No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Aspects of Treaty Interpretation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 April 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
- Type
- Editorial Comment
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1939
References
1 Moore, J. B., in International Arbitrations, III, 2522 Google Scholar.
2 Le droit des gens, Bk. 2, Ch. 17. For examples of stated rules of interpretation, see Sarropoulos c. État bulgare, Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes, Recueil des Décisions, VII, 52; award in the van Bokkelen claim, United States and Haiti, U. S. For. Rel. 1888, Pt. I, pp. 1007-1036, especially at p. 1025; claim of Georges Pinson, France and Mexico, Jurisprudence de la commission Franco-Mexicaine {1924-1932), pp. 104-105. See also the reference by Attorney General Crittenden to “established rules for construing treaties,” in V Ops. Atty. Gen. 324.
Pronouncements of the Permanent Court of International Justice are not dealt with in the present comment. Some of them, for the period from 1922 to 1930, are considered by the present writer in Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1930, pp. 39-46.
3 Opinion in the Cameron claim, under the Convention of Nov. 16, 1926, Decisions and Opinions of the Commissioners, Oct. 5, 1929 to Feb. 15, 1930 (London, 1931), p. 39.
4 A. D. McNair, The Law of Treaties (1938), pp. 175-176.
5 Opinions of Commissioners, April 26, 1926, to April 24, 1931, pp. 71-72. In the same case the American Commissioner observed that “In dealing with the perplexing problem of responsibility, it would seem to be desirable and indeed necessary to avoid taking account top much of dictionary definitions of such terms as ‘revolutionary forces.’ . . .” (p. 77.)
6 As pointed out by Lord Alverstone of the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal in the arbitration under the Treaty of Jan. 24, 1903, with Great Britain. Sen. Doc. 162, 58th Cong., 2d Sess., Pt. I, p. 37.
7 Opinions of Commissioners (cited in note 5, supra), p. 123.
8 See, for example, Weitzenhoffer c. État allemand, Trib. Arb. Mix., ibid., V, 935, 941.
9 Entscheidungen des Internat. Schiedsgerichts zur Auslegung des Dawes Plan (Sess. 2, 1927), pp. 223-224.
10 Institutes of Natural Law. With the words which Commissioner Pinckney quoted from an earlier edition of Rutherforth’s work may be compared the language found at p. 319, Vol. II, of the third (Philadelphia, 1799) edition.
11 Moore, J. B., in International Arbitrations, III, 3197, 3203-3204Google Scholar.
12 Sarropoulos c. État bulgare, supra, 47, 53.
13 Office de vérification et de compensation français c. Office de vérification et de compensation allemand, Trib. Arb. Mix., ibid., I, 593, 596; Clorialdo De Voto c. État autrichien, ibid., IV, 500, 502.
14 Faure c. État ture, ibid., VII, 954, 957.
15 U. S. Department of State, Arbitration Series, No. 4 (6), p. 29.
16 Cf. Raffinerie et Sucrerie serbotchèque Tchoupria c. État bulgare, Trib. Arb. Mix., ibid., III, 185, at p. 191.
17 See the statement in Peeters, van Haute et Duyver с Trommer et Grüber, ibid., II, 384, at p. 391. In contrast, an “unnecessarily crude” construction was noted by the Special Claims Commission, United States and Mexico (Opinions of Commissioners, April 26, 1926, to April 24, 1931, p. 63).
18 Th. Gendrop case before the Franco-Mexican commission, Jurisprudence de la commission Franco-Mexicaine (1924-1932), p. 205.
19 Loy et Markus c. Empire allemand et Deutsch Ostafrikanische Bank A. G., Trib. Arb. Mix., ibid., III, 998, 1004.
20 See the American argument concerning the meaning of “due diligence” in the Geneva Arbitrations. Moore, J. B., in International Arbitrations, IV, 4062–4063 Google Scholar.
21 As in the award in an arbitration between Chile and Peru, April 7, 1875. H. LaFontaine, Pasicrisie Internationale (1902), p. 165.
22 Opinion and Award of Jan. 23, 1933 (Washington, 1933), p. 3.
23 As by the American members of the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal under the treaty of Jan. 24, 1903. Sen. Doc. (cited in note 6, supra), p. 49. The Americans endeavored to sup port their argument by a reference to a view which had become “part of the common under standing of mankind.”
24 Opinions of Commissioners, United States-Mexican Special Claims Commission under Convention of Sept. 10, 1923 (document cited in note 5, supra), p. 61.
26 Societa commerciale d’Oriente c. Gouvernement turc, Trib. Arb. Mix., ibid., IX, 612, 614.
26 Georges Pinson claim, Jurisprudence de la commission Franco-Mexicaine (1924-1982), p. 104.
27 Moore, J. B., in International Arbitrations, V, 4966.Google Scholar
You have
Access