How should international treaties be interpreted over time? This book addresses what evolutive interpretation looks like in reality.

If a treaty from the 1850s regulating 'commerce' or forbidding 'degrading treatment of persons' is to be interpreted 150 years later, does 'commerce' or 'degrading treatment of persons' have the same meaning at the time of interpretation as they had when the treaty was agreed? The evolutionary interpretation of treaties has proven one of the most controversial topics in the practice of international law. Indeed, it has been seen as going against the very grain of the law of treaties, and has been argued to be contrary to the intention of the parties, breaching the principle of consent. This book asks what the place of evolutionary interpretation is within the understanding of treaties, at a time when many important international legal instruments are over 50 years old. It sets out to place the evolutionary interpretation of treaties on a firm footing within the general rule of interpretation, as codified in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The book demonstrates that the evolutionary interpretation of treaties - in common with all other types of interpretation such as good faith, the text of the treaty, context, object and purpose - is in fact a based upon an objective understanding of the intention of the parties. In order to marry intention and evolution in this way, the book argues that, on the one hand, evolutionary interpretation is the product of the correct application of Article 31 and, on the other, that Article 31 is geared towards the establishment of the intention of the parties. The evolutionary interpretation of treaties is therefore shown to represent an intended evolution.

This unique book brings together leading experts from diverse areas of public international law to offer a comprehensive overview of the approaches to evolutionary interpretation in different international legal regimes. It begins by asking what interpretation is, offering the views of expert authors on the question, its components and definitions. It then comments on situations that have called for evolutionary interpretation in different international legal regimes, including general international law, environmental law, human rights law, EU law, investment law, international trade law, and how domestic courts have, on occasions, interpreted treaties and other international legal instruments in an evolutionary manner. This timely, authoritative compendium offers an in-depth understanding of the processes at work in evolutionary interpretation as well as a prime selection of the current trends and future challenges.

International lawyers have long recognised the importance of interpretation to their academic discipline and professional practice. As new insights on interpretation abound in other fields, international law and international lawyers have largely remained wedded to a rule-based approach, focusing almost exclusively on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Such an approach neglects interpretation as a distinct and broader field of theoretical inquiry. Interpretation in International Law brings international legal scholars together to engage in sustained reflection on the theme of interpretation. The book is creatively structured around the metaphor of the game, which captures and illuminates the constituent elements of an act of interpretation. The object of the game of interpretation is to persuade the audience that one's interpretation of the law is correct. The rules of play are known and complied with by the players, even though much is left to their skills and strategies. There is also a meta-discourse about the game of interpretation - 'playing the game of game-playing' - which involves consideration of the nature of the game, its underlying stakes, and who gets to decide by what rules one should play. Through a series of diverse contributions, Interpretation in International Law reveals interpretation as an inescapable feature of all areas of international law. It will be of interest and utility to all international lawyers whose work touches upon theoretical or practical aspects of interpretation.

In Consensus-Based Interpretation of Regional Human Rights Treaties Francisco Pascual-Vives examines the central role played by the notion of consensus in the case law of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights. As many other international courts and tribunals do, both regional human rights courts resort to this concept while undertaking an evolutive interpretation of the Rome Convention and the Pact of San José, respectively. The role exerted by the notion of consensus in this framework can be used not only to understand the evolving character of the rights and freedoms recognized by these international treaties, but also to reaffirm the international nature of these regional human rights courts.

A theoretical analysis of the structure of expropriation in investment law, investigating the foundations for contemporary scholarship and practice.

Intertemporal Linguistics in International Law examines and offers an overdue solution to a specific problem central to the resolution of an ever increasing number of international legal disputes: how to interpret a treaty with terms that change in meaning over time. A wide-ranging review of the relevant international case law and scholarship reveals that no rule, principle or authority of international law – including even the oft-cited evolutionary interpretation doctrine – provides international adjudicators with the firm and practical guidance on this specific question that contemporary international litigants demand. Using an analytical approach inspired by the comparative method and drawing on specific concepts from external fields including private law, legal theory and, principally, modern-day linguistics, Intertemporal Linguistics in International Law restructures the most relevant international case law around a new conceptual framework that offers fresh insight into the process of treaty interpretation. It demonstrates that by distinguishing between resolving ambiguity and resolving vagueness, and by identifying the temporal sense-intention with which a treaty term is used, international adjudicators can avail themselves of a more predictable and appropriate method for solving this complex and practically important problem of international law.