Advertisement

The Rules of Interpretation as Secondary Rules: The Perspective of Domestic Courts

  • Helmut Philipp Aust
Chapter

Abstract

Aust’s chapter deals with the role of domestic courts in treaty interpretation. It analyses how domestic courts make use of the rules of interpretation set forth in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. These rules belong to the category of secondary rules of the international legal order. A diverging approach among domestic courts might undermine the consistency and coherence of international law. The chapter provides an overview of what the Convention sets out as ideal interpretative programme, how this question is related to notions of the international rule of law and how the process of interpretation is dealt with in domestic court decisions. It argues that adherence to the rules set forth in the Vienna Convention can strengthen the international rule of law.

Keywords

International Rule Vienna Convention Domestic Court European Arrest Warrant Judicial Practice 
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.

Bibliography

  1. Abi-Saab, G. (2010). The appellate body and treaty interpretation. In M. Fitzmaurice, O. Elias, & P. Merkouris (Eds.), Treaty interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 years on. Leiden: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  2. Ago, R. (1963). Working Paper In United Nations Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II.Google Scholar
  3. Aust, H. P. (2016). Between universal aspiration and local application: Concluding observations. In H. P. Aust & G. Nolte (Eds.), The interpretation of international law by domestic courts. Uniformity, diversity, convergance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aust, H. P., & Nolte, G. (2012). International law and the rule of law at the national level. In M. Zürn, A. Nollkaemper, & R. Peerenboom (Eds.), Rule of law dynamics in an era of international and transnational governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Aust, H. P., Rodiles, A., & Staubach, P. (2014). Unity or uniformity? Domestic courts and treaty interpretation. Leiden Journal of International Law, 27(1), 75–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaulac, S., & Currie, J. H. (2011). Canada. In D. Shelton (Ed.), International law and domestic legal systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bělohlávek, A. J. (2011). The Czech Republic. In D. Shelton (Ed.), International law and domestic legal systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Benvenisti, E. (2008). Reclaiming democracy: The strategic uses of foreign and international law by domestic courts. The American Journal of International Law, 102(2), 241–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berman, P. S. (2012). Global legal pluralism. A jurisprudence of law beyond borders. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bjorge, E. (2016). “Contractual” and “Statutory” treaty interpretation in domestic courts? Convergence around the Vienna rules. In H. P. Aust & G. Nolte (Eds.), The interpretation of international law by domestic courts. Uniformity, diversity, convergance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, W. E. (2009). Russia. In D. Sloss (Ed.), The role of domestic courts in treaty enforcement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Conant, L. (2013). Whose agents? The interpretation of international law in national courts. In J. L. Dunoff & M. A. Pollack (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations – The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Crawford, J. (2002). Introduction. In J. Crawford (Ed.), The International Law Commission’s articles on state responsibility. Introduction, text, and commentaries. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Crawford, J. (2012). Brownlie’s principles of public international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Criddle, E. (2004). The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in U.S. treaty interpretation. Virginia Journal of International Law, 44(2), 431–450.Google Scholar
  16. D’Aspremont, J. (2011). Formalism and the sources of international law. A theory of the ascertainment of legal rules. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. D’Aspremont, J. (2012). The systemic integration of international law by domestic courts: Domestic judges as architects of the consistency of the international legal order. In O. K. Fauchald & A. Nollkaemper (Eds.), The practice of international and national courts and the (de-)fragmentation of international law. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  18. Djajič, S. (2011). Serbia. In D. Shelton (Ed.), International law and domestic legal systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dupuy, P.-M. (1999). Reviewing the difficulties of codification: On Ago’s classification of obligations of means and obligations of result in relation to state responsibility. European Journal of International Law, 10, 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Einhorn, T. (2011). Israel. In D. Shelton (Ed.), International law and domestic legal systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fassbender, B. (2009). The United Nations Charter as the constitution of the international community. Leiden: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franck, T. M. (1995). Fairness in international law and institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Frishman, O., & Benvenisti, E. (2016). National courts and interpretive approaches to international law. In H. P. Aust & G. Nolte (Eds.), The interpretation of international law by domestic courts: Uniformity diversity, convergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gardiner, R. (1995). Treaty interpretation in the English courts since Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines (1980). The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 44(3), 620–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gardiner, R. (2008). Treaty interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gardiner, R. (2011). Treaty interpretation (paperback ednth ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gardiner, R. (2012). The Vienna Convention Rules on Treaty Interpretation. In D. Hollis (Ed.), The Oxford guide to treaties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Garlicki, L., Masternak-Kubiak, M., & Wójtowicz, K. (2009). Poland. In D. Sloss (Ed.), The role of domestic courts in treaty enforcement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Halberstam, D. (2012). Local, global and plural constitutionalism: Europe meets the world. In G. de Búrca & J. H. H. Weiler (Eds.), The worlds of European constitutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Harris, C., & Kakkaiyadi, K. (2013). Treaty interpretation before the Supreme Court. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2(1), 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The concept of law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  32. Iovane, M. (2012). Domestic courts should embrace sound interpretative strategies in the development of human rights-oriented international law. In A. Cassese (Ed.), Realizing Utopia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kadelbach, S. (2013). Domestic constitutional concerns with respect to the use of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice at the international level. In G. Nolte (Ed.), Treaties and subsequent practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Karim, B., & Theunissen, T. (2011). Bangladesh. In D. Shelton (Ed.), International law and domestic legal systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kingsbury, B. (2009). International law as inter-public law. In H. S. Richardson & M. S. Williams (Eds.), Moral universalism and pluralism. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kinsch, P. (2011). Luxembourg. In D. Shelton (Ed.), International law and domestic legal systems. Incorporation, transformation, and persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Klabbers, J. (2003). International legal histories: The declining importance of travaux preparatoires in treaty interpretation? Netherlands International Law Review, 50(3), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Klabbers, J. (2013). International law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Knop, K. (2000). Here and there: International law in domestic courts. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 32, 501–535.Google Scholar
  40. Kolb, R. (2006). Interprétation et création du droit international. Esquisse d’une herméneutique juridique moderne pour le droit international public. Bruxelles: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  41. Kretzmer, D. (2009). Israel. In D. Sloss (Ed.), The role of domestic courts in treaty enforcement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Krisch, N. (2010). Beyond constitutionalism. The pluralist structure of postnational law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lauterpacht, H. (1949). Restrictive interpretation and the principle of effectiveness in the interpretation of treaties. In E. Lauterpacht (Ed.), International law being the collected papers of Hersch Lauterpacht (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  44. Linderfalk, U. (2009). State responsibility and the primary-secondary rules terminology – The role of language for an understanding of the international legal system. Nordic Journal of International Law, 78(1), 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nijman, J., & Nollkaemper, A. (Eds.). (2007). New perspectives on the divide between national and international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Nollkaemper, A. (2009). The Netherlands. In D. Sloss (Ed.), The role of domestic courts in treaty enforcement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Nollkaemper, A. (2011a). National courts and the international rule of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nollkaemper, A. (2011b). The power of secondary rules to connect the international and national legal orders. In T. Broude & Y. Shany (Eds.), Multi-sourced equivalent norms in international law. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  49. Nollkaemper, A. (2016). Grounds for the application of international rules of interpretation in national courts. In H. P. Aust & G. Nolte (Eds.), The interpretation of international law by domestic courts: Uniformity diversity, convergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Nolte, G. (2013). Treaties and subsequent practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Onoria, H. (2011). Uganda. In D. Shelton (Ed.), International law and domestic legal systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Orakhelashvili, A. (2006). Peremptory norms in international law. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Orakhelashvili, A. (2010). Conclusion. In A. Orakhelashvili & S. Williams (Eds.), Forty years of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. London: British Insitute of International and Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  54. Paulsson, J. (2005). Denial of justice in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Paulus, A. L. (2012). National courts and the international rule of law – Remarks on the book by André Nollkaemper. Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, 4, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reinold, T. (2016). Diffusion theories and the interpretive approaches of domestic courts. In H. P. Aust & G. Nolte (Eds.), The interpretation of international law by domestic courts. Uniformity, diversity, convergance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Rodiles, A. (2016). ‘The Law and Politics of the Pro Persona Principle in Latin America’ in H.P. Aust and G. Nolte (eds) The Interpretation of International Law by Domestic Courts, pp. 168–71.Google Scholar
  58. Sauer, H. (2013). Staatsrecht III. Auswärtige Gewalt, Bezüge des Grundgesetzes zu Völker- und Europarecht (2nd ed.). München: Beck.Google Scholar
  59. Scelle, G. (1956). Le phénomène juridique du dédoublement fonctionnel. In W. Schätzel & H.-J. Schlochauer (Eds.), Rechtsfragen der internationalen Organisation. Festschrift für Hans Wehberg. Frankfurt/Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
  60. Schreuer, C. (1971). The interpretation of treaties by domestic courts. British Year Book of International Law, 45, 255–301.Google Scholar
  61. Simma, B. (2004). Fragmentation in a positive light. Michigan Journal of International Law, 25, 845–863.Google Scholar
  62. Skordas, A. (2016). Treaty interpretation and global governance – The role of domestic courts. In H. P. Aust & G. Nolte (Eds.), The interpretation of international law by domestic courts: Uniformity diversity, convergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Slaughter, A. M. (2003). A global community of courts. Harvard International Law Journal, 44(1), 191–219.Google Scholar
  64. Sorel, J.-M., & Eveno, B. (2011). Article 31 (Convention of 1969). In O. Corten & P. Klein (Eds.), The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – A commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Study Group of the International Law Commission, & Koskenniemi, M. (2006). Fragmentation of international law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682.Google Scholar
  66. Tamanaha, B. Z. (2004). On the rule of law. History, politics, theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tzanakopoulos, A. (2011). Domestic courts in international law: The judicial function of national courts. Loyola Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 34, 133–168.Google Scholar
  68. Tzanakopoulos, A. (2016). Judicial dialogue as a means of interpretation. In H. P. Aust & G. Nolte (Eds.), The interpretation of international law by domestic courts. Uniformity, diversity, convergance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. United Nations (UN). (1966). Yearbook of the International Law Commission. Vol. II.Google Scholar
  70. van Alstine, M. P. (2009). The role of domestic courts in treaty enforcement – Summary and conclusion. In D. Sloss (Ed.), The role of domestic courts in treaty enforcement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. van Eeckhoutte, D. (2000). Analysis. Cigna Insurance Company of Europe SA-NV v Transport Nijs BVBA, Cassation appeal, No. C.97.0176.N., ILDC 38 (BE 2000).Google Scholar
  72. von Arnauld, A. (2012). Völkerrecht. Heidelberg: C.F. Müller.Google Scholar
  73. von Bogdandy, A. (2008). Pluralism, direct effect and the ultimate say: On the relationship between international and domestic constitutional law. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 6, 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. von Bogdandy, A., & Venzke, I. (2012). In whose name? An investigation of international courts’ public authority and its democratic justification. European Journal of International Law, 23(1), 7–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Waibel, M. (2011). Demistifying the art of interpretation. The European Journal of International Law, 22(2), 571–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Waibel, M. (2016). Principles of treaty interpretation – Developed for and applied by national courts? In H. P. Aust & G. Nolte (Eds.), The interpretation of international law by domestic courts: Uniformity diversity, convergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Wouters, J., & M. Vidal (2006). Domestic courts and treaty interpretation. K.U. Leuven Institute for International Law Working Paper, 103, 3–19 – December 2006.Google Scholar
  78. Wuerth, I. (2013). Treaty interpretation, subsequent agreements and practice, and domestic constitutions. In G. Nolte (Ed.), Treaties and subsequent practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Wyrozumska, A. (2011). Poland. In D. Shelton (Ed.), International law and domestic legal systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Yokaris, A. (2011). Greece. In D. Shelton (Ed.), International law and domestic legal systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Zimmermann, A., & Mahler, C. (2011). Article 1 A. In A. Zimmermann (Ed.), The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Law, Chair for Public Law, Public International Law and European LawHumboldt University BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations