Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 26

Pacta sunt servanda

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

Abstract

Art 26 restates the pillar of treaty law and the pivotal key to international law: pacta sunt servanda. Considering its significance, the provision is not too prominently placed in Part III of the Convention. The Preamble, after all, highlights pacta sunt servanda by aligning the principle with two others basic corner stones of treaty law: free consent and good faith (3rd recital). Rephrasing the principle pacta sunt servanda in Art 26 is first and foremost of symbolic significance. As Verdross rightly stresses, the binding force of international treaties has logical priority to any particular treaty and thus cannot itself be the legal consequence of a treaty such as the VCLT.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Binder (2008), pp. 317, 321.

  2. 2.

    Verdross (1926), pp. 28–33; see also Fitzmaurice IV 53.

  3. 3.

    On the tension between pacta sunt servanda and the VCLT rules on termination, withdrawal and suspension see Binder (2012), p. 912 et seq; Lekkas and Tzanakopoulos (2014), p. 312 et seq.

  4. 4.

    Thirlway (1972), p. 38: “agreements regarded by the law as binding (pacta) are binding in law (servanda)”, criticized by Niedobitek (2001), p. 145 n 12 as tautological.

  5. 5.

    Cf Ripert (1933), p. 589.

  6. 6.

    Collinet (1932), p. 494; one of the oldest traces of the pacta sunt servanda maxim can be found in the Liber Extra, decrees by Pope Gregory IX from the year 1234, a restatement of holdings of the Council of Carthage (around 348 AD) presided by Gratus, Decretales 1, 35, 1: “pacta quantumcumque nuda servanda sunt” (“pacts, however naked, must be kept”). For the history of pacta sunt servanda cf Redslob (1923), pp. 47–57, 122–128.

  7. 7.

    Dig 2.14.7.7 (Ulpian): “The praetor says: I will enforce agreements in the form of a pact (…)”; but see Hyland (1994), p. 412 who concludes that the pacta maxim is not Roman, given that Ulpian wrote earlier: “a naked agreement gives not rise to an obligation but to a defense” (Dig 2.14.7.4), translated by Monro (1904), pp. 108–111.

  8. 8.

    Lachs (1997), p. 847.

  9. 9.

    See eg Grotius (1646/1964 II), p. 329, paraphrasing Ulpian (Dig 2.14.1); still, Grotius himself never formulated the rule pacta sunt servanda, see Hyland (1994), p. 425.

  10. 10.

    de Vattel (1758/1916), pp. 162–163.

  11. 11.

    Bluntschli (1881), Art 410.

  12. 12.

    Fiore (1890), Arts 735, 769–772.

  13. 13.

    Preamble para 5 Covenant of the League of Nations 225 CTS 188: “by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another”.

  14. 14.

    Art 18: “No such treaty or international engagement shall be binding until so registered.”

  15. 15.

    Adopted at the 6th International Conference of American States, 20 February 1928 (1928) 22 AJIL Supp 138.

  16. 16.

    1948 Charter of the Organization of American States 119 UNTS 3.

  17. 17.

    Art 20 Harvard Draft: “A State is bound to carry out in good faith the obligations which it has assumed by a treaty.”

  18. 18.

    Fitzmaurice I 108.

  19. 19.

    Waldock III 15 (Draft Art 59): extension of a treaty to the territory of a State with its authorization.

  20. 20.

    Waldock III 19 (Draft Art 62): treaties providing for obligations or rights of third States.

  21. 21.

    Waldock III 26 (Draft Art 63): treaties providing for objective régimes.

  22. 22.

    Waldock III 7–8.

  23. 23.

    See particularly [1964] YbILC I 165, para 8.

  24. 24.

    [1964] YbILC I 232, para 3 (Paredes and Bartoš abstained).

  25. 25.

    UNCLOT II 49, para 67.

  26. 26.

    For an early instance, see eg Fitzmaurice I 118; Waldock VI 60 noted that “to precede [Part I] with a staccato statement of the pacta sunt servanda rule might not seem very satisfactory from a scientific point of view”.

  27. 27.

    See eg the comments of Israel, Waldock VI 59, 298; cf also the remarks of El-Erian and Rosenne [1966-I/2] YbILC 32, para 9, 33, para 20, 34, para 28; cf also Fitzmaurice I 108, Draft Art 5.

  28. 28.

    SR Waldock had proposed to include the rule in the Preamble so as to demonstrate its importance, [1966-I/2] YbILC 37, para 71; cf Final Draft, Commentary to Art 23, para 5.

  29. 29.

    Occasionally dubbed ‘inequitable’ or ‘leonine treaties’. That issue made Part V the most highly contested piece of the Convention at the Vienna Conference, see Rosenne (1970), pp. 75–77.

  30. 30.

    See eg the comment of Czechoslovakia, Waldock VI 59, see also Gormley (1970), p. 381.

  31. 31.

