Advertisement

Implementing Treaties in Domestic Law: from “Pacta Sunt Servanda” to “Anything Goes”?

Chapter
Part of the Nijhoff Law Specials book series (Nijhoff Law Specials)

Abstract

What is the future of international treaty law? On the one hand, treaties are still proliferating despite the fact that, at least at the multilateral level, treaty-making is becoming increasingly more difficult in a highly pluralist and heterogeneous world. On the other hand, States that traditionally have been at the forefront of strengthening the role of international law are now showing signs of growing reluctance to fully honor their treaty obligations. One aspect of this reluctance is a certain trend to avoid full implementation at the domestic level of treaty obligations deriving from multilateral treaties of a legislative character (“traités-loi”). National authorities in all three branches of government have developed instruments that allow their State to avoid such implementation in ways which do not technically violate international law, but that will weaken international law in the long run.

Keywords

Foreign Policy National Parliament Vienna Convention Domestic Level Swiss Canton 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See the definition of reservation in Article 2(1)(d) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Article 19(c) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See Human Rights Committee, General Comment 24, General comment on issues relating to reservations made upon ratification or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under article 41 of the Covenant (fifty-second session, 1994), para. 4: “The possibility of entering reservations may encourage states which consider that they have difficulties in guaranteeing all the rights in the Covenant none the less to accept the generality of obligations in that instrument. Reservations may serve a useful function to enable states to adapt specific elements in their laws to the inherent rights of each person as articulated in the Covenant”.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See Giorgio Malinvemi, “Les réserves de la Suisse”, in Walter Kälin, Giorgio Malinvemi and Manfred Nowak, La Suisse et les Pactes des Nations Unies relatifs aux droits de l’homme,(2nd ed., Basel, 1997), pp. 83–104.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See, e.g., U.S. reservations (available at www.un.org/Depts/Treaty/final/ts2/newfiles/part_boo/iv_boo/iv_4.html) nos. 2 and 3: “(2) That the United States reserves the right, subject to its Constitutional constrains, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age. (3) That the United States considers itself bound by article 7 to the extent that `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ means the cruel and unusual treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States”.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stanford v. Kentucky,492 U.S. 361 (1989).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See Concluding Observations of the Committee on Human Rights on the initial report of the United States of America (CCPR/C/79/Add.50, October 3, 1995), paras. 278–279 referring to General Comment 24(52). Among others, Germany, the Netherlands and France objected to the U.S. reservation regarding it as incompatible with object and purpose of the Covenant (text of objections available at www.un.org/Depts/Treaty/final/ts2/newfiles/ part_boo/iv_boo/i v_4. html).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Court of Human Rights, Tyrer v. United Kingdom,Judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, para. 31 (regarding the interpretation of the ECHR).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Biden Condition, 134 CONG.REC. 12,849 (1988) (a part of the Senate’s resolution of ratification of the INF Treaty). Reprinted in Gary Michael Buechler, “Note: Constitutional Limits on the President’s Power to Interpret Treaties: The Sofaer Doctrine, the Biden Condition, and the Doctrine of Binding Authoritative Representations”, (1990) 78 Georgetown Law Journal,pp. 1983, at 1990, note 31.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ATF (Federal Tribunal Decisions) 112 V 145, at 150.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See Bulletin officiel de l’Assemblée fédérale 1996: Conseil National, pp. 1679; Conseil des Etats, pp. 342 and pp. 1048.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    In Ahmed v. Austria,Judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports 1996-IV, pp. 2195, the Court decided that it would be inhuman to return a refugee to Somalia where he would face torture and ill-treatment inflicted by another clan. The scope of Article 3 was even further extended by the Court in the case of D. v. UK,concerning the expulsion of an alien drug courier who suffered from an advanced stage of AIDS. The courier would have been returned to St. Kitts where he had no accommodation, family, moral or financial support, and no access to adequate medical treatment. The Court recognized that “kin view of these exceptional circumstances and bearing in mind the critical stage now reached in the applicant’s fatal illness, the implementation of the decision to remove him to St. Kitts would amount to inhuman treatment by the respondent State in violation of Article 3” (Judgment of 2 May 1997, Reports 1997- III, pp. 777, paras. 52 and 53).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Judgment of 15 April 1997 (EZAR 043 No. 21) and of 2 September 1997 (EZAR 043 No. 26).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    There are clear indications that the drafters of the ECHR did not intend to limit torture to acts of state but wanted to prohibit all forms of torture. In the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe the British Representative Cocks proposed to insert, in addition to what was then draft Article 2, para. 1 (guaranteeing the security of person in accordance with Articles 3,5, and 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), explicitly that “all forms of physical torture, whether inflicted by the police, military authorities, members of private organisations or any other person” must be prohibited (Council of Europe, Collected Edition of the “Travaux Préparatoires” of the European Convention on Human Rights,(The Hague, 1975), Vol. II, pp. 2 (Emphasis added). In the subsequent debate, the fact that acts of torture can be committed also by private groups and persons was taken for granted and not questioned at all. Rather, it was held that going too much into the details could limit the scope of the definition; therefore, Representative Teitgen proposed “simply to state that all torture is prohibited” (Travaux Préparatoires,Vol. II, p. 46. Emphasis added).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    See American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Third, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States,Vol. 1, 1987 (American Law Institute Publishers, St. Paul, Minn.), § 11 l, pp. 42.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    For an overview of U.S. practice see Lori Eisler Damrosch, “The Role of the United States Senate Concerning `Self-Executing’ and `Non-Self-Executing’ Treaties”, in Stefan A. Riesenfeld and Frederick M. Abbott (eds.), Parliamentary Participation in the Making and Operation of Treaties, A Comparative Study (Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1994), pp. 205, at 207–213.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomas Buergenthal, “Modern Constitutions and Human Rights Treaties”, (1997) 36 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law,pp. 211, at 221. See also the critical remarks in Lori Fisler Damrosch, op. cit.,n. 16, pp. 205–221. M. Cherif Bassiouni, “Reflections on the Ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the United States Senate” (1993) 42 DePaul Law Review,pp. 1169–1182. Jordan J. Paust, “Avoiding `Fraudulent’ Executive Policy: Analysis of Non-Self-Execution of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (1993) 42 DePaul Law Review,pp. 1257–1284.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    See Bulletin officiel de l’Assemblée fédérale 1984, Conseil des Etats, p. 44.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ATF 121 V 246, at 250; ATF 121 V 229, at 232s.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ATF 105 II 49, at 60. See Fried! Weiss, “The Functioning of the Free Trade Agreements”, in Olivier Jacot-Guillarmod (ed.), L ‘avenir du libre-échange en Europe: vers un Espace économique européen? (Zurich 1990), pp. 61–78, discussing the relevant case law regarding direct applicability at 68–77.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See Bassiouni, op. cit.,n. 17 at 1179.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ATF 124 II 361, at 67.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    According to a long standing principle of Swiss law, legal norms u hie. I have entered into force but have not been published, can he invoked by individuals if the provision in question grants them rights but may not be applied if it imposes obligations on them. Article 100) of the Swiss Law on Publication (Loi sur les publications officielles, RS 170.512) sets forth that laws and treaties impose obligations upon individuals only after their publication. See Luzius Wildhaber, Treaty-.Making Power and Constitution I Basel/Stuttgart, 1971), at 205. Jörg Paul Müller and Luzius Wildhaber. Praxis des I7ükerreelos,2nd ed. (Berne, 1982), pp. 64–66.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Article 55 of the 1958 Constitution.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Article 93 of the 1983 Constitution.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    See, e.g., Louis Ilenkin, Foreign Affairs and the United Alan. the Constitution,2nd ed. (Oxford, 1996), at 178, pointing out that often in U.S history the Senate delied consent not because it thought the proposed treaty was not in the national interest, hut from considerations of partisan politics“.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    This is true in principle, although there are caveats. See, e.g., ATE 99 lb 39, at 43s. (confirming the principle but providing for an exception if Parliament adopted the later law in full knowledge of the violation of international law) and ATE 117 1h 367, at 371 (also the European Convention on Human Rights prevails over subsequent federal lays,).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    See Giorgio Malinverni, L’indépendance de la Suisse dans un monde interdépendant, Rapports et communications de la Société suisse des juristes,Fascicule 1, 1998, Basel 1998, pp. 1, at 42–50.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    See Tyrer case, op.cit.,n.8.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    European Court of Human Rights, Belilos v. Switzerland,Judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132. For a discussion see Luzius Wildhaber, “Parliamentary Participation in Treaty-Making, Report on Swiss Law”, in Riesenfeld and Abbott, op. cit.,n.16, pp. 131, at 142–146.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    See Bulletin officiel de l’Assemblé fédérale 1988, Conseil des Etats, pp. 554.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    See op.cit.,n. 11.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Similarly, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in its Article 2(2) stipulates that: “Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant”.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    See, inter alia, Minelli v. Switzerland,Judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 63 (violation of presumption of innocence by ordering an accused person to bear court costs although the criminal action had expired by the running of the statute of limitations); Huber v. Switzerland,Judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188 (successive exercise of the functions of investigation and prosecution by the same District Attorney in the same case); Quaranta v. Switzerland,Judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205 (refusal to accord free legal assistance to an accused during the investigation and at trial).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Communication No. 35/1978, Shirin Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and 19 other Mauritian women v. Mauritius,Views adopted on 9 April 1981, Annual Report 1981, p. 134; Response, dated 15 June 1983, from the Government of Mauritius, Annual Report 1983, p. 254.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Communication No. 24/1977, Sandra Lovelace v. Canada,Views adopted on 30 July 1981, Annual Report 1981, p. 166; Response, dated 6 June 1983, from the Government of Canada, Annual Report 1983, p. 249.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    See the references in Communication No. 182/1984, F.H. Zwaan-de Vries v. the Netherlands,Views adopted on 9 April 1987, Annual Report 1987, p. 160.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Georg Dahm, Völkerrecht (Stuttgart, 1958), Vol. 1, at 55.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Art. 26 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    See Wimbledon Case (1923), PCIJ Series A, No. 1, p. 25.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    See The Right Honourable The Lord Templeman, “Treaty-Making and the British Parliament”, in Riesenfeld and Abbott, op. cit.,n. 16, pp. 153–176.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    See Giovanni Bognetti, “The Role of Italian Parliament in the Treaty-Making Process”, in Riesenfeld and Abbott, op. cit.,n. 16, pp. 89–107.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Articles 166(2) and 184(2) of the 1999 Federal Constitution of Switzerland.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wildhaber, op. cit.,n. 30, pp. 103.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Article 55 of the 1958 Constitution.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    François Luchaire, “The Participation of Parliament in the Elaboration and Application of Treaties”, in Riesenfeld and Abbott, op. cit.,n. 16, p. 101.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    See Henkin, op. cit.,n. 26, pp. 175.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Henkin, op. cit.,n. 26, p. 177.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wildhaber, op. cit.,n. 30, p. 135.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Article 191 of the 1999 Federal Constitution of Switzerland; Articles 60(3) and 63 of the Constitution of the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    See on the following, e.g., Stanley Hoffman, Duties Beyond Borders — On the Limits and Possibilities of Ethical International Politics (Syracuse/New York, 1981), pp. 10; Walter Kälin, “Verfassungsgrundsätze der schweizerischen Aussenpolitik”, Referate und Mitteilungen des Schweizerischen Juristenvereins 1986, Fascicule 3, pp. 269.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    See Hoffmann, op. cit.,n. 51.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    The notion goes back to the German Wilhelm Dilthey, see Henning Behrens/Paul Noack, Theorie der Internationalen Politik (München, 1984), p. 98. See also the writings of Leopold von Ranke, Politisches Gespräch (Göttingen, 1955), pp. 60.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    It is true that in certain countries there might be extensive informal contacts between the government and (members of) parliament (see, e.g., Lord Templeman, op. cit.,n. 41, pp. 162–163 for the UK). This, however, is not true for all countries and does not solve the problem discussed here.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947, (Advisory Opinion of 26 April 1988),1988 ICJ Rep. pp. 12, at 34, para. 57. Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    On 18 April 1999, Switzerland adopted a new Federal Constitution available in German and French (on the Internet at http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c101). The idea behind the new Constitution is not to introduce any radical changes but rather to codify the existing constitutional law, including minor innovations where needed.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Article 166 reads as follows: “L’Assemblée fédérale participe à la conception de la politique extérieure et surveille les relations avec l’étranger. Elle approuve les traités internationaux, à l’exception de ceux dont la conclusion relève de la seule compétence du Conseil fédéral en vertu d’une loi ou d’un traité international.”Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Article 47bis à loi sur les rapports entre les Conseils (RS 171.11).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Article 228(3) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community of 25 March 1957 as amended by the Treaty on the European Union of 7 February 1992.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    In practice, however, some members of the European parliament are also members of their national parliaments.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Article 25 of the Statute of the Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Article 22 of the Statute of the Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Article 15 of the Statute of the Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Modification of the procedure for the adoption of Council of Europe conventions, Report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Doc. 8017, 12 February 1998.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Explanatory memorandum to the Report, op. cit.,n. 64, para. 11.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    On 18 March 1998 the Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly forwarded the proposal of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to the Committee of Ministers (Recommendation 1361/1998). On 31 March 1998, the Committee of Ministers decided to bring the Recommendation “to the attention of their Governments” and asked their Rapporteur Group on Legal Co-operation to prepare an answer.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Article 167(3) of the 1970 Constitution stipulates: “Those Community and Regional Governments described in Article 121 conclude, in matters that concern them, treaties regarding matters that are in the scope of the responsibilities of their Councils. These treaties may take effect only following approval by the council”.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Article 56(1) of the 1999 Constitution. On the role of Swiss cantons in foreign affairs see Nicolas Schmitt, “The Foreign Relations of Swiss Cantons”, in Lidija R. Basta and Thomas Fleiner (eds.), Federalism and Multiethnic States — The Case of Switzerland, (Fribourg, 1996 ), pp. 131–175.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Articles 23(5) and (6), 24(1a), 45, 50 of the 1949 Basic Law (amendments adopted in 1992).Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Article 23d of the 1929 Austrian Constitution (amendment adopted in 1994).Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Article 55 of the 1999 Swiss Constitution.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations