Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body$

Isabelle Van Damme

Print publication date: 2009

Print ISBN-13: 9780199562237

Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: September 2009

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562237.001.0001

Show Summary Details

(p.385) Appendix Articles 31, 32, and 33 VCLT

(p.385) Appendix Articles 31, 32, and 33 VCLT

Source:
Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

SECTION 3. INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES

Article 31—General rule of interpretation

  1. 1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

  2. 2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:

    1. (a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty;

    2. (b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.

  3. 3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:

    1. (a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;

    2. (b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;

    3. (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.

  4. 4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.

Article 32—Supplementary means of interpretation

Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, 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:

  1. (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or

  2. (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.

Article 33—Interpretation of treaties authenticated in two or more languages

  1. 1. When a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language, unless the treaty provides or the parties agree that, in case of divergence, a particular text shall prevail.

  2. 2. A version of the treaty in a language other than one of those in which the text was authenticated shall be considered an authentic text only if the treaty so provides or the parties so agree.

  3. (p.386)
  4. 3. The terms of the treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text.

  5. 4. Except where a particular text prevails in accordance with paragraph 1, when a comparison of the authentic texts discloses a difference of meaning which the application of articles 31 and 32 does not remove, the meaning which best reconciles the texts, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty, shall be adopted.