Ðóñ Eng Cn Translate this page:
Nota Bene. Books, journals, publishing technologies.
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate ☒
Library
 Your profile
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Back to contents

Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law
Reference:

Osminin B.I. Resolving Conflicts between Domestic Law and International Treaties

Abstract: The principles of free consent and of good faith as well as the pacta sunt servanda rule are universally recognized. States must ensure that their national legal framework permits them to meet their international treaty obligations. In the case of a conflict between the domestic law and an international treaty, it is the domestic law, which needs to be reconsidered, not the international treaty. The presence or absence of a particular provision within the legal framework of a state cannot be used as an argument to evade an international treaty obligation. In this regard Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty”.

Keywords:

principle pacta sunt servanda, internal law and observance of treaties, a conflict between a statute and a treaty, the place of international treaties in internal law, the supremacy of treaties over domestic law, the rank of a treaty within domestic legal system, a rank equal to ordinary statutes, to take precedence over statutes, the “later-in-time” rule, to apply the treaty as lex specialis.

This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article

This article written in Russian. You can find original text of the article here .
References
1. Zimnenko B.L. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i pravovaya sistema Rossiyskoy Federatsii. M., 2006.
2. Zor'kin V.D. Predel ustupchivosti // Rossiyskaya gazeta. 29.10.2010. ¹ 246.
3. Lukashuk I.I. Pravo mezhdunarodnoy otvetstvennosti. M., 2004.
4. Marochkin S.Yu. Deystvie i realizatsiya norm mezhdunarodnogo prava v pravovoy sisteme Rossiyskoy Federa-tsii: monografiya. M., 2011.
5. Osminin B.I. Zaklyuchenie i implementatsiya mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov i vnutrigosudarstvennoe pravo [mo-nografiya]. M., 2010.
6. Postanovlenie Plenuma Verkhovnogo suda RF ot 10 oktyabrya 2003 g. ¹ 5 «O primenenii sudami obshchey yuris-diktsii obshchepriznannykh printsipov i norm mezhdunarodnogo prava i mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov Rossiyskoy Federatsii» // Byulleten' Verkhovnogo suda RF. 2003. ¹ 12.
7. The American Society of International Law. ASIL Insights. Comment on “Treaties as Binding International Obligation”. December 15, 1997. // http://www. asil.org/insigh25.cfm.
8. Butler W. Russian Federation // The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement. A Comparative Study. Edited by David Sloss. Cambridge University Press. 2009.
9. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004 (English Translation).
10. ICJ. Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947. Advisory Opinion of 26 April 1988. I.C.J. Reports 1988.
11. ICJ. Case Concerning Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI). (United States of America v. Italy). Judgment of 20 July 1989. I.C.J. Reports. 1989.
12. Jayawickrama N. India // The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study. Edited by David Sloss. Cambridge University Press. 2009.
13. Lima Marques C., Lixinski L. Treaty Enforcement by Brazilian Courts: Reconciling Ambivalences and Myths? // Brazilian Yearbook of International Law. 2009. Vol. 1.
14. Medellin v. Texas. 552 U.S. 491 (2008).
15. Mohallem M.F. Incorporation of Treaties and Normative Hierarchy in Domestic Jurisdictions: the Case of South America and the Constitutionalisation of Human Rights. The European University Institute. Florence. 2011 // http://law. mc.edu/files/7913/3397/7800/Mohallem.pdf.
16. OSCE. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Note on Article 20 of the Law on International Treaties of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Warsaw, 20 September 2005.
17. Paulus A. Germany // The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study. Edited by David Sloss. Cambridge University Press. 2009.
18. PCIJ. Exchange of Greek and Turkish populations (Lausanne Convention VI, January 30th, 1923, Article 2). Advisory Opinion. February 21st,1925. PCIJ Series B. No. 10
19. PCIJ. Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex. Judgment. June 7th , 1932. PCIJ Series A./B. No. 46.
20. PCIJ. The Greco-Bulgarian “Communities”. Advisory opinion. July 31st, 1930.PCIJ. Series B. No. 17.
21. PCIJ. Treatment of Polish Nationals and other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in the Danzig Territory. Advisory Opinion of February 4th, 1932. PCIJ. Series A./B. No. 44.
22. Sloss D. Executing Foster v. Neilson: Two-Step Approach to Analyzing Self-Executing Treaties // Harvard International Law Journal. 2012. Vol. 53.
23. Sloss D. United States // The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study. Edited by David Sloss. Cambridge University Press. 2009.
24. Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888).
25. Xue Hanqin and Jin Qian. International Treaties in the Chinese Domestic Legal System // Chinese Journal of International Law. 2009. Vol. 8
Nota Bene
 
For authors
 
Other
 
Our sites
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.