Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties pp 557–616Cite as

Article 31

General rule of interpretation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

No legal text drafted by man can possibly be perfect in a way that it never gives rise to any doubt as to its scope or actual meaning. That is why every legal text, on the international as well as on the national level, needs to be interpreted by those working with it. The application of a legal rule in practice presupposes that the person applying it has got a certain understanding of its scope, contents and relevance, thus interpretation is indispensable not only for understanding a rule, but also for the process of applying or implementing it. Since the most important rules of international law are today laid down in treaties, the interpretation of treaties has become of utmost significance for the practice of international law.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Sinclair (1984), p. 117.

  2. 2.

    Cf Final Draft, Introductory Commentary to Arts 27–28, 218, para 4.

  3. 3.

    McNair (1961), p. 365 (emphasis omitted).

  4. 4.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 27, 220, para 11.

  5. 5.

    Cf eg ICJ Territorial Dispute (Libya v Chad) [1994] ICJ Rep 6, para 41; Legality of the Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Belgium) (Preliminary Objections) [2004] ICJ Rep 279, para 100.

  6. 6.

    Gardiner (2015), p. 6.

  7. 7.

    Thus Final Draft, Commentary to Arts 27–28, 219–220, para 8.

  8. 8.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Arts 27–28, 220, para 8.

  9. 9.

    This process of growing acceptance was already aptly described by Torres Bernárdez (1998), p. 721 et seq.

  10. 10.

    ICJ Arbitral Award (Guinea-Bissau v Senegal) [1991] ICJ Rep 53, para 48.

  11. 11.

    See eg ICJ Territorial Dispute (Libya v Chad) [1994] ICJ Rep 6, para 41; Kasikili/Sedudu Island [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, para 18; LaGrand [2001] ICJ Rep 466, para 99; Avena Case [2004] ICJ Rep 12, para 83; Construction of a Wall [2004] ICJ Rep 136, para 94; Genocide Case [2007] ICJ Rep 43, para 160; Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights [2009] ICJ Rep 213, para 47; Pulp Mills [2010] ICJ Rep 14, para 65; Maritime Dispute (Peru v Chile) [2014] ICJ Rep 3, para 57; Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia (Preliminary Objections) [2016] ICJ Rep 100, para 33; Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya) (Preliminary Objections), 2 February 2017, para 63.

  12. 12.

    Cf ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, para 48; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan [2002] ICJ Rep 625, para 37; Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters [2008] ICJ Rep 177, para 112.

  13. 13.

    Cf ICJ Oil Platforms (Merits) [2003] ICJ Rep 161, para 41.

  14. 14.

    Cf ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, para 25; LaGrand [2001] ICJ Rep 466, para 101.

  15. 15.

    ITLOS (Seabed Disputes Chamber) Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, 1 February 2011, para 57.

  16. 16.

    For the first time in ECtHR Golder v United Kingdom App No 4451/70, Ser A 18, para 29 (1975); later eg in Loizidou v Turkey (GC) (Merits) App No 15318/89, ECHR 1996-VI, para 43; Litwa v Poland App No 26629/95, ECHR 2000-III, para 57; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (GC) App No 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI, para 55; Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey (GC) App No 46827/99 and 46951/99, ECHR 2005-I, para 111. In more recent decisions the Court simply, and explicitly, draws on Arts 31 to 33 VCLT in interpreting the European Convention, thereby necessarily implying the customary character of the former, cf Saadi v United Kingdom (GC) App No 13229/03, 29 January 2008, paras 61–62; Demir and Baykara v Turkey (GC) App No 34503/97, 12 November 2008, para 65; Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom App No 61498/08, 2 March 2010, para 126; Hirsi Jamaa et al v Italy (GC) App No 27765/09, ECHR 2012-II, para 170; Hassan v United Kingdom (GC) App No 29750/09, ECHR 2014-VI, para 100.

  17. 17.

    The ECJ usually refers to the rules of Vienna Convention when it interprets agreements of the European Community/Union, cf ECJ Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR I-6079, para 14; Metalsa C-312/91 [1993] ECR I-3751, para 12; El-Yassini C-416/96 [1999] ECR I-1209, para 47; Jany C-268/99 [2001] ECR I-8615, para 35; Brita C-386/08 [2010] ECR I-1289, paras 41–42. Explicitly labelling Art 31 a codification of general international law ECJ Axel Walz C-63/09 [2010] ECR I-4239, para 23.

  18. 18.

    Cf the WTO Appellate Body eg in Japan–Alcoholic Beverages WT/DS 8, 10–11/AB/R, Part D, 10–12 (1996); US–Hot-Rolled Steel WT/DS184/AB/R, para 57 (2001); US–Gambling WT/DS 285/AB/R, para 159 (2005); US–Stainless Steel (Mexico) WT/DS344/AB/R, para 76 (2008); China–Auto Parts WT/DS339, 340, 342/AB/R, para 145 (2008); China–Publications and Audiovisual Products WT/DS363/AB/R, para 348 (2009); US–Clove Cigarettes WT/DS406/AB/R, para 258 (2012).

  19. 19.

    Cf eg the Iron Rhine (‘Ijzeren Rhin’) Railway Arbitration (Belgium v Netherlands) (2005) 27 RIAA 35, para 45; Audit of Accounts Between the Netherlands and France in Application of the Protocol of 25 September 1991 Additional to the Convention for the Protection of the Rhine from Pollution by Chlorides of 3 December 1976 (Netherlands v France) (2004) 25 RIAA 267, paras 58–62; Iran-United States Claims Tribunal United States, Federal Reserve Bank of New York v Iran, Bank Markazi Case A 28 (2000) 36 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports 5, para 53; Young Loan Arbitration on German External Debts (Belgium, France, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States v Germany) (1980) 59 ILR 494, para 16.

  20. 20.

    Eg House of Lords (UK) Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd [1980] UKHL 6, [1981] AC 251, 282 (Lord Diplock); R (Adan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 67, [2001] 2 AC 477, 516 (Lord Steyn); Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (Chamber) [2015] NVwZ 361, para 37; for Australia and New Zealand Federal Court Qenos Pty Ltd v Ship ‘APL Sydney’ [2009] 187 FCR 282, para 11 (Finkelstein J); Court of Appeal Lena-Jane Punter v Secretary for Justice [2004] 2 NZLR 28, para 61 (Glazebrook J).

  21. 21.

    [2011] OJ L 127, 6, at 68.

  22. 22.

    [2012] OJ L 354, 3, at 93.

  23. 23.

