Disappearance and new sightings of restrictive interpretation(S)

European Journal of International Law

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 681-700

  Crema, Luigi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78149403762     PISSN: 09385428     EISSN: 14643596     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ejil/chq050     Document Type: Article

References (193)

1. Rejoinder of Nicaragua (2008), Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Written Pleadings, i, 155, para. 3.97.
2. See also at 29-37, paras 2.22-2.35, and at 69-71 paras 2.110-2.113), available at: www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/133/15090.pdf.
3. See also Rejoinder of The Netherlands (2004), Iron Rhine Arbitration (Belgium v. The Netherlands), available at: www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/NL%20Rejoinder.pdf. With regard to ICSID arbitrations.
4. C. Schreuer, ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2001), at 249.
5. L.A. Podesta Costa, Manual de derecho International pùblico (2nd edn, 1947), at 197-198.
6. Rousseau, 'L'indépendance de l'Etat dans l'ordre international', Recueil des Cours (1948-II) 167, at 211-213
7. C. Rousseau, Droit International Public (1970), i, at 273-275.
8. Bos, 'Theory and Practice of Treaty Interpretation', 27 Netherlands Int'l L Rev (1980) 3, at 153-154
9. I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (7th edn, 2008), at 635.
10. M. Díez de Velasco, Instituciones de Derecho Internacional Público (13th edn, 2001), i, at 168.
11. C.F. Amerasinghe, Jurisdiction of International Tribunals (2003), at 105.
12. D. Carreau, Droit International (8th edn, 2004), at 154.
13. T. Scovazzi (ed.), Corso di diritto internazionale (2006), ii, at 69.
14. U. Linderfalck, On the Interpretation of Treaties (2007), at 280-284.
15. Cf. infra sects. 3 and 4.
16. Kolb, 'Le maximes juridiques en droit international public: questions historiques et théoriques', 32 Rev Belge Droit Int 32 (1999) 407
17. 'La règle résiduelle de liberté en droit international public ("tout ce ui n'est pas interdit est permis")', 34 Rev Belge Droit Int (2001) 100
18. S. Sur, L'interprétation en droit international public (1974), at 244.
19. R. Jennings and A. Watts, Oppenheim's International Law (9th edn, 1992), i, at 1278. An analogous maxim, sempre in obscuris quod minimum est sequimur, was already present in Dig. 50, 17, 9 (Ulpiano).
20. U. Albanese, Massime, enunciazioni e formule giuridiche latine (1993), at 677.
21. SGS v. Pakistan, Jurisdiction (2003), 18 ICSID Rev - FILJ (2003) 365-366, at para. 171.
22. EC - Hormones, WTO AB Report (1998), para. 165, n. 154.
23. EC - Hormones, WTO AB Report (1998), para. 165, n. 154.
24. In other WTO reports the Appellate Body (AB) did not consider the in dubio mitius interpretation proposed by the respondents: Korea - Alcohol, AB Report (1999), at paras 111-124
25. Chile - Price Band, AB Report (2002) and in US - Line Pipe Safeguards, (2002) the maxim in dubio mitius was proposed (respectively at para. 110 and para. 20) but the AB avoided having to decide on it. All the WTO AB reports are available at www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/ab_reports_e.htm
26. See infra at sect. 3.B.
27. See infra at sect. 5.
28. H. Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis (1625), Bk II, ch. XVI, sect. XII.
29. A. Maresca, Il Diritto dei Trattati (1971), at 339-344.
30. 'It is more convenient to restrict odious clauses, and to enlarge favourable ones', Liber sextus Decretalium, De regulis iuris, Regula 15.
31. Reproduced in A. Friedberg (ed.), Decretalium collectiones, ii, (1959) 1122
32. S. Puffendorf, Elementorum Jurisprudentiae Universalis Libri Duo (1672), ii, observation IV, at para. 36.
33. J.W. Scott (ed.), 15-II The Classics of International Law (1931), at 272.
34. De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo (1688), v, ch. XII, at paras 12 ff.
35. Reprinted in Scott, 17-II (1934), at 806
36. J.W. Textor, Synopsis Juris Gentium, (1680), ch. 23, at paras 30-38, and ch. 24, at para. 19 ff.
37. reprinted in Scott, 6-II (1916), at 247-248, and 262 ff
38. C.F. Wolff, Ius Gentium Methodo Scientifica Pertractatum (1764), at paras 420 ff.
39. This author in 1758 in his treaty on Droit des Gens massively adapted civil Roman interpretative maxims to international law: Fairman, 'The Interpretation of Treaties', 20 Transactions of the Grotius Society (1934), at 129-135
40. E. Vattel, Le droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle (1758), Bk II, Ch. XVII, sects. 299-309.
41. Vattel had a great influence on international law. A list of authors referring to Vattel is reported in the 'Harvard Research on the Law of the Treaties', 29 AJIL (1935, Suppl.) 939.
42. H. Triepel, Völkerrecht und Landesrecht (1899).
43. D. Anzilotti, Teoria generale della responsabilità dello Stato nel diritto internazionale (1902), i.
44. For an overview of positivism in international law see R. Ago, Scienza giuridica e diritto internazionale (1950), at 20-46.
45. Positivism had a weaker influence in international law than in internal legal orders: T. Treves, Diritto internazionale (2005), at 40.
46. R. Kolb, Les cours généraux de droit international public de l'Académie de la Haye (2003), at 21-33.
47. A. Truyol y Serra, Doctrines sur le fondement du droit des gens (ed. R. Kolb, 2007), at 66.
48. Pillet, 'Recherches sur les droits fondamentaux des états dans l'ordre des rapports internationaux et sur la solution des conflits qu'ils font naître', 5 RGDIP (1898) 55, and 6 RGDIP (1899) 503
49. 6 RGDIP (1899) 503
50. A strict parallelism between sovereignty and restrictive interpretation is developed by M. Sørensen, Les sources du droit international (1946), at 229.
51. H. Lauterpacht, 'Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle of Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties', 36 British Yrbk Int'l L (1949) 48, at 57-58.
52. Lotus (France v. Turkey), 1927 PCIJ Series A, No. 10, 4, at 18.
53. This renowned dictum is emblematic of an age, and its relevance is not diminished by the fact that in this decision the majority was reached only with the vote of President Anzilotti: in fact, many dissenting opinions evidence that the disagreement did not relate to the content of the concept of sovereignty, but to other legal principles concurrent with it: dissenting opinion of Weiss, at 42-49 (especially at 43-44)
54. Loder disagrees with the majority (at 34) but he describes the same strict construction of the rules affecting state sovereignty (at 35-36)
55. See also the dissenting opinions of Niholm (59-61) and Altamira (96-97)
56. On the PCIJ and treaty interpretation see Hyde, 'The Interpretation of Treaties by the Permanent Court of International Justice', 24 AJIL (1930) 1
57. Interpretation of Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne, Advisory Opinion, 1925 PCIJ Series B, No. 12, 7, at 25.
58. The interpretation of a clause on jurisdiction is less affected by this rule: Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder (Czechoslovak, Denmark, France, United Kingdom, and Sweden v. Germany), 1929 PCIJ Series A, No. 23, 5, at 24 and 26.
59. The rule was applied in Phosphates in Morocco (Italy/France), 1938 PCIJ Series A/B, No. 74, 9, at 23. 25 1923 PCIJ Series A, No. 1, at 24.
60. See also the joint dissenting opinion of Anzilotti and Huber at 37.
61. Advisory Opinion, 1931 PCIJ Series A/B, No. 43, at 142.
62. 'France's sovereignty ... is to be respected in so far as it is not limited by her international obligations, and ... by her obligations under the treaties. ... No restriction exceeding these ensuing from those instruments can be imposed on France without her consent': 1932 PCIJ Series A, No. 22, at 166.
63. 'Memel's autonomy only exists within the limits fixed by the Statute and ..., in the absence of provisions to the contrary in the Convention or its annexes, the rights ensuing from the sovereignty of Lithuania must apply': Advisory Opinion, 1932 PCIJ Series A/B, No. 49, 294, at 313-314.
64. Radio Corporation of America (USA/China), 3 UNRIAA (1935) 1632
65. Double Nationality (No. 22) (UK v. Italy), 14 UNRIAA (1954) 36.
66. Interpretation of the Peace Treaty 1946 (No. 196) (France v. Italy), 13 UNRIAA (1955) 431.
67. International Administrative Kantoor v. Federal Republic of Germany (1967), in V.
68. Coussirat-Coustère and P.M. Eisemann, Repertory of International Jurisprudence (1991), iii, at 1421.
69. 2 UNRIAA (1932) 1254
70. [1950] ICJ Rep 227
71. Jurisdiction [1952] ICJ Rep 105
72. [1951] ICJ Rep 143
73. [1984] ICJ Rep 22, at para. 35.
74. On the relevance of state sovereignty in treaty interpretation in the ICJ decisions see M. Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia (2nd edn, 2006), at 253-254.
75. [1974] ICJ Rep 267. See also the sovereigntist individual opinions of Gros, at 286, and Petrén, at 306.
76. See also the sovereigntist individual opinions of Gros, at 286, and Petrén, at 306.
77. On the contrary, the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Oneyana, Dillard, Jimenez de Aréchaga, and Waldock was much more internationalist, at 365-366, para. 109.
78. 40 ILR (1970) 256
79. 38 ILR (1969) 182, at 242-243
80. USA v. Iran (Case B24), 5 Iran-USA Cl Tr Rep (1984) 99.
81. Similarly see Iranian Customs Admin v. USA, 5 Iran-USA Cl Tr Rep (1984) 95.
82. The absoluteness arising in recent centuries from the scientist thought declined on the state theory is echoed by H. Kelsen, Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts. Beitrag zu einer Reinen Rechtslehre (1920), at 21, n. 1: '[t]he almightiness of God in nature corresponds to the analogous almightiness of the state in the field of law. The theological and the corresponding legal dogma have the same sense. Just as the order of the world appears to the theologian as the will of God, the legal order appears to the legal theologian as the will of the state and this will can have any content whatsoever. Neither from the notion of God nor from nature is there any restriction on the content of this will. The relationship between God and nature offers the same speculative possibilities as the relationship between the state and the law. Perfectly parallel are also the "God-Man" and "state-individual" relationships. The legal "theory" - without being aware of the fact - here runs mostly on already predisposed theological, but often also on mystic-logical patterns of thought' (my translation).
83. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, entered into force on 27 Jan. 1980, 1155 UNTS 331.
84. M. Jokl, De l'interprétation des traités normatifs (1936), at 99.
85. Ehrlich, 'L'interprétation des traités', Recueil des Cours (1928-IV) 3, at 98
86. Other criticisms were later expressed by A. McNair, The Law of Treaties (1961), at 766.
87. V. D. Degan, L'interprétation des accords en droit international, (1963), at 107.
88. Bernhardt, 'Interpretation in International Law', in R. Bernhardt, Encyclopedia of Public International Law, (1995) ii, at 1416, 1419.
89. Fitzmaurice, 'The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951-4: Treaty Interpretation and Other Treaty Points', 33 British Yrbk Int'l L (1957) 203
90. In 44 Annuaire Institut de Droit International (1952) 364; at 396 de La Pradelle expresses concisely the opposite positions on this topic within the Institute
91. The strongest arguments were about the role of the travaux préparatoires: see the intervention of Huber, 44 Annuaire Institut de Droit International (1952) 199
92. 'Third Report on the Law of Treaties' (Waldock), Yrbk Int'l Law Commission (1964), ii, at 5 (Doc. A/CN.4/167 and Add.1-3).
93. 'Sixth Report on the Law of Treaties', Yrbk Int'l Law Commission (1966), ii, at 51 (Doc. A/CN.4/186 and Add.1-7).
94. E.g., 'Résolution sur l'interprétation des Traités' (Rapp. Fitzmaurice), 46 Annuaire Institut de Droit International
95. Iron Rhine, arbitration (Belgium v. The Netherlands) (2005), at para. 53.
96. see also paras 24 and 53-55, available at: http://pca-cpa.org/upload/files/BE-NL%20Award%20corrected%20200905.pdf (last visited 14 Dec. 2009).
97. Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) (2009), at 24, para. 48, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/133/15321.pdf (last visited 14 Dec. 2009).
98. Iran v. USA (A1), 1 Iran-USA Cl Tr Rep (1983) 192.
99. Crook, 'Applicable Law in International Arbitration: The Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal Experience', 83 AJIL (1989) 278.
100. Federal Reserve Bank of New York v. Iran (A28) (2000) in A.J. Van den Berg (ed.), 26 Yrbk Commercial Arb (2001), at 562, para. 27, and 568, para. 67.
101. Siemens v. Argentina, Jurisdiction (2004), at para. 81.
102. This, and all other ICSID decisions referred to in this article not separately referenced, are available at: http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents (last visited 15 Dec. 2009).
103. As far as jurisdictional clauses are concerned see Metalpar and Buen Aire v. Argentina, Jurisdiction (2006), at para. 92: 'without any doubt, there is no rule that sustains a restrictive interpretation of the arbitration', Loewen v. USA, Jurisdiction, (2001) para. 51. Aguas del Tunari v. Bolivia, Decision on Respondent's Objections to Jurisdiction (2005), at para. 91.
104. See also Schreuer, 'Diversity and Harmonization of Treaty Interpretation in Investment Arbitration', 3(2) Transnational Dispute Management (2006) 1, at 4
105. Fauchald, 'The Legal Reasoning of ICSID Tribunals. An Empirical Analysis', 19 EJIL (2008) 317-319.
106. Morrison, 'Restrictive Interpretation of Sovereignty Limiting Treaties: The Practice of the European Human Rights Convention System', 19 Int'l Comp LQ (1970) 375
107. See also the third chapter of G. Letsas, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (2007).
108. In this survey I consider decisions in which customary rules of interpretation are applied. I will not consider those interpretations grounded on specific interpretative treaty rules, such as Art. 5 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Art. 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights.
109. 'Reports of the Commission to the General Assembly', Yrbk Int'l Law Commission (1966), ii, at 220, para. 9.
110. App. No. 2122/64, Wemhoff v. Germany, ECHR (1968) Series A, No. 7, at 23.
111. The expression 'European Convention as "law making treaty"' was later used in only a few other cases however, cf. App. No. 6538/74, The Sunday Times v. UK, ECHR (1979) Series A, No. 30, at para. 48.
112. App. Nos 11209, 11234, & 11266/84, and 11386/85, Brogan and Others v. UK, Merits, ECHR (1988) Series A, No. 145-B, at para. 59.
113. App. No. 15318/89, Loizidou v. Turkey, Preliminary Objections, ECHR (1995), Series A, No. 310, at para. 84.
114. App. No. 44774/98, Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, Merits, Great Chamber, ECHR (2005-XI), at para. 141.
115. These and all other ECtHR cases referred to in this article are available at: www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Case-Law/HUDOC/HUDOC+database.
116. See also under the Inter-American Court, The Effect of Reservations, Advisory Opinion, IACtHR (1982), Series A, No. 2, available at: /www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_02_ing.pdf, at para. 29.
117. Noble v. Romania, (2005), at para. 52 (bold emphasis added).
118. In investment arbitrations, the object and purpose of a treaty (and an interpretation adverse to the state) are often ascertained by the analysis of the preamble to a treaty. The relevance of the preambles to establishing a teleological interpretation in human rights treaties is stressed by A.A. Cançado Trindade, El derecho internacional de los derechos humanos en el siglo XXI (2001), at 25.
119. Free Zones, 1932 PCIJ Series A, No. 22, at 13.
120. 'Reports of the Commission to the General Assembly', Yrbk Int'l Law Commission (1966), ii, at 219
121. R. Kolb, Interprétation et création du droit international (2006), at 583: the author distinguishes in minimal, increased and maximal effective interpretation.
122. Lauterpacht, A. Cassese, International Law (2001), at 134.
123. See also Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama, Competence, IACtHR (2003), Series C, No. 104, at para. 100.
124. United States - Sections 301-310, (2000), para. 7.75, available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/ab_reports_e.htm (emphasis added).
125. Tradex Hellas v. Albania, Jurisdiction (1996), 14 ICSID Rev. - FILJ 1999, at 194.
126. A.A. Azocar v. Chile, IACommHR (1999), Report No. 137/99, Case 11,863, at para. 146, available at: www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/99eng/Merits/Chile11.863.htm (last visited 15 Dec. 2009).
127. On the Vienna Convention and the pro homine principle see the Separate Opinion of García-Ramírez in Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Merits, Reparations and Costs, IACtHR (Ser. C), No. 79 (2001), at para. 2. 64 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs, IACtHR (2004) Series C, No. 109, at para. 173.
128. Amaya Villareal, 'El principio pro homine: interpretación extensiva vs. el consentimento del estado', 5 Int'l L Rev colombiana der. int. (2005) 337.
129. Pinto, 'El principio pro homine. Criterios de hermenéutica y pautas para la regulación de los derechos humanos', in C. Abregú and M. Courtis, La aplicación de los tratados sobre derechos humanos por los tribunales locales (2nd edn, 1998), at 163.
130. A reference to this principle can be read in some separate opinions of the Inter American Court: see, e.g., Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala, Merits, IACtHR (2000) Ser. C, No. 70, Concurring Opinion of García Ramírez, at para. 3.
131. Roman law did not have the residual rule of individual freedom; it codified this idea in a set of maxims and presumptions in order to articulate and to simplify the process.
132. James et al., Provisional Measures in the Matter of Trinidad and Tobago, IACtHR (1999) Series E, Concurring Opinion of Judge Cançado-Trindade, at paras 12-16, is similar.
133. Dissenting opinion of Judges Basdevant, Winiarski, McNair, and Read to the Advisory Opinion Admission to the United Nations [1948] ICJ Rep 86, at para. 10.
134. In this sense see Admission to the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) [1948] ICJ Rep 62
135. ELSI case (United States v. Italy) [1989] ICJ Rep 15, at 42.
136. See P. Van Dijk and F. Van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (3rd edn, 1998), at 75-76.
137. App. No. 5029/71, Klass et Al. v. Germany, ECHR (1978) Series A, No. 28, at 21, para. 42.
138. App. No. 15153/89, Vereiningung Demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi v. Austria, ECHR ((Ser. A), No. 302 (1994) 17, at para. 37.
139. App. No. 8734/79, Barthold v. UK, ECHR (1985) Series A, No. 90, at 21.
140. App. No. 13585/88, The Observer and the Guardian v. UK, ECHR (1991) Series A, No. 216, at 29.
141. App. No. 6301/73, Winterwerp v. Neetherlands, ECHR (1979) Series A, No. 33, at 16, para. 37.
142. App. No. 7367/76, Guzzardi v. Italy, ECHR (1990) Series A, No. 39, at 36, para. 98.
143. Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago, IACtHR (Ser. C), No. 123 (2005), concurring opinion of Cançado-Trindade, at para. 7.
144. General Comment No. 22 (Art. 18), Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, 30 July 1993, at para. 8.
145. General Comment No. 27 (Art. 12), Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, 2 Nov. 1999, at para. 4.
146. General Comment No. 28 (Art. 3), Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10, 29 Mar. 2000, at para. 21.
147. General Comment No. 31, Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, 26 May 2004, at para. 6. All the General Comments are available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/comments.htm.
148. Canfor v. USA and Terminal Forest v. USA, Preliminary Objections (2006), at paras 185-187.
149. Canada Tarifs on Certain US Agricultural Products, CDA-95-2008-01, at para. 122, available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/gt47ds_e.htm (last visited 15 Dec. 2009).
150. Suez, Aguas de Barcelona and Inter Aguas v. Argentina, Jurisdiction (2006), at para. 57.
151. Tokio Tokelès v. Ukraine, jurisdiction (2004), at para. 30.
152. Maffezini v. Spain, Exceptions to Jurisdiction (2000), at para. 56, available at: http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Maffezini-Jurisdiction-English_001.pdf (last visited 15 Dec. 2009). The original is in Spanish.
153. On treaty interpretation and equity see G. Schwarzenberger, A Manual of International Law (5th edn, 1967), at 493.
154. Saluka v. Czech Republic, Partial Award (2006), at 64-65, paras 299-300, available at: http://pca-cpa.org/upload/files/SAL-CZ%20Partial%20Award%20170306.pdf (last visited 15 Dec. 2009), emphasis added; contra this reasoning.
155. see Reed, 'Current Issues in International Investment Treaty Arbitration: Statistics and Inconsistencies', in N. Boschiero and R. Luzzatto (eds.), I rapporti economici internazionali e l'evoluzione del loro regime giuridico (2008), at 348.
156. El Paso v. Argentina, Jurisdiction (2006), at para. 70, emphasis added.
157. The complexity of the 'investment' notion in the ICSID convention is analysed in Seatzu, 'La nozione di "investimento internazionale" nella convenzione di Washington del 1965 sulla soluzione delle controversie tra stati e nazionali di altri stati alla luce di una recente giurisprudenza arbitrale', in G. Bongiorno (ed.), Studi in onore di Carmine Punzi (2008), ii, at 1393.
158. Shany, 'Towards a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?', 16 EJIL (2005) 907, at 919-921
159. 'The full Commission report on Cyprus v. UK was not published, but the Commission did state that, in its opinion, a state government "should be able to exercise a certain measure of discretion in assessing the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation"': Hutchinson, 'The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights', 48 Int'l Comp LQ (1999) 639, at n. 3.
160. App. No. 332/57, Lawless v. Ireland, ECHR (1959), Series B, No. 1, at 85, para. 90.
161. See also the declarations of Erim and Sørensen at 93.
162. See also App. Nos 1474, 1677 & 1691/62, 1769 & 1994/63, and 2126/64, Affaires Linguistiques Belges c. Belgique, Report of the Commission, 24 June 1965, Series B, No. 3 and 4, at 375 (this report is available at the HUDOC database only in French).
163. App. No. 5493/72, Handyside v. UK, ECHR (1976) Series A, No. 24; App No 8777/79, Rasmussen v. Denmark, ECHR (1984) Series A, No. 87, at para. 40 (for references see supra note 55); App. No. 22009/93, Z. v. Finland, ECHR Rep (1997-1), at para. 99; App. No. 42326/98, Odièvre v. France, ECHR Reports (2003-III), at 80, para. 46.
164. App. Nos 46720/99, & 72203 & 72552/01, Jahn and others v. Germany, ECHR Reports (2005-VI), at paras. 91, 93, and 113; App. No. 36813/97, Scordino v. Italy, Merits and Just Satisfaction, ECHR Reports (2006-V), at 136, para. 188.
165. Sapienza, 'Sul margine d'apprezzamento statale nel sistema della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo', 74 Riv. dir. int. (1991) 571.
166. Greer, 'The Margin of Appreciation: Interpretation and Discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights', 17 Human Rights Files. Council of Europe Publishing (2000), at 32: according to the author the margin is a technique because it lacks of the necessary coherence to be a doctrine.
167. Macdonald, 'The Margin of Appreciation', in R. St. J Mcdonald, F. Matscher, and H. Petzold (eds), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (1993), at 83-85: the margin allows the Court not to give reasons for its decisions.
168. Caflish and Cançado Trindade, 'Les Conventions américaine et européenne des droits de l'homme et le droit international général', 108 RGDIP (2004) 13
169. Sweeney, 'Margins of Appreciation: Cultural Relativity and the European Court of Human Rights in the Post-cold War Era', 54 Int'l Comp LQ (2005) 459
170. Brems, 'The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights, Accomodating Diversity within Europe', in D. Forsythe and P. McMahon (eds), Human Rights and Diversity (2003), at 96.
171. Mahoney, 'Marvellous Richness of Diversity or Individuals Cultural Relativism?', 19 Human Rts LRev (1998) 3
172. Carozza, 'Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law in International Human Rights: Some Reflections on the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights', 5 Notre Dame L Rev (1998) 1235
173. J. Christoffersen, Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights (2009), at 58-59.
174. A. Orakhelashvili, The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law (2008), at 197-207.
175. Cot, 'Margin of appreciation', Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (2009), available at: www.mpepil.com/subscriber_article?script=yes&id=/epil/entries/law-9780199231690-e1438&recno=3&author=Cot%20%20Jean-Pierre (last visited 7 Jan. 2010).
176. Cot, 'The Law of the Sea and the Margin of Appreciation', in T. M. Ndiaye and R. Wolfrum (eds.), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes. Liber Amicorum Thomas A. Mensah (2007), at 389.
177. The Cot conception of the 'margin' is also expressed in his individual opinion to the Volga case: Russia v. Australia, Prompt Release, (2002), at paras 14 ff, available at: www.itlos.org/case_documents/2002/document_en_218.pdf (last visited 7 Jan. 2010).
178. A theory on the margin of appreciation in investment treaties can be read in Burke-White and Von Staden, 'A Large Investment Protection in Extraordinary Times: The Interpretation and Application of Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties', 48 Virginia J Int'l L (2007) 307, especially at 368-386
179. Siemens v. Argentina, Award (2007), at para. 354.
180. See also CMS v. Argentina, (2005), at paras. 332 ff., both last visited 15 Dec. 2009.
181. Continental v. Argentina, Award (2008), at para. 181.
182. see Benevisti, 'Margin of Appreciation, Consensus and Universal Standards', 31 NYU J Int'l L & Pol. (1999) 843.
183. Carozza, 'Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law', 97 AJIL (2003) 38
184. Tanzanella, 'Il margine di apprezzamento nella giurisprudenza della Corte di Strasburgo', in M. Cartabia (ed.), I diritti fondamentali in azione (2007), at 145.
185. R. Kolb, Réflexions de philosophie du droit international public (2003), at 385.
186. Mcdougal, 'International Law, Power, and Policy: a Contemporary Conception', 82 Recueil des Cours (1953) 137, at 180-191
187. Higgins, 'International Trade Law and the Avoidance, Containment and Resolution of Disputes: General Course on Public International Law', 230 Recueil des Cours (1991-V) 9, 33
188. These can also be said for the ECJ. After Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 3, it interpreted Community law in a strongly teleological way.
189. See Picod, 'Le juge communautaire et l'interprétation européenne', in F. Sudre, L'interprétation de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme (1998), at 289.
190. Sands, 'Treaty, Custom and the Cross-fertilization of International Law', 1 Yale Human Rts & Development, LJ (1998) 85
191. Petersmann, 'Time for a United Nations "Global Compact" for Integrating Human Rights into the Law of Worldwide Organizations: Lessons form European Integration', 13 EJIL (2002) 621
192. Among many see Genocide Case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment [2007] ICJ Rep 55, at para. 147.
193. Kelsen already in 1920 stressed the problems emerging in international law from the concurrent presences of different sovereignties: see Rigaux, 'Kelsen et le droit international', 29 Rev Belge Droit Int (1996) 383