Over the last couple of years, international lawyers have hotly debated the correct way to apply Article 31, paragraph 3(c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Discussions have focused on the meaning of ‘the parties’. Traditionally this expression has always been interpreted in the stricter sense of all parties to the interpreted treaty. Voices are now raised suggesting a broader interpretation. According to this view, the correct meaning of ‘the parties’ is the two or more parties to a specific dispute. Given that the two interpretations of Article 31, paragraph 3(c) will often be mutually exclusive, international legal literature provokes a review of the possible reasons that give us ground to adopt them. This article provides such a review. It arrives at the conclusion that only the stricter interpretation can be seriously defended as being correct. First, only the stricter interpretation agrees with the clear ordinary meaning of Article 31, paragraph 3(c). Secondly, even assuming that the ordinary meaning of the provision is ambiguous, a strong case can be made in favour of the stricter interpretation using other data of interpretation, such as the context, the object and purpose of the treaty, and the preparatory work.

This article attempts to demonstrate that the law of self-defence in the UN-Charter is uncertain. Nobody doubts that the Charter permits self-defence, but the precise modalities of the right are unclear. This is not an exposé of the whole spectrum of issues that can arise or have arisen. Rather, the article considers a few examples and analyses the structure of the arguments scholars and tribunals employ in order to find out where our limits of ‘legal cognition’ lie. Several topics are examined, inter alia, whether an ‘armed attack’ is a necessary condition for the exercise of self-defence under the UN-Charter; the actions qualifying as armed attack; whether an armed attack has to occur or whether the victim state merely reasonably has to expect it to occur; and whether individuals can commit an armed attack. It will become clear throughout the article that the closer one looks at the law of self-defence, the less certain the law becomes. I submit that the uncertainty of the law on self-defence is caused by a lack of legal regulation – there is only so much that Article 51 can tell us. Scholars importing their own ideas of what scope self-defence should have do not enhance our understanding of the positive law, their designs simply are not law.

Interpretation of Treaties — Agencies of Interpretation — Municipal Courts — Franco-Chinese Treaties of 1844 and 1858 concerning Administration of the French Concession at Shanghai — Absence of Jurisdiction of Administrative Courts.

Interpretation of Treaties — Treaties and Limitations of Sovereignty — The Preamble — Meaning of “Embargo” — Contemporaneous Interpretation — Use of Dictionaries — Reference to Other Treaties — Bilingual Treaties — Limits of the Duty of Non-Interference with Ships and with the Freedom of Commercial Transactions — Restrictive Interpretation of Treaty Provisions of an Exceptional Nature — Necessity of an Actual Decision as a Basis for a Claim for Compensation — Insufficiency of Oral Ruling — Conditions of a Valid Renunciation of Rights — The Law Applicable — Treaties as Exclusive Sources of Arbitral Decision.

Interpretation of Treaties — Preparatory Work — Reference to Domestic Law — Interpretation of Statutes by Reference to Underlying International Conventions.

Interpretation of Treaties — Agencies of Interpretation — Reference to Minister for Foreign Affairs for Interpretation — French Law.

Treaties — Interpretation of — Preparatory Work.

Interpretation of Treaties — Rules of — General Purpose of the Treaty — Preparatory Work.

Interpretation of Treaties — Various Rules of — Interpretation according to General Purpose rather than to the Meaning of a Term as Used in the Municipal Law of One Party.

Treaties — Interpretation — Agencies of — Interpretation by the Executive — How far Binding upon Courts.

Interpretation of Treaties — Various Rules of Interpretation — Interpretation by Conduct of the Contracting Parties — “Contemporaneous Interpretations.”

International Law — Relation to Municipal Law — Treaties and State Legislation in the United States.

Treaties — Interpretation — Various Rules of — Liberal Interpretation — Practical Construction by the Parties.

Interpretation of Treaties — Preparatory Work — Liberal Interpretation — Treaties and State Legislation in the United States — Practical Construction by the Parties.

Interpretation of Treaties — Restrictive Interpretation — Limitations of State Sovereignty.

Preparatory Work — Preparatory Work of Other Instruments — Preparatory Work of Treaties in the Preparation of which Some of the Parties to the Dispute Took No Part — Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the Austrian and German Delegations.

Treaties — Interpretation of — Logical Interpretation — Restrictive Interpretation — Recourse to Preparatory Work — Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the Austrian and German Delegations — Preparatory Work of Treaties in the Preparation of which Some of the Parties to the Dispute Took No Part.

Interpretation of Treaties — Miscellaneous — Rejection of Principle of Reference to Authors of Document — Ejus est interpretare legem cujus condere.

International Organisation — Miscellaneous — Conference of Ambassadors — Decisions of — By Virtue of Agreement of Parties — Nature of — Quasi-Arbitral Capacity — Right to Interpret Decisions.

Arbitration — Award — Quasi-Arbitral Bodies — Finality of Decision — Decision of Conference of Ambassadors — Nature of the Decision — Right to Interpret the Award — Necessity for Special Agreement.

International Law — Sources — Treaties in Force between Parties to the Dispute — How far Applicable as an Element of Interpretation.

Responsibility of States — In General — Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction — Prima facie Ascertainment of Responsibility.

Claims — In General — Character of — International Character of Claims Arising out of Injuries to Individuals.

Interpretation of Treaties — Preparatory Work — Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements.

Arbitration — In General — Arbitrability of Claims — Conception of Arbitrability — Article 13 of the Covenant — Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice — International Character of Claims Arising out of Injuries to Individuals — Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction — “Abstract and Formal” Arbitrability as Distinguished from “Positive” Arbitrability — “Examination 44 and Report” as Distinguished from Arbitration — Preparatory Work in the Interpretation of Treaties — Treaties between the Disputant Parties as a Source of Interpretation

Interpretation of Treaties — Incompetence of French Courts to Interpret a Matter of General International Interest — French Concession at Shanghai — Nature of.

Interpretation of Treaties — Incompetence of French Courts to Interpret Treaties when such Interpretation Raises Questions of International Order — Military Occupation of the Ruhr Basin by France — Legality of — Jurisdiction of French Military Courts over German Nationals — Treaty of Versailles, Part VIII, Annex II, paragraph 18 — Hague Convention of 1907 as to Laws and Customs of War on Land — Article 43.

States — Organs of — Pronouncements of Judicial Authorities — How far Expressive of the Attitude of States.

Equality of States — Jurisdiction over Foreign States — Interpretation of Treaties by Municipal Courts — Conclusiveness of — In regard to Foreign States — Whether Consistent with Equality of States.

Responsibility of States — Judicial Action — Judicial Interpretation of Treaties by Municipal Courts — How far Subject to Review by International Courts — Denial of Justice.

International Tribunals — Competence of — Right to Review Judicial Decisions of Municipal Courts — Denial of Justice.

Interpretation of Treaties — In General — Interpretation by Municipal Courts — How far Binding upon Foreign Governments — Pronouncements of Judicial Authorities in Matters of Treaties — How far Internationally Effective — How far Expressive of the Official Interpretation of the State Concerned — Interpretation of Municipal Exactments by Municipal Courts — Whether Liable to Review by International Tribunals — Denial of Justice.

Claims — Nationality of — Enemy Character — Effect of Divesting of Enemy Nationality by Claimants in Prize Proceedings.

Termination of Treaties — Relevance of Rules of Municipal Law as to Discharge of Contracts.

Termination of Treaties — By Act of Party — Unilateral Denunciation — Results of Non-performance by Other Party — Waiver of Right to Repudiate.

Interpretation of Treaties — Relevance of Rules of Municipal Law as to Interpretation of Contracts.

Enemy Character — Effect of Divesting of Enemy Nationality by Claimants in Prize Proceedings.

Hague Conventions — Effect of General Participation Clause.

Effect of Outbreak of War — Enemy Merchant Ships in Port — Enemy Ships in British Port upon Outbreak of War — Sixth Hague Convention — Order for Detention — Application by Procurator-General for Condemnation after Conclusion of Peace — Mutuality of the Convention — Repudiation of the Convention — Waiver of Right to Repudiate Convention — Reprisals — Effect of Change of Nationality of Enemy Shipowners — Status of the Free City of Danzig.

Interpretation of Treaties — Competence of Courts in the Matter of Interpretation — Interpretation for Purposes of Municipal Law by Government concerned — Franco-Spanish Convention of 7 January, 1862 — Tax on War-Profits.