《维也纳条约法公约》第31.1条“目的和宗旨”实证研究

＂目的和宗旨＂是条约正文固有的,通常含义需借助条约＂目的和宗旨＂来确定。WTO实践往往以约文解释为主,以上下文解释和目的解释为辅。不应游离于条约用语来考虑＂目的和宗旨＂,它仅被用来澄清正文,而非提供与含义清楚的正文相冲突的独立的意义来源。同时,它也有局限性,目的论派常会陷入司法立法的危险;大多数条约（序言）无单一的、纯粹的＂目的和宗旨＂,而有各种各样的不同的甚至相冲突的＂目的和宗旨＂,该冲突包括内部冲突和外部冲突。对于存在多个通常含义的词语,可根据＂目的和宗旨＂来从中确定一个符合其上下文的意义。其最核心作用可能在于是确定用语通常含义的证实者、检测者和修订者,而非决定者。解释结果的荒谬性是指使条文不能运转、与＂目的和宗旨＂或其他条款或与任何上一级的法律规则不一致。

An Empirical Research on“Object and Purpose”in Art.31.1 of VCLT

＂Object and Purpose＂is intrinsic to a treaty text whose ordinary meaning needs to be defined its＂object and purpose＂.In WTO judicial practice,a treaty is usually literally interpreted,aided by context,object and purpose.But＂object and purpose＂should not be taken out of the treaty and stand alone;instead,it should only be used to clarify the text rather than provide independent source of meaning that conflicts with the text with definite meanings.It also has limitations.Those sticking to＂Object and Purpose＂are often faced a judicial and legislative danger：most treaties（preface）have no single,undiluted＂object and purpose＂but a variety of conflicting‘objects and purposes＇,the conflict of which includes internal and external ones.So only those words and phrases with multