1. Fisheries Jurisdiction case, ICJ Rep. (1974) p. 19.Google Scholar

2. Cf., in connection with this problem an interesting recent study by Ago, R., ‘Nouvelles reflexions sur la codification du droit international’, 92 RGDIP (1988) s. 539.Google Scholar

3. It is worth recalling in this context that in its commentary to draft Art. 17 on State responsibility the International Law Commission, in enumerating the sources of international legal obligations, recognizes international agreements, customs, and others. See ILC Yearbook 1976 vol. II Part 2 p. 79. One can also therefore consider in this context unilateral acts of different subjects of international law, and binding decisions of international organizations.

4. Jennings, R.Y., ‘What is International Law and how do we tell when we see it?’, 37 Annuaire Suisse (1981) p. 59.Google Scholar

5. Virally, M., ‘Panorama du droit international contemporain’, 183 RCADI (1983) p. 171.Google Scholar

6. See the different positions in the matter reported by Vitanyi, B., ‘Les positions doctrinales concernant le sens de la notion de “principes généraux de droit reconnus par les nations civilisées”’, 86 RGDIP (1982) No. 1, p. 48.Google Scholar

7. Kelsen, H., ‘Théorie du droit international public’, 84 RCADI (1953) p. 129.Google Scholar

8. Valindas, P.G., ‘General Principles of Law and the Hierarchy of the Sources of International Law’, in Grundprobleme des internationales Rechts. Festschrift für F.J. Spiropoulos (Basic problems of international law. Festschrift for F.J. Spiropoulos) (1957) p. 426.Google Scholar

9. Barile, G., ‘La structure de l'ordre juridique international’, 161 RCADI (1978) p. 63Google Scholar; Quadri, R., ‘Cours general de droit international public’, 113 RCADI (1964) p. 335Google Scholar; Mironov, N.V., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo: normy i ikh yuridicheskaya sila (International law: norms and their legal force) (1980) pp. 26 and 89Google Scholar; Ushakov, N.A., Problemy teorii mezhdunarodnogo prava (Problems of theory in international law) (1988) p. 56Google Scholar. On the other concepts of this hierarchy, see Bos, M., ‘The Hierarchy Among the Recognized Manifestations (“Sources”) of International Law’, 25 NILR (1978) pp. 339–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Cf., e.g., Elias, T.O., The Modern Law of Treaties (1974) p. 69Google Scholar; Verdross, A. and Simma, B., Universelles Völkerrecht (Universal International Law) (1984) p. 414CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Monaco, R., ‘Observations sur la hierarchie des sources du droit international’, in Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung, Menschenrechte, Internationale Gerichtsbarkeit. Festschrift für H. Mosler (Public International Law as Legal Order, Human Rights, International Jurisdiction. Festschrift for H. Mosler) (1983) pp. 608–610Google Scholar; Sinclair, I., The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn. (1984) p. 114Google Scholar; Reuter, P., Introduction au droit des traités, 2nd edn. (1985) p. 137Google Scholar; see also Karl, W., Vertrag und spätere Praxis im Völkerrecht (Treaty and subsequent Practice in Public International Law) (1983) p. 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the authors cited there, e.g., F. Berber, K. Doehring, P. Guggenheim, Ch. Rousseau, J. Tbuscoz, G. Tunkin, K. Wolfke.

11. Cf., the separate opinion of R. Ago in the case concerning the interpretation of the Agreement between the WHO and Egypt, ICJ Rep. (1980) p. 162; also Virally, M., The Sources of International Law, Sørensen, M., ed. (1968) p. 166Google Scholar; Akehurst, M., ‘The Hierarchy of Sources of International Law’, 47 BYIL (1974-1975) pp. 273–274.Google Scholar

12. Cf., the Nicaragua case (Merits), ICJ Rep. (1986) p. 95. It has also been indicated that certain passages of the judgment in the American Hostages in Tehran case can be interpreted in this way.

13. UNTS vol. 1155, p. 331.

14. Barberis, J., ‘Le concept de “traite international” et ses limites’, 30 AFDI (1984) p. 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Alexidze, L.A., ‘Legal Nature of Jus Cogens in Contemporary International Law’, 172 RCADI (1981) p. 228.Google Scholar

16. Sinclair, op. tit. n. 10, p. 21; Elias, op. cit. n. 10, p. 177.

17. See Suy, E. in Cassese, A. and Weiler, J.H.H., eds., Change and Stability in International Law-Making (1988) p. 97.Google Scholar

18. Meron, T., ‘On a Hierarchy of International Human Rights’, 80 AJIL (1986) p. 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sztucki, J., Jus Cogens and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1974) p. 54.Google Scholar

19. ICJ Rep. (1970) p. 32.

20. ICJ Rep. (1979) p. 19, and (1980) pp. 40–43.

21. ICJ Rep. (1986) pp. 100–101. It is worth noting that the ICJ has not declared the ban on the use of force to be a peremptory norm but it has stated that both parties to the dispute recognize it as such.

