Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Treaty Implementation and Constitutional Limitations

  • Chapter
The Treaty-Making Power in the Commonwealth of Australia

  • 92 Accesses

Abstract

The rules governing treaty implementation in Australia derive principally from two sources: the provisions of the Australian Constitution and Australian doctrine concerning the relationship between international law and municipal law. In the body of these same rules are also found the main constitutional limitations upon Australia’s treaty-making power. With regard to constitutional limitations, this chapter will consider not only those affecting treaty implementation but also those affecting the power to conclude treaties.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Leipzig, 1899 ). No attempt will be made to discuss extensively and thoroughly the problems relating to the doctrine of legal sources, sovereignty, and the concept of law as such, although the relationship between international law and municipal law will not be properly understood without discussing the problems and doctrines mentioned above. The literature on these subjects is too well known and the study leaves no room for an exclusive and thorough examination of the problems involved.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See Pohle, Der Einzelne im Konflikt zwischen Völkerrecht und nationalem Recht (Essen, 1952 ), PP. 14ff.

    Google Scholar 

  3. With regard to a thorough examination of the problem see Gustav Adolf Walz, Völkerrecht und staatliches Recht (Stuttgart, 1933 ); Josef L. Kunz, “Landrecht und Völkerrecht,” Strupps Wörterbuch des Völkerrechts und der Diplomatie, Vol. I (1924), P. 787ff.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See Pohle, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Compare Alfred Verdross, Völkerrecht (Wien, 195o).

    Google Scholar 

  6. O. cit., especially on p. irr: “Völkerrecht und Landesrecht sind nicht nur verschiedene Rechtsteile, sondern auch verschiedene Rechtsordnungen. Sie sind zwei Kreise, die sich höchstens berühren, niemals schneiden.”

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dionisio Anzilotti, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, Vol. r, German translation by Cornelia Bruns and K. Schmid (Berlin and Leipzig, 1929), p. 37ff.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Einführung in das Völkerrecht (Tübingen, 1951), pp. 36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Die Abänderung völkerrechtsgemässen Landesrechts (Berlin, 1927), p. 145ff.

    Google Scholar 

  10. With regard to this, see Hermann Maschke, Die Rangordnung der Rechtsquellen (Berlin, 5932).

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Pohle, op. cit., p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See to this Hermann Mosier, “Die Erweiterung des Kreises der Völkerrechtssubjekte,’ 22 ZaöRV I (1962), who argues that the subjects of international law have increased in the last decade or so.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See Pohle, op. cit., p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  14. After being highly in favor of the extreme monist doctrine (compare, e.g., Das Pro. blew der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts (Tübingen, 192o), p. 12off. he became a representative of the moderate monist school; compare his Reine Rechtslehre (Leipzig, Wien, 1934 ), P. 129ff.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Völkerrecht (2nd ed., Berlin, 1950), p. 60ff; see with regard to the changes of Verdross’ doctrine: Walz, Völkerrecht und staatliches Recht (Stuttgart, 1933), p. 1o4ff; Verdross supported the monist doctrine and the doctrine of primacy of municipal law; see: “Zur Konstruktion des Völkerrechts,” 8 Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, 329 esp. at 353; he then argued a radical monism; see to this: Die Einheit des rechtlichen Weltbildes auf Grundlage der Völkerrechtsverfassung (Tübingen, 1923), Preface VI and esp. p. 134; he is now arguing a moderate monism and the doctrine of primacy of international law, and points out the congruency of his theory with the dualist doctrine on some specific points; Völkerrecht, op. cit., p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Landesrecht und Völkerrecht,“ Strupps Wörterbuch des Völkerrechts und der Diplomatie, Vol. i (1924), P. 787ff.; see also his Völkerrechtswissenschaft und Reine Rechtslehre (Leipzig und Wien, 1923).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, 2 Vols. (Basel, 1948–57) Vol. 1, p. 21ff., esp, pp. 24–25. Guggenheim thought first that international law and municipal law are co-ordinated in another higher and universal legal order; see to this esp. op. cit., p. 27, note 7.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Verbindlichkeit und Konstruktion des positiven Völkerrechts (Hamburg, 1948 ). C. criticizes the dualist doctrine and develops his own monistic theory. He has many meeting points with Kelsen. His construction is based upon the assertion that any legal subject has a legal consciousness, and that there exists, in any legal order, a predominant fundamental legal norm.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Grundlehre des Völkerrechts (2nd ed., Köln, 1948 ). S. represents the catholic school of natural law, asserting a divine and superior universal legal order.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See Verdross, Völkerrecht, op. cit., p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Staatsverträge und Gesetze als Quellen des Völkerrechts (Dorpat, 1876).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Die deutschen Staatsverträge,“ 36 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 1 (188o).

