Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 33. Interpretation of treaties authenticated in two or more languages

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Abstract

Most international treaties, bilateral as well as multilateral, are concluded in more than one language, the obvious reason being that the contracting parties have different official languages. This can cause serious problems of interpretation if there are material differences between the language texts, which may arise only some time after the treaty was concluded. Art 33 addresses the problem of multilingual treaties by determining which language versions ‘count’ for interpretation purposes and by laying down rules for solving differences between language versions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 29, 225 para 7.

  2. 2.

    Cf eg ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v Namibia) [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, para 25; LaGrand (Germany v United States) [2001] ICJ Rep 466, para 101; ECtHR Golder v United Kingdom App No 4451/70, Ser A 18, para 29 (1975); WTO Appellate Body United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada WT/DS257/AB/R (2004), para 59.

  3. 3.

    Cf eg ECJ (CJ) Marija Omejc C-536/09, 16. June 2011, paras 23-24; Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) C-144/10, 12 May 2011, para 28; M et al C-340/08, 29 April 2010, para 44; Plato Plastik C-341/01 [2004] ECR I-4883, para 64; Hässle C-127/00 [2003] ECR I-14781, para 70. See the recent study M Derlén Multilingual Interpretation of European Union Law (2009); on earlier case-law cf already S Rosenne The Meaning of “Authentic Text” in Modern Treaty Law, in R Bernhardt et al (eds) Festschrift Mosler 759, 769–772.

  4. 4.

    But see ECJ (CJ) Spain v Council C-36/98 [2001] ECR I-779, paras 47–55.

  5. 5.

    PCIJ Competence of the ILO in regard to International Regulation of the Conditions of the Labour of Persons Employed in Agriculture PCIJ Ser B No 2, 33–39 (1922).

  6. 6.

    PCIJ The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions PCIJ Ser A No 2, 19 (1924).

  7. 7.

    Villiger Art 33 MN 1.

  8. 8.

    ECtHR Wemhoff v Germany App No 2122/64, Ser A 7, para 8 (1968).

  9. 9.

    ICJ Elettronica Sicula (ELSI) (United States v Italy) [1989] ICJ Rep 15, paras 118–119.

  10. 10.

    PCIJ Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations PCIJ Ser B No 10, 18 (1925).

  11. 11.

    Harvard Draft 661; comments ibid, 971 et seq.

  12. 12.

    In the wake of UNGA Res 3191, 18 December 1973, UN Doc A/RES/3191.

  13. 13.

    ECtHR Wemhoff v Germany (n 8) para 8.

  14. 14.

    Cf Waldock III 62–65.

  15. 15.

    Waldock VI 101–103.

  16. 16.

    Final Draft, Text of Art 29, 224.

  17. 17.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 29, 225–226 paras 8 and 9.

  18. 18.

    UNTS 187, 347.

  19. 19.

    Cf 1999 Summary of Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties, UN Doc ST/LEG/7/Rev.1, para 45; Text in 1955 UNTS 81.

  20. 20.

    UNTS 75.

  21. 21.

    UNTS 277.

  22. 22.

    UNTS 13.

  23. 23.

    UNTS 85.

  24. 24.

    UNTS 90.

  25. 25.

    UNGA Res 61/106, 13 December 2006, UN Doc A/RES/61/106.

  26. 26.

    Summary of Practice (n 19) para 40.

  27. 27.

    UNTS 51.

  28. 28.

    UNTS, 31, 85, 135, and 287.

  29. 29.

    UNTS 150.

  30. 30.

    Cf the testimonium of the WTO Agreement itself and of the Final Act of the Marrakesh Conference 1994, to be found at www.wto.org (last visited 30 December 2010).

  31. 31.

    UNTS 140.

  32. 32.

    UNTS 3 and 167.

  33. 33.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 29, 224 paras 1 and 3, which refers in this respect to the 1947 Peace Treaties with Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Finland.

  34. 34.

    Texts to be found under www.wcoomd.org (last visited 30 December 2010).

  35. 35.

    UNTS 237, 239.

  36. 36.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 29, 225 para 7.

  37. 37.

    Young Loan Arbitration on German External Debts (Belgium, France, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States v Germany) 59 ILR 494, para 17 (1980).

  38. 38.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 29, 224 para 2.

  39. 39.

    Aust 254.

  40. 40.

    (1996) ILM 75 et seq.

  41. 41.

    Thus Sinclair 147–148; to the same effect Rosenne (n 3) 763–765.

  42. 42.

    Aust 255; M Tabory Multilingualism in International Law and Institutions (1980) 194.

  43. 43.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 29, 224 para 3.

  44. 44.

    UNTS 99.

  45. 45.

    UNTS 235.

  46. 46.

    UNTS 143.

  47. 47.

    UNTS 182.

  48. 48.

    UNTS 3.

  49. 49.

    UNTS 129.

  50. 50.

    UNTS 325.

  51. 51.

    UNTS 371.

  52. 52.

    UNTS 117.

  53. 53.

    UNTS 155, 165.

  54. 54.

    Villiger Art 33 MN 6.

  55. 55.

    As eg the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litowsk, mentioned in Final Draft, Commentary to Art 29, 224 para 3.

  56. 56.

    Ibid 224 para 4.

  57. 57.

    Villiger Art 33 MN 7.

  58. 58.

    UKTS No 7, also to be found under www.fco.gov.uk (last visited 30 December 2010).

  59. 59.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 29, 225 para 7.

  60. 60.

    WTO Appellate Body United States – Softwood Lumber (n 2) para 59. Cf also ITLOS (Seabed Disputes Chamber) Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area (Advisory Opinion), 1 February 2011, para 63.

  61. 61.

    Gardiner Treaty Interpretation 358.

  62. 62.

    ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu (n 2) para 25.

  63. 63.

    Application of CERD (Georgia v Russian Federation) (Preliminary Objections), 1 April 2011, para 135.

  64. 64.

    ECJ (CJ) France v Commission C-327/91 [1994] ECR I-3641, paras 33–35.

  65. 65.

    Concurring Sinclair 152; Gardiner (n 62) 367; Villiger Art 33 MN 11 in n 39.

  66. 66.

    See F Hoffmeister The Contribution of EU Practice to International Law in Cremona (ed) Developments in EU External Relations Law (2008) 37, 61–62.

  67. 67.

    Cf ECJ (CJ) C-265/03 Simutenkov [2005] ECR I-2579, para 22.

  68. 68.

    Text to be found in all three languages athttp://www.arctic-council.org (last visited 27 July 2011).

  69. 69.

    In contrast, the prevalence of one authentic text in accordance with para 1 does not refute the presumption of para 3, since the former does not refer to the meaning of the treaty; contra Villiger Art 33 MN 8.

  70. 70.

    Gardiner (n 61) 365.

  71. 71.

    Which, it is submitted, means the same as “divergence”, the term used in para 1.

  72. 72.

    Which was chosen at the Vienna Conference instead of “as far as possible” that had been contained in the Final Draft.

  73. 73.

    ICJ LaGrand (n 2) paras 101–102.

  74. 74.

    ECJ (CJ) Spain v Council (n 4) paras 47–55.

  75. 75.

    Gardiner (n 61) 380.

  76. 76.

    Young Loan Arbitration (n 37) para 39.

  77. 77.

    Villiger Art 33 MN 12.

Selected Bibliography

  • RK Gardiner Treaty Interpretation (2008) ch 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • P Germer Interpretation of Plurilingual Treaties: A Study of Article 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1970) 11 Harvard ILJ 400–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • J Hardy The Interpretation of Plurilingual Treaties by International Courts and Tribunals (1961) 37 BYIL 72–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • M Hilf Die Auslegung mehrsprachiger Verträge (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  • CB Kuner The Interpretation of Multilateral Treaties: Comparison of Texts Versus the Presumption of Similar Meaning (1991) 40 ICLQ 953–964.

    Google Scholar 

  • JM Mössner Die Auslegung mehrsprachiger Staatsverträge (1972) 15 AVR 273–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • S Rosenne The Meaning of “Authentic Text” in Modern Treaty Law, in R Bernhardt et al (eds) Festschrift Mosler (1983) 759–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • D Shelton Reconcilable Differences? The Interpretation of Multilingual Treaties (1997) 20 Hastings ICLR 611–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • M Tabory Multilingualism in International Law and Institutions (1980).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, 49069, Osnabrück, Germany

    Professor Dr. Oliver Dörr LL.M. (Lond.)

  2. Faculty of Law Department of Public Law/International Law, University of Salzburg, 5020, Salzburg, Austria

    Professor Dr. Kirsten Schmalenbach

Authors
  1. Professor Dr. Oliver Dörr LL.M. (Lond.)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Professor Dr. Kirsten Schmalenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Dörr LL.M. (Lond.) .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, 49069, Germany

    Oliver Dörr

  2. , Law Faculty, University of Salzburg, Churfürst Strasse 1, Salzburg, 5020, Austria

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (2012). Article 33. Interpretation of treaties authenticated in two or more languages. 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_36

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation