Abstract
This study opened with a misleading comparison in that it drew up the image of treaties as messages in a bottle. Domestic courts, like other interpreters, are called on to decipher these messages without positively knowing what their senders wished to communicate. By determining the meaning of the terms of a treaty, they wield an enormous power that cannot be underestimated. In theory, they ought to correctly determine a treaty’s meaning by ascertaining the objectivised intention of the parties. But in practice, the Vienna rules undeniably grant interpreters much autonomy and independence in exercising this task.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In addition, art 32 VCLT implicitly authorises interpreters to have recourse to ‘other’ subsequent conduct in the application of the treaty which does not establish the parties’ agreement. Reliance on such ‘other’ subsequent conduct—whose interpretative relevance cannot be derived from the agreement of all parties—is subject to additional conditions.
- 2.
See 8.2.3.
- 3.
- 4.
See 3.3.3.
- 5.
Sir Humphrey Waldock, ‘Sixth Report on the Law of Treaties’ [1966-II] YBILC 51, 95 [4].
- 6.
See 4.4.
- 7.
See 5.1.1.
- 8.
See 5.1.2.
- 9.
See 6.3.
- 10.
See 5.2.1. Without meaning to speculate, one may, however, wonder whether State parties themselves generally tend to interpret and apply their treaties more restrictively than extensively.
- 11.
See 5.2.2.
- 12.
See 4.3.1.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
ILC, ‘Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries’ [1966-II] YBILC 187, 220 [11].
- 16.
- 17.
See 7.
- 18.
- 19.
See 6.3.
- 20.
cf André Nollkaemper, National Courts and the International Rule of Law (OUP 2011) 226.
- 21.
See 8.2.3.
- 22.
In this respect, it is important to recall that domestic judicial decisions may again be taken into account as potentially relevant conduct under arts 31(3)(b) and 32 VCLT.
- 23.
cf Anne-Marie Slaughter, ‘International Law in a World of Liberal States’ (1995) 6 EJIL 503, 524 f.
- 24.
cf Reem Bahdi, ‘Globalization of Judgment: Transjudicialism and the Five Faces of International Law in Domestic Courts’ (2002) 34 Geo Wash Int’l L Rev 555, 600.
Bibliography
Bahdi, Reem, ‘Globalization of Judgment: Transjudicialism and the Five Faces of International Law in Domestic Courts’ (2002) 34 Geo Wash Int’l L Rev 555–604
Nollkaemper, André, National Courts and the International Rule of Law (OUP 2011)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., to be exercised by Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Published by Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Berner, K. (2017). Conclusion and Outlook. In: Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Domestic Courts. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 268. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54937-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54937-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-54936-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-54937-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)