VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES;
(Ratonan vs. Asteria)
To become party to a treaty, a State must express, through
a concrete act, its willingness to undertake the legal rights
and obligations contained in the treaty – it must “consent
to be bound” by the treaty. A State can express its consent
to be bound by a treaty in several ways, as specifically set
out in the final clauses of the relevant treaty. The most
common ways are: definitive signature, ratification,
acceptance, approval, and accession.
The terms ratification, acceptance and approval all mean
the same thing in international law, particularly when used
following “signature subject to….” - The State has agreed to
become party and is willing to undertake the legal rights
and obligations contained in the treaty upon its entry into
force.
Signing a treaty is one of the most common steps in the
process of becoming party to a treaty. However, simply
signing a treaty does not usually make a State a party,
although in some cases, called definitive signature, it might.
A State does not take on any positive legal obligations
under the treaty upon signature. Signing a treaty does,
however, indicate the State’s intention to take steps to
express its consent to be
bound by the treaty at a later date. Signature also creates
an obligation on a State, in the period between signature
and ratification, acceptance or approval, to refrain in good
faith from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of
the treaty.
OBSERVATION , APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF
TREATIES
Article 26 “Pacta sunt servanda”
Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and
must be performed by them in good faith.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
 Both Rotona and Asteria are states bordering the
Sirena sea, with a coastline facing each other.
Asterian coastline along the Sirena sea in NOT
suitable for farming, inhabitants are only engage in a
small scale farming.
 Astreia stated that due consideration should be
given to its historical dependence on fishery
resources if an MPA is to be established.
 While Ratona, which used to be a developing
country, has achieved rapid economic growth. The
country has also undergone significant
industrialization, and it is currently considered one of
the leading newly industrialized countries.
 Since in 1995, through an agreements, both the
governments delimited the maritime boundary in the
Sirena Sea and determined the delimitation of the
exclusive economic zone (hereinafter, EEZ) in the
waters surrounding the Delfino Archipelago. Until
1995, neither Asteria nor Ratona had established an
EEZ in the waters surrounding the Delfino
Archipelago.
 Asteria demanded special consideration concerning
the fishing conducted in the waters surrounding the
Delfino Archipelago by Asterian fisherfolk even after
the delimitation of EEZs
 Ratona replied that it is aware of Asteria’s concern
regarding fishing in that area.
Conclusion : Pro Asteria
However, in this case upon the proposal of the MPA
Act by Ratona:
1. The Ratonian Government railroaded the draft
legislation.
2. Ignored the opposition’s aggressive
questioning regarding the allegation of
corruption concerning the resort
development.
3. The Ratonian unilaterally established the MPA
and done NOT in good faith upon the
negotiation with Asteria.
4. This would result to the violation of
International law.
5. And establishes state responsibility because of
the breach of International Obligation.
NOTE: It provides that whenever one state
commits an internationally unlawful act
against another state, international
responsibility is established between the two.
legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/dra
ft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf
Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts
PART ONE
THE INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT OF A
STATE
CHAPTER I GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Article l Responsibility of a State for its
internationally wrongful acts
Every internationally wrongful act of a State
entails the international responsibility of that
State.
Article 2 Elements of an internationally
wrongful act of a State
 There is an internationally wrongful act of a UNDER THE MOOT PROBLEM SUPPLEMENT:
State when conduct consisting of an action or
- Paragraph 19
omission:
Both Asteria and Ratona ratified the Vienna
(a) is attributable to the State under Convention on the Law of Treaties in 1980,
international law; and

(b) constitutes a breach of an international

obligation of the State.
CHAPTER III BREACH OF AN INTERNATIONAL
OBLIGATION

Article 12 Existence of a breach of an

international obligation

There is a breach of an international obligation

by a State when an act of that State is not in
conformity with what is required of it by that
obligation, regardless of its origin or character.

Article 13 International obligation in force for a

State

An act of a State does not constitute a breach

of an international obligation unless the State
is bound by the obligation in question at the
time the act occurs.