    Google Scholar 

  23. a Juristische Grundprobleme, Vol. r: Der Begriff des Gesetzes (Berlin, 1920), p. 344ff.; esp. 387 and p. 406. “Das Völkerrecht ist dem Gesetze, in dem es seinen Geltungsgrund findet, untergeordnet… Das Gesetz ist ihm gegenüber höheres Recht, der Gesetzgeber steht über der völkerrechtlichen Instanz.”

    Google Scholar 

  24. Grundzüge des Völkerrechts (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1903).

    Google Scholar 

  25. See Grundlinien der Philosophie und des Rechts, oder Naturrecht und Staatswissenschaft im Grundrisse (3rd ed., 1854 ), P. 416ff.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Maschke, op. cit., p. 98.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See Walz, op. cit., p. 89, n. 74.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ibid., op. cit., p. 266.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See to this Pohle, op. cit., with special references.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Alf Ross, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts (Stuttgart und Köln, igsr), p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Reference is made here to Ross, op. cit., p. 6off. and Rousseau, Principes Généraux du Droit International Public (Paris, 1944), p. 55ff., who illustrates the theoretical conflict between dualistic and monistic constructions systematically and clearly.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Günther Doeker, “The Fifth French Republic,” 3 I.A.L.R. 146 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gerhard Leibholz, 16 Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, 353 and Article 8o of the Italian Constitution of 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See Phillip C. Jessup, “Has the Supreme Court Abdicated one of its Functions,” 40 A.J.I.L. 168 (1946) at 170.

    Google Scholar 

  35. For a recent analysis, see Felice Morgenstern, “Judicial Practice and the supremacy of international law,” 27 B.Y.I.L. 42 (1950); see also H. Lauterpacht, “Is International Law Part of the Law of England,” 25 Transactions of Grotius Society, 52 (1939): McNair, “When do British treaties involve legislation,” 9 B.Y.I.L. 59 (1928).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cas. temp. 281; II Digest (RepL.) 634. Lauterpacht, op. cit., p. 6o, see also Lord Finlay’s emphatic affirmation of that view in the Lotus Case, (1927) P.C.I. J. Series A, on. Jo, p. 54, and Judge Moore’s reference, ibid., p. 75, to “the majestic stream of the common law united with international law”; see, however Mortensen v. Peters (1906) 14 S.L.R. 227, 43 S.L.R. 872; per L. J. Atkin in Commercial and Estates Co. of Egypt v. Board of Trade, x K.B. (1925) 271 at p. 295; per Lord Atkin in Chung Chi Cheung v. The King (1939) A.C.,6o; per Lord Macmillan in The Christina (1939) A.C. 485, 497.

    Google Scholar 

  37. ) 12 Ex. D. 63.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Règles Générales du Droit de la Paix,“ 62 Recueil des Cours 99 (1937) IV at 132.

    Google Scholar 

  39. ) 2 K.B. 391.

    Google Scholar 

  40. ) 2 A.C. 77.

    Google Scholar 

  41. See Mortensen v. Peters (1906) decision of the High Court of Justiciary of Scotland, 8 F. (Ct. of Sess.) 93 and Polites v. The Commonwealth (1945) decision of the High Court of Australia, 70 C.L.R. 6o.

    Google Scholar 

  42. See Chung Chi Cheung v. R. (1939) A.C.,6o at p. 168, citing, however, The Berlin (1914), p. 265 at p. 272.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See Morgenstern, op. cit., pp. 73 et. seq. Cook v. Sprigg (1899) A.C. 572, and W.H. Moore, Act of State in English Law (London, 1906), pp. 78, 82, and pp. 132ff.

    Google Scholar 

  44. The Le Louis (1817) 2 Dods. 21o, at pp. 251 and 254.

    Google Scholar 

  45. See generally McNair, “L’Application et l’Interprétation des Traités D’Après la Jurisprudence Britannique,” 43 Recueil des Cours 251 (1933), at 245–62; Walker v. Baird (1892) A.C. 491 at p. 497. The Parlement Belge (1879) 4 P.D. 129 and A.G. for Canada v. A.G. for Ontario (1937) A•C. 326 at p. 347. Cf. Francis v. R. (1956), 3 D.L.R. (2d) 641.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See The Zamora (1916) 2 A.C. 77.

    Google Scholar 

  47. a See also J. G. Starke, An Introduction to International Law, 5ed, London 1963, p. 79 f.

    Google Scholar 

  48. See Polites v. Commonwealth (1945) 70 C.L.R. and cf. Mohammad Mohy-ud-Din v. King Emperor (India) (1946) 8 F.C.R. 9, and Theophile y. Solicitor-General (195o), A.C. 586.;8 Re Piracy Jure Gentium (1834) A.C. 586.

    Google Scholar 

  49. a See, however, Alexandrowicz, Charles Henry, “International Law in the Municipal Sphere According to Australian Decisions” 13 I.C.L.Q. 78 (1964) at 92, who comes to a different conclusion, by using a method of interpretation, which does not take into account the problem of distribution of legislative powers under the Australian Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  50. ) 24 C.L.R. 166.

    Google Scholar 

  51. C.L.R. 182, see also Wynes, W. Anstey, Legislative, Executive and Judicial Powers in Australia, 2nd ed. 1956, p. 111

    Google Scholar 

  52. C.L.R. 557.

    Google Scholar 

  53. a Wynes, ibid., op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  54. C.L.R. 344.

    Google Scholar 

  55. a See Wynes, op. cit., p. II2.

    Google Scholar 

  56. ) 7o C.L.R. 6o.

    Google Scholar 

  57. a Compare Wynes, op. cit., p. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  58. ) 77 C.L.R. 449.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Per Latham C.J. at 462, per Starke J. as to ships of war and public vessels, 471.

    Google Scholar 

  60. ) II U.S. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  61. a see also Wynes, op. cit., p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Citing Chung Chi Cheung v. The King (1939) A.C. 16o at 169.

    Google Scholar 

  63. ) 77 C.L.R. 461.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ibid., 465, 466.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ibid., 484.

    Google Scholar 

  66. a See also Wynes, op. cit., p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  67. ) A.C. 167, 168.

    Google Scholar 

  68. a see also Wynes, op. cil., p. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  69. ) 77 C.L.R. 481.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Wynes, op. cut., p. 114

    Google Scholar 

  71. ) A.C. 167, 168

    Google Scholar 

  72. see Wynes, op. cit., p. 114. 63b Ibid., p. 115.

    Google Scholar 

  73. ) A.C. 497, 498.

    Google Scholar 

  74. A.C. 1939, pp. 16o-168.

    Google Scholar 

  75. o C.L.R., pp. 68ff.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Per Latham CJ, at p. 69.

    Google Scholar 

  77. This principle seems also to be applicable as to non-treaty rules, as Polites v. The Commonwealth shows.

    Google Scholar 

  78. 72 C.L.R. 449.

    Google Scholar 

  79. McNair, op. cit., 1936, pp. 7ff.; see also Dominges Caitano v. Ministère Public, Annual Digest, 1938–40, case No. 186, where the Egyptian Mixed Court of Appeal states that in Egypt, Italy and Belgium (since 1937) the British conception prevails.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Applied by the Nigh Court in Polites v. Commonwealth (1945) 70 C.L.R. 6o.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Ser. B, No. r5, at pp. z6, 27.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Ser. B, No. 17, at p. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  83. In its Advisory Opinion on the Treatment of Polish Nationals in Danzig the same Court said “a state cannot adduce as against another state its own constitution with a view to evading obligations incumbent upon it under international law or treaties in force.” Ser. A/B, No. 44 at 24.

    Google Scholar 

  84. R. v. Burgess (x936) 55 C.L.R. 668.

    Google Scholar 

  85. ) 55 C.L.R. 6o8.

    Google Scholar 

  86. a Wynes, op.cit., p. 398.

    Google Scholar 

  87. b Wynes, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  88. C 55 C.L.R• 643.

    Google Scholar 

  89. d Ibid., 644.

    Google Scholar 

  90. The Constitutional Law of the United States (2nd ed. 1929) p. 519.

    Google Scholar 

  91. C.L.R. 658–659.

    Google Scholar 

  92. o Ibid. at 669.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Ibid. at 681.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Ibid. at 684.

    Google Scholar 

  96. a See also Wynes, op. cit., p. 401.

    Google Scholar 

  97. b Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  98. C.L.R. at 684.

    Google Scholar 

  99. R. v. Poole; ex parte Henry (No. 2) (1939) 6i C.L.R. at 648.

    Google Scholar 

  100. C.L.R. 659, 66o.

    Google Scholar 

  101. ) 61 C.L.R. 634.

    Google Scholar 

  102. a Wynes, op. cit., p. 403.

    Google Scholar 

  103. b Ibid., p. 405.

    Google Scholar 

  104. A.G. for Canada v. A.G. for Ontario (1937) A.C. 326. 88a See also Wynes, op. cit., p. 405.

    Google Scholar 

  105. -51) 83 C.L.R. 152.

    Google Scholar 

  106. ) 65 C.L.R. 413.

    Google Scholar 

  107. a Wynes, op. cit., p. 405.

    Google Scholar 

  108. FJrost V. Stevenson (1937) 58 C.L.R. 599•

    Google Scholar 

  109. Op. cit., p. 407.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Wynes, op. cit., p. 405; this seems also to be the view of Sir Robert Garran, “The Aviation Case,” 10 A.L.J. 297 (1936), where the author refers to Spencer’s attempts to define the proper limits of governmental interference with individual liberty, now “quite obliterated,,, and expresses the view that ”attempts to define the proper limits of international agreements are not likely to have much greater success,“ at p. 299; see also Wynes, op. cit., p. 405, note 2.

    Google Scholar 

  111. ) 55 C.L.R. 64o.

    Google Scholar 

  112. In Victorian and Stevedoring, etc. Co. Pty. Ltd. and Meakes v. Dignan (1931) 46 C.L.R. 122, Evatt J.; see also the judgement of Dixon J. in Chow Hung Ching v. The King (1948) 77 C.L.R. 449; see also Dixon’s remarks in Sloan v. Pollard (1947) 75 C.L.R. 468, 469, where reference is made to the possible effects of evidence to show connection with the power; compare also Wynes, op. cit., p. 406 note 4.

    Google Scholar 

  113. ) 58 C.L.R. 6or.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Australian Communist Party v. The Commonwealth (1950–51) 83 C.L.R. 6o1.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Marcus Clark Ltd. v. The Commonwealth (1952) 87 C.L.R. 177.

    Google Scholar 

  116. a See also Wynes, op. cit., p. 406.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Frequently, the practice has grown up of including in bi-and multilateral conventions so-called “federal clauses”, designed to obviate the difficulties of Federal States in legislating to give effect to provisions concerning subjects within the legislative power of the constituent states or provinces. Wynes, op. cit., p. 407, note 9, points out that “in relation to Australia, it is questionable how far such clauses do not operate as a limitation upon the Federal power with respect to ‘external affairs’. Insofar as a subject otherwise within state legislative competence becomes a subject of federal power by reason of this power alone, it seems that if the Commonwealth has not assumed a positive obligation it cannot legislate upon a subject not otherwise within the ordinary enumerated powers by calling in aid the power with respect to ‘external affairs’.”

    Google Scholar 

  118. C.L.R. 66g.

    Google Scholar 

  119. See Starke, op. cit., Chapter II, n. 75 supra; J. D. Holmes, “A note on the Implementation of Treaties in Australia,” ro A.L.J. 482 (1936); Starke, “The Privy Council and Competence of Federal Legislatures to Legislate Pursuant to International Obligations.” II A.L.J. 45 (1937–38) at 87, in which the author contrasts “dynamic” and “static” interpretations of a treaty power; R.J. Matas, “Treaty Making in Canada,” 25 Can. B. Rev. 458 (1947); J. P. Nettl, “The Treaty Enforcement Power in Federal Constitutions,” 28 Can. B. Rev. 1051 (195o).

    Google Scholar 

  120. a Compare Wynes, op. cit., p. 396.

    Google Scholar 

  121. ) 4 C.L.R. 265.

    Google Scholar 

  122. ) 4 C.L.R• 395.

    Google Scholar 

  123. ) 29 C.L.R. 329.

