| Summary: | 碩士 === 東吳大學 === 法律學系 === 99 === The general rule of interpretation stipulated in Articles 31 to 33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) has attained the status of a rule of customary or general international law. It forms a part of the customary rules of interpretation of public international law. This holds true with regard to the view of the international tribunal, as well as the practices of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).
Because the means of Article 32 in VCLT is supplementary, the interpreter can exercise discretion in adopting the evidences of the means of Article 32, instead of being obligated to refer to the evidences of Article 31. Therefore, all the disputants generally wish that the evidence supporting them should be considered as the means of Article 31 rather than Article 32.
However, because the dispute settlement system of the WTO is a central element in providing security and predictability for the multilateral trading system, it is essential to adopt the evidences that are consistent with the same kinds of documents.
This study focuses on the means of treaty interpretation in WTO’s dispute settlement practices in the case of European Communities and its Member States – Tariff Treatment of Certain Information Technology Products (EC-IT Products). The dispute in this case mainly involves determining whether certain products fall within the scope of the tariff concession made by European Communities pursuant to the Information Technology Agreement (ITA). Chapters II and III of this article discuss the rules of treaty interpretation in WTO dispute settlement and the content of Articles 31 to 33 of VCLT respectively. Chapter IV presents some relevant reports on issues related to the interpretation of concession, such as EC-Computer Equipment, EC-Chicken Cuts, and China-Auto Parts. Chapter V analyses the means of treaty interpretation in the parties’ submissions and in the EC-IT Products panel report. From comparing the same kind of documents in different cases in Chapter VI, we attempt to determine whether the WTO DSB treated these documents in the same way. Finally, the author provides some advice in Chapter VII.
|
|---|
