Limits of Change by Way of Subsequent Agreements and Practice
Files
Description
Much as I would like to express disagreement with Gerhard Hafner and generate some illuminating discordance into this discussion, I substantially agree with his chapter and his presentation of it. I largely agree with the premise that the traditional rules for treaty interpretation contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are malleable tools that can be made to apply to every treaty—from institutional charter to bilateral ‘contractual’ arrangement. The application of arts 31 and 32 VCLT can usually lead treaty interpreters to the conclusions that they want. These rules permit, for example, interpretative distinctions leading to the more flexible or teleological interpretations that we see in connection with human rights treaties. For these reasons, among others, I agree with Professor Nolte and the underlying reports reproduced for this conference that a close study of the way subsequent practice is used in treaty interpretation is warranted. The ILC is ideally situated to undertake such a project, thereby laying out where we have been and where we are likely to go. However, I suspect that a study—not an ILC-generated set of new rules on treaty interpretation—is what is needed.
Source Publication
Treaties and Subsequent Practice
Source Editors/Authors
Georg Nolte
Publication Date
2013
Recommended Citation
Alvarez, José E., "Limits of Change by Way of Subsequent Agreements and Practice" (2013). Faculty Chapters. 65.
https://gretchen.law.nyu.edu/fac-chapt/65
