Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 38

Rules in a treaty becoming binding on third States through international custom

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

  • 5002 Accesses

Abstract

SR Fitzmaurice stated in his fifth report with regard to the proposed Draft Art 16, addressing the case of customary international law obligations mediated through the operation of law-making or norm-enunciating treaties, that it “attempts to describe a process rather than to formulate a rule”. Indeed, viewed from today’s perspective, the legal statement contained in Art 38 of the Convention seems to be self-evident. The ILC was well aware of its limited substantive scope.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Fitzmaurice V 94.

  2. 2.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 34, 231, para 3; see also Waldock VI 74; Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 93: “an absolute truth”.

  3. 3.

    See the comments made by the governments of Finland, Greece and the Netherlands, reproduced in Waldock VI 73 et seq.

  4. 4.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.142, reprinted in UNCLOT III 155.

  5. 5.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.223, reprinted in UNCLOT III 268.

  6. 6.

    UNCLOT I 201.

  7. 7.

    UNCLOT I 197.

  8. 8.

    UNCLOT I 197.

  9. 9.

    Verdross [1964-I] YbILC 109; Reuter [1964-I] YbILC 109; Jiménez de Aréchaga [1964-I] YbILC 109; El-Erian [1966-I/2] YbILC 92.

  10. 10.

    See Waldock VI 74: “The article does not establish any new rule”.

  11. 11.

    Waldock VI 74.

  12. 12.

    Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 91; Rosenne [1966-I/2] YbILC 178; Yasseen [1966-I/2] YbILC 178; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 34, 231, para 2, see also Rozakis (1975), p. 38.

  13. 13.

    Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 176; Tunkin [1966-I/2] YbILC 177. From the domain of legal literature, see eg Gaja (2011a), Art 38 MN 1.

  14. 14.

    Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 112.

  15. 15.

    For the lack of legal significance of a reservation formulated by Guatemala relating to Art 38, see Gaja (2011a), Art 38 MN 3.

  16. 16.

    Fitzmaurice V 96; ILC Report 16th Session [1964-II] YbILC 173, 184; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 34, 231, para 2; Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 91; Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 176 et seq; see also Roxburgh (1917), p. 73 et seq.

  17. 17.

    Bartoš [1966-I/2] YbILC 177; Bartoš [1966-I/2] YbILC 179. That a rule of international customary law and treaty law may exist in parallel is a well-established phenomenon in international law; cf only ICJ Nicaragua (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [1984] ICJ Rep 392, para 73; Nicaragua (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 178; Gaja (2011a), Art 38 MN 9.

  18. 18.

    Waldock III 34; Tunkin [1964-I] YbILC 110; de Luna [1964-I] YbILC 111; ILC Report 16th Session [1964-II] YbILC 173, 184; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 34, 231, para 2. See also Tams (2005), p. 83 n 167.

  19. 19.

    Tsuruoka [1964-I] YbILC 111; Liu [1964-I] YbILC 111; but see Tunkin [1964-I] YbILC 110; de Luna [1964-I] YbILC 111, who considered transferring the article to a different part of the draft.

  20. 20.

    See the question posed by Gaja (2011a), Art 38 MN 9.

  21. 21.

    Gaja (2011a), Art 38 MN 10.

  22. 22.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 28; for the general historical background, see → Art 34 MN 3–4.

  23. 23.

    See Rosenne [1964-I] YbILC 331.

  24. 24.

    Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 109; see also Villiger (1997), p. 171.

  25. 25.

    Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 93. The Drafting Committee had initially replaced the reference to Draft Arts 58–60 (Arts 34–37 VCLT) by the words “the present articles”, but the specific reference was restored following corresponding comments of some members of the Commission; see Yasseen [1966-I/2] YbILC 178; Rosenne [1966-I/2] YbILC 178; Tunkin [1966-I/2] YbILC 178–179.

  26. 26.

    See eg Tunkin [1966-I/2] YbILC 93; Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 93–94.

  27. 27.

    Reuter [1966-I/2] YbILC 177; Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 179; Yasseen [1966-I/2] YbILC 179; see also Gaja (2011a), Art 38 MN 6.

  28. 28.

    Tsuruoka [1966-I/2] YbILC 177.

  29. 29.

    Amado [1966-I/2] YbILC 178; see also Jiménez de Aréchaga [1966-I/2] YbILC 178; Tunkin [1966-I/2] YbILC 178.

  30. 30.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 33.

  31. 31.

    The differentiation seems to emanate from national legal thinking; cf Degan (1997), p. 256. Note that the issue relevant here must not be confused with the distinction made between ‘constitutive’ and ‘declaratory’ treaties which only refers to whether a treaty is a mere codification of customary law (‘declaratory’) or aims at a progressive development of international law (‘constitutive’) in terms of Art 13 para 1 lit a UN Charter; see Dinstein (2006), p. 346 et seq.

  32. 32.

    Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 109; Reuter [1964-I] YbILC 109.

  33. 33.

    See the observation made by Waldock [1964-I] YbILC 112.

  34. 34.

    Degan (1997), p. 490.

  35. 35.

    ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf [1969] ICJ Rep 3, para 72.

  36. 36.

    See also Villiger (1997), p. 178.

  37. 37.

    See only Fitzmaurice V 95.

  38. 38.

    ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf [1969] ICJ Rep 3, para 71 (original emphasis).

  39. 39.

    Fitzmaurice V 80 (Draft Art 16).

  40. 40.

    Jiménez de Aréchaga [1964-I] YbILC 109; Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 93; Briggs [1966-I/2] YbILC 93; Amado [1966-I/2] YbILC 178.

  41. 41.

    Lachs [1964-I] YbILC 110; Tunkin [1966-I/2] YbILC 93; El-Erian [1966-I/2] YbILC 93.

  42. 42.

    Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 93 et seq; Waldock [1966-I/2] YbILC 178. See also Tunkin [1966-I/2] YbILC 177: “there had been no intention on the part of the Commission in 1964, or of the Drafting Committee and the Commission at the present session, to go into the question of substance of the relationship between treaty law and customary law”.

  43. 43.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 26; Gaja (2011a), Art 38 MN 5; unclear Fitzmaurice (2002), p. 61. Due to the reference made to “third States”, Art 38 does not cover the situation of customary law crystallizing ahead of the consummation of the treaty-making process, let alone the entry into force of the treaty. The validity of the latter situation was emphasized by the ICJ in 1974; see ICJ Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v Iceland) (Merits) [1974] ICJ Rep 3, para 52.

  44. 44.

    Note that the ICJ has treated the VCLT itself as an example of such a declaratory treaty; cf only ICJ Namibia Opinion [1971] ICJ Rep 16, para 94.

  45. 45.

    See the exemplary list of relevant instruments compiled by Fitzmaurice V 95.

  46. 46.

    Tunkin [1966-I/2] YbILC 177.

  47. 47.

    ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf [1969] ICJ Rep 3, para 60 et seq.

  48. 48.

    ICJ Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v Iceland) (Merits) [1974] ICJ Rep 3, para 58.

  49. 49.

    ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf [1969] ICJ Rep 3, para 73. See also ICJ Nicaragua (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [1984] ICJ Rep 392, para 73; Nicaragua (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 184; see also → Art 4 MN 10.

  50. 50.

    ILA Final Report: Statement of Principles Applicable to the Formation of General Customary International Law (2000) 758 (original emphasis); see also Fitzmaurice (2002), p. 59.

  51. 51.

    For a discussion on this issue, see Dinstein (2006), pp. 376–379; Villiger (1997), p. 183 et seq.

  52. 52.

    ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf [1969] ICJ Rep 3, para 76.

  53. 53.

    See only Gaja (2011a), Art 38 MN 14.

  54. 54.

    Lachs [1964-I] YbILC 110: “reference should be made to generally accepted principle [sic!] of law”; de Luna [1964-I] YbILC 111; Ruda [1964-I] YbILC 111.

  55. 55.

    Reproduced in Waldock VI 74.

  56. 56.

    Verdross [1966-I/2] YbILC 91.

  57. 57.

    Tunkin [1966-I/2] YbILC 91; Ago [1966-I/2] YbILC 91; Jiménez de Aréchaga [1966-I/2] YbILC 92; Yasseen [1966-I/2] YbILC 92 et seq; Rosenne [1966-I/2] YbILC 92; El-Erian [1966-I/2] YbILC 92; de Luna [1966-I/2] YbILC 92.

  58. 58.

    UNCLOT II 70, 71.

  59. 59.

    ICJ Asylum Case [1950] ICJ Rep 266, 276–277; Right of Passage (Merits) [1960] ICJ Rep 3, 39. The ILC was well aware of the jurisprudence of the ICJ; cf Verdross [1966-I/2] YbILC 91; Jiménez de Aréchaga [1966-I/2] YbILC 92.

  60. 60.

    See Gaja (2011a), Art 38 MN 7 consenting.

  61. 61.

    Bartoš [1966-I/2] YbILC 177.

  62. 62.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.226, reprinted in UNCLOT III 155.

  63. 63.

    Cf UNCLOT I 198–200.

  64. 64.

    UNCLOT I 200; see also the corresponding statement by Waldock UNCLOT I 201.

  65. 65.

    UNCLOT I 201.

  66. 66.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.27, reprinted in UNCLOT III 269; UN Doc A/CONF.39/L.23, reprinted in UNCLOT III 268.

  67. 67.

    UNCLOT II 70.

  68. 68.

    UNCLOT II 71.

  69. 69.

    But see Gaja (2011a), Art 38 MN 4.

  70. 70.

    Reproduced in Waldock VI 74 (footnote omitted).

  71. 71.

    Waldock VI 74.

  72. 72.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.106, reprinted in UNCLOT III 155.

  73. 73.

    UNCLOT I 197 (emphasis added).

  74. 74.

    Romania UNCLOT I 197, Greece UNCLOT I 198, Czechoslovakia UNCLOT I 199, Democratic Republic of Congo UNCLOT I 199, United Arab Republic UNCLOT I 200, Yugoslavia UNCLOT I 200.

  75. 75.

    For example, Italy UNCLOT I 198, para 81 (see also UNCLOT II 66), Trinidad and Tobago (UNCLOT I 199).

  76. 76.

    UNCLOT I 199 (original emphasis).

  77. 77.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 31. Further evidence for this contention may be provided by referring to the statement made by the delegate of the Democratic Republic of Congo (UNCLOT I 199): “It would still be necessary to give a precise definition of international custom. In particular, how many times must a usage be repeated in order to become international custom?”.

  78. 78.

    UNCLOT I 201.

  79. 79.

    No decision is made on this matter by Fitzmaurice (2002), p. 62, and Dinstein (2006), p. 372.

  80. 80.

    Rozakis (1975), p. 33; Gaja (2011a), Art 38 MN 7.

  81. 81.

    Cf Rozakis (1975), p. 36 who, while generally advocating a strict interpretation of Art 38, “must admit that the term ‘recognition’ should in principle mean express acceptance of a rule by a State”.

  82. 82.

    ILC Report 34th Session [1982-II/2] YbILC 1, 48, para 5.

  83. 83.

    Gaja (2011b), Art 38 VCLT II MN 2.

References

  • Degan VD (1997) Sources of International Law. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2006) The Interaction between Customary International Law and Treaties. RdC 322:243–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice M (2002) Third Parties and the Law of Treaties. MPYUNL 6:37–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaja G (2011a) Article 38. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 949–958

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaja G (2011b) Article 38 VCLT II. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 959–960

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxburgh RF (1917) International Conventions and Third States. Longmans Green & Co, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozakis CL (1975) Treaties and Third States: A Study in the Reinforcement of the Consensual Standards in International Law. ZaöRV 35:1–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Tams CJ (2005) Enforcing Obligations erga omnes in International Law. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Villiger M (1997) Customary International Law and Treaties: A Manual on the Theory and Practice of the Interrelation of Sources, 2nd edn. Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Public Law, Public International Law and European Law, Law Faculty, Trier University, Trier, Germany

    Alexander Proelss

Authors
  1. Alexander Proelss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

    Oliver Dörr

  2. Faculty of Law, Department of Public Law/International Law, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Proelss, A. (2018). Article 38. In: Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (eds) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_41

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_41

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55159-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55160-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation