Case 1: Sources of International Law

At a formal meeting in May 2014, the foreign ministers of State A and State B discuss the
possibility of a cooperation to fight tax fraud. At the end of the meeting they agree that the
responsible tax authorities of State A and State B will cooperate where there is a suspicion of
tax fraud. If the suspicion is confirmed it is intended that the judicial authorities of both States
cooperate. If a court finds that a person has evaded taxes in the other State the tax evader shall
be extradited if the court convicts him/her to a term of imprisonment.

Between the months May and October several cases of tax fraud committed in States A or B
could be solved because of the cooperation of their tax and judicial authorities. Several tax
evaders were extradited to serve sentences in the respective other state. When the tax
authority of State B requests administrative assistance with regard to a popular former head of
state of State A the government of State A directs its authorities to abstain from any
cooperation.

In a demarche (Protestnote) the government of State B insists on the fulfilment of contractual

obligations in accordance with the principle pacta sunt servanda as laid down in Art. 26
VCLT. State A replies that a treaty has never been validly concluded since the arrangement
reached between their foreign ministers was merely of a political nature. On top of that under
the constitution of State A the foreign minister would not have been allowed to conclude such
a treaty on her own. Furthermore, State A claims that such a treaty would violate public
international law standards of extradition and therefore could not have been validly
concluded.

How would you appraise the statements of both of the governments?