Interpretation of jurisdictional instruments in international dispute settlement

Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 159-188

  Orakhelashvili, Alexander ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Interpretation; Interpretative presumptions; Jurisdiction of international tribunals; Jurisdictional instruments; Principle of consent

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547935609     PISSN: 15691853     EISSN: 15718034     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/156918507X193159     Document Type: Article

References (139)

1. 5 Oxford English Dictionary (1989), 414-415.
2. Construction is defined as "interpretation put upon conduct, action, facts, words etc.; the way in which diese are taken by onlookers." 2 Oxford English Dictionary (1989), 880-881.
3. Vattel, "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns", in Scott (ed.), Classics of International Law (Washington, 1916), 188.
4. Ibid., 191.
5. Ibid., 199.
6. Ibid., 200-201.
7. Ibid., 199.
8. Ibid., 200.
9. See especially Article 19 of the Harvard Draft and its commentary, 29 AJIL Supplement (1935), 937-939. The approaches of the above-mentioned writers are overviewed id., 944.
10. A. D. McNair, The Law of Treaties (1961), 365-366.
11. Fitzmaurice, Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice (1986), 338-343.
12. Ibid., 345-346.
13. Ibid., 339.
14. II YbILC 964, 53-54, 200.
15. II YbILC 1966, 218-219.
16. Statement of Professor Myres S. McDougal, US Delegation, to the Committee of the Whole, 19 April 1968, 62 AJlL (1968), 1021;
17. for McDougal's further criticism of the ILCs approach, see McDougal, "The International Law Commission's Draft Articles Upon Interpretation: Textuality Revidivus", 61 AJIL (1967), 992.
18. D. French, "Treaty Interpretation and the Incorporation of Extraneous Legal Rules", 55 ICLQ (2006), 281.
19. Golder v UK, 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, para. 30.
20. According to Article 31,
21. "1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
22. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:
23. (a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty;
24. (b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.
25. There shall be taken into account, together with, the context:
26. (a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;
27. (b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;
28. (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.
29. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended."
30. According to Article 32,
31. "Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of Article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to Article 31:
32. (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
33. (b) leads to a result which, is manifestly absurd or unreasonable."
34. I. Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1984), 116.
35. Libya-Chad Boundary Dispute (Libya/Chad), Judgment of 1.8 January 1994, I.C.J. Reports 1994, 3 at 21.
36. LaGrand (Germany/USA), Judgment of 27 June 2001, I.C.J. Reports 2001, 466 at 489, para. 99.
37. Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment of 13 December 1999, I.C.J. Reports 1999, 1045, para. 18.
38. Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), judgment of 17 December 2002, I.C.J. Reports 2002, 625 at 645, para. 37.
39. Pope & Talbot Inc. and the Government of Canada (Interim Award, NAFTA Chapter 11, Arbitration), 26 June 2000, para. 65.
40. Pope & Talbot (Interim Award), para. 66.
41. Metalclad Corporation and the United Mexican States (Award), 30 August 2000, para. 70.
42. Waste Management Inc. and United Mexican States (Award), 2 June 2000, para. 9;
43. see also S.D. Myers and Government of Canada (Partial Award, NAFTA Arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules), 13 November 2000, paras. 199-200.
44. International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation and the United Mexican States (Award), 26 January 2006, para. 91;
45. S.D. Myers, para. 202.
46. Golder v UK, 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, paras. 29-30.
47. Iron Rhine (Belgium and the Netherlands), Award of 24 May 2005, para. 45.
48. Ibid., para. 47.
49. Acquisition of Polish Nationality, Advisory Opinion of 15 September 1923, PCIJ Series B, No. 7, 6, at 20.
50. Competence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to the United Nations (Advisory Opinion), 3 May 1950, I.C.J. Reports 1950, 4, at 7-8. The identical principle was maintained in the IMCO Advisory Opinion, 8 June 1960, I.C.J. Reports 1960, 150, at 159-160. The Court employed the textual approach to clarify whether Article 28(a) of the IMCO constitution required the election to the Maritime Safety Committee of the eight nations that possessed the largest fleets.
51. Fitzmaurice, Law and Procedure of the International Court (1986), 345.
52. II YbILC 1964, 60-61, 199, 201.
53. II YbILC 1966, 219.
54. H. Lauterpacht, "Restrictive Interpretation and Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties", BYIL 1949, 50-51, 69.
55. Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court (1958), 338-340.
56. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (2003), 606.
57. See, for instance, Aerial Incident of October 7th, 1952, (United States of America v Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), Order of 14 March 1956, I.C.J. Reports 1956, 9 at 11.
58. The Republic of Congo filed application on 9 December 2002, and France consented to adjudication on 11 April 2003, www.icj-cij.org. For the provisional measures Order see I.C.J. Reports 2003, 102 (17 June 2003).
59. The argument that the Optional Clause system based on the declarations lodged by States-parties to the ICJ Statute "does not provide the same expectations of stability and reliability" because it does not relate to the principle of pacta sunt servanda seems to be a mere assertion.
60. See e.g. Tomuschat, Article 36, Zimmerman et al. (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice. A Commentary (2006), 627. In fact, the Optional Clause system does provide for similar legal expectations to those provided by the general law of treaties. To illustrate, the International Court, in the Nicaragua case, applied the principles of treaty termination to Optional Clause declarations. See the Provisional Measures Order of 10 May 1984 In I.C.J. Reports, 1984, 164 at 178ff., and the decision on jurisdiction of 26 November 1984 in I.C.J. Reports, 1984, 392 at 418ff.
61. Fitzmaurice, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice (1986), 513.
62. Ibid., 514.
63. Ibid., 505 (emphasis original). It is noteworthy that here Fitzmaurice explains the need for restraint and caution in construing jurisdictional clauses not because they are different from treaties, but because diey are jurisdictional. In the policy perspective, Fitzmaurice favours interpretation in favour of respondent (and this confirms that his distinction between the notions of restrictive interpretation and caution and restraint is rather half-hearted).
64. Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court (1958), 338-339.
65. According to Shihata, "the concept of restrictive interpretation proved to have no significance in the work of the Court related to the interpretation of jurisdictional instruments", The Power of the International Court to Determine its Own Jurisdiction (1965), 190.
66. See also Bin Cheng, General Principles of Law (1953), 277-278, for the judicial practice regarding jurisdictional clauses for support of this view.
67. Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v Canada), judgment of 4 December 1998, 429 at 450-451, paras. 37-38 (references deleted).
68. Lotus, PCIJ Series A, 10, at 13.
69. Lighthouses in Crete and Samos, PCIJ Series A/B 71, at 120.
70. Lighthouses Case (France v Greece), PCIJ Series A/B 62, 4 at 13.
71. Ibid., 13, 14-15 (emphasis added).
72. Ibid., 13-14.
73. Ibid., 15.
74. Ibid., 16.
75. Borchgrave (Preliminary Objections), PCIJ Series A/B 72, 158.
76. Ibid., 162-163.
77. Ibid., 159.
78. Ibid., 164.
79. Ibid., 167-168.
80. Corfu Channel, Merits (UK v Albania), 9 April 1949, I.C.J. Reports 1949, 4 at 23.
81. Ibid., 23-24.
82. Ibid., 24.
83. Ibid., 25.
84. Ibid., 25-26.
85. Ambatielos (Greece v UK), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 1 July 1952, I.C.J. Reports 1952, 28 at 36.
86. 6i9) Ibid., 41; see further at 45.
87. I.C.J. Reports 1952, 62 (Dissenting Opinion); for the similar attitude see the Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges McNair, Basdevant, Klaestad and Read at the merits stage of the same case, I.C.J. Reports 1953, 28-29.
88. Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment of 2 February 1973, 3 at 8-10.
89. Ibid., 11-12.
90. Ibid., 12-13.
91. Separate Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1974, 117-118.
92. Fisheries Jurisdiction, Merits (UK v Iceland), Judgment of 25 July 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, 3 at 12-13, 17-18.
93. Ibid., 19-20.
94. Ibid., 21.
95. Ibid., 21-22.
96. Ibid., 122-123, 125 (Separate Opinion).
97. Case concerning Continental Shelf '(Tunisia/Libyan Arab jamahiriya), Judgment of 24 February 1982, I.C.J. Reports 1982, 18 at 37.
98. Ibid., 38.
99. Ibid., 39.
100. Ibid., 39.
101. Ibid., 39-40.
102. Separate Opinion, I.C.J Reports, 1982, 100-102.
103. Case concerning Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment of 3 June 1985, I.C.J. Reports 1985, 13 at 22.
104. Ibid., 23.
105. Ibid., 23-24.
106. Ibid., 24.
107. Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v Senegal), Judgment of 12 November 1991, I.C.J. Reports 1991, 53 at 68-70.
108. Ibid., 70.
109. Ibid., 70-71.
110. Ibid., 113-114 (Separate Opinion).
111. Ibid., 117.
112. LaGrand (Germany v USA), Merits, Judgment of 12 June 2001, I.C.J. Reports 2001, 625, paras. 43-44, 46-48.
113. Ibid., para. 46.
114. Ibid., para. 45.
115. Ibid., para. 48.
116. Avena (Mexico v USA), Merits, Judgment of 31 March 2004, General List No. 128, para. 26.
117. Ibid., paras. 31-32.
118. Ibid., para. 33.
119. 102); Ibid., para. 34.
120. Amco v Indonesia, 1 ICSID Reports (1983), 394.
121. parial Award, Jus Ad Bellum, Ethiopia's Claims 1-8, 19 December 2005, para 1.
122. Ibid., paras. 3-4.
123. Ibid., para. 5.
124. See A Orakhelashvili, The Concept of International Judicial Jurisdiction: A, Reappraisal, 3 LPICT (2003), 501-550, including the analysis of and references to all relevant decisions and doctrinal contributions.
125. Fourth Report of ILC Special Rapporteur Rodriguez-Cedeno, A/CN.4/519, 23 (Austria).
126. C Amerasinghe, Jurisdicion of International Tribunals (2003), 107-108.
127. Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (UK v Iran), Preliminary Objection, judgment of 22 July 1952, I.C.J. Reports 1952, 93 at 104-105.
128. Individual Opinion of President McNair, I.C.J. Reports, 1952, 117-118;
129. see also Dissenting Opinion of Judge Read, I.C.J. Reports, 1952, 142, confirming the relevance of the same method analogous to treaty interpretation by reference to earlier jurisprudence of the Court on this issue. Judge Read emphasised that a declaration should be "construed in such a manner as to give effect to the intention of the State, as indicated by the words used; and not by a restrictive interpretation, designed to frustrate the intention of the State in exercising this sovereign power", I.C.J. Reports, 1952, 143. This is in accordance with Article 31 (1) VCLT, which requires the interpretation of treaties according to their ordinary meaning.
130. 112); Ibid., 105.
131. Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v Canada), Judgment of 4 December 1998, I.C.J. Reports, 1998, 429, para. 49.
132. Ibid., para. 46.
133. Ibid., para. 49.
134. Ibid., para. 50.
135. Ibid., para. 52.
136. Ibid., paras. 48, 50, 66, 76.
137. Ibid., para. 61.
138. Cf Bernhardt, Interpretation in International Law, 2 EPIL (1995), 1416 at 1423.
139. Tomuschat, supra note 44, at 627.