Is the hierarchical structure of article 31 and 32 of the Vienna convention real or not? interpreting the rules of interpretation

Netherlands International Law Review

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 133-154

  Linderfalk, Ulf ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78149376278     PISSN: 0165070X     EISSN: 17416191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0165070X07001337     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. See, e.g., the following statement by Anthony Aust: 'Most disputes submitted to international adjudication involve some problem of treaty interpretation. Just as the interpretation of legislation is the constant concern of any government lawyer, treaty interpretation forms a significant part of the day-to-day work of a foreign ministry legal adviser.' A. Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2000) p. 184. Cf., the 40-year old statement by Robert Jennings: 'There are few aspects of international law more important than the interpretation of treaties. A very large proportion indeed of practical problems and disputes have this question at the core of the matter.' R. Jennings, 'General Course on Principles of International Law', 121 Recueil des Cours (1967-II) p. 544.
2. According to what is generally assumed, Arts. 31-33 are reflective of customary international law. Hence, they can be seen as evidence, not only of the rules of interpretation that apply according to the Convention as between its parties, but also of the rules that apply according to customary international law as between states in general. For a detailed list of references, see U. Linderfalk On the Interpretation of Treaties (forthcoming on Springer Verlag, 2007) chapter 1.
3. Of course, the Vienna Convention itself does not speak of primary means of interpretation, but this is the term often used by international law commentators. Cf., e.g., 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', 14 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review (1991) p. 117; Mark E. Villiger, Customary International Law and Treaties (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff 1986) p. 345; A. Verdross and B. Simma, Universelles Völkerrecht: Theorie und Praxis, 3rd edn. (Berlin, Duncker & Humblot 1984) p. 493; E. Jiménez de Aréchaga, 'International Law in the Past Third of a Century', 159 Recueil des Cours (1978-I) p. 46; T.O. Elias, The Modern Law of Treaties (Dobbs Ferry, NY, Oceana Publications 1974) p. 80; F.G. Jacobs, 'Varieties of Approach to Treaty Interpretation: With Special Reference to the Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties Before the Vienna Diplomatic Conference', 18 ICLQ (1969) p. 326. See also Tunkin, at the eighteenth session, 872nd meeting of the International Law Commission, ILC Yearbook (1966-I) Part 2, p. 201, para. 43; Ago, at the same meeting, ibid., at p. 202, para. 50; H. Waldock, 'Third Report on the Law of Treaties', ILC Yearbook (1964-II) p. 99, para. 19.
4. See, e.g., S.M. Schwebel, 'May Preparatory Work be Used to Correct Rather Than Confirm the "Clear" Meaning of a Treaty Provision?', 2(5) Transnational Dispute Management (2005), available for subscribers at < www.transnational-dispute-management.com >; J. Klabbers, 'International Legal Histories: The Declining Importance of Travaux Préparatoires in Treaty Interpretation?', 50 NILR (2003) pp. 267-288; S.M. Schwebel, 'May Preparatory Work be Used to Correct Rather Than Confirm the "Clear" Meaning of a Treaty Provision?', 82 Svensk Juristtidning (1997) pp. 797-804; S.M. 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: Essays in Honour of Krzysztof Skubiszewski (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1996) pp. 541-547; Ris, supra n. 3, at pp. 111-136; W. Hummer, '"Ordinary" versus "Special" Meaning', 26 Österreichische Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht (1975) pp. 87-163.
5. See, e.g., the dissenting opinion delivered by judge Schwebel in the Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), ICJ, Judgment of 15 February 1995, Jurisdiction and Admissiblity, available at the Court's webpage: < www.icj-cij.org >.
