Who are 'the parties'? Article 31, paragraph 3(C) of the 1969 Vienna convention and the 'principle of systemic integration' revisited

Netherlands International Law Review

Volumn 55, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 343-364

  Linderfalk, Ulf ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951570909     PISSN: 0165070X     EISSN: 17416191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0165070X08003434     Document Type: Review

References (88)

1. This terminology (technique) seems to derive from the work of the ILC Study Group. ('Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising From the Diversification and Expansion of International Law', Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, submitted to the ILC in preparation of its 58th session, 1 May-9 June and 3 July-11 August 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, pp. 15-16. Henceforth, the report will be referred to as the 'ILC Study on Fragmentation of International Law'.) Personally, I am not entirely convinced that technique is the appropriate word to use when we wish to refer to the set of legal rules that exists in international law for the interpretation of treaties and the resolution of normative conflict. However, that idea will have to be developed elsewhere.
2. 1155 UNTS pp. 331 et seq.
3. See ILC Study on Fragmentation of International Law, supra n. 1.
4. C. McLachlan, 'The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(C) of the Vienna Convention', 54 ICLQ (2005) pp. 279-320.
5. See, e.g., ILC Study on Fragmentation of International Law, supra n. 1, pp. 214-215, para. 426; McLachlan, supra n. 3, p. 290;
6. J. Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2003) p. 254;
7. G. Marceau, 'Conflict of Norms and Conflicts of Jurisdiction: The Relationship Between the WTO Agreement and MEAs and Other Treaties', 35 Journal of World Trade (2001) p. 1087;
8. M. Villiger, Customary International Law and Treaties (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff 1986) p. 268;
9. F. Matscher, 'Vertragsauslegung durch Vertragsrechtsvergleichung in der Judikatur internationaler Gerichte, vornehmlich vor den Organen der EMRK', in R. Bernhardt, et al., eds., Völkerrecht als Rechtordnung. Internationale Gerichtsbarkeit Menschenrechte. Festschrift für Hermann Mosler (Berlin, Springer Verlag 1983) p. 561;
10. M.K. Yasseen, 'L'interprétation des traités d'après la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités', 151 Recueil des Cours (1976-3) p. 63;
11. G. Haraszti, Some Fundamental Problems of the Law of Treaties (Budapest, Akadémiai kiadó 1973) p. 146, fn. 181;
12. R. Jennings and A. Watts, eds., Oppenheim's International Law, Vol. 1, 9th edn. (London, Longman 1992) p. 1275, fn. 21.
13. U. Linderfalk, 'Doing the Right Thing for the Right Reason: Why Dynamic or Static Approaches Should be Taken in the Interpretation of Treaties', 10 International Community L Rev. (2008) pp. 109-141.
14. R. Bernhardt, 'Interpretation and Implied (Tacit) Modification of Treaties: Comments on Articles 27, 28, 29 and 38 of the ILC's 1966 Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties', 27 Zeitschrift für ausländische öffentliche Recht und Völkerrecht (1967) p. 500.
15. EC - Biotechnical Products, complaint by the United States (WT/DS291), Canada (WT/DS292), and Argentina (WT/ DS293), Report of a WTO Panel, adopted on 21 November 2006, pp. 299-300, the report is available through the web-page of the WTO: < http://www.wto.org >.
16. ILC Study on Fragmentation of International Law, supra n. 1; McLachlan, supra n. 3, pp. 313-315; Pauwelyn, supra n. 5, p. 261;
17. G. Marceau, 'WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights', 13 EJIL (2002) pp. 780-783;
18. D. French, 'Treaty Interpretation and the Incorporation of Extraneous Legal Rules', 55 ICLQ (2006) pp. 305-307;
19. P. Sands, 'Sustainable Development: Treaty, Custom, and the Cross-fertilization of International Law', in A. Boyle and D. Freestone, eds., International Law and Sustainable Development - Past Achievements and Future Challenges (Oxford, Oxford University Press 1999) p. 57;
20. D. Palmeter and P. Mavroidis, 'The WTO Legal System: Sources of Law', 92 AJIL (1998) p. 411.
21. U. Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of Treaties (Dordrecht, Springer 2007)
22. Linderfalk, supra n. 9, pp. 62-63.
23. I.A. Shearer, ed., Starke's International Law, 11th edn. (London, Butterworths 1994) p. 435;
24. M. Bos, A Methodology of International Law (Amsterdam, North-Holland 1984) p. 147;
25. S. Davidson, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Aldershot, Dartmouth 1992) p. 135;
26. R. Bernhardt, 'Interpretation in International Law', in R. Bernhardt, ed., Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 7 (Amsterdam, North-Holland 1984) pp. 318-327;
27. F. Ost, 'The Original Canons of Interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights', in M. Delmas-Marty, ed., The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. International Protection versus National Restrictions (Dordrecht, Nijhoff 1992) p. 288;
28. D.P. O'Connell, International Law, Vol. 1, 2nd edn. (London, Stevens 1970) p. 255.
29. J. Lyons, Linguistic Semantics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1995) p. 72.
30. 500 UNTS p. 95. Emphasis added.
31. J. Saeed, Semantics (Oxford, Blackwell 1997) p. 181.
32. S. Levinson, Pragmatics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1983) pp. 62, 68-73.
33. Further on deixis, see, e.g., ibid.
34. See, e.g., ibid., 73-79.
35. See, e.g., Saeed, supra n. 14.
36. See, e.g., ibid.
37. See, e.g., Saeed, supra n. 14.
38. See, e.g., Saeed, supra n. 14
39. T. Givón, ed., Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study (Amsterdam, Benjamins 1983).
40. See Linderfalk, supra n. 9, ch. 2.
41. See ibid., pp. 106-107.
42. See Linderfalk, supra n. 9, pp. 111-117.
43. See Linderfalk, supra n. 9, ch. 7.
44. Oppenheim's International Law, supra n. 5, p. 1275
45. citing the ICJ in the Rights of Passage, Preliminary Objections, ICJ Reports (1957) p. 125 at p. 142;
46. C.F. Amerasinghe, 'Interpretation of Texts in Open International Organizations', 65 BYIL (1994) p. 203
47. ICJ in the Namibia Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports (1971) p. 31 at p. 41;
48. W. Czaplinski and G. Danilenko, 'Conflicts of Norms in International Law', 21 NYIL (1990) p. 13;
49. Georges Pinson, Recueil des sentences arbitrales, Vol. 5, p. 422;
50. C. De Visscher, Problèmes d'interprétation judiciaire en droit international public (Paris, Pedone 1963) p. 92;
51. ICJ in the Reparation for Injuries, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports (1949) p. 174 at p. 182;
52. statement by Sir Humphrey Waldock, as Special Rapporteur, at the ILC's sixteenth session, 769th meeting, ILC Yearbook (1964-I) p. 312, para. 39.
53. Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, Judgment of 21 November 2001, para. 55, ECHR 2001-XI;
54. Fogarty v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, Judgment of 21 November 2001, para. 35, ECHR 2001-XI.
55. G. White, 'Treaty Interpretation: The Vienna Convention "Code" as Applied by the World Trade Organization Judiciary', 20 Australian YIL (1999) p. 329;
56. H. Thirlway, 'The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: 1960-1989, Part Three', 62 BYIL (1991) p. 52;
57. G. McGinley, 'Practice as a Guide to Treaty Interpretation', 9 The Fletcher Forum (1985) p. 217;
58. I. Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn. (Manchester, Manchester University Press 1984) pp. 136, 138;
59. W. Karl, Vertrag und spätere Praxis im Völkerrecht (Berlin, Springer 1983) pp. 188-194;
60. T. Elias, The Modern Law of Treaties (Dobbs Ferry, NY, Oceana Publications 1974) p. 76;
61. Commentary to Draft Articles 27 and 28, adopted by the International Law Commission in 1966, ILC Yearbook (1966-II) p. 222, para. 15;
62. see especially the Soering case, Judgment of 7 July 1989, Publ. ECHR, Ser. A, Vol. 161, paras. 101-103;
63. Japan - Alcoholic Beverages II, Complaints by the EC (WT/DS8), Canada (WT/DS10), and the United States (WT/DS11), Report adopted by the Appellate Body of the WTO, on 25 September 1996, Section E, text accompanying footnotes 24-26, the report is available through the web-page of the WTO: < http://www.wto.org >.
64. U. Linderfalk, 'Is the Hierarchical Structure of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention Real or Not? Interpreting the Rules of Interpretation', 54 NILR (2007) pp. 133-154.
65. See Linderfalk, supra n. 9, pp. 238-239.
66. For further references, see Linderfalk, supra n. 9, pp. 255-259 ibid.
67. See Linderfalk, supra n. 9, pp. 255 ibid.
68. See ILC Study on Fragmentation of International Law, supra n. 1; McLachlan, supra n. 3, p. 315; French, supra n. 8, p. 307.
69. ILC Yearbook (1966-II) pp. 218-219, para. 5.
70. Sir Humphrey Waldock, Special Rapporteur, ILC Yearbook (1964-II) pp. 54-55, paras. 5-9.
71. ILC Yearbook (1966-II) pp. 218-219, para. 5.
72. Sir Humphrey Waldock, Special Rapporteur, ILC Yearbook (1964-II) pp. 54-55, paras. 5-9.
73. ILC Yearbook (1966-I) p. 270, paras. 32-33.
74. ILC Yearbook (1964-II) p. 199. Emphasis added.
75. See ILC Yearbook (1966-I) Part 2, p. 184, para. 59.
76. ILC Yearbook (1964-I) p. 316, para. 13.
77. ILC Yearbook (1966-I) Part 2, pp. 183-200.
78. ILC Yearbook (1966-II) pp. 217-218.
79. United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, First and second sessions, Official Records, Documents of the Conference (A/CONF.39/11/Add. 2), p. 150. In the records of the Conference, the German amendment was designated as UN Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.214.
80. United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, First session, Official Records, Summary records of the plenary meetings and of the meetings of the Committee of the Whole (A/CONF.39/11), p. 172, paras. 10-11. Emphasis added.
81. Cf., Linderfalk, supra n. 42.
82. See, e.g., French, supra n. 8, p. 307; ILC Study on Fragmentation of International Law, supra n. 1; McLachlan, supra n. 3, pp. 313-314; Marceau 2002, supra n. 8, p. 781.
83. Guinea - Guinea-Bissau Maritime Delimitation case, Award of 14 February 1985, 77 ILR p. 636 at pp. 673-674;
84. Case Concerning the Air Services Agreement of 27 March 1946, Award of 9 December 1978, 54 ILR p. 304 at p. 334.
85. Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objection, Judgment of 12 December 1996, ICJ Reports (1996-II) p. 803 at pp. 814-815.
86. Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Merits, Judgment of 26 February 2007, para. 162, at the time of writing, the judgment is available only through the Court's web-page: < http://www.icj-cij.org >.
87. See Linderfalk, supra n. 9, p. 182.
88. See, e.g., Soering case, Judgment of 7 July 1989, Publ. ECHR, Ser. A, Vol. 161, paras. 102-103.