Abstract
Arts 54–60 regulate the termination or the suspension of the operation of a treaty in consequence of either its own terms or the exercise of a right which it expressly or impliedly grants to a party or which arises out of its breach. In contrast to those provisions, Art 61 and Art 62 deal with unforeseen developments or events affecting the execution of a treaty, which occur outside of it and subsequent to its conclusion. Art 61 determines the fate of a treaty following a specific instance of supervening impossibility of performance, whereas Art 62 covers the fundamental change of circumstances in more general terms (→ MN 39).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Waldock II 36, 78.
- 2.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 58 (which became Art 61 VCLT) 255, 256 para 2. The Commission did not cite a single real case but only several theoretical examples (→ MN 13). Of those, SR Waldock had already remarked: “No doubt, any of these things may happen, but none of them has so far given rise to a leading case or diplomatic incident concerning the dissolution of treaties.” Waldock II 79 para 5.
- 3.
Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 61, 59 para 1.
- 4.
Sinclair 191; F Capotorti L’extinction et la suspension des traités (1971) 134 RdC 417, 527 n 39, considers that principle to be a general principle of law.
- 5.
ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (Judgment) [1997] ICJ Rep 3, paras 99, 102 et seq.
- 6.
Art 23 ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, UN Doc A/RES/56/83, Annex.
- 7.
Harvard Draft 1066.
- 8.
Ibid 1069.
- 9.
Waldock II, 77 et seq. Waldock based himself on Draft Art 17 set out in Fitzmaurice II 16, 29 et seq, 49 et seq.
- 10.
See the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties 1946 UNTS 3.
- 11.
[1963-I] YbILC 132–133 paras 46–50.
- 12.
Ibid 248 para 4.
- 13.
Ibid 256 et seq.
- 14.
Ibid 248 (the quotation is taken from the statement by Waldock, para 6).
- 15.
Ibid 295. Now Art 44 para 3.
- 16.
[1963-II] YbILC 206.
- 17.
Final Draft, Text of Art 43, 39.
- 18.
[1966 I/1] YbILC 67 et seq.
- 19.
Final Draft, Text of Art 58, 255.
- 20.
[1966 I/1]YbILC, 129 et seq.
- 21.
UNCLOT I 365 para 43.
- 22.
A/CONF.39/C.1/L.331, UNCLOT III 183 para 531 lit c.
- 23.
UNCLOT I 365 para 45.
- 24.
UNCLOT I 479 paras 29 et seq.
- 25.
UNCLOT II 116 para 6.
- 26.
Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 61, 59 para 1.
- 27.
Remarks by Waldock [1966-I/1] YbILC 73 para 24. The narrow scope of Art 61 was considered as unjustified by Capotorti (n 4) 529 et seq.
- 28.
Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 61, 59 para 1.
- 29.
A/CN.4/327 [1980-II/1] YbILC 133 et seq.
- 30.
P Bodeau-Livinec in Corten/Klein Art 61 MN 12.
- 31.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 58, 256 para 2. Further examples are the death of a person to be extradited or the destruction of a work of art to be returned, A Verdross/B Simma Universelles Völkerrecht (3rd edn 1984) 522.
- 32.
Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 61, 59 para 3.
- 33.
P Bodeau-Livinec in Corten/Klein Art 61 MN 17. A special example of this kind is regulated by Art 64, 71 para 2, cf P Bodeau-Livinec in Corten/Klein Art 61 MN 21.
- 34.
ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (n 5) para 103.
- 35.
Sinclair 191 mentions the example of a State, which after having concluded an agreement conceding the use of one of its ports by another State becomes landlocked as a result of the loss or cession of its maritime littoral.
- 36.
See the remarks by de Luna [1966-I-1] YbILC 71 paras 9 et seq.
- 37.
See also the comment on Harvard draft Art 26, pp. 1069 – 70, and Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 61, 59 para 4. As the ICJ remarked in the GabčÚkovo-Nagymaros case (n 5), para 102, Art 61 was not intended to cover the impossibility to make payments because of serious financial difficulties, such a situation at most leading to a preclusion of wrongfulness of non-performance by a party of its treaty obligations.
- 38.
Verdross/Simma (n 31) 522.
- 39.
This quotation is from the Final Draft, Commentary to Art 58, 256 para 1.
- 40.
On the relationship between Art 61 and Art 62 → MN 39.
- 41.
A pertinent provision (Art 15) proposed by SR Fitzmaurice in Fitzmaurice III 26, 39, was not adopted by the ILC.
- 42.
See the remarks by de Luna [1966-I/1] YbILC 71, para 7. The matter was also discussed at the Conference but without result (see an Ecuadoran amendment UNCLOT III 183 para 531 lit c), which was later withdrawn. Several delegates referred to error, UNCLOT I 362 et seq, whereas the Ecuadoran delegate explained that initial impossibility of performing the object of a treaty was distinct from error or fraud and that it should perhaps be regulated in a separate provision, UNCLOT I 364 et seq; see also UNCLOT II 116.
