Цывкунова Интернатионал Лаw Учебно-методическое пособие 2010
.pdfized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed the present Convention.
Done at Vienna, this twenty-third day of May, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-nine.
Task 5. Read the text about the treaty process and write down Russian equivalents for the word combinations in bold type.
Although the same legal rules apply to multilateral and bilateral treaties, the process by which these treaties are negotiated and concluded may differ. Bilateral treaties tend to originate in the foreign ministry of one of the two interested parties. Following discussions, usually involving the respective embassies and exchanges of diplomatic notes, one or more draft texts will be prepared by the respective legal advisers. These texts will be the subject of negotiations until an acceptable draft has emerged.
Multilateral treaties between only a few states tend to be negotiated much the same way as bilateral treaties. Treaties designed to have a large number of states parties are as a rule drafted at diplomatic conferences where the participating states are represented by diplomatic delegations that include legal advisers. The conference will usually have before it various working papers or draft proposals, prepared by some states or international organizations in advance of the meeting. These documents serve as the basis for the negotiations and bargaining that ultimately result in the text of a treaty.
The negotiating and drafting process at these diplomatic conferences resembles that of national legislatures. Here amendments to different provisions of the working papers are presented, drafting committees are established, alternative texts are proposed and debated, etc. The conference records are a valuable source of information on the drafting history of the treaty. The formal results of the conference are frequently summarized in a so-called Final Act, which usually contains the text of the treaty.
21
The Final Act can and often does serve to authenticate the text of the treaty (Article 10). But the adoption of the Final Act is not as a rule designed to bring the agreement into force. Bilateral treaties enter into force on the international plane when both states indicate their intention to be bound by the agreement as of a certain date. Multilateral treaties often contain a provision indicating how many states have to accept the treaty before it will be in force as between them (Article 24).
Consent to be bound by treaty. Article 11 of the Convention declares that "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." Under international law any of the above mentioned methods may be utilized by a state to indicate its acceptance of the treaty. Often, of course, the treaty will specify the method, and if it declares, for example, that the states will be bound upon signing the treaty, their signature will have that effect (Article 12).
It is more common for a treaty to provide that it shall become binding upon ratification (Article 14(1). On the international plane, ratification is an act whereby a state, through its head of state, foreign minister, or duly authorized diplomatic agent, declares that it considers itself bound by the treaty. The declaration is usually contained in a so-called instrument of ratification. These instruments are either exchanged between the parties or deposited with a previously designated depository government or organization, which performs various custodial functions relating to the treaty.
Treaties which call for signature and subsequent ratification usually also have a provision permitting accession. Such treaties might contain a provision that reads as follows, for example: "This treaty may be ratified by all states signatories thereto. Any other state wishing to become a party to it, may do so by depositing an instrument of accession [adherence]. ..." Under such a clause, a signatory state becomes a party by ratification of the agreement; accession is reserved for states that were unable to or did not sign. Once a state becomes a party, however, it matters not whether it did so by ratification, accession or any other method allowed under the treaty.
22
Task 6. As a general rule, states are free to adhere to a treaty with reservations. Let us assume a multilateral treaty with a large number of states parties that contains no prohibition regarding reservations. Let us assume further that State A seeks to ratify with a reservation modifying article 5, paragraph 2, of the treaty.
What will be the treaty relations of State A, if State B accepts the reservation, State C rejects it but does not object to A becoming a party, and State D objects to the reservation and does not want the treaty to enter into force between it and State A?
Task 7. Comment on the following quotations.
•Treaties, you see, are like girls and roses: they last while they last. (Charles de Gaulle)
•Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. (John F. Kennedy)
•One of the things I learnt when I was negotiating was that until I changed myself I could not change others. (Nelson Mandela)
•But peace does not rest in the charters and covenants alone. It lies in the hearts and minds of all people. So let us not rest all our hopes on parchment and on paper, let us strive to build peace, a desire for peace, a willingness to work for peace in the hearts and minds of all of our people. I believe that we can. I believe the problems of human destiny are not beyond the reach of human beings. (John F. Kennedy)
23
Task 8. Fill in the blanks. Describe the stages of a treaty process.
