CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES AND TREATIES ON ARMS … According to J. Dahlitz 15 , there is no doubt that Article 18 applies to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This is evidenced by the fact that a number of states have signed the Treaty and did not intend to withdraw from it, which means that Article 18 applies to them. She adds that, for example, nuclear weapons tests would be a clear violation of the object and purpose of the treaty. However, at the meeting in the ILA Committee, some members questioned the possibility of applying Article 18 to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. For example, W. H. von Heinegg 16 said that although the Committee relies on the law of international treaties, practice shows that contract law does not always give an answer. For example, France has rejected Article 18 of the Vienna Convention. D. Greig 17 doubted that Article 18 was part of customary international law . If that were the case, it would not be necessary for the USSR and the USA to expressly declare that they would be bound by various treaties before they were ratified. According to him, only the state which ratifies the treaty is bound by it before its entry into force. The Committee also raised the question whether the state which signed the Treaty and begun preparing for a nuclear test would already have violated it. In such a case, according to J. Dahlitz, such a state should withdraw 18 its signature or prove to the other states that the state acts in accordance with the Treaty. The fact that signing an international treaty is of a legal significance stems from Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of TreatiesHowever, the withdrawal of a signature by the state means that no obligations in connection with the contract incur, which might arise under Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This has been illustrated, for example, by the USA withdrawing 19 its signature on certain international treaties. It can be stated that there is no reason why the law of international treaties, whether customary law or the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, should not apply to treaties on disarmament and arms control. These are international treaties concluded between states that are registered with the UN Secretary General. However, in a specific case, the question may arise whether the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties can be applied directly. If it could not be used directly as an international treaty, to what extent are its provisions the expression of customary international law ? In this regard, the International Court of Justice concluded in a judgment of 1977, in a dispute between Hungary and Slovakia on the validity of the 1977 Treaty on the Construction of Gabčíkovo / Nagymaros Waterworks, that the provisions of Art. 60 – 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties express customary international law. 20 There are provisions controlling the termination of a contract. These are circumstances such as a gross breach of the contract (Article 60), the supervening impossibility of performance of the contract (Article 61), and the fundamental changes of the circumstances (Article 62). In the latter case, this is a known rebus sic stantibus clause. The practical need for the applicability of these reasons may also arise in relation to arms reduction and disarmament treaties. 15 Ibid. DAHLITZ, J., p. 173. 16 Ibid., VON HEINEGG, W., H., p. 174. 17 Ibid., GREIG, D., pp. 174-175. 18 Ibid., DAHLITZ, J., p. 173. 19 For example, the USA withdrew its signature in the case of the 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court or in the 2015 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (Paris Agreement). 20 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), I.C.J. Reports 1997, paragraph 46.

25