The Law of Treaties: Pacta sunt servanda

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Jun 08, 2015 2:55 AM GMT
    Are treaties the "highest law of the land", or just something to honor only so long as convenient or popular?

    AyaTrolLiar pouncer spewedIf most Egyptians don't like the peace treaty with Israel, then there should be a referendum on changing it.
    If Israel refuses to let the people be heard, then it should be scrapped.

    Oh, dear.

    The treaty was concluded nearly 2 generations ago.
    It is not open to renegotiation (otherwise known as reneging).

    AyaTrolLiar> Renewal and renegotiation of treaties between state parties is common

    Mutually. Not under threat of abrogation.

    AyaTrolLiar> So now the treaty IS "open to renegotiation (otherwise known as reneging)"?

    The point - did he really not get it?! - is that it has to be MUTUAL.
    NOT under THREAT of ABROGATION.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

    Article 39: General rule regarding the amendment of treaties
    A treaty may be amended by agreement between the parties. The rules laid down in Part II apply
    to such an agreement except insofar as the treaty may otherwise provide.

    Furthermore, if one party does not wish to renegotiate a treaty, the other party remains bound to the treaty as is.

    Article 26: “Pacta sunt servanda”
    Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Jun 08, 2015 3:03 AM GMT
    To any intelligent person, the above should be obvious. Absent that, any party could weasel out of a treaty at any point in time. Consider a potential treaty with Iran on nuclear technology.

    Imagine a bona fide agreement is reached, whereby Iran would forgo nuclear weapons in exchange for nuclear technology transfers. What if 6 months or 6 years thereafter, having received nuclear technology transfers, a referendum in Iran shows the people do not support the treaty? Now the US has to "renegotiate" and if it refuses the treaty can be unilaterally "scrapped" by Iran?!
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Jun 08, 2015 3:27 AM GMT


    I've noticed you and your irrational adversary have contained your sparring matches to other sections of RJ for a while. It's been enjoyable.

    If you want to discuss the subject of Pacta sunt servanda in history that would be interesting since I knew Col. Robert Woods, a career long friend of my father, who wrote the material on that subject that's still taught at the USAF Air War College. If so, please clean up the OP to avoid dragging intra-personal drama into the thread.

    If not, that's your choice. It's a fascinating subject that shouldn't be squandered by bringing bedouin politics into it. It's pointless to discuss the the western concept of treaties while including people who broke a treaty to fight a ten year war over the proper ways to copulate with slaves and goats.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Jun 08, 2015 2:17 PM GMT
    bobbobbob saidIt's a fascinating subject that shouldn't be squandered by bringing bedouin politics into it. It's pointless to discuss the the western concept of treaties while including people who broke a treaty to fight a ten year war over the proper ways to copulate with slaves and goats.

    The quotes I provide for context, so people understand the origin of the discussion, which was here:
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2670812?forumpage=2

    Many non-Western countries (including those of "bedouin politics") are signatories to this convention.
    We're talking about current times, not centuries ago.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Jun 08, 2015 2:40 PM GMT


    Yeah?

    If you think "today" operates independently and unattached to the past you're being simplistic and running towards that ever-true 2,000 year old axiom,"those who are ignorant of the past are condemned to repeat it."

    When you start talking about international affairs, treaties, wars, and the like you'd be surprised how little has changed in the basic scheme of them in the recorded history of civilization.

    But go ahead and re-invent the wheel if you want.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Jun 08, 2015 4:49 PM GMT
    I'm not focusing on history or how some corners of the world "operate".
    It's a broader discussion of the validity and importance of treaties as a basic foundation of the rule of law.

    I suspect most Americans were taught that "treaties are the highest law of the land".
    Does anyone disagree?

    Does anyone else think treaties are only binding as long as one side wants to adhere to it?
    Or that later generations are not bound by the treaties of their parents?
    Or that populism trumps treaties?
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Jun 08, 2015 5:30 PM GMT

    Now we're on the same page!

    mwolverine saidI'm not focusing on history or how some corners of the world "operate".
    It's a broader discussion of the validity and importance of treaties as a basic foundation of the rule of law.

    I suspect most Americans were taught that "treaties are the highest law of the land".
    Does anyone disagree?

    Does anyone else think treaties are only binding as long as one side wants to adhere to it?
    Or that later generations are not bound by the treaties of their parents?
    Or that populism trumps treaties?


    As an answer to all the questions you asked above;
    Adherence to treaties are relative to the politicians/leaders who make them and their own sincerity and integrity. More times than not treaties are broken under false pretenses as a means of rationalizing ensuing aggression. Hitler did this with Poland, saying they'd attacked Germany - but did not do it with Russia. He signed the treaty knowing he would eventually break it as he did with other nations. They can also end as governments change.

    Present day Israel's treaty with Egypt and the one they later made with Jordan are prime examples of treaties that have weathered challenges and endured due to the commitments of the governments to them.

    The longest lasting peace treaty known in history was between Japan and China with diplomacy that revolved around camellia plants, blossoms and tea which is made from the leaves of camellias. It lasted from the 6th century until the Japanese annexation of Manchuria prior to the second world war - with the single exception of the Mongol led failed invasion of Japan in the 13th century, after which the treaty was restored.

    Everything you said in the OP is correct as far as I know, but then I'm not an expert, just an old history buff.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Jun 09, 2015 9:41 AM GMT
    We all know that trolls can never address a topic in its place, and true to form:

    AyaTrolLiar pouncer - as usual - lied in another thread:As for your new thread egregiously misrepresenting my views, even Blob-a-Blob-Bob, likely the most right-wing member of this site and one of the few yet to put you on ignore, reproaches you for your "Bedouin politics"

    1. The quote at the top of this thread is verbatim from AyaTrolLiar pouncer's posting.
    Two consecutive sentences.
    His "views", as expressed by himself, were not "misrepresented".
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2670812?forumpage=2

    2. Does anyone agree that this was Bobbobbob's point about "Bedouin politics"?
    Of course not, that's just another delusional AyaTrolLiar pouncer twisting of the truth, i.e. lie.
    He can't help it... it's pathological!
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Jun 09, 2015 11:14 AM GMT

    You have no reason to attack me unless you're trying to to undermine your own credibility. I've concurred with your OP and my reference to bedouin politics is inconsequential to your supposed desire to start a discussion about the nature of treaties.

    But if you want to discuss the 500 year tribal disputes and broken treaties between Bedouin tribes over the halal means of having sex with goats I'm up for it.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Jun 09, 2015 10:31 PM GMT
    Wasn't attacking you, just pointing out that (elsewhere, of course) AyaTrolLiar pouncer was (surprise!) lying about what your "bedouin politics" was referencing.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Jun 12, 2015 1:33 PM GMT
    Further reading on the subject:

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
    http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

    UN Treaty Handbook
    https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/publications/treatyhandbook/TreatyHandbookEng.pdf

    History and Derivation
    http://legal.un.org/ilc/summaries/1_1.htm