Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Do Different Treaty Purposes Matter for Treaty Interpretation?

Do Different Treaty Purposes Matter for Treaty Interpretation? The comparison made in this contribution between Article III:2 GATT and Article 90 EC indicates that different treaty purposes need not matter that much, if the text and purpose of individual provisions are similar. Indeed, the different objectives and purposes of the GATT and the EC have not led to noticeably different interpretations of the similarly worded obligations on WTO Members and EC Member States concerning the elimination of discriminatory internal taxes in Article III:2 GATT and Article 90 EC. This finding is in line with Article 31 (1) of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, which puts emphasis on the relevance of the wording of treaty provisions. The European Court of Justice (ECJ), however, pays more attention to the object and purpose of the EC Treaty when interpreting a provision of that treaty. Would one have followed the line of reasoning of the ECJ, one might therefore have expected another conclusion. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of International Economic Law Oxford University Press

Do Different Treaty Purposes Matter for Treaty Interpretation?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/do-different-treaty-purposes-matter-for-treaty-interpretation-gAFAZqiFUE

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
Copyright Oxford University Press 2001
ISSN
1369-3034
eISSN
1464-3758
DOI
10.1093/jiel/4.3.557
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The comparison made in this contribution between Article III:2 GATT and Article 90 EC indicates that different treaty purposes need not matter that much, if the text and purpose of individual provisions are similar. Indeed, the different objectives and purposes of the GATT and the EC have not led to noticeably different interpretations of the similarly worded obligations on WTO Members and EC Member States concerning the elimination of discriminatory internal taxes in Article III:2 GATT and Article 90 EC. This finding is in line with Article 31 (1) of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, which puts emphasis on the relevance of the wording of treaty provisions. The European Court of Justice (ECJ), however, pays more attention to the object and purpose of the EC Treaty when interpreting a provision of that treaty. Would one have followed the line of reasoning of the ECJ, one might therefore have expected another conclusion.

Journal

Journal of International Economic LawOxford University Press

Published: Sep 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.