Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 27

Internal law and observance of treaties

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

  • 4852 Accesses

Abstract

Following close upon the most prominent provision of the Convention (Art 26: pacta sunt servanda), Art 27’s main purpose is to reassert the fundamental principle that international treaties must be performed in good faith. To this end, it rules out the most mundane justification for non-compliance, the deviant legal situation within a State. Art 27 follows a clear logical imperative, given that it is the objective of many law-making treaties to change the parties’ domestic legal situation. Consequently, treaties would be doomed to immediate failure if non-performance could be justified with deviating domestic laws, calling even into question the legally binding nature of international law. Art 27 is reinforced by Art 3 and Art 32 Responsibility of States, which stress the fundamental customary rule that a State cannot escape its responsibility on the international plane by referring to its domestic legal situation. Consequently, Art 27 excludes the defense of deviating internal law in international dispute settlement procedures, provided that the prerequisites of Art 46 for invalidation are not met.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Articles on State Responsibility (UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, UN Doc A/RES/56/83); a similar provision was adopted by the Third Committee of the 1930 Hague Conference, cf [1956-II] YbILC 225; for further drafts especially of national associations of international law see SR Ago Third Report on State Responsibility [1971-II] YbILC 232, para 102.

  2. 2.

    See the statement by the President of the Committee of the Whole UNCLOT II 54, para 39; see also Reuter I 39, para 5.

  3. 3.

    For this critique, see the commentary on the draft of today’s Art 27 VCLT II [1977-II/2] YbILC 119, para 4.

  4. 4.

    For a different approach, see Buergenthal (1995), pp. 687, 699.

  5. 5.

    High Court of Justice (United Kingdom) NEC SemiConductors Ltd et al v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2003] EWHC 2813 (Ch), para 50 per Justice Park.

  6. 6.

    Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) ‘Treaty-Override’ 141 BVerfGE 1, para 60–63 (2015).

  7. 7.

    Supreme Court (Argentina) Ekmekdjian v Sofovich No E 64 XXIII, 7 July 1992, para 19; relevant passage cited in Ferdinandusse (2006), p. 114; for details see Patricios (1993), pp. 552–554.

  8. 8.

    Supreme Council of Military Justice (Peru) Barrios No 494-V-94, 4 June 2001, reported by Ferdinandusse (2006), p. 145.

  9. 9.

    Supreme Court (Spain) Guatemalan Genocide Case 42 ILM 686, 699.

  10. 10.

    Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) ‘Treaty-Override’ 141 BVerfGE 1, para 61 (2015).

  11. 11.

    Nollkaemper (2014), p. 143.

  12. 12.

    Seibert-Fohr (2001), p. 413; see eg for the duty to make the incorporated treaty obligations under the ICCPR enforceable by domestic courts Human Rights Committee Concluding Observations on Nepal UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.68, para 17 (1996).

  13. 13.

    ICJ Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters [2008] ICJ Rep 177, para 124.

  14. 14.

    In the ‘Wimbledon’ case, the German government tried to justify having prohibited the ‘Wimbledon’ from passing through the Kiel Canal with the German neutrality orders; the PCIJ rejected this argument, stating that “a neutrality order, issued by an individual State, could not prevail over the provisions of the Treaty of Peace”, PCIJ SS ‘Wimbledon’ PCIJ Ser A No 1, 29 (1923).

  15. 15.

    ‘Alabama’ Claims Arbitration (United States v United Kingdom) (1872) 29 RIAA 125, 131.

  16. 16.

    Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States Vol 1 (1987) reflects exclusively Art 46 VCLT; but see Restatement (Second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1935) § 140.

  17. 17.

    Harvard Draft 1029.

  18. 18.

    UNGA Res 375 (IV), 6 December 1949, UN Doc A/RES/375 (IV).

  19. 19.

    But see Fitzmaurice II 41, para 31.

  20. 20.

    The ILC had at different times taken different views on the question of the relationship between international and municipal law, at least according to the Delegate of Venezuela Carmona: Lauterpacht’s view had been that municipal law took precedence over international law whereas Fitzmaurice had advanced the opposite thesis that international law prevailed over municipal law; the present Art 46 entered the debate as a compromise formula, see the statement by the representative of Venezuela UNCLOT II 53, para 32. For Lauterpacht’s position in his academic work, see Lauterpacht (1993), p. 228.

  21. 21.

    Waldock (Expert Consultant) UNCLOT I 158, para 73; see also the statement by the representative of the United States UNCLOT I 151, para 67.

