Talk:Clausula rebus sic stantibus

International relations: Law C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Mid-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Private Law[edit]

The clausula rebus sic stantibus is not only present in public international law, but as well in private law. Is means, essentially, exactly the same: that contracts between parties can be changed according to substantial and unforeseen changes in circumstances.

Such circumstances could be an extraordinary high rate of inflation, accidents making it virtually impossible for a party to perform, the outbreak of war or unrest in the country where one party must get the goods she is obliged to deliver from, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exuperantius (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid point and I have edited the article to reflect this. Île flottante (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

it would be nice to have an example or three of treaties escaped under this principle. anyone have anything?Adavies42 (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denunciation[edit]

... unilateral denunciation of a treaty is prohibited; a party does not have the right to denounce a treaty unilaterally.

This is untrue in many or most cases, although I suppose one could gloss the word right. Even excluding treaties (many, perhaps most, of them) that have specific provisions for denunciation, subsequent contrary domestic law, at least in the USA, supersedes pre-existing treaty. And never mind the constitutional statement, so often used by trial lawyers to impress judges, that treaties represent the supreme law of the land. (Nor need we pay heed to the proposed Oklahoma Save our State Amendment that would exclude consideration of foreign law whatever may be the rule of conflict of laws in the Second Restatement or Arizona case law, and this even though most treaties are not binding upon the quasi-sovereign 50 states.) The easiest place to find examples is in tax law: thus, the Alternative Minimum Tax and the QDOT provisions. (Subsequent tax treaty revisions tend to include specific allowance for such changes in US tax law, but the changes are enforced by the US courts in any case. It took a decade after a change in the principles of Canadian death duties before a Protocol to the US-Canada Tax treaty allowed for a credit for Canadian capital gains tax on deemed sale at death to work as a credit to US estate duty; for that decade there was double taxation.)

With respect to status treaties: I have the impression that the Bancroft Treaties (relating to automatic denaturalization in the country of former nationality when a person was naturalized in the USA, or vice versa) were denounced by the US unilaterally. They would anyway have been voided by US Supreme Court decisions (Afroyim v. Rusk, Vance v. Terrazas) abrogating US law on denaturalization/expatriation.

(There are interesting cases where the USA acts as if a treaty is still in force, but the treaty partner does not: thus the US still issues, in principle, treaty trader and treaty investor (E-1, E-2) visas to Iranian citizens as if the relevant treaty remained effective. And this despite the Algiers Accords and all that: http://travel.state.gov/visa/fees/fees_3726.html)

Andygx (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poonja[edit]

The references can be consolidated; no need to repeat the info so many times. Kaihsu (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been meaning to fix this for ages. Finally done it! Alarichall (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you so much!! – Kaihsu (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]