About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


41 Yale J. Int'l L. 237 (2016)
Change without Consent: How Customary International Law Modifies Treaties

handle is hein.journals/yjil41 and id is 269 raw text is: Article Change Without Consent: How Customary International Law Modifies Treaties Rebecca Crootoft IN T R O D U C T IO N ........................................................................................................................................2 3 8 I. A NEW INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER......................................................................................... 241 A . T he C lassic A ccount....................................................................................................... 242 1. Stable Customary International Law .................................................................. 242 2. F lexible T reaties ................................................................................................. 242 B . T he M odem W orld ......................................................................................................... 243 1. C onstitutive T reaties ........................................................................................... 243 2. Contemporary Customary International Law ..................................................... 245 II. M ODIFICATION BY M UTUAL CONSENT ......................................................................................... 247 A . Form al A m endm ent ........................................................................................................ 248 B. Treaty Supersession and Additional Protocols............................................................... 250 C . A daptive Interpretation ................................................................................................... 252 1. Living Treaties and Teleological Interpretation..............................................252 2. The Im portance of the A udience ........................................................................ 255 3. When State Party Conduct Becomes Subsequent Practice................................. 256 4. When Interpretation Becomes Modification....................................................... 259 1II. MODIFICATION BY SUBSEQUENTLY DEVELOPED CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW............... 264 A. When Customary International Law Alters Treaty Obligations..................................... 264 1. The Possibility of Automatic Treaty Termination.............................................. 265 2. Reducing States Parties' O bligations.................................................................. 269 3. Increasing States Parties' O bligations ................................................................ 272 4. A C om plex R elationship..................................................................................... 275 5. Addressing an Alternative Characterization....................................................... 276 B . D octrinal A rgum ents...................................................................................................... 277 1. C onsent T heory ................................................................................................... 277 2. A B attle of N orm s............................................................................................... 279 3. Arguments Grounded in the Vienna Convention ............................................... 279 i. The Im/possibility of Modification by Subsequently Developed Custom ary International Law .................................................................280 ii. Interpretation in Light of Customary International Law ................................ 282 iii. A Fundamental Change in Circumstances .................................................... 283 t Executive Director of the Information Society Project, ISP Research Scholar, and Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School. Thanks are due to Dapo Akande, Mahnoush Arsanjani, Jack Balkin, Doug Bernstein, Molly Brady, Jay Butler, Oona Hathaway, Joanna Langille, Ryan Liss, Robert Post, Michael Reisman, Reva Siegel, Brian Soucek, John Witt, and my Ph.D. cohort for their insightful contributions. Thanks especially to Lea Brilmayer for her thoughtful critiques and constant encouragement. This Article also benefited greatly from participants' commentary at the Yale Law School 2014 Doctoral Scholarship Conference and from excellent editorial suggestions from Joshua Handelsman and Marian Messing.