22. Cf., Weiler, J.H.H. et al. , eds., International Crimes of States. A Critical Analysis of the ILC's Draft Article 19 on State Responsibility (1989), in particular p. 151 et seq., and p. 225 et seq.Google Scholar

23. Cf., on this question, Capotorti, F., ‘L'extinction et la suspension des traites’, 134 RCADI (1971) p. 535Google Scholar, and corresponding with it, de Arechaga, E. Jimenez, ‘International Law in the Past Third of a Century’, 159 RCADI (1978) p. 64.Google Scholar

24. ILC Yearbook 1976 vol. II Part 2 p. 95.

25. Sztucki, op. cit. n. 18, pp. 119–120.

26. Cf., South West Africa cases, Second Phase, ICJ Rep. (1966) p. 6.

27. ILC Yearbook 1985 vol. II Part 1 p. 6.

28. On the formation of sources of jus cogens, see the commentary of the ILC, ILC Yearbook 1966 vol. II p. 247 and p. 249; the corresponding commentary to draft Art. 17 on State responsibility, ILC Yearbook 1976 vol. II Part 2 p. 86; cf., also the Nicaragua case (Merits), ICJ Rep. (1986) p. 100.

29. Ronzitti, N., ‘Trattati contrari a norme imperative del diritto internazionale?’ (Treaties contrary to the imperative norms of international law), in Studi in onore di G. Sperduti (1984) p. 209.Google Scholar

30. Op. cit. n. 10, p. 62.

31. Op. cit. n. 10, p. 127.

32. McNair, A.D., The Law of Treaties (1961) p. 219.Google Scholar

33. Brownlie, I., The Principles of Public International Law (1979) p. 219.Google Scholar

34. Kalamkarian, R.A., Faktor vremeni v prove mezhunarodnikh dogovorov (The time factor in the law of treaties) (1989) p. 109.Google Scholar

35. UN Doc.A/Conf.62/122 (1982).

36. UNTS vol. 171, p. 345.

37. UNTS vol. 171, p. 345.

38. LNTS vol. 11, p. 173.

39. LNTS vol. 129, p. 223.

40. UNTS vol. 596, p. 261.

41. UNTS vol. 119, p. 3.

42. UNTS vol. 34, p. 243.

43. UNTS vol. 219, p. 3.

44. UNTS vol. 331, p. 217.

45. After the Italian aggression, Abyssinia requested the implementation of economic and military sanctions by the member States of the League of Nations as provided for in Art. 16 of the Covenant. Such sanctions were not discussed within the organs of the League, but externally by the Coordinating Committee. Its legal subcommittee issued an opinion dealing with the possible consequences of sanctions from the point of view of Art. 20 of the Covenant. The opinion confirmed the absolute priority of the obligations deriving from the Covenant, interpreting this provision extensively. However, the sanctions were not implemented by all the League's members, and they were deleted after the subjugation of Abyssinia by Italian troops. As for the details, see Calogeropoulos-Stratis, S., Jus ad bellum. Le droit de recourir à la guerre (1950) p. 94Google Scholar (as to the sanctions against an aggressor within the framework of the League), and Lauterpacht, H., ‘The Covenant as the “Higher Law”’, 17 BYIL (1936) p. 54Google Scholar et seq. (as to the practice of the Coordinating Committee in dealing with Art. 20 of the Covenant).

