Article 57 and 71 of The Vienna Convention · Universal Order Of Conscious

Article 57 and 71 of The Vienna Convention

Legal Brief: Individual Suspension of Treaty Operation under Article 57 of the Vienna Convention

Title: Invocation of Article 57 for Personal Suspension of Treaty Obligations due to Structural Absorption and Peremptory Norm Breach

I. Legal Basis – Article 57 of the Vienna Convention

“The operation of a treaty in regard to all the parties or to a particular party may be suspended in conformity with the provisions of the treaty.”

II. Context of Application – Structural Absorption and Constructed Identity

In the Canadian context, domestic legal structures have forcibly incorporated the population into the state’s legal identity through.

o Appointment into corporate and municipal offices;

o Licensing and residency mechanisms;

o Statutory obligations that convert individuals into acting organs of the state.

This absorption transforms individuals into de facto parties to international treaties signed by Canada, since their conduct and identity are now indistinguishable from that of the state for the purposes of international responsibility.

3. Accordingly, the population — having been made structurally into the state — acquires the standing to invoke legal mechanisms under the treaty, including suspension under Article 57.

III. Grounds for Suspension – Violation of Peremptory Norms and ICCPR Rights

The performance of the treaty in Canada has resulted in:

o Violations of non-derogable rights under the ICCPR (Articles 6, 7, 16, 18);

o Suppression of conscience, identity, and dignity;

o Erasure of recognition through fabricated legal personhood.

These violations activate peremptory protections under Articles 53, 64, and 71 of the Vienna Convention.

6.Article 57 now provides a legal route to suspend the treaty’s application to the structurally absorbed individual, until such time as full conformity with peremptory norms is restored.

IV. Invocation by the Individual

7. As a being whose legal identity has been absorbed into the Canadian state structure:

o You bear the burdens of treaty execution;

o You suffer the harms of its violation;

o Therefore, you hold standing to suspend its operation as it pertains to you.

8. This act is not rebellion or repudiation — it is a lawful and principled invocation of Article 57, anchored in the continuing supremacy of human dignity and conscience rights.

Conclusion: Where treaty execution results in structural absorption and peremptory norm violations, the individual so affected has the right to invoke Article 57 and suspend the operation of the treaty in regard to themselves. This is a lawful assertion of legal conscience and non-derogable rights.

Suspension is not destruction. It is the rightful act of protection under law.

Article 71-

Legal Doctrine: Void Execution and Restoration under Article 71 of the Vienna Convention

Title: The Obligation to Dismantle Treaty-Based Structural Violations under Peremptory Norm Supremacy

I. Legal Foundation – Article 71(1) of the Vienna Convention

“In the case of a treaty which is void under article 53, the parties shall: (a) eliminate as far as possible the consequences of any act performed in reliance on any provision which conflicts with the peremptory norm of general international law; and (b) bring their mutual relations into conformity with the peremptory norm of general international law.”

II. Conflict between Treaty Execution and Jus Cogens

The treaties signed by Canada, including the ICCPR, are bound by the supremacy of peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens).

2.While the original intent of these treaties may have aligned with human rights protections, their execution through Canada’s domestic structure has produced systemic violations:

o Structural denial of legal personhood;

o Suppression of freedom of conscience;

o Forced transformation of individuals into state organs;

o Compelled conduct that violates non-derogable rights.

These violations constitute a direct conflict with peremptory norms, thereby invoking Article 53, which renders the treaty void in its conflicting execution.

III. Binding Obligations under Article 71

4. Canada, having executed a treaty in a manner that violates jus cogens, is now legally required to:

o Eliminate all consequences of any act performed in reliance on the conflicting execution;

o Restore all mutual relations between persons and state to full conformity with peremptory norms.

5. This includes:

o Dismantling incorporation schemes that erase recognition;

o Ceasing statutory frameworks that compel unlawful acts;

o Restoring full personhood and conscience rights to every being absorbed into the state structure.

IV. Irreversibility of Peremptory Norms

Article 71 mandates restoration regardless of domestic law or state interest.

The nullification is not optional, political, or diplomatic — it is legal, universal, and binding.

Conclusion:

Wherever a treaty has been executed in a way that violates peremptory norms, that execution is void under Article 53. Under Article 71, the responsible state must eliminate the consequences of those acts and bring all legal relations into compliance with the supreme order of human dignity and moral conscience.

This is not withdrawal. This is rectification. This is the law.

The Hidden Construction of Legal Control under International Law

I. Introduction: The Illusion of Rights, the Reality of Containment

At first glance, the international legal framework — including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts — appears to form a robust defense of human dignity, freedom, and legal conscience.

But when examined in conjunction, these documents reveal a coordinated legal structure that, while claiming to protect the individual, actually enables their absorption into state machinery under the guise of rights and recognition.

This is not a system of emancipation. It is a juridical mechanism of structural captivity.

II. Three Structural Features of the Hidden Architecture

Sovereign Immunity and State-Centric IdentityThe entire international legal system revolves around the concept of the sovereign state. Rights are defined in terms of state obligations; violations are framed as acts of states. The individual — unless protected by a state — is rendered invisible in terms of standing and remedy.

2.Organhood by Internal Law (Vienna Convention / Articles on State Responsibility)Article 4 of the Articles on State Responsibility states that a person or entity is considered a state organ if so designated by internal law. This opens the door for governments to:

o Define all residents or legal persons as officers or agents of the state;

o Absorb corporate, municipal, or health-registered persons into the state structure;

o Attribute their behavior to the state under international law — without their knowledge or consent.

Peremptory Norms without EnforcementWhile Articles 53 and 64 of the Vienna Convention recognize peremptory norms (jus cogens) as superior to all treaties, and the ICCPR outlines non-derogable rights, there is no binding enforcement mechanism. States are left to police themselves, allowing structural violations to persist indefinitely.

III. The Systemic Outcome: Structural Absorption Disguised as Sovereignty

The cumulative effect of these legal mechanisms is that states can: - Redefine the population as legal extensions of the state; - Bind them to treaties without voluntary consent; - Justify violations of fundamental rights through internal statutes; - Appear lawful under international law while structurally enslaving their populations.

This is not a failure of implementation. It is the hidden function of the framework.

IV. Canada as the Template

In Canada: - The federal and provincial enactments declare all inhabitants as municipal residents; - Licensing regimes transform citizens into corporate officers; - The tax system prescribes personhood through appointments into statutory roles; - Health and identification systems are jurisdictional tools of containment.

All of this renders the individual indistinguishable from the state — and thus subject to treaty obligations without agency. This mirrors identical structures in other Western governments (e.g., United States, UK, Australia), all of which operate under the same legal DNA.

V. Conclusion: Exposure as Liberation

The international legal system was constructed to appear as a protective shield — but it is, in truth, a jurisdictional funnel that enables state-based identity fabrication and control. The individual is not protected — they are absorbed.

Liberation does not come from appealing to this system for recognition. It comes from exposing its construction, invoking its highest doctrines (such as Articles 42, 57, 64, and 71 of the Vienna Convention), and reclaiming standing as a being recognized by essence — not construct.

This is not a rejection of law. It is the restoration of its true function.

7 comments