Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Unanimity Rule in the Revision of Treaties a Re-Examination pp 214–244Cite as

Treaty Regimes Reinforced by Custom

  • Chapter

  • 69 Accesses

Abstract

The Aaland Islands archipelago lies between Finland and Sweden at the mouth of the Gulf of Bothnia. The islands are Swedish in population. However, Russia forced Sweden to cede them to her in 1809 and incorporated them in Russian Finland. They are recognized to possess great strategic importance in the Baltic area.1

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. For the history of “The Aaland Islands Question” to 1939, see article with that title by Padelford and Andersson, 33 A.J.I.L. 465 (1939).

    Google Scholar 

  2. The Times (London), Aug. 6, 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ibid. (as reported by the correspondent of The Times). See also

    Google Scholar 

  4. Id. at 545. See also The Times (London), March 14, 1908.

    Google Scholar 

  5. B.F.S.P. 188. A new treaty guaranteeing the independence and territorial integrity of Norway had been signed by Great Britain, France, Germany, Norway and Russia on Nov. 2, 1907, 2 A.J.I.L. Supp. 267 (1908).

    Google Scholar 

  6. The Times (London), May 19, 1916; id., May 25, 1916; 32 KRASNYI ARKIV 35–36 (1929).

    Google Scholar 

  7. ] 2 FOREIGN REL. U.S., RUSSIA 754.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See note of Swedish Delegation to the Peace Conference dated April 22, 1919, LEAGUE OF NATIONS OFF. j., Spec. Supp. No. 1 at 33–34 (1920).

    Google Scholar 

  9. ] 2 FOREIGN REL. U.S., RUSSIA 754.

    Google Scholar 

  10. U.S. DEP’T OF STATE, TEXTS OF THE RUSSIAN “PEACE” 18 (1918).

    Google Scholar 

  11. LEAGUE OF NATIONS OFF. J., 1st year 249 (1920).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Id., Spec. Supp. No. 3 at 14–19 (1920).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Id. at 16–17. Cf. McNair, So-called State Servitudes, 6 B.Y.I.L. 111 (1925); 1 OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW 535–543 (8th ed., Lauterpacht 1955 ).

    Google Scholar 

  14. LEAGUE OF NATIONS OFF. J., 1St year, Spec. Supp. No. 3 at 18 (1920). Cf. the opinion of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the case concerning the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and Gex, cited supra, pp. 101–102.

    Google Scholar 

  15. LEAGUE OF NATIONS OFF. J., 2d year, 699–702 (1921).

    Google Scholar 

  16. For the minutes of the meetings, see LEAGUE OF NATIONS, SECRETARIAT, CONFÉRENCE RELATIVE A LA NON-FORTIFICATION ET A LA NEUTRALISATION DES ISLES D’ALAND (1921).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Russian note of July 22, 1921, to Sweden and Finland, 1 DEGRAS 251. See also earlier Russian notes to the Allies and Sweden and Finland claiming the right to be consulted, id. at 169–170, 190.

    Google Scholar 

  18. LEAGUE OF NATIONS OFF. J., 20th year, 284–285 (1939).

    Google Scholar 

  19. LEAGUE OF NATIONS OFF. J., 20th year 280–282 (1939).

    Google Scholar 

  20. LEAGUE OF NATIONS OFF. J., 20th year 510 (1939).

    Google Scholar 

  21. CMD. No. 7026 at 29 (1947). The Treaty of Peace, in Article 12, gave the Allied Powers the right to notify Finland of pre-war treaties which they desired to keep in force. The U.S.S.R. later exercised this right with respect to the Aaland Islands agreement of 1940. 67 U.N.T.S. 139.

    Google Scholar 

  22. HALLBERG, THE SUEZ CANAL 264–291 (1931).

    Google Scholar 

  23. B.F.S.P. 500, 511–512; HALLBERG, THE SUEZ CANAL, 287, 291 (1931).

    Google Scholar 

  24. FRANCE, MINISTÈRE DES AFFAIRES ETRANGÈRES, 106 DOCUMENTS DIPLOMATIQUES (ser. A) 115 (1887).

    Google Scholar 

  25. In 1898 the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs informed a questioner in the House of Commons that, as a consequence of the British reservation, the Convention had “not been brought into practical operation.” 61 PARL. DEB. (4th ser.) 667 (1898). In February, 1904, the Under-Secretary stated in answer to another question: “In view of these reservations the other Signatory Powers have abstained from any steps for the purpose of bringing the Convention into active operation.” 130 PARL. DEB. (4th ser.) 981–982 (1904).

    Google Scholar 

  26. PARL. DEB. (4th ser.) 1352 (1904); see also cMD. No. 2409 at 4 (1905).

    Google Scholar 

  27. FRANCE, MINISTÈRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES, 5 DOCUMENTS DIPLOMATIQUES FRANÇAIS 1871–1914 (2e sér.) 58, 129, 136–137 (1934).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Spain had, it is true, recognized England’s special position in Egypt in 1904. Supra, p. 230.

    Google Scholar 

  29. U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL OFF. REC., 2d year, 169th meeting 1890–1891 (1947).

    Google Scholar 

  30. HALLBERG, TI-IE SUEZ CANAL 380 ff. (1931). After World War I Japan replaced Germany in second place.

    Google Scholar 

  31. CMD. NO. 9298 (1954). This was the net effect of Article 4 of the Treaty and an Agreed Minute signed the same day. Article 4 provided: “In the event of an armed attack by an outside Power on any country which at the date of the signature of the present Agreement is a party to the Treaty of Joint Defense between Arab League States… or on Turkey, Egypt shall afford to the United Kingdom such facilities as may be necessary….” The Agreed Minute provided that the term “outside Power” should mean “any country other than (i) the countries named [in the treaty] and (ii) Israel.”

    Google Scholar 

  32. In 1954 the Soviet Union asserted its right to be regarded as a party to the Convention. u.N. SECURITY COUNCIL OFF. REC., 9th year, 664th Meeting 10 (1954).

    Google Scholar 

  33. THE SUEZ CANAL PROBLEM 107, 126, 172, 214–217, 329; U.N. Docs. Nos. S/3649, S/3650 (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  34. I See statements of Secretary of State Dulles, 35 DEP’T STATE BULL. 335, 611 (1956). Egypt also repeatedly referred to herself as a party to the Convention. See Letter from President Nasser to Prime Minister Menzies, Sept. 9, 1956, THE SUEZ CANAL PROBLEM 317. See also U.N. Docs. Nos. S/3650, (1956) and S/3818 (Letter to the U.N. Secretary-General, 24 April, 1957 ); U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL OFF. REC., 11th year, 736th Meeting 3 (1956); cf. Art. 8 of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of October 19, 1954, THE SUEZ CANAL PROBLEM 22.

    Google Scholar 

  35. N.Y. Times, August 12, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  36. N. Y. Times, Aug. 9, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  37. It was repeatedly asserted, without contradiction, that all users of the Canal derived rights from the Convention of 1888. THE SUEZ CANAL PROBLEM 37, 54, 73, 147–148, 163–164, 336, 353, 365. The representative of Ethiopia at the London Conference stated: “Under this Treaty Egypt recognised that in a clearly defined part of her territory there is set up the perpetual right of way or easement accepted by Egypt herself in favour of the freedom of commerce of the entire world. ” Id. at 148.

    Google Scholar 

  38. N. Y. Times, Aug. 4 and Aug. 16, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Id. at 64. Cf. the statement of Secretary of State Dulles, on October 9. 1956, that there were invited to the London Conference “all seven of the unquestionably surviving signatories of the Suez Canal Treaty of 1888.” 35 DEP’T STATE BULL. 611 (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  40. HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 221–222; see also supra pp. 101–102, 220, and infra p. 242. See also Arechaga, Treaty Stipulations in Favor of Third States, 50 A.J.I.L. 338 at 350 (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  41. N. Y. Times, April 10, 1957; cf. the United States’ insistence on its right in the free navigation of the Congo although it was not a party to the act which established it. Supra, p. 181.

    Google Scholar 

  42. N. Y. Times, Sept. 13, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  43. THE SUEZ CANAL PROBLEM 47, 51–52. Egypt later expanded on its reasons for refusing to attend in the debate before the Security Council. Her representative stated that Egypt should have been consulted on the holding of the conference, the place, the time and the countries to be invited. He also argued that the conference was preceded and accompanied by threats of force, and added. He also argued that the conference was preceded and accompanied by threats of force, and added, “We were not facing a conference, but a trial; we were not invited to a meeting, but assigned to a court.” U. N. SECURITY COUNCIL OFF. REC., 11th year, 736th Meeting 9 (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  44. U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL OFF. REC., 11th year, 736th Meeting 26 (1956); U.N. Doc. No. S/3650 (1956); THE SUEZ CANAL PROBLEM 329.

    Google Scholar 

  45. THE SUEZ CANAL PROBLEM 217–218; U. N. SECURITY COUNCIL OFF. REC., 11th year, 736th Meeting 26 (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  46. The Egyptian government sent an observer to London, to be available for behindthe-scenes negotiations. N. Y. Times, August 15, 1956. The delegates of India and Pakistan stopped in Cairo on their way to London to acquaint themselves with Egypt’s point of view. Id., August 13, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Id. at 217–218, 253–254, 269–270. U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL OFF. REC., 11th year, 736th Meeting 26 (1956). The Egyptian government made the same arguments. THE SUEZ CANAL PROBLEM 329; U. N. Doc. No. S/3650 (17 September 1956 ).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Cf. statement by Secretary of State Dulles, September 19, 1956; “The 18 here do represent the countries which in their own right, and in a sense as typical countries interested in the Canal, can, with Egypt, bring about a solution which, if accepted by Egypt and by us, would be, I think we can say, accepted by all of the world.” THE SUEZ CANAL PROBLEM 358.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Id. at 336. See also statement of the Soviet delegate in the Security Council. U. N. SECURITY COUNCIL OFF. REC., 11th year, 736th Meeting 16 (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Text in 36 DEPT STATE BULL. 776 (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  51. McNair, So-called State Servitudes, 6 B.Y.I.L. 111, 126 (1925).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Cf. McNair, So-called State Servitudes, 6 B.Y.I.L. 111 (1925); 1 OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW 535–543 (8th ed. by Lauterpacht, 1955 ).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Edwin C. Hoyt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1959 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hoyt, E.C. (1959). Treaty Regimes Reinforced by Custom. In: The Unanimity Rule in the Revision of Treaties a Re-Examination. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9566-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9566-9_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8721-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9566-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation