2001Journal of International Economic LawRequires access

Do Different Treaty Purposes Matter for Treaty Interpretation?: The Elimination of Discriminatory Internal Taxes in EC and WTO Law

Marco Slotboom

Open publisher page 25 citations

Abstract

The comparison made in this contribution between Article III:2 GATT and Article 90 EC indicates that different treaty purposes need not matter that much, if the text and purpose of individual provisions are similar. Indeed, the different objectives and purposes of the GATT and the EC have not led to noticeably different interpretations of the similarly worded obligations on WTO Members and EC Member States concerning the elimination of discriminatory internal taxes in Article III:2 GATT and Article 90 EC. This finding is in line with Article 31 (1) of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, which puts emphasis on the relevance of the wording of treaty provisions. The European Court of Justice (ECJ), however, pays more attention to the object and purpose of the EC Treaty when interpreting a provision of that treaty. Would one have followed the line of reasoning of the ECJ, one might therefore have expected another conclusion.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The comparison made in this contribution between Article III:2 GATT and Article 90 EC indicates that different treaty purposes need not matter that much, if the text and purpose of individual provisions are similar. Indeed, the different objectives and purposes of the GATT and the EC have not led to noticeably different interpretations of the similarly worded obligations on WTO Members and EC Member States concerning the elimination of discriminatory internal taxes in Article III:2 GATT and Article 90 EC. This finding is in line with Article 31 (1) of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, which puts emphasis on the relevance of the wording of treaty provisions. The European Court of Justice (ECJ), however, pays more attention to the object and purpose of the EC Treaty when interpreting a provision of that treaty. Would one have followed the line of reasoning of the ECJ, one might therefore have expected another conclusion.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 25 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The comparison made in this contribution between Article III:2 GATT and Article 90 EC indicates that different treaty purposes need not matter that much, if the text and purpose of individual provisions are similar. Indeed, the different objectives and purposes of the GATT and the EC have not led to noticeably different interpretations of the similarly worded obligations on WTO Members and EC Member States concerning the elimination of discriminatory internal taxes in Article III:2 GATT and Article 90 EC. This finding is in line with Article 31 (1) of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, which puts emphasis on the relevance of the wording of treaty provisions. The European Court of Justice (ECJ), however, pays more attention to the object and purpose of the EC Treaty when interpreting a provision of that treaty. Would one have followed the line of reasoning of the ECJ, one might therefore have expected another conclusion.

Key concepts: Treaty, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Interpretation (philosophy), Convention, Law, European court of justice, Political science, Relevance (law)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Do Different Treaty Purposes Matter for Treaty Interpretation?: The Elimination of Discriminatory Internal Taxes in EC and WTO Law — Research Paper | ScholarLens