  22. 22.

    See the statement by the representative of Pakistan UNCLOT I 151, para 58.

  23. 23.

    UNCLOT III 145, para 233.

  24. 24.

    UNCLOT I 158, para 76; for critical remarks, see UNCLOT II 53, paras 32–38; the representative of Argentina missed a reference to possible ‘constitutional clauses’ in treaties, para 36; cf in this regard the Harvard Draft → MN 6.

  25. 25.

    UNCLOT II 53, para 30 (Draft Art 23 bis).

  26. 26.

    See Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v Russian Federation (2009), PCA Case No 227, Interims Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Decision of 30 November 2009, paras 313–314.

  27. 27.

    Cf Villiger (2009), Art 27 MN 5–6; Schaus (2011), Art 27 MN 6.

  28. 28.

    See also the similar reservation of Costa Rica upon ratification in 1996 and the objection of the United Kingdom declared in 1998.

  29. 29.

    ECJ Costa v ENEL Case 6/64 [1964] ECR 585.

  30. 30.

    ECJ Costa v ENEL Case 6/64 [1964] ECR 585; ECJ Internationale Handelsgesellschaft Case 11/70 [1970] ECR 1125, para 3; Chalmers et al (2010), p. 185 et seq, pp. 203–205; for a political science perspective, see Alter (2001).

  31. 31.

    The ECJ appears to take a different stance, ECJ Kadi and Barakaat v Council and Commission C-402/05 P, C-415/05 P [2008] ECR I-6351, para 281 (“constitutional charter”).

  32. 32.

    Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (2003), p. 449.

  33. 33.

    Art 2 ILC Articles on State Responsibility (UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, UN Doc A/RES/56/83): “There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action of omission: […] (b) Constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.”

  34. 34.

    See Commentary to Art 2 ILC Articles on State Responsibility [2001-II/2] YbILC 36, para 10.

  35. 35.

    78 UNTS 277.

  36. 36.

    The reservation is attributable to the US Supreme Court decision Reid v Covert 354 US 1 (1957).

  37. 37.

    See also the Finnish objection to the reservations of Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Qatar and Syria with respect to provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 1577 UNTS 3; CRC Committee Rapporteur Santos Pais agreed with this reading of Art 27, see UN Doc CRC/C/SR.41, para 24.

  38. 38.

    Schabas (1996), p. 480.

  39. 39.

    Energy Charter Tribunal, Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v Russian Federation (2009) [European Energy Charter Arbitration], PCA Case No 227, Interims Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Decision of 30 November 2009, para 315.

  40. 40.

    Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v Russian Federation (2009), PCA Case No 227, Interims Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Decision of 30 November 2009, para 316, citing a non-public legal opinion on jurisdiction issues of the European Energy Charter Case, prepared by Crawford of 22 June 2004; on the decision’s mixed reception see Dalton (2012), p. 245; Ishikama (2016), pp. 280–281.

  41. 41.

    Schabas (1996), p. 478.

  42. 42.

    1577 UNTS 3.

  43. 43.

    See eg the statement by the representative of Hungary before the Council of the League of Nations in the expropriation dispute between Hungary and Romania in [1923] 4 Official Journal of the League of Nations 886, 887: “What would be the object of concluding treaties or of undertaking international obligations if it were open to those who had undertaken them to escape from their effects by a legislative, executive or constitutional act or by any act of any other kind arising from their own authority?” See also the classic statement of US Secretary of State Bayard in US Department of State, The Executive Documents of the House of Representatives [1887–1888] Foreign Relations of the United States for the Year 1887 No 491, 751, 753.

  44. 44.

    See eg Decision of the International Criminal Court Pursuant to Article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the Failure by the Republic of Malawi to Comply with the Cooperation Requests Issued by the Court with Respect to the Arrest and Surrender of Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), para 21: “Therefore, to the extent the Republic of Malawi refers to its internal law in order to justify its failure to comply with the Cooperation Requests, such an argument is rejected by the Chamber in limine.” See also PCIJ SS ‘Wimbledon’ PCIJ Ser A No 1, 29 (1923); Greco-Bulgarian Communities PCIJ Ser B No 17, 32 (1932); Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (Second Phase) PCIJ Ser A No 24, 12 (1930); (Judgment) PCIJ Ser A/B No 46, 167 (1932). For arbitral tribunals see the ‘Alabama’ Claims Arbitration (United States v United Kingdom) (1872) 29 RIAA 125; Norwegian Shipowners’ Claims (Norway v United States of America) (1922) 1 RIAA 307, 331; Aguilar-Amory and Royal Bank of Canada Claims (Tinoco Case) (United Kingdom v Costa Rica) (1923) 1 RIAA 369, 386; Shufeldt Claim (Guatemala v United States) (1930) 2 RIAA 1079, 1098. See also the relevant ECJ jurisprudence: ECJ Commission v Belgium C-326/97 [1998] ECR I-6107, para 7; ECJ Commission v Spain C-274/98 [2000] ECR I-2823, para 19, 20; ECJ Commission v Belgium C-236/99 [2000] ECR I-5657, para 23.

