《维也纳条约法公约》第31.1条“通常含义”研究  

A Study of the “Ordinary Meaning” in Article 31.1 of VCLT

作　　者：冯寿波[1] 

机构地区：[1]南京信息工程大学公共管理学院,江苏南京210044

出　　处：《江苏大学学报（社会科学版）》2015年第4期70-76,92,共8页Journal of Jiangsu University(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：中国法学会基金项目(CLS2014D112)

摘　　要：在条约法理论和实践中,对《维也纳条约法公约》第31-33条相关解释因素的含义、价值、性质、关系、局限性等问题仍存诸多分歧。通过实证研究等方法,深入探究第31.1条"通常含义"在条约解释中的作用、词典的使用、词语的字面含义、对谁而言是"通常的"、无通常意义或无单一通常意义的处理、在WTO/ICJ等国际(准)司法实践中的应用等问题,确定条约用语"通常含义"的方法与第31-33条规定的其他解释方法间联系密切,"通常含义"仅是该要素系统的一部分,仅在上下文对此予以证实时且并不存在偏离该解释的其他因素时,"通常含义"才有决定性作用。该方法仍具局限性,几乎任何词语的含义都不止一个,且相互间可能还存在冲突。对"通常意义"与"特殊含义"问题,通常认为主张用语具有特殊意义的一方负举证责任。There exist many divergences of the related interpretive factors in treaty law theory and practice, such as its meaning, value, nature, relationship, limitations and problems in Articles 31--33 of VCLT. Through the empirical research, the author will explore the issues including the role of the ordinary meaning, the use of dictionary, the literal meaning of a term, and its use in WTO/ICJ and other （quasi） international judicial practice, and the solution to the problem of no usual meaning or no single usual meaning, etc. The way of determining the ordinary meaning of a term relates closely to other elements in Articles 31 33 of VCLT, the former being part of the element system. The ordinary meaning of a term perhaps has a decisive role on the condition that it can be confirmed in its context and there are not other factors deviating the explanation. Ordinary meaning still has its own limitations on account of the fact that almost any word has more than one meaning and there might be con flicts between them. As to the ＂ordinary meaning＂ and ＂special meaning＂, the party that insists on a special meaning shall bear the proof burden.

关 键 词：《维也纳条约法公约》 第31.1条 “通常含义” 

分 类 号：D993.8[政治法律—国际法学]