Andrea Salazar Cardero
1º International Relations
Final exam PIL
1) Can signature in principle express the consent of the parties to be bound by a
treaty, as stated in article 10 of the TEOR and can it in principle enter into force
immediately upon signature?
Yes, because it is stated in the Art 11 of the Vienna Convention Law of the
Treaties:the ‘consent of a state to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by
signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance,
approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed’ and the 24th: “A treaty
enters into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the
negotiating States may agree”
This articles prove that the way the states expressed consent (articles 10 of the
TEOR) and was valid and the enter into force ( art 11 of the TEOR) was also in
accordance to the Convention they are both part of and would be legally binding.
2) Did the TEOR enter into force when Ambassador Blackgold signed it?
The Treaty may have entered into force, but the consent was not valid as the
Ambassador had been threatened. This constitutes according to Art. 51 of the Vienna
Convention Law of the Treaties as an absolute ground of invalidity: “The expression
of a State’s consent… which has been procured by the coercion of its representative
through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect”
This invalidity makes the States consider the treaty as it had never entered
into force in the first place. Therefore, while materially the treaty could have entered
into force, the reality is that it never did as it was vitiated from the beginning.
3) Are Ms. Hics’ actions in accordance with International Law? Which rules have
possibly been broken?
No they are not, she has breached international law in many ways like: When
she broke into the ambassador's house she broke the principle of inviolability of
private residence stated in art 29-30 of the Vienna convention on Diplomatic
1º International Relations
Final exam PIL
1) Can signature in principle express the consent of the parties to be bound by a
treaty, as stated in article 10 of the TEOR and can it in principle enter into force
immediately upon signature?
Yes, because it is stated in the Art 11 of the Vienna Convention Law of the
Treaties:the ‘consent of a state to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by
signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance,
approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed’ and the 24th: “A treaty
enters into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the
negotiating States may agree”
This articles prove that the way the states expressed consent (articles 10 of the
TEOR) and was valid and the enter into force ( art 11 of the TEOR) was also in
accordance to the Convention they are both part of and would be legally binding.
2) Did the TEOR enter into force when Ambassador Blackgold signed it?
The Treaty may have entered into force, but the consent was not valid as the
Ambassador had been threatened. This constitutes according to Art. 51 of the Vienna
Convention Law of the Treaties as an absolute ground of invalidity: “The expression
of a State’s consent… which has been procured by the coercion of its representative
through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect”
This invalidity makes the States consider the treaty as it had never entered
into force in the first place. Therefore, while materially the treaty could have entered
into force, the reality is that it never did as it was vitiated from the beginning.
3) Are Ms. Hics’ actions in accordance with International Law? Which rules have
possibly been broken?
No they are not, she has breached international law in many ways like: When
she broke into the ambassador's house she broke the principle of inviolability of
private residence stated in art 29-30 of the Vienna convention on Diplomatic
