ATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERNAIIONAL

In this
Parliament and treaty, which will prevail.
enacted by Provident
between a law Ostime v. Australian Mutual
onflict
the House of Lords declared in law enacted by Parliament, then this
connection been entorced through
if a treaty has
Society,21 that inconsistent British Law
over an earlier
will prevail L.J. observed
v. Commissioners
of Customs and Excise,22 Diplock,
In Soiomon Government undertakes to introduce domestic
a
treaty, the British secure a specified
that where by in the United Kingdom or to
achieve a specified result
legislation to the treaty, since in the English law is not self
which can be achieved by legislation, Her Majesty's
result issue in the English wit until
remains irrelevant to any Once the
operating, fulfil its treaty obiigations.
Government has taken steps of legislation to
construe the legisiation. If
has legislated, the court must in the first instance
Government must be given effect to,
are clear and unambiguous, they
the terms of the legislation if the terms of the legislation
out U.K.s treaty obligations. But
whether or not they carry the treaty becomes
more than one meaning,
are reasonably capable of
are not clear and intend to act in
that Parliament does not
relevant for there is a prima facie presumption if one of the
there in specific obligations; and
breach of international law, including with the treaty
ascribed to the legislation in consonant
meanings which can reasonably be is consonant is to be
are not, the meaning which
obligations and another or others the terms of
in the words used in the legislation,
preferred. Thus, ir. case of lack of clarity between the possible
are relevant to enable the court to
make its choice
the treaty
meanings of these words by applying this presumption.
International Tin
Reference may also be made to a more recent case namely.
of Trade and Industry3 This
Council case (J. H. Rayner Ltd. v. (Mining Law) Department
case relates to the claims of creditors against
International Tin Council (1TC) after it failed
to meet its depts. I.T.C. was an international organisation established by tin producing
and tin importing States for regulating international marketing and production of tins.
ITC
was established by a treaty, the Sixth International Tin Agreement (ITA6) and it operated
in United Kingdom because of a Headquarters Agreement between the ITC and the U.K.
But these treaties were not incorporated in the national law of the U.K. although by an
order of 1972, passed under the International Organisations Act, 1968, it was provided
that the !TC would have the legal capacities of a body corporate. One of the creditors
prayed that the U.K. Court, in view of the obligations of the State Parties to ITA 6, to
enable claimants to recover directly against those States. Another creditor sought the
appointment of a receiver of ITC so as to claim against the State Parties to ITA 6. Both
these claims were rejected by the House of Lords unanimously.
Delivering the judgement Lord Oliver observed that treaties are not self executing. A
treaty is not a part of English law unless and until it has been incorporated into the law by
egislation. So far as individuals are concerned they cannot derive rights by treaties nor
an they be deprived of the rights or subjected to obligations, and it is outside the purview
Or the courts not only because it is made in the conduct of foreign relations, which are a
prerogative of the Crown, but also because, as a source of rights and obligations, it is
relevant. However, it does not follow that the courts must never look at or construe a
eay. Where, för example, a treaty is directly incorporated into English law by Act of the
egislature its terms become subject to the interpretative jurisdiction of the court in the
dme way as any other Act of the legislature."