24
Task 9. What does it mean “to ratify a convention”? How are international agreements ratified in the Russian Federation? Make use of the following words:
executive branch, legislative bodies, judicial branch, the Head of State, the Federal Assembly, the Federation Council, the State Duma, the upper House of the Parliament, the lower House of the Parliament, to exercise the right of veto, to sign the instruments of ratification, to approve, to disapprove, national legislature, to convene the Duma, to disband the Duma
Task 10. Render into English.
Москва, 29 октября 2008 – РИА Новости. Госдума в среду единогласно ратифицировала договоры о дружбе, сотрудничестве и взаимопомощи РФ с Абхазией и Южной Осетией.
В документах отражено желание стран укреплять дружественные отношения, развивать политическое, экономическое, военнотехническое и гуманитарное сотрудничество.
Россия 26 августа признала независимость Южной Осетии и Абхазии, 9 сентября между государствами были установлены дипломатические отношения, а 17 сентября РФ подписала с республиками договоры о дружбе, сотрудничестве и взаимной помощи.
Президент России Дмитрий Медведев внес договоры о дружбе и сотрудничестве с Абхазией и Южной Осетией для ратификации в Госдуму 20 октября. Парламент Абхазии уже ратифицировал договор о дружбе, сотрудничестве и взаимопомощи с РФ 24 сентября, а парламент Южной Осетии – 2 октября.
25
International Relations: News
Germany: ‘Lisbon’ legal but ratification held up
Euronews, June 2009
The highest court in Germany ruled that the EU’s Treaty of Lisbon is compatible with German law – then promptly suspended the process to ratify it. The court said new domestic legislation is needed to protect the power of the German parliament.
The Treaty of Lisbon was drawn up to streamline the institutions of the EU. Critics say it gives too much power to Brussels. The German parliament, the Bundestag, has already given its approval, but the Treaty still has to be signed by the President.
Today’s court statement said Germany’s ratification document may not be adopted until there’s sufficient legal groundwork for parliamentary participation. Most of the 27 countries have ratified the Treaty. Eurosceptic presidents of the Czech Republic and Poland are waiting for the outcome of the Irish referendum before they sign.
•Provide some background information about the Treaty of Lisbon. (When was it adopted? Was it subject to ratification? Did it enter into force?)
26
Unit I. Section 4
The 1986 Reykjavik Summit
Interview with Pavel Palazchenko
Task 1. Focus on Words. a) Analyze the following vocabulary items:
The Clive Anderson show – popular British television talk show
INF Treaty – Intermediary Nuclear Force Treaty – Соглашение о со-
кращении ракет средней дальности
Heavy (land-based / sea-launched) missiles – ракеты большой мощ-
ности (наземного / морского) базирования
SDI (“Star Wars” Program) – СОИ (стратегическая оборонная инициатива)
in a kind of whimper (an allusion to T.S.Eliot’s “This is the way the world ends / Not with a bang, but a whimper.”)
b) Find in the interview the English equivalents for the following words and word combinations:
(1) говорить на одном языке; (2) рассудительный человек; (3) давать интервью; (4) взаимодействие, хороший контакт; (5) доверяй, но проверяй; (6) человек, которого переводят; (7) политикпрагматик, «не летающий в облаках»; (8) совместное заявление; (9) стенографист; (10) хорошо осведомленный; (11) неровно, с трудом; (12) отстаивать свои позиции; (13) острый вопрос; (14) набирать скорость, силу; (15) явиться на работу (после отпуска); (16) встреча с глазу на глаз; (17) не достичь цели.
Task 2. Give Russian equivalents for the following words and word combinations. Provide your own context in which they may be used.
evermore crucial, unobtrusive, blast of fresh air, hiatus, adversary, it’s a must, to trace back to, nuts and bolts, bean counting, to eliminate (to abolish), consistent with something, to have a good grasp of foreign affairs, to be inclined to, to talk somebody out, to back out of something,
27
attempted coup (d’etat), facelift, contested election, it’s common knowledge.
