<b>Bijsluiter</b>. De hyperlink naar het originele document werkt niet meer. Daarom laat Woogle de tekst zien die in dat document stond. Deze tekst kan vreemde foutieve woorden of zinnen bevatten en de opmaak kan verdwenen of veranderd zijn. Dit komt door het zwartlakken van vertrouwelijke informatie of doordat de tekst niet digitaal beschikbaar was en dus ingescand en vervolgens via OCR weer ingelezen is. Voor het originele document, neem contact op met de Woo-contactpersoon van het bestuursorgaan.<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 1 ======================================================================

<pre> COMMISSIE VAN ADVIES INZAKE VOLKENRECHTELIJKE VRAAGSTUKKEN
          Advisory Committee on Issues of Public International Law
                           ADVIES INZAKE
De latere overeenstemming en latere praktijk
   met betrekking tot de interpretatie van
                          verdragen
                         CAVV ADVIES NR. 30
                              DEN HAAG
                           NOVEMBER 2017
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 1 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 2 ======================================================================

<pre></pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 2 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 3 ======================================================================

<pre>Gebruikte afkortingen
AVVN       Algemene Vergadering van de Verenigde Naties
CAVV       Commissie van advies inzake volkenrechtelijke vraagstukken
HRC        Human Rights Committee
ILC        International Law Commission
IVBPR      Internationaal Verdrag inzake burgerrechten en politieke rechten,
UN         United Nations
VN         Verenigde Naties
WHO        World Health Organization (Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie)
WVV        Weens Verdragenverdrag (Verdrag van Wenen inzake het verdragenrecht)
YBILC      Yearbook of the International Law Commission
                                          a
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 3 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 4 ======================================================================

<pre>b</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 4 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 5 ======================================================================

<pre>Inhoudsopgave
1. Inleiding                                                                         1
2. Algemene opmerkingen                                                              1
     2.1 De status van posities ingenomen door de International Law Commission       1
     2.2 Het raadplegen van competente organen van de Verenigde Naties
          conform artikel 25 van het statuut van de International Law Commission     2
     2.3 Goede trouw en (manifest) onjuiste toepassing van een verdrag               3
3. Opmerkingen per Ontwerpconclusie
     3.1 Ontwerpconclusie 2 ‘algemene regel en elementen van interpretatie’          5
     3.2 Ontwerpconclusie 4 ‘definitie van latere overeenstemming en latere
          praktijk’                                                                  6
     3.3 Ontwerpconclusie 5 ‘toerekening van praktijk’                               7
     3.4 Ontwerpconclusie 7 ‘mogelijke effecten van latere overeenstemming en
          latere praktijk voor de interpretatie’                                     8
     3.5 Ontwerpconclusie 10 [9] ‘overeenstemming van partijen betreffende de
          interpretatie van een verdrag’                                             9
     3.6 Ontwerpconclusie 11 [10] ‘besluiten genomen in het kader van een
          conferentie van partijen’                                                  10
     3.7 Ontwerpconclusie 12 [11] ‘oprichtingsverdragen van internationale
          organisaties’                                                              11
     3.8 Ontwerpconclusie 13 [12] ‘verklaringen van expert verdragsorganen’          12
BIJLAGEN
     I    Adviesaanvraag van 27 maart 2017 inzake de door de International Law
          Commission aangenomen ontwerpconclusies over latere overeenstemming of
          gebruik met betrekking tot de interpretatie van verdragen
     II Ontwerpconclusies van de International Law Commission over latere
          overeenstemming en latere praktijk met betrekking tot de interpretatie van
          verdragen, zoals aangenomen na eerste lezing (hoofdstuk VI van het ILC-rapport
          van 2016, doc.nr. A/71/10)
     III Leden van de Commissie van advies inzake volkenrechtelijke vraagstukken
                                                 c
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 5 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 6 ======================================================================

<pre>d</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 6 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 7 ======================================================================

<pre>1. Inleiding
In zijn brief van 27 maart 2017 heeft de Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken de Commissie
van advies inzake volkenrechtelijke vraagstukken (hierna CAVV) verzocht advies uit te
brengen inzake de door de International Law Commission (hierna ILC)1 van de Verenigde
Naties opgestelde Ontwerpconclusies inzake latere overeenstemming of gebruik met
betrekking tot de interpretatie van verdragen, zoals aangenomen na eerste lezing. Deze
Ontwerpconclusies gaan in op de betekenis van artikel 31, leden 3(a) en 3(b), van het
Weens Verdragenverdrag van 1969 (hierna WVV) en de voorwaarden waaronder deze
kunnen worden toegepast.2
De CAVV heeft de eer de Minister hierover als volgt te adviseren en hoopt dat de
bevindingen van waarde zijn voor de inbreng van Nederland in het vervolgdebat over de
Ontwerpconclusies.
2. Algemene opmerkingen
De CAVV is in het algemeen positief over de Ontwerpconclusies en spreekt dan ook
waardering uit voor het werk dat de ILC tot nu toe heeft verricht.
2.1 De status van posities ingenomen door de International Law Commission
Ten aanzien van het project van de International Law Commission met betrekking tot de
latere overeenstemming en latere praktijk3 in de interpretatie van verdragen, rijst in eerste
instantie de vraag welke relevantie of welk gewicht dient te worden toegekend aan de
geformuleerde conclusies. De ILC zelf is op deze vraag niet ingegaan.
Een veelvoud van factoren speelt een rol bij beantwoording van de vraag welke betekenis
aan het werk van de ILC mag worden toegekend:
- Als subsidiair orgaan van de Algemene Vergadering draagt de ILC bij aan de uitvoering
van de taak van de Algemene Vergadering, conform artikel 13(a) van het Handvest van de
1
  De International Law Commission (in het Nederlands wel aangeduid als Commissie voor Internationaal Recht)
is een commissie die in 1948 in het leven is geroepen door de Verenigde Naties. De Commissie is formeel een
subsidiair orgaan van de Algemene Vergadering van de Verenigde Naties (AVVN). De Commissie zetelt in
Genève en heeft momenteel 34 leden. De ILC assisteert de Algemene Vergadering bij het gevolg geven aan
artikel 13 van het Handvest van de VN, op basis waarvan de AVVN aanbevelingen doet over de ontwikkeling
van het internationaal recht en de codificatie daarvan.
2
  In Bijlage II bij dit advies zijn de Ontwerpconclusies van de ILC opgenomen, zoals aangenomen na eerste
lezing. Tenzij anders vermeld, hebben alle verwijzingen naar pagina’s en paragrafen in dit advies betrekking op
UN doc. A/71/10 waarin de Ontwerpconclusies en de toelichting zijn opgenomen op pp. 120 t/m 240.
3
  De CAVV kiest in dit advies voor de term ‘praktijk’, hoewel in de Nederlandse vertaling van het Weens
Verdragenverdrag wordt gesproken over ‘gebruik’ (art. 31, lid 3(b): “ieder later gebruik in de toepassing van het
verdrag waardoor overeenstemming van de partijen inzake de uitlegging van het verdrag is ontstaan”). De reden
hiervoor is dat de term ‘praktijk’ beter lijkt aan te sluiten bij de Engelse tekst van art. 31, lid 3(b), van het
verdrag (“any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties
regarding its interpretation”).
                                                            1
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 7 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 8 ======================================================================

<pre>Verenigde Naties, om de progressieve ontwikkeling en codificatie van het internationaal
recht te bevorderen.
- De samenstelling van de ILC, de positie van de leden van de ILC die als onafhankelijke
experts functioneren, de positie van de speciale rapporteur en de reactie van de leden van
de ILC op het werk van de rapporteur.
- Het stadium waarin het werk van de ILC zich bevindt. Het spreekt vanzelf dat aan de
slotconclusies van de ILC als geheel meer waarde moet worden toegekend dan aan
individuele rapporten van de speciale rapporteurs.
- De commentaren van staten op het werk van de ILC in de verschillende stadia van het
werk en de wijze waarop door de ILC met die commentaren rekening is gehouden.
- De mate waarin naar het oordeel van de ILC sprake is van codificatie dan wel van
progressieve ontwikkeling van het internationaal recht. De taak van de ILC is immers niet
louter een codificering van het bestaande internationaal recht; een tekst kan ook elementen
de lege ferenda bevatten.
Gezien het voorgaande lijkt de conclusie gerechtvaardigd dat - rekening houdende met het
stadium van de studie en de geïncorporeerde reacties van staten – aan het werk van de ILC
betekenis kan worden toegekend als een bijzondere vorm van “subsidiary means for the
determination of rules of law” in de zin van artikel 38(1)(d) van het Statuut van het
Internationaal Gerechtshof. Het voorgaande brengt mee dat aan het werk van de ILC in het
algemeen meer gewicht moet worden toegekend dan aan het werk van het Institut de Droit
International, de International Law Association of aan het werk van individuele schrijvers.
2.2 Het raadplegen van competente organen van de Verenigde Naties conform artikel 25
van het statuut van de International Law Commission
Een van de functies van de Secretaris-Generaal van de Verenigde Naties is die van
depositaris voor multilaterale verdragen4 Deze functie wordt uitgeoefend door het Office of
Legal Affairs, Treaty Section, van het Secretariaat. De Summary of Practice of the
Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties5 toont aan dat de depositaris
beschikt over een ruime ervaring op het gebied van interpretatie, zeker wat betreft de
toepassing van de slotbepalingen van verdragen. Daarnaast wordt het Office of Legal
Affairs veelvuldig door lidstaten van de Verenigde Naties geraadpleegd over de
interpretatie van verdragen meer in het algemeen. In het rapport van de ILC wordt op geen
enkele wijze gerefereerd aan de voorkomende opinies in het United Nations Juridical
Yearbook (bijv. 1967 en 2004), terwijl secretariaten van multilaterale verdragen toch met
regelmaat advies zoeken over interpretatie van verdragen bij het hoofd van het Office of
Legal Affairs, de UN Legal Counsel.6 Deze opinies worden feitelijk als gezaghebbend
beschouwd. De CAVV meent derhalve dat het raadzaam zou kunnen zijn indien de ILC,
4
  Art. 98 van het Handvest van de Verenigde Naties; resolutie 24(1) van 12 februari 1946 van de Algemene
Vergadering.
5
  Zie <https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/publications/practice/summary_english.pdf>.
6
  Zie ook voetnoot 872 op pagina 208 van het rapport van de ILC.
                                                          2
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 8 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 9 ======================================================================

<pre>conform artikel 25 van haar statuut, het Office of Legal Affairs en in het bijzonder de
Treaty Section van het Secretariaat, zou raadplegen als competent orgaan op dit
onderwerp.
2.3 Goede trouw en (manifest) onjuiste toepassing van een verdrag
In het rapport spreekt de ILC enige malen uit dat een “manifest misapplication of a treaty,
as opposed to a bona fide application (even if erroneous), is therefore not an “application
of the treaty” in the sense of articles 31 and 32” (rapport pp. 142-143 § 19; zie ook p. 151
§ 8). De CAVV acht deze positie enigszins problematisch. Natuurlijk is het zo dat het
beginsel van de goede trouw de toepassing en interpretatie van verdragen conditioneert
(artt. 26 en 31(1) WVV). Tegelijkertijd vooronderstelt elke toepassing van een verdrag een
bepaalde interpretatie van de bewoordingen van dat verdrag en de juridische implicaties
daarvan (het bestaan en de reikwijdte van verplichtingen en rechten). De formulering die
de ILC gebruikt, “a manifest misapplication”, suggereert dat de onjuistheid van een
bepaalde toepassing van een verdrag (relatief) eenvoudig zou kunnen worden vastgesteld,
maar in veel gevallen vereist dit nu net een uitgebreide en gedegen uitleg van het verdrag
overeenkomstig de algemene regel van artikel 31 van het WVV. Artikel 31, lid 3(b), van
het WVV is erop gericht te onderzoeken of de praktijk een interpretatie weergeeft die door
alle verdragspartijen7 wordt ondersteund. Zelfs indien een bepaalde praktijk van een partij
wordt genegeerd als “manifest misapplication” van het verdrag, dan kan
hoogstwaarschijnlijk nog steeds niet worden geconcludeerd tot het bestaan van
overeenstemming van alle partijen met betrekking tot de interpretatie van het verdrag. De
CAVV merkt op dat een gebrek aan goede trouw eerder op grond van artikel 31, lid 1, van
het WVV dient te worden beoordeeld, en beveelt aan bovenstaande overwegingen sterker
tot uitdrukking te brengen in de toelichting.
7
  De tekst zoals aangenomen door de ILC in 1964 sprak over een praktijk die leidde tot “the understanding of all
the parties”, hetgeen in 1966 werd gewijzigd in “the understanding of the parties”. Deze wijziging, zo verklaarde
de ILC, was niet bedoeld om de regel te veranderen maar slechts om te verhelderen dat niet elke partij
individueel behoefde bij te dragen aan de relevante praktijk. Zie Yearbook of the International Law Commission
1966, Volume II, 221-222 § 15 (toelichting van art. 27, hernummerd naar art. 31).
                                                        3
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 9 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 10 ======================================================================

<pre>4</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 10 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 11 ======================================================================

<pre>3. Opmerkingen per Ontwerpconclusie
3.1 Ontwerpconclusie 2 inzake de algemene regel en elementen van interpretatie
   Conclusion 2
   General rule and means of treaty interpretation
   1.    Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set forth,
   respectively, the general rule of interpretation and the rule on supplementary means of
   interpretation. These rules also apply as customary international law.
   2.    A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary
   meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its object and
   purpose.
   3.    Article 31, paragraph 3, provides, inter alia, that there shall be taken into
   account, together with the context, (a) any subsequent agreement between the parties
   regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions; and (b) any
   subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of
   the parties regarding its interpretation.
   4.    Recourse may be had to other subsequent practice in the application of the treaty
   as a supplementary means of interpretation under article 32.
   5.    The interpretation of a treaty consists of a single combined operation, which
   places appropriate emphasis on the various means of interpretation indicated,
   respectively, in articles 31 and 32.
In Ontwerpconclusie 2, lid 5, stelt de ILC dat “[t]he interpretation of a treaty consists of a
single combined operation, which places appropriate emphasis on the various means of
interpretation indicated, respectively, in articles 31 and 32”. In de toelichting (pp. 125-126
§ 3) wordt daaraan toegevoegd dat de artt. 31 en 32 van het WVV samen dienen te worden
gelezen, aangezien sprake is van een “integrated framework” voor verdragsinterpretatie.
De CAVV hecht eraan op te merken dat verdragsinterpretatie als “single combined
operation” zich in beginsel beperkt tot artikel 31 van het WVV, zoals ook door de ILC zelf
aangegeven in de toelichting (YBILC, Volume II, pp. 219-220 § 8, 1966). Deze positie
wordt ook ingegeven door de keuze om het gebruik van artikel 32 van het WVV in
beginsel optioneel en daarmee subsidiair te maken, aangezien de daar genoemde elementen
enkel het doel hebben een gevonden interpretatie te bevestigen of een interpretatie ingeval
van ambiguïteit of absurditeit/onredelijkheid te bepalen.
Daarnaast meldt de ILC in Ontwerpconclusie 3, lid 5, dat “appropriate emphasis on the
various means of interpretation” moet worden geplaatst en wijst de ILC in de toelichting
(p. 128 § 7; pp. 130-131 § 12-15; pp. 133-134 § 4; pp. 165-166 § 2; p. 193 voetnoot 788)
met enige regelmaat op het ontbreken van “primacy” of hiërarchie van de elementen
genoemd in artikel 31, lid 1, van het WVV. De CAVV kan zich verenigen met het idee dat
                                                  5
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 11 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 12 ======================================================================

<pre>er geen specifieke voorrang of hiërarchie geldt met betrekking tot de verschillende
elementen van interpretatie. Toch hecht de CAVV eraan op te merken dat, gelet op de in
artikel 31 gebruikte formuleringen, een bepaald gewicht kan worden toegekend aan de
verschillende elementen. Zo spreekt artikel 31, lid 1, van interpretatie in overeenstemming
met de gewone betekenis in context, terwijl deze slechts dient plaats te vinden in het licht
van doel en strekking van het verdrag. Verder geeft artikel 31, lid 3, aan dat de daarin
genoemde elementen in overweging dienen te worden genomen samen met de context,
zonder dat zij klaarblijkelijk zelf tot de context behoren. Artikel 31 brengt daarmee toch
wel degelijk een bepaalde ordening aan in de elementen van interpretatie, waarbij de
elementen genoemd in de leden 1 en 2 in beginsel zwaarder meewegen in het gehele
proces van interpretatie dan die genoemd in lid 3.
De CAVV meent dat bovenstaande aspecten sterker tot uitdrukking zouden kunnen worden
gebracht in de toelichting.
3.2 Ontwerpconclusie 4 inzake de definitie van latere overeenstemming en latere praktijk
   Conclusion 4
   Definition of subsequent agreement and subsequent practice
   1.     A “subsequent agreement” as an authentic means of interpretation under
   article 31, paragraph 3 (a), is an agreement between the parties, reached after the
   conclusion of a treaty, regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its
   provisions.
   2.     A “subsequent practice” as an authentic means of interpretation under article 31,
   paragraph 3 (b), consists of conduct in the application of a treaty, after its conclusion,
   which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty.
   3.     Other “subsequent practice” as a supplementary means of interpretation under
   article 32 consists of conduct by one or more parties in the application of the treaty,
   after its conclusion.
In Ontwerpconclusie 4 spreekt de ILC over latere praktijk in de toepassing van een verdrag
“after its conclusion”. De ILC licht dit toe (pp. 137-138 § 2-3) en stelt dat het tijdstip van
de sluiting van een verdrag (of vaststelling van de definitieve tekst) voor de
inwerkingtreding ligt. De motivering die de ILC geeft voor deze stellingname is dat er
geen reden valt te bedenken waarom de praktijk tussen sluiting en inwerkingtreding niet
relevant zou zijn.
De CAVV is van mening dat de ILC met deze positie de tekst van artikel 31, lid 3(b), van
het WVV mogelijk te ruim interpreteert. De tekst spreekt van “subsequent practice in the
application of the treaty”, hetgeen met zich lijkt te brengen dat het verdrag in werking is
getreden. Deze interpretatie wordt zeker ondersteund door het resterende deel van
artikel 31, lid 3(b), dat spreekt over “the agreement of the parties”. Overeenkomstig
artikel 2, lid 1(g), van het WVV wordt met partij bedoeld “a State which has consented to
                                                  6
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 12 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 13 ======================================================================

<pre>be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force”.
De CAVV heeft begrip voor de positie dat de praktijk van staten voor de inwerkingtreding
van een verdrag dient te worden meegewogen, maar het lijkt wenselijk te specificeren om
welke situaties dat precies gaat en wat in die gevallen de waarde van de praktijk is. Er kan
in dat verband onder andere onderscheid worden gemaakt tussen de praktijk van staten die
nog geen partij zijn, maar al wel het verdrag hebben ondertekend (zie ook de verplichting
in artikel 18 WVV) en de eerdere praktijk van staten voordat zij het verdrag
ondertekenden. Het komt de CAVV voor dat relevante praktijk op zijn minst afkomstig
moet zijn van staten die het betreffende verdrag hebben getekend of daartoe zijn
toegetreden voorafgaand aan de inwerkingtreding. Verder lijkt het ook geboden aan te
geven dat praktijk zeker relevant is voor de toepassing van artikel 31, lid 3(b), indien het
betreffende verdrag voorziet in voorlopige toepassing. De CAVV vraagt zich echter af of
de partijen bij een verdrag zouden zijn gehouden de praktijk van staten mee te wegen in het
proces van interpretatie van dat verdrag indien deze staten het verdrag hebben getekend
maar niet tot ratificatie overgaan. Een en ander zou tot uitdrukking kunnen worden
gebracht in de toelichting bij deze Ontwerpconclusie.
3.3 Ontwerpconclusie 5 inzake toerekening van praktijk
   Conclusion 5
   Attribution of subsequent practice
   1.      Subsequent practice under articles 31 and 32 may consist of any conduct in the
   application of a treaty which is attributable to a party to the treaty under international
   law.
   2.      Other conduct, including by non-State actors, does not constitute subsequent
   practice under articles 31 and 32. Such conduct may, however, be relevant when
   assessing the subsequent practice of parties to a treaty.
Bij wege van Ontwerpconclusie 5, lid 1, stelt de ILC dat praktijk in de toepassing van een
verdrag alleen relevant is indien deze toerekenbaar is aan een verdragspartij. Meer
specifiek geeft de ILC in lid 2 aan dat ander gedrag, inclusief dat van niet-statelijke
actoren, geen latere praktijk vormt onder de artt. 31-32 van het WVV, maar relevant kan
zijn om de praktijk van verdragspartijen te beoordelen.
Hier kan men zich afvragen of dit niet te beperkt is, met name wat betreft de praktijk van
bijvoorbeeld verdragsorganen. Hoewel deze elders uitvoerig aan de orde komen, zouden in
deze Ontwerpconclusie op zijn minst een of meer kruisverwijzingen op hun plaats zijn.8
8
  In dit verband merkt de CAVV op dat het niet gaat om wat verdragsorganen bijdragen aan de interpretatie
per se, maar dat zij het verdrag toepassen en dus relevant zijn als praktijk ‘in the application of the treaty’.
Bijvoorbeeld, indien het HRC een ‘general comment’ formuleert, betreft dat een handeling die het IVBPR
toepast en daarmee dus relevant is voor de praktijk inzake de bepaling die ‘general comments’ door het HRC
                                                         7
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 13 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 14 ======================================================================

<pre>3.4 Ontwerpconclusie 7 inzake mogelijke effecten van latere overeenstemming en latere
praktijk voor de interpretatie
   Conclusion 7
   Possible effects of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in interpretation
   1.     Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3,
   contribute, in their interaction with other means of interpretation, to the clarification
   of the meaning of a treaty. This may result in narrowing, widening, or otherwise
   determining the range of possible interpretations, including any scope for the exercise
   of discretion which the treaty accords to the parties.
   2.     Subsequent practice under article 32 can also contribute to the clarification of
   the meaning of a treaty.
   3.     It is presumed that the parties to a treaty, by an agreement subsequently arrived
   at or a practice in the application of the treaty, intend to interpret the treaty, not to
   amend or to modify it. The possibility of amending or modifying a treaty by
   subsequent practice of the parties has not been generally recognized. The present draft
   conclusion is without prejudice to the rules on the amendment or modification of
   treaties under the 1969 Vienna Convention and under customary international law.
In Ontwerpconclusie 7 spreekt de ILC zich uit over de mogelijke effecten van latere
overeenstemming en latere praktijk voor de interpretatie van een verdrag. Daarbij stelt zij
dat “[t]his may result in narrowing, widening, or otherwise determining the range of
possible interpretations, including any scope for the exercise of discretion which the treaty
accords to the parties”. De toelichting (pp. 165-166 § 2) laat een wat beperktere benadering
zien, aangezien daar wordt gesproken over verduidelijking van de betekenis van het
verdrag door mogelijke interpretaties van bepalingen of het verdrag in zijn geheel in te
perken, of een ruimere interpretatie te bevestigen, of om te begrijpen wat het bereik aan
mogelijke interpretaties is.
De CAVV is bezorgd over de gekozen formulering van Ontwerpconclusie 7, lid 1. Door te
spreken over de mogelijkheid om het bereik van mogelijke interpretaties uit te breiden,
lijkt de ILC niet slechts aan te geven dat de interpretaties ruimer of beperkter kunnen zijn;
integendeel, de formulering suggereert dat de partijen middels latere overeenstemming of
middels hun praktijk interpretaties kunnen steunen die niet berusten op mogelijke
interpretaties van de bewoordingen van het verdrag. Daarmee zouden derhalve niet slechts
interpretaties infra legem (en mogelijk praeter legem) toelaatbaar zijn, maar ook
interpretaties contra legem. In dat laatste geval zou eerder sprake zijn van wijziging of
amendering van het verdrag dan van een interpretatie.
voorziet. Uiteindelijk is die praktijk relevant voor de vraag of de verdragspartijen de interpretatie die daaruit
voortvloeit ondersteunen.
                                                           8
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 14 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 15 ======================================================================

<pre>Het lijkt de CAVV wenselijk het bovenstaande mee te nemen in de uiteindelijke
formulering van de betreffende Ontwerpconclusie.
De ILC gaat in de toelichting bij Ontwerpconclusie lid 3 (pp. 173-180 § 21-37) uitgebreid
in op aanpassing van een verdrag middels praktijk en komt tot de conclusie (p. 180 § 38)
“while there exists some support in international case law that, absent indications in the
treaty to the contrary, the agreed subsequent practice of the parties theoretically may lead
to modifications of a treaty, the actual occurrence of that effect is not to be presumed.
Instead, States and courts prefer to make every effort to conceive of an agreed subsequent
practice of the parties as an effort to interpret the treaty in a particular way”. De CAVV
kan zich verenigen met deze positie.
De motivering in de toelichting (p. 180 § 38) betreft evenwel alleen de “agreed subsequent
practice of the parties” (cursivering door CAVV) in de zin van artikel 31, lid 3(b), van het
WVV en ziet niet op latere overeenstemming zoals bedoeld in artikel 31, lid 3(a), van het
WVV. De formulering van Ontwerpconclusie 7, lid 3, gaat evenwel ook uit van een
presumptie “that the parties to a treaty, by an agreement subsequently arrived at or a
practice in the application of the treaty, intend to interpret the treaty, not to amend or to
modify it”. De daarop volgende zin die stelt dat de mogelijkheid van amendering of
wijziging van een verdrag “by subsequent practice of the parties has not been generally
recognized” ziet dus niet op de wijziging of amendering van een verdrag door “an
agreement subsequently arrived at” (cursiveringen door CAVV). Integendeel, artikel 39 et
seq. van het WVV bevestigen expliciet het recht van partijen om een verdrag te
amenderen.
Het lijkt de CAVV dan ook twijfelachtig of een presumptie dient te gelden dat een latere
overeenstemming tussen de partijen van een verdrag niet beoogt dat verdrag te amenderen
of te wijzigen, in het bijzonder wanneer deze latere overeenstemming in juridisch bindende
vorm wordt vastgelegd.
3.5 Ontwerpconclusie 10 [9] inzake overeenstemming van partijen betreffende de
interpretatie van een verdrag
   Conclusion 10 [9]
   Agreement of the parties regarding the interpretation of a treaty
   1.     An agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), requires a common
   understanding regarding the interpretation of a treaty which the parties are aware of and
   accept. Though it shall be taken into account, such an agreement need not be legally
   binding.
   2.     The number of parties that must actively engage in subsequent practice in order
   to establish an agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), may vary. Silence on the
   part of one or more parties can constitute acceptance of the subsequent practice when
   the circumstances call for some reaction.
                                                   9
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 15 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 16 ======================================================================

<pre>De tweede zin van lid 1 van Ontwerpconclusie 10 [9] bepaalt dat de overeenstemming van
de partijen betreffende de interpretatie van een verdrag “need not be legally binding”. Dat
moge zo zijn, maar de vraag is of het al dan niet bindende karakter van de
overeenstemming tussen partijen geen gevolgen heeft voor de interpretatie van het verdrag.
Terwijl een niet juridisch bindende overeenstemming tussen partijen met betrekking tot de
interpretatie van een verdrag dient te worden beschouwd als één van de factoren die in het
interpretatieproces een rol spelen naast andere factoren, is het naar de mening van de
CAVV zo dat met een juridisch bindende overeenstemming tussen de partijen inzake de
interpretatie van het verdrag de zaak in beginsel als afgedaan moet worden beschouwd. De
toelichting bij deze Ontwerpconclusie zou volgens de CAVV aan dit aspect expliciet
aandacht dienen te besteden.
3.6 Ontwerpconclusie 11 [10] inzake besluiten genomen in het kader van een conferentie
van partijen
   Conclusion 11 [10]
   Decisions adopted within the framework of a Conference of States Parties
   1.     A Conference of States Parties, under these draft conclusions, is a meeting of
   States parties pursuant to a treaty for the purpose of reviewing or implementing the
   treaty, except if they act as members of an organ of an international organization.
   2.     The legal effect of a decision adopted within the framework of a Conference of
   States Parties depends primarily on the treaty and any applicable rules of procedure.
   Depending on the circumstances, such a decision may embody, explicitly or implicitly,
   a subsequent agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), or give rise to subsequent
   practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), or to subsequent practice under article 32.
   Decisions adopted within the framework of a Conference of States Parties often
   provide a non-exclusive range of practical options for implementing the treaty.
   3.     A decision adopted within the framework of a Conference of States Parties
   embodies a subsequent agreement or subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3,
   in so far as it expresses agreement in substance between the parties regarding the
   interpretation of a treaty, regardless of the form and the procedure by which the
   decision was adopted, including by consensus.
Ontwerpconclusie 11 [10], lid 3, geeft aanleiding tot vragen betreffende de eis van
“agreement in substance” en de passage “including by consensus”.
De ILC gaat er in haar rapport van uit dat onder alle omstandigheden bij artikel 31,
lid 3(a), van het WVV sprake moet zijn van “agreement in substance between the parties
regarding the interpretation of a treaty” (cursivering door CAVV). Artikel 31, lid 3(a), van
het WVV bevat evenwel niet de woorden “in substance”. Lid 3 van Ontwerpconclusie
11 [10] bepaalt dat het een besluit van een conferentie van partijen kan betreffen
“regardless of the form and the procedure by which the decision was adopted”. Dit laat de
                                                  10
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 16 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 17 ======================================================================

<pre>mogelijkheid open dat volgens de besluitvormingsregels van de conferentie van partijen
een besluit met een bepaalde meerderheid van stemmen tot stand komt. Of zo’n besluit
voor de partijen al dan niet juridisch bindend is wordt opnieuw door de
besluitvormingsregels van de conferentie van partijen bepaald. Zoals de ILC in haar
rapport echter zelf aangeeft hoeft de overeenstemming tussen partijen niet
noodzakelijkerwijs een juridisch bindend karakter te hebben. Een op dergelijke wijze tot
stand gekomen besluit zou ook de interpretatie van een verdrag kunnen betreffen. Ondanks
het feit dat er op basis van internationaal institutioneel recht goede argumenten zijn om de
stemverhouding niet van belang te laten zijn bij de vaststelling of sprake is van een
internationaal besluit, lijkt volgens de toelichting van de ILC artikel 31, lid 3(a), van het
WVV deze mogelijkheid uit te sluiten omdat ook die bepaling ziet op de instemming van
alle verdragspartijen met betrekking tot een interpretatie. In de toelichting bij de
Ontwerpconclusie zou nader op deze spanning kunnen worden ingegaan, met aandacht
voor de verschillende scenario’s die van belang kunnen zijn voor de mogelijke geldigheid
van een interpretatie in het licht van artikel 31, lid 3(a), van het WVV: wel of geen
consensus tussen alle partijen en wel of geen “agreement in substance”.
3.7 Ontwerpconclusie 12 [11] inzake oprichtingsverdragen van internationale
organisaties
   Conclusion 12 [11]
   Constituent instruments of international organizations
   1.     Articles 31 and 32 apply to a treaty which is the constituent instrument of an
   international organization. Accordingly, subsequent agreements and subsequent
   practice under article 31, paragraph 3, are, and other subsequent practice under
   article 32 may be, means of interpretation for such treaties.
   2.     Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3, or
   other subsequent practice under article 32, may arise from, or be expressed in, the
   practice of an international organization in the application of its constituent instrument.
   3.     Practice of an international organization in the application of its constituent
   instrument may contribute to the interpretation of that instrument when applying
   articles 31, paragraph 1, and 32.
   4.     Paragraphs 1 to 3 apply to the interpretation of any treaty which is the constituent
   instrument of an international organization without prejudice to any relevant rules of
   the organization.
In de toelichting (p. 226 § 36 en voetnoot 965) stelt de ILC dat praktijk van internationale
organisaties alleen relevant is indien deze bevoegd zijn, aangezien het een algemeen
vereiste is dat zij niet ultra vires handelen. Zoals hierboven gesteld met betrekking tot
goede trouw en een (manifest) onjuiste toepassing van een verdrag, geldt voor de
beoordeling van intra vires of ultra vires handelen dat dit afhankelijk is van de interpretatie
                                                  11
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 17 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 18 ======================================================================

<pre>die wordt gegeven aan het oprichtingsverdrag. Daarbij geldt eveneens, zoals in de
hierboven aangehaalde voetnoot is geciteerd, dat het Internationaal Gerechtshof heeft
gesteld dat een presumptie geldt dat handelen ter vervulling van de doelstelling(en) van de
organisatie niet ultra vires is. De CAVV acht het wenselijk als de toelichting aan dit aspect
meer aandacht zou kunnen besteden.
Nadat de ILC heeft vastgesteld dat weinig oprichtingsverdragen expliciete regels bevatten,
stelt zij in de toelichting (pp. 227-228 § 40) in verband met de vraag naar bijzondere regels
van interpretatie dat “[s]pecific ‘relevant rules’ of interpretation need not be formulated
explicitly in the constituent instrument; they may also be implied therein, or derive from
the ‘established practice of the organization’”.
Deze stellingname van de ILC gaat zeer ver, en de CAVV vraagt zich af of enige
nuancering hier niet op haar plaats is. Bij gebreke aan expliciete regels opgenomen in een
verdrag dient men ervan uit te gaan dat de algemene regels van verdragsinterpretatie
toepasselijk zijn. Dit volgt ook uit artikel 5 van het WVV dat bepaalt dat de
oprichtingsverdragen onder de werking van het WVV vallen. Bij gebreke aan expliciete
regels in een oprichtingsverdrag dient dan ook de presumptie te zijn dat de algemene regels
van verdragsinterpretatie toepasselijk zijn. De jurisprudentie van het Internationaal
Gerechtshof, in het bijzonder in het advies aangevraagd door de WHO, geeft ook geen
enkele aanleiding om aan te nemen dat zulke bijzondere regels bestaan. Om met een
beroep op impliciete bevoegdheden of ‘established practice’ tot deze stellingname te
kunnen komen, zou een meer gedegen onderbouwing niet alleen wenselijk maar ook
geboden zijn.
3.8 Ontwerpconclusie 13 [12] inzake verklaringen van expert verdragsorganen
   Conclusion 13 [12]
   Pronouncements of expert treaty bodies
   1.     For the purpose of these draft conclusions, an expert treaty body is a body
   consisting of experts serving in their personal capacity, which is established under a
   treaty and is not an organ of an international organization.
   2.     The relevance of a pronouncement of an expert treaty body for the interpretation
   of a treaty is subject to the applicable rules of the treaty.
   3.     A pronouncement of an expert treaty body may give rise to, or refer to, a
   subsequent agreement or subsequent practice by parties under article 31, paragraph 3,
   or other subsequent practice under article 32. Silence by a party shall not be presumed
   to constitute subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), accepting an
   interpretation of a treaty as expressed in a pronouncement of an expert treaty body.
   4.     This draft conclusion is without prejudice to the contribution that a
   pronouncement of an expert treaty body may otherwise make to the interpretation of a
   treaty.
                                                  12
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 18 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 19 ======================================================================

<pre>De CAVV kan zich in het algemeen verenigen met hetgeen in Ontwerpconclusie 13 [12]
wordt gesteld met betrekking tot de betekenis van uitspraken van verdragsorganen van
deskundigen voor de interpretatie van verdragen.
In de tweede zin van lid 3 van de Ontwerpconclusie wordt onder meer gesteld: “Silence by
a party shall not be presumed to constitute subsequent practice under article 31,
paragraph 3(b), accepting an interpretation of a treaty as expressed in a pronouncement of
an expert treaty body”. In § 18 van de toelichting bij de Ontwerpconclusie wordt gesteld:
“Paragraph 3, second sentence, does not purport to recognize an exception to this general
rule [dat wil zeggen § 2 van Ontwerpconclusie 10 [9], toevoeging door CAVV], but rather
intends to specify and apply this rule to the typical cases of pronouncements of expert
bodies”. Lid 2 van Ontwerpconclusie 10 [9] houdt als algemene regel in: “Silence on the
part of one or more parties can constitute acceptance of the subsequent practice when the
circumstances call for some reaction”.
De ILC lijkt derhalve dezelfde benadering te volgen bij het stilzwijgen van een of meer
partijen ongeacht of dit stilzwijgen betrekking heeft op een standpuntbepaling of een
praktijk van een of meer andere verdragspartijen dan wel wanneer het uitspraken betreft
van deskundigencomité’s van verdragen. De CAVV vraagt zich af of dit gebrek aan
onderscheid op dit punt juist is.
Lid 4 van Ontwerpconclusie 13 [12] luidt: “This draft conclusion is without prejudice to
the contribution that a pronouncement of an expert treaty body may otherwise make to the
interpretation of a treaty”. Dit lid blijkt volgens de toelichting de neutrale uitkomst te zijn
van twee niet verenigbare opvattingen van leden van de ILC. In § 27 van de toelichting
wordt opgemerkt: “Ultimately, the Commission decided to limit itself, for the time being,
to formulating, in paragraph 4 of draft conclusion 13 [12], a without prejudice clause. The
matter may be taken up again on second reading, in light of the views expressed by States”
(cursiveringen door CAVV). De CAVV kan zich vinden in de gekozen formulering
(“without prejudice to”).
                                                  13
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 19 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 20 ======================================================================

<pre></pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 20 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 21 ======================================================================

<pre>BIJLAGEN
Adviesaanvraag van 27 maart 2017 inzake de door de International Law Commission
aangenomen ontwerpconclusies over latere overeenstemming of gebruik met betrekking tot de
interpretatie van verdragen
Ontwerpconclusies van de International Law Commission over latere overeenstemming en
latere praktijk met betrekking tot de interpretatie van verdragen, zoals aangenomen na eerste
lezing (hoofdstuk VI van het ILC-rapport van 2016, doc.nr. A/71/10)
Leden van de Commissie van advies inzake volkenrechtelijke vraagstukken
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 21 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 22 ======================================================================

<pre></pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 22 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 23 ======================================================================

<pre>Bijlage I
Adviesaanvraag van 27 maart 2017 inzake de door de International Law Commission
aangenomen ontwerpconclusies over latere overeenstemming of gebruik met betrekking tot de
interpretatie van verdragen
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 23 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 24 ======================================================================

<pre></pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 24 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 25 ======================================================================

<pre>    -
                                                         Ministerie van Buten!andse Zaken
  Prof. dr. R..A. Wessel                                                             Postbus QQ6
  Voorzitter                                                                         25O EB Ofl tasç
  Commissie van advies inzake voikenrechtelljke vraagstukken
 Datum    i7     maart 2017
 Betreft Adviesaarwraag ILC-condusies
 Geachte voorzitter,
 Gaarne verzoek ik de Commissie van advies inzake volkenrechtelijke
 vraagstukken twee separate adviezen uit te brengen inzake de door de
International Law Comrnission tïjriens haar achtenzestigste zitting aangenomen
ontwerpconc)usies over de îdentïfftatie van internationaal gewoonterecht
 (hoofdstuk V van het ELC-rapport van 2016, doc.nr. A/71/10), en haar tijdens
dezelfde zitting aangenomen antwerpcondusies over latere overeenstemming of
gebruik met betrekking tot de interpretatie van verdragen (hoofdstuk VI van het
ZIC-rapport van 2016, dor. nr. W71/10). Voor de ontwerpconclu5ies verwijs ik
naar de bijiagen bij deze brief.
Ik verwacht dat de twee adviezen van uw Commissie een aanzienlijke
toegevoegde waarde zullen kunnen geven aan een Nederlands commentaar met
betrekking tot de ontwerpcodusies.
Ik acht het wenselijk dat bij uw advies over de identificatie van internationaal
gewoonterecht ook de rol van de ederlandse rechter wordt betrokken.
Ik zou het op prijs stellen de twee adviezen van uw Commissie uiterlijk 1
november 2017 tegemoet te mogen zien.
Hoogachtend,
                                       ç
Bert Koehders
Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
                                                                                   Pagina 1 vsn
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 25 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 26 ======================================================================

<pre></pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 26 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 27 ======================================================================

<pre>Bijlage II
Ontwerpconclusies van de International Law Commission over latere overeenstemming en
latere praktijk met betrekking tot de interpretatie van verdragen, zoals aangenomen na
eerste lezing (hoofdstuk VI van het ILC-rapport van 2016, doc.nr. A/71/10)
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 27 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 28 ======================================================================

<pre></pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 28 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 29 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
              Chapter VI
              Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation
              to the interpretation of treaties
        A.    Introduction
              64.      The Commission, at its sixtieth session (2008), decided to include the topic “Treaties
              over time” in its programme of work and to establish a Study Group on the topic at its
              sixty-first session.376 At its sixty-first session (2009), the Commission established the Study
              Group on treaties over time, chaired by Mr. Georg Nolte. At that session, the Study Group
              focused its discussions on the identification of the issues to be covered, the working
              methods of the Study Group and the possible outcome of the Commission’s work on the
              topic.377
              65.      From the sixty-second to the sixty-fourth session (2010-2012), the Study Group was
              reconstituted under the chairmanship of Mr. Georg Nolte. The Study Group examined three
              reports presented informally by the Chairperson, which addressed, respectively, the relevant
              jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and arbitral tribunals of ad hoc
              jurisdiction;378 the jurisprudence under special regimes relating to subsequent agreements
              and subsequent practice;379 and the subsequent agreements and subsequent practice of
              States outside judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings.380
              66.      At the sixty-fourth session (2012), the Commission, on the basis of a
              recommendation of the Study Group,381 decided: (a) to change, with effect from its sixty-
              fifth session (2013), the format of the work on this topic as suggested by the Study Group;
              and (b) to appoint Mr. Georg Nolte as Special Rapporteur for the topic “Subsequent
              agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties”.382
              67.      At the sixty-fifth session (2013), the Commission considered the first report of the
              Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/660) and provisionally adopted five draft conclusions and the
              commentaries thereto.383
          376
              At its 2997th meeting, on 8 August 2008. See Yearbook … 2008, vol. II (Part Two), para. 353; and for
              the syllabus of the topic, ibid., annex I. The General Assembly, in paragraph 6 of its resolution 63/123
              of 11 December 2008, took note of the decision.
          377
              Yearbook … 2009, vol. II (Part Two), paras. 220-226.
          378
              Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/65/10), paras.
              344-354; and ibid., Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10), para. 337.
          379
              Ibid., Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10), paras. 338-341; and ibid., Sixty-seventh
              Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/67/10), paras. 230-231.
          380
              Ibid., Sixty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/67/10), paras. 232-234. At the sixty-third session
              (2011), the Chairperson of the Study Group presented nine preliminary conclusions, reformulated in
              the light of the discussions in the Study Group (ibid., Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10
              (A/66/10), para. 344). At the sixty-fourth session (2012), the Chairperson presented the text of six
              additional preliminary conclusions, also reformulated in the light of the discussions in the Study
              Group (ibid., Sixty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/67/10), para. 240). The Study Group also
              discussed the format in which the further work on the topic should proceed and the possible outcome
              of the work. A number of suggestions were formulated by the Chairperson and agreed upon by the
              Study Group (ibid., paras. 235-239).
          381
              Ibid., Sixty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/67/10), paras. 226 and 239.
          382
              Ibid., para. 227.
          383
              Ibid., Sixty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/68/10), paras. 33-39. The Commission
              provisionally adopted draft conclusion 1 (General rule and means of treaty interpretation); draft
118                                                                                                                    GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 29 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 30 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                        A/71/10
               68.      At the sixty-sixth session (2014), the Commission considered the second report of
               the Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/671) and provisionally adopted five draft conclusions and
               the commentaries thereto.384
               69.      At the sixty-seventh session (2015), the Commission considered the third report of
               the Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/683) and provisionally adopted one draft conclusion and
               the commentary thereto.385
        B.     Consideration of the topic at the present session
               70.      At the present session, the Commission had before it the fourth report of the Special
               Rapporteur (A/CN.4/694), which addressed the legal significance, for the purpose of
               interpretation and as forms of practice under a treaty, of pronouncements of expert treaty
               bodies (chap. II) and of decisions of domestic courts (chap. III) and which proposed,
               respectively, draft conclusions 12 and 13 on those issues. It also discussed the structure and
               scope of the draft conclusions (chap. IV), proposed the inclusion of a new draft conclusion
               1a, and suggested a revision to draft conclusion 4, paragraph 3 (chap. V).
               71.      The Commission considered the report at its 3303rd to 3307th meetings, from 24 to
               31 May 2016. At its 3307th meeting on 31 May 2016, the Commission decided to refer
               draft conclusions 1a and 12, as presented by the Special Rapporteur, to the Drafting
               Committee.
               72.      At its 3313th meeting, on 10 June 2016, the Commission considered the report of
               the Drafting Committee and adopted a set of 13 draft conclusions on subsequent
               agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties on first
               reading (see section C.1 below). At its 3335th to 3337th, 3340th and 3341st meetings, on 4,
               5, 8 and 9 August 2016, the Commission adopted the commentaries to the draft conclusions
               on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of
               treaties (see section C.2 below).
               73.      At its 3341st meeting, on 9 August 2016, the Commission decided, in accordance
               with articles 16 to 21 of its statute, to transmit the draft conclusions (sect. C below),
               through the Secretary-General, to Governments for comments and observations, with the
               request that such comments and observations be submitted to the Secretary-General by 1
               January 2018.
               74.      At its 3341st meeting, on 9 August 2016, the Commission expressed its deep
               appreciation for the outstanding contribution of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Georg Nolte,
               which enabled the Commission to bring to a successful conclusion its first reading of the
               draft conclusions on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the
               interpretation of treaties.
               conclusion 2 (Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice as authentic means of interpretation);
               draft conclusion 3 (Interpretation of treaty terms as capable of evolving over time); draft conclusion 4
               (Definition of subsequent agreement and subsequent practice); and draft conclusion 5 (Attribution of
               subsequent practice).
           384
               Ibid., Sixty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/69/10), paras. 70-76. The Commission provisionally
               adopted draft conclusion 6 (Identification of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice); draft
               conclusion 7 (Possible effects of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in interpretation);
               draft conclusion 8 (Weight of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice as a means of
               interpretation); draft conclusion 9 (Agreement of the parties regarding the interpretation of a treaty);
               and draft conclusion 10 (Decisions adopted within the framework of a Conference of States Parties).
           385
               Ibid., Seventieth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/70/10), paras. 123-129. The Commission
               provisionally adopted draft conclusion 11 (Constituent instruments of international organizations).
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                 119
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 30 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 31 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
        C.    Text of the draft conclusions on subsequent agreements and subsequent
              practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties adopted by the
              Commission
        1.    Text of the draft conclusions
              75.     The text of the draft conclusions adopted by the Commission on first reading is
              reproduced below.
                      Subsequent agreements           and    subsequent      practice  in    relation    to   the
                      interpretation of treaties
                      Part One
                      Introduction
                      Conclusion 1 [1a]386
                      Introduction
                              The present draft conclusions concern the role of subsequent agreements and
                      subsequent practice in the interpretation of treaties.
                      Part Two
                      Basic rules and definitions
                      Conclusion 2 [1]
                      General rule and means of treaty interpretation
                      1.      Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set forth,
                      respectively, the general rule of interpretation and the rule on supplementary means
                      of interpretation. These rules also apply as customary international law.
                      2.      A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary
                      meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its object and
                      purpose.
                      3.      Article 31, paragraph 3, provides, inter alia, that there shall be taken into
                      account, together with the context, (a) any subsequent agreement between the parties
                      regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions; and (b)
                      any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the
                      agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation.
                      4.      Recourse may be had to other subsequent practice in the application of the
                      treaty as a supplementary means of interpretation under article 32.
                      5.      The interpretation of a treaty consists of a single combined operation, which
                      places appropriate emphasis on the various means of interpretation indicated,
                      respectively, in articles 31 and 32.
                      Conclusion 3 [2]
                      Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice as authentic means of
                      interpretation
                              Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3
                      (a) and (b), being objective evidence of the understanding of the parties as to the
                      meaning of the treaty, are authentic means of interpretation, in the application of the
                      general rule of treaty interpretation reflected in article 31.
          386
              The numbers of the draft conclusions, as previously adopted by the Commission, are indicated in
              square brackets.
120                                                                                                               GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 31 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 32 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                     A/71/10
            Conclusion 4
            Definition of subsequent agreement and subsequent practice
            1.      A “subsequent agreement” as an authentic means of interpretation under
            article 31, paragraph 3 (a), is an agreement between the parties, reached after the
            conclusion of a treaty, regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of
            its provisions.
            2.      A “subsequent practice” as an authentic means of interpretation under article
            31, paragraph 3 (b), consists of conduct in the application of a treaty, after its
            conclusion, which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding the
            interpretation of the treaty.
            3.      Other “subsequent practice” as a supplementary means of interpretation
            under article 32 consists of conduct by one or more parties in the application of the
            treaty, after its conclusion.
            Conclusion 5
            Attribution of subsequent practice
            1.      Subsequent practice under articles 31 and 32 may consist of any conduct in
            the application of a treaty which is attributable to a party to the treaty under
            international law.
            2.      Other conduct, including by non-State actors, does not constitute subsequent
            practice under articles 31 and 32. Such conduct may, however, be relevant when
            assessing the subsequent practice of parties to a treaty.
            Part Three
            General aspects
            Conclusion 6
            Identification of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice
            1.      The identification of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under
            article 31, paragraph 3, requires, in particular, a determination whether the parties,
            by an agreement or a practice, have taken a position regarding the interpretation of
            the treaty. This is not normally the case if the parties have merely agreed not to
            apply the treaty temporarily or agreed to establish a practical arrangement (modus
            vivendi).
            2.      Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph
            3, can take a variety of forms.
            3.      The identification of subsequent practice under article 32 requires, in
            particular, a determination whether conduct by one or more parties is in the
            application of the treaty.
            Conclusion 7
            Possible effects of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in
            interpretation
            1.      Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph
            3, contribute, in their interaction with other means of interpretation, to the
            clarification of the meaning of a treaty. This may result in narrowing, widening, or
            otherwise determining the range of possible interpretations, including any scope for
            the exercise of discretion which the treaty accords to the parties.
            2.      Subsequent practice under article 32 can also contribute to the clarification of
            the meaning of a treaty.
GE.16-14345                                                                                              121
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 32 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 33 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
        3.      It is presumed that the parties to a treaty, by an agreement subsequently
        arrived at or a practice in the application of the treaty, intend to interpret the treaty,
        not to amend or to modify it. The possibility of amending or modifying a treaty by
        subsequent practice of the parties has not been generally recognized. The present
        draft conclusion is without prejudice to the rules on the amendment or modification
        of treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and under customary
        international law.
        Conclusion 8 [3]
        Interpretation of treaty terms as capable of evolving over time
                Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under articles 31 and 32 may
        assist in determining whether or not the presumed intention of the parties upon the
        conclusion of the treaty was to give a term used a meaning which is capable of
        evolving over time.
        Conclusion 9 [8]
        Weight of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice as a means of
        interpretation
        1.      The weight of a subsequent agreement or subsequent practice as a means of
        interpretation under article 31, paragraph 3, depends, inter alia, on its clarity and
        specificity.
        2.      The weight of subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), depends,
        in addition, on whether and how it is repeated.
        3.      The weight of subsequent practice as a supplementary means of interpretation
        under article 32 may depend on the criteria referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.
        Conclusion 10 [9]
        Agreement of the parties regarding the interpretation of a treaty
        1.      An agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), requires a common
        understanding regarding the interpretation of a treaty which the parties are aware of
        and accept. Though it shall be taken into account, such an agreement need not be
        legally binding.
        2.      The number of parties that must actively engage in subsequent practice in
        order to establish an agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), may vary. Silence
        on the part of one or more parties can constitute acceptance of the subsequent
        practice when the circumstances call for some reaction.
        Part Four
        Specific aspects
        Conclusion 11 [10]
        Decisions adopted within the framework of a Conference of States Parties
        1.      A Conference of States Parties, under these draft conclusions, is a meeting of
        States parties pursuant to a treaty for the purpose of reviewing or implementing the
        treaty, except if they act as members of an organ of an international organization.
        2.      The legal effect of a decision adopted within the framework of a Conference
        of States Parties depends primarily on the treaty and any applicable rules of
        procedure. Depending on the circumstances, such a decision may embody, explicitly
        or implicitly, a subsequent agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), or give rise
        to subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), or to subsequent practice
        under article 32. Decisions adopted within the framework of a Conference of States
122                                                                                                GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 33 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 34 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                           A/71/10
                   Parties often provide a non-exclusive range of practical options for implementing the
                   treaty.
                   3.      A decision adopted within the framework of a Conference of States Parties
                   embodies a subsequent agreement or subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph
                   3, in so far as it expresses agreement in substance between the parties regarding the
                   interpretation of a treaty, regardless of the form and the procedure by which the
                   decision was adopted, including by consensus.
                   Conclusion 12 [11]
                   Constituent instruments of international organizations
                   1.      Articles 31 and 32 apply to a treaty which is the constituent instrument of an
                   international organization. Accordingly, subsequent agreements and subsequent
                   practice under article 31, paragraph 3, are, and other subsequent practice under
                   article 32 may be, means of interpretation for such treaties.
                   2.      Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph
                   3, or other subsequent practice under article 32, may arise from, or be expressed in,
                   the practice of an international organization in the application of its constituent
                   instrument.
                   3.      Practice of an international organization in the application of its constituent
                   instrument may contribute to the interpretation of that instrument when applying
                   articles 31, paragraph 1, and 32.
                   4.      Paragraphs 1 to 3 apply to the interpretation of any treaty which is the
                   constituent instrument of an international organization without prejudice to any
                   relevant rules of the organization.
                   Conclusion 13 [12]
                   Pronouncements of expert treaty bodies
                   1.      For the purposes of these draft conclusions, an expert treaty body is a body
                   consisting of experts serving in their personal capacity, which is established under a
                   treaty and is not an organ of an international organization.
                   2.      The relevance of a pronouncement of an expert treaty body for the
                   interpretation of a treaty is subject to the applicable rules of the treaty.
                   3.      A pronouncement of an expert treaty body may give rise to, or refer to, a
                   subsequent agreement or subsequent practice by parties under article 31, paragraph
                   3, or other subsequent practice under article 32. Silence by a party shall not be
                   presumed to constitute subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b),
                   accepting an interpretation of a treaty as expressed in a pronouncement of an expert
                   treaty body.
                   4.      This draft conclusion is without prejudice to the contribution that a
                   pronouncement of an expert treaty body may otherwise make to the interpretation of
                   a treaty.
         2. Text of the draft conclusions and commentaries thereto
            76.    The text of the draft conclusions and commentaries thereto adopted by the
            Commission on first reading is reproduced below. This text comprises a consolidated
            version of the commentaries adopted so far by the Commission, including modifications
            and additions made to commentaries previously adopted and commentaries adopted at the
            sixty-eighth session of the Commission.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                    123
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 34 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 35 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
                    Subsequent agreements            and     subsequent     practice    in   relation     to   the
                    interpretation of treaties
                    Part One
                    Introduction
                    Conclusion 1 [1a]
                    Introduction
                            The present draft conclusions concern the role of subsequent agreements and
                    subsequent practice in the interpretation of treaties.
            Commentary
            (1)     The present draft conclusions aim at explaining the role that subsequent agreements
            and subsequent practice play in the interpretation of treaties. They are based on the Vienna
            Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 (hereinafter “1969 Vienna Convention”).387 The
            draft conclusions situate subsequent agreements and subsequent practice within the
            framework of the rules of the Vienna Convention on interpretation by identifying and
            elucidating relevant authorities and examples, and by addressing certain questions that may
            arise when applying those rules.388
            (2)     The draft conclusions do not address all conceivable circumstances in which
            subsequent agreements and subsequent practice may play a role in the interpretation of
            treaties. For example, one aspect not dealt with specifically is the relevance of subsequent
            agreements and subsequent practice in relation to treaties between States and international
            organizations or between international organizations. 389 The draft conclusions also do not
            address the interpretation of rules adopted by an international organization, the
            identification of customary international law or general principles of law. This is without
            prejudice to the other means of interpretation under article 31, including paragraph 3 (c)
            according to which the interpretation of a treaty shall take into account any relevant rules of
            international law applicable in the relations between the parties.
            (3)     The draft conclusions aim to facilitate the work of those who are called on to
            interpret treaties. Apart from international courts and tribunals, they offer guidance for
            States, including their courts, and international organizations, as well as for non-State actors
            and all those called upon to interpret treaties.
                    Part Two
                    Basic rules and definitions
                    Conclusion 2 [1]
                    General rule and means of treaty interpretation
                    1.      Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set forth,
                    respectively, the general rule of interpretation and the rule on supplementary means
                    of interpretation. These rules also apply as customary international law.
        387
            Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna, 23 May 1969), United Nations, Treaty Series,
            vol. 1155, No. 18232, p. 331.
        388
            As is always the case with the Commission’s output, the draft conclusions are to be read together with
            the commentaries.
        389
            See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or
            between International Organizations (“1986 Vienna Convention”) (Vienna, 21 March 1986, not yet in
            force) (A/CONF.129/15); this does not exclude that some materials relating to such treaties, but
            which are also of general relevance are used in the commentaries.
124                                                                                                                GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 35 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 36 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                           A/71/10
                        2.       A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary
                        meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its object and
                        purpose.
                        3.       Article 31, paragraph 3, provides, inter alia, that there shall be taken into
                        account, together with the context, (a) any subsequent agreement between the parties
                        regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions; and (b)
                        any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the
                        agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation.
                        4.       Recourse may be had to other subsequent practice in the application of the
                        treaty as a supplementary means of interpretation under article 32.
                        5.       The interpretation of a treaty consists of a single combined operation, which
                        places appropriate emphasis on the various means of interpretation indicated,
                        respectively, in articles 31 and 32.
               Commentary
               (1)      Draft conclusion 2 [1] situates subsequent agreements and subsequent practice as a
               means of treaty interpretation within the framework of the rules on the interpretation of
               treaties set forth in articles 31 and 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention. The title “General
               rule and means of treaty interpretation” signals two points. First, article 31, as a whole, is
               the “general rule” of treaty interpretation.390 Second, articles 31 and 32 together list a
               number of “means of interpretation”, which shall (article 31) or may (article 32) be taken
               into account in the interpretation of treaties.391
               Paragraph 1, first sentence — relationship between articles 31 and 32
               (2)      Paragraph 1 of draft conclusion 2 [1] emphasizes the interrelationship between
               articles 31 and 32, as well as the fact that these provisions, together, reflect customary
               international law. The reference to both articles 31 and 32 clarifies from the start the
               general context in which subsequent agreements and subsequent practice are addressed in
               the draft conclusions.
               (3)      Whereas article 31 sets forth the general rule and article 32 deals with
               supplementary means of interpretation, both rules 392 must be read together as they
               constitute an integrated framework for the interpretation of treaties. Article 32 includes a
               threshold between the primary means of interpretation according to article 31,393 all of
               which are to be taken into account in the process of interpretation, and “supplementary
               means of interpretation” to which recourse may be had in order to confirm the meaning
           390
               Title of article 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention.
           391
               See the first report on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to treaty
               interpretation (A/CN.4/660), para. 8; M.E. Villiger, “The 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of
               treaties: 40 years after”, Recueil des cours de l’Académie de droit international de La Haye 2009
               (hereinafter “Recueil des cours …”), vol. 344, p. 9-133, at pp. 118-119 and 126-128.
           392
               On the meaning of the term “rules” in this context: see Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document
               A/6309/Rev.1, pp. 217-220 (Commentary, introduction); R.K. Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation, 2nd
               edition (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 36-38.
           393
               Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 223, commentary to draft article 28, para. (19);
               Waldock, third report on the law of treaties, Yearbook … 1964, vol. II, document A/CN.4/167 and
               Add.1-3, pp. 58-59, para. 21; M.K. Yasseen, “L’interprétation des traités d’après la Convention de
               Vienne sur le droit des traités”, Recueil des cours … 1976-III, vol. 151, pp. 1-114, at p. 78; I. Sinclair,
               The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1984), pp.
               141-142; Villiger, “The 1969 Vienna Convention …” (see footnote 391 above), pp. 127-128.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                    125
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 36 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 37 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the
            interpretation according to article 31 leaves the meaning of the treaty or its terms
            ambiguous or obscure or leads to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
            Paragraph 1, second sentence — the Vienna Convention rules on interpretation and
            customary international law
            (4)      The second sentence of paragraph 1 of draft conclusion 2 [1] confirms that the rules
            enshrined in articles 31 and 32 reflect customary international law. 394 International courts
            and tribunals have acknowledged the customary character of these rules. This is true, in
            particular, for the International Court of Justice, 395 the International Tribunal for the Law of
            the Sea (ITLOS),396 inter-State arbitrations,397 the Appellate Body of the World Trade
            Organization (WTO),398 the European Court of Human Rights,399 the Inter-American Court
        394
            Y. le Bouthillier, “Commentary on article 32 of the Vienna Convention”, in The Vienna Conventions
            on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary, O. Corten and P. Klein, eds. (Oxford, Oxford University
            Press, 2011), pp. 841-865, at pp. 843-846, paras. 4-8; P. Daillier, M. Forteau and A. Pellet, Droit
            international public (Nguyen Quoc Din), 8th edition (Paris, L.G.D.J., 2009), at pp. 285-286;
            Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), at pp. 13-20; Villiger, “The 1969 Vienna
            Convention” (see footnote 391 above), pp. 132-133.
        395
            Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 14, at p.
            46, para. 65 (1969 Vienna Convention, art. 31); Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights
            (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 213, at p. 237, para. 47; Application of
            the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
            Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at pp. 109-110, para.
            160; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
            Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136, at p. 174, para. 94; Avena and Other Mexican
            Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 12, at p. 48, para.
            83; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia v. Malaysia), Judgment, I.C.J.
            Reports 2002, p. 625, at p. 645, para. 37; LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment,
            I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 466, at p. 501, para. 99 (1969 Vienna Convention, art. 31); Kasikili/Sedudu
            Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1999, p. 1045, at p. 1059, para. 18 (1969
            Vienna Convention, art. 31); Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), Judgment, I.C.J.
            Reports 1994, p. 6, at pp. 21-22, para. 41 (1969 Vienna Convention, art. 31, and without expressly
            mentioning art. 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention but referring to the supplementary means of
            interpretation).
        396
            Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in
            the area, case No. 17, Advisory Opinion, 1 February 2011, ITLOS Reports … 2011, p. 10, at para. 57.
        397
            Award in Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway between the Kingdom of
            Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, decision of 24 May 2005, United Nations, Reports of
            International Arbitral Awards (UNRIAA), vol. XXVII (sales No. E/F.06.V.8), pp. 35-125, at para. 45
            (1969 Vienna Convention, arts. 31-32).
        398
            Art. 3, para. 2, of the WTO understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of
            disputes provides that “… it serves to … to clarify the existing provisions of [the WTO-covered]
            agreements in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law” (United
            Nations, Treaties Series, vol. 1869, No. 31874, p. 402), but does not specifically refer to arts. 31 and
            32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention. However, the Appellate Body has consistently recognized that
            arts. 31 and 32 reflect rules of customary international law and has resorted to them by reference to
            art. 3.2 of the understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes. See, for
            example, WTO Appellate Body Report, United States — Standards for Reformulated and
            Conventional Gasoline (US-Gasoline), WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, Section III, B (1969
            Vienna Convention, art. 31, para 1); WTO Appellate Body Report, Japan — Taxes on Alcoholic
            Beverages (Japan-Alcoholic Beverages II), WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R,
            adopted 1 November 1996, Section D (1969 Vienna Convention, arts. 31-32). See also G. Nolte,
            “Jurisprudence under special regimes relating to subsequent agreements and subsequent practice:
126                                                                                                                  GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 37 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 38 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                     A/71/10
               of Human Rights,400 the Court of Justice of the European Union, 401 and tribunals established
               by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) 402 under the
               Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of
               Other States.403 Hence, the rules contained in articles 31 and 32 apply as treaty law in
               relation to those States that are parties to the 1969 Vienna Convention and the treaties that
               fall within the scope of the Convention, and as customary international law between all
               States.
               (5)      The Commission also considered referring to article 33 of the 1969 Vienna
               Convention in draft conclusion 2 [1] and whether this provision also reflected customary
               international law. Article 33 may be relevant for draft conclusions on the topic of
               “Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of
               treaties”. A “subsequent agreement” under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), for example, could
               be formulated in two or more languages, and there could be questions regarding the
               relationship of any subsequent agreement to different language versions of the treaty itself.
               The Commission nevertheless decided not to address such questions.
               (6)      The Commission, in particular, considered whether the rules set forth in article 33
               reflected customary international law. Some members thought that all the rules in article 33
               reflected customary international law, while others wanted to leave open the possibility that
               only some, but not all, rules set forth in this provision qualified as such. The jurisprudence
               of international courts and tribunals has not yet fully addressed the question. The
               International Court of Justice and the WTO Appellate Body have considered parts of article
               33 to reflect rules of customary international law. In LaGrand, the International Court of
               Justice recognized that paragraph 4 of article 33 reflects customary international law. 404 It is
               less clear whether the Court in the Kasikili/Sedudu Island case considered that paragraph 3
               of article 33 reflected a customary rule.405 The WTO Appellate Body has held that the rules
               in paragraphs 3 and 4 reflect customary law. 406 The Arbitral Tribunal in the Young Loan
               second report for the ILC Study Group on treaties over time”, in Treaties and Subsequent Practice, G.
               Nolte, ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 210-240, at p. 215.
           399
               Golder v. the United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, para. 29; Witold
               Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, 4 April 2000, ECHR 2000-III, para. 58 (1969 Vienna Convention, art.
               31); Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, 12 November 2008, ECHR-2008, para. 65 (by
               implication, 1969 Vienna Convention, arts. 31-33).
           400
               The effect of reservations on the entry into force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts.
               74 and 75), Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, 24 September 1982, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. Series A No. 2, para.
               19 (by implication, 1969 Vienna Convention, arts. 31-32); Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v.
               Trinidad and Tobago (Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment), 21 June 2002, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R.
               Series C No. 94, para. 19 (1969 Vienna Convention, art. 31, para. 1).
           401
               Brita GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen, judgment of 25 February 2010, Case C-386/08,
               European Court Reports 2010 I-01289, paras. 41-43 (1969 Vienna Convention, art. 31).
           402
               National Grid plc v. Argentine Republic, decision on jurisdiction (UNCITRAL), 20 June 2006, para.
               51 (1969 Vienna Convention, arts. 31-32); Canfor Corporation v. United States of America, and
               Tembec et al. v. United States of America, and Terminal Forest Products Ltd. v. United States of
               America, Order of the Consolidation Tribunal, 7 September 2005, para. 59 (1969 Vienna Convention,
               arts. 31-32).
           403
               United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 575, No. 8359, p. 159.
           404
               LaGrand (see footnote 395 above), p. 502, para. 101.
           405
               Kasikili/Sedudu Island (see footnote 395 above), p. 1062, para. 25; the Court may have applied this
               provision only because the parties had not disagreed about its application.
           406
               WTO Appellate Body Report, United States — Final Countervailing Duty Determination with
               Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada (US — Softwood Lumber IV), WT/DS257/AB/R,
               adopted 17 February 2004, para. 59 (1969 Vienna Convention, art. 33, para. 3); WTO Appellate Body
               Report, United States — Subsidies on Upland Cotton (US — Upland Cotton), WT/DS267/AB/R,
GE.16-14345                                                                                                              127
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 38 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 39 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            Arbitration found that paragraph 1 “incorporated” a “principle”.407 ITLOS and the
            European Court of Human Rights have gone one step further and stated that article 33 as a
            whole reflects customary law. 408 Thus, there are significant indications in the case law that
            article 33, in its entirety, indeed reflects customary international law.
            Paragraph 2 — article 31, paragraph 1
            (7)      Paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 2 [1] reproduces the text of article 31, paragraph 1,
            of the 1969 Vienna Convention given its importance for the topic. Article 31, paragraph 1,
            is the point of departure for any treaty interpretation according to the general rule contained
            in article 31 as a whole. This is intended to contribute to ensuring the balance in the process
            of interpretation between an assessment of the terms of the treaty in their context and in the
            light of its object and purpose, on the one hand, and the considerations regarding
            subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in the present draft conclusions. The
            reiteration of article 31, paragraph 1, as a separate paragraph is not, however, meant to
            suggest that this paragraph, and the means of interpretation mentioned therein, possess a
            primacy in substance within the context of article 31 itself. All means of interpretation in
            article 31 are part of a single integrated rule. 409
            Paragraph 3 — article 31, paragraph 3
            (8)      Paragraph 3 reproduces the language of article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), of the
            Vienna Convention, in order to situate subsequent agreements and subsequent practice, as
            the main focus of the topic, within the general legal framework of the interpretation of
            treaties. Accordingly, the chapeau of article 31, paragraph 3, “[t]here shall be taken into
            account, together with the context”, is maintained in order to emphasize that the assessment
            of the means of interpretation mentioned in paragraph 3 (a) and (b) of article 31 are an
            integral part of the general rule of interpretation set forth in article 31.410
            adopted 21 March 2005, para. 424, where the Appellate Body applied and expressly referred to art.
            33, para. 3, of the 1969 Vienna Convention without suggesting its customary status; WTO Appellate
            Body Report, Chile — Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural
            Products, WT/DS207/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 23 October 2002, para. 271 (1969 Vienna
            Convention, art. 33 (4)).
        407
            The Question whether the re-evaluation of the German Mark in 1961 and 1969 constitutes a case for
            application of the clause in article 2 (e) of Annex I A of the 1953 Agreement on German External
            Debts between Belgium, France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
            Ireland and the United States of America on the one hand and the Federal Republic of Germany on
            the other, 16 May 1980, UNRIAA, vol. XIX (sales No. E/F.90.V.7), pp. 67-145, at p. 67, para. 17 or
            International Law Reports, vol. 59 (1980), p. 494, para. 17.
        408
            Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in
            the Area, case No. 17, Advisory Opinion, 1 February 2011, ITLOS Reports 2011; Golder v. the
            United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, para. 29; Witold Litwa v. Poland,
            no. 26629/95, 4 April 2000, ECHR 2000-III, para. 59; Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no.
            34503/97, 12 November 2008, ECHR-2008, para. 65 (1969 Vienna Convention, arts. 31-33).
        409
            Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, pp. 219-220, para. (8). See, in detail, below para.
            (12) of the commentary to draft conclusion 2 [1], para. 5.
        410
            Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 220, para. (8); and G. Nolte, “Jurisprudence of
            the International Court of Justice and arbitral tribunals of ad hoc jurisdiction relating to subsequent
            agreements and subsequent practice: introductory report for the ILC Study Group on treaties over
            time”, in Nolte, Treaties and Subsequent Practice (see footnote 398 above), p. 169, at p. 177.
128                                                                                                                  GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 39 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 40 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                     A/71/10
               Paragraph 4 — other subsequent practice under article 32
               (9)     Paragraph 4 clarifies that subsequent practice in the application of the treaty, which
               does not meet all criteria of article 31, paragraph 3 (b), nevertheless falls within the scope
               of article 32. Article 32 includes a non-exhaustive list of supplementary means of
               interpretation.411 Paragraph 4 borrows the language “recourse may be had” from article 32
               to maintain the distinction between the mandatory character of the taking into account of
               the means of interpretation, which are referred to in article 31, and the discretionary nature
               of the use of the supplementary means of interpretation under article 32.
               (10) In particular, subsequent practice in the application of the treaty, which does not
               establish the agreement of all parties to the treaty, but only of one or more parties, may be
               used as a supplementary means of interpretation. This was stated by the Commission, 412 and
               has since been recognized by international courts and tribunals,413 and in the literature414
               (see in more detail paragraphs (23) to (37) of the commentary to draft conclusion 4).
               (11) The Commission did not, however, consider that subsequent practice, which is not
               “in the application of the treaty”, should be dealt with, in the present draft conclusions, as a
               supplementary means of interpretation. Such practice may, however, under certain
               circumstances be a relevant supplementary means of interpretation as well. 415 But such
               practice is beyond what the Commission now addresses under the present topic, except
               insofar as it may contribute to “assessing” relevant subsequent practice in the application of
               a treaty (see draft conclusion 5 and accompanying commentary). Thus, paragraph 4 of draft
               conclusion 2 [1] requires that any subsequent practice be “in the application of the treaty”,
               as does paragraph 3 of draft conclusion 4, which defines “other ‘subsequent practice’”.
           411
               Yasseen, “L’interprétation des traités …” (see footnote 393 above), at p. 79.
           412
               Yearbook … 1964, vol. II, document A/5809, pp. 203-204, commentary to draft article 69, para. (13).
           413
               Kasikili/Sedudu Island (see footnote 395 above), p. 1096, paras. 79-80; Loizidou v. Turkey
               (preliminary objections), no. 15318/89, 23 March 1995, ECHR Series A no. 310, paras. 79-81;
               Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. (see footnote 400 above), para. 92; Southern Bluefin Tuna
               (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), provisional measures, order of 27 August 1999, ITLOS
               Reports … 1999, p. 280, at para. 50; WTO Appellate Body Report, European Communities —
               Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment (EC — Computer Equipment),
               WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R and WT/DS68/AB/R, adopted 22 June 1998, para. 90; see also
               WTO Appellate Body Report, United States — Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL)
               Requirements (US — COOL), WT/DS384/AB/R and WT/DS386/AB/R, adopted 23 July 2012, para.
               452.
           414
               Yasseen, “L’interprétation des traités …” (see footnote 393 above), at p. 52 (“… la Convention de
               Vienne ne retient pas comme élément de la règle générale d’interprétation la pratique ultérieure en
               général, mais une pratique ultérieure spécifique, à savoir une pratique ultérieure non seulement
               concordante, mais également commune à toutes les parties. … Ce qui reste de la pratique ultérieure
               peut être un moyen complémentaire d’interprétation, selon l’article 32 de la Convention de Vienne”)
               (emphasis added); Sinclair, The Vienna Convention … (see footnote 393 above), at p. 138: “…
               paragraph 3 (b) of [a]rticle 31 of the Convention [covers] … only a specific form of subsequent
               practice — that is to say, concordant subsequent practice common to all the parties. Subsequent
               practice which does not fall within this narrow definition may nonetheless constitute a supplementary
               means of interpretation with the meaning of [a]rticle 32 of the Convention” (emphasis added); S.
               Torres Bernárdez, “Interpretation of treaties by the International Court of Justice following the
               adoption of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties” in Liber Amicorum: Professor Ignaz
               Seidl-Hohenveldern, in honour of his 80th birthday, G. Hafner and others, eds. (The Hague, Kluwer
               Law International, 1998), p. 721, at p. 726; M.E. Villiger, Commentary on the 1969 Vienna
               Convention on the Law of Treaties (Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, 2009), pp. 431-432.
           415
               L. Boisson de Chazournes, “Subsequent practice, practices, and ‘family resemblance’: towards
               embedding subsequent practice in its operative milieu”, in Nolte, Treaties and Subsequent Practice
               (see footnote 398 above), pp. 53-63, at pp. 59-62.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                              129
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 40 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 41 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            Paragraph 5 — “a single combined operation”
            (12) The Commission considered it important to complete draft conclusion 2 [1] by
            emphasizing in paragraph 5 416 that, notwithstanding the structure of draft conclusion 2 [1],
            moving from the general to the more specific, the process of interpretation is a “single
            combined operation”, which requires that “appropriate emphasis” be placed on various
            means of interpretation.417 The expression “single combined operation” is drawn from the
            Commission’s commentary to the 1966 draft articles on the law of treaties. 418 There the
            Commission also stated that it intended “to emphasize that the process of interpretation is a
            unity”.419
            (13) Paragraph 5 of draft conclusion 2 [1] also explains that appropriate emphasis must
            be placed, in the course of the process of interpretation as a “single combined operation”,
            on the various means of interpretation, which are referred to in articles 31 and 32 of the
            1969 Vienna Convention. The Commission did not, however, consider it necessary to
            include a reference, by way of example, to one or more specific means of interpretation in
            the text of paragraph 5 of draft conclusion 2 [1]. 420 This avoids a possible misunderstanding
            that any one of the different means of interpretation has priority over others, regardless of
            the specific treaty provision or the case concerned.
            (14) Paragraph 5 uses the term “means of interpretation”. This term captures not only the
            “supplementary means of interpretation”, which are referred to in article 32, but also the
            elements mentioned in article 31.421 Whereas the Commission, in its commentary on the
            draft articles on the law of treaties, sometimes used the terms “means of interpretation” and
            “elements of interpretation” interchangeably, for the purpose of the present topic the
            Commission retained the term “means of interpretation” because it also describes their
            function in the process of interpretation as a tool or an instrument. 422 The term “means”
            does not set apart from each other the different elements, which are mentioned in articles 31
            and 32. It rather indicates that these means each have a function in the process of
            interpretation, which is a “single”, and at the same time a “combined”, operation.423 Just as
            courts typically begin their reasoning by looking at the terms of the treaty, and then
            continue, in an interactive process, 424 to analyse those terms in their context and in the light
            of the object and purpose of the treaty, 425 the precise relevance of different means of
        416
            A/CN.4/660, para. 64; and Nolte, “Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice …” (see
            footnote 410 above), at pp. 171 and 177.
        417
            On the different function of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to other means
            of interpretation, see A/CN.4/660, paras. 42-57; and Nolte, “Jurisprudence of the International Court
            of Justice …” (see footnote 410 above), at p. 183.
        418
            Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, pp. 219-220, para. (8).
        419
            Ibid.
        420
            This had been proposed by the Special Rapporteur in his first report, see A/CN.4/660, para. 28: “Draft
            conclusion 1 (General rule and means of treaty interpretation) … The interpretation of a treaty in a
            specific case may result in a different emphasis on the various means of interpretation contained in
            articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention, in particular on the text of the treaty or on its object and
            purpose, depending on the treaty or on the treaty provisions concerned.” See also the analysis in the
            first report (ibid., paras. 8-27).
        421
            See also above commentary to draft conclusion 2 [1], para. (1); and Villiger, “The 1969 Vienna
            Convention … “(see footnote 391 above), p. 129; Daillier, Forteau and Pellet, Droit international
            public (see footnote 394 above), at pp. 284-289.
        422
            Provisional summary record of the 3172nd meeting, 31 May 2013 (A/CN.4/SR.3172), p. 4.
        423
            Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, pp. 219-220, para. (8).
        424
            Ibid.
        425
            Ibid., p. 219, para. (6). See also Yasseen, “L’interprétation des traités …” (footnote 393 above), at p.
            58; Sinclair, The Vienna Convention … (footnote 393 above ), at p. 130; J. Klabbers, “Treaties, object
130                                                                                                                   GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 41 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 42 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                         A/71/10
               interpretation must first be identified in any case of treaty interpretation before they can be
               “thrown into the crucible”426 in order to arrive at a proper interpretation, by giving them
               appropriate weight in relation to each other.
               (15) The obligation to place “appropriate emphasis on the various means of
               interpretation” may, in the course of the interpretation of a treaty in specific cases, result in
               a different emphasis on the various means of interpretation depending on the treaty or on
               the treaty provisions concerned.427 This is not to suggest that a court or any other interpreter
               is more or less free to choose how to use and apply the different means of interpretation.
               What guides the interpretation is the evaluation by the interpreter, which consists in
               identifying the relevance of different means of interpretation in a specific case and in
               determining their interaction with the other means of interpretation in this case by placing a
               proper emphasis on them in good faith, as required by the rule to be applied. 428 This
               evaluation should include, if possible and practicable, consideration of relevant prior
               assessments and decisions in the same and possibly also in other relevant areas. 429
               (16) The Commission debated whether it would be appropriate to refer, in draft
               conclusion 2 [1], to the “nature” of the treaty as a factor that would typically be relevant in
               determining whether more or less weight should be given to certain means of
               interpretation.430 Some members considered that the subject matter of a treaty (for example,
               whether provisions concern purely economic matters or rather address the human rights of
               individuals; and whether the rules of a treaty are more technical or more value-oriented) as
               well as its basic structure and function (for example, whether provisions are more
               reciprocal in nature or intended more to protect a common good) may affect its
               interpretation. They indicated that the jurisprudence of different international courts and
               and purpose”, Max Planck Encyclopedia on Public International Law (www.mpepil.com), para. 7;
               Villiger, Commentary … (see footnote 414 above), at p. 427, para. 11; Border and Transborder
               Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
               1988, p. 69, at p. 89, paras. 45-46; Delimitation of the continental shelf between the United Kingdom
               of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the French Republic, decision of 30 June 1977, UNRIAA,
               vol. XVIII (sales No. E/F.80.V.7), pp. 3-413, at pp. 32-35, para. 39.
           426
               Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 220.
           427
               Draft conclusion 1, para. 2, as proposed in document A/CN.4/660, at para. 28, and, generally, paras.
               10-27.
           428
               Decisions of domestic courts have not been uniform as regards the relative weight that subsequent
               agreements and subsequent practice possess in the process of treaty interpretation, see United
               Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, House of Lords: R (Mullen) v. Secretary of State for
               the Home Department [2004] UKHL 18, paras. 47-48 (Lord Steyn); Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air
               Travel Group Litigation [2005] UKHL 72, para. 31 (Lord Steyn). United States of America, Supreme
               Court: Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176 (1982), pp. 183-185; O’Connor v.
               United States, 479 U.S. 27 (1986), pp. 31-32; United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353 (1989), where a
               dissenting judge (Justice Scalia) criticized the majority of the Court for relying on “[t]he practice of
               the treaty signatories”, which, according to him, need not be consulted, since when the “Treaty’s
               language resolves the issue presented, there is no necessity of looking further”, at p. 371. Switzerland:
               Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 21 January 2010, BVGE 2010/7, para 3.7.11; Federal
               Supreme Court, A v. B, appeal judgment of 8 April 2004, No. 4C.140/2003, BGE, vol. 130 III, p. 430,
               at p. 439.
           429
               The first report (A/CN.4/660) refers to the jurisprudence of different international courts and tribunals
               as examples of how the weight of a means in an interpretation exercise is to be determined in specific
               cases and demonstrates how given instances of subsequent practice and subsequent agreements
               contributed, or not, to the determination of the ordinary meaning of the terms in their context and in
               light of the object and purpose of the treaty.
           430
               Draft conclusion 1, para. 2, as proposed in the first report (A/CN.4/660), para. 28, and analysis at
               paras. 8-28.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                  131
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 42 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 43 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            tribunals suggested that this is the case. 431 It was also mentioned that the concept of the
            “nature” of a treaty is not alien to the 1969 Vienna Convention (see, for example, article 56,
            paragraph 1 (a))432 and that the concept of the “nature” of the treaty and/or of treaty
            provisions had been included in other work of the Commission, in particular on the topic of
            the effects of armed conflicts on treaties.433 Other members, however, considered that the
            draft conclusion should not refer to the “nature” of the treaty in order to preserve the unity
            of the interpretation process and to avoid any categorization of treaties. The point was also
            made that the notion of the “nature of the treaty” was unclear and that it would be difficult
            to distinguish it from the object and purpose of the treaty. 434 The Commission ultimately
            decided to leave the question open and to make no reference in draft conclusion 2 [1] to the
            nature of the treaty for the time being.
                     Conclusion 3 [2]
                     Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice as authentic means of
                     interpretation
                              Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3
                     (a) and (b), being objective evidence of the understanding of the parties as to the
                     meaning of the treaty, are authentic means of interpretation, in the application of the
                     general rule of treaty interpretation reflected in article 31.
            Commentary
            (1)      By characterizing subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31,
            paragraph 3 (a) and (b), of the 1969 Vienna Convention as “authentic means of
            interpretation”, the Commission indicates the reason why those means are significant for
        431
            WTO Panels and the Appellate Body, for example, seem to emphasize more the terms of the
            respective WTO-covered agreement (for example, WTO Appellate Body, Brazil — Export Financing
            Programme for Aircraft, Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU, WT/DS46/AB/RW,
            adopted 4 August 2000, para. 45), whereas the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-
            American Court of Human Rights highlight the character of the Convention as a human rights treaty
            (for example, Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, ECHR 2005-I,
            para. 111; The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of
            the Due Process of Law, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, 1 October 1999, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. Series A
            No. 16, para. 58); see also Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement
            No. 10 (A/66/10 and Add.1), pp. 281-282, and Nolte, “Jurisprudence under special regimes …” (see
            footnote 398 above), p. 210, at pp. 216, 244-246, 249-262 and 270-275.
        432
            M. Forteau, “Les techniques interprétatives de la Cour internationale de Justice”, Revue générale de
            droit international public, vol. 115 (2011), p. 399, at pp. 406-407 and 416; Legal Consequences for
            States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding
            Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16, Separate
            Opinion of Judge Dillard, p. 150, at p. 154, at footnote 1.
        433
            Articles on the effects of armed conflicts on treaties (art. 6 (a)), General Assembly resolution 66/99 of
            9 December 2011, annex; see also the guide to practice on reservations to treaties, Official Records of
            the General Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10 and Add.1); guideline 4.2.5
            refers to the nature of obligations of the treaty, rather than the nature of the treaty as such.
        434
            According to the commentary to guideline 4.2.5 of the guide to practice on reservations to treaties, it
            is difficult to distinguish between the nature of treaty obligations and the object and purpose of the
            treaty (guide to practice on reservations to treaties, commentary to guideline 4.2.5, para. (3), in
            Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10 and
            Add.1)). On the other hand, art. 6 of the articles on the effects of armed conflicts on treaties suggests
            “a series of factors pertaining to the nature of the treaty, particularly its subject matter, its object and
            purpose, its content and the number of the parties to the treaty”, ibid., commentary to draft article 6,
            para. (3).
132                                                                                                                      GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 43 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 44 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                      A/71/10
               the interpretation of treaties. 435 The Commission thereby follows its 1966 commentary on
               the draft articles on the law of treaties, which described subsequent agreements and
               subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), as “authentic means of
               interpretation” and which underlined that:
                       “The importance of such subsequent practice in the application of the treaty, as an
                       element of interpretation, is obvious; for it constitutes objective evidence of the
                       understanding of the parties as to the meaning of the treaty.”436
               (2)     Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (a)
               and (b), are, however, not the only “authentic means of interpretation”. As the Commission
               has explained:
                       “… the Commission’s approach to treaty interpretation was on the basis that the text
                       of the treaty must be presumed to be the authentic expression of the intentions of the
                       parties, … making the ordinary meaning of the terms, the context of the treaty, its
                       objects and purposes, and the general rules of international law, together with
                       authentic interpretations by the parties, the primary criteria for interpreting a
                       treaty”.437
               The term “authentic” thus refers to different forms of “objective evidence” or “proof” of
               conduct of the parties, which reflects the “common understanding of the parties” as to the
               meaning of the treaty.
               (3)     By describing subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31,
               paragraph 3 (a) and (b), as “authentic” means of interpretation, the Commission recognizes
               that the common will of the parties, from which any treaty results, possesses a specific
               authority regarding the identification of the meaning of the treaty, even after the conclusion
               of the treaty. The 1969 Vienna Convention thereby accords the parties to a treaty a role that
               may be uncommon for the interpretation of legal instruments in some domestic legal
               systems.
               (4)     The character of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice of the parties under
               article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), as “authentic means of interpretation” does not,
               however, imply that these means necessarily possess a conclusive, or legally binding,
               effect. According to the chapeau of article 31, paragraph 3, subsequent agreements and
               subsequent practice shall, after all, only “be taken into account” in the interpretation of a
               treaty, which consists of a “single combined operation” with no hierarchy among the means
               of interpretation that are referred to in article 31.438 For this reason, and contrary to the view
           435
               See R. Jennings and A. Watts, eds., Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th edition, vol. 1 (Harlow,
               Longman, 1992), p. 1268, para. 630; G. Fitzmaurice, “The law and procedure of the International
               Court of Justice 1951-4: treaty interpretation and certain other treaty points”, British Yearbook of
               International Law 1957, vol. 33, pp. 203-293, at pp. 223-225; WTO Panel Report, United States —
               Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (second complaint) (US — Large Civil Aircraft (2nd
               Complaint)), WT/DS353/R, adopted 23 March 2012, para. 7.953.
           436
               See Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 221, para. (15).
           437
               Yearbook … 1964, vol. II, document A/5809, pp. 204-205, para. (15); see also ibid., pp. 203-204,
               para. 13: “Paragraph 3 specifies as further authentic elements of interpretation: (a) agreements
               between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty, and (b) any subsequent practice in the
               application of the treaty which clearly established the understanding of all the parties regarding its
               interpretation” (emphasis added); on the other hand, Waldock explained in his third report that “…
               travaux préparatoires are not, as such, an authentic means of interpretation”. See ibid., document
               A/CN.4/167 and Add.1-3, pp. 58-59, para. (21).
           438
               Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, pp. 219-220, paras. (8) and (9).
GE.16-14345                                                                                                               133
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 44 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 45 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            of some commentators,439 subsequent agreements and subsequent practice that establish the
            agreement of the parties regarding the interpretation of a treaty are not necessarily
            conclusive or legally binding. 440 Thus, when the Commission characterized a “subsequent
            agreement” as representing “an authentic interpretation by the parties which must be read
            into the treaty for purposes of its interpretation”,441 it did not go quite as far as saying that
            such an interpretation is necessarily conclusive in the sense that it overrides all other means
            of interpretation.
            (5)     This does not exclude that the parties to a treaty, if they wish, may reach a binding
            agreement regarding the interpretation of a treaty. The Special Rapporteur on the law of
            treaties, Sir Humphrey Waldock, stated in his third report that it may be difficult to
            distinguish subsequent practice of the parties under what became article 31, paragraph 3 (a)
            and (b) — which is only to be taken into account, among other means, in the process of
            interpretation — and a later agreement that the parties consider to be binding:
                    “Subsequent practice when it is consistent and embraces all the parties would appear
                    to be decisive of the meaning to be attached to the treaty, at any rate when it
                    indicates that the parties consider the interpretation to be binding upon them. In
                    these cases, subsequent practice as an element of treaty interpretation and as an
                    element in the formation of a tacit agreement overlap and the meaning derived from
                    the practice becomes an authentic interpretation established by agreement.”442
                    (emphasis added)
            Whereas Waldock’s original view that (simple) agreed subsequent practice “would appear
            to be decisive of the meaning” was ultimately not adopted in the 1969 Vienna Convention,
            subsequent agreements and subsequent practice establishing the agreement of the parties
            regarding the interpretation of a treaty must be conclusive regarding such interpretation
            when “the parties consider the interpretation to be binding upon them”. It is, however,
            always possible that provisions of domestic law prohibit the Government of a State from
        439
            M.E. Villiger, “The rules on interpretation: misgivings, misunderstandings, miscarriage? The
            ‘crucible’ intended by the International Law Commission”, in The Law of Treaties beyond the Vienna
            Convention, E. Cannizzaro, ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 105-122, at p. 111;
            Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), at p. 34; O. Dörr, “Article 31, general rule
            of interpretation”, in Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. A commentary, O. Dörr and K.
            Schmalenbach, eds. (Berlin, Springer, 2012), pp. 521-570, at pp. 553-554, paras. 72-75; K.
            Skubiszewski, “Remarks on the interpretation of the United Nations Charter”, in Völkerrecht als
            Rechtsordnung, Internationale Gerichtsbarkeit, Menschenrechte — Festschrift für Hermann Mosler,
            R. Bernhardt and others, eds. (Berlin, Springer, 1983), pp. 891-902, at p. 898.
        440
            H. Fox, “Article 31 (3) (a) and (b) of the Vienna Convention and the Kasikili Sedudu Island Case”, in
            Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 Years on, M.
            Fitzmaurice, O. Elias and P. Merkouris, eds. (Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, 2010), pp. 59-74, at pp. 61-
            62; A. Chanaki, L’adaptation des traités dans le temps (Brussels, Bruylant, 2013), pp. 313-315; M.
            Benatar, “From probative value to authentic interpretation: the legal effects of interpretative
            declarations”, Revue belge de droit international, vol. 44 (2011), pp. 170-195, at pp. 194-195;
            cautious: J.M. Sorel and B. Eveno, “1969 Vienna Convention, Article 31: General rule of
            interpretation”, in Corten and Klein, The Vienna Conventions … (see footnote 394 above), pp. 804-
            837, at p. 825, paras. 42-43; see also G. Nolte, “Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice of
            States outside of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings”, in Nolte, Treaties and Subsequent Practice
            (see footnote 398 above), pp. 307-385, at p. 375, para. 16.4.3.
        441
            Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 221, para. (14).
        442
            Yearbook … 1964, vol. II, document A/CN.4/167 and Add.1-3, p. 60, para. (25).
134                                                                                                                GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 45 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 46 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                      A/71/10
               arriving at a binding agreement in such cases without satisfying certain — mostly
               procedural — requirements under its constitution. 443
               (6)      The possibility of arriving at a binding subsequent interpretative agreement by the
               parties is particularly clear in cases in which the treaty itself so provides. Article 1131,
               paragraph 2, of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for example,
               provides that: “An interpretation by the [inter-governmental] Commission of a provision of
               this Agreement shall be binding on a Tribunal established under this Section.”444 The
               existence of such a special procedure or an agreement regarding the authoritative
               interpretation of a treaty that the parties consider binding may or may not preclude
               additional recourse to subsequent agreements or subsequent practice under article 31,
               paragraph 3 (a) and (b), of the 1969 Vienna Convention. 445
               (7)      The Commission has continued to use the term “authentic means of interpretation”
               in order to describe the not necessarily conclusive, but more or less authoritative, character
               of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b).
               The Commission has not employed the terms “authentic interpretation” or “authoritative
               interpretation” in draft conclusion 3 [2] since these concepts are often understood to mean a
               necessarily conclusive, or binding, agreement between the parties regarding the
               interpretation of a treaty.446
               (8)      Domestic courts have sometimes explicitly recognized that subsequent agreements
               and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), are “authentic” means of
               interpretation.447 They have, however, not always been consistent regarding the legal
               consequences that this characterization entails. Whereas some courts have assumed that
               subsequent agreements and practice by the parties under the treaty may produce certain
           443
               See, for example, Germany, Federal Fiscal Court, BFHE, vol. 181, p. 158, at p. 161; and ibid., vol.
               219, p. 518 et seq., at pp. 527-528.
           444
               North American Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the United States of America, the
               Government of Canada and the Government of the United Mexican States (1992) (Washington, D.C.,
               United States Government Printing Office, 1993).
           445
               This question will be explored in more detail at a later stage of the work on the topic. See also: the
               Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (1994), United Nations, Treaty
               Series, vol. 1867, No. 31874, p. 3, art. IX, para. 2; WTO Appellate Body Report, European
               Communities — Custom Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts (EC — Chicken Cuts),
               WT/DS269/AB/R and Corr.1, WT/DS286/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 27 September 2005, para. 273;
               WTO Appellate Body Report, European Communities — Regime for the Importation, Sale and
               Distribution of Bananas, Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador (EC — Bananas
               III), Second Recourse to Article 21.5, WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU and Corr.1, adopted 11 December
               2008, WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA and Corr.1, adopted 22 December 2008, paras. 383 and 390.
           446
               See, for example, Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL Arbitration under
               NAFTA Chapter Eleven, Final Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 August 2005, Part II, chap. H,
               para. 23 (with reference to Jennings and Watts, see footnote 435 above), p. 1268, para. 630);
               Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), at p. 34; U. Linderfalk, On the
               Interpretation of Treaties (Dordrecht, Springer, 2007), p. 153; Skubiszewski, “Remarks on the
               interpretation of the United Nations Charter” (see footnote 439 above), at p. 898; G. Haraszti, Some
               Fundamental Problems of the Law of Treaties (Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1973), p. 43; see also
               Nolte, “Jurisprudence under special regimes … (see footnote 398 above), p. 210, at p. 240, para. 4.5.
           447
               Switzerland Federal Supreme Court: A v. B, appeal judgment of 8 April 2004, No. 4C.140/2003,
               BGE, vol. 130 III, p. 430, at p. 439 (where the Court speaks of the parties as being “masters of the
               treaty” (“Herren der Verträge”); judgment of 12 September 2012, No. 2C_743/2011, BGE, vol. 138
               II, p. 524, at pp. 527-528. Germany, Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE, vol. 90, p. 286, at p.
               362. See also India, Supreme Court, Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. and Another v. The State of Gujarat
               and Another [1975] AIR 32. Available from http://indiankanoon.org/doc/737188 (accessed 8 June
               2016).
GE.16-14345                                                                                                               135
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 46 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 47 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            binding effects,448 others have rightly emphasized that article 31, paragraph 3, only requires
            that subsequent agreements and subsequent practice “be taken into account”.449
            (9)      The term “authentic means of interpretation” encompasses a factual and a legal
            element. The factual element is indicated by the expression “objective evidence”, whereas
            the legal element is contained in the concept of “understanding of the parties”. Accordingly,
            the Commission characterized a “subsequent agreement” as representing “an authentic
            interpretation by the parties which must be read into the treaty for purposes of its
            interpretation”,450 and subsequently stated that subsequent practice “similarly … constitutes
            objective evidence of the understanding of the parties as to the meaning of the treaty”.451
            Given the character of treaties as embodiments of the common will of their parties,
            “objective evidence” of the “understanding of the parties” possesses considerable authority
            as a means of interpretation.452
            (10) The distinction between any “subsequent agreement” (article 31, paragraph 3 (a))
            and “subsequent practice … which establishes the agreement of the parties” (article 31,
            paragraph 3 (b)) does not denote a difference concerning their authentic character. 453 The
            Commission rather considers that a “subsequent agreement between the parties regarding
            the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions” ipso facto has the effect
            of constituting an authentic interpretation of the treaty, whereas a “subsequent practice”
            only has this effect if it “shows the common understanding of the parties as to the meaning
            of the terms”.454 Thus, the difference between a “subsequent agreement between the
            parties” and a “subsequent practice … which establishes the agreement of the parties” lies
            in the manner of establishing the agreement of the parties regarding the interpretation of a
            treaty, with the difference being in the greater ease with which an agreement is
            established.455
            (11) Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice as authentic means of treaty
            interpretation are not to be confused with interpretations of treaties by international courts,
            tribunals or expert treaty bodies in specific cases. Subsequent agreements or subsequent
            practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), are “authentic” means of interpretation
            because they are expressions of the understanding of the treaty by the States parties
            themselves. The authority of international courts, tribunals and expert treaty bodies rather
            derives from other sources, most often from the treaty that is to be interpreted. Judgments
            and other pronouncements of international courts, tribunals and expert treaty bodies,
            however, may be indirectly relevant for the identification of subsequent agreements and
        448
            Germany, Federal Fiscal Court, BFHE, vol. 215, p. 237, at p. 241; ibid., vol. 181, p. 158, at p. 161.
        449
            New Zealand, Court of Appeal, Zaoui v. Attorney-General (No. 2) [2005] 1 NZLR 690, para. 130;
            Hong Kong, China, Court of Final Appeal, Ng Ka Ling and Others v. Director of Immigration [1999]
            1 HKLRD 315, 354; Austria, Supreme Administrative Court, VwGH, judgment of 30 March 2006,
            2002/15/0098, 2, 5.
        450
            Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 221, para. (14).
        451
            Ibid., para. (15).
        452
            Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), at pp. 34 and 414-415; Linderfalk, On the
            Interpretation of Treaties (see footnote 446 above), at pp. 152-153.
        453
            A/CN.4/660, para. 69.
        454
            Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, pp. 221-222, para. (15); see also W. Karl,
            Vertrag und spätere Praxis im Völkerrecht (Berlin, Springer, 1983), p. 294.
        455
            Kasikili/Sedudu Island (see footnote 395 above), at p. 1087, para. 63, see also below draft conclusion
            4 and the commentary thereto.
136                                                                                                                GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 47 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 48 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                     A/71/10
               subsequent practice as authentic means of interpretation if they refer to, reflect or trigger
               such subsequent agreements and practice of the parties themselves. 456
               (12) Draft conclusions 2 [1] and 4 distinguish between “subsequent practice” establishing
               the agreement of the parties under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), of the 1969 Vienna
               Convention, on the one hand, and other subsequent practice (in a broad sense) by one or
               more, but not all, parties to the treaty that may be relevant as a supplementary means of
               interpretation under article 32.457 Such “other” subsequent interpretative practice that does
               not establish the agreement of all the parties cannot constitute an “authentic” interpretation
               of a treaty by all its parties and thus will not possess the same weight for the purpose of
               interpretation.458
               (13) The last part of draft conclusion 3 [2] makes it clear that any reliance on subsequent
               agreements and subsequent practice as authentic means of interpretation should occur as
               part of the application of the general rule of treaty interpretation reflected in article 31 of
               the 1969 Vienna Convention.
                       Conclusion 4
                       Definition of subsequent agreement and subsequent practice
                       1.       A “subsequent agreement” as an authentic means of interpretation under
                       article 31, paragraph 3 (a), is an agreement between the parties, reached after the
                       conclusion of a treaty, regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of
                       its provisions.
                       2.       A “subsequent practice” as an authentic means of interpretation under article
                       31, paragraph 3 (b), consists of conduct in the application of a treaty, after its
                       conclusion, which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding the
                       interpretation of the treaty.
                       3.       Other “subsequent practice” as a supplementary means of interpretation
                       under article 32 consists of conduct by one or more parties in the application of the
                       treaty, after its conclusion.
               Commentary
               General aspects
               (1)     Draft conclusion 4 defines the three different “subsequent” means of treaty
               interpretation that are mentioned in draft conclusion 2 [1], paragraphs 3 and 4, namely
               “subsequent agreement” under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), “subsequent practice” under
               article 31, paragraph 3 (b), and other “subsequent practice” under article 32.
               (2)     In all three cases, the term “subsequent” refers to acts occurring “after the
               conclusion of a treaty”.459 This point in time is often earlier than the moment when the
               treaty enters into force (article 24). Various provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention (for
               example, article 18) show that a treaty may be “concluded” before its actual entry into
               force.460 For the purposes of the present topic, “conclusion” is whenever the text of the
           456
               See below draft conclusion 12 [11] and Nolte, “Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice of
               States …” (footnote 440 above), p. 307, at pp. 381 et seq., para. 17.3.1.
           457
               See below in particular paras. (23) to (37) of the commentary to draft conclusion 4, para. 3.
           458
               See below also para. (35) of the commentary to draft conclusion 4, para. 3.
           459
               Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 221, para. (14).
           460
               See J.L. Brierly, second report on the law of treaties, Yearbook … 1951, vol. II, document A/CN.4/43,
               pp. 70 et seq.; and G.G. Fitzmaurice, first report on the law of treaties, Yearbook … 1956, vol. II,
GE.16-14345                                                                                                              137
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 48 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 49 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            treaty has been established as definite. It is after conclusion, not just after entry into force,
            of a treaty when subsequent agreements and subsequent practice can occur. Indeed, it is
            difficult to identify a reason why an agreement or practice that takes place between the
            moment when the text of a treaty has been established as definite and the entry into force of
            that treaty should not be relevant for the purpose of interpretation. 461
            (3)      Article 31, paragraph 2, of the 1969 Vienna Convention provides that the “context”
            of the treaty includes certain “agreements” and “instruments”462 that “are made in
            connection with the conclusion of the treaty”. The phrase “in connection with the
            conclusion of the treaty” should be understood as including agreements and instruments
            that are made in a close temporal and contextual relation with the conclusion of the
            treaty.463 If they are made after this period, then such “agreements” and agreed upon
            “instruments” constitute “subsequent agreements” or subsequent practice under article 31,
            paragraph 3.464
            Paragraph 1 — definition of “subsequent agreement” under article 31, paragraph 3 (a)
            (4)      Paragraph 1 of draft conclusion 4 provides the definition of “subsequent agreement”
            under article 31, paragraph 3 (a).
            (5)      Article 31, paragraph 3 (a), uses the term “subsequent agreement” and not the term
            “subsequent treaty”. A “subsequent agreement” is, however, not necessarily less formal
            than a “treaty”. Whereas a treaty within the meaning of the 1969 Vienna Convention must
            be in written form (article 2, paragraph 1 (a)), the customary international law on treaties
            knows no such requirement.465 The term “agreement” in the 1969 Vienna Convention466 and
            in customary international law does not imply any particular degree of formality. Article 39
            of the 1969 Vienna Convention, which lays down the general rule according to which: “[a]
            treaty may be amended by agreement between the parties”, has been explained by the
            Commission to mean that: “An amending agreement may take whatever form the parties to
            document A/CN.4/101, p. 112; see also S. Rosenne, “Treaties, conclusion and entry into force”, in
            Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. 7, R. Bernhardt, ed. (Amsterdam, North Holland,
            2000), p. 465 (“[s]trictly speaking it is the negotiation that is concluded through a treaty”); Villiger,
            Commentary … (see footnote 414 above), at pp. 78-80, paras. 9-14.
        461
            See, for example, Declaration on the European Stability Mechanism, agreed on by the Contracting
            Parties to the Treaty Establishing the Stability Mechanism, 27 September 2012.
        462
            See Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 221, para. (13); the German Federal
            Constitutional Court has held that this term may include unilateral declarations if the other party did
            not object to them, see German Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE, vol. 40, p. 141, at p. 176; see,
            generally, Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (footnote 392 above ), at pp. 240-242.
        463
            Yasseen, “L’interprétation des traités …” (see footnote 393 above ), at p. 38; Jennings and Watts,
            Oppenheim’s International Law (see footnote 435 above), p. 1274, para. 632 (“… but, on the other
            hand, too long a lapse of time between the treaty and the additional agreement might prevent it being
            regarded as made in connection with ‘the conclusion of’ the treaty”).
        464
            See Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 221, para. (14); see also Villiger,
            Commentary … (above footnote 414), at p. 431, paras. 20-21; see also K.J. Heller, “The uncertain
            legal status of the aggression understandings”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 10
            (2012), p. 229-248, at p. 237.
        465
            Villiger, Commentary … (see footnote 414 above), at p. 80, para. 15; P. Gautier, “Commentary on
            article 2 of the Vienna Convention”, in Corten and Klein, The Vienna Conventions … (see footnote
            394 above), vol. II, at pp. 38-40, paras. 14-18; J. Klabbers, The Concept of Treaty in International
            Law (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 1996), pp. 49-50; see also A. Aust, “The theory and
            practice of informal international instruments”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol.
            35, No. 4 (1986), pp. 787-812, at pp. 794 et seq.
        466
            See articles 2, para. 1 (a), 3, 24, para. 2, 39-41, 58 and 60.
138                                                                                                                   GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 49 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 50 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                       A/71/10
               the original treaty may choose.”467 In the same way, the Vienna Convention does not
               envisage any particular formal requirements for agreements and practice under article 31,
               paragraph 3 (a) and (b).468
               (6)      While every treaty is an agreement, not every agreement is a treaty. Indeed, a
               “subsequent agreement” under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), “shall” only “be taken into
               account” in the interpretation of a treaty. Therefore, it is not necessarily binding. The
               question under which circumstances a subsequent agreement between the parties is binding,
               and under which circumstances it is merely a means of interpretation among several others,
               is addressed in draft conclusion 10 [9].
               (7)      The 1969 Vienna Convention distinguishes a “subsequent agreement” under article
               31, paragraph 3 (a), from “any subsequent practice … which establishes the agreement of
               the parties regarding its interpretation” under article 31, paragraph 3 (b). This distinction is
               not always clear and the jurisprudence of international courts and other adjudicative bodies
               shows a certain reluctance to assert it. In Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v.
               Chad), the International Court of Justice used the expression “subsequent attitudes” to
               denote both what it later described as “subsequent agreements” and as subsequent unilateral
               “attitudes”.469 In the case concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan,
               the International Court of Justice left the question open whether the use of a particular map
               could constitute a subsequent agreement or subsequent practice. 470 WTO Panels and the
               Appellate Body have also not always distinguished between a subsequent agreement and
               subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b). 471
               (8)      The Tribunal of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in CCFT v.
               United States,472 however, has squarely addressed this distinction. In that case the United
           467
               Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, pp. 232 and 233; see also Villiger,
               Commentary … (footnote 414 above), at p. 513, para. 7; P. Sands, “Commentary on article 39 of the
               Vienna Convention”, in Corten and Klein, The Vienna Conventions … (see footnote 394 above), at
               pp. 971-972, paras. 31-34.
           468
               Draft article 27, paragraph 3 (b), which later became article 31, paragraph 3 (b), of the Vienna
               Convention, contained the word “understanding”, which was changed to “agreement” at the United
               Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties. This change was “related to drafting only”, see Official
               Records of the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, First session, Vienna 26 March-24
               May 1968 (A/CONF.39/11, sales No. E.68.V.7), p. 169; Fox, “Article 31 (3) (a) and (b) …” (see
               footnote 440 above ), at p. 63.
           469
               See Territorial Dispute (see footnote 395 above), p. 6, at pp. 34 et seq., paras. 66 et seq.
           470
               Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (see footnote 395 above), at p. 656, para. 61; in
               the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case, the Court spoke of “subsequent positions” in order to establish that
               “the explicit terms of the treaty itself were, therefore, in practice acknowledged by the parties to be
               negotiable”, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 7,
               at p. 77, para. 138, see also Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and
               Bahrain, Judgment (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 6, at p. 16, para. 28
               (“subsequent conduct”).
           471
               See “Scheduling guidelines” in WTO Panel Report, Mexico — Measures Affecting
               Telecommunications Services, WT/DS204/R, adopted 1 June 2004, and in WTO Appellate Body
               Report, United States — Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting
               Services, WT/DS285/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 20 April 2005; to qualify a “1981 Understanding” in
               WTO Panel Report, United States — Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations”,
               WT/DS108/R, adopted 20 March 2000; “Tokyo Round SCM Code” in WTO Panel Report, Brazil —
               Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut, WT/DS22/R, adopted 20 March 1997, and a “waiver” in
               WTO Appellate Body Report, EC — Bananas III (see footnote 445 above).
           472
               C.C.F.T. v. United States, UNCITRAL Arbitration under NAFTA Chapter Eleven, Award on
               Jurisdiction, 28 January 2008; see also Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal
               S.A. v. Argentine Republic, Decision on the Challenge to the President of the Committee, 3 October
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                139
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 50 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 51 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            States of America asserted that a number of unilateral actions by the three NAFTA parties
            could, if considered together, constitute a subsequent agreement. 473 In a first step, the Panel
            did not find that the evidence was sufficient to establish such a subsequent agreement under
            article 31, paragraph 3 (a).474 In a second step, however, the Tribunal concluded that the
            very same evidence constituted a relevant subsequent practice that established an agreement
            between the parties regarding the interpretation:
                     “The question remains: is there ‘subsequent practice’ that establishes the agreement
                     of the NAFTA Parties on this issue within the meaning of article 31 (3) (b)? The
                     Tribunal concludes that there is. Although there is, to the Tribunal, insufficient
                     evidence on the record to demonstrate a ‘subsequent agreement between the parties
                     regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions,’ the
                     available evidence cited by the Respondent demonstrates to us that there is
                     nevertheless a ‘subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes
                     the agreement of the parties regarding its applications … .”475
            (9)      This reasoning suggests that one difference between a “subsequent agreement” and
            “subsequent practice” under article 31, paragraph 3, lies in different forms that embody the
            “authentic” expression of the will of the parties. Indeed, by distinguishing between “any
            subsequent agreement” under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), and “subsequent practice …
            which establishes the understanding of the parties” under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), of the
            1969 Vienna Convention, the Commission did not intend to denote a difference concerning
            their possible legal effect.476 The difference between the two concepts, rather, lies in the
            fact that a “subsequent agreement between the parties” ipso facto has the effect of
            constituting an authentic means of interpretation of the treaty, whereas a “subsequent
            practice” only has this effect if its different elements, taken together, show “the common
            understanding of the parties as to the meaning of the terms”.477
            (10) Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3, are
            hence distinguished based on whether an agreement of the parties can be identified as such,
            in a common act, or whether it is necessary to identify an agreement through individual acts
            that in their combination demonstrate a common position. A “subsequent agreement” under
            article 31, paragraph 3 (a), must therefore be “reached” and presupposes a single common
            act by the parties by which they manifest their common understanding regarding the
            interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions.
            (11) “Subsequent practice” under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), on the other hand,
            encompasses all (other) relevant forms of subsequent conduct by the parties to a treaty that
            contribute to the identification of an agreement, or “understanding”,478 of the parties
            regarding the interpretation of the treaty. It is, however, possible that “practice” and
            2001, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, ICSID Reports 2004, vol. 6 (2004), p. 168, at p. 174, para. 12; P.
            Merkouris and M. Fitzmaurice, “Canons of treaty interpretation: selected case studies from the World
            Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement”, in Fitzmaurice, Elias and
            Merkouris, Treaty Interpretation … (see footnote 440 above), at pp. 217-233.
        473
            C.C.F.T. v. United States (see footnote 472 above), paras. 174-177.
        474
            Ibid., paras. 184-187.
        475
            Ibid., paras. 188, see also para. 189; and in a similar sense: Aguas del Tunari SA v. Republic of
            Bolivia (Netherlands/Bolivia BIT), Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction, ICSID Case
            No. ARB/02/3, 21 October 2005, ICSID Review — Foreign Investment Law Journal, vol. 20, No. 2
            (2005), p. 450, at pp. 528 et seq., paras. 251 et seq.
        476
            Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, pp. 221-222, para. (15).
        477
            Ibid.; see also Karl, Vertrag und spätere Praxis … (footnote 454 above), at p. 294.
        478
            The word “understanding” had been used by the Commission in the corresponding draft article 27,
            para. 3 (b), on the law of treaties (see footnote 468 above).
140                                                                                                              GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 51 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 52 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                      A/71/10
               “agreement” coincide in specific cases and cannot be distinguished. This explains why the
               term “subsequent practice” is sometimes used in a more general sense, which encompasses
               both means of interpretation that are referred to in article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b). 479
               (12) A group of separate subsequent agreements, each between a limited number of
               parties, but which, taken together, establish an agreement between all the parties to a treaty
               regarding its interpretation, is not normally “a” subsequent agreement under article 31,
               paragraph 3 (a). The term “subsequent agreement” under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), should,
               for the sake of clarity, be limited to a single agreement between all the parties. Different
               later agreements between a limited number of parties that, taken together, establish an
               agreement between all the parties regarding the interpretation of a treaty constitute
               subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b). Different such agreements between a
               limited number of parties that, even taken together, do not establish an agreement between
               all the parties regarding the interpretation of a treaty may have interpretative value as a
               supplementary means of interpretation under article 32 (see below at paragraphs (23) and
               (24)). Thus, the use of the term “subsequent agreement” is limited to agreements among all
               the parties to a treaty that are manifested in one single agreement — or in a common act in
               whatever form that reflects the agreement of all parties. 480
               (13) A subsequent agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), must be an agreement
               “regarding” the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions. The parties
               must therefore purport, possibly among other aims, to clarify the meaning of a treaty or
               how it is to be applied.481
               (14) Whether an agreement is one “regarding” the interpretation or application of a treaty
               can sometimes be determined by some reference that links the “subsequent agreement” to
               the treaty concerned. Such reference may also be comprised in a later treaty. In the Jan
               Mayen case between Denmark and Norway, for example, the International Court of Justice
               appears to have accepted that a “subsequent treaty” between the parties “in the same field”
               could be used for the purpose of the interpretation of the previous treaty. In that case,
               however, the Court ultimately declined to use the subsequent treaty for that purpose
               because it did not in any way “refer” to the previous treaty.482 In Dispute Regarding
               Navigation and Related Rights between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, Judge ad hoc Guillaume
               referred to the actual practice of tourism on the San Juan River in conformity with a
               memorandum of understanding between the two States. 483 It was not clear, however,
               whether this particular memorandum was meant by the parties to serve as an interpretation
               of the boundary treaty under examination.
               (15) The Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong, China has provided an example of a
               rather strict approach when it was called upon to interpret the Sino-British Joint Declaration
               in the case of Ng Ka Ling and Others v. Director of Immigration.484 In this case, one party
           479
               Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Provisional Measures, Order of 13 July
               2006, I.C.J. Reports 2006, p. 113, at pp. 127-128, para. 53: in this case, even an explicit subsequent
               verbal agreement was characterized by one of the parties as “subsequent practice”.
           480
               See WTO Appellate Body Report, United States — Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing
               and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/AB/R, adopted 13 June, para. 371. A common act
               may consist of an exchange of letters … .
           481
               Ibid., paras. 366-378, in particular para. 372; Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of Treaties (see
               footnote 446 above), at pp. 164 et seq.
           482
               Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
               1993, p. 38, at p. 51, para. 28.
           483
               Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (see footnote 395 above), Declaration of Judge ad
               hoc Guillaume, p. 290, at pp. 298-299, para. 16.
           484
               See Ng Ka Ling and Others v. Director of Immigration (footnote 449 above).
GE.16-14345                                                                                                               141
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 52 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 53 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            alleged that the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, consisting of representatives of China and
            the United Kingdom under article 5 of the Joint Declaration, had come to an agreement
            regarding the interpretation of the Joint Declaration. As evidence, the party pointed to a
            booklet that stated that it was compiled “on the basis of the existing immigration
            regulations and practices and the common view of the British and Chinese sides in the
            [Joint Liaison Group]”. The Court, however, did not find that the purpose of the booklet
            was to “interpret or to apply” the Joint Declaration within the meaning of article 31,
            paragraph 3 (a).485
            Paragraph 2 — definition of subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b)
            (16) Paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 4 does not intend to provide a general definition for
            any form of subsequent practice that may be relevant for the purpose of the interpretation of
            treaties. Paragraph 2 is limited to subsequent practice as a means of authentic interpretation
            that establishes the agreement of all the parties to the treaty, as formulated in article 31,
            paragraph 3 (b). Such subsequent practice (in a narrow sense) is distinguishable from other
            “subsequent practice” (in a broad sense) by one or more parties that does not establish the
            agreement of the parties, but which may nevertheless be relevant as a subsidiary means of
            interpretation according to article 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention. 486
            (17) Subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), may consist of any “conduct”.
            The word “conduct” is used in the sense of article 2 of the Commission’s articles on the
            responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. 487 It may thus include not only
            acts, but also omissions, including relevant silence, which contribute to establishing
            agreement.488 The question under which circumstances omissions, or silence, can contribute
            to an agreement of all the parties regarding the interpretation of a treaty is addressed in
            draft conclusion 10 [9], paragraph 2.
            (18) Subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), must be conduct “in the
            application of the treaty”. This includes not only official acts at the international or at the
            internal level that serve to apply the treaty, including to respect or to ensure the fulfilment
            of treaty obligations, but also, inter alia, official statements regarding its interpretation,
            such as statements at a diplomatic conference, statements in the course of a legal dispute, or
            judgments of domestic courts; official communications to which the treaty gives rise; or the
            enactment of domestic legislation or the conclusion of international agreements for the
            purpose of implementing a treaty even before any specific act of application takes place at
            the internal or at the international level.
            (19) It may be recalled that, in one case, a NAFTA Panel denied that internal legislation
            can be used as an interpretative aid:
                     “Finally, in light of the fact that both Parties have made references to their national
                     legislation on land transportation, the Panel deems it appropriate to refer to article 27
        485
            Ibid., at paras. 152-153.
        486
            On the distinction between the two forms of subsequent practice see below, paras. (23) and (24) of the
            present commentary.
        487
            Yearbook … 2001, vol. II (Part Two) and Corrigendum, pp. 34-35, paras. (2)-(4) of the commentary.
        488
            Waldock, third report on the law of treaties, Yearbook … 1964, vol. II, document A/CN.4/167 and
            Add.1-3, pp. 61-62, paras. (32)-(33); Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v
            Thailand), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 6, at p. 23; Case concerning
            Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of
            America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 392, at p. 410, para. 39;
            Dispute between Argentina and Chile concerning the Beagle Channel, UNRIAA, vol. XXI (Sales No.
            E/F.95.V2), pp. 53-264, at pp. 185-187, paras. 168-169.
142                                                                                                                GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 53 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 54 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                 A/71/10
                       of the Vienna Convention, which states that ‘A party may not invoke the provisions
                       of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.’ This provision
                       directs the Panel not to examine national laws but the applicable international law.
                       Thus, neither the internal law of the United States nor the Mexican law should be
                       utilized for the interpretation of NAFTA. To do so would be to apply an
                       inappropriate legal framework.”489
               Whereas article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention is certainly valid and important, this rule
               does not signify that national legislation may not be taken into account as an element of
               subsequent State practice in the application of the treaty. There is a difference between
               invoking internal law as a justification for a failure to perform a treaty and referring to
               internal law for the purpose of interpreting a provision of a treaty law. Accordingly,
               international adjudicatory bodies, in particular the WTO Appellate Body and the European
               Court of Human Rights, have recognized and regularly distinguish between internal
               legislation (and other implementing measures at the internal level) that violates treaty
               obligations and national legislation and other measures that can serve as a means to
               interpret the treaty.490 It should be noted, however, that an element of bona fide is implied
               in any “subsequent practice in the application of the treaty”. A manifest misapplication of a
               treaty, as opposed to a bona fide application (even if erroneous), is therefore not an
               “application of the treaty” in the sense of articles 31 and 32.
               (20) The requirement that subsequent practice in the application of a treaty under article
               31, paragraph 3 (b), must be “regarding its interpretation” has the same meaning as the
               parallel requirement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) (see paragraphs (13) and (14) above).
               It may often be difficult to distinguish between subsequent practice that specifically and
               purposefully relates to a treaty, that is “regarding its interpretation”, and other practice “in
               the application of the treaty”. The distinction, however, is important because only conduct
               that the parties undertake “regarding the interpretation of the treaty” is able to contribute to
               an “authentic” interpretation, whereas this requirement does not exist for other subsequent
               practice under article 32.
               (21) The question under which circumstances an “agreement of the parties regarding the
               interpretation of a treaty” is actually “established” is addressed in draft conclusion 10 [9].
               (22) Article 31, paragraph 3 (b), does not explicitly require that the practice must be the
               conduct of the parties to the treaty themselves. It is, however, the parties themselves, acting
               through their organs,491 or by way of conduct that is attributable to them, who engage in
               practice in the application of the treaty that may establish their agreement. The question of
           489
               NAFTA Arbitral Panel Final Report, Cross-Border Trucking Services (Mexico v. United States of
               America), No. USA-MEX-98-2008-01, adopted 6 February 2001, para. 224 (footnotes omitted).
           490
               For example, WTO Panel Report, United States — Section 110(5) Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R,
               adopted 27 July 2000, para. 6.55; WTO Panel Report, United States — Continued Existence and
               Application of Zeroing Methodology, WT/DS350/R, adopted 19 February 2009, para. 7.173; WTO
               Appellate Body Report, United States — Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on
               Certain Products from China, WT/DS379/AB/R, adopted 25 March 2011, paras. 335-336; CMS Gas
               Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic (United States/Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty),
               Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 17 July 2003, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, ICSID Reports
               2003, vol. 7, p. 492, para. 47; V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, 16 December 1999,
               ECHR 1999-IX, para. 73; Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, 3 December 2009, ECHR 2009-VI, para.
               54; Sigurður A. Sigurjónsson v. Iceland, no. 16130/90, 30 June 1993, ECHR Series A no. 264, para.
               35.
           491
               Karl, Vertrag und spätere Praxis … (see footnote 454 above), at pp. 115 et seq.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                          143
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 54 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 55 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            whether other actors can generate relevant subsequent practice is addressed in draft
            conclusion 5.492
            Paragraph 3 — “other” subsequent practice
            (23) Paragraph 3 of draft conclusion 4 addresses “other” subsequent practice, that is
            practice other than that referred to in article 31, paragraph 3 (b). This paragraph concerns
            “subsequent practice in the application of the treaty as a supplementary means of
            interpretation under article 32”, as mentioned in paragraph 4 of draft conclusion 2 [1]. This
            form of subsequent practice, which does not require the agreement of all the parties, was
            originally referred to in the commentary of the Commission as follows:
                    “But, in general, the practice of an individual party or of only some parties as an
                    element of interpretation is on a quite different plane from a concordant practice
                    embracing all the parties and showing their common understanding of the meaning
                    of the treaty. Subsequent practice of the latter kind evidences the agreement of the
                    parties as to the interpretation of the treaty and is analogous to an interpretative
                    agreement. For this reason the Commission considered that subsequent practice
                    establishing the common understanding of all the parties regarding the interpretation
                    of a treaty should be included in paragraph 3 [of what became article 31, paragraph
                    3, of the 1969 Vienna Convention] as an authentic means of interpretation alongside
                    interpretative agreements. The practice of individual States in the application of a
                    treaty, on the other hand, may be taken into account only as one of the ‘further’
                    means of interpretation mentioned in article 70.”493
            (24) Paragraph 3 of draft conclusion 4 does not enunciate a requirement, as it is contained
            in article 31, paragraph 3 (b), that the relevant practice be “regarding the interpretation” of
            the treaty. Thus, for the purposes of the third paragraph, any practice in the application of
            the treaty that may provide indications as to how the treaty should be interpreted may be a
            relevant supplementary means of interpretation under article 32.
            (25) This “other” subsequent practice, since the adoption of the 1969 Vienna Convention,
            has been recognized and applied by international courts and other adjudicatory bodies as a
            means of interpretation (see paragraphs (26) to (34) below). It should be noted, however,
            that the WTO Appellate Body, in Japan — Alcoholic Beverages II,494 has formulated a
            definition of subsequent practice for the purpose of treaty interpretation that seems to
            suggest that only such “subsequent practice in the application of the treaty” “which
            establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation” can at all be relevant
            for the purpose of treaty interpretation and not any other form of subsequent practice by one
            or more parties:
                    “… subsequent practice in interpreting a treaty has been recognized as a
                    ‘concordant, common and consistent’ sequence of acts or pronouncements which is
                    sufficient to establish a discernible pattern implying the agreement of the parties
                    regarding its interpretation.”495
        492
            See draft conclusion 5, para. 2.
        493
            Yearbook … 1964, vol. II, document A/5809, p. 204, para. (13); see also Yearbook … 1966, vol. II,
            document A/6309/Rev.1, pp. 221-222, para. (15).
        494
            WTO Appellate Body Report, Japan — Alcoholic Beverages II, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R and
            WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted on 1 November 1996, and WTO Report of the Panel, WT/DS8/R,
            WT/DS10/R and WT/DS11/R, adopted on 1 November 1996.
        495
            Ibid. (WTO Appellate Body Report), section E, p. 16.
144                                                                                                           GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 55 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 56 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                        A/71/10
               However, the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and other international
               courts and tribunals, and ultimately even that of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body itself
               (see paragraphs (33) and (34) below), demonstrate that subsequent practice that fulfils all
               the conditions of article 31, paragraphs 3 (b), of the 1969 Vienna Convention is not the only
               form of subsequent practice by parties in the application of a treaty that may be relevant for
               the purpose of treaty interpretation.
               (26) In the case of Kasikili/Sedudu Island, for example, the International Court of Justice
               held that a report by a technical expert that had been commissioned by one of the parties
               and that had “remained at all times an internal document”,496 while not representing
               subsequent practice that establishes the agreement of the parties under article 31, paragraph
               3 (b), could “nevertheless support the conclusions” that the Court had reached by other
               means of interpretation.497
               (27) The ICSID Tribunals have also used subsequent State practice as a means of
               interpretation in a broad sense.498 For example, when addressing the question of whether
               minority shareholders can acquire rights from investment protection treaties and have
               standing in ICSID procedures, the tribunal in CMS Gas v. Argentina held that:
                        “State practice further supports the meaning of this changing scenario. … Minority
                        and non-controlling participations have thus been included in the protection granted
                        or have been admitted to claim in their own right. Contemporary practice relating to
                        lump-sum agreements … among other examples, evidence increasing flexibility in
                        the handling of international claims.”499
               (28) The European Court of Human Rights held in Loizidou v. Turkey that its
               interpretation was “confirmed by the subsequent practice of the Contracting Parties”,500 that
               is “the evidence of a practice denoting practically universal agreement amongst Contracting
               Parties that [a]rticles 25 and 46 … of the Convention do not permit territorial or substantive
               restrictions”.501 More often the European Court of Human Rights has relied on — not
               necessarily uniform — subsequent State practice by referring to national legislation and
               domestic administrative practice, as a means of interpretation. In the case of Demir and
               Baykara v. Turkey, for example, the Court held that “[a]s to the practice of European States,
               it can be observed that, in the vast majority of them, the right for public servants to bargain
               collectively with the authorities has been recognised”502 and that “[t]he remaining
               exceptions can be justified only by particular circumstances”.503
               (29) The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, when taking subsequent practice of the
               parties into account, has also not limited its use to cases in which the practice established
               the agreement of the parties. Thus, in the case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al.
           496
               Kasikili/Sedudu Island (see footnote 395 above), at p. 1,078, para. 55.
           497
               Ibid., p. 1,096, para. 80.
           498
               O.K. Fauchald, “The Legal Reasoning of ICSID Tribunals — An Empirical Analysis”, European
               Journal of International Law, vol. 19, No. 2 (2008), p. 301, at p. 345.
           499
               CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic (United States/Argentina Bilateral
               Investment Treaty), Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 17 July 2003, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8,
               ICSID Reports 2003, vol. 7, p. 492, at para. 47.
           500
               Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), no. 15318/89, 23 March 1995, ECHR Series A no. 310,
               para. 79.
           501
               Ibid., para. 80; it is noteworthy that the Court described “such a State practice” as being “uniform and
               consistent” despite the fact that it had recognised that two States possibly constituted exceptions
               (Cyprus and the United Kingdom; “whatever their meaning”), paras. 80 and 82.
           502
               Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, 12 November 2008, ECHR-2008, para. 52.
           503
               Ibid., para. 151; similarly Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, 12 July 2007, ECHR 2007-III, para. 69.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                 145
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 56 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 57 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            v. Trinidad and Tobago the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that the mandatory
            imposition of the death penalty for every form of conduct that resulted in the death of
            another person was incompatible with article 4, paragraph 2, of the American Convention
            on Human Rights (imposition of the death penalty only for the most serious crimes). In
            order to support this interpretation, the Court held that it was “useful to consider some
            examples in this respect, taken from the legislation of those American countries that
            maintain the death penalty”.504
            (30) The Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and
            Political Rights is open to arguments based on subsequent practice in a broad sense when it
            comes to the justification of interferences with the rights set forth in the Covenant. 505
            Interpreting the rather general terms contained in article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant
            (permissible restrictions on the freedom of expression), the Committee observed that
            “similar restrictions can be found in many jurisdictions”,506 and concluded that the aim
            pursued by the contested law did not, as such, fall outside the legitimate aims of article 19,
            paragraph 3, of the Covenant.507
            (31) ITLOS has on some occasions referred to the subsequent practice of the parties
            without verifying whether such practice actually established an agreement between the
            parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty. In the M/V “SAIGA” (No. 2) case,508 for
            example, the Tribunal reviewed State practice with regard to the use of force to stop a ship
            according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 509 Relying on the
            “normal practice used to stop a ship”, the Tribunal did not specify the respective State
            practice but rather assumed a certain general standard to exist. 510
            (32) The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, referring to the
            Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 511 noted in the
            Jelisić judgment that:
                     “… the Trial Chamber … interprets the Convention’s terms in accordance with the
                     general rules of interpretation of treaties set out in [a]rticles 31 and 32 of the Vienna
                     Convention on the Law of Treaties. … The Trial Chamber also took account of
                     subsequent practice grounded upon the Convention. Special significance was
                     attached to the Judgments rendered by the Tribunal for Rwanda. … The practice of
        504
            Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. (see footnote 400 above), Concurring Separate Opinion of
            Judge Sergio García Ramírez, para. 12.
        505
            Jong-Cheol v. The Republic of Korea, Views, 27 July 2005, Communication No. 968/2001, Report of
            the Human Rights Committee, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixtieth Session,
            Supplement No. 40 (A/60/40), vol. II, annex V, G.
        506
            Ibid., para. 8.3.
        507
            Ibid.; see also Yoon and Choi v. The Republic of Korea, Views, 3 November 2006, Communication
            Nos. 1321/2004 and 1322/2004, ibid., Sixty-second Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/62/40), vol. II,
            annex VII, V, para. 8.4.
        508
            M/V “SAIGA” (No. 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment, ITLOS Reports …
            1999, p. 10, at pp. 61-62, paras. 155-156.
        509
            United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1833, No. 31363, p. 3, art. 293.
        510
            M/V “SAIGA” (No. 2) (see footnote 508 above), at paras. 155-156; see also “Tomimaru” (Japan v.
            Russian Federation), case No. 15, Prompt Release, Judgment, ITLOS Reports … 2007, p. 74, para.
            72; Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures, Order
            of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports … 1999, p. 280, at paras. 45 and 50.
        511
            United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 78, No. 1021, p. 277.
146                                                                                                            GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 57 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 58 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                A/71/10
                        States, notably through their national courts, and the work of international
                        authorities in this field have also been taken into account.”512
               (33) The WTO dispute settlement bodies also occasionally distinguish between
               “subsequent practice” that satisfies the conditions of article 31, paragraph (b), and other
               forms of subsequent practice in the application of the treaty that they also recognize as
               being relevant for the purpose of treaty interpretation. In US — Section 110(5) Copyright
               Act513 (not appealed), for example, the Panel had to determine whether a “minor exceptions
               doctrine” concerning royalty payments applied.514 The Panel found evidence in support of
               the existence of such a doctrine in several member States’ national legislation and noted:
                        “… we recall that [a]rticle 31 (3) of the Vienna Convention provides that together
                        with the context (a) any subsequent agreement, (b) subsequent practice, or (c) any
                        relevant rules of international law applicable between the parties, shall be taken into
                        account for the purposes of interpretation. We note that the parties and third parties
                        have brought to our attention several examples from various countries of limitations
                        in national laws based on the minor exceptions doctrine. In our view, [S]tate practice
                        as reflected in the national copyright laws of Berne Union members before and after
                        1948, 1967 and 1971, as well as of WTO Members before and after the date that the
                        TRIPS Agreement became applicable to them, confirms our conclusion about the
                        minor exceptions doctrine.”515
               And the Panel added the following cautionary footnote:
                        “By enunciating these examples of [S]tate practice we do not wish to express a view
                        on whether these are sufficient to constitute ‘subsequent practice’ within the
                        meaning of [a]rticle 31 (3) (b) of the Vienna Convention.”516
               (34) In European Communities — Customs Classification of Certain Computer
               Equipment, the WTO Appellate Body criticized the Panel for not having considered
               decisions by the Harmonized System Committee of the World Customs Organization
               (WCO) as a relevant subsequent practice:
                        “A proper interpretation also would have included an examination of the existence
                        and relevance of subsequent practice. We note that the United States referred, before
                        the Panel, to the decisions taken by the Harmonized System Committee of the WCO
                        in April 1997 on the classification of certain LAN equipment as ADP machines.
                        Singapore, a third party in the panel proceedings, also referred to these decisions.
                        The European Communities observed that it had introduced reservations with regard
                        to these decisions. … However, we consider that in interpreting the tariff
                        concessions in Schedule LXXX, decisions of the WCO may be relevant … .”517
           512
               Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisić, Trial Chamber, Judgment, 14 December 1999, IT-95-10-T, para. 61
               (footnotes omitted); similarly Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, Trial Chamber, Judgment, 2 August
               2001, IT-98-33-T, para. 541.
           513
               WTO Panel Report, United States — Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R, adopted
               27 July 2000.
           514
               See Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, art. 9, para. 1.
           515
               WTO Panel Report, United States — Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R, adopted
               27 July 2000, para. 6.55 (footnotes omitted).
           516
               Ibid., at footnote 69.
           517
               See WTO Appellate Body Report, EC — Computer Equipment, WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R
               and WT/DS68/AB/R, adopted 22 June 1998, at para. 90. See also I. van Damme, Treaty
               Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 342.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                         147
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 58 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 59 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            Thus, on closer inspection, the WTO dispute settlement bodies also recognize the
            distinction between “subsequent practice” under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), and a broader
            concept of subsequent practice that does not presuppose an agreement between all the
            parties of the treaty.518
            (35) In using subsequent practice by one or more, but not all, parties to a treaty as a
            supplementary means of interpretation under article 32 one must, however, always remain
            conscious of the fact that “the view of one State does not make international law”.519 In any
            case, the distinction between agreed subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b),
            as an authentic means of interpretation, and other subsequent practice (in a broad sense)
            under article 32, implies that a greater interpretative value should be attributed to the
            former. Domestic courts have sometimes not clearly distinguished between subsequent
            agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3, and other subsequent
            practice under article 32.520
            (36) The distinction between subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), and
            subsequent practice under article 32 also contributes to answering the question of whether
            subsequent practice requires repeated action with some frequency 521 or whether a one-time
            application of the treaty may be enough. 522 In the WTO framework, the Appellate Body has
            found:
                     “An isolated act is generally not sufficient to establish subsequent practice; it is a
                     sequence of acts establishing the agreement of the parties that is relevant.”523
            If, however, the concept of subsequent practice as a means of treaty interpretation is
            distinguished from a possible agreement between the parties, frequency is not a necessary
            element of the definition of the concept of “subsequent practice” in the broad sense (under
            article 32).524
            (37) Thus, “subsequent practice” in the broad sense (under article 32) covers any
            application of the treaty by one or more parties. It can take various forms. 525 Such “conduct
            by one or more parties in the application of the treaty” may, in particular, consist of a direct
        518
            See also WTO Appellate Body Report, US — COOL, WT/DS384/AB/R and WT/DS386/AB/R,
            adopted 23 July 2012, para. 452.
        519
            Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, Award, 28 September 2007, ICSID Case No.
            ARB/02/16, para. 385; see also Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic,
            Award, 22 May 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, para. 337; WTO Panel Report, US — Large Civil
            Aircraft (2nd Complaint), WT/DS353/R, adopted 23 March 2012, fn. 2420 in para. 7.953.
        520
            See, for example: United Kingdom, House of Lords, Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group
            Litigation [2005] UKHL 72, paras. 54-55 and 66-85 (Lord Mance); United Kingdom, House of Lords,
            R (Al-Jedda) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 58, para. 38; United Kingdom, House of
            Lords, R (Mullen) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 18, para. 47 (Lord
            Steyn); United Kingdom, House of Lords, King v. Bristow Helicopters Ltd. (Scotland) [2002] UKHL
            7, para. 80 (Lord Hope); New Zealand, Court of Appeal, Zaoui v. Attorney-General (No. 2) [2005] 1
            NZLR 690, para. 130 (Glazebrook J.); New Zealand, Court of Appeal, P. v. Secretary for Justice, ex
            parte A.P. [2004] 2 NZLR 28, para. 61 (Glazebrook J.); Germany, Federal Administrative Court,
            BVerfGE, vol. 104, p. 254, at pp. 256-257; judgment of 29 November 1988, 1 C 75/86 [1988], Neue
            Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, p. 765, at p. 766.
        521
            Villiger, Commentary … (see footnote 414 above), at p. 431, para. 22.
        522
            Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of Treaties (see footnote 446 above ), at p. 166.
        523
            WTO Appellate Body Report, Japan — Alcoholic Beverages II, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R and
            WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, section E, p. 13.
        524
            Kolb, Interprétation et création du droit international (Brussels, Bruylant, 2006), pp. 506-507.
        525
            Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, 3rd edition (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge
            University Press, 2013), at p. 239.
148                                                                                                            GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 59 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 60 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                 A/71/10
               application of the treaty in question, conduct that is attributable to a State party as an
               application of the treaty, a statement or a judicial pronouncement regarding its
               interpretation or application. Such conduct may include official statements concerning the
               treaty’s meaning, protests against non-performance or tacit acceptance of statements or acts
               by other parties.526
                       Conclusion 5
                       Attribution of subsequent practice
                       1.       Subsequent practice under articles 31 and 32 may consist of any conduct in
                       the application of a treaty which is attributable to a party to the treaty under
                       international law.
                       2.       Other conduct, including by non-State actors, does not constitute subsequent
                       practice under articles 31 and 32. Such conduct may, however, be relevant when
                       assessing the subsequent practice of parties to a treaty.
               Commentary
               (1)     Draft conclusion 5 addresses the question of possible authors of subsequent practice
               under articles 31 and 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention. The phrase “under articles 31 and
               32” makes it clear that this draft conclusion applies both to subsequent practice as an
               authentic means of interpretation under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), and to subsequent
               practice as a supplementary means of interpretation under article 32. Paragraph 1 of draft
               conclusion 5 defines positively whose conduct in the application of the treaty may
               constitute subsequent practice under articles 31 and 32, whereas paragraph 2 states
               negatively which conduct does not, but which may nevertheless be relevant when assessing
               the subsequent practice of parties to a treaty.
               Paragraph 1 — conduct constituting subsequent practice
               (2)     Paragraph 1 of draft conclusion 5, by using the phrase “any conduct which is
               attributable to a party to a treaty under international law”, borrows language from article 2
               (a) of the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. 527
               Accordingly, the term “any conduct” encompasses actions and omissions and is not limited
               to the conduct of State organs of a State, but also covers conduct that is otherwise
               attributable, under international law, to a party to a treaty. The reference to the articles on
               responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts does not, however, extend to the
               requirement that the conduct in question be “internationally wrongful” (see below
               paragraph (8)).
               (3)     An example of relevant conduct that does not directly arise from the conduct of the
               parties, but nevertheless constitutes an example of State practice, has been identified by the
               International Court of Justice in the Kasikili/Sedudu Island case. There the Court
               considered that the regular use of an island on the border between Namibia (former South-
               West Africa) and Botswana (former Bechuanaland) by members of a local tribe, the
               Masubia, could be regarded as subsequent practice in the sense of article 31, paragraph 3
               (b), of the Vienna Convention if it:
           526
               Karl, Vertrag und spätere Praxis … (see footnote 454 above), at pp. 114 et seq.
           527
               Articles on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, with commentaries,
               Yearbook … 2001, vol. II (Part Two) and corrigendum, p. 35, para. (4) of the commentary; the
               question of the attribution of relevant subsequent conduct to international organizations for the
               purpose of treaty interpretation is addressed in draft conclusion 12 [11] below.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                          149
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 60 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 61 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
                    “… was linked to a belief on the part of the Caprivi authorities that the boundary
                    laid down by the 1890 Treaty followed the southern channel of the Chobe; and,
                    second, that the Bechuanaland authorities were fully aware of and accepted this as a
                    confirmation of the Treaty boundary.”528
            (4)     By referring to any conduct in the application of the treaty that is attributable to a
            party to the treaty, however, paragraph 1 does not imply that any such conduct necessarily
            constitutes, in a given case, subsequent practice for the purpose of treaty interpretation. The
            use of the phrase “may consist” is intended to reflect this point. This clarification is
            particularly important in relation to conduct of State organs that might contradict an
            officially expressed position of the State with respect to a particular matter and thus
            contribute to an equivocal conduct by the State.
            (5)     The Commission debated whether draft conclusion 5 should specifically address the
            question under which conditions the conduct of lower State organs would be relevant
            subsequent practice for purposes of treaty interpretation. In this regard, several members of
            the Commission pointed to the difficulty of distinguishing between lower and higher State
            organs, particularly given the significant differences in the internal organization of State
            governance. The point was also made that the relevant criterion was less the position of the
            organ in the hierarchy of the State than its actual role in interpreting and applying any
            particular treaty. Given the complexity and variety of scenarios that could be envisaged, the
            Commission concluded that this matter should not be addressed in the text of draft
            conclusion 5 itself, but rather in the commentary.
            (6)     Subsequent practice of States in the application of a treaty may certainly be
            performed by the high-ranking government officials mentioned in article 7 of the 1969
            Vienna Convention. Yet, since most treaties typically are not applied by such high officials,
            international courts and tribunals have recognized that the conduct of lower authorities may
            also, under certain conditions, constitute relevant subsequent practice in the application of a
            treaty. Accordingly, the International Court of Justice recognized in the Case concerning
            rights of nationals of the United States in Morocco that article 95 of the General Act of the
            International Conference of Algeciras (1906)529 had to be interpreted flexibly in light of the
            inconsistent practice of local customs authorities. 530 The jurisprudence of arbitral tribunals
            confirms that relevant subsequent practice may emanate from lower officials. In the
            German External Debts decision, the Arbitral Tribunal considered a letter of the Bank of
            England to the German Federal Debt Administration as relevant subsequent practice. 531 And
            in the case of Tax regime governing pensions paid to retired UNESCO officials residing in
            France, the Arbitral Tribunal accepted, in principle, the practice of the French tax
            administration of not collecting taxes on the pensions of retired UNESCO employees as
            being relevant subsequent practice. Ultimately, however, the Arbitral Tribunal considered
        528
            Kasikili/Sedudu Island (see footnote 395 above), at p. 1094, para. 74.
        529
            34 Stat. 2905 (1902-1907).
        530
            Case concerning rights of nationals of the United States of America in Morocco, Judgment of August
            27th, 1952, I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 176, at p. 211.
        531
            Case concerning the question whether the re-evaluation of the German Mark in 1961 and 1969
            constitutes a case for application of the clause in article 2 (e) of Annex I A of the 1953 Agreement on
            German External Debts between Belgium, France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain
            and Northern Ireland and the United States of America on the one hand and the Federal Republic of
            Germany on the other, Decision, 16 May 1980, UNRIAA, vol. XIX (Sales No. E/F.90.V.7), pp. 67-
            145, at pp. 103-104, para. 31.
150                                                                                                                 GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 61 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 62 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                    A/71/10
               some contrary official pronouncements by a higher authority, the French Government, to be
               decisive.532
               (7)      It thus appears that the practice of lower and local officials may be subsequent
               practice “in the application of a treaty” if this practice is sufficiently unequivocal and if the
               Government can be expected to be aware of this practice and has not contradicted it within
               a reasonable time.533
               (8)      The Commission did not consider it necessary to limit the scope of the relevant
               conduct by adding the phrase “for the purpose of treaty interpretation”.534 This had been
               proposed by the Special Rapporteur in order to exclude from the scope of the term
               “subsequent practice” such conduct that may be attributable to a State but that does not
               serve the purpose of expressing a relevant position of a State regarding the interpretation of
               a treaty.535 The Commission, however, considered that the requirement, that any relevant
               conduct must be “in the application of the treaty”, would sufficiently limit the scope of
               possibly relevant conduct. Since the concept of “application of the treaty” requires conduct
               in good faith, a manifest misapplication of a treaty falls outside this scope. 536
               Paragraph 2 — conduct non constituting subsequent practice
               (9)      Paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 5 comprises two sentences. The first sentence
               indicates that conduct other than that envisaged in paragraph 1, including by non-State
               actors, does not constitute subsequent practice under articles 31 and 32. The phrase “other
               conduct” was introduced in order clearly to establish the distinction between the conduct
               contemplated in paragraph 2 and that contemplated in paragraph 1. At the same time, the
               Commission considered that conduct not covered by paragraph 1 may be relevant when
               “assessing” the subsequent practice of parties to a treaty.
               (10) “Subsequent practice in the application of a treaty” will be brought about by those
               who are called to apply the treaty, which are normally the States parties themselves. The
               general rule has been formulated by the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal as follows:
                        “It is a recognized principle of treaty interpretation to take into account, together
                        with the context, any subsequent practice in the application of an international
                        treaty. This practice must, however, be a practice of the parties to the treaty and one
                        which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding the interpretation of that
                        treaty.
                        “Whereas one of the participants in the settlement negotiations, namely Bank
                        Markazi, is an entity of Iran and thus its practice can be attributed to Iran as one of
                        the parties to the Algiers Declarations, the other participants in the settlement
                        negotiations and in actual settlements, namely the United States banks, are not
                        entities of the Government of the United States, and their practice cannot be
           532
               Question of the tax regime governing pensions paid to retired UNESCO officials residing in France,
               Decision, 14 January 2003, UNRIAA, vol. XXV (Sales No. E/F.05.V.5), pp. 231-266, at p. 257, para.
               66 and p. 259, para. 74.
           533
               See Chanaki, L’adaptation des traités … (see footnote 440 above), at pp. 323-328; Gardiner, Treaty
               Interpretation (footnote 392 above), at p. 269-270; M. Kamto, “La volonté de l’État en droit
               international”, Recueil des cours … 2004, vol. 310, pp. 9-428, pp. 142-144; Dörr, “Article 31…” (see
               footnote 439 above), at pp. 555-556, para. 78.
           534
               See A/CN.4/660, para. 144 (draft conclusion 4, para. 1).
           535
               Ibid., p. 46, para. 120.
           536
               See para. (19) of the commentary to draft conclusion 4 above.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                             151
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 62 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 63 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
                     attributed as such to the United States as the other party to the Algiers
                     Declarations.”537
            (11) The first sentence of the second paragraph of draft conclusion 5 is intended to reflect
            this general rule. It emphasizes the primary role of the States parties to a treaty who are the
            masters of the treaty and are ultimately responsible for its application. This does not
            exclude that conduct by non-State actors may also constitute a form of application of the
            treaty if it can be attributed to a State party.538
            (12) “Other conduct” in the sense of paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 5 may be that of
            different actors. Such conduct may, in particular, be practice of parties that is not “in the
            application of the treaty” or statements by a State that is not party to a treaty about the
            latter’s interpretation,539 or a pronouncement by a treaty monitoring body or a dispute
            settlement body in relation to the interpretation of the treaty concerned, 540 or acts of
            technical bodies that are tasked by Conferences of States Parties to advise on the
            implementation of treaty provisions, or different forms of conduct or statements of non-
            State actors.
            (13) The phrase “assessing the subsequent practice” in the second sentence of paragraph
            2 should be understood in a broad sense as covering both the identification of the existence
            of a subsequent practice and the determination of its legal significance. Statements or
            conduct of other actors, such as international organizations or non-State actors, can reflect,
            or initiate, relevant subsequent practice of the parties to a treaty. 541 Such reflection or
            initiation of subsequent practice of the parties by the conduct of other actors should not,
        537
            See Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, United States of America et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et
            al., Award No. 108-A-16/582/591-FT, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal Reports, vol. 5 (1984), p.
            57, at p. 71; similarly Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Interlocutory Award No. ITL 83-B1-FT
            (Counterclaim), The Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America, ibid., vol. 38 (2004-2009),
            p. 77, at pp. 124-125, paras. 127-128; see also Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Interlocutory
            Award No. ITL 37-111-FT, International Schools Services, Inc. (ISS) v. National Iranian Copper
            Industries Company (NICICO), ibid., vol. 5 (1984), p. 338, Dissenting Opinion of President
            Lagergren, p. 348, at p. 353: “… the provision in the Vienna Convention on subsequent agreements
            refers to agreements between States parties to a treaty, and a settlement agreement between two
            arbitrating parties can hardly be regarded as equal to an agreement between the two States that are
            parties to the treaty, even though the Islamic Republic of Iran was one of the arbitrating parties in the
            case”. For the Algiers Declarations (Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular
            Republic of Algeria and Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of
            Algeria concerning the Settlement of Claims by the Government of the United States of America and
            the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, see International Legal Materials, vol. 20, No. 1
            (1981), pp. 224 and 230 (respectively), at pp. 232-233).
        538
            See, for example, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (footnote 537 above), Dissenting Opinion of
            Judge Parviz Ansari, p. 97, at p. 99.
        539
            See, for example, Observations of the United States of America on the Human Rights Committee’s
            General Comment 33: The Obligations of States Parties under the Optional Protocol to the
            International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 22 December 2008, p. 1, para. 3 (available at:
            www.state.gov/documents/organization/138852.pdf). To the extent that the statement by the United
            States relates to the interpretation of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
            Political Rights (United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, No. 14668, p. 171), to which the United
            States is not party nor a contracting State, its statement constitutes “other conduct” under draft
            conclusion 5, para. 2.
        540
            See, for example, International Law Association, Committee on International Human Rights Law and
            Practice, “Final report on the impact of findings of United Nations Human Rights treaty bodies”,
            Report of the Seventy-first Conference, Berlin, 16-21 August 2004 (London, 2004), p. 621, paras. 21
            et seq.
        541
            See Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), at p. 270.
152                                                                                                                   GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 63 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 64 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                            A/71/10
               however, be conflated with the practice by the parties to the treaty themselves, including
               practice that is attributable to them. Activities of actors that are not State parties, as such,
               may only contribute to assessing subsequent practice of the parties to a treaty.
               (14) Decisions, resolutions and other practice by international organizations can be
               relevant for the interpretation of treaties in their own right. This is recognized, for example,
               in article 2 (j) of the 1986 Vienna Convention, which mentions the “established practice of
               the organization” as one form of the “rules of the organization”.542 Draft conclusion 5 only
               concerns the question of whether the practice of international organizations may be
               indicative of relevant practice by States parties to a treaty.
               (15) Reports by international organizations at the universal level, which are prepared on
               the basis of a mandate to provide accounts on State practice in a particular field, may enjoy
               considerable authority in the assessment of such practice. For example, the Handbook and
               Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951
               Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of the Office of the
               United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (hereinafter “UNHCR Handbook”) is an
               important work that reflects and thus provides guidance for State practice. 543 The same is
               true for the so-called 1540 Matrix, which is a systematic compilation by the United Nations
               Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004) of 24 April
               2004 on implementation measures taken by Member States. 544 As far as the Matrix relates
               to the implementation of the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
               Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons and on their
               Destruction,545 as well as to the 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
               Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, 546 it
               constitutes evidence for and an assessment of subsequent State practice to those treaties.547
               (16) Other non-State actors may also play an important role in assessing subsequent
               practice of the parties in the application of a treaty. A pertinent example is the International
               Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). 548 Apart from fulfilling a general mandate conferred
           542
               This aspect of subsequent practice to a treaty will be the addressed at a later stage of the work on the
               topic.
           543
               See UNHCR, Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status
               under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (December
               2011), HCR/1P/4/ENG/REV. 3 (www.refworld.org/docid/4f33c8d92.htm), Foreword; the view that
               the UNHCR Handbook itself expresses State practice has correctly been rejected by the Federal Court
               of Australia in Semunigus v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 422
               (1999), Judgment, 14 April 1999, paras. 5-13; the UNHCR Handbook nevertheless possesses
               considerable evidentiary weight as a correct statement of subsequent State practice. Its authority is
               based on article 35, paragraph 1, of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 (United
               Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, No. 2545, p. 137), according to which “[t]he Contracting States
               undertake to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees … in
               the exercise of its functions, and shall in particular facilitate its duty of supervising the application of
               the provisions of this Convention”.
           544
               Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) of 24 April 2004, operative para. 8 (c); according to the 1540
               Committee’s website, “the 1540 Matrix has functioned as the primary method used by the 1540
               Committee to organize information about implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1540 by
               Member States” (www.un.org/en/sc/1540/national-implementation/matrix.shtml (accessed 11 May
               2016)).
           545
               United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1015, No. 14860, p. 163.
           546
               United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1974, No. 33757, p. 45.
           547
               See, generally, Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (footnote 392 above), at p. 270.
           548
               H.-P. Gasser, “International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of
               Public International Law (www.mpepil.com), para. 20.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                     153
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 64 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 65 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            on it by the Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims and by the Statutes of the
            International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, 549 ICRC occasionally provides
            interpretative guidance on the 1949 Geneva Conventions 550 and the Additional Protocols551
            on the basis of a mandate from the Statutes of the Movement. 552 Article 5, paragraph 2 (g),
            of the Statutes provides:
                     “The role of the International Committee, in accordance with its [s]tatutes, is in
                     particular: … (g) to work for the understanding and dissemination of knowledge of
                     international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts and to prepare any
                     development thereof.”
            On the basis of this mandate, ICRC, for example, published in 2009 an Interpretative
            Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International
            Humanitarian Law.553 The Interpretative Guidance is the outcome of an “expert process”
            based on an analysis of State treaty and customary practice and it “reflect[s] the ICRC’s
            institutional position as to how existing [international humanitarian law] should be
            interpreted”.554 In this context it is, however, important to note that States have reaffirmed
            their primary role in the development of international humanitarian law. Resolution 1 of the
            31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (2011), while recalling
            “the important roles of the [ICRC]”, “emphasiz[es] the primary role of States in the
            development of international humanitarian law”.555
            (17) Another example of conduct of non-State actors that may be relevant for assessing
            the subsequent practice of States parties is the Monitor, a joint initiative of the International
            Campaign to Ban Landmines and the Cluster Munitions Coalition. The Monitor acts as a de
            facto monitoring regime556 for the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use,
            Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction
            (Ottawa Convention)557 and the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions (Dublin
            Convention).558 The Monitor lists pertinent statements and practice by States parties and
        549
            Ibid., para. 25.
        550
            Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces
            in the Field (Geneva, 12 August 1949), United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, No. 970, p. 31
            (“Geneva Convention I”); Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded,
            Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Geneva, 12 August 1949), ibid., No. 971, p.
            85 (“Geneva Convention II”); Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
            (Geneva, 12 August 1949), ibid., No. 972, p. 135 (“Geneva Convention III”); and Geneva Convention
            relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva, 12 August 1949), ibid., No.
            973, p. 287 (“Geneva Convention IV”).
        551
            Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of
            Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 1977, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1125,
            No. 17512, p. 3; and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating
            to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 1977, ibid., No.
            17513, p. 609.
        552
            Adopted by the 25th International Conference of the Red Cross at Geneva in 1986 and amended in
            1995 and 2006. Available from www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/statutes-en-a5.pdf (accessed on 17
            May 2016).
        553
            Geneva, 2009, p. 10. Available from www.icrc.org.
        554
            Ibid., p. 9.
        555
            Resolution 1 on strengthening legal protection for victims of armed conflicts, 1 December 2011.
        556
            See www.the-monitor.org.
        557
            United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2056, No. 35597, p. 211.
        558
            Ibid., vol. 2688, No. 47713, p. 39.
154                                                                                                                GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 65 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 66 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                     A/71/10
               signatories and identifies, inter alia, interpretative questions concerning the Dublin
               Convention.559
               (18) The examples of ICRC and the Monitor show that non-State actors can provide
               valuable evidence of subsequent practice of parties, contribute to assessing this evidence
               and even solicit its coming into being. However, non-State actors can also pursue their own
               goals, which may be different from those of States parties. Their assessments must thus be
               critically reviewed.
               (19) The Commission considered whether it should also refer, in the text of draft
               conclusion 5, to “social practice” as an example of “other conduct … which may be
               relevant when assessing the subsequent practice of parties to a treaty”.560 Taking into
               account the concerns expressed by several members regarding the meaning and relevance
               of that notion, the Commission considered it preferable to address the question of the
               possible relevance of “social practice” in the commentary.
               (20) The European Court of Human Rights has occasionally considered “increased social
               acceptance”561 and “major social changes”562 to be relevant for the purpose of treaty
               interpretation. The invocation of “social changes” or “social acceptance” by the Court,
               however, ultimately remains linked to State practice. 563 This is true, in particular, for the
               important cases of Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom564 and Christine Goodwin v. the United
               Kingdom.565 In Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, the Court found that there was an
               “increased tolerance of homosexual behaviour” by pointing to the fact “that in the great
               majority of the member States of the Council of Europe it is no longer considered to be
               necessary or appropriate to treat homosexual practices of the kind now in question as in
               themselves a matter to which the sanctions of the criminal law should be applied” and that
               it could therefore not “overlook the marked changes which have occurred in this regard in
               the domestic law of the member States”.566 The Court further pointed to the fact that “in
               Northern Ireland itself, the authorities have refrained in recent years from enforcing the
               law”.567 And in Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, the Court attached importance
               “to the clear and uncontested evidence of a continuing international trend in favour not only
               of increased social acceptance of transsexuals but of legal recognition of the new sexual
               identity of post-operative transsexuals”.568
               (21) The European Court of Human Rights thus verifies whether social developments are
               actually reflected in State practice. This was true, for example, in cases concerning the
           559
               See, for example, Cluster Munitions Monitor 2011, pp. 24-31.
           560
               See A/CN.4/660, paras. 129 et seq.
           561
               Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, 11 July 2002, ECHR 2002-VI, para.
               85.
           562
               Ibid., para. 100.
           563
               See also I. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25680/94, 11 July 2002, para. 65; Burden and Burden v.
               the United Kingdom, no. 13378/05, 12 December 2006, para. 57; Shackell v. the United Kingdom
               (dec.), no. 45851/99, 27 April 2000, para. 1; Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04, 24 June 2010,
               para. 58.
           564
               Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, no. 7525/76, 22 October 1981, ECHR Series A No. 45, in particular
               para. 60.
           565
               Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, 11 July 2002, ECHR 2002-VI, in
               particular para. 85.
           566
               See Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, no. 7525/76, 22 October 1981, ECHR Series A No. 45, para. 60.
           567
               Ibid.
           568
               Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, 11 July 2002, ECHR 2002-VI, para.
               85; see also, ibid., para. 90.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                              155
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 66 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 67 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            status of children born out of wedlock 569 and in cases that concerned the alleged right of
            certain Roma (“Gypsy”) people to have a temporary place of residence assigned by
            municipalities in order to be able to pursue their itinerant lifestyle. 570
            (22) It can be concluded that mere (subsequent) social practice, as such, is not sufficient
            to constitute relevant subsequent practice in the application of a treaty. Social practice has,
            however, occasionally been recognized by the European Court of Human Rights as
            contributing to the assessment of State practice.
                    Part Three
                    General aspects
                    Conclusion 6
                    Identification of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice
                    1.      The identification of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under
                    article 31, paragraph 3, requires, in particular, a determination whether the parties,
                    by an agreement or a practice, have taken a position regarding the interpretation of
                    the treaty. This is not normally the case if the parties have merely agreed not to
                    apply the treaty temporarily or agreed to establish a practical arrangement (modus
                    vivendi).
                    2.      Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph
                    3, can take a variety of forms.
                    3.      The identification of subsequent practice under article 32 requires, in
                    particular, a determination whether conduct by one or more parties is in the
                    application of the treaty.
            Commentary
            (1)     The purpose of draft conclusion 6 is to indicate that subsequent agreements and
            subsequent practice, as means of interpretation, must be identified.
            Paragraph 1, first sentence — the term “regarding the interpretation”
            (2)     The first sentence of paragraph 1 recalls that the identification of subsequent
            agreements and subsequent practice for the purposes of article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b),
            requires particular consideration of the question of whether the parties, by an agreement or
            a practice, have taken a position regarding the interpretation of a treaty or whether they
            were motivated by other considerations.
            (3)     Subsequent agreements under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), must be “regarding the
            interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions” and subsequent practice
            under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), must be “in the application of the treaty” and thereby
            establish an agreement “regarding its interpretation”.571 The relationship between the terms
        569
            Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/97, 1 February 2000, ECHR 2000-II, para. 52; see also Marckx v.
            Belgium, no. 6833/74, 13 June 1979, ECHR Series A no. 31, para. 41; Inze v. Austria, no. 8695/79, 28
            October 1987, ECHR Series A no. 126, para. 44; Brauer v. Germany, no. 3545/04, 28 May 2009,
            para. 40.
        570
            Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, 18 January 2001, ECHR 2001-I, paras. 70 and
            93; see also Lee v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25289/94, 18 January 2001, paras. 95-96; Beard v.
            the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24882/94, 18 January 2001, paras. 104-105; Coster v. the United
            Kingdom [GC], no. 24876/94, 18 January 2001, paras. 107-108; Jane Smith v. the United Kingdom
            [GC], no. 25154/94, 18 January 2001, paras. 100-101.
        571
            See above draft conclusion 4, paras. 1-3, and commentary thereto, paras. (17)-(20).
156                                                                                                              GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 67 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 68 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                      A/71/10
               “interpretation” and “application” in article 31, paragraph 3, is not clear-cut.
               “Interpretation” is the process by which the meaning of a treaty, including of one or more
               of its provisions, is clarified. “Application” encompasses conduct by which the rights under
               a treaty are exercised or its obligations are complied with, in full or in part. “Interpretation”
               refers to a mental process, whereas “application” focuses on actual conduct (acts and
               omissions). In this sense, the two concepts are distinguishable, and may serve different
               purposes under article 31, paragraph 3 (see paragraphs (4) to (6) below) but they are also
               closely interrelated and build upon each other.
               (4)     Whereas there may be aspects of “interpretation” that remain unrelated to the
               “application” of a treaty,572 application of a treaty almost inevitably involves some element
               of interpretation — even in cases in which the rule in question appears to be clear on face
               value.573 Therefore, an agreement or conduct “regarding the interpretation” of the treaty and
               an agreement or conduct “in the application” of the treaty both imply that the parties
               assume, or are attributed, a position regarding the interpretation of the treaty. 574 Whereas in
               the case of a “subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the
               treaty” under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) (first alternative), the position regarding the
               interpretation of a treaty is specifically and purposefully assumed by the parties, this may
               be less clearly identifiable in the case of a “subsequent agreement … regarding … the
               application of its provisions” under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) (second alternative). 575
               Assuming a position regarding interpretation “by application” is also implied in simple acts
               of application of the treaty under articles 31, paragraph 3 (b), that is, in “every measure
               taken on the basis of the interpreted treaty”.576 The word “or” in article 31, paragraph 3 (a),
               thus does not describe a mutually exclusive relationship between “interpretation” and
               “application”.
               (5)     The significance of an “application” of a treaty, for the purpose of its interpretation,
               is, however, not limited to the identification of the position that the State party concerned
               thereby assumes regarding its interpretation. Indeed, the way in which a treaty is applied
           572
               According to G. Haraszti, “… interpretation has the elucidation of the meaning of the text as its
               objective while application implies the specifying of the consequences devolving on the contracting
               parties” (see Haraszti, Some Fundamental Problems … (footnote 446 above), p. 18); he recognizes,
               however, that “[a] legal rule manifesting itself in whatever form cannot be applied unless its content
               has been elucidated” (ibid., p. 15).
           573
               Harvard Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties, American Journal of International Law Supp., vol.
               29, 1935, p. 653, at pp. 938-939; Lord McNair, The Law of Treaties (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1961),
               p. 372; Sinclair, The Vienna Convention … (see footnote 393 above), p. 116; Report of the Study
               Group on fragmentation of international law, 2006 (A/CN.4/L.682 and Corr.1), para. 423; Gardiner,
               Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), pp. 28-30 and 238; Yasseen, “L’interprétation des
               traités…” (see footnote 393 above) p. 47; U. Linderfalk, “Is the hierarchical structure of articles 31
               and 32 of the Vienna Convention real or not? Interpreting the rules of interpretation”, Netherlands
               International Law Review, vol. 54, No. 1 (2007), pp. 141-144 and p. 147; G. Distefano, “La
               pratique subséquente des États parties à un traité”, Annuaire français de droit international, vol. 40
               (1994), p. 44; Villiger, “The rules on interpretation …” (see footnote 439 above ), p. 111.
           574
               Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), p. 266; Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of
               Treaties (see footnote 446 above), p. 162; Karl, Vertrag und spätere Praxis … (see footnote 454
               above), pp. 114 and 118; Dörr, “Article 31 …” (see footnote 439 above), p. 556, paras. 80 and 82.
           575
               This second alternative was introduced at the proposal of Pakistan, but its scope and purpose was
               never addressed or clarified, see Official Records of the United Nations Conference on the Law of
               Treaties, First and Second Sessions, Vienna 26 March-24 May 1968 and 9 April-22 May, Summary
               records of the plenary meetings and of the meetings of the Committee of the Whole (A/CONF.39/11,
               United Nations publications, Sales No. E.68.V.7), 31st meeting, 19 April 1968, p. 168, para. 53.
           576
               See Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of Treaties (footnote 446 above), pp. 164-165 and 167; see also
               draft conclusions 2 [1], para. 4, and 4, para. 3.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                               157
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 68 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 69 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            not only contributes to determining the meaning of the treaty, but also to the identification
            of the degree to which the interpretation that the States parties have assumed is “grounded”
            and thus more or less firmly established.
            (6)      It should be noted that an “application” of the treaty does not necessarily reflect the
            position of a State party that such application is the only legally possible one under the
            treaty and under the circumstances.577 Further, the concept of “application” does not
            exclude certain conduct by non-State actors that the treaty recognizes as forms of its
            application that are attributable to its parties578 and hence can constitute practice
            establishing the agreement of the parties. Finally, the legal significance of a particular
            conduct in the application of a treaty is not necessarily limited to its possible contribution to
            interpretation under article 31, but may also contribute to meeting the burden of proof 579 or
            to fulfilling the conditions of other rules. 580
            (7)      Subsequent conduct that is not motivated by a treaty obligation is not “in the
            application of the treaty” or “regarding” its interpretation, within the meaning of article 31,
            paragraph 3. In the Certain Expenses of the United Nations case, for example, some judges
            doubted whether the continued payment by the Member States of the United Nations of
            their membership contributions signified acceptance of a certain practice of the
            Organization.581 Judge Fitzmaurice formulated a well-known warning in this context,
            according to which “the argument drawn from practice, if taken too far, can be question-
            begging”.582 According to Fitzmaurice, it would be “hardly possible to infer from the mere
            fact that Member States pay, that they necessarily admit in all cases a positive legal
            obligation to do so”.583
            (8)      Similarly, in the Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar
            and Bahrain case, the International Court of Justice held that an effort by the parties to the
            Agreement of 1987 (on the submission of a dispute to the jurisdiction of the Court) to
            conclude an additional Special Agreement (which would have specified the subject matter
            of the dispute) did not mean that the conclusion of such an additional agreement was
            actually considered by the parties to be required for the establishment of the jurisdiction of
            the Court.584
        577
            See below draft conclusion 7, para. 1.
        578
            See Boisson de Chazournes, “Subsequent practice, practices, …” (footnote 415 above), p. 53, at pp.
            54, 56 and 59-60.
        579
            In the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
            Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J.
            Reports 2011, p. 70, at p. 117, para. 105, the International Court of Justice denied that certain conduct
            (statements) satisfied the burden of proof with respect to the Russian Federation’s compliance with its
            obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
            Discrimination between 1999 and July 2008, in particular because the conduct was not found to
            specifically relate to the Convention. According to Judge Simma, the burden of proof had been met to
            some degree, see Separate Opinion of Judge Simma, ibid., pp. 199-223, paras. 23-57.
        580
            In the case concerning the Kasikili/Sedudu Island (see footnote 395 above), the International Court of
            Justice analysed subsequent practice not only in the context of treaty interpretation but also in the
            context of acquisitive prescription (see p. 1092, para. 71, p. 1096, para. 79, and p. 1105, para. 97).
        581
            Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion
            of 20 July 1962, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 151, at pp. 201-202 (Separate Opinion of Judge Fitzmaurice)
            and pp. 189-195 (Separate Opinion of Judge Spender).
        582
            Ibid., p. 201.
        583
            Ibid.
        584
            Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain),
            Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 6, at p. 16, para. 28.
158                                                                                                                   GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 69 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 70 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                         A/71/10
               (9)     Another example of a voluntary practice that is not meant to be “in application of”
               or “regarding the interpretation” of a treaty concerns “complementary protection” in the
               context of refugee law. Persons who are denied refugee status under the Convention
               relating to the Status of Refugees are nonetheless often granted “complementary
               protection”, which is equivalent to that under the Convention. States that grant
               complementary protection, however, do not consider themselves as acting “in the
               application of” the Convention or “regarding its interpretation”.585
               (10) It is sometimes difficult to distinguish relevant subsequent agreements or practice
               regarding the interpretation or in the application of a treaty under article 31, paragraph 3 (a)
               and (b), from other conduct or developments in the wider context of the treaty, including
               from “contemporaneous developments” in the subject area of the treaty. Such a distinction
               is, however, important since only conduct regarding interpretation by the parties introduces
               their specific authority into the process of interpretation. The general rule would seem to be
               that the more specifically an agreement or a practice is related to a treaty the more
               interpretative weight it can acquire under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b). 586
               (11) The characterization of a subsequent agreement or subsequent practice under article
               31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), as assuming a position regarding the interpretation of a treaty
               often requires a careful factual and legal analysis. This point can be illustrated by examples
               from judicial and State practice.
               (12) The jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice provides a number of
               examples. On the one hand, the Court did not consider the “joint ministerial communiqués”
               of two States to “be included in the conventional basis of the right of free navigation” since
               the “modalities for co-operation which they put in place are likely to be revised in order to
               suit the Parties”.587 The Court has also held, however, that the lack of certain assertions
               regarding the interpretation of a treaty, or the absence of certain forms of its application,
               constituted a practice that indicated the legal position of the parties according to which
               nuclear weapons were not prohibited under various treaties regarding poisonous
               weapons.588 In any case, the exact significance of a collective expression of views of the
               parties can only be identified by a careful consideration as to whether and to what extent
               such expression is meant to be “regarding the interpretation” of the treaty. Accordingly, the
               Court held in the Whaling in the Antarctic case that “relevant resolutions and Guidelines [of
               the International Whaling Commission] that have been approved by consensus call upon
               States parties to take into account whether research objectives can practically and
           585
               See A. Skordas, “General provisions: article 5”, in The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of
               Refugees and its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary, A. Zimmermann, ed. (Oxford, Oxford University
               Press, 2011), p. 682, para. 30; J. McAdam, Complementary Protection in International Refugee Law
               (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 21.
           586
               On the “weight” of an agreement or practice as a means of interpretation, see draft conclusion 9 [8],
               paras. 1-3, below; for an example of the need, and also the occasional difficulty, to distinguish
               between specific conduct by the parties regarding the interpretation of a treaty and more general
               development, see Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2014, p. 3, at pp. 41-58,
               paras. 103-151.
           587
               Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (see footnote 395 above), at p. 234, para. 40; see
               also Kasikili/Sedudu Island (footnote 395 above), at p. 1091, para. 68, where the Court implied that
               one of the parties did not consider that certain forms of practical cooperation were legally relevant for
               the purpose of the question of boundary at issue and thus did not agree with a contrary position of the
               other party.
           588
               Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226, at
               p. 248, paras. 55-56; see also Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America),
               Preliminary Objection, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 803, at p. 815, para. 30; Gardiner, Treaty
               Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), pp. 262-264.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                  159
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 70 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 71 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            scientifically be achieved by using non-lethal research methods, but they do not establish a
            requirement that lethal methods be used only when other methods are not available”.589
            (13) When the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal was confronted with the question of
            whether the Claims Settlement Declaration obliged the United States to return military
            property to Iran, the Tribunal found, referring to the subsequent practice of the parties, that
            this treaty contained an implicit obligation of compensation in case of non-return:590
                     “66. … Although Paragraph 9 of the General Declaration does not expressly state
                     any obligation to compensate Iran in the event that certain articles are not returned
                     because of the provisions of U.S. law applicable prior to 14 November 1979, the
                     Tribunal holds that such an obligation is implicit in that Paragraph.
                     …
                     “68. Moreover, the Tribunal notes that the interpretation set forth in paragraph 66
                     above is consistent with the subsequent practice of the Parties in the application of
                     the Algiers Accords and, particularly, with the conduct of the United States. Such a
                     practice, according to article 31 (3) (b) of the Vienna Convention, is also to be taken
                     into account in the interpretation of a treaty. In its communication informing Iran, on
                     26 March 1981, that the export of defense articles would not be approved, the
                     United States expressly stated that ‘Iran will be reimbursed for the cost of equipment
                     in so far as possible’.”
            This position was criticized by Judge Holtzmann in his dissenting opinion:
                     “Subsequent conduct by a State party is a proper basis for interpreting a treaty only
                     if it appears that the conduct was motivated by the treaty. Here there is no evidence,
                     or even any argument, that the United States’ willingness to pay Iran for its
                     properties was in response to a perceived obligation imposed by Paragraph 9. Such
                     conduct would be equally consistent with a recognition of a contractual obligation to
                     make payment. In the absence of any indication that conduct was motivated by the
                     treaty, it is incorrect to use that conduct in interpreting the treaty.”591
            Together, the majority opinion and the dissent clearly identify the need to analyse carefully
            whether the parties, by an agreement, or a practice assume a position “regarding the
            interpretation” of a treaty.
            (14) The fact that States parties assume a position regarding the interpretation of a treaty
            sometimes also may be inferred from the character of the treaty or of a specific provision. 592
            Whereas subsequent practice in the application of a treaty often consists of conduct by
            different organs of the State (executive, legislative, judicial or other) in the conscious
            application of a treaty at different levels (domestic and international), the European Court
            of Human Rights, for example, does not, for the most part, explicitly address the question
            of whether a particular practice was undertaken “regarding the interpretation” of the
            Convention.593 Thus, when describing the domestic legal situation in the member States, the
        589
            Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
            2014, p. 226, at p. 257, para. 83.
        590
            See Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Islamic Republic of Iran and United States of America, Iran-
            United States Claims Tribunal Reports, Partial Award No. 382-B1-FT vol. 19 (1989), pp. 294-295.
        591
            Separate Opinion of Judge Holtzmann, Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part, ibid., at p. 304.
        592
            See second report on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation
            of treaties (A/CN.4/671), para. 15.
        593
            See, for example, Soering v. the United Kingdom, no. 14038/88, 7 July 1989, ECHR Series A no. 161,
            para. 103; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, no. 7525/76, 22 October 1981, ECHR Series A No. 45,
            para. 60; Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, 12 November 2008, ECHR-2008, para.
160                                                                                                              GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 71 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 72 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                     A/71/10
               Court rarely asks whether a particular legal situation results from a legislative process
               during which the possible requirements of the Convention were discussed. The Court rather
               presumes that the member States, when legislating or otherwise acting in a particular way,
               are conscious of their obligations under the Convention and that they act in a way that
               reflects their understanding of their obligations.594 The Inter-American Court of Human
               Rights has also on occasion used legislative practice as a means of interpretation. 595 Like
               the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights has occasionally
               even considered that the “lack of any apprehension” of the parties regarding a certain
               interpretation of the Convention may be indicative of their assuming a position regarding
               the interpretation of the treaty. 596
               (15) Article 118 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of
               War597 provides that: “Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after
               the cessation of active hostilities.” The will of a prisoner of war not to be repatriated was
               intentionally not declared to be relevant by the States parties in order to prevent States from
               abusively invoking the will of prisoners of war in order to delay repatriation. 598 ICRC has,
               however, always insisted as a condition for its participation that the will of a prisoner of
               war not to be repatriated be respected.599 This approach, as far as it has been reflected in the
               practice of States parties, does not necessarily mean, however, that article 118 should be
               interpreted as demanding that the repatriation of a prisoner of war must not happen against
               his or her will. The ICRC Study on customary international humanitarian law carefully
               notes in its commentary on rule 128 A:
                       “According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, no protected person may be
                       transferred to a country ‘where he or she may have reason to fear persecution for his
                       or her political opinions or religious beliefs’ [article 45, paragraph 4, of the Geneva
                       Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War]. While the
                       Third Geneva Convention does not contain a similar clause, practice since 1949 has
                       developed to the effect that in every repatriation in which the ICRC has played the
                       role of neutral intermediary, the parties to the conflict, whether international or non-
                       international, have accepted the ICRC’s conditions for participation, including that
                       the ICRC be able to check prior to repatriation (or release in case of a non-
               48; however, by way of contrast, compare with Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos.
               46827/99 and 46951/99, ECHR 2005-I, para. 146; Cruz Varas and others v. Sweden, no. 15576/89, 20
               March 1991, ECHR Series A no. 201, para. 100.
           594
               See footnote 593 above; see further Marckx v. Belgium, no. 6833/74, 13 June 1979, ECHR Series A
               no. 31, para. 41; Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, 12 July 2007, ECHR 2007-III, para. 69; Mazurek
               v. France, no. 34406/97, 1 February 2000, ECHR 2000-II, para. 52.
           595
               See, for example, Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago (see footnote 400
               above), para. 12.
           596
               Banković et al. v. Belgium and 16 other contracting States (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-
               XII, para. 62.
           597
               See footnote 550 above.
           598
               C. Shields Delessert, Release and Repatriation of Prisoners of War at the End of Active Hostilities
               (Zurich, Schulthess, 1977), pp. 145-156 and pp. 171-175; see in general on the duty to repatriate, S.
               Krähenmann, “Protection of prisoners in armed conflict”, in The Handbook of International
               Humanitarian Law, 3rd edition, D. Fleck, ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 409-410.
           599
               Thus, by its involvement, the ICRC tries to reconcile the interests in speedy repatriation and the
               respect of the will of prisoners of war (see Krähenmann, “Protection of prisoners in armed conflict”
               (footnote 598 above), pp. 409-410).
GE.16-14345                                                                                                              161
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 72 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 73 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
                    international armed conflict), through an interview in private with the persons
                    involved, whether they wish to be repatriated (or released).”600
            (16) This formulation suggests that the State practice of respecting the will of the
            prisoner of war is limited to cases in which ICRC is involved and in which the organization
            has formulated such a condition. States have drawn different conclusions from this
            practice.601 The 2004 United Kingdom Manual provides that:
                    “A more contentious issue is whether prisoners of war must be repatriated even
                    against their will. Recent practice of [S]tates indicates that they should not. It is
                    United Kingdom policy that prisoners of war should not be repatriated against their
                    will.”602
            (17) This particular combination of the words “must” and “should” indicates that the
            United Kingdom, like other States, is not viewing the subsequent practice as demonstrating
            an interpretation of the treaty according to which the declared will of the prisoner of war
            must always be respected.603
            (18) The preceding examples from the case law and State practice substantiate the need
            to identify and interpret carefully subsequent agreements and subsequent practice, in
            particular to ask whether the parties, by an agreement or a practice, assume a position
            regarding the interpretation of a treaty or whether they are motivated by other
            considerations.604
            Paragraph 1, second sentence — temporary non-application of a treaty or modus vivendi
            (19) The second sentence of paragraph 1 is merely illustrative. It refers to two types of
            cases that need to be distinguished from practice regarding the interpretation of a treaty.
            (20) A common subsequent practice does not necessarily indicate an agreement between
            the parties regarding the interpretation of a treaty, but may instead signify their agreement
        600
            J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume 1:
            Rules (Cambridge, International Committee of the Red Cross and Cambridge University Press, 2005),
            p. 455 (footnotes omitted).
        601
            J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, eds., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume 2:
            Practice (Cambridge, International Committee of the Red Cross and Cambridge University Press,
            2005), pp. 2893-2894, paras. 844-855, and online update for Australia, Israel, the Netherlands and
            Spain, available from www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule128_section d.
        602
            United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law
            of Armed Conflict (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 205-206, para. 8.170 (footnote
            omitted).
        603
            The United States manual mentions only the will of prisoners of war who are sick or wounded, see
            Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume 2: Practice
            (footnote 601 above), pp. 2893-2894, paras. 844-855; but United States practice after the Second Gulf
            War was to have ICRC establish the prisoner’s will and to act accordingly (United States of America,
            Department of Defense, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress (United States
            Government Printing Office, 1992), pp. 707-708, available from
            www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/cpgw.pdf).
        604
            A/CN.4/671, paras. 11-18. See also L. Crema, “Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice
            within and outside the Vienna Convention”, in Nolte, Treaties and Subsequent Practice (see footnote
            398 above), pp. 25-26.
162                                                                                                               GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 73 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 74 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                       A/71/10
               temporarily not to apply the treaty,605 or an agreement on a practical arrangement (modus
               vivendi).606 The following example is illustrative.
               (21) Article 7 of the 1864 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of
               the Wounded in Armies in the Field provides that: “A distinctive and uniform flag shall be
               adopted for hospitals, ambulances and evacuation parties. … [The] flag … shall bear a red
               cross on a white ground.”607 During the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, the Ottoman
               Empire declared that it would in the future use the red crescent on a white ground to mark
               its own ambulances, while respecting the red cross sign protecting enemy ambulances and
               stated that the distinctive sign of the Convention “‘had so far prevented Turkey from
               exercising its rights under the Convention because it gave offence to the Muslim
               soldiers’”.608 This declaration led to a correspondence between the Ottoman Empire,
               Switzerland (as depositary) and the other parties, which resulted in the acceptance of the
               red crescent only for the duration of the conflict. 609 At The Hague Peace Conferences of
               1899 and 1907 and during the 1906 Conference for the Revision of the Geneva Convention
               of 1864, the Ottoman Empire, Persia and Siam unsuccessfully requested the inclusion of the
               red crescent, the red lion and sun, and the red flame in the Convention. 610 The Ottoman
               Empire and Persia, however, at least gained the acceptance of “reservations” that they
               formulated to that effect in 1906.611 This acceptance of the reservations of the Ottoman
               Empire and Persia in 1906 did not mean, however, that the parties had accepted that the
               1864 Geneva Convention had been interpreted in a particular way prior to 1906 by
               subsequent unopposed practice. The practice by the Ottoman Empire and Persia was seen
               rather, at least until 1906, as not being covered by the 1864 Geneva Convention, but it was
               accepted as a temporary and exceptional measure that left the general treaty obligation
               unchanged.
               Paragraph 2 — variety of forms
               (22) The purpose of paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 6 is to acknowledge the variety of
               forms that subsequent agreements and subsequent practice can take under article 31,
               paragraph 3 (a) and (b). The Commission has recognized that subsequent practice under
               article 31, paragraph 3 (b), consists of any “conduct” in the application of a treaty,
               including under certain circumstances, inaction, which may contribute to establishing an
           605
               See A/CN.4/671, p. 33, para. 71.
           606
               Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (see footnote 395 above), at pp. 234-235, para.
               40; Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (see footnote 395 above), p. 14, at pp. 65-66, paras. 138-140; J.
               Crawford, “A consensualist interpretation of article 31 (3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
               Treaties”, in Nolte, Treaties and Subsequent Practice (see footnote 398 above), p. 32; for another
               example, see A/CN.4/671, para. 72; and J.R. Crook, “Contemporary practice of the United States”,
               American Journal of International Law, vol. 105 (2011), p. 775 et seq., at pp. 809-812.
           607
               See ICRC, International Red Cross Handbook, 12th edition (Geneva, 1983), p. 20.
           608
               “Bulletin international des Sociétés de Secours aux Militaires blessés”, No. 29 (January 1877), pp. 35-
               37, quoted in F. Bugnion, The Emblem of the Red Cross. A Brief History (Geneva, ICRC, 1977), p.
               15.
           609
               Ibid., No. 31 (July 1877), p. 89, quoted in Bugnion, The Emblem of the Red Cross … (see footnote
               608 above), p. 18.
           610
               Bugnion, The Emblem of the Red Cross … (see footnote 608 above), pp. 19-31.
           611
               Joined by Egypt upon accession in 1923, see Bugnion, The Emblem of the Red Cross … (footnote 608
               above), pp. 23-26; it was only on the occasion of the revision of the Geneva Conventions in 1929,
               when Turkey, Persia and Egypt claimed that the use of other emblems had become a fait accompli
               and that those emblems had been used in practice without giving rise to any objections, that the Red
               Crescent and the Red Lion and Sun were finally recognized as a distinctive sign by article 19,
               paragraph 2, of the 1929 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded
               and Sick in Armies in the Field (League of Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 118, No. 2733, p. 303).
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                163
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 74 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 75 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            agreement regarding the interpretation of the treaty. 612 Depending on the treaty concerned,
            this includes not only externally oriented conduct, such as official acts, statements and
            voting at the international level, but also internal legislative, executive and judicial acts, and
            may even include conduct by non-State actors that is attributable to one or more States
            parties and that falls within the scope of what the treaty conceives as forms of its
            application.613 Thus, the individual conduct that may contribute to a subsequent practice
            under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), need not meet any particular formal criteria.614
            (23) Subsequent practice at the international level need not necessarily be joint
            conduct.615 A parallel conduct by parties may suffice. It is a separate question whether
            parallel activity actually articulates a sufficient common understanding (agreement)
            regarding the interpretation of a treaty in a particular case (see draft conclusion 10 [9],
            paragraph 1, below).616 Subsequent agreements can be found in legally binding treaties as
            well as in non-binding instruments like memorandums of understanding.617 Subsequent
            agreements can also be found in certain decisions of a conference of States parties (see draft
            conclusion 11 [10], paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, below).
            Paragraph 3 — identification of subsequent practice under article 32
            (24) Paragraph 3 of this draft conclusion provides that in identifying subsequent practice
            under article 32, the interpreter is required to determine whether, in particular, conduct by
            one or more parties is in the application of the treaty. 618 The Commission decided to treat
            such “other subsequent practice” (see draft conclusion 4, paragraph 3)619 under article 32 in
            a separate paragraph for the sake of analytical clarity (see draft conclusion 7, paragraph 2,
            and draft conclusion 9 [8], paragraph 3, below), but it does not thereby call into question
            the unity of the process of interpretation. The considerations that are pertinent for the
            identification of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph
            3 (a) and (b), also apply, mutatis mutandis, to the identification of “other subsequent
            practice” under article 32. Thus, agreements between less than all parties to a treaty
            regarding the interpretation of a treaty or its application are a form of subsequent practice
            under article 32.
            (25) An example of a practical arrangement is the memorandum of understanding
            between the Department of Transportation of the United States of America and the
            Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes of the United Mexican States on International
        612
            See above commentary to draft conclusion 4, paras. (17)-(20).
        613
            See, for example, commentary to draft conclusion 5 above; Boisson de Chazournes, “Subsequent
            practice …” (footnote 415 above), pp. 54, 56 and 59-60; Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (footnote
            392 above), pp. 257-259; see also Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2014,
            p. 3, at pp. 42-45, paras. 103-111 and pp. 48-49, paras. 119-122, and p. 50, para. 126; Dörr, “Article
            31 …” (see footnote 439 above), pp. 555-556, para. 78.
        614
            Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), pp. 254-255.
        615
            Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (see footnote 488 above), at p. 33; Kasikili/Sedudu
            Island (see footnote 395 above), at p. 1213, para. 17 (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Parra-Aranguren).
        616
            Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea
            (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 659, at p. 737, para. 258; but see
            Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 18, at p. 83-
            84, para. 117, where the Court recognized concessions granted by the parties to the dispute as
            evidence of their tacit agreement; see also Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) (footnote 613 above).
        617
            Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), pp. 244 and 250.
        618
            See above, paras. (1)-(4) of the present commentary; and A/CN.4/671, paras. 3-5.
        619
            See above commentary to draft conclusion 2 [1], para. (10).
164                                                                                                                GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 75 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 76 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                    A/71/10
               Freight Cross-Border Trucking Services of 6 July 2011.620 The memorandum of
               understanding does not refer to Canada, the third party of the North American Free Trade
               Agreement (NAFTA), and specifies that it “is without prejudice to the rights and
               obligations of the United States and Mexico under NAFTA”. These circumstances suggest
               that the memorandum of understanding does not claim to constitute an agreement regarding
               the interpretation of NAFTA under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) or (b), but that it rather
               remains limited to being a practical arrangement between a limited number of parties that is
               subject to challenge by other parties or by a judicial or quasi-judicial institution.
                       Conclusion 7
                       Possible effects of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in
                       interpretation
                       1.      Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph
                       3, contribute, in their interaction with other means of interpretation, to the
                       clarification of the meaning of a treaty. This may result in narrowing, widening, or
                       otherwise determining the range of possible interpretations, including any scope for
                       the exercise of discretion which the treaty accords to the parties.
                       2.      Subsequent practice under article 32 can also contribute to the clarification of
                       the meaning of a treaty.
                       3.      It is presumed that the parties to a treaty, by an agreement subsequently
                       arrived at or a practice in the application of the treaty, intend to interpret the treaty,
                       not to amend or to modify it. The possibility of amending or modifying a treaty by
                       subsequent practice of the parties has not been generally recognized. The present
                       draft conclusion is without prejudice to the rules on the amendment or modification
                       of treaties under the 1969 Vienna Convention and under customary international
                       law.
               Commentary
               Paragraph 1, first sentence — clarification of the meaning of a treaty
               (1)     Draft conclusion 7 deals with the possible effects of subsequent agreements and
               subsequent practice on the interpretation of a treaty. The purpose is to indicate how
               subsequent agreements and subsequent practice may contribute to the clarification of the
               meaning of a treaty. Paragraph 1 emphasizes that subsequent agreements and subsequent
               practice must be seen in their interaction with other means of interpretation (see draft
               conclusion 2 [1], paragraph 5).621 They are therefore not necessarily in themselves
               conclusive.
               (2)     Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice, like all means of interpretation,
               may have different effects on the interactive process of interpretation of a treaty, which
               consists of placing appropriate emphasis in any particular case on the various means of
               interpretation in a “single combined operation”.622 The taking into account of subsequent
           620
               Crook, “Contemporary practice of the United States” (see footnote 606 above), pp. 809-812; see also:
               Mexico, Diario Oficial de la Federación (7 July 2011), “Decreto por el que se modifica el artículo 1
               del diverso por el que se establece la Tasa Aplicable durante 2003, del Impuesto General de
               Importación, para las mercancías originarias de América del Norte”, publicado el 31 de diciembre de
               2002, por lo que respecta a las mercancías originarias de los Estados Unidos de América
               (www.dof.gob.mx).
           621
               See above commentary to draft conclusion 2 [1], para. 5, paras. (12)-(15).
           622
               Ibid.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                             165
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 76 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 77 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            agreements and subsequent practice under articles 31, paragraph 3, and 32 may thus
            contribute to a clarification of the meaning of a treaty 623 in the sense of a narrowing down
            (specifying) of possible meanings of a particular term or provision, or of the scope of the
            treaty as a whole (see paragraphs (4), (6), (7), (10) and (11) below). Alternatively, such
            taking into account may contribute to a clarification in the sense of confirming a wider
            interpretation. Finally, it may contribute to understanding the range of possible
            interpretations available to the parties, including the scope for the exercise of discretion by
            the parties under the treaty (see paragraphs (12) to (15) below).
            (3)     International courts and tribunals usually begin their reasoning in a given case by
            determining the “ordinary meaning” of the terms of the treaty.624 Subsequent agreements
            and subsequent practice mostly enter into their reasoning at a later stage when courts ask
            whether such conduct confirms or modifies the result arrived at by the initial interpretation
            of the ordinary meaning (or by other means of interpretation).625 If the parties do not wish
            to convey the ordinary meaning of a term, but rather a special meaning in the sense of
            article 31, paragraph 4, subsequent agreements and subsequent practice may shed light on
            this special meaning. The following examples626 illustrate how subsequent agreements and
            subsequent practice as means of interpretation can contribute, in their interaction with other
            means in the process of interpretation, to the clarification of the meaning of a treaty.
            (4)     Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice can help identify the “ordinary
            meaning” of a particular term by confirming a narrow interpretation of different possible
            shades of meaning of the term. This was the case, for example, 627 in the Nuclear Weapons
            Advisory Opinion where the International Court of Justice determined that the expressions
            “poison or poisonous weapons”:
                    “… have been understood, in the practice of States, in their ordinary sense as
                    covering weapons whose prime, or even exclusive, effect is to poison or asphyxiate.
                    This practice is clear, and the parties to those instruments have not treated them as
                    referring to nuclear weapons.”628
            (5)     On the other hand, subsequent practice may prevent specifying the meaning of a
            general term to just one of different possible meanings.629 For example, in the Case
        623
            The terminology follows guideline 1.2 (Definition of interpretative declarations) of the Commission’s
            Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties: “‘Interpretative declaration’ means a unilateral
            statement … whereby [a] State or [an] international organization purports to specify or clarify the
            meaning or scope of a treaty or of certain of its provisions.” (Official records of the General
            Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10), chap. IV, guideline 1.2); see also
            commentary to guideline 1.2, para. (18) (A/66/10/Add.1).
        624
            See above commentary to draft conclusion 2 [1], para. 5, para. (14); Competence of Assembly
            regarding admission to the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 4, at p. 8.
        625
            See, for example, Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (footnote 395 above), at p. 656,
            paras. 59-61 and p. 665, para. 80; Territorial Dispute (footnote 395 above), at p. 34, paras. 66-71;
            Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (footnote 395 above), at p. 290 (Declaration of
            Judge ad hoc Guillaume).
        626
            For more examples see Nolte, “Jurisprudence under special regimes” (footnote 398 above), pp. 210-
            306.
        627
            See also Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objection,
            Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 803, at p. 815, para. 30; Land and Maritime Boundary between
            Cameroon and Nigeria, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 275, at p. 306,
            para. 67; Competence of Assembly regarding admission to the United Nations, Advisory Opinion,
            I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 4, at p. 9.
        628
            Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226, at
            p. 248, para. 55.
        629
            Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 15, at p. 25.
166                                                                                                               GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 77 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 78 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                    A/71/10
               concerning rights of nationals of the United States of America in Morocco, the Court
               stated:
                        “The general impression created by an examination of the relevant materials is that
                        those responsible for the administration of the customs … have made use of all the
                        various elements of valuation available to them, though perhaps not always in a
                        consistent manner.
                        “In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that Article 95 lays down no
                        strict rule on the point in dispute. It requires an interpretation which is more flexible
                        than either of those which are respectively contended for by the Parties in this
                        case.”630
               (6)      Different forms of practice may contribute to both a narrow and a broad
               interpretation of different terms in the same treaty.631
               (7)      A treaty shall be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of its terms “in
               their context” (article 31, paragraph 1). Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice, in
               interaction with this particular means of interpretation, may also contribute to identifying a
               narrower or broader interpretation of a term of a treaty. 632 In the Inter-Governmental
               Maritime Consultative Organization Advisory Opinion, for example, the International Court
               of Justice had to determine the meaning of the expression “eight … largest ship-owning
               nations” under article 28 (a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization
               (IMO)633 since this concept of “largest ship-owning nations” permitted different
               interpretations (such as determination by “registered tonnage” or by “property of
               nationals”), and since there was no pertinent practice of the organization or its members
               under article 28 (a) itself, the Court turned to practice under other provisions in the
               Convention and held:
                        “This reliance upon registered tonnage in giving effect to different provisions of the
                        Convention … persuade[s] the Court to view that it is unlikely that when [article 28
                        (a)] was drafted and incorporated into the Convention it was contemplated that any
                        criterion other than registered tonnage should determine which were the largest
                        shipping owning nations.”634
               (8)      Together with the text and the context, article 31, paragraph 1, accords importance
               to the “object and purpose” for its interpretation.635 Subsequent agreements and subsequent
               practice may also contribute to a clarification of the object and purpose of a treaty 636 or
           630
               Case concerning Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco, Judgment of August
               27th, 1952, I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 176, at p. 211.
           631
               See, mutatis mutandis, Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the
               Charter), Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1962, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 151, where the International
               Court of Justice interpreted the term “expenses” broadly and “action” narrowly in the light of the
               respective subsequent practice of the United Nations, at pp. 158-161 (“expenses”) and pp. 164-165
               (“action”).
           632
               See, for example, Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Jurisdiction and
               Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1988, p. 69, at p. 87, para. 40.
           633
               United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 289, No. 4214, p. 3.
           634
               Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative
               Organization, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1960, p. 150, at p. 169; see also pp. 167-169; obiter
               dicta: Proceedings pursuant to the OSPAR Convention (Ireland-United Kingdom), 2 July 2003,
               UNRIAA, vol. XXIII (Sales No. E/F.04.V.15), pp. 59-151, at p. 99, para. 141.
           635
               Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), pp. 211 and 219.
           636
               Ibid., pp. 212-215; see also Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa
               in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory
GE.16-14345                                                                                                             167
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 78 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 79 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            reconcile invocations of the “object and purpose” of a treaty with other means of
            interpretation.
            (9)      In the Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen637 and
            Oil Platforms cases,638 for example, the International Court of Justice clarified the object
            and purpose of bilateral treaties by referring to subsequent practice of the parties. And in
            the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria case, the Court held:
                     “From the treaty texts and the practice analysed at paragraphs 64 and 65 above, it
                     emerges that the Lake Chad Basin Commission is an international organization
                     exercising its powers within a specific geographical area; that it does not however
                     have as its purpose the settlement at a regional level of matters relating to the
                     maintenance of international peace and security and thus does not fall under Chapter
                     VIII of the Charter.”639
            Paragraph 1, second sentence — narrowing or widening or otherwise determining the
            range of possible interpretation
            (10) State practice other than in judicial or quasi-judicial contexts confirms that
            subsequent agreements and subsequent practice only contribute to specifying the meaning
            of a term in the sense of narrowing the possible meanings of the rights and obligations
            under a treaty, but may also indicate a wider range of acceptable interpretations or a certain
            scope for the exercise of discretion that a treaty grants to States.640
            (11) For example, whereas the ordinary meaning of the terms of article 5 of the 1944
            Convention on International Civil Aviation641 do not appear to require a charter flight to
            obtain permission to land while en route, long-standing State practice requiring such
            permission has led to general acceptance that this provision is to be interpreted as requiring
            Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16, at p. 31, para. 53; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a
            Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136, at p. 179,
            para. 109; R. Higgins, “Some observations on the inter-temporal rule in international law”, in Theory
            of International Law at the Threshold of the 21st Century, J. Makarczyk, ed. (The Hague, Kluwer
            Law International, 1996), pp. 173-181, at p. 180; Distefano, “La pratique subséquente …” (see
            footnote 573 above), pp. 52-54; Crema, “Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice …”
            (footnote 604 above), p. 21.
        637
            Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
            1993, p. 38, at p. 50, para. 27.
        638
            Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objection,
            Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 803, at pp. 813 and 815, paras. 27 and 30.
        639
            See also Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Preliminary Objections,
            Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 275, at p. 306, para. 67.
        640
            This is not to suggest that there may ultimately be different interpretations of a treaty, but rather that
            the treaty may accord the parties the possibility to choose from a spectrum of different permitted acts,
            see Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (footnote 392 above), pp. 32-33 and p. 268, quoting the House of
            Lords in R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan [2001] AC 477: “… It is
            necessary to determine the autonomous meaning of the relevant treaty provision. … It follows that, as
            in the case of other multilateral treaties, the Refugee Convention must be given an independent
            meaning derivable from the sources mentioned in articles 31 and 32 [of the 1969 Vienna Convention]
            and without taking colour from distinctive features of the legal system of any individual contracting
            [S]tate. In principle therefore there can only be one true interpretation of a treaty. … In practice it is
            left to national courts, faced with a material disagreement on an issue of interpretation, to resolve it.
            But in doing so it must search, untrammelled by notions of its national legal culture, for the true
            autonomous international meaning of the treaty. And there can only be one true meaning” (The Law
            Reports, Appeal Cases 2001, vol. 2, at pp. 515-517 (Lord Steyn)).
        641
            United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 15, No. 102, p. 2.
168                                                                                                                    GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 79 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 80 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                      A/71/10
               permission.642 Another case is article 22, paragraph 3, of the 1961 Vienna Convention on
               Diplomatic Relations,643 which provides that the means of transport used by a mission shall
               be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution. While police enforcement
               against diplomatic properties will usually be met with the protests of States, 644 the towing of
               diplomatic cars that have violated local traffic and parking laws generally has been
               regarded as permissible in practice.645 This practice suggests that, while punitive measures
               against diplomatic vehicles are forbidden, cars can be stopped or removed if they prove to
               be an immediate danger or obstacle for traffic and/or public safety.646 In that sense, the
               meaning of the term “execution” — and, thus, the scope of protection accorded to means of
               transportation — is specified by the subsequent practice of parties.
               (12) Another possible example concerns article 12 of Protocol II647 to the 1949 Geneva
               Conventions, which provides:
                        “Under the direction of the competent authority concerned, the distinctive emblem
                        of the Red Cross, Red Crescent or Red Lion and Sun on a white ground shall be
                        displayed by medical and religious personnel and medical units, and on medical
                        transports. It shall be respected in all circumstances. It shall not be used
                        improperly.”
               Although the term “shall” suggests that it is obligatory for States to use the distinctive
               emblem for marking medical personnel and transports under all circumstances, subsequent
               practice suggests that States may possess some discretion with regard to its application. 648
               As armed groups have in recent years specifically attacked medical convoys that were well
               recognizable due to the protective emblem, States have in certain situations refrained from
               marking such convoys with a distinctive emblem. Responding to a parliamentary question
               on its practice in Afghanistan, the Government of Germany has stated that:
                        “As other contributors of ISAF contingents, the Federal Armed Forces have
                        experienced that marked medical vehicles have been targeted. Occasionally, these
           642
               S.D. Murphy, “The relevance of subsequent agreement and subsequent practice for the interpretation
               of treaties”, in Nolte, Treaties and Subsequent Practice (see footnote 398 above), p. 85; A. Aust,
               Modern Treaty Law and Practice (see footnote 525 above), p. 215.
           643
               United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 500, No. 7310, p. 95.
           644
               E. Denza, Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Oxford
               Commentaries on International Law, 3rd edition (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 160-
               161; J. Salmon, Manuel de droit diplomatique (Brussels, Bruylant, 1994), p. 208, para. 315.
           645
               See, for example, Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Privileges and Immunities of
               Foreign Representatives (http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/corporate/protocol-
               guidelines/Documents/A21.pdf); Iceland, Protocol Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
               Diplomatic Handbook (Reykjavik, 2009), p. 14 (www.mfa.is/media/PDF/
               Diplomatic_Handbook.PDF); United Kingdom, see the statement of the Parliamentary Under-
               Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton) in the House of Lords, HL Deb, 12 December 1983,
               vol. 446 cc3-4; United States, see M. Nash (Leich), “Contemporary practice of the United States
               relating to international law”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 88, No. 2 (April 1994), p.
               312, at pp. 312-313.
           646
               Denza, Diplomatic Law … (see footnote 644 above), p. 160; M. Richtsteig, Wiener Übereinkommen
               über diplomatische und konsularische Beziehungen: Entstehungsgeschichte, Kommentierung, Praxis,
               2nd edition (Baden-Baden, Germany, Nomos, 2010), p. 70.
           647
               See footnote 551 above.
           648
               Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski and B. Zimmermann (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8
               June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Dordrecht, ICRC and Martinus Nijhoff,
               1987), p. 1440, paras. 4742-4744; H. Spieker, “Medical transportation”, in Max Planck Encyclopedia
               of Public International Law (www.mpepil.com), paras. 7-12; see also the less stringent future tense in
               the French version “sera arboré”.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                               169
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 80 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 81 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
                     medical units and vehicles, clearly distinguished as such by their protective emblem,
                     have even been preferred as targets. The Federal Armed Forces have thus, along
                     with Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, decided
                     within ISAF to cover up the protective emblem on medical vehicles.”649
            (13) Such practice by States may confirm an interpretation of article 12 according to
            which the obligation to use the protective emblem 650 under exceptional circumstances
            allows a margin of discretion for the parties.
            (14) A treaty provision that grants States an apparently unconditional right may raise the
            question of whether this discretion is limited by the purpose of the rule. For example,
            according to article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the receiving
            State may notify the sending State, without having to give reasons, that a member of the
            mission is persona non grata. States mostly issue such notifications in cases in which
            members of the mission were found or suspected of having engaged in espionage activities
            or having committed other serious violations of the law of the receiving State or caused
            significant political irritation.651 However, States have also made such declarations in other
            circumstances, such as when envoys caused serious injury to a third party652 or committed
            repeated infringement of the law653 or even to enforce their drink-driving laws.654 It is even
            conceivable that declarations are made without clear reasons or for purely political motives.
            Other States do not seem to have asserted that such practice constitutes an abuse of the
            power to declare members of a mission as personae non gratae. Thus, such practice
            confirms that article 9 provides an unconditional right. 655
        649
            Deutscher Bundestag, “Antwort der Bundesregierung: Rechtlicher Status des Sanitätspersonals der
            Bundeswehr in Afghanistan”, 9 April 2010, Bundestagsdrucksache 17/1338, p. 2 (translation by the
            Special Rapporteur).
        650
            Spieker, “Medical transportation” (see footnote 648 above), para. 12.
        651
            See Denza, Diplomatic Law … (footnote 644 above), pp. 77-88 with further references to declarations
            in relation to espionage; see also Salmon, Manuel de droit diplomatique (footnote 644 above), p. 484,
            para. 630; and Richtsteig, Wiener Übereinkommen über diplomatische … (footnote 646 above), p. 30.
        652
            The Netherlands, Protocol Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Protocol Guide for Diplomatic
            Missions and Consular Posts. Available from www.government.nl/government/
            documents/leaflets/2015/04/15/protocol-guide-for-diplomatic-missions-en-consular-posts.
        653
            France, Ministère des affaires étrangères et du développement, Guide for Foreign Diplomats Serving
            in France: Immunities — Respect for Local Laws and Regulations
            (www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/ministry/guide-for-foreign-diplomats/immunities/article/respect-for-
            local-laws-and); Turkey, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, traffic regulations to be followed by foreign
            missions in Turkey, Principal Circular Note 63552, Traffic Regulations 2005/PDGY/63552 (6 April
            2005) (www.mfa.gov.tr/06_04_2005--63552-traffic-regulations.en.mfa); United Kingdom, Foreign
            and Commonwealth Office, Circular dated 19 April 1985 to the Heads of Diplomatic Missions in
            London, reprinted in G. Marston, “United Kingdom materials on international law 1985”, British
            Yearbook of International Law, vol. 56, No. 1 (1985), p. 437.
        654
            See Canada, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, Revised Impaired Driving Policy
            (www.international.gc.ca/protocol-protocole/vienna_convention_idp-
            convention_vienne_vfa.aspx?lang=eng); United States, Department of State, Diplomatic Note 10-181
            of the Department of State (24 September 2010) (www.state.gov/documents/
            organization/149985.pdf), pp. 8-9.
        655
            See G. Hafner, “Subsequent agreements and practice: between interpretation, informal modification,
            and formal amendment”, in Nolte, Treaties and Subsequent Practice (see footnote 398 above), p. 105,
            at p. 112, for an even more far-reaching case under article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
            Relations.
170                                                                                                               GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 81 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 82 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                          A/71/10
               Paragraph 2 — other subsequent practice under article 32
               (15) Paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 7 concerns possible effects of “other subsequent
               practice” under article 32 (see draft conclusion 4, paragraph 3), which does not reflect an
               agreement of all parties regarding the interpretation of a treaty. Such practice, as a
               supplementary means of interpretation, can confirm the interpretation that the interpreter
               has reached in the application of article 31, or determine the meaning when the
               interpretation according to article 31 leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure or leads to a
               result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. Article 32 thereby makes a distinction
               between a use of preparatory work or of “other subsequent practice” to confirm a meaning
               arrived at under article 31 and its use to “determine” the meaning. Hence, recourse may be
               had to “other subsequent practice” under article 32 not only to determine the meaning of the
               treaty in certain circumstances, but also — and always — to confirm the meaning resulting
               from the application of article 31.656
               (16) Subsequent practice under article 32 can contribute, for example, to reducing
               possible conflicts when the “object and purpose” of a treaty appears to be in tension with
               specific purposes of certain of its rules. 657 In the Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, for example,
               the International Court of Justice emphasized that the “parties sought both to secure for
               themselves freedom of navigation on the river and to delimit as precisely as possible their
               respective spheres of influence”.658 The parties thereby reconciled a possible tension by
               taking into account a certain subsequent practice by only one of the parties as a
               supplementary means of interpretation (under article 32).659
               (17) Another example of “other subsequent practice” under article 32 concerns the term
               “feasible precautions” in article 57, paragraph 2 (ii), of Protocol I660 to the 1949 Geneva
               Conventions. This term has been used in effect by article 3, paragraph 4, of the Protocol on
               Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Protocol
               II) of 10 October 1980,661 which provides that: “Feasible precautions are those precautions
               which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at
               the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.” This language has come to
           656
               WTO Appellate Body Report, China — Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services
               for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products (China — Publications and
               Audiovisual Products), WT/DS363/AB/R, adopted 19 January 2010, para. 403; “Although the Panel’s
               application of [a]rticle 31 of the Vienna Convention to ‘Sound recording distribution services’ led it
               to a ‘preliminary conclusion’ as to the meaning of that entry, the Panel nonetheless decided to have
               recourse to supplementary means of interpretation to confirm that meaning. We note, in this regard,
               that China’s argument on appeal appears to assume that the Panel’s analysis under [a]rticle 32 of the
               Vienna Convention would necessarily have been different if the Panel had found that the application
               of [a]rticle 31 left the meaning of ‘Sound recording distribution services’ ambiguous or obscure, and
               if the Panel had, therefore, resorted to [a]rticle 32 to determine, rather than to confirm, the meaning of
               that term. We do not share this view. The elements to be examined under [a]rticle 32 are distinct from
               those to be analysed under [a]rticle 31, but it is the same elements that are examined under [a]rticle 32
               irrespective of the outcome of the [a]rticle 31 analysis. Instead, what may differ, depending on the
               results of the application of [a]rticle 31, is the weight that will be attributed to the elements analysed
               under [a]rticle 32.” See also Villiger, Commentary … (footnote 414 above), p. 447, para. 11.
           657
               See WTO Appellate Body Report, United States — Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp
               Products — AB-1998-4, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, para. 17 (“… most treaties
               have no single, undiluted object and purpose but rather a variety of different, and possibly conflicting,
               objects and purposes”); Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), p. 216.
           658
               Kasikili/Sedudu Island (see footnote 395 above), at p. 1074, para. 45.
           659
               Ibid., at p. 1078, para. 55 and p. 1096, para. 80.
           660
               Ibid., at p. 1077, para. 55, and p. 1096, para. 80.
           661
               United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1342, No. 22495, p. 137.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                   171
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 82 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 83 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            be accepted by way of subsequent practice in many military manuals as a general definition
            of “feasible precautions” for the purpose of article 57, paragraph (2) (ii), of Protocol I to the
            1949 Geneva Conventions.662
            (18) The identification of subsequent practice under articles 31, paragraph 3 (b), and 32
            has sometimes led domestic courts to arrive at broad and narrow interpretations. For
            example, the United Kingdom House of Lords interpreted the term “damage” under article
            26, paragraph 2, of the Warsaw Convention as more generally including “loss”, invoking
            the subsequent conduct of the parties.663 On the other hand, the United States Supreme
            Court, having regard to the subsequent practice of the parties, decided that the term
            “accident” in article 17 of the 1929 Warsaw Convention should be interpreted narrowly in
            the sense that it excluded events that were not caused by an unexpected or unusual event. 664
            Another example of a restrictive interpretation is a decision in which the Federal Court of
            Australia interpreted the term “impairment of dignity” under article 22 of the Vienna
            Convention on Diplomatic Relations as only requiring the receiving State to protect against
            breaches of the peace or the disruption of essential functions of embassies, and not against
            any forms of nuisance or insult.665
            (19) Domestic courts, in particular, sometimes refer to decisions from other domestic
            jurisdictions and thus engage in a “judicial dialogue” even if no agreement of the parties
            can thereby be established.666 Apart from thereby applying article 32, such references may
            add to the development of a subsequent practice together with other domestic courts. 667
            However, the line between an appropriate use and a selective invocation of decisions of
            other domestic courts may be thin. 668 Lord Hope of the United Kingdom House of Lords,
        662
            For the military manuals of Argentina (1989), Canada (2001) and the United Kingdom (2004), see
            Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, volume 2 … (footnote
            601 above), pp. 359-360, paras. 160-164 and the online update for the military manual of Australia
            (2006) (www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule15_sectionc); see also Sandoz,
            Swinarski and Zimmermann, Commentary on the Additional Protocols … (footnote 648 above), p.
            683, para. 2202.
        663
            United Kingdom, House of Lords, Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines Ltd. [1981] AC 251, at p. 278 (Lord
            Wilberforce) and p. 279 (Lord Diplock); similarly, Germany, Federal Court (Civil Matters), BGHZ,
            vol. 84, p. 339, at pp. 343-344.
        664
            United States, Supreme Court, Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, pp. 403-404.
        665
            Australia, Federal Court of Australia, Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the
            Commonwealth of Australia v. Geraldo Magno and Ines Almeida [1992] FCA 566, paras. 30-35
            (Einfeld J.); see also United Kingdom, House of Lords, R (Mullen) v. Secretary of State for the Home
            Department [2004] UKHL 18, paras. 47-48 (Lord Steyn).
        666
            See, for example, United States, Supreme Court, Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, pp. 397-407;
            United States, Supreme Court, Abbott v. Abbott 560 U.S. (2010), Opinion of the Court (delivered by
            Justice Kennedy), Slip Opinion (www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-645.pdf) (accessed 9
            June 2016), at pp. 12-16; Germany, Federal Administrative Court, BVerwGE, vol. 139, p. 272, at pp.
            288-289; High Court of Australia, Andrew John Macoun v. Commissioner of Taxation [2015] HCA
            44, at pp. 75-82.
        667
            A. Tzanakopulos, “Judicial dialogue as a means of interpretation”, in The Interpretation of
            International Law by Domestic Courts: Uniformity, Diversity, Convergence, H.P. Aust and G. Nolte,
            eds. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 72, at p. 94; E. Benvenisti, “Reclaiming democracy:
            the strategic uses of foreign and international law by national courts”, American Journal of
            International Law, vol. 102 (2008), at pp. 241-274.
        668
            United Kingdom, Supreme Court, R (Adams) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18, para.
            17 (Lord Philips) (“[t]his practice on the part of only one of the many signatories to the ICCPR does
            not provide a guide to the meaning of article 14 (6) …. It has not been suggested that there is any
            consistency of practice on the part of the signatories that assists in determining the meaning of article
            14 (6)”).
172                                                                                                                   GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 83 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 84 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                        A/71/10
               quoting the Vienna rules of interpretation, has provided a general orientation when he
               stated:
                        “In an ideal world the Convention should be accorded the same meaning by all who
                        are party to it. So case law provides a further potential source of evidence. Careful
                        consideration needs to be given to the reasoning of courts of other jurisdictions
                        which have been called upon to deal with the point at issue, particularly those which
                        are of high standing. Considerable weight should be given to an interpretation which
                        has received general acceptance in other jurisdictions. On the other hand, a
                        discriminating approach is required if the decisions conflict, or if there is no clear
                        agreement between them.”669
               (20) Much depends on how this general approach is applied. For example, selective
               invocation of the decisions of one particular national jurisdiction or the practice of a
               particular group of States should be avoided.670 On the other hand, it may be appropriate, in
               a case in which the practice in different domestic jurisdictions diverges, to emphasize the
               practice of a representative group of jurisdictions 671 and to give more weight to the
               decisions of higher courts.672
               Paragraph 3 — interpretation versus modification or amendment
               (21) Paragraph 3 of draft conclusion 7 addresses the question of how far the
               interpretation of a treaty can be influenced by subsequent agreements and subsequent
               practice in order to remain within the realm of what is considered interpretation under
               article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b). The paragraph reminds the interpreter that agreements
               subsequently arrived at may serve to amend or modify a treaty, but that such subsequent
               agreements are subject to article 39 of the 1969 Vienna Convention and should be
               distinguished from subsequent agreements under article 31, paragraph 3 (a). The second
               sentence, while acknowledging that there are examples to the contrary in case law and
               diverging opinions in the literature, stipulates that the possibility of amending or modifying
               a treaty by subsequent practice of the parties has not been generally recognized.
               (22) According to article 39 of the 1969 Vienna Convention: “A treaty may be amended
               by agreement between the parties.” Article 31, paragraph 3 (a), on the other hand, refers to
               subsequent agreements “between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty and
           669
               United Kingdom, House of Lords, King v. Bristow Helicopters Ltd (Scotland) [2002] UKHL 7, at
               para. 81.
           670
               Ibid., at para. 7 (Lord Mackay): “Because I consider it important that the Warsaw Convention should
               have a common construction in all jurisdictions that have adopted the Convention, I attach crucial
               importance to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Eastern Airlines Inc. v. Floyd
               (1991) 499 US 530 and El Al Israel Airlines v. Tseng, particularly as the United States is such a large
               participant in carriage by air”; or Einfeld J. for the Federal Court of Australia in Commissioner of the
               Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth of Australia v. Geraldo Magno and Ines Almeida
               [1992] FCA 566, in a case concerning the interpretation of the term “impairment of dignity” of a
               diplomatic representation under article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
               recalling article 31, paragraph 3 (b), who stated that “international application of the Convention by
               democratic countries indicates that another significant consideration is freedom of speech in the host
               country. This factor is particularly weighty when dealing with political demonstrations outside
               embassies. It is useful to consider the practice of countries with considerable experience in dealing
               with this type of situation, such as the United States and the United Kingdom”, at para. 30.
           671
               Canada, Supreme Court, Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Management Corp. [2010] 1 SCR 649, para. 21
               (Rothstein J.).
           672
               United Kingdom, House of Lords: Sidhu v. British Airways [1997] AC 430, at p. 453 (Lord Hope);
               Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines Ltd. [1981] AC 251, pp. 275-276 (Lord Wilberforce).
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                 173
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 84 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 85 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            the application of its provisions”, and does not seem to address the question of amendment
            or modification. As the WTO Appellate Body has held:
                     “… the term ‘application’ in Article 31 (3) (a) relates to the situation where an
                     agreement specifies how existing rules or obligations in force are to be ‘applied’; the
                     term does not connote the creation of new or the extension of existing obligations
                     that are subject to a temporal limitation …”.673
            (23) Articles 31, paragraph 3 (a), and 39, if read together, demonstrate that agreements
            that the parties reach subsequently to the conclusion of a treaty can interpret and amend or
            modify the treaty.674 An agreement under article 39 need not display the same form as the
            treaty that it amends.675 As the International Court of Justice has held in the Pulp Mills on
            the River Uruguay case:
                     “Whatever its specific designation and in whatever instrument it may have been
                     recorded (the [Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay] minutes), this
                     ‘understanding’ is binding on the Parties, to the extent that they have consented to it
                     and must be observed by them in good faith. They are entitled to depart from the
                     procedures laid down by the 1975 Statute, in respect of a given project pursuant to
                     an appropriate bilateral agreement.”676
            (24) It is often difficult to draw a distinction between agreements of the parties under a
            specific treaty provision that attributes binding force to subsequent agreements, simple
            subsequent agreements under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), which are not binding as such,
            and, finally, agreements on the amendment or modification of a treaty under articles 39 to
            41.677 International case law and State practice suggest 678 that informal agreements that are
            alleged to derogate from treaty obligations should be narrowly interpreted. There do not
            seem to be any formal criteria other than those set forth in article 39, if applicable, apart
            from the ones that may be provided for in the applicable treaty itself, which are recognized
            as distinguishing these different forms of subsequent agreements. It is clear, however, that
            States and international courts are generally prepared to accord States parties a rather wide
        673
            WTO, Appellate Body Report, EC — Bananas III (see footnote 445 above), paras. 391-393.
        674
            Murphy, “The relevance of subsequent agreement …” (see footnote 642 above), p. 88.
        675
            Sinclair, The Vienna Convention … (see footnote 393 above), p. 107 with reference to Waldock,
            Official Records of the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties … (A/CONF.39/11)
            (see footnote 575 above), 37th meeting, 24 April 1968, p. 207, paras. 49-52; Villiger,
            Commentary … (see footnote 414 above), p. 513, paras. 7, 9 and 11; K. Odendahl, “Article 39.
            General rule regarding the amendment of treaties”, in Dörr and Schmalenbach, Vienna
            Convention on the Law of Treaties … (see footnote 439 above), p. 706, at para. 16.
        676
            Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (see footnote 395 above), at pp. 62-63, paras. 128 and 131; the Court
            then concluded, in the case under review, that these conditions had not been fulfilled, at pp. 62-66,
            paras. 128-142.
        677
            In judicial practice, it is sometimes not necessary to determine whether an agreement has the effect
            of interpreting or modifying a treaty, see Territorial Dispute (footnote 395 above), at p. 29, para.
            60 (“… in the view of the Court, for the purposes of the present Judgment, there is no reason to
            categorize it either as confirmation or as a modification of the Declaration”); it is sometimes
            considered that an agreement under art. 31, para. 3 (a), can also have the effect of modifying a treaty
            (see Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (see footnote 525 above), pp. 212-214 with examples.
        678
            Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (see footnote 395 above), at p. 63, paras. 131 and 140; Crawford, “A
            consensualist interpretation of article 31 (3) …” (see footnote 606 above), p. 32; Iran-United States
            Claims Tribunal, Interlocutory Award No. ITL 83-B1-FT (Counterclaim) (see footnote 537 above), p.
            77, at pp. 125-126, para. 132; ADF Group Inc. v. United States of America (Case No.
            ARB(AF)/00/1), ICSID Arbitration Under NAFTA Chapter Eleven, 9 January 2003, ICSID Reports,
            vol. 6 (2004), pp. 84-85, para. 177 (www.state.gov/documents/organization/16586.pdf); Ibid., Part
            IV, chap. C, paras. 20-21; A/CN.4/671, paras. 146-165.
174                                                                                                                 GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 85 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 86 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                     A/71/10
               scope for the interpretation of a treaty by way of a subsequent agreement. This scope may
               even go beyond the ordinary meaning of the terms of the treaty. The recognition of this
               scope for the interpretation of a treaty goes hand in hand with the reluctance by States and
               courts to recognize that an agreement actually has the effect of amending or modifying a
               treaty.679 An agreement to modify a treaty is thus not excluded, but also not to be
               presumed.680
               (25) Turning to the question of whether the parties can amend or modify a treaty by a
               common subsequent practice, the Commission originally proposed, in its draft articles on
               the law of treaties, to include the following provision in the 1969 Vienna Convention,
               which would have explicitly recognized the possibility of a modification of treaties by
               subsequent practice:
                        “Article 38. Modification of treaties by subsequent practice
                        A treaty may be modified by subsequent practice in the application of the treaty
                        establishing the agreement of the parties to modify its provisions.”681
               (26) This draft article gave rise to an intense debate at the Vienna Conference. 682 An
               amendment to delete draft article 38 was put to a vote and was adopted by 53 votes to 15,
               with 26 abstentions. After the Vienna Conference, the question was discussed whether the
               rejection of draft article 38 meant that the possibility of a modification of a treaty by
               subsequent practice of the parties had thereby been excluded. Many writers came to the
               conclusion that the negotiating States simply did not wish to address this question in the
               1969 Vienna Convention and that treaties can, as a general rule under the customary law of
               treaties, indeed be modified by subsequent practice that establishes the agreement of the
               parties to that effect.683 International courts and tribunals, on the other hand, have since the
               adoption of the 1969 Vienna Convention mostly refrained from recognizing this possibility.
           679
               It may be that States, in diplomatic contexts outside court proceedings, tend to acknowledge more
               openly that a certain agreement or common practice amounts to a modification of a treaty, see
               Murphy, “The relevance of subsequent agreement …” (footnote 642 above), p. 83.
           680
               Ibid., p. 66, para. 140; Crawford, “A consensualist interpretation of article 31 (3) …” (see footnote
               606 above), p. 32.
           681
               Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 236 (footnote omitted).
           682
               See Official Records of the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties … (A/CONF.39/11)
               (footnote 575 above), 37th meeting, 24 April 1968, pp. 207-215; A/CN.4/671, paras. 119-121;
               Distefano, “La pratique subséquente …” (footnote 573 above), pp. 56-61.
           683
               Sinclair, The Vienna Convention … (see footnote 393 above), p. 138; Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation
               (see footnote 392 above), pp. 275-280; Yasseen, “L’interprétation des traités…” (see footnote 393
               above), pp. 51-52; Kamto, “La volonté de l’État …” (see footnote 533 above), pp. 134-141, at p. 134;
               Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (see footnote 525 above), p. 213; Villiger, Commentary …
               (see footnote 414 above), p. 432, para. 23; Dörr, “Article 31 …” (see footnote 439 above), p. 555,
               para. 76 (in accord, Odendahl, “Article 39 …” (see footnote 675 above), p. 702, paras. 10-11);
               Distefano, “La pratique subséquente …” (see footnote 573 above), pp. 62-67; H. Thirlway, “The law
               and procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989: supplement, 2006 — part three”,
               British Yearbook of International Law 2006, vol. 77, pp. 1-82, p. 65; M.N. Shaw, International Law,
               6th edition (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 934; I. Buga,
               “Subsequent practice and treaty modification”, in Conceptual and Contextual Perspectives on the
               Modern Law of Treaties, M.J. Bowman and D. Kritsiotis, eds. (forthcoming), at footnote 452 with
               further references; disagreeing with this view, in particular, and stressing the solemnity of the
               conclusion of a treaty in contrast with the informality of practice Murphy, “The relevance of
               subsequent agreement …” (see footnote 642 above), pp. 89-90; see also Hafner, “Subsequent
               agreements and practice …” (see footnote 655 above), pp. 115-117 (differentiating between the
               perspectives of courts and States, as well as emphasizing the importance of amendment provisions in
               this context).
GE.16-14345                                                                                                              175
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 86 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 87 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            (27) In the case concerning the Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights, the
            International Court of Justice has held that “subsequent practice of the parties, within the
            meaning of Article 31, paragraph 3 (b), of the Vienna Convention, can result in a departure
            from the original intent on the basis of a tacit agreement”.684 It is not entirely clear whether
            the Court thereby wanted to recognize that subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph
            3 (b), may also have the effect of amending or modifying a treaty, or whether it was merely
            making a point relating to the interpretation of treaties as the “original” intent of the parties
            is not necessarily conclusive for the interpretation of a treaty. Indeed, the Commission
            recognizes in draft conclusion 8 [3] that subsequent agreements and subsequent practice,
            like other means of interpretation, “may assist in determining whether or not the presumed
            intention of the parties upon the conclusion of the treaty was to give a term used a meaning
            which is capable of evolving over time”.685 The scope for “interpretation” is therefore not
            necessarily determined by a fixed “original intent”, but must rather be determined by taking
            into account a broader range of considerations, including certain later developments. This
            somewhat ambiguous dictum of the Court raises the question of how far subsequent
            practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), can contribute to “interpretation” and whether
            subsequent practice may have the effect of amending or modifying a treaty. Indeed, the
            dividing line between the interpretation and the amendment or modification of a treaty is in
            practice sometimes “difficult, if not impossible, to fix”.686
            (28) Apart from the dictum in Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights,687 the
            International Court of Justice has not explicitly recognized that a particular subsequent
            practice has had the effect of modifying a treaty. This is true, in particular, for the Namibia
            Advisory Opinion as well as for the Wall Advisory Opinion, in which the Court recognized
            that subsequent practice had an important effect on the determination of the meaning of the
            treaty, but stopped short of explicitly recognizing that such practice had led to an
            amendment or modification of the treaty. 688 Since these opinions concerned treaties
            establishing an international organization it seems difficult to derive a general rule of the
            law of treaties from them. The questions of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice
        684
            Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (see footnote 395 above), at p. 242, para. 64; see
            also Question of the tax regime governing pensions paid to retired UNESCO officials residing in
            France (footnote 532 above); Yasseen, “L’interprétation des traités …” (see footnote 393 above ), p.
            51; Kamto, “La volonté de l’État … “ (see footnote 533 above), pp. 134-141; R. Bernhardt, Die
            Auslegung völkerrechtlicher Verträge (Cologne, Berlin, Heymanns, 1963), p. 132.
        685
            See draft conclusion 8 [3] and commentary thereto, paras. (1)-(18).
        686
            Sinclair, The Vienna Convention … (see footnote 393 above), p. 138; Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation
            (see footnote 392 above), p. 275; Murphy, “The relevance of subsequent agreement …” (see footnote
            642 above), p. 90; B. Simma, “Miscellaneous thoughts on subsequent agreements and practice”, in
            Nolte, Treaties and Subsequent Practice (see footnote 398 above), p. 46; Karl, Vertrag und spätere
            Praxis … (see footnote 454 above), pp. 42-43; Sorel and Boré Eveno, “1969 Vienna Convention,
            Article 31 …” (see footnote 440 above), p. 825, para. 42; Dörr, “Article 31 …” (see footnote 439
            above), p. 555, para. 76; this is true even if the two processes can theoretically be seen as being
            “legally quite distinct”, see the Dissenting Opinion of Judge Parra-Aranguren in Kasikili/Sedudu
            Island (footnote 395 above), at pp. 1212-1213, para. 16; similarly, Hafner, “Subsequent agreements
            and practice …” (see footnote 655 above), p. 114; Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of Treaties (see
            footnote 446 above), p. 168.
        687
            Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (see footnote 395 above), at p. 242, para. 64.
        688
            Thirlway, “The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989 …” (see footnote
            683 above), p. 64.
176                                                                                                              GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 87 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 88 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                       A/71/10
               relating to constituent instruments of international organizations are addressed in draft
               conclusion 12 [11].689
               (29) Other important cases in which the International Court of Justice has raised the issue
               of possible modification by the subsequent practice of the parties concern boundary treaties.
               As the Court said in the case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between
               Cameroon and Nigeria:
                       “Hence the conduct of Cameroon in that territory has pertinence only for the
                       question of whether it acquiesced in the establishment of a change in treaty title,
                       which cannot be wholly precluded as a possibility in law … .”690
               (30) The Court found such acquiescence in the case concerning the Temple of Preah
               Vihear, where it placed decisive emphasis on the fact that there had been clear assertions of
               sovereignty by one side (France), which, according to the Court, required a reaction on the
               part of the other side (Thailand).691 This judgment, however, was rendered before the
               adoption of the Vienna Convention and thus, at least implicitly, was taken into account by
               States in their debate at the Vienna Conference. 692 The judgment also stops short of
               explicitly recognizing the modification of a treaty by subsequent practice as the Court left
               open whether the line on the French map was compatible with the watershed line that had
               been agreed upon in the original boundary treaty between the two States — although it is
               often assumed that this was not the case. 693
               (31) Thus, while leaving open the possibility that a treaty might be modified by the
               subsequent practice of the parties, the International Court of Justice has so far not explicitly
               recognized that such an effect has actually been produced in a specific case. Rather the
               Court has reached interpretations that were difficult to reconcile with the ordinary meaning
               of the text of the treaty, but which coincided with the identified practice of the parties. 694
           689
               See already Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 10,
               A/67/10, p. 124, para. 238, and, ibid., Sixty-third Session, Supplement No. 10, A/63/10, annex A, para.
               42.
           690
               Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial
               Guinea intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 303, at p. 353, para. 68.
           691
               Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (see footnote 488 above): “an acknowledgement by
               conduct was undoubtedly made in a very definite way … it is clear that the circumstances were such
               as called for some reaction” (p. 23); “[a] clearer affirmation of title on the French Indo-Chinese side
               can scarcely be imagined” and therefore “demanded a reaction” (p. 30).
           692
               M. Kohen, “Uti possidetis, prescription et pratique subséquente à un traité dans l’affaire de l’île de
               Kasikili/Sedudu devant la Cour internationale de Justice”, German Yearbook of International Law,
               vol. 43 (2000), p. 253, at p. 272.
           693
               Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (see footnote 488 above), at p. 26: “a fact, which if
               true, must have been no less evident in 1908”. Judge Parra-Aranguren has opined that the Temple
               of Preah Vihear case demonstrated “that the effect of subsequent practice on that occasion was to
               amend the treaty” (see Kasikili/Sedudu Island (footnote 395 above), Dissenting Opinion of Judge
               Parra-Aranguren, at pp. 1212-1213, para. 16); Buga, “Subsequent practice and treaty modification”
               (see footnote 683 above), at footnote 500.
           694
               In particular the Namibia opinion (see footnote 636 above) has been read as implying that
               subsequent practice has modified Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, see
               Alain Pellet, “Article 38”, in The Statute of the International Court of Justice A Commentary, 2nd
               edition, A. Zimmermann and others, eds. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 844, para.
               279, note 809; cf. A/CN.4/671, paras. 124-126.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                177
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 88 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 89 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            Contrary holdings by arbitral tribunals have been characterized either as an “isolated
            exception”695 or rendered before the Vienna Conference and critically referred to there. 696
            (32) The WTO Appellate Body has made clear that it would not accept an interpretation
            that would result in a modification of a treaty obligation, as this would not be an
            “application” of an existing treaty provision.697 The Appellate Body’s position may be
            influenced by article 3, paragraph 2, of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
            Governing the Settlement of Disputes, according to which: “Recommendations and rulings
            of the [Dispute Settlement Body] cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations
            provided in the covered agreements.”698
            (33) The European Court of Human Rights has occasionally recognized the subsequent
            practice of the parties as a possible source for a modification of the Convention. In an
            obiter dictum in the 1989 case of Soering v. the United Kingdom, the Court held:
                    “ … that an established practice within the member States could give rise to an
                    amendment of the Convention. In that case the Court accepted that subsequent
                    practice in national penal policy, in the form of a generalised abolition of capital
                    punishment, could be taken as establishing the agreement of the Contracting States
                    to abrogate the exception provided for under Article 2 § 1 and hence remove a
                    textual limit on the scope for evolutive interpretation of Article 3 (ibid., pp. 40-41, §
                    103).”699
            (34) Applying this reasoning, the Court came to the following conclusion in Al-Saadoon
            and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom:
                    “All but two of the member States have now signed Protocol No. 13 and all but
                    three of the States which have signed have ratified it. These figures, together with
                    consistent State practice in observing the moratorium on capital punishment, are
                    strongly indicative that Article 2 has been amended so as to prohibit the death
                    penalty in all circumstances. Against this background, the Court does not consider
                    that the wording of the second sentence of Article 2 § 1 continues to act as a bar to
        695
            M. Kohen, “Keeping subsequent agreements and practice in their right limits”, in Nolte, Treaties and
            Subsequent Practice (see footnote 398 above), pp. 34 et seq., at p. 43 regarding Decision regarding
            delimitation of the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia, 13 April 2002, UNRIAA, vol. XXV (Sales
            No. E/F.05.V.5), pp. 83-195, at pp. 110-111, paras. 3.6-3.10; see also Case concerning the location of
            boundary markers in Taba between Egypt and Israel, 29 September 1988, UNRIAA, vol. XX (Sales
            No. E/F.93.V.3), pp. 1-118, see pp. 56-57, paras. 209-210, in which the Arbitral Tribunal held, in an
            obiter dictum, “that the demarcated boundary line would prevail over the Agreement if a
            contradiction could be detected” (ibid., p. 57); but see R. Kolb, “La modification d’un traité par la
            pratique subséquente des parties”, Revue suisse de droit international et de droit européen, vol. 14
            (2004), pp. 9-32, at p. 20.
        696
            Interpretation of the Air Transport Services Agreement between the United States of America and
            France, 22 December 1963, UNRIAA, vol. XVI (Sales No. E/F.69.V.1), pp. 5-74, at pp. 62-63;
            Official Records of the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties … (A/CONF.39/11) (see
            footnote 575 above), 37th meeting, 24 April 1968, p. 208, para. 58 (Japan); Murphy, “The relevance
            of subsequent agreement …” (footnote 642 above), p. 89.
        697
            WTO, Appellate Body Report, EC — Bananas III (see footnote 445 above), Second Recourse to
            Article 21.5, WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU and Corr.1 adopted 11 December 2008,
            WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA and Corr.1, adopted 22 December 2008, paras. 391-393.
        698
            Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (see footnote 445 above),
            Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Annex 2, at p. 401.
        699
            See Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, 4 October 2010, para. 119,
            referring to Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, 12 May 2005, ECHR 2005-IV, and quoting
            Soering v. the United Kingdom, no. 14038/88, 7 July 1989, ECHR Series A no. 161.
178                                                                                                                GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 89 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 90 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                       A/71/10
                        its interpreting the words ‘inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ in Article
                        3 as including the death penalty (compare Soering, cited above, §§ 102-04).”700
               (35) The case law of international courts and tribunals allows the following conclusions:
               the WTO situation suggests that a treaty may preclude the subsequent practice of the parties
               from having a modifying effect. Thus, the treaty itself governs the question in the first
               place. Conversely, the European Court of Human Rights cases suggest that a treaty may
               permit the subsequent practice of the parties to have a modifying effect. Thus, ultimately,
               much depends on the treaty or on the treaty provisions concerned. 701
               (36) The situation is more complicated in the case of treaties for which such indications
               do not exist. No clear residual rule for such cases can be discerned from the jurisprudence
               of the International Court of Justice. The conclusion can be drawn, however, that the Court,
               while finding that the possibility of a modification of a treaty by subsequent practice of the
               parties “cannot be wholly precluded as a possibility in law”,702 considered that finding such
               a modification should be avoided, if at all possible. Instead the Court prefers to accept
               broad interpretations that may stretch the ordinary meaning of the terms of the treaty.
               (37) This conclusion from the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice is in line
               with certain considerations that were articulated during the debates among States on draft
               article 38 of the 1969 Vienna Convention. 703 Today, the consideration that amendment
               procedures that are provided for in a treaty are not to be circumvented by informal means
               seems to have gained more weight in relation to the equally true general observation that
               international law is often not as formalist as national law. 704 The concern that was expressed
               by a number of States at the Vienna Conference, according to which the possibility of
               modifying a treaty by subsequent practice could create difficulties for domestic
               constitutional law, has also since gained in relevance. 705 And, while the principle pacta sunt
               servanda is not formally called into question by an amendment or modification of a treaty
               by subsequent practice that establishes the agreement of all the parties, it is equally true that
           700
               Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, 4 October 2010, para. 120; B. Malkani,
               “The obligation to refrain from assisting the use of the death penalty”, International and Comparative
               Law Quarterly, vol. 62, No. 3 (2013), pp. 523-556.
           701
               See Buga, “Subsequent practice and treaty modification” (footnote 683 above), at footnotes 126-132.
           702
               See Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial
               Guinea intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 303, at p. 353, para. 68.
           703
               A/CN.4/671, paras. 119-121.
           704
               Murphy, “The relevance of subsequent agreement and subsequent practice …” (footnote 642 above),
               p. 89; Simma, “Miscellaneous thoughts on subsequent agreements …” (footnote 686 above), p. 47;
               Hafner, “Subsequent agreements and practice …” (see footnote 655 above), pp. 115-117; J.E.
               Alvarez, “Limits of change by way of subsequent agreements and practice”, in Nolte, Treaties and
               Subsequent Practice (see footnote 398 above), p. 130.
           705
               See NATO Strategic Concept Case, German Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 19 June 2001,
               Application 2 BvE 6/99 (English translation available from
               www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20011122_2bve000699en.html), paras. 19-21;
               German Federal Fiscal Court, BFHE, vol. 157, p. 39, at pp. 43-44; ibid., vol. 227, p. 419, at p. 426;
               ibid., vol. 181, p. 158, at p. 161; S. Kadelbach, “Domestic constitutional concerns with respect to the
               use of subsequent agreements and practice at the international level”, in Nolte, Treaties and
               Subsequent Practice (see footnote 398 above), pp. 145-148; Alvarez, “Limits of change …” (see
               footnote 704 above), p. 130; I. Wuerth, “Treaty interpretation, subsequent agreements and practice,
               and domestic constitutions”, in Nolte, Treaties and Subsequent Practice (see footnote 398 above),
               pp. 154-159; and H. Ruiz Fabri, “Subsequent practice, domestic separation of powers, and concerns
               of legitimacy”, in Nolte, Treaties and Subsequent Practice (see footnote 398 above), pp. 165-166.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                179
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 90 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 91 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            the stability of treaty relations may be called into question if an informal means of
            identifying agreement as subsequent practice could easily modify a treaty. 706
            (38) In conclusion, while there exists some support in international case law that, absent
            indications in the treaty to the contrary, the agreed subsequent practice of the parties
            theoretically may lead to modifications of a treaty, the actual occurrence of that effect is not
            to be presumed. Instead, States and courts prefer to make every effort to conceive of an
            agreed subsequent practice of the parties as an effort to interpret the treaty in a particular
            way. Such efforts to interpret a treaty broadly are possible since article 31 of the 1969
            Vienna Convention does not accord primacy to one particular means of interpretation
            contained therein, but rather requires the interpreter to take into account all means of
            interpretation as appropriate.707 In this context an important consideration is how far an
            evolutive interpretation of the treaty provision concerned is possible. 708
                     Conclusion 8 [3]
                     Interpretation of treaty terms as capable of evolving over time
                             Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under articles 31 and 32 may
                     assist in determining whether or not the presumed intention of the parties upon the
                     conclusion of the treaty was to give a term used a meaning which is capable of
                     evolving over time.
            Commentary
            (1)      Draft conclusion 8 [3] addresses the role that subsequent agreements and subsequent
            practice may play in the context of the more general question of whether the meaning of a
            term of a treaty is capable of evolving over time.
            (2)      In the case of treaties, the question of the so-called intertemporal law709 has
            traditionally been put in terms of whether a treaty should be interpreted in the light of the
            circumstances and the law at the time of its conclusion (“contemporaneous” or “static”
            interpretation), or in the light of the circumstances and the law at the time of its application
        706
            See, for example, Kohen, “Uti possidetis, prescription et pratique subséquente …” (footnote 692
            above), p. 274 (in particular with respect to boundary treaties).
        707
            See above draft conclusion 2 [1], para. 5, and the commentary thereto; Hafner, “Subsequent
            agreements and practice …” (see footnote 655 above), p. 117; some authors support the view that the
            range of what is conceivable as an “interpretation” is wider in case of a subsequent agreement or
            subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3, than in the case of interpretations by other means of
            interpretation, including the range for evolutive interpretations by courts or tribunals, for example,
            Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), p. 275; Dörr, “Article 31 …” (see footnote
            439 above), pp. 554-555, para. 76.
        708
            See draft conclusion 8 [3]; in the case concerning the Dispute regarding Navigational and Related
            Rights, for example, the International Court of Justice could leave the question open as to whether the
            term “comercio” had been modified by the subsequent practice of the parties since it decided that it
            was possible to give this term an evolutive interpretation. Dispute regarding Navigational and
            Related Rights (see footnote 395 above), at pp. 242-243, paras. 64-66.
        709
            T.O. Elias, “The doctrine of intertemporal law”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 74
            (1980), pp. 285 et seq.; D.W. Greig, Intertemporality and the Law of Treaties (London, British
            Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2001); M. Fitzmaurice, “Dynamic (evolutive)
            interpretation of treaties, Part I”, The Hague Yearbook of International Law, vol. 21 (2008), pp. 101-
            153; M. Kotzur, “Intertemporal law”, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
            (www.mpepil.com); U. Linderfalk, “Doing the right thing for the right reason: why dynamic or static
            approaches should be taken in the interpretation of treaties”, International Community Law Review,
            vol. 10, No. 2 (2008), pp. 109 et seq.; A. Verdross and B. Simma, Universelles Völkerrecht, 3rd
            edition (Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1984), pp. 496 et seq., paras. 782 et seq.
180                                                                                                                  GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 91 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 92 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                     A/71/10
               (“evolutive”, “evolutionary”, or “dynamic” interpretation).710 Arbitrator Max Huber’s
               dictum in the Island of Palmas case according to which “a judicial fact must be appreciated
               in the light of the law contemporary with it”711 led many international courts and tribunals,
               as well as many writers, to generally favour contemporaneous interpretation. 712 At the same
               time, the Arbitral Tribunal in the Iron Rhine case asserted that there was, “general support
               among the leading writers today for evolutive interpretation of treaties”.713
               (3)      The Commission, in its commentary on the draft articles on the law of treaties,
               considered in 1966 that “to attempt to formulate a rule covering comprehensively the
               temporal element would present difficulties” and it, therefore, “concluded that it should
               omit the temporal element”.714 Similarly, the debates within the Commission’s Study Group
               on fragmentation led to the conclusion in 2006 that it is difficult to formulate and to agree
               on a general rule that would give preference either to a “principle of contemporaneous
               interpretation” or to one that generally recognizes the need to take account of an “evolving
               meaning” of treaties.715
               (4)      Draft conclusion 8 [3] should not be read as taking any position regarding the
               appropriateness of a more contemporaneous or a more evolutive approach to treaty
               interpretation in general. Draft conclusion 8 [3] rather emphasizes that subsequent
               agreements and subsequent practice, as any other means of treaty interpretation, can
               support both a contemporaneous and an evolutive interpretation (or, as it is often called,
               evolutionary interpretation), where appropriate. The Commission, therefore, concluded that
               these means of treaty interpretation “may assist in determining whether or not” an evolutive
               interpretation is appropriate with regard to a particular treaty term.
               (5)      This approach is confirmed by the jurisprudence of international courts and
               tribunals. The various international courts and tribunals that have engaged in evolutive
               interpretation — albeit in varying degrees — appear to have followed a case-by-case
               approach in determining, through recourse to the various means of treaty interpretation that
               are referred to in articles 31 and 32, whether or not a treaty term should be given a meaning
               capable of evolving over time.
               (6)      The International Court of Justice, in particular, is seen as having developed two
               strands of jurisprudence, one tending towards a more “contemporaneous” and the other
               towards a more “evolutionary” interpretation, as Judge ad hoc Guillaume has pointed out in
           710
               M. Fitzmaurice, “Dynamic (evolutive) interpretation …” (see footnote 709 above).
           711
               Island of Palmas case (the Netherlands/United States of America), award of 4 April 1928, UNRIAA,
               vol. II (Sales No. 1949.V.1), pp. 829-871, at p. 845.
           712
               Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, pp. 220-221, para. (11).
           713
               Award in Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway (see footnote 397 above), p.
               35, at para. 81; see, for example, A. Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (see footnote 525 above),
               pp. 215-216; M. Fitzmaurice, “Dynamic (evolutive) interpretation …” (see footnote 709 above), at
               pp. 29-31; G. Distefano, “L’interprétation évolutive de la norme internationale”, Revue générale de
               droit international public, vol. 115, No. 2 (2011), pp. 373-396, at pp. 384 and 389 et seq.; Higgins,
               “Some observations on the inter-temporal rule …” (see footnote 636 above), at pp. 174 et seq.; Sorel
               and Boré Eveno, “1969 Vienna Convention, Article 31 …” (see footnote 440 above), at p. 807, para.
               8; P.-M. Dupuy, “Evolutionary interpretation of treaties”, in Cannizzaro, The Law of Treaties … (see
               footnote 439 above), at pp. 125 et seq.; M. Kotzur, “Intertemporal Law” (see footnote 709 above), at
               para. 14.
           714
               Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 222, para. (16); Higgins, “Some observations
               on the inter-temporal rule …” (see footnote 636 above), at p. 178.
           715
               Report of the Study Group on fragmentation of international law, 2006 (A/CN.4/L.682 and Corr.1),
               para. 478.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                              181
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 92 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 93 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            his Declaration in Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights.716 The decisions that
            favour a more contemporaneous approach mostly concern specific treaty terms (“water-
            parting”;717 “main channel or Thalweg”;718 names of places;719 and “mouth” of a river720).
            On the other hand, the cases that support an evolutive interpretation seem to relate to more
            general terms. This is true, in particular, for terms that are by definition evolutionary, such
            as “the strenuous conditions of the modern world” or “the well-being and development of
            such peoples” in article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The International
            Court of Justice, in its Namibia Opinion, has given those terms an evolving meaning by
            referring to the evolution of the right of peoples to self-determination after the Second
            World War.721 The “generic” nature of a particular term in a treaty722 and the fact that the
            treaty is designed to be “of continuing duration”723 may also give rise to an evolving
            meaning.
            (7)      Other international judicial bodies sometimes also employ an evolutive approach to
            interpretation, though displaying different degrees of openness towards such interpretation.
            The WTO Appellate Body has only occasionally resorted to evolutive interpretation. In a
            well-known case it has, however, held that “the generic term ‘natural resources’ in article
            XX(g) is not ‘static’ in its content or reference but is rather ‘by definition, evolutionary’”.724
            The ITLOS Seabed Disputes Chamber has held that the meaning of certain obligations to
            ensure725 “may change over time”,726 and has emphasized that the rules of State liability in
            the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are apt to follow developments in the
            law and are “not considered to be static”.727 The European Court of Human Rights has held
            more generally “that the Convention is a living instrument which … must be interpreted in
            the light of present-day conditions”.728 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights also
            more generally follows an evolutive approach to interpretation, in particular in connection
        716
            Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (see footnote 395 above), Declaration of Judge ad
            hoc Guillaume, p. 290, at pp. 294 et seq., paras. 9 et seq.; see also Yearbook … 2005, vol. II (Part
            Two), p. 89, para. 479; Report of the Study Group on fragmentation of international law
            (A/CN.4/L.682 and Corr.1), para. 478; Institut de droit international, resolution on “Le problème
            intertemporel en droit international public”, Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international, vol. 56
            (Wiesbaden session, 1975), pp. 536 et seq. (www.idi-iil.org).
        717
            Case concerning a boundary dispute between Argentina and Chile concerning the delimitation of the
            frontier line between boundary post 62 and Mount Fitzroy, decision of 21 October 1994, UNRIAA,
            vol. XXII (Sales No. E/F.00.V.7), pp. 3-149, at p. 43, para. 130; see also, with respect to the term
            “watershed”, Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (see footnote 488 above), at pp. 16-22.
        718
            Kasikili/Sedudu Island (see footnote 395 above), at pp. 1060-1062, paras. 21 and 25.
        719
            Decision regarding delimitation of the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia (Eritrea v. Ethiopia),
            UNRIAA, vol. XXV (Sales No. E/F.05.V.5), pp. 83-195, p. 110, para. 3.5.
        720
            Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial
            Guinea intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 303, at p. 338 and 339, para. 48, and p. 346,
            para. 59.
        721
            Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (see footnote
            432 above), at p. 31, para. 53.
        722
            Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1978, p. 3, at p. 32, para. 77; Report of the
            Study Group on fragmentation of international law, 2006 (A/CN.4/L.682 and Corr.1), para. 478.
        723
            Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (see footnote 395 above), at p. 243, para. 66.
        724
            WTO Appellate Body Report, United States — Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp
            Products (US — Shrimp), WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, para. 130.
        725
            See United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol.
            1833, No. 31363, p. 3, art. 153, para. 4, and art. 4, para. 4 in annex III.
        726
            Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in
            the area (see footnote 396 above), at para. 117.
        727
            Ibid., para. 211.
        728
            Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, no. 5856/72, ECHR Series A, no. 26, para. 31.
182                                                                                                                  GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 93 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 94 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                         A/71/10
               with its so-called pro homine approach.729 In the Iron Rhine case, the continued viability
               and effectiveness of a multidimensional cross-border railway arrangement was an important
               reason for the Arbitral Tribunal to accept that even rather technical rules may have to be
               given an evolutive interpretation.730
               (8)      In the final analysis, most international courts and tribunals have not recognized
               evolutive interpretation as a separate form of interpretation, but instead have arrived at such
               an evolutive interpretation in application of the various means of interpretation that are
               mentioned in articles 31 and 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention, by considering certain
               criteria (in particular those mentioned in paragraph (6) above) on a case-by-case basis. Any
               evolutive interpretation of the meaning of a term over time must therefore result from the
               ordinary process of treaty interpretation.731
               (9)      The Commission considers that this state of affairs confirms its original approach to
               treaty interpretation:
                        “… the Commission’s approach to treaty interpretation was on the basis that the text
                        of the treaty must be presumed to be the authentic expression of the intentions of the
                        parties, and that the elucidation of the meaning of the text rather than an
                        investigation ab initio of the supposed intentions of the parties constitutes the object
                        of interpretation … making the ordinary meaning of the terms, the context of the
                        treaty, its object and purpose, and the general rules of international law, together
                        with authentic interpretations by the parties, the primary criteria for interpreting a
                        treaty”.732
               Accordingly, draft conclusion 8 [3], by using the phrase “presumed intention”, refers to the
               intention of the parties as determined through the application of the various means of
               interpretation that are recognized in articles 31 and 32. The “presumed intention” is thus not
               a separately identifiable original will, and the travaux préparatoires are not the primary
           729
               The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due
               Process of Law (see footnote 431 above), para. 114 (“This guidance is particularly relevant in the case
               of international human rights law, which has made great headway thanks to an evolutive
               interpretation of international instruments of protection. That evolutive interpretation is consistent
               with the general rules of treaty interpretation established in the 1969 Vienna Convention. Both this
               Court, in the Advisory Opinion on the Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and
               Duties of Man (1989) and the European Court of Human Rights, in Tyrer v. United Kingdom (1978),
               Marckx v. Belgium (1979), Loizidou v. Turkey (1995), among others, have held that human rights
               treaties are living instruments whose interpretation must consider the changes over time and present-
               day conditions”) (footnotes omitted).
           730
               See Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (see footnote 397 above), at para. 80: “In the present case it
               is not a conceptual or generic term that is in issue, but rather new technical developments relating to
               the operation and capacity of the railway”; and also Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case (see footnote
               722 above), at p. 32, para. 77; Case concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary between
               Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal), Award, 31 July 1989, UNRIAA, vol. XX
               (Sales No. E/F.93.V.3), pp. 119-213, at pp. 151-152, para. 85.
           731
               As the Study Group on fragmentation of international law has phrased it in its 2006 report, “[t]he
               starting-point must be … the fact that deciding [the] issue [of evolutive interpretation] is a matter of
               interpreting the treaty itself” (see A/CN.4/L.682 and Corr.1, para. 478).
           732
               Yearbook … 1964, vol. II, document A/5809, pp. 204-205, para. (15); see also para. (13),
               “[p]aragraph 3 specifies as further authentic elements of interpretation: (a) agreements between the
               parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty, and (b) any subsequent practice in the application of
               the treaty which clearly established the understanding of all the parties regarding its interpretation”
               (ibid., pp. 203-204); on the other hand, Waldock in his third report on the law of treaties explained
               that travaux préparatoires are not, as such, an authentic means of interpretation (ibid., document
               A/CN.4/167 and Add.1-3, pp. 58-59, para. (21)).
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                  183
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 94 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 95 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            basis for determining the presumed intention of the parties, but they are only, as article 32
            indicates, a supplementary means of interpretation. And although interpretation must seek
            to identify the intention of the parties, this must be done by the interpreter on the basis of
            the means of interpretation that are available at the time of the act of interpretation and that
            include subsequent agreements and subsequent practice of parties to the treaty. The
            interpreter thus has to answer the question of whether parties can be presumed to have
            intended, upon the conclusion of the treaty, to give a term used a meaning that is capable of
            evolving over time.
            (10) Draft conclusion 8 [3] does not take a position regarding the question of the
            appropriateness of a more contemporaneous or a more evolutive approach to treaty
            interpretation in general (see above commentary, at paragraph (4)). The conclusion should,
            however, be understood as indicating the need for some caution with regard to arriving at a
            conclusion in a specific case whether to adopt an evolutive approach. For this purpose, draft
            conclusion 8 [3] points to subsequent agreements and subsequent practice as means of
            interpretation that may provide useful indications to the interpreter for assessing, as part of
            the ordinary process of treaty interpretation, whether the meaning of a term is capable of
            evolving over time.733
            (11) This approach is based on and confirmed by the jurisprudence of the International
            Court of Justice and other international courts and tribunals. In the Namibia Advisory
            Opinion, the International Court of Justice referred to the practice of United Nations organs
            and of States in order to specify the conclusions that it derived from the inherently
            evolutive nature of the right to self-determination.734 In the Aegean Sea case, the Court
            found it “significant” that what it had identified as the “ordinary, generic sense” of the term
            “territorial status” was confirmed by the administrative practice of the United Nations and
            by the behaviour of the party that had invoked the restrictive interpretation in a different
            context.735 In any case, the decisions in which the International Court of Justice has
            undertaken an evolutive interpretation have not strayed from the possible meaning of the
            text and from the presumed intention of the parties to the treaty, as they had also been
            expressed in their subsequent agreements and subsequent practice. 736
            (12) The judgment of the International Court of Justice in Dispute regarding
            Navigational and Related Rights also illustrates how subsequent agreements and
            subsequent practice of the parties can assist in determining whether a term has to be given a
            meaning that is capable of evolving over time. Interpreting the term “comercio” in a treaty
            of 1858, the Court held:
                    “On the one hand, the subsequent practice of the parties, within the meaning of
                    article 31 (3) (b) of the Vienna Convention, can result in a departure from the
                    original intent on the basis of a tacit agreement between the parties. On the other
                    hand, there are situations in which the parties’ intent upon conclusion of the treaty
                    was … to give the terms used … a meaning or content capable of evolving, not one
        733
            See also Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (above footnote 392), at pp. 292-294; R. Kolb, Interprétation
            et création du droit international (see footnote 524 above), pp. 488-501; J. Arato, “Subsequent
            practice and evolutive interpretation”, The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals,
            vol. 9-3 (2010), pp. 443-494, at pp. 444-445, 465 et seq.
        734
            Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (see footnote
            432 above), at pp. 30-31, paras. 49-51.
        735
            Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case (see footnote 722 above), at p. 31, para. 74.
        736
            See also Case concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Guinea-Bissau and
            Senegal (see footnote 730 above), at pp. 151-152, para. 85.
184                                                                                                                GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 95 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 96 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                     A/71/10
                        fixed once and for all, so as to make allowance for, among other things,
                        developments in international law.”737
               The Court then found that the term “comercio” was a “generic term” of which “the parties
               necessarily” had “been aware that the meaning … was likely to evolve over time” and that
               “the treaty has been entered into for a very long period”, and concluded that “the parties
               must be presumed … to have intended” this term to “have an evolving meaning”.738 Judge
               Skotnikov, in a Separate Opinion, while disagreeing with this reasoning, ultimately arrived
               at the same result by accepting that a more recent subsequent practice of Costa Rica related
               to tourism on the San Juan River “for at least a decade” against which Nicaragua “never
               protested” but rather “engaged in consistent practice of allowing tourist navigation” and
               concluded that this “suggests that the parties have established an agreement regarding its
               interpretation”.739
               (13) The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has sometimes taken
               more general forms of State practice into account, including trends in the legislation of
               States that, in turn, can give rise to a changed interpretation of the scope of crimes or their
               elements. In Prosecutor v. Furundžija,740 for example, the Trial Chamber of the
               International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in search of a definition for the
               crime of rape as prohibited by article 27 of the Geneva Convention relative to the
               Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,741 article 76, paragraph 1, of the first
               Additional Protocol (Protocol I)742 and article 4, paragraph 2 (e), of the second Additional
               Protocol (Protocol II),743 examined the principles of criminal law common to the major
               legal systems of the world and held:
                        “… that a trend can be discerned in the national legislation of a number of States of
                        broadening the definition of rape so that it now embraces acts that were previously
                        classified as comparatively less serious offences, that is sexual or indecent assault.
                        This trend shows that at the national level States tend to take a stricter attitude
                        towards serious forms of sexual assault ….”744
               (14) The “living instrument” approach of the European Court of Human Rights is also
               based, inter alia, on different forms of subsequent practice. 745 While the Court does not
               generally require “the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation” in the sense of
               article 31, paragraph 3 (b), the decisions in which it adopts an evolutive approach are
           737
               Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (see footnote 395 above), at p. 242, para. 64.
           738
               Ibid., paras. 66-68.
           739
               Ibid., Separate Opinion of Judge Skotnikov, p. 283, at p. 285, paras. 9-10.
           740
               Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija, Trial Chamber, Judgment, 10 December 1998, case No. IT-95-17/1-T,
               ICTY Judicial Reports 1998, vol. I, paras. 165 et seq.
           741
               United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, No. 973, p. 287.
           742
               Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of
               Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1125, no.
               17512, p. 3.
           743
               Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of
               Victims of Non-international Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1125,
               no. 17513, p. 609.
           744
               See Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija (footnote 740 above), para. 179; similarly The Prosecutor v.
               Alfred Musema, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Trial Chamber I, Judgment, 27 January
               2000, case No. ICTR-96-13-A, paras. 220 et seq., in particular para. 228.
           745
               See Nolte, “Jurisprudence under special regimes …” (footnote 398 above ), at pp. 246 et seq.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                              185
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 96 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 97 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            regularly supported by an elaborate account of subsequent (State, social and international
            legal) practice.746
            (15) The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, despite its relatively rare mentioning of
            subsequent practice, frequently refers to broader international developments, an approach
            that falls somewhere between subsequent practice and other “relevant rules” under article
            31, paragraph 3 (c).747 In the case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v.
            Nicaragua, for example, the Court pointed out that:
                     “… human rights treaties are live instruments [“instrumentos vivos”] whose
                     interpretation must adapt to the evolution of the times and, specifically, to current
                     living conditions.”748
            (16) The Human Rights Committee also on occasion adopts an evolutive approach that is
            based on developments of State practice. Thus, in Judge v. Canada, the Committee
            abandoned its Kindler749 jurisprudence, elaborating that:
                     “The Committee is mindful of the fact that the above-mentioned jurisprudence was
                     established some 10 years ago, and that since that time there has been a broadening
                     international consensus in favour of abolition of the death penalty, and in States
                     which have retained the death penalty, a broadening consensus not to carry it out.”750
            In Yoon and Choi, the Committee stressed that the meaning of any right contained in the
            International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 751 evolved over time and concluded
            that article 18, article 3, now provided at least some protection against being forced to act
            against genuinely held religious beliefs. The Committee reached this conclusion since “an
            increasing number of those States parties to the Covenant which have retained compulsory
            military service have introduced alternatives to compulsory military service”.752
            (17) Finally, the tribunals established under the auspices of the International Centre for
            the Settlement of Investment Disputes have emphasized that subsequent practice can be a
            particularly important means of interpretation for such provisions that the parties to the
            treaty intended to evolve in the light of their subsequent treaty practice. In the case of
        746
            Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, 12 May 2005, ECHR 2005-IV, para. 163; VO v. France [GC],
            no. 53924/00, 8 July 2004, ECHR 2004-VIII, paras. 4 and 70; Johnston and Others. v. Ireland, no.
            9697/82, 18 December 1986, ECHR Series A no. 112, para. 53; Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no.
            23459/03, 7 July 2011, para. 63; Soering v. the United Kingdom, no. 14038/88, 7 July 1989, ECHR
            Series A no. 161, para. 103; Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, 4 October
            2010, paras. 119-120, ECHR 2010 (extracts); Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, 12
            November 2008, ECHR-2008, para. 76.
        747
            See, for example, Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgment, Merits, 29 July 1988, Inter-Am. Ct.
            H.R. Series C No. 4, para. 151; The Right to Information on Consular Assistance In the Framework of
            the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law (see footnote 431 above), paras. 130-133 and 137.
        748
            Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs),
            31 August 2001, Series C No. 79, para. 146; also see Interpretation of the American Declaration of
            the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on
            Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, 14 July 1989, OC-10/89, Series A No. 10, para. 38.
        749
            Kindler v. Canada, Views, 30 July 1993, Communication No. 470/1991, Human Rights Committee
            report, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/48/40),
            vol. II, Annex XII, U.
        750
            Judge v. Canada, Views, 5 August 2002, Communication No. 829/1998, ibid., Fifty-eighth Session,
            Supplement No. 40 (A/58/40), vol. II, annex V, G, para. 10.3.
        751
            United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, No. 14668, p. 171.
        752
            Yoon and Choi v. the Republic of Korea, Views, 3 November 2006, Communication Nos. 1321/2004
            and 1322/2004, ibid., Sixty-second Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/62/40), vol. II, Annex VII, V, para.
            8.4.
186                                                                                                               GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 97 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 98 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                      A/71/10
               Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, for
               example, the Tribunal held that:
                        “Neither party asserted that the ICSID Convention contains any precise a priori
                        definition of ‘investment’. Rather, the definition was left to be worked out in the
                        subsequent practice of States, thereby preserving its integrity and flexibility and
                        allowing for future progressive development of international law on the topic of
                        investment.”753
               (18) The jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals and the pronouncements of
               expert treaty bodies thus confirm that subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under
               articles 31 and 32 “may assist in determining” whether or not a “term” shall be given “a
               meaning which is capable of evolving over time”. The expression “term” is not limited to
               specific words (like “commerce”, “territorial status”, “rape” or “investment”), but may also
               encompass more interrelated or cross-cutting concepts (such as “by law” (article 9 of the
               International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) or “necessary” (article 18 of the
               Covenant), as they exist, for example, in human rights treaties). Since the “terms” of a
               treaty are elements of the rules which are contained therein, the rules concerned are covered
               accordingly.
               (19) In a similar manner, subsequent practice under articles 31, paragraph 3 (b), and 32
               has contributed to whether domestic courts arrive at a more evolutive or static interpretation
               of a treaty. For example, in a case concerning the Convention on the Civil Aspects of
               International Child Abduction,754 the New Zealand Court of Appeal interpreted the term
               “custody rights” as encompassing not only legal rights but also “de facto rights”. On the
               basis of a review of legislative and judicial practice in different States and referring to
               article 31, paragraph 3 (b), the Court reasoned that this practice “evidence[d] a fundamental
               change in attitudes”, which then led it to adopt a modern understanding of the term
               “custody rights” rather than an understanding “through a 1980 lens”.755 The German
               Federal Constitutional Court, in a series of cases concerning the interpretation of the North
               Atlantic Treaty756 in the light of the changed security context after the end of the Cold War,
               also held that subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3
               (b), “could acquire significance for the meaning of the treaty” and ultimately held that this
               had been the case.757
           753
               Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (United States/Sri
               Lanka BIT), Award and Concurring Opinion, 15 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, ICSID
               Reports, vol. 6 (2004), p. 308 et seq., at p. 317, para. 33; similarly, Autopista Concesionada de
               Venezuela, CA v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 September 2001,
               ICSID Case No. ARB/00/5, ibid., p. 419, para. 97.
           754
               United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1343, No. 22514, p. 89.
           755
               New Zealand, Court of Appeal, C v. H [2009] NZCA 100, paras. 175-177 and 195-196 (Baragwanath
               J.); see also para. 31 (Chambers J.): “Revision of the text as drafted and agreed in 1980 is simply
               impracticable, given that any revisions would have to be agreed among such a large body of
               Contracting States. Therefore evolutions necessary to keep pace with social and other trends must be
               achieved by evolutions in interpretation and construction. This is a permissible exercise given the
               terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which also came in force in 1980. Article 31
               (3) (b) permits a construction that reflects ‘any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty
               which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation’.” Similarly, Canada,
               Supreme Court, Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1998] 1 SCR
               982, para. 129 (Cory J.).
           756
               United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 34, No. 541, p. 243.
           757
               Germany, Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE, vol. 90, p. 286, at pp. 363-364, para. 276; ibid.,
               vol. 104, p. 151, at pp. 206-207.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                               187
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 98 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 99 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            (20) Other decisions of domestic courts have confirmed that subsequent agreements and
            subsequent practice under articles 31, paragraph 3, and 32 do not necessarily support
            evolutive interpretations of a treaty. In Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd et al., for example,
            the United States Supreme Court was confronted with the question of whether the term
            “bodily injury” in article 17 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929758 covered not only
            physical but also purely mental injuries. The Court, taking account of the “post-1929
            conduct” and “interpretations of the signatories”, emphasized that, despite some initiatives
            to the contrary, most parties had always continued to understand that the term covered only
            bodily injuries.759
                    Conclusion 9 [8]
                    Weight of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice as a means of
                    interpretation
                    1.       The weight of a subsequent agreement or subsequent practice as a means of
                    interpretation under article 31, paragraph 3, depends, inter alia, on its clarity and
                    specificity.
                    2.       The weight of subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), depends,
                    in addition, on whether and how it is repeated.
                    3.       The weight of subsequent practice as a supplementary means of interpretation
                    under article 32 may depend on the criteria referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.
            Commentary
            (1)     Draft conclusion 9 [8] identifies some criteria that may be helpful in determining the
            interpretative weight to be accorded to a specific subsequent agreement or subsequent
            practice in the process of interpretation in a particular case. Naturally, the weight accorded
            to subsequent agreements or subsequent practice must also be determined in relation to
            other means of interpretation (see draft conclusion 2 [1], paragraph 5).
            Paragraph 1 — weight: clarity, specificity and other factors
            (2)     Paragraph 1 addresses the weight of a subsequent agreement or subsequent practice
            under article 31, paragraph 3, thus dealing with both subparagraphs (a) and (b) from a
            general point of view. Paragraph 1 specifies that the weight to be accorded to a subsequent
            agreement or subsequent practice as a means of interpretation depends, inter alia, on its
            clarity and specificity. The use of the term “inter alia” indicates that these criteria should
            not be seen as exhaustive. Other criteria may relate to the time when the agreement or
            practice occurred,760 the emphasis given by the parties to a particular agreement or practice
            or the applicable burden of proof.
            (3)     The interpretative weight of subsequent agreements or practice in relation to other
            means of interpretation often depends on their clarity and specificity in relation to the treaty
        758
            Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Transport, League of Nations,
            Treaty Series, vol. CXXXVII, p. 11.
        759
            United States of America, Supreme Court, Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd et al., 499 U.S. 530, pp.
            546-549; see also United Kingdom, House of Lords, King v. Bristow Helicopters Ltd. (Scotland)
            [2002] UKHL 7, paras. 98 and 125 (Lord Hope).
        760
            In the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), the Court privileged the practice that
            was closer to the date of entry into force, Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
            2014, p. 3, at p. 50, para. 126.
188                                                                                                                GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 99 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 100 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                     A/71/10
               concerned.761 This is confirmed, for example, by decisions of the International Court of
               Justice, arbitral awards and reports of the WTO Panels and Appellate Body. 762 The award of
               the ICSID Tribunal in Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria is instructive:
                        “It is true that treaties between one of the Contracting Parties and third States may
                        be taken into account for the purpose of clarifying the meaning of a treaty’s text at
                        the time it was entered into. The Claimant has provided a very clear and insightful
                        presentation of Bulgaria’s practice in relation to the conclusion of investment
                        treaties subsequent to the conclusion of the Bulgaria-Cyprus BIT in 1987. In the
                        1990s, after Bulgaria’s communist regime changed, it began concluding BITs with
                        much more liberal dispute resolution provisions, including resort to ICSID
                        arbitration. However, that practice is not particularly relevant in the present case
                        since subsequent negotiations between Bulgaria and Cyprus indicate that these
                        Contracting Parties did not intend the MFN provision to have the meaning that
                        otherwise might be inferred from Bulgaria’s subsequent treaty practice. Bulgaria and
                        Cyprus negotiated a revision of their BIT in 1998. The negotiations failed but
                        specifically contemplated a revision of the dispute settlement provisions … It can be
                        inferred from these negotiations that the Contracting Parties to the BIT themselves
                        did not consider that the MFN provision extends to dispute settlement provisions in
                        other BITs.”763
               (4)      Whereas the International Court of Justice and arbitral tribunals tend to accord more
               interpretative weight to rather specific subsequent practice by States, the European Court of
               Human Rights often relies on broad comparative assessments of the domestic legislation or
               international positions adopted by States.764 In this latter context, it should be borne in mind
               that the rights and obligations under human rights treaties must be correctly transformed,
               within the given margin of appreciation, into the law, the executive practice and
               international arrangements of the respective State party. For this purpose, sufficiently
               strong commonalities in the national legislation of States parties can be relevant for the
               determination of the scope of a human right or the necessity of its restriction. In addition,
               the character of certain rights or obligations sometimes speaks in favour of taking less
               specific practice into account. For example, in the case of Rantsev v. Cyprus, the Court held
               that:
                        “It is clear from the provisions of these two [international] instruments that the
                        Contracting States … have formed the view that only a combination of measures
                        addressing all three aspects can be effective in the fight against trafficking …
                        Accordingly, the duty to penalise and prosecute trafficking is only one aspect of
                        member States’ general undertaking to combat trafficking. The extent of the positive
           761
               Murphy, “The relevance of subsequent agreement and subsequent practice …” (footnote 642 above),
               p. 91.
           762
               See, for example, Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, Judgment,
               I.C.J. Reports 1993, p. 38, at p. 55, para. 38; Question of the tax regime governing pensions paid to
               retired UNESCO officials residing in France (see footnote 532 above), p. 231, at p. 259, para. 74;
               WTO Panel Report, United States — Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology,
               WT/DS350/R, adopted 19 February 2009, WTO Appellate Body Report, United States — Subsidies
               on Upland Cotton (US — Upland Cotton), WT/DS267/AB/R, adopted 21 March 2005, para. 625.
           763
               Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on
               Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005, ICSID Review — Foreign Investment Law Journal, vol. 20, No. 1
               (Spring 2005), p. 262, at pp. 323-324, para. 195.
           764
               See, for example, Cossey v. the United Kingdom, no. 10843/84, 27 September 1990, ECHR Series A
               no. 184, para. 40; Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, no. 5856/72, ECHR Series A, no. 26, para. 31; Norris
               v. Ireland, no. 10581/83, 26 October 1988, ECHR Series A no. 142, para. 46.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                              189
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 100 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 101 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
                     obligations arising under Article 4 [prohibition of forced labour] must be considered
                     within this broader context.”765
            (5)      On the other hand, in the case of Chapman v. the United Kingdom, the Court
            observed “that there may be said to be an emerging international consensus amongst the
            Contracting States of the Council of Europe recognising the special needs of minorities and
            an obligation to protect their security, identity and lifestyle”,766 but ultimately said that it
            was “not persuaded that the consensus is sufficiently concrete for it to derive any guidance
            as to the conduct or standards which Contracting States consider desirable in any particular
            situation”.767
            Paragraph 2 — weight: repetition of a practice
            (6)      Paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 9 [8] deals only with subsequent practice under
            article 31, paragraph 3 (b), and specifies that the weight of subsequent practice also
            depends on whether and how it is repeated. This formula “whether and how it is repeated”
            brings in the elements of time and the character of a repetition. It indicates, for example,
            that, depending on the treaty concerned, something more than just a technical or unmindful
            repetition of a practice may contribute to its interpretative value in the context of article 31,
            paragraph 3 (b). The element of time and the character of the repetition also serves to
            indicate the “grounding” of a particular position of the parties regarding the interpretation
            of a treaty. Moreover, the non-implementation of a subsequent agreement may also suggest
            a lack of its weight as a means of interpretation under article 31, paragraph 3 (a). 768
            (7)      The question of whether “subsequent practice” under article 31, paragraph 3 (b),769
            requires more than a one-off application of the treaty was addressed by the WTO Appellate
            Body in Japan — Alcoholic Beverages II:
                     “… subsequent practice in interpreting a treaty has been recognized as a
                     ‘concordant, common and consistent’ sequence of acts or pronouncements which is
                     sufficient to establish a discernible pattern implying the agreement of the parties
                     regarding its interpretation”.770
            (8)      This definition suggests that subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b),
            requires more than one “act or pronouncement” regarding the interpretation of a treaty;
            rather action of such frequency and uniformity that it warrants a conclusion that the parties
            have reached a settled agreement regarding the interpretation of the treaty. Such a threshold
            would imply that subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), requires a broad-
            based, settled and qualified form of collective practice in order to establish agreement
            among the parties regarding interpretation.
            (9)      The International Court of Justice, on the other hand, has applied article 31,
            paragraph 3 (b), more flexibly, without adding further conditions. This is true, in particular,
            for its judgment in the case of Kasikili/Sedudu Island.771 Other international courts have
        765
            Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, 7 January 2010, ECHR 2010 (extracts), para. 285; see
            also paras. 273-274.
        766
            Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, 18 January 2001, ECHR 2001-I, para. 93.
        767
            Ibid., para. 94.
        768
            Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (see footnote 395 above), at p. 63, para. 131.
        769
            See above draft conclusion 4, para. 2.
        770
            WTO Appellate Body Report, Japan — Alcoholic Beverages II, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R and
            WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted on 1 November 1996, sect. E, pp. 12-13 (footnotes omitted).
        771
            Kasikili/Sedudu Island (see footnote 395 above), at pp. 1075-1076, paras. 47-50 and p. 1087, para. 63;
            Territorial Dispute (see footnote 395 above), at pp. 34-37, paras. 66-71.
190                                                                                                                GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 101 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 102 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                       A/71/10
               mostly followed the approach of the International Court of Justice. This is true for the Iran-
               United States Claims Tribunal772 and the European Court of Human Rights.773
               (10) The difference between the standard formulated by the WTO Appellate Body, on the
               one hand, and the approach of the International Court of Justice, on the other, is, however,
               more apparent than real. The WTO Appellate Body seems to have taken the “concordant,
               common and consistent” formula from a publication774 that stated that “the value of
               subsequent practice will naturally depend on the extent to which it is concordant, common
               and consistent”.775 The formula “concordant, common and consistent” thus provides an
               indication as to the circumstances under which subsequent practice under article 31,
               paragraph 3 (b), has more or less weight as a means of interpretation in a process of
               interpretation, rather than require any particular frequency in the practice. 776 The WTO
               Appellate Body itself on occasion has relied on this nuanced view. 777
               (11) The Commission, while finding that the formula “concordant, common and
               consistent” may be useful for determining the weight of subsequent practice in a particular
               case, also considers it as not being sufficiently well established to articulate a minimum
               threshold for the applicability of article 31, paragraph 3 (b), and as carrying the risk of
               being misconceived as overly prescriptive. Ultimately, the Commission continues to find
               that: “The value of subsequent practice varies according as it shows the common
               understanding of the parties as to the meaning of the terms.”778 This implies that a one-off
               practice of the parties that establishes their agreement regarding the interpretation needs to
               be taken into account under article 31, paragraph 3 (b).779
           772
               Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Interlocutory Award No. ITL 83-B1-FT (Counterclaim) (see
               footnote 537 above), p. 77, at pp. 116-126, paras. 109-133.
           773
               Soering v. the United Kingdom, no. 14038/88, 7 July 1989, ECHR Series A no. 161, para. 103;
               Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), no. 15318/89, 23 March 1995, ECHR Series A no. 310,
               paras. 73 and 79-82; Banković et al. v. Belgium and 16 other contracting States (dec.) [GC], no.
               52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII, paras. 56 and 62; concerning the jurisprudence of ICSID tribunals, see
               Fauchald (footnote 498 above), p. 345; see also A. Roberts, “Power and persuasion in investment
               treaty interpretation: the dual role of States”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 104, 2010,
               pp. 207-215.
           774
               Sinclair, The Vienna Convention … (see footnote 393 above), p. 137; see also Yasseen,
               “L’interprétation des traités…” (see footnote 393 above), pp. 48-49; whilst “commune” is taken from
               the work of the International Law Commission, “d’une certaine constance” and “concordante” are
               conditions that Yasseen derives through further reasoning; see Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document
               A/6309/Rev.1, pp. 98-99, paras. 17-18 and p. 221-222, para. 15.
           775
               Sinclair, The Vienna Convention … (see footnote 393 above); Iran-United States Claims Tribunal,
               Interlocutory Award No. ITL 83-B1-FT (Counterclaim) (see footnote 537 above), p. 77, at p.
               118, para. 114.
           776
               Case concerning a dispute between Argentina and Chile concerning the Beagle Channel, 18 February
               1977, UNRIAA, vol. XXI, part II, pp. 53-264, at p. 187, para. 169; J.-P Cot, “La conduite
               subséquente des parties a un traité”, Revue générale de droit international public, vol. 70, 1966, pp.
               644-647 (“valeur probatoire”); Distefano, “La pratique subséquente …” (see footnote 573 above), p.
               46; Dörr, “Article 31 …” (see footnote 439 above), p. 556, para. 79; see also the oral argument before
               the International Court of Justice in Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), CR 2012/33, pp. 32-36, paras.
               7-19 (Wood), available from www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17218.pdf and CR 2012/36, pp. 13-18,
               paras. 6-21 (Wordsworth), available from www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17234.pdf.
           777
               WTO Appellate Body Report, EC — Computer Equipment, WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R and
               WT/DS68/AB/R, 22 June 1998, para. 93.
           778
               See Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 222, para. (15); Cot, “La conduite
               subséquente des parties …” (see footnote 776 above), p. 652.
           779
               In practice, a one-off practice will often not be sufficient to establish an agreement of the parties
               regarding a treaty’s interpretation, as a general rule, however, subsequent practice under article 31,
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                191
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 102 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 103 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            Paragraph 3 — weight of other subsequent practice under article 32
            (12) Paragraph 3 of draft conclusion 9 [8] addresses the weight that should be accorded
            to “other subsequent practice” under article 32 (see draft conclusion 4, paragraph 3). It does
            not address when and under which circumstances such practice can be considered. The
            WTO Appellate Body has emphasized, in a comparable situation, that those two issues
            must be distinguished from each other:
                     “… we consider that the European Communities conflates the preliminary question
                     of what may qualify as a ‘circumstance’ of a treaty’s conclusion with the separate
                     question of ascertaining the degree of relevance that may be ascribed to a given
                     circumstance, for purposes of interpretation under Article 32.”780
            The Appellate Body also held that:
                     “… first, the Panel did not examine the classification practice in the European
                     Communities during the Uruguay Round negotiations as a supplementary means of
                     interpretation within the meaning of Article 32 of the Vienna Convention; and,
                     second, the value of the classification practice as a supplementary means of
                     interpretation …”.781
            In order to determine the “relevance” of such subsequent practice, the Appellate Body
            referred to “objective factors”:
                     “These include the type of event, document, or instrument and its legal nature;
                     temporal relation of the circumstance to the conclusion of the treaty; actual
                     knowledge or mere access to a published act or instrument; subject matter of the
                     document, instrument, or event in relation to the treaty provision to be interpreted;
                     and whether or how it was used or influenced the negotiations of the treaty.”782
            (13) Whereas the Appellate Body did not use the term “specificity”, it referred to the
            criteria mentioned above. Instead of clarity, the Appellate Body spoke of “consistency” and
            stated that consistency should not set a benchmark but rather determine the degree of
            relevance. “Consistent prior classification practice may often be significant. Inconsistent
            classification practice, however, cannot be relevant in interpreting the meaning of a tariff
            concession”.783
            paragraph 3 (b), does not require any repetition but only an agreement regarding the interpretation.
            The likelihood of an agreement established by an one-off practice thus depends on the act and the
            treaty in question, see E. Lauterpacht, “The development of the law of international organization by
            the decisions of international tribunals”, Recueil des cours … 1976, vol. 152, pp. 377-466, at p. 457;
            Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of Treaties (footnote 446 above), p. 166; C.F. Amerasinghe,
            “Interpretation of texts in open international organizations”, British Yearbook of International Law
            1994, vol. 65, p. 175, at p. 199; Villiger argues in favour of a certain frequency, but emphasizes that
            the important point is the establishment of an agreement, Villiger, Commentary … (see footnote 414
            above), p. 431, para. 22. Yasseen and Sinclair write that practice cannot “in general” be established
            by one single act, Yasseen, “L’interprétation des traités …” (see footnote 393 above), p. 47; Sinclair,
            The Vienna Convention … (see footnote 393 above), p. 137; cf. Nolte, “Subsequent agreements and
            subsequent practice of States …” (see footnote 440 above), at p. 310.
        780
            WTO Appellate Body Report, EC — Chicken Cuts, WT/DS269/AB/R and Corr.1, and
            WT/DS286/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 27 September 2005, para. 297.
        781
            WTO Appellate Body Report, EC — Computer Equipment, WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R and
            WT/DS68/AB/R, adopted 22 June 1998, para. 92 (footnote omitted and original emphasis).
        782
            EC — Chicken Cuts (see footnote 780 above), para. 290 (footnote omitted).
        783
            Ibid., para. 307 (footnote omitted and original emphasis); cf. also EC — Computer Equipment (see
            footnote 781 above), para. 95.
192                                                                                                                 GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 103 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 104 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                     A/71/10
               (14) A further factor that helps determine the relevance under article 32 may be the
               number of affected states that engage in that practice. The Appellate Body has stated:
                       “To establish this intention, the prior practice of only one of the parties may be
                       relevant, but it is clearly of more limited value than the practice of all parties. In the
                       specific case of the interpretation of a tariff concession in a Schedule, the
                       classification practice of the importing Member, in fact, may be of great
                       importance.”784
                       Conclusion 10 [9]
                       Agreement of the parties regarding the interpretation of a treaty
                       1.      An agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), requires a common
                       understanding regarding the interpretation of a treaty which the parties are aware of
                       and accept. Though it shall be taken into account, such an agreement need not be
                       legally binding.
                       2.      The number of parties that must actively engage in subsequent practice in
                       order to establish an agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), may vary. Silence
                       on the part of one or more parties can constitute acceptance of the subsequent
                       practice when the circumstances call for some reaction.
               Commentary
               Paragraph 1, first sentence — “common understanding”
               (1)     The first sentence of paragraph 1 sets forth the principle that an “agreement” under
               article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), requires a common understanding by the parties
               regarding the interpretation of a treaty. In order for that common understanding to have the
               effect provided for under article 31, paragraph 3, the parties must be aware of it and accept
               the interpretation contained therein. While the difference regarding the form of an
               “agreement” under subparagraph (a) and subparagraph (b) has already been set out in draft
               conclusion 4 and its accompanying commentary, 785 paragraph 1 of draft conclusion 10 [9]
               intends to capture what is common in the two subparagraphs, which is the agreement
               between the parties, in substance, regarding the interpretation of the treaty.
               (2)     The element that distinguishes subsequent agreements and subsequent practice as
               authentic means of interpretation under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), on the one hand,
               and other subsequent practice as a supplementary means of interpretation under article
               32,786 on the other, is the “agreement” of all the parties regarding the interpretation of the
               treaty. It is this agreement of the parties that provides the means of interpretation under
               article 31, paragraph 3,787 their specific function and weight for the interactive process of
               interpretation under the general rule of interpretation of article 31.788
           784
               EC — Computer Equipment (see footnote 781 above), para. 93 (original emphasis).
           785
               See above commentary to draft conclusion 4, para. (10).
           786
               See above draft conclusions 3 [2] and 4, para. 3.
           787
               See Crawford, “A consensualist interpretation of article 31 (3) …” (footnote 606 above), p. 30:
               “There is no reason to think that the word ‘agreement’ in para. (b) has any different meaning as
               compared to the meaning it has in para. (a).”
           788
               See above commentary to draft conclusion 2 [1], paras. (12)-(15); article 31 must be “read as a
               whole” and conceives of the process of interpretation as “a single combined operation” and is “not
               laying down a legal hierarchy of norms for the interpretation of treaties”, Yearbook … 1966, vol. II,
               document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 219, para. (8), and p. 220, para. (9).
GE.16-14345                                                                                                              193
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 104 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 105 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            (3)     Conflicting positions expressed by different parties to a treaty preclude the existence
            of an agreement. This has been confirmed, inter alia, by the Arbitral Tribunal in the case of
            German External Debts, which held that a “tacit subsequent understanding” could not be
            derived from a number of communications by administering agencies since one of those
            agencies, the Bank of England, had expressed a divergent position. 789
            (4)     However, agreement is only absent to the extent that the positions of the parties
            conflict and for as long as their positions conflict. The fact that parties apply a treaty
            differently does not, as such, permit a conclusion that there are conflicting positions
            regarding the interpretation of the treaty. Such a difference may indicate a disagreement
            over the one correct interpretation, but it may also simply reflect a common understanding
            that the treaty permits a certain scope for the exercise of discretion in its application. 790
            Treaties that are characterized by considerations of humanity or other general community
            interests, such as treaties relating to human rights or refugees, tend to aim at a uniform
            interpretation but also to leave a margin of appreciation for the exercise of discretion by
            States.
            (5)     Whereas equivocal conduct by one or more parties will normally prevent the
            identification of an agreement,791 not every element of the conduct of a State that does not
            fully fit into a general picture necessarily renders the conduct of that State equivocal. The
            Court of Arbitration in the Beagle Channel case, for example, found that although at one
            point the parties had a difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of a treaty, that fact
            did not necessarily establish that the lack of agreement was permanent:
                    “In the same way, negotiations for a settlement, that did not result in one, could
                    hardly have any permanent effect. At the most they might temporarily have deprived
                    the acts of the Parties of probative value in support of their respective interpretations
                    of the Treaty, insofar as these acts were performed during the process of the
                    negotiations. The matter cannot be put higher than that.”792
            (6)     Similarly, in Loizidou v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held that the
            scope of the restrictions that the parties could place on their acceptance of the competence
            of the Commission and the Court was “confirmed by the subsequent practice of the
            Contracting Parties”, that is, “the evidence of a practice denoting practically universal
            agreement amongst Contracting Parties that Articles 25 and 46 … of the Convention do not
            permit territorial or substantive restrictions”.793 The Court, applying article 31, paragraph 3
            (b), described “such a State practice” as being “uniform and consistent”, despite the fact
        789
            Case concerning the question whether the re-evaluation of the German Mark in 1961 and 1969
            constitutes a case for application of the clause in article 2 (e) of Annex I A of the 1953 Agreement on
            German External Debts between Belgium, France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain
            and Northern Ireland and the United States of America on the one hand and the Federal Republic of
            Germany on the other, Award of 16 May 1980, UNRIAA, vol. XIX, part III, pp. 67-145, pp. 103-104,
            para. 31; see also EC — Computer Equipment (footnote 781 above), para. 95; Case concerning the
            delimitation of the maritime boundary between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau (footnote 730 above), at p.
            175, para. 66.
        790
            See above commentary to draft conclusion 7, paras. (12)-(15).
        791
            Question of the tax regime governing pensions paid to retired UNESCO officials residing in France
            (see footnote 532 above), at p. 258, para. 70; Kolb, “La modification d’un traité …” (see footnote 695
            above), p. 16.
        792
            Case concerning a dispute between Argentina and Chile concerning the Beagle Channel, 18 February
            1977, UNRIAA, vol. XXI, part II, pp. 53-264, at p. 188, para. 171.
        793
            Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), no. 15318/89, 23 March 1995, ECHR Series A no. 310,
            paras. 79 and 81.
194                                                                                                                 GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 105 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 106 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                      A/71/10
               that it simultaneously recognized that two States possibly constituted exceptions. 794 The
               decision suggests that interpreters, at least under the European Convention, possess some
               margin when assessing whether an agreement of the parties regarding a certain
               interpretation is established.795
               (7)      The term “agreement” in the 1969 Vienna Convention796 does not imply any
               particular requirements of form, 797 including for an “agreement” under article 31, paragraph
               3 (a) and (b).798 The Commission, however, has noted that, in order to distinguish a
               subsequent agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), and a subsequent practice that
               “establishes the agreement” of the parties under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), the former
               presupposes a “single common act”.799 There is no requirement that an agreement under
               article 31, paragraph 3 (a), be published or registered under Article 102 of the Charter of
               the United Nations.800
               (8)      For an agreement under article 31, paragraph 3, it is not sufficient that the positions
               of the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty happen to overlap, the parties must
               also be aware of and accept that these positions are common. Thus, in the Kasikili/Sedudu
               Island case, the International Court of Justice required that, for practice to fall under article
               31, paragraph 3 (b), the “authorities were fully aware of and accepted this as a confirmation
               of the Treaty boundary”.801 Indeed, only the awareness and acceptance of the position of the
               other parties regarding the interpretation of a treaty justifies the characterization of an
               agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) or (b), as an “authentic” means of
           794
               Ibid., paras. 80 and 82; the case did not concern the interpretation of a particular human right, but
               rather the question of whether a State was bound by the Convention at all.
           795
               The more restrictive jurisprudence of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body suggests that different
               interpreters may evaluate matters differently, see United States — Laws, Regulations and
               Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (Zeroing), WT/DS294/R, adopted 9 May 2006, para.
               7.218: “… even if it were established conclusively that all the 76 Members referred to by the
               European Communities have adopted a [certain] practice … this would only mean that a considerable
               number of WTO Members have adopted an approach different from that of the United States. … We
               note that one third party in this proceeding submitted arguments contesting the view of the European
               Communities … .”
           796
               See articles 2, para. 1 (a), 3, 24, para. 2, 39-41, 58 and 60.
           797
               See above commentary to draft conclusion 4, para. (5); confirmed by the Permanent Court of
               Arbitration in the Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration (Bangladesh v. India), Award of 7
               July 2014, available at www.pca-cpa.org/showfile.asp?fil_id=2705, p. 47, para. 165; Yasseen,
               “L’interprétation des traités …” (see footnote 393 above), p. 45; Distefano, “La pratique
               subséquente …” (see footnote 573 above), p. 47.
           798
               See above commentary to draft conclusion 4, para. (5); Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote
               392 above), pp. 231-232 and 243-247; Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (see footnote 525
               above), p. 213; Dörr, “Article 31 …” (see footnote 439 above), p. 554, para. 75; R. Gardiner, “The
               Vienna Convention rules on treaty interpretation”, in The Oxford Guide to Treaties, D.B. Hollis, ed.
               (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 475 and 483.
           799
               See above commentary to draft conclusion 4, para. (10); a “single common act” may also consist of
               an exchange of letters, see European Molecular Biology Laboratory Arbitration (EMBL v. Germany),
               29 June 1990, International Law Reports, vol. 105 (1997), p. 1, at pp. 54-56; Fox, “Article 31 (3) (a)
               and (b) …” (footnote 440 above), p. 63; Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (footnote 392 above), pp.
               248-249.
           800
               Aust, “The theory and practice of informal international instruments” (see footnote 465 above), pp.
               789-790.
           801
               Kasikili/Sedudu Island (see footnote 395 above ), at p. 1094, para. 74 (“occupation of the island by
               the Masubia tribe”) and pp. 1077, para. 55 (“Eason Report”, which “appears never to have been made
               known to Germany”); Dörr, “Article 31 …” (see footnote 439 above), p. 560, para. 88.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                               195
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 106 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 107 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            interpretation.802 In certain circumstances, the awareness and acceptance of the position of
            the other party or parties may be assumed, particularly in the case of treaties that are
            implemented at the national level.
            Paragraph 1, second sentence — possible legal effects of agreement under article 31,
            paragraph 3 (a) and (b)
            (9)      The aim of the second sentence of paragraph 1 is to reaffirm that “agreement”, for
            the purpose of article 31, paragraph 3, need not, as such, be legally binding, 803 in contrast to
            other provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention in which the term “agreement” is used in
            the sense of a legally binding instrument. 804
            (10) This is confirmed by the fact that the Commission, in its final draft articles on the
            law of treaties, used the expression “any subsequent practice which establishes the
            understanding [emphasis added] of the parties”.805 The expression “understanding”
            indicates that the term “agreement” in article 31, paragraph 3, does not require that the
            parties thereby undertake or create any legal obligation existing in addition to, or
            independently of, the treaty. 806 The Vienna Conference replaced the expression
            “understanding” by the word “agreement” not for any substantive reason but “related to
            drafting only” in order to emphasize that the understanding of the parties was to be their
            “common” understanding.807 An “agreement” under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), being
            distinguished from an agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), only in form and not in
            substance, equally need not be legally binding. 808
        802
            In this respect, the ascertainment of subsequent practice under article 31, para. 3 (b), may be more
            demanding than what the formation of customary international law requires, but see Boisson de
            Chazournes, “Subsequent practice, practices …” (footnote 415 above), pp. 53-55.
        803
            See above commentary to draft conclusion 4, para. (6); P. Gautier, “Non-binding agreements”, in Max
            Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (www.mpepil.com), para. 14; Benatar, “From
            probative value to authentic interpretation …” (see footnote 440 above), at pp. 194-195; Aust,
            Modern Treaty Law and Practice (see footnote 525 above), p. 213; Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation
            (see footnote 392 above), p. 244; see also Nolte, “Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice of
            States …” (footnote 440 above), p. 307, at p. 375.
        804
            See articles 2, para. 1 (a), 3, 24, para. 2, 39-41, 58 and 60.
        805
            See Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 222, para. (15).
        806
            Case concerning a dispute between Argentina and Chile concerning the Beagle Channel, 18
            February 1977, UNRIAA, vol. XXI, part II, pp. 53-264, at p. 187, para. 169; The Question whether
            the re-evaluation of the German Mark in 1961 and 1969 constitutes a case for application of the
            clause in article 2 (e) of Annex I A of the 1953 Agreement on German External Debts between
            Belgium, France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the
            United States of America on the one hand and the Federal Republic of Germany on the other, 16 May
            1980, ibid., vol. XIX, pp. 67-145, pp. 103-104, para. 31; Karl, Vertrag und spätere Praxis … (see
            footnote 454 above), pp. 190-195; Kolb, “La modification d’un traité …” (see footnote 695 above),
            pp. 25-26; Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of Treaties (see footnote 446 above), pp. 169-171.
        807
            Official Records of the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties … (A/CONF.39/11) (see
            footnote 575 above), thirty-first meeting, 19 April 1968, p. 169, at para. 59 (Australia); P. Gautier,
            “Les accords informels et la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités entre États”, in Droit du
            pouvoir, pouvoir du droit: mélanges offerts à Jean Salmon, N. Angelet, ed. (Brussels, Bruylant,
            2007), pp. 425-454, at pp. 430-431 (“La lettre [a] du paragraphe 3 fait référence à un accord
            interprétatif et l’on peut supposer que le terme ‘accord’ est ici utilisé dans un sens générique, qui ne
            correspond pas nécessairement au ‘traité’ défini à l’article 2 de la convention de Vienne. Ainsi,
            l’accord interprétatif ultérieur pourrait être un accord verbal, voire un accord politique”).
        808
            See Gautier, “Non-binding agreements” (footnote 803 above), para. 14; Aust, Modern Treaty Law
            and Practice (see footnote 525 above), pp. 211, 213.
196                                                                                                                  GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 107 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 108 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                      A/71/10
               (11) It is thus sufficient that the parties, by a subsequent agreement or a subsequent
               practice under article 31, paragraph 3, attribute a certain meaning to the treaty 809 or, in other
               words, adopt a certain “understanding” of the treaty.810 Subsequent agreements and
               subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), even if they are not in
               themselves legally binding, can thus nevertheless, as means of interpretation, give rise to
               legal consequences as part of the process of interpretation according to article 31. 811
               Accordingly, international courts and tribunals have not required that an “agreement” under
               article 31, paragraph 3, reflect the intention of the parties to create new, or separate, legally
               binding undertakings.812 Similarly, memoranda of understanding have been recognized, on
               occasion, as “a potentially important aid to interpretation” — but “not a source of
               independent legal rights and duties”.813
               (12) Some members considered, on the other hand, that the term “agreement” has the
               same meaning in all provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention. According to those
               members, this term designates any understanding that has legal effect between the States
               concerned and the case law referred to in the present commentary does not contradict this
               definition. Such a definition would not prevent taking into account, for the purpose of
               interpretation, a legally non-binding understanding under article 32.
               Paragraph 2 — forms of participation in subsequent practice
               (13) The first sentence of paragraph 2 confirms the principle that not all the parties must
               engage in a particular practice to constitute agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (b).
               The second sentence clarifies that acceptance of such practice by those parties not engaged
               in the practice can under certain circumstances be brought about by silence or inaction.
               (14) From the outset, the Commission has recognized that an “agreement” deriving from
               subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), can result, in part, from silence or
           809
               This terminology follows the commentary of guideline 1.2. (Definition of interpretative declarations)
               of the Commission’s guide to practice on reservations to treaties (see Official Records of the General
               Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10, A/66/10/Add.1, paras. (18) and (19)).
           810
               See Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, pp. 221-222, paras. (15) and (16) (uses of the
               term “understanding” both in the context of what became article 31, para. 3 (a), as well as what
               became article 31, para. 3 (b)).
           811
               United States-United Kingdom Arbitration concerning Heathrow Airport User Charges, Award on
               the First Question, 30 November 1992, UNRIAA, vol. XXIV (Sales No. E/F.04.V.18), pp. 1-359,
               at p. 131, para. 6.7; Aust, “The theory and practice of informal international instruments” (see
               footnote 465 above), pp. 787 and 807; Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of Treaties (see footnote 446
               above), p. 173; Hafner, “Subsequent agreements and practice …” (see footnote 655 above), pp. 110-
               113; Gautier, “Les accords informels et la Convention de Vienne …” (see footnote 807 above), p.
               434.
           812
               For example, “… pattern implying the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation …”
               (WTO Appellate Body Report, Japan — Alcoholic Beverages II, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R
               and WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, section E, p. 13); or “… pattern … must imply
               agreement on the interpretation of the relevant provision” (WTO Panel Report, European
               Communities and its member States — Tariff Treatment of Certain Information Technology Products,
               WT/DS375/R, WT/DS376/R and WT/DS377/R, adopted 21 September 2010, para. 7.558); or “…
               practice [that] reflects an agreement as to the interpretation …” (Iran-United States Claims
               Tribunal, Interlocutory Award No. ITL 83-B1-FT (Counterclaim) (see footnote 537 above), p. 77,
               at p. 119, para. 116); or that “… State practice” was “… indicative of a lack of any apprehension
               on the part of the Contracting States …” (Banković et al. v. Belgium and 16 other contracting States
               (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII, para. 62).
           813
               United States-United Kingdom Arbitration concerning Heathrow Airport (see footnote 811 above),
               at p. 131, para. 6.7; see also Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (see footnote 397 above), at p.
               98, para. 157.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                               197
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 108 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 109 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            inaction by one or more parties. Explaining why it used the expression “the understanding
            of the parties” in draft article 27, paragraph 3 (b) (which later became “the agreement” in
            article 31, paragraph 3 (b) (see paragraph (10) above)) and not the expression “the
            understanding of all the parties”, the Commission stated that:
                    “It considered that the phrase ‘the understanding of the parties’ necessarily means
                    ‘the parties as a whole’. It omitted the word ‘all’ merely to avoid any possible
                    misconception that every party must individually have engaged in the practice where
                    it suffices that it should have accepted the practice.”814
            (15) The International Court of Justice has also recognized the possibility of expressing
            agreement regarding interpretation by silence or inaction by stating, in the case concerning
            the Temple of Preah Vihear, that “where it is clear that the circumstances were such as
            called for some reaction, within a reasonable period”, the State confronted with a certain
            subsequent conduct by another party “must be held to have acquiesced”.815 This general
            proposition of the Court regarding the role of silence for the purpose of establishing
            agreement regarding the interpretation of a treaty by subsequent practice has been
            confirmed by later decisions,816 and supported generally by writers.817 The “circumstances”
            that will “call for some reaction” include the particular setting in which the States parties
            interact with each other in respect of the treaty. 818
            (16) The Court of Arbitration in the Beagle Channel case819 dealt with the contention by
            Argentina that acts of jurisdiction by Chile over certain islands could not be counted as
            relevant subsequent conduct, since Argentina had not reacted to these acts. The Court,
            however, held:
                    “The terms of the Vienna Convention do not specify the ways in which ‘agreement’
                    may be manifested. In the context of the present case the acts of jurisdiction were
        814
            Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 222, para. (15).
        815
            Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (see footnote 488 above), at p. 23.
        816
            See also Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objection,
            Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 803, p. 815, para. 30; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and
            against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility,
            Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 392, at p. 410, para. 39; Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija (see
            footnote 740 above), paras. 165 et seq., at para. 179; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, 7
            January 2010, ECHR 2010 (extracts), para. 285; cautiously: WTO Appellate Body Report, EC —
            Chicken Cuts WT/DS269/AB/R and Corr.1, WT/DS286/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 27 September
            2005, para. 272; see, also, for a limited holding, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Award No. 30-
            16-3, RayGo Wagner Equipment Company v. Iran Express Terminal Corporation, Iran-United States
            Claims Tribunal Reports, vol. 2 (1983), p. 141, at p. 144; The Question whether the re-evaluation of
            the German Mark in 1961 and 1969 constitutes a case for application of the clause in article 2 (e) of
            Annex I A of the 1953 Agreement on German External Debts between Belgium, France, Switzerland,
            the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America on the
            one hand and the Federal Republic of Germany on the other, 16 May 1980, UNRIAA, vol. XIX, pp.
            67-145, pp. 103-104, para. 31.
        817
            Kamto, “La volonté de l’État en droit international” (see footnote 533 above), pp. 134-141; Yasseen,
            “L’interprétation des traités …” (see footnote 393 above), p. 49; Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see
            footnote 392 above), p. 267; Villiger, Commentary … (see footnote 414 above), p. 431, para. 22;
            Dörr, “Article 31 …” (see footnote 439 above), pp. 557 and 559, paras. 83 and 86.
        818
            For example, when acting within the framework of an international organization, see Application of
            the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece),
            Judgment of 5 December 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p. 644, at pp. 675-676, paras. 99-101; Kamto,
            “La volonté de l’État en droit international” (see footnote 533 above), p. 136.
        819
             Case concerning a dispute between Argentina and Chile concerning the Beagle Channel, 18
            February 1977, UNRIAA, vol. XXI, part II, pp. 53-264.
198                                                                                                                GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 109 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 110 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                        A/71/10
                        not intended to establish a source of title independent of the terms of the treaty; nor
                        could they be considered as being in contradiction of those terms as understood by
                        Chile. The evidence supports the view that they were public and well-known to
                        Argentina, and that they could only derive from the Treaty. Under these
                        circumstances the silence of Argentina permits the inference that the acts tended to
                        confirm an interpretation of the meaning of the Treaty independent of the acts of
                        jurisdiction themselves.”820
               In the same case, the Court of Arbitration considered that:
                        “The mere publication of a number of maps of (as the Court has already shown)
                        extremely dubious standing and value could not — even if they nevertheless
                        represented the official Argentine view — preclude or foreclose Chile from
                        engaging in acts that would, correspondingly, demonstrate her own view of what
                        were her rights under the 1881 Treaty — nor could such publication of itself absolve
                        Argentina from all further necessity for reaction in respect of those acts, if she
                        considered them contrary to the Treaty.”821
               (17) The significance of silence also depends on the legal situation to which the
               subsequent practice by the other party relates and on the claim thereby expressed. Thus, in
               the case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, the
               International Court of Justice held that:
                        “Some of these activities — the organization of public health and education,
                        policing, the administration of justice — could normally be considered to be acts à
                        titre de souverain. The Court notes, however, that, as there was a pre-existing title
                        held by Cameroon in this area, the pertinent legal test is whether there was thus
                        evidenced acquiescence by Cameroon in the passing of the title from itself to
                        Nigeria.”822
               (18) This judgment suggests that in cases that concern treaties delimiting a boundary the
               circumstances will only very exceptionally call for a reaction with respect to conduct that
               runs counter to the delimitation. In such situations, there appears to be a strong presumption
               that silence or inaction does not constitute acceptance of a practice. 823
               (19) The relevance of silence or inaction for the establishment of an agreement regarding
               interpretation depends to a large extent on the circumstances of the specific case. Decisions
               of international courts and tribunals demonstrate that acceptance of a practice by one or
               more parties by way of silence or inaction is not easily established.
               (20) International courts and tribunals, for example, have been reluctant to accept that
               parliamentary proceedings or domestic court judgments are considered as subsequent
               practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), to which other parties to the treaty would be
           820
               Ibid., at p. 187, para. 169 (a).
           821
               Ibid., para. 171.
           822
               Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial
               Guinea intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 303, at p. 352, para. 67.
           823
               Ibid., at p. 351, para. 64: “… The Court notes, however, that now that it has made its findings that the
               frontier in Lake Chad was delimited …, it … follows that any Nigerian effectivités are indeed to be
               evaluated for their legal consequences as acts contra legem”; see also Frontier Dispute, Judgment,
               I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554, at p. 586, para. 63; Case concerning the delimitation of maritime
               boundary between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (see footnote 730 above), at p. 181, para. 70.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                 199
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 110 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 111 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            expected to react, even if such proceedings or judgments had come to their attention
            through other channels, including by their own diplomatic service. 824
            (21) Further, even where a party, by its conduct, expresses a certain position towards
            another party (or parties) regarding the interpretation of a treaty, this does not necessarily
            call for a reaction by the other party or parties. In the Kasikili/Sedudu Island case, the
            International Court of Justice held that a State that did not react to the findings of a joint
            commission of experts, which had been entrusted by the parties to determine a particular
            factual situation with respect to a disputed matter, did not thereby provide a ground for the
            conclusion that an agreement had been reached with respect to the dispute. 825 The Court
            found that the parties had considered the work of the experts as being merely a preparatory
            step for a separate decision subsequently to be taken at the political level. At a more general
            level, the WTO Appellate Body has held that:
                     “… in specific situations, the ‘lack of reaction’ or silence by a particular treaty party
                     may, in the light of attendant circumstances, be understood as acceptance of the
                     practice of other treaty parties. Such situations may occur when a party that has not
                     engaged in a practice has become or has been made aware of the practice of other
                     parties (for example, by means of notification or by virtue of participation in a forum
                     where it is discussed), but does not react to it.”826
            The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has confirmed this approach. Taking into
            account the practice of States in interpreting articles 56, 58 and 73 of the United Nations
            Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Tribunal stated:
                     “The Tribunal acknowledges that the national legislation of several States, not only
                     in the West African region, but also in some other regions of the world, regulates
                     bunkering of foreign vessels fishing in their exclusive economic zones in a way
                     comparable to that of Guinea-Bissau. The Tribunal further notes that there is no
                     manifest objection to such legislation and that it is, in general, complied with.”827
            (22) Decisions by domestic courts have also recognized that silence on the part of a party
            to a treaty can only be taken to mean acceptance “if the circumstances call for some
            reaction”.828 Such circumstances have sometimes been recognized in certain cooperative
            contexts, for example under a bilateral treaty that provides for a particularly close form of
            cooperation.829 This may be different if the cooperation that is envisaged by the treaty takes
            place in the context of an international organization whose rules preclude using the practice
            of the parties, and their silence for the purpose of interpretation. 830
            (23) The possible legal significance of silence or inaction in the face of a subsequent
            practice of a party to a treaty is not limited to contributing to a possible underlying common
        824
            Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (see footnote 395 above), at p. 650, para. 48;
            WTO Appellate Body Report, EC — Chicken Cuts, WT/DS269/AB/R and Corr.1, WT/DS286/AB/R
            and Corr.1, adopted 27 September 2005, para. 334 (“… mere access to a published judgment cannot
            be equated with acceptance …”).
        825
            Kasikili/Sedudu Island (see footnote 395 above), at pp. 1089-1091, paras. 65-68.
        826
            WTO Appellate Body Report, EC — Chicken Cuts (see footnote 824 above), para. 272 (footnote
            omitted).
        827
            The M/V “Virginia G” (Panama/Guinea-Bissau), Judgment, ITLOS Reports 2014, para. 218.
        828
            Switzerland, Federal Court, judgment of 17 February 1971, BGE, vol. 97 I, p. 359, at pp. 370-371.
        829
            See United States, Supreme Court, O’Connor et ux. v. United States, 479 U.S. 27, at pp. 33-35;
            Germany, Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE, vol. 59, p. 63, at pp. 94-95.
        830
            See United Kingdom, Supreme Court: on the one hand, Assange v. The Swedish Prosecution
            Authority [2012] UKSC 22, paras. 68-71 (Lord Phillips); and, on the other, Bucnys v. Ministry of
            Justice, Lithuania [2013] UKSC 71, paras. 39-43 (Lord Mance).
200                                                                                                            GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 111 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 112 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                        A/71/10
               agreement, but may also play a role for the operation of non-consent-based rules, such as
               estoppel, preclusion or prescription.831
               (24) Once established, an agreement between the parties under article 31, paragraph 3 (a)
               and (b), can eventually be terminated. The parties may replace it by another agreement with
               a different scope or content under article 31, paragraph 3. In this case, the new agreement
               replaces the previous one as an authentic means of interpretation from the date of its
               existence, at least with effect for the future.832 Such situations, however, should not be
               lightly assumed as States usually do not change their interpretation of a treaty according to
               short-term considerations.
               (25) It is also possible for a disagreement to arise between the parties regarding the
               interpretation of a treaty after they had reached a subsequent agreement regarding such
               interpretation. Such a disagreement, however, normally will not replace the prior
               subsequent agreement, since the principle of good faith prevents a party from simply
               disavowing the legitimate expectations that have been created by a common
               interpretation.833 On the other hand, clear expressions of disavowal by one party of a
               previous understanding arising from common practice “do reduce in a major way the
               significance of the practice after that date”, without, however, diminishing the significance
               of the previous common practice.834
                        Part Four
                        Specific aspects
                        Conclusion 11 [10]
                        Decisions adopted within the framework of a Conference of States Parties
                        1.      A Conference of States Parties, under these draft conclusions, is a meeting of
                        States parties pursuant to a treaty for the purpose of reviewing or implementing the
                        treaty, except if they act as members of an organ of an international organization.
                        2.      The legal effect of a decision adopted within the framework of a Conference
                        of States Parties depends primarily on the treaty and any applicable rules of
                        procedure. Depending on the circumstances, such a decision may embody, explicitly
                        or implicitly, a subsequent agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), or give rise
                        to subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), or to subsequent practice
                        under article 32. Decisions adopted within the framework of a Conference of States
                        Parties often provide a non-exclusive range of practical options for implementing the
                        treaty.
                        3.      A decision adopted within the framework of a Conference of States Parties
                        embodies a subsequent agreement or subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph
                        3, in so far as it expresses agreement in substance between the parties regarding the
                        interpretation of a treaty, regardless of the form and the procedure by which the
                        decision was adopted, including by consensus.
           831
               Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion
               of 20 July 1962, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 151, at p. 182 (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Spender).
           832
               Hafner, “Subsequent agreements and practice …” (see footnote 655 above), p. 118; this means that
               the interpretative effect of an agreement under article 31, para. 3, does not necessarily go back to the
               date of the entry into force of the treaty, as Yasseen maintains, “L’interprétation des traités…” (see
               footnote 393 above), p. 47.
           833
               Karl, Vertrag und spätere Praxis … (see footnote 454 above), p. 151.
           834
               Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2014, p. 3, at p. 52, para. 142.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                 201
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 112 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 113 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            Commentary
            (1)      Draft conclusion 11 [10] addresses a particular form of action by States that may
            result in a subsequent agreement or subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3, or
            subsequent practice under article 32, namely, decisions adopted within the framework of
            Conferences of States Parties.835
            Paragraph 1 — definition of Conferences of States Parties
            (2)      States typically use Conferences of States Parties as a form of action for the
            continuous process of multilateral treaty review and implementation. 836 Such Conferences
            can be roughly divided into two basic categories. First, some Conferences are actually an
            organ of an international organization within which States parties act in their capacity as
            members of that organ (for example, meetings of the States parties of the World Trade
            Organization, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons or the
            International Civil Aviation Organization).837 Such Conferences of States Parties do not fall
            within the scope of draft conclusion 11 [10], which does not address the subsequent
            practice of and within international organizations. 838 Second, other Conferences of States
            Parties are convened pursuant to treaties that do not establish an international organization;
            rather, the treaty simply provides for more or less periodic meetings of the States parties for
            their review and implementation. Such review conferences are frameworks for States
            parties’ cooperation and subsequent conduct with respect to the treaty. Either type of
            Conference of States Parties may also have specific powers concerning amendments and/or
            the adaptation of treaties. Examples include the review conference process of the 1972
            Biological Weapons Convention,839 the Review Conference under article VIII, paragraph 3,
            of the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty,840 and Conferences of States Parties established by
        835
            Other designations include: Meetings of the Parties or Assemblies of the States Parties.
        836
            See V. Röben, “Conference (Meeting) of States Parties”, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public
            International Law (www.mpepil.com), p. 605; R.R. Churchill and G. Ulfstein, “Autonomous
            institutional arrangements in multilateral environmental agreements: a little-noticed phenomenon in
            international law”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 94, No. 4 (2000), pp. 623-659; J.
            Brunnée, “COPing with consent: law-making under multilateral environmental agreements”, Leiden
            Journal of International Law, vol. 15, No. 1 (2002), pp. 1-52; A. Wiersema, “The new international
            law-makers? Conference of the Parties to multilateral environmental agreements”, Michigan Journal
            of International Law, vol. 31, No. 1 (2009), pp. 231-287; L. Boisson de Chazournes, “Environmental
            treaties in time”, Environmental Policy and Law, vol. 39, No. 6 (2009), pp. 293-298.
        837
            Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (1994) (see footnote 445 above);
            Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of
            Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (1993) (see footnote 545 above); Convention on
            International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention, 1944), United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 15,
            No. 102, p. 295.
        838
            See draft conclusion 12 [11] below.
        839
            See Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological
            (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (1972) (see footnote 545 above), art. XI.
            According to this mechanism, States parties meeting in a review conference shall “… review the
            operation of the Convention, with a view to assuring that the purposes of the preamble and the
            provisions of the Convention … are being realised. Such review shall take into account any new
            scientific and technological developments relevant to the Convention” (art. XII).
        840
            Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1968), United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 729,
            No. 10485, p. 161; art. VIII, para. 3, establishes that a review conference shall be held five years after
            its entry into force, and, if so decided, at intervals of five years thereafter “… in order to review the
            operation of this Treaty with a view to assuring that the purposes of the preamble and the provisions
            of the Treaty are being realised”. By way of such decisions, States parties review the operation of the
202                                                                                                                    GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 113 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 114 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                       A/71/10
               international environmental treaties.841 The International Whaling Commission under the
               International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 842 is a borderline case between the
               two basic categories of Conferences of States Parties and its subsequent practice was
               considered in the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Whaling in the
               Antarctic case.843
               (3)      Since Conferences of States Parties are usually established by treaties they are, in a
               sense, “treaty bodies”. However, they should not be confused with bodies that are
               comprised of independent experts or bodies with a limited membership. Conferences of
               States Parties are more or less periodical meetings that are open to all of the parties of a
               treaty.
               (4)      In order to acknowledge the wide diversity of Conferences of States Parties and the
               rules under which they operate, paragraph 1 provides a broad definition of the term
               “Conference of States Parties” for the purpose of these draft conclusions, which only
               excludes action of States as members of an organ of an international organization (which
               will be the subject of a later draft conclusion).
               Paragraph 2, first sentence — legal effect of decisions
               (5)      The first sentence of paragraph 2 recognizes that the legal significance of any acts
               undertaken by Conferences of States Parties depends, in the first instance, on the rules that
               govern the Conferences of States Parties, notably the constituent treaty and any applicable
               rules of procedure. Conferences of States Parties perform a variety of acts, including
               reviewing the implementation of the treaty, reviewing the treaty itself and decisions under
               amendment procedures.844
               (6)      The powers of a Conference of States Parties can be contained in general clauses or
               in specific provisions, or both. For example, article 7, paragraph 2, of the United Nations
               Framework Convention on Climate Change begins with the following general language,
               Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, article by article, and formulate conclusions and
               recommendations on follow-on actions.
           841
               Examples include the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on
               Climate Change (1992) (United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1771, No. 30822, p. 107), the CMP
               Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol to the United
               Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol, 1997) (United Nations, Treaty
               Series, vol. 2303, No. 30822, p. 161) and the Conference of the Contracting Parties of the Convention
               on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention, 1971)
               (United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 996, No. 14583, p. 245).
           842
               The Convention is often described as establishing an international organization, but it does not do so
               clearly, and it provides the International Whaling Commission with features that fit the present
               definition of a Conference of States Parties.
           843
               Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
               2014, p. 226, at p. 248, para. 46.
           844
               Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat: art. 6, para. 1,
               on review functions and art. 10 bis, on amendments; United Nations Framework Convention on
               Climate Change, art. 7, para. 2, on review powers, and art. 15, on amendments; Kyoto Protocol, art.
               13, para. 4, on review powers of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to
               the Kyoto Protocol, art. 20 on amendment procedures; Convention on International Trade in
               Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, No. 14537, p.
               243), art. XI on Conference of the Parties, and art. XVII on amendment procedures; Treaty on the
               Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; World Health Organization Framework Convention on
               Tobacco Control (United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2302, No. 41032, p. 166), art. 23, para. 5
               (review powers), art. 28 (amendments) and art. 33 (protocols).
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                203
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 114 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 115 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            before enumerating 13 specific tasks for the Conference, one of which concerns examining
            the obligations of the Parties under the treaty:
                     “The Conference of the Parties, as the supreme body of this Convention, shall keep
                     under regular review the implementation of the Convention and any related legal
                     instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt, and shall make, within its
                     mandate, the decisions necessary to promote the effective implementation of the
                     Convention.”
            (7)      Specific provisions contained in various treaties refer to the Conference of the
            Parties proposing “guidelines” for the implementation of particular treaty provisions 845 or
            defining “the relevant principles, modalities, rules and guidelines” for a treaty scheme.846
            (8)      Amendment procedures (in a broad sense of the term) include procedures by which
            the primary text of the treaty may be amended (the result of which mostly requires
            ratification by States parties according to their constitutional procedures), as well as tacit
            acceptance and opt-out procedures847 that commonly apply to annexes, containing lists of
            substances, species or other elements that need to be updated regularly. 848
            (9)      As a point of departure, paragraph 2 provides that the legal effect of a decision
            adopted within the framework of a Conference of States Parties depends primarily on the
            treaty in question and any applicable rules of procedure. The word “primarily” leaves room
            for subsidiary rules “unless the treaty otherwise provides” (see for example, articles 16, 20,
            22, paragraph 1, 24, 70, paragraph 1, and 72, paragraph 1, of the 1969 Vienna Convention).
            The word “any” clarifies that rules of procedure of Conferences of States Parties, if they
            exist, will apply, given that there may be situations where such conferences operate with no
            specifically adopted rules of procedure.849
            Paragraph 2, second sentence — decisions as possibly embodying a subsequent agreement
            or subsequent practice
            (10) The second sentence of paragraph 2 recognizes that decisions of Conferences of
            States Parties may constitute subsequent agreement or subsequent practice for treaty
            interpretation under articles 31 and 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention. Decisions adopted
            within the framework of Conferences of States Parties can perform an important function
            for determining the Parties’ common understanding of the meaning of the treaty.
            (11) Decisions of Conferences of States Parties, inter alia, may constitute or reflect
            subsequent agreements under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), by which the parties interpret the
            underlying treaty. For example, the Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference
            has regularly adopted “understandings and additional agreements” regarding the
            interpretation of the Convention’s provisions. These agreements have been adopted by
            States parties within the framework of the review conferences, by consensus, and they
            “have evolved across all articles of the treaty to address specific issues as and when they
        845
            Arts. 7 and 9 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
        846
            Art. 17 of the Kyoto Protocol provides an example, see Churchill and Ulfstein, “Autonomous
            institutional arrangements in multilateral environmental agreements …” (footnote 836 above), p. 639;
            J. Brunnée, “Reweaving the fabric of international law? Patterns of consent in environmental
            framework agreements”, in Developments of International Law in Treaty Making, R. Wolfrum and V.
            Röben, eds. (Berlin, Springer, 2005), pp. 110-115.
        847
            See J. Brunnée, “Treaty amendments”, in Hollis, The Oxford Guide to Treaties (footnote 798 above),
            pp. 354-360.
        848
            Ibid.
        849
            This is the case, for example, for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
204                                                                                                              GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 115 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 116 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                     A/71/10
               arose”.850 Through these understandings, States parties interpret the provisions of the
               Convention by defining, specifying or otherwise elaborating on the meaning and scope of
               the provisions, as well as through the adoption of guidelines on their implementation. The
               Biological Weapons Convention Implementation and Support Unit 851 defines an “additional
               agreement” as one which:
                       (i)      Interprets, defines or elaborates the meaning or scope of a provision of the
                       Convention; or
                       (ii)     Provides instructions, guidelines or recommendations on how a provision
                       should be implemented.852
               (12) Similarly, the Conference of States Parties under the Convention on the Prevention
               of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Dumping
               Convention)853 has adopted resolutions interpreting that Convention. The IMO Sub-
               Division for Legal Affairs, upon a request from the governing bodies, opined as follows in
               relation to an “interpretative resolution” of the Conference of States Parties under the
               London Dumping Convention:
                       “According to article 31 (3) (a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties …
                       subsequent agreements between the Parties shall be taken into account in the
                       interpretation of a treaty. The article does not provide for a specific form of the
                       subsequent agreement containing such interpretation. This seems to indicate that,
                       provided its intention is clear, the interpretation could take various forms, including
                       a resolution adopted at a meeting of the Parties, or even a decision recorded in the
                       summary records of a meeting of the Parties.”854
               (13) In a similar vein, the World Health Organization (WHO) Legal Counsel has stated in
               general terms that:
                       “Decisions of the Conference of the Parties, as the supreme body comprising all
                       Parties to the FCTC, undoubtedly represent a ‘subsequent agreement between the
                       Parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty,’ as stated in Article 31 of the
                       Vienna Convention.”855
           850
               See P. Millett, “The Biological Weapons Convention: securing biology in the twenty-first century”,
               Journal of Conflict and Security Law, vol. 15, No. 1 (2010), pp. 25-43, at p. 33.
           851
               The “Implementation Support Unit” was created by the Conference of States Parties, in order to
               provide administrative support to the Conference, and to enhance confidence-building measures
               among States parties (see Final Document of the Sixth Review Conference of the States Parties to the
               Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological
               (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BWC/CONF.VI/6), Part. III (decisions and
               recommendations), para. 5).
           852
               See background information document submitted by the Implementation and Support Unit, prepared
               for the Seventh Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention, entitled “Additional
               understandings and agreements reached by previous Review Conferences relating to each article of
               the Convention” (BWC/CONF.VII/INF.5) (updated later to include the understandings and
               agreements reached by that Conference, Geneva, 2012).
           853
               United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1046, No. 15749, p. 120.
           854
               Agenda item 4 (Ocean fertilization), submitted by the Secretariat on procedural requirements in
               relation to a decision on an interpretive resolution: views of the IMO Sub-Division of Legal Affairs,
               document LC 33/J/6, para. 3.
           855
               See Conference of the Parties to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco
               Control, Intergovernmental Negotiating Body on a Protocol on Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products,
               “Revised Chairperson’s text on a protocol on illicit trade in tobacco products, and general debate:
               legal advice on the scope of the protocol”, note by the WHO Legal Counsel on scope of the protocol
GE.16-14345                                                                                                              205
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 116 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 117 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            (14) Commentators have also viewed decisions of Conferences of States Parties as being
            capable of embodying subsequent agreements856 and have observed that:
                     “Such declarations are not legally binding in and of themselves, but they may have
                     juridical significance, especially as a source of authoritative interpretations of the
                     treaty.”857
            (15) The International Court of Justice has held with respect to the role of the
            International Whaling Commission under the International Convention for the Regulation
            of Whaling:
                     “Article VI of the Convention states that ‘[t]he Commission may from time to time
                     make recommendations to any or all Contracting Governments on any matters which
                     relate to whales or whaling and to the objectives and purposes of this Convention’.
                     These recommendations, which take the form of resolutions, are not binding.
                     However, when they are adopted by consensus or by a unanimous vote, they may be
                     relevant for the interpretation of the Convention or its Schedule.”858
            (16) The following examples from the practice of Conferences of States Parties support
            the proposition that decisions by such Conferences may embody subsequent agreements
            under article 31, paragraph 3 (a).
            (17) Article I, paragraph 1, of the Biological Weapons Convention provides that States
            parties undertake never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise
            acquire or retain:
                     “microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of
                     production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic,
                     protective or other peaceful purposes.”
            (18) At the third Review Conference (1991), States parties specified that the prohibitions
            established in this provision relate to “microbial or other biological agents or toxins harmful
            to plants and animals, as well as humans”.859
            (19) Article 4, paragraph 9, of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
            Ozone Layer860 has given rise to a debate about the definition of its term “State not party to
            this Protocol”. According to Article 4, paragraph 9:
                     “For the purposes of this Article, the term ‘State not party to this Protocol’ shall
                     include, with respect to a particular controlled substance, a State or regional
                     economic integration organization that has not agreed to be bound by the control
                     measures in effect for that substance.”
            on illicit trade in tobacco products (FCTC/COP/INB-IT/3/INF.DOC./6) annex, para. 8; S.F. Halabi,
            “The World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: an analysis of
            guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties”, Georgia Journal of International and
            Comparative Law, vol. 39 (2010), pp. 121-183.
        856
            D.H. Joyner, Interpreting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (Oxford, Oxford University Press,
            2011), p. 83 (with respect to the Non-Proliferation Treaty); Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice
            (see footnote 525 above), pp. 213-214.
        857
            B.M. Carnahan, “Treaty review conferences”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 81, No. 1
            (1987), pp. 226-230, at p. 229.
        858
            Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
            2014, p. 226, at p. 248, para. 46.
        859
            Final Declaration of the Third Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition
            of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons
            and on their Destruction, Geneva, 9-27 September 1991 (BWC/CONF.III/23, part II).
        860
            United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1522, No. 26369, p. 3.
206                                                                                                              GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 117 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 118 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                        A/71/10
               (20) In the case of hydro chlorofluorocarbons, two relevant amendments to the Montreal
               Protocol861 impose obligations that raised the question of whether a State, in order to be
               “not party to this Protocol”, has to be a non-party with respect to both amendments. The
               Meeting of the Parties decided that:
                        “The term ‘State not party to this Protocol’ includes all other States and regional
                        economic integration organizations that have not agreed to be bound by the
                        Copenhagen and Beijing Amendments.”862
               (21) Whereas the acts that are the result of a tacit acceptance procedure863 are not, as
               such, subsequent agreements by the parties under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), they can, in
               addition to their primary effect under the treaty, under certain circumstances imply such a
               subsequent agreement. One example concerns certain decisions of the Conference of the
               Parties to the London Dumping Convention. At its sixteenth meeting, held in 1993, the
               Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties adopted three amendments to annex I by way
               of the tacit acceptance procedure provided for in the Convention.864 As such, these
               amendments were not subsequent agreements. They did, however, also imply a wide-
               ranging interpretation of the underlying treaty itself. 865 The amendment refers to and builds
               on a resolution that was adopted by the Consultative Meeting held three years earlier, which
               had established the agreement of the parties that: “The London Dumping Convention is the
               appropriate body to address the issue of low-level radioactive waste disposal into sub-sea-
           861
               Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
               (1992), United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1785, No. 26369, p. 517; and Beijing Amendment to the
               Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1999), ibid., vol. 2173, No. 26369, p.
               183.
           862
               For details, see decision XV/3 on obligations of parties to the 1999 Beijing Amendment under art. 4
               of the Montreal Protocol with respect to hydrochlorofluorocarbons; the definition itself is formulated
               as follows: “… (a) The term ‘State not party to this Protocol’ in article 4, paragraph 9, does not apply
               to those States operating under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol until January 1, 2016 when, in
               accordance with the Copenhagen and Beijing Amendments, hydrochlorofluorocarbon production and
               consumption control measures will be in effect for States that operate under article 5, paragraph 1, of
               the Protocol; (b) The term ‘State not party to this Protocol’ includes all other States and regional
               economic integration organizations that have not agreed to be bound by the Copenhagen and Beijing
               Amendments; (c) Recognizing, however, the practical difficulties imposed by the timing associated
               with the adoption of the foregoing interpretation of the term ‘State not party to this Protocol,’
               paragraph 1 (b) shall apply unless such a State has by 31 March 2004: (i) Notified the Secretariat that
               it intends to ratify, accede or accept the Beijing Amendment as soon as possible; (ii) Certified that it
               is in full compliance with articles 2, 2A to 2G and article 4 of the Protocol, as amended by the
               Copenhagen Amendment; (iii) Submitted data on (i) and (ii) above to the Secretariat, to be updated on
               31 March 2005, in which case that State shall fall outside the definition of ‘State not party to this
               Protocol’ until the conclusion of the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties” (Report of the 15th meeting
               of the State Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer
               (UNEP/OzL.Pro.15/9), chap. XVIII. sect. A, decision XV/3, para. 1).
           863
               See above para. (8) of the present commentary.
           864
               See London Sixteenth Consultative Meeting of the Contracting Parties, and resolutions LC.49
               (16), LC.50 (16) and LC.51 (16) (United Nations, Treaties Series, vol. 1775, No. 15749, p. 395).
               First, the meeting decided to amend the phasing-out of the dumping of industrial waste by 31
               December 1995. Second, it banned the incineration at sea of industrial waste and sewage sludge.
               And, finally, it decided to replace para. 6 of annex I, banning the dumping of radioactive waste
               or other radioactive matter (see also “Dumping at sea: the evolution of the Convention on the
               Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (LC), 1972 ”, Focus on
               IMO (July 1997), p. 11).
           865
               It has even been asserted that these amendments to annex I of the London Dumping Convention
               “constitute major changes in the Convention” (see Churchill and Ulfstein, “Autonomous institutional
               arrangements in multilateral environmental agreements …” (footnote 836 above), p. 638).
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                 207
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 118 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 119 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            bed repositories accessed from the sea.”866 The resolution has been described as “effectively
            expand[ing] the definition of ‘dumping’ under the Convention by deciding that this term
            covers the disposal of waste into or under the seabed from the sea but not from land by
            tunnelling”.867 Thus, the amendment confirmed that the interpretative resolution contained a
            subsequent agreement regarding the interpretation of the treaty.
            (22) The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
            Wastes and their Disposal868 provides in Article 17, paragraph 5, that: “Amendments …
            shall enter into force between Parties having accepted them on the ninetieth day after the
            receipt by the Depositary of their instrument of ratification, approval, formal confirmation
            or acceptance by at least three-fourths of the Parties who accepted [them] …”. Led by an
            Indonesian-Swiss initiative, the Conference of the Parties decided to clarify the requirement
            of the acceptance by three fourths of the Parties, by agreeing:
                     “… without prejudice to any other multilateral environmental agreement, that the
                     meaning of paragraph 5 of Article 17 of the Basel Convention should be interpreted
                     to mean that the acceptance of three-fourths of those parties that were parties at the
                     time of the adoption of the amendment is required for the entry into force of such
                     amendment, noting that such an interpretation of paragraph 5 of Article 17 does not
                     compel any party to ratify the Ban Amendment.”869
            The parties adopted this decision on the interpretation of article 17, paragraph 5, by
            consensus, with many States Parties underlining that the Conferences of States Parties to
            any convention are “the ultimate authority as to its interpretation”.870 While this suggests
            that the decision embodies a subsequent agreement of the parties under article 31,
            paragraph 3 (a), the decision was taken after a debate about whether a formal amendment of
            the Convention was necessary to achieve this result. 871 It should also be noted that the
            delegation of Japan, requesting that this position be reflected in the Conference’s Report,
            stated that it “supported the current-time approach to the interpretation of the provision of
            the Convention regarding entry into force of amendments, as described in a legal advice
            provided by the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs as the Depositary,872 and had
        866
            IMO, Report of the Thirteenth Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the Convention on the
            Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, LDC 13/15, annex 7,
            resolution LDC.41 (13), para. 1.
        867
            Churchill and Ulfstein, “Autonomous institutional arrangements in multilateral environmental
            agreements …” (see footnote 836 above), p. 641.
        868
            United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1673, No. 28911, p. 57.
        869
            See Report of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
            Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal on its tenth meeting (Cartagena, Colombia, 17-
            21 October 2011), UNEP/CHW.10/28, annex 1, Decision BC-10/3 (Indonesian-Swiss country-led
            initiative to improve the effectiveness of the Basel Convention), para. 2.
        870
            Ibid., chap. III. A, para. 65.
        871
            See Günther Handl, “International ‘lawmaking’ by conferences of the parties and other politically
            mandated bodies”, in Wolfrum and Röben, Developments of International Law in Treaty Making
            (footnote 846 above), pp. 127-143, at p. 132.
        872
            The “current-time approach” favoured by the Legal Counsel of the United Nations stipulates that:
            “Where the treaty is silent or ambiguous on the matter, the practice of the Secretary-General is to
            calculate the number of acceptances on the basis of the number of parties to the treaty at the time of
            deposit of each instrument of acceptance of an amendment.” See extracts from the memorandum of 8
            March 2004 received from the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations, available at
            www.basel.int/TheConvention/Overview/Amendments/Background/tabid/
            2760/Default.aspx.
208                                                                                                                GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 119 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 120 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                    A/71/10
               accepted the fixed-time approach enunciated in the decision on the Indonesian-Swiss
               country-led initiative only in this particular instance.”873
               (23) The preceding examples demonstrate that decisions of Conferences of States Parties
               may embody under certain circumstances subsequent agreements under article 31,
               paragraph 3 (a), and give rise to subsequent practice under articles 31, paragraph 3 (b), or to
               other subsequent practice under article 32 if they do not reflect agreement of the parties.
               The respective character of a decision of a Conference of States Parties, however, must
               always be carefully identified. For this purpose, the specificity and the clarity of the terms
               chosen in the light of the text of the Conference of States Parties’ decision as a whole, its
               object and purpose, and the way in which it is applied, need to be taken into account. The
               parties often do not intend that such a decision has any particular legal significance.
               Paragraph 2, third sentence — decisions as possibly providing a range of practical options
               (24) The last sentence of paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 11 [10] reminds the interpreter
               that decisions of Conferences of States Parties often provide a range of practical options for
               implementing the treaty. Those decisions may not necessarily embody a subsequent
               agreement and subsequent practice for the purpose of treaty interpretation, even if the
               decision is by consensus. Indeed, Conferences of States Parties often do not explicitly seek
               to resolve or address questions of interpretation of a treaty.
               (25) A decision by the Conference of States Parties to the WHO Framework Convention
               on Tobacco Control provides an example. Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention deal,
               respectively, with the regulation of the contents of tobacco products, and with the
               regulation of the disclosure of information regarding the contents of such products.
               Acknowledging that such measures require the allocation of significant financial resources,
               the States Parties agreed, under the title of “practical considerations” for the
               implementation of articles 9 and 10, on “some options that Parties could consider using”,
               such as:
                        “(a)   designated tobacco taxes;
                        (b)    tobacco manufacturing and/or importing licensing fees;
                        (c)    tobacco product registration fees;
                        (d)    licensing of tobacco distributors and/or retailers;
                        (e)    non-compliance fees levied on the tobacco industry and retailers; and
                        (f)    annual tobacco surveillance fees (tobacco industry and retailers).”874
               This decision provides a non-exhaustive range of practical options for implementing
               articles 9 and 10 of the Convention. The parties have thereby, however, implicitly agreed
               that the stated “options” would, as such, be compatible with the Convention.
           873
               Report of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention … (see footnote 869 above), para. 68
               (emphasis added).
           874
               Partial guidelines for implementation of articles 9 and 10 of the WHO Framework Convention on
               Tobacco Control (Regulation of the contents of tobacco products and Regulation of tobacco product
               disclosures), FCTC/COP4(10), Annex, adopted at the fourth session of the Conference of the Parties
               to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (Punta del Este, Uruguay, 15-20 November
               2010), in FCTC/COP/4/DIV/6, p. 39.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                             209
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 120 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 121 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            Paragraph 2 as a whole
            (26) It follows that decisions of Conferences of States Parties may have different legal
            effects. Such decisions are often not intended to embody a subsequent agreement under
            article 31, paragraph 3 (a), by themselves because they are not meant to be a statement
            regarding the interpretation of the treaty. In other cases, the parties have made it sufficiently
            clear that the Conference of State Parties decision embodies their agreement regarding the
            interpretation of the treaty. They may also produce an effect in combination with a legal
            duty to cooperate under the treaty, “and the parties thus should give due regard” to such a
            decision.875 In any case, it cannot simply be said that because the treaty does not accord the
            Conference of States Parties a competence to take legally binding decisions, their decisions
            are necessarily legally irrelevant and constitute only political commitments. 876
            (27) Ultimately, the effect of a decision of a Conference of States Parties depends on the
            circumstances of each particular case and such decisions need to be properly interpreted. A
            relevant consideration may be whether States parties uniformly or without challenge apply
            the treaty as interpreted by the Conference of States Parties’ decision. Discordant practice
            following a decision of the Conference of States Parties may be an indication that States did
            not assume that the decision would be a subsequent agreement under article 31, paragraph 3
            (a).877 Conference of States Parties’ decisions that do not qualify as subsequent agreements
            under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), or as subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b),
            may nevertheless be a subsidiary means of interpretation under article 32.878
            Paragraph 3 — an agreement regarding the interpretation of the treaty
            (28) Paragraph 3 sets forth the principle that agreements regarding the interpretation of a
            treaty under article 31, paragraph 3, must relate to the content of the treaty. Thus, what is
            important is the substance of the agreement embodied in the decision of the Conference of
            States Parties and not the form or procedure by which that decision is reached. Acts that
            originate from Conferences of States Parties may have different forms and designations and
            they may be the result of different procedures. Conferences of States Parties may even
            operate without formally adopted rules of procedure. 879 If the decision of the Conference of
            States Parties is based on a unanimous vote in which all parties participate, it may clearly
        875
            Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
            2014, p. 226, at p. 257, para. 83.
        876
            Ibid., p. 248, para. 46.
        877
            See above commentary to draft conclusion 10 [9], paras. (23)-(24).
        878
            Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
            2014, p. 226 (Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Charlesworth, at p. 454, para. 4: “I note that
            resolutions adopted by a vote of the [International Whaling Commission] have some consequence
            although they do not come within the terms of [a]rticle 31.3 of the Vienna Convention”).
        879
            The Conference of States Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
            provisionally applies the draft rules of procedure of the Conference of the Parties and its subsidiaries
            bodies (FCCC/CP/1996/2), with the exception of draft rule 42 in the chapter on “Voting”, since no
            agreement has been reached so far on one of the two voting alternatives contained therein, see Report
            of the Conference of the Parties on its first session (28 March to 7 April 1995) (FCCC/CP/1995/7), p.
            8, para. 10; Report of the Conference of the Parties on its nineteenth session (11 to 23 November
            2013) (FCCC/CP/2013/10), p. 6, para. 4; similarly, the Conference of States Parties to the Convention
            on Biological Diversity (1992, United Nations, Treaties Series, vol. 1760, No. 30619, p. 79) did not
            adopt Rule 40, paragraph 1 (Voting), of the rules of procedure “because of the lack of consensus
            among the Parties concerning the majority required for decision-making on matters of substance”, see
            Report of the Eleventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
            Diversity (8-19 October 2012) (UNEP/CBD/COP/11/35), para. 65.
210                                                                                                                  GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 121 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 122 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                    A/71/10
               embody a “subsequent agreement” under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), provided that it is
               “regarding the interpretation of the treaty”.
               (29) Conference of States Parties’ decisions regarding review and implementation
               functions, however, are normally adopted by consensus. This practice derives from rules of
               procedure that usually require States parties to make every effort to achieve consensus on
               substantive matters. An early example can be found in the Provisional Rules of Procedure
               for the Review Conference of the Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention. According
               to rule 28, paragraph 2:
                        “The task of the Review Conference being to review the operation of the Convention
                        with a view to assuring that the purposes of the preamble and the provisions of the
                        Convention are being realized, and thus to strengthen its effectiveness, every effort
                        should be made to reach agreement on substantive matters by means of consensus.
                        There should be no voting on such matters until all efforts to achieve consensus have
                        been exhausted.”880
               This formula, with only minor variations, has become the standard with regard to
               substantive decision-making procedures at Conferences of States Parties.
               (30) In order to address concerns relating to decisions adopted by consensus, the phrase
               “including by consensus” was introduced at the end of paragraph 3 in order to dispel the
               notion that a decision by consensus would necessarily be equated with agreement in
               substance. Indeed, consensus is not a concept that necessarily indicates any particular
               degree of agreement on substance. According to the Comments on Some Procedural
               Questions issued by the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat in
               accordance with General Assembly resolution 60/286 of 8 September 2006: 881
                        “Consensus is generally understood as a decision-taking process consisting in
                        arriving at a decision without formal objections and vote. It may however not
                        necessarily reflect ‘unanimity’ of opinion on the substantive matter. It is used to
                        describe the practice under which every effort is made to achieve general agreement
                        and no delegation objects explicitly to a consensus being recorded.”882
               (31) It follows that adoption by consensus is not a sufficient condition for an agreement
               under article 31, paragraph 3 (b). The rules of procedure of Conferences of States Parties do
               not usually give an indication of the possible legal effect of a resolution as a subsequent
               agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), or a subsequent practice under article 31,
               paragraph 3 (b). Such rules of procedure only determine how the Conference of States
               Parties shall adopt its decisions, not their possible legal effect as a subsequent agreement
               under article 31, paragraph 3. Although subsequent agreements under article 31, paragraph
               3 (a), need not be binding as such, the 1969 Vienna Convention attributes them a legal
               effect under article 31 only if there exists agreement in substance among the parties
           880
               See rule 28, paragraph 2, of the provisional rules of procedure for the Review Conference of the
               Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
               Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, held in Geneva, from 3 to
               21 March 1980 (BWC/CONF.I/2).
           881
               See General Assembly resolution 60/286 of 8 September 2006 on revitalization of the General
               Assembly, requesting the Office of Legal Affairs of the Secretariat “to make precedents and past
               practice available in the public domain with respect to rules and practices of the intergovernmental
               bodies of the Organization” (annex, para. 24).
           882
               See “Consensus in UN practice: General”, paper prepared by the Secretariat, available from
               http://legal.un.org/ola/media/GA_RoP/GA_RoP_EN.pdf; see also R. Wolfrum and J. Pichon,
               “Consensus”, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (www.mpepil.com), paras. 3-
               4 and 24.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                             211
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 122 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 123 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            concerning the interpretation of a treaty. The International Court of Justice has confirmed
            that the distinction between the form of a collective decision and the agreement in
            substance is pertinent in such a context.883
            (32) That certain decisions, despite having been declared as being adopted by consensus,
            cannot represent a subsequent agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), is especially true
            when there exists an objection by one or more States parties to that consensus.
            (33) For example, at its Sixth Meeting in 2002, the Conference of States Parties to the
            Convention on Biological Diversity worked on formulating guiding principles for the
            prevention, introduction and mitigation of impacts of alien species that threaten ecosystems,
            habitats or species.884 After several efforts to reach an agreement had failed, the President of
            the Conference of States Parties proposed that the decision be adopted and the reservations
            that Australia had raised be recorded in the final report of the meeting. The representative
            of Australia, however, reiterated that the guiding principles could not be accepted and that
            “his formal objection therefore stood”.885 The President declared the debate closed and,
            “following established practice”, declared the decision adopted without a vote, clarifying
            that the objections of the dissenting States would be reflected in the final report of the
            meeting. Following the adoption, Australia reiterated its view that consensus is adoption
            without formal objection and expressed concerns about the legality of the adoption of the
            draft decision. As a result, a footnote to decision VI/23 indicates that “one representative
            entered a formal objection during the process leading to the adoption of this decision and
            underlined that he did not believe that the Conference of the Parties could legitimately
            adopt a motion or a text with a formal objection in place”.886
            (34) In this situation, the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity
            requested a legal opinion from the United Nations Legal Counsel. 887 The opinion by the
            Legal Counsel888 expressed the view that a party could “disassociate itself from the
            substance or text … of the document [,] indicate that its joining in the consensus does not
            constitute acceptance of the substance or text of parts of the document[,] and/or present any
            other restrictions on its Government’s position on substance or text of … the document”.889
            Thus, it is clear that a decision by consensus can occur in the face of rejection of the
            substance of the decision by one or more of the States parties.
            (35) The decision under the Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as a similar
            decision reached in Cancún in 2010 by the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol to
            the Climate Change Convention (Bolivia’s objection notwithstanding), 890 raise the
        883
            Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
            2014, p. 226, at p. 257, para. 83.
        884
            See report of the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
            Diversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20), annex I, decision VI/23.
        885
            Ibid., para. 313.
        886
            Ibid., para. 318; for the discussion see paras. 294-324.
        887
            Available from the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, document
            SCBD/SEL/DBO/30219 (6 June 2002).
        888
            Letter dated 17 June 2002, transmitted by facsimile.
        889
            Ibid.
        890
            See report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
            on its sixth session, held in Cancún from 29 November to 10 December 2010
            (FCCC/KP/CMP/2010/12 and Add.1), decision 1/CMP.6 (The Cancún Agreements: outcome of the
            work of the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto
            Protocol at its fifteenth session) and decision 2/CMP.6 (The Cancún Agreements: land use, land-use
            change and forestry); as well as the proceedings of the Conference of the Parties serving as the
            Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, para. 29.
212                                                                                                                 GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 123 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 124 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                   A/71/10
               important question of what “consensus” means.891 However, this question, which does not
               fall within the scope of the present topic, must be distinguished from the question of
               whether all the parties to a treaty have arrived at an agreement in substance on matters of
               interpretation of that treaty under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b). Decisions by
               Conferences of States Parties that do not reflect agreement in substance among all the
               parties do not qualify as agreements under article 31, paragraph 3, although they may be a
               form of “other subsequent practice” under article 32 (see draft conclusion 4, paragraph 3).
               (36) A different issue concerns the legal effect of a decision of a Conference of States
               Parties once it qualifies as an agreement under article 31, paragraph (3). In 2011, the IMO
               Sub-Division for Legal Affairs was asked to “advise the governing bodies […] about the
               procedural requirements in relation to a decision on an interpretative resolution and, in
               particular, whether or not consensus would be needed for such a decision”.892 In its
               response, while confirming that a resolution by the Conference of States Parties can
               constitute, in principle, a subsequent agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), the IMO
               Sub-Division for Legal Affairs advised the governing bodies that even if the Conference
               were to adopt a decision based on consensus, that would not mean that the decision would
               be binding on all the parties.893
               (37) Although the opinion of the IMO Sub-Division for Legal Affairs proceeded from the
               erroneous assumption that a “subsequent agreement” under article 31, paragraph 3 (a),
               would only be binding “as a treaty, or an amendment thereto”,894 it came to the correct
               conclusion that even if the consensus decision by a Conference of States Parties embodies
               an agreement regarding interpretation in substance it is not (necessarily) binding upon the
               parties.895 Rather, as the Commission has indicated, a subsequent agreement under article
               31, paragraph 3 (a), is only one of different means of interpretation to be taken into account
               in the process of interpretation.896
               (38) Thus, interpretative resolutions by Conferences of States Parties that are adopted by
               consensus, even if they are not binding as such, can nevertheless be subsequent agreements
               under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), or subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), if
               there are sufficient indications that that was the intention of the parties at the time of the
               adoption of the decision or if the subsequent practice of the parties establishes an agreement
               on the interpretation of the treaty. 897 The interpreter must give appropriate weight to such an
               interpretative resolution under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), but not necessarily treat it as
               legally binding.898
                        Conclusion 12 [11]
                        Constituent instruments of international organizations
                        1.     Articles 31 and 32 apply to a treaty which is the constituent instrument of an
                        international organization. Accordingly, subsequent agreements and subsequent
           891
               See Nolte, “Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice of States …” (footnote 440 above), pp.
               372-377.
           892
               IMO, report of the 3rd meeting of the Intersessional Working Group on Ocean Fertilization (LC
               33/4), para. 4.15.2.
           893
               IMO, document LC 33/J/6, para. 3 (see footnote 854 above).
           894
               Ibid., para. 8.
           895
               See above commentary to draft conclusion 10 [9], paras. (9)-(11).
           896
               Commentary to draft conclusion 3 [2], para. (4), above.
           897
               Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
               2014, p. 226, Separate Opinion of Judge Greenwood, at pp. 407-408, para. 6, and Separate Opinion of
               Judge ad hoc Charlesworth, at pp. 453-454, para. 4.
           898
               See above commentary to draft conclusion 3 [2], para. 4.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                            213
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 124 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 125 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
                     practice under article 31, paragraph 3, are, and other subsequent practice under
                     article 32 may be, means of interpretation for such treaties.
                     2.      Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph
                     3, or other subsequent practice under article 32, may arise from, or be expressed in,
                     the practice of an international organization in the application of its constituent
                     instrument.
                     3.      Practice of an international organization in the application of its constituent
                     instrument may contribute to the interpretation of that instrument when applying
                     articles 31, paragraph 1, and 32.
                     4.      Paragraphs 1 to 3 apply to the interpretation of any treaty which is the
                     constituent instrument of an international organization without prejudice to any
                     relevant rules of the organization.
            Commentary
            General aspects
            (1)      Draft conclusion 12 [11] refers to a particular type of treaty, namely constituent
            instruments of international organizations, and the way in which subsequent agreements or
            subsequent practice shall or may be taken into account in their interpretation under articles
            31 and 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention.
            (2)      Constituent instruments of international organizations are specifically addressed in
            article 5 of the 1969 Vienna Convention, which provides:
                     “The present Convention applies to any treaty which is the constituent instrument of
                     an international organization and to any treaty adopted within an international
                     organization without prejudice to any relevant rules of the organization.”899
            (3)      A constituent instrument of an international organization under article 5, like any
            treaty, is an international agreement “whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or
            more related instruments” (article 2, paragraph 1 (a)). The provisions that are contained in
            such a treaty are part of the constituent instrument. 900
            (4)      As a general matter, article 5, by stating that the 1969 Vienna Convention applies to
            constituent instruments of international organizations without prejudice to any relevant
            rules of the organization,901 follows the general approach of the Convention according to
            which treaties between States are subject to the rules set forth in the Convention “unless the
            treaty otherwise provides.”902
            (5)      Draft conclusion 12 [11] only refers to the interpretation of constituent instruments
            of international organizations. It therefore does not address every aspect of the role of
        899
            See also the parallel provision of article 5 of the 1986 Vienna Convention (A/CONF.129/15).
        900
            Art. 20, para. 3, of the 1969 Vienna Convention requires the acceptance, by the competent organ of
            the organization, of reservations relating to its constituent instrument. Twelfth report on reservations
            to treaties, Yearbook … 2007, vol. II (Part One), document A/CN.4/584, paras. 75-77; S. Rosenne,
            Developments in the Law of Treaties 1945-1986 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989), p.
            204.
        901
            See Yearbook … 1966, vol. II, document A/6309/Rev.1, p. 191 (draft article 4); K. Schmalenbach,
            “Art. 5”, in Dörr and Schmalenbach, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties … (see footnote 439
            above), p. 89, para. 1.
        902
            See, for example, articles 16; 19 (a) and (b); 20, paras. 1 and 3-5; 22; 24, para. 3; 25, para. 2; 44, para.
            1; 55; 58, para. 2; 70, para. 1; 72, para. 1; 77, para. 1, of the 1969 Vienna Convention.
214                                                                                                                      GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 125 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 126 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                      A/71/10
               subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties
               involving international organizations. In particular, it does not apply to the interpretation of
               treaties adopted within an international organization or to treaties concluded by
               international organizations that are not themselves constituent instruments of international
               organizations.903 In addition, draft conclusion 12 [11] does not apply to the interpretation of
               decisions by organs of international organizations as such,904 including to the interpretation
               of decisions by international courts905 or to the effect of a “clear and constant
               jurisprudence”906 (“jurisprudence constante”) of courts or tribunals.907 Finally, the
               conclusion does not specifically address questions relating to pronouncements by a treaty
               monitoring body consisting of independent experts, as well as to the weight of particular
               forms of practice more generally, matters which may be dealt with at a later stage.
               Paragraph 1 — applicability of articles 31 and 32
               (6)      The first sentence of paragraph 1 of draft conclusion 12 [11] recognizes the
               applicability of articles 31 and 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention to treaties that are
               constituent instruments of international organizations. 908 The International Court of Justice
               has confirmed this point in its advisory opinion on the Legality of the Use by a State of
               Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict:
                        “From a formal standpoint, the constituent instruments of international organizations
                        are multilateral treaties, to which the well-established rules of treaty interpretation
                        apply.”909
               (7)      The Court has held with respect to the Charter of the United Nations:
                        “On the previous occasions when the Court has had to interpret the Charter of the
                        United Nations, it has followed the principles and rules applicable in general to the
           903
               The latter category is addressed by the 1986 Vienna Convention (A/CONF.129/15).
           904
               Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of
               Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 403, at p. 442, para. 94 (“… While the rules on
               treaty interpretation embodied in [a]rticles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
               Treaties may provide guidance, differences between Security Council resolutions and treaties mean
               that the interpretation of Security Council resolutions also require that other factors be taken into
               account”); see also H. Thirlway, “The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-
               1989, part eight”, British Yearbook of International Law 1996, vol. 67, p. 1, at p. 29; M.C. Wood,
               “The interpretation of Security Council resolutions”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law,
               vol. 2 (1998), p. 73, at p. 85; Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), p. 128.
           905
               Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of
               Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 281, at p. 307, para. 75 (“A
               judgment of the Court cannot be equated to a treaty, an instrument which derives its binding force and
               content from the consent of the contracting States and the interpretation of which may be affected by
               the subsequent conduct of those States, as provided by the principle stated in article 31, paragraph 3
               (b), of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”).
           906
               See Regina v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions ex parte Alconbury
               Developments Limited and others [2001] UKHL 23; Regina v. Special Adjudicator (respondent) ex
               parte Ullah (FC) (appellant) Do (FC) (appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
               (Respondent) [2004] UKHL 26 [20] (Lord Bingham of Cornhill); Regina (On the Application of
               Animal Defenders International) v. Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport [2008] UKHL 15.
           907
               Such jurisprudence may be a means for the determination of rules of law as indicated, in particular,
               by article 38, paragraph 1 (d), of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
           908
               Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), pp. 281-282.
           909
               Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.
               Reports 1996, p. 66, at p. 74, para. 19.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                               215
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 126 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 127 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
                    interpretation of treaties, since it has recognized that the Charter is a multilateral
                    treaty, albeit a treaty having certain special characteristics.”910
            (8)     At the same time, article 5 suggests, and decisions by international courts confirm,
            that constituent instruments of international organizations are also treaties of a particular
            type that may need to be interpreted in a specific way. Accordingly, the International Court
            of Justice has stated:
                    “But the constituent instruments of international organizations are also treaties of a
                    particular type; their object is to create new subjects of law endowed with a certain
                    autonomy, to which the parties entrust the task of realizing common goals. Such
                    treaties can raise specific problems of interpretation owing, inter alia, to their
                    character which is conventional and at the same time institutional; the very nature of
                    the organization created, the objectives which have been assigned to it by its
                    founders, the imperatives associated with the effective performance of its functions,
                    as well as its own practice, are all elements which may deserve special attention
                    when the time comes to interpret these constituent treaties.”911
            (9)     The second sentence of paragraph 1 of draft conclusion 12 [11] more specifically
            refers to elements of articles 31 and 32 that deal with subsequent agreements and
            subsequent practice as a means of interpretation and confirms that subsequent agreements
            and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3, are, and other subsequent practice
            under article 32 may be, means of interpretation for constituent instruments of international
            organizations.
            (10) The International Court of Justice has recognized that article 31, paragraph 3 (b), is
            applicable to constituent instruments of international organizations. In its Advisory Opinion
            on the Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, after
            describing constituent instruments of international organizations as being treaties of a
            particular type, the Court introduced its interpretation of the Constitution of WHO by
            stating:
                    “According to the customary rule of interpretation as expressed in Article 31 of the
                    1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the terms of a treaty must be
                    interpreted ‘in their context and in the light of its object and purpose’ and there shall
                    be ‘taken into account, together with the context:
                    …
                            “‘(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which
                    establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation’.”912
            Referring to different precedents from its own case law in which it had, inter alia,
            employed subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), as a means of
            interpretation, the Court announced that it would apply article 31, paragraph 3 (b):
                    “… in this case for the purpose of determining whether, according to the WHO
                    Constitution, the question to which it has been asked to reply arises ‘within the
                    scope of [the] activities’ of that Organization.”913
        910
            Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion,
            I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 151, at p. 157.
        911
            Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.
            Reports 1996, p. 66, at p. 75, para. 19.
        912
            Ibid.
        913
            Ibid.
216                                                                                                             GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 127 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 128 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                  A/71/10
               (11) The Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria case is another
               decision in which the Court has emphasized, in a case involving the interpretation of a
               constituent instrument of an international organization, 914 the subsequent practice of the
               parties. Proceeding from the observation that “Member States have also entrusted to the
               Commission certain tasks that had not originally been provided for in the treaty texts”,915
               the Court concluded that:
                        “From the treaty texts and the practice [of the parties] analysed at paragraphs 64 and
                        65 above, it emerges that the Lake Chad Basin Commission is an international
                        organization exercising its powers within a specific geographical area; that it does
                        not however have as its purpose the settlement at a regional level of matters relating
                        to the maintenance of international peace and security and thus does not fall under
                        Chapter VIII of the Charter.”916
               (12) Article 31, paragraph 3 (a), is also applicable to constituent treaties of international
               organizations.917 Self-standing subsequent agreements between the member States
               regarding the interpretation of constituent instruments of international organizations,
               however, are not common. When questions of interpretation arise with respect to such an
               instrument, the parties mostly act as members within the framework of the plenary organ of
               the organization. If there is a need to modify, to amend, or to supplement the treaty, the
               member States either use the amendment procedure that is provided for in the treaty or they
               conclude a further treaty, usually a protocol.918 It is, however, also possible that the parties
               act as such when they meet within a plenary organ of the respective organization. In 1995:
                        “The Governments of the 15 Member States have achieved the common agreement
                        that this decision is the agreed and definitive interpretation of the relevant Treaty
                        provisions”.919
               That is to say that:
                        “… the name given to the European currency shall be Euro. … The specific name
                        Euro will be used instead of the generic term ‘ecu’ used by the Treaty to refer to the
                        European currency unit.”920
               This decision of the “Member States meeting within” the European Union has been
               regarded, in the literature, as a subsequent agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a). 921
               (13) It is sometimes difficult to determine whether “Member States meeting within” a
               plenary organ of an international organization intend to act in their capacity as members of
               that organ, as they usually do, or whether they intend to act in their independent capacity as
           914
               See Art. 17 of the Convention and Statute relating to the Development of the Chad Basin (Treaty of
               Fort-Lamy von 1964), Heidelberg Journal of International Law, vol. 34 (1974), at p. 80; generally:
               P.H. Sand, “Development of International Water Law in the Lake Chad Basin”, ibid., pp. 52-76.
           915
               Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Preliminary Objections, Judgment,
               I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 275, at p. 305, para. 65.
           916
               Ibid., at pp. 306-307, para. 67.
           917
               Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
               2014, p. 226; see also below footnote 944 and accompanying text.
           918
               See articles 39-41 of the 1969 Vienna Convention.
           919
               See Madrid European Council, Conclusions of the Presidency, European Union Bulletin, No. 12
               (1995), p. 9, at p. 10, sect. I.A.I.
           920
               Ibid.
           921
               See Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (footnote 525 above), p. 215; Hafner, “Subsequent
               agreements and practice …” (see footnote 655 above), at pp. 109-110.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                           217
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 128 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 129 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            States parties to the constituent instrument of the organization. 922 The Court of Justice of
            the European Union, when confronted with this question, initially proceeded from the
            wording of the act in question:
                     “It is clear from the wording of that provision that acts adopted by representatives of
                     the Member States acting, not in their capacity as members of the Council, but as
                     representatives of their governments, and thus collectively exercising the powers of
                     the Member States, are not subject to judicial review by the Court.”923
            Later, however, the Court accorded decisive importance to the “content and all the
            circumstances in which [the decision] was adopted” in order to determine whether the
            decision was that of the organ or of the member States themselves as parties to the treaty:
                     “Consequently, it is not enough that an act should be described as a ‘decision of the
                     Member States’ for it to be excluded from review under Article 173 of the Treaty. In
                     order for such an act to be excluded from review, it must still be determined
                     whether, having regard to its content and all the circumstances in which it was
                     adopted, the act in question is not in reality a decision of the Council.”924
            (14) Apart from subsequent agreements or subsequent practice that establish the
            agreement of all the parties under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), other subsequent
            practice by one or more parties in the application of the constituent instrument of an
            international organization may also be relevant for the interpretation of that treaty. 925
            Constituent instruments of international organizations, like other multilateral treaties, are,
            for example, sometimes implemented by subsequent bilateral or regional agreements or
            practice.926 Such bilateral treaties are not, as such, subsequent agreements under article 31,
            paragraph 3 (a), if only because they are concluded between a limited number of the parties
            to the multilateral constituent instrument. They may, however, imply assertions concerning
            the interpretation of the constituent instrument itself and may serve as supplementary
            means of interpretation under article 32.
            Paragraph 2 — subsequent agreements and subsequent practice as “arising from” or
            “being expressed in” the reaction of member States
            (15) Paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 12 [11] highlights a particular way in which
            subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under articles 31, paragraph 3, and 32 may
            arise or be expressed. Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice of States parties may
            “arise from” their reactions to the practice of an international organization in the application
            of a constituent instrument. Alternatively, subsequent agreements and subsequent practice
            of States parties to a constituent agreement may be “expressed in” the practice of an
        922
            P.C.G. Kapteyn and P. VerLoren van Themaat, Introduction to the Law of the European
            Communities, 3rd edition, L.W. Gormley, ed. (London, Kluwer Law International, 1998), pp. 340-
            343.
        923
            Case C-181/91 and C-248/91, Parliament v. Council and Commission [1993], European Court
            Reports I-3713, para. 12.
        924
            Ibid., para. 14.
        925
            See above draft conclusions 2 [1], para. 4, and 4, para. 3, and commentary thereto, respectively, para.
            (10) and paras. (23)-(37).
        926
            This is true, for example, for the Convention on International Civil Aviation (see footnote 837above);
            P.P.C. Haanappel, “Bilateral air transport agreements — 1913-1980”, International Trade Law
            Journal, vol. 5, No. 2 (1980), pp. 241-267; L. Tomas, “Air transport agreements, regulation of
            liability”, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (see footnote 425 above); B.F.
            Havel, Beyond Open Skies, A New Regime for International Aviation (Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer
            Law International, 2009), p. 10.
218                                                                                                                 GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 129 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 130 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                       A/71/10
               international organization in the application of a constituent instrument. “Arise from” is
               intended to encompass the generation and development of subsequent agreements and
               subsequent practice, while “expressed in” is used in the sense of reflecting and articulating
               such agreements and practice. Either variant of the practice in an international organization
               may reflect subsequent agreements or subsequent practice by the States parties to the
               constituent instrument of the organization (see draft conclusion 4).927
               (16) In its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in
               Armed Conflict, the International Court of Justice recognized the possibility that the
               practice of an organization may reflect an agreement or the practice of the Member States
               as parties to the treaty themselves, but found that the practice in that case did not “express
               or amount to” a subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b):
                       “Resolution WHA46.40 itself, adopted, not without opposition, as soon as the
                       question of the legality of the use of nuclear weapons was raised at the WHO, could
                       not be taken to express or to amount on its own to a practice establishing an
                       agreement between the members of the Organization to interpret its Constitution as
                       empowering it to address the question of the legality of the use of nuclear
                       weapons.”928
               (17) In this case, when considering the relevance of a resolution of an international
               organization for the interpretation of its constituent instrument the Court considered, in the
               first place, whether the resolution expressed or amounted to “a practice establishing
               agreement between the members of the Organization” under article 31, paragraph 3 (b).929
               (18)    In a similar way, the WTO Appellate Body has stated in general terms:
                       “Based on the text of Article 31 (3) (a) of the Vienna Convention, we consider that a
                       decision adopted by Members may qualify as a ‘subsequent agreement between the
                       parties’ regarding the interpretation of a covered agreement or the application of its
                       provisions if: (i) the decision is, in a temporal sense, adopted subsequent to the
                       relevant covered agreement; and (ii) the terms and content of the decision express an
                       agreement between Members on the interpretation or application of a provision of
                       WTO law.”930
               (19) Regarding the conditions under which a decision of a plenary organ may be
               considered to be a subsequent agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a), the WTO
               Appellate Body held:
           927
               R. Higgins, “The Development of international law by the political organs of the United Nations”,
               Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at its 59th Annual Meeting (Washington,
               D.C., April 22-24, 1965), pp. 116-124, at p. 119; the practice of an international organization, in
               addition to arising from, or being expressed in, an agreement or the practice of the parties themselves
               under paragraph 2, may also be a means of interpretation in itself under paragraph 3 (see below at
               paras. (25)-(35)).
           928
               Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.
               Reports 1996, p. 66, at p. 81, para. 27.
           929
               The Permanent Court of International Justice had adopted this approach in its Advisory Opinion on
               Competence of the International Labour Organization to regulate, incidentally, the personal work of
               the employer, 23 July 1926, P.C.I.J. Series B. No. 13, at pp. 19-20; see S. Engel, “‘Living’
               international constitutions and the world court (the subsequent practice of international organs under
               their constituent instruments)”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 16 (1967), pp.
               865-910, at p. 871.
           930
               WTO Appellate Body Report, United States — Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove
               Cigarettes, WT/DS406/AB/R, adopted 24 April 2012, para. 262 (original emphasis).
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                219
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 130 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 131 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
                     “263. With regard to the first element, we note that the Doha Ministerial Decision
                     was adopted by consensus on 14 November 2001 on the occasion of the Fourth
                     Ministerial Conference of the WTO. … With regard to the second element, the key
                     question to be answered is whether paragraph 5.2 of the Doha Ministerial Decision
                     expresses an agreement between Members on the interpretation or application of
                     the term ‘reasonable interval’ in Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement.
                     “264. We recall that paragraph 5.2 of the Doha Ministerial Decision provides:
                             Subject to the conditions specified in paragraph 12 of Article 2 of the
                             Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, the phrase ‘reasonable interval’
                             shall be understood to mean normally a period of not less than 6 months,
                             except when this would be ineffective in fulfilling the legitimate objectives
                             pursued.
                     “265. In addressing the question of whether paragraph 5.2 of the Doha Ministerial
                     Decision expresses an agreement between Members on the interpretation or
                     application of the term ‘reasonable interval’ in Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement,
                     we find useful guidance in the Appellate Body reports in EC — Bananas III (Article
                     21.5 — Ecuador II)/EC — Bananas III (Article 21.5 — US). The Appellate Body
                     observed that the International Law Commission (the ‘ILC’) describes a subsequent
                     agreement within the meaning of Article 31 (3) (a) of the Vienna Convention as ‘a
                     further authentic element of interpretation to be taken into account together with the
                     context’. According to the Appellate Body, ‘by referring to “authentic
                     interpretation”, the ILC reads Article 31 (3) (a) as referring to agreements bearing
                     specifically upon the interpretation of the treaty.’ Thus, we will consider whether
                     paragraph 5.2 bears specifically upon the interpretation of Article 2.12 of the TBT
                     Agreement.
                     …
                     “268. For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the Panel’s finding … that paragraph
                     5.2 of the Doha Ministerial Decision constitutes a subsequent agreement between
                     the parties, within the meaning of Article 31 (3) (a) of the Vienna Convention, on the
                     interpretation of the term ‘reasonable interval’ in Article 2.12 of the TBT
                     Agreement.”931
            (20) The International Court of Justice, although it did not expressly mention article 31,
            paragraph 3 (a), when relying on the General Assembly Declaration on Friendly Relations
            between States for the interpretation of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, emphasized
            the “attitude of the Parties and the attitude of States towards certain General Assembly
            resolutions” and their consent thereto.932 In this context, a number of writers have
        931
            Ibid. (footnotes omitted); although the Doha Ministerial Decision does not concern a provision of the
            WTO Agreement itself, it concerns an annex to that Agreement (the “TBT Agreement”), which is an
            “integral part” of the Agreement establishing the WTO (art. 2, para. 2, WTO Agreement).
        932
            Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of
            America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14, at p. 100, para. 188: “… The effect of consent
            to the text of such resolutions cannot be understood as merely that of a ‘reiteration or elucidation’ of
            the treaty commitment undertaken in the Charter. On the contrary, it may be understood as an
            acceptance of the validity of the rule or set of rules declared by the resolution by themselves”. This
            statement, whose primary purpose is to explain the possible role of General Assembly resolutions for
            the formation of customary law, also recognizes the treaty-related point that such resolutions may
            serve to express the agreement, or the positions, of the parties regarding a certain interpretation of the
            Charter of the United Nations as a treaty (“elucidation”); similarly: Accordance with International
            Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.
220                                                                                                                    GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 131 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 132 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                           A/71/10
               concluded that subsequent agreements within the meaning of article 31, paragraph 3 (a),
               may, under certain circumstances, arise from or be expressed in acts of plenary organs of
               international organizations,933 such as the General Assembly of the United Nations. 934
               Indeed, as the WTO Appellate Body has indicated with reference to the Commission, 935 the
               characterization of a collective decision as an “authentic element of interpretation” under
               article 31, paragraph 3 (a), is only justified if the parties of the constituent instrument of an
               international organization acted as such and not, as they usually do, institutionally as
               members of the respective plenary organ. 936
               (21) Paragraph 2 refers to the practice of an international organization, rather than to the
               practice of an organ of an international organization. Although the practice of an
               international organization can arise from the conduct of an organ, it can also be generated
               by the conduct of two or more organs.
               (22) Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice of the parties, which may “arise
               from, or be expressed in” the practice of an international organization, may sometimes be
               very closely interrelated with the practice of the organization as such. For example, in its
               Namibia Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice arrived at its interpretation of
               Reports 2010, p. 403, at p. 437, para. 80; in this sense, for example, L.B. Sohn, “The UN system as
               authoritative interpreter of its law”, in United Nations Legal Order, vol. 1, O. Schachter and C.C.
               Joyner, eds. (Cambridge, American Society of International Law/Cambridge University Press, 1995),
               pp. 169-229, at p. 177 (noting in regard to the Nicaragua case that “[t]he Court accepted the Friendly
               Relations Declaration as an authentic interpretation of the Charter”).
           933
               H.G. Schermers and N.M. Blokker, International Institutional Law, 5th revised edition
               (Leiden/Boston, Martinus Nijhoff, 2011), p. 854 (referring to interpretations by the Assembly of the
               Oil Pollution Compensation Fund regarding the constituent instruments of the Fund); M. Cogen,
               “Membership, associate membership and pre-accession arrangements of CERN, ESO, ESA, and
               EUMETSAT”, International Organizations Law Review, vol. 9 (2012), pp. 145-179, at pp. 157-158
               (referring to a unanimously adopted decision of the CERN Council of 17 June 2010 interpreting the
               admission criteria established in the CERN Convention as a subsequent agreement under article 31,
               para. 3 (a), of the 1969 Vienna Convention).
           934
               See E. Jimémez de Aréchega, “International law in the past third of a century”, Recueil des Cours …
               1978, vol. 159, pp. 1-334, at p. 32 (stating in relation to the Friendly Relations Declaration that “[t]his
               Resolution … constitutes an authoritative expression of the views held by the totality of the parties to
               the Charter as to these basic principles and certain corollaries resulting from them. In the light of
               these circumstances, it seems difficult to deny the legal weight and authority of the Declaration both
               as a resolution recognizing what the Members themselves believe constitute existing rules of
               customary law and as an interpretation of the Charter by the subsequent agreement and the
               subsequent practice of all its members”); O. Schachter, “General course in public international law”,
               Recueil des Cours … 1982, vol. 178, pp. 9-396, at p. 113 (“… [t]he law-declaring resolutions that
               construed and ‘concretized’ the principles of the Charter — whether as general rules or in regard to
               particular cases — may be regarded as authentic interpretation by the parties of their existing treaty
               obligations. To that extent they were interpretation, and agreed by all Member States, they fitted
               comfortably into an established source of law.”); P. Kunig, “United Nations Charter, interpretation
               of”, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. X (www.mpepil.com), p. 273 et
               seq., at p. 275 (stating that, “[i]f passed by consensus, they [that is, General Assembly resolutions] are
               able to play a major role in the … interpretation of the UN Charter”); Aust, Modern Treaty Law and
               Practice (see footnote 525 above), p. 213 (mentioning that General Assembly resolution 51/210 on
               measures to eliminate international terrorism of 17 December 1996 “can be seen as a subsequent
               agreement about the interpretation of the UN Charter”). All resolutions to which the writers are
               referring to have been adopted by consensus.
           935
               WTO Appellate Body Report, United States — Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove
               Cigarettes, WT/DS406/AB/R, adopted 24 April 2012, para. 265.
           936
               Y. Bonzon, Public Participation and Legitimacy in the WTO (Cambridge, Cambridge University
               Press, 2014), pp. 114-115.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                    221
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 132 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 133 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            the term “concurring votes” in Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations
            as including abstentions primarily by relying on the practice of the competent organ of the
            organization in combination with the fact that this practice was then “generally accepted”
            by Member States:
                     “… the proceedings of the Security Council extending over a long period supply
                     abundant evidence that presidential rulings and the positions taken by members of
                     the Council, in particular its permanent members, have consistently and uniformly
                     interpreted the practice of voluntary abstention by a permanent member as not
                     constituting a bar to the adoption of resolutions. This procedure followed by the
                     Security Council, which has continued unchanged after the amendment in 1965 of
                     Article 27 of the Charter, has been generally accepted by Members of the United
                     Nations and evidences a general practice of that Organization.”937
            In this case, the Court emphasized both the practice of one or more organs of the
            international organization and the “general acceptance” of that practice by the Member
            States and characterized the combination of those two elements as being a “general practice
            of the organization”.938 The Court followed this approach in its Advisory Opinion regarding
            Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory by
            stating that:
                     “The Court considers that the accepted practice of the General Assembly, as it has
                     evolved, is consistent with Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter.”939
            By speaking of the “accepted practice of the General Assembly”,940 the Court implicitly
            affirmed that acquiescence on behalf of the Member States regarding the practice followed
            by the organization in the application of the treaty permits to establish the agreement
            regarding the interpretation of the relevant treaty provision. 941
            (23) On this basis it is reasonable to consider “that relevant practice will usually be that
            of those on whom the obligation of performance falls”,942 in the sense that “where [S]tates
            by treaty entrust the performance of activities to an organization, how those activities are
            conducted can constitute practice under the treaty; but whether such practice establishes
        937
            Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West
            Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports
            1971, p. 16, at p. 22.
        938
            H. Thirlway, “The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989, Part Two”,
            British Yearbook of International Law 1990, vol. 61, pp. 1-133, at pp. 76 (mentioning that “[t]he
            Court’s reference to the practice as being ‘of’ the Organization is presumably intended to refer, not to
            a practice followed by the Organization as an entity in its relations with other subjects of international
            law, but rather a practice followed, approved or respected throughout the Organization. Seen in this
            light, the practice is … rather a recognition by the other members of the Security Council at the
            relevant moment, and indeed by all member States by tacit acceptance, of the validity of such
            resolutions”).
        939
            Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory
            Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136, at p. 150 (emphasis added).
        940
            Ibid.
        941
            See above commentary to draft conclusion 10 [9], para. 2, second sentence, paras. (13)-(25); Villiger,
            Commentary … (see footnote 414 above), pp. 431-432, para. 22; J. Arato, “Treaty interpretation and
            constitutional transformation”, Yale Journal of International Law, vol. 38, No. 2 (2013), pp. 289-357,
            at p. 322.
        942
            Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), p. 281.
222                                                                                                                    GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 133 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 134 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                  A/71/10
               agreement of the parties regarding the treaty’s interpretation may require account to be
               taken of further factors”.943
               (24) Accordingly, in the Whaling in the Antarctic case, the International Court of Justice
               referred to (non-binding) recommendations of the International Whaling Commission
               (which is both the name of an international organization established by the Convention for
               the Regulation of Whaling944 and that of an organ thereof), and clarified that when such
               recommendations are “adopted by consensus or by a unanimous vote, they may be relevant
               for the interpretation of the Convention or its Schedule”.945 At the same time, however, the
               Court also expressed a cautionary note according to which:
                        “… Australia and New Zealand overstate the legal significance of the
                        recommendatory resolutions and Guidelines on which they rely. First, many IWC
                        resolutions were adopted without the support of all States parties to the Convention
                        and, in particular, without the concurrence of Japan. Thus, such instruments cannot
                        be regarded as subsequent agreement to an interpretation of Article VIII, nor as
                        subsequent practice establishing an agreement of the parties regarding the
                        interpretation of the treaty within the meaning of subparagraphs (a) and (b),
                        respectively, of paragraph (3) of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
                        Treaties.”946
               (25) This cautionary note does not, however, exclude that a resolution that has been
               adopted without the support of all member States may give rise to, or express, the position
               or the practice of individual member States in the application of the treaty that may be
               taken into account under article 32.947
               The practice of an international organization itself
               (26) Paragraph 3 of draft conclusion 12 [11] refers to another form of practice that may
               be relevant for the interpretation of a constituent instrument of an international
               organization: the practice of the organization as such, meaning its “own practice”, as
               distinguished from the practice of the member States. The International Court of Justice has
               in some cases taken the practice of an international organization into account in its
               interpretation of constituent instruments without referring to the practice or acceptance of
               the member States of the organization. In particular, the Court has stated that the
               international organization’s “own practice … may deserve special attention” in the process
               of interpretation.948
               (27) For example, in its Advisory Opinion on the Competence of the General Assembly
               regarding Admission to the United Nations, the Court stated that:
           943
               Ibid.
           944
               S. Schiele, Evolution of International Environmental Regimes: The Case of Climate Change
               (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 37-38; A. Gillespie, Whaling Diplomacy:
               Defining Issues in International Environmental Law (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2005), p. 411.
           945
               Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
               2014, p. 226.
           946
               Ibid., p. 257, para. 83.
           947
               See Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
               Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136, at p. 149 (referring to General Assembly resolution
               1600 (XV) of 15 April 1961 (adopted with 60 votes to 16, with 23 abstentions, including the Soviet
               Union and other States of Eastern Europe) and resolution 1913 (XVIII) of 13 December 1963
               (adopted by 91 votes to 2 (Spain and Portugal)).
           948
               Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.
               Reports 1996, p. 66, at p. 74; See also D. Simon, L’interprétation judiciaire des traités
               d’organisations internationales (Paris, Pedone, 1981), pp. 379-384.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                           223
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 134 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 135 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
                     “The organs to which Article 4 entrusts the judgment of the Organization in matters
                     of admission have consistently interpreted the text in the sense that the General
                     Assembly can decide to admit only on the basis of the recommendation of the
                     Security Council.”949
            (28) Similarly, in Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the
            Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the Court referred to acts of organs of the
            organization when it referred to the practice of “the United Nations”:
                     “In practice, according to the information supplied by the Secretary-General, the
                     United Nations has had occasion to entrust missions — increasingly varied in nature
                     — to persons not having the status of United Nations officials. … In all these cases,
                     the practice of the United Nations shows that the persons so appointed, and in
                     particular the members of these committees and commissions, have been regarded as
                     experts on missions within the meaning of Section 22.”950
            (29) In its Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization Advisory Opinion,
            the International Court of Justice referred to “the practice followed by the Organization
            itself in carrying out the Convention” as a means of interpretation.951
            (30) In its advisory opinion on Certain Expenses of the United Nations, the Court
            explained why the practice of an international organization, as such, including that of a
            particular organ, may be relevant for the interpretation of its constituent instrument:
                     “Proposals made during the drafting of the Charter to place the ultimate authority to
                     interpret the Charter in the International Court of Justice were not accepted; the
                     opinion which the Court is in course of rendering is an advisory opinion. As
                     anticipated in 1945, therefore, each organ must, in the first place at least, determine
                     its own jurisdiction. If the Security Council, for example, adopts a resolution
                     purportedly for the maintenance of international peace and security and if, in
                     accordance with a mandate or authorization in such resolution, the Secretary-
                     General incurs financial obligations, these amounts must be presumed to constitute
                     ‘expenses of the Organization’.”952
            (31) Many international organizations share the same characteristic of not providing for
            an “ultimate authority to interpret” their constituent instrument. The conclusion that the
            Court has drawn from this circumstance is therefore now generally accepted as being
            applicable to international organizations.953 The identification of a presumption, in the
            Certain Expenses advisory opinion, which arises from the practice of an international
        949
            Competence of Assembly regarding admission to the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.
            Reports 1950, p. 4, at p. 9.
        950
            Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the
            United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1989, p. 177, at p. 194, para. 48.
        951
            Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative
            Organization, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1960, p. 150, at p. 169.
        952
            Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion,
            I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 151, at p. 168.
        953
            See J. Klabbers, An Introduction to Institutional Law, 2nd edition (Cambridge, Cambridge University
            Press, 2009), p. 90; C.F. Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International
            Organizations, 2nd edition (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 25; J.E. Alvarez,
            International Organizations as Law-Makers (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 80; Rosenne,
            Developments in the Law of Treaties … (see footnote 900 above), pp. 224-225.
224                                                                                                             GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 135 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 136 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                        A/71/10
               organization, including by one or more of its organs, is a way of recognizing such practice
               as a means of interpretation.954
               (32) Whereas it is generally agreed that the interpretation of the constituent instruments
               of international organizations by the practice of their organs constitutes a relevant means of
               interpretation,955 certain differences exist among writers about how to explain the relevance,
               for the purpose of interpretation, of an international organization’s “own practice” in terms
               of the Vienna rules of interpretation. 956 Such practice can, at a minimum, be conceived as a
               supplementary means of interpretation under article 32.957 The Court, by referring to acts of
               international organizations that were adopted against the opposition of certain member
               states,958 has recognized that such acts may constitute practice for the purposes of
               interpretation, but generally not a (more weighty) practice that establishes agreement
               between the parties regarding the interpretation and that would fall under article 31,
               paragraph 3. Writers largely agree, however, that the practice of an international
               organization, as such, will often also be relevant for clarifying the ordinary meaning to be
               given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose. 959
               (33) The Commission has confirmed, in its commentary to draft conclusion 2 [1], that
               given instances of subsequent practice and subsequent agreements contribute, or not, to the
               determination of the ordinary meaning of the terms in their context and in the light of the
               object and purpose of the treaty. 960 These considerations are also relevant with regard to the
               practice of an international organization itself.
           954
               See Lauterpacht, “The development of the law of international organization …” (footnote 779 above),
               at p. 460; N.M. Blokker, “Beyond ‘Dili’: on the powers and practice of international organizations”,
               in State, Sovereignty, and International Governance, G. Kreijen, ed. (Oxford, Oxford University
               Press, 2002), pp. 299-322, at pp. 312-318.
           955
               C. Brölmann, “Specialized rules of treaty interpretation: international organizations”, in Hollis, The
               Oxford Guide to Treaties (see footnote 797 above), pp. 507-534, at pp. 520-521; S. Kadelbach, “The
               interpretation of the Charter”, in The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 3rd edition, B.
               Simma and others, eds. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 71, at p. 80; Gardiner, Treaty
               Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), pp. 127 and 281.
           956
               Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (see footnote 392 above), p. 282; Schermers and Blokker,
               International Institutional Law (see footnote 933 above), p. 844; J. Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles
               of Public International Law, 8th edition (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 187; Klabbers,
               An Introduction to Institutional Law (see footnote 953 above), pp. 89-90; see also Partial Award on
               the Lawfulness of the Recall of the Privately Held Shares on 8 January 2001 and the Applicable
               Standards for Valuation of those Shares, 22 November 2002, UNRIAA, vol. XXIII (Sales No.
               E/F.04.V.15), pp. 183-251, at p. 224, para. 145.
           957
               The Commission may on second reading revisit the definition of “other subsequent practice” in draft
               conclusions 2 [1], para. 4, and 4, para. 3, in order to clarify whether the practice of an international
               organization as such should be classified within this category which, so far, is limited to the practice
               of parties; see Report of the International Law Commission on its sixty-fifth session, Official Records
               of the General Assembly, Sixty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/68/10), chap. IV, pp. 11-12.
           958
               See Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
               Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136, at p. 149 (referring to General Assembly resolution
               1600 (XV) of 15 April 1961 (adopted by 60 votes to 16, with 23 abstentions, including the Soviet
               Union and other States of Eastern Europe) and resolution 1913 (XVIII) of 13 December 1963
               (adopted by 91 votes with 2 against (Spain and Portugal)).
           959
               The International Court of Justice used the expression “… purposes and functions as specified or
               implied in its constituent documents and developed in practice”, Reparations for injuries suffered in
               the service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 174, at p. 180.
           960
               See para. (15) of the commentary to draft conclusion 1 and footnote 429 above; see also, in particular,
               Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Preliminary Objections, Judgment,
               I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 275, at pp. 306-307, para. 67.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                 225
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 136 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 137 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            (34) The possible relevance of an international organization’s “own practice” can thus be
            derived from articles 31, paragraph 1, and 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention. Those rules
            permit, in particular, taking into account practice of an organization itself, including by one
            or more of its organs, as being relevant for the determination of the object and purpose of
            the treaty, including the function of the international organization concerned, under article
            31, paragraph 1.961
            (35) Thus, article 5 of the 1969 Vienna Convention allows for the application of the rules
            of interpretation in articles 31 and 32 in a way that takes account of the practice of an
            international organization, in the interpretation of its constituent instrument, including
            taking into account its institutional character.962 Such elements may thereby also contribute
            to identifying whether, and if so how, the meaning of a provision of a constituent
            instrument of an international organization is capable of evolving over time. 963
            (36) Paragraph 3, like paragraph 2, refers to the practice of an international organization
            as a whole, rather than to the practice of an organ of an international organization. The
            practice of an international organization in question can arise from the conduct of an organ,
            but can also be generated by the conduct of two or more organs. 964 It is understood that the
            practice of an international organization can only be relevant for the interpretation of its
            constituent instrument if that organization is competent, since it is a general requirement
            that international organizations do not act ultra vires.965
            (37) Paragraph 3 of draft conclusion 12 [11] builds on draft conclusion 5, which
            addresses “subsequent practice” by parties to a treaty in the application of that treaty, as
            defined in draft conclusion 4. Draft conclusion 5 does not imply that the practice of an
        961
            See South-West Africa—Voting Procedure, Advisory Opinion of June 7th, 1955, I.C.J. Reports 1955,
            p. 67, Separate Opinion of Judge Lauterpacht, at p. 106 (“… [a] proper interpretation of a
            constitutional instrument must take into account not only the formal letter of the original instrument,
            but also its operation in actual practice and in the light of the revealed tendencies in the life of the
            Organization”).
        962
            Commentators are debating whether the specific institutional character of certain international
            organizations, in combination with the principles and values that are enshrined in their constituent
            instruments could also yield a “constitutional” interpretation of such instruments that receives
            inspiration from national constitutional law, see, for example, J.E. Alvarez, “Constitutional
            interpretation in international organizations”, in The Legitimacy of International Organizations J.-M.
            Coicaud and V. Heiskanen, eds. (Tokyo, United Nations University Press, 2001), pp. 104-154;. A.
            Peters, “L’acte constitutif de l’organisation internationale”, in E. Lagrange and J.-M. Sorel, eds.,
            Droit des organisations internationales (Paris, LGDJ, 2013), pp. 216-218; M. Wood,
            “‘Constitutionalization’ of International Law: A Sceptical Voice”, in International Law and Power:
            Perspectives on Legal Order and Justice. Essays in Honour of Colin Warbrick, K.H. Kaikobad and
            M. Bohlinder, eds. (Leiden/Boston, Brill/Nijhoff, 2009), pp. 85-97.
        963
            Legal consequences for States of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West
            Africa) notwithstanding Security Council resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports
            1971, pp. 31-32, para. 53; see also draft conclusion 8 [3] and commentary thereto, paras. (24)-(30);
            Dörr, “Article 31 …” (see footnote 439 above), p. 537, para. 31; Schmalenbach, “Art. 5” (footnote
            901 above), p. 92, para. 7.
        964
            See Dörr (footnote 439 above), para. 21.
        965
            Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion,
            I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 151, at p. 168 (“[b]ut when the Organization takes action which warrants the
            assertion that it was appropriate for the fulfilment of one of the stated purposes of the United Nations,
            the presumption is that such action is not ultra vires the Organization”).
226                                                                                                                   GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 137 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 138 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                             A/71/10
               international organization, as such, in the application of its constituent instrument cannot be
               relevant practice under articles 31 and 32.966
               Paragraph 4 — without prejudice to the “rules of the organization”
               (38) Paragraph 4 of draft conclusion 12 [11] reflects article 5 of the Vienna Convention
               and its formulation borrows from that article. The paragraph applies to the situations
               covered under paragraphs 1 to 3 and ensures that the rules referred to therein are applicable,
               interpreted and applied “without prejudice to any relevant rules of the organization”. The
               term “rules of the organization” is to be understood in the same way as in article 2,
               paragraph 1 (j), of the 1986 Vienna Convention, as well as in article 2 (b) of the articles on
               responsibility of international organizations of 2011.
               (39) The Commission has stated in its general commentary to the 2011 draft articles on
               the responsibility of international organizations:
                        “There are very significant differences among international organizations with
                        regard to their powers and functions, size of membership, relations between the
                        organization and its members, procedures for deliberation, structure and facilities, as
                        well as the primary rules including treaty obligations by which they are bound.”967
               (40) Paragraph 4 implies, inter alia, that more specific “relevant rules” of interpretation
               that may be contained in a constituent instrument of an international organization may take
               precedence over the general rules of interpretation under the 1969 Vienna Convention.968 If,
               for example, the constituent instrument contains a clause according to which the
               interpretation of the instrument is subject to a special procedure, it is to be presumed that
               the parties, by reaching an agreement after the conclusion of the treaty, do not wish to
               circumvent such a procedure by reaching a subsequent agreement under article 31,
               paragraph 3 (a). The special procedure under the treaty and a subsequent agreement under
               article 31, paragraph 3 (a), may, however, be compatible if they “serve different functions
               and have different legal effects”.969 Few constituent instruments contain explicit procedural
               or substantive rules regarding their interpretation. 970 Specific “relevant rules” of
               interpretation need not be formulated explicitly in the constituent instrument; they may also
               be implied therein, or derive from the “established practice of the organization”.971 The
           966
               See above commentary to draft conclusion 5, para. (14). The Commission may, however, eventually
               revisit the formulation of draft conclusion 5 in the light of draft conclusion 12 [11] in order to clarify
               their relationship. See also footnote 957 above.
           967
               Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, general commentary, para. (7)
               (report of the International Law Commission on its sixty-third session, Official Records of the
               General Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10), chap. V, p. 70, para. 88).
           968
               See, for example, Klabbers, An Introduction to Institutional Law (footnote 953 above), p. 88;
               Schmalenbach, “Art. 5” (footnote 901 above), p. 89, para. 1, and p. 96, para. 15; Brölmann,
               “Specialized rules of treaty interpretation …” (footnote 955 above), p. 522; Dörr, “Article 31 …” (see
               footnote 439 above), p. 538, para. 32.
           969
               WTO Appellate Body Report, United States — Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove
               Cigarettes, WT/DS406/AB/R, adopted 24 April 2012, paras. 252-257.
           970
               Most so-called interpretation clauses determine which organ is competent authoritatively to interpret
               the treaty, or certain of its provisions, but do not formulate specific rules “on” interpretation itself, see
               C. Fernández de Casadevante y Romani, Sovereignty and Interpretation of International Norms
               (Berlin/Heidelberg, Springer, 2007), pp. 26-27; Dörr, “Article 31 …” (see footnote 439 above), p.
               537, para. 32.
           971
               See 1986 Vienna Convention, art. 2 (j); and the International Law Commission’s draft articles on the
               responsibility of international organizations, art. 2 (b), report of the International Law Commission on
               its sixty-third session, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                                      227
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 138 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 139 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            “established practice of the organisation” is a term that is narrower in scope than the term
            “practice of the organization” as such.
            (41) The Commission has noted in its commentary to article 2 (j) of the 1986 Vienna
            Convention that the significance of a particular practice of an organization may depend on
            the specific rules and characteristics of the respective organization, as expressed in its
            constituent instrument:
                     “It is true that most international organizations have, after a number of years, a body
                     of practice which forms an integral part of their rules. However, the reference in
                     question is in no way intended to suggest that practice has the same standing in all
                     organizations; on the contrary, each organization has its own characteristics in that
                     respect.”972
            (42) In this sense, the “established practice of the organization” may also be a means for
            the interpretation of constituent instruments of international organizations. Article 2,
            paragraph 1 (j), of the 1986 Vienna Convention and article 2 (b) of the draft articles on the
            responsibility of international organizations973 recognize the “established practice of the
            organization” as a “rule of the organization”. Such practice may produce different legal
            effects in different organizations and it is not always clear whether those effects should be
            explained primarily in terms of traditional sources of international law (treaty or custom) or
            of institutional law.974 But even if it is difficult to make general statements, the “established
            practice of the organization” usually encompasses a specific form of practice,975 one which
            has generally been accepted by the members of the organization, albeit sometimes tacitly. 976
                     Conclusion 13 [12]
                     Pronouncements of expert treaty bodies
                     1.       For the purposes of these draft conclusions, an expert treaty body is a body
                     consisting of experts serving in their personal capacity, which is established under a
                     treaty and is not an organ of an international organization.
            10 (A/66/10), chap. V, sect. E, para. 87; C. Peters, “Subsequent practice and established practice of
            international organizations”, Göttingen Journal of International Law, vol. 3 (2011), pp. 617-642.
        972
            Yearbook … 1982, vol. II (Part Two), chap. II, p. 21, commentary to draft article 2, para. 1 (j), para.
            (25).
        973
            Report of the International Law Commission on its sixty-third session, Official Records of the
            General Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10), chap. V, p. 52.
        974
            See Higgins, “The Development of international law …” (footnote 927 above), at p. 121 (“… aspects
            of treaty interpretation and customary practice in this field merge very closely”); Peters, “Subsequent
            practice …” (footnote 971 above), at pp. 630-631 (“… should be considered a kind of customary
            international law of the organization”); it is not persuasive to limit the “established practice of the
            organization” to so-called internal rules since, according to the Commission, “there would have been
            problems in referring to the ‘internal’ law of an organization, for while it has an internal aspect, this
            law also has in other respects an international aspect”, Yearbook … 1982, vol. II (Part Two), chap. II,
            p. 21, commentary to draft article 2, para. 1 (j), para. (25); Schermers and Blokker, International
            Institutional Law (see footnote 933 above), at p. 766; but see C. Ahlborn, “The rules of international
            organizations and the law of international responsibility”, International Organizations Law Review,
            vol. 8 (2011), pp. 397-482, at pp. 424-428.
        975
            Blokker, “Beyond ‘Dili’ …” (see footnote 954 above), p. 312.
        976
            Lauterpacht, “The development of the law of international organization …” (footnote 779 above), p.
            464 (“… consent of the general body of membership”); Higgins, “The Development of international
            law …” (footnote 927 above), p. 121 (“[t]he degree of length and acquiescence need here perhaps to
            be less marked than elsewhere, because the U.N. organs undoubtedly have initial authority to make
            such decisions [regarding their own jurisdiction and competence]”); Peters, “Subsequent practice and
            established practice …” (footnote 971 above), pp. 633-641.
228                                                                                                                   GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 139 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 140 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                  A/71/10
                       2.      The relevance of a pronouncement of an expert treaty body for the
                       interpretation of a treaty is subject to the applicable rules of the treaty.
                       3.      A pronouncement of an expert treaty body may give rise to, or refer to, a
                       subsequent agreement or subsequent practice by parties under article 31, paragraph
                       3, or other subsequent practice under article 32. Silence by a party shall not be
                       presumed to constitute subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b),
                       accepting an interpretation of a treaty as expressed in a pronouncement of an expert
                       treaty body.
                       4.      This draft conclusion is without prejudice to the contribution that a
                       pronouncement of an expert treaty body may otherwise make to the interpretation of
                       a treaty.
               Commentary
               Paragraph 1 — definition of the term “expert treaty body”
               (1)     Some treaties establish bodies, consisting of experts who serve in their personal
               capacity, which have the task of monitoring or contributing in other ways to the application
               of those treaties. Examples of such expert treaty bodies are the committees established
               under various human rights treaties at the universal level, 977 for example, the Committee on
               the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,978 the Human Rights Committee,979 the
               Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 980
               Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 981 the Committee on the Rights of the
               Child982 and the Committee against Torture.983 Other expert treaty bodies include the
               Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf under the United Nations Convention
               on the Law of the Sea, 984 the Compliance Committee under the Convention on Access to
               Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in
               Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention),985 and the International Narcotics Control
               Board under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. 986
           977
               See Nigel Rodley, “The role and impact of treaty bodies”, in The Oxford Handbook of
               International Human Rights Law, D. Shelton, ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013), pp.
               621-641, at pp. 622-623.
           978
               Arts. 8-14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
               Discrimination (New York, 7 March 1966), United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 660, No. 9464, p.
               195.
           979
               Arts. 28-45 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 19 December
               1966), ibid., vol. 999, No. 14668, p. 171.
           980
               Arts. 17-22 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
               (New York, 18 December 1979), ibid., vol. 1249, No. 20378, p. 13.
           981
               Arts. 34-39 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (New York, 13
               December 2006), ibid., vol. 2515, No. 44910, p. 3.
           982
               Arts. 43-45 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (New York, 20 November 1989), ibid., vol.
               1577, No. 27531, p. 3.
           983
               Arts. 17-24 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
               or Punishment (New York, 10 December 1984), ibid., vol. 1465, No. 24841, p. 85.
           984
               The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf was established under art. 76, para. 8, of
               the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and annex II to the Convention (Montego
               Bay, 10 December 1982), United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1833, No. 31363, p. 3.
           985
               The Compliance Committee under the Aarhus Convention was established under art. 15 of the
               Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to
               Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus, Denmark, 25 June 1998), ibid., vol. 2161, No. 37770,
GE.16-14345                                                                                                           229
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 140 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 141 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
            (2)      Paragraph 1 defines the term “expert treaty body” only “for the purposes of these
            draft conclusions”. The draft conclusion does not claim otherwise to pronounce on the
            status of such bodies and the possible legal effect of their acts for other purposes.
            (3)      The term “serving in their personal capacity” means that the members of an expert
            treaty body are free from governmental instructions when they act in that capacity. 987 Draft
            conclusion 13 [12] is not concerned with bodies that consist of State representatives. The
            output of a body that is composed of State representatives, and that is not an organ of an
            international organization, is a form of practice by those States that thereby act collectively
            within its framework.988
            (4)      Draft conclusion 13 [12] also does not apply in similar terms to bodies that are
            organs of an international organization.989 The output of a body that is an organ of an
            international organization is, in the first place, attributed to the organization. 990 The
            exclusion of bodies that are organs of international organizations from the scope of draft
            conclusion 13 [12] has been made for formal reasons, since the present draft conclusions
            are not focused on the relevance of the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention.
            This does not exclude that the substance of the present draft conclusion may apply, mutatis
            mutandis, to pronouncements of independent expert bodies that are organs of international
            organizations.
            (5)      The expression “established under a treaty” means that the establishment or a
            competence of a particular expert body is provided under a treaty. In most cases it is clear
            whether these conditions are satisfied, but there may also be borderline cases. The
            Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, for example, is a body that was
            established by a resolution of an international organization,991 but which was later given the
            competence to “consider” certain “communications” by the Optional Protocol to the
            p. 447, and decision I/7 on review of compliance, adopted at the first meeting of the parties in
            2002 (ECE/MP.PP/2/Add.8).
        986
            The International Narcotics Control Board was established under art. 5 of the Single Convention
            on Narcotic Drugs (New York, 30 March 1961), United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 520, No.
            7515, p. 151.
        987
            See, e.g., art. 28, para. 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; see also
            Christian Tomuschat, Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism, 3rd edition (Oxford, Oxford
            University Press, 2014), p. 219.
        988
            This is true, in particular, for decisions of Conferences of States Parties, see draft conclusion 12 [11].
        989
            The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations of the
            International Labour Organization (ILO) is an important example of an expert body that is an
            organ of an international organization. It was established in 1926 to examine government reports
            on ratified conventions. It is composed of 20 eminent jurists from different geographic regions,
            legal systems and cultures, who are appointed by the governing body of ILO for three-year terms,
            see www.ilo.org and information provided by ILO to the Commission, which is available on the
            International Law Commission website at http://legal.un.org/ilc/
            guide/1_11.shtml.
        990
            Art. 6, para. 1, of the articles on responsibility of international organizations, General Assembly
            resolution 66/100, annex, of 9 December 2011 (for the commentary thereto, see Official Records
            of the General Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10), chap. V, sect. E); the
            Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is an example of a body of experts serving in their
            personal capacity that is mandated by the Human Rights Council under its resolution 24/7 of 26
            September 2013, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-eighth Session, Supplement No.
            53 (A/68/53/Add.1). Being a subsidiary organ of the Council, it is not an expert treaty body under
            draft conclusion 13 [12], see www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/WGADIndex.aspx.
        991
            Economic and Social Council, resolution 1987/5 of 26 May 1987 (E/C.12/1989/4), para. 9.
230                                                                                                                    GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 141 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 142 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                    A/71/10
               International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 992 Such a body is an
               expert treaty body within the meaning of draft conclusion 13 [12] as a treaty provides for
               the exercise of certain competences by the Committee. Another borderline case is the
               Compliance Committee under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework
               Convention on Climate Change, the establishment of which — by a decision of the
               Conference of the Parties — is implicitly envisaged in article 18 of the Protocol.993
               Paragraph 2 — primacy of the rules of the treaty
               (6)      Treaties use various terms for designating the forms of action of expert treaty
               bodies, for example, “views”,994 “recommendations”,995 “comments”,996 “measures”997 and
               “consequences”.998 Draft conclusion 13 [12] employs, for the purpose of the present draft
               conclusion, the general term “pronouncements”.999 This term covers all relevant forms of
               action by expert treaty bodies. Other general terms that are in use for certain bodies include
               “jurisprudence”1000 and “output”.1001
           992
               Arts. 1-15 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
               Cultural Rights, annexed to General Assembly resolution 63/117 of 10 December 2008.
           993
               The Compliance Committee under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework
               Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto, 11 December 1997) (United Nations, Treaty Series, vol.
               2303, No. 30822, p. 162) was established under art. 18 of the Protocol and decision 24/CP.7 on
               procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance under the Kyoto Protocol, adopted by the
               Conference of the Parties at its seventh session (FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3).
           994
               See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 42, para. 7 (c); Optional Protocol to
               the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 5, para. 4; and Optional Protocol to
               the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 9, para. 1.
           995
               See International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, art. 9,
               para. 2; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, art. 21,
               para. 1; Convention on the Rights of the Child (New York, 29 November 1989) (United Nations,
               Treaty Series, vol. 1577, No. 27531, p. 3), art. 45 (d); International Convention for the Protection
               of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (New York, 20 December 2006) (ibid., vol. 2716,
               No. 48088, p. 3), art. 33, para. 5; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego
               Bay, 10 December 1982) (ibid., vol. 1833, No. 31363, p. 3), art. 76, para. 8.
           996
               See Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
               Punishment, art. 19, para. 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 40,
               para. 4; International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers
               and Members of Their Families (New York, 18 December 1990) (United Nations, Treaty
               Series, vol. 2220, No. 39481, p. 3), art. 74.
           997
               Decision I/7 on review of compliance (see footnote 985 above), sect. XI, para. 36, and sect. XII,
               para. 37; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, art. 14.
           998
               Decision 24/CP.7 on procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance under the Kyoto Protocol
               (see footnote 993 above), annex, sect. XV.
           999
               See Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventieth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/70/10),
               chap. III, para. 26 (b); see also the “Final report on the impact of findings of the United Nations
               human rights treaty bodies”, International Law Association, Report of the Seventy-first
               Conference (see footnote 540 above) p. 5, para. 15; European Commission for Democracy
               through Law (Venice Commission), “Report on the implementation of international human rights
               treaties in domestic law and the role of courts” (CDL-AD(2014)036), adopted by the Venice
               Commission at its 100th plenary session (Rome, 10-11 October 2014), p. 31, para. 78.
          1000
               See Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits,
               Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 639, at pp. 663-664, para. 66; Rodley, “The role and impact of
               treaty bodies” (footnote 977 above), p. 640; Case Law of the Aarhus Convention Compliance
               Committee (2004-2011), 2nd edition, A. Andrusevych, T. Alge and C. Konrad, eds. (Lviv,
               Resource and Analysis Center “Society and Environment”, 2011); “Compilation of findings of the
               Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee adopted 18 February 2005 to date”, available from
GE.16-14345                                                                                                             231
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 142 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 143 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
             (7)      Paragraph 2 serves to emphasize that any possible legal effect of a pronouncement
             by an expert treaty body depends, first and foremost, on the specific rules of the applicable
             treaty itself. Such possible legal effects may therefore be very different. They must be
             determined by way of applying the rules on treaty interpretation set forth in the Vienna
             Convention. The ordinary meaning of the term by which a treaty designates a particular
             form of pronouncement, or its context, usually gives a clear indication that such
             pronouncements are not legally binding.1002 This is true, for example, for the terms “views”
             (article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
             Political Rights), “suggestions and recommendations” (article 14, paragraph 8, of the
             International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) and
             “recommendations” (article 76, paragraph 8, of the United Nations Convention on the Law
             of the Sea).
             (8)      It is not necessary, for present purposes, to describe the competences of different
             expert treaty bodies in detail. Pronouncements of expert treaty bodies under human rights
             treaties, for example, are usually either adopted in reaction to State reports (for example,
             “concluding observations”), or in response to individual communications (for example,
             “views”), or regarding the implementation or interpretation of the respective treaties
             generally (for example, “general comments”).1003 Whereas such pronouncements are
             governed by different specific provisions of the treaty that primarily determine their legal
             effect, they often, explicitly or implicitly, interpret the treaty in a way that raises some
             general issues that draft conclusion 13 [12] seeks to address. 1004
             www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/Compilation_of_CC_findings.pdf (accessed
             8 July 2016).
        1001
             R. Van Alebeek and A. Nollkaemper, “The legal status of decisions by human rights treaty bodies
             in national law”, in UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Law and Legitimacy, H. Keller and L.
             Grover, eds. (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 356-413, at p.
             402; Rodley, “The role and impact of treaty bodies” (see footnote 977 above), p. 639; K. Mechlem,
             “Treaty bodies and the interpretation of human rights“, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law,
             vol. 42 (2009), pp. 905-947, at p. 908.
        1002
             This is generally accepted in the literature, see International Law Association, Report of the
             Seventy-first Conference (footnote 540 above), p. 5, para. 18; Rodley, “The role and impact of
             treaty bodies” (see footnote 977 above), p. 639; Tomuschat, Human Rights … (footnote 987
             above), pp. 233 and 267; D. Shelton, “The legal status of normative pronouncements of human
             rights treaty bodies” in Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity, Liber Amicorum Rüdiger
             Wolfrum, vol. I, H.P. Hestermeyer and others, eds. (Leiden; Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,
             2012), pp. 553-575, at p. 559; H. Keller and L. Grover, “General comments of the Human Rights
             Committee and their legitimacy”, in Keller and Grover, UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies … (see
             footnote 1001 above), pp. 116-198, at p. 129; Venice Commission, “Report on the implementation
             of international human rights treaties … (footnote 999 above), p. 30, para. 76; for the term
             “determine” in art. 18 of the Kyoto Protocol and decision 24/CP.7, see G. Ulfstein and J.
             Werksmann, “The Kyoto compliance system: towards hard enforcement”, in Implementing the
             Climate Regime: International Compliance, O.S. Stokke, J. Hovi and G. Ulfstein, eds. (London,
             Fridtjof Nansen Institut, 2005), pp. 39-62, at pp. 55-56.
        1003
             W. Kälin, “Examination of state reports”, in Keller and Grover, UN Human Rights Treaty
             Bodies … (see footnote 1001 above), pp. 16-72; G. Ulfstein, “Individual complaints”, ibid., pp.
             73-115; Mechlem, “Treaty bodies … (see footnote 1001 above), pp. 922-930; the legal basis for
             general comments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is art. 40, para.
             4, but this practice has been generally accepted also with regard to other expert bodies under
             human rights treaties, see Keller and Grover, “General comments …” (footnote 1002 above), pp.
             127-128.
        1004
             For example, Rodley, “The role and impact of treaty bodies” (see footnote 977 above), p. 639;
             Shelton, “The legal status of normative pronouncements …” (see footnote 1002 above), pp. 574-
232                                                                                                            GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 143 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 144 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                     A/71/10
               Paragraph 3, first sentence — “may give rise to, or refer to, a subsequent agreement or a
               subsequent practice”
               (9)     A pronouncement of an expert treaty body cannot as such constitute subsequent
               practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b), since this provision requires a subsequent
               practice of the parties that establishes their agreement regarding the interpretation of the
               treaty. This has been confirmed, for example, by the reaction to a draft proposition of the
               Human Rights Committee according to which its own “general body of jurisprudence”, or
               the acquiescence by States to that jurisprudence, would constitute subsequent practice
               under article 31, paragraph 3 (b). The proposition of the Human Rights Committee was:
                       “In relation to the general body of jurisprudence generated by the Committee, it may
                       be considered that it constitutes ‘subsequent practice in the application of the treaty
                       which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation’ within the
                       sense of article 31(3)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, or,
                       alternatively, the acquiescence of States parties in those determinations constitutes
                       such practice.”1005
               (10) When this proposition was criticized by some States, 1006 the Committee did not
               pursue its proposal and adopted its general comment No. 33 without a reference to article
               31, paragraph 3 (b).1007 This confirms that pronouncements of expert treaty bodies cannot as
               such constitute subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3 (b).
               (11) Pronouncements of expert treaty bodies may, however, give rise to, or refer to, a
               subsequent agreement or a subsequent practice by the parties which establish their
               agreement regarding the interpretation of the treaty under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) or (b).
               This possibility has been recognized by States,1008 by the Commission1009 and also by the
               International Law Association1010 and by a significant number of authors. 1011 There is
               indeed no reason why a subsequent agreement between the parties or subsequent practice
               575; A. Boyle and C. Chinkin, The Making of International Law (Oxford, Oxford University
               Press, 2007), p. 155.
          1005
               Draft general comment No. 33 (The obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to
               the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) (Second revised version as of 18 August
               2008) (CCPR/C/GC/33/CRP.3), 25 August 2008, at para. 17; this position has also been put
               forward by several authors, see Keller and Grover, “General comments …” (footnote 1002 above),
               pp. 130-132 with further references.
          1006
               See, for example, the “Comments of the United States of America on the Human Rights
               Committee’s ‘Draft general comment 33: The Obligations of States Parties under the
               Optional Protocol to the International Covenant Civil and Political Rights’”, 17 October
               2008, para. 17. Available from www.state.gov/documents/organization/138851.pdf
               (accessed 8 July 2016).
          1007
               Report of the Human Rights Committee, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-
               fourth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/64/40), vol. I, annex V.
          1008
               See, for example, Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventieth Session, Sixth Committee,
               Summary Record of the 22nd meeting (A/C.6/70/SR.22), 6 November 2015, para. 46 (United
               States: “… States Parties’ reactions to the pronouncements or activities of a treaty body might, in
               some circumstances, constitute subsequent practice (of those States) for the purposes of art. 31,
               paragraph 3”).
          1009
               See para. (11) of the commentary to draft conclusion 3 [2].
          1010
               See International Law Association, Report of the Seventy-first Conference (footnote 540 above), p. 6,
               para. 21.
          1011
               See, for example, Mechlem, “Treaty bodies … (footnote 1001 above), pp. 920-921; B. Schlütter,
               “Aspects of human rights interpretation by the UN treaty bodies”, in Keller and Grover, UN Human
               Rights Treaty Bodies … (footnote 1001 above), pp. 289-290; Ulfstein and Werksmann, “The Kyoto
               compliance system …” (footnote 1002 above), p. 96.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                              233
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 144 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 145 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
             that establishes the agreement of the parties themselves regarding the interpretation of a
             treaty could not arise from, or be referred to by, a pronouncement of an expert treaty body.
             (12) Whereas a pronouncement of an expert treaty body can, in principle, give rise to a
             subsequent agreement or a subsequent practice by the parties themselves under article 31,
             paragraph 3 (a) and (b), this result is not easily achieved in practice. Most treaties that
             establish expert treaty bodies at the universal level have many parties. It will often be
             difficult to establish that all parties have accepted, explicitly or implicitly, that a particular
             pronouncement of an expert treaty body expresses a particular interpretation of the treaty.
             (13) One possible way of identifying an agreement of the parties regarding the
             interpretation of a treaty that is reflected in a pronouncement of an expert treaty body is to
             look at resolutions of organs of international organizations as well as of Conferences of
             States Parties. General Assembly resolutions may, in particular, explicitly or implicitly
             refer to pronouncements of expert treaty bodies. This is true, for example, for two
             resolutions of the General Assembly on the “protection of human rights and fundamental
             freedoms while countering terrorism”,1012 which expressly refer to general comment No. 29
             (2001) of the Human Rights Committee on derogations from provisions of the Covenant
             during a state of emergency.1013 Both resolutions reaffirm the obligation of States to respect
             certain rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as non-
             derogable in any circumstances and underline the “exceptional and temporary nature” of
             derogations by way of using the terms used in general comment No. 29 when interpreting
             and thereby specifying the obligation of States under article 4 of the Covenant. 1014 These
             resolutions were adopted without a vote by the General Assembly, and hence would reflect
             a subsequent agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) or (b), if the consensus constituted
             the acceptance by all the parties of the interpretation that is contained in the
             pronouncement.1015
             (14) The pronouncement of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in
             its general comment No. 15 (2002), according to which articles 11 and 12 of that Covenant
             imply a human right to water,1016 offers another illustration of the way in which an
             agreement of the parties may come about. After a debate over a number of years, the
             General Assembly on 17 December 2015 adopted a resolution, without a vote, that defines
             the human right to safe drinking water by using the language that the Committee employed
             in its general comment No. 15 in order to interpret the right. 1017 That resolution may refer to
             an agreement under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) or (b), depending on whether the consensus
        1012
             General Assembly resolutions 65/221 of 21 December 2010, para. 5, footnote 8, and 68/178 of 18
             December 2013, para. 5, footnote 8.
        1013
             Report of the Human Rights Committee, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth
             Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/56/40), vol. I, Annex VI.
        1014
             Ibid., para. 2.
        1015
             See draft conclusion 11 [10], para. 3, and the commentary thereto.
        1016
             Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 15 (2002), Official
             Records of the Economic and Social Council 2003, Supplement No. 2 (E/2003/22-E/C.12/2002/13),
             annex IV, para. 2. (“The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable,
             physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses”).
        1017
             General Assembly resolution 70/169 of 17 December 2015 recalls general comment No. 15 of the
             Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the right to water (see footnote 1016
             above) and uses the same language: “Recognizes that the human right to safe drinking water entitles
             everyone, without discrimination, to have access to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible
             and affordable water for personal and domestic use” (para. 2).
234                                                                                                                  GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 145 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 146 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                     A/71/10
               constituted the acceptance by all parties of the interpretation that is contained in the
               pronouncement.1018
               (15) Other General Assembly resolutions explicitly refer to pronouncements of expert
               treaty bodies1019 or call upon States to take into account the recommendations, observations
               and general comments of relevant treaty bodies to the topic on the implementation of the
               related treaties.1020 Resolutions of Conferences of States Parties may do the same, as with
               regard to recommendations of the Compliance Committee under the Aarhus Convention. 1021
               Such resolutions should, however, be approached with caution before reaching any
               conclusion as to whether they imply a subsequent agreement or subsequent practice of the
               parties under article 31, paragraph 3 (a) or (b).
               (16) Even if a pronouncement of an expert treaty body does not give rise to, or refer to, a
               subsequent agreement or a subsequent practice that establishes the agreement of all parties
               to a treaty, it may be relevant for the identification of other subsequent practice under
               article 32 that does not establish such agreement. There are, for example, resolutions of the
               Human Rights Council that refer to general comments of the Human Rights Committee or
               of the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. 1022 Even if the membership of
               the Council is limited, such resolutions may be relevant for the interpretation of a treaty as
               expressing other subsequent practice under article 32. Another example concerns the
               International Narcotics Control Board.1023 A number of States have engaged in subsequent
               practice under article 32 by disagreeing with the proposals of the Board regarding the
               establishment of so-called safe injection rooms and other harm reduction measures, 1024
          1018
               See draft conclusion 11 [10], para. 3, and the commentary thereto, paras. (31)-(38); in the case of
               resolution 70/169 on the right to water (see footnote 1017 above) “… the United States dissociated
               itself from the consensus on paragraph 2 on the grounds that the language used to define the right to
               water and sanitation was based on the views of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
               Rights and the Special Rapporteur only and did not appear in any international agreement or reflect
               any international consensus” (see Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventieth Session, Third
               Committee, 55th meeting (A/C.3/70/SR.55), 24 November 2015, para. 144). It is not entirely clear
               whether the United States thereby wished to merely restate its position that the resolution did not
               recognize a particular effect of the pronouncement of the Committee, as such, or whether it disagreed
               with the definition in substance.
          1019
               See General Assembly resolution 69/166 of 18 December 2014, adopted without a vote, recalling
               general comment No. 16 of the Human Rights Committee on the right to respect of privacy, family,
               home and correspondence, and protection of honour and reputation (Official Records of the
               General Assembly, Forty-third Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/43/40), annex VI).
          1020
               See General Assembly resolution 69/157 of 18 December 2014, adopted without a vote; and
               resolution 68/147 of 18 December 2013, adopted without a vote.
          1021
               Decision I/7 on review of compliance (see footnote 985 above), annex, sects. III and XII, para. 37;
               V. Koester, “The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making
               and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention)”, in Making Treaties Work,
               Human Rights, Environment and Arms Control, G. Ulfstein and others, eds. (Cambridge, United
               Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 179-217, at p. 203.
          1022
               See Human Rights Council resolutions 28/16 of 26 March 2015 and 28/19 of 27 March 2015, adopted
               without a vote (report of the Human Rights Council, Official Records of the General Assembly,
               Seventieth Session, Supplement No. 53 (A/70/53)).
          1023
               See footnote 986 above.
          1024
               See Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2009 (E/INCB/2009/1, United
               Nations Publication, Sales No. E.10.XI.1), para. 278; see also J. Csete and D. Wolfe, “Closed to
               reason: the International Narcotics Control Board and HIV/AIDS” (Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal
               Network/International Harm Reduction Development of the Open Society Institute, 2007), pp. 12-18.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                              235
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 146 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 147 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
             criticizing the Board for following too rigid an interpretation of the drug conventions and as
             acting beyond its mandate.1025
             (17) Paragraph 3, first sentence, circumscribes the ways in which a pronouncement by an
             expert treaty body may be relevant for subsequent agreements and subsequent practice of
             parties to a treaty by using the terms “may give rise to” and “or refer to”. The expression
             “may give rise to” addresses situations in which a pronouncement comes first and the
             practice and the possible agreement of the parties occur thereafter. In this situation, the
             pronouncement may serve as a catalyst for the subsequent practice of States parties. The
             term “refer to”, on the other hand, covers situations in which the subsequent practice and a
             possible agreement of the parties have developed before the pronouncement, and where the
             pronouncement is only an indication of such an agreement or practice. Paragraph 3 uses the
             term “refer to” rather than “reflect” in order to make clear that any subsequent practice or
             agreement of the parties is not comprised in the pronouncement itself. This term does not,
             however, require that the pronouncement refer to such subsequent practice or agreement
             explicitly.1026
             Paragraph 3, second sentence — presumption against silence as constituting acceptance
             (18) An agreement of all the parties to a treaty, or even only a large part of them,
             regarding the interpretation that is articulated in a pronouncement is often only conceivable
             if the absence of objections could be taken as agreement by State parties that have remained
             silent. Draft conclusion 10 [9], paragraph 2, provides, as a general rule: “Silence on the part
             of one or more parties can constitute acceptance of the subsequent practice when the
             circumstances call for some reaction.”1027 Paragraph 3, second sentence, does not purport to
             recognize an exception to this general rule, but rather intends to specify and apply this rule
             to the typical cases of pronouncements of expert bodies.
             (19) This means, in particular, that it cannot usually be expected that States parties take a
             position with respect to every pronouncement by an expert treaty body, be it addressed to
             another State or to all States generally. 1028 On the other hand, State parties may have an
             obligation, under a duty to cooperate under certain treaties, to take into account and to react
        1025
             D. Barrett, Unique in International Relations? A Comparison of the International Narcotics Control
             Board and the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies (London, International Harm Reduction Association,
             2008), p. 8.
        1026
             Expert treaty bodies under human rights treaties have rarely attempted to specifically identify the
             practice of the parties for the purpose of interpreting a particular treaty provision, see examples in G.
             Nolte, “Jurisprudence under special regimes relating to subsequent agreements and subsequent
             practice: second report for the ILC Study Group on treaties over time”, in Treaties and Subsequent
             Practice, G. Nolte, ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 210-278; Schlütter, “Aspects of
             human rights interpretation …” (see footnote 1011 above), p. 318.
        1027
             See draft conclusion 10 [9], para. 2.
        1028
             See Ulfstein and Werksmann, “The Kyoto compliance system …” (footnote 1002 above), p. 97;
             Van Alebeek and Nollkaemper, “The legal status of decisions by human rights treaty bodies …”
             (footnote 1001 above), p. 410.
236                                                                                                                    GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 147 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 148 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                     A/71/10
               to a pronouncement of an expert treaty body that is specifically addressed to them, 1029 or to
               individual communications regarding their own conduct. 1030
               Paragraph 4 — without prejudice to other contribution
               (20) Apart from possibly giving rise to, or referring to, subsequent agreements or
               subsequent practice of the parties themselves under articles 31, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), and
               32, pronouncements by expert treaty bodies may also otherwise contribute to, and thus be
               relevant for, the interpretation of a treaty. Paragraph 4 addresses this possibility by way of a
               without prejudice clause. The term “otherwise” is, however, not used because the
               Commission attaches less importance to contributions by expert treaty bodies to the
               interpretation of a treaty other than those that are described in paragraph 3.
               (21) The International Court of Justice has confirmed, in particular in the Ahmadou Sadio
               Diallo case, that pronouncements of the Human Rights Committee are relevant for the
               purpose of the interpreting of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
               irrespective of whether such pronouncements give rise to, or refer to, an agreement of the
               parties under article 31, paragraph 3:
                       “Since it was created, the Human Rights Committee has built up a considerable
                       body of interpretative case law, in particular through its findings in response to the
                       individual communications which may be submitted to it in respect of States parties
                       to the first Optional Protocol, and in the form of ‘General Comments’.
                       “Although the Court is in no way obliged, in the exercise of its judicial functions, to
                       model its own interpretation of the Covenant on that of the Committee, it believes
                       that it should ascribe great weight to the interpretation adopted by this independent
                       body that was established specifically to supervise the application of that treaty.”1031
               (22) Regional human rights courts have also used pronouncements of expert treaty bodies
               as an aid for the interpretation of treaties that they are called on to apply. 1032 Many domestic
          1029
               Such as a pronouncement regarding the permissibility of a reservation that it has formulated, see
               guideline 3.2.3 of the guide to practice on reservations to treaties, and para. (3) of the commentary
               thereto, adopted by the Commission in 2011, report of the International Law Commission,
               Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10
               (A/66/10/Add.1).
          1030
               C. Tomuschat, “Human Rights Committee”, in The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public
               International Law (www.mpepil.com), at para. 14 (“States parties cannot simply ignore them
               [individual communications], but have to consider them in good faith (bona fide) … not to react at
               all … would appear to amount to a violation …”).
          1031
               Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment,
               I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 639, at pp. 663-664, para. 66; see also Judgment No. 2867 of the
               Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a Complaint Filed
               against the International Fund for Agricultural Development, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports
               2012, p. 10, at p. 27, para. 39; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
               Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136, at pp. 179-181, paras. 109-110
               and 112, and at pp. 192-193, para. 136, in which the Court referred to various pronouncements of
               the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; see
               also Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal),
               Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 422, at p. 457, para. 101, referring to pronouncements of the
               Committee against Torture when determining the temporal scope of the Convention against
               Torture.
          1032
               The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba
               Campos and Others) v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs,
               Judgment of 28 August 2013, Series C No. 268, paras. 189 and 191; African Commission on
GE.16-14345                                                                                                              237
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 148 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 149 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
             courts consider that pronouncements of expert treaty bodies under human rights treaties,
             while not being legally binding on them as such, 1033 nevertheless “deserve to be given
             considerable weight in determining the meaning of a relevant right and the determination of
             a violation”.1034
             (23) The Commission itself, in its commentary to the Guide to Practice on Reservations
             to Treaties,1035 addressed the question of the relevance of pronouncements of expert treaty
             bodies under human rights treaties with respect to reservations. 1036
             (24) Court decisions have not always fully explained the relevance of pronouncements by
             expert treaty bodies for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty, be it in terms of the
             rules of interpretation under the Vienna Convention or otherwise. 1037 The Commission has
             considered the following alternatives (paragraphs (25) and (26) below).
             (25) Some members consider that pronouncements of expert treaty bodies are a form of
             practice that may contribute to the interpretation of a treaty, relying, inter alia, on the
             Human and Peoples’ Rights, Civil Liberties Organisation and others v. Nigeria,
             Communication No. 218/98, Decisions on communications brought before the African
             Commission, twenty-ninth ordinary session, Tripoli, May 2001 at para. 24 (“In interpreting
             and applying the Charter, the Commission … is also enjoined by the Charter and by
             international human rights standards, which include decisions and general comments by UN
             treaty bodies”); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Social and Economic
             Rights Action Centre and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria ,
             Communication No. 155/96, Decisions on communications brought before the African
             Commission, thirtieth ordinary session, Banjul, October 2001 at para. 63 (“draws inspiration
             from the definition of the term ‘forced evictions’ by the Committee on Economic Social and
             Cultural Rights in its General Comment No. 7”); Marguš v. Croatia [GC], No. 4455/10,
             ECHR 2014 (extracts), paras. 48-50; Baka v. Hungary, No. 20261/12, 27 May 2014, para.
             58; Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, No. 8139/09, ECHR 2012 (extracts),
             paras. 107-108, 147-151, 155 and 158; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], No. 22978/05, ECHR
             2010, paras. 68 and 70-72; see also International Law Association, Report of the Seventy-first
             Conference (footnote 540 above), pp. 29-38, paras. 116-155.
        1033
             See the decisions quoted in Venice Commission, “Report on the implementation of international
             human rights treaties …” (footnote 999 above), at para. 76, footnotes 172 and 173 (Ireland,
             Supreme Court, Kavanagh (Joseph) v. the Governor of Mountjoy Prison and the Attorney General
             [2002] IESC 13 (1 March 2002), para. 36; France, Council of State, Hauchemaille v. France, case
             No. 238849, 11 October 2001, ILDC 767 (FR 2001), para. 22).
        1034
             International Law Association, Report of the Seventy-first Conference (footnote 540 above),
             p. 43, para. 175; Germany, Federal Administrative Court, BVerwGE, vol. 134, p. 1, at p. 22, para.
             48.
        1035
             Report of the International Law Commission (2011), Official Records of the General Assembly,
             Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10/Add.1).
        1036
             “Of course, if such bodies have been vested with decision-making power the parties must respect their
             decisions, but this is currently not the case in practice except for some regional human rights courts.
             In contrast, the other monitoring bodies lack any juridical decision-making power, either in the area
             of reservations or in other areas in which they possess declaratory powers. Consequently, their
             conclusions are not legally binding, and States parties are obliged only to ‘take account’ of their
             assessments in good faith”(ibid., para. (3) of the commentary to guideline 3.2.3).
        1037
             International Law Association, Report of the Seventy-first Conference (see footnote 540
             above), p. 5, para. 17; Van Alebeek and Nollkaemper, “The legal status of decisions by human
             rights treaty bodies …” (footnote 1001 above), p. 401; one of the few judgments in which this was
             the case is High Court of Osaka, Judgment of 28 October 1994, 1513 Hanrei Jiho 71, 87, 38 (as
             quoted in the Report of the Seventy-first Conference of the International Law Association (see
             footnote 540 above), at para. 20, footnote 22), also available in Japanese Annual of
             International Law, vol. 38 (1995), pp. 109-150, at pp. 118-133; and Germany, Federal
             Administrative Court (see footnote 1034 above).
238                                                                                                                  GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 149 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 150 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                                   A/71/10
               Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
               Palestinian Territory, where the International Court of Justice referred to the “constant
               practice of the Human Rights Committee” in order to support its own interpretation of a
               provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1038 Those members
               consider that international and domestic courts mostly use pronouncements of expert treaty
               bodies in the discretionary way in which article 32 describes supplementary means of
               interpretation.1039 In addition, pronouncements of expert treaty bodies could, as practice
               under the treaty, also “contribute to the determination of the ordinary meaning of the terms
               in their context and in light of the object and purpose of the treaty”.1040 These members
               consider also that draft conclusion 12 [11], paragraph 3, could help to resolve the
               question,1041 as the practice of both an international organization in the application of its
               own instrument and a pronouncement of an expert treaty body have in common that, while
               they are both not practice of a party to the treaty, they are nevertheless conduct mandated
               by the treaty the purpose of which is to contribute to the treaty’s proper application.
               (26) Other members consider that pronouncements of expert treaty bodies are not, as
               such, a form of practice in the sense of the present topic. It was pointed out that draft
               conclusion 4, paragraph 3, provides that “other subsequent practice consists of conduct by
          1038
               Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory
               Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136, at p. 179, para. 109.
          1039
               The High Court of Osaka has explicitly stated: “One may consider that the ‘general comments’ and
               ‘views’… should be relied upon as supplementary means of interpretation of the ICCPR.” Osaka
               High Court, Judgment of 28 October 1994 (footnote 1037 above), as quoted in the Report of the
               Seventy-first Conference of the International Law Association (see footnote 540 above), at
               para. 85, footnote 178, also available in Japanese Annual of International Law, vol. 38 (1995),
               at pp. 129-130; see also, for example, Netherlands, Central Appeals Tribunal, Appellante v. de
               Raad van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank (available from
               http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:CRVB:2006:AY5560, accessed 11 July
               2016); United Kingdom, on the one hand, House of Lords, Jones v. Saudi Arabia, 14 June 2006
               [2006] UKHL 26 (“no value”) and, on the other hand, House of Lords, A. v. Secretary of State for
               the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71, paras. 34-36(relying on treaty body pronouncements to
               establish an exclusionary rule of evidence that prevents the use of information obtained by means
               of torture) and Court of Appeal, R. (on the application of Al-Skeini) v. Secretary of State for
               Defence, application for judicial review (2005) EWCA Civ 1609 (2006) HRLR 7, at para. 101
               (citing general comment No. 31 of the Human Rights Committee to establish the extraterritorial
               application of the Human Rights Act 1998); South Africa, on the one hand, High Court
               Witwatersrand, Residents of Bon Vista Mansions v. Southern Metropolitan Local Council, 2002
               (6) BCLR, p. 625, at p. 629 (“general comments have an authoritative status under international
               law”), as quoted at para. 11 the Report of the Seventy-first Conference of the International Law
               Association (footnote 540 above) and, on the other hand, Constitutional Court, Minister of
               Health and Others v. Treatment Action Campaign and Others (No 2) (CCT 8/02) [2002] ZACC
               15, paras. 26 and 37 (rejecting [application of] the “minimum-core standard” set out by the
               Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in general comment No. 3 (Official Records
               of the Economic and Social Council, 1991, Supplement No. 3 (E/1991/23-E/C.12/1990/8 and
               Corr.1), annex III, p. 83); Japan, Tokyo District Court, Judgment of 15 March 2001, 1784 Hanrei
               Jiho 67, at 74 (“the General Comment neither represents authoritative interpretation of the
               ICCPR nor binds the interpretation of the treaty in Japan”), as quoted at para. 87 of the
               Report of the Seventy-first Conference of the International Law Association (footnote 540
               above).
          1040
               See para. (15) of the commentary to draft conclusion 2 [1], footnote 429; see also draft conclusion
               12 [11], para. 3.
          1041
               See draft conclusion 12 [11], para. 3.
GE.16-14345                                                                                                            239
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 150 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 151 ======================================================================

<pre>A/71/10
             one or more parties in the application of the treaty, after its conclusion”,1042 and that the
             topic was therefore restricted to practice by the parties themselves. It was also suggested
             that pronouncements of expert treaty bodies could not simultaneously be a form of
             application of the treaty and perform a monitoring function. According to those members,
             the Diallo judgment of the International Court of Justice suggested that the mandate and the
             function of expert treaty bodies, like that of courts, was to supervise the application of the
             treaty, not to serve themselves as a means of interpretation.1043
             (27) Ultimately, the Commission decided to limit itself, for the time being, to
             formulating, in paragraph 4 of draft conclusion 13 [12], a without prejudice clause. The
             matter may be taken up again on second reading, in light of the views expressed by
             States.1044
        1042
             Pronouncements of expert bodies are indeed “in the application of the treaty” since such
             “application”, according to the Commission, “includes not only official acts at the international or at
             the internal level which serve to apply the treaty, including to respect or to ensure the fulfilment of
             treaty obligations, but also, inter alia, official statements regarding its interpretation” (see para. (18)
             of the commentary to draft conclusion 4).
        1043
             Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment,
             I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 639, at pp. 663-664, para. 66.
        1044
             In its commentary to draft conclusion 12 [11], paragraph 3, the Commission noted: “The Commission
             may … revisit the definition of ‘other subsequent practice’ in draft conclusions 2 [1], para. 4, and 4,
             para. 3, in order to clarify whether the practice of an international organization as such should be
             classified within this category which, so far, is limited to the practice of parties” (see footnote 957
             above).
240                                                                                                                      GE.16-14345
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 151 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 152 ======================================================================

<pre></pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 152 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 153 ======================================================================

<pre>Bijlage III
Leden van de Commissie van advies inzake volkenrechtelijke vraagstukken
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 153 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 154 ======================================================================

<pre></pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 154 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 155 ======================================================================

<pre>Leden van de Commissie van advies inzake volkenrechtelijke vraagstukken
Voorzitter
Prof. dr. R.A. Wessel
Vicevoorzitter
Prof. dr. L.J. van den Herik
Leden
Dr. C.M. Brölmann
Dr. G.R. den Dekker
Dr. mr. A.J.J. de Hoogh
Prof. dr. N.M.C.P. Jägers
Prof. dr. J.G. Lammers
Prof. dr. A.G. Oude Elferink
Mr. A.E. Rosenboom
Ambtelijk adviseur
Prof. mr. dr. R.J.M. Lefeber
Secretaris
Mr. drs. M.H. Broodman
Postbus 20061
2500 EB Den Haag
Telefoon: 070 348 6724
Fax: 070 348 5128
Website: www.cavv-advies.nl
De Commissie van advies inzake volkenrechtelijke vraagstukken is een onafhankelijk
adviesorgaan dat de regering en de Staten-Generaal adviseert over vraagstukken van
internationaal recht.
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 155 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 156 ======================================================================

<pre>Postbus 20061
2500 EB Den Haag
Telefoon: 070 348 6724
Fax: 070 348 5128
Website: www.cavv-advies.nl
De Commissie van advies inzake volkenrechtelijke vraagstukken is een onafhankelijk
adviesorgaan dat de regering en de Staten-Generaal adviseert over vraagstukken van
internationaal recht.
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 156 =================================================================

<br><br>