This chapter details the methodology and sources used to define and clarify the justiciable normative content of the right to science. Anchored in legal positivism, the analysis applies doctrinal, black-letter interpretation techniques derived from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), complemented by Chapman’s violations approach. While textual, systematic, teleological and historical interpretations under the VCLT provide clarity to treaty provisions, the violations approach illuminates state non-compliance, clarifying actionable dimensions of human rights. Sources considered include primary sources such as treaties, secondary sources such as treaty body pronouncements and judicial decisions and relevant soft law instruments. Collectively, this methodological and source-based framework seeks to articulate the normative boundaries of the right to science.

The chapter analyzes the ’principle of single undertaking’ of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement System (DSS). The principle of single undertaking is a unique feature of the WTO, and refers to the fact that the WTO treaty comprises several agreements all of which bind WTO members simultaneously and cumulatively, thus requiring implementation as a single undertaking. In order to maintain coherence within this single undertaking, the WTO DSS has engaged in horizontal cross-fertilization of jurisprudence across agreements. This is done by reliance on the tools and methods of treaty interpretation as defined by the VCLT rules of interpretation and their customary counterparts.

Processes of national implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) represent a relevant interpretive practice when it comes to this treaty. When adopting implementation legislation, states effectively offer their interpretation of the Rome Statute, sometimes diverging from the way that the ICC interprets this treaty. The chapter focuses of such examples of divergent interpretations, in order to establish whether divergent interpretations by states might influence the way the ICC interprets the Rome Statute. As an international treaty, the interpretation of the Rome Statute is governed by the rules of interpretation as enshrined in the VCLT. In light of this, divergent interpretations by states might need to be taken in consideration by the ICC in its interpretation, for example as subsequent agreement within the meaning of Article 31(3)(b) of the VCLT. Ultimately, while it remains necessary to distinguish between an interpretation within the scope of the existing law and modification of the text of a treaty, judges of the ICC may rely on the VCLT rule of interpretation in order to account for the interpretative practice of states.

Interpretation is part and parcel of every juridical endeavour. In international law, the law and methods pertaining to the process of interpretation continue to vex international legal theory and practice; in fact, increasingly so. The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) on treaty interpretation reflect three premises which can have broader implications for the practice of interpretation in international law. First, they reinforce the idea that interpretation is, or at least can be, a formal process based on legal rules.Second, this process determines the content of rules that are ‘in force’ and is thus legally and analytically distinct from the processes of identification, modification, amendment, and termination of rules. Third, these legal rules can have a general scope of application in the sense that they can apply regardless of the nature or subject-matter of the rule to be interpreted and irrespective of who performs the interpretation. That is to say, the VCLT envisages the possibility of a law of interpretation that forms essentially ‘a unity’

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is the guardian of international law. Therefore, the Commentaries to the Geneva Conventions produced by the ICRC present an authoritative guidance on how these treaties are to be interpreted. In this sense, the ICRC represents an actor whose interpretation is authoritative on its substantive merit. A study of the interpretative methodology behind the Commentaries of the ICRC reveals that although the methodology has evolved it has done so apace with the evolution of the rules of treaty interpretation in general public international law – culminating in the adoption of the VCLT. This is argued to be decisive proof that the rules of international humanitarian law are subject to the same interpretive rules as other international rules.

The process of treaty interpretation focuses on the reading of texts and so provides limited scope to understand fully how instruments like the 1972 Stockholm Declaration can inform the content of specific legal obligations. However, this is not the whole picture. A review of the genealogy of key law-of-the-sea instruments reveals the varying influence of Stockholm on the contemporary law of the sea. Beyond its more obvious influence on the protection of the marine environment, subtle yet important sematic and cultural influences can be detected in areas such as the human/environment nexus, differential commitments, stewardship, and integrated planning. As the integration of the law of the sea with other fields of law deepens, it is harder to ignore these influences. Understanding these influences gives us an important sense of trajectory in the development of legal norms and the longer-term value of including progressive ideas within legal instruments.

This chapter discusses the relationship between WTO law and other public international law (PIL), focusing on the interpretation of WTO law through the lens of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). It examines how WTO dispute settlement bodies have approached non-WTO law, particularly in the context of treaty interpretation and potential conflicts between legal regimes. The chapter argues that while the VCLT provides a framework for interpretation, it has limitations in addressing conflicts between different agreements, as illustrated by the interaction between the Paris Agreement and the WTO. The authors contend that legislative solutions within the WTO are necessary to address these conflicts and ensure the WTO’s continued relevance in the face of global challenges like climate change.

The present chapter presents an overview of the recent applications of experimental methods to jurisprudential issues in international law as well as potential future developments of the field. We discuss how experimental methods can helpfully contribute to the understanding of the different moments of international law: the making of new rules, the interpretation of these rules, and, finally, their application in practice. We also present three main topics that constitute the studies of rule application in practice, namely, the mechanisms behind human judgment, policymaking, and, finally, the decision taking itself. We identify some future potential lines of development based on the example of the current disagreements over the definition of an international crime of “ecocide” and discuss some potential limitations of the experimental approach.

This chapter observes instances in which the World Court has recognised that certain sources of international law may confer rights for individuals. It first identifies cases where the Court has interpreted relevant provisions of other international treaties, beyond the international human rights framework, as conferring rights on individual. In so doing, it analyses where the Court has applied ‘textualist’ and ‘intentionalist’ approaches to reach its conclusions. The chapter then notes where the Court has identified customary international law, the existence of which would confer rights to private persons in specific contexts. It notes that while there are ambiguities in the Court’s methods, this is characteristic of its approach to sources more broadly

This chapter explores the methods and purposes of interpreting norms of international human rights law. It covers the use of treaty guidelines, purposive interpretation, evolutionary interpretation, normative interaction, regional and international consensus, and the pro persona principle. The chapter examines how these interpretative methods are applied by human rights bodies to ensure the effective implementation of human rights norms. It also discusses the challenges in balancing different interpretative approaches and the role of interpretation in advancing the development of international human rights law. The chapter highlights the importance of adopting a dynamic and context-sensitive approach to interpretation to address emerging human rights issues.

This chapter outlines the treaty-based structure of international human rights law norms, including various human rights treaties, and discusses the common legal regime for these treaties. It highlights the specificity and effects of human rights treaties on state obligations and freedoms. The chapter examines the different types of human rights treaties, including general and specialized treaties, and their impact on international human rights law. It also discusses the legal regime governing these treaties, including their interpretation, implementation, and enforcement. The chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the treaty-based framework of international human rights law and its significance in shaping state behavior and protecting human rights.

This chapter gives a brief background of the study and situates it in the academic context, highlighting the legal doctrines that will be applied through the book and outlining the structure of the book. It introduces the general background of the development of the international law of the sea and highlights the importance of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) that was codified in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). After briefly reviewing the legal framework of the EEZ as established in UNCLOS, it identifies the two legal doctrines that sustain the dynamic jurisdictional balance in the EEZ, namely the principles used to attribute rights and freedoms between the coastal State and other States, and the reciprocal due regard obligations relating to their excise. These two legal doctrines also guides the principles to resolve conflicts arising from the attribution of residual rights in the EEZ and the procedures to settle disputes among State parties. This chapter then provides an overview of the methodology used in the analysis and discussion of the book.

Chapter 6 draws together and extends the comparative analysis that has unfolded across the prior chapters. It explains why tribunals’ practices differ across the regimes studied, focusing on contextual differences between the selected tribunals. It also assesses to what extent the practices of the selected tribunals provide insights into wider problems facing international adjudication and legal techniques that are potentially transferable across contexts. Structurally, the chapter discusses consecutively my findings in relation to the three challenges confronting international tribunals analysed throughout the book: managing changes in international law or relevant facts, calibrating the appropriate standard and method of review when scrutinising State conduct for compliance with international law, and contributing to broader processes of dispute resolution. The chapter finishes with some final remarks that close the book, concerning its contribution to our understanding of the role of international adjudication in contemporary international law and its implications for future studies in this field.