CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

SANDRA BROŽOVÁ CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ The attention of the doctrine was devoted to the topic of codification of treaty rules already at the beginning of the 20th century, due to its practical usefulness and the interest of States who strongly need and often use them. At the beginning of the 20th century, Lassa Oppenheim, the outstanding expert in international law doctrine, stated that neither customary nor conventional rules concerning methods of treaty interpretation existed at the time. 11 Nevertheless, this statement is followed by a comprehensive overview of methods suggested by the author for the practice of treaty interpretation. 12 The methods listed are in fact those well known to us from our present codification in the VCLT. To mention some of them: reasonable sense, good faith, the usual meaning of a term in the language of everyday life, notwithstanding the possibility of the parties to agree on a divergent meaning, a supplementary treaty (equivalent to subsequent agreement enshrined in Art. 31 (3) a) VCLT), consistence with generally recognized principles of international law, the purpose of the treaty as a whole, the motives which led to its conclusion, the conditions prevailing at the time, previous treaties (equivalent to any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties enshrined in Art. 31 (3) c) VCLT), l’effet utile (the stipulations are intended to have a certain effect and not to be meaningless). Despite the firm assertion in the first sentence of this paragraph, one may consider the similarity and resemblance of the recommended methods as another proof of their customary value, at least in the stage of emergence. On the other hand, a rule different from our codification was suggested by Oppenheim when it comes to treaties concluded in two or more languages and some discrepancies between the language versions. According to Oppenheim, the party is then bound by the text in its own language and cannot claim benefits stemming from another one. To conclude, we shall mention the fundamental idea expressed in the chapter devoted to interpretation (which is not very voluminous compared to other parts of the textbook): authentic interpretation by the treaty parties is based on mutual consent. In the 1920s, particularly in 1928 in its session in Havana, the Pan-American Union adopted the Convention on Treaties. 13 This Convention entered into force on August 29, 1929 and did not overreach the circle of the American region regarding its state parties. It is rather a short text, has about 20 Articles, and in its Article 3 the authentic interpretation is mentioned. The Convention emphasises written form as a necessary precondition for the treaty and also for ratification and other legal steps. Moreover, authentic interpretation should be also in writing in case the state parties find it appropriate. On the other hand, the failure to fulfil the obligation to publish the treaty does not cause any consequence for the validity of the treaty or the obligations enshrined therein. The issue of reservations to treaties which are perceived as an expression of national sovereignty is also included. On April 1, 1935, the Convention had only five state parties – Brazil, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua and Panama. 11 OPPENHEIM, Lassa, International Law – A Treatise, Vol. 1 – Peace , 3rd ed., edited by Ronald F. Roxburgh, Logmans, Green and Co., London, 1920, p. 700. 12 Ibid , p. 701-704. 13 Convention onTreaties adopted by the Sixth International Conference of American States , Havana, 20 February 1928, mentioned in the report by UN International Law Commission elaborated in 1950 by Special Rapporteur J. L. Brierly, UN Doc A/CN.4/23, [on-line] [accessed 9 January 2017] < http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/ english/a_cn4_23.pdf >.

142