Interpretation in Light of Which ‘Object and Purpose’?

Abstract

The object and purpose is usually perceived as referring to one notion, the purpose that a norm is aimed to serve. This paper, however, argues that for interpretation in light of the object and purpose, first, the purpose that can be relied on by adjudicative bodies should be based on principle arguments and, second, without understanding the nature of a rule, its purpose cannot be properly identified. By adhering to the idea that the nature of the rule refers to the rights and obligations that are created by a norm, while the purpose is the overall result that a norm is aimed to achieve, the paper argues that the notion of object and purpose seen through the concept of ‘not one, not two’, refers to the interplay between the object of a rule and its purpose in a way that the nature of a rule contributes to the identification of its purpose, and the purpose thus identified contributes to the redetermination of the scope of a rule. Nevertheless, as the purpose remains relatively indeterminate in regard to the new facts that emerge and the importance of principles, redetermination of the purpose makes the interplay between the object and purpose continuous. Keywords: Interpretation, Object and Purpose, Treaties, Emergent Purpose, Adjudication, Principle and Policy