public and private international law. It is published three times a year, and features peer-reviewed, innovative, and challenging articles, case notes, commentaries, book reviews and overviews of the latest legal developments in The Hague. The NILR was established in 1953 and has since become a valuable source of information for scholars, practitioners and anyone who wants to stay up-to-date of the most important developments in these fields. In the subscription to the Netherlands International Law Review the Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (NYIL) is included. The NILR is published by T.M.C. Asser Press, in cooperation with the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, and is distributed by Springer International Publishing. T.M.C. Asser Instituut, an inter-university institute for Private and Public International Law and European Law, was founded in 1965 by the law faculties of the Dutch universities. The Institute is responsible for the promotion of education and research in international law.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信