Latest News
The Principle of Unity in Treaty Interpretation: Ensuring Consistency in International Law Standards
The Principle of Unity in Treaty Interpretation: Ensuring Consistency in International Law Standards
A basic yet elusive guideline for interpreting treaty standards in international law is the concept of unity of interpretation. A departure from this concept may result in disparate interpretations and applications of the rules, which may lead to rulings by international legal and quasi-judicial organizations that conflict with one another. Divergent interpretations of international law standards and their subsequent implementation result from the rules and principles of legal interpretation that are now in place being frequently ineffectual. This research aims to comprehend how international judicial and quasi-judicial authorities interpret principles of international law and identify the rationale behind various interpretation strategies. The research analyzes the principles of interpretation and how they are used using dialectical, inductive, and comparative legal methodologies. The goal of the research is to clarify the underlying assumptions underlying differing interpretations and further knowledge of the unity principle in international law.
Determining the uniform course in which treaty-derived international law responsibilities are to be carried out depends on the concept of unity of interpretation. Respect for this idea is essential to comprehending and implementing international legal standards generally. If it is not followed, there are concerns regarding the legitimacy of different interpretations that depart from the accepted common meaning. By individualizing the practice, assigning a set of aims to the type of interpretation chosen in the first stage, and identifying the optimal realization in a particular circumstance, Ronald Dworkin's three-step theory of interpretation guarantees the unity of interpretation. Lawrence B. Solum contends, however, that a consistent understanding of the standard cannot always be established just on the best interpretation. The high-level interpretation of international legal responsibilities is made possible by adherence to the basic rules of interpretation.
The responsibility to extradite or prosecute persons if they have jurisdiction over the offences is established by the Convention against Torture and the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism by the Council of Europe. Depending on the specifics of the case, the "Extradite or Prosecute" concept may be interpreted to indicate the priority of extradition or prosecution. However concerns are raised regarding how to properly weigh one duty over another, the viability of this strategy, and if it goes against the core ideas and guidelines for interpreting international legal standards. In their interpretations, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the European Court of Human Rights have upheld the concept of unity, emphasizing the priority of extradition of individuals who are suspected or found guilty of a crime to the requested State. The Belgium v. Senegal ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) changed the hierarchy of duties, rendering it unfeasible for governments to offer political refuge to individuals on a whim. Requesting an evaluation from the International Law Commission and codifying the guidelines for interpreting contractual norms in international law are two suggestions to support the implementation of the concept of unity in interpreting contractual norms in international law.
- International courts emphasize extradition priority, challenging the balance of legal duties and political asylum.
- Dworkin's theory promotes unity through a structured interpretation process; Solum argues consistency can't always rely on the best interpretation.
- The theory ensures consistent application of treaty standards across international legal systems.
