چکیده:
The consensual nature of accepting international treaties is one of the pillars of international treaty law. Based on this principle, every international treaty is the result of the consent of states and international organizations around common goals and interests achieved through their cooperation. Therefore, it is states and international organizations that, influenced by the requirements of collective living, recognize the need to conclude a treaty, engage in negotiations regarding its form and content, document their common points of view (while respecting international public order), and then, upon the conclusion of the preliminary process of concluding treaties, sign, ratify, or accede to it by declaring their official will to be bound by the provisions of the agreed document. Throughout all these stages, the primacy of free will is so prominent that the conclusion of any treaty without observing real and sound will results in its invalidity. However, since the 1990s, developments have occurred regarding this principle. This writing will analyze the aforementioned principle and the developments that seek to move its foundations, with an emphasis on the international processes of disarmament, arms control, and non-proliferation.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Therefore, it is states and international organizations that, influenced by the requirements of collective living, recognize the need to conclude a treaty, engage in negotiations regarding its form and content, document their common views (while respecting international public order), and then, upon completion of the preliminary processes of treaty conclusion, sign, ratify, or accede to it by declaring their official will to be bound by the provisions of the agreed document.
It seems that both aforementioned schools have captured a part of the truth, and the foundation of international law is based both on voluntarism and on the fact that in some cases, the requirements of collective living and the obligations arising from international public order compel international actors to comply with its rules and principles, without their will being able to play a role in the construction and refinement of this part of the international legal order in a completely voluntary and initiative manner.
The obligation of Iraq to accept the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (based on Security Council Resolution 687 of 1991),[8] the obligation of North Korea not to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (Security Council Resolution 837 of 1993) and finally the obligation of Iran to sign, ratify, and unconditionally implement the 1997 Additional Protocol to the safeguards regime[9] of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Resolution of 12 September 2002 of the Governing Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency) confirms this new trend against the aforementioned principle.
(
, 
, 
)
