Academic literature on the topic 'Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties'

This thesis examines the default application of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties reservation rules to reservations to human rights treaties. The contemporary practice of formulating reservations allows states to unilaterally modify their treaty obligations following the conclusion of negotiations. Though multilateral treaties address a broad spectrum of subjects and are negotiated using a variety of methods, all treaties are governed by the same residual reservation rules of the Vienna Convention when there is not a treaty-specific reservation regime in place. The Vienna Convention system is only engaged if a state seizes the opportunity to determine whether a reservation is valid pursuant to default rules or if a challenge regarding the validity of a reservation is brought before another competent mechanism of review, such as a dispute resolution mechanism. Even when applied, the Vienna Convention rules are ambiguous at best and have been criticised since their inception due to the high degree of flexibility in their application, especially in relation to human rights treaties. In light of the inherent flaws of the Vienna Convention reservation regime and the structural characteristics of human rights treaties, rarely will a reserving state be deprived of the benefit of the reservation even if it is determined to be invalid by another State Party. Though the consequences of an invalidity determination are more concrete when the decision is taken by a dispute resolution mechanism, such as a court, seldom are disputes over the validity of a reservation to a human rights treaty submitted to a competent mechanism. Using the core UN human rights treaties as a case study this research highlights that the past thirty years have revealed a practical impasse in treaty law when the default reservation rules are relied upon to regulate reservations to human rights treaties. Reservations of questionable validity gain the same status as valid reservations because the Vienna Convention rules do not address the consequence for a reservation determined to be invalid outwith the traditional inter se application of the reservation between the reserving and objecting states, which is not logical in the context of a human rights treaty. Against this background, this thesis examines whether the default reservation rules adequately govern reservations to human rights treaties. The conclusion affirms that the Vienna Convention reservation regime can regulate reservations to human rights treaties but only if there is a clearly defined final view on the validity of a reservation taken by an organ other than the state. Therefore, it is argued that treaty-specific supervisory mechanisms attached to each of the core UN human rights treaties should be invested with the competency to serve a determinative function with respect to evaluating reservations to human rights treaties in order to facilitate a stronger basis for the international human rights system.

Considering that the concept of sustainable development has a function of normative integration in international law, Article 31(3)(c) provides a legitimate basis of such systemic integration. At the same time, it displays the limitations of the harmonious solution drawn from its application because it works only within the rigid consent-based framework in which the referenced rules should be legal “rules” and should be “applicable in the relations between the parties.” International jurisprudence suggests supplemental elements to overleap the consensual limitations in the application of Article 31(3)(c): a generic term and the object and purpose of the treaty. These text-based and the object-and-purpose-based developmental interpretative techniques enable interpreters to consider legal rules that are not “any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties” under Article 31(3)(c).

This thesis explores the way in which the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties have been applied in the context of the US-Canada Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the GATT, the World Trade Organization Agreement and the European Union. The author seeks to analyze the way the dispute settlement panels established according to these agreements and the Court of justice of the European Communities have used the interpretation tools provided by public international law. The author then examines the interpretation framework for international treaties and investigates how Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention have been applied in the context of each of these agreements or treaties. The extensive panels and court practice surveyed by the author underlines the importance of public international law when interpreting international trade law.

The Diploma Thesis deals with the President of the Republic and his/her relation to the International Treaties, to the Negotiation, the Approval and the Ratification. The work contains both international and national perspective of the problem. The thesis is a reflection of the ongoing expert debate, to which extent has the President of the Republic the constitutional right of decision-making autonomy in the field of International Treaties of the Czech Republic. The thesis analyses the current legal situation and presents up-to-date juridical opinions together with arguments from the political science.

The objective of the study was to investigate the right of the South African Government to tax the income earned by a foreign company when rendering services in South Africa to a South African associated enterprise on a recurrent basis, together with the right to tax the amounts paid to the employees of the permanent establishment for services rendered in South Africa. At the same time the research investigated whether the services rendered by a foreign company to an associated enterprise in South Africa on a recurrent basis would constitute a permanent establishment, as this is essential before South Africa may tax either the foreign company or the employees of the permanent establishment (where such employees are not resident in South Africa).The research was conducted by means of a critical analysis of documentary data and data from a limited number of interviews with academics and the authors of textbooks and articles. In order to limit the scope of the research, a number of assumptions were made. Conflicting viewpoints underlying certain of these assumptions were discussed. Some of the important conclusions reached are that the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties should be taken into account when interpreting South African legislation (including Double Tax Agreements), and that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Commentary may be relied upon when interpreting OECD based Double Tax Agreements in South Africa. No conclusion was reached on whether to apply an ambulatory or a static basis of interpreting the OECD Commentary, however. The final conclusion of the research is that the services rendered in South Africa on a recurrent basis would be geographically and commercially coherent and consequently meet the "location test'. It is clear that as the services are rendered regularly and recurrently, they would be regarded as having the necessary permanence and would meet the 'duration test'. The place of business would therefore be regarded as being fixed (having the necessary degree of permanence). As the services would be rendered at the place of business of the South African entity, they would be regarded as being rendered 'through' the place of business and the foreign entity would be regarded as having a permanent establishment in South Africa (as defined in Article 5(1) of the OECD Model Tax Convention}. The South African Government would therefore be entitled to tax the income attributable to the permanent establishment and the income earned by the non resident employees, who rendered services in South Africa for the permanent establishment. Once the entitlement to tax exists, South African legislative rules determine how South Africa proceeds to tax the income.

Performance requirements act as policy instruments for achieving broadly-defined economic and developmental objectives of States, especially industrial and technological development objectives. Many States consider that performance requirements distort trade and investment flows, negatively impact global and national welfare and disrupt investment decisions compared to business-as-usual scenarios. As a result, a number of States have committed to prohibiting performance requirements in international investment agreements (“IIAs.”). Performance requirement prohibitions (“PRPs”) are meant to eliminate trade-distorting performance requirements and performance requirements which replace investor decision-making by State decision-making. This thesis focuses on providing answers to two research questions: first, how do States prohibit performance requirements in IIAs? And second, how should PRPs in IIAs be interpreted and applied? For the first time, this thesis: proposes a comprehensive understanding of PRPs in IIAs by drawing notably on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”) Uruguay Round of negotiations and on the United States Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) Programme; develops a detailed typology and analysis of PRPs in IIAs through the identification of systematically reproduced drafting patterns; conducts the first critical and in-depth analysis of all arbitral awards which have decided claims based on PRPs in IIAs; analyses interpretation and application issues related to provisions that exempt government procurement from PRPs and to reservations that shield sensitive non-conforming measures or strategically important sectors from PRPs; and anticipates the application of most-favoured nation (“MFN”) treatment clauses to PRPs in the future. Finally, this thesis formulates proposals that can help interpret and apply existing PRPs and draft future PRPs in a more deliberate and informed way.

La dénonciation et la renégociation sont deux notions qui ne partagent pas de traits caractéristiques communs. L’une est un acte unilatéral qui met fin à la participation d’un Etat à un traité, tandis que l’autre consiste à mener un dialogue entre les Etats parties à un traité en vue de maintenir le lien conventionnel tout en lui apportant des changements substantiels. Cependant, les Etats ont souvent recours à la dénonciation et à la renégociation d’un traité comme solution alternative pour un même motif, à savoir un changement de circonstances. Ce constat a suscité notre intérêt d’étudier l’articulation de la dénonciation et la renégociation lorsqu’elles portent sur un même traité, notamment quand elles sont invoquées simultanément. Cette thèse soutient l’omniprésence d’une possibilité de renégocier le traité dans tous les cas de dénonciation. Toutefois, la renégociation peut ne jamais se manifester, compte tenu notamment du traité en question et des circonstances entourant la dénonciation de celui-ci. Il s’agirait dans un tel cas d’une possibilité dormante. Nous soutenons également que la renégociation n’opère qu’avant la prise d’effet de la dénonciation. L’étude du régime juridique et des effets de ces deux notions démontre que la dénonciation et la renégociation sont en effet procéduralement liées. Elles obéissent ainsi à certaines conditions communes et sont gouvernées par des principes communs. Par ailleurs, bien que leurs effets soient a priori opposés, ceux-ci s’entrelacent à plusieurs égards. Enfin, il ressort de cette étude que la dénonciation et la renégociation des traités jouent un rôle pivot dans l’atténuation de la tension entre les exigences de stabilité juridique et de mutation sociale. Elles sont des outils d’adaptation, et de ce fait, constituent des éléments de flexibilité du traité permettant de gérer les risques liés à l’évolution de la société en offrant un moyen de réaménager le traité ou de s’en libérer, selon les circonstances<br>Denunciation and renegotiation are two notions that do not share common features. One is a unilateral act that terminates a State’s participation in a treaty, whereas the other is a dialogue between States parties to a treaty aiming to maintain the conventional relationship while making substantial changes to it. Nonetheless, States often resort to the denunciation and the renegotiation of a treaty as an alternative solution for the same reason, namely a change of circumstances. This observation aroused our interest in studying the interaction between denunciation and renegotiation when they relate to the same treaty, in particular when they are invoked simultaneously. This thesis supports the omnipresence of the possibility of renegotiating the treaty in all cases of denunciation. However, a renegotiation may never occur, particularly in view of the treaty in question and the circumstances surrounding its denunciation. In such a case, it would be a dormant possibility. We also argue that renegotiation only takes place before the denunciation takes effect. A study of the legal regime and the effects of these two concepts shows that denunciation and renegotiation are in fact procedurally linked. They thus obey certain common conditions and are governed by common principles. Moreover, although their effects are seemingly divergent, these are intertwined in several respects. Finally, this study shows that denunciation and renegotiation of treaties play a pivotal role in reducing the tension between the requirements of legal stability and social change. They are tools for adaptation, and thus constitute elements of treaty flexibility that allow to manage the risks associated with social change by providing a means of rearranging the treaty or to break away from it, depending on the circumstances