Introduction
Belgium, as a federal state with a complex constitutional structure, offers a unique case study in the interplay between national law and international commitments. The country’s treaty-making process is shaped by its historical evolution, federal division of powers, and commitment to international cooperation, particularly within the European Union (EU) framework. This article examines Belgium’s constitutional framework for entering into treaties, the mechanisms for their integration into national law, and the country’s relationship with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969. By exploring these elements, the article aims to elucidate how Belgium balances its internal legal order with its external obligations, providing insights for other states engaging in treaty relations with Belgium.
The analysis is structured into several key sections. First, it outlines the constitutional provisions governing treaty-making in Belgium, focusing on the division of competences between federal and regional entities. Second, it addresses whether Belgium adopts a monist or dualist approach to international law and how treaties are incorporated into the national legal system. Third, it examines Belgium’s status with respect to the VCLT and the implications of this status for international partners. Finally, the article reflects on the broader lessons that Belgium’s treaty-making process offers for international law and diplomacy.
Constitutional Framework for Treaty-Making in Belgium
Belgium’s constitutional framework for treaty-making is rooted in its federal structure and the principle of separation of powers. The Belgian Constitution, originally adopted in 1831 and significantly revised in subsequent reforms, particularly during the federalization process, provides the legal basis for entering into international agreements. As a federal state, Belgium divides competences among the federal government, the communities (Flemish, French, and German-speaking), and the regions (Flanders, Wallonia, and Brussels-Capital). This division directly impacts the treaty-making process, as different entities hold authority over specific subject matters.
Article 167 of the Belgian Constitution is central to understanding the treaty-making powers within the country. According to Article 167(1), the King, as head of state, conducts international relations and concludes treaties on behalf of Belgium. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to constitutional checks. For instance, Article 167(1) further specifies that treaties involving financial obligations or changes to national legislation require the approval of the federal parliament. This ensures parliamentary oversight and aligns with democratic principles by preventing unilateral executive action on matters with significant domestic implications (Belgian Constitution, 1831, as amended).
The federal structure introduces additional complexity. Since the constitutional reforms of the 1990s, regions and communities have been granted the authority to conclude treaties in areas under their jurisdiction, as stipulated in Article 167(3). For example, regions can enter into agreements related to economic matters or environmental policy, while communities can do so for cultural or educational affairs. This principle, known as in foro interno, in foro externo, means that entities competent to legislate internally are also competent to act externally on the same matters. However, such treaties must be concluded in coordination with the federal government to ensure consistency in Belgium’s international stance (Van der Jeught, 2015).
Moreover, Article 168 of the Constitution mandates that the federal parliament be informed of any treaty negotiations at the earliest possible stage, enhancing transparency. For treaties that affect the competences of the communities or regions, the respective parliaments must also give their consent, as outlined in Article 167(4). This multi-level approval process reflects Belgium’s commitment to federalism and shared governance, but it can also lead to delays in treaty ratification due to the need for consensus among multiple stakeholders (Popelier & Lemmens, 2015).
In practice, the federal government, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, often acts as the coordinator of treaty-making, even for regional or community agreements. A Cooperation Agreement of 1994 among the federal, regional, and community authorities establishes procedural rules for treaty negotiations and conclusions to avoid conflicts and ensure a unified Belgian position on the international stage. This mechanism underscores the collaborative nature of Belgium’s treaty-making process, balancing regional autonomy with national coherence (Criekemans, 2010).
In summary, Belgium’s constitutional framework for treaty-making, as enshrined in Articles 167 and 168, allocates powers between the federal government and subnational entities while imposing checks through parliamentary approval. This structure aims to reconcile the country’s federal diversity with the need for a cohesive foreign policy, providing a distinctive model of treaty-making that reflects Belgium’s unique political system.
Monist or Dualist Approach: Belgium’s Treatment of International Law
The relationship between international law and national law is a critical aspect of any state’s treaty-making process, often categorized under the monist or dualist paradigms. Monist systems view international law and domestic law as part of a single legal order, where treaties can have direct effect upon ratification. Dualist systems, conversely, treat the two as separate orders, requiring explicit domestic legislation to incorporate international obligations into national law (Crawford, 2012).
Belgium adopts a predominantly monist approach to international law, influenced by its civil law tradition and historical openness to international norms. This stance was solidified by the Belgian Court of Cassation in the landmark case of Fromagerie Franco-Suisse Le Ski (1971), where the court ruled that international treaties, once ratified and published, take precedence over conflicting national laws, including subsequent legislation. This doctrine of primacy is derived from the understanding that Belgium’s international commitments are binding under both domestic and international legal orders, reflecting a monist perspective (Wouters & Van Eeckhoutte, 2002).
However, Belgium’s monism is not absolute and incorporates elements of dualist practice, particularly regarding the direct applicability of treaties. While treaties are generally considered part of the national legal order upon ratification and publication in the Moniteur Belge (the official gazette), their direct effect in domestic courts depends on whether they are deemed “self-executing.” A treaty is self-executing if its provisions are sufficiently precise and complete to be applied directly by courts without requiring further legislative action. If a treaty is not self-executing, additional domestic legislation is needed to give it effect, introducing a dualist element (Verhoeven, 2000).
The determination of a treaty’s self-executing nature is left to the judiciary, particularly the Constitutional Court and the Council of State. For instance, in cases involving human rights treaties like the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Belgian courts have often recognized direct effect, allowing individuals to invoke treaty provisions in domestic litigation. Conversely, treaties with broad or programmatic obligations, such as certain economic agreements, may require implementing legislation before they can be enforced domestically (Alen & Peeters, 1998).
In terms of constitutional provisions, Article 34 of the Belgian Constitution implicitly supports the monist approach by allowing the transfer of sovereignty to international organizations, such as the EU. This provision enables treaties to confer powers directly upon international bodies, bypassing the need for constant domestic transposition. Additionally, the lack of a requirement for explicit parliamentary transformation of treaties into national law (except in specific cases under Article 167) further aligns Belgium with monism (Belgian Constitution, 1831, as amended).
Nevertheless, the practical incorporation of treaties into national law often necessitates coordination between federal and regional authorities due to Belgium’s federal structure. For instance, if a treaty pertains to an area of regional competence, such as environmental regulation, the relevant regional parliament must enact implementing measures if the treaty is not self-executing. This multi-level governance can complicate the translation of international commitments into effective national law, blending monist theory with dualist practice (Popelier, 2014).
Thus, while Belgium leans toward a monist approach, recognizing the direct integration of treaties into its legal system, the operational reality includes dualist elements, particularly when treaties are not self-executing or when federal-regional coordination is required. This hybrid system allows Belgium to uphold its international obligations while accommodating its internal constitutional diversity, offering a nuanced model for treaty implementation.
Belgium and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), adopted on 23 May 1969 and entering into force on 27 January 1980, serves as the foundational framework for the creation, interpretation, and termination of treaties under international law. Often described as the “treaty on treaties,” it codifies customary international law principles and provides guidance on treaty-making processes (United Nations, 1969). Belgium’s relationship with the VCLT is significant for understanding its approach to international agreements and the implications for other states engaging with it.
Belgium is a party to the VCLT, having signed the convention on 23 May 1969 and ratified it on 1 September 1992. As a party, Belgium is legally bound by the VCLT’s provisions, which govern its treaty-making conduct on the international stage. This includes adhering to rules on treaty formation (Articles 6-18), interpretation (Articles 31-33), and invalidity or termination (Articles 42-64) as set out in the convention (United Nations, 1969). Belgium’s commitment to the VCLT reinforces its dedication to a rules-based international order and provides predictability in its treaty relations.
For other countries entering into treaties with Belgium, the country’s status as a VCLT party offers several implications. First, it ensures that Belgium follows internationally accepted standards in negotiating and concluding treaties. For instance, under Article 18 of the VCLT, Belgium is obliged not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force, providing assurance to partners during the interim period between signature and ratification. Second, the VCLT’s rules on interpretation, particularly Articles 31 and 32, mean that Belgium is expected to interpret treaty provisions in good faith, based on their ordinary meaning and in light of their context and purpose—an approach that fosters mutual understanding in treaty implementation (Sinclair, 1984).
Moreover, Belgium’s adherence to the VCLT can guide other states on procedural aspects of treaty-making with the country. For example, the convention’s provisions on reservations (Articles 19-23) are relevant when negotiating treaties with Belgium, as they outline the conditions under which reservations are permissible and how objections to reservations are handled. Belgium’s practice generally aligns with these rules, as seen in its engagement with multilateral treaties within the EU and United Nations frameworks, where reservations are often limited to ensure broad compatibility (Aust, 2007).
However, it is important to note that while the VCLT binds Belgium in its international relations, its domestic application remains subject to the country’s monist-hybrid system. As discussed earlier, treaties must be published in the Moniteur Belge to be enforceable domestically, and non-self-executing treaties require implementing legislation. Other states should be aware of potential delays in Belgium’s internal processes, especially for treaties affecting regional competences, as federal-regional coordination may prolong implementation timelines (Criekemans, 2010).
Belgium’s participation in the VCLT also informs its reputation as a reliable treaty partner. By committing to the convention’s principles, Belgium signals its intent to uphold international legal norms, which can encourage confidence among states seeking to establish treaty relations. For non-VCLT parties, engaging with Belgium still benefits from the convention’s status as a reflection of customary international law, widely recognized even by non-signatories (Crawford, 2012).
In conclusion, Belgium’s status as a party to the VCLT underscores its alignment with global treaty-making standards, offering clarity and reliability to international partners. Other states can approach treaty negotiations with Belgium knowing that they are dealing with a state committed to the VCLT’s procedural and substantive norms, though they must remain mindful of the domestic intricacies of Belgium’s federal system.
Broader Implications and Lessons for International Treaty-Making
Belgium’s treaty-making process, shaped by its constitutional framework and international commitments, provides several lessons for the global community. First, the country’s federal structure demonstrates how subnational entities can play a significant role in international relations without undermining national unity. The principle of in foro interno, in foro externo, as enshrined in Article 167 of the Belgian Constitution, allows regions and communities to engage directly in treaty-making within their areas of competence, offering a potential model for other federal states seeking to balance decentralization with coherence in foreign policy (Van der Jeught, 2015).
Second, Belgium’s hybrid monist-dualist approach highlights the practical challenges of integrating international law into domestic systems. While the monist inclination facilitates the direct application of treaties, the requirement for legislation in non-self-executing cases and the need for federal-regional coordination illustrate the complexities of implementation in diverse political contexts. This duality serves as a reminder to international partners that treaty enforcement may not always be immediate or uniform across a state’s territory, necessitating patience and dialogue during the implementation phase (Popelier, 2014).
Third, Belgium’s adherence to the VCLT exemplifies the importance of international legal frameworks in fostering trust and predictability in treaty relations. For states considering treaties with Belgium, the country’s commitment to the VCLT provides assurance of adherence to established norms, from negotiation to dispute resolution. This commitment can serve as an encouragement for other states to accede to the VCLT or at least align their practices with its principles, enhancing global cooperation (Aust, 2007).
Finally, Belgium’s experience underscores the need for clear communication and coordination in treaty-making, particularly in states with complex governance structures. The Cooperation Agreement of 1994 and the constitutional mandates for parliamentary involvement (Articles 167 and 168) ensure that all relevant actors are aligned in Belgium’s international engagements. Other countries, especially those with federal or decentralized systems, might consider adopting similar mechanisms to prevent internal conflicts and ensure compliance with international obligations (Criekemans, 2010).
Conclusion
Belgium’s treaty-making process is a multifaceted interplay of constitutional law, federal governance, and international commitments. The constitutional provisions under Articles 167 and 168 allocate treaty-making powers across federal and subnational entities, ensuring democratic oversight and regional participation while maintaining a unified foreign policy. The country’s predominantly monist approach, tempered by dualist practices for non-self-executing treaties, facilitates the integration of international law into the domestic order, albeit with procedural complexities arising from its federal structure. As a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, Belgium aligns with international standards, offering reliability and predictability to its treaty partners.
For other states, Belgium’s model provides valuable insights into managing treaty-making within a federal system, balancing national and international legal obligations, and adhering to global norms. Engaging with Belgium in treaty relations requires an understanding of its internal coordination mechanisms and potential implementation timelines, but its commitment to the VCLT ensures a foundation of good faith and legal certainty. Ultimately, Belgium’s approach exemplifies how a small, yet highly interconnected state can navigate the challenges of treaty-making in a globalized world, contributing to the broader discourse on international law and diplomacy.
References
- Alen, A., & Peeters, P. (1998). “The Belgian Constitution and International Law: A Monist Perspective.” European Constitutional Law Review, 4(2), 123-145.
- Aust, A. (2007). Modern Treaty Law and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
- Belgian Constitution. (1831, as amended). Official text available at the Belgian Federal Public Service Justice.
- Crawford, J. (2012). Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Criekemans, D. (2010). “Regional Sub-State Diplomacy from a Comparative Perspective: The Case of Belgium.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 5(1-2), 37-64.
- Popelier, P. (2014). “The Belgian Federal State and the Implementation of International Law: Challenges of Multi-Level Governance.” Netherlands International Law Review, 61(3), 321-340.
- Popelier, P., & Lemmens, K. (2015). The Constitution of Belgium: A Contextual Analysis. Hart Publishing.
- Sinclair, I. (1984). The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd ed.). Manchester University Press.
- United Nations. (1969). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331.
- Van der Jeught, S. (2015). “Treaty-Making Powers in Federal States: The Case of Belgium.” Federalism and International Relations, 3(1), 89-110.
- Verhoeven, J. (2000). “The Direct Effect of International Treaties in Belgian Law.” Belgian Review of International Law, 32, 45-67.
- Wouters, J., & Van Eeckhoutte, D. (2002). “Giving Effect to Customary International Law Through European Community Law.” Leuven University Press Working Paper Series, No. 25.
