Means of interpretation and their interrelationship
Authentic and some supplementary means of international treaties have been determined by Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. During the process of codification in the International Law Commission determination of these means was not a subject-matter of differences amo...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Law
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | Zbornik Radova: Pravni Fakultet u Novom Sadu |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0550-2179/2016/0550-21791601009E.pdf |
| Summary: | Authentic and some supplementary means of international treaties have been determined by Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. During the process of codification in the International Law Commission determination of these means was not a subject-matter of differences among members of the Commission or among States, but determination of an order of priority among them was. At the end the Commission took the view that all authentic means have to be applied and that their mutual interaction would lead to legally relevant interpretation. Today international judicial bodies do not follow that view. They select some of available authentic and supplementary means and give them different weight. Such interpretative practice may serve aequum et bonum, but may be turned into interpretative ad-hocism. Causes and consequences should be investigated. Discovering certain regularity in respect to factors determining selection and the weight of various means might increase legal certainty and predictability, what would be good for the rule of law. . |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0550-2179 2406-1255 |