signature=874d35de771f000cd34718a6fed95e40,The Interpretation Problems of Multilingual Treaties

摘要：

"Interpretation" is, at the same time, a definite and vague term. Simplistically, it could be thought as "a way of explaining what is unclear", a definition applicable in every possible field or topic. However, when it comes to identify in detail what this term refers to in the specific field of international law, things are not as easy. This problem has been dealt with by an incredible number of experts and the different definitions that have been given are countless, given the vastness of the matter and all the slight differences and points of view. Considering these facts, I will not attempt to introduce my definition, nor to refer some other authors' one, in fact, by doing so, I would implicitly deny the validity of all the ones that are not taken into consideration. Instead, I will try to give a quick, general classification of the different sides of the question, so to clarify on what levels the debate has been taking place. Namely, there are three different approaches or classifications relevant for this paper:1. Textual, subjective, teleological interpretation;2. Restrictive, extensive, analogical interpretation;3. Autonomous, uniform, international interpretation.These three different types of interpretation are centred on a distinction of the basis chosen to rely on, they are therefore to be considered as three different methods, or ways, of facing the interpreting process. This distinction might seem somewhat weak and irrelevant, but it is of great importance in a realistic international environment, also considering its link with the inner structure of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties.Textual interpretation is also called objective. Its rationale is to focus on the text of the treaty, considering it the only source for interpretation as it is thought to be the authentic expression of the intention of the parties; the declared and effective will of the parties are therefore considered identical and embodied in the text.Subjective interpretation is not as strict, it does rely on the text, but it tends to consider the intention of the parties as an element separate from the text. The reference is hence to the effective will of the parties, which does not appear from the text as it has been written, whereas from the logical construction of the treaty itself as well as from the object and purpose of the treaty and the contingent situation in which the treaty has been drafted.Last but not least, teleological interpretation takes another step forward: it is not based on the intention of the parties, nor on the text of the treaty, but on its declared or intended purpose. In this third meaning, the most relevant subject is not the parties anymore: the text of the treaty itself is awarded a much higher position. This consideration is particularly worth of attention in situations in which there are problems of authenticity of a text, or when it comes to distinguish between a text and a version of a treaty.None of these three methods is necessarily right or wrong, nor obviously is its application in a particular context. The general trend, however, has recently been of having the subjective interpretation slowly fade in favour of the textual one, which is often jointly considered with the teleological. This "unwritten rule" also appears in the Vienna Convention of 1969, that embodies all the interpreting methods outlined above, implicitly giving a sort of hierarchical order on the one to use.This second classification is somewhat different from the previous one, in fact these three other meanings refer to the outcome of the interpretative process, and not to an interpreting method. On a logical level this is proved by the fact that, by admitting one, the possibility of considering the other two is inevitably rejected. Restrictive interpretation has been for a long time predominant in international law, although now the focus is shifting to the extensive and analogical one. Its concept is apposing a sort of limitation to the "broadness" originally given to the sense of the treaty, just as if its text were

展开