- 43.
Capotorti (n 4) 527. But → Art 42 para 1.
- 44.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 58, 256 para 6; Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 61, 59 para 2. According to Capotorti (n 4) 533 et seq, the extinction of a State leads to the extinction of its treaty relationships quite irrespective of the question of succession and should therefore have been covered by Art 61. See also P Bodeau-Livinec in Corten/Klein Art 61 MN 23.
- 45.
See Waldock II 79 para 7.
- 46.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 58, 256 para 4.
- 47.
Ibid.
- 48.
P Bodeau-Livinec in Corten/Klein Art 61 MN 44.
- 49.
UNCLOT I 479 para 32. Already → MN 16.
- 50.
See the ICJs Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (n 5) para 103.
- 51.
On the legal consequences, further → MN 30 et seq.
- 52.
Villiger Art 61 MN 7.
- 53.
Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 75 UNTS 135.
- 54.
Aust 297 and 250.
- 55.
Waldock V 37 et seq.
- 56.
Ibid 38, quoting PCIJ The Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity) (Jurisdiction) PCIJ Ser A No 9, 31 (1927).
- 57.
Explanation by Waldock (Expert Consultant) UNCLOT I 365 para 43.
- 58.
Waldock V 38 para 4.
- 59.
A/CONF.39/C.1/L.331, UNCLOT III 183 para 531.
- 60.
Ibid 183 para 534. The amendment was adopted by 30 votes to 10, with 40 abstentions. Capotorti criticized the Conference for adding para 2 and thereby confounding an issue arising under the law of treaties (impossibility) with an element of the law on State responsibility which should have been kept separate, Capotorti (n 4) 532. See also P Bodeau-Livinec in Corten/Klein Art 61 MN 38 et seq.
- 61.
(n 6).
- 62.
Also → Art 45, which extends the principle of estoppel to Arts 60 and 62, but not Art 61.
- 63.
Capotorti (n 4) 532.
- 64.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 58, 256 para 5. Capotorti criticized that approach as “illogical” because the objective impossibility of performance could not but automatically put an end to the treaty relationship, Capotorti (n 4) 531 et seq. See also P Bodeau-Livinec in Corten/Klein Art 61 MN 32 et seq.
- 65.
→ Art 54 MN 18 et seq on termination and withdrawal; → Art 57 MN 7 et seq.
- 66.
Capotorti (n 4) 528; Sinclair 192. However see P Bodeau-Livinec in Corten/Klein Art 61 MN 18 who believes that the indispensable object will in most cases either relate to the execution of all the treaty clauses or form an essential basis of the consent of the other party or parties.
- 67.
This is essentially the solution provided by Art 60 para 2 in the case of a material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties.
- 68.
“A party may invoke the impossibility of performing a treaty […]” (emphasis added).
- 69.
At least the French and the Spanish versions of Art 61 para 1 do not remove this uncertainty: “Une partie peut invoquer l’impossibilité d’exécuter un traité […]”/”Una parte podra alegar la imposibilidad de cumplir un tratado […].”
- 70.
That reading would have been made clear by an amendment proposed to the Conference by Mexico, which was later withdrawn: “A party may invoke force majeure as a ground for terminating a treaty when the result of the force majeure is to render permanently impossible the fulfilment of its obligations under the treaty […].” Cf A/CONF/.39/C.1/L.330, UNCLOT III 182–183 para 531 lit a.
- 71.
See in this sense also Villiger Art 61 MN 10 et seq.
- 72.
Waldock V 37.
- 73.
Remarks by E Castrén [1966-I-1] YbILC 68 para 42.
- 74.
Term used by Waldock (Expert Consultant) UNCLOT I 365 para 42.
- 75.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 58, 256 para 7; Commentary to Art 66 (now Art 70), 266 para 4.
- 76.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 58, 255 et seq.
- 77.
Waldock V 38 para 1.
- 78.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 58, 256 para 1.
- 79.
Final Draft 1982, Commentary to Art 61, 59 para 4.
- 80.
Codified in Art 23 ILC Articles on Responsibility of States (n 6). → MN 3.
- 81.
In the addendum of 30 April 1999 to his second report on State responsibility, SR J Crawford vainly proposed to adopt the concept of Art 61 para 2 for the purposes of Art 23 of the Articles on State Responsibility [1999-II/1] YbILC 66 para 262.
- 82.
Capotorti (n 4) 530; P Bodeau-Livinec in Corten/Klein Art 61 MN 22.
Selected Bibliography
A Aust Modern Treaty Law and Practice (2nd edn 2007) 293–296.
F Capotorti L’extinction et la suspension des traités (1971) 134 RdC 417–587 (527–535).
I Sinclair The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd edn 1984) 190–192.
A Verdross/B Simma Universelles Völkerrecht (3rd edn 1984) 522.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (2012). Article 61. Supervening impossibility of performance. 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_64
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19291-3_64
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19290-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19291-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)