Avi-Yonah: Sunt Pacta Servanda? The Problem of Tax Treaty Overrides

Reuven S. Avi-Yonah (Univ. of Michigan - Law) has posted Sunt Pacta Servanda? The Problem of Tax Treaty Overrides. Here's the abstract:

Under Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, pacta sunt servanda is defined as: “[e]very treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith”. Article 27 of this Convention (“Internal law and observance of treaties”) provides that “[a] party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” However, even though the US recognises the VCLT as binding customary international law (CIL), it has long persisted in overriding tax treaties by domestic legislation, because the US Supreme Court has held that under the US Constitution a later statute can override an earlier treaty. This US position has been roundly condemned , for example, by the OECD. But in recent years, more countries have decided that they can in fact override tax treaties, including countries that generally treat international law as superior to domestic law (for example, Germany) as well as countries that do not (for example,Australia). This development raises doubts as to whether the VCLT position can still be considered as CIL. In the meantime, ironically, since 2001 the US has found itself unable to override tax treaties explicitly because of a combination of partisan polarisation and its unique parliamentary procedures.

Pascale & Tonolo: The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: The Role of the Treaty on Treaties in Contemporary International Law

Giuseppe Pascale (Università degli Studi di Trieste - Law) & Sara Tonolo (Università degli Studi di Trieste - Law) have published The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: The Role of the Treaty on Treaties in Contemporary International Law (Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane 2022). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

A multitude of scholarly writings in many languages concern the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Nevertheless, uncertainties and difficulties can be still identified when trying to understand whether and to what extent the VCLT is still central in international law and if it fits into the current international legal scenario. Such uncertainties and difficulties have resulted in the writing of this book. Hence, the chapters here collected aim at untangling the yarns of some open issues and at filling some gaps in order to ultimately establish whether at present the VCLT continues to have a role in international law. The main perspective is that of public international law. However, some room is reserved to problems stemming from the relationship between the VCLT and EU Law. The VCLT is also observed through the lens of private international law.

Couveinhes Matsumoto & Nollez-Goldbach: La dénonciation des traités – Techniques et politiques

Florian Couveinhes Matsumoto (Ecole normale supérieure) & Raphaëlle Nollez-Goldbach (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) have published La dénonciation des traités – Techniques et politiques : Actes de la 5ème journée de droit international de l'ENS (Pedone 2022). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

Advertisement

Depuis 2016-2017, la dénonciation des traités s’est imposée comme un sujet crucial. Si cette question est devenue centrale, c’est en raison de la dénonciation « politique » des Droits international et européens, dont les débouchés « juridiques » les plus évidents ont été le Brexit ainsi qu’une avalanche d’actes de rejet divers de la part de l’administration Trump. Depuis cette période, les manifestations de méfiance à l’endroit des instruments et institutions internationaux et européens se sont multipliées et diversifiées. Cet ouvrage, issu des actes de la 5ème Journée de Droit international de l’ENS en témoigne, mais suggère également l’existence d’un clivage politique entre deux types de rejet du Droit international : certains apparaissent comme une manière, pour des gouvernements à tendance autoritaire ou pour des juridictions nationales « conservatrices », de se soustraire à des institutions internationales elles-mêmes jugées autoritaires, dogmatiques ou biaisées, ou à des règles conventionnelles et surtout dérivées jugées trop intrusives ou trop libérales ; d’autres au contraire consistent ou résultent de critiques populaires, associatives et syndicales de traités excessivement façonnés par des lobbies, contournant l’autorité des parlements et accroissant les inégalités ou la pollution au lieu de faire face sérieusement aux défis écologiques, sociaux et sanitaires actuels.

Advertisement

Dans les deux cas, ces « dénonciations », prises ici au sens large, témoignent d’une fragilisation du lien de confiance unissant les États, en particulier les États occidentaux, et le Droit international. Néanmoins, elles font signe à la fois vers le fond du problème, celui d’un déficit démocratique grandissant des Droits international et européens à l’origine de leur contestation et de difficultés d’exécution, et vers sa solution la plus durablement efficace : une démocratisation globale de ces Droits et avant tout des procédures nationales d’engagement et de désengagement conventionnels.

