Publication | Closed Access
The Object and Purpose of a Treaty: Three Interpretive Methods
46
Citations
0
References
2010
Year
NegotiationInternational CooperationEnvironmental LawU.s. Marine CorpsConstitutional LawLawAdministrative LawInternational Environmental LawSocial SciencesPrivate International LawDiplomacyInternational Criminal LawConflict Of LawClimate LawGeopoliticsInternational RulePublic PolicyInternational RelationsUnited States ConstitutionInternational Relation TheoryInterpretive MethodsInternational LawVienna ConventionInternational Humanitarian LawPublic International LawComparative LawInternational Legal StudiesNuclear Security RegulationsU.s. ArmyPolitical ScienceInternational Institutions
This Article examines the three most prominent uses of the term “object and purpose” within the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and, in each instance, offers a new method for applying the term. First, the rule that a treaty be interpreted “in light of” its object and purpose requires a process of interpretation that oscillates between a treaty’s individual provisions and the logic of all its provisions as a whole. Second, for reservations, the term exists to preserve “rule coherence[,]” as that term has been developed by Professor Thomas Franck. Lastly, states are required upon signature not to “defeat” the * General Counsel, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. B.A., Denison University; J.D., Wake Forest University School of Law; LL.M., The Judge Advocate General’s School, U.S. Army; LL.M., Georgetown University Law Center. The Author previously served in the U.S. Marine Corps, concluding his service with the Joint Chiefs of Staff as nuclear nonproliferation planner. The views expressed herein are his own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the U.S. Department of Energy, or the U.S. Government. ** J.D., Georgetown University Law Center 2009. Clinical Teaching Fellow and Fulbright grantee at Seoul National University School of Law, Korea. Former clerk at the Department of State’s Office of the Legal Adviser. The Co-author thanks Georgetown University Law Center for funding a portion of his research for this Article. For their valuable comments and insights into earlier drafts, both Authors express deepest gratitude to Barry Carter, David Koplow, Aaron Lawrence, Colleen Maring, and Ari Weisbard. 566 VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 43:565 object and purpose of a treaty, and this rule is best understood as a means of facilitating domestic legislative review of new treaties by preserving the status quo at the time of signature. In sum, this Article examines a term of art that has perplexed scholars and practitioners for decades, and, in three specific contexts, it offers an understanding of the term refined beyond what other writers have offered.