維也納條約法公約， 是1969年5月23日訂於維也納
1.每一國家皆有締結條約之能力
2.它將條約定義為「國家間所締結而以國際法為準之國際書面協定」，又訂明「每一國家皆有締結條約之能力」。
3.它僅適用於國與國之間締結的條約，不包括國家和國際組織之間的協議，或國際組織之間的協議
4.已有111個國家批准維也納條約法公約，還沒有批准的國家仍可能承認它具有約束力，因它已成為國際間的習慣法。
5.條約第28條 不溯既往，關於條約對一當事國生效之日以前所發生之任何行為或事實或已不存在之任何情勢，條約之規定不對該當事國發生拘束力。
舊金山和約.中日和約.馬關條約， 是1969年以前簽訂的
所以，維也納條約法公約，對舊金山和約.中日和約.馬關條約，是沒有拘束力。
個人積分：706分
文章編號：73976794
個人積分：31分
文章編號：73977096
維也納條約公約，的確是80年代才生效，但是，國際法院認為維也納條約法公約，反映的只是慣例法（customary law）的形式化（codification）。就算在1950年代沒有“維也納條約法公約“這個名詞，但是它的內涵依舊存在，是慣例法的一部分。
the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States 這麼說 ‘... the Vienna Convention as, in general, constituting a codification of the customary international law governing international agreements’’.
稍微有sense的人，知道《日本降伏文書》是暫時性（provisional）的安排，而戰後的和平條約才具有決定性（definitive）。
然而，聲稱《舊金山和約》取代《日本降伏文書》的承諾，事實上是一個白痴命題，一個沒有意義的命題，因為在一個按照合法程序制定的戰後和平條約出現前，《日本降伏文書》是無法被取代的；要一個“條約”透過非法的手續成為一個戰後決定性的安排，豈不可笑？
對國際法稍微有些許知識的人，會提出《維也納條約法公約第四條》的不溯及既往原則, 堅稱維也納條約在1980年代才生效，管不到1950年代的舊金山和約。可惜，這仍然是一知半解。第四條如下：
Without prejudice to the application of any rules set forth in the present Convention to which treaties would be subject under international law independently of the Convention, the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of present Convention with regard to such States.
根據兩本維也納條約法公約的註釋（Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties by Mark E. Villiger 和Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties： A Commentary, eds. Oliver Do¨ rr and Kirsten Schmalenbach), 第四條分為兩個部分；前半部指涉慣例法和國際法原則，這部分若在維也納條約法公約裡被形式化，那適用於該公約生效前的國際協議。第二個部分是非慣例法，這個部分才是不溯及既往。
the Convention does not only codify existing norms of customary law but achieves a progressive development of the law of treaties as well. It is only the latter category that raises the issue of retroactivity. For the purpose of legal certainty, Art 4 – having the character of a conflict rule (!Art 28 MN 2) – explicitly precludes the application of progressive rules to past treaties.
...The rules at issue are on the law of treaties. They are set forth in the present Convention and, therefore, in writing. However, they are also binding on the parties qua customary law or as general principles of law... As such, the rules underlie and exist parallel to, though independently of, the Convention. Their validity will not depend on the entry into force and application of the Convention (Issues of Customary International Law, N. 35).
These rules apply independently qua customary law, if and when their binding force has been established, whether before or after the Convention’s entry into force.
....If, however, the VCLT provisions reflect established customary law, these rules are applicable to treaties concluded by States Parties prior to the entry into force of the Convention on 29 January 1980 or before the date of their accession.
Most procedural rules of the Convention to be observed by States Parties when invoking certain legal effects under the Convention cannot be regarded as a codification of customary law
https://blog.xuite.net/apollyontaiwan/twblog/133772576-%E3%80%8A%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E9%99%8D%E4%BC%8F%E6%96%87%E6%9B%B8%E3%80%8B%E6%98%AF%E5%90%A6%E8%A2%AB%E3%80%8A%E8%88%8A%E9%87%91%E5%B1%B1%E5%92%8C%E7%B4%84%E3%80%8B%E7%B5%82%E6%AD%A2%E5%85%B6%E6%95%88%E5%8A%9B%EF%BC%9F
ch22502000 wrote:
維也納條約法公約，...(恕刪)
個人積分：706分
文章編號：73977221
個人積分：31分
文章編號：73977258
個人積分：182分
文章編號：73977435
個人積分：31分
文章編號：73977777
個人積分：121分
文章編號：73978003
個人積分：342分
文章編號：73978090
個人積分：31分
文章編號：73978098
個人積分：702分
文章編號：73978184