  45. 45.

    PCIJ Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in the Danzig Territory PCIJ Ser A/B No 44, 24 (1932).

  46. 46.

    ICJ Fisheries Case (UK v Norway) [1951] ICJ Rep 116, 132; Nottebohm (Preliminary Objection) [1953] ICJ Rep 111, 123; Guardianship Case [1958] ICJ Rep 55, 67; Obligation to Arbitrate under the UN Headquarters Agreement [1988] ICJ Rep 12, para 57; (implicitly) LaGrand [2001] ICJ Rep 466, para 91.

  47. 47.

    ICJ ELSI [1989] ICJ Rep 15, para 73.

  48. 48.

    Supreme Court (United States) Reid v Covert 354 US 1 (1957).

  49. 49.

    ECJ Commission v Belgium C-236/99 [2000] ECR I-5657, para 23; but see also ICJ LaGrand [2001] ICJ Rep 466, para 111 with regard to the obligation incumbent upon the United States as a result of the Order of 1999: “The United States of America should take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Walter LaGrand is not executed [by the State of Arizona]”.

  50. 50.

    1037 UNTS 151.

  51. 51.

    This fact has prompted Argentina to vote against Draft Art 23 bis (now Art 27), see UNCLOT II 54, para 36 et seq; cf in this regard the Harvard Draft → MN 6.

  52. 52.

    (1926) 20 AJIL Supp 112, 114.

  53. 53.

    ICJ Gabčikovo-Nagymaros [1996] ICJ Rep 7, para 47.

  54. 54.

    Art 2 para 1 lit j VCLT II: “‘rules of the organization’ means, in particular, the constituent instruments, relevant decisions and resolutions, and established practice of the organization”.

  55. 55.

    See the Commentary on the draft of today’s Art 27 VCLT II, ILC Report 29th Session [1977-II/2] YbILC 119, para 2.

  56. 56.

    See the Commentary on the draft of today’s Art 27 VCLT II, ILC Report 29th Session [1977-II/2] YbILC 119, para 5.

  57. 57.

    See the commentary on the draft of today’s Art 27 VCLT II, ILC Report 29th Session [1977-II/2] YbILC 118.

  58. 58.

    Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 27, 39, para 7.

References

  • Alter K (2001) Establishing the Supremacy of European Law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Buergenthal T (1995) International Tribunals and National Courts: Internationalization of Domestic Adjudication. In: Beyerlin U, Bothe M, Hofmann R, Petersmann E-U (eds) Recht zwischen Umbruch und Bewahrung: Festschrift für Rudolf Bernhardt. Springer, Berlin, pp 687–703

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D, Davies G, Monti G (2010) European Union Law. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton RE (2012) Provisional Treaty Application. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford Guide to Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 220–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferdinandusse WM (2006) Direct Application of International Criminal Law in National Courts. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ishikama T (2016) Provisional Application of Treaties at the Crossroads between International and Domestic Law. ISCID Review 31(2):270–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht E (ed) (1993) International Law: Being the Collected Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht. Reprint of 1970 edn. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (2003) 11th edn. Mish FC (ed) Merriam-Webster, Springfield, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Nollkaemper A (2014) The Effects of Treaties in Domestic Law. In: Tams CJ, Tzanakopoulos A, Zimmermann A (eds) Research Handbook on the Law of Treaties. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 123–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Patricios L (1993) Ekmekdjian v. Sofovich: The Argentine Supreme Court Limits Freedom of the Press with a Self-Executing Right of Reply. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 24(3):541–566

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA (1996) Reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. HRQ 18(2):472–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaus A (2011) Article 27. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 688–701

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibert-Fohr A (2001) Domestic Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Pursuant to Its Article 2 para 2. MPYUNL 5:399–472

    Google Scholar 

  • Villiger M (2009) Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Nijhoff, Leiden

    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 27. 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_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_30

  • 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