Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 48. Error

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

  • 5911 Accesses

Abstract

Art 48 is based on the premise that freedom of consent (3rd recital of the Preamble) is an indispensable condition for the validity of a treaty. A State cannot be considered to have freely concluded a treaty if at the time of giving its consent, it was under a misapprehension about the subject matter of the treaty. On the other hand, reliance on error as a ground for invalidating consent may easily be abused by one of the contracting parties as an excuse for reneging on its treaty commitments. The main purpose of Art 48 is therefore to preserve the “reality of consent” while at the same time protecting the stability of treaties and the good faith of the other parties by clearly defining the conditions under which an error is capable of invalidating consent.

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.

    Lauterpacht I 149.

  2. 2.

    ICJ Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand) (Preliminary Objections) [1961] ICJ Rep 17, 30: “[T]he principal juridical relevance of error […] is that it may affect the reality of the consent supposed to have been given.” See also Paredes [1963-I] YbILC 38, 42.

  3. 3.

    See Lauterpacht I 149; Harvard Draft 1133.

  4. 4.

    ICJ Temple of Preah Vihear (Preliminary Objections) (n 2) 30.

  5. 5.

    Lauterpacht I 149; Fitzmaurice III 22; ICJ Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand) (Merits) (separate opinion Fitzmaurice) [1962] ICJ Rep 52, 57: “In the interest of the stability of contracts, the principle of error as vitiating consent is usually applied somewhat strictly; and I consider that this approach is also the correct one in international law, in the interests of the stability of treaties”. See also Final Draft, Commentary to Art 45, 244 para 6.

  6. 6.

    See EA Kramer Mistake, in A von Mehren (ed) International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law Vol VII (1981) ch 11, 4–65; K Zweigert/H Kötz An Introduction to Comparative Law (3rd edn 1998) 410–424.

  7. 7.

    Fitzmaurice III 35–36.

  8. 8.

    See the statement of the representative of France UNCLOT I 253.

  9. 9.

    See references in n 6.

  10. 10.

    Lauterpacht I 153; Fitzmaurice III 22; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 45, 243 para 1.

  11. 11.

    See references in Harvard Draft 1127–1129; Lauterpacht I 153 n 119.

  12. 12.

    St Croix River (United Kingdom v United States) 28 RIAA 1 (1798).

  13. 13.

    PCA Boundaries in the Island of Timor (Netherlands v Portugal) 11 RIAA 481 (1914).

  14. 14.

    See eg GF de Martens Précis du droit des gens moderne de l’Europe Vol I (2nd edn 1864) 165 (§ 51); L Oppenheim International Law Vol I (3rd edn 1920) 661 (§ 500); I Tomšič La reconstruction du droit international en matière des traités (1931) 48; for further references, see Harvard Draft 1126.

  15. 15.

    C Rousseau Principes généraux du droit international public Vol I (1944) 339; Lauterpacht I 153.

  16. 16.

    PCIJ Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (dissenting opinion Anzilotti) PCIJ Ser A/B No 53, 76, 92 (1933).

  17. 17.

    PCIJ The Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions PCIJ Ser A No 5, 29–31 (1925).

  18. 18.

    Art 29 Harvard Draft.

  19. 19.

    Lauterpacht I 153 (Draft Art 14); Fitzmaurice III 25 (Draft Arts 11 and 12).

  20. 20.

    ICJ Temple of Preah Vihear (Preliminary Objections) (n 2) 30; Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand) (Merits) [1962] ICJ Rep 6, 26. In the earlier case Sovereignty Over Certain Frontier Land (Netherlands v Belgium) [1959] ICJ Rep 209, the Netherlands had also relied on the plea of error. The Court, however, came to the conclusion that on the evidence presented by the Netherlands, no error could be established in the case at issue (ibid 222–227).

  21. 21.

    See n 2 and 20.

  22. 22.

    See n 19.

  23. 23.

    Waldock II 48–50 (Arts 8–10).

  24. 24.

    Ibid 48 (Arts 8 and 9).

  25. 25.

    Ibid 50 (Art 10).

  26. 26.

    Ibid 48 (Art 8).

  27. 27.

    Ibid 48 (Art 9).

  28. 28.

    Zweigert/Kötz (n 6) 419–423.

  29. 29.

    See the discussions in [1963-I] YbILC 38–46.

  30. 30.

