Full Text Available
Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.
Framing Indeterminacy: A Critique of Discretion in the VCLT Framework
This thesis critically examines the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), with a focus on Articles 31 and 32, arguing that these provisions are fundamentally indeterminate. While intended to establish a structured framework for treaty interpretation, their vagueness allows for a broad spe...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Published: |
AUC Knowledge Fountain
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This thesis critically examines the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), with a focus on Articles 31 and 32, arguing that these provisions are fundamentally indeterminate. While intended to establish a structured framework for treaty interpretation, their vagueness allows for a broad spectrum of discretionary judicial interpretations. Courts can invoke textual, subjective, and teleological approaches, all while claiming adherence to the VCLT rules of interpretation, leading to inconsistent and potentially biased judgments. By examining cases before and after the VCLT's adoption, this research demonstrates that the interpretative methods codified by the VCLT existed long before its adoption, adding little beyond formalizing these approaches. Moreover, the lack of a clear hierarchical structure between Articles 31 and 32, or within Article 31 itself, creates further ambiguity in application. Also, the paper delves into the theoretical foundations underpinning these interpretative approaches, analyzing the rationale behind their adoption by various scholars. Through this exploration, the thesis illuminates the competing ideologies that shape the methodologies of treaty interpretation, offering examples and metaphors to clarify these concepts. The indeterminacy of Articles 31 and 32 of VCLT, while offering flexibility, also risks turning the interpretative process into a subjective exercise that blurs the line between interpreting law and creating it. By exposing these flaws, the thesis highlights the limitations of the VCLT framework and calls for greater clarity to ensure consistency and fairness in international treaty interpretation. |
|---|