Abstract
Art 32 deals with the use of supplementary means in the process of treaty interpretation and with the relationship of that use to the general rule of interpretation laid down in Art 31. The provision therefore basically determines the circumstances under which such means may be invoked in treaty interpretation, what weight is to be given to them and how they relate to the other rules of interpretation. The core issue is what information and material outside the text of a treaty can be brought into the process of interpreting it, and how this is done lege artis. In this respect, Art 32 corresponds to Art 31 paras 2 and 3, which also refers to extrinsic material in order to include them into the context of the treaty, whereas here the identified material is given a lesser value as being merely supplementary.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
R Gardiner Treaty Interpretation (2008) 302.
- 2.
Sinclair 116.
- 3.
Aust 244; various reasons are given by Y Le Bouthillier in Corten/Klein Art 32 MN 32–38. The traditional doctrinal controversy on the use of travaux préparatoires is described eg by Mehrish (1971) 11 IJIL 39, 39–57.
- 4.
Y Le Bouthillier in Corten/Klein Art 32 MN para 7.
- 5.
PCIJ SS ‘Lotus’ PCIJ Ser A No 10, 16 (1927). To the same effect cf Payment of Certain Serbian Loans Issued in France PCIJ Ser A No 20, 30 (1929).
- 6.
Cf eg ICJ Conditions of Admission of a State to the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) [1948] ICJ Rep 57, 63; Ambatielos Case (Greece v United Kingdom) (Preliminary Objections) [1952] ICJ Rep 28, 45; Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (Advisory Opinion) [1960] ICJ Rep 150, 159–160.
- 7.
PCIJ Polish Postal Service in Danzig PCIJ Ser B No 11, 39 (1925) (emphasis added).
- 8.
ICJ Competence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) [1950] ICJ Rep 4, 8.
- 9.
McNair 411.
- 10.
Waldock III 58 para 21.
- 11.
Cf Waldock VI 99 para 20.
- 12.
Cf Waldock VI 99 para 20.
- 13.
Final Draft, Commentary to Arts 27 and 28, 220 para 10.
- 14.
Gardiner (n 1) 302; Y Le Bouthillier in Corten/Klein Art 32 MN 2.
- 15.
The debate on the US proposal is summarized eg by Mehrish (n 3) 58–60 and Gardiner (n 1) 303–04.
- 16.
Gardiner (n 1) 99–100.
- 17.
Y Le Bouthillier in Corten/Klein Art 32 MN 28 refers, eg, to videotaped sessions of a negotiating committee.
- 18.
For example, the ICJ considered in Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970)(Advisory Opinion) [1971] ICJ Rep 16, para 69, the course of the debate in the UN Preparatory Commission. The bilateral exchange between the parties was considered inconclusive in Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v Bahrain) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [1995] ICJ Rep 6, para 41.
- 19.
Cf Iron Rhine (‘Ijzeren Rhin’) Railway Arbitration (Belgium v Netherlands), 27 RIAA 35, para 45 (2005).
- 20.
ICJ Oil Platforms (Iran v United States) (Preliminary Objection) [1996] ICJ Rep 803, para 29.
- 21.
Gardiner (n 1) 107.
- 22.
PCIJ Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder (Order of 20 August 1929) Ser A No 23, 41, 42.
- 23.
Waldock III 58 para 21.
- 24.
Cf S Rosenne ‘Travaux Préparatoires’ (1963) 12 ICLQ 1378, 1380–1381.
- 25.
Final Draft, Commentary to Art 27, 223 para 20.
- 26.
Ibid. Concurring Sinclair 144.
- 27.
Cf Merkouris ‘Third Party’ Considerations, in Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 Years On (2010), 75, 81–82.
- 28.
ICJ Continental Shelf (Tunisia v Libya) [1982] ICJ Rep 18, para 41(emphasis added).
- 29.
ICJ Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Carribean Sea (Nicaragua v Honduras) [2007] ICJ Rep 659, para 280.
- 30.
ICJ Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine), 3 February 2009, para 134.
- 31.
Eg, in ICJ Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Preliminary Objections) [1998] ICJ Rep 275, para 31; Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v Namibia) [1999] Rep 1045, para 49.
- 32.
Concurring Y Le Bouthillier in Corten/Klein Art 32 MN 25.
- 33.
ICJ LaGrand (Germany v United States) [2001] ICJ Rep 466, paras 105–107.
- 34.
Eg, ICJ Legality of the Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Germany) (Preliminary Objections) [2004] ICJ Rep 720, paras 101–111.
- 35.
Y Le Bouthillier in Corten/Klein Art 32 MN 27.
- 36.
Waldock III 59 para 22.
- 37.
This was apparently the reason why the ICJ in Barcelona Traction referred to the historical background of Art 37 ICJ Statute, before actually going about to interpret that provision, cf Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Preliminary Objections) [1964] ICJ Rep 6, 31–32.
- 38.
PCIJ Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube PCIJ Ser B No 14, 57 (1927).
- 39.
ICJ Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru) [1950] ICJ Rep 266, 285–286.
- 40.
ICJ Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey) [1978] ICJ Rep 3, paras 100–105.
- 41.
ICJ Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v Honduras) [1992] ICJ Rep 351, para 376.
- 42.
Application of CERD (Georgia v Russian Federation) (Preliminary Objections), 1 April 2011, para 147. In sum, this case appears to underline the wide discretion which the interpreter enjoys in using material outside the general rule of interpretation.
- 43.
WTO Appellate Body EC – Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment WT/DS62/AB/R (1998), para 92.
- 44.
WTO Appellate Body EC – Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts WT/DS269/AB/R (2005), paras 282–309.
- 45.
Sinclair 141; MK Yasseen L’interprétation des traités d’après la convention de Vienne (1976) 151 RdC 1, 90.
- 46.
Cf WTO Appellate Body EC – Chicken Cuts (n 44) paras 308–309.
- 47.
Villiger Art 32 MN 4.
- 48.
Gardiner (n 1) 311. Contra Aust 248–249; Villiger Art 32 MN 5, who also count the “rational techniques of interpretation” not included in the Vienna rules among the “supplementary means”.
- 49.
WTO Panel Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products, WT/DS207/R (2002), paras 7.35–37.
- 50.
Y Le Bouthillier in Corten/Klein Art 32 MN 43–44.
- 51.
WTO Appellate Body EC – Chicken Cuts (n 44) para 305.
- 52.
Gardiner (n 1) 307.
- 53.
Application of CERD (n 40) para 142.
- 54.
WTO Appellate Body China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/AB/R para 403 (2009).
- 55.
See eg PCIJ Payment of Certain Serbian Loans Issued in France PCIJ Ser A No 20, 30 (1929); Interpretation of the Convention of 1919 concerning Employment of Women during the Night PCIJ Ser A/B No 50, 380 (1932); ICJ Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (Advisory Opinion) [1960] ICJ Rep 150, 161.
- 56.
Examples in recent case law can be found, eg, in ICJ Territorial Dispute (Libya v Chad) [1994] ICJ Rep 6, para 55; Kasikili/Sedudu Island (n 29) para 46; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia v Malaysia) [2002] ICJ Rep 625, para 53; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136, paras 95 and 109; ECtHR Banković et al v Belgium et al (GC) App No 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII, paras 63 and 65.
- 57.
Cf Sinclair 141–142: “there can be little doubt that such recourse is permissible in carefully controlled circumstances”.
- 58.
Gardiner (n 1) 309; Y Le Bouthillier in Corten/Klein Art 32 MN 11–12.
- 59.
Villiger Art 32 MN 11.
- 60.
For example, ICJ Legality of the Use of Force (n 34) para 101.
- 61.
ICJ LaGrand (n 33) para 104; very similar ICJ Application of CERD (n 40) para 147 in fine (possible nevertheless to conclude that the travaux préparatoires do not suggest a different conclusion from that at which the Court has arrived through the main method of ordinary meaning interpretation”). A similar approach was taken by the Iran-US Claims Tribunal in United States, Federal Reserve Bank of New York v Iran, Bank Markazi Case A 28 (2000) 36 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports 5, para 70.
- 62.
Cf ICJ Sovereignty over Pulau Litigan (n 56) para 58; Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States) [2004] ICJ Rep 12, para 86.
- 63.
WTO Appellate Body United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/AB/R, para 195 (2005).
- 64.
Waldock VI 99–100, para 20.
- 65.
WTO Panel Chile – Price Band System (note 49), para 7.35.
- 66.
Y Le Bouthillier in Corten/Klein Art 32 MN 19 referring to Corten.
- 67.
Reuter [1966-I] YbILC 195 para 22; Y Le Bouthillier in Corten/Klein Art 32 MN 19.
- 68.
Leaving this point open eg ICJ Avena (n 62) para 86.
- 69.
ICJ Namibia (n 18) para 69.
- 70.
ICJ Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Quatar v Bahrain) (n 18) para 41; see also the strong dissent by Judge Schwebel [1995] ICJ Reports 27, 34–39.
- 71.
Gardiner (n 1) 341.
- 72.
Ibid 335–336.
- 73.
ICJ Oil Platforms (n 20) para 29.
Selected Bibliography
E Canal-Forgues Remarques sur le recours aux travaux préparatoires dans le contentieux international (1993) 97 RGDIP 901–937.
R Gardiner Treaty Interpretation (2008).
J Klabbers International Legal Histories: The Declining Importance of Travaux Préparatoires in Treaty Interpretation? (2003) 50 NILR 267–288.
U Linderfalk Is the Hierarchical Structure of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention Real or Not? Interpreting the Rules of Interpretation (2007) 54 NILR 133–154.
P Merkouris ‘Third Party’ Considerations and ‘Corrective Interpretation’ in the Interpretative Use of Travaux Préparatoires: Is It Fahrenheit 451 for Preparatory Work?, in Fitzmaurice/Elias/Merkouris (eds) Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 years On (2010) 75–95.
N Merish Travaux Préparatoires as an Element in the Interpretation of Treaties (1971) 11 IJIL 39–88.
M Ris Treaty Interpretation and ICJ Recourse to Travaux Préparatoires: Towards a Proposed Amendment of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1991) 14 Boston College ICLR 111–136.
L Sbolci Supplementary Means of Interpretation, in E Cannizzaro (ed) The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention (2011) 144–163.
S Schwebel May Preparatory Work be Used to Correct rather than Confirm the “Clear” Meaning of a Treaty Provision? in J Makarczyk (ed) Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21st Century (1996) 541–547.
See also the references given in respect of Art 31 supra.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (2012). Article 32. Supplementary means of interpretation. In: Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (eds) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19291-3_35
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19291-3_35
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19290-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19291-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)