Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 7 - The Sui Generis Interpretative Practices of International Human Rights Bodies

  • from Part II - Unity, Diversity, and Evolution of Interpretation of International Law across Actors
  • Edited by Sotirios Ioannis Lekkas, University of Sheffield, Nina Mileva, University of Groningen, Panos Merkouris, University of Groningen
  • Edited in association with Ivo Tarik de Vries-Zou, University of Goningen
  • Book:
    The Practice of Interpretation in International Law
    Published online:
    13 July 2026
    Print publication:
    27 August 2026, pp 142-176
    • Chapter
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Summary

    When engaging in interpretation, Human Rights Bodies (HRBs) may follow specific methods of treaty interpretation – including those derived from Articles 31–31 VCLT – or not. Moreover, the interpretative pronouncements of HRBs may themselves be considered authoritative pronouncements for the purpose of subsequent interpretation of human rights treaties or other sources of human rights law, frequently under the framework of ’pronouncements of expert bodies’. Such pronouncements may then be considered by interpreters as examples of either subsequent practice in the interpretation of treaties within the meaning of Articles 31-32 VCLT, or as ‘subsidiary means’ for the determination of rules of international law in the sense of Article 38 ICJ Statute. In light of this, and given expertise and volume of interpretative pronouncements of HRBs they need to be taken seriously when it comes to the determination of content of human rights rules. However, at present it is not yet clear whether these pronouncements can be relied on as means of interpretation via the formal avenues available in international law.