The Macro Level: The Structural Impact of General International Law on EU Law: The Court of Justice of the EU and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW
G. Beck
{"title":"The Macro Level: The Structural Impact of General International Law on EU Law: The Court of Justice of the EU and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties","authors":"G. Beck","doi":"10.1093/yel/yew018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Legal uncertainty is a universal feature of primary legal materials in all legal systems. The need for judicial interpretation arises from the fact of legal certainty in legal texts. In theory, judicial interpretation is a process which should be governed and constrained by legal methodology. The law must impose methodological constraint, because in the absence of methodological constraint the judicial process would be little more than arbitrary. The judicial process in national or domestic legal systems is governed by broad criteria and traditions specific to each system, although in practice there is considerable convergence as to the various approaches judges may apply. Formally Treaty Interpretation in international law is governed by the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.1 Unfortunately, however, just as legal uncertainty can never be wholly eliminated in primarily legal materials—whether in statutes or in treaties—there is no legal system where the accepted rules of interpretation and those governing their application are not likewise subject to legal uncertainty. Judicial discretion therefore is a fact of judicial life. The academic literature nonetheless distinguishes between courts whose interpretative approach is primarily text based and those which more liberally draw on other alternative criteria, especially teleological and policy criteria. Courts of the former type seek to minimize judicial discretion, typically ideal for cases where the text itself is ambiguous, whilst courts of the latter type expand judicial discretion beyond the sphere of textual uncertainty and seek to interpret legal instruments with reference both to the text and its underlying objects and purposes, which may be construed narrowly or more widely, and not","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"365 1","pages":"484-512"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yew018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Legal uncertainty is a universal feature of primary legal materials in all legal systems. The need for judicial interpretation arises from the fact of legal certainty in legal texts. In theory, judicial interpretation is a process which should be governed and constrained by legal methodology. The law must impose methodological constraint, because in the absence of methodological constraint the judicial process would be little more than arbitrary. The judicial process in national or domestic legal systems is governed by broad criteria and traditions specific to each system, although in practice there is considerable convergence as to the various approaches judges may apply. Formally Treaty Interpretation in international law is governed by the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.1 Unfortunately, however, just as legal uncertainty can never be wholly eliminated in primarily legal materials—whether in statutes or in treaties—there is no legal system where the accepted rules of interpretation and those governing their application are not likewise subject to legal uncertainty. Judicial discretion therefore is a fact of judicial life. The academic literature nonetheless distinguishes between courts whose interpretative approach is primarily text based and those which more liberally draw on other alternative criteria, especially teleological and policy criteria. Courts of the former type seek to minimize judicial discretion, typically ideal for cases where the text itself is ambiguous, whilst courts of the latter type expand judicial discretion beyond the sphere of textual uncertainty and seek to interpret legal instruments with reference both to the text and its underlying objects and purposes, which may be construed narrowly or more widely, and not
宏观层面:一般国际法对欧盟法的结构性影响:欧盟法院和维也纳条约法公约
法律不确定性是所有法律体系中主要法律材料的普遍特征。司法解释的必要性源于法律文本的法律确定性这一事实。从理论上讲,司法解释是一个应受法律方法论支配和约束的过程。法律必须施加方法上的约束,因为如果没有方法上的约束,司法程序就无异于武断。国家或国内法律制度的司法程序是由每个制度特有的广泛标准和传统所支配的,尽管实际上法官可能采用的各种方法有相当大的趋同。然而,不幸的是,正如在主要的法律材料中——无论是成文法还是条约——法律的不确定性永远不能完全消除一样,在任何法律体系中,公认的解释规则和规定其适用的规则都同样受制于法律的不确定性。因此,司法自由裁量权是司法生活中的一个事实。尽管如此,学术文献对法院进行了区分,法院的解释方法主要基于文本,而法院则更自由地利用其他替代标准,特别是目的论和政策标准。前一种类型的法院寻求将司法自由裁量权最小化,这通常是文本本身含糊不清的情况下的理想选择,而后一种类型的法院将司法自由裁量权扩展到文本不确定的范围之外,并寻求根据文本及其潜在的目标和目的来解释法律文书,这可能被狭义或更广泛地解释,而不是
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信