分裂但和谐?维也纳条约法公约第31条第3款(c)项的解释和适用

IF 0.6 Q2 Social Sciences
Ivo Tarik de Vries-Zou
{"title":"分裂但和谐?维也纳条约法公约第31条第3款(c)项的解释和适用","authors":"Ivo Tarik de Vries-Zou","doi":"10.36633/ulr.528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In response to an anxiety about the multiplication of special regimes, international lawyers looked towards Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties to help sustain the unity of international law. Suppose though that the provision is as susceptible to fragmentation as any other rule; its interpretation and application may fall victim to the narrow interests of the regimes it is meant to harmonise with the rest of international law. This article thus analyses various judicial decisions to measure the extent to which fora have conflicted in ascertaining the normative content of Article 31(3)(c). Using strict and relaxed definitions of jurisprudential conflict, the article concludes that, in both cases, the interpretations and applications of the provision remain coherent, but with some key qualifications.","PeriodicalId":44535,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Law Review","volume":"16 1","pages":"86-100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Divided but harmonious? The interpretations and applications of article 31(3)(c) of the vienna convention on the law of treaties\",\"authors\":\"Ivo Tarik de Vries-Zou\",\"doi\":\"10.36633/ulr.528\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In response to an anxiety about the multiplication of special regimes, international lawyers looked towards Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties to help sustain the unity of international law. Suppose though that the provision is as susceptible to fragmentation as any other rule; its interpretation and application may fall victim to the narrow interests of the regimes it is meant to harmonise with the rest of international law. This article thus analyses various judicial decisions to measure the extent to which fora have conflicted in ascertaining the normative content of Article 31(3)(c). Using strict and relaxed definitions of jurisprudential conflict, the article concludes that, in both cases, the interpretations and applications of the provision remain coherent, but with some key qualifications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44535,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Utrecht Law Review\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"86-100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Utrecht Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.528\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utrecht Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.528","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于对特别制度的增加感到忧虑,国际律师期望《维也纳条约法公约》第31(3)(c)条有助于维持国际法的统一。尽管假设这一规定像任何其他规则一样容易被分割;它的解释和适用可能会成为某些政权狭隘利益的牺牲品,而它本应与国际法的其他部分相协调。因此,本文分析了各种司法判决,以衡量各法庭在确定第31条第3款(c)项的规范性内容方面的冲突程度。本文采用严格和宽松的法理冲突定义,得出的结论是,在这两种情况下,对该条款的解释和适用都是一致的,但有一些关键的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Divided but harmonious? The interpretations and applications of article 31(3)(c) of the vienna convention on the law of treaties
In response to an anxiety about the multiplication of special regimes, international lawyers looked towards Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties to help sustain the unity of international law. Suppose though that the provision is as susceptible to fragmentation as any other rule; its interpretation and application may fall victim to the narrow interests of the regimes it is meant to harmonise with the rest of international law. This article thus analyses various judicial decisions to measure the extent to which fora have conflicted in ascertaining the normative content of Article 31(3)(c). Using strict and relaxed definitions of jurisprudential conflict, the article concludes that, in both cases, the interpretations and applications of the provision remain coherent, but with some key qualifications.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
17 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