6. What obligations exist for States who sign and/or ratify treaties?

What punishment can be exud

asdddddddddddddddssasasrewewerwerwerwerwred by the ICJ for treaty violations?

“Ratification” and “signature” are both different names for the process whereby a state indicates to the
other contraction parties its consent to be bound by the adopted international agreement. But still
there is a difference between both terms.

“Signature” is a process that has different legal meanings depending on the circumstances in which it is
performed. A distinction is made between “simple signature”, which is subject to ratification, and
“definitive signature”, which is not subject to ratification

Ratification” in contrary to “signature” refers to the act undertaken in the international plane, whereby
a State establishes its consent to be bound by a treaty. Usually ratification involves two distinct
procedural acts. The first is related to the constitutional (internal) laws of a contracting party. It involves
the international procedure that must be fulfilled before the state can assume the international
obligations enshrined in the international agreement. In many instances this involves approval by the
national parliament. The second element deals with the external (international) level. It is the process
through which the contracting party indicates its consent to be bound to the other contracting parties.

To summarize, the countries which only signed, but not ratified the Convention have for the moment
only an obligation to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the
treaty. Ratification stays necessary before the Convention becomes part of the legal system of those
countries.

With reference to international agreements, "every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and
must be performed by them in good faith.” Pacta sunt servanda is related to good faith, while pacta
sunt servanda does not equate with good faith. This entitles states to require that obligations be
respected and to rely upon the obligations being respected. This good faith basis of treaties implies that
a party to the treaty cannot invoke provisions of its municipal (domestic) law as justification for a failure
to perform.

As regards the penalty that may be imposed by the International Court of Justice it must first be said
that only those states which have acceded to the general jurisdiction of the court can be parties to a
case brought unto it, otherwise the court shall have no jurisdiction over the dispute. A treaty violation,
or a material breach of such obligation shall entitle the injured party to invoke such ground to suspend
the operation of the treaty in whole or in part. Moreover, in the Australia vs. France decision, the ICJ
granted a preliminary injunction against the testing of France. In several cases, the ICJ has granted the
prayer for damages, as in the case of US vs. Nicaragua. The Court also issued prohibitions enjoining a
particular state from proceeding with a particular act or omission which is tantamount to a material
breach or a violation of a treaty obligation. In general, however, if a treaty contains penalty clause for
violations, the ICJ is not precluded from enforcing the same as well as any other equitable relief aside
from the prayer of the applicant.