Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties(VCLT)strengthen the legitimacy of the(quasi-)judicial functions and the law-creating role of international adjudicatory bodies such as the World Trade Organization(WTO).International legal disputes often manifest themselves as differences in treaty inter-pretation,giving rise to questions about whether treaty interpretation is an art or a science.Treaty interpretation is neither an art that cannot be constrained by rules nor a process in which interpreters arrive at definite results based on value neutrality.The hierarchical system of priorities among the rules of treaty interpretation under the VCLT should not be underestimated.Clarifying the structure and status of Articles 31 to 33,including the order of priority among different interpretive rules/elements,helps to accurately grasp the rules of customary interna-tional law on treaty interpretation and enhance the certainty and predictability of treaty interpretation.The out-come of treaty interpretation depends on the interpreter's choice of different interpretive methods in Articles 31 to 33.Treaty interpreters should respect elements such as the"general meaning"and"object and purpose"in Ar-ticle 31.Otherwise,treaty interpretation would be tantamount to an amendment of the treaty in accordance with Articles 39-41 of the VCLT.The personal background of treaty interpreters and their preferences for interpretive methods,as well as time factors,constrain the outcomes of interpretation.
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatiestreaty interpretationexplanation elements
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
