2 Opened for signature on 25 May 1969; entered into force on 27 January 1980; 1155 UNTS 331. There are now 108 States Parties.
3 Article 2.1(a). In formal terms, the Convention has no retroactive effect (Article 4); but for a brief analysis of how far the Convention represents a codification of existing customary international law: see I M Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd edn, 1984) ch I. The International Court of Justice has on repeated occasions recognized this effect for provisions of the Convention.
5 Lord McNair, Law of Treaties (Clarendon Press, 1961) 4.
6 Introduction au droit des Traités (3rd revised edn, Geneva: ed Cahier, PUF, 1995) 26.
8 Vienna Convention, Article 6.
9 Articles 1 and 6 and the Preamble to the 1986 Convention (n 7 above).
10 Though by no means necessarily in one single document.
12 PCIJ Series A/B, No 53, 71. (See also Chapter 2, paragraph 2.5.)
14 Texts available at <http://www.iusct.org/index-english.html>. A main purpose of the Accords was to establish a Claims Tribunal, which has since its foundation in 1981 presided over one of the largest claims settlement processes in history.
16 Operate ‘within the sphere of international law’ (McNair); or be intended to produce legal effects ‘selon les règles de droit international’ (Reuter).
17 See F A Mann, Studies in International Law (Clarendon Press, 1973) 140–255.
21 See Chapter 39, paragraphs 39.52–39.53. The British prime minister in his address to the Conference on 30 July 1975, specifically stated that ‘the Final Act of this Conference is not a treaty; nor is it a peace settlement’ (Cmnd 6197).
22 GA resolution 217 (III).
26 As explained in the FCO Guidance (n 1.) ‘[An] MOU is used where it is considered preferable to avoid the formalities of a treaty—for example, where there are detailed provisions which change frequently or the matters dealt with are essentially of a technical or administrative character; in matters of defence or technology where there is a need for such documents to be classified; or where a treaty requires subsidiary documents to fill out the details.’
27 At the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties, the United Kingdom representative maintained that ‘many agreed minutes and memoranda of understanding were not international agreements subject to the law of treaties, because the parties had not intended to create legal rights or obligations, or a legal relationship, between themselves’. He also pointed out that ‘international practice had consistently upheld the distinction between international agreements properly so-called, where the parties intended to create rights and obligations, and declarations and other similar instruments simply setting out policy objectives or agreed views’. Official Records. Second Session (1969) 228.
28 There is a discussion of this question in the Tribunal’s Award in the Heathrow User Charges Arbitration (US v UK), 102 ILR 215, at 351 et seq.
29 See the examples in paragraph 35.8 above.
30 The ECHR recently found inadequate a flimsy arrangement between Italy and Tunisia, Saadi v Italy, 28 February 2008. For a recent UK decision by the House of Lords, see RB and Anor (Algeria) v Home Sec, and OO (Jordan) v Home Secretary  UKHL 10 at paras 106–26, in which Lord Phillips sets out the approach to be taken where assurances given by a foreign State are challenged.
37 See further Chapter 37, paragraph 37.1.
38 Treaty Series No 15 (1992) Cm 1827.
39 Though this is no longer invariably the case, especially for general multilateral treaties.
40 This order is, however, by no means sacrosanct. The definitions article (if any) is sometimes relegated to the end; and, where the treaty sets up an organization or mechanism to ensure effective execution of its provisions, the organizational or procedural provisions may precede the more specific substantive provisions.
41 Formerly, all of the parts of the treaty would have been known by technical terms in Latin; of these, testimonium is the only one that remains in common use.
42 Formerly, the words used would have been ‘have affixed their signatures and seals’, but, the use of personal seals having become obsolete, the simplified formula above is now common.
45 Treaty Series No 6 (2008) Cm 7382; Treaty Series No 1 (2009) Cm 7535.
46 Occasionally, one may come across a treaty which is in ‘mixed’ form. Thus, the Treaty of Versailles of 28 June 1919 is expressed to be concluded between the ‘Principal Allied and Associated Powers’ and Germany, but the High Contracting Parties (on the Allied side) are the various heads of state ‘represented’ by certain ministers and ambassadors. This formula was probably chosen for the purpose of enabling the British self-governing Dominions and India to participate separately in the Peace Treaty without raising what would have been regarded at that time as difficult questions of their treaty-making capacity: see McNair, n 5, 16.
47 Some casual modern usage tends to refer to ‘State Parties’ (with State in the singular) but this is incorrect, and should be avoided as it can raise a misleading inference that there exist other categories of parties.
49 Misc, No 19 (1971), Cmnd 4818.
51 1833 UNTS 3 (likewise the four earlier conventions on the law of the sea of 29 April 1958).
57 eg the Agreement with the Government of Ghana on the Transfer of Prisoners, Treaty Series, No 11 (2008), but MOUs are also in frequent use.
60 See especially Chapters 3, 9, 14, and 40.
62 The Optional Protocol to the Consular Relations Convention has recently provided the jurisdictional base for a series of important judgments of the International Court of Justice in cases brought against the USA by Paraguay, by Germany, and by Mexico.
66 Nowadays however items of that kind would be recorded in the Final Act of the Conference (see Chapter 37, paragraphs 37.5–37.11) or in the records of an international organization when it formally adopts the treaty text and opens it for signature (cf UNGA resolution 59/38, adopting the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, which formally took into account a statement by the Chairman of the relevant Committee recording certain working understandings relating to the text, which were then annexed to the Convention).
67 British and Foreign State Papers (BFSP), Vol 90, 1049.
76 Citing in support the previous edition of the present work; R v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Rees-Mogg  QB 552 at 564G.
77 The Protocols deal, respectively, with the amendment of the rules relating to international armed conflict, with the adoption of new rules relating to non-international armed conflict, and with the adoption of a further distinctive emblem alongside the Red Cross and Red Crescent; texts of the Conventions and Protocols at <http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/610?OpenDocument>.
85 Treaty Series No 27 (1963), Cmnd 2025.
86 Yearbook of the United Nations (1946–7) 1.
87 Such as the conferences which took place at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945.
89 See the examples cited at paragraph 35.3 above.
90 UN Doc A/CN.4/L.703of 20 July 2006.
93 1952 ICJ Reports 28: the case arose out of a claim by a Greek shipowner (Mr Ambatielos) who alleged that he had suffered considerable loss in consequence of a contract which he concluded in 1919 with the British government.
94 ‘No. 1425. Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United Kingdom and Greece and accompanying Declaration signed at London, July 16 1926.’
97 These and other examples are given by Weinstein, ‘Exchanges of Notes’ (1952) 29 BYIL 205–26.
98 Treaty Series No 122 (1973), Cmnd 5484.
99 Treaty Series No 38 (1948), Cmd 7456. So also, an exchange of Notes between the United Kingdom and Italian governments for the allocation to Italy of a share in the proceeds of sale by the International Refugee Organization of certain valuables, currencies, and securities, presumed looted by the German forces and taken from them in Italy by the forces of the Allies, was linked to a parallel exchange of Notes between the United States and Italian governments; see Treaty Series, No 52 (1951), Cmd 8294.
100 Treaty Series No 1 (1973) — Part I, Cmnd 5179–1, 272–4.
101 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 7). It should be noted that heads of state, heads of government, and ministers for foreign affairs are, in virtue of their functions and without having to produce full powers, considered as representing their state for the purposes of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty (see Chapter 34, paragraph 34.9). Credentials notifying the composition of a delegation to an international conference at which a treaty may be negotiated and signed do not constitute full powers for the purposes of signature.
103 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 12.2).
107 Examples are the Treaty of Peace between Indonesia and Japan of 20 January 1958 (UNTS, Vol 324, 241) which is drawn up in the Japanese, Indonesian, and English languages, the English text to prevail in case of any divergence of interpretation; and the Treaty of Friendship between Japan and Ethiopia of 19 December 1957 (UNTS Vol 325, 99) drawn up in the Japanese, Amharic, and French languages, the French text to be authentic in case of any divergence of interpretation.
109 To be distinguished from an ‘authentic’ text, ie one established as an accurate version of the treaty.
110 Provisions to this effect nevertheless continue in older treaties, such as for example the Warsaw Convention of 1929, which governs liability in respect of the carriage of passenger luggage by air; thus the French text was applied by the House of Lords in Fothergill v Monarch Airlines  AC 251, as the implementing Act of Parliament required. And the 1982 version of the International Telecommunication Convention retains the provision for the French text to prevail in case of dispute.
112 An example is the Universal Copyright Convention of 6 September 1952; 943 UNTS 194.
113 For a full and up-to-date account of the history of this provision and its application in practice, see R Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) 353 et seq.
114 PCIJ, Series A, No 2, 19.
116 2001 ICJ Reports 466.
117 See also the Decision of a Chamber of the Court in the Elettronica Sicula (ELSI) case, 1989 ICJ Reports 15.