46. McNair, op. cit. n. 32, p. 218, and others.

47. Ibid.; Cahier, P., ‘Le problème des effets des traites à l'egard des états tiers’, 143 RCADI (1974) p. 718Google Scholar; Seidl-Hohenveldern, I., Das Recht der internationalen Organisationen, einschlieβlich der supranationalen Gemeinschaften (Law of International Organizations, including Supranational Communities) (1979) p. 87Google Scholar; Haraszti, G., Some Fundamental Problems of the Law of Treaties (1973) p. 300.Google Scholar

48. Karl, op. cit. n. 10, p. 70; Tomuschat, C., ‘Völkerrechtlicher Vertrag und Drittstaaten’ (The International Treaty and Third States), 28 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht (1988) p. 14.Google Scholar

49. Goodrich, L. et al. , Charter of the United Nations (1969) p. 615Google Scholar; Barberis, J., Fuentes del derecho international (Sources of international law) (1973) p. 117Google Scholar; Bastid, S., Les traités dans la vie internationale (Treaties in international practice) (1985) p. 94Google Scholar; Dahl, K.N., ‘The Application of Successive Treaties Dealing with the Same Subject-Matter’, 17 Indian YB World Affairs (1974) p. 305Google Scholar. The same position was also taken by T. Flory in his commentary to Art. 103 of the Charter, in Cot, J.P. and Pellet, A., eds., La Charte des Nations Unies (1985) p. 1372Google Scholar, who referred to the preparatory works and to the practice which allegedly support his view.

50. Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties, Official Records, 1st Session (1986), 31st Meeting, p. 164.

51. Kelsen, H., The Law of the United Nations (1950) p. 114Google Scholar; McNair, op. cit n. 32, p. 222; Barberis, op. cit. n. 49, p. 117; Shurshalov, V.M., Osnovye voprosy teorii mezhdunarodnogo dogovora (Fundamental problems of the theory of international treaties) (1959) p. 244Google Scholar; cf., also Oppenheim, L., International Law. A Treatise, Lauterpacht, H., ed. (1955) p. 244Google Scholar, who maintain that agreements contrary to the Charter are null and void for practical purposes, which probably means that they cannot be opposed.

52. A different view is held in the commentary of the ILC to Art. 16 of Fart One of the draft articles on State responsibility, ILC Yearbook 1974 vol. II Part 2 p. 80: ‘As a result of the provision in Art. 103, an obligation under an agreement in force between two States Members of the UN, which is in conflict with an obligation under the Charter, becomes ineffective to the extent of the conflict: consequently, it cannot be the subject of a breach entailing international responsibility’.

53. See, respectively, ILC Yearbook 1958 vol. II p. 43, and 1964 vol. II p. 35; as for the authors, cf., Rousseau, C., Droit international public, vol. I (1970) p. 159Google Scholar; Verdross and Simma, op. cit. n. 10, p. 334; Parry, C., ‘The Law of Treaties’, in Sorensen, M., ed., Manual of Public International Law (1968)Google Scholar; Talalaev, A.N., Mezhdunarodnye dogovory v sovremennom mire (International agreements in the contemporary world) (1973) p. 130Google Scholar; Sciso, E., ‘On Art. 103 of the Charter of the UN in the Light of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties’, 38 ÖZÖRVR (1987) p. 174.Google Scholar

54. Nicaragua case (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), ICJ Rep. (1984) para. 107.

55. Cf., the discussion of this problem by John Macdonald, R. St., ‘The Charter of the United Nations and the Development of Fundamental Principles of International Law’, in Contemporary Problems of International Law: Essays in Honour of G. Schwarzenberger (1988) pp. 198–199.Google Scholar

56. do Nascimento e Silva, G.E., ‘Le facteur temps et les traites’, 154 RCADI (1978) p. 248.Google Scholar

57. UNTS vol. 880, p. 115.

58. 9 ILM (1970) No. 9, p. 1026.

59. UNTS vol. 830, p. 327.

60. 12 ILM (1973) No. 1, p. 16.

61. Cf., Blumenwitz, D., ‘Die Unberührheitsklausel in der Deutschlandpolitik’ (The Compatibility Clause in German Policy), in Blumenwitz, D. and Randelzhofer, A., eds., Festschrift für F. Berber (1973) p. 83Google Scholar; Zündorf, B., Die Ostverträge (The East Treaties) (1979) pp. 58, 69 and 266Google Scholar; as to the Polish position, see Gelberg, L., Die Normalisierung der Beziehungen zwischen der Volksrepublik Polen und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (The Normalization of Relations between the People's Republic of Poland and the FRG) (1977) pp. 90–91.Google Scholar

62. Scelle, G., ‘Règies générales du droit de la paix’, 46 RCADI (1933) p. 472.Google Scholar

63. Dinh, Nguyen Quoc et al. , Droit international public (1987) p. 244.Google Scholar

64. On the historical development of the problem, see Do Nascimento e Silva, loc. cit. n. 56, p. 242 et seq.; Sciso, E., Gli accordi internazionali confliggenti (Conflicting international agreements) (1986) pp. 17–58.Google Scholar

65. ILC Yearbook 1953 vol. II p. 156.

66. ILC Yearbook 1958 vol. II p. 41.

67. ILC Yearbook 1964 vol. II p. 34.

68. See Verdross and Simma, op. cit. n. 10, p. 502; Reuter, op. cit. n. 10, p. 130; Kelsen, loc. cit. n. 7, p. 165; Bastid, op. cit. n. 49, p. 161.

