On The Subsequent Practice Related To The Interpretation Of The Treaty

The "subsequent practice" stipulated in Article 31,paragraph 3(b),of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,as objective evidence of the common understanding of treaty interpretation by the contracting parties,is playing an increasingly important role in interpretation practice of treaty law.Subsequent practice is an act taken by the contracting parties to express their common understanding of treaty interpretation,in spite of their different forms after they are bound by the treaty.In understanding the concept of subsequent practice,it should be noted that it is different from “subsequent practice under Article 32”.Subsequent practice itself is not a special method of treaty interpretation,but only an authoritative material for treaty interpretation,which is important but not decisive in treaty interpretation.In the application of subsequent practice in treaty interpretation,the principle of bona fide interpretation should be adhered to and the pacta sunt servanda principle should be considered,so as to play a flexible role in interpretation when the practice of contracting parties conflicts with the “outdated treaties”.Subsequent practice is justified as instrumental interpretation data,so it is justifiable to apply subsequent practice to support interpreters of treaty evolution.But the problem is that there is much controversy in the interpretation of evolution itself.Therefore,for the practice of using subsequent practice to support evolutive interpretation,we must grasp the applicable standard of subsequent practice,adopt a cautious and even restrained attitude,and limit the role of subsequent practice to the interpretation of treaties,so as to avoid consequences of informal modification of treaties.