Preamble

Préambule

Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités

Conclue à Vienne le 23 mai 1969

Les Etats Parties à la présente Convention,

1.Considérant le rôle fondamental des traités dans l’histoire des relations internationales,

2.Reconnaissant l’importance de plus en plus grande des traités en tant que source du droit international et en tant que moyen de développer la coopération pacifique entre les nations, quels que soient leurs régimes constitutionnels et sociaux,

3.Constatant que les principes du libre consentement et de la bonne foi et la règle pacta sunt servanda sont universellement reconnus,

4.A rmant que les di érends concernant les traités doivent, comme les autres différends internationaux, être réglés par des moyens pacifiques et conformément aux principes de la justice et du droit international,

5.Rappelant la résolution des peuples des Nations Unies de créer les conditions nécessaires au maintien de la justice et du respect des obligations nées des traités,

6.Conscients des principes de droit international incorporés dans la Charte des Nations Unies, tels que les principes concernant l’égalité des droits des peuples et leur droit de disposer d’eux-mêmes, l’égalité souveraine et l’indépendance de tous les Etats, la non-ingérence dans les a aires intérieures des Etats, l’interdiction de la menace ou de l’emploi de la force et le respect universel et e ectif des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales pour tous,

7.Convaincus que la codification et le développement progressif du droit des traités réalisés dans la présente Convention serviront les buts des Nations Unies énoncés dans la Charte, qui sont de maintenir la paix et la sécurité internationales, de développer entre les nations des relations amicales et de réaliser la coopération internationale,

8.A rmant que les règles du droit international coutumier continueront à régir les questions non réglées dans les dispositions de la présente Convention,

Sont convenus de ce qui suit:

Präambel

Wiener Übereinkommen über das Recht der Verträge

Abgeschlossen in Wien am 23. Mai 1969

Die Vertragsstaaten dieses Übereinkommens,

1.in Anbetracht der grundlegenden Rolle der Verträge in der Geschichte der internationalen Beziehungen,

2.in Erkenntnis der ständig wachsenden Bedeutung der Verträge als Quelle des Völkerrechts und als Mittel zur Entwicklung der friedlichen Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Völkern ungeachtet ihrer Verfassungsund Gesellschaftssysteme,

3.im Hinblick darauf, dass die Grundsätze der freien Zustimmung und von Treu und Glauben sowie der Rechtsgrundsatz pacta sunt servanda allgemein anerkannt sind,

4.in Bekräftigung des Grundsatzes, dass Streitigkeiten über Verträge wie andere internationale Streitigkeiten durch friedliche Mittel nach den Grundsätzen der Gerechtigkeit und des Völkerrechts beigelegt werden sollen,

5.eingedenk der Entschlossenheit der Völker der Vereinten Nationen, Bedingungen zu scha en, unter denen Gerechtigkeit und die Achtung vor den Verpflichtungen aus Verträgen gewahrt werden können,

6.im Bewusstsein der in der Charta der Vereinten Nationen enthaltenen völkerrechtlichen Grundsätze, darunter der Grundsätze der Gleichberechtigung und Selbstbestimmung der Völker, der souveränen Gleichheit und Unabhängigkeit aller Staaten, der Nichteinmischung in die inneren Angelegenheiten der Staaten, des Verbots der Androhung oder Anwendung von Gewalt sowie der allgemeinen Achtung und Wahrung der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten für alle,

7.überzeugt, dass die in diesem Übereinkommen verwirklichte Kodifizierung und fortschreitende Entwicklung des Vertragsrechts die in der Charta der Vereinten Nationen verkündeten Ziele fördern wird, nämlich die Wahrung des Weltfriedens und der internationalen Sicherheit, die Entwicklung freundschaftlicher Beziehungen und die Verwirklichung der Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Nationen,

8.in Bekräftigung des Grundsatzes, dass die Sätze des Völkergewohnheitsrechts weiterhin für Fragen gelten, die in diesem Übereinkommen nicht geregelt sind,

haben folgendes vereinbart:

Materials:

Minutes: OR 1968 Plenary 7; OR 1969 Plenary 6, 169 .

Vienna Conference Vote: 86:0:11

Selected Literature:

J.J. Corriente Cordoba, Valoración juridica de los preambulos de los tratados internactionales (1973); H. Pazarci, Préambule, in: Corten/Klein (eds.) 1 ; H.-D. Treviranus, Preamble, EPIL 3 (1997) 1097 f.

2The preamble plays a role in the interpretation of the treaty.3 In particular, it is important for establishing the treaty’s object and purpose.4 Thus, a treaty’s preamble may assist in the application of the following Convention provisions to that treaty as follows:5

–Article 18 on the obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force (q.v., N. 10);

–Article 19, para. (c) as one means of establishing the incompatibility of a reservation (q.v., N. 13);

–Article 20, para. 2 as one characteristic of a multilateral treaty the reservations to which require the consent of all the parties (q.v., N. 5);

–Article 31, para. 1 as one of a number of means of interpretation within the General Rule of interpretation (q.v., N. 11–14);

–Article 33, para. 4 as a means for resolving textual di erences between various authentic texts (q.v., N. 12);

–Article 41, subpara. 1(b)(ii) as a ground for limiting the freedom of parties to a multilateral treaty to conclude modifications inter se (q.v., N. 9);

–Article 58, subpara. 1(b)(ii) as a ground for limiting the freedom of parties to a multilateral treaty to agree on suspension inter se (q.v., N. 6);

–Article 60, subpara. 3(b) as a means of characterising a material breach of a treaty (q.v., N. 15–16).

2. History

3Traditionally, the ILC does not propose preambles to its drafts, nor did it prepare any for the Convention.6 At the Vienna Conference in 1968, the Drafting Committee was entrusted with the preparation of the Preamble;7 in 1969 it submitted its text to the Plenary.8 The Committee thereby relied on two proposals submitted by Switzerland on the one hand, and Mongolia and Romania, on the other.9 States then submitted further amendments.10

3 European Court of Human Rights in Golder v. United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 16, § 34.

4 See the Asylum (Colombia/Peru) Case, ICJ Reports 1950 282; the Rights of US Nationals in Morocco (France/USA) Case, ibid. 1952 196.

5 See also the list in Buffard/Zemanek, Austrian RIEL 3 (1998) 321 f.

6But see the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, YBILC 1949 287; the Draft Convention on the Elimination of Future Statelessness, YBILC 1954 II 143; and the Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in Relation to the Succession of States, YBILC 1999 II 23 . For an overview of the drafting history, see also Rosenne, Developments

on these amendments before the Conference finally adopted the preamble by 86 votes to none, with eleven abstentions.13

The additions to the proposal of the Drafting Committee were as follows:

–third preambular para.: “principles of free consent and of”;14

–fourth preambular para.: “and in conformity with the principle of justice and international law”;15

–sixth preambular para.: “and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all”;16

–seventh preambular para.: “A rming that the rules of customary international law will continue to govern questions not regulated by the provisions of the present Convention”.17

11Yasseen, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, OR 1969 Plenary 169, para. 9.

12Inter alia, in favour, e.g., the statements by the delegations of Romania, ibid. 171, para. 32; Mongolia, 173, para. 54; the then USSR, 174, paras. 70–71; against, e.g., the US, 173, para. 58; the UK, 178, para. 9. See the compromise proposed by Sweden, 189, para. 32 (“could have supported the amendment had the word “capacity” [instead of “right”] been used”).

13Ibid. 178, para. 31. For the votes on the amendments in Vienna, see ibid. 177 f.

14Amendment proposed by Ecuador, OR Documents 271; see the statement by the Ecuadorian delegation, OR 1969 Plenary 170, paras. 22–24.

15Amendment proposed by Sweden, OR Documents 271; see the statement by the Swedish delegation, OR 1969 Plenary 170, paras. 17–18.

16Amendment proposed by Costa Rica and the Netherlands, OR Documents 271; see the statement by the Dutch delegation, OR 1969 Plenary 169, para. 11.

17Amendment proposed by the Swiss delegation, OR Documents 271, which had originally proposed the formulation “govern questions not expressly regulated”; this was eventually deleted upon a proposal by Yasseen of the Iraqi delegation, OR 1969 Plenary 174, para. 68 (“[t]he word ‘expressly’ was open to criticism, for the rules which applied were subject to interpretation and the questions which arose were settled either directly—in other words, ‘expressly’—or indirectly, in other words ‘implicitly’. An implicit rule was as valid as an explicit rule. The word ‘expressly’ would be prejudicial to the convention since it would unduly limit its scope”); see the statement by the Swiss delegation, ibid. 170, paras. 20–21, and 176, para. 15; also the criticism by Karl, Vertrag 363.

B. INTERPRETATION OF THE PREAMBLE

1. Scope

5By and large the Convention features a typical preamble (N. 1) with eight considérants (recitals) and ensuing preambular paras. It assists in the interpretation of the Convention, in particular when employing the teleological method (N. 2; Article 31, N. 11–14).18 As such, it constitutes part of the “context” within the meaning of the opening sentence of Article 31, para. 2 (q.v., N. 10).19 While not conferring any rights and obligations on the parties, the various principles derived in particular from the UN Charter and from the Convention itself reflect customary international law (N. 10–13, 15).

2. Title and Opening Sentence

6The preamble commences with the title Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties—Done at Vienna on 23 May 1969. A title may suggest “the spirit and intention of the treaty as a whole”.20 By naming it a Vienna Convention, States demonstrated that the Convention was one of a series of multilateral Conventions adopted in Vienna containing codification and progressive development and prepared by the ILC (N. 15), starting with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.21 By referring simply and unconditionally to the Law of Treaties, the title discloses the parties’ aim to deal with the entire subject-mat- ter (though certain areas are indeed excluded, N. 16). That the Convention was done at Vienna on 23 May 1969, is also stated in the closing sentence in Article 85 (q.v., N. 4).

7The opening sentence of the Preamble and indeed of the Convention, refers to the States Parties to the present Convention. Parties are States for which

18See the statements in Vienna by the delegations of Nepal, OR 1969 Plenary 175, para. 82 (“the preamble to a treaty contained the key to the interpretation of any obscure or ambiguous provisions”); and Mongolia, ibid. 173, para. 52; Treviranus, EPIL 3 (1997) 1097 f.

19See the statement by the Uruguayan delegation, OR 1969 Plenary 171, para. 33.

20Beagle Channel (Chile v Argentina) Arbitration, ILR 52 (1979) 131, cited by Jennings/ Watts N. 587, n. 1.

21And continuing with the Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in Their Relations with International Organisations of a Universal Character of 1975; the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties of 1978; the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts of 1983; and the Vienna Convention on the Law ofTreaties Between States and International Organisations or Between International Organisations of 1986.

the treaty is in force (Article 2, subpara. 1[ g ], N. 48), and they are the masters of the treaty. This is emphasised by putting the sentence in italics. The Parties have consented to be bound by the Convention, and thereby also adopt the motives and values stated in the Preamble (N. 1). States acceding to the Convention accept the intentions formulated in the Preamble by the negotiating States (Article 2, subpara. 1[e], N. 40–42; Article 83, q.v.).

ditional framework of Article 38, para. 1 of the ICJ-Statute, which has been accepted by States in their practice as an authoritative (though not unflawed)

22See the statement in Vienna by the Romanian delegation, OR 1969 Plenary 171, para. 29 (“the proposed text drew attention to the use which peoples had made of the agreements and conventions to which they had had recourse since the earliest stage of their existence as organized human communities”).

23See A. Truyol y Serra, Geschichte der Staatsverträge und Völkerrecht, in: R. Marcic et al. (eds.), Internationale Festschrift für A. Verdross zum 80. Geburtstag (1971) 512 and passim.

24Read together with the fourth and sixth preambular paras. (N. 11, 13) and Article 2, subpara. 1(a) (q.v., N. 18–19).

statement on the sources of international law.25 This para. confirms that among the various sources of law, treaties enjoy an ever-increasing importance both in qualitative and quantitative terms.26 A further source of law—customary international law—is mentioned in the eighth preambular para. (N. 16).

This preambular para. confirms (N. 8) that throughout history treaties have served peoples and their rulers and representatives to regulate their relations with each other and as a means of developing peaceful cooperation among nations. The reference to nations’ di erent constitutional and social systems must be seen in the context of the then Cold War which also pervaded the Vienna Conference (N. 3).

5. Free Consent, Good Faith and pacta sunt servanda (Para. 3)

10The third preambular para. notes that the principles of free consent and of good faith and the pacta sunt servanda rule are universally recognised.

The principle of good faith and the rule of pacta sunt servanda are set out in Article 26 (q.v., N.5).27 On the other hand, the principle of free consent, derived from the principles of the sovereignty and equality of States (N. 13), is not mentioned elsewhere in the Convention.28 Implicitly, this principle is contained in Articles 1, 2, subpara. 1(b), 6, 11 and 16 (q.v.). according to which every State may equally establish consent to be bound by a treaty on the international plane.29 Free consent is also reflected in the principle of good faith.30

25See the statement in Vienna by the Mongolian delegation, OR 1969 Plenary 173, para. 53 (“the second paragraph of the preamble . . . accurately reflected the existing situation with regard to the development of treaty relations. International agreements were indeed an important source of international law”); also Villiger, Customary International Law N. 13.

26See the functions of jus scriptum in Villiger, ibid. N. 197 .

27See the statements in Vienna by the delegations of Ecuador, OR 1969 Plenary 170, para. 23 (“glad to see that a distinction had been made between a principle and a rule”); and Romania, ibid. 171, para. 31 (“[the principle of good faith] held good at all stages in the existence of a treaty, including conclusion, entry into force, interpretation and termination”).

28But see Article 52—Declaration, N. 4.

29Statement by the Ecuadorian delegation, ibid. 170, para. 24 (“it was . . . generally accepted that freedom of consent was a legal principle which governed contractual acts as a peremptory and fundamental rule”).

30Statement by Yasseen of the Iraqi delegation, ibid. 174, para. 67 (“[free consent] was already implicit in the notion of good faith. Moreover, a whole series of articles of the Convention were concerned with ‘consent’ to be bound by a treaty”).

6. Settlement of Disputes (Para. 4)

The fourth preambular para. a rms that disputes concerning treaties, 11 like other international disputes, should be settled by peaceful means. While the peaceful settlement of international disputes is not otherwise mentioned in the Convention, this para. obviously refers to the procedures

to be followed according to Articles 65–68 and the Annex to Article 66 (q.v.) and also recalls the lengthy debate leading to the adoption of these provisions.31 That the settlement of disputes should occur in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, is taken verbatim from Article 1, para. 1 of the UN Charter and confirms—also with the reference to other international disputes—that the Convention is firmly rooted in international law (N. 9).

law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations (N. 11–12).32 It mentions some of these, such as the principles of the equal rights and selfdetermination of peoples, of the sovereign equality and independence of all States and of non-interference in the domestic a airs of States, all of which imply the free consent of States (N. 10). The principle of the prohibition of the threat or use of force is reflected in Article 52 and its annexed Resolution and Declaration (q.v.). Finally, the principle of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all contains—together with Article 60, para 5 (q.v., 23–24)—the only reference in the Convention to the human person (N. 19).33 Interestingly,

31See the statements in Vienna by the delegations of Italy, OR 1969 Plenary 172, para. 39 (“one of the essential elements in the structure of the Convention”), and of Uruguay, ibid. 171, para. 33 (“constructive element in the preamble”).

32Statement in Vienna by the Spanish delegation, OR 1969 Plenary 173, para. 47 (“of a jus cogens character”).

33See the various statements by the Dutch delegation, ibid. 169, para. 11 (“[the preamble] which listed some of the major principles of international law embodied in the Charter, should also expressly mention universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all”); para. 12 (“one of the main foundations of peace and jus-

these principles were subsequently reiterated in the Declaration on Friendly Relations of 1970.34

9. Codification and Progressive Development (Para. 7)

14The seventh preambular para. refers to both the codification and progressive development of the law of treaties achieved in the Convention. This formulation leaves open the question of whether or not the Convention reflects customary international law (Issues of Customary International Law, N. 20, 34). Here, the Preamble identifies the Convention as one of the many achievements since 1949 of the International Law Commission and its four Special Rapporteurs Brierly, Lauterpacht, Fitzmaurice and Waldock (History of the Convention, N. 2–13).35

15Furthermore, the para. believes that this achievement will promote the purposes of the United Nations set forth in the Charter, namely, the maintenance of international peace and security, the development of friendly relations and the achievement of co-operation among nations.36

Again, these principles were subsequently reiterated in the Declaration on Friendly Relations of 1970 (N. 13, n. 34).

One can loosely attribute these principles to the following treaties: Treaties concerning the maintenance of international peace and security may be viewed as constitutional instruments in international law. Those developing friendly relations may be circumscribed as traités-lois regulating general and abstract conduct between States, for instance the various Vienna Conventions. Treaties aiming at the achievement of co-operation among nations may be seen as traités-contrats.

10. Role of Customary International Law (Para. 8)

16The eighth preambular para. recalls that the Convention aimed to cover a large part though not the entire law of treaties.37 Thus, it a rms that the rules of customary international law will continue to govern questions

tice”); and 170, para. 14 (“[t]he importance of the relationship between the codification of human rights, their progressive development and the law of treaties scarcely needed stressing”).

34Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance With the Charter of the United Nations; UN GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970.

35Villiger, Customary International Law N. 70 .

36See the statement in Vienna by the Romanian delegation, OR 1969 Plenary 171, para. 31 (“codification of treaty law would serve the cause of justice in international life and thus help to maintain international peace and security”).

37See Articles 3–4, 73 and 75; also the sections “Matters Not Dealt With” in the commentaries on the individual articles; J.K. Gamble, The Treaty/Custom Dichotomy: An Overview, Texas ILJ 16 (1981) 309 f.

not regulated by the provisions of the present Convention.38 The formulation chosen permits the conclusion that the Preamble neither envisages an hierarchical priority of treaties over customary law,39 nor does it expound the declaratory nature of treaty rules.40 By the same token, it does not exclude other sources of international law, in particular, the general principles of law as set forth in Article 38, subpara. 1(c) of the ICJ-Statute (N. 9).41 This is confirmed by Article 3, para. (b) (q.v., N. 6). In fact, the eighth preambular para. amounts to a saving clause which can also be found in Articles 3, para. (b), 4, 38 and 43 (q.v.).42

–the first preambular para. emphasises the Convention’s position in its historical context (N. 8);

–the second preambular para. places the Convention as a treaty squarely within the framework of international law and in particular within the sources of international law (N. 9);

–the third preambular para. mentions the principle of free consent which is otherwise not mentioned as such in the Convention (N. 10);

38Statement by the Swiss delegation, OR 1969 Plenary 170, para. 21 (“the Conference had succeeded in reducing a new and substantial part of customary law to writing; but gaps remained so that occasionally it was still necessary, in the practice of international relations, to fall back on custom”); the Italian delegation, ibid. 172, para. 4.

