다국어 조약의 해석 : 언어 불평등과 언어 간 불명확성

Interpretation of plurilngual treaties involves the task of removing the diference ofmeaning disclosed by comparing the texts of a treaty which has ben authenticated intwo or more languages. Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the 1969 Viena Conventionon the Law of Treaties provides that the authenticated text is equaly authoritative ineach language unles the treaty provides, or the parties agre, otherwise; and that theterms of the treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text. Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Convention provides that except where a particular textprevails, when a comparison of the authentic texts discloses a diference of meaningwhich the aplication of Articles 31 and 32 does not remove, the meaning which bestreconciles the texts, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty, shal beadopted. In most of the cases involving the interpretation of multilngual treaties, comparisonof the authentic texts has reafirmed that the terms of the treaty in question have thesame meaning in each authentic text. These cases sem to sugest that the other authentictext constiute part of “context” as specifed in Article 31, paragraph 2, or “subsequent agreement” in paragraph 3 of the same Article. The jurisprudence of international courtsand tribunals shows that the common ordinary meaning in the majority of the authentictexts is not always the meaning which best reconciles the texts, and that a term usedmore than once in a single text does not always have the same meaning. In conclusion,the interpretation a plurilngual treaty involves an obligation to compare its authentictexts.