Modernization of the law of International Contractual Agreements

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Diplomacy has developed a large amount of formalistic ritual much of which is reflected in international law. The titles and ranking of diplomats constitute the most striking example. Curiously enough this tendency is not wholly reflected in the modern law and practice of treaty-making. It is of no legal consequence, for example, whether an agreement between or among states is called a treaty, a convention, a statute, an agreement, a protocol or a covenant or charter. Certain labels are used with a degree of consistency to signify the informal or temporary character of an agreement such as modus vivendi and “exchange of notes,” while others, such as “covenant” and “charter,” have been utilized to suggest the basic and over-all importance of the instrument. The labels do not, however, indicate whether the agreement registers a boundary settlement, the conclusion of peace, a political and military alliance, provisions for the extradition of fugitive criminals, arrangements for the distribution of radio frequencies, adjustment of double taxation, respect for copyrights, or facilities for travelling salesmen. The applicable substantive law similarly fails to distinguish among such diverse subjects and covers them all with the same rules concerning conclusion, interpretation, and termination. Such uniformity is convenient for the student, the statesman, and the judge, but it is not responsive to the needs of the international community in some important respects which will be discussed in this chapter.

This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit: