The Interpretative Principles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the Pact of San Jose in the Jurisprudence of Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Convention on Human Rights (also known as the Pact of San Jose), which establishes the substantive rights and institutions of the Inter-American System of Human Rights, contains in its provisions clear references to the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties. But when it comes to interpretation, the Pact of San Jose has crafted its own rules in article 29. However, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its nearly 30 years of jurisprudence has understood that its interpretation must follow to the principles contained in both treaties. The purpose of this paper is to study the interpretative methods of the Inter-American Court. Particularly how the principle of systemic integration has been used by the Court in order to include in its judgments instruments as diverse as the Convention on the Rights of Children, the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, among many others. The final aim is to show how the existence of this regional system for the protection for human rights does not threaten the integrity of international law; that is, how institutional diversity does not necessarily mean fragmentation of the system. The discussion will start by a detailed analysis of the many decisions of the Court in which direct reference has been made to the interpretation rule found in art 31 of the Vienna Convention. At this point, attention will be paid to the doctrine of the living instrument which, as understood by the Court, reflects the teleological method already expressed in the Vienna Convention. Then, the analysis will shift to the treatment of article 29 of the American Convention as embodying the principle of systemic integration for the purposes of the Inter-American System. The conclusions will show how the Court has always seen the interpretation principles of treaties as a part of general international law, and not emanating from the American Convention. As a epilogue, some lines will be devoted to the relation of this conclusion to the project of normative plurality developed by this author.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".