Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights
(2013) JAMM04 20121Department of Law
- Abstract
- International courts have relied on article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is an inherent element of the general rule of interpretation, more and more frequently in the recent years. The chief aim of this Master thesis is to determine the significance that the European Court of Human Rights gives to it.
At the outset, the meaning of article 31(3)(c) is explained. It is emphasised that, although there is no consensus on the correct interpretation of this provision in the literature, the existing disagreements can be resolved by reference to the most compelling arguments. In particular, it is submitted that article 31(3)(c) favours neither evolutive nor static interpretation, and that the relevant rules of... (More) - International courts have relied on article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is an inherent element of the general rule of interpretation, more and more frequently in the recent years. The chief aim of this Master thesis is to determine the significance that the European Court of Human Rights gives to it.
At the outset, the meaning of article 31(3)(c) is explained. It is emphasised that, although there is no consensus on the correct interpretation of this provision in the literature, the existing disagreements can be resolved by reference to the most compelling arguments. In particular, it is submitted that article 31(3)(c) favours neither evolutive nor static interpretation, and that the relevant rules of international law must be binding on all the parties to the treaty being interpreted. Besides, the special nature of human rights obligations does not influence the interpretation based on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The thesis further undertakes an examination of the selected judgments and decisions, and systematises the patterns of the use of article 31(3)(c). The empirical research demonstrates that the European Court of Human Rights does not cite this provision coherently, in addition to misinterpreting and misapplying it in several cases. More specifically, article 31(3)(c) is sometimes used to conceal the lack of proper justification when the Court takes into account various external instruments in the process of interpretation. It is also used for the application of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Protocols thereto; and, on one occasion, as mere words. In this connection, it is suggested that the European Court of Human Rights must adhere to the language and content of article 31(3)(c) as well as use this provision exclusively for the interpretation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Protocols thereto. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4057605
- author
- Masol, Sergii LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JAMM04 20121
- year
- 2013
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- language
- English
- id
- 4057605
- date added to LUP
- 2013-09-24 09:39:51
- date last changed
- 2013-09-24 09:39:51
@misc{4057605,
abstract = {{International courts have relied on article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is an inherent element of the general rule of interpretation, more and more frequently in the recent years. The chief aim of this Master thesis is to determine the significance that the European Court of Human Rights gives to it.
At the outset, the meaning of article 31(3)(c) is explained. It is emphasised that, although there is no consensus on the correct interpretation of this provision in the literature, the existing disagreements can be resolved by reference to the most compelling arguments. In particular, it is submitted that article 31(3)(c) favours neither evolutive nor static interpretation, and that the relevant rules of international law must be binding on all the parties to the treaty being interpreted. Besides, the special nature of human rights obligations does not influence the interpretation based on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The thesis further undertakes an examination of the selected judgments and decisions, and systematises the patterns of the use of article 31(3)(c). The empirical research demonstrates that the European Court of Human Rights does not cite this provision coherently, in addition to misinterpreting and misapplying it in several cases. More specifically, article 31(3)(c) is sometimes used to conceal the lack of proper justification when the Court takes into account various external instruments in the process of interpretation. It is also used for the application of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Protocols thereto; and, on one occasion, as mere words. In this connection, it is suggested that the European Court of Human Rights must adhere to the language and content of article 31(3)(c) as well as use this provision exclusively for the interpretation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Protocols thereto.}},
author = {{Masol, Sergii}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights}},
year = {{2013}},
}