    Google Scholar 

  124. ) 49 C.L.R. 242

    Google Scholar 

  125. ) 58 C.L.R. 528.

    Google Scholar 

  126. a See also Wynes, op. cit., p. 396–397•

    Google Scholar 

  127. ) 79 C.L.R. 121.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Per Latham ibid. 136, 137.

    Google Scholar 

  129. See Debates (Melbourne, 1898), op. cit., Chapter II, n. 55, supra, pp. 30–31.

    Google Scholar 

  130. ) 4 C.L.K. 395.

    Google Scholar 

  131. ) A.C. 542.

    Google Scholar 

  132. In re Adam (1837) 2 Moo. P.C.C. 460.

    Google Scholar 

  133. C.L.R. at 425.

    Google Scholar 

  134. per Griffith G.J., 4 C.L.R. 405. See the Irish Envoys’ Case 32 C.L.R. (2923) 577 per Starke J.

    Google Scholar 

  135. See Ferrando v. Pearce (1928) 25 C.L.R. 241; Jerger v. Pearce (1920) 28 C.L.R. 588. 165 See also Wynes, op. cit., p. 409.

    Google Scholar 

  136. b Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  137. ) 55 C.L.R. 608, 643–4•

    Google Scholar 

  138. Federal Jurisdiction in Australia, (Oxford 1959,) at p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Debs. Melb. (1898) Vol. r, p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  140. ) S.R. (N.S.W.) 254. See also Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959, Section 19.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Ibid. at 261.

    Google Scholar 

  142. op. cit. at p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Pollux, “The Interpretation of the Charter,” 23 B.Y.I.L. 54 (1946) at 69.

    Google Scholar 

  144. See wynes, op. cit., p. 591. 23b Ibid., p. II, I2.

    Google Scholar 

  145. o8) 5 C.L.R. 818.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Some instances of Full Powers not considered adequate are given by Crandall, op. cit., p. 279.

    Google Scholar 

  147. See to this Blix, op. cit., pp. 3–42.

    Google Scholar 

  148. See to this Chandler P. Anderson, “The Extent and Limitations of the Treaty-Making Power under the Constitution,” s A.J.I.L. 636 (1907), and “The Extension of Congressional Jurisdiction by the Treaty-Making Power,” 16 A.J.I.L. 400 (1920).

    Google Scholar 

  149. Compare Lord Atkin’s statement for the Privy Council in Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for Ontario and others, (1937), A.C. 326, at 347; see also McNair, op. cit., p. 8r.

    Google Scholar 

  150. For an early report on the need for Parliamentary sanction, see that by Sir Philip Yorke and Sir Charles Talbot (1728) in Chalmers, Opinions of Eminent Lawyers, Vol. II p. 339; W. S. Holdsworth, History of English Law, Vol. IX, p. 76, n. 4, refers to Molyns v. Fiennes (1365) in Select Cases before the King’s Council (1243–1482), Selden Society’s Publications, Vol. XXXV, pp. 48–53, as “an early authority for the modern rule of constitutional law that a treaty which changes or modifies the law needs the sanction of Parliament,” cited in McNair, op. cit., p. 83, n. I.

    Google Scholar 

  151. L.R. 4, P.D. 129.

    Google Scholar 

  152. L.R. 5, P.D. 197.

    Google Scholar 

  153. L.R. (1892) A.C. 491. 22 82 B.F.S.P. 994.

    Google Scholar 

  154. ) A.D. 492, 497.

    Google Scholar 

  155. as See for this and for a historical survey of the development of the rule Holdsworth, “The Treaty-Making Power of the Crown,” 58 L. Q. Rev. 175 (1942).

    Google Scholar 

  156. Amongst numerous illustrations see Reg. v. Wilson (1877) L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 42; In re Castioni, L.R. (1891) 1 Q.B. 149•

    Google Scholar 

  157. See with respect to British practice McNair, op. cit., pp. 94, 106–7, and treaties cited therein.

    Google Scholar 

  158. See Hobbs v. Henning (1865), 34 L.J.C.P. 117 and Seymour v. London & Provincial Insurance Co. (1872) 41 L.J.C.P. 193, both cases on policies of insurance, and Fenton Textile Association V. Krassin and others (1922) 38 T.L.R. 259.

    Google Scholar 

  159. The question is discussed in Danaodhar Gordham v. Deorarn Kanji (1876) T.A.C. 332 (an Indian appeal).

    Google Scholar 

  160. See to this McNair, op. cit., pp. 94ff.

    Google Scholar 

  161. See the Acts and Statutes passed to approve certain treaties which were concluded by Australia, Appendix No. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  162. See Hall, A Treatise on International Law (8th ed., 1924), PP. 351, 380; Oppenheim, International Law (5th ed., 1937 ) I, p. 700. But the opposite view has been strongly argued by Fitzmaurice, “Do Treaties Need Ratification,” 15 B.Y.I.L. 113 (1934) at 129; Q. Wright, Control of _American Foreign Relations (1916), pp. 38, 53; Strupp, Elements du droit international public (1927), p. 192; Charles Cheney Hyde, International Law (Vol. II, 1922), p. 9; Chailley, La nature juridique des traités internationaux (1932), pp. 167–236; Dehousse, La ratification des traités (Paris, 1935), Pp. 124–150; Article 21 of Harvard Draft on Treaties (1935); the latter lays down a rule establishing a claim in damages by a State which “justifiably” relies upon the representations made by another State as to its internal law, see to this also Fitzmaurice, op. cit., at 59ff., and 78ff., and for the British doctrine, McNair, op. cit., p. 83.

    Google Scholar 

  163. See Scelle, Précis de droit des gens (1934), Vol. II, p. 44o; Dehousse, La ratification des traités (1935), PP. 149,15o; Pitman B. Potter, “Inhibitions upon the Treaty-Making Power of the United States,” 28 A.J.I.L. 456 (1936). Chailley distinguishes between “constitutionalité extrinsèque” and “constitutionalité intrinsèque,” but argues that both are internationally the basis of the validity of treaties (La nature juridique des traités internationaux (1934), p. 240); Chailley argues on the basis of historical evidence that, even before the constitutional era, there existed certain limitations on the treaty-making power, ibid., op. cit., pp. 180–185.

    Google Scholar 

  164. This question of course raises a difficult problem as to whether certain treaties are perhaps forbidden althogether on the ground that they conflict with fundamental principles of law and morality. See Oppenheim, International Law (5th ed.) Vol. I, p. 706; A. Verdross, “Forbidden Treaties in International Law,” 31 A.J.I.L. 574 (1937); Vitta, La validité des traités internationaux, (Leyden, 194o) XIV, Chapter III.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Dehousse, op. cit., p. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Oppenheim, op. cit., Vol. i, p. 725.

    Google Scholar 

  167. Wilcox, op. ctit., pp. 45ff.

    Google Scholar 

  168. To this see also the literature cited in Lauterpacht’s Oppenheim (7th ed.) Vol. r, pp. 34–44.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Article 12, Section 1 and 3(a)(b)(c) of the Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties incorporates most of the theoretical and practical difficulties which surrounded the subject of ratification. The article states that treaties in principle require ratification subject, however, to exceptions outlined in Article 12, Section z(a)(b)(c) and (d). See reports of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1953 (U.N. pub., Sales No.: 59. V. 4), Vol. II, p. 112; and ibid., 1954 (Sales No.: 59. V. 7), Vol. II, p. 127 and first report of Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, ibid., 1956 (U.N. pub., Sales No.: 56. V. 3), Vol. II, p. 123.

    Google Scholar 

  170. See Chapter VIII

    Google Scholar 

  171. C.L.R. 608.

    Google Scholar 

  172. See also Latham’s view, who suggested at 629 “it is very difficult to say that any matter is incapable of affecting international relations so as properly to become the subject matter of an international agreement”; according to this view, legislation can be passed on any subject in implementation of an international agreement to which Australia is a party.

    Google Scholar 

  173. C.L.R. 634.

    Google Scholar 

  174. C.L.R. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  175. C.L.R. at 179.

    Google Scholar 

  176. C.L.R. at 445.

    Google Scholar 

  177. See also for further discussion, Chapter vIII. 58 Wheare, op. cit., p. 784.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tulane University, New Orleans, USA

    Günther Doeker

Authors
  1. Günther Doeker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1966 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Doeker, G. (1966). Treaty Implementation and Constitutional Limitations. In: The Treaty-Making Power in the Commonwealth of Australia. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9560-7_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9560-7_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8718-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9560-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation