151-180, at 167-168) and states in its preamble that “international organizations possess the capacity to conclude treaties which is necessary for the exercise of their functions and fulfilment of their purposes”. The Convention uses the functional approach from the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion Certain Expenses of the United Nations ( I.C.J. That view was opposed by the great majority of other States and their position inspired the solution adopted by the Conference. Socialist States asserted that international organizations possessed international legal personality only if it had been conferred upon them by the founding States and treaty-making capacity only if it was explicitly provided for in their constituent instruments. This applied, in particular, to the unsettled question of the source of an organization’s treaty-making capacity. On a few fundamental questions, however, opinions had been for a long time, and were still, divided. 1(b bis) to correspond to the ratification by States, and by adopting appropriate additional paragraphs referring to international organizations to otherwise unchanged articles. This was achieved by using new terms where none had existed for the transactions of international organizations, such as “act of formal confirmation” (article 2, para. The first 72 articles of the Convention retain mutatis mutandis the text of the relevant articles of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In fact, all substantive articles were adopted without a vote by the Conference and only the settlement of disputes procedure, the final clauses and the Convention as a whole were voted on. The Assembly further adopted draft rules of procedure for the Conference which made the adoption of articles by vote the exception, as voting on codification texts had lately produced unsatisfactory results. With that in mind, the Assembly transmitted to the Conference a consensus list of articles which had to be considered in full, while all other articles were only to be reviewed for consequential drafting adaptations. It had two main aims: to avoid possible discrepancies between parallel provisions in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the new convention and to ensure that the specific provisions concerning international organizations would be acceptable to the greatest possible number of participants. In view of a subject on which particularly the East and the West had strong opposing views, the Assembly took an active part in the preparation of the Conference. Thereupon, in 1986, the General Assembly decided to hold a conference in Vienna to adopt the draft articles as a convention. Significant Developments in the Negotiating History II, chapter II).Īfter an unsuccessful attempt at the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties to reintroduce such treaties into that Convention, the Conference recommended that the General Assembly entrust the International Law Commission with the preparation of a separate set of draft articles (see Final Act of the Conference, resolution relating to article 1 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), which the Commission submitted in 1982. II, part VI, chapter I, and ibid., 1962, vol. That became evident during the work of the International Law Commission on the codification of the law of treaties: it first included (1950), but later excluded (1962), treaties concluded by international organizations from its draft articles on the law of treaties (see Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, vol. But no generally shared opinio juris evolved. Scholars created different theories to identify the legal basis of these treaties in international law and the International Court of Justice used the practice for affirming the international legal personality of the United Nations in its Advisory Opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations ( I.C.J. After 1945, the United Nations and its specialized agencies, followed by other international organizations, concluded an increasing number of treaties with States (e.g., agreements on privileges and immunities or headquarter agreements) or between themselves (e.g., cooperation agreements) and thereby built up a fair amount of practice.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |