¹ Case concerning Oil Platforms (Iran v United States of America) 42 ILM 1334 2003), esp at para 41.Google Scholar

² Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 (‘VCLT’).Google Scholar

³ Sands, ‘Treaty, Custom and the Cross-fertilization of International Law’ 1 Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal (1998), 85 at 95.Google Scholar

⁴ See, eg, the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights cited below at n 110.Google Scholar

⁵ The Commission decided to include a study on this topic in the programme of work to be undertaken by its Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law at its 54th Session (2002): Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-fifth session, Supplement No 10 (A/55/10), chap IX.A.l, para 729. A preliminary study on the topic prepared by the author in collaboration with William Mansfield (TLC(LVT)/SG/FIL/CRD.3/Rev 1) was presented at the Fifty-sixth Session in July 2004: Report of the Study Group (A/CN.4/L 663/Rev 1).Google Scholar

⁶ See generally, Pauwelyn, , Conflict of Norms in Public International Law (CUP Cambridge 2003) (‘Pauwelyn’).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ See Koskenniemi ‘Study on the Function and Scope of the lex specialis rule and the question of self-contained regimes’ (TLC(LVI)/SG/FIL/CRD.l and Add 1) (‘Koskenniemi’), para 160.Google Scholar

⁸ McNair, , The Law of Treaties (OUP Oxford 1961) 466.Google Scholar

⁹ Above.Google Scholar

¹⁰ VCLT, Art 2(1)(a).Google Scholar

¹¹ The author is indebted to Xue Hanquin, Ambassador of China to the Netherlands and member of the International Law Commission, for this illuminating analogy.Google Scholar

¹² Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1964) vol II, 184, para 74 (‘Yearbook’).Google Scholar

¹³ Case Concerning the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) ICJ Rep 1997, 7 at 114.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Thirlway ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989 Part Three’ (1991) 62 BYIL 1 at 58.Google Scholar

¹⁵ To borrow a term employed by Sands, above n 3.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How we use it (OUP Oxford 1994), 1, 8.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Subject to the (contested) category of peremptory norms otjus cogens, which are granted priority over treaties pursuant to Arts 53 and 64 VCLT.Google Scholar

²⁰ Art 38(l)(c) Statute of the International Court of Justice.Google Scholar

²¹ Lauterpacht, Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law (Longmans London 1927).Google Scholar

²² Brierly, , The Law of Nations (5th ednOxfordOUP 1955), citation taken from 6th edn (unchanged on this point) edited by Waldock, (Clarendon Press Oxford 1963) at 58.Google Scholar

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Shelton, ‘International Law and ‘Relative Normativity” in Evans, (ed) International Law (OUP Oxford 2003) 145 at 148–9.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ku, ‘Global Governance and the Changing Face of International Law’ ACUNS Repts and Papers 2001 no 2.Google Scholar

²⁶ Below, Part mB.Google Scholar

²⁷ VCLT Art 30.Google Scholar

²⁸ The writer is indebted to William Mansfield for this metaphor.Google Scholar

²⁹ Brownlie, ‘The Rights of Peoples in Modern International Law’ in Crawford, (ed) The Rights of Peoples (Clarendon Press Oxford 1988) 1 at 15; see also his subsequent comments in [2001] ASIL Proceedings 13–15.Google Scholar

³⁰ See, eg, the collection of papers of ‘The Proliferation of International Tribunals: Piecing together the Puzzle’,a symposium held at New York University inOctober 1998, published in (1999) 31 NYU J Int’l L & Pol 679–933.Google Scholar

³¹ Hafner, ‘Risks ensuing from Fragmentation of International Law’, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-fifth session, Supplement No 10 (A/55/10), annex 321. The most recent report of the Study Group is dated 28 07 2004 (A/CN.4/L.663/Rev 1).Google Scholar

³² Koskenniemi, above n 7.Google Scholar

³³ VCLT Arts 30 and 4 1, as to which see respectively Melescanu (TLC(LVI)SG/FIL/CRD.2) and Daoudi (TLC (LVI)/SG/FIL/CRD.4).Google Scholar

³⁴ VCLT Art 53 as to which see Golicki (TLC(LVI)/5G/FIL/(RD.5).Google Scholar

³⁵ VCLT Art 4 1. See, eg, Art 311 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982.Google Scholar

³⁶ For a recent very interesting contribution to the literature on the problem of time in statutory interpretation see Bradley ‘The Ambulatory Approach at the Bottom of the Cliff: Can the Courts Correct Parliament's Failure to Update Legislation?’ (2003) 9 Canterbury L R 1.Google Scholar

³⁷ Scobbie, , ‘Some Common Heresies about International Law’ in Evans, (ed) International Law (OUP Oxford 2003) 59 at 65.Google Scholar

³⁸ Above n 7, para 29.Google Scholar

³⁹ A connection already made by Grotius, , De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1646), Ch XVI ‘On Interpretation’, in the translation by Kelsey, (Clarendon Press Oxford 1925) vol II.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ In contract law, this may be seen as an aspect of party autonomy or ‘will theory’, as to which see , AtiyahThe Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (Clarendon Press Oxford 1979).Google Scholar For a recent defence of the role of the intentions of the parties in contractual interpretation, see McLauchlan, DW ‘The New Law of Contract Interpretation’ (2000) 19 NZULR 147.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Koskenniemi above n 7, para 59.Google Scholar

⁴² Amin Rasheed Shipping Corporation v Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50, 67, per Lord Diplock.Google Scholar

⁴³ A point famously made by Julius, Stone in ‘Fictional Elements in Treaty Interpretation—A Study in the International Judicial Process’ (1953) 1 Sydney LR 344.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Charney, ‘Is International Law threatened by International Tribunals?’ (1998) 271 Recueil des Cours 101.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ A view particularly often expressed in the United States. See, eg, Harvard Research Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties (1935) 29 AJ1L Supp. 937;Google Scholarand McDougal, , Lasswell, and Miller, The Interpretation of Agreements and World Public Order (Yale UP, New Haven, 1967).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Vattel, Le Droit des Gens (1758), Ch XVH ‘The Interpretation of Treaties’, in the translation by Fenwick, (Carnegie Institution Washington 1916). vol III.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Above n 43, 364.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ (1951) 28 BYIL 1; (1957) 33 BYIL 204.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See, eg, the debate between Lauterpacht (1949) 26 BYIL 48 and Stone, above n 43.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Thirlway above n 14.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Above n 8.Google Scholar

⁵² See the additional references cited in McNair op cit.Google Scholar

⁵³ Fitzmaurice, (1957) above n 48, 225–7; and see also his earlier article dealing with intertemporality (1953) 30 BYIL 5–8. Fitzmaurice relied on the classic statement of Judge Huber in Island of Palmas Arbitration (1928) 2 RIAA 829, 845. Huber was concerned in that case with the acquisition of title of territory, a context which much more strongly requires the application of a principle of contemporaneity.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The test provided under Art 32 for reference to supplementary means of interpretation.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See the cases discussed at Part HI C below, and, more generally, Cameron, and Gray, (2001) 50 ICLQ 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁶ ‘Yearbook’ (1964) vol II.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ibid 55 para 10.

⁵⁸ Annuaire de I'Institut de Droit International (‘Annuaire’) (1956) 364–5. Inclusion of this reference in the resolution of the Institut had had a controversial history. It did not appear in Lauterpacht's original scheme in 1950 (Annuaire (1950–1) 433). A reference to the interpretative role of general principles of customary international law was subsequently added by him in 1952 (Annuaire (1952–1) 223). It faced considerable opposition on grounds of uncertainty, and inconsistency with the Institut's codification role (Annuaire (1952–11) 384–6, remarks of Guggenheim and Rolin Annuaire (1954–1) 228). When Fitzmaurice was appointed to replace Lauterpacht as rapporteur, there was no reference of this kind in his draft (Annuaire (1956) 337–8). It was only added in the course of the debate, following an intervention of Basedevant (Annuaire (1958) 344).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ ‘Yearbook’ (1964) vol II 8–9.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ ‘Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries adopted by the International Law Commission at its 18th session’, reproduced in United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties 1969, 42–3.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See the summary of state practice, jurisprudence and doctrinal writings in Villiger Customary International Law and Treaties (Nijhoff Dordrecht 1985). 334–43. (Villiger himselfcomes to the more qualified conclusion that the rules were, at least in 1985, still ‘emergingcustomary rules on interpretation which originated in Vienna’.Google ScholarBut see now especially TerritorialDispute Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v Chad) ICJ Rep (1994) 6 (International Court of Justice); Golder v United Kingdom ECHR Ser. A, [1995] no 18 (European Court of Human Rights); Restrictions to the Death Penalty Cases 70 ILR 449 (1986), (Inter American Court of HumanRights); United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline AB-1996–1WT/DS2/AB/R, 29 Apr 1996, 16 (World Trade Organization Appellate Body).Google Scholar

⁶² 2 tan-USCTR (1983) 157.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid 161.

⁶⁴ See also, to like effect, Case no A/18 (1984) 5 Iran-USCTR 251, 260. The provision was alsorelied upon in a dissent in Grimm v Iran 2 Iran-USCTR 78, 82 on the question of whether a fail-ure by Iran to protect an individual could constitute a measure ‘affecting property rights’ of hiswife.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Amoco International Finance Corporation v Iran (1987–11) 15 Iran-USCTR 189 at 222 para 112.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Judgment 21 Feb 1975, ECHR Ser A no 18; 57 ILR 200 at 213.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid 35.

⁶⁸ 18 Dec 1996, Reports 1996-VI; 108 ILR 443 at 462 para 44.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ibid.

⁷⁰ Award on the merits, 10 Apr 2001; award in respect of damages, 31 May 2002 (2002) 41ILM 1347.Google Scholar

⁷¹ International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: the Mox Plant case (Ireland v UnitedKingdom)—Request for Provisional Measures Order (3 Dec 2001) <www.itlos.org>; PermanentCourt of Arbitration: Dispute Concerning Access to Information Under Article 9 of the OSPARConvention: Ireland v United Kingdom—Final Award (2 July 2003) (2003) 42 ILM 1118;Permanent Court of Arbitration: the Mox Plant case: (Ireland v United Kingdom)—Order No 3(24 June 2003) (2003) 42 ILM 1187.;+PermanentCourt+of+Arbitration:+Dispute+Concerning+Access+to+Information+Under+Article+9+of+the+OSPARConvention:+Ireland+v+United+Kingdom—Final+Award+(2+July+2003)+(2003)+42+ILM+1118;Permanent+Court+of+Arbitration:+the+Mox+Plant+case:+(Ireland+v+United+Kingdom)—Order+No+3(24+June+2003)+(2003)+42+ILM+1187.>Google Scholar

⁷² WTO United States: Import Prohibition of certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—Report ofthe Appellate Body (12 Oct 1998) WT/DS58/AB/R; (1999) 38 ILM 118.Google Scholar

⁷³ WTO EC measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones)—Report of the Appellate Body (16 Jan 1998) WT/DS-26/AB/R.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Al-Adsani v United Kingdom, Application no 35763/97, 123 ILR 24 (2001); Fogarty v United Kingdom Application no 37112/97, 123 ILR 54 (2001); and McElhinney v Ireland Application no 31253/96, 123 ILR 73 (2001).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Above nl.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Above n 70.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Award on the merits, para 118, 55–6.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ The Free Trade Commission is, by NAFTA Art 2001(2), empowered to, inter alia, ‘resolvedisputes that may arise regarding [the Agreement's] interpretation or application’. Pursuant to Art 1131 (2), an interpretation by the Commission of a provision of the Agreement ‘shall be bindingon a Tribunal’. This Interpretation may be found at: <www.worldtradelaw.net/nafta/chapl_linterp.pdf/uri>>.>.>Google Scholar

⁷⁹ 79 Above n 70 para 46.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ The Tribunal relied upon dicta of the ICJ in Case concerning Elettronica Sicula SpA, (1989) ICJ Rep 15 at 76.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Art 102 para 2.Google Scholar

⁸² See esp Mondev International Ltd v USA (2003) 42 ILM 85; and ADF Group Inc v USA (award dated 9 Jan 2003 in case no ARB(AF)/00/l).Google Scholar

⁸³ Mondev Ibid 109 para 125.

⁸⁴ For references, see above n 71.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ In the course of that arbitration, the European Commission lodged a complaint in theEuropean Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) against Ireland, alleging that Ireland, in bringing the UNCLOSarbitration proceedings was in breach of its community obligations. Complaint no C-459/03 lodged on 30 Oct 2003.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Above n 71 paras 50–2.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Declaration of the UN Conference on Environment and Development Report of the UnitedNations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro,3–14 June 1992(United Nations publication, Sales no E. 93.1.8 and Corrigenda), vol I: Resolutions adopted by the Conference, resolution 1, annex I. See also (1992) 31 ILM 874.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Above n 71, paras 93–105, 1137–8.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Ibid 1161–5.

⁹⁰ The President of the Tribunal, Professor Michael Reisman, dissented on this issue: Ibid 1157–60.

⁹¹ Ibid 1144 para 143.

⁹² Art 32(5)(a), referred to in Dr Griffith's dissent 1161, para 2(1); and see: Churchill andScott ‘The Mox Plant Litigation: the First Half-Life’ (2004)53 ICLQ 643 at 670.Google Scholar

⁹³ Above n 71 paras 18–19, 1189–90.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Art 3(2) Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Annex 2 to Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (‘DSU’), repro-duced in World Trade Organization The Legal Texts: the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (CUP Cambridge 1999) 354, 355.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ WTO United States: Import Prohibition of certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products-Report ofthe Appellate Body (12 Oct 1998) WT/DS58/AB/R; (1999) 38 ILM 118.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Ibid, para 130 citing Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of SouthAfrica in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 {AdvisoryOpinion) ICJ Rep (1971) 31.

⁹⁷ The Tribunal noted that the Complainant States had ratified UNCLOS. The United Stateshad not done so, but had accepted during the course of the hearing that the fisheries law provi-sions of UNCLOS for the most part reflected international customary law.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 14 June 1992 Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–1407 1992 (United Nations publication, Sales no. E. 93.1.8 and Corrigenda).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Final Act, Bonn, 23 06 1979, (1980) 19 ILM 15.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Above n 95, para 158.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Ibid.

¹⁰² Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Measures, reproduced in opcitn 94, 59–72.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ WTO EC measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones)—Report of the Appellate Body (16 Jan 1998) WT/DS-26/AB/R.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Ibid para 123.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid para 124.

¹⁷ Ibid paras 124 and 125.

¹⁰⁷ See, eg, Pauwelyn, ‘The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go?’ AJ1L 95 (2001) 535;Google ScholarMarceau, ‘WTO Settlement and Human Rights’ 13 EJ1L (2002) 753;Google Scholar Sands above n 3; Lowenfeld, International Economic Law (OUP Oxford 2002) 314–39;Google Scholar and Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law (CUP Cambridge 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁸ WTO United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline—Report ofthe Appellate Body (29 Apr 1996) WT/DS2/AB/R.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Above n 95 para 158 n 157. The clause is also referred to by a WTO Panel in United States-Section 110(5) of US Copyright Art — World Trade Organisation Panel Report (15 June 2000) WT/DS160/R, para 6.5.5.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Al-Adsani v United Kingdom Application no 35763/97 123ILR 24 (2001); Fogarty v United Kingdom Application no 37112/97) 123 ILR 54 (2001); and McElhinney v Ireland Application no31253/96 123 ILR 73 (2001). The ECtHR also referred to Article 31(3)(c) in Bantovíc v Belgium 123 ILR 94 (2001) at 108 para 57. For a critique of the Court's approach, see Orakhelaskvili(2003) 14 EJ1L 529.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Al-Adsani Ibid 40, paras 55–6; see also: Fogart Ibid 65, paras 35–6; McElhinney Ibid 85, paras 36–7.

¹¹² Ibid Al-Adsani 49– 51, Dissenting Opinion of Judges Rozakis and Caflisch, joined by JudgesWildhaber, Costa, Cabral Barreto, and Vajic.

¹¹³ Ibid.McElhinney 88, Dissenting Opinion of Judges Caflisch, Cabral Barreto, and Vajic.

¹¹⁴ Op cit n 1.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Art XXI para 2.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Cf the position in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaraguav United States of America) ICJ Rep (1986) 14, in which the Court was asked to interpret verysimilar treaty language, but also had an additional basis for its jurisdiction as a result of unilateraldeclarations made by both parties under Art 36, para 2 of its Statute.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Art XX para l(d).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Rejoinder of the United States, 23 Mar 2001, Part IV 139–40.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Op cit n 1 para 40 1352.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Ibid para 41 1352

¹²¹ Ibid para 78 1362.

¹²² The Court entered judgment by 14 votes to 2 declining to uphold Iran's claim (Judges Al-Khasawneh and Elaraby dissenting) and by 15 votes to 1 declining to uphold the United States'counterclaim (Judge Simma dissenting).Google Scholar

¹²³ Ibid 1409–13 paras 20–32.