    See eg the observations of the representatives of Cuba and Czechoslovakia UNCLOT II 45–46, paras 4 and 22; see in this context the ‘Declaration on the Prohibition of Military, Political or Economic Coercion in the Conclusion of Treaties’ annexed to the Final Act, UN Doc A/CONF.39/26, UNCLOT III 285.

  32. 32.

    Cf ILC Report 16th Session [1964-II] YbILC 177, para 3; ILC Report 17th Session Part II [1966-II] YbILC 211, para 3; Briggs, Elias, Verdross, Tabibi, Tsuruoka, Amado, Liang, Yasseen and again Elias in [1964-I] YbILC 24, para 44, 24, para 51, 24, para 57, 27, para 11, 28, para 22, 30, para 45, 30, para 46, 30, para 50, 31, para 57; the comment of Cyprus, Waldock VI 59; Verdross, Briggs in [1966-I/2] YbILC 32, para 7, 35, para 44. For the opposite view, see ILC Report 16th Session [1964-II] YbILC 177, para 3; ILC Report 17th Session Part II [1966-II] YbILC 211, para 3; Bartoš, Rosenne in [1964] YbILC I 25, para 66, 26, para 75; Tunkin, Chairman Ago, de Luna, El-Erian, Pessou, SR Waldock in [1964-I] YbILC 28, para 15, 29, para 30, 29, para 35, 30, para 41, 30, para 43, 32, para 69; Lachs, Rosenne, Ago, Jiménez de Aréchaga in [1966-I/2] YbILC 33, para 15, 34, para 27, 34, para 36, 36, para 56.

  33. 33.

    Cf the amendment proposed at the Vienna Conference by Bolivia, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Spain and Tanzania UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.118, UNCLOT III 145, para 233.

  34. 34.

    UNCLOT II 49, para 63.

  35. 35.

    PCIJ ‘Lotus’ PCIJ Ser A No 10, 18.

  36. 36.

    See eg Harvard Draft 987. Lauterpacht (1933), p. 411 calls it “doctrine of self-limitation”.

  37. 37.

    Hegel (1820), §§ 330–340.

  38. 38.

    See eg Heffter (1844), § 81; Jellinek (1880), particularly at p. 40; Jellinek (1887), p. 197; Nippold (1894), pp. 19–22.

  39. 39.

    Jellinek (1880), pp. 40–42.

  40. 40.

    Fitzmaurice I 108 (Draft Art 4 para 1): “The foundation of treaty obligation is consent, coupled with the fundamental principle of law that consent gives rise to obligation.” See also Lauterpacht (1933), p. 411; cf also Borchard (1926), p. 1086; critics include Triepel (1899), p. 79; Duguit (1917), pp. 139–144; Verdross (1927), pp. 265–266; Brierly (1928); Chailley (1932), p. 102.

  41. 41.

    Dahm et al (1989), p. 37; see also Franck (1990), p. 187.

  42. 42.

    For an overview, see Schachter (1968), p. 301.

  43. 43.

    Radoikovitch (1930), p. 19.

  44. 44.

    Schachter (1968), p. 302.

  45. 45.

    Cf Boyle (1985), p. 337; Brierly (1963), pp. 54–56.

  46. 46.

    Dahm (1958), p. 12; Dahm et al (2002), p. 600; Basdevant (1936), p. 642.

  47. 47.

    Lauterpacht (1932), pp. 301, 304; equally Jennings and Watts (1992), p. 1206: “fundamental assumption, which is neither consensual nor necessarily legal, of the objectively binding force of international law”.

  48. 48.

    Wehberg (1959), p. 782.

  49. 49.

    Shen (1999), p. 307.

  50. 50.

    On the good faith element of Suárez’ system of jurisprudence see Scott (1939), p. 566.

  51. 51.

    Gentili (1612) Book III Chapter 14, cf Lesaffer (2010), p. 227.

  52. 52.

    de Vattel (1758/ 1916), pp. 188–189.

  53. 53.

    Grotius (1646/1964 III), pp. 792–803.

  54. 54.

    See eg de Luna [1964-I] YbILC 29, para 34; Waldock III 8. On the fundamental importance see also Lukashuk (1989), p. 513; Zoller (1977), p. 47; Kolb (2000), p. 179.

  55. 55.

    Cheng (1953), p. 113.

  56. 56.

    Chailley (1932), p. 79 et seq.

  57. 57.

    ICJ Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v France) [1974] ICJ Rep 457, para 49.

  58. 58.

    ICJ Border and Transborder Armed Actions [1988] ICJ Rep 69, para 94; see generally on good faith the separate opinion of Judge Ajibola in Territorial Dispute (Libya v Chad) [1994] ICJ Rep 6, 71–74; see also Shaw (2014), p. 74; in the same sense Hector (1992), pp. 144–145.

  59. 59.

    Anzilotti (1928), pp. 43–45.

  60. 60.

    See eg Kelsen (1920), p. 106 (Kelsen later joined the adherents of the customary law doctrine; see Kelsen (1945), p. 369; Kelsen (1957), pp. 257, 263).

  61. 61.