    Cf eg ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, para 20 (interpretation of treaty of 1890); LaGrand [2001] ICJ Rep 466, para 99 (ICJ Statute); Avena Case [2004] ICJ Rep 12, para 83 (Vienna Convention on Consular Relations); Construction of a Wall Opinion [2004] ICJ Rep 136, para 95 (Geneva Convention IV); Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights [2009] ICJ Rep 213, para 47 (treaty of 1885); Pulp Mills [2010] ICJ Rep 14, para 65 (treaty of 1975); Maritime Dispute (Peru v Chile) [2014] ICJ Rep 3, para 57 (treaty of 1952); ITLOS (Seabed Disputes Chamber) Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, 1 February 2011, para 58 (UNCLOS).

  24. 24.

    Cf explicitly ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, para 18; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan [2002] ICJ Rep 625, para 37; Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters [2008] ICJ Rep 177, para 112.

  25. 25.

    Cf the references given by Criddle (2004), pp. 443–447.

  26. 26.

    Cf Audit of Accounts Between the Netherlands and France in Application of the Protocol of 25 September 1991 Additional to the Convention for the Protection of the Rhine from Pollution by Chlorides of 3 December 1976 (Netherlands v France) (2004) 25 RIAA 267, para 57.

  27. 27.

    Gardiner (2015), p. 58.

  28. 28.

    For example, PCIJ Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations PCIJ Ser B No 10, 20 (1925); Polish Postal Service in Danzig PCIJ Ser B No 11, 37 (1925); Legal Status of Eastern Greenland PCIJ Ser A/B No 53, 49 (1933).

  29. 29.

    Cf eg 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, 23 (1922); SS ‘Wimbledon’ PCIJ Ser A No 1, 23 and 25–28 (1923).

  30. 30.

    Cf PCIJ Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig (Pecuniary Claims of Danzig Railway Officials Who Have Passed into the Polish Service, Against the Polish Railways Administration) PCIJ Ser B No 15, 18 (1928).

  31. 31.

    Cf PCIJ The Factory at Chorzów (Indemnities) (Jurisdiction) PCIJ Ser A No 9, 24 (1927).

  32. 32.

    Ibid 24–25.

  33. 33.

    Cf eg PCIJ ‘Lotus’ PCIJ Ser A No 10, 16–17 (1927).

  34. 34.

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

  35. 35.

    Cf Harvard Draft (1935) 29 AJIL Supp, 657 et seq.

  36. 36.

    Harvard Draft 937–977.

  37. 37.

    Harvard Draft 661.

  38. 38.

    Cf Fitzmaurice (1951), pp. 9–22; Fitzmaurice (1957), pp. 210–227.

  39. 39.

    ICJ Second Admissions Case [1950] ICJ Rep 4, 8.

  40. 40.

    Cf eg ICJ Interpretation of Peace Treaties (Second Phase) [1950] ICJ Rep 221, 227; Asylum Case [1950] ICJ Rep 266, 279.

  41. 41.

    ICJ Corfu Channel [1949] ICJ Rep 4, 24.

  42. 42.

    Cf ICJ Reparation for Injuries [1949] ICJ Rep 174, 179 et seq.

  43. 43.

    Cf eg ICJ Genocide Convention Opinion [1951] ICJ Rep 15, 24; Rights of US Nationals in Morocco [1952] ICJ Rep 176, 196.

  44. 44.

    Cf eg ICJ South West Africa Opinion [1950] ICJ Rep 128, 135–136; Rights of US Nationals in Morocco [1952] ICJ Rep 176, 210–211.

  45. 45.

    Cf eg ICJ Second Admissions Case [1950] ICJ Rep 4, 9; Certain Expenses of the United Nations [1962] ICJ Rep 151, 160 and 165.

  46. 46.

    Cf ICJ Rights of US Nationals in Morocco [1952] ICJ Rep 176, 189.

  47. 47.

    Cf Waldock III 55–56, para 12.

  48. 48.

    Waldock III 52 (Draft Art 70, para 2, Draft Art 71, para 2).

  49. 49.

    Waldock III 61, para 30.

  50. 50.

    Waldock III 56, para 15.

  51. 51.

    Waldock VI 94, 96, para 7.

  52. 52.

    Cf Waldock VI 94, 97, para 13; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 27, 222, para 16.

  53. 53.

    Cf the debate in [1954-I] YbILC 275, 288–291.

  54. 54.

    Cf Final Draft, Commentary Arts 27–28, 219–220, paras 8–9.

  55. 55.

    UNCLOT I 191–193; Gardiner (2015), pp. 78–79.

  56. 56.

    This was the view of McNair (1961), p. 365, n 1.

  57. 57.

    Referring to the well-known phrase in ICJ Second Admissions Case [1950] ICJ Rep 4, 8: “If the relevant words in their natural and ordinary meaning make sense in their context, that is the end of the matter”.

  58. 58.

    de Vattel (1758), § 263: “La première maxime générale sur l’interprétation est qu’il n’est pas permis d’interpréter ce qui n’a pas besoin d’interprétation.”

  59. 59.

    Schwarzenberger (1968), p. 8. Similarly Sorel and Boré (2011), Art 31 MN 3.

  60. 60.

    Cf Tsuruoka [1964-I] YbILC 280, para 72.

  61. 61.

    Cf Malanczuk (1997), pp. 3–7.

  62. 62.

    Obvious examples are private law conventions, but also treaties engaging domestic procedures such as those on extradition, double taxation or State immunity. On treaty interpretation in national legal systems, see Gardiner (2015), pp. 143–157.

  63. 63.

    To be found at www.wcoomd.org. Accessed 22 November 2017.

  64. 64.

    To be found at www.miga.org. Accessed 22 November 2017.

  65. 65.

    UNTS 265.

  66. 66.

    To be found at www.ndb.int. Accessed 22 November 2017.

  67. 67.

    Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization 1867 UNTS 154.

  68. 68.

    WTO Appellate Body US–Clove Cigarettes WT/DS406/AB/R, paras 250–255 (2012), reprinted at 51 ILM 759.

  69. 69.

    As, for example, does Art 50 para 3 of the 2008 Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights 48 ILM 317. Art 1131 para 2 of the North American Free Trade Agreement declares the interpretation by the Free Trade Commission of a provision of the Agreement to be binding on a tribunal established under its chapter 11.

  70. 70.

    For the purpose of interpreting the UN Charter the ICJ regularly puts major emphasis on the practice of UN organs under it, → MN 86.

  71. 71.

    ICJ Diallo [2010] ICJ Rep 639, paras 66–67.

  72. 72.

    PCIJ Question of Jaworzina (Polish–Czechoslovakian Frontier) PCIJ Ser B No 8, 37 (1923).

  73. 73.

    Villiger (2009), Art 31 MN 16.

  74. 74.

    Gardiner (2015), p. 128; Wood (1998), pp. 85–86; Orakhelashvili (2010), pp. 825–826. Contra Papastravidis (2007), pp. 89–94.

  75. 75.

    See eg the account by Brandl (2015), p. 290 et seq.

  76. 76.

    ICJ Kosovo Opinion [2010] ICJ Rep 403, para 94.

  77. 77.

    Cf eg ICTY Prosecutor v Aleksovski (Appeals Chamber) IT-95-14/1-A, 24 March 2000, para 98; ICTR Prosecutor v Bagosora et al (Appeals Chamber) ICTR-98-37-A, 8 June 1998, paras 28–29.

  78. 78.

    Thus explicitly ITLOS (Seabed Disputes Chamber) Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, 1 February 2011, paras 59–60.

  79. 79.

    Thus formulated by SR Fitzmaurice in his six principles (→ MN 11), reported in Waldock III 55, para 12.

  80. 80.

    ICJ Rights of US Nationals in Morocco [1952] ICJ Rep 176, 189; Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights [2009] ICJ Rep 213, paras 55–56.

  81. 81.

    ICJ Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria [2002] ICJ Rep 303, para 59. See also Namibia Opinion [1971] ICJ Rep 16, para 53 (at the beginning).

  82. 82.

    Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission Delimitation of the Border Between Eritrea and Ethiopia (Eritrea v Ethiopia) (2002) 25 RIAA 83, 110.

  83. 83.

    Waldock VI 96, para 7.

  84. 84.

    ICJ Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights [2009] ICJ Rep 213, para 63.

  85. 85.

    ICJ Namibia Opinion [1971] ICJ Rep 16, para 53.

  86. 86.

    ICJ Aegean Sea Continental Shelf [1978] ICJ Rep 3, para 77.

  87. 87.

    Cf WTO Appellate Body US–Shrimp WT/DS58/AB/R, para 130 (1998).

  88. 88.

    WTO Appellate Body China–Publications and Audiovisual Products WT/DS363/AB/R, para 369 (2009).

  89. 89.

    ICJ Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights [2009] ICJ Rep 213, para 66. Confirmed in ICJ Pulp Mills [2010] ICJ Rep 14, para 204.

  90. 90.

    Ibid para 64.

  91. 91.

    For example, ECtHR Tyrer v United Kingdom App No 5856/72, Ser A 26, para 31 (1978); Marckx v Belgium App No 6833/74, Ser A 32, para 41 (1979); Loizidou v Turkey (Preliminary Objections) App No 15318/89, Ser A 310, para 71 (1995); Öcalan v Turkey App No 46221/99, 12 March 2003, para 193; Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey (GC) App No 46827/99 and 46951/99, ECHR 2005-I, para 121; Demir and Baykara v Turkey (GC) App No 34503/97, ECHR 2008-V, para 68; Hirsi Jamaa et al v Italy (GC) App No 27765/09, ECHR 2012-II, para 175; X et al v Austria (GC) App No 19010/07, ECHR 2013-II, para 139.

  92. 92.

    On the dynamic interpretation of the ECHR cf Cremer (2013), paras 35–118.

  93. 93.

    ECtHR Johnston et al v Ireland App No 9697/82, Ser A 112, para 53 (1986); Emonet et al v Switzerland App No 39051/03, 13 December 2007, para 66.

  94. 94.

    ICJ Corfu Channel [1949] ICJ Rep 4, 25.

  95. 95.

    ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, para 20.

  96. 96.

    Gardiner (2015), p. 22.

  97. 97.

    The ECtHR regularly points out that, when interpreting the ECHR, “the Court must be mindful of the Convention’s special character as a human rights treaty”, but so far no real consequences seem to follow from that, cf eg ECtHR Loizidou v Turkey (GC) (Merits) App No 15318/89, ECHR 1996-VI, para 43; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (GC) App No 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI, para 55.

  98. 98.

    In a similar vein Çali (2012).

  99. 99.

    ICJ Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict [1996] ICJ Rep 66, para 19.

  100. 100.

    See also Brölmann (2012).

  101. 101.

    Cf ICJ Reparation for Injuries [1949] ICJ Rep 174, 182–183; Certain Expenses of the United Nations [1962] ICJ Rep 151, 168.

  102. 102.

    Cf Brown and Kennedy (2000), p. 343. Hartley (2010), p. 72 calls this approach “decision-making on the basis of judicial policy”.

  103. 103.

    ICJ Namibia [1971] ICJ Rep 16, para 22; Construction of a Wall [2004] ICJ Rep 136, paras 27–28. With a contrary result, the ICJ based in Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict [1996] ICJ Rep 66, para 27 the denial of an extensive interpretation, inter alia, on a “consideration of the practice of the WHO”.

  104. 104.

    Barents (2004), p. 289.

  105. 105.

    Cf eg ECJ Linster C-287/98 [2000] ECR I-6917, para 43; Jaeger C-151/02 [2003] ECR I-8389, para 58; Opinion 1/09 (European Patents Court) [2011] ECR I-1137 paras 67 and 76; Opinion 2/13 (Accession to ECHR) ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454, paras 183-186; CFI Hosman-Chevalier v Commission T-72/04 [2005] ECR II-3265, para 40; EU Civil Service Tribunal Klein v Commission F-32/08 [2009] FP-I-A-1-5, FP-II-A-1-1320, paras 35–36.

  106. 106.

    Adopted by UNGA Res 63/122, 11 December 2008, UN Doc A/C.6/63/L.6.

  107. 107.

    Such as Art II of the 1975 Convention for the Establishment of a European Space Agency 1297 UNTS 186; Art 1 of the 2000 UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime 2225 UNTS 209; Art 1 of the 2003 UN Convention Against Corruption 2349 UNTS 41; Art 1 para 1 of the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNGA Res 61/106, 13 December 2006, UN Doc A/Res/61/106.

  108. 108.

    Gardiner (2015), p. 57.

  109. 109.

    Cf the explanation and references given by Lauterpacht (1949), p. 48 et seq.

  110. 110.

    Cf PCIJ SS ‘Wimbledon’ PCIJ Ser A No 1, 24 (1923); Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex PCIJ Ser A/B No 46, 167 (1932).

  111. 111.

    PCIJ Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder PCIJ Ser A No 23, 26 (1929).

  112. 112.

    Cf WTO Appellate Body EC–Hormones WT/DS26 and DS48/AB/R, para 165 (1998); much more reluctant China–Publications and Audiovisual Products WT/DS363/AB/R, para 411 (2009).

  113. 113.

    ICJ Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights [2009] ICJ Rep 213, para 48.

  114. 114.

    To this effect, cf also Iron Rhine (‘Ijzeren Rhin’) Railway Arbitration (Belgium v Netherlands) (2005) 27 RIAA 35, para 53; Iran-United States Claims Tribunal Federal Reserve Bank of New York v Iran, Bank Markazi Case A 28 (2000) 36 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports 5, para 67; Bernhardt (1999), p. 14.

  115. 115.

    Thus described by Fitzmaurice in his six principles of interpretation (→ MN 10), reprinted in Waldock III 55, para 12.

  116. 116.

    Cf PCIJ Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions PCIJ Ser A No 2, 34 (1924); Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex PCIJ Ser A No 22, 13 (1929).

  117. 117.

    → MN 10. Cf also ICJ Anglo-Iranian Oil [1952] ICJ Rep 93, 105; Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee [1960] ICJ Rep 150, 160.

  118. 118.

    ICJ Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v Canada) [1998] ICJ Rep 432, para 52.

  119. 119.

    ICJ Racial Discrimination Convention (Preliminary Objections) [2011] ICJ Rep 70, paras 133–34.

  120. 120.

    For example WTO Appellate Body US–Gasoline WT/DS2/AB/R, 21 (1996); Panel Chile–Price Band System WT/DS207/R, para 7.71 (2002).

  121. 121.

    ICJ Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia (Preliminary Objections) [2016] ICJ Rep 100, para 41.

  122. 122.

    See Iron Rhine (‘Ijzeren Rhin’) Railway Arbitration (Belgium v Netherlands) (2005) 27 RIAA 35, para 49.

  123. 123.

    Cf Final Draft, Introductory Commentary to Arts 27–28, 219, para 6.

  124. 124.

    ICJ LaGrand [2001] ICJ Rep 466, para 102.

  125. 125.

    Cf PCIJ Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco PCIJ Ser B No 4 25 (1923).

  126. 126.

    Cf ECtHR Litwa v Poland App No 26629/95, ECHR 2000-III, para 59.

  127. 127.

    Heintschel von Heinegg (2014), § 12 MN 19.

  128. 128.

    ICJ Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v Canada) [1998] ICJ Rep 432, para 51.

  129. 129.

    The PCIJ relied on it once, but with regard to an instrument that was not an international treaty, cf Payment in Gold of Brazilian Federal Loans Contracted in France PCIJ Ser A No 21, 114 (1929).

  130. 130.

    Lauterpacht (1949), p. 64.

  131. 131.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 27, 220, para 11.

  132. 132.

    Ibid 221, para 12.

  133. 133.

    Gardiner (2015), p. 222.

  134. 134.

    WTO Appellate Body China–Publications and Audiovisual Products WT/DS363/AB/R, para 399 (2009).

  135. 135.

    Gardiner (2015), p. 183.

  136. 136.

    Cf eg ICJ Territorial Dispute (Libya v Chad) [1994] ICJ Rep 6, para 41; Legality of the Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Belgium) [2004] ICJ Rep 279, para 100.

  137. 137.

    Gardiner (2015), pp. 183–184.

  138. 138.

    Cf eg ICJ Oil Platforms (Preliminary Objection) [1996] ICJ Rep 803, para 45; Kasikili/Sedudu Island [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, para 30; ECtHR Golder v United Kingdom App No 4451/70, Ser A 18, para 32 (1975); Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v Germany App No 6210/73, 6877/75, 7132/75, Ser A 29, para 40 (1978); WTO Appellate Body in Canada–Aircraft WT/DS70/AB/R, para 153 (1999); EC and Certain Member States–Large Civil Aircraft WT/DS316/AB/R para 658 (2011).

  139. 139.

    Critical, therefore, as to that approach the DS 2O Appellate Body in US–Gambling WT/DS285/AB/R, paras 164–167 (2005); China–Publications and Audiovisual Products WT/DS363/AB/R, para 348 (2009).

  140. 140.

    WTO Appellate Body Chile–Price Band System WT/DS207/AB/R, para 206 (2002) (footnote omitted).

  141. 141.

    ICJ Racial Discrimination Convention (Preliminary Objections) [2011] ICJ Rep 70, para 135.

  142. 142.

    Cf PCIJ Competence of the ILO PCIJ Ser B No 2, 23 (1922). Adopted by the ICJ in Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee [1960] ICJ Rep 150, 158.

  143. 143.

    ICJ Oil Platforms (Preliminary Objection) [1996] ICJ Rep 803, para 47; also used as an example by Gardiner (2015), pp. 200–201.

  144. 144.

    Cf ICJ Aegean Sea Continental Shelf [1978] ICJ Rep 3, para 53.

  145. 145.

    ICJ Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v Honduras) [1992] ICJ Rep 351, para 373.

  146. 146.

    Ibidem para 374.

  147. 147.

    ICJ Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights [2009] ICJ Rep 213, paras 77–79 and 84.

  148. 148.

    ICJ Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters [2008] ICJ Rep 177, para 123.

  149. 149.

    Cf eg ICJ Asylum Case [1950] ICJ Rep 266, 282; Rights of US Nationals in Morocco [1952] ICJ Rep 176, 196; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan [2002] ICJ Rep 625, para 51; ECtHR Golder v United Kingdom App No 4451/70, Ser A 18, para 34 (1975); WTO Appellate Body US–Shrimp WT/DS58/AB/R, para 129 (1998); Chile–Price Band System WT/DS207/AB/R, paras 196–197 (2002).

  150. 150.

    Cf ICJ Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights [2009] ICJ Rep 213, para 52.

  151. 151.

    Cf ICJ Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia (Preliminary Objections) [2016] ICJ Rep 100, paras 35–38.

  152. 152.

    ICJ Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v Honduras, Nicaragua intervening) [1992] ICJ Rep 351, para 374.

  153. 153.

    ICJ Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya) (Preliminary Objections), 2 February 2017, para 91.

  154. 154.

    Cf eg ICJ Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee [1960] ICJ Rep 150, 160–161 and 166.

  155. 155.

    ICJ Genocide Convention Opinion [1951] ICJ Rep 15, 24. On the previous page of the opinion, however, the English “objects” is used to translate the French “fins”, which could imply that “object” was meant to have a purely teleological meaning.

  156. 156.

    Buffard and Zemanek (1998), p. 326.

  157. 157.

    Cf Klabbers (1997), pp. 144–148.

  158. 158.

    Klabbers (2008), MN 6–7; Klabbers (1997), pp. 151–155.

  159. 159.

    For more examples cf n 107.

  160. 160.

    Explicitly emphasized in ICJ Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia (Preliminary Objections) [2016] ICJ Rep 100, para 39; Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya) (Preliminary Objections), 2 February 2017, para 70.

