Interpretation process in international law: art or science?

Paper's title: Interpretation process in international law: art or science? Paper's objectives: This research aims to remove the doubts present in doctrine about the nature of interpretation process in international law. It purports to analyze the approaches to the process of interpretation with a view of either establishing a rational order to follow by the law-applying agents, making interpretation a science, or, concluding on the artistic, rather than scientific, nature of interpretation. Initially presuming the existence of a rational structure behind the interpretation process, this work will critically evaluate both the wording of articles 31-32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (‘VCLT’), establishing a general rule and supplementary means of interpretation, and application of these provisions in practice by various courts and tribunals. In the course of analysis, the author will examine three main schools of interpretation – textualist, intentionalist and teleological – and their contribution to the scientific status of interpretation process, busting the myth of priority in the interpretation process of any of the above-mentioned approaches and demonstrating their incapacity to cover all legal loopholes. Eventually, as soon as the interpretation process proves to be insubordinate to any established order, the author is to conclude on its nature and propose ideas to introduce reforms in application of articles 31-32 of the VCLT. Methods used: Method of analysis, system method, comparative and logical methods. Main results: - identification of the problem of hierarchy between articles 31 and 32 of the VCLT - the inability of any of the schools of interpretation to resolve all issues that arise regardless of the will and opinion of the interpreter - the artistic nature of the process of interpretation.