A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by
actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international
organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international)
agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of
letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these
forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered
treaties and the rules are the same.
Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of
willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to
either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable
under international law.
1 Modern usage
2 Modern form
3 Bilateral and multilateral treaties
4 Adding and amending treaty obligations
5 Execution and implementation
5.2 Consequences of terminology
6 Ending treaty obligations
6.2 Suspension and termination
7 Invalid treaties
7.1 Ultra vires treaties
7.2 Misunderstanding, fraud, corruption, coercion
7.3 Contrary to peremptory norms
8 Role of the United Nations
9 Relation between national law and treaties by country
9.1 Australian law
9.2 Brazilian law
9.4 United States
10 Treaties and indigenous peoples
11 See also
14 External links
A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to
legally bind themselves. A treaty is the official document which
expresses that agreement in words; and it is also the objective
outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the parties and
their defined relationships.
Since the late 19th century, most treaties have followed a fairly
consistent format. A treaty typically begins with a preamble
describing the High Contracting Parties and their shared objectives in
executing the treaty, as well as summarizing any underlying events
(such as the aftermath of a war in the case of a peace treaty). Modern
preambles are sometimes structured as a single very long sentence
formatted into multiple paragraphs for readability, in which each of
the paragraphs begins with a gerund (desiring, recognizing, having,
and so on).
The High Contracting Parties; referred to as either the official title
of the head of state (but not including the personal name), e.g. His
Majesty The King of X or His
Excellency The President of Y, or
alternatively in the form of "Government of Z"; are enumerated, and
along with the full names and titles of their plenipotentiary
representatives, and a boilerplate clause about how their
representatives have communicated (or exchanged) their full powers
(i.e., the official documents appointing them to act on behalf of
their respective high contracting party) and found them in good or
proper form. However, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties if the representative is the head of state, head of
government or minister of foreign affairs, no special document is
needed, as holding such high office is sufficient.
The end of the preamble and the start of the actual agreement is often
signaled by the words "have agreed as follows."
After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the
substance of the parties' actual agreement. Each article heading
usually encompasses a paragraph. A long treaty may further group
articles under chapter headings.
Modern treaties, regardless of subject matter, usually contain
articles governing where the final authentic copies of the treaty will
be deposited and how any subsequent disputes as to their
interpretation will be peacefully resolved.
The end of a treaty, the eschatocol (or closing protocol), is often
signaled by a clause like "in witness whereof" or "in faith whereof,"
the parties have affixed their signatures, followed by the words "DONE
at," then the site(s) of the treaty's execution and the date(s) of its
execution. The date is typically written in its most formal, longest
possible form. For example, the
Charter of the United Nations
Charter of the United Nations was
"DONE at the city of San Francisco the twenty-sixth day of June, one
thousand nine hundred and forty-five." If the treaty is executed in
multiple copies in different languages, that fact is always noted, and
is followed by a stipulation that the versions in different languages
are equally authentic.
The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end.
When the text of a treaty is later reprinted, such as in a collection
of treaties currently in effect, an editor will often append the dates
on which the respective parties ratified the treaty and on which it
came into effect for each party.
Bilateral and multilateral treaties
Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. It
is possible, however, for a bilateral treaty to have more than two
parties; consider for instance the bilateral treaties between
Switzerland and the
European Union (EU) following the Swiss rejection
European Economic Area
European Economic Area agreement. Each of these treaties has
seventeen parties. These however are still bilateral, not
multilateral, treaties. The parties are divided into two groups, the
Swiss ("on the one part") and the EU and its member states ("on the
other part"). The treaty establishes rights and obligations between
the Swiss and the EU and the member states severally—it does not
establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member
A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries. The
agreement establishes rights and obligations between each party and
every other party. Multilateral treaties are often regional.[citation
needed] Treaties of "mutual guarantee" are international compacts,
Treaty of Locarno
Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against
attack from another.
Adding and amending treaty obligations
Main article: Reservation (law)
Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a
treaty. Reservations are unilateral statements purporting to exclude
or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on the reserving
state. These must be included at the time of signing or
ratification, i.e. "a party cannot add a reservation after it has
already joined a treaty".
Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations,
rejecting them unless all parties to the treaty accepted the same
reservations. However, in the interest of encouraging the largest
number of states to join treaties, a more permissive rule regarding
reservations has emerged. While some treaties still expressly forbid
any reservations, they are now generally permitted to the extent that
they are not inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty.
When a state limits its treaty obligations through reservations, other
states party to that treaty have the option to accept those
reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them. If the state
accepts them (or fails to act at all), both the reserving state and
the accepting state are relieved of the reserved legal obligation as
concerns their legal obligations to each other (accepting the
reservation does not change the accepting state's legal obligations as
concerns other parties to the treaty). If the state opposes, the parts
of the treaty affected by the reservation drop out completely and no
longer create any legal obligations on the reserving and accepting
state, again only as concerns each other. Finally, if the state
objects and opposes, there are no legal obligations under that treaty
between those two state parties whatsoever. The objecting and opposing
state essentially refuses to acknowledge the reserving state is a
party to the treaty at all.
There are three ways an existing treaty can be amended. First, formal
amendment requires State parties to the treaty to go through the
ratification process all over again. The re-negotiation of treaty
provisions can be long and protracted, and often some parties to the
original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty. When
determining the legal obligations of states, one party to the original
treaty and one a party to the amended treaty, the states will only be
bound by the terms they both agreed upon. Treaties can also be amended
informally by the treaty executive council when the changes are only
procedural, technical change in customary international law can also
amend a treaty, where state behavior evinces a new interpretation of
the legal obligations under the treaty. Minor corrections to a treaty
may be adopted by a procès-verbal; but a procès-verbal is generally
reserved for changes to rectify obvious errors in the text adopted,
i.e. where the text adopted does not correctly reflect the intention
of the parties adopting it.
See also: Environmental protocol
In international law and international relations, a protocol is
generally a treaty or international agreement that supplements a
previous treaty or international agreement. A protocol can amend the
previous treaty, or add additional provisions. Parties to the earlier
agreement are not required to adopt the protocol. Sometimes this is
made clearer by calling it an "optional protocol", especially where
many parties to the first agreement do not support the protocol.
Some examples: the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) established a framework for the development of binding
greenhouse gas emission limits, while the
Kyoto Protocol contained the
specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon.
Execution and implementation
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help
improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2014) (Learn
how and when to remove this template message)
Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a
party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. Other
treaties may be non-self-executing and require 'implementing
legislation'—a change in the domestic law of a state party that will
direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations. An example of a
treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local
prosecution by a party for particular crimes.
The division between the two is often not clear and is often
politicized in disagreements within a government over a treaty, since
a non-self-executing treaty cannot be acted on without the proper
change in domestic law. If a treaty requires implementing legislation,
a state may be in default of its obligations by the failure of its
legislature to pass the necessary domestic laws.
The language of treaties, like that of any law or contract, must be
interpreted when the wording does not seem clear or it is not
immediately apparent how it should be applied in a perhaps unforeseen
circumstance. The Vienna Convention states that treaties are to be
interpreted "in good faith" according to the "ordinary meaning given
to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its
object and purpose." International legal experts also often invoke the
'principle of maximum effectiveness,' which interprets treaty language
as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish
obligations between the parties.
No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of
the treaty upon the other parties. Consent may be implied, however, if
the other parties fail to explicitly disavow that initially unilateral
interpretation, particularly if that state has acted upon its view of
the treaty without complaint. Consent by all parties to the treaty to
a particular interpretation has the legal effect of adding another
clause to the treaty – this is commonly called an 'authentic
International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve
substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the
meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory
work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the
final, signed treaty itself.
Consequences of terminology
One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies
recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the
agreement being considered is enforceable under international law.
Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a
treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between
states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal
government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of
Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an
obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This
factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North
Korea and the
United States over security guarantees and nuclear
The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually
is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention,
protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as
Treaty of Waitangi
Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents
under domestic law.
Ending treaty obligations
Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory
parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed
as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly
allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of
notification. For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of
denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties
expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over
whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption
that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:
it can be shown that the parties intended to admit the possibility, or
a right of withdrawal can be inferred from the terms of the treaty.
The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and
its travaux preparatoire. It has, for example, been held that it is
not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. When
North Korea declared its intention to do this
the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said
that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the
possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had
deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal
was not possible.
In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can purport to withdraw
from any treaty at any time, and cease to abide by its terms. The
question of whether this is lawful can be regarded as the success or
failure to anticipate community acquiescence or enforcement, that is,
how other states will react; for instance, another state might impose
sanctions or go to war over a treaty violation.
If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under
that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party
from a bilateral treaty terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws
from a multilateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in
force among the other parties, unless, it otherwise should or could be
interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the
Suspension and termination
If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations,
the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily
suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A
material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently
terminating the treaty itself.
A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty
relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the
breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will
provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal
or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is
that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully
suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another's alleged
Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning
that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined
conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be
only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other
treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under
A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an
express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in
circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it
undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it
radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties,
and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base
this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty.
This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established
or redrew political boundaries.
There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty
may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which
involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.[citation
needed] For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905, 1907 and
1910 were protested; and they were confirmed as "already null and
void" in the 1965
Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the
Republic of Korea.
Ultra vires treaties
A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an
agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic laws.
States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and
processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required
such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with
the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head
of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no
treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.[citation
Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored
restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the
negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of
those restrictions prior to his signing.
According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a
source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned
under international law, the act will not assume international
legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case
of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always
Misunderstanding, fraud, corruption, coercion
Articles 46–53 of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set
out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered
unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be
invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party
joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself.
Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination
(addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of
the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation
of that consent in the first place.
A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous
understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which
formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not
be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own
conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.
Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent
conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of
its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either
a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of
force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will
invalidate that consent.
Contrary to peremptory norms
A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm.
These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized
as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty
obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted
prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide
and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at
civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and
torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to
commit or permit such acts.
Role of the United Nations
United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered
with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary
organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent
the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and
20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members'
obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other
After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to
follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied
by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and
entry into force.
In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the
United States Federal government by some[citation
needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the
historical Articles of Confederation.
Relation between national law and treaties by country
List of Australian treaties and Law of Australia
§ International law
The constitution of Australia allows the executive government to enter
into treaties, but the practice is for treaties to be tabled in both
houses of parliament at least 15 days before signing. Treaties are
considered a source of
Australian law but sometimes require an act of
parliament to be passed depending on their nature. Treaties are
administered and maintained by the Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, which advised that the "general position under Australian law
is that treaties which Australia has joined, apart from those
terminating a state of war, are not directly and automatically
incorporated into Australian law.
Signature and ratification do not,
of themselves, make treaties operate domestically. In the absence of
legislation, treaties cannot impose obligations on individuals nor
create rights in domestic law. Nevertheless, international law,
including treaty law, is a legitimate and important influence on the
development of the common law and may be used in the interpretation of
statutes." Treaties can be implemented by executive action, and
often, existing laws are sufficient to ensure a treaty is honoured.
Australian treaties generally fall under the following categories:
extradition, postal agreements and money orders, trade and
The federal constitution of Brazil states that the power to enter into
treaties is vested in the president of Brazil and that such treaties
must be approved by the
Congress of Brazil
Congress of Brazil (Articles 84, Clause VIII,
and 49, Clause I). In practice, that has been interpreted as meaning
that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty but
that its ratification by the president requires the prior approval of
Congress. Additionally, the
Supreme Federal Court
Supreme Federal Court has ruled that after
ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into
domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the
federal register for it to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the
The court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional
review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary
legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A
more recent ruling by the
Supreme Court of Brazil
Supreme Court of Brazil in 2008 has altered
that somewhat by stating that treaties containing human rights
provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, subject
to only the constitution itself. Additionally, the 45th Amendment to
the constitution makes human rights treaties approved by Congress by a
special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a
constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in
relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on
whether and how the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.
The constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same
effects as the one in the US constitution, which is of interest to the
discussion on the relation between treaties and legislation of the
states of Brazil.
In India, subjects are divided into three lists: union, state and
concurrent. In the normal legislation process, the subjects on the u
ion list must be legislated by the Parliament of India. For subjects
on the state list, only the respective state legislature can
legislate. For subjects on the concurrent list, both governments can
make laws. However, to implement international treaties, Parliament
can legislate on any subject and even override the general division of
In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more
restricted legal sense than in international law. US law distinguishes
what it calls "treaties" from "executive agreements," which are either
"congressional-executive agreements" or "sole executive agreements."
The classes are all equally treaties under international law; they are
distinct only in internal US law.
The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval.
Treaties require advice and consent by two thirds of the Senators
present, but sole executive agreements may be executed by the
President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the
authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than
additional treaties or protocols. Finally, congressional-executive
agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate
before or after the treaty is signed by the President.
Currently, international agreements are ten times more likely to be
executed by executive agreement. Despite the relative ease of
executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the
formal treaty process over an executive agreement to gain
congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass
implementing legislation or appropriate funds as well as for
agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the US.
For example, the deal by the United States, Iran, and other countries
is not a treaty.
See the article on the Bricker Amendment for history of the
relationship between treaty powers and Constitutional provisions.
US Supreme Court
US Supreme Court ruled in the
Head Money Cases
Head Money Cases that "treaties" do
not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be
repealed or modified, for the purposes of US law, by any subsequent
Act of Congress, just like any other regular law. The court also ruled
Reid v. Covert
Reid v. Covert that treaty provisions that conflict with the US
Constitution are null and void under US law.
Treaties and indigenous peoples
Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in
many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their
sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases
these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native
people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they
In some rare cases, such as with
Qing Dynasty China, the
local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate
the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the
intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties
to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing
different powers against each other.
In other cases, such as
New Zealand and Canada, treaties allowed
native peoples to maintain a minimum amount of autonomy. In the case
of indigenous Australians, unlike with the Māori of New Zealand, no
treaty was ever entered into with the indigenous peoples entitling the
Europeans to land ownership, under the doctrine of terra nullius
(later overturned by Mabo v Queensland, establishing the concept of
native title well after colonization was already a fait accompli).
Such treaties between colonizers and indigenous peoples are an
important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st
century, the treaties being discussed have international standing as
has been stated in a treaty study by the UN.
Prior to 1871, the government of the
United States regularly entered
into treaties with Native Americans but the Indian Appropriations Act
of March 3, 1871 (ch. 120, 16 Stat. 563) had a rider (25
U.S.C. § 71) attached that effectively ended the
President’s treaty making by providing that no Indian nation or
tribe shall be acknowledged as an independent nation, tribe, or power
with whom the
United States may contract by treaty. The federal
government continued to provide similar contractual relations with the
Indian tribes after 1871 by agreements, statutes, and executive
List of intergovernmental organizations
List of treaties
Scottish Clan treaty)
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
United States constitutional law, the term "treaty" has a special
meaning which is more restricted than its meaning in international
United States law below.
^ Druzin, Bryan (2014). "Opening the Machinery of Private Order:
Public International Law as a Form of Private Ordering". Saint Louis
University Law Journal. 58: 452–456.
^ Shaw, Malcolm. (2003). International Law, pp. 88–92., p. 88, at
^ a b c Nicolson, Harold. (1934). Diplomacy, p. 135.
^ Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 2 Sec. 1(d) Text
of the Convention
^ Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article II, Reservations.
^ Final Clauses in Multilateral Treaties: Handbook (PDF). United
Nations. 2003. p. 112. ISBN 92-1-133572-8.
^ Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
^ Gomaa, Mohammed M. (1997). Suspension or termination of treaties on
grounds of breach. The Hague: M. Nijhoff. p. 142.
^ a b Laurence R. Helfer, Terminating Treaties, in The Oxford Guide to
Treaties 634-649 (Duncan Hollis ed., Oxford University Press, 2012)
^ Korean Mission to the Conference on the Limitation of Armament,
Washington, D.C., 1921–1922. (1922). Korea's Appeal to the
Conference on Limitation of Armament, pp. 1–44.
Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea";
excerpt, "It is confirmed that all treaties or agreements concluded
between the Empire of Japan and the Empire of Korea on or before
August 22, 1910 are already null and void."
^ Article 3, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts Adopted by ILC 53 session 2001.
^ Article 27, Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties, Vienna 23 May
1969 jfr. P 2, World T.R. 2007, 6(1), 45–87
^ Wood, Michael; Pronto, Arnold (2010). The International Law
Commission 1999-2009. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 764.
^ Articles 53 and 64 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
^ Page 12 of the introduction to Forest Service National Resource
Guide to American Indian and Alaska Native Relations Author: Joe
Mitchell, Publish date: 12/5/97 US Forest Service – Caring for the
land and serving people.
Korean Mission to the Conference on the Limitation of Armament,
Washington, D.C., 1921–1922. (1922). Korea's Appeal to the
Conference on Limitation of Armament. Washington: U.S. Government
Printing Office. OCLC 12923609
Nicolson, Harold. (1936). Diplomacy, 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. OCLC 502863836
Shaw, Malcolm Nathan. (1977). International Law, 1st ed. Sevenoaks,
Kent: Hodder and Stoughton. OCLC 637940121
Timothy L. Meyer, "From
Contract to Legislation: The Logic of Modern
International Lawmaking" 14 Chicago Journal of International Law 559
(2014), available at
Seah, Daniel. "Problems Concerning the International Law-Making
Practice of ASEAN: A Reply to Chen Zhida" Asian Journal of
International Law (2015)
Look up treaty in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Treaties and Selected other International Instruments – Resources
Procedural history and related documents on The Guide to Practice on
Reservations to Treaties in the Historic Archives of the United
Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
Procedural history and related documents on the Articles on the
Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties in the Historic Archives of the
United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
ISEA International Energy Treaties
Treaties from UCB Libraries GovPubs
Resource Guide on Treaties from the American Society of International
Treaty Affairs at the
United States Department of State
Treaties Office at the European Union
Peace Palace Library - Research Guide