    Kelsen (1966), p. 26; Kelsen (1953), p. 131; Kelsen (1926), p. 303; very much in the same sense Hostie (1932), p. 479.

  62. 62.

    Anzilotti (1928), pp. 72–73; cf also Bourquin (1931), p. 80 (“principe plus vaste”); Tunkin [1964] YbILC I 27, para 14 (“rule […] of much wider application than the law of treaties”); Ago [1964] YbILC I 28, para 26 (“basis of the binding force of any rule of international law”); Bastid (1985), p. 115; Lachs (1997), p. 370; Salmon (2011), Art 26 MN 11.

  63. 63.

    See particularly Hart (1961), pp. 230–231.

  64. 64.

    de Louter (1920), p. 471; Oppenheim (1905), § 493 p. 519; Basdevant (1936), p. 642; Whitton (1935), p. 404; Guggenheim (1967), p. 57; Wehberg (1959), pp. 782–783; Salmon (2011), Art 26 MN 43; for earlier references see Harvard Draft 989; for a different view see Lavalle (1982), p. 28. See also ‘Rainbow Warrior’ Affair (New Zealand v France) (1990) 20 RIAA 217, para 75. Kelsen later also joined this school of thought, see Kelsen (1945), p. 369, stating that the basic norm of international law is the principle consuetudo est servanda, establishing custom as a ‘norm-creating fact’, and that customary international law, including pacta sunt servanda, developed on the basis of this norm; Kelsen (1957), pp. 257, 263.

  65. 65.

    Kunz (1945), p. 181; see also Henkin (1995), pp. 31–32, who emphasizes, however, that this ‘ur’ conception of interstate constitutional law is not “customary law” in the sense of Art 38 ICJ Statute because it did not result from practice.

  66. 66.

    Sole arbitrator Dupuy in Texaco v Libya (1977) 53 ILR 389, p. 19 para 51; see also ECJ Racke C-162/96 [1998] ECR I-3655, para 49.

  67. 67.

    1920 Statute of the PCIJ 6 LNTS 380.

  68. 68.

    Mérignhac (1907), p. 634. See also Lauterpacht (1927), p. 156.

  69. 69.

    Van Bokkelen v Haiti (United States v Haiti) [1886-I] US Foreign Relations 1034–1035.

  70. 70.

    Metzger & Co v Haiti (United States v Haiti) [1901] US Foreign Relations 262, 276. See also Metzger & Co v Haiti (United States v Haiti) [1901] US Foreign Relations 262, 271: “It cannot be that good faith is less obligatory upon nations than upon individuals in carrying out agreements.”

  71. 71.

    Heirs of Jean Maninat (France v Venezuela) (1905) 10 RIAA 55, 78.

  72. 72.

    Fitzmaurice and Elias (2005), p. 3; IACtHR Reintroduction of the Death Penalty in Peru (Advisory Opinion) Case OC-14/94 (1995) 16 Human Rights LJ 9, 13; Dupuy in Texaco v Libya (1977) 53 ILR 389, p. 19 para 51, citing Jessup.

  73. 73.

    Elias and Lim (1998), p. 208.

  74. 74.

    PCIJ Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued in France PCIJ Ser A No 20, 41 (1929); Payment in Gold of Brazilian Federal Loans Issued in France PCIJ Ser A No 21, 141 (1929).

  75. 75.

    For references, see SR Garcia-Amador 4th Report on State Responsibility [1959-II] YbILC 1, para 119.

  76. 76.

    PCIJ Losinger & Co Case PCIJ Pleadings, Oral Statements and Documents Ser C No 78, 32 (1936), English translation in SR Garcia-Amador 4th Report on State Responsibility [1959-II] YbILC 1, para 116.

  77. 77.

    SR Garcia-Amador 4th Report on State Responsibility [1959-II] YbILC 1, paras 121–123. This is the prevailing view even if the contracting parties have chosen international law as the proper law of the contract, see Marboe and Reinisch (2011), MN 32–35.

  78. 78.

    Cf Schreuer (2009), Art 42 MN 21.

  79. 79.

    Kischel (1992), p. 343.

  80. 80.

    Against pacta sunt servanda as the basis of validity of State contracts Lankarani El-Zein (2001), pp. 139–158; a critique of this view is given by Leben (2003), pp. 349–358.

  81. 81.

    Sole arbitrator Mahmassani in Liamco v Libya (1977) 62 ILR 140, 175–176 (“sanctity of property and contracts”), 190–193; sole arbitrator Dupuy in Texaco v Libya (1977) ILR 389, 462; sole arbitrator Lagergren in BP v Libya (1979) 53 ILR 297, 332.

  82. 82.

    Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States 575 UNTS 159.

  83. 83.

    Arbitrators Badawi, Hassan and Habachy in Saudi Arabia v Aramco (1958) 27 ILR 117, 167: “The Concession Agreement […] derives therefore its judicial force from the legal system of Saudi Arabia, The Shari’a, the Divine law of Islam supplemented by Royal Decree […]”.

  84. 84.

    Cf Ago [1964-I] YbILC 28, para 26; [1966-I/2] YbILC 35, para 47; see also Whitton (1934), p. 159.

  85. 85.

    Thirlway (1972), p. 38.

  86. 86.

    UNCLOT I 158, para 71.

  87. 87.

    La Fontaine (1902), pp. 157, 165.

  88. 88.

    ICJ Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Preliminary Objections) [1998] ICJ Rep 275, para 59.

  89. 89.

    UNCLOT II 47, para 33, 49, para 63, 157, para 47; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 23, 211, para 3.

  90. 90.

    Matz-Lück (2010), MN 18.

  91. 91.

    The classification of international law obligations has been discussed in the context of Art 40 ILC Articles on State Responsibility as well, cf Sicilianos (2002).

  92. 92.

    [1963-I] YbILC 128, para 3.

  93. 93.

    On the differences between the English and the French usage of the terms, see Simma (1972), pp. 44–45.

  94. 94.

    Schneeberger (1948); for a more limited perception of the positive complementarity concept, see Watts (2009), p. 376: extension of reciprocal compliance to non-State Parties on the condition that they comply freely without being legally obliged.

  95. 95.

    Jinks (2005), p. 192; ‘obligational reciprocity’ according to Watts (2009), p. 372.

  96. 96.

    Fitzmaurice II 31; see also Provost (2002), p. 121.

  97. 97.

    1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 75 UNTS 135.

  98. 98.

    Schneeberger (1948), p. 30.

  99. 99.

    Osiel (2009), p. 79: ‘observational reciprocity’.

  100. 100.

    Simma (2008), MN 11.

  101. 101.

    Tams (2005), p. 54; Simma (1972), pp. 80, 152; Chaumont (1970).

  102. 102.

    500 UNTS 95.

  103. 103.

    596 UNTS 261.

  104. 104.

    Simma (1972), p. 153.

  105. 105.

    Sicilianos (2002), p. 1134.

  106. 106.

    Simma (1994), pp. 338, 351–352.

  107. 107.

    Fitzmaurice II 31 (Draft Art 19 para 1 lit b): multilateral treaties of an ‘integral type’, cf Fitzmaurice IV 46; Simma (1972), p. 155.

  108. 108.

    Lauterpacht II 135.

  109. 109.

    Tams (2005), p. 57.

  110. 110.

    1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water 480 UNTS 43.

  111. 111.

    See Simma (1972), p. 156, whereas, according to Simma, treaties on the prohibition to use certain weapons may also fall within the category of multilateral treaties bilateral in application.

  112. 112.

    UNTS 71.

  113. 113.

    1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies 610 UNTS 205.

  114. 114.

    Fitzmaurice IV 46; Simma (1972), p. 181; ‘global’ reciprocity according to Sicilianos (2002), p. 1135.

  115. 115.

    According to Simma (1972), p. 314, these obligations are nonetheless reciprocal although in a form which does not imply the synallagmatic interdependence of treaty performance. See also Simma (2008), MN 6.

  116. 116.

    ICJ Genocide Convention Opinion [1951] ICJ Rep 15, 23.

  117. 117.

    Fitzmaurice II 31 (Draft Art 19 para 1).

  118. 118.

    ECommHR Decision of the Commission as to the Admissibility of Application No 788/60, 11 January 1961, 4 YbECHR 116, 140; ECtHR Ireland v United Kingdom App No 5310/71, 18 January 1978, Ser A No 25, para 239; IACtHR Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention (Advisory Opinion) Case OC-2/82, 24 September 1982, Ser A No 2, para 29; Human Rights Committee, General Comment 24 (52), Reservations to the ICCPR, 4 November 1994, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6, para 17.

  119. 119.

    28 LNTS 11.

  120. 120.

    Report of the Committee for Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe ‘Freedom of Religion and Other Human Rights for Non-Muslim Minorities in Turkey and for the Muslim Minority in Thrace (Eastern Greece)’, 21 April 2009, CoE Doc 11860, paras 32–33.

  121. 121.

    Reservation letter of 28 January 1998 sent to the Swiss government by UK Ambassador Hulse.

  122. 122.

    ICTY Prosecutor v Kupreškić et al (Trial Chamber) IT-95-16-T, 14 January 2000, para 517.

  123. 123.

    Tams (2005), pp. 57–58 who furthermore expands the circle of non-reciprocal treaties to all treaties that require the harmonization of national laws.

  124. 124.

    See eg Ragazzi (1997); Zemanek (2000); Frowein (2008).

  125. 125.

    Cf Tams (2005), pp. 99, 155 (“legal vademecum”).

  126. 126.

    Whereas erga omnes partes obligations stem from an international treaty, the term erga omnes obligations is employed to denote universally recognized obligations of international customary law, owed to the international community as a whole, cf SR Crawford 3rd Report on the Law of State Responsibility (2000) UN Doc A/CN.4/507, para 106 n 195; Sicilianos (2002), p. 1136.

  127. 127.

