{"title":"作为契约的条约:文本主义、契约理论与条约的解释","authors":"Curtis J Mahoney","doi":"10.2307/20455741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the nation's treaty obligations proliferating and foreign affairs cases taking up a growing share of the Supreme Court's docket, it is surprising how undertheorized the field of treaty interpretation remains. To fill this void, some have suggested that textualism, which has had a major impact on statutory interpretation over the past two decades, should be applied to treaty interpretation. This Note rebuts that notion and suggests instead that courts draw from modern contract theory in developing canons of treaty interpretation. AUTHOR. Yale Law School, J.D. zoo6; Harvard College, A.B. 20oo. The author wishes to thank Professor William N. Eskridge, Jr., for introducing him to the field of statutory interpretation and for advising the research project that led to this Note. He also wishes to thank Professor Akhil Amar, Aaron Crowell, Justin Florence, Kate Wiltenburg Todrys, and Kimberly Gahan for their comments on earlier drafts. Finally, he wishes to thank Rebecca Iverson Mahoney for all of her love and support.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"101 1","pages":"824"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2007-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treaties as Contracts: Textualism, Contract Theory, and the Interpretation of Treaties\",\"authors\":\"Curtis J Mahoney\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/20455741\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With the nation's treaty obligations proliferating and foreign affairs cases taking up a growing share of the Supreme Court's docket, it is surprising how undertheorized the field of treaty interpretation remains. To fill this void, some have suggested that textualism, which has had a major impact on statutory interpretation over the past two decades, should be applied to treaty interpretation. This Note rebuts that notion and suggests instead that courts draw from modern contract theory in developing canons of treaty interpretation. AUTHOR. Yale Law School, J.D. zoo6; Harvard College, A.B. 20oo. The author wishes to thank Professor William N. Eskridge, Jr., for introducing him to the field of statutory interpretation and for advising the research project that led to this Note. He also wishes to thank Professor Akhil Amar, Aaron Crowell, Justin Florence, Kate Wiltenburg Todrys, and Kimberly Gahan for their comments on earlier drafts. Finally, he wishes to thank Rebecca Iverson Mahoney for all of her love and support.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yale Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"101 1\",\"pages\":\"824\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yale Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/20455741\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/20455741","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14
摘要
随着国家条约义务的激增,外交案件在最高法院的案宗中所占的份额越来越大,条约解释领域的理论化程度仍然如此之低,令人惊讶。为了填补这一空白,一些人建议将过去二十年来对法律解释产生重大影响的文本主义适用于条约解释。本说明反驳了这一观点,并建议法院在发展条约解释规范时借鉴现代契约理论。作者。耶鲁大学法学院法学博士;哈佛大学,2000年本科。作者谨感谢William N. Eskridge, Jr.教授将他介绍到法律解释领域,并对导致本说明的研究项目提出建议。他还要感谢Akhil Amar教授、Aaron Crowell教授、Justin Florence教授、Kate Wiltenburg Todrys教授和Kimberly Gahan教授对早期草稿的评论。最后,他要感谢丽贝卡·艾弗森·马奥尼的爱和支持。
Treaties as Contracts: Textualism, Contract Theory, and the Interpretation of Treaties
With the nation's treaty obligations proliferating and foreign affairs cases taking up a growing share of the Supreme Court's docket, it is surprising how undertheorized the field of treaty interpretation remains. To fill this void, some have suggested that textualism, which has had a major impact on statutory interpretation over the past two decades, should be applied to treaty interpretation. This Note rebuts that notion and suggests instead that courts draw from modern contract theory in developing canons of treaty interpretation. AUTHOR. Yale Law School, J.D. zoo6; Harvard College, A.B. 20oo. The author wishes to thank Professor William N. Eskridge, Jr., for introducing him to the field of statutory interpretation and for advising the research project that led to this Note. He also wishes to thank Professor Akhil Amar, Aaron Crowell, Justin Florence, Kate Wiltenburg Todrys, and Kimberly Gahan for their comments on earlier drafts. Finally, he wishes to thank Rebecca Iverson Mahoney for all of her love and support.
期刊介绍:
The Yale Law Journal Online is the online companion to The Yale Law Journal. It replaces The Pocket Part, which was the first such companion to be published by a leading law review. YLJ Online will continue The Pocket Part"s mission of augmenting the scholarship printed in The Yale Law Journal by providing original Essays, legal commentaries, responses to articles printed in the Journal, podcast and iTunes University recordings of various pieces, and other works by both established and emerging academics and practitioners.