Public Law Studies Quarterly

Analysis of “Material Breach” Under Article 60 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in Light of the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice

Document Type : Article

Authors

Seyed Fazlullah Mousavi 1
Razieh Hekmatara 2

1 Prof., Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. Student in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2021.309993.2566
Abstract
International treaty law recognizes the right of the injured party to terminate a treaty or suspend it as a result of a breach. This right is based on one of the general principles of law, according to which neither party can demand the implementation of a contract that the other party has violated. However, with regard to the scope of implementation of this principle, the fundamental question is how the treaty should have been violated? Article 60 (3) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties makes this right applicable only in cases of “material breach” of the treaty. The present paper, based on a descriptive-analytical method and emphasizing the decisions of the International Court of Justice, examines the various dimensions of the concept of material breach of the treaty. It argues that the concept of material breach is complex and interpretable and, due to its different interpretations, allows for differences in its implementation between members of the treaty.

Keywords

termination of the treaty
repudiation of the treaty
suspension of the treaty
object and purpose of the treaty
material breach of the treaty

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Aust, Anthony )2010(, Handbook of International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    3. Aust, Anthony (2013), Modern Treaty Law and Practice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, third edition,
    4. Dörr, Oliver & Schmalenbach, Kirsten (2012), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty, Germany, springer Berlin Heidelberg.
    5. Fitzmaurice, Malgosia & Olufemi Elias, (2005), Contemporary Issues in the Law of Treaties, Netherland, Eleven International Publishing.
    6. Gomaa, Mohammed M. (1996) Suspension or Termination of Treaties on Grounds of Breach, Netherlands, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
    7. Richard K, Gardiner (2015). Treaty interpretation, London, Oxford University Press.
    8. Orakhelashvili, Alexander & Williams, Sarah (2010), 40 Years of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, London, BIICL.
    9. Shabtai, Rossene (1989), Development in the Law of Treaties 1945-1986, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    10. Shabtai, Rossene (1989), Development in the Law of Treaties 1945-1986, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    11. Villiger , Mark Eugen (2009), Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Netherland, BRILL.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Buffard. Isabelle & Zemanek. Karl (1998), “The Object and purpose” of a Treaty: An Enigma?”, Austrian Review of International & European Law, Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp. 311-343.
    3. Bigi, Giulia (2009), “Draft Non-Compliance Procedure under the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”, in: Tullio Treves et.al (Eds), Non- Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements, The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp.121-135.
    4. Bing Bing, Jia (2010), “The Relations between Treaties and Custom”, Chinese Journal of International Law, pp 81-109.
    5. Kalbbers, Jan (2013), “The Law of Treaties”, in: J, Klabbers, International Law, Cambridge University Press, pp. 41-71.
    6. Koskenniemi, Martti (1992), “Breach of Treaty or Non-Compliance? Reflections on the Enforcement of the Montreal Protocol”, Yearbook of International Environmental Law, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, pp. 123-162.
    7. Kritsiotis, Dino (2018), The Object and Purpose of a Treaty’s Object and Purpose, Cambridge University Press, pp. 237-302.
    8. Sicilianos, linos-Alexander (1993). "The Relationship between Reprisals and Denunciation or Suspension of Treaty", EJIL, Vol. 4, pp. 341-359.
    9. Simma, Bruno (1970), Reflections on Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Its Background in General International Law." Österreichische Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht20, No. 1-2, pp. 5-83.
    10. Tams, Christian J (2014), “Treaty Breaches and Responses”, in: Tams, Christian J, Tzanakopoulos, Antonios and Zimmermann, Andreas, Research Handbook on the Law of Treaties,Edward Elgar publishing, pp. 476-504.
    11. Tyagi, Yogesh (2009), The Denunciation of Human Rights Treaties, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 79, Issue 1, pp. 86–193.

     

    1. C) International Documents
    2. Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
    3. Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944.
    4. Chicago International Air Services Transit Agreement, 1944.
    5. Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries, Reports of Commission to the General Assembly, Yearbook of International Law Commission, Vol. II, 1966.
    6. Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties, prepared by the Research in International Law of the Harvard Law School, AJIL, 1935.
    7. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts with Commentaries, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001
    8. Second Report on the Law of Treaties, by Waldock, Special Rapporteur, YBILC, Vol. I, UN Doc A/CN.4/156, 1963.
    9. Second Report on the Law of Treaties, by G. Fitzmaurice, Special Rapporteur, YBILC, Vol. II, UN Doc. A/CN.4/107, 1957.
    10. Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (FCN) of 1956 between the United State and Nicaragua.
    11. Treaty on the Construction and Operation of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Barrage System signed in Budapest on 16 September 1977.
    12. United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, Official Records: Summary records of the plenary meetings and of the meetings of the Committee of the Whole, second Session, Vienna:1968-1969, 1971, UN Doc. A/CONF.39/ll/Add.l.
    13. UN Doc SC/RES/1441(2002).
    14. UN Doc SC/RES/707 (1991).
    15. UN Doc SC/RES/687 (1991).
    16. UN Doc S/RES/2503 (2019).
    17. UN Doc S/RES/2428 (2018).
    18. UN Doc S/RES/2451 (2018).
    19. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2145 (XXI) )1966).

     

    1. D) International decisions
    2. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa), I.C.J Reports, Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971.
    3. Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I.C.J Reports, Merits, 1949.
    4. Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council, (India v. Pakistan), ICJ Reports, Judgment of 18 August 1972.
    5. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (HUNGARY v SLOVAKIA), I.C.J Reports, Judgment of 25 September 1997.
    6. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), I.C.J Reports, Judgment of 27 June1986.
    7. United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), I.C.J Reports, Judgment of 24 May 1980.
    8. Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I.C.J Reports, Judgment of 25 March 1948.
    9. South West Africa Cases, (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), I.C.J Reports, Judgment of 1962.

     

    1. E) Websites
    2. Merriam Webster Dictionary, available at: https://www.merriam webster.com
    3. Oxford Learner Dictionary, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com

     

    References in Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. Phalsaphy, Hedayatullah (2004), International Law of Treaties, Tehran: Farhang Nashre No, Second Edition (In Persian).

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Habibi, Homayoun & Amiri, Mustafa (2020), “The Mechanistic Nature of Barjam Dispute Resolution”, Journal of Public Law Studies, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 1215-1238 (In Persian).
    3. Saed, Nader (2002), “Relationship between Security Council Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 in terms of the use of force in the event of non-cooperation of Iraq in disarmament”, Legal Information, No. 2, pp. 34-38 (In Persian).
    4. Fazaeli, Mustafa (2006), “Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women and General Conditions on it”, Legal Journal of Office of International Legal Services, No. 34, pp. 57-110 (In Persian).
    5. Mohammadi, Aqeel (2019), “Comparison of non-compliance procedure with dispute settlement mechanisms and international responsibility of the government in environmental treaties”, Journal of Legal Studies, Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 171-205 (In Persian).
    6. Naseri Larijani, Naghmeh (2010), “Interaction between treaty law and the law of international responsibility of the government in justifying non-fulfillment of international obligations”, International Law Journal, No. 42, pp. 233-256 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 52, Issue 4
Winter 2023
Winter 2022
Pages 1677-1695

  • Receive Date 20 September 2020
  • Revise Date 14 November 2020
  • Accept Date 19 April 2021

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us