Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

PIL: WEEK 2 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - SCOPE OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION: WRITTEN AGREEMENTS
        
        VIENNA CONVENTION AND CUSTOMARY LAW
        
        In the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project Case, the ICJ identified the rules concerning termination and suspension of treaties as codificatory and in the
        Kasikili/Sedudu Island case said that the rules of interpretation reflected customary international law.
        Articles 3(b), 4, 38, and 43 combine to provide that when the provisions of the Convention are inapplicable, the rules of international customary law (or in some instances general principles of law) with the same legal content may be applicable.
        The most significant is Article 4 concerning the non-retroactive effect of provisions of the VCLT that were not reflective of customary law.
        
        WRITTEN AGREEMENTS:
        REGULATES TREATIES THAT ARE CONCLUDED BETWEEN STATES AND ARE IN WRITTEN FORM
        The Vienna Convention regulates treaties concluded between States (Article 1) and in written form (Article 2(1)(a)).
        
        ORAL AGREEMENTS NOT COVERED:
        WHILE ORAL AGREEMENTS MAY STILL HAVE AN EFFECT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW,
        THE VCLT DOES NOT APPLY TO SUCH AGREEMENTS
        This does not mean that oral agreements have no effect under international law or that principles found in the VCLT do not apply to such agreements, merely that they are not governed by the VCLT itself.
        Questions of succession of treaties, State responsibility, and the effect of the outbreak of hostilities on treaties are also excluded from its scope (Article 73).
        
        NOT RETROACTIVE: THE VIENNA CONVENTION IS NOT RETROACTIVE
        Furthermore, the Convention is not retroactive and only applies to treaties concluded after its entry into force (Article 4).
        
        VCLT NOT APPLICABLE WHEN
        
        PARTICULAR TREATY PROVIDES OTHERWISE; OR
        
        PARTIES AGREE OTHERWISE;
        
        DIFFERENT INTENTION IS OTHERWISE ESTABLISHED
        It acts as a residual rule, ie, it is applicable unless a particular treaty provides otherwise; or unless the parties agree otherwise; or if a different intention is otherwise established.
        
        NOT APPLICABLE TO STATES & IOs’ AGREEMENTS:
        
        2 more items...
      - THE ANATOMY OF A TREATY
    - - A TREATY NEED NOT BE IN ANY PARTICULAR FORM
        The Vienna Convention does not require that a treaty be in any particular form or comprise any particular elements so if there is a dispute concerning the status of a document-eg, a joint communique-as a treaty, an objective test is used to determine the question, taking into account its actual terms and the particular circumstances in which it was made.
        
        MINUTES OF A MEETING CAN COMPRISE A TREATY
        • For example, minutes of a meeting can comprise a treaty. In the Qatar v Bahrain case the ICJ said:
        The Court does not find it necessary to consider what might have been the intentions of the Foreign Minister of Bahrain or, for that matter those of the Foreign Minister of Qatar.
        The two ministers signed a text recording commitment accepted by their Governments, some of which were to be given an immediate application. Having signed such a text, the Foreign Minister of Bahrain, is not in the position subsequently to say that he intended to subscribe only to a 'statement recording political understanding', and not to an 'international agreement'.
        (Qatar v. Bahrain)
        
        JOINT COMMUNIQUE CAN CONSTITUTE AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT TO SUBMIT A DISPUTE TO ARBITRATION OR JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT
        For instance, a joint communique had been held as constituting an international agreement to submit a dispute to arbitration or judicial settlement (Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment)
        
        THE 1990 MINUTES REFER TO WHAT HAD BEEN "AGREED" BETWEEN THE PARTIES
        (Para. 24 Qatar v. Bahrain)
        
        Accordingly, and contrary to the contentions of Bahrain, the Minutes
        are not a simple record of a meeting, similar to those drawn up within the
        framework of the Tripartite Committee; they do not merely give an
        account of discussions and summarize points of agreement and disagreement. They enumerate the commitments to which the Parties have consented. They thus create rights and obligations in international law for
        the Parties. They constitute an international agreement
        
        THEY HAVE TO ENUMERATE THE COMMITMENTS TO WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE CONSENTED
        (Qatar v. Bahrain)
        
        INTENTION REQUIRED: THERE MUST BE AN INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS
        • Since a treaty is a method of creating binding legal obligations, there must be an intention to create legal relations.
        
