Treaty Implementation and Constitutional Limitations

  • Günther Doeker


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.


International Agreement Legal Order Legislative Power Judicial Practice External Affair 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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. 2.
    See Pohle, Der Einzelne im Konflikt zwischen Völkerrecht und nationalem Recht (Essen, 1952 ), PP. 14ff.Google Scholar
  3. 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. 4.
    See Pohle, op. cit.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Compare Alfred Verdross, Völkerrecht (Wien, 195o).Google Scholar
  6. 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. 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. 8.
    Einführung in das Völkerrecht (Tübingen, 1951), pp. 36–37.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Die Abänderung völkerrechtsgemässen Landesrechts (Berlin, 1927), p. 145ff.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    With regard to this, see Hermann Maschke, Die Rangordnung der Rechtsquellen (Berlin, 5932).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See Pohle, op. cit., p. 14.Google Scholar
  12. 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. 13.
    See Pohle, op. cit., p. 12.Google Scholar
  14. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 20.
    See Verdross, Völkerrecht, op. cit., p. 61.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Staatsverträge und Gesetze als Quellen des Völkerrechts (Dorpat, 1876).Google Scholar
  22. 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. 21.
    Grundzüge des Völkerrechts (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1903).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    See Grundlinien der Philosophie und des Rechts, oder Naturrecht und Staatswissenschaft im Grundrisse (3rd ed., 1854 ), P. 416ff.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maschke, op. cit., p. 98.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    See Walz, op. cit., p. 89, n. 74.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ibid., op. cit., p. 266.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    See to this Pohle, op. cit., with special references.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alf Ross, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts (Stuttgart und Köln, igsr), p. 62.Google Scholar
  31. 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. 32.
    Günther Doeker, “The Fifth French Republic,” 3 I.A.L.R. 146 (1961).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gerhard Leibholz, 16 Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, 353 and Article 8o of the Italian Constitution of 1947.Google Scholar
  34. 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. 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. 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. 37.
    ) 12 Ex. D. 63.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Règles Générales du Droit de la Paix,“ 62 Recueil des Cours 99 (1937) IV at 132.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    ) 2 K.B. 391.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    ) 2 A.C. 77.Google Scholar
  41. 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. 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. 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. 44.
    The Le Louis (1817) 2 Dods. 21o, at pp. 251 and 254.Google Scholar
  45. 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. 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. 47.
    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. 49.
    ) 24 C.L.R. 166.Google Scholar
  51. 50.
    C.L.R. 182, see also Wynes, W. Anstey, Legislative, Executive and Judicial Powers in Australia, 2nd ed. 1956, p. 111Google Scholar
  52. 51.
    C.L.R. 557.Google Scholar
  53. a Wynes, ibid., op. cit.Google Scholar
  54. 52.
    C.L.R. 344.Google Scholar
  55. a See Wynes, op. cit., p. II2.Google Scholar
  56. 53.
    ) 7o C.L.R. 6o.Google Scholar
  57. a Compare Wynes, op. cit., p. 112.Google Scholar
  58. 54.
    ) 77 C.L.R. 449.Google Scholar
  59. 55.
    Per Latham C.J. at 462, per Starke J. as to ships of war and public vessels, 471.Google Scholar
  60. 56.
    ) II U.S. 16.Google Scholar
  61. a see also Wynes, op. cit., p. 113.Google Scholar
  62. 57.
    Citing Chung Chi Cheung v. The King (1939) A.C. 16o at 169.Google Scholar
  63. 58.
    ) 77 C.L.R. 461.Google Scholar
  64. 59.
    Ibid., 465, 466.Google Scholar
  65. 60.
    Ibid., 484.Google Scholar
  66. a See also Wynes, op. cit., p. 113.Google Scholar
  67. 61.
    ) A.C. 167, 168.Google Scholar
  68. a see also Wynes, op. cil., p. 114.Google Scholar
  69. 62.
    ) 77 C.L.R. 481.Google Scholar
  70. 626.
    Wynes, op. cut., p. 114Google Scholar
  71. 63.
    ) A.C. 167, 168Google Scholar
  72. 63.
    see Wynes, op. cit., p. 114. 63b Ibid., p. 115.Google Scholar
  73. 64.
    ) A.C. 497, 498.Google Scholar
  74. 65.
    A.C. 1939, pp. 16o-168.Google Scholar
  75. 66.
    o C.L.R., pp. 68ff.Google Scholar
  76. 67.
    Per Latham CJ, at p. 69.Google Scholar
  77. 68.
    This principle seems also to be applicable as to non-treaty rules, as Polites v. The Commonwealth shows.Google Scholar
  78. 69.
    72 C.L.R. 449.Google Scholar
  79. 70.
    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. 71.
    Applied by the Nigh Court in Polites v. Commonwealth (1945) 70 C.L.R. 6o.Google Scholar
  81. 72.
    Ser. B, No. r5, at pp. z6, 27.Google Scholar
  82. 73.
    Ser. B, No. 17, at p. 32.Google Scholar
  83. 74.
    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. 76.
    R. v. Burgess (x936) 55 C.L.R. 668.Google Scholar
  85. 77.
    ) 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. 78.
    The Constitutional Law of the United States (2nd ed. 1929) p. 519.Google Scholar
  91. 79.
    C.L.R. 658–659.Google Scholar
  92. o Ibid. at 669.Google Scholar
  93. 81.
  94. 82.
    Ibid. at 681.Google Scholar
  95. 83.
    Ibid. at 684.Google Scholar
  96. a See also Wynes, op. cit., p. 401.Google Scholar
  97. 84.
    C.L.R. at 684.Google Scholar
  98. 85.
    R. v. Poole; ex parte Henry (No. 2) (1939) 6i C.L.R. at 648.Google Scholar
  99. 86.
    C.L.R. 659, 66o.Google Scholar
  100. 87.
    ) 61 C.L.R. 634.Google Scholar
  101. a Wynes, op. cit., p. 403.Google Scholar
  102. b Ibid., p. 405.Google Scholar
  103. 88.
    A.G. for Canada v. A.G. for Ontario (1937) A.C. 326. 88a See also Wynes, op. cit., p. 405.Google Scholar
  104. 89.
    -51) 83 C.L.R. 152.Google Scholar
  105. 90.
    ) 65 C.L.R. 413.Google Scholar
  106. a Wynes, op. cit., p. 405.Google Scholar
  107. 91.
    FJrost V. Stevenson (1937) 58 C.L.R. 599•Google Scholar
  108. 92.
    Op. cit., p. 407.Google Scholar
  109. 93.
    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
  110. 94.
    ) 55 C.L.R. 64o.Google Scholar
  111. 95.
    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
  112. 96.
    ) 58 C.L.R. 6or.Google Scholar
  113. 97.
    Australian Communist Party v. The Commonwealth (1950–51) 83 C.L.R. 6o1.Google Scholar
  114. 98.
    Marcus Clark Ltd. v. The Commonwealth (1952) 87 C.L.R. 177.Google Scholar
  115. a See also Wynes, op. cit., p. 406.Google Scholar
  116. 99.
    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
  117. 55.
    C.L.R. 66g.Google Scholar
  118. 2.
    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
  119. a Compare Wynes, op. cit., p. 396.Google Scholar
  120. 3.
    ) 4 C.L.R. 265.Google Scholar
  121. 4.
    ) 4 C.L.R• 395.Google Scholar
  122. 5.
    ) 29 C.L.R. 329.Google Scholar
  123. 6.
    ) 49 C.L.R. 242Google Scholar
  124. 7.
    ) 58 C.L.R. 528.Google Scholar
  125. a See also Wynes, op. cit., p. 396–397•Google Scholar
  126. 8.
    ) 79 C.L.R. 121.Google Scholar
  127. 9.
    Per Latham ibid. 136, 137.Google Scholar
  128. 10.
    See Debates (Melbourne, 1898), op. cit., Chapter II, n. 55, supra, pp. 30–31.Google Scholar
  129. 11.
    ) 4 C.L.K. 395.Google Scholar
  130. 12.
    ) A.C. 542.Google Scholar
  131. 13.
    In re Adam (1837) 2 Moo. P.C.C. 460.Google Scholar
  132. 14.
    C.L.R. at 425.Google Scholar
  133. 15.
    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
  134. 16.
    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
  135. 17.
    ) 55 C.L.R. 608, 643–4•Google Scholar
  136. 18.
    Federal Jurisdiction in Australia, (Oxford 1959,) at p. 27.Google Scholar
  137. 19.
    Debs. Melb. (1898) Vol. r, p. 30.Google Scholar
  138. 28.
    ) S.R. (N.S.W.) 254. See also Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959, Section 19.Google Scholar
  139. 21.
    Ibid. at 261.Google Scholar
  140. 22.
    op. cit. at p. 30.Google Scholar
  141. 23.
    Pollux, “The Interpretation of the Charter,” 23 B.Y.I.L. 54 (1946) at 69.Google Scholar
  142. 22.
    See wynes, op. cit., p. 591. 23b Ibid., p. II, I2.Google Scholar
  143. 24.
    o8) 5 C.L.R. 818.Google Scholar
  144. 25.
    Some instances of Full Powers not considered adequate are given by Crandall, op. cit., p. 279.Google Scholar
  145. 26.
    See to this Blix, op. cit., pp. 3–42.Google Scholar
  146. 27.
    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
  147. 28.
    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
  148. 29.
    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
  149. 30.
    L.R. 4, P.D. 129.Google Scholar
  150. 31.
    L.R. 5, P.D. 197.Google Scholar
  151. 32.
    L.R. (1892) A.C. 491. 22 82 B.F.S.P. 994.Google Scholar
  152. 34.
    ) A.D. 492, 497.Google Scholar
  153. 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
  154. 36.
    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
  155. 37.
    See with respect to British practice McNair, op. cit., pp. 94, 106–7, and treaties cited therein.Google Scholar
  156. 38.
    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
  157. 39.
    The question is discussed in Danaodhar Gordham v. Deorarn Kanji (1876) T.A.C. 332 (an Indian appeal).Google Scholar
  158. 40.
    See to this McNair, op. cit., pp. 94ff.Google Scholar
  159. 41.
    See the Acts and Statutes passed to approve certain treaties which were concluded by Australia, Appendix No. 1.Google Scholar
  160. 42.
    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
  161. 43.
    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
  162. 44.
    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
  163. 45.
    Dehousse, op. cit., p. 58.Google Scholar
  164. 46.
    Oppenheim, op. cit., Vol. i, p. 725.Google Scholar
  165. 47.
    Wilcox, op. ctit., pp. 45ff.Google Scholar
  166. 48.
    To this see also the literature cited in Lauterpacht’s Oppenheim (7th ed.) Vol. r, pp. 34–44.Google Scholar
  167. 49.
    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
  168. 50.
    See Chapter VIIIGoogle Scholar
  169. 51.
    C.L.R. 608.Google Scholar
  170. 52.
    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
  171. 53.
    C.L.R. 634.Google Scholar
  172. 54.
    C.L.R. 41.Google Scholar
  173. 55.
    C.L.R. at 179.Google Scholar
  174. 56.
    C.L.R. at 445.Google Scholar
  175. 59.
    See also for further discussion, Chapter vIII. 58 Wheare, op. cit., p. 784.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1966

Authors and Affiliations

  • Günther Doeker
    • 1
  1. 1.Tulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations