Clausula rebus sic stantibus

Last updated March 21, 2023

Clausula rebus sic stantibus is the legal doctrine allowing for a contract or a treaty to become inapplicable because of a fundamental change of circumstances. In public international law the doctrine essentially serves an "escape clause" to the general rule of pacta sunt servanda (promises must be kept).^[1]^: 28 Because the doctrine is a risk to the security of treaties, as its scope is relatively unconfined, the conditions in which it may be invoked must be carefully noted.^[1]^: 23–28^[2]

Function in international law

The doctrine is part of customary international law but is also provided for in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, under Article 62 (Fundamental Change of Circumstance). Although the doctrine is not mentioned by name,^[1]^: 37 Article 62 provides the only justifications for its invocation: the circumstances that existed at the time of the conclusion of the treaty were indeed objectively essential to the obligations of treaty (sub-paragraph A), and the instance for the change of circumstances has had a radical effect on the obligations of the treaty (sub-paragraph B).

Clausula rebus sic stantibus relates to changed circumstances only if they had never been contemplated by the parties: if the parties to a treaty had contemplated for the occurrence of the changed circumstances, the doctrine does not apply and the provision remains in effect. This principle is clarified in the Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom v. Iceland, 1973).

Although it is clear that a fundamental change of circumstances might justify terminating or modifying a treaty, the unilateral denunciation of a treaty is usually thought to be prohibited: although the point is debated, it is usually thought that a party does not have the right to denounce a treaty unilaterally.^[1]^: 31–32

Function in private law

The principle of clausula rebus sic stantibus exists in all legal systems which descend from Roman law. In Swiss law, article 119 of the Swiss Code of Obligations is the source of the principle's applicability in Swiss contract law.

History

Clausula rebus sic stantibus comes from Latin (where rebus sic stantibus is Latin for "with things thus standing" or, more idiomatically, "as things stand").

A key figure in the formulation of clausula rebus sic stantibus was the Italian jurist Scipione Gentili (1563–1616), who is generally credited for coining the maxim omnis conventio intelligitur rebus sic stantibus ('every convention is understood with circumstances as they stand').^[3] The Swiss legal expert Emer de Vattel (1714–1767) was the next key contributor. Vattel promoted the view that 'every body bound himself for the future only on the stipulation of the presence of the actual conditions' and so 'with a change of the condition also the relations originating from the situation would undergo a change'.^[1]^: 13 During the 19th century, civil law came to reject the doctrine of clausula rebus sic standibus, but Vattel's thinking continued to influence international law, not least because it helped reconcile 'the antagonism between the static nature of the law and the dynamism of international life'.^[1]^: 4 While individual cases invoking the doctrine were much disputed, the doctrine itself was little questioned. Its provision in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties established the doctrine firmly but not without dispute as 'a norm of international law'.^[1]^: 37

Examples

According to Polybius, in 211 BC, Lyciscus of Acarnania argued that the Lacedaemonians should abandon their treaty with the Aetolian League because of fundamentally changed circumstances. This is perhaps the earliest recorded example of the principle of rebus sic stantibus at work.^[1]^: 15
Elizabeth I of England sought to amend the 1585 Treaty of Nonsuch on the grounds of fundamentally changed circumstances, but her efforts have not been well regarded by modern jurists.^[1]^: 15
In a 'classic' case for the doctrine, Russia attempted to change the terms of the Treaty of Paris (1856) on military shipping in the Black Sea. Russia achieved this in connection with the Treaty of London (1871), partly by invoking clausula rebus sic stantibus. One important outcome was the insistence by other parties that unilateral termination of a treaty was not legal on those grounds.^[1]^: 15–17
Article 59 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878) made Batumi a free port. In 1886, Russia terminated the arrangement, partly on the grounds of a fundamental change in circumstances.^[1]^: 17–18
In 1881, the United States attempted to end the Clayton–Bulwer Treaty with the United Kingdom. Various arguments were advanced, including clausula rebus sic stantibus. Although that principle ultimately did not apply in the resolution of the case, it is noteworthy as the first time that the US invoked the principle, as it had previously been opposed to it. The US went on to cite the doctrine again in its arguments for the revision of the Treaty of London (1915).^[1]^: 18–19
During the 1908 Bosnian crisis, Austria-Hungary renounced its rights and obligations under Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878). Austria-Hungary's arguments have been seen as an invocation of fundamentally changed circumstances. Moreover, despite protests at its actions, Austria-Hungary succeeded, arguably setting a precedent for the use of the doctrine.^[1]^: 18
On 7 February 1923, the Permanent Court of International Justice issued an advisory opinion on a case between France and the United Kingdom on the application to British nationals of French nationality decrees issued by the capitulatory regimes in Tunis and Morocco. France cited a fundamental change of circumstances, and the case seems to be the first example of a state invoking rebus sic stantibus before an international court. However, the states settled before the court was required to issue a verdict.^[1]^: 21
In 1924, Norway dissolved its 1907 treaty with Sweden that had arisen from the dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden, citing changed circumstances including the Russian Revolution, the Treaty of Versailles and Norway's entry into the League of Nations. Since the 1907 treaty was also time-limited, the case has been seen as a precedent for rebus sic stantibus applying not only to indefinite treaties.
In 1926, China came to terms with Belgium after its efforts to denounce the Sino-Belgian Pact (1865), citing fundamentally changed circumstances.^[1]^: 19^[4]
In November 1923, France moved its customs office to Gex, Ain, provoking the 'Freezones Controversy' with Switzerland. The matter was brought before the Permanent Court of International Justice, and France invoked rebus sic stantibus, but Switzerland argued that the doctrine did not apply in respect of territorial rights. In 1932, the court found in favour of Switzerland on the basis of fact, but it did not reject that rebus sic stantibus might be a valid basis for France's argument.^[5] It was the second time rebus sic stantibus had been argued before an international court.^[1]^: 21

