Human Rights and Interpretation: Limits and Demands of Harmonizing Interpretation of International Law

  • Julian UdichEmail author


The issue of interpretation in public international law (PIL) has in recent years drawn considerable scholarly attention. A particular focus has been to develop interpretative methods to ameliorate the fragmentation of public international law. Therefore, as human rights law and other specialized branches are mostly considered to belong to one overarching system of public international law, interpretation of human rights might be affected by those other branches.


Legal System Positive Rule Legal Discourse Interpretive Approach Vienna Convention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alexy R (2001) Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Suhrkamp, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernhardt R (1967) Interpretation and implied (tacit) modification of treaties. ZaöRV 27:491–506Google Scholar
  3. Dawidowicz M (2011) The effect of the passage of time on the interpretation of treaties. Leiden J Int Law 24:201–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fish S (1980) Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Fiss O (1981–1982) Objectivity and interpretation. Stanford Law Rev 34:739–763Google Scholar
  6. Gardiner R (2008) Treaty interpretation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Habermas J (1998) Faktizität und Geltung. Nomos, Suhrkamp, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  8. ILC (1966) Draft articles on the law of treaties with commentaries. ILC Yearbook 187–274Google Scholar
  9. ILC, Koskenniemi M (2006) Fragmentation of international law. UN.Doc A/CN.4/L.682Google Scholar
  10. Johnstone I (1990–1991) Treaty interpretation: the authority of interpretative communities. Mich J Int Law 12:371–419Google Scholar
  11. Johnstone I (2003) Security council deliberations: the power of the better argument. Eur J Int Law 14:437–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kammerhofer J (2011) Uncertainty in international law. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Letsas G (2010) Intentionalism and the interpretation of the ECHR. In: Fitzmaurice M, Elias O, Merkouris P (eds) Treaty interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties: 30 years on. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston, pp 257–272Google Scholar
  14. Linderfalk U (2010) On the interpretation of treaties. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  15. Linderfalk U (2011) The application of international legal norms over time. Netherlands Int Law Rev 58:147–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Matz-Lück N (2006) Harmonization, systemic integration, and ‘mutual supportiveness’ as conflict-solution techniques. Finnish Yearb Int Law 17:39–53Google Scholar
  17. Orakhelashvili A (2008) The interpretation of acts and rules in international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pavoni R (2010) Mutual supportiveness as a principle of interpretation and law-making. Eur J Int Law 21:649–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pellet A (2011) Judicial settlement of international disputes. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of international law (online edition). Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Rietiker D (2010) The principle of “effectiveness” in the recent jurisprudence of the European court of human rights. Nord J Int Law 79:245–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Simma B, Pulkowski D (2006) Of planets and the universe. Eur J Int Law 17:483–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tzevelekos V (2009–2010) The use of article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT in the case law of the ECtHR: an effective anti-fragmentation tool or a selective loophole for the reinforcement of human rights teleology? Mich J Int Law 31:621–690Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bucerius Law SchoolHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations