Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
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 of International Economic Law – Oxford University Press
Published: Sep 1, 2001
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.