当前位置: X-MOL 学术International Community Law Review › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The Legal Significance of Expert Treaty Bodies Pronouncements for the Purpose of the Interpretation of Treaties
International Community Law Review Pub Date : 2020-03-04 , DOI: 10.1163/18719732-12341420
Danae Azaria 1
Affiliation  

Although it is widely accepted that the pronouncements of expert treaty bodies are not binding, this does not mean that they are deprived of any effect in law. This study focuses on their legal effects vis-à-vis the interpretation of treaties, and explores how the International Court of Justice and the International Law Commission have dealt with the pronouncements of expert treaty bodies in relation to the interpretation of treaties. The tale about the Court’s and the Commission’s approaches in this respect demonstrates the profound belief of both the Court and the Commission that international law is a legal system, which calls for reliance on the pronouncements of expert treaty bodies as integral actors within the legal system with some ‘authority’ concerning the determination of the law (within their mandate). This does not mean that the Court and the Commission support a ‘blind reliance’ on such pronouncements; rather the quality of each pronouncement is a criterion for relying on it. The reasoning of the Court and (and implicitly of) the Commission also shows that they consider that international law as a legal system, which necessitates ‘legal consistency’. This in turn suggests that the reliance on pronouncements of expert treaty bodies, which are mandated to supervise the application (and interpretation) of particular treaties, may constitute an exercise of ‘systemic integration’ which exceeds the confines of the rule set forth in Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.



中文翻译:

专家条约机构宣布对解释条约的法律意义

尽管公认专家条约机构的声明不具有约束力,但这并不意味着它们没有法律效力。这项研究侧重于它们对条约解释的法律效力,并探讨了国际法院和国际法委员会如何处理有关条约解释的专家条约机构的声明。关于法院和委员会在这方面的做法的故事表明,法院和委员会都深信国际法是一种法律制度,它要求依赖专家条约机构作为法律体系中不可或缺的行为者的声明。一些有关法律确定的“权威”(在其职权范围内)。这并不意味着法院和委员会支持对此类声明的“盲目依赖”;相反,每个声明的质量是依赖它的标准。法院和(和暗含的)委员会的推理也表明,他们认为国际法是一种法律制度,需要“法律上的一致性”。这反过来表明,依赖于负责监督特定条约的应用(和解释)的专家条约机构的宣布,可能构成“系统整合”的做法,其超出了第31条规定的范围。 《维也纳条约法公约》(3)(c)。法院和(和暗含的)委员会的推理还表明,他们认为国际法是一种法律制度,这需要“法律上的一致性”。这反过来表明,依赖于负责监督特定条约的应用(和解释)的专家条约机构的宣布,可能构成“系统整合”的做法,其超出了第31条规定的范围。 《维也纳条约法公约》(3)(c)。法院和(和暗含的)委员会的推理也表明,他们认为国际法是一种法律制度,需要“法律上的一致性”。这反过来表明,依赖于负责监督特定条约的应用(和解释)的专家条约机构的宣布,可能构成“系统整合”的做法,其超出了第31条规定的范围。 《维也纳条约法公约》(3)(c)。

更新日期:2020-03-04
down
wechat
bug