    ICTY Prosecutor v Blaškić (Appeals Chamber) (Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997) IT-95-14 AR, 29 October 1997, para 26.

  128. 128.

    SR Crawford 3rd Report on the Law of State Responsibility UN Doc A/CN.4/507 (2000), paras 106–107.

  129. 129.

    For examples, see the ILC Final Draft on State Responsibility UN Doc A/56/10 (2001), Commentary to Art 48, para 7; Tams (2005), pp. 120–121.

  130. 130.

    UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.

  131. 131.

    Sicilianos (2002), p. 1135.

  132. 132.

    Rosenne (1989), p. 62.

  133. 133.

    ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, para 142.

  134. 134.

    See furthermore Art 1 para 2 of the 1958 UN Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas 559 UNTS 285; Art 3 para 1 of the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism ETS 196; Art 6 of the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity 1760 UNTS 79.

  135. 135.

    For details, see Ulfstein et al (2007).

  136. 136.

    Dissenting opinion by Judge Oda in ICJ Nicaragua (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 212, 250.

  137. 137.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 23, 211, para 4; see already Waldock III 7 (Draft Art 55 para 2): “Good faith, inter alia, requires that a party to a treaty shall refrain from any act calculated to prevent the due execution of the treaty or otherwise to frustrate its objects.” According to the Commentary, the ILC considered Waldock’s para 2 “clearly implicit in the obligation to perform the treaty in good faith”.

  138. 138.

    ICJ Nicaragua (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 270; see also Thirlway (1992), pp. 50–51; Binder (2008), p. 322.

  139. 139.

    ICJ Nicaragua (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 273; this part of the judgment is not uncontested, see the dissenting opinions of Judge Oda at 250 and of Judge Jennings at 540–542.

  140. 140.

    ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, para 142.

  141. 141.

    ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros [1997] ICJ Rep 7, para 142; the detachment of the defeat of the object and purpose from the breach of the treaty gave rise to criticism by Judge Fleischhauer, see his dissenting opinion at 205–206.

  142. 142.

    ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (dissenting opinion Fleischhauer) [1997] ICJ Rep 7, para 206.

  143. 143.

    Peñalver (2000), pp. 273–274.

  144. 144.

    See eg the classification in Armstrong et al (2012), p. 69; Burgstaller (2005), p. 95.

  145. 145.

    Franck (1990); Franck (1988); Kho (1997).

  146. 146.

    Waltz (1979); Goldsmith and Posner (2003); Neuhold (1999).

  147. 147.

    See eg Abbott (1999); Chayes and Handler Chayes (1995), pp. 25–26, often referred to as the “managerial model”.

  148. 148.

    In particular, adherents of the New Haven School (eg Lasswell and MacDoughal (1959)), of legal process theories (eg Falk (1967)) and new liberal theory (eg Slaughter (1993); Moravcsik (1997)).

  149. 149.

    See eg Kennedy (1988).

  150. 150.

    See eg Hirobe (1993).

  151. 151.

    See Art 19 USSR Law No 7770-IX ‘On the Procedure for Conclusion, Performance and Denunciation of International Treaties of the USSR’, 6 July 1978 [1978] VVS SSSR No 28, item 439. See also the present Art 31 Federal Law No 101-FZ ‘On International Treaties of the Russian Federation’, 15 July 1995 [1995] SZ RF (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation) No 29, item 2757, and the Resolution No 5 of 10 October 2003 adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

  152. 152.

    Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) 31 BVerfGE 145, 178 (1971), with reference to 6 BVerfGE 309, 363 (1957). Earlier however, other German courts had accepted this implication of pacta sunt servanda: Federal Court of Justice (Germany) 5 BGHSt 396, 402 (1954); Court of Appeal of Hamm (Germany) [1956] NJW 307, 309 (1955).

  153. 153.

    Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) 31 BVerfGE 145, 178 (1971); recently: 141 BVerfGE 1, 20 (2015).

  154. 154.

    For references, see Mosler (1957), p. 701.

  155. 155.

    For arguments to the contrary see Doehring (2004), MN 741.

  156. 156.

    Seidl-Hohenveldern (1963), p. 97.

  157. 157.

    Rudolf (1967), pp. 260–261. Similarly, Mosler (1957), pp. 701–702 argues that pacta sunt servanda aims solely at those State organs which are in charge of external relations, ie not at the courts.

  158. 158.

    This seems to be the underlying rationale of the long-standing US constitutional doctrine since at least the Supreme Court’s decision in the Head Money Cases of 8 December 1884, 112 US 580 (1884), according to which treaties can be overridden by a subsequent Act of Congress; see generally on the potential conflicts between pacta sunt servanda and the democracy principle Fulda (2002), who argues (at pp. 197–198) that a unilateral application of the democracy principle by one treaty partner would not bring any gains in legitimacy, proposing furthermore (at p. 217) a right to revision under the good faith principle of Art 26; cf also Seidl-Hohenveldern (1963), p. 110.

  159. 159.

    [1977-I] YbILC 107, para 68.

  160. 160.