39Contra the Polish delegation, ibid. 176, para. 13 (“[preambular para. 8 restated] the rule that customary rules were subsidiary to the treaty rules established in the Convention”).

40Contra the Ecuadorian delegation, ibid. 171, para. 25 (“customary practice tended to find its source in treaty rules, in other words treaty rules acquired a universal dimension as a result of custom”).

41Contra the Spanish delegation, ibid. 173, para. 49 (“[preambular para. 8 excludes] the principles of law referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice”); di erently the Uruguayan delegation, ibid. 172, para. 37 (“the provisions of the Convention would continue to be governed by the general rules of international law, regardless of their source, in conformity with Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice”).

42See Castren, Festschrift Verdross p. 72 (“soupape de sûreté”).

PART I

INTRODUCTION

Article 1

Scope of the present Convention

The present Convention applies to treaties between States.

Article 1 Portée de la présente Convention

La présente Convention s’applique aux traités entre Etats.

Artikel 1 Geltungsbereich dieses Übereinkommens

Dieses Übereinkommen findet auf Verträge zwischen Staaten Anwendung.

ILC Draft 1966

Article 1—The scope of the present articles

The present articles relate to treaties concluded between States.

Materials:

Waldock Report I: Article 2.

Minutes: YBILC 1962 I 47 , 192 f, 248 f, 266.

ILC Draft 1962: Article 2.

Waldock Report IV: YBILC 1965 II 16.

Minutes: YBILC 1965 I 7 , 244, 256.

ILC Draft 1965: Article 0.

Minutes: YBILC 1966 I/2 324, 348.

ILC Draft 1966: Article 1.

Minutes: OR 1968 CoW 11 , 58 f; OR 1969 Plenary 3.

Vienna Conference Vote: 98:0:0

Selected Literature:

G.E. do Nascimento e Silva, The 1969 and the 1986 Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Comparison, in: Y. Dinstein/M. Tabory (eds.), International Law at a Time of Perplexity. Essays in Honour of Sh. Rosenne (1989) 461 ; Ph. Gautier, in: Corten/Klein (eds.) 27 ; H. Mosler, Subjects of International Law, EPIL 4 (2000) 710 ; W. Riphagen, The Second Round of Treaty Law, in: F. Capotorti et al. (eds.), Du droit international au droit de l’intégration. Liber Amicorum P. Pescatore (1987) 565 ; Sh. Rosenne, Developments in the Law of Treaties 1945–1986 (1989); Id, The Perplexities of Modern International Law (2004); H. Steinberger, Sovereignty, EPIL 4 (2000) 500 .

The basis of this commentary was prepared by Alison Wiebalck.

2At the Vienna Conference in 1968, amendments were tabled expressing criticism of the proposed limitation of the Convention to treaties between States.8 The US amendment advocated including treaties between States and other subjects of international law.9 Intense debate ensued.10 Although the increasing importance of treaties concluded by international organisations was recognised, it was felt that the subject could not be examined adequately within the confines of the Conference.11 The US withdrew its amendment, ostensibly to avoid delaying the Conference.12 By way of compromise, in 1969 the Conference adopted Article 1 (by 98 votes to none)13 with a Resolution relating to Article 1 (q.v.),14 recommending the ILC to study separately the question of treaties concluded between States and international organisations or between two or more organisations.

Both politics and practical issues played a part in Vienna. The then USSR, for instance, was wary of enhancing the status of international organisations—especially that of the UN.15 Furthermore, although the Conference was attended by plenipotentiary representatives of States, international organisations were represented by observers only.16

B. INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 1

3The Convention covers most issues of treaty law, but it does not apply to all treaties. Given the diversity of international agreements and the varying nature of the subjects of international law which make them, it appears essential at the outset to limit the scope of the Convention clearly in a separate article.17

8 OR Documents 110, subpara. 24(b); Sweden proposed deleting the word “concluded”, while Hungary was in favour of deleting Article 1 altogether.

9 Introduced by Kearney of the US delegation, OR 1968 CoW 11, para. 3 .

10See, e.g., the exchange between the delegations of Iraq and the UK, OR 1968 CoW 19, para. 56 . The debate is recorded at OR 1968 CoW 11 , and 58 f.

11Statement by Tsuruoka of the Japanese delegation, OR 1968 CoW 19, para. 62.

12Kearney of the US delegation, OR 1968 CoW 20, para. 64; also Kearney/Dalton, AJIL 64 (1970) 502 f.

13OR 1969 Plenary 3.

14Ibid. 179.

15Rosenne, Developments 45 ; see the statement in Vienna by Usenko of the then USSR delegation, OR 1969 Plenary 178 f, para. 43 (“[m]any international organisations were not universal in character but represented mainly the Western States”).

16Jiménez de Aréchaga of the Uruguayan delegation, OR 1968 CoW 15, para. 12., The non-State subjects represented in Vienna are listed in the Final Act of the UN Conference on the Law of Treaties (q.v., N. 4).

17Tunkin in the ILC, YBILC 1965 I 14, para. 60; Paredes, ibid. 15, para. 62; Waldock in the ILC, YBILC 1965 I 8, para. 60 (“there would be serious implications if it were suggested in a definition that the contents covered more than they actually did”).

18ILC Report 1966, YBILC 1966 II 187, para. 3.

19Gautier, Article 1, N. 1.

20Rosenne, Developments 22.

21T he scope of the Convention does not imply any loss of legal force which these other agreements or acts may possess under general international law, Waldock Report I, YBILC 1962 II 35, para. 2; ILC Report 1966, YBILC 1966 II 187, para. 4.

22Aust, Modern Treaty Law 28 f, 58 f.

“the same meaning as in the Charter of the United Nations, the Statute of the Court, the Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations; i.e., it means a State for the purposes of international law”.23

The State is the main subject of international law and the basic unit of international relations. In international law it is an entity having a permanent population in a defined territory under its own sovereign government with the capacity to enter into relations with other States.24 As an essential condition of statehood, known as independence or sovereignty, States possess legal personality “of the fullest kind”.25 Only States are accorded full sovereignty. One of the oldest and most typical attributes of sovereignty is the competence to conclude treaties (Article 6, N. 1).26 States themselves will decide whether or not a particular entity is a State. If, in the opinion of existing States, a State fulfils the conditions of statehood, it is said to be recognised. A recognised State pos- sesses—and can exercise—the rights, duties and powers associated with law-making attributed to States by international law.27

The situation of international agreements with “other subjects of international law” is discussed in Article 3 (q.v., N. 3).

9The Convention applies to such treaties between States, i.e., its provisions are to be put into operation in questions relating to treaties between State parties. The term “applies” is procedural. It does not define a specific right but indicates the party or parties liable to having the particular right or obligation under the law of treaties realised.28

C. CONTEXT

1. Relationship to Other Provisions

10Article 1 is to be read in conjunction with the following provisions:

–Article 2, subpara. (1)(a) (q.v., N. 2–24) defines the term “treaty” for the purposes of the Convention;

–Article 3 (q.v.) contains a general reservation regarding other kinds of international agreements not covered by Articles 1 and 2, subpara. (1)(a);

23Article 3 of the ILC Report 1962, YBILC 1962 II 164, para. 2.

24Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States of 1933, LNTS 165 (1933) 19; Jennings/Watts N. 34.

25Jennings/Watts N. ; Rosenne, Perplexities 237.

26McNair, Law of Treaties 35; for other traits, see Steinberger, EPIL 4 (2000) 500 , 502, and 512.

27Jennings/Watts N. .

28T he more neutral word “relate”, employed in the ILC Draft 1966, YBILC 1966 II 187, was considered too ambiguous and was substituted in Vienna by the word “applies”; see the US amendment, OR Documents 110, subpara. 24(b).