27
4 Systemic Integration
In addition to the criteria of interpretation under Article 31(1) VCLT, international
courts and tribunals called upon to decide on UNCLOS-related issues have applied
the additional method of interpretation enshrined in Article 31(3)(c) VCLT, which
requires a treaty interpreter that account be taken of “any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties”, and which is often
referred to in the literature as the “systemic integration” method.
79
Article 31(3)(c) VCLT, which is considered to reflect general international law,
80
helps to avoid an international treaty being interpreted and applied as if it established a self-contained regime and, therefore, mitigate the risk of progressive fragmentation of international law. Indeed, the interpretative method specified in the
provision is intended as a means to coordinate a given treaty with other relevant
rules of international law applicable in relations between its contracting parties
because both the treaty and the other rules belong to one and the same legal system.
Thus, this interpretative criterion reflects and consolidates the systemic conception
of international law.
81
In the international jurisprudence relating to the Montego Bay Convention, this
method has been implemented in three different ways, namely: (i) by expressly
mentioning Article 31(3)(c) VCLT; (ii) by applying Article 293(1) UNCLOS; and,
finally, (iii) by directly taking into account other rules of international law (that is,
without having to rely on 31(3)(c) VCLT or 293(1) UNCLOS in order to justify
reference to those other rules).
Concerning express references to Article 31(3)(c) VCLT, an example is the
Advisory Opinion of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of ITLOS on Responsibilities
and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities
in the Area, where the provision was mentioned in relation to the interpretation of
ISA regulations requiring States sponsoring exploration or exploitation activities in
the international seabed area to apply a precautionary approach.
82
After noting the
emergence of “a trend towards making this approach part of customary international
law”,
83
the Chamber quoted the following statement from the ICJ Judgment in Pulp
79 See, among others, McLachlan (2005), Rosentreter (2015) and Dörr (2018) p. 603. Distefano
(2011), p. 383, speaks of “interprétation évolutive exogène (par renvoi au système normatif)”.
80 See, for example, ICJ, Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, 6 November
2003, para. 41; ICJ, Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v.
France), Judgment, 4 June 2008, para. 112. According to McLachlan (2005), p. 280 it is a “general
principle of treaty interpretation”.
81 Salerno (2017), p. 201.
82 Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to
Activities in the Area (Request for Advisory Opinion Submitted to the Seabed Dispute Chamber),
Advisory Opinion, para. 135. The regulations in question are cited at para. 125.
83 Ibidem, para. 135. According to Scovazzi (2013), “the Chamber added its voice to a well-marked
trend” Its Advisory Opinion contributed “to a more precise definition of the content of customary
rules relating to the protection of the marine environment”, pp. 306–307.
The ‘General Rule of Interpretation’ in the International Jurisprudence Relating…
4 Systemic Integration
In addition to the criteria of interpretation under Article 31(1) VCLT, international
courts and tribunals called upon to decide on UNCLOS-related issues have applied
the additional method of interpretation enshrined in Article 31(3)(c) VCLT, which
requires a treaty interpreter that account be taken of “any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties”, and which is often
referred to in the literature as the “systemic integration” method.
79
Article 31(3)(c) VCLT, which is considered to reflect general international law,
80
helps to avoid an international treaty being interpreted and applied as if it established a self-contained regime and, therefore, mitigate the risk of progressive fragmentation of international law. Indeed, the interpretative method specified in the
provision is intended as a means to coordinate a given treaty with other relevant
rules of international law applicable in relations between its contracting parties
because both the treaty and the other rules belong to one and the same legal system.
Thus, this interpretative criterion reflects and consolidates the systemic conception
of international law.
81
In the international jurisprudence relating to the Montego Bay Convention, this
method has been implemented in three different ways, namely: (i) by expressly
mentioning Article 31(3)(c) VCLT; (ii) by applying Article 293(1) UNCLOS; and,
finally, (iii) by directly taking into account other rules of international law (that is,
without having to rely on 31(3)(c) VCLT or 293(1) UNCLOS in order to justify
reference to those other rules).
Concerning express references to Article 31(3)(c) VCLT, an example is the
Advisory Opinion of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of ITLOS on Responsibilities
and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities
in the Area, where the provision was mentioned in relation to the interpretation of
ISA regulations requiring States sponsoring exploration or exploitation activities in
the international seabed area to apply a precautionary approach.
82
After noting the
emergence of “a trend towards making this approach part of customary international
law”,
83
the Chamber quoted the following statement from the ICJ Judgment in Pulp
79 See, among others, McLachlan (2005), Rosentreter (2015) and Dörr (2018) p. 603. Distefano
(2011), p. 383, speaks of “interprétation évolutive exogène (par renvoi au système normatif)”.
80 See, for example, ICJ, Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, 6 November
2003, para. 41; ICJ, Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v.
France), Judgment, 4 June 2008, para. 112. According to McLachlan (2005), p. 280 it is a “general
principle of treaty interpretation”.
81 Salerno (2017), p. 201.
82 Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to
Activities in the Area (Request for Advisory Opinion Submitted to the Seabed Dispute Chamber),
Advisory Opinion, para. 135. The regulations in question are cited at para. 125.
83 Ibidem, para. 135. According to Scovazzi (2013), “the Chamber added its voice to a well-marked
trend” Its Advisory Opinion contributed “to a more precise definition of the content of customary
rules relating to the protection of the marine environment”, pp. 306–307.
The ‘General Rule of Interpretation’ in the International Jurisprudence Relating…