Abstract:
The principle of unity of interpretation is one of the fundamental
but at the same time one of the ambiguous principles of interpretation of treaty norms in international law. Deviation from compliance
with this principle entails consequences in the form of a different
understanding and further application of the norms of international
law, which in turn creates the possibility of contradictory decisions
by international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. The importance
of legal analysis of this issue is evidenced by the fact that the “arbitrary” interpretation of the norms of international law casts doubt
on the effectiveness of the principles and rules of interpretation of
treaty norms enshrined in international law. Despite the fact that the
rules and basic principles of interpretation are regulated by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, each interpreter can apply
them in a peculiar way. The purpose of this study is a comprehensive analysis of the practice of interpreting the norms of international law by international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, and
to determine the reasons for the different approach of interpretation
of the same rule of law. This goal can be achieved in 2 ways: by
analyzing the legal nature of the principle of unity, and its law enforcement practice. This article does not analyze the observance of
the principle of unity in interpretation by arbitration courts, since
this is an issue that requires separate research.