¹²⁴ Ibid 1410 paras 22–3.

¹²⁵ Ibid 1430–4 paras 5–16.

¹²⁶ Ibid 1431 para 6.

¹²⁷ Ibid 1432 para 9.

¹²⁸ Ibid.

¹²⁹ Ibid para 10.

¹³⁰ Ibid 1386–8 paras 40–54.

¹³¹ Ibid 1387 para 46.

¹³² Ibid 1387 para 49.

¹³³ Ibid 1396–1402 paras 21–52

¹³⁴ Ibid 1400 para 42.

¹³⁵ Ibid 1401 para 48.

¹³⁶ Ibid 1402 para 52.

¹³⁷ Annuaire (1952–1) 200–1. For a similar analysis as applied to statutory interpretation indomestic law see: Glazebrook, ‘Filling the gaps’ in Bigwood, (ed) The Statute: Making and Meaning (LexisNexis Wellington 2004) 153.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 21; as to which see: Pellet, ‘Applicable Law’ in Cassese et al The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Couri: A Commentary (OUP Oxford 2002) 1051Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Rights of Passage over Indian Territory (Preliminary Objections) (Portugal v India) Case ICJ Rep (1957) 142; Jennings, and Watts, (eds) Oppenheim's International Law (9th edn, Longman London 1992) 1275.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Korea—Measures affecting Government Procurement (1 May 2000, WT 1DS163/R) 183, para 7.96Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ See, eg, the importance of the rule requiring waivers of state immunity by treaty to beexpress: Oppenheim above n 139 351, and Argentine Republic v Amerada Hess Shipping Corp 109 S Ct 683 (1989).Google Scholar

¹⁴² See, eg, Loizidou v Turkey (Preliminary Objections), ECHR, series A [1995] no 310 and lssa v Turkey (Application no 31831/96, 16 November 2004). See also the reliance on the public inter-national law rules of jurisdiction in Bankovíc op cit n 110 paras 59–60 109.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ See Pauwelyn above n 6 at 271.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Marceau above n 107 at 781.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ This was the approach adopted by the GATT panel in United States — Restrictions onImports of Tuna, 16 June 1994, and adopted DS29/R para 5.19.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ See, eg, the emphasis placed in Shrimp-Turtle on the fact that, although the United Stateshad not ratified UNCLOS, it had accepted during the course of argument that the relevant provi-sions for the most part reflected international customary law (above n 95 para 51).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Pauwelyn above n 6, 257— 63 supports this approach in the case of the WTO CoveredAgreements.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ See, eg, the sources relied upon by the Appellate Body in Shrimp-Turtle, above n 95 para 51.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ For a recent exploration of this idea in the context of the WTO Covered Agreements, seePauwelyn, above n 6, ch 8 440–86 and Pauwelyn ‘A Typology of Multilateral Treaty Obligations: Are WTO Obligations Bilateral or Collective in Nature?’ (2003) 14 EJIL 907.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ See the text above at n 87.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ OSPAR Tribunal Arbitral Award in Mox Plant, above n 71 para 103 1138. Waldock antic-ipated this point in his initial draft formulation of Art 56 of the VCLT: see text above at n 59. Thisphenomenon is well developed in the case of domestic statutory interpretation by Bradley, aboven 36.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Oppenheim above n 139 1282.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Thirlway, above n 14 at 57. See also: Thirlway, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989 (Part two), (1989) 60 BYIL 1 at 135–43Google Scholar and Rosalyn, Higgins ‘Time and the Law: International Perspectives on an Old Problem’ (1997) 46 ICLQ 501, 515–19.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Yearbook (1964) vol I 34 para 10.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ See, eg, Namibia (Legal Consequences) Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep (1971) 31; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case (Greece v Turkey) ICJ Rep (1978), 3.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) ICJ Rep (1997), 7 at 76–80; See also Separate Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, Ibid 113–15.

¹⁵⁷ A point made by Pauwelyn, above n 6 at 272.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ These include the other rules being discussed by the ILC Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law, discussed in the text above at nn 32–5.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Brownlie (2001), above n 28 at 14.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) (International Court of Justice, General List no 121, 14 Feb 2002), Joint Separate Opinion, para 79, (2002) 4 1 ILM 536 590Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ These broader ideas are developed by the author in: ‘After Baghdad: Conflict or Coherence in International Law?’ 2003) 1 NZJPIL (25.Google Scholar