Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:45:09.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Treaty Interpretation and the United States—Italy Air Transport Arbitration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Stanley D. Metzger
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , October 1967 , pp. 1007 - 1011
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1967

References

1 61 A.J.I.L. 496 (1967). The text of the majority and minority opinions has been reproduced in 4 Int. Legal Materials 974 (1965), and digested in 60 A.J.I.L. 413 (1966).

2 61 A.J.I.L. at 511 (1967). Larsen was not so accurate in certain subsidiary observations. His characterization of the majority decision's treatment of “subsequent conduct” of the parties as “never having decisive value” is erroneous. The majority decision actually stated that “The conduct of the parties in their application of the 1948 Agreement is not, of course, in itself decisive for the interpretation of the disputed text,” and then proceeded to assign great persuasive weight to such practice. Again, Larsen states that the Tribunal held that ‘ ‘ only conduct subsequent to the 1948 Agreement is helpful in interpretation“; the Tribunal in fact took account of the pre- 1948 negotiations and events but limited itself to post-1948 conduct only in considering, quite literally, the conduct of the parties “subsequent” to the 1948 Agreement.

3 District of Columbia National Bank v. District of Columbia, 384 F. 2d 808, 810 (1965), 121 App. D.C. 196, 198.