CYIL Vol. 6, 2015

MILAN LIPOVSKÝ CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ such are not an object of ratification (nor part of the treaty 21 ) together with the treaty amendment. Due to these aspects, the only previous example of issuing so-called understandings may not help to establish the status of the “Understandings” that are in question. The Understandings were among others adopted to calm down the fears of certain States from interpretation of the amendments in a (for them seemingly) undesirable way. As such the success of adopting this document was disputable, because it is improbable that these States would become parties to the Rome Statute, and the less so to the amendments regarding the crime of aggression. Moreover, as proven above, they do not in fact (with an exception) change the amendments successively. Quite conversely, they create a legal problem as to their status. However, no one paid proper attention to it. Since theRomeStatutedoesnot helpevaluate thebinding forceof theUnderstandings, it is necessary to search for the answer in the law of treaties. The interpretative value of international treaties is dealt with in the “famous” part III, section 3 of the above- mentioned VCLT, particularly in article 31. The very basic rule is that “[a] treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose .” 22 So issues that need to be taken into account when interpreting treaties are the text, preamble and annexes of a treaty. And the context also is comprised of “[a] ny agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connexion with the conclusion of the treaty ” 23 and “[a] ny instrument which was made by one or more parties in connexion with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty. ” 24 Together with context, there needs to be taken into account as well “[a] ny subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions ”. 25 So there are in fact two relevant categories of interpretative rules that are present in article 31 VCLT, and those are agreements/rules made together with the treaty and subsequent agreements (both categories also referred to as the primary means of interpretation). Article 32 VCLT adds supplementary means of interpretation, such as “preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion.” Last but not least, the VCLT contains article 41 dealing with agreements to modify multilateral 21 MCDOUGALL, Carrie. The Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, p. 114. 22 Article 31 (1) VCLT.

23 Article 31 (2) (a) VCLT. 24 Article 31 (2) (b) VCLT. 25 Article 31 (3) (a) VCLT.

98