Abstract:
While the legal validity of unilateral acts of states has been subject to various challenges, in the actual practice of states such acts have long existed as regards their daily ordinary relations, so much so that the development of customary international relations regarding them can be examined. Unilateral acts matter both as a common way by which states operate in international relations, and as a recognized source of law in scholarship and jurisprudence. This paper, in a descriptive-analytical way and using library resources, examines the situations in which the practice of the state leads to the termination or revocation of unilateral act. Thus, the question is under what preconditions are states able to end or withdraw their unilateral action? Based on the comparison between the legal effects of unilateral acts with those of treaty obligations, it could be argued that the right to revoke such acts may be subject to the consent of beneficiary third parties. Nonetheless, the International Law Commission’s approach of merely imitating the rules of treaty law on this subject seems problematic.
Machine summary:
Given that the certain power of a unilateral act is accepted by members of the international community, by analogy between the effects of unilateral acts and some of the treaty obligations of states, the permission to cancel and withdraw from such acts can be considered conditional upon the consent of relevant third states, but merely modeling on the rules of treaty law regarding the subject matter by the International Law Commission itself will lead to numerous problems.
Our initial assumption is that the issue of cancellation and withdrawal of unilateral acts often falls under the rules of international treaty law and little attention is paid to the difference between the nature of these acts and the treaty obligations of states.
Among the most important governmental acts that obligate countries, the following can be mentioned: Recognition of a country or government, protest and silence, declarations and statements, treaty termination, reservation, suspension of treaty implementation; For example, in the arbitration case of “Île de Lamu” in 1899, the chief arbitrator Baron Lambermont stated that unilateral declarations are considered binding if they lead to an agreement (495 :1933 ,Garner).
He stated that unilateral acts are carried out by the government and with the intention of creating specific legal effects based on international law (Karimi, 1400a: 300).
5. Termination and Suspension of Unilateral Acts The Court in its judgment regarding the French Nuclear Tests case states that just as the principle of pacta sunt servanda 1 is the basis of the binding nature of an international obligation in treaty law, a unilateral declaration is also based on the principle of good faith 2.
(
, 
, 
)
