一个条约可以作废时，可以证明该条约被强迫或胁迫下形成的。条约的谈判应在没有另一个国家受到胁迫的情况下发生。这种胁迫可以通过威胁或勒索来创造。有时，胁迫的存在不足以取消条约。这是因为国家反正已经同意了。在Ecnar v. Aissu的语境中似乎没有存在一种胁迫勒索语境。因此，立法条约不能作废。
An effective date for the formation of treaty, which is when the treaty will come into effect, must have been specified as it is 2 years since the alleged violation has been reported. This can be taken to mean legally obligated bindings were adhered to before the alleged violation of treaty.
There are some instances when an international treaty can be voided. The prime of them is when the treaty is not entered into with mutual consent (Unit 02 -Notes). For a treaty to be valid both parties that signed the treaty must have entered into the treaty with mutual consent. Here it can be said that both the parties entered into the treaty with mutual consent, also both of them ratified it together again when they brought down the miles of jurisdiction from100 to 50.
A treaty can be voided when it can be proved that the treaty was formed under coercion or duress. The negotiation of treaties should happen without another state being brought under duress. This duress can be created by threats or blackmail. Sometimes the existence of duress cannot be sufficient enough to cancel the treaty. This is because the state anyways has given its assent. In the context of Ecnar v. Aissu there seems to be no existence of a blackmail context of duress. Therefore the legislative treaty cannot be voided.
Here Ecnar can make an argument that two states customary practice might make it customary law. In this context Ecnar has been used to having 100 miles of zonal space in KOM and not just 50 miles, so it interception at 70 miles might not be a violation. However in this context it is critical to note that the violation is not of a customary law. The customary law has been codified into a treaty that was ratified by both the states, so hence there is a violation of the treaty.