Several types of changes can take place between the conclusion of a treaty and when its provisions call for interpretation, e.g. changes in the political, social, historical or legal context; technological changes; linguistic changes; or changes in the law. Traditionally, interpreters refused to considerchanges that may have occurred since the treaty’s conclusion. Today, many argue that it is more legitimate for a treaty interpreter to take account of these changes and use an ‘evolutionary’ or ‘dynamic’ interpretation. The issue of changes is particularly relevant in the context of the WorldTrade Organization (WTO) Treaty, because it combines long-standing provisions with more recent ones, and because international trade has evolved greatly, notably with electronic trade (e-commerce) and new means of distribution that did not exist when the WTO was concluded. The different types of changes discussed in this article may be grouped into four non-mutually exclusivetypes of situations, which will be examined throughthe prism of the interpretation process set out in Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). While different types of evolutionary interpretations can be considered under standard rules of interpretation in public international law, the use of the term ‘evolutionary interpretation’ allows for a more global understanding of the phenomenon, and might have, at thevery least, a symbolic value.

中文翻译：

---

WTO 仲裁员的演进性解释

从缔结条约到其规定需要解释时，可能会发生多种变化，例如政治、社会、历史或法律背景的变化；技术变革；语言变化；或法律的变化。传统上，口译员拒绝考虑自条约缔结以来可能发生的变化。今天，许多人认为，条约解释者考虑这些变化并使用“进化”或“动态”解释更为合理。变化问题在世界贸易组织（世贸组织）条约的背景下尤其重要，因为它将长期存在的条款与最近的条款结合在一起，并且因为国际贸易已经发生了很大的变化，尤其是电子贸易（电子商务）和 WTO 缔结时还不存在的新分销方式。本文中讨论的不同类型的变化可分为四种非相互排斥的情况，将通过《维也纳条约法公约》（VCLT）第 31-33 条规定的解释过程的棱镜进行审查. 虽然可以在国际公法的标准解释规则下考虑不同类型的进化解释，但使用“进化解释”一词可以更全面地理解这一现象，并且至少可能具有象征价值。将通过《维也纳条约法公约》（VCLT）第 31-33 条规定的解释程序的棱镜来审查。虽然可以在国际公法的标准解释规则下考虑不同类型的进化解释，但使用“进化解释”一词可以更全面地理解这一现象，并且至少可能具有象征价值。将通过《维也纳条约法公约》（VCLT）第 31-33 条规定的解释程序的棱镜来审查。虽然可以在国际公法的标准解释规则下考虑不同类型的进化解释，但使用“进化解释”一词可以更全面地理解这一现象，并且至少可能具有象征价值。