Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 2. Use of terms

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

  • 6018 Accesses

Abstract

A definition clause, as provided in Art 2, is a classic instrument of international codification, which serves technical as well as substantive purposes. Primarily, it uniformly determines the meaning of and the relationship between central technical terms for all parts of the VCLT. Additionally, the definition clause provided in Art 2 is of central importance for the determination of the Convention’s scope ratione materiae – particularly lit a (treaties); → Art 1 MN 2.

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 219.00
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    While SR Brierly and SR Lauterpacht defined specific terms in the relevant articles (Brierly I 223; Lauterpacht I 91), the necessity to design one prefixed definition clause for terms crucial for the entire Convention was recognized for the first time by SR Fitzmaurice (Fitzmaurice I 107).

  2. 2.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 2, 188 para 1.

  3. 3.

    ICJ Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v Bahrain) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [1994] ICJ Rep 133, para 23.

  4. 4.

    E de Vattel Le droit des gens (1758) book II ch XII Sects. 152, 154 (CG Fenwick translation (1916) 160).

  5. 5.

    Harvard Draft 667.

  6. 6.

    See eg JC Bluntschli Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt (1878) Arts 417–424; L Renault Introduction à l’étude du droit international (1869) 33–34.

  7. 7.

    Harvard Draft 657, Art 1 lit a: “A ‘treaty’ is a formal instrument of agreement by which two or more States establish or seek to establish a relation under international law between themselves.”

  8. 8.

    Brierly I 226–227.

  9. 9.

    Lauterpacht I 93.

  10. 10.

    Waldock I 31, 53.

  11. 11.

    Amado [1962-I] YbILC 49 paras 52 et seq; Waldock [1962-I] YbILC 51 paras 2 et seq.

  12. 12.

    De Luna [1962-I] YbILC 49 para 61.

  13. 13.

    At first, SR Waldock suggested a bracketed reference to common designations (Waldock I 31). Japan’s doubts about the utility of such a necessarily incomplete enumeration prevailed (Waldock IV 10).

  14. 14.

    See Art 38 para 1 lit a ICJ Statute.

  15. 15.

    See the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 999 UNTS 171.

  16. 16.

    Cf PCIJ Customs Régime between Austria and Germany (Protocol of March 19th, 1931) (Advisory Opinion) PCIJ Ser A/B No 41, 47 (1931); see the statistical evaluation of the international use of terms in DP Myers The Names and Scope of Treaties (1957) 51 AJIL 574, 576.

  17. 17.

    JK Gamble Multilateral Treaties: The Significance of the Name of the Instrument (1980) 10 California Western ILJ 1; Klabbers 43; Myers (n 16) 578 et seq.

  18. 18.

    But see High Court (Hong Kong) Tang Ping-hoi v Attorney-General 92 ILR 638, 640 (1985), stating that the Sino-British Joint Declaration constitutes a ‘treaty’.

  19. 19.

    ICJ South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa, Liberia v South Africa) (Preliminary Objections) [1962] ICJ Rep 319, 331.

  20. 20.

    ICJ Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey) [1978] ICJ Rep 3, para 96.

  21. 21.

    ILC Report 14th Session [1962-II] YbILC 162 para 4.

  22. 22.

    For a different approach, see Waldock I 31, 41 (Draft Art 1 lit d, Draft Art 6); Fitzmaurice I 108 (Draft Art 6).

  23. 23.

    McNair 29 prefers the terms “bipartite” and “multipartite”.

  24. 24.

    Cf the 2000 Cotonou Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the One Part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the Other Part [2000] OJ L 317, 3.

  25. 25.

    Cf the two treaties, identical in content, concluded in 1993 between Germany and Georgia 2071 UNTS 193, and Germany and Latvia 2033 UNTS 409, for the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments.

  26. 26.

    BR Bot Non-Recognition and Treaty Relations (1968) 105; JF Hogg The International Law Commission and the Law of Treaties (1965) 59 ASILP 8, 10; see eg the constituent instrument of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) 443 UNTS 247.

  27. 27.

    JK Gamble Jr/JB Kolb Multilateral Treaties: An Assessment of the Concept of Laterality, (1980) 3 Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 19, 25; see eg the 1983 Agreement for Cooperation in Dealing with the Pollution of the North Sea 1605 UNTS 39 and the 1964 Agreement Concerning the Niger River Commission 587 UNTS 19; the same is valid for the constituent documents of regional organizations such as the Council of Europe and the OAS, Waldock [1962-I) YbILC 77 paras 2 et seq.

  28. 28.

    Gamble/Kolb (n 27) 30; for a bilateral treaty turned into a plurilateral treaty due to State succession, see the 1987 Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles 1657 UNTS 485.

  29. 29.

    Art II para 3 WTO Agreement 1867 UNTS 154: eg Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft and Agreement on Government Procurement, Annex 4 to the WTO Agreement.

  30. 30.

    Art II para 2 WTO Agreement: eg GATT 1994, Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement.

  31. 31.

    See eg the trilateral treaties between the three Baltic States Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on higher education 2268 UNTS 224 and on tourism 2196 UNTS 232.

  32. 32.

    See the agreements on the transfer of fissionable material between the IAEA and two States (a supplying and a receiving party), eg the 1965 Agreement between the Agency, the United States and Uruguay 556 UNTS 141.

  33. 33.

    Reuter I 190.

  34. 34.

    ICJ Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada v United States) [1984] ICJ Rep 246, para 83; Gamble/Kolb (n 27) 25.

  35. 35.

    Waldock IV 10, Draft Art 1 para 1 lit c: “‘General multilateral treaty’ means a multilateral treaty which concerns general norms of international law or deals with matters of general interest to States as a whole.”

  36. 36.

    See the statement by the representative of the United Arab Republic UNCLOT I 26 para 37; see also the amendment proposed by the Democratic Republic of Congo et al UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.19/Rev.1, UNCLOT III 112.

  37. 37.

    UNCLOT III 235; for the reserved comments of States, see Waldock IV 13.

  38. 38.

    See above Vattel (n 4) book II ch XII Sect. 153 (Fenwick translation 160).

  39. 39.

    A Pellet in A Zimmermann/C Tomuschat/K Oellers-Frahm (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice (2006) Art 38 MN 201; Reuter 27.

  40. 40.

    See eg the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1833 UNTS 3.

  41. 41.

    ICJ Nuclear Tests (Australia v France) [1974] ICJ Rep 253, para 43.

  42. 42.

    SR Rodríguez-Cedeño, First Report on Unilateral Acts of States (1998) UN Doc A/CN.4/486, para 59.

  43. 43.

    ICJ Nuclear Tests (n 41) paras 43, 51; Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v Mali) [1986] ICJ Rep 554, para 40; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [2006] ICJ Rep 6, para 49; see also ILC, Report of the Working Group, Conclusions of the ILC Relating to Unilateral Acts of States, Guiding Principles (2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.703, para 3.

  44. 44.

    Cf Lauterpacht I 90, Draft Art 2 (alternative version); the assessment of the so-called ‘Ihlen declaration’ as a bilateral engagement – left open by the PCIJ in Legal Status of Eastern Greenland PCIJ Ser A/B No 53, 70 (1933) – is disputed in doctrine: affirmative Judge Anzilotti in his dissenting opinion ibid 91; P Guggenheim Traité de droit international public Vol 1 (1967) 138; negative jurisprudence: declaration of Judge Rezek in ICJ Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea intervening) [2002] ICJ Rep 489, 490–491.

  45. 45.

    ILC, Unilateral Acts of States, Guiding Principles (n 43) para 1.

  46. 46.

    Harvard Draft 657, Art 1 lit a: “A ‘treaty’ is a formal instrument of agreement […]”.

  47. 47.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 2, 188 para 2; cf already PCIJ Customs Régime between Austria and Germany (n 16) 47.

  48. 48.

    ILC Report 14th Session [1962-II] YbILC 163–164; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 2, 188 paras 2–3; for the international practice, see J Basdevant La conclusion et la rédaction des traités (1926) 15 RdC 539, 542 et seq.

  49. 49.

    Aust 19 demands that the electronic text can be reduced to a permanent, readable form, eg by printing it out.

  50. 50.

    Brierly I 223, Draft Art 1.

  51. 51.

    [1962-II] YbILC 163 para 10.

  52. 52.

    Ibid; but see Lauterpacht I 159 Draft Art 17 “An agreement is void as a treaty unless reduced to writting.”. The binding character of oral agreements has been emphasized by the PCIJ in The Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions PCIJ Ser A No 5, 37 (1925); relating to unilateral declarations, see ICJ Nuclear Tests (n 41) para 45.

  53. 53.

    Argumentum: Art 11 VCLT; see also ICJ Aegean Sea (n 20) para 96; Arbitration Act of 1996 (United Kingdom) Part 1 Sect. 5 para 2 lit a (1997) 36 ILM 165, 168.

  54. 54.

    Cf UK Arbitration Act (n 53) Part 1 Sect. 5 para 2 lit c, para 4; for the VCLT, see the statement by the representative of the USSR UNCLOT I 41 para 69; for the VCLT II see Reuter II 81.

  55. 55.

    Cf Reuter II 81.

  56. 56.

    Brierly I 227 (Draft Art 1).

  57. 57.

    Usually, maps are integrated or annexed to the text of the agreement, DE Khan Die Vertragskarte (1996) 63–75.

  58. 58.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 2, 188 para 2.

  59. 59.

    Cf Art 8.04 lit b no v of the September 1994 Standard Terms and Conditions issued by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; cf Lauterpacht I 90; JW Head Evolution of the Governing Law for Loan Agreements (1996) 90 AJIL 214, 227.

  60. 60.

    M Fitzmaurice/O Elias Contemporary Issues of the Law of Treaties (2005) 20.

  61. 61.

    Cf Fitzmaurice I 108 (Draft Art 7).

  62. 62.

    Cf Lauterpacht I 90 (Draft Art 3).

  63. 63.

    Brierly I 228; UNCLOT III 9 para 6.

  64. 64.

    UNTS 3; a departure from Danish law is Art XIII (dispute settlement).

  65. 65.

    UNTS 95.

  66. 66.

    UNTS 217.

  67. 67.

    UNTS 30.

  68. 68.

    When dealing with the UNGA Regulation referring to Art 102 UN Charter, the Sixth Committee suggested that an agreement between two governments was not an international agreement if it concerned a transaction of the same character as that which could be concluded by private persons or companies, and was governed by private international law and municipal law rather than by public international law, see (1945–1954) 5 RoP Art 102 para 22. The Secretariat, however, refused to determine the international nature of a registered treaty, leaving it to gradual development through practice (ibid para 20). In the pre-VCLT era, it was the understanding of the Secretariat that, since the terms “treaty” and “international agreement” have not been defined by Art 102 UN Charter and the related UNGA Regulation, the registration does not confer on the instrument the status of a treaty if it does not already have that status, cf (1954–1955) 2 RoP Supp No 1 Art 102 para 12. This self-conception is still valid even if the Secretariat is more or less guided by Art 2 para 1 lit a VCLT, at least since 1985, see (1985–1988) 6 RoP Supp No 7 Art 102 para 7.

  69. 69.

    I Seidl-Hohenveldern The Theory of Quasi-International and Partly International Agreements (1975) 11 RBDI 567, 568.

  70. 70.

    Fitzmaurice/Elias (n 60) 20.

  71. 71.

    Cf de Luna [1962-I] YbILC 53 para 34; Ago [1962-I] YbILC 52 para 19; for a different perspective, see Yasseen (Chairman of the Drafting Committee) [1962-I] YbILC 52 para 24 (the character of the agreement as another the decisive elements); for the question of whether this applies also for the legal regime commanding the treaty’s binding force → Art 26 MN 27.

  72. 72.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 2, 189 para 6.

  73. 73.

    Yasseen (Chairman of the Drafting Committee) UNCLOT II 346 para 22; see also E Jiménez de Aréchaga International Law in the Past Third of a Century (1978) 159 RdC 1, 37.

  74. 74.

    Gros [1962-I] YbILC 51 para 13.

  75. 75.

    Harvard Draft 694; Waldock [1962-I] YbILC 53 para 32; FA Mann The Proper Law of Contracts Concluded by International Persons (1959) 35 BYIL 34, 35–41. McNair 4–5; Reuter 35.

  76. 76.

    But see Ago [1962-I] YbILC 52 para 19; Reuter 35.

  77. 77.

    CW Jenks The Proper Law of International Organizations (1962) 148.

  78. 78.

    J Verhoeven Traités ou contrats entre États? Sur les conflits de lois en droit des gens (1984) 111 JDI 5.22–23; a different issue concerns the question of whether constitutional law permits State organs to conclude ‘private law contracts’ with a foreign State, eg with regard to parliamentary competences; but see the Danish–Iranian loan agreement (n 66), governed by Danish law, which states in Art XIV Sect. 1: “This Agreement shall come into force on the date upon which the constitutional requirements of both the Danish and the Iranian Government concerning foreign agreements have been fulfilled.”

  79. 79.

    For example the Alaska Purchase of 1867 (United States/Russia), see DJC Bancroft (ed) Treaties and Conventions Concluded between the United States of America and Other Powers since July 4, 1776 (1873) 741.

  80. 80.

    For example the purchase of real estate for the construction of an embassy, cf McNair 5.

  81. 81.

    According to R Bernhard in Simma Art 103 para 21, Art 103 UN Charter is applicable to private law contracts.

  82. 82.

    S Michalowski/JP Bohoslavsky Ius cogens, Transnational Justice and Other Trends of the Debate on Odious Debts: A Response to the World Bank Discussion Paper on Odious Debts (2009) 48 Columbia JTL 59, 68.

  83. 83.

    Diverted Cargoes Case (United Kingdom v Greece) 12 RIAA 65 (1955); see also Jenks (n 77) 151.

  84. 84.

    GR Delaume The Proper Law of Loans Concluded by International Persons (1962) 56 AJIL 63, 76.

  85. 85.

    ILM 897 with reference.

  86. 86.

    UNTS 267.

  87. 87.

    Provisions like Art X Sec 2 have caused significant confusion among States and scholars and hence have been dropped by the IBRD, cf A Broches International Legal Aspects of the Operations of the World Bank (1959) 98 RdC 301, 357. Mann (n 75) 38 interpreted the provision as a choice-of-law clause which makes the whole of the law of New York applicable to the agreement; for objections, see Delaume (n 84) 70; Broches (n 87) 358.

  88. 88.

    See Reuter III 138–139 (Draft Art 2 para 1 lit a): “‘treaty […]’ means an international agreement […] in written form and governed principally by general international law”.

  89. 89.

    Reuter [1974-I] YbILC 133 para 26 (“mechanism of renvoi”). The ILC dropped the term “principally” because the phrase chosen in Art 2 para 1 lit a VCLT was regarded as sufficient since it was interpretable, cf Yasseen [1974-I] YbILC 146 para 17.

  90. 90.

    Art 2 para 1 lit a VCLT II, cf Reuter X 49–50.

  91. 91.

    UNTS 48.

  92. 92.

    Reuter III 132.

  93. 93.

    K Widdows What Is an Agreement in International Law? (1979) 50 BYIL 117, 119.

  94. 94.

    Critical A Pellet The Normative Dilemma: Will and Consent in International Law-Making (1988–1989) 12 AYIL 22.

  95. 95.

    The discussion on ‘intent’ within the ILC was proceeded along two tracks and somewhat jumbled: in the first place, the notion was regarded as an element to distinguish agreements governed by international law from those governed by municipal law (see n 71). However, the ILC discussion followed a different track since the element of intent was regarded as necessary to distinguish between legally binding and non-binding instruments; cf Klabbers 58.

  96. 96.

    Lauterpacht I 90 (Draft Art 1); for alternative wordings, see Brierly I 223 (Draft Art 1 lit a: “which establishes a relationship under international law”); Fitzmaurice I 107 (Draft Art 2 para 1: “intended to create rights and obligations, or to establish relationships, governed by international law”).

  97. 97.

    Waldock I 31. See the criticism of Austria [1965-II] YbILC 10 and the amendments proposed by Chile UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.16, and Malaysia and Mexico UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.33 and Add.1, UNCLOT III 111; for a comprehensive overview of the discussion, see Klabbers 58–62.

  98. 98.

    Yasseen (Chairman of the Drafting Committee) UNCLOT II 346 para 22; see also Waldock IV 12.

  99. 99.

    SR R Ago Second Report on State Responsibility [1970-II] YbILC 192 para 46; B Simma Das Reziprozitätselement im Zustandekommen völkerrechtlicher Verträge (1972) 52–54.

  100. 100.

    Cf the dissenting opinion of Judges Adatci, Kellogg, Rolin-Jaequemyns, Hurst, Schücking, van Eysinga, Wang in PCIJ Customs Régime between Germany and Austria (n 16) 74.

  101. 101.

    Cf ILC Report 11th Session [1959-II] YbILC 96 para b.

  102. 102.

    For an exchange of declaratory statements, see Federal Court (Switzerland) Jecker v Geonafta 3 ILR 333, 334 (1925).

  103. 103.

    ICJ Qatar v Bahrain (n 3) para 25; (1945–1954) 5 RoP Art 102 para 31 lit e.

  104. 104.

    See eg the 1975 Helsinki Final Act 14 ILM 1292, 1325: “this Final Act, which is not eligible for registration under Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations”.

  105. 105.

    Cf JES Fawcett The Legal Character of International Agreements (1953) 30 BYIL 381, 388; Klabbers 74; Aust 34–35.

  106. 106.

    C Chinkin A Mirage in the Sand? Distinguishing Binding and Non-Binding Relations between States (1997) 10 Leiden JIL 223, 241; A Aust The Theory and Practice of Informal International Instruments (1986) 35 ICLQ 787, 800–806.

  107. 107.

    ICJ South West Africa (n 19) 330 (negotiating history).

  108. 108.

    Ibid 330–331 (preamble); cf Aust 33–34.

  109. 109.

    ICJ Aegean Sea (n 20) para 96; Territorial Dispute (Libya v Chad) [1994] ICJ Rep 6, paras 22–23.

  110. 110.

    ICJ South West Africa (n 19) 332–333.

  111. 111.

    Ibid 331; ICJ Aegean Sea (n 20) para 96.

  112. 112.

    ICJ South West Africa (n 19) 332; Qatar v Bahrain (n 3) para 29.

  113. 113.

    Klabbers 75.

  114. 114.

    UN Treaty Handbook (2001) para 5.3.4: “clear on the face of the instrument”.

  115. 115.

    The term ‘soft law’ is polymorphic in the sense that it is applied in several ways: apart from the equation with ‘non-legally binding agreement’, an alternative view considers ‘soft law’ as open-textured, vague and thus ‘soft’ principles within treaties (eg Art 5 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty 34 UNTS 243), see W Heusel Weiches Völkerrecht (1991) 236–257; H Hillenberg A Fresh Look at Soft Law (1999) 10 EJIL 499, 500; A Boyle Some Reflections on the Relationship of Treaties and Soft Law (1999) 48 ICLQ 901, 906–909; others apply the term ‘soft law’ to rules not readily enforceable through binding dispute resolutions, cf Boyle ibid 909–912.

  116. 116.

    Cf Aust (n 106) 787; Klabbers 16 with further references.

  117. 117.

    Cf International Agreement Regulations of the US State Department 22 Code of Federal Regulations Part 181 (a.5); reprinted by Aust (n 106) 799.

  118. 118.

    See eg the agreement on the distribution of seats in the UN Security Council or the ILC.

  119. 119.

    See eg the UK–US Memorandum of Understanding on UK Participation in the US Strategic Defense Initiative Research Program, cf Aust (n 106) 793 footnote 19.

  120. 120.

    See eg the Atlantic Charter of 17 August 1941, consciously non-binding inter alia to prevent “territorial integrity claims” of the defeated States, cf G Schwarzenberger Power Politics (1964) 290.

  121. 121.

    For reasons to opt for a binding treaty, see JL Goldsmith/EA Posner A Rational Choice Approach (2003) 44 VaJIL 113, 122–134.

  122. 122.

    PM Eisemann Le ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’ comme source de droit international (1979) 106 JDI 326, 331–338.

  123. 123.

    For example the Atlantic Charter (n 120).

  124. 124.

    For example agreements on decision-making, cf the EEC Council Compromise of Luxembourg (1966) 8 Bulletin of the European Economic Community No 3.

  125. 125.

    For example the Helsinki Final Act (n 104).

  126. 126.

    K Zemanek Is the Term ‘Soft Law’ Convenient? in G Hafner et al (eds) Festschrift Seidl-Hohenveldern (1998) 843, 856.

  127. 127.

    Eisemann (n 122) 327–329; Hillenberg (n 115) 500; Klabbers 16 with references to historical cases.

  128. 128.

    Eisemann (n 122) 347; Aust 54–55; id (n 106) 810.

  129. 129.

    Heusel (n 115) 214 instances inter alia the 1969 Austro-Italian ‘operation calendar’ for South Tyrol (English translation in AE Alcock The History of the South Tyrol Question (1970) 448–449).

  130. 130.

    J Klabbers The Redundancy of Soft Law (1996) 65 Nordic JIL 167, 172–174.

  131. 131.

    [2000] OJ L 364, 1.

  132. 132.

    Cf ECJ (CJ) Unibet C-432/05 [2007] ECR I-2271, para 37; Reynolds Tobacco et al v Commission C-131/03 P [2006] ECR I-7795, para 122.

  133. 133.

    It appears to be slightly inaccurate of Art 2 para 1 lit g to speak of “a State […] for which the treaty is in force”, since Arts 69 and 71 use the term “party” in cases of treaties void ab initio; cf Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 291 para 50 and Final Draft, Commentary to Art 2, 190 para 12.

  134. 134.

    Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 291.

  135. 135.

    Waldock I 31.

  136. 136.

    See eg the comments and observations of governments and principal international organizations [1981-II/2] YbILC 181 et seq, particularly Canada (182 paras 3–4) and Romania (189 para 1); Reuter III 142 and X 50; Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 2, 20 paras 19 et seq; UNCLOTIO I 43.

  137. 137.

    Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 2, 21 para 23.

  138. 138.

    ILC Report 55th Session UN Doc A/58/10, 33 (Draft Art 2).

  139. 139.

    CF Amerasinghe Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations (1996) 101; DW Bowett The Law of International Institutions (1982) 341 et seq; C Dominicé Immunité de jurisdiction et d’exécution des organisations internationales (1984) 189 RdC 145, 164; JW Schneider Treaty-Making Power of International Organizations (1959) 133.

  140. 140.

    See the comments of Austria [1966-II] YbILC 281.

  141. 141.

    HG Schermers/NM Blokker International Institutional Law (2003) Sect. 1748; K Schmalenbach Die Haftung Internationaler Organisationen (2004) 58.

  142. 142.

    Cf the German Constitution of 1949 (Basic Law) – Art 59 para 1: “Verträge” (‘treaties’), Art 79 para 1: “völkerrechtliche Verträge” (‘international treaties’) and Art 123 para 2: “Staatsverträge” (‘treaties with States or international organizations’); for the comparable terminology of the Austrian Constitution of 1920, see F Cede/G Hafner in D Hollis/MR Blakeslee/LB Ederington (eds) National Treaty Law and Practice (2005) 59, 61–63; for the terminology applied in the constitutions of Austria, Chile, Colombia, Japan, the Netherlands and the United States, see M Leigh et al (eds) National Treaty Law and Practice (1999).

  143. 143.

    Cf n 148 infra.

  144. 144.

    Cf Art 131 para 2 no 6 Constitution of the USSR of 1977.

  145. 145.

    Cf Art 59 para 2 German Constitution of 1949 (“Verwaltungsabkommen”).

  146. 146.

    The South African Constitution distinguishes between binding “international agreements” (Art 231 paras 1–2) and “an international of 1996 agreement of a technical, administrative or executive nature, or an agreement which does not require either ratification or accession, entered into by the national executive” (Art 231 para 3). Similarly, the French Constitution of 1958 provides for “un accord international non soumis à ratification” (Art 52) and “traités ou accords régulièrement ratifiés ou approuvés” (Art 55). The Austrian Constitution of 1920 in Art 50 para 1 and Art 66 para 2 differentiates between “political” (“politische”) and other “Staatsverträge” (eg “Ressortabkommen”).

  147. 147.

    The term “treaty” in the Swiss Constitution of 1999 is also used for treaties between cantons (Arts 48, 186), treaties between the Swiss Federation and its cantons (Art 63a) or treaties between cantons and a foreign State (Arts 56, 186). In the latter sense, cf Art 16 Austrian Constitution; Art I Sect. 10 US Constitution of 1787.

  148. 148.

    US Department of State, Digest of US Practice in International Law (1974) 195–196. In the United States, there are three forms of international agreements which do not require the consent of the Senate according to Art II Sect. 2 of the Constitution: (a) congressional-executive agreements; (b) executive agreements pursuant to a treaty; and (c) sole executive agreements; see Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law (1987) Sect. 303.

  149. 149.

    RE Dalton The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Consequences for the United States (1984) 78 ASILP 276, 277.

  150. 150.

    Cf the French Constitution of 1958: “la ratification ou l’approbation” (Art 74) or “ratifiés ou approuvés” (Arts 53, 54, 55); Spanish Constitution of 1978: “ratificados” (Art 10 para 2); South African Constitution of 1996: “approved” and “ratification or accession” (Art 231).

  151. 151.

    “[L]as leyes aprobadas” in Art 91 Spanish Constitution of 1978 refers to all laws passed by the Cortes Generales; Art 50 para 1 Austrian Constitution of 1920 prescribes with the term “Genehmigung” the procedure to obtain acceptance from the first chamber (Nationalrat) and with the term “Zustimmung” the procedure to obtain approval from the second chamber (Bundesrat).

  152. 152.

    Cf the practice of the European Union under Art 220 para 1 TFEU; for details, see K Schmalenbach in C Calliess/M Ruffert (eds) EUV/AEUV (4th ed 2011) Art 220 MN 3–4.

Selected Bibliography

  • J Basdevant La conclusion et la rédaction des traités (1926) 15 RdC 535–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • A Boyle Some Reflections on the Relationship of Treaties and Soft Law (1999) 48 ICLQ 901–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • PM Eisemann Le ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’ comme source de droit international (1979) 106 JDI 326–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • JES Fawcett The Legal Character of International Agreements (1953) 30 BYIL 381–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • JK Gamble Jr Multilateral Treaties: The Significance of the Name of the Instrument (1980) 10 California Western ILJ 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • JK Gamble Jr/JB Kolb Multilateral Treaties: An Assessment of the Concept of Laterality, (1980) 3 Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 19–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • J Klabbers The Concept of Treaty in International Law (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • M Leigh et al (eds) National Treaty Law and Practice (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • FA Mann The Proper Law of Contracts Concluded by International Persons (1959) 35 BYIL 34–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • A Pellet The Normative Dilemma: Will and Consent in International Law-Making (1988–1989) 12 AYIL 22–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • HG Schermers/NM Blokker International Institutional Law (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • JW Schneider Treaty-Making Power of International Organizations (1959).

    Google Scholar 

  • I Seidl-Hohenveldern The Theory of Quasi-International and Partly International Agreements (1975) 11 RBDI 567–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • B Simma Das Reziprozitätselement im Zustandekommen völkerrechtlicher Verträge (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • K Widdows What Is an Agreement in International Law? (1979) 50 BYIL 117–149.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, 49069, Osnabrück, Germany

    Professor Dr. Oliver Dörr LL.M. (Lond.)

  2. Faculty of Law Department of Public Law/International Law, University of Salzburg, 5020, Salzburg, Austria

    Professor Dr. Kirsten Schmalenbach

Authors
  1. Professor Dr. Oliver Dörr LL.M. (Lond.)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Professor Dr. Kirsten Schmalenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Dörr LL.M. (Lond.) .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, 49069, Germany

    Oliver Dörr

  2. , Law Faculty, University of Salzburg, Churfürst Strasse 1, Salzburg, 5020, Austria

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (2012). Article 2. Use of terms. In: Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (eds) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19291-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation