The role of subsequent state practice in the procedural law of treaties, and in the determination of consent in the implementation of treaties have become the subject of much scholarly debate in recent times. The UN International Law Commission has devoted copious amounts of study time into these issues under the distinguished guidance of Georg Nolte as Special Rapporteur. Ph.D. theses and research monographs, journal articles and commentaries have appeared on the matter, but the debate persists. At one end of this debate are treaty-text loyalists that reject the potential of subsequent state practice to modify what they regard as ‘solemn oaths’ taken by states when they conclude and adopt a treaty. That ‘temporal declaration of consent’ by states to be bound by a treaty regime is for them sacrosanct. At the other end are analytical jurisprudence scholars who appear to insist upon a purpose test approach to the matter. This article evaluates treaty-text loyalists’ arguments under current state practice on treaty implementation across a number of disciplines. It shows that the view that ‘temporal consent’ supremely prohibits the modification of treaties through subsequent state practice is exaggerated. Moreover, the ‘solemn oaths’ perception of treaties is not supported by recent examples of treaty implementation.

后续国家实践在条约程序法中以及在执行条约中确定同意方面的作用已成为近来学术界争论的主题。在特别报告员格奥尔格·诺尔特（Georg Nolte）的杰出指导下，联合国国际法委员会在这些问题上投入了大量的研究时间。博士 这些问题和研究专着，期刊文章和评论都出现在此问题上，但辩论仍在继续。在这场辩论的最后，是条约文本的忠实主义者，他们拒绝随后的国家实践改变其在缔结和通过条约时所采取的国家“庄严宣誓”的可能性。对各国而言，受条约制度约束的“暂时宣布同意”对他们而言是神圣不可侵犯的。在另一端是分析法学学者，他们似乎坚持对此事采用目的检验方法。本文评估了当前国家实践下关于跨多个学科的条约实施的条约文本忠实主义者的论点。它表明，“时间同意”至高禁止通过随后的国家实践来修改条约的观点被夸大了。此外，最近的条约执行实例不支持对条约的“庄严宣誓”理解。它表明，“时间同意”至高禁止通过随后的国家实践来修改条约的观点被夸大了。此外，最近的条约执行实例不支持对条约的“庄严宣誓”理解。它表明，“时间同意”至高禁止通过随后的国家实践来修改条约的观点被夸大了。此外，最近的条约执行实例不支持对条约的“庄严宣誓”理解。