TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

5

Namen prispevka je na podlagi besedila 18. člena DKPMP, pripravljalnega dela DKPMP, doktrine in sodne prakse pojasniti vsebino obveznosti države med podpisom in uveljavitvijo mednarodne pogodbe (vmesna obveznost). Iz prispevka izhaja, da gre za pravno obveznost, ki je del običajnega mednarodnega prava in je bila kodificirana v DKPMP. Država to obveznost krši, če s svojim ravnanjem izniči predmet in namen pogodbe – ki se razume kot celota – kar pomeni, da s svojimi dejanji v času med podpisom in uveljavitvijo pogodbe izniči temeljni element pogodbe, potreben za njeno celovitost, tako, da poseže v raison d’être pogodbe. Na prvi pogled mora po 18. členu DKPMP ravnanje države v smislu izničenja predmeta in namena pogodbe objektivno posegati v bistvo pogodbe, torej neodvisno od volje države v zvezi s tem. Vendar to ne ustreza razumevanju tega člena na podlagi pripravljalnega dela DKPMP in doktrine, v skladu s katerima je treba pri ravnanju države izkazati določeno raven subjektivnega odnosa do teh dejanj, ni pa soglasja glede tega, kakšen je najprimernejši test za njegovo presojo. V 18. členu DKPMP poleg nekaterih temeljnih vprašanj, kakršno je, kakšen je ustrezen test za presojo ravnanja dr- žave v primeru izničenja predmeta in namena pogodbe, ostajajo nejasna tudi nekatera druga, na videz manj pomembna, vendar z vidika njegovega učinka bistvena vprašanja, ki so v doktrini skopo ali sploh niso obravnavana in na katera je avtor skušal odgovoriti ali dati smernice za odgovor. Tako je – med drugim tudi na podlagi primerjave tega člena in podobne ureditve v 25. členu DKPMP o začasni uporabi – pojasnil, da izraz namere države iz točke (a) navedenega člena, da ne bo postala pogodbenica mednarodne pogodbe, učinkuje za naprej in da ga je v nekaterih okoliščinah mogoče preklicati.

The contribution’s objective is to analyse the interim obligation of a State not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty between its signature and entry into force on the basis of the text of Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), doctrine and judicial decisions. The contribution concludes that it is a legal obligation of customary international law, codified in the mentioned Article of the VCLT. A State violates it if it defeats the object of purpose of a treaty – understood as a single term – by defeating with its acts an essential element of the treaty that is necessary to its general tenor, in such a way that it impairs the raison d’être of the treaty. A violation of Article 18 must prima facie be objective, irrespective of the State’s subjective relation to the violation. However, this does not reflect the understanding of that Article on the basis of travaux préparatoires of the VCLT and the doctrine, according to which a certain subjective element needs to be demonstrated when asses- sing the State’s conduct, although there is currently no consensus as to what test might be the most appropriate for that assessment. Article 18 of the VCLT leaves open also some other seemingly less important issues that are neverthe- less essential for its effectiveness. These issues have not been discussed by the doctrine or have been only marginally, and so the author attempted to resolve them or at least provide some guidance in that respect. The author thus – inter alia by comparison with the similar provision of Article 25 of the VCLT on provisional application – explains that the declaration of the intent of a State provided in point (a) of the said Article not to become party to the treaty is effective ex nunc, and that it can be withdrawn in certain circumstances.

Obveznost države, da med podpisom in uveljavitvijo mednarodne pogodbe ne izniči njenega predmeta in namena