Task 3. Interview in numbers. Explain which event is meant by the following dates and numbers.
|
1974 |
6 |
April, 1985 1986 |
5 |
January 15, 1986 |
|
10 |
50 |
|
8 |
December, 1987 |
|
December, 1989 |
|
|
August 19 |
August 20 |
|
May, 1988 |
|
Task 4. Answer the following questions:
1)What do we come to know about Pavel Palazchenko’s ‘big experience in interpreting’?
2)What was so different about Gorbachev versus all previous Soviet leaders?
3)What information is provided about R. Reagan?
4)What did Mr. Palazchenko reveal about the summits at Geneva, Reykjavik and Malta?
5)Where and how did the Cold War end?
6)How did the 1991 coup affect Mr. Gorbachev?
Task 5. Read some extracts from the book of Ambassador James E. Goodby (At the Borderline of Armageddon—How American Presidents Managed the Atom Bomb (2006), who was vice chair of the U.S. START delegation during 1982-1983.
a)Give Russian equivalents for the expressions in bold type.
b)Answer the following questions:
•What additional information is provided about the Reykjavik summit?
•Do you consider the elimination of nuclear weapons a ‘possible dream’?
28
•Do you find Reagan’s ideas about nuclear weapons as salient today as they were then?
*******************
The story of the 1986 Reykjavik summit meeting is a tale of two visionary leaders and an “impossible dream.” It was the most remarkable summit ever held between U.S. and Soviet leaders. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev seriously discussed the elimination of all ballistic missiles held by their two countries and aired the possibility of eliminating all nuclear weapons.
As Gorbachev said in these pages, “[T]he 1986 U.S.-Soviet summit in Reykjavik, seen by many as a failure, actually gave an impetus to reduction by reaffirming the vision of a world without nuclear weapons and by paving the way toward concrete agreements on intermediaterange nuclear forces and strategic nuclear weapons.”
The world has changed since those heady days, but it is clearer than ever that the twin challenges of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism must be addressed “by reaffirming the vision of a world without nuclear weapons.” At a time when the international community is struggling to prevent a cascade of decisions by more and more states to acquire nuclear weapons, the ideas that briefly occupied center stage at Reykjavik look like the best answer we have.
Reagan and Gorbachev brought two great nations close to the end of the era of the Cold War. Two revolutionaries, each in his own way, became history’s catalysts for change. Gorbachev realized that the Soviet Union needed radical economic reform, and that to do it, he had to end the ideological confrontation with the West. Reagan was unlike any other U.S. president in his revulsion against the immorality of nuclear war, his willingness to do something about it, and his ability to act on his instincts. Turning away from classical arms control, he insisted on nuclear disarmament and succeeded to a remarkable degree. Reagan and Gorbachev found common ground at their first summit in Geneva in
29
1985; the two leaders declared that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
***********
The final session was a scene of high drama. Gorbachev said he wanted to eliminate all strategic forces, not just ballistic missiles. Reagan said, “It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons.” The break point began to appear when Gorbachev, following the script laid out in his initial presentation, insisted that all research and testing of space-based ballistic missile systems be restricted to laboratories.
In the final minutes at Reykjavik, Reagan, as reported by Secretary of State George Shultz, re-read the key clause to Gorbachev: “Listen once again to what I have proposed: during that 10-year period [of nonwithdrawal from the ABM treaty], while continuing research, testing, and development which is permitted by that treaty. It is a question of one word.” Reagan did not want to enter into a negotiation that he viewed as amending the treaty. He had accepted a “broad” interpretation of the treaty, under which wide latitude was allowed for space-based testing, although the treaty’s original negotiators, the Soviets, and the Senate supported a more restrictive interpretation.
Gorbachev insisted on the word “laboratories.” Over this one word, the negotiations broke off. Washington read Gorbachev’s proposal as an attack on the missile defense program, the Strategic Defense Initiative. That one word, “laboratories,” obviously rang alarm bells in the minds of those who had been operating under tense conditions for two days.
So ended “the highest stakes poker game ever played,” as Shultz described it. In Reagan’s words, “We proposed the most sweeping and generous arms control proposal in history. We offered the complete elimination of all ballistic missiles—Soviet and American—from the face of the earth by 1996. While we parted company with this American offer still on the table, we are closer than ever before to agreements that could lead to a safer world without nuclear weapons.”
30