        SOFT LAWS:
        SOME ACTS MAY HAVE THE FORM OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS BUT NOT BE INTENDED TO CREATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS
        • There are some international acts that may assume the form of international agreements but which were never intended to create legal obligations, such as the 1975 Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
        • Such acts are sometimes called “soft law”, and their legal status is not clear.
        
        SOFT LAWS ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE IN COURTS
        However, as they are not legally binding, they are not enforceable in courts.
        
        BUT SOFT LAWS MAY HARDEN INTO A TREATY OR BECOME A NORM OF INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMARY LAW
        However, they cannot be ignored since soft law may 'harden' into a treaty or become a norm of international customary law.
        (1988 Baltic Sea Ministerial Declaration and 1992 Sea Declaration hardened into 1992 Convention on the Protection of the Baltic Sea and the Baltic Sea Area ("The Helsinki Convention")
        
        INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS MAY TAKE A NUMBER OF FORMS AND BE GIVEN A DIVERSITY OF NAMES
        international agreements may take a number of forms and be given a diversity of names.
        (Qatar v. Bahrain)
      - OBJECTIVE TEST = ACTUAL TERMS & CIRCUMSTANCES
        Objective Test - To ascertain whether a document is an international agreement, the actual terms and the particular circumstances as to how it was drawn up must be considered.
- - - - STATES MUST REFRAIN FROM ACTS DEFEATING OBJECT & PURPOSE OF TREATY
        (18)
        
        RESERVATION
        (19)
        
        PACTA SUNT SERVANDA
        26-28
        
        INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES
        (31-33)
        
        INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES AS REGARDS TO THIRD STATES
        (34-36)
        
        CRYSTALLIZATION AND NORM-CREATING PROVISIONS
        (38)
        
        3 more items...
        
        A TREATY DOES NOT CREATE OBLIGATIONS OR RIGHTS FOR A THIRD STATE
        A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent.
        (Article 34 General rule regarding third States)
        
        2 more items...
        
        CUSTOMARY LAW AS PER
        KASIKILI SEDUDU ISLAND
        Kasikili/Sedudu Island case said that the rules of interpretation reflected customary international law.
        
        A TREATY SHALL BE
        
        INTERPRETED IN GOOD FAITH
        
        IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR ORDINARY MEANING GIVEN TO THE TERMS OF THE TREATY IN THEIR CONTEXT
        
        IN LIGHT OF ITS OBJECT & PURPOSE
        
        1) A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
        
        CONTEXT IS THE TEXT OF THE TREATY, INCLUDING PREAMBLE & ANNEXES AND...
        2) The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:
        
        3 more items...
        
        ORDINARY MEANING
        UNLESS SUCH INTERPRETATION WOULD LEAD TO SOMETHING UNREASONABLE or ABSURD
        It is a cardinal principle of interpretation that words must be interpreted in the sense which they would normally have in their context, unless such interpretation would lead to something unreasonable or absurd.
        (Competence of GA)
        
        1 more item...
        
        TRAVAUX PREPARATOIRES DID NOT APPLY SINCE THE NATURAL & ORDINARY MEANING CAN STILL BE GIVEN EFFECT
        In this case, some written statements submitted to the Court invited it to investigate the travaux préparatoires of the Charter.
        (Competence of the General Assembly)
        
        1 more item...
        
        PURELY GRAMMATICAL INTERPRETATION MAY NOT BE THE A "NATURAL AND REASONABLE" WAY OF READING THE TEXT
        The Court cannot base itself on a purely grammatical interpretation of the text. It must seek the interpretation which is in harmony with a natural and reasonable way of reading the text.
        Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (Jurisdiction), Judgment ICJ 1952
        
        1 more item...
        
        CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AS PER KASIKILI/SEDULU ISLAND CASE
        Kasikili/Sedudu Island case said that the rules of interpretation reflected customary international law.
        
        INTERPRETATIVE DECLARATIONS DEFINED "Interpretative declaration" means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State or an international organization, whereby that State or that organization purports to specify or clarify the meaning or scope of a treaty or of its certain provisions.
        (Guide to Practice 1.2)
        
        1 more item...
        
        EVERY TREATY IN FORCE IS...
        
        BINDING UPON PARTIES
        AND
        
        MUST BE PERFORMED IN GOOD FAITH
        Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.
        (Article 26 Pacta Sunt Servanda)
        
        A PARTY MAY NOT INVOKE ITS INTERNAL LAW TO JUSTIFY FAILURE TO
        PERFORM A TREATY
        A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.
        (Article 27 Internal Law and Observance of Treaties)
        
        VIOLATION OF INTERNAL LAW ON COMPETENCE TO CONCLUDE TREATIES CANNOT INVALIDATE CONSENT
        (STILL VALID)
        
        A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent
        
        1 more item...
        
        PROVISIONS DO NOT BIND A PARTY IN RELATION TO FACTS/ACTS THAT CEASED TO EXIST PRIOR TO TREATY'S ENTRY INTO FORCE
        Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.
        (Article 28 Non-retroactivity of treaties)
        
        1 more item...
        
        SIR: This is customary
        Customary as per Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay
        
        PSS REQUIRES THE PARTIES
        
        SET ASIDE THE
        (Gabcikovo-Nagymaros)
        
        A STATE MAY FORMULATE A RESERVATION UPON SIGNING, RATIFYING, ACCEPTING, APPROVING, OR ACCEDING TO A TREATY
        A State may, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, formulate a reservation unless:
        
        THE RESERVATION IS PROHIBITED BY TREATY
        (a) the reservation is prohibited by the treaty;
        
        RESERVATION IS NOT ONE OF THE SPECIFIED RESERVATIONS A TREATY ALLOWS
        (b) the treaty provides that only specified reservations, which do not include the reservation in question, may be made; or
        
        INCOMPATIBLE RESREVATION WITH OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF TREATY
        (c) in cases not failing under subparagraphs (a) and (b), the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.
        (Article 19 Formulation of reservations)
        
        RESERVATION DEFINED
        "Reservation" means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State or an international organization when signing, ratifying, formally confirming, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty or by a State when making a notification of succession to a treaty, whereby the State or organization purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State or to that international organization.
        
        TO DETERMINE IF RESERVATION OR INTERPRETATIVE DECLARATION:
        ORDINARY MEANING, IDENTIFYING INTENTION OF ITS AUTHOR, IN LIGHT OF TREATY REFERRED TO
        To determine whether a unilateral statement formulated by a State or an international organization in respect of a treaty is a reservation or an interpretative declaration, the statement should be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms, with a view to identifying therefrom the intention of its author, in light of the treaty to which it refers.
        (1.3.1 Method of determining the distinction between reservations and interpretative declarations)
        
        PHRASING OR NAME PROVIDES INDICATION OF PURPORTED LEGAL EFFECT
        1.3.2 Phrasing and name The phrasing or name of a unilateral statement provides an indication of the purported legal effect.
        
        WHEN RESERVATION IS PROHIBITED, UNILATERAL STATEMENT IS PRESUMED NOT TO BE A RESERVATION
        When a treaty prohibits reservations to all or certain of its provisions, a unilateral statement formulated in respect of those provisions by a State or an international organization shall be presumed not to constitute a reservation...
        (1.3.3 Formulation of a unilateral statement when a reservation is prohibited)
        
        2 more items...
        
        SIR:
        A unilateral statement must be interpreted in good faith, much like a treaty
        
        STATES MUST REFRAIN FROM ACTS DEFEATING OBJECT & PURPOSE OF TREATY
        WHEN:
        Art. 18 A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when:
        
        CONSENT SUBJECT TO RAA:
        (SIR: STATE IS NOT PARTY BUT IS SIGNATORY)
        
        IT HAS SIGNED THE TREATY
        OR
        HAS EXCHANGED INSTRUMENTS CONSTITUTING THE TREATY SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION, ACCEPTANCE, OR APPROVAL.
        (a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty; or
        
        UNLESS IT MAKES ITS INTENTION CLEAR NOT TO BECOME A PARTY TO THE TREATY
        
        SIR:
        In Art. 18(a), the State si NOT PARTY, but merely a signatory.
        TRIGGER:
        
        Sign,
        
        Exchange of instrument constituting ratification, acc, or app
        
        CONSENT PENDING ENTRY INTO FORCE:
        (SIR: STATE IS PARTY)
        
        IT HAS EXPRESSED ITS CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY THE TREATY, PENDING ENTRY INTO FORCE.
        (b) it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of the treaty and provided that such entry into force is not unduly delayed.
        (Article 18 Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force )
        
        SUCH ENTRY INTO FORCE MUST NOT BE UNDULY DELAYED
        
        SIR:
        In Art. 18(b) the state IS a PARTY
        TRIGGER
        
        Expressed consent
        
        REQUIRES THE SIGNATORY THAT IT WILL NOT MAKE IT HARDER FOR THAT STATE TO IMPLEMENT IT LATER ON
      - CONSENT MAY BE EXPRESSED BY
        
        SIGNATURE
        
        EXCHANGE OF INSTRUMENTS CONSTITUTING A TREATY
        
        RATIFICATION
        
        ACCEPTANCE
        
        APPROVAL
        
        ACCESSION
        
        ANY OTHER MEANS IF SO AGREED
        The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed.
        (Article 11 Means of expressing consent to be bound by a treaty )
        
        1. SIGNATURE
        CONSENT OF A STATE TO BE BOUND BY A TREATY IS EXPRESSED BY A SIGNATURE OF ITS REPRESENTATIVE WHEN:
        1.The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative when:
        
        A TREATY PROVIDES THAT THE SIGNATURE SHALL HAVE THAT EFFECT; OR
        (a) the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect;
        
        OTHERWISE ESTABLISHED THAT STATES AGREED THAT THE SIGN SHOULD HAVE THAT EFFECT; OR
        (b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature should have that effect; or
        
        INTENTION OF STATE TO GIVE SUCH EFFECT TO THE SIGN APPEARS FROM REPRESENTATIVE'S FULL POWERS; OR
        (c) the intention of the State to give that effect to the signature appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.
        
        SUCH INTENTION WAS EXPRESSED DURING NEGOTIATION
        
        2. EXCHANGE OF INSTRUMENTS
        The consent of States to be bound by a treaty constituted by instruments exchanged between them is expressed by that exchange when:
        
        INSTRUMENTS PROVIDE THAT THEIR EXCHANGE SHALL HAVE THAT EFFECT
        (a) the instruments provide that their exchange shall have that effect; or
        
        OTHERWISE ESTABLISHED THAT STATES AGREED THAT SUCH EXCHANGE HAS SUCH EFFECT
        (b) it is otherwise established that those States were agreed that the exchange of instruments should have that effect.
        
        (Article 13 Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by an exchange of instruments constituting a treaty)
        
        RATIFICATION ACCEPTANCE OR APPROVAL
        Article 14 Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by ratification, acceptance or approval
        CONSENT IS EXPRESSED THROUGH RATIFICATION WHEN
        1.The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when:
        
        PROVIDED TO BE SUCH
        (a) the treaty provides for such consent to be expressed by means of ratification;
        
        OTHERWISE ESTABLISHED
        (b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that ratification should be required;
        
        REP SIGNED THE TREATY SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION
        (c) the representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification; or
        
        INTENTION TO SIGN SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION APPEARS FROM FULL POWERS OR REP or EXPRESSED DURING NEGOTIATION
        (d) the intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.
        
