Annex 1
Extracts from S. Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the
International Court, Volume II (Brill, 2016)
Annex 1
Annex 1
Annex 1
Annex 1
Annex 2
Extracts from K. Schmalenbach, “Article 26: Pacta sunt
servanda”, in Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
A Commentary (Springer, 2018)
Annex 2
Article26PactasuntservandaEverytreatyinforceisbindinguponthepartiestoitandmustbeperformedbythemingoodfaith.ContentsA.PurposeandFunction.....................................................................1B.HistoricalBackgroundandNegotiatingHistory..........................................4I.HistoricalBackground...............................................................4II.NegotiatingHistory..................................................................6C.Will,ConsentandObligation............................................................11D.Foundation...............................................................................13I.NaturalismandCognateSchools..................................................14II.GoodFaith.........................................................................15III.BasicNorm,RuleofRecognition..................................................18IV.InternationalCustomaryLaw......................................................20V.GeneralPrincipleofLaw..........................................................21E.ElementsofArticle26...................................................................23I.EveryTreaty.......................................................................231.Treaties(Art2)...............................................................232.InternationalAgreements(Art3).............................................243.InternationalizedContracts...................................................254.InterstateAgreementsGovernedbyDomesticLaw..........................28II.InForce............................................................................29III.LegallyBindingForce(Obligations)..............................................331.ReciprocalObligations........................................................342.Non-reciprocalObligations...................................................373.Obligationsergaomnespartes................................................43IV.DutytoPerform....................................................................461.GoodFaithPerformanceoftheTreaty........................................462.DutyNottoDefeatObjectandPurposeoftheTreaty........................49V.Compliance(InternationalRelationsTheories)....................................51F.TheRulepactasuntservandaWithinDomesticLaw...................................52G.TreatiesofInternationalOrganizations(VCLTII)......................................55A.PurposeandFunction1Art26restatesthepillaroftreatylaw1andthepivotalkeytointernationallaw:pactasuntservanda.Consideringitssignificance,theprovisionisnottooprominentlyplacedinPartIIIoftheConvention(!MN8).ThePreamble,afterall,highlightspactasuntservandabyaligningtheprinciplewithtwoothersbasiccornerstonesof1Binder(2008),pp.317,321.#Springer-VerlagGmbHGermany2018O.Dörr,K.Schmalenbach(eds.),ViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,DOI10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_29467Dörr, O., & Schmalenbach, K. (Eds.). (2018). Vienna convention on the law of treaties : A commentary. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.Copyright © 2018. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. All rights reserved.
2.Non-reciprocalObligations37Non-reciprocalobligations—alsoreferredtoasobjective,absolute,self-existing,orinherentobligations114—donotresultintheexchangeofdirect,reciprocalbenefitsowedtotheotherStatePartiesbutintheperformanceofthetreatyforabenefitofacommunitygood,whichistantamounttoan‘immaterial’benefitofeachStateParty.115InitsadvisoryopiniononReservationstotheGenocideConvention,theICJemphasized:“TheConventionwasmanifestlyadoptedforapurelyhumanitarianandcivilizingpurpose.[...]InsuchaconventionthecontractingStatesdonothaveanyinterestsoftheirown;theymerelyhave,oneandall,acommoninterest,namely,theaccomplishmentofthosehighpurposeswhicharetheraisond’êtreoftheconvention.Consequently,inaconventionofthistypeonecannotspeakofindividualadvantagesordisadvantagestoStates,orofthemaintenanceofaperfectcontractualbalancebetweenrightsandduties.”11638BecausethedutytocomplyisnotdependentonthecorrespondingperformancebyotherStateParties,recoursetoArt60paras1–4isprecluded.11739Thereisabroadconsensusintheacademicdebate,evidencedininternationalpractice,thathumanrightsobligationsareneverreciprocal.118Today,thereci-procityclausesofearlytreatiesonminorityrights(egArt45ofthe1923TreatyofLausanne119)arecriticizedas‘anachronistic’andcontrarytomodernhumanrightslawwhich“transcendstheframeworkofmerereciprocitybetweenthecontractingStates”.12040Thenon-reciprocityofprovisionsrelatingtotheprotectionofhumansintreatiesofahumanitariancharacterisprovidedforinArt60para5(!Art60MN81–86).Theextentofnon-reciprocalobligationsimposedbymodernhumanitarianlawsuchasthefour1949GenevaConventionsandthetwo1977Protocolsisfarfrom114FitzmauriceIV46;Simma(1972),p.181;‘global’reciprocityaccordingtoSicilianos(2002),p.1135.115AccordingtoSimma(1972),p.314,theseobligationsarenonethelessreciprocalalthoughinaformwhichdoesnotimplythesynallagmaticinterdependenceoftreatyperformance.SeealsoSimma(2008),MN6.116ICJGenocideConventionOpinion[1951]ICJRep15,23.117FitzmauriceII31(DraftArt19para1).118ECommHRDecisionoftheCommissionastotheAdmissibilityofApplicationNo788/60,11January1961,4YbECHR116,140;ECtHRIrelandvUnitedKingdomAppNo5310/71,18January1978,SerANo25,para239;IACtHREffectofReservationsontheEntryintoForceoftheAmericanConvention(AdvisoryOpinion)CaseOC-2/82,24September1982,SerANo2,para29;HumanRightsCommittee,GeneralComment24(52),ReservationstotheICCPR,4Novem-ber1994,UNDocCCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6,para17.11928LNTS11.120ReportoftheCommitteeforLegalAffairsandHumanRightsoftheParliamentaryAssemblyoftheCouncilofEurope‘FreedomofReligionandOtherHumanRightsforNon-MuslimMinoritiesinTurkeyandfortheMuslimMinorityinThrace(EasternGreece)’,21April2009,CoEDoc11860,paras32–33.Article26.Pactasuntservanda481SchmalenbachDörr, O., & Schmalenbach, K. (Eds.). (2018). Vienna convention on the law of treaties : A commentary. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.Copyright © 2018. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. All rights reserved.
Annex 2
clear,asthenumerousdeclarationsofStatePartiesontheoccasionoftheratifica-tionofProtocolIexemplify.SeethedeclarationoftheUnitedKingdom:“TheobligationsofArticles51and55areacceptedonthebasisthatanyadversepartyagainstwhichtheUnitedKingdommightbeengagedwillitselfscrupulouslyobservethoseobligations.Ifanadversepartymakesseriousanddeliberateattacks,inviolationofArticle51orArticle52againstthecivilianpopulationorciviliansoragainstcivilianobjects,or,inviolationofArticles53,54and55,onobjectsoritemsprotectedbythoseArticles,theUnitedKingdomwillregarditselfasentitledtotakemeasuresotherwiseprohibitedbytheArticlesinquestion”.121SimilarviewsweretakenbyEgypt,France,GermanyandItaly.41QuitecontrarytoStatepractice,theICTYfavorsamuchbroader,entirelyhuman-centeredapproachinitsKupreškićjudgment:“Theabsolutenatureofmostobligationsimposedbyrulesofinternationalhumanitarianlawreflectstheprogressivetrendtowardstheso-called‘humanization’ofinternationallegalobligations,whichreferstothegeneralerosionoftheroleofreciprocityintheapplicationofhumanitarianlawoverthelastcentury.[...]Unlikeotherinternationalnorms,suchasthoseofcommercialtreatieswhichcanlegitimatelybebasedontheprotectionofreciprocalinterestsofStates,compliancewithhumanitarianrulescouldnotbemadedependentonareciprocalorcorrespondingperformanceoftheseobligationsbyotherStates.Thistrendmarksthetranslationintolegalnormsofthe‘categoricalimpera-tive’formulatedbyKantinthefieldofmorals:oneoughttofulfilanobligationregardlessofwhetherotherscomplywithitordisregardit.”12242Apartfromobligationsaimedatprotectingindividualsandgroups,thenon-reciprocityoftreatyobligationsiscommonlyacceptedinthefieldofinternationalenvironmentallaw.1233.Obligationsergaomnespartes43Thediffuseconceptofobligationsergaomnesissubjecttoextensivescholarlywriting.124Inthelightofjurisprudenceandacademictreatises,ergaomneshasbecomealegalumbrellatermcoveringvariouslegaleffects.125Inthecontextoftreatylaw,thenotionergaomnespartesorergaomnescontractantesisusedtodescribetreaty-basedobligations,thegoodfaithperformanceofwhichallStatePartieshavealegalinterestin.126121Reservationletterof28January1998senttotheSwissgovernmentbyUKAmbassadorHulse.122ICTYProsecutorvKupreškićetal(TrialChamber)IT-95-16-T,14January2000,para517.123Tams(2005),pp.57–58whofurthermoreexpandsthecircleofnon-reciprocaltreatiestoalltreatiesthatrequiretheharmonizationofnationallaws.124SeeegRagazzi(1997);Zemanek(2000);Frowein(2008).125CfTams(2005),pp.99,155(“legalvademecum”).126Whereasergaomnespartesobligationsstemfromaninternationaltreaty,thetermergaomnesobligationsisemployedtodenoteuniversallyrecognizedobligationsofinternationalcustomarylaw,owedtotheinternationalcommunityasawhole,cfSRCrawford3rdReportontheLawofStateResponsibility(2000)UNDocA/CN.4/507,para106n195;Sicilianos(2002),p.1136.482PartIII.Observance,ApplicationandInterpretationofTreatiesSchmalenbachDörr, O., & Schmalenbach, K. (Eds.). (2018). Vienna convention on the law of treaties : A commentary. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.Copyright © 2018. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. All rights reserved.
Annex 2
Annex 3
Extracts from J. Crawford, State Responsibility: The
General Part (Cambridge University Press, 2013)
Annex 3
PartIIIBreachCrawford, James. State Responsibility : The General Part, Cambridge University Press, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyli/detail.action?docID=1303583.Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
Afourthcategory–acomplexbreach–wasintroducedbyAgointotheDraftArticlesonthefirstreading,butitwasdeletedduringthesecond.73AsconceivedofinARSIWAArticles14and15,noaprioridistinctionisdrawnbetweenobligationsofconduct,resultandprevention.Stateresponsibilityinthissenseisconcernedonlywiththeexistenceofaninternationallyunlawfulsituationasdefinedbyarelevantprimarynorm.Oncethesituationisidentified,itispossibletodeterminewhetherthebreachinquestionisinstantaneous,continuingorcomposite–butbeyondthis,thebasiccontoursofthelawremainunaffected.8.3.1InstantaneousbreachesThefirstcategoryofactconceivedundertheARSIWAisordinarilycalled,forthesakeofconvenience,an‘instantaneousbreach’.74Thisconnotesthattheactanditsconsequencesarefixedataparticularpointintime.75TheconceptisreflectedinARSIWAArticle14(1)asfollows:ThebreachofaninternationalobligationbyanactofaStatenothavingacontinuingcharacteroccursatthemomentwhentheactisperformed,evenifitseffectscontinue.Thecommentaryitselfgivesnoexamplesastowhatmayconstituteaninstantaneousornon-continuingbreach.However,thecommentarytoitspredecessor,DraftArticle24,76includesanumberofexamples,77suchasthemilitaryforcesofonestateshootingdownanaircraftfromanotherstatelawfullyflyingovertheterritoryoftheformer,thelatter,athirdstate,orarescommunisarea(e.g.theshootingdownofIranAir73Further:Crawford,SecondReport,20–9.74Karl(1987),99–100;Pauwelyn(1995),418.ThetermemergesfromtheDraftArticlesCommentary,Art.24,§5n.417,whichlinkstheadjective‘instantaneous’tothegeneraltheoryofinternallaw,andtodomesticcrimessuchasmurder,theinflictionofinjury,andarson.ThetermhasalsobeenemployedbytheInternationalCourt:Gabcˇı´kovo-Nagymaros,ICJRep.1997p.7,54.SalmonsuggeststhatARSIWA,Art.14(1)neglectstotakeintoaccountthepreparationtimeinherentinanyinternationallywrongfulact,howevershortitmaybe:Salmon(2010),384–5.75Salmon(2010),384:Theinstantaneousactoccurswhenitsconditionsforexistencearefulfilledandatthatmomentitconstitutesawrongfulact.Bydefinition,itceasestoexistattheexpirationoftherelativelybrieftimeperiodthatisnecessaryforitsaccomplishment.76ThewordingofwhichwassubstantiallysimilartoARSIWA,Art.14(1):ThebreachofaninternationalobligationbyanactoftheStatenotextendingintimeoccursatthemomentwhenthatactisperformed.Thetimeofcommissionofthebreachdoesnotextendbeyondthatmoment,eveniftheeffectsoftheactoftheStatecontinuesubsequently.77DraftArticlesCommentary,Art.24,§6.254breachCrawford, James. State Responsibility : The General Part, Cambridge University Press, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyli/detail.action?docID=1303583.Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
Annex 3
Flight655overtheStraitofHormuzbysurface-to-airmissilesfiredbytheUSSVincenneson3July198878);thetorpedoboatorsubmarineofabelligerentstatesinkinganeutralorunarmednon-combatantshiponthehighseas(e.g.thesinkingoftheUS-flaggedSSRobinMoorbytheGermanU-BoatU-69on21May194179);thepoliceofonestate(oritsagents)killingorwoundingtherepresentativeofanotherstate;ororgansofastateconfiscatingordestroyingthebuildinginwhichaforeigndiplomaticmissionhasitsheadquarters(e.g.thedestructionbyUSforcesoftheChineseembassyinBelgradeon7May1999duringOperationAlliedForce,theNATObombingofYugoslavia80).Whatallthesesituationshaveincommonisthatthewrongfulactitselfcanbenarroweddowntoasingledate–virtuallyasinglemomentintime–andanythingthatcontinuesafterwardsrepresentstheeffectsofthebreach,ratherthanacontinuationoftheactitself.81Itisnotalwayseasytoseparatethecontinuationoftheillegalactfromitseffects.Forexample,inPhosphatesinMorocco,82theFrenchgovern-mentacceptedthejurisdictionoftheCourtbywayofadeclarationdated25April1931,whichprovidedthatjurisdictionwasacceptedwithrespectto‘anydisputeswhichmayariseafterratification...withregardtosituationsorfactssubsequenttosuchratifications’.83Accordingly,oneofthekeytasksoftheCourtwastofixthedateofthewrongfulactrelativetothedeclaration.ThecontestedactswereadecisionoftheMoroccanDepartmentofMinesdated8January1925deprivingM.Tassara,anItaliancitizen,ofhisproperty,anddecreesof1920establishingamonopolyontheexploitationofphosphatereserves–bothprimafacieinbreachofFrance’sinternationalobligations.ItalyattemptedtobridgethetemporalgulfbetweenFrance’sactsanditsratificationoftheCourt’sjurisdictionbyclaimingthattheDepartment’sdecisionandthelegislativemonopolywerecontinuingacts,that‘extend[ed]overaperiodoftime,sothatwhenthey[became]78Gray(2008),162.79TheincidentwasthesubjectofoneofPresidentF.D.Roosevelt’sfamousfiresidechats,inwhichhedeclaredthesinkingtobe‘undercircumstancesviolatinglong-establishedinternationallawandviolatingeveryprincipleofhumanity’:Roosevelt,TheFiresideChatsofFranklinDelanoRoosevelt(2007),84.80Murphy,1(2002),99–1c02.81SeeKarl(1987),99:‘Suchactsmaybeprecededbylongpreparationsandhavedurableeffects(suchasthelastingphysicaldisabilityofpassengers);thisdoesnot,however,stopthemfrombeinginstantaneousacts.’82PhosphatesinMorocco,PreliminaryObjections,(1938)PCIJSer.A/BNo.74.83Ibid.,10.thetemporalelement255Crawford, James. State Responsibility : The General Part, Cambridge University Press, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyli/detail.action?docID=1303583.Copyright © 2013. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
Annex 3
Annex 4
Extracts from P. Thornberry, The International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (Oxford University Press, 2016)
Annex 4
Annex 4
Annex 4
Annex 4
Annex 4
Annex 4
Annex 4
Annex 35-1
Addendum to Annex 35 of Azerbaijan’s Memorial, Letter
from Vugar Karimov, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of
Ecology and Natural Resources of the Republic of
Azerbaijan, to Elnur Mammadov, Deputy Foreign
Minister of the Republic of Azerbaijan, dated 14 August
2023, No. 3-14/2-2460-D-03-08/2023 (with enclosure)
(original in English)
Annex 35-1
1 APPENDIX A:PHOTOGRAPHS OF EASTERN PLANE TREES IN THE MAJORITY-ARMENIAN POPULATED TOWN OF HADRUT, TAKEN BY MINISTRY OF ECOLOGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES IN JUNE 2023 AND AUGUST 2023 I.Khojavand District Figures 1 and 2: Eastern Plane Tree in the Majority-Armenian Populated Town of Hadrut (Top), and Close-up of Crosses Carved into Its Bark (Bottom), Photographed in June 202311 Located at 39°31'26.3"N 47°02'04.7"E.
Annex 35-1
2 Figure 3: Natural Monument Tree in the Majority-Armenian Populated Town of Hadrut2, Photographed on 7 August 202332 Located at 39°30'19.1124"N 47°1'58.026"E. 3 Photograph taken between 10:00 and 14:00.
Annex 35-1
3 Figure 4: Natural Monument Tree in the Majority-Armenian Populated Town of Hadrut4, Photographed on 7 August 202354 Located at 39°30'52.7724"N 47°2'0.2292"E. 5 Photograph taken between 10:00 and 14:00.
Annex 35-1
Annexes