Means of interpretation of international treaties and determinants of their significance

The Taşkın ca se ma ni fests mu tual sup por ti ve ness of the Aar hus Con ven tion and the Eu ro pean Con ven tion on Hu man Rights as well as of the gene ral in ter na ti o nal en vi ron men tal and the right to pri va te and fa mily li fe. In terac ti ons bet we en the pro tec tion of the en vi ron ment and hu man rights are com plex and in vol ve eco no mic and po li ti cal fac tors. Le gal con cepts of su sta i na ble de velop ment, mu tual sup por ti ve ness and ba lan ce of in te rests bring new prin ci ples go ver ning the com plex in ter ac ti ons. They are re flec ted in Taşkın.

The interrelationship between the European Convention on Human Rights and the Aarhus Convention

Etinski¹

2018

The Achmea cases: Story on treaty interpretation, forum competition and international law fragmentation

Djajic¹

2018

In this ar tic le the aut hor exa mi nes de ci si ons ren de red by the UN-CI TRAL ar bi tral tri bu nal in an in vest ment ca se Ac hmea v. Slo va kia and jud gment of the Eu ro pean Co urt of Ju sti ce re gar ding the com pa ti bi lity of the in ve stor-Sta te dis pu te set tle ment pro vi sion in an in tra-EU BIT with EU law relating the Ac hmea ar bi tral award on the me rits. Gi ven that the ECJ fo und in com pa ti bi lity bet we en the two such de ci sion might ha ve wi de-ran ging con se qu en ces. He re the aut hor as ses ses ar gu ments in dif fe rent de ci si ons from the per spec ti ve of frag men ta tion of in ter na ti o nal law, mo re pre ci sely from the per spec ti ve of con cepts and ar guments de ve lo ped wit hin the In ter na ti o nal Law Com mis sion Re port on Frag menta tion of In ter na ti o nal Law. Whi le the frag men ta tion is sue was di scus sed at the early sta ges of ar bi tral pro ce e dings it was la ter aban do ned and re ma i ned un menti o ned by the ECJ. The ca u se of dif fe rent ta kes on the re la ti on ship bet we en dispu te set tle ment pro vi si ons in in tra-EU BIT and EU law co uld well be de scri bed not as a nor ma ti ve but rat her as a con flict bet we en dif fe rent fo rums. Ju ris dic ti o nal con flict thus ga ve ri se to the pro blem of frag men ta tion in its strict sen se-ina bi lity of a sta te to per form two tre aty obli ga ti ons si mul ta ne o usly.

A critical review of interpretation of articles III and XX of the GATT 1994

Etinski¹

2018

Textual interpretation is the prevailing mode of interpretation. Significant exceptions exist. The choice of means of interpretation and the different weight attributed to them can shape the outcome of interpretation. Different means applied to the same term can sometimes create different clarifications. Moving decisive significance from one to another means can occasionally change the outcome of interpretation. There are many factors that determine the choice and weight of the means of interpretation. The spirit, as originates from the object and purpose of the GATT 1994, might be in the background of all of them. The interpretation does not operate without certain inconsistencies and difficulties.