  161. 161.

    Gardiner (2015), p. 213.

  162. 162.

    ICJ Oil Platforms (Preliminary Objection) [1996] ICJ Rep 803, para 27.

  163. 163.

    Klabbers (1997), p. 155.

  164. 164.

    ICJ Reparation for Injuries [1949] ICJ Rep 174, 182. See also the dissenting opinion of Judge Hackworth [1949] ICJ Rep 196, 198 who found the Court’s approach too wide and wanted to have implied powers limited to “those that are ‘necessary’ to the exercise of powers expressly granted.”

  165. 165.

    ICJ Certain Expenses of the United Nations [1962] ICJ Rep 151, 168.

  166. 166.

    See Klabbers (2009), pp. 59–73. A telling example seems to be ICJ Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict [1996] ICJ Rep 66, para 25, where the Court upheld the “principle of speciality” vis-à-vis alleged implied powers of the Organization.

  167. 167.

    Concurring Villiger (2009), Art 31 MN 14.

  168. 168.

    Iran-United States Claims Tribunal Federal Reserve Bank of New York v Bank Markazi Case A 28 (2000) 36 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports 5, para 58.

  169. 169.

    Cf ICJ Land, Island and Maritime Frontier (El Salvador v Honduras) [1992] ICJ Rep 351, para 376.

  170. 170.

    Sinclair (1984), p. 120.

  171. 171.

    Cf Gardiner (2015), pp. 171 and 176. See also Jennings and Watts (1992), p. 1272.

  172. 172.

    Aust (2013), p. 209.

  173. 173.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 27, 221, para 13.

  174. 174.

    Cf ICJ Ambatielos Case [1952] ICJ Rep 28, 42–43; taken up by the ILC in Final Draft Commentary to Art 27, 221, para 13.

  175. 175.

    Eg the 1961 Appendix to the European Social Charter ETS 35, and the 1996 Revised European Social Charter ETS163; the “Understandings with respect to certain provisions of the Convention” annexed to the UN Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004), Text annexed to UNGA Res 59/38, 16 December 2004, UN Doc A/RES/59/38.

  176. 176.

    As published in the Final report of the negotiating parties to the Comité directeur pour les Droits de l’Homme, Doc 47+1(2013)008rev2 (10 June 2013).

  177. 177.

    ECJ Opinion 2/13 (Accession to ECHR) ECLI:EU:2014:2454.

  178. 178.

    ICJ Maritime Dispute (Peru v Chile) [2014] ICJ Rep 3, para 65.

  179. 179.

    [2007] OJ C 306/231, 249 et seq.

  180. 180.

    For the German version cf [2012-II] BGBl 1086. In English in Irish Treaty Series 2013, No 14, in fine.

  181. 181.

    Villiger (2009), Art 31 MN 18.

  182. 182.

    Understandings not printed in 1108 UNTS 151, but included in the Report of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament Vol I, GAOR, 31st Session, Supp No 27 (1976) UN Doc A/31/27, 91–92.

  183. 183.

    See OECD (ed) (2010) Convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions and related documents, pp. 13–18.

  184. 184.

    ETS 173.

  185. 185.

    UNTS 199, 509.

  186. 186.

    UNTS 41; 33 ILM 1309.

  187. 187.

    UNTS 21, cited by Aust (2013), p. 211 in n 28.

  188. 188.

    Cf McRae (1978), p. 155 et seq; Cameron (2008). See also → Art 19 MN 3.

  189. 189.

    McRae (1978), p. 170.

  190. 190.

    Cf eg the declarations contained in the Final Act attached to the Treaty of Lisbon (2007), [2007] OJ C 306, 231, 267 et seq.

  191. 191.

    ILC Report, 68th Session (2016) UN Doc A/71/10, ch VI.

  192. 192.

    Gardiner (2015), p. 230.

  193. 193.

    WTO Panel Chile–Price Band System WT/DS207/R, paras 7.83–84 (2002).

  194. 194.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 27, 221, para 14. Draft conclusion 3 para 2 of the ILC in 2016 (n 191); in its commentary the Commission pointed out that this interpretation, although being authentic, is not necessarily conclusive or legally binding (para 4).

  195. 195.

    Cf ICJ Territorial Dispute (Libya v Chad) [1994] ICJ Rep 6, para 60.

  196. 196.

    Gardiner (2015), p. 245.

  197. 197.

    ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, para 63.

  198. 198.

    US–Clove Cigarettes WT/DS406/AB/R, paras 258–268 (2012), reprinted at 51 ILM 759.

  199. 199.

    Documented at www.ccr-zkr.org. Accessed on 22 November 2017.

  200. 200.

    Eg the decision 2003-II-10 on Principles of Interpretation of the Mannheim Act, or the decision on the common interpretation of Additional Protocol No 6 of 21 October 1999.

  201. 201.

    ICJ Whaling in the Antarctic [2014] ICJ Rep 226, para 46.

  202. 202.

    Ibid para 83.

  203. 203.

    Russian Claim for Interest on Indemnities (Russia v Turkey) (1912) 11 RIAA 421, 433.

  204. 204.

    This was already pointed out by Waldock III 60, para 25.

  205. 205.

    Gardiner (2015), pp. 274–278. This was also the view of the ILC which in Art 38 of its Final Draft had explicitly provided for the possibility that a treaty “may be modified by subsequent practice in the application of the treaty establishing the agreement of the parties to modify its provisions” (Final Draft 236). The fact that this article was the only one that was not adopted, but discarded altogether at the Vienna Conference, was mostly based on its specific drafting or on grounds of legal policy and cannot be taken to mean that the concept of implicit modification of a treaty by its parties, acting in agreement, was rejected by the States, cf Karl (1983), pp. 288–295.

  206. 206.

    ECJ Oberto and O‘Leary Joint C-464/13, C-465/13 ECLI:EU:C:2015:163, para 61.

  207. 207.

    In ECJ Council v Front Polisario C-104/16 P (Opinion AG Wathelet) ECLI:EU:C:2016:677, para 96.

  208. 208.

    For the jurisprudence of the ICJ, cf the references given by the Court itself in Kasikili/Sedudu Island [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, para 50. For the ECJ see the recent decision of its Grand Chamber in ECJ Council v Front Polisario C-104/16 P ECLI:EU:C:2016:973, para 120.

  209. 209.

    PCIJ Competence of the ILO PCIJ Ser B No 2, 39 (1922). Cf also Payment in Gold of Brazilian Federal Loans Contracted in France PCIJ Ser A No 21, 93, 119 (1929); ICJ Corfu Channel [1949] ICJ Rep 4, 25: “The subsequent attitude of the Parties shows […].”

