The Treaty. However, politically, the EU Commission is trying to promote the Treaty more and more as a guarantee for nuclear safety (which is not the case for many reasons) and as a legal basis for increasing its own competences in the field of nuclear. Currently there are preparations ongoing to make a proposal for some EU wide regulation on nuclear liability; while of course experts in this field are well aware that the EURATOM Treaty does not allow for this. For other reasons - EU member states being in too many different nuclear liability regimes – there will most likely be a non-legislative proposal only. Text by Patricia Lorenz, within the Joint Project “Risk & Public Control” – more information under www.joint-projet.org Conference Reader, FoEE 2002: http://www.laka.org/docu/boeken/pdf/6-04-0-20-56.pdf
The Treaty. Before swirling down the eddies of international legal interpretation of the Agreement, it is sensible to first assess the concept of that most potent of international agreements—the treaty. Defining a treaty is deceptively challenging. The common perception is that a treaty is an accord between two States, formalized typically in writing, signed by the appropriate sovereigns, and, in some instances, ratified by State legislatures. This conception is not far from the truth, and much jurisprudence has identified it with similar language. Chief Justice Marshall of the United States Supreme Court, writing in 1829 about a case involving the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, noted that “a treaty is in its nature a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. If does not generally effect of itself the object to be accomplished, especially so far as its operation is infra-territorial, but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument.”202 In a later case, Justice Miller of the Supreme Court stated more succinctly, “a treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the 202 Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253 at 314 (1829). governments which are party to it.”203 Shaw largely agrees, defining a treaty as “basically an agreement between parties on the international scene.”204 Not only is this kind of agreement characteristically simple in form (though often ranging from trifling to monumental in effect), it is well established in the international community. Treaties are ingrained as a customary method of settling debates, defining terms, sorting business, ending wars, establishing alliances, determining borders, and granting rights or privileges. Their tendency at shaping much of the world’s history has given treaties an exalted place in among academicians and politicians alike. Indeed, “in my judgment the solemn treaty form which traditionally has characterized international covenants of grave importance should always be used when nations expect to be bound over long periods of time in matters affecting the general public welfare. Treaties are not easily amended nor do peace loving peoples easily disregard them.”205 Custom, of course, is comprised of state practice—typically built over a lengthy period of time—and opinio juris, 206 and the treaty has been the beneficiary of both for thousands of years. If States are thought of as dist...
The Treaty. The Tokyo Convention—formally known as the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft—is a multilateral treaty that has been ratified by the United States and 184 other nations. It governs the authority and legal liability of aircraft captains and crew members for actions taken on board aircrafts engaged in interna- tional aviation to prevent actions that jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or good order and discipline. App., infra, 97a, 99a-100a. [Art. 1(2), 5].