6. Schwebel 1996, supra n. 4, at pp. 542-543.
7. Schwebel 1996, supra n. 4, at p. 543.
8. Cf., Schwebel: '[T]he Vienna Convention could hardly be said, in its provisions for treaty interpretation, to be reflective of customary international law, for there is simply too much State practice and too much judicial precedent that accords preparatory work a greater place.' Schwebel, 1996, supra n. 4, at p. 547. In the footnote added to this passage, Judge Schwebel cites two monographs. The one is a book by Sir Hersch Lauterpacht published in 1958 (H. Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court (London, Stevens 1958)). The other is the 1994 reprint of a book written by Professors McDougal, Laswell and Miller, originally published in 1967 (M. McDougal, H. Laswell and J. Miller, The Interpretation of International Agreements and World Public Order (New Haven, New Haven Press 1994)) I can only interpret this to mean that for Judge Schwebel, the relevant customary international law is that of 1969, not that of 1996, when his article was first published.
9. With regard to the international law literature, see, e.g., G. Berlia, 'Contribution à l'interprétation des traités', 114 Recueil des Cours (1965-I) pp. 297-305; R. Bernhardt, Die Auslegung völkerrechtlicher Verträge (Cologne, Heymann 1963) pp. 109-110; C. De Visscher, Problèmes d'interprétation judiciaire en droit international public (Paris, Pedone 1963) pp. 116-118; G. Fitzmaurice, 'The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951-1954: Treaty Interpretation and Other Treaty Points', 33 BYIL (1957) p. 211; L. Gross, 'Treaty Interpretation: The Proper Rôle of an International Tribunal', 63 Proceedings ASIL (1969) p. 117; Jennings, supra n. 1, at p. 550; A. McNair, The Law of Treaties (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1961) pp. 422-423; B.N. Mehrish, 'Travaux Préparatoires as an Element in the Interpretation of Treaties', 11 Indian JIL (1971) pp. 83-84; D.P. O'Connell, International Law, Vol. 1, 2nd edn. (London, Stevens 1970) p. 282; G. Schwarzenberger, International Law, Vol. 1, 3rd edn. (London, Stevens 1957) p. 514. For a different view, see S.P. Sharma, 'The ILC Draft and Treaty Interpretation With Special Reference to Preparatory Works', 8 Indian JIL (1968) pp. 367-398; American Law Institute, Second Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, As Adopted and Promulgated at Washington, D.C., 26 May 1962 (St. Paul, MN, American Law Institute Publishers 1965). With regard to the judicial precedents of the period, the cases most often cited are the Second Admissions case, Advisory Opinion of 3 March 1950, ICJ Rep. (1950) p. 8; and the Ambatielos case (Preliminary Objections), Judgment of 1 July 1952, ICJ Rep. (1952) p. 45. See also Air Transport Services Agreement Arbitration (United States of America v. France), Award of 22 December 1963, 38 ILR (1969) pp. 235-236.
10. See supra n. 2.
11. See, e.g., Villiger, supra n. 3.
12. Schwebel 1996, supra n. 4, at p. 545.
13. Klabbers, supra n. 4, at p. 272; Schwebel 1996, supra n. 4, at p. 545; Hummer, supra n. 4, at p. 100-101.
14. See, e.g., I. Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn. (Manchester, Manchester University Press 1984) p. 116; Jacobs, supra n. 3, at p. 322; Mehrish, supra n. 10, at p. 55; Berlia, supra n. 10, at pp. 297 et seq.; M.K. Yasseen, 'L'interprétation des traités d'après la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités', 151 Recueil des Cours (1976-III) p. 81; H. Lauterpacht, 'Report submitted to the International Law Institute (l'Institut de Droit International), sur la question de l'interprétation des traités, at its 43rd session at Bath', 43 Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international (1950-I) pp. 377 et seq.
15. See E. de Vattel, Le Droit des gens, ou principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains (1758), reprinted in 1995 as Le Droit des gens, ou principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains, The Classics of International Law, ed. J.B. Scott, Book II, Chap. XVII, para. 263. In addition to the reprint in French of Vattels work, there is also a complete English translation made by Charles Fenwick, published for the first time in 1916. See The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law, Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (Washington, DC, Carnegie Institution of Washington 1916).
16. De Vattel, supra n. 17
17. How could a difference of meaning otherwise be disclosed, previous to the application of Arts. 31 and 32?
18. Schwebel 1996, supra n. 4, at p. 545, citing McNair, supra n. 10, at p. 372.
19. McNair, supra n. 10, at p. 372; M. McDougal, 'The International Law Commission's Draft Articles Upon Interpretation: Textuality Redivivus', 61 AJIL (1967) pp. 992-1000; McDougal, Laswell and Miller 1967, supra n. 9, at pp. 78-82.
20. This is the assumption generally held in pragmatics, which is the branch of linguistics that deals with the communication process and the understanding of verbal utterances in particular. See, e.g., H.P. Grice, Studies in the Way of Words (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press 1989); D. Blakemore, Understanding Utterances (Oxford, Blackwell 1992); R. Blass, Relevance Relations in Discourse (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1990); D. Sperber and D. Wilson, Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Oxford, Blackwell 1986).
21. See, e.g., Sperber and Wilson, supra n. 22.
22. See supra and the text accompanying n. 20.
23. Cf., M. Dascal and J. Wróblewski, 'Transparency and Doubt: Understanding and Interpretation in Pragmatics and In Law', 7 Law and Philosophy (1988) pp. 203-224.
24. See Schwebel 1996, supra n. 4, at p. 545.
25. See Schwebel 1996, supra n. 4, at p. 546.
26. See, e.g., Schwebel 1996, supra n. 4, at p. 541. Cf., Linderfalk, supra n. 2, and the long list of authorities cited in chapter 1.
27. Cf., G. Fitzmaurice, 'Vae Victis or Woe To the Negotiators! Your Treaty or Our "Interpretation" of It', 65 AJIL (1971) p. 373.
28. Cf., Linderfalk, supra n. 2, chapter 7.
29. Cf., Linderfalk, supra n. 2, chapter 7.
30. See supra section 3.
31. The same is true of the expressions 'confirmer' and 'confirmar' used for the French and Spanish authentic texts of the Convention, respectively.
32. See Schwebel 1996, supra n. 4, at p. 543.
33. See supra p. 144.
34. Cf., e.g., R. Alexy, A Theory of Legal Argumentation (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1989).
35. In the terminology of the late Professor Jerzy Wróblewski, this is the external justification of legal decisions. See, e.g., J. Wróblewski, 'Legal Syllogism and Rationality of Judicial Decision', 5 Rechtstheorie (1974) pp. 33-46.
36. Cf., Linderfalk, supra n. 2, chapter 2.
37. Cf., the following statement by Hugh Thirlway, writing on the law and procedure of the ICJ: 'It is true that, in theory, if a text is clear enough as it stands, there is no need to refer to supplementary means; but where those supplementary means confirm the interpretation suggested by the text itself, there is no harm in noting the fact as a reinforcement of the conclusion stated. This is of course particularly attractive to the Court, which, partly as a result of its collegiate character, often prefers to give several parallel reasons for its decisions where one would do.' H. Thirlway, 'The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1960-1989', 62 BYIL (1991) p. 33. A footnote has been omitted.
38. See Schwebel 1996, supra n. 45, at p. 546. Footnote omitted.
39. See 'Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties With Commentaries', ILC Yearbook (1966-II) pp. 217-218.
40. See Comments on the final draft articles on the law of treaties prepared by the International Law Commission at its eighteenth session, Report of the Secretary-General (UN Doc. A/6827 and Add. 1 and 2), Official Records of the General Assembly, Annexes to the 22nd session, (New York, United Nations 1967) Agenda item 86, p. 26.
41. See United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, First and second sessions, Vienna, 26 March-24 May 1968 and 9 April-22 May 1969, Official Records, Documents of the Conference (New York, United Nations 1971) p. 149, para. 269.
42. Cf., USA, at the first session of the Vienna Conference, 31st meeting of the Committee of the Whole, Official Records, Summary records of the plenary meetings and of the meetings of the Committee of the Whole, supra n. 28, pp. 167-168, paras. 38-50.
43. First session of the Vienna Conference, 33rd meeting of the Committee of the Whole, ibid., p. 181, para. 40.
44. Cf., Linderfalk, supra n. 2, chapter 2.
45. 'Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties With Commentaries', ILC Yearbook (1966-II) pp. 217-223.