Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Termination – limits as from a given moment, the effects of treaties which had been perfectly binding and whose
initial legal force, ben though now put to an end or temporarily suspended cannot be doubted.
Invalidity – undermines the very legal roots of the treaty; compels attention to the moment of the conclusion of
the treaty, for, at that very moment, something already must have existed which stood in the way of the validity
of the treaty.
A treaty is presumed to be valid and in force, unless one of the grounds listed in the convention has occurred.
o Each of these grounds must draw its authority from some particular provision of the convention.
o This system is mean to serve the purpose of solidifying the stability of treaty relations, as it does not allow
any ground for either invalidating, terminating, or even merely suspending the operation of a treaty to
be in any way presumed or sought for anywhere else BUT IN THE CONVENTION ITSELF.
Does the violation by a party of a treaty entitle the other party/ies to declare the treaty as terminated?
o Several conditions qualifying the “violation” are established in the Convention:
Breach must be material.
It must either apply to a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or
purpose of the treaty, OR, consists in the repudiation of the treaty.
In case of multilateral treaties, all parties must be unanimous in declaring the treaty to be
terminated.
No guilty party may invoke these grounds for praying for the invalidity of the treaty; nemo commodum capere
potest de iniuria sua propria.
Part V, Section 4 of the VCLT explicitly precludes any state from invoking two circumstances as sufficient grounds
in themselves for terminating a treaty.
o The mere fact that the number of parties to a multilateral treaty has fallen below the number necessary
for its entry into force is not in itself a sufficient ground for terminating the treaty.
o Such is also the case of the severance of diplomatic or consular relations, unless, in the absence of such
relations, the treaty cannot be applied.
In many cases where, from the point of view of traditional international law, one would expect to be confronted
with the termination of a treaty, the convention recommends the treaty merely to be suspended in operation,
unless the gravity of the circumstances of the particular case requires recourse to this ultimate means of bringing
an end to a treaty.
o This applies particularly to three such grounds known to the convention, i.e., impossibility of performance,
fundamental change of circumstances and, above all, violation by a party of its obligations under a treaty.
One important question that was left out altogether by the ILC, is the outbreak of hostilities between the parties
to such agreements:
o According to traditional doctrine and practice, the outbreak of a war had the effect of severing all treaty
relations between the belligerent states, with the only exception of such treaties as were especially meant
to apply in the event of war.
o BUT, it would be closing one's eyes to obvious realities to pretend that the outbreak of hostilities has no
effect whatever on treaty relations between belligerents.