  210. 210.

    ICJ Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v Honduras, Nicaragua intervening) [1992] ICJ Rep 351, para 380.

  211. 211.

    ECtHR Soering v United Kingdom App No 14038/88, Ser A 161, para 103 (1989).

  212. 212.

    ECtHR Öcalan v Turkey App No 46221/99, 12 March 2003, paras 194–195.

  213. 213.

    Ibid para 198.

  214. 214.

    ECtHR Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom (GC) App No 61498/08, 2 March 2010, para 120.

  215. 215.

    ECtHR Bayatyan v Armenia (GC) App No 23459/03, 7 July 2011, paras 101–109.

  216. 216.

    Sinclair (1984), p. 137. Adopted by the WTO Appellate Body in Japan–Alcoholic Beverages WT/DS 8, 10–11/AB/R, 13 (1996); and the Panel in Chile–Price Band System WT/DS207/R, para 7.78–79 (2002).

  217. 217.

    ILC Draft conclusion 6 para 1, first sentence, in Report 2016 (n 191).

  218. 218.

    Gardiner (2015), pp. 262–264.

  219. 219.

    ICJ Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict [1996] ICJ Rep 66, paras 55–56.

  220. 220.

    Gardiner (2015), p. 266. ILC Draft conclusion 5 para 1 in Report 2016 (n 191).

  221. 221.

    ILC Draft conclusion 5 para 2 in Report 2016 (n 191). As examples for “assessing”, the ILC commentary refers to initiating, identifying and reflecting subsequent practice of the parties.

  222. 222.

    Cf Final Draft, Commentary to Art 27, 222, para 15.

  223. 223.

    Concurring Gardiner (2015), pp. 267–268.

  224. 224.

    ILC Draft conclusion 10 (9) para 2 in Report 2016 (n 191).

  225. 225.

    Waldock III 52, 59–60, para 24a.

  226. 226.

    ICJ Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict [1996] ICJ Rep 66, para 19 (emphasis added).

  227. 227.

    ILC Draft conclusion 12 (11) paras 2 and 3, in Report 2016 (n 191).

  228. 228.

    Cf ILC Draft conclusion 13 (12), para 3, in Report 2016 (n 191), and the respective commentary, in particular para 10.

  229. 229.

    ICJ Namibia [1971] ICJ Rep 16, para 22.

  230. 230.

    ICJ Construction of a Wall [2004] ICJ Rep 136, paras 27–28.

  231. 231.

    ICJ Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee [1960] ICJ Rep 150, 168–170.

  232. 232.

    ICJ Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict [1996] ICJ Rep 66, para 27.

  233. 233.

    ICJ Second Admissions Case [1950] ICJ Rep 4, 9.

  234. 234.

    ICJ Certain Expenses of the United Nations [1962] ICJ Rep 151, 160.

  235. 235.

    Cf Final Draft, Commentary to Art 27, 222, para 15.

  236. 236.

    ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, para 63.

  237. 237.

    Concurring Villiger (2009), Art 31 MN 22. However, in Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia (Preliminary Objections) [2016] ICJ Rep 100, para 44, the ICJ was unable to read into the absence of any objection on the part of the other parties to the treaty in question an “agreement” within the meaning of para 3 lit b.

  238. 238.

    ECtHR Soering v United Kingdom App No 14038/88, Ser A 161, para 103 (1989).

  239. 239.

    ICJ Whaling in the Antarctic [2014] ICJ Rep 226, paras 46 and 83.

  240. 240.

    ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, para 55.

  241. 241.

    Ibid para 74.

  242. 242.

    ICJ Kasikili/Sedudu Island [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, paras 79–80; ECtHR Loizidou v Turkey (Preliminary Objections) App No 15318/89, Ser A 310, paras 79–82 (1995); WTO Appellate Body EC–Computer Equipment WT/DS 62, 67 and 68/AB/R, para 90 (1998). More references given in the ILC commentary (n 191), Conclusion 4 paras 26–35.

  243. 243.

    Sinclair (1984), p. 138; Torres Bernardez (1998), pp. 726, 727; Villiger (2009), Art 31 MN 22.

  244. 244.

    Draft conclusion 2 (1) para 4 in Report 2016 (n 191).

  245. 245.

    ILC Draft conclusion 6 para 3 in Report 2016 (n 191).

  246. 246.

    ECJ (GC) Council v Front Polisario C-104/16 P ECLI:EU:C:2016:973, paras 123–124.

  247. 247.

    PCIJ SS ‘Wimbledon’ PCIJ Ser A No 1, 25–28 (1923).

  248. 248.

    ICJ Namibia Opinion [1971] ICJ Rep 16, para 53.

  249. 249.

    ICJ Right of Passage (Preliminary Objections) [1957] ICJ Rep 125, 142.

  250. 250.

    Georges Pinson (France v Mexico) (1928) 5 RIAA 327, para 50 subpara 4.

  251. 251.

    Cf the report of the ILC Study Group on “Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law” (2006), UN Doc A/CN.4/L.702, in its conclusions 17–21. In the same context also Thiele (2008), pp. 24–28.

  252. 252.

    In an earlier draft the word “general” had been included as qualifying “international law”, but it was deleted during the discussion in the ILC, in order to allow specific and regional rules to be used, cf Gardiner (2015), pp. 300–301.

  253. 253.

    Eg, ECtHR Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (GC) App No 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI, para 60; Pini et al v Romania ECHR 2004-V, para 139; Sidabras and Džiautas v Lithuania App Nos 55480/00, 59330/00, ECHR 2004-VIII, para 47; Siliadin v France App No 73316/01, ECHR 2005-VII, paras 85–87; Sørensen and Rasmussen v Denmark (GC) App Nos 52562/99 and 52620/99, ECHR 2006-I, para 72; ASLEF v United Kingdom App No 11002/05, 27 February 2007, para 38; Emonet et al v Switzerland App No 39051/03, 13 December 2007, para 65; Demir and Baykara v Turkey (GC) App No 34503/97, ECHR 2008-V, paras 69–73.

  254. 254.

    ECtHR Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia App No 25965/04, 7 January 2010, paras 273–282.

  255. 255.

    ECtHR Hassan v United Kingdom (GC) App No 29750/09, ECHR 2014-VI, paras 102–111.

  256. 256.

    IACtHR ‘Street Children’ (Villagran-Morales et al) v Guatemala, 19 November 1999, para 194.

  257. 257.

    ICJ Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya) (Preliminary Objections), 2 February 2017, para 89.

  258. 258.

    ICJ Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters [2008] ICJ Rep 177, paras 112–114.

  259. 259.

    ECtHR Loizidou v Turkey (GC) (Merits) App No 15318/89, ECHR 1996-VI, paras 42–47.

  260. 260.

    ICJ Oil Platforms (Merits) [2003] ICJ Rep 161, paras 40–41.

  261. 261.

    ECtHR Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (GC) App No 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI, paras 55–56. To the same effect ECtHR Cudak v Lithuania (GC) App No 15869/02, ECHR 2010-III, para 56; Sabeh El Leil v France (GC) App No 34869/05, 29 June 2011, para 48.

  262. 262.

    ECtHR Sabeh El Leil v France (GC) App No 34869/05, 29 June 2011, paras 48–67.

  263. 263.

    ECtHR Banković et al v Belgium et al (GC) App No 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII, para 57.

  264. 264.

    ECtHR Marguš v Croatia (GC) App No 4455/10, ECHR 2014-III, paras 129–141.

  265. 265.

    ECJ (CJ) Brita C-386/08 [2010] ECR I-1289, paras 43–44; confirmed in ECJ (GC) Council v Front Polisario Case C-104/16 P, 21 December 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:973, para 100.

  266. 266.

    Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Annex to UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001, UN Doc A/RES/56/83.

  267. 267.

    ECJ (CJ) Axel Walz C-63/09 [2010] ECR I-4239, para 27.

  268. 268.

    ECJ (GC) Council v Front Polisario C-104/16 P ECLI:EU:C:2016:973, paras 86–92.

  269. 269.

    Iran-United States Claims Tribunal Iran v United States Case A/18 (1984) 75 ILR 175, 188–194.

  270. 270.

    Iron Rhine (‘Ijzeren Rhin’) Railway Arbitration (Belgium v Netherlands) (2005) 27 RIAA 35, paras 58–59.

  271. 271.

    ICSID Philip Morris Brands SARL, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v Oriental Republic of Uruguay ARB/10/7, 8 July 2016, paras 317–324.

  272. 272.

    ECtHR Golder v United Kingdom App No 4451/70, Ser A 18, para 35 (1975).

  273. 273.

    WTO Appellate Body US–Shrimp WT/DS58/AB/R, para 158 and n 157 (1998).

  274. 274.

    WTO Panel EC–Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products WT/DS291-3/R, paras 7.76–7.89 (2006).

  275. 275.

    WTO Appellate Body EC and Certain Member States–Large Civil Aircraft WT/DS316/AB/R, para 672 (2011).

  276. 276.

    Cf ECtHR Demir and Baykara v Turkey (GC) App No 34503/97, ECHR 2008-V, paras 74–75; Bayatyan v Armenia (GC) App No 23459/03, 7 July 2011, para 107.

  277. 277.

    Eg ECtHR Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (GC) App No 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI, para 60.

  278. 278.

    ECtHR Saadi v United Kingdom (GC) App No 13229/03, 29 January 2008, para 65.

  279. 279.

    ECtHR Goodwin v United Kingdom (GC) App No 28957/95, ECHR 2002-VI, para 100; Sørensen and Rasmussen v Denmark (GC) App Nos 52562/99 and 52620/99, ECHR 2006-I, para 72; Eskelinen et al v Finland (GC) App No 63235/00, 19 April 2007, para 60 in fine.

  280. 280.

    ECJ Axel Walz C-63/09 [2010] ECR I-4239, para 27.

  281. 281.

    IACHR Mossville Environmental Action Now v United States, Report No 43/10, 17 March 2010, para 43.

  282. 282.

    ECtHR Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey (GC) App No 46827/99 and 46951/99, ECHR 2005-I, para 124.

  283. 283.

    ECtHR Bayatyan v Armenia (GC) App No 23459/03, 7 July 2011, para 105.

  284. 284.

    ICJ Racial Discrimination Convention (Preliminary Objections) [2011] ICJ Rep 70, paras 136–140.

  285. 285.

    The WTO Appellate Body confined the concept of “relevant” to this meaning in EC and Certain Member States–Large Civil Aircraft WT/DS316/AB/R para 846 (2011). Similarly, ICJ Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v Kenya) (Preliminary Objections), 2 February 2017, para 89.

  286. 286.

    Thus, the WTO Panel in Chile–Price Band System WT/DS207/R, para 7.85 (2002).

  287. 287.

    In favor of the restrictive reading, also Villiger (2009), Art 31 MN 25; Thiele (2008), pp. 26–27.

  288. 288.

    This was held by the WTO Panel in EC–Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products WT/DS291-3/R, para 7.68, n 243 in fine (2006).

  289. 289.

    Favoring a less restrictive reading for practical reasons French (2006), p. 307.

  290. 290.

    McLachlan (2005), p. 315.

  291. 291.

    WTO Panel EC–Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products WT/DS291-3/R, paras 7.68–7.71 (2006).

  292. 292.

    Ibid para 7.74.

  293. 293.

    Cf WTO Appellate Body EC and Certain Member States–Large Civil Aircraft WT/DS316/AB/R, paras 844–846 (2011).

  294. 294.

    ECtHR Demir and Baykara v Turkey (GC) App No 34503/97, ECHR 2008-V, para 78, with examples given in paras 79–84.

  295. 295.

    WTO Panel EC–Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products WT/DS291-3/R, para 7.92 (2006). Similarly, McLachlan (2005), p. 315.

  296. 296.

    WTO Appellate Body EC and Certain Member States–Large Civil Aircraft WT/DS316/AB/R, paras 852–853 (2011).

  297. 297.

    Cf Sinclair (1984), pp. 138–139; Gardiner (2015), pp. 295–298.

  298. 298.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 27, 222, para 16.

  299. 299.

    ICJ Namibia Opinion [1971] ICJ Rep 16, (emphasis added).

  300. 300.

    Iron Rhine (‘Ijzeren Rhin’) Railway Arbitration (Belgium v Netherlands) (2005) 27 RIAA 35, paras 57–60.

  301. 301.

    Gardiner (2015), p. 334.

  302. 302.

    Art 31 para 4 is applied to both regimes by Sorel and Boré (2011), Art 31 MN 50.

  303. 303.

    Cf Final Draft, Commentary to Art 27, 222, para 17.

  304. 304.

    PCIJ Legal Status of Eastern Greenland PCIJ Ser A/B No 53, 49 (1933). Confirmed by the ICJ in Western Sahara Opinion [1975] ICJ Rep 12, para 116.

  305. 305.

    ICJ First Admissions Case [1948] ICJ Rep 57, 63.

  306. 306.

    Convention on the Protection of the Rhine (n 19) para 67.

  307. 307.

    Gardiner (2015), p. 341.

  308. 308.