69. This problem has recently been thoroughly discussed by Vierdag, E.W., ‘The Time of the “Conclusion” of a Multilateral Treaty: Art. 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Related Provisions’, 60 BYIL (1989) at p. 92 et seq.Google Scholar

70. Cf., Nahlik, S.E., Kodeks prawa traktatow (The code of the law of treaties) (1976) p. 194Google Scholar; similarly, Sinclair, op. cit. n. 10, p. 68; Holloway, K., Modern Trends in Treaty Law (1967) pp. 81–84.Google Scholar

71. Sørensen, M., ‘Le problème dit du droit intertemporel dans l'ordre international’, 55 AIDI (1973) p. 54Google Scholar; see also Dahl, loc cit. n. 49, p. 282.

72. PCIJ Publ., Series A, No. 2, pp. 31–32. It has been emphasized that in fact the Court did not take into account that the parties to the treaties in question were different – Sørensen, M., Les sources de droit international (1946) p. 80.Google Scholar

73. PCIJ Publ., Series A/B, No. 63, p. 80.

74. See below – cf., also Nguyen Quoc, Dinh, ‘Evolution de la jurisprudence de la Cour Internationale de La Haye relative au problème de la hiérarchie des normes conventionnelles’, in Mélanges M. Waline (1974) p. 223.Google Scholar

75. PCIJ Publ., Series B, No. 14, p. 23.

76. ICJ Rep. (1952) p. 58.

77. 62 ILR (1982) p. 600, and 75 ILR (1987) No. 161.

78. PCIJ Publ., Series A/B, No. 41, p. 64.

79. ICJ Rep. (1960) pp. 43–44.

80. Cf., Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (31 August 1989).Google Scholar

81. Vol. 986, p. 41.

82. See on this topic, Hofmann, R., Die Ausreisefreiheit nach Völkerrecht und staatlichem Recht (The Freedom to Leave in International and Municipal Law) (1988) at p. 37 et seq. and p. 243 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83. See Ramcharan, B.G., ‘State Responsibility for Violations of Human Rights Treaties’, in Contemporary Problems of International Law. Essays in Honour of G. Schwarzenberger (1988) p. 249 et seqGoogle Scholar. This attitude seems to be indirectly supported by the ILC which treats the Covenants as obligations erga omnes, ILC Yearbook 1983 vol. II Part 2 p. 58. However, this view has neither been accepted by all members of the Commission nor by the comments by States – cf., Simma, B., ‘Bilateralism and Community Interest in the Law of State Responsibility, in International Law at a Time of Perplexity, Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne (1989) p. 831–832.Google Scholar

84. According to traditional opinion, the unanimity rule predominated in international law for years; however, at present the majority of treaties do not exclude the possibility of modification inter partes. Cf., Sørensen, M., ‘Principes de droit international public’, 101 RCADI (1960) p. 90Google Scholar; Aufricht, H., ‘Supersession of Treaties in International Law’, 37 Cornell LQ (1952) pp. 678–679Google Scholar. We would also like to refer briefly to the study by Hoyt, E., The Unanimity Rule in the Revision of Treaties. A Re-Examination (1959), in particular p. 247 et seqGoogle Scholar. The author appreciates the problems critically, and states that in fact the unanimity rule has been replaced by the combination of three principles: pacta sunt servanda, ex consensu advenit vinculum and res inter alios acta.

85. PCIJ Publ., Series A/B, No. 63, pp. 135 and 148.

86. Sørensen, op. cit. n. 72, p. 82; Nguyen Quoc Dinh, loc. cit. n. 86, p. 223.

87. Wengler, W., Völkerrecht (Public International Law) (1964) vol. I, p. 416CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Verdross and Simma, op. cit. n. 10, p. 503; Capotorti, loc. cit. n. 23, p. 41; Gaja, G., ‘Jus Cogens beyond the Vienna Convention’, 172 RCADI (1981) p. 281.Google Scholar

88. As to the contrary view based on the protection of the third States acting in good faith, cf., Zuleeg, M., ‘Vertragskonkurrenz im Völkerrecht. Teil I: Verträge zwischen souveränen Staaten’ (Concurring Treaties in International Law. Part I: Agreements between Sovereign States), 20 GYIL (1977) p. 263.Google Scholar

89. Scelle, loc. cit. n. 62, p. 472; Lauterpacht, H., ‘Régies générates du droit de la paix’, 62 RCADI (1937) p. 308Google Scholar; McNair, op. cit. n. 32, p. 222; see also the commentary on the Harvard Draft on the law of treaties, 29 AJIL (1935) p. 1025.

90. Cf., Volken, P., Konventionskonflikte im IPR (Conflicting Conventions in Private International Law) (1977) pp. 276–279Google Scholar; Sciso, op. cit. n. 64, p. 186 – in connection with Art. 3 of the Harvard Draft – emphasizes that the concept was rejected by the PCIJ in the SS Wimbledon case.

91. Kelsen, loc. cit. n. 7, p. 167; Wengler, op. cit. n. 87, p. 412; Rousseau, C., ‘De la compatibilité des normes juridiques contradictoires dans l'ordre international’, 38 RGDIP (1932) p. 188Google Scholar (repeated in later works).

92. See Jenks, C.W., ‘The Conflict of Law-Making Treaties’, 30 BYIL (1953) p. 401Google Scholar; Kalamkarian, op. cit. n. 34, p. 85 et seq. But Sztucki, op. cit. n. 18, p. 170, indicates that States often refrain from denouncing the treaties violated by the other party.

93. Disputes between Costa Rica and Nicaragua (1916), and El, Salvador and Nicaragua, (1917), 11 AJIL (1917) pp. 181 and 674.Google Scholar

94. PCIJ Publ., Series B, No. 14, pp. 73 and 91, respectively.

95. LNTS vol. 26, p. 173.

96. Cf., Bastid, op. tit. n. 49, p. 166; Jacqué, J.P., ‘A propos de l'accord de Rome du 23 avril 1977’, 27 AFDI (1981) p. 747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

97. G.E. do Nascimento e Silva, ‘The 1969 and 1986 Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Comparison’, in Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne, op. cit. n. 83, p. 470.

98. Wengler, op. cit. n. 87, p. 418; Zuleeg, lot cit. n. 88, p. 267 – who recognize the absolute binding power of the political decision, also for the international judge.

99. Touscoz, J., Le principe d'effectivité dans l'ordre international (1964) p. 271.Google Scholar

100. Rousseau, op. cit. n. 53, p. 162.

101. Cf., Seidl-Hohenveldern, I., ‘Widersprüchliche völkerrechtliche Verpflichtungen vor internationalen Rechtsprechungsorganen’ (Contradictory International Obligations before International Judicial Organs), in Festschrift für M. Luther (1976) p. 189.Google Scholar

102. Rosenne, S., Breach of Treaty (1985) p. 52.Google Scholar

103. ILC Yearbook 1985 vol. I pp. 91, 116, and 119.

104. Riphagen, W., ‘State Responsibility: New Theories of Obligation in Interstate Relations’, in Structure and Process of International Law (1983) p. 601Google Scholar; Rosenne, op. cit. n. 102, p. 76.

105. ICJ Rep. (1986) p. 98.

106. Ibid. p. 109. Emphasis added.

107. Cf., eg., Skubiszewski, K., ‘Elements of Custom and the Hague Court’, 31 ZaöRV (1971) p. 846.Google Scholar

108. ICJ Pleadings, Fisheries Jurisdiction cases, vol. I, p. 350. The FRG adopted the same approach – cf., ibid. vol. II, p. 238. This attitude corresponds with the requirement of completeness and the tendency to fill gaps.

109. Jimenez de Arechaga, loc. cit. n. 23, p. 21.

110. Cf., Cassese, A., Weiler, J.H.H., eds., Change and Stability in International Law-Making (1988) pp. 50 and 61.Google Scholar

111. UN Doc. A/Conf. 62/77 (1979). Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. Official Records, vol. XI, p. 82.

112. ICJ Rep. (1982) p. 115.

113. Ibid. p. 46.

114. ICJ Rep. (1986) pp. 108–109.

115. Cf., Declaration of the 1st Meeting of Equatorial Countries, signed in Bogota on 3 December 1976 by Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Kenya, Uganda, and Zaire; for the English translation see 6 J. of Space Law (1978) p. 193 et seq.

116. See Marcoff, M.G., ‘Sources du droit international de l'espace’, 168 RCADI (1980) p. 68.Google Scholar

117. Krause-Ablaß, W., Intertemporales Völkerrecht (Intertemporal International Law) (1970) p. 35.Google Scholar

118. The role of registration of the treaty according to Art. 102 of the Charter and the tasks of the depository are extremely important in this context, as well as the requirement to publish treaties in force in the official journals of respective States.

119. Tavernier, P., Recherches sur l'application dans le temps des actes et des regies en droit international public (Probleme de droit intertemporel ou de droit transitoire) (1970) p. 122.Google Scholar

120. Island of Palmas case, RIAA vol. II, p. 845; Grisbadarna case, ibid. vol. XI, p. 159; Minquiers et Ecrehos case, ICJ Rep. (1953) p. 47.

121. Cf., the interesting study by Meijers, H., ‘How is International Law Made? The Stages of Growth of International Law and the Use of its Customary Rules’, 9 NYIL (1978) p. 5 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

122. We agree with the well-established opinion that in fact customary law is created by the most interested States and tolerated or acquiesced in by the others – which makes the test of acceptance of a special norm even more difficult.

123. Cf., the latest detailed study by Jasudowicz, T., Normy regionalne w prawie miedzynarodowym (Regional norms in international law) (1983) p. 145 et seq.Google Scholar

124. See Akehurst, M., ‘Custom as a Source of International Law’, 47 BYIL (1974-1975) p. 29.Google Scholar

125. Talalaev, A.N., Juridicheskaya priroda mezhdunarodnogo dogovora (Legal nature of an international treaty) (1963) p. 178.Google Scholar

126. Chessman, S., ‘On Treaties and Custom: A Commentary on the Draft Restatement’, 18 Int. Lawyer (1984) pp. 422 and 435.Google Scholar

127. Cf., e.g., the statements of the representatives of Spain, the USSR, Portugal, Cuba, and the Netherlands, UN Conference on the Law of Treaties, Official Records, 1st Session (1968) pp. 209, 210, 213.

128. See the statements made by the representatives of Japan, France, Spain, the USSR, the USA, Poland, Uruguay, and Colombia; ibid. pp. 208–212.

129. Lukin, P.I. et al. , ‘Sovetskaya doktrina istochnikov sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava’ (Origin and development of Soviet international legal science), in Stanovlenie i rasvitie sovetskoy nauki mezhdunarodnogo prava, a Nauka publication (1974) pp. 76–77.Google Scholar

130. Trimble, P.R., ‘A Revisionist View of Customary International Law’, 33 UCLA LR (1986) p. 730.Google Scholar

131. Loc cit. n. 126, p. 434.

132. ILC Yearbook 1966 vol. II p. 236.

133. Cf., the statements by Finland, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands: see n. 127 supra, pp. 207, 210, 211, 213.

134. See the statements by Spain, the USSR, Poland, Uruguay, and the Netherlands: ibid. pp. 209–213.

135. In its commentary to the draft articles on the law of treaties the ILC noted that ‘although the line may sometimes be blurred between interpretation and amendment of a treaty through subsequent practice, legally the processes are distinct’ – ILC Yearbook 1966 vol. II p. 236.

136. UN Doc. A/Conf. 129/15.

137. ICJ Rep. (1962) p. 6.

138. 3 ILM (1964) p. 668.Google Scholar

139. Ibid. p. 716.

140. ICJ Rep. (1971) p. 22.

141. 18 ILM (1979) p. 416.Google Scholar

142. Ibid. p. 417.

143. ICJ Rep. (1982) p. 74.

144. ICJ Rep. (1985) pp. 33–34.

145. Cf., e.g., Akehurst, loc. tit. n. 11, p. 273; Thirlway, H.W.A., International Customary Law and Codification (1972) p. 125 et seq.Google Scholar; Tunikin, G., ‘International Law in the International System’, 147 RCADI (1975) p. 137Google Scholar; Karl, op. cit. n. 10, p. 86 et seq.

146. See, among others, Akehurst, loc tit. n. 11, p. 275.

147. Villiger, M.S., Customary International Law and Treaties (1985) pp. 220–221.Google Scholar

148. Cf., e.g., Chessman, loc. cit. n. 126, p. 432.

149. 16 ILM (1977) p. 417Google Scholar – emphasis added.

150. ILC Yearbook 1964 vol. II p. 198.

151. ILC Yearbook 1966 vol. II p. 236.

152. Akehurst, lot cit. n. 11, p. 275; Thirlway, op. cit. n. 145, p. 139; Villiger, op. cit. n. 147, p. 217; Monaco, loc. cit. n. 10, p. 608.