Chapter IX: Conflict
The issue of conflicts between treaty norms or between treaty norms and customary norms is a complicated matter. Not all solutions are legally firmly established. Practice is scattered. The accommodations found in practice were not infrequently based on some form of transaction or compromise, that is, on the conclusion of a new agreement. It is difficult to draw general rules from such particularistic precedents. A good example of the tribulations which may ensue is the Danube Convention of 1921 and its partial amendment in 1948 by Eastern European States to which Western European States did not consent. The question was caught up in the minefield of the Cold War. Another difficulty is to determine when a normative conflict exists. The simplest case is one of contradictory normative injunctions. Two norms are applicable to the same State and to the same set of facts; one norm requires the State to do something while the other norm prohibits that very course, or one norm requires that State to abstain while the other norm requires it to act; there is here a normative conflict. The conflict can be partial, that is, concern only a part of the norm. Thus, a bilateral treaty providing that the use of force between the two contracting States is prohibited with the exception of humanitarian police operations would conflict with article 2, § 4 of the UN Charter only with respect to the latter part of the norm.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.