Public Law Studies

Interaction of the Interpretative Approach of the Rome Statute with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Case Study of the ICC's “Situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar”

Articles in Press

Document Type : Article

Authors

Ali Masoudianvarzaneh 1
Hamid Alhoei Nazari 2

1 Ph.D Student of Public International Law, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Prof. Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2025.389421.3676
Abstract
The fact that the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties codified the general rule and supplementary means of interpretation did not prevent the drafters of the Rome Statute from adopting additional interpretative approaches. On the contrary, the Rome Statute explicitly incorporates at least two specific interpretative approaches in Article 22(2): first, the narrow interpretation of crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC); and second, in dubio pro reo. The authors argue that, in principle, the interpretative approaches codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are not incompatible with those reflected in the Rome Statute. In cases of conflict between these two approaches, the authors propose a balanced approach in the article referenced. To further elaborate on the discussion, the authors have examined the ICC’s Decision pursuant to Article 15(3) in Bangladesh/Myanmar Situation. This serves to evaluate the Court's strategy in applying the interpretative rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, providing a benchmark to resolve ambiguities and avoid ensuing confusion.

Keywords

interpretation of treaties
Rome Statute
Situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
general rule of interpretation.
Subjects
English
A) Books
1.     Amado G. (1966). Yearbook of the International Law Commission (YBILC). New York, UN.
2.     Aust, A. (2000). Modern Treaty Law and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
3.     Bartos, M. (1966). Yearbook of the International Law Commission (YBILC). New York, UN.
4.     Broomhall, B. (2008). Article 22, Nullum Crimen Sine Lege, Otto Triffterer (Ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – Observers’ Notes, Article by Article, 713-729, Second Edition, C. H. Beck, München.
5.     Castren, S. (1966). Statement in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission (YBILC). New York, UN.
6.     Jacobs, F. G. (1969). Varieties of Approach to Treaty Interpretation: With Special Reference to the Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties before the Vienna Diplomatic Conference. Routledge.
7.     Klamberg, M. (2017). Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court. Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher.
8.     Lamb, S. (2002). Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege in International Criminal Law, Antonio Cassese et al. (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary. Vol. I, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
9.     Pellet, A. (2002). Applicable Law, Antonio Cassese/Paola Gaeta/John R.W.D. Jones (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary. Vol. II, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.
10.  Reuter, P. (1966). 'Yearbook of the International Law Commission (YBILC)'. New York, UN.
11. Sapienza, R. (1999). Les déclarations interprétatives unilatérales et l’interprétation des traités. Revue générale de droit international public, vol. 103.
12. Schabas, W. (2010). The International Criminal Court: Commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
13. Tunkin G. I. (1964). Yearbook of the International Law Commission (YBILC). New York, UN.
14. Verdross A. (1966). Yearbook of the International Law Commission (YBILC). New York, UN.
15. Villiger, M. E. (1997). Customary International Law and Treaties: A Manual on the Theory and Practice of the Interrelation of Sources (Developments in International Law). Vol. 7, Brill | Nijhoff.
16. Villiger, M. E. (2009). Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Martinus Nijhoff Puiblishers.
17. Yasseen, M. K. (1966). Yearbook of the International Law Commission (YBILC). New York, UN.
18. Jennings, R., & Watts, S. A. (1996). Oppenheim’s International Law. 9th ed., Vol. I, Peace, Longman, London.
19. Lekkas, S. I., Merkouris, P., & Peat, D. (2023). The Interpretative Practice of the International Court of Justice. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online.
20. Schott, C. (2001). Interpretatio cessat in claris Auslegungsfähigkeit und Auslegungsbedürftigkeit in der juristischen Hermeneutik. Theorie des Interpretation vom Humanismus bis zu Romantik – Rechtswissenschaft, Philosophie, Theologie“ Ed. Jan Schröder. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
B) Articles
21. D’Amato, A. (1984). ‘Good Faith’. Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 7, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 107–110.
22. Yasseen, M.K (1978). L’interprétation des traités d’après la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités Recueil des cours - Académie de Droit International de La Haye, A.W. Sijthoff, Leyde.
23. Bernhardt R. (1967). 'The Interpretation of Treaties in the Light of the Vienna Convention' 27 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV).
 
C) Treaties
24. Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes (adopted 9 September 2002, entered into force 9 September 2002) ICC-ASP/1/3.
25. Criminal Law Convention on Corruption: Article 17(1)(a), UNTS vol. 2216, p. 225.
26. European Convention on Extradition: Article 7(1), UNTS vol. 359, p. 273.
27. Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons: Article 4(a), OAS Treaty Series No. 68, p. 33 [ILM 1429 (1994)
28. OECD Convention: Article 4(1), UNTS vol. 2802, p. 225.
29. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) 2187 UNTS.
30. SADC Protocol on Extradition: Article 5(e).
31. UNGA Model Treaty on Extradition: Article 4(f), annexed to UNGA Res. 45/116.
32. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 (VCLT), Done at Vienna on 23 May 1969. Entered into force on 27 January 1980, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331.
 
D) Cases and Advisory Opinions
D-1) International and Regional Cases
33. 'Interpretation of the Algerian Declarations of 19 January 1981 (Claims Against US Nationals)' (1982) 62 ILR 603.
34. 1963 Air Transport Arbitration (France/US), International Law Reports (ILR) 38 (1969) 249 f.
35. 1977 Beagle Channel Arbitration, International Law Reports (ILR) 52 (1979) 224, paras. 172 and 169.
36.  1980 Young Loan Arbitration, International Law Reports (ILR) 59 (1980) 541, para. 31.
37. Declaration by Judge Robinson, Prosecutor v. Furundzija (2000) International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ILR 121 (2001) 360 f.
38. Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1), and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights) (Advisory Opinion OC-8/87), Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series A No 8 (30 January 1987).
39. https://www.icccpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2019_06955.PDF
40. ICC, Burundi Article 15 Decision ICC-01/17-9-Red (25 October 2017).
41. ICC, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh/Republic of the Union of Myanmar (14 November 2019) ; available at:
42. ICC, Kenya Article 15 Decision ICC-01/09-19-Corr (31 March 2010).
43. ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Bashir, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, PTC, 4 March 2009.
44. ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC PT. Ch. II, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, ICC-01/05-01/08-424, 15 June 2009.
45. ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC T. Ch. II, Judgment pursuant to article 74 of the Statute, ICC- 01/04-01/07-3436-tENG, 7 March 2014.
46. ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Prosecutor’s “Application for Leave to Reply to ‘Conclusions de la défense en réponse au mémoire d'appel du Procureur’”, AC, 12 September 2006.
47. ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga,Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, TC, 14 March 2012.
48. ICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Judgment on the Prosecutor's Application for Extraordinary Review of Pre-Trial Chamber I's 31 March 2006 Decision Denying Leave to Appeal, AC, 13 July 2006.
49. ICJ, 'Nuclear Tests (Australia v France)', Judgment [1974] ICJ Rep 253.
50. ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1. C.J. Reports 1996.
51. ICJ, Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 803.
52. ICJ, Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia) Case, ICJ Reports (2002) 652.
53. ICJ, Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti/France) Case, ICJ Reports (2008) para. 112.
54. Iran-US Claims Arbitration (1981) (1982) 62 ILR 603.
55. PCIJ, The Case of the S.S. "Lotus" (France v. Turkey). Judgment (1927), p. 23.
56. PCIJ, International Labour Organization (Competence in Regard to International Regulation of the Conditions of the Labour of Persons Employed in Agriculture) PCIJ Series B No 2 (1922).
 
D-2) Domestic Cases
57. Belgium: Cour de Cassation, 24 January 2001, R.D.P.C., I, p. 664; Cour de Cassation, 4 February 1986, Pas., I, p. 671.
58. Egypt: Court of Cassation, Appeal No. 109 Judicial Year 57, 1 April 1987, Year No. 38, p. 530; Appeal No. 23201 Judicial Year 63, 3 October 1995, Year No. 46, p. 1055.
59. German Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 46, 342 ff (1977).
60. The Australian High Court in the Commonwealth of Australia et al. v. Tasmania et al. Case (1985).
61. The Swiss Federal Court, BGE 122 II 238 (Judgment of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of March 26, 1996)
62. UK House of Lords, Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46, [2005] 1 All ER 667, para. 32.
63. United States v Aluminium Company of America (ALCOA) et al, 148 F 2d 416 (2nd Cir 12 March 1945)
E) Domestic Legislation
64. Afghanistan: Afghanistan’s Criminal Code, 1976, article 15(1).
65. Algeria: Code de Procédure Pénale, article 586.
66. Argentina: Código Penal de la Nación Argentina, 1921, article 1(1), amended 1 February 2018.
67. Armenia: Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, 2003, article 14(2), amended 27 February 2018.
68. Australia: Criminal Code Act, 1995, section 14.1(2)(b), amended 13 December 2017.
69. Azerbaijan: Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 2000, article 11.1.
70. Benin: Code de Procédure Pénale, 2012, article 640.
71. Cambodia: Criminal Code, article 13.
72. Cameroon: Criminal Code, 2016, article 8.
73. Central African Republic: Code de Procédure Pénale, 2010, article 340.
74. Chad: Code Pénal, 2017, article 7.
75. China: Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, 1979, article 6(3), amended 14 March 1997.
76. Colombia: Código Penal, 2000, article 14.
77. Côte d’Ivoire: Code de Procédure Pénale, article 662.
78. Czech Republic: Criminal Code of the Czech Republic, 2009, section 4(2)(b).
79. Djibouti: Code Pénal, 1995, article 11.
80. Estonia: Criminal Code, 2001, section 11.
81. Finland: Criminal Code, 2010, section 10(1), amended 1 March 2018.
82. France: Code Pénal, 1992, article 113-2, amended 16 December 2016.
83. Georgia: Criminal Code, article 4(2), first sentence.
84. Germany: German Criminal Code, 1998, section 9(1), amended 31 October 2017.
85. Guinea: Code Pénale, article 10.
86. Jordan: Criminal Code No. 16, 1960, article 7(2).
87. Kazakhstan: Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2014, article 7(2), amended 1 January 2016.
88. Lithuania: Criminal Code, 2000, article 4(3), amended 17 December 2017.
89. Luxembourg: Code de Procédure Pénale, article 7-2.
90. Madagascar: Code de Procédure Pénale, 1962, article 510.
91. Mali: Code de Procédure Pénale, 2001, article 22(5).
92. Mauritania: Code de Procédure Pénale, 1983, article 600.
93. Mexico: Código Penal Federal, 1931, article 2(1), amended 21 February 2018.
94. New Zealand: Crimes Act 1961, section 7, amended 28 September 2017.
95. Niger: Code de Procédure Pénale, 1961, article 646, amended 16 May 2004.
96. Poland: Criminal Code, 1997, article 6(2).
97. Republic of the Congo: Code de Procédure Pénale, 1963, article 614.
98. Romania: Criminal Code, 2012, article 8(4).
99. Rwanda: Code Pénal, article 11.
100.   Serbia: Criminal Code, article 17(1).
101.   Switzerland: Criminal Code of the Swiss Confederation, 1937, article 8(1), amended 1 January 2017.
102.   Tajikistan: Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan, 1998, article 14(2)(b).
103.   Tanzania: Criminal Code, 1945, section 7, amended 1991.
104.   Thailand: Criminal Code of Thailand, section 5(1).
105.   Timor-Leste: Criminal Code of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, 2009, article 6.
106.   Vanuatu: Criminal Code, 1981, article 2(a).
107.   Yemen: Republican Decree for Law No. 12, 1994, article 3.
 
F) UN Documents and other reports
108.   German Delegation in Vienna, 'Official Report (OR) 1969 CoW 172, para. 10.
109.   ILC Report 1966, YBILC 1966 II 219 f.
110.   International Law Commission, 'Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1964, Volume I' (1964) 311.
111.   Observation by the US Government to the International Law Commission (1966) II 359.
112.   Tusuruoka, 'Statement in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission (YBILC)' (1966) I.
113.   Waldock Report VI, 'Yearbook of the International Law Commission (YBILC)' (1966) II 99, para. 18.
Public Law Studies

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 22 June 2026

  • Receive Date 26 January 2025
  • Revise Date 25 June 2025
  • Accept Date 04 August 2025

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us