„Some domestic legal systems have an equivalent to Article 25 (WVK), in the sense that 
there is a specific provision in the domestic laws or constitution regulating provisional 
application. Examples are for instance the Netherlands, the Russian Federation and 
Belarus. By contrast, in many other legal systems, it would appear that provisional 
application has not found its place in the written legal framework and instead is a matter of 
uncodified practice. Whether codified or uncodified, broadly three approaches to 
provisional application can be distinguished in domestic law: either provisional application 
is prohibited; allowed; or allowed under certain conditions. Several States have 
expressed the view that provisional application is in principle prohibited by their 
constitution or not accepted by their legal system, including Austria; Luxembourg; Italy; 
Portugal; Egypt; as well as several Latin-American States such as Brazil; Colombia; Costa 
Rica, and Mexico. A variant of this position is that provisional application is possible only 
in exceptional circumstances, as is the case, for instance, in Belgium, Colombia, France, 
Greece and Turkey. Others, such as Finland, Spain, the Slovak Republic and Bosnia 
Herzegovina, state that provisional application is generally allowed. Again in other 
systems, provisional application is allowed but subject to certain conditions, this is the 
case, for example, in Slovenia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Lithuania, Canada etc. This 
variety of approaches towards provisional application in internal law shows that it is for 
each State to decide, and thus that it is a matter of internal law, whether to allow 
provisional application and if so upon what conditions. Furthermore, the relatively great 
number of States in which provisional application is in principle prohibited or in which 
recourse to the mechanism can only be had in exceptional circumstances suggests that 
provisional application, at least in some domestic legal systems, gives rise to considerable 
difficulties "9? 
Somit zeigt sich, dass eine Einbeziehung der vorláufigen Anwendung in das 
innerstaatliche Recht sehr unterschiedlich ausgeprägt sein kann und eine 
Kodifizierung dieser auch nicht in jedem Staat vorgenommen wurde. Sehr 
interessant ist sicher auch ein einschlágiges Verbot der vorláufigen Anwendung 
einzelner Staaten. Darauf wird weiter unten näher eingegangen. 
Vereinfacht gesagt, hatte das Schiedsgericht im Yukos-Fall zu entscheiden, ob Art. 
45 Abs. 1 ECT auch auf den Inhalt der Charta Anwendung findet, also ob ein 
Vorbehalt gilt, wenn einzelne Bestimmungen der Charta dem innerstaatlichen Recht 
eines Staates entgegenstehen oder ob dieser Vorbehalt lediglich die gesamte 
vorläufige Anwendung der Charta betrifft, ein allfálliges innerstaatliches Verbot (wie 
  
$12 Quast Mertsch, Provisionally Applied Treaties, 2012, S. 62 — 63; vgl. dazu auch Ishikawa, Domestic law, 
2016, S. 277. 
62