Skip to main content

Relations Between Treaty Interpretation and Finding/Assessment of Facts and the Possible Codification

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Treaty Interpretation Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
  • 1208 Accesses

Abstract

Fact finding and assessment is a very important element of judicial and quasi-judicial process. The fact finding and assessment process does not involve treaty interpretation issue. However, the rules governing the fact finding and assessment (including the evidential rules) are subject to treaty interpretation. The chapter discusses that a treaty interpreter should have a broader and more flexible latitude to interpret the procedural rules so as to make the dispute settlement mechanism properly function.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Panel Report, ThailandCustoms and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines, para. 7.873, WTO Doc. WT/DS371/R (adopted 15 July 2011).

  2. 2.

    Id. at para. 7.886.

  3. 3.

    What are the Rules of Evidence?. http://hirealawyer.findlaw.com/choosing-the-right-lawyer/evidence-law.html. Accessed 8 Aug 2017.

  4. 4.

    Appellate Body Report, United StatesMeasures Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, p. 14, WTO Doc. WT/DS33/AB/R (adopted 23 May 1997) [hereinafter US—Wool Shirts and Blouses Appellate Body Report].

  5. 5.

    Id. (citing Kazazi (1996), p. 117).

  6. 6.

    Id. (citing Howard et al. (1990), p. 52 (“The burden of proof rests upon the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue.”); Rutherford and Bone (eds) (1993), p. 266; Jowitt and Walsh (1977), p. 263; Curzon (1983), p. 47; Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile, Art. 9; Carbonnier (1991), p. 320; Chevalier and Bach (1995), p. 101; Guillien and Vincent (1995, p. 384); Samyn et al. (1986, p. 250); Pérez (1992, p. 311); Bianca et al. (1991, p. 550), Galgano (1994, p. 873); and Trabucchi (1991), p. 210.

  7. 7.

    Appellate Body Report, European CommunitiesMeasures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), para. 98, WTO Doc. WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R (adopted 13 Feb 1998) [hereinafter EC—Hormones Appellate Body Report].

  8. 8.

    Id. (citing US—Wool Shirts and Blouses Appellate Body Report, supra note 4, at p. 14).

  9. 9.

    Id. at paras. 102, 104. See also Panel Report, BrazilExport Financing Programme for Aircraft (Article 21.5Canada), para. 6.22, WTO Doc. WT/DS46/RW (adopted 4 Aug 2000).

  10. 10.

    Appellate Body Report, CanadaMeasures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, para. 192, WTO Doc. WT/DS70/AB/R (adopted 20 Aug 1999) [hereinafter Canada—Aircraft Appellate Body Report]. See also id. at paras. 217–219.

  11. 11.

    Appellate Body Report, BrazilExport Financing Programme for Aircraft, paras. 140–141, WTO Doc. WT/DS46/AB/R (adopted 20 Aug 1999).

  12. 12.

    Appellate Body Report, IndiaQuantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products, para. 136, WTO Doc. WT/DS90/AB/R (adopted 22 Sept 199) [hereinafter India—Quantitative Restrictions Appellate Body Report].

  13. 13.

    Panel Report, United StatesSections 301310 of the Trade Act 1974, para. 7.14, WTO Doc. WT/DS152/R (adopted 27 Jan 2000).

  14. 14.

    Appellate Body Report, IndiaPatent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, paras. 73–75, WTO Doc. WT/DS50/AB/R (adopted 16 Jan 1998).

  15. 15.

    India—Quantitative Restrictions Appellate Body Report, supra note 12, at paras. 143–144.

  16. 16.

    Participation in Dispute Settlement Proceedings. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/disp_settlement_cbt_e/c9s3p1_e.htm#txt2. Accessed 8 Aug 2017.

  17. 17.

    Appellate Body Report, United StatesImport Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, paras. 106–108, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R (adopted 6 Nov 1998).

  18. 18.

    Panel Report, United StatesMeasures Affecting Trade in Large Civil AircraftSecond Complaint, para. 7.1820, WTO Doc. WT/DS353/R (adopted 23 Mar 2012).

  19. 19.

    Appellate Body Report, United StatesDefinitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, paras. 173–174, WTO Doc. WT/DS166/AB/R (adopted 19 Jan 2001).

  20. 20.

    Id. (citing Canada—Aircraft Appellate Body Report, supra note 10, at paras. 204–205).

  21. 21.

    EC—Hormones Appellate Body Report, supra note 7, at para. 133.

  22. 22.

    Appellate Body Report, JapanMeasures Affecting the Importation of Apples, paras. 221–222, WTO Doc. WT/DS245/AB/R (adopted 10 Dec 2003).

  23. 23.

    EC—Hormones Appellate Body Report, supra note 7, at para. 117.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chang-fa Lo .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lo, Cf. (2017). Relations Between Treaty Interpretation and Finding/Assessment of Facts and the Possible Codification. In: Treaty Interpretation Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6866-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6866-9_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-6865-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-6866-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics