| Interpretation of Treaty refers to the interpretation of treaty application within the text meaning of international treaties,and is an important legal means for the international community to deal with disputes between countries.Article12,paragraph 1,of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties stipulates that States parties shall not restrict or deprive themselves of the rights,freedoms,and privileges they enjoy in international treaties to which they are parties.This means that treaty interpretation has priority in international law,and that methods and rules of interpretation are the only criteria for determining the meaning of treaties.The practice of applying treaty interpretation methods by the International Court of Justice and other international judicial bodies has shown that in addition to traditional treaty interpretation methods,there is also a contemporary interpretation method.This approach can address the impact of the passage of time on the meaning of treaty terms and interpret treaty provisions from a contemporary perspective,which is of positive significance for the correct implementation of treaties.The method of interpretation of contemporary meaning is achieved by interpreting the evolving linguistic meaning of treaty terms themselves.Although the International Court of Justice applies it to the interpretation of common terms in long-term or indefinite treaties,the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not explicitly regulate the method of interpretation of contemporary meaning,nor does the norms of international law specifically regulate the method of interpretation of contemporary meaning,so it is impossible to examine the applicable standards and limitations of this method,This also means we will continue to debate methods of interpreting the contemporary meaning of treaties.In the process of applying contemporary interpretation by the International Court of Justice,the following issues often arise: First,there is a conflict between the presumed intention and the true intention of the parties.The changes in the meaning of terms are inextricably linked to the further development of international law,and if the contracting parties did not anticipate these developments at the time of conclusion of the treaty,it is easy to encounter conflicts between the presumed intent of the judicial authorities and the true intent of the parties to the treaty when they concluded it.Secondly,there are defects in the applicable conditions.The application of contemporary interpretation methods by the International Court of Justice is mainly based on two conditions: the "generality" of treaty terms and the "indefinite nature" of treaties.It lacks comprehensive consideration of such factors as the object and purpose of the treaty,the content of the treaty context,and the subsequent practice of the contracting parties,which appears to be single and one-sided.The resulting adjudication results often harm the legitimate rights and interests of the parties.Third,excessive discretion exists in the interpretation process.In the practice of applying contemporary interpretation,judges of the International Court of Justice often resort to rigid,imprecise,or even arbitrary and unreasonable interpretations of treaty terms based on their discretion.Such interpretations often have a negative impact on treaty parties and impinge on the principle of State consent.Fourth,the application of contemporary meaning interpretation methods lacks clear interpretation rules.The application of contemporary interpretation methods is a practice gradually formed by international judicial bodies such as the International Court of Justice in case practice,and is not explicitly stipulated in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.Therefore,the application of this interpretation method can easily lead to doubts about the legality and rationality of the application,and at the same time,there is a conflict between the application order of contemporary interpretation methods and other traditional interpretation methods.In response to the above issues,the International Court of Justice,Firstly,should adhere to the principle of national consent,ensure that the common intention of the parties is the primary concern,and explore whether the parties hope for the long-term existence of the treaty and the common intention of the meaning of treaty terms over time.Secondly,it should take subsequent practice and other factors into consideration in the application of contemporary interpretation.Thirdly,we should judge the proper meaning of the terms in the treaty,not exceed the reasonable scope of judicial activism,and clarify the reasonable boundary of judicial discretion.Thus,while keeping pace with the times,the treaty can reduce the problems arising in the use process and ensure the rationality of the application results of this interpretation method.The fourth is to establish the applicable rules step by step for the interpretation methods of contemporary meaning.The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not specify a clear sequence or hierarchy for the application of treaty interpretation methods.In case interpretation,the choice between contemporary interpretation and other traditional interpretation methods is somewhat arbitrary.The application of different interpretation methods will lead to different conclusions of the case.It is particularly necessary to establish a step-by-step application rule of contemporary interpretation methods. |
