35
On the other hand, as acknowledged by the ILC itself in its 2018 Draft
Conclusions,
129
quite a different interpretative weight may be accorded to the subsequent practice of an international organization, especially in the case of binding
acts,
130
such as the Regulations adopted by the ISA.
131
Indeed, international organizations generally pursue objectives and goals specified in their founding treaties,
where necessary by confining themselves to promoting various forms of international cooperation. Being expressly stated, and by virtue of the principle of good
faith, the objectives and goals of an international organization must thus be considered to be shared by all of its members.
6 Conclusions
Based on the analysis undertaken above, a number of trends can be identified in the
international jurisprudence on the interpretation of UNCLOS.
First, despite the multiplicity of international judicial and arbitral bodies, whether
permanent or ad hoc, called upon to interpret the Montego Bay Convention, on the
whole no significant conflicts of case law seem to arise.
132
On the contrary, each of
these bodies appears inclined to cite previous decisions concerning UNCLOS,
including those rendered by other courts and tribunals. This applies also to the ICJ,
129 Conclusion 12, para. 3, reads: “Practice of an international organization in the application of its
constituent instrument may contribute to the interpretation of that instrument when applying articles 31 and 32”.
130 In the case of non-binding acts, the court or tribunal must ascertain whether they have been
adopted by unanimous vote of at least of all the IO members parties to the dispute in respect of
which the acts are invoked. As ruled by the ICJ with regard to the recommendations of the
International Whaling Commission (IWC) in Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan. New
Zealand intervening), Judgment, 31 March, 2014, para. 83: “Australia and New Zealand overstate
the legal significance of the recommendatory resolutions and guidelines on which they rely. First,
many IWC resolutions were adopted without the support of all States parties to the Convention
and, in particular, without the concurrence of Japan. Thus, such instruments cannot be regarded as
subsequent agreement to an interpretation of Article VII, nor as subsequent practice establishing an
agreement of the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty within the meaning of subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph (3) of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”.
131 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, paras 59–60.
132 On cases of conflicts of case law between different international courts and tribunals, see Del
Vecchio (2013), pp. 209–215.
The ‘General Rule of Interpretation’ in the International Jurisprudence Relating…
On the other hand, as acknowledged by the ILC itself in its 2018 Draft
Conclusions,
129
quite a different interpretative weight may be accorded to the subsequent practice of an international organization, especially in the case of binding
acts,
130
such as the Regulations adopted by the ISA.
131
Indeed, international organizations generally pursue objectives and goals specified in their founding treaties,
where necessary by confining themselves to promoting various forms of international cooperation. Being expressly stated, and by virtue of the principle of good
faith, the objectives and goals of an international organization must thus be considered to be shared by all of its members.
6 Conclusions
Based on the analysis undertaken above, a number of trends can be identified in the
international jurisprudence on the interpretation of UNCLOS.
First, despite the multiplicity of international judicial and arbitral bodies, whether
permanent or ad hoc, called upon to interpret the Montego Bay Convention, on the
whole no significant conflicts of case law seem to arise.
132
On the contrary, each of
these bodies appears inclined to cite previous decisions concerning UNCLOS,
including those rendered by other courts and tribunals. This applies also to the ICJ,
129 Conclusion 12, para. 3, reads: “Practice of an international organization in the application of its
constituent instrument may contribute to the interpretation of that instrument when applying articles 31 and 32”.
130 In the case of non-binding acts, the court or tribunal must ascertain whether they have been
adopted by unanimous vote of at least of all the IO members parties to the dispute in respect of
which the acts are invoked. As ruled by the ICJ with regard to the recommendations of the
International Whaling Commission (IWC) in Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan. New
Zealand intervening), Judgment, 31 March, 2014, para. 83: “Australia and New Zealand overstate
the legal significance of the recommendatory resolutions and guidelines on which they rely. First,
many IWC resolutions were adopted without the support of all States parties to the Convention
and, in particular, without the concurrence of Japan. Thus, such instruments cannot be regarded as
subsequent agreement to an interpretation of Article VII, nor as subsequent practice establishing an
agreement of the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty within the meaning of subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph (3) of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”.
131 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, paras 59–60.
132 On cases of conflicts of case law between different international courts and tribunals, see Del
Vecchio (2013), pp. 209–215.
The ‘General Rule of Interpretation’ in the International Jurisprudence Relating…