Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T08:59:44.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correspondence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Per Tresselt
Per Tresselt*
Affiliation:
EFTA Court
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 96 , Issue 3 , July 2002 , pp. 646 - 647
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

References

1 LaGrand (Ger. v. U.S.) (Int’l Ct. Justice June 27, 2001); see William, J. Aceves, Case Report: LaGrand (Germany v. United States), in 96 AJIL 210 (2002)Google Scholar.

2 In Manleyo, Hudson, aThe Permanent Court of International Justice 1920-1942, at 649 (1943)Google Scholar, Judge Hudson quotes the following texts from Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. Gr. Brit.).Jurisdiction, 1924 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 2, at 19:

The Court is of opinion that, where two versions possessing equal authority exist one of which appears to have a wider bearing than the other, it is bound to adopt the more limited interpretation which can be made to harmonise with both versions and which, as far as it goes, is doubtless in accordance with the common intention of the Parties.

In the authoritative French text:

La Cour estime que, placée en présence de deux textes investis d’une autorité égale, mais dont l’un parait avoir une portée plus étendue que l’autre, elle a le devoir d’adopter l’interprétation restreinte qui peut se concilier avec les deux textes et qui, dans cette mesure, correspond sans doute à la commune intention des Parties.