Примеры использования Other subsequent practice на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Other subsequent practice may under certain circumstances be used as a supplementary means of interpretation according to article 32 of the Vienna Convention.
Paragraph 3 of draft conclusion 8 addresses the weight that should be accorded to"other subsequent practice" under article 32 see draft conclusion 4, paragraph 3.
Some delegations welcomed the definitions contained in draft conclusion 4,in particular the distinction established between"subsequent practice" under article 31 and"other subsequent practice.
Article 32 thereby makes a distinction between a use of preparatory work or of"other subsequent practice" to confirm a meaning arrived at under article 31, and its use to"determine" the meaning.
Another example of"other subsequent practice" under article 32 concerns the term"feasible precautions" in article 57, paragraph(2)(ii), of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949(Protocol I) of 1977.
The considerations which are pertinent for the identification of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3(a) and(b), also apply,mutatis mutandis, to the identification of"other subsequent practice" under article 32.
Paragraph 2 of draft conclusion 7 concerns possible effects of"other subsequent practice" under article 32(see draft conclusion 4, paragraph 3), which does not reflect an agreement of all parties regarding the interpretation of a treaty.
A well-balanced approach had been taken, as seen in the differentiation in draft conclusion 1, paragraphs 3 and4, and draft conclusion 4 between"subsequent practice" under article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and"other subsequent practice.
Hence, recourse may be had to"other subsequent practice" under article 32 not only to determine the meaning of the treaty in certain circumstances, but also-- and always-- to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31.
Concerning the definitions put forwardin draft conclusion 4, the clear distinction between"subsequent practice" and"other subsequent practice" in the context of article 31, paragraph 3(b), and article 32 of the Vienna Convention was certainly helpful.
The Commission decided to treat such"other subsequent practice"(see draft conclusion 4, paragraph 3) under article 32 in a separate paragraph for the sake of analytical clarity(see below draft conclusion 7 paragraph 2 and draft conclusion 8 paragraph 3), but it does not thereby call into question the unity of the process of interpretation.
The distinction between agreed subsequent practice in the narrow sense of article 31(3)(b)of the Vienna Convention and all other subsequent practice(in a broad sense) then serves to indicate a greater interpretative value which is to be attributed to the former.
Draft conclusion 4(Definition of subsequent agreement and subsequent practice) defined the three different"subsequent" means of treaty interpretation, namely"subsequent agreement" under article 31, paragraph(3)(a),"subsequent practice" under article 31,paragraph 3(b), and other subsequent practice under article 32.
The element which distinguishes subsequent agreements and subsequent practice as authentic means of interpretation under article 31(3)(a)and(b), and other subsequent practice as a supplementary means of interpretation under article 32, is the"agreement" of the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty concerned.
The jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals, including the Dispute Settlement Body of WTO, recognizes that not only"subsequent practice in the application of a treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation" may be relevant for the purpose of interpretation, butpossibly also other subsequent practice which does not reflect an agreement on interpretation by all the parties.
His delegation recognized that the Commission had decided during its sixty-fifth session to treat other subsequent practice under article 32; that should not be taken to mean,however, that any type of act categorized as"other subsequent practice" could be treated the same as subsequent practice as stipulated under article 31, paragraph 3.
His delegation took particular interest in the fact that draft article 1 distinguished between subsequent agreements andsubsequent practice as set out in article 31 and other subsequent practice as a supplementary means of interpretation under article 32.
While the distinction between agreed subsequent practice under article 31, paragraph 3(b),as an authentic means of interpretation, and other subsequent practice, in a broad sense, under article 32, implied that a greater interpretative value should be attributed to the former, it was important to maintain the flexibility currently exercised by international courts and tribunals in interpreting treaty terms or provisions in the light of subsequent practice, in the broad sense, where that was deemed appropriate or necessary.
The preceding examples demonstrate that decisions of Conferences of States Parties may embody under certain circumstances subsequent agreements under article 31, paragraph 3(a), andgive rise to subsequent practice under articles 31, paragraph 3(b), or to other subsequent practice under article 32 if they do not reflect agreement of the parties.
Sir Michael Wood said that it had been agreed with the Special Rapporteur to amend the last sentence to read:"Hence,recourse may be had to other subsequent practice under article 32 not only to determine the meaning of the treaty in certain circumstances, but also and always to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31.
The element which distinguishes subsequent agreements and subsequent practice as authentic means of interpretation under article 31, paragraph 3(a) and(b),on the one hand, and other subsequent practice as a supplementary means of interpretation under article 32, on the other, is the"agreement" of the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty.
Her delegation strongly supported the distinction proposed by the Commission in paragraphs 2 and 3 of draft conclusion 4,which defined"subsequent practice" as an authentic means of interpretation and"other subsequent practice" as a supplementary means of interpretation, since only subsequent practice that met all the criteria contained in article 31, paragraph 3(a), qualified as an authentic means of interpretation that should be taken into account in the interpretation process.
This raises the question of the scope, andthus also the limits, of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice as means of interpretation, including the relation to other legal effects which subsequent agreements and subsequent practice may have according to the law of treaties.
The Commission was also encouraged to elaborate on the relationship between subsequent practice and other supplementary means of interpretation under article 32.
On the other hand, subsequent practice may prevent specifying the meaning of a general term to just one of different possible meanings.
The significance of silence also depends on the legal situation to which the subsequent practice by the other party relates and on the claim thereby expressed.
The interpretative value of subsequent practice in relation to other means of interpretation in a particular case often depends on its specificity in relation to the treaty concerned.
Draft conclusion 3 emphasized that subsequent agreements and subsequent practice, similar to other means of treaty interpretation, could support both a contemporaneous or an evolutive interpretation, as appropriate.
Like other means of interpretation, subsequent agreements and subsequent practice are mostly used by adjudicatory bodies as one among several such means in any particular decision.
A clear distinction should therefore be drawn between the consequences of subsequent practice and subsequent agreements for the interpretation of treaties and other possible effects.