Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 39

General rule regarding the amendment of treaties

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

  • 4743 Accesses

Abstract

While Art 39 lays down the general principle that a treaty may be amended by an agreement between the States Parties, Art 40 contains specific procedural rules on the amendment of multilateral treaties. Therefore, the importance of Art 39 mainly lies in its applicability to bilateral treaties as well as in its residual character. Since its content remains vague, the article allows States to agree on their own procedure for amendment while at the same time providing for stability of treaties.

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.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 35, 232, para 3; Fitzmaurice (2010), MN 68; Brunnée (2012), p. 350.

  2. 2.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 35, 233, para 6; Sinclair (1984), p. 107; Kearney and Dalton (1970), p. 524.

  3. 3.

    Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 189, para 58; Briggs [1966-I/2] YbILC 114, para 29; Villiger (2009), Art 39 MN 5.

  4. 4.

    Villiger (2009), Art 39 MN 16; Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 13.

  5. 5.

    Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 115 para 48.

  6. 6.

    Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 1 et seq, 15; Klabbers (2006), MN 2; Brunnée (2012), p. 351.

  7. 7.

    Dixit (1970), p. 37.

  8. 8.

    Dixit (1970), p. 39.

  9. 9.

    Waldock III 49, para 19; UN Handbook of Final Clauses (1957) UN Doc ST/LEG/6, 130–152; Giraud (1961), p. 5 et seq.

  10. 10.

    McNair (1961), p. 534.

  11. 11.

    Waldock III 47 et seq.

  12. 12.

    Waldock III 49, para 19.

  13. 13.

    Statements [1964-I] YbILC 147 et seq.

  14. 14.

    Statement of the Chairman [1964-I] YbILC 157, para 49.

  15. 15.

    Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 189.

  16. 16.

    Revised Draft Articles [1966-II] YbILC 112, 119.

  17. 17.

    Final Draft 182.

  18. 18.

    UNCLOT I 215.

  19. 19.

    UNCLOT I 207 et seq.

  20. 20.

    Waldock VI 79 et seq.

  21. 21.

    Waldock VI 81.

  22. 22.

    UNCLOT I 205.

  23. 23.

    UNCLOT II 72.

  24. 24.

    Castrén [1964-I] YbILC 135, para 14; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 35, 232, para 2; Villiger (2009), Art 39 MN 15.

  25. 25.

    Villiger (2009), Art 39 MN 15; United Nations (2003), p. 95.

  26. 26.

    Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 18, 19; Dahm et al (2002), p. 663.

  27. 27.

    Blix (1956), p. 447; Giraud (1961), p. 97; Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 7; Aust (2013), p. 232.

  28. 28.

    Dixit (1970), p. 39; Klabbers (2006), MN 1. The author who first recognized and showed the limitations of the former overall principle of unanimity was Hoyt (1959), p. 254 et seq.

  29. 29.

    See eg Arts 108 and 109 UN Charter; Dahm et al (2002), p. 662.

  30. 30.

    See eg Art 48 TEU; De Witte (2012), p. 107 et seq; Klabbers (2006), MN 1; United Nations (2003), p. 96.

  31. 31.

    Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 20; Fitzmaurice (2010), MN 68; Dixit (1970), p. 38.

  32. 32.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 35, 232, para 3.

  33. 33.

    McNair (1961), p. 534; Dahm et al (2002), p. 663; Dixit (1970), p. 37.

  34. 34.

    Dixit (1970), p. 37.

  35. 35.

    Bastid (1985), p. 174; Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 22; Villiger (2009), Art 39 MN 17; Sinclair (1984), p. 107; Dahm et al (2002), p. 663; Aust (2013), p. 233.

  36. 36.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 35, 232, para 4; Brunnée (2012), p. 350; Aust (2013), p. 233.

  37. 37.

    Statement of Waldock UNCLOT I 204.

  38. 38.

    The most comprehensive list of possible types of agreement is provided by Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 32 et seq.

  39. 39.

    Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 33; Aust (2013), p. 234.

  40. 40.

    Statement of Waldock [1966-II] YbILC 80; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 35, 232, para 4. All forms of amending agreement which are not concluded by a written agreement may lead to some internal problems for States Parties, since in many cases it might not be clear whether such treaty amendments require ratification by parliaments or not, see Koplow (1992), p. 981 et seq; Bernhardt (2001), p. 15 et seq.

  41. 41.

    Statement of Waldock UNCLOT I 204; Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 33.

  42. 42.

    Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 33.

  43. 43.

    Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 33; Aust (2013), p. 233 et seq.

  44. 44.

    Statement of Waldock [1966-II] YbILC 80, para 1; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 35, 232, para 4; Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 34; Aust (2013), p. 233.

  45. 45.

    Villiger (2009), Art 39 MN 7, 14; Aust (2013), p. 233; Dahm et al (2002), p. 673 et seq.

  46. 46.

    See the very detailed argumentation of Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 39.

  47. 47.

    The delegations of Iraq, Poland, Italy, Austria, Israel, Switzerland and Argentina explicitly regarded the rule on subsequent practice as part of customary law. The delegations of Russia, Turkey, Uruguay and Czechoslovakia denied it (UNCLOT I 210 et seq).

  48. 48.

    Karl (1983), p. 292 et seq, p. 350 et seq; Villiger (2009), Art 39 MN 14; Sands (2011a) Art 39 MN 37 et seq; Giraud (1961), pp. 5, 59 et seq.

  49. 49.

    Statement of Waldock UNCLOT I 214.

  50. 50.

    1954 Agreement Regarding the Headquarters of UNESCO and the Privileges and Immunities of the Organization on French Territory 357 UNTS 5103.

  51. 51.

    Tax Regime Governing Pensions Paid to Retired UNESCO Officials Residing in France (France v UNESCO) (2003) 25 RIAA 233. For a comment on the decision and for further examples of (successful) amendments by subsequent practice, see Kolb (2004), p. 16 et seq.

  52. 52.

    Klabbers (2006), MN 16; Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 35; Villiger (2009), Art 39 MN 14; Kontou (1994).

  53. 53.

    Giraud (1961), p. 58 et seq. In the law of the sea, many important conventional rules were derogated by subsequent customary law, see Bernhardt (1987), p. 275 et seq.

  54. 54.

    Villiger (2009), Art 39 MN 16.

  55. 55.

    ILC Report [1964-II] YbILC 19.

  56. 56.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 38, 236, para 3; [1966-II] YbILC 177.

  57. 57.

    Villiger (2009), Art 39 MN 32; Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 34 et seq; Dahm et al (2002), p. 678 et seq (the new customary rule does not amend the treaty but gives the States Parties the right to ask for an amendment).

  58. 58.

    Location of Boundary Markers Between Egypt and Israel (Egypt v Israel) (1988) 20 RIAA 1, paras 209–211.

  59. 59.

    Hafner (2013), p. 105 et seq; Kohen (2013), p. 35; Brunnée (2012), p. 348.

  60. 60.

    Villiger (2009), Art 39 MN 33; Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 38; Dahm et al (2002), p. 673 et seq.

  61. 61.

    ICJ Temple of Preah Vihear (Merits) [1962] ICJ Rep 6, 33 et seq.

  62. 62.

    ICJ Namibia Opinion [1971] ICJ Rep 16, paras 21–22.

  63. 63.

    Dahm et al (2002), p. 674 et seq. A similar distinction between interpretation and amendment is made by Hafner (2013), p. 114. Further examples of treaty amendment/interpretation by subsequent practice are provided by Daillier et al (2009), p. 325; Nolte (2013), p. 169 et seq.

  64. 64.

    Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 41; Dahm et al (2002), p. 675 et seq.

  65. 65.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 35, 232, para 4; Bastid (1985), p. 174; Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 23; cf Brunnée (2012), p. 350.

  66. 66.

    Dixit (1970), p. 39; Sinclair (1984), p. 107; Villiger (2009), Art 39 MN 6; Brunnée (2012), p. 350; Klabbers (2006), MN 1.

  67. 67.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Arts 35–36, 232, para 4.

  68. 68.

    Villiger (2009), Art 39 MN 10; Klabbers (2006), MN 2; Sands (2011a), Art 39 MN 13.

  69. 69.

    Klabbers (2006), MN 3; Aust (2013), p. 236.

  70. 70.

    A large number of examples is to be found in Hollis (2012), p. 741 et seq; Brunnée (2012), p. 352 et seq.

  71. 71.

    Aust (2013), p. 234 et seq.

  72. 72.

    Final Draft VCLT II, Commentary to Art 39; Sands (2011b), Art 39 VCLT II MN 1.

  73. 73.

    Final Draft VCLT II, Commentary to Art 39.

  74. 74.

    Webb (2014), p. 581.

References

  • Aust A (2013) Modern Treaty Law and Practice, 3rd edn. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt R (1987) Custom and Treaty in the Law of the Sea. RdC 205:247–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt R (2001) Völkerrechtliche und verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte konkludenter Vertragsänderung. In: Arndt H-W, Knemeyer F-L, Kugelmann D, Meng W, Schweitzer M (eds) Völkerrecht und deutsches Recht. Festschrift Rudolf. Beck, Munich, pp 15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Blix H (1956) The Rule of Unanimity in the Revision of Treaties: A Study of the Treaties Governing Tangier. ICLQ 5:581–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée J (2012) Treaty Amendments. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford Guide to Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 347–366

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Daillier P, Forteau M, Pellet A (2009) Droit international public, 8th edn. L.G.D.J, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixit RK (1970) Amendment or Modification of Treaties. LJIL 10:37–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice M (2010) Treaties. 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-e1481. Accessed 29 November 2017

  • Giraud ME (1961) Modification et terminaison des traités collectifs. AnnIDI 49:5–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner G (2013) Subsequent Agreements and Practice: Between Interpretation, Informal Modification and Formal Amendment. In: Nolte G (ed) Treaties and Subsequent Practice. OUP, Oxford, pp 105–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollis DB (2012) Amendments. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford Guide to Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 741–757

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt EC (1959) The Unanimity Rule in the Revision of Treaties: A Re-Examination. Nijhoff, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Karl W (1983) Vertrag und spätere Praxis im Völkerrecht. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney RD, Dalton RE (1970) The Treaty on Treaties. AJIL 64:495–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2006) Treaties, Amendment and Revision. 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-e1483. Accessed 29 November 2017

  • Kohen MG (2013) Keeping Subsequent Agreements and Practice in Their Right Limits. In: Nolte G (ed) Treaties and Subsequent Practice. OUP, Oxford, pp 34–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2004) La modification d’un traité par la pratique subséquente des parties. SZIER 14:9–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Kontou N (1994) The Termination and the Revision of Treaties in the Light of New Customary International Law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Koplow DA (1992) When Is an Amendment Not an Amendment? Modification of Arms Control Agreements without the Senate. UCLR 59:981–1072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNair A (1961) The Law of Treaties. OUP, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolte G (2013) Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and Arbitral Tribunals of Ad Hoc Jurisdiction Relating to Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice. Introductory report for the ILC Study Group on Treaties over Time. In: Nolte G (ed) Treaties and Subsequent Practice. OUP, Oxford, pp 169–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands P (2011a) Article 39. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 963–976

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands P (2011b) Article 39 VCLT II. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, p 977

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair I (1984) The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn. University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2003) Final Clauses of Multilateral Treaties: Handbook. United Nations Publication, Sales No. E.04.V.3

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb P (2014) Treaties and international organizations: Uneasy analogies. In: Tams CJ, Tzanakopulos A, Zimmermann A (eds) Research Handbook on the Law of Treaties. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 567–596

    Google Scholar 

  • De Witte B (2012) Treaty Revision Procedures after Lisbon. In: Bioni A, Eeckhout P, Ripley S (eds) EU Law After Lisbon. OUP, Oxford, pp 107–127

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Public Law, Public International Law and European Union Law, Director of the Walther-Schücking-Institute for International Law, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany

    Kerstin von der Decken

Authors
  1. Kerstin von der Decken
    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

von der Decken, K. (2018). Article 39. 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_42

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_42

  • 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