THE DOCTRINE OF TREATIES PROVIDING FOR “OBJECTIVE REGIMES” Thesis submitted to folfil the requirement for the Ph.D. Degree By Mohammed Jafar GHANBARIJAHROMI UNIVERSITY OF LONDON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON *** March, 1996 *** ProQuest Number: 10045492 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10045492 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract The object of this study is to examine the doctrine of treaties providing for “ob­ jective regimes”, which postulates that there exists a certain category of treaties which, by their very nature, create legal rights and obligations for States not party to them re­ gardless of the generally accepted principle pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt. The main purposes of the study are to determine whether or not this doctrine forms part of the modem law of treaties and, if it does, to determine its content and scope. In this way, it should be possible to clarify the extent to which treaties may produce rights and obligations. The study consists of Five chapters. Chapter I furnishes a general overview of the historical development of the doctrine of treaties providing for “objective regimes”, so that the kind of treaties which allegedly fall within the scope of this doctrine may more easily be identified. Chapter II examines the mles and principles of international law concerning the question of the legal effects of treaties upon third States. It is mainly based on the mles codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). Chapter III concentrates on the questions of whether or not the Vienna Convention rec­ ognises the special position of a category of treaties providing for “objective regimes” and, if it does not, of the extent to which the erga omnes effects claimed for this kind of treaties may possibly be explained by the mechanisms for producing third-State effects which are contemplated in that Convention. Chapter IV examines various theories which have been proposed in support of the proposition that there is a certain class of treaties which do produce, by their very nature, legal effects for third States. Finally, Chapter V studies in detail some selected treaty regimes which are frequently cited as instances of treaties providing for “objective regimes” in order to determine if the doc­ trine in question enjoys the approval of, or has ever been founded on. State practice. The main conclusions of this study are: that the doctrine of “objective regimes” is not in line with the contemporary theory of international law, which advocates the prin­ ciples of pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt and res inter alios acta as the proper mles to govern the effect of treaties on third States; that the doctrine finds little or no support in State practice; and, finally, that most of the automatic legal effects claimed for the treaties concerned may more satisfactorily be explained by the mles on the effects of treaties on third States which are contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Adcnowdedgements I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Mr. David Hutchinson, without whose assistance I would not have been able to complete this work. His comments and recommendations have played a vital role in shaping my thoughts and ideas. I would also like to thank the staffs of the Library of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and of the British Library of Social and Political Science for their constant help and practical advice in searching for legal materials. I would also like to acknowledge my special thanks and devotion to Professor G. Eftekhar, Dean of the Faculty of Laws, Shaheed Beheshti University (Tehran), and Mr. Gh. Tollou (BILS-London) for giving me constant support and, indeed, fa­ cilitating my higher education in England. I must also thank the Bureau of Interna­ tional Legal Services of Iran for financing my studies in England. Last, but not least, I would like to thank my wife for her support, love and tolerance both of my absences from home and of my bad temper. I dedicate this work to my wife and daughter (my ever-loving com­ panions) and to my father, to whom I owe everything. 4 Table of Contents A b str a c t .....................................................................................................* 2 Acloiowledgements ............................................................................ - ^ Table of Contents ................................................................................ 4 Table of Abbreviations ................................................................... Introduction ......................................................................................... C h a p ter I ................................................................................................... ^3 The Doctrine of Treaties Providing for “Objective ^3 R e g im e s ” .............................................................................................. 1. The origin and historical development of the doctrine ____23 1.1. The era of “public law of Europe” ............................................ 23 1.2. Treaties as “Legislation” ............................................................ 27 1.3. “Law-making Treaties” and “International Settlements” ... 28 1.4. “Dispositive” or “Localised” treaties and “International 31 Servitude” ....................................................................................... 1.5. The Aaland Islands Case (1920) .............................................. 34 1.6. The Wimbledon Case (1923) ................................................... 39 1.7. McNair’s views (1925 and 1930) ............................................ 44 1.8. The Reparation Case (1949) ................................................... 47 1.9. The International Status of South-West Africa Case of 48 1950 ................................................................................................ 1.10. McNair’s New Opinion (1957-1961) ................................... 51 1.11. Fitzmaurice’s proposed Draft Articles ( 1960) .................... 52 1.12. Waldock’s proposed Draft Article 63 (1962) .................... 55 2. The characteristics of treaties providing for “objective 57 regimes” .............................................................................................. 2.1. The “Territorial” elem ent.......................................................... 58 2.2. The “Intention of Parties” ........................................................ 61 2.3. The “General Interest” .............................................................. 63 5 2.4. The “Territorial Jurisdiction” ................................................... 70 2.5. Conclusion .................................................................................... 71 Chapter II ................................................................................................. 73 International Law Rules on the Effects of Treaties on 73 Third States ....................................................................................... 1. The notion of “third State” ........................................................... 74 1.1. “States entitled to become parties” ........................................ 76 1.2. “Negotiating States” ................................................................. 76 1.3. “Contracting States” ................................................................. 78 2. The Vienna Convention (1969) rules on “Treaties and 82 Third States”: Articles 34-38 ....................................................... 2.1. General rule regarding third States: Article 34 .................... 84 2.1.1. The principle of the relative effect of treaties and its 84 negative implication: the principle of pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt ............................................................................................... 2.1.2. The wording of the general rule of Article 34 .................... 86 2.1.3. The basis of the general rule of Article 34 ......................... 87 2.2. Conditions in which treaty rights or obligations may be 89 created (modified or terminated) for a third State: Articles 35-37 .............................................................................................. 2.2.1. Treaties providing for obligations for third States: Article 90 35 ............................................................................................... 2.2.1.1. Conditions for the creation of an obligation for a third 90 State: Aticle 35 .......................................................................... 2.2.1.1.1. The intention of the parties to the treaty ........................ 90 2.2.1.1.2 .The consent of the third State ...................................... 92 2.2.1.2. Mechanism through which the obligation established for a 93 third State: collateral-agreement? ............................................ 2.2.2. Treaties providing for rights for third States: Article 36 .. 94 2.2.2.1. The