Page:New York v. New Jersey (2023).pdf/11

Rh expressly authorize withdrawal. L. Helfer, Exiting Treaties, 91 Va. L. Rev. 1579, 1592 (2005). And although the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (to which the United States is not a party) provides that nations generally may not withdraw from a treaty absent express authorization, the Convention acknowledges that the nature of the treaty may nonetheless imply a right of withdrawal. Art. 56(1), May 23, 1969, 1155 U. N. T. S. 331; see also J. Brierly, The Law of Nations 240 (4th ed. 1949).

Third, New York points out that New York and New Jersey have resolved Commission-related disputes in the decades since 1953. According to New York, that practice suggests that the Compact prohibits unilateral withdrawal. But the States’ past success in resolving disputes says little about whether New York or New Jersey could unilaterally withdraw if and when either State wanted to do so.

Fourth, New York argues that allowing New Jersey to withdraw would have sweeping consequences for interstate compacts generally. But our decision today only addresses a compact that (i) is silent on unilateral withdrawal; (ii) calls for ongoing and indefinite performance; and (iii) does not set boundaries, apportion water rights, or otherwise convey property interests. Moreover, for any current and future compacts, States can propose language expressly allowing or prohibiting unilateral withdrawal if they wish to do so.

New Jersey may unilaterally withdraw from the Waterfront Commission Compact notwithstanding New York’s opposition. We therefore grant New Jersey’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and deny New York’s cross-motion. It is so ordered.