论文部分内容阅读
在当今国际条约纷繁复杂的社会中,条约的违反时有发生。一方违反条约对另一方造成的损失,另一方可以根据国际法相关的国家责任制度提起国际损害赔偿。但是,如果一方当事国在违约后,对另一方当事国采取的某些措施也损害了条约的履行,在这种情况下,根据条约法中“不守约者不得要求践约的抗辨”原则,违约方不得以对方违约作为减轻自身责任的抗辩理由。本文从默兹河分流案来分析了这一国际条约法原则。并联系条约法的其它制度和国际法相关规定以及条约履行实践中对这一原则的适用提出了相关见解。
In the complex and complicated world of today’s international treaties, treaty violations have occurred from time to time. One party, in violation of the treaty, damages the other party, and the other party may bring international damages in accordance with the relevant national responsibility regime of international law. However, certain measures taken against the other party after the breach of one of the parties also undermine the fulfillment of the treaty, in which case, under the treaty law, “non-compliance may not require contractual resistance Identify ”principle, the defaulting party shall not use each other’s default as a defense to reduce their own liability. This article analyzes the principle of international treaty law from the Meuse River diversion. And put forward relevant opinions in connection with other systems of the law of treaties and relevant provisions of international law as well as the application of this principle in the performance of treaties.