        RULES ON CONSENT THROUGH RATIFICATION APPLIES SIMILARLY TO ACCEPTANCE OR APPROVAL
        
        The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by acceptance or approval under conditions similar to those which apply to ratification.
        
        INITIALLING MAY BE DEEMED AS A SIGN WHEN ESTABLISHED THAT STATES SO AGREED
        
        For the purposes of paragraph 1:
        
        (a) the initialling of a text constitutes a signature of the treaty when it is established that the negotiating States so agreed;
        
        THE FF: CONSTITUTES FULL SIGNATURE
        
        SIGNATURE AD REFERENDUM BY REP
        
        CONFIRMED BY STATE
        (b) the signature ad referendum of a treaty by a representative, if confirmed by his State, constitutes a full signature of the treaty.
        (Article 12 Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by signature)
        
        ACCESSION DEFINED:
        A MEANS BY WHICH A STATE CONSENTS TO BE A PARTY TO A TREATY, WHICH IT WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO SIGN
      - ROLE OF CONSENT: TO CONSTITUTE A MECHANISM BY WHICH A TREATY BECOMES A JURIDICAL ACT
    - - DEFINITIONS
        
        For the purposes of the present Convention:
        
        (a) “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;
        (b) “ratification”, “acceptance”, “approval” and “accession” mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty;
        (c) “full powers” means a document emanating from the competent authority of a State designating a person or persons to represent the State for negotiating, adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty, for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty;
        (d) “reservation” means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State;
        (e) “negotiating State” means a State which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the treaty;
        (f) “contracting State” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty, whether or not the treaty has entered into force;
        (g) “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;
        (h) “third State” means a State not a party to the treaty;
        (i) “international organization” means an intergovernmental organization.
        
        The provisions of paragraph 1 regarding the use of terms in the present Convention are without prejudice to the use of those terms or to the meanings which may be given to them in the internal law of any State.
        (Article 2)
        
        VCLT DOES NOT APPLY TO INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS CONCLUDED
        
        BETWEEN STATES & OTHER SUBJECTS OF INT'L LAW
        
        BETWEEN SUCH OTHER SUBJECTS OF INT'L LAW
        
        NOT IN WRITTEN FORM
        
        HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT AFFECT...
        The fact that the present Convention does not apply to international agreements concluded between States and other subjects of international law or between such other subjects of international law, or to international agreements not in written form, shall not affect:
        
        NON-RETROACTIVITY
        Without prejudice to the application of any rules set forth in the present Convention to which treaties would be subject under international law independently of the Convention, the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States.
        (Article 4 - Non-retroactivity of the present Convention)
        
        APPLIES TO...
        
        ANY TREATY WHICH IS THE CONSTITUENT INSTRUMENT OF AN IO
        
        ANY TREATY ADOPTED WITHIN AN IO WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OF ITS RELEVANT RULES
        The present Convention applies to any treaty which is the constituent instrument of an international organization and to any treaty adopted within an international organization without prejudice to any relevant rules of the organization.
        (Article 5 - Treaties constituting international organizations and treaties adopted within an international organization)
        
        EVERY STATE POSSESSES CAPACITY TO CONCLUDE TREATIES
        Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties.
        (Article 6 - Capacity of States to conclude treaties)
        
        NOT CUSTOMARY LAW
        (Evans)
        
        LEGAL FORCE OF SUCH AGREEMENTS
        (a) the legal force of such agreements;
        
        APPLICATION OF RULES CONTAINED IN VCLT WHICH THESE WOULD BE SUBJECT UNDER INT'L LAW INDEPENDENTLY OF VCLT
        (b) the application to them of any of the rules set forth in the present Convention to which they would be subject under international law independently of the Convention;
        
        APPLICATION OF CONVENTION TO RELATIONS BETWEEN STATES UNDER IAs TO WHICH OTHER SUBJECTS ARE ALSO PARTIES
        (c) the application of the Convention to the relations of States as between themselves under international agreements to which other subjects of international law are also parties.
        (Article 3 - International agreements not within the scope of the present Convention)
        
        INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS MAY TAKE A NUMBER OF FORMS AND BE GIVEN A DIVERSITY OF NAMES
        international agreements may take a number of forms and be given a diversity of names.
        (Qatar v. Bahrain)
        
        ASIDE FROM VCLT REQUIREMENTS,
        ACTUAL TERMS AND PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
        In order to ascertain whether an agreement of that kind has been concluded, "the Court must have regard above al1 to its actual terms and to the particular circumstances in which it was drawn up"
  - - - THUS, THE 1990 MINUTES
        
        INCLUDE A REAFFIRMATION OF OBLIGATIONS
        
        ENTRUSTS KING FAHD WITH FINDING A SOLUTION TO THE DISPUTE IN 6 MONTHS
        
        ADDRESS THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE COURT COULD BE SEISED
        
        Thus the 1990 Minutes include a reaffirmation of obligations previously entered into; they entrust King Fahd with the task of attempting to find a solution to the dispute during a period of six months; and, lastly, they address the circumstances under which the Court could be seised after May 1991.
        
        CONCLUSION: THE 1990 MINUTES ENUMERATE THE COMMITMENTS AND, THUS, CREATE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS IN INT'L LAW FOR THE PARTIES
        Accordingly, and contrary to the contentions of Bahrain, the Minutes are not a simple record of a meeting, similar to those drawn up within the framework of the Tripartite Committee; they do not merely give an account of discussions and summarize points of agreement and disagreement. They enumerate the commitments to which the Parties have consented. They thus create rights and obligations in international law for the Parties. They constitute an international agreement.
        (Para. 24 Qatar v. Bahrain)
        
        The Court would observe that an international agreement or treaty that has not been registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations may not, according to the provisions of Article 102 of the Charter, be invoked by the parties before any organ of the United Nations.
        
        NON-REGISTRATION OR LATE REGISTRATION DOES NOT AFFECT THE ACTUAL VALIDITY OF THE AGREEMENT
        Non-registration or late registration, on the other hand, does not have any consequence for the actual validity of the agreement, which remains no less binding upon the parties.
        
        THE LATE REGISTRATION AFTER 6 MONTHS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT
        The Court therefore cannot infer from the fact that Qatar did not apply for registration of the 1990 Minutes until six months alter they were signed that Qatar considered, in December 1990, that those Minutes did not constitute an international agreement.
        THE NON-REGISTRATION WITH THE GEN SEC OF THE ARAB LEAGUE DOES NOT AFFECT IT EITHER
        The same conclusion follows as regards the non-registration of the text with the General Secretariat of the Arab League. Nor is there anything in the material before the Court which would justify deducing from any disregard by Qatar of its constitutional rules relating to the conclusion of treaties that it did not intend to conclude, and did not consider that it had concluded, an instrument of that kind; nor could any such intention, even if shown to exist, prevail over the actual terms of the instrument in question. Accordingly Bahrain's argument on these points also cannot be accepted.
      - INTENTIONS OF THE REPRESENTATIVES MAY NOT MATTER:
        THE COURT FOUND IT NOT NECESSARY TO LOOK INTO THE INTENTIONS OF THE FOREIGN MINISTERS WHO SIGNED THE TEXT; ALSO CONSIDERING THAT THE TEXT WAS TO BE GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT
    - - IRRESPECTIVE OF FORM, AGREEMENTS REQUIRE AN INTENTION OF THE PARTIES TO BE BOUND BY LEGAL OBLIGATIONS
        In customary international law, as reflected in Article 3 of the Vienna Convention, “agreements not in written form” may also have “legal force”. Irrespective of the form that agreements may take, they require an intention of the parties to be bound by legal obligations.
        (Bolivia v. Chile)
        
        Gabcikovo (Hungary v. Slovakia)
        
        TACIT AGREEMENTS MUST ALSO HAVE INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS
        This applies also to tacit agreements. In this respect, the Court recalls that “[e]vidence of a tacit legal agreement must be compelling”.
        
        REQUIRES COMPELLING EVIDENCE