1 For the text, see S. EXEC. DOC. L, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., Message from the President of the United States transmitting the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, etc. (1971).

2 Id. at 1.

3 Ibid.

4 [1971] ICJ REP., para. 94. See further, Briggs, Unilateral Denunciation of Treaties: The Vienna Convention and the International Court of Justice, 68 AJIL 51-68 (1974).

5 [1972] ICJ REP., para. 38.

6 [1973] ICJ REP., paras. 24, 36 ff.

7 [1978] ICJ REP., para. 96. See also p. 502 infra.

8 The Beagle Channel Arbitration, Counter Memorial Of The Government Of Chile, Vol. I, para. 7 ( d ) , at 14 (1974).

9 argentine-chilean arbitration concerning the region of the beagle channel, reply of the argentine republic, vol. I, at 12 (1975). See also Argentine Memorial, Vol. I; at 354 (1973). Argentina has ratified the Vienna Convention, but Chile has not.

10 Award of Her Britannic Majesty's Government … HMSO 1977, including Beagle Channel Arbitration between the Republic of Argentina and the Republic of Chile, Report and Decision of the Court of Arbitration rendered to Her Britannic Majesty's Government … [Decision dated February 18, 1977; Queen's Declaration that the “Decision constitutes the Award” dated April 18, 1977.] Decision, para. 15. The Declaration and the Report and Decision are reprinted in 17 ILM 632 and 634 (1978).

11 The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the French Republic Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Decision of 30 June 1977, HMSO Cmnd. 7438, Misc. No. 15 (1978), at para. 55; reprinted in 18 ILM 399 (1979). See also paragraphs 58 to 61 in which the court applies the provisions of Article 21, paragraph 3 of the Vienna Convention. The United Kingdom has ratified the Vienna Convention, but France has not.

12 Attention should perhaps be called to a proposed resolution of advice and consent by the Senate to the Vienna Convention, subject to an “interpretation and understanding” that would have thrust into the international arena the domestic constitutional and political controversy as to the President's right to conclude certain executive agreements. The proposed “understanding” (sponsored, it is believed, by SeNato r Case, who is no longer in the Senate) was irrelevant because of the provision of paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Vienna Convention that “[t]he 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.”

This provision was deliberately adopted by the International Law Commission and by the Vienna Conference in order to avoid the misunderstanding that underlies the proposed “understanding.” Since Assistant Secretary of State Marshall Wright in a letter to the Committee on Foreign Relations, dated January 31, 1974, has adequately presented the arguments against the proposed “understanding,” I find it unnecessary here to develop further the disastrous consequences to the good faith of the United States which might ensue from its adoption. See for further details, 68 AJIL 507-10 (1974); DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, 1974, at 195-99 (ed. Rovine).