Related Research Articles

Jurisdiction is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels.

Pacta sunt servanda, Latin for "agreements must be kept", is a brocard and a fundamental principle of law. According to Hans Wehberg, a professor of international law, "few rules for the ordering of Society have such a deep moral and religious influence" as this principle.

In United States constitutional law, the political question doctrine holds that a constitutional dispute that requires knowledge of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States, lies within the political, rather than the legal, realm to solve, and judges customarily refuse to address such matters. The idea of a political question is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has the authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political one. Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. One scholar explained:

The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.

A treaty is a formal, legally binding written agreement between actors in international law. It is usually made by and between sovereign states, but can include international organizations, individuals, business entities, and other legal persons. A treaty may also be known as an international agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. However, only documents that are legally binding on the parties are considered treaties under international law. Treaties vary on the basis of obligations, precision, and delegation.

The Clayton–Bulwer Treaty was a treaty signed in 1850 between the United States and the United Kingdom. The treaty was negotiated by John M. Clayton and Sir Henry Bulwer, amidst growing tensions between the two nations over Central America, a region where the British had traditionally held strong influence but also saw increasing American expansion into the area. The treaty proved instrumental in preventing the outbreak of war between the two nations by resolving tensions over American plans to construct a Nicaraguan Canal that would connect the Pacific and the Atlantic. There were three main provisions in the treaty: neither nation would build such a canal without the consent and cooperation of the other; neither would fortify nor found new colonies in the region; when a canal was built, both powers would guarantee that it would be available on a neutral basis for all shipping. Construction on the proposed canal never came to fruition, although the treaty remained in effect until 1901.

In an extradition, one jurisdiction delivers a person accused or convicted of committing a crime in another jurisdiction, over to the other's law enforcement. It is a cooperative law enforcement procedure between the two jurisdictions and depends on the arrangements made between them. In addition to legal aspects of the process, extradition also involves the physical transfer of custody of the person being extradited to the legal authority of the requesting jurisdiction.

In European Union law, direct effect is the principle that Union law may, if appropriately framed, confer rights on individuals which the courts of member states of the European Union are bound to recognise and enforce.

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217 is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the legality, under both Canadian and international law, of a unilateral secession of Quebec from Canada.

Gex is a commune in the Ain department in eastern France and a subprefecture of the department.

<i>Force majeure</i> Legal term for an extraordinary occurrence beyond control

In contract law, force majeure is a common clause in contracts which essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, epidemic, or sudden legal change prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract. Explicitly excluded is any event described as an act of God, which covers a separate domain and legally differs, though it is related to contract law. In practice, most force majeure clauses do not entirely excuse a party's non-performance but suspend it for the duration of the force majeure.

Withdrawal from the United Nations by member states is not provided for in the United Nations Charter. According to the Government Information Office of Taiwan :

The United Nations Charter deliberately made no provision for the withdrawal of member governments, largely to prevent the threat of withdrawal from being used as a form of political blackmail, or to evade obligations under the Charter. Japan’s withdrawal from the League of Nations in March, 1933 was very much on the minds of the Charter's drafters. Some have questioned, therefore, whether it is even permissible for Members to withdraw from the U.N. The only other example of an effort to withdraw — by Indonesia in 1965 — actually tends to show that withdrawal, at least in the short term, has no force or effect.

International law is the set of rules, norms, and standards generally recognized as binding between states. It establishes normative guidelines and a common conceptual framework for states across a broad range of domains, including war, diplomacy, economic relations, and human rights. Scholars distinguish between international legal institutions on the basis of their obligations, precision, and delegation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hardship clause</span>

Hardship clause is a clause in a contract that is intended to cover cases in which unforeseen events occur that fundamentally alter the equilibrium of a contract resulting in an excessive burden being placed on one of the parties involved.

The doctrine of necessity is the basis on which extraordinary actions by administrative authority, which are designed to restore order or uphold fundamental constitutional principles, are considered to be lawful even if such an action contravenes established constitution, laws, norms, or conventions. The maxim on which the doctrine is based originated in the writings of the medieval jurist Henry de Bracton, and similar justifications for this kind of extra-legal action have been advanced by more recent legal authorities, including William Blackstone.

The Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution establishes the procedure for ratifying international agreements. It empowers the President as the primary negotiator of agreements between the United States and other countries, and holds that the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate renders a treaty binding with the force of federal law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contract</span> Legally binding document establishing rights and duties between parties

A contract is an agreement that specifies certain legally enforceable rights and obligations pertaining to two or more mutually agreeing parties. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to transfer any of those at a future date. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or rescission. A binding agreement between actors in international law is known as a treaty.

Worachet Pakeerut is a Thai legal scholar specialising in constitutional and administrative law and a professor at the Faculty of Law, Thammasat University.

RWE Vertrieb AG v Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV (2013) C-92/11 is an EU law and consumer protection case, concerning the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive. It emphasises the foundations of consumer protection on inequality of bargaining power and imbalances in information.

Lyciscus was a diplomat in Ancient Greece during the third century BCE. An Acarnanian, he was sent by his countrymen as ambassador to the Lacedaemonians in 211 BCE to urge them to ally themselves with Philip V of Macedon.

National Identity Clause - is a legal principle enshrined in article 4 (2) of the Treaty on European Union. Its original purpose can be linked to the protection of cultural identity, apparently threatened by the free movement of services and goods in the cultural domain. It was supposed to prevent EU competence creep in the areas belonging to complementary competencies. Today it is most typically associated with limits to European integration and protection of core competences of the nation states within the EU.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Poonja, Mahmood M. (1977). Termination of Treaties Owing to Fundamental Change of Circumstances (Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus) (Juris Doctor dissertation). Charles University, Prague (Rawalpindi: Abbas Arts, 1982). OCLC 41731249.
↑ Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th rev. edn (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 144.
↑ Poonja, Mahmood M. (1977). Termination of Treaties Owing to Fundamental Change of Circumstances (Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus) (Juris Doctor dissertation). Charles University, Prague (Rawalpindi: Abbas Arts, 1982). OCLC 41731249.: p. 13, citing De iure belli libri tres, lib. 111, cap. XIV.
↑ "Denunciation of the Treaty of November 2nd, 1865, between China and Belgium, Belgium v. China, Order, 25 May 1929, Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)". www.worldcourts.com.
↑ Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex Archived 2013-02-09 at archive.today , Permanent Court of International Justice, Parties: France & Switzerland, August 19th, 1929, Initiated March 29th, 1928.

External links

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Hersch Lauterpacht, The function of law in the international community . Chapter XIII: The Judicial Application of the Doctrine 'Rebus Sic Stantibus'.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[:0-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Poonja, Mahmood M. (1977). Termination of Treaties Owing to Fundamental Change of Circumstances (Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus) (Juris Doctor dissertation). Charles University, Prague (Rawalpindi: Abbas Arts, 1982). OCLC 41731249.

[2] Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th rev. edn (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 144.

[3] Poonja, Mahmood M. (1977). Termination of Treaties Owing to Fundamental Change of Circumstances (Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus) (Juris Doctor dissertation). Charles University, Prague (Rawalpindi: Abbas Arts, 1982). OCLC 41731249.: p. 13, citing De iure belli libri tres, lib. 111, cap. XIV.

[4] "Denunciation of the Treaty of November 2nd, 1865, between China and Belgium, Belgium v. China, Order, 25 May 1929, Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)". www.worldcourts.com.

[5] Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex Archived 2013-02-09 at archive.today , Permanent Court of International Justice, Parties: France & Switzerland, August 19th, 1929, Initiated March 29th, 1928.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Authority control
National	France 2 BnF data 2 Germany Israel 2 United States 2 Japan
Other	IdRef