    Cf [1982-I] YbILC 22 and 260; UNCLOTIO I 15–16.

References

  • Aust A (2013) Modern Treaty Law and Practice, 3rd edn. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Barents R (2004) The Autonomy of Community Law. Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt R (1999) Evolutive Treaty Interpretation, Especially of the European Convention on Human Rights. GYIL 42:11–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandl U (2015) Auslegung von Resolutionen des Sicherheitsrats: Einheitliche völkerrechtliche Regelungen oder “pick and choose” aus möglichen Auslegungsregeln? AVR 53:279–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Brölmann C (2012) Specialized Rules of Treaty Interpretation: International Organizations. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford Guide to Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 507–524

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown LN, Kennedy T (2000) The Court of Justice of the European Communities, 5th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Buffard I, Zemanek K (1998) The ‘Object and Purpose’ of a Treaty: An Enigma? ARIEL 3:311–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Çali B (2012) Specialized Rules of Treaty Interpretation: Human Rights. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford Guide to Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 525–548

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron I (2008) Treaties, Declarations of Interpretation. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. OUP, Oxford. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1686. Accessed 29 November 2017

  • Cremer HJ (2013) Kapitel 4. Regeln der Konventionsinterpretation. In: Dörr O, Grote R, Marauhn T (eds) EMRK/GG – Konkordanzkommentar zum europäischen und deutschen Grundrechtsschutz, 2nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Criddle E (2004) The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in US Treaty Interpretation. VaJIL 44:431–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice GG (1951) The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice. Treaty Interpretation and Certain Other Treaty Points. BYIL 28:1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice GG (1957) The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951-4: Treaty Interpretation and Other Treaty Points. BYIL 33:203–293

    Google Scholar 

  • French D (2006) Treaty Interpretation and the Incorporation of Extraneous Legal Rules. ICLQ 55:281–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner R (2015) Treaty Interpretation, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley TC (2010) The Foundations of European Community Law, 7th edn. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heintschel von Heinegg W (2014) Auslegung völkerrechtlicher Verträge. In: Ipsen K (ed) Völkerrecht, 6th edn. Beck, München, pp 407–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings R, Watts A (eds) (1992) Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol I. Longman, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Karl W (1983) Vertrag und spätere Praxis im Völkerrecht. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (1997) Some Problems Regarding the Object and Purpose of Treaties. FinnYIL 8:138–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2008) Treaties, Object and Purpose. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. OUP, Oxford. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1681. Accessed 29 November 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2009) An Introduction to International Institutional Law, 2nd edn. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht H (1949) Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle of Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties. BYIL 26:48–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Malanczuk P (1997) Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan C (2005) The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31 (3) (c) of the Vienna Convention. ICLQ 54:279–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNair A (1961) The Law of Treaties. OUP, London

    Google Scholar 

  • McRae DM (1978) Legal Effect of Interpretative Declarations. BYIL 49:155–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2010) Unilateral Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions: UK Practice. GoJIL 2:823–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Papastravidis E (2007) Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions under Chapter VII in the Aftermath of the Iraqi Crisis. ICLQ 57:83–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenberger G (1968) Myths and Realities of Treaty Interpretation. VaJIL 9:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair I (1984) The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn. University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorel J-M, Boré Eveno V (2011) Article 30. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 804–837

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiele C (2008) Fragmentierung des Völkerrechts als Herausforderung für die Staatengemeinschaft. AVR 46:1–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres Bernárdez S (1998) Interpretation of Treaties by the International Court of Justice Following the Adoption of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In: Hafner G (ed) Festschrift Seidl-Hohenveldern. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 721–748

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vattel E (1758) Le droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle, Vol II. London

    Google Scholar 

  • Villiger M (2009) Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood MC (1998) Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions. MPYUNL 2:73–95

    Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Berner K (2016a) Judicial Dialogue and Treaty Interpretation: Revisiting the ‘Cocktail Party’ of International Law. AVR 54:67–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Berner K (2016b) Authentic Interpretation in Public International Law. ZaöRV 76:845–878

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorge E (2014) The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bos M (1980) Theory and Practice of Treaty Interpretation. NILR 27:3–38; 27:135–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Böth K (2013) Evolutive Auslegung völkerrechtlicher Verträge. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Corten O (2011) Les techniques reproduites aux articles 31 à 33 des Conventions de Vienne: approche objectiviste ou approche volontariste de l’interprétation? RGDIP 115:351–366

    Google Scholar 

  • van Damme I (2009) Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body.

    Google Scholar 

  • Distefano G (2011) L’interprétation evolutive de la norme internationale. RGDIP 115:373–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy P-M (2011) Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties: Between Memory and Prophecy. In: Cannizzaro E (ed) The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention. OUP, Oxford, pp 123–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice M (2005) Canons of Treaty Interpretation: Selected Case Studies from the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement. ARIEL 10:41–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice M (2008/2009) Dynamic (Evolutive) Interpretation of Treaties. Hague YIL 21:101–153 (Part I); Hague YIL 22:3–31 (Part II)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice M, Elias O, Merkouris P (eds) (2010) Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 Years on. Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner R (2012) The Vienna Convention Rules on Treaty Interpretation. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford Guide to Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 475–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2005) On Rationalism in Politics: Interpretation of Treaties and the World Trade Organization. Nordic JIL 74:405–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Köck HF (1998) Zur Interpretation völkerrechtlicher Verträge. ZÖR 53:217–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Linderfalk U (2007) On the Interpretation of Treaties. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Linderfalk U (2008) Doing the Right Thing for the Right Reason – Why Dynamic or Static Approaches Should be Taken in the Interpretation of Treaties. ICLR 10:109–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolte G (ed) (2013) Treaties and Subsequent Practice. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2003) Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. EJIL 14:529–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2009) The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosentreter D (2015) Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the Principle of Systemic Integration in International Investment Law and Arbitration. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vandevelde KJ (1988) Treaty Interpretation from a Negotiator’s Perspective. VandJTL 21:281–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Villiger M (2011) The Rules on Interpretation: Misgivings, Misunderstandings, Miscarriage? The ‘Crucible’ Intended by the International Law Commission. In Cannizzaro E (ed) The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention. OUP, Oxford, pp 105–122

    Google Scholar 

  • White G (1999) Treaty Interpretation: The Vienna Convention “Code” as Applied by the World Trade Organization Judiciary. AYIL 20:319–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasseen MK (1976) L’interprétation des traités d’après la Convention de Vienne. RdC 151:1–141

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Oliver Dörr

Authors
  1. Oliver Dörr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

    Oliver Dörr

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

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dörr, O. (2018). Article 31. In: Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (eds) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_34

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55159-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55160-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation