Timeline for How are conflicts between constitutional and treaty obligations resolved?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 18, 2012 at 16:27 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 18, 2012 at 17:37 | |||||
| Dec 12, 2012 at 18:28 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Dec 12, 2012 at 12:20 | comment | added | user117 | @ZeroPiraeus I think that is why it is a hairy situation. I am not sure if International Law on the matter would view the new 2009 Constitution for Bolivia as the beginning of a new Sovereign nation completely which would make a difference. Further as IANAL on international law, I am not sure what happens if a constitution is amended such that a previous treaty is no longer valid. Either way I think point 1 still applies, Bolivia never ratified the Vienna Convention so it is in effect not the law of the land there meaning that they don't have a legal obligation to uphold a treaty. | |
| Dec 12, 2012 at 12:14 | comment | added | user117 | @DVK I removed the quip. | |
| Dec 12, 2012 at 12:14 | history | edited | user117 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removing a quip
|
| Dec 12, 2012 at 12:03 | comment | added | user4012 | Excellent answer. I would recommend deleting "believe it or not" quip though :) | |
| Dec 12, 2012 at 4:03 | comment | added | user97 | on point #2 (re: Article 27 of the Vienna Convention) - do you mean to say that it couldn't be ratified because it conflicted with the constitution? That wasn't the case at the time; Bolivia's accession to the treaty predates the relevant text in the 2009 constitution by more than thirty years. | |
| Dec 12, 2012 at 3:27 | history | answered | user117 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |