In response to an anxiety about the multiplication of special regimes, international lawyers looked towards Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties to help sustain the unity of international law. Suppose though that the provision is as susceptible to fragmentation as any other rule; its interpretation and application may fall victim to the narrow interests of the regimes it is meant to harmonise with the rest of international law. This article thus analyses various judicial decisions to measure the extent to which fora have conflicted in ascertaining the normative content of Article 31(3)(c). Using strict and relaxed definitions of jurisprudential conflict, the article concludes that, in both cases, the interpretations and applications of the provision remain coherent, but with some key qualifications.

中文翻译：

---

分而治之？维也纳条约法公约第31（3）（c）条的解释和适用

由于对特殊制度的多重性的担忧，国际律师们期待着《维也纳条约法公约》第31条第3款第c项，以帮助维持国际法的统一。假设该条款与其他任何规则一样容易受到支离破碎的影响；它的解释和适用可能成为旨在与其他国际法保持一致的制度狭narrow利益的牺牲品。因此，本文分析了各种司法裁决，以衡量论坛在确定第31条第3款（c）项的规范性内容时出现的冲突程度。本文使用对法学冲突的严格和宽松的定义，得出的结论是，在这两种情况下，该规定的解释和适用都保持一致，但具有一些关键的限定条件。