Does the collapse of a regime invalidates the treaties it had signed? Like the collapse of Afghanistan.

This is actually a very interesting subject.

Rather than begin to explain it here, I would suggest you look at what is known as 'The Hague Law' on treaties. I would suggest a couple of the links that you may wish to read sections from. These will pretty much explain what you need to know. I hope these help. You would be looking to read the laws relating to what is commonly known as International Customary Law.

In the hierarchy of sources in international law, customary law is considered the weightiest as it is binding on all states. It is also perhaps the most hotly debated category of international law. Customary law is determined by a variety of factors — among them, a general and consistent practice of states such that it forms a kind of duty in the international legal order. One example of customary law is the policy of not arresting nor asserting judicial jurisdiction over foreign ambassadors. This rule of customary law was later explicitly codified in treaties but pre-existed as a custom or practice in and of itself.

In addition, treaties, normally binding only on the states that are parties to them, can become part of customary law through being widely ratified or followed — as in the case of the Geneva Conventions or the Genocide Convention. "Customary Law" corresponds to Article 38(I)(b) of the statute of the ICJ.

Conventions are those agreements entered into between states setting forth mutual obligations. Some treaties are bilateral — between two countries — and others are multilateral, binding more than two countries. Unless the treaties or agreements have been widely ratified, accepted or followed, they are binding only on the states parties to the agreements. This source of international is the first listed in article 38(I)(a) of the statute of the ICJ.

here are the links I referred to.......

http://www.webcom.com/hrin/parker/ltte96-2.html

http://www.un.org/icc/crimes.htm

~~~~Littera scripta manet~~~ the written word remains. (the saying continues; The weak word perishes)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jun:
A state's financial commitments subsists notwithstanding the change in administration.However the state may always repudiate its international commitments but repercussions will always be expected. A good example is when some latin american countries refused to pay their international debt on account of its impoverished economy.And finally laws are not only to be interpreted according to the letter (which killeth) but according to the spirit (which giveth life).That is according to Justice Holmes.When the letter of the law comes in conflict with the spirit of the law it is the latter that prevails over the former. The written word does not always remain; it has to be abandoned in favor of the spirit.