1.Both treaties and custom responded to the basic need of not imposing obligations on States that did not wish to be bound by them.
2. Сommunity pressure on individual States , including Great Powers, such as that proves difficult for a State to avoid being bound by a new general rule.
3 In the case of custom, States, when participating in the lawmaking process, do not act for the primary purpose of laying down international rules.
4.At that moment - difficult to pinpoint exactly, since it is the result of a continuous process - a customary rule may be said to have evolved.
5.Under the view of custom as tacit agreement the express or tacit consent of all States was required for a rule to emerge in the world community.
6.The strong opposition of major Powers to a new rule may either prevent or slow down its formation. But plainly this is a factual opposition, not amounting to a legal entitlement once the rule may be held to have crystallized.
7.The majority of States eventually succeed in overcoming opposition by individual States, and in achieving general standards of behaviour. The latter come to constitute the normative core of subsequent practice.
8.There are some parts of the body of customary law which newly independent States have considered to be more or less acceptable.
9.Treaties may neither impose obligations on ,nor create legal entitlements for third States.
10.The interpretation of treaties must now emphasize their potential rather than pride of place to States'.
11.In practice, there is the question of whether or not a reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of a treaty to be decided by each contracting party.
12.Article 53 constitutes another novelty, for it provides that Treaties may be null and void if contrary to peremptory norms.
13.Under the Vienna Convention only a party to the defective treaty may invoke its inconsistency with jus cogens, and the same seems to apply to other grounds of absolute invalidity.
14.The absence of legally binding rules in some delicate areas proves ultimately to be the advantage of bigger States.
15.A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to begiven to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
16.Most members of the international community tend to prefer treaties to custom, forthe former are more certain and result from the willing participation of contracting parties in the negotiating process.
17.One should add the norms prohibiting the use or threat of force, those protecting fundamental human rights, in particular the customary rules banning racial discrimination or torture as well as the general rules on self-determination.
18.In 1979 the USA pointed out that a 1978 Agreement between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, if construed in such a manner as to support the Soviet activity in Afghanistan, was null an void as contrary to the jus cogens prohibition against the use or threat of force.
19.Jus cogens is already working as a host of "world public order" standards, sometimes dissuading States from performing certain acts, and other times impelling them to behave in a certain manner.
20.Proceedings could be initiated by potential victims if they had locus standi before a competent international or national judicial body with a view to asking it to hold the national measure to be intentionally unlawful.
XI. Render the text into English. | International Law - Antonio Cassese | NEW TRENDS | Making of treaties | Reservations | Grounds of invalidity | Interpretation | Termination | CODIFICATION | Vocabulary work. |