| The expansion of the area of international law and the proliferation of its rules,as well as frequent international judicial activity,have given rise to discussions about the “fragmentation” of international law.The rules of systematic interpretation under Article 31(3)(c)of the VCLT have become an important solution to preserve the system of international law.By examining the process of discussion of this rule by the Institute of International Law,the International Law Commission,and the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties when Article 31(3)(c)was drafted,as well as the interpretation and application of this rule by the International Court of Justice,WTO dispute settlement bodies,and relevant international arbitration bodies,it is clear that Article 31(3)(c)has a deep theoretical and practical foundation.However,the text of Article 31(3)(c),is very brief and contains vague terms such as “parties”,“relevant”,“rules of international law” and “applicable”,which require interpretation of the rule.And the rules of interpretation are the General Rule of Interpretation of the VCLT,as well as the travaux préparatoires of treaties and relevant case law.By explaining,the scope of Article 31(3)(c)“rules of international law” is other treaties,customary international law,and general principles of law,excluding other norms such as “soft law”.As for the different views on the meaning of “parties” should objectively reflect the common intention of the parties and do not derogate from the rights and obligations of the parties,the consistency between the relevant rules of international law and the rules to be interpreted should be considered as far as possible.The meaning of “relevant” should relate to the subject matter of the dispute or the legal relationship between the parties.The rules of interpretation of the VCLT are a comprehensive process,and Article 31(3)(c),as an external consideration of “contextual interpretation”,should be considered together with other rules of interpretation as a whole,in line with the principle of holistic interpretation and the requirements of other rules of interpretation.Some scholars have argued that Article 31(3)(c)contains intertemporal law,which cannot be reached simply from the textual interpretation route and requires consideration of the temporal element in the VCLT in context and an examination of the discussion of this issue in the International Law Commission during the drafting of the Convention.The VCLT does not oppose the application of intertemporal law;the drafters of the Convention only put the issue aside for the time being because they feared that intertemporal law would be too complex.Thus,Article 31(3)(c)isn’t limited to the rules of international law applicable at the time of the conclusion of the treaty,and the interpretation takes into account the rules of international law “in force at the time of conclusion” or “in force at the time of interpretation”,depending on the treaty to be interpreted and the intention of the parties concerned.That is,Article31(3)(c)contains an element of intertemporal law to resolve temporal conflicts,and thus is also considered to contain an evolutionary approach to the interpretation of treaties that facilitates the development of international law as a whole.International law as a legal system,there is no strict hierarchical relationship between the rules,leading to conflicting rules and the development of several conflict resolution principles in practice,including lex specialis,lex posterior,and lex prioritis.Conflicts may also arise between different rules when applying Article 31(3)(c)to the interpretation of treaties considering the relevant rules,and these principles also fall within the scope of the “rules” of Article 31(3)(c)and thus meet this requirement.Thus,Article 31(3)(c)serves to preserve the system of international law,and the ILC considers that it expresses the principle of systemic integration and links this concept to Article 31(3)(c).However,Article 31(3)(c),when resolving conflicts between different rules to preserve the system of international law,can only be done through the route of interpretation and in strict compliance with other rules of the VCLT,otherwise,it will become a tool for specific countries or special systems to seek to legitimize their interests.In conclusion,Article 31(3)(c)of the VCLT,as a rule of interpretation,is a bridge between the “rules” and the “system” of international law.As a rule of interpretation itself,it not only enables the treaty to be interpreted to arrive at a more accurate and comprehensive meaning in the normative environment of international law but also has the function of systemic integration and evolution of treaty interpretation,which can maintain the system of international law and promote the overall development of international law.However,Article 31(3)(c)also has limitations.As a rule of interpretation,its semantics are unclear and its provisions are vague,making it difficult to grasp when applying it,and there is a possibility of abuse.China has always advocated a diversified and systematic development of international law.Therefore,China should attach importance to the role of Article 31(3)(c)and excel in invoking relevant rules of international law in treaty interpretation to harmonize specific treaties and fundamental principles of international law and to integrate its own common and universal interests and those of all mankind.At the same time,when applying Article 31(3)(c),China should avoid similar expressions of the “principle of systemic integration”,adhere to its position on treaty interpretation,and make interpretations that are consistent with the general principles and relevant rules of treaty interpretation,to avoid the softening of the principle of state consent by judicial activism. |
