Treaties after a revolution

[Silent Hunter]

Would a new government formed after a revolution be bound by the treaties of its predecessor?

I'm specifically thinking of Libya here.

[Јas]

Depends on the nature of the succession and on the nature of the treaty and issue in question, e.g. international courts and tribunals usually find that successor states are bound by treaties "of a territorial character"; similarly such courts are loathe to roll-back on the application of treaties dealing with human rights matters.

If the state ratified the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties it would probably be easier to make a determination also.

[Silent Hunter]

Thanks for the interesting answer.

[J. J.]

Who's going to enforce the treaty if the new government (if there is a new government) declines to honor it?

[Silent Hunter]

Who's going to enforce the treaty if the new government (if there is a new government) declines to honor it?

It depends on the treaty - a territorial one could ultimately get the UN Security Council involved.

[J. J.]

Who's going to enforce the treaty if the new government (if there is a new government) declines to honor it?

It depends on the treaty - a territorial one could ultimately get the UN Security Council involved.

And if the treaty party says no, we won't listen to the Security Council? 

[Silent Hunter]

Who's going to enforce the treaty if the new government (if there is a new government) declines to honor it?

It depends on the treaty - a territorial one could ultimately get the UN Security Council involved.

And if the treaty party says no, we won't listen to the Security Council? 

Ultimately, Article VII action including sanctions and possibly even military action.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Interestingly enough, American precedent indicates that treaties are null and void after a revolution, as that's what we told the French after they had theirs.

[Silent Hunter]

On the other hand, when the USSR broke up, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan all declared themselves as signatories to START.

[J. J.]

Who's going to enforce the treaty if the new government (if there is a new government) declines to honor it?

It depends on the treaty - a territorial one could ultimately get the UN Security Council involved.

And if the treaty party says no, we won't listen to the Security Council? 

Ultimately, Article VII action including sanctions and possibly even military action.

You can do that with the breaking of any treaty.

[Person Man]

Yeah. J.J.'s right here. International law is very useless if one of the parties thinks they are strong enough to stop honoring it.

Look no further than Nazi Germany....and that wasn't even a "revolution".

[J. J.]

Yeah. J.J.'s right here. International law is very useless if one of the parties thinks they are strong enough to stop honoring it.

Look no further than Nazi Germany....and that wasn't even a "revolution".

I was actually thinking of that analogy.

Sometimes a state will agree to abide with a pre-existing treaty or with, in the US case, with an unratified treaty.  I think SALT II was one example.

[dead0man]

Makes you wonder if Egypt will give the Sinai back to Israel if they renege on the peace treaty between the two states.

(the above is rhetorical.  I don't think it should happen, I don't think Israel would expect it to happen and clearly Egypt wouldn't anyway)

[J. J.]

Makes you wonder if Egypt will give the Sinai back to Israel if they renege on the peace treaty between the two states.

(the above is rhetorical.  I don't think it should happen, I don't think Israel would expect it to happen and clearly Egypt wouldn't anyway)

The question might be, from Egypt's standpoint, "Peace treaty?  What peace treaty?"

[Insula Dei]

Yeah. J.J.'s right here. International law is very useless if one of the parties thinks they are strong enough to stop honoring it.

Look no further than Nazi Germany....and that wasn't even a "revolution".

I was actually thinking of that analogy.

Sometimes a state will agree to abide with a pre-existing treaty or with, in the US case, with an unratified treaty.  I think SALT II was one example.

Uhm, wasn't it the Gorbachov USSR that unilaterally respected SALT II's stipulations, while the Reagan US didn't?

[J. J.]

Yeah. J.J.'s right here. International law is very useless if one of the parties thinks they are strong enough to stop honoring it.

Look no further than Nazi Germany....and that wasn't even a "revolution".

I was actually thinking of that analogy.

Sometimes a state will agree to abide with a pre-existing treaty or with, in the US case, with an unratified treaty.  I think SALT II was one example.

Uhm, wasn't it the Gorbachov USSR that unilaterally respected SALT II's stipulations, while the Reagan US didn't?

Yes, but not until 7 years later.  The USSR could no longer afford a buildup.  That disregard was one of the numerous reasons for Perestroika.  It also lead to the current treaties.