Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T15:46:51.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

27 - May preparatory work be used to correct rather than confirm the “clear” meaning of a treaty provision?

from PART III - Miscellaneous

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2011

Get access

Summary

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which entered into force in 1980, has been adopted at this writing by some eighty States, i.e. under half of the membership of the United Nations; and the States not party include a variety of States large and small, including such major States as the United States of America, China, Brazil, India and Pakistan. It nevertheless has been treated more than once by the International Court of Justice as expressive of customary international law binding upon States parties and non-parties alike. Thus in the case concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahariya/Chad), the Court held:

in accordance with customary international law, reflected in Article 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty must be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. Interpretation must be based above all upon the text of the treaty. As a supplementary measure recourse may be had to means of interpretation such as the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion.

In the case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain: Jurisdiction and Admissibility, the Court applied (or, it may be argued, misapplied) the Vienna Convention's provisions on the interpretation of treaties to determine the rights of the parties to the dispute though neither Bahrain nor Qatar was party to the Convention.

Type
Chapter
Information
Justice in International Law
Further Selected Writings
, pp. 289 - 296
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

McDougal, M. S., Lasswell, H. D. and Miller, V. C., The Interpretation of International Agreements and World Public Order (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994)Google Scholar
McNair, A., The Law of Treaties (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×