1Frishman, Olga & Benvenisti, Eyal, National Courts and Interpretative Approaches to International Law, inThe Interpretation of International Law by Domestic Courts: Uniformity, Diversity, Convergence 317, 317 (Aust, Helmut Philipp & Nolte, Georg eds., 2016) [hereinafter Interpretation of International Law] (criticizing the “convergence thesis” on normative and pragmatic grounds).
2 George Nolte, Introduction, inInterpretation of International Law,supra note 1, at 1 (noting that “much has been written about the status and the role of international law in particular domestic legal systems and about the practice of courts from different jurisdictions regarding the interpretation of particular treaties” as well as on “the relationship between international (treaty) law and national law in general”).
3See, e.g., Bello, Emmanuel G., How Advantageous Is the Use of Comparative Law in Public International Law, 66Revue de Droit International, De Sciences Diplomatiques Et Politiques77 (1988); Stein, Eric, International Law in Internal Law: Toward Internationalization of Central-Eastern European Constitutions?, 88AJIL427 (1994); Stein, Eric, Frowein, Jochen A., Danilenko, Gennady M. & Iwasawa, Yuji, International Law in Domestic Legal Orders: A Comparative Perspective, 91ASIL Proc.289 (1997). For an overview, see Roberts, Anthea, Stephan, Paul B., Verdier, Pierre-Hugues & Versteeg, Mila, Comparative International Law: Framing the Field, 109AJIL 467, 468, n.7 (2015).
4 The 2015 Comparative International Law special issue of AJIL may serve as both evidence of and catalyst for this trend. The issue editors provisionally defined comparative international law as “identifying, analyzing, and explaining similarities and differences in how actors in different legal systems understand, interpret, apply, and approach international law.” See Roberts, Stephan, Verdier & Versteeg, supra note 3, at 469. They further claim that this undertaking has gained momentum because of “the growing globalization of legal practice, the increased penetration of international law into the domestic realm, the rising transnational flow of law students, the greater accessibility of diverse national sources through electronic databases, and the movement towards an era of multipolar power.” Id. at 468–69.
5 Legislatures consent to treaty ratification (or not), attach reservations to treaties, and pass implementing legislation. SeeCope, Kevin L. & Movassagh, Hooman, Comparative International Law in National Legislatures, inComparative International Law (Roberts, Anthea, Stephan, Paul B., Verdier, Pierre-Hugues & Versteeg, Mila eds., 2017). Executives and parliaments routinely interpret international agreements in the course of foreign relations, and judges frequently defer to these interpretations. See Julian Arato, Deference to the Executive: The US Debate in Global Perspective, inInterpretation of International Law, supra note 1, at 199.
6 André Nollkaemper, Grounds for the Application of International Rules of Interpretation in National Courts, inInterpretation of International Law,supra note 1, at 34, 35.
7See, e.g., Roberts, Anthea, Comparative International Law: The Role of National Courts in Creating and Enforcing International Law, 60Int'l & Comp. L. Q.57 (2011). But see Theresa Reinold, Diffusion Theories and the Interpretative Approaches of Domestic Courts, inInterpretation of International Law,supra note 1, at 267, 287 (theorizing that judicial decision-making around the world is unlikely to be characterized by convergence alone and that it “would be naïve to assume that domestic judges’ interpretations of international law are not colored by local, national, or regional norms”). Studies suggest that national courts increasingly communicate with one another across borders, heightening the importance of their decisions. See, e.g., Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A Global Community of Courts, 44Harv. Int'l L.J.191 (2003); Antonios Tzanakopoulos, Judicial Dialogue as a Means of Interpretation, inInterpretation of International Law 198; Benvenisti, Eyal, Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses of Foreign and International Law by National Courts, 102AJIL 241, 251 (2008).
9 Michael Waibel, Principles of Treaty Interpretation: Developed for and Applied by National Courts?, inInterpretation of International Law,supra note 1, at 9, 22 (exploring whether domestic courts are legally bound to use the VCLT principles and concluding that the VCLT imposes an obligation “of result only” but “does not require state organs such as national courts to use a particular interpretive methodology”); Nollkaemper, supra note 6, at 37–48 (suggesting that courts are not necessarily required to use the VCLT rules, but suggesting reasons it might be justified for them to do so).
10SeeInterpretation of International Law,supra note 1, at pt. II.
11See id., pt. III.
12 Dire Tladi, Interpretation of Treaties in an International Law-Friendly Framework: The Case of South Africa, inInterpretation of International Law,supra note 1, at 136, 151 (noting that it is “the major conclusion of the chapter” that “South African courts have generally not referred to the Vienna rules, and where the courts have referred to the Vienna rules, it has been superficial”); id. at 140 (noting that use of the VCLT rules “facilitates consistent interpretation of treaty rules and the search for the objective meaning of the treaty, which is arguably an expectation of states when they conclude the treaty”); Arato, supra note 5, at 201 (clarifying that his contribution starts “from the presumption that a treaty has one correct interpretation, and that the Vienna Rules provide the authoritative guide for accessing its true meaning”).
13 Frishman & Benvenisti, supra note 1, at 322–28 (criticizing the “convergence thesis” on normative and pragmatic grounds); Helmut Philipp Aust, Between Universal Aspiration and Local Application: Concluding Observations, inInterpretation of International Law, supra note 1, at 333.
14Cf.Leiter, Brian, Positivism, Formalism, Realism, 99Colum. L. Rev. 1138, 1145 (1999) (reviewing Anthony Sebok, Legal Positivism in American Jurisprudence (1998), which describes the elements of legal formalism).
15John Henry Merryman & Rogelio Pérez-Perdomo, The Civil Law Tradition: An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Europe and Latin America 47 (3d ed. 2007). But seeLasser, Mitchel De S.-O.-l'E., Comparative Law and Comparative Literature: A Project in Progress, 1997Utah L. Rev. 471, 474 (1997) (arguing that Merryman's “caricature of the French legal system needs some correction”).
16Merryman & Pérez-Perdomo, supra note 15, at 43.
17 Brian Leiter, American Legal Realism, inThe Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory 50 (Edmundson, W. & Golding, M. eds., 2005).
18 Alejandro Rodiles, Re-contextualizing the Pro Persona Principle: Concluding Remarks, inInterpretation of International Law, supra note 1, at 173 (claiming that some Latin American courts’ “domestic vocabulary “usually corresponds to the rules codified in the VCLT” and that “pro persona is, as such, compatible with object and purpose”).
19See Christian Djeffal, Dynamic and Evolutive Interpretation of the ECHR by Domestic Courts? An Inquiry into the Judicial Architecture of Europe, inInterpretation of International Law, supra note 1.
20 The VCLT assigns a secondary role to the travaux preparatoires, allowing its use “in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31: (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.” See VCLT, supra note 8, Art. 32. But see generallyMortenson, Julian Davis, The Travaux of Travaux: Is the Vienna Convention Hostile to Drafting History?, 107AJIL780, 781 (2013) (arguing that the conventional wisdom that the VCLT gives drafting history a subsidiary role “cannot be reconciled with the agreement actually reached”).
21See, e.g., Kevin L. Cope & James D. Morrow, Alliance-Forming in International Convention Negotiations: The International Criminal Court (working paper on file with authors, 2017); Kevin L. Cope, Charles Crabtree & James D. Morrow, working paper (2017, on file with authors).
22See alsoAnthony Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice 205 (2013).
23 Frishman & Benvenisti, supra note 1, at 326 (observing that “‘constructive ambiguity’ is key to reaching agreement”); see generallyBarbara Koremenos, The Continent of International Law: Explaining Agreement Design (2016).
24SeeAust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, supra note 22, at 230 (noting that the adage “the interpretation of documents is to some extent an art, not an exact science” is “especially true for treaties, which are the product of negotiations leading to compromises to reconcile, often wide, differences”).
25 Nolte, supra note 2, at 3 (“Very often, however, domestic courts do not emphasize that a treaty [provision] must be given an autonomous meaning, and they do not refer to Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention when interpreting treaties. They rather ‘take colour’ from their ‘national legal culture’ when interpreting and applying a treaty … .”); Waibel, supra note 9, at 25 (observing that “the U.S. Supreme Court until today has never relied expressly on the VCLT in a treaty interpretation case”); id. at 23 (observing that the English courts regard the VCLT principles as an “appropriate framework for the interpretation of treaties” but that they “reserve themselves considerable wiggle room on whether or not to use the VCLT principles of interpretation in specific cases, not unlike their US counterparts”); Tladi, supra note 12, at 136, 151 (noting that it is “the major conclusion of the chapter” that “South African courts have generally not referred to the Vienna rules, and where the courts have referred to the Vienna rules, it has been superficial”); Rodiles, supra note 18, at 173 (noting that the Colombian Constitutional Court and the Mexican Supreme Court do not refer to the VLCT, but that their “domestic vocabulary” “usually corresponds to the rules codified in the VCLT—pro persona is, as such, compatible with object and purpose”); Eirik Bjorge, ‘Contractual’ and ‘Statutory’ Treaty Interpretation in Domestic Courts? Convergence Around the Vienna Rules, inInterpretation of International Law,supra note 1, at 49, 58 (the French “Cour de Cassation only rarely cites and relies explicitly upon the Vienna rules”); Yukiko Takashiba, Gingerly Walking the VCLT Frontier? Reflections from a Survey on the Interpretative Approach of the Japanese Courts to Treaties, inInterpretation of International Law,supra note 1, at 218, 219 (finding that “a great majority of decisions draw conclusions without reference to the VCLT canon” and that “[l]imited references to the VCLT rules are made at the level of district or high courts but they are in response to the plaintiffs’ reliance thereon, often with little elaboration beyond reciting the rules”); Vik Kanwar, Treaty Interpretation in Indian Courts: Adherence, Coherence, and Convergence, inInterpretation of International Law,supra note 1, at 239, 246 (finding that Indian courts do not usually explicitly rely on the VCLT rules, with the exception of tax cases involving “Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements”).
26See, e.g., McGowan, Miranda, Do as I Do, Not as I Say: An Empirical Investigation of Justice Scalia's Ordinary Meaning Method of Statutory Interpretation, 78Miss. L.J.129 (2008) (analyzing the relationship between Justice Scalia's statutory interpretive methods and his authored case results).
27SeeWinkler, Adam, Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts, 59Vand. L. Rev.793 (2006).
28 Frishman & Benvenisti, supra note 1, at 322–28.
29 For a primer, see Linos, Katerina, How to Select and Develop International Law Case Studies: Lessons from Comparative Law and Politics, 109AJIL475 (2015); see alsoRan Hirschl, Comparative Matters: The Renaissance of Comparative Constitutional Law 224–81 (2014); Hirschl, Ran, The Question of Case Selection in Comparative Constitutional Law, 53Am. J. Comp. L.125 (2005).
30 VCLT, supra note 8.
31See generallyKoremenos, supra note 23.
Recommend this journal
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.