Hungdah Chiu

The Conclusion of Treaties

International law does not prescribe the form for the making of international agreements. It is immaterial whether an agreement is written or oral, though it is rare to find an oral agreement in practice. Nor does it matter by what nomenclature an agreement is designated. Article 4 of the Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties contained in the Harvard Research states that “[t]he international juridical effect of a treaty is not dependent upon the name given to the instrument.”1 Similarly, the PCIJ states in the Advisory Opinion on Customs Regime between Austria and Germany that “[f]rom the standpoint of the obligatory-character of international engagements, it is well known that such engagements may be taken in the form of treaties, conventions, declarations, agreements, protocols, or exchanges of notes.”2 In the 1962 draft articles on the Law of Treaties, adopted by the ILC at its fourteenth session, it is also provided that: “Treaty” means any international agreement in written form, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation (treaty, convention, protocol, covenant, charter, statute, act, declaration, concordat, exchange of notes, agreed minute, memorandum of agreement, modus vivendi, or any other appellation).... (Emphasis added.)3