Morelli: Withdrawal from Multilateral Treaties

Antonio Morelli has published Withdrawal from Multilateral Treaties (Brill | Nijhoff 2021). Here's the abstract:

This monograph is the first comprehensive and systematic legal analysis of withdrawal in the context of the international law of treaties. It examines the political and legal framework around treaty making and treaty maintenance to explain how withdrawal evolved over time and suggests solutions for addressing and improving conditions for orderly withdrawal.

Fox: Old and New Peace Agreements

Gregory H. Fox (Wayne State Univ. - Law) has posted Old and New Peace Agreements (Seton Hall Law Review, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Advertisement

What should international law make of peace agreements? In the Nineteenth Century, when treaties regularly ended inter-state armed conflicts (IACs), the answer was easy. Peace agreements were binding treaties whose terms could be freely dictated by the winning side. Peace agreements also signaled that a series of rules specific to wartime were no longer operable. Contemporary peace agreements share neither of these characteristics. This is because they largely end non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). Agreements between governments and rebels do not meet the definition of a binding treaty. And IAC agreements’ signaling function has long passed into obsolescence. How then, if at all, do new NIAC peace agreements engage with international law?

This article argues that international law has become critical to their genesis in two respects. First, the agreements parallel international law’s concern with governance issues by restructuring domestic institutions. Their governance focus is the logical consequence of international law’s refusal to “resolve” NIACs through large-scale and violent changes to national borders or demographic profiles. Former combatants must live with each other and NIAC agreements seek to structure their peaceful co-existence.

Second, all stages of NIAC agreements have become heavily multilateralized. International actors wield incentives and sanctions from the onset of conflict through the agreements’ implementation. In so doing, they radically expand the factors militating toward a peace settlement. These added factors, especially those providing a “credible commitment” of enforcing the agreement, reconfigure the parties’ incentives as to whether or not a negotiated end to conflict will serve their interests.

Conference: ILA British Branch Spring Conference 2021 (Reminder)

The International Law Association British Branch's 2021 Spring Conference will take place online on April 23, 2021, hosted by Queen Mary, University of London. The theme is: "Synergy between the Law of Treaties and the Law of International Responsibility: So Far Apart but Still So Close." The program is here. Registration is here.

Xiouri: The Breach of a Treaty: State Responses in International Law

Maria Xiouri (Univ. of Bedfordshire - Law) has published The Breach of a Treaty: State Responses in International Law (Brill | Nijhoff 2021). Here's the abstract:

In The Breach of a Treaty: State Responses in International Law, Maria Xiouri examines the relationship between responses to the breach of a treaty according to the law of treaties and the law of State responsibility, namely, between the termination of the treaty or the suspension of its operation and countermeasures.

Based on extensive analysis of State practice, the relevant legal instruments, international case law and literature, the book critically examines the concept of responses to the breach of a treaty, their legal regime and their operation in practice. It focuses on suspension of the operation of a treaty and countermeasures, challenging the prevailing view that there is a clear distinction between them, and argues that the former has been effectively superseded by the latter.

Comstock: Committed to Rights: UN Human Rights Treaties and Legal Paths for Commitment and Compliance

Audrey L. Comstock (Arizona State Univ. - Political Science) has published Committed to Rights: UN Human Rights Treaties and Legal Paths for Commitment and Compliance (Cambridge Univ. Press 2021). Here's the abstract:

International treaties are the primary means for codifying global human rights standards. However, nation-states are able to make their own choices in how to legally commit to human rights treaties. A state commits to a treaty through four commitment acts: signature, ratification, accession, and succession. These acts signify diverging legal paths with distinct contexts and mechanisms for rights change reflecting legalization, negotiation, sovereignty, and domestic constraints. How a state moves through these actions determines how, when, and to what extent it will comply with the human rights treaties it commits to. Using legal, archival, and quantitative analysis this important book shows that disentangling legal paths to commitment reveals distinct and significant compliance outcomes. Legal context matters for human rights and has important implications for the conceptualization of treaty commitment, the consideration of non-binding commitment, and an optimistic outlook for the impact of human rights treaties.

Henrich: Vertragsgewohnheitsrecht und Parlamentsbeteiligung: Verfassungsrechtliche Probleme informeller Vertragsänderungen im Völkerrecht

Christina Henrich has published Vertragsgewohnheitsrecht und Parlamentsbeteiligung: Verfassungsrechtliche Probleme informeller Vertragsänderungen im Völkerrecht (Mohr Siebeck 2020). Here's the abstract:

Angesichts weltpolitischer Veränderungen, die sich in völkerrechtlichen Vertragstexten nicht unmittelbar umsetzen lassen, haben sich verschiedene Mechanismen herausgebildet, die den völkerrechtlichen Vertrag dennoch aktuell halten. Neben evolutiver Auslegung können inhaltliche Veränderungen in Verträgen durch die Herausbildung von Vertragsgewohnheitsrecht erfolgen. Diese Mechanismen zu erläutern und voneinander abzugrenzen steht im Zentrum der völkerrechtlichen Analyse. Aus verfassungsrechtlicher Sicht stellt sich dann die Frage nach der Parlamentsbeteiligung. Hier schwelt ein Kompetenzkonflikt zwischen Exekutive und Legislative im Bereich der auswärtigen Gewalt, den Christina Henrich zugunsten des Parlaments und unter Berücksichtigung des Gewaltenteilungskonzepts des Grundgesetzes auflöst. Anschließend überträgt sie die gewonnenen Erkenntnisse auf den Entstehungsprozess von Völkergewohnheitsrecht.

Helfer: Rethinking Derogations from Human Rights Treaties

Laurence R. Helfer (Duke Univ. - Law; Univ. of Copenhagen - iCourts) has posted Rethinking Derogations from Human Rights Treaties (American Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Numerous governments have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by declaring states of emergency and restricting individual liberties protected by international law. However, many more states have adopted emergency measures than have formally derogated from human rights conventions. This Editorial Comment critically evaluates the existing system of human rights treaty derogations. It analyzes the system’s many problems, identifies recent developments that have exacerbated these problems, and proposes a range of reforms in five areas—embeddedness, engagement, information, timing, and scope.

Hodson & Maher: The Transformation of EU Treaty Making: The Rise of Parliaments, Referendums and Courts since 1950

Dermot Hodson (Birkbeck, Univ. of London) & Imelda Maher (Univ. College Dublin) have published The Transformation of EU Treaty Making: The Rise of Parliaments, Referendums and Courts since 1950 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:

Treaty making is a site of struggle between those who claim the authority to speak and act on the international stage. The European Union (EU) is an important test case in this respect because the manner in which the Union and its member states make treaties has shifted significantly over the last six decades. Drawing insights from EU law, comparative constitutionalism and international relations, this book shows how and why parliaments, the people and courts have entered a domain once dominated by governments. It presents qualitative and quantitative evidence on the importance of public trust and political tactics in explaining this transformation of EU treaty making and challenges the idea that EU treaties are too rigid. Analysing legal developments in the EU and each of its member states, this will be essential reading for those who wish to understand the EU's controversial experiment in treaty making and its wider significance.

Schäfer: Treaty Overriding: Ein Beitrag zur verfassungsrechtlichen Zulässigkeit abkommensüberschreibender Bundesgesetze

Martin Schäfer has published Treaty Overriding: Ein Beitrag zur verfassungsrechtlichen Zulässigkeit abkommensüberschreibender Bundesgesetze (Mohr Siebeck 2020). Here's the abstract:

Wie verhält sich das deutsche Verfassungsrecht zu der Frage, ob der Bundestag bei seiner gesetzgeberischen Tätigkeit an völkerrechtliche Verträge gebunden ist? Martin Schäfer untersucht dies und zeigt, wie »freundlich« sich das Grundgesetz gegenüber dem Völkerrecht verhält. Wie verträgt sich eine etwaige Bindung des Gesetzgebers an völkerrechtliche Verträge mit seiner durch das Demokratieprinzip verbürgten Freiheit, in der Vergangenheit getroffene Entscheidungen zurückzunehmen oder zu ändern? Der Autor erörtert, welchen Rang dabei völkerrechtliche Verträge in der deutschen Normenpyramide einnehmen und welche Rückschlüsse die Organkompetenzverteilung im Bereich der auswärtigen Gewalt auf die Frage zulässt, ob das sog. Treaty Overriding verfassungsrechtlich zulässig ist.

Fitzmaurice & Merkouris: Treaties in Motion: The Evolution of Treaties from Formation to Termination

Malgosia Fitzmaurice (Queen Mary Univ. of London - Law) & Panos Merkouris (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen - Law) have published Treaties in Motion: The Evolution of Treaties from Formation to Termination (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:

The law of treaties is in constant motion, understood not only as locomotion, but also as motion through time and as change. Thus, kinesis and stasis, two sides of the same concept of 'motion', are the central themes of Treaties in Motion. The concept of motion adopted in this book is based on the philosophy of Aristotle. He identified six types of motion: creation (genesis), increase (auxesis), diminution (meiosis), alteration (alloiosis), destruction (phthora), and change of place (kata topon metabole), which has been amended by the authors to change in space-time (kata topon kai chronon metavole) to reflect our modern scientific understanding of time as a dimension through which motion and change occurs. Each chapter's analysis proceeds by focusing on a specific area of a treaty's 'life-cycle', where each type of motion shines through and is described through three different frames of reference: treaties, the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, and customary law.

Galbraith: Rejoining Treaties

Jean Galbraith (Univ. of Pennsylvania - Law) has posted Rejoining Treaties (Virginia Law Review, Vol. 106, p. 73, 2020). Here's the abstract:

Historical practice supports the conclusion that the President can unilaterally withdraw the United States from treaties which an earlier President joined with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, at least as long as this withdrawal is consistent with international law. This Article considers a further question that to date is deeply underexplored. This is: does the original Senate resolution of advice and consent to a treaty remain effective even after a President has withdrawn the United States from a treaty? I argue that the answer to this question is yes, except in certain limited circumstances. This answer in turn has important consequences. It means that, as a matter of U.S. domestic law, a future President can rejoin treaties without needing to return to the Senate for advice and consent. The Article concludes by situating this claim within a broader account of the distribution of foreign affairs powers.

Forlati, Mbengue, & McGarry: The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Judgment and Its Contribution to the Development of International Law

Serena Forlati (Univ. of Ferrara - Law), Makane Moïse Mbengue (Univ. of Geneva - Law), & Brian McGarry (Leiden Univ. - Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies) have published The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Judgment and Its Contribution to the Development of International Law (Brill | Nijhoff 2020). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Judgment is among the most influential pronouncements of the International Court of Justice. While the Court took an unusual approach to settling this dispute, it also adopted important stances on a number of complex issues of sustainable development and delicate problems of ‘general’ international law. It significantly contributed to the elucidation and consolidation of many rules pertaining to the law of treaties, the law of international responsibility, and their mutual relationship. The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Judgment and its Contribution to the Development of International Law offers a comprehensive analysis of both the management of this case and the substantive legal issues at stake. It also reappraises the Court’s findings in light of subsequent developments in the international legal order, focusing on the role of the ‘World Court’ in fostering such developments.

Slocum & Wong: The Vienna Convention and the Ordinary Meaning of International Law

Brian G. Slocum (Univ. of the Pacific - McGeorge School of Law) & Jarrod Wong (Univ. of the Pacific - McGeorge School of Law) have posted The Vienna Convention and the Ordinary Meaning of International Law (Yale Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This Article offers the first sustained interdisciplinary critique of international law’s ordinary meaning standard. The Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties (VCLT) prominently mandates judicial interpretation of treaties “in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” While the conventional view is that the VCLT’s interpretive directive is “obvious” and largely unproblematic, it fails to adequately constrain judicial interpretive discretion. As well, the VCLT does not address fundamental interpretive issues such as indeterminate ordinary meaning and multiple language communities.

We argue that while the VCLT purports to mandate “ordinary meaning,” it in fact allows a different objective of interpretation known as “communicative meaning,” which we define as the meaning an appropriate hearer would most reasonably take a speaker to be trying to convey in employing a given verbal vehicle in the given communicative-context. Even with this understanding, though, the VCLT leaves judicial interpretive discretion unconstrained because it does not meaningfully restrict the allowable sources of meaning or how those sources can be used. Rather, the VCLT’s references to “context” and “purpose” lack sufficient guidance and permit courts to engage in speculative, unregulated inferences about purpose. Furthermore, the VCLT does not constrain judicial discretion regarding important interpretive issues such as whether implied meanings that transcend explicit treaty language should be recognized, even when those subject to the treaty come from different cultures and may speak English as a second language. Thus, while the ordinary meaning standard in the VCLT is a fundamental principle of international law, it falls short in its mission to provide coherent guidance to courts and tribunals engaged in the interpretation of treaties.

Shirlow & Waibel: The Impact of Transparent Treaty Negotiations on the Scope and Use of Travaux in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Esme Shirlow (Australian National Univ. - Law) & Michael Waibel (Univ. of Vienna - Law) have posted The Impact of Transparent Treaty Negotiations on the Scope and Use of Travaux in Investment Treaty Arbitration (British Yearbook of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

How investment arbitral tribunals use preparatory materials varies significantly. In particular, they have differed in defining the rationale for referring to travaux; when to have recourse to travaux; how to use these materials; and even more fundamentally, what materials to classify as travaux. This article examines each of these issues to consider the opportunities and risks associated with the growing transparency of investment treaty negotiations for arbitral interpretations of investment treaties. Section I illustrates three practical challenges associated with the use of travaux in investment treaty disputes to highlight the potential advantages and pitfalls associated with using travaux. Section II considers what may constitute ‘travaux’. Based on an extensive review of arbitral practice, Section II argues in favour of a sliding scale approach to travaux, whereby a treaty interpreter casts a wide net but differentiates the weight given to materials depending on their propensity to shed light on the joint intention of the States parties. Section III considers how arbitral tribunals have used – and should use – travaux by reference to the interpretive framework established by the VCLT. Section IV considers how investment tribunals have regulated access to and use of travaux through their powers to order document production. Section V concludes.

Barrett & Beckman: Handbook on Good Treaty Practice

Jill Barrett (Queen Mary Univ. of London) & Robert Beckman (National Univ. of Singapore) have published Handbook on Good Treaty Practice (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:

This Handbook aims to provide practical guidance on good treaty practice. It presents a range of examples from the practice of several States and international organisations and explains the actions that need to be taken to create a new treaty, bring it into force, operate it, amend it and wind it up, on both the international and the domestic plane. It also explores what constitutes good treaty practice, and develops generic principles or criteria against which to evaluate these examples. It provides a useful analytical tool to enable each government and international organisation to identify and develop the best treaty practice for their circumstances, recognising that one size does not necessarily fit all. It will be of interest to those working with treaties and treaty procedures in governments, international organisations and legal practice, as well as legal academics and students wishing to gain insight into the realities of treaty practice.

Wyatt: Intertemporal Linguistics in International Law: Beyond Contemporaneous and Evolutionary Treaty Interpretation

Julian Wyatt has published Intertemporal Linguistics in International Law: Beyond Contemporaneous and Evolutionary Treaty Interpretation (Hart Publishing 2019). Here's the abstract:

Intertemporal Linguistics in International Law examines and offers an overdue solution to a specific problem central to the resolution of an ever increasing number of international legal disputes: how to interpret a treaty with terms that change in meaning over time.

A wide-ranging review of the relevant international case law and scholarship reveals that no rule, principle or authority of international law – including even the oft-cited evolutionary interpretation doctrine – provides international adjudicators with the firm and practical guidance on this specific question that contemporary international litigants demand.

Using an analytical approach inspired by the comparative method and drawing on specific concepts from external fields including private law, legal theory and, principally, modern-day linguistics, Intertemporal Linguistics in International Law restructures the most relevant international case law around a new conceptual framework that offers fresh insight into the process of treaty interpretation. It demonstrates that by distinguishing between resolving ambiguity and resolving vagueness, and by identifying the temporal sense-intention with which a treaty term is used, international adjudicators can avail themselves of a more predictable and appropriate method for solving this complex and practically important problem of international law.

Elmekki: Les réserves aux traités relatifs aux droits de l'homme : évolutions récentes

Abir Elmekki (Faculté de droit et des sciences politiques de Tunis) has published Les réserves aux traités relatifs aux droits de l'homme : évolutions récentes (L'Harmattan 2019). Here's the abstract:

Cet ouvrage analyse les évolutions de la pratique des réserves aux traités relatifs aux Droits de l'homme. Elles se sont opérées selon deux tendances : l'une dans le sens d'une restriction de l'admission des réserves, l'autre dans le sens d'un contrôle rigoureux de la validité. Cette recherche permet d'approfondir des questions essentielles : l'influence de la logique de l'accord, la logique directrice des sources sur la pratique des réserves, le rôle de la valorisation normative des règles relatives à la protection des droits de l'homme dans la limitation du recours aux réserves et enfin, la contribution institutionnelle et juridictionnelle qui a pu rendre la pratique des réserves plus respectueuse des traités relatifs aux Droits de l'homme.