    [1977-I] YbILC 106, para 67.

  161. 161.

    See the highly disputed Draft Art 36 bis in Reuter X 69: “The assent of States of an international organization to obligations arising from a treaty concluded by that organization shall derive from (a) the relevant rules of the organization […] which provide that States members of the organization are bound by such a treaty; or (b) the acknowledgement by the States and the organization participating in the negotiation of the treaty as well as the States members of the organizations that the application of the treaty necessarily entails such effects.” The provision was deleted due to substantial criticism, eg by Bulgaria and Hungary in [1981-II/2] YbILC 184, 188; for the opposite view, see Germany [1981-II/2] YbILC 184, 187.

  162. 162.

    Reuter II 91; for an opposite view, see Schermers and Blokker (2003), § 1787.

  163. 163.

    For an opposite view, see Germany in [1981-II/2] YbILC 186–187.

  164. 164.

    For a detailed analysis of the famous International Tin Council case, see Amerashinge (1991); Hartwig (1993), p. 56; Schermers (1996).

  165. 165.

    Reuter [1973-I] YbILC 188–189, para 73 et seq; Canada [1981-II/2] YbILC 183; Köck (1977), pp. 125–130; for a different approach, see Pescatore (1961), p. 134; Dupuy (1973), p. 316 (Art 10).

  166. 166.

    See eg the 2000 Cotonou Agreement [2000] OJ L 317, 3 (amended in 2005 [2005] OJ L 209, 27) between the European Community and its Member States on the one hand and African, Caribbean and Pacific States on the other hand.

  167. 167.

    See eg Annex IX Art 4 UNCLOS 1833 UNTS 397.

  168. 168.

    Eeckhout (2004), p. 222; Gaja (1983), p. 135; for an opposite view see Kaddous (1998), p. 173.

References

  • Abbott KW (1999) International Relations Theory, International Law, and the Regime Governing Atrocities in Internal Conflicts. AJIL 93(2):361–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amerashinge CF (1991) Liability to Third Parties of Member States of International Organizations: Practice, Principle and Judicial Precedent. AJIL 85(2):259–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anzilotti D (1928) Corso di diritto internazionale, 3rd edn. Atheneum, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong D, Farrell T, Lambert H (2012) International Law and International Relations. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Basdevant J (1936) Règles générales du droit de la paix. RdC 58(3):471–715

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastid S (1985) Les traités dans la vie internationale. Economica, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder C (2008) The pacta sunt servanda rule in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Pillar and Its Safeguards. In: Buffard I, Crawford J, Pellet A, Wittich S (eds) International Law between Universalism and Fragmentation: Festschrift in Honour of Gerhard Hafner. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 317–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder C (2012) Stability and Change in Times of Fragementation: The Limits of pacta sunt servanda Revisited. LJIL 25:909–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bluntschli JC (1881) Le droit international codifié. Guillamin, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Borchard EM (1926) Governmental Responsibility in Tort, VI. Yale LJ 36(1):1–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourquin M (1931) Règles générales du droit de la paix. RdC 35(1):1–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle J (1985) Ideals and Things: International Legal Scholarship and the Prison-House of Language. HarvILJ 26(2):327–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Brierly JL (1928) Le fondement du caractère obligatoire du droit international. RdC 23(4):463–592

    Google Scholar 

  • Brierly JL (1963) The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace, 6th edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgstaller M (2005) Theories of Compliance with International Law. Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Chailley P (1932) La nature juridique des traités internationaux selon le droit contemporain. Sirey, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaumont C (1970) Cours général de droit international public. RdC 129(5):333–546

    Google Scholar 

  • Chayes A, Handler Chayes A (1995) The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng B (1953) General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals. Stevens, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinet P (1932) The Evolution of Contract as Illustrating the General Evolution of Roman Law. LQR 48(4):488–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahm G (1958) Völkerrecht, Vol 1. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahm G, Delbrück J, Wolfrum R (1989) Völkerrecht Band I/1, 2nd edn. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahm G, Delbrück J, Wolfrum R (2002) Völkerrecht Band I/3, 2nd edn. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Doehring K (2004) Völkerrecht: Ein Lehrbuch, 2nd edn. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Duguit L (1917) The Law and the State. HarvLR 31(1):1–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy RJ (1973) L’application des règles du droit international général des traités aux accords conclus par les organisations internationales, Rapport provisoire et projet d’articles. AnnIDI 55:214–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeckhout P (2004) External Relations of the European Union: Legal and Constitutional Foundations. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias OA, Lim CL (1998) The Paradox of Consensualism in International Law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk RA (1967) New Approaches to the Study of International Law. AJIL 61(2):477–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiore P (1890) Il diritto internazionale codificato e la sua sanzione giuridica. Unione Tipografico Editrice, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice M, Elias O (2005) Contemporary Issues in the Law of Treaties. Eleven, Utrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck TM (1988) Legitimacy in the International System. AJIL 82(4):705–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franck TM (1990) The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Frowein JA (2008) Obligations erga omnes. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. OUP, Oxford. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1400. Accessed 29 November 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulda CB (2002) Demokratie und pacta sunt servanda. Books on Demand, Norderstedt

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaja G (1983) The European Community’s Rights and Obligations under Mixed Agreements. In: O’Keeffe D, Schermers HG (eds) Mixed Agreements. Kluwer, Deventer, pp 133–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentili A (1612) De jure belli libri tres. In: Holland TE (ed) Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith JL, Posner EA (2003) International Agreements: A Rational Choice Approach. VaJIL 44(1):113–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Gormley WP (1970) The Codification of pacta sunt servanda by the International Law Commission: The Preservation of Classical Norms of Moral Force and Good Faith. SLULJ 14(3):367–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Grotius H (1646/1964 II) De jure belli ac pacis libri tres. Scott JB (ed) The Law of War and Peace, Vol 2, book II. Oceana Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Guggenheim P (1967) Traité de droit international public: Avec mention de la pratique internationale et suisse, Vol 1. Librairie de l'Université, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1961) The Concept of Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig M (1993) Die Haftung der Mitgliedstaaten für Internationale Organisationen. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hector P (1992) Das völkerrechtliche Abwägungsgebot. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffter AW (1844) Das europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart: Auf den bisherigen Grundlagen. Schröder, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegel GWF (1820) Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. Nicolai, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkin L (1995) International Law: Politics and Values. Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirobe K (1993) Article 98 Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan and the Domestic Effects of Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. JAIL 36:17–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Hostie J (1932) Examen de quelques règles du droit international dans le domaine des communications et du transit. RdC 40(6):397–524

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland R (1994) Pacta sunt servanda: A Mediation. VaJIL 34:405–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Jellinek G (1880) Die rechtliche Natur der Staatsverträge. Hölder, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Jellinek G (1887) Gesetz und Verordnung: Staatsrechtliche Untersuchungen auf rechtsgeschichtlicher und rechtsvergleichender Grundlage. Mohr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings R, Watts A (eds) (1992) Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol I. Longman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jinks D (2005) The Applicability of the Geneva Convention to the “global war on terrorism”. VaJIL 46(1):165–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaddous C (1998) Le droit des relations extérieures dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes. Schulthess, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1920) Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts: Beitrag zu einer reinen Rechtslehre. Mohr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1926) Les rapports de système entre le droit interne et le droit international public. RdC 14(3):227–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1945) General Theory of Law and State. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1953) Théorie du droit international public. RdC 84(1):1–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1957) What Is the Reason for the Validity of Law? In: Constantopoulos DS, Eustathiades CT, Fragistas CN (eds) Grundprobleme des internationalen Rechts: Festschrift für Jean Spiropoulos. Schimmelbusch, Bonn, pp 257–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1966) Principles of International Law. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy D (1988–1989) A New Stream of International Law Scholarship. WisILJ 7(1):1–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Kho HH (1997) Why Do Nations Obey International Law? Yale LJ 106(8):2599–2660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kischel U (1992) State Contracts, Völker-, schieds- und internationalprivatrechtliche Aspekte des anwendbaren Rechts. Boorberg, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Köck H (1977) Völkerrechtliche Verträge im Recht der Europäischen Gemeinschaften: Abschlußkompetenzen, Bindungswirkung, Kollisionen. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2000) La bonne foi en droit international public: contribution à l’étude des principes généraux de droit. Graduate Institute Publications, Geneva

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kunz JL (1945) The Meaning and the Range of the Norm pacta sunt servanda. AJIL 39(2):180–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachs M (1997) Pacta sunt servanda. In: Bernhardt R (ed) EPIL, Vol III. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 847–854

    Google Scholar 

  • Lankarani El-Zein L (2001) Les contrats d’État à l’épreuve du droit international. Bruylant, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell HD, MacDoughal MS (1959) The Identification and Appraisal of Diverse Systems of Public Order. AJIL 53(1):1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht H (1927) Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law. Longmans, Green and Co, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht H (1932) The Nature of International Law and General Jurisprudence. Economica 12:301–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht H (1933) The Function of Law in the International Community. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavalle R (1982) About the Alleged Customary Law Nature of the Rule pacta sunt servanda. ZÖR 33:9–28

    Google Scholar 

  • La Fontaine H (ed) (1902) Pasicrisie internationale: historie documentaire des arbitrages internationaux. Stämpfli, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Leben C (2003) La théorie du contrat d’Etat et l’évolution du droit international des investissements. RdC 302(2):197–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Lekkas S, Tzanakopoulos A (2014) Pacta sunt servanda versus Flexibility in the Suspension and Termination of Treaties. In: Tams CJ, Tzanakopoulos A, Zimmermann A (eds) Research Handbook on the Law of Treaties. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 312–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesaffer R (2010) Alberico Gentili’s ius post bellum and Early Modern Peace Treaties. In: Kingsbury B, Straumann B (eds) The Roman Foundations of the Law of Nations: Alberico Gentili and the Justice of Empire. OUP, Oxford, pp 210–240

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • de Louter J (1920) Le droit international public positif, Vol 1. Imprimerie de l'Université, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukashuk II (1989) The Principle pacta sunt servanda and the Nature of Obligation Under International Law. AJIL 83(3):513–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marboe I, Reinisch A (2011) Contracts between States and Foreign Private Law Persons. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. OUP, Oxford. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1391. Accessed 29 November 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Matz-Lück N (2010) Treaties, Conflicts between. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. OUP, Oxford. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1485. Accessed 29 November 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Mérignhac A (1907) Traité de droit public international, Vol 2. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Monro CH (1904) The Digest of Justinian. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik A (1997) Taking Preference Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. IO 51(4):513–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosler H (1957) L’application du droit international public par les tribunaux nationaux. RdC 91(7):619–731

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuhold H (1999) The Foreign-Policy “Cost-Benefit-Analysis” Revisited. GYIL 24:84–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedobitek M (2001) Das Recht der grenzüberschreitenden Verträge. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Nippold O (1894) Der völkerrechtliche Vertrag, seine Stellung im Rechtssystem und seine Bedeutung für das internationale Recht. Wyss, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim L (1905) International Law, Vol 1 Peace. Longsmans, Green and Co, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Osiel M (2009) The End of Reciprocity: Terror, Torture, and the Law of War. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peñalver EM (2000) The Persistent Problem of Obligation in International Law. StanJIL 36(2):271–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Pescatore P (1961) Les relations extérieures des communautés européennes: contribution à la doctrine de la personnalité des organisations internationales. RdC 103(1):1–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Provost R (2002) International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Radoikovitch MM (1930) La révision des traités et le Pacte de la Société des Nations. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragazzi M (1997) The Concept of International Obligations erga omnes. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Redslob R (1923) Histoire des grands principes du droit des gens. Rousseau, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripert G (1933) Les règles du droit civil applicables aux rapports internationaux. RdC 44(2):569–660

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne S (1970) The Law of Treaties. Sijthoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne S (1989) Developments in the Law of Treaties 1945–1986. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolf W (1967) Völkerrecht und deutsches Recht: Theoretische und dogmatische Untersuchungen über die Anwendung völkerrechtlicher Normen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Mohr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon J (2011) Article 26. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 659–685

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1968) Towards a Theory of International Obligation. VaJIL 8(2):300–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermers HG (1996) The Liability of the Member States for the Debts of International Organizations. LIEI 23(1):15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermers HG, Blokker NM (2003) International Institutional Law, 4th edn. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneeberger E (1948) Reciprocity as a Maxim of International Law. GeoLJ 37(1):29–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer CH (2009) The ICSID Convention: A Commentary. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scott JB (1939) Law, the State, and the International Community. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl-Hohenveldern I (1963) Transformation or Adoption of International Law into Municipal Law. ICLQ 12(1):88–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2014) International Law, 7th edn. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen J (1999) The Basis of International Law: Why Nations Observe. DickJIL 17:287–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Sicilianos LA (2002) The Classification of Obligations and the Multilateral Dimension of the Relations of International Responsibility. EJIL 13(5):1127–1146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (1972) Das Reziprozitätselement im Zustandekommen völkerrechtlicher Verträge: Gedanken zu einem Bauprinzip der internationalen Rechtsbeziehungen. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (1994) From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law. RdC 250(2):217–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (2008) Reciprocity. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. OUP, Oxford. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1461. Accessed 29 November 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter AM (1993) International Law and International Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda. AJIL 87(2):205–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tams CJ (2005) Enforcing Obligations erga omnes in International Law. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway HWA (1972) International Customary Law and Codification. Sijthoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway HWA (1992) The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989, Part 4. BYIL 63(1):50–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Triepel H (1899) Völkerrecht und Landesrecht. Hirschfeld, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulfstein G, Marauhn T, Zimmermann A (2007) Making Treaties Work: Human Rights, Environment and Arms Control. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Vattel E (1758/1916) Le droit des gens, ou principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains. In: Fenwick CG (ed) Oceana Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdross A (1926) Die Verfassung der Völkerrechtsgemeinschaft. Springer, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdross A (1927) Le fondement du droit international. RdC 16(3):247–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley Pub, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts S (2009) Reciprocity and the Law of War. HarvILJ 50(2):365–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehberg H (1959) Pacta sunt servanda. AJIL 53(4):775–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitton JB (1934) La règle pacta sunt servanda. RdC 49(2):147–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitton JB (1935) The Sanctity of Treaties: pacta sunt servanda. International Conciliation 16:395–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemanek K (2000) New Trends in the Enforcement of erga omnes Obligations. MPYUNL 4:1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoller E (1977) La bonne foi en droit international public. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Public International Law and European Union Law, Law Faculty, Paris Lodron University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Authors
  1. Kirsten Schmalenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

    Oliver Dörr

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

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schmalenbach, K. (2018). Article 26. In: Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (eds) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55159-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55160-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation