Is British Columbia violating the 1949 Geneva Convention on Road Traffic by requiring foreign drivers to exchange their license within three months?

Question

According to the 1949 Geneva Convention citizens of any country that signed the agreement are able to drive in any other country for up to one year with an international driving permit:

No Contracting State shall be required to extend the benefit of the provisions of this Convention to any motor vehicle or trailer, or to any driver having remained within its territory for a continuous period exceeding one year. (Article 1, paragraph 2)

...

Each Contracting State shall allow any driver admitted to its territory who fulfils the conditions which are set out in Annex 8 and who holds a valid driving permit issued to him, after he has given proof of his competence, by the competent authority of another Contracting State or subdivision thereof, or by an Association duly empowered by such authority, to drive on its roads without further examination motor vehicles of the category or categories defined in Annexes 9 and 10 for which the permit has been issued. (Article 24, paragraph 1)

The only requirement as set out in Annex 8 is...

The minimum age for driving a motor vehicle under the conditions set out in Article 24 of the Convention shall be eighteen years.

But at the same time British Columbia (which is a member state of Canada, which is a party to the convention) requires foreign drivers to exchange their licenses within three months of becoming a resident:

a person who has become ordinarily resident in British Columbia and who has a validly issued and subsisting driver’s or operator’s licence or permit issued according to the laws of the jurisdiction where he or she was most recently ordinarily resident, for 90 days after he or she became ordinarily resident in British Columbia;

Isn't there a conflict between domestic and international law in this situation? Or am I misunderstanding the 1949 Geneva Convention?

Answer 1

My own answer to the question is yes, but not directly. As with many other laws it would take a court ruling to definitively spell out how international agreements are applicable to a given situation. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that such a court ruling was ever produced so far:

• Google Scholar fails to list any US court cases relevant to the Convention on Road Traffic. The only somewhat relevant case is Busby v. State in which the court rules that one cannot drive in Alaska with an IDP after having been previously restricted from driving in Alaska. The court does stress out that:

  The Convention does forbid a signatory country (or subsidiary state) from imposing or enforcing license revocations in a manner that discriminates against residents of other signatory countries. But Busby does not claim that he was the victim of such discrimination. Busby's license was revoked for conduct that would have led to license revocation if committed by an Alaska resident. (Indeed, Busby's license was revoked while he was an Alaska resident.) And Busby does not claim that he was singled out for prosecution because he was a resident of a foreign country—i.e., that the State would not have charged him with the offense of driving with a revoked license if he had still been an Alaska resident.

  This could possibly mean that the court believes that the Convention only applies to foreign residents, but its not spelled out specifically.

• Searching for Canadian court cases likewise doesn't turn up anything useful. The only relevant case is R. v. Lawend where the person in question was trying to drive in Ontario on a foreign license after previously having had their Ontario license suspended. Here the court rules similar to the decision in Alaska in that having a foreign license does not allow one to circumvent locally imposed license restrictions.

• Searching for UK case law doesn't turn up any relevant court cases.

• Australian case law is likewise mute on the subject.

There is also a relevant legal opinion by the Department of State quoted in the Digest of United States practice in International Law, 2002:

Reading these provisions as a whole, we believe that the State of Georgia, consistent with the CRT,

(1) must permit an alien to drive in Georgia using a foreign driver’s license issued by a country party to the CRT only if the alien has been lawfully admitted to the United States;

(2) must permit a lawfully admitted alien to drive in Georgia using a foreign driver’s license of a CRT party only during the first year after the alien’s admission; and

(3) may, in accordance with Georgia’s residency laws, require an alien resident in Georgia to obtain a Georgia driver’s license as a condition for continued authorization to drive. By the same token, nothing in the CRT would prevent the State of Georgia from applying more liberal rules with respect to the driving privileges of aliens.

In Automated Vehicles Are Probably Legal in the United States, 2014 the author further analyses how the 1949 Geneva Convention is applicable within the United States. First, to settle the definition of "international traffic":

Nonetheless, the United States ultimately accepted that “the purpose of chapter II was to establish, in effect, an international code of minimum safety requirements. By indirection, the rules of the road set forth in the convention would apply to the pattern of domestic as well as to international traffic.

The author the meaning behind Article I of the Convention:

Article 1 states in part that no party “shall be required to extend the benefit of the provisions of this Convention to any motor vehicle or trailer, or to any driver having remained within its territory for a continuous period exceeding one year.”

This provision, on its face, indicates that the parties recognized that the treaty would benefit individuals. In no way does this recognition compel a conclusion that the Convention is self-executing, but it does suggest that the treaty is of a type that the Senate might have understood to be directly enforceable.

And finally on the issue of whether or not the treaty is "self-executing":

For these reasons, it is likely that courts will continue to treat the Geneva Convention as self-executing. Nonetheless, a court might conclude that, with respect to section II’s rules of the road, the governmental obligation is merely to “take appropriate measures” and that such an obligation is too vague to be enforced judicially.

---

So it seems absolutely clear that the Convention intended for participating countries to allow foreign drivers to drive abroad for up to one year. However international treaties are not self-executing by default in Canada, unlike the US:

Canada is bound by the terms of treaties that it enters into and breach thereof may give rise to international claims. However, in Canada treaties are not self-executing; they do not constitute part of the law of the land merely by virtue of their conclusion.

So even though British Columbia is violating the 1949 Geneva Convention one cannot directly rely on said international agreement to enforce their rights. But another state party could theorethically sue Canada on behalf of its citizen to request that Canada rectifies its laws with accordance to the agreement.

Answer 2

Art. 1

No Contracting State shall be required to extend the benefit [...] for a continuous period exceeding one year.

This literally and clearly implies that the convention applies for a minimum time frame of 1 year, and that there's no obligation to extend that benefit to a longer period.

This sentence does not set any LIMIT as A.f.M. argues. A.f.M. says, in this chatroom:

If somebody tells you, "Don't stay in the water longer than one hour," will you be penalized for leaving the water in 59 minutes time or less? No.

Showing that he cannot understand English. To mirror his paraphrasing of the treaty, this would be the correct example:

The lifeguard is not bound to allow you to stay in the water any longer than 1 year.

Clearly implying that you shall be allowed to stay for at least 1 year. Hence, the treaty does set a REQUIREMENT of 1 year.

But 1 year starting from which event? I would argue since the issuing of the international driving permit, considering that the issuing country will usually only extend a 12 months period of validity to the document anyways.

A more relaxed interpretation could be 1 year from the date of entry.

Both BC and AB are blatantly violating article 1 of the 1949 Geneva Convention on international road traffic.

Furthermore, article 24 states that:

1. Each Contracting State shall allow any driver admitted to its territory who fulfils the conditions which are set out in Annex 8 and who holds a valid driving permit issued to him, after he has given proof of his competence, by the competent authority of another Contracting State or subdivision thereof, or by an Association duly empowered by such authority, to drive on its roads without further examination motor vehicles of the category or categories defined in Annexes 9 and 10 for which the permit has been issued.

3. The international driving permit shall, after the driver has given proof of his competence, be delivered by the competent authority of a Contracting State or subdivision thereof, or by a duly authorised Association, and sealed or stamped by such authority or Association. The holder shall be entitled to drive in all Contracting States without further examination motor vehicles coming within the categories for which the permit has been issued.

This one leaves no space to fantastic interpretations. The holder of the driving permit shall be allowed to drive without further examination (during the validity of the permit).

BC will require people from many countries, among which countries that also subscribed the convention alongside Canada, like Italy as an example, to retake both the knowledge and practical tests before issuing a local license.

Both BC and AB are blatantly violating article 24 of the 1949 Geneva Convention on international road traffic.

To address the concerns of those who commented here that a driver whose license was revoked in BC or abroad could use her/his international permit with impunity: the 4th and 5th paragraphs of article 24 has provisions for dealing with such cases.

4. The right to use the domestic as well as the international driving permit may be refused if it is evident that the conditions of issue are no longer fulfilled.

5. A Contracting State or a subdivision thereof may withdraw from the driver the right to use either of the abovementioned permits only if the driver has committed a driving offence of such a nature as would entail the forfeiture of his driving permit under the legislation and regulations of that Contracting State. In such an event, the Contracting State or subdivision thereof withdrawing the use of the permit may withdraw and retain the permit until the period of the withdrawal of use expires or until the holder leaves the territory of that Contracting State, whichever is the earlier, and may record such withdrawal of use on the permit and communicate the name and address of the driver to the authority which issued the permit.

For example it could be put into law that if your driving record doesn't satisfy certain criteria your driving permit can be confiscated.

---

Adding to the confusion, Canada:

• has programs that allow visitors to stay for 1 year. These visitors pay taxes but are excluded from most services that residents have access to, such as healthcare and welfare.
• BC allows visitors to drive for up to 6 months, but without a local license they cannot get car insurance or plates. Meaning that they would only be allowed to drive rentals.
• AB allows visitors to drive for up to 12 months, in theory. I'm not clear whether they're allowed to have plates or not.
• requires you to be a resident to obtain a local driving license (which btw is an involved process that requires certified translations, tests, fees, and the destruction of the original license)
• tragically, is built for cars

Answer 3

Yeah, @MichaelSeifert has it right. There is no requirement that anybody recognize a license for a year. It merely says that no one will be required to recognize it for more than a year. There is no requirement that it be recognized for any certain amount of time other than, I would presume, a reasonable amount of time. Further, it doesn't seem as if the convention was intended to allow people the maximum amount of time to keep their old license once coming to BC, but rather it sounds geared toward tourism and international comity.

Answer 4

What makes you think that this prevents someone from driving? They can drive on their international licence - they can also be fined for not following the BC law that requires them to take out a BC license.

That is to say, you couldn't be convicted for the driving offence of driving without a licence because you have a valid international licence. You can be convicted of the non-driving offence of failing to take out a BC licence within 3 months of becoming a resident.