77:, under Article 62 (Fundamental Change of Circumstance). Although the doctrine is not mentioned by name, Article 62 provides the only justifications for its invocation: the circumstances that existed at the time of the conclusion of the treaty were indeed objectively essential to the obligations of treaty (sub-paragraph A), and the instance for the change of circumstances has had a radical effect on the obligations of the treaty (sub-paragraph B).
172:, but Vattel's thinking continued to influence international law, not least because it helped reconcile "the antagonism between the static nature of the law and the dynamism of international life". While individual cases invoking the doctrine were much disputed, the doctrine itself was little questioned. Its provision in the 1969
164:(1714–1767) was the next key contributor. Vattel promoted the view that "every body bound himself for the future only on the stipulation of the presence of the actual conditions" and so "with a change of the condition also the relations originating from the situation would undergo a change". During the 19th century,
83:
relates to changed circumstances only if they had never been contemplated by the parties: if the parties to a treaty had contemplated for the occurrence of the changed circumstances, the doctrine does not apply and the provision remains in effect. This principle is clarified in the
264:. Although that principle ultimately did not apply in the resolution of the case, it is noteworthy as the first time that the US invoked the principle, as it had previously been opposed to it. The US went on to cite the doctrine again in its arguments for the revision of the
283:. Austria-Hungary's arguments have been seen as an invocation of fundamentally changed circumstances. Moreover, despite protests at its actions, Austria-Hungary succeeded, arguably setting a precedent for the use of the doctrine.
46:(promises must be kept). Because the doctrine is a risk to the security of treaties, as its scope is relatively unconfined, the conditions in which it may be invoked must be carefully noted.
363:, but Switzerland argued that the doctrine did not apply in respect of territorial rights. In 1932, the court found in favour of Switzerland on the basis of fact, but it did not reject that
485:"Denunciation of the Treaty of November 2nd, 1865, between China and Belgium, Belgium v. China, Order, 25 May 1929, Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)"
326:
504:
348:
In 1926, China came to terms with
Belgium after its efforts to denounce the Sino-Belgian Pact (1865), citing fundamentally changed circumstances.
356:
287:
230:. One important outcome was the insistence by other parties that unilateral termination of a treaty was not legal on those grounds.
173:
74:
553:
98:
Although it is clear that a fundamental change of circumstances might justify terminating or modifying a treaty, the unilateral
226:
on military shipping in the Black Sea. Russia achieved this in connection with the Treaty of London (1871), partly by invoking
558:
511:, Permanent Court of International Justice, Parties: France & Switzerland, August 19th, 1929, Initiated March 29th, 1928.
534:
310:. France cited a fundamental change of circumstances, and the case seems to be the first example of a state invoking
215:
on the grounds of fundamentally changed circumstances, but her efforts have not been well regarded by modern jurists.
99:
201:
because of fundamentally changed circumstances. This is perhaps the earliest recorded example of the principle of
501:
524:
484:
245:. In 1886, Russia terminated the arrangement, partly on the grounds of a fundamental change in circumstances.
102:
of a treaty is usually thought to be prohibited: although the point is debated, it is usually thought that a
314:
before an international court. However, the states settled before the court was required to issue a verdict.
70:
253:
119:
458:
Termination of
Treaties Owing to Fundamental Change of Circumstances (Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus)
422:
Termination of
Treaties Owing to Fundamental Change of Circumstances (Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus)
194:
37:
280:
265:
234:
299:
223:
208:
165:
291:
190:
355:, provoking the "Freezones Controversy" with Switzerland. The matter was brought before the
160:('every convention is understood with circumstances as they stand'). The Swiss legal expert
334:
118:
exists in all legal systems which descend from Roman law. In Swiss law, article 119 of the
176:
established the doctrine firmly but not without dispute as "a norm of international law".
8:
563:
341:. Since the 1907 treaty was also time-limited, the case has been seen as a precedent for
42:
460:(Juris Doctor dissertation). Charles University, Prague (Rawalpindi: Abbas Arts, 1982).
424:(Juris Doctor dissertation). Charles University, Prague (Rawalpindi: Abbas Arts, 1982).
529:
330:
461:
425:
338:
295:
212:
153:
142:
276:
198:
57:
538:. Chapter XIII: The Judicial Application of the Doctrine 'Rebus Sic Stantibus'.
272:
257:
219:
161:
25:
547:
508:
249:
51:
465:
429:
36:
to become inapplicable because of a fundamental change of circumstances. In
40:
the doctrine essentially serves an "escape clause" to the general rule of
103:
122:
is the source of the principle's applicability in Swiss contract law.
367:
might be a valid basis for France's argument. It was the second time
242:
352:
186:
85:
29:
145:
things thus standing" or, more idiomatically, "as things stand").
307:
322:
318:
238:
33:
502:
Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the
District of Gex
303:
279:
renounced its rights and obligations under
Article 25 of the
156:(1563–1616), who is generally credited for coining the maxim
138:
106:
does not have the right to denounce a treaty unilaterally.
351:
In
November 1923, France moved its customs office to
444:
535:The function of law in the international community
327:dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden
446:, 7th rev. edn (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 144.
545:
158:omnis conventio intelligitur rebus sic stantibus
64:
371:had been argued before an international court.
329:, citing changed circumstances including the
294:and the United Kingdom on the application to
290:issued an advisory opinion on a case between
260:. Various arguments were advanced, including
109:
345:applying not only to indefinite treaties.
525:Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
357:Permanent Court of International Justice
288:Permanent Court of International Justice
174:Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
75:Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
546:
455:
419:
302:issued by the capitulatory regimes in
218:In a "classic" case for the doctrine,
415:
413:
411:
409:
407:
405:
222:attempted to change the terms of the
197:should abandon their treaty with the
73:but is also provided for in the 1969
403:
401:
399:
397:
395:
393:
391:
389:
387:
385:
148:A key figure in the formulation of
13:
14:
575:
518:
382:
321:dissolved its 1907 treaty with
168:came to reject the doctrine of
554:Legal doctrines and principles
495:
477:
449:
436:
1:
375:
65:Function in international law
559:Legal rules with Latin names
337:and Norway's entry into the
262:clausula rebus sic stantibus
228:clausula rebus sic stantibus
170:clausula rebus sic standibus
150:clausula rebus sic stantibus
131:Clausula rebus sic stantibus
116:clausula rebus sic stantibus
81:Clausula rebus sic stantibus
21:Clausula rebus sic stantibus
7:
456:Poonja, Mahmood M. (1977).
420:Poonja, Mahmood M. (1977).
179:
71:customary international law
10:
580:
300:French nationality decrees
125:
325:that had arisen from the
211:sought to amend the 1585
120:Swiss Code of Obligations
93:United Kingdom v. Iceland
472:De iure belli libri tres
286:On 7 February 1923, the
133:comes from Latin (where
69:The doctrine is part of
49:This term is related to
38:public international law
281:Treaty of Berlin (1878)
266:Treaty of London (1915)
235:Treaty of Berlin (1878)
152:was the Italian jurist
110:Function in private law
224:Treaty of Paris (1856)
209:Elizabeth I of England
87:Fisheries Jurisdiction
474:, lib. 111, cap. XIV.
359:, and France invoked
254:Clayton–Bulwer Treaty
252:attempted to end the
191:Lyciscus of Acarnania
335:Treaty of Versailles
489:www.worldcourts.com
369:rebus sic stantibus
365:rebus sic stantibus
361:rebus sic stantibus
343:rebus sic stantibus
312:rebus sic stantibus
203:rebus sic stantibus
135:rebus sic stantibus
43:pacta sunt servanda
530:Hersch Lauterpacht
331:Russian Revolution
233:Article 59 of the
442:Peter Malanczuk,
339:League of Nations
296:British nationals
213:Treaty of Nonsuch
114:The principle of
571:
512:
499:
493:
492:
481:
475:
470:: p. 13, citing
469:
453:
447:
440:
434:
433:
417:
271:During the 1908
193:argued that the
154:Scipione Gentili
579:
578:
574:
573:
572:
570:
569:
568:
544:
543:
521:
516:
515:
500:
496:
483:
482:
478:
454:
450:
441:
437:
418:
383:
378:
277:Austria-Hungary
199:Aetolian League
182:
128:
112:
67:
58:hardship clause
28:allowing for a
17:
12:
11:
5:
577:
567:
566:
561:
556:
540:
539:
527:
520:
519:External links
517:
514:
513:
507:2013-02-09 at
494:
476:
448:
435:
380:
379:
377:
374:
373:
372:
349:
346:
315:
284:
273:Bosnian crisis
269:
258:United Kingdom
246:
231:
216:
206:
195:Lacedaemonians
181:
178:
162:Emer de Vattel
127:
124:
111:
108:
66:
63:
26:legal doctrine
16:Legal doctrine
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
576:
565:
562:
560:
557:
555:
552:
551:
549:
542:
537:
536:
531:
528:
526:
523:
522:
510:
509:archive.today
506:
503:
498:
490:
486:
480:
473:
467:
463:
459:
452:
445:
439:
431:
427:
423:
416:
414:
412:
410:
408:
406:
404:
402:
400:
398:
396:
394:
392:
390:
388:
386:
381:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
347:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:
278:
274:
270:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
250:United States
248:In 1881, the
247:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:
210:
207:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:, in 211 BC,
188:
185:According to
184:
183:
177:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
146:
144:
140:
136:
132:
123:
121:
117:
107:
105:
101:
96:
94:
90:
88:
82:
78:
76:
72:
62:
60:
59:
54:
53:
52:force majeure
47:
45:
44:
39:
35:
31:
27:
23:
22:
541:
533:
497:
488:
479:
471:
457:
451:
443:
438:
421:
368:
364:
360:
342:
311:
261:
227:
202:
169:
157:
149:
147:
134:
130:
129:
115:
113:
100:denunciation
97:
92:
86:
80:
79:
68:
56:
50:
48:
41:
20:
19:
18:
564:Treaty law
548:Categories
376:References
317:In 1924,
256:with the
243:free port
166:civil law
95:, 1973).
505:Archived
466:41731249
430:41731249
353:Gex, Ain
205:at work.
187:Polybius
180:Examples
30:contract
308:Morocco
126:History
24:is the
464:
428:
333:, the
323:Sweden
319:Norway
292:France
239:Batumi
220:Russia
34:treaty
304:Tunis
237:made
141:for "
139:Latin
104:party
32:or a
462:OCLC
426:OCLC
306:and
143:with
89:Case
55:and
298:of
137:is
550::
532:,
487:.
384:^
275:,
241:a
61:.
491:.
468:.
432:.
268:.
91:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.