15
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
A. Del Vecchio, R. Virzo (eds.), Interpretations of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10773-4_2
The ‘General Rule of Interpretation’
in the International Jurisprudence
Relating to the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea
Roberto Virzo
Abstract The international jurisprudence relating to the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has largely relied on the interpretative criteria
specified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), in particular in those set out in Article 31, which establishes the “general rule of interpretation”. Indeed, not only Article 31 VCLT fits well with the structure and nature of a
treaty like UNCLOS, but international courts and tribunals often apply the general
rule of interpretation to avoid endorsing a unilateral interpretation of UNCLOS, as
well as to lay stress on the progressive emergence of new rules that reflect a change
in the interests of the international community as a whole. One can most certainly
commend a jurisprudence that clearly seeks to restrain creeping jurisdiction (where
its only purpose is to protect the interests of a coastal State, rather than also to protect the interests of the international community) and, therefore, the new forms of
“sovereigntism”, imperialism and unilateralism that, in recent years, have unfortunately characterized the external relations of an ever-increasing number of States.
1 Introduction
The international jurisprudence relating to the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea
1
(“UNCLOS” or “the Convention”) sheds valuable light on the interpretation of this important multilateral treaty.
That jurisprudence is quite extensive and consists of orders, judgments and opinions issued by different international courts and tribunals. This is not surprising: on
the one hand, a plurality of arbitral and judicial bodies may have jurisdiction under
Parts XI and XV of UNCLOS for the settlement of disputes concerning the
1 Montego Bay, 10 December 1982; entry into force: 16 November 1994; 1833 UNTS 3.
R. Virzo (*)
Department of Law, Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods (DEMM),
University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy
e-mail: robvirzo@unisannio.it
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
A. Del Vecchio, R. Virzo (eds.), Interpretations of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10773-4_2
The ‘General Rule of Interpretation’
in the International Jurisprudence
Relating to the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea
Roberto Virzo
Abstract The international jurisprudence relating to the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has largely relied on the interpretative criteria
specified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), in particular in those set out in Article 31, which establishes the “general rule of interpretation”. Indeed, not only Article 31 VCLT fits well with the structure and nature of a
treaty like UNCLOS, but international courts and tribunals often apply the general
rule of interpretation to avoid endorsing a unilateral interpretation of UNCLOS, as
well as to lay stress on the progressive emergence of new rules that reflect a change
in the interests of the international community as a whole. One can most certainly
commend a jurisprudence that clearly seeks to restrain creeping jurisdiction (where
its only purpose is to protect the interests of a coastal State, rather than also to protect the interests of the international community) and, therefore, the new forms of
“sovereigntism”, imperialism and unilateralism that, in recent years, have unfortunately characterized the external relations of an ever-increasing number of States.
1 Introduction
The international jurisprudence relating to the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea
1
(“UNCLOS” or “the Convention”) sheds valuable light on the interpretation of this important multilateral treaty.
That jurisprudence is quite extensive and consists of orders, judgments and opinions issued by different international courts and tribunals. This is not surprising: on
the one hand, a plurality of arbitral and judicial bodies may have jurisdiction under
Parts XI and XV of UNCLOS for the settlement of disputes concerning the
1 Montego Bay, 10 December 1982; entry into force: 16 November 1994; 1833 UNTS 3.
R. Virzo (*)
Department of Law, Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods (DEMM),
University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy
e-mail: robvirzo@unisannio.it