Reconcilable Differences--The Interpretation of Multilingual Treaties
Vol: 20, Issue: 3, Page: 611
1997
- 1,036Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage1,036
- Abstract Views549
- Downloads487
Article Description
The practice of authenticating treaties in several languages has grown in recent decades as multilateral agreements are concluded in the six official languages of the United Nations or the corresponding number of official languages of other sponsoring organizations. Problems of translation errors, ambiguities, and deliberate differences lead to conflicts over the content of obligations and rights contained in the treaties. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides some guidance to interpreting texts authenticated in several languages, but more effort is needed during negotiations to avoid discordant texts. In addition, the author proposes that greater recourse be had to the negotiating text where differences appear among the various language versions. Where the differences appear intentional, reflecting substantive disagreement, tribunals asked to interpret the agreement need not strive to find a common meaning, but may leave the parties where they concluded the negotiations- without a common obligation.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know