第三个例子是，几内亚比绍的内战导致美国暂停其在该国的和平队援助计划。
Third, the Guinea-Bissau civil war caused the United States of America to suspend its Peace Corps aid programme in that country.
第四个例子是，荷兰1982年因苏里南发生国内敌对行为而中止了其与苏里南的双边条约。
Fourth, the Netherlands suspended bilateral treaties with Suriname because of domestic hostilities occurring in Suriname in 1982.
最后一个例子是，前南斯拉夫的国内敌对行为影响了南斯拉夫同好几个欧洲国家的多项条约。
Finally, domestic hostilities in the former Yugoslavia affected multiple treaties between Yugoslavia and several European countries.
因此毋庸置疑，国内冲突确实可能对国家间的条约关系造成重大影响。
There is thus little doubt that internal conflicts can have a significant effect on inter-State treaty relations.
C. 双边条约和多边条约的区别
C.
The distinction between bilateral and multilateral treaties
150. 在讨论武装冲突对条约的影响时，评论家们试图把双边条约和多边条约加以区别，认为前者更易于遭到暂停施行或废除，而后者则更容易恢复效力。
In discussing the effect of armed conflict on treaties, commentators have attempted to distinguish between bilateral treaties, as more susceptible to suspension or abrogation, and multilateral treaties, as more resilient.
例如，C.W. 詹克斯提出，“现在普遍接受的看法是，战争对多边立法条约和双边契约性条约造成的影响是不一样的。”
For example, C.
W.
Jenks argued that “[i]t is now generally admitted that war has not the same effect on multilateral legislative treaties as upon bilateral contractual ones.” Similarly, Robert Tucker argued that:
“在考虑战争对条约的影响时，最好，可能也必须，对那些以大多数缔约国为非交战国的条约与签署国仅为交战国的双边条约加以区分。
“In considering the effects of war on treaties it is useful, and probably necessary, to distinguish between those treaties having a large number of states other than the belligerents as parties and bilateral treaties having as signatories only the belligerents.
对于后一类条约，最近的惯例似乎表明，战争爆发产生的影响就是使这些条约失效，但是那些专门用于战时的条约除外。
With respect to the latter category, recent practice appears to indicate that, apart from those treaties especially intended to operate in time of war, the outbreak of war has the effect of annulling them.
即使对于那些旨在建立永久性状态的双边条约，若战胜国要在和平条约中加以废除，那也是无法阻挡的。
Even in the case of those bilateral treaties intended to establish a permanent condition of things, there is nothing to prevent a victorious belligerent from dissolving them in the peace treaty.
但是对于前一类条约，不能把战争的爆发视作可以废除有未参战国作为缔约国的条约(例如，设立国际邮政联盟的条约，海上航行安全，等等)。
With respect to the former category, however, the outbreak of war cannot be seen to result in the abrogation of treaties that include as parties states not participating in war (for example, the treaty establishing the International Postal Union, the safety of navigation at sea, etc.).
这类多边条约不仅在非交战国之间，而且在交战国和非交战国之间仍然具有约束力。
Such multilateral treaties remain binding not only between those states not participating in war but between the belligerents and the non-participants.
在交战国之间，则视战争的需要而可能全部或部分暂停施行这些条约。”
Between the belligerents, they may be suspended in whole or in part as the necessities of war require.”
151. 但是，在国家的做法上，这种双边条约和多边条约二分法的明晰度似乎正在减弱，以第二次世界大战和平条约与第一次世界大战后的和平条约做一比较就可以证明这一点：
In the practice of States, however, this neat dichotomy between bilateral and multilateral treaties appears to be diminishing, as evidenced by a comparison of the peace treaties of the Second World War with those following the First World War:
“1947年和1951年条约的用语明显反映了一种日益增强的趋势，即认为大多数条约在战争爆发后会仍然有效。
“The language of the 1947 and 1951 treaties apparently reflects the increasing tendency to regard most treaties as surviving the outbreak of war.
对一些双边条约来说，这种看法无疑是对的。
That is certainly true with respect to a number of bilateral treaties.
第二次世界大战之后，双边条约重新生效条款的措辞改变了，不是包括了`持续生效或者重新生效'这个短语，就是包括了`继续生效或者重新生效'这个短语，而不是像第一次世界大战之后的和平条约那样仅仅用了`重新生效'这个词。
After World War II the wording of the article for the revival of bilateral treaties was changed so as to include either the phrase `keep in force or revive' or the phrase `continue in force or revive' rather than just `revive' as was the case in the peace treaties after World War I.
同样，第一次世界大战和平条约声明，未重新生效的条约`目前无效而且将来也是无效的'，而第二次世界大战和平条约则声明，不属于通知对象的条约`将被视作已废除'”。
Also, where the World War I peace treaties had stated that unrevived treaties `are and shall remain abrogated', the World War II peace treaties stated that treaties not the subject of notification `shall be regarded as abrogated'.”
152. 因此，尽管在两次世界大战之后，多边条约仍然被视作比双边条约更容易恢复效力， 但是双边条约恢复效力的能力有所增强这一点也得到了承认。
Thus, although following both World Wars multilateral treaties were still viewed as more resilient than bilateral ones, an increased resilience of bilateral treaties was acknowledged.
这一趋势似乎仍在继续。
This trend seems to have continued.
一些有关武装冲突对条约影响的现代评论文章没有采用以前的多边/双边区分法，而是采用了更微妙的方法，把重点放在条约的实质性主题事项，而不是放在缔约国的多寡上。
Rather than adopting the former multilateral/bilateral distinction, several modern commentaries on the effect of armed conflict on treaties adopt a more nuanced approach, looking to the actual subject matter of the treaty rather than the number of parties.
这一方法显示，尽管许多最具有恢复效力能力的条约是多边条约，我们不能就因此假设，多边条约总是比双边条约更可能不受武装冲突的影响。
This approach shows that although many of the most resilient treaties are multilateral, one cannot assume that a multilateral treaty will always be more likely than a bilateral treaty to withstand armed conflict.
例如，一项建立永久性制度的双边条约可能会比一项不符合相称原则的多边环境条约更具有恢复效力的能力。
For example, a bilateral treaty establishing a permanent regime could prove more resilient than a multilateral environmental treaty which is inconsistent with the principle of proportionality.
同样，一项关于相互继承权的双边条约很容易就能证明比一项与武装冲突参与国的国家政策相冲突的多边引渡条约更具有恢复效力的能力。
Similarly, a bilateral treaty on reciprocal inheritance rights could easily prove more resilient than a multilateral extradition treaty which conflicts with national policy of the armed conflict.