    [1963-II] YbILC 195 (Draft Art 34). See also the discussions on the preparatory proposals of the Drafting Committee in [1963-I] YbILC 209–211, 290.

  31. 31.

    See Waldock V 12–14.

  32. 32.

    [1966-I/1] YbILC 18–21, 116–117; [1966-I/2] YbILC 304–305.

  33. 33.

    [1966-II] YbILC 243 (Draft Art 45).

  34. 34.

    See the discussions in the Committee of the Whole UNCLOT I 249–255, 464–465 and the plenary discussions UNCLOT II 88–90.

  35. 35.

    UNCLOT III 168 (UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.281).

  36. 36.

    UNCLOT III 168 (UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.275).

  37. 37.

    UNCLOT I 254–255.

  38. 38.

    UNCLOT II 90.

  39. 39.

    Harvard Draft 1129, 1131–1132; Lauterpacht I 153.

  40. 40.

    See Waldock [1963-I] YbILC 44.

  41. 41.

    See references in n 6.

  42. 42.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 45, 244 para 5.

  43. 43.

    Ibid.

  44. 44.

    See the statement of Expert Consultant Waldock UNCLOT I 254.

  45. 45.

    See supra n 40. Contra: Aust 316.

  46. 46.

    Waldock II 49.

  47. 47.

    Waldock II 48.

  48. 48.

    [1963-II] YbILC 195.

  49. 49.

    Ago [1966-I/1] YbILC 21.

  50. 50.

    See Waldock [1966-I/1] YbILC 116.

  51. 51.

    See the statement of Expert Consultant Waldock UNCLOT I 254.

  52. 52.

    UNCLOT III 168 (UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.275).

  53. 53.

    See the statement of the representative of the United States UNCLOT I 249.

  54. 54.

    See the statement of Expert Consultant Waldock UNCLOT I 254.

  55. 55.

    Ibid.

  56. 56.

    See the statement of the representative of the United States UNCLOT I 254.

  57. 57.

    Waldock II 48; statement of Expert Consultant Waldock UNCLOT I 254.

  58. 58.

    As to the concept of error in substantia in domestic contract law, see Kramer (n 6) 8; A Oraison L’erreur dans les traités (1972) 61.

  59. 59.

    Lauterpacht I 153; see also Fitzmaurice III 25 (Draft Art 11 para 1).

  60. 60.

    Waldock II 49.

  61. 61.

    Lauterpacht I 153–154.

  62. 62.

    Cf Oraison (n 58) 63–4; E Wyler in Corten/Klein Art 48 MN 28.

  63. 63.

    ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v Namibia) (dissenting opinion Fleischhauer) [1999] ICJ Rep 1196, 1203.

  64. 64.

    Ibid. As to the different notions of ‘error in motivation’ → MN 17–18.

  65. 65.

    See also ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v Namibia) (declaration Higgins) [1999] ICJ Rep 1113, 1114 arguing that the error did not form an essential basis of consent (→ MN 26).

  66. 66.

    ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island (dissenting opinion Fleischhauer) (n 63) 1203.

  67. 67.

    Fitzmaurice III 25 (Draft Art 12 para 2 lit a and b): “[The error] must be an error of fact […]; [i]t must not affect merely the motives of the parties in concluding the treaty, unless these themselves involve a mistaken belief as to the existence or actuality of a fact or state of facts”.

  68. 68.

    See Waldock II 49.

  69. 69.

    See with regard to domestic contract law Zweigert/Kötz (n 6) 413–414.

  70. 70.

    Cf → MN 14 as to the distinction between material errors in the formation and immaterial errors in the expression of consent.

  71. 71.

    See Fitzmaurice III 25 (Draft Art 12 para 2 lit b in fine).

  72. 72.

    Waldock II 49. See also Oraison (n 58) 61–64; E Wyler in Corten/Klein Art 48 MN 26.

  73. 73.

    In this sense, Kasikili/Sedudu Island (dissenting opinion Fleischhauer) (n 63) 1203; see → MN 16.

  74. 74.

    See Harvard Draft 1129; Lauterpacht I 154; Fitzmaurice III 25 (Draft Art 12 para 2 lit a), 36; Oraison (n 58) 119–130; H Thirlway The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989 (1992) 63 BYIL 1, 27–28; Villiger Art 48 MN 6; E Wyler in Corten/Klein Art 48 MN 17–21.

  75. 75.

    Harvard Draft 1129; Lauterpacht I 154; Fitzmaurice III 25 (Draft Art 12 para 2 lit a), 36; Villiger Art 48 MN 6. Contra: E Wyler in Corten/Klein Art 48 MN 21: the fact that Art 48 does not refer to errors of law does not necessarily lead to the assumption that such errors are a priori excluded from its ambit. In a similar vein Oraison (n 58) 126, 129–130.

  76. 76.

    Waldock [1966-I/1] YbILC 21.

  77. 77.

    Waldock II 48 (Draft Art 8 para 1 lit a). See also Fitzmaurice III 25 (Draft Art 12 para 2 lit a).

  78. 78.

    See in particular Rosenne [1963-I] YbILC 38; Verdross [1963-I] YbILC 38.

  79. 79.

    [1963-II] YbILC 195 (Draft Art 34 para 1).

  80. 80.

    Ibid 196.

  81. 81.

    Ibid.

  82. 82.

    See in particular Ago [1966-I/1] YbILC 21; Waldock [1966-I/1] YbILC 18, 21; see also the comments by the government of Portugal, cf Waldock V 12.

  83. 83.

    Bartoš [1966-I/1] YbILC 20; Bedjaoui [1966-I/1] YbILC 20; see also the comments by the government of Israel, cf Waldock V 12.

  84. 84.

    Art 45 para 1 Final Draft.

  85. 85.

    Bedjaoui [1966-I/1] YbILC 20.

  86. 86.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 45, 244 para 6.

  87. 87.

    Compare the commentary to Art 34 of the 1963 Draft [1963-II] YbILC 196 with the Final Draft, Commentary to Art 45, 244 para 6.

  88. 88.

    PCIJ Legal Status of Eastern Greenland PCIJ Ser A/B No 53, 22 (1933).

  89. 89.

    Ibid 73.

  90. 90.

    PCIJ Eastern Greenland (dissenting opinion Anzilotti) (n 16) 92.

  91. 91.

    Petroleum Development (Trucial Coast) Ltd v Sheikh of Abu Dhabi 18 ILR 144.

  92. 92.

    Ibid 253.

  93. 93.

    ICJ Temple of Preah Vihear (Preliminary Objections) (n 2).

  94. 94.

    Ibid 30.

  95. 95.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 45, 244 para 6.

  96. 96.

    PCIJ Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions (n 17) 29–30; Payment in Gold of Brazilian Federal Loans Issued in France PCIJ Ser A No 21, 92, 124 (1929). See also I Brownlie Principles of Public International Law (7th edn 2008) 38–39.

  97. 97.

    [1963-II] YbILC 196; Pal [1963-I] YbILC 42; Waldock [1963-I] YbILC 44; Yasseen [1966-I/1] YbILC 18; Villiger Art 48 MN 6.

  98. 98.

    Waldock [1963-I] YbILC 44; Ago [1966-I/1] 21. As to opposing views within the ILC which, however, did not prevail see n 78 and 83.

  99. 99.

    [1963-II] YbILC 196; Yasseen [1963-I] YbILC 44; Rosenne [1963-I] YbILC 45.

  100. 100.

    ICJ Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru) [1950] ICJ Rep 266, 276–277; Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v United States) [1952] ICJ Rep 176, 180, 200.

  101. 101.

    L Dubouis L’erreur en droit international public (1963) 9 AFDI 191, 201; Oraison (n 58) 92–99; E Wyler in Corten/Klein Art 48 MN 27.

  102. 102.

    As to different justifications for the irrelevance of errors as to value see Oraison (n 58) 96–99.

  103. 103.

    Ibid 93.

  104. 104.

    Ibid 93, 103.

  105. 105.

    See with regard to domestic contract law Zweigert/Kötz (n 6) 414; Kramer (n 6) 45.

  106. 106.

    See G-F de Martens Précis du droit des gens moderne de l’Europe Vol I (MS Pinheiro-Ferreira ed 1831) (“L’inégalité seule des avantages n’est pas pour les nations une raison justificative pour se dédire d’un traité sous le prétexte de lésion, vu que, […] c’est à chaque partie contractante à peser d’avance les avantages et les désavantages qui résultent pour elle du traité”); Oraison (n 58) 98–99; cf with regard to domestic contract law Kramer (n 6) 45.

  107. 107.

    As to the possibility of relying in exceptional cases on clausula rebus sic stanctibus (Art 62) see Oraison (n 58) 103–104; E Wyler in Corten/Klein Art 48 MN 27.

  108. 108.

    ICJ Temple of Preah Vihear (Merits) (n 20) 25. See also Temple of Preah Vihear (Merits) (separate opinion Fitzmaurice) (n 5) 57: “[F]or the reasons given in the Judgment of the Court, the fact that, at this time the Siamese authorities may have attached no importance to the Temple, or may have failed to realize the importance it would eventually assume for them, is legally quite irrelevant.”

  109. 109.

    Dubouis (n 101) 201; Oraison (n 58) 103; E Wyler in Corten/Klein Art 48 MN 23.

  110. 110.

    Fitzmaurice III 25 (Art 12 para 2 lit d). See also the example given in Harvard Draft 1133: “[I]f a treaty was entered into on the assumption that a certain river was navigable and that assumption was one of the considerations which led the parties to enter into the treaty, its binding force could not be subsequently challenged on the ground that the river had ceased to be navigable, if it was navigable at the time of the conclusion of the treaty.”

  111. 111.

    Waldock II 49.

  112. 112.

    Dubouis (n 101) 201; Fitzmaurice III 36; Oraison (n 58) 103.

  113. 113.

    UNCLOT III 168 (UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.275). For a similar proposal see Paredes [1963-I] YbILC 38.

  114. 114.

    UNCLOT I 255.

  115. 115.

    See the statement of Expert Consultant Waldock UNCLOT I 254.

  116. 116.

    See Briggs [1963-I] YbILC 40.

  117. 117.

    ICJ Temple of Preah Vihear (Preliminary Objections) (n 2) 30.

  118. 118.

    See the statement of Expert Consultant Waldock UNCLOT I 254.

  119. 119.

    Lauterpacht I 154; Fitzmaurice III 36; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 45, 244 para 7. See also Oraison (n 58) 64–80; E Wyler in Corten/Klein Art 48 MN 30.

  120. 120.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 45, 244 para 7; Waldock II 48 (Art 8 para 1 lit c: “material in inducing […] consent”); Harvard Draft 1126 (Art 29 lit a: “a state of facts, the assumed existence of which was envisaged by the parties as a determining factor moving them to undertake the obligations situplated”); PCIJ Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions (n 17) 30–31.

  121. 121.

    Harvard Draft 1129; ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island (declaration Higgins) (n 65) 1114.

  122. 122.

    PCIJ Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions (n 17).

  123. 123.

    Ibid 30.

  124. 124.

    Ibid 30–31.

  125. 125.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 45, 244 para 4.

  126. 126.

    ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island (declaration Higgins) (n 65) 1114.

  127. 127.

    See also Harvard Draft 1132.

  128. 128.

    Cf Harvard Draft 1126 (Art 29 lit a: “a state of facts, the assumed existence of which was envisaged by the parties as a determinig factor moving them to undertake the obligations situplated”, emphasis added).

  129. 129.

    See the statement of the representative of France UNCLOT I 253, calling the need for an objective assessment “self-evident”.

  130. 130.

    [1963-II] YbILC 196 (emphasis added).

  131. 131.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 45, 244 para 4 (emphasis added).

  132. 132.

    Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 305.

  133. 133.

    See the statement of the representative of the United States UNCLOT I 249.

  134. 134.

    See text accompanying n 135–139.

  135. 135.

    UNCLOT III 168 (UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.275).

  136. 136.

    See the statement of the representative of the United States UNCLOT I 249.

  137. 137.

    See the discussion in UNCLOT I 249–255.

  138. 138.

    UNCLOT I 255.

  139. 139.

    See the statement of Expert Consultant Waldock UNCLOT I 254.

  140. 140.

    Ibid. See also the statement of the representative of France UNCLOT I 253 (“the essential nature of the error […] must be assessed from the joint negotiations”).

  141. 141.

    Villiger Art 48 MN 10; E Wyler in Corten/Klein Art 48 MN 35.

  142. 142.

    Waldock II 49; Fitzmaurice III 25 (Art 12 para 2 lit c); Harvard Draft 1129 with references to earlier academic writing.

  143. 143.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 45, 244 para 8.

  144. 144.

    The final version of Art 48 para 2 is in marked contrast to Fitzmaurice III 25 (Art 12 para 2 lit c), which required positively that the error must be excusable. See also Bartoš [1963-I] YbILC 42 criticizing the negative wording of the ILC draft for not placing the burden of proof on the party relying on the error. As to the burden of proof with regard to para 1 see Villiger Art 48 MN 4.

  145. 145.

    ICJ Temple of Preah Vihear (Merits) (n 20) 26.

  146. 146.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 45, 244 para 8.

  147. 147.

    Ibid.

  148. 148.

    Waldock II 48 (Art 8 para 2 lit a).

  149. 149.

    UNCLOT III 168 (UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.275).

  150. 150.

    While the ILC initially retained the original formula of the Temple of Preah Vihear case without the qualification proposed by SR Waldock (see Draft Art 34 in [1963-II] YbILC 195), it eventually deleted the exception “or could have avoided it” altogether, see Art 45 para 2 Final Draft.

  151. 151.

    See UNCLOT I 255.

  152. 152.

    Rosenne [1963-I] YbILC 39; Jiménez de Aréchaga [1963-I] YbILC 41; see also the statements of the representatives of Cuba, Romania, the United Kingdom and the Ukrainian SSR UNCLOT I 251–253.

  153. 153.

    See the statement of Expert Consultant Waldock UNCLOT I 254.

  154. 154.

    Villiger Art 48 MN 10.

  155. 155.

    Waldock [1966-I/1] YbILC 21.

  156. 156.

    ICJ Temple of Preah Vihear (Merits) (n 20) 21.

  157. 157.

    Ibid 26–27; see also ICJ Temple of Preah Vihear (Merits) (separate opinion Fitzmaurice) (n 5) 57–59.

  158. 158.

    ICJ Temple of Preah Vihear (Merits) (separate opinion Fitzmaurice) (n 5) 59.

  159. 159.

    A stricter standard of care is apparently advocated by E Wyler in Corten/Klein Art 48 MN 37 who, in determining the applicable standard of care, attempts to draw inspiration from the jurisprudence of the ICJ on applications for revision of judgment in accordance with Art 61 of the ICJ Statute.

  160. 160.

    ICJ Temple of Preah Vihear (Merits) (n 20) 26: “The map itself drew such pointed attention to the Preah Vihear region that no interested person, nor anyone charged with the duty of scrutinizing it, could have failed to see what the map was purporting to do in respect of that region.”

  161. 161.

    Ibid: “Nobody looking at the map could be under any misapprehension about [the border at Preah Vihear drawn in the map].”

  162. 162.

    Ibid.

  163. 163.

    Ibid.

  164. 164.

    Ibid.

  165. 165.

    Oraison (n 58) 138–139; E Wyler in Corten/Klein Art 48 MN 39.

  166. 166.

    Ibid.

  167. 167.

    See the statement of Expert Consultant Waldock UNCLOT I 254.

  168. 168.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 45, 244 para 7.

  169. 169.

    Ibid.

  170. 170.

    See Waldock II 48 (Art 8 para 2, Art 9 para 2).

  171. 171.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 45, 244 para 9.

  172. 172.

    Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 48, 246 para 2.

  173. 173.

    Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 48, 246 para 2; Ushakov, Reuter and Valat [1979-I] YbILC 123. See also E Wyler in Corten/Klein Art 48 VCLT II MN 3.

  174. 174.

    See the statement of the representative of the United Kingdom UNCLOT II 89; Villiger Art 48 MN 15; E Wyler in Corten/Klein Art 48 MN 2.

  175. 175.

    See n 38; UNCLOTIO I 17.

  176. 176.

    Reuter VIII 127; Villiger Art 48 MN 15. Contra: E Wyler in Corten/Klein Art 48 MN 7.

  177. 177.

    ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island (declaration Higgins) (n 65) 1114; Kasikili/Sedudu Island (dissenting opinion Fleischhauer) (n 63) 1203.

Selected Bibliography

  • L Dubouis L’erreur en droit international public (1963) 9 AFDI 191–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • TO Elias Problems Concerning the Validity of Treaties (1971) 134 RdC 333–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • A Oraison L’erreur dans les traités (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • MR Saulle L’errore negli atti giuridici internazionali (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  • H Schulte-Beerbühl Irrtum bei völkerrechtlichen Verträgen (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • I Tomšič La reconstruction du droit international en matière des traités (1931).

    Google Scholar 

  • H Weinschel Willensmängel bei völkerrechtlichen Verträgen (1929–1930) 15 ZVR 446–477.

    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 48. Error. 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_51

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation