c) Advise Negriland as to the merits of its argument regarding non-performance of its

treaty obligations and any alternatives it has regarding non-performance of the Treaty.
(15 marks)
According to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 states
that in the event of conflict between treaties and domestic law, a party may not invoke the
provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. A State may not
invoke its municipal law to justify its non-compliance to treaty obligations. Similarly, non-
compliance with municipal law on the competence to make treaties may not generally be
invoked to invalidate its consent to a treaty (Art. 46).
To apply, when Negriland’s government cut the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture
to protect plants and animals under the Treaty, they should not do that because a State should
not invoke its municipal law to justify its non-compliance to treaty obligations. Thus, a State
should do their best to comply with all the Treaty’s obligation and should not change their
municipal law just to make their action legal by not following the Treaties.
However, there are few circumstances where according to Art. 61(1), a party may
invoke the ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty where the impossibility
results from the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the
execution of the treaty. However, if the impossibility is temporary, it may be invoked only as
a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty. Further Art. 61(2) explains that a state
cannot be invoked by a party that was responsible for causing these circumstances to come
about by the breach of its treaty obligations.
In the case of  Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, Hungary and Slovakia concluded a
treaty in 1977 to facilitate the construction of dams on the Danube River. Hungary suspended
works due to environmental concerns in response to which Slovakia carried out unilateral
measures. Hungary then claimed the right to terminate the treaty on the ground that the
essential object of the treaty, which was the joint economic investment, had ceased to exist.
The court ruled that if the joint exploitation of the investment was no longer possible, this was
originally because Hungary did not carry out most of the works for which it was responsible.
Thus, the impossibility resulted from Hungary’s own breach of an obligation flowing from the
treaty, causing the termination was invalid.
As for the situation above, the supervening event was when Negriland experienced
serious economic recession but recession is only temporary, thus it may be invoked only as a
ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.  
 In addition, a party is not bound to perform a treaty if there has been a fundamental
change of circumstances since the treaty was concluded. A fundamental change of
circumstances may, within certain strict limits, entitle a party to invoke the change as a
ground for terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty. As in Art.
62(1) where it may only be invoked where the existence of those circumstances constituted an
essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty, and the effect of the
change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.
However, in Art. 62(2) it may not be invoked where the treaty established a boundary, or the
change was caused by the breach of an obligation of the party invoking it.
To apply, Negriland can use Art 62 as an alternative because when recession
happened, there has been a fundamental change of circumstances, so Negriland may invoke
the change as a ground for terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a
treaty. Then, it also follow Art. 62(1) where it may only be invoked where the existence of
those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by
the treaty, and the effect of the recession is radically to transform the extent of obligations still
to be performed under the treaty. The state can no longer protect the animals and plants since
no budget were provided, making it impossible for any such protection to be done and  to
comply with the treaty anymore.
As a conclusion, at first, by following Art. 27, Negriland non-performance are not
valid because it cannot simply alter their municipal law just because they do not want to
comply with the Treaty. However, Negriland reasons as regards to the non-performance of
treaty obligations are then valid due to the fact that by following Article 61(1) where the State
may have option whether to terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the treaty since
Negriland can no longer obliged with Article 16 of the International Convention of the
Protection of Plant and Animal Species due to serious economic crisis.