Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTORP HELMERSEN, Sondre
dc.date.accessioned2013-11-12T15:03:26Z
dc.date.available2013-11-12T15:03:26Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Journal of Legal Studies, 2013, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 127-148en
dc.identifier.issn1973-2937
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/28733
dc.description.abstractAccording to the ICJ, ‘generic’ terms in long-term treaties were presumably intended to be interpreted evolutively. This ‘general rule’ on evolutive interpretation appears simple, but leaves unanswered questions. Moreover, linguistic analyses show that the ICJ is inconsistent in its definition of ‘generic’, and that evolutive interpretations are unsuited to solving ambiguity (as opposed to vagueness). There is, moreover, a tendency in the literature to confuse or conflate evolutive interpretation with the doctrine of intertemporality or the VCLT Article 31.3.c—these are three distinct concepts.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean journal of legal studiesen
dc.relation.urihttps://ejls.eui.eu/en
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen
dc.titleEvolutive treaty interpretation : legality, semantics and distinctionsen
dc.typeArticleen
eui.subscribe.skiptrue
eui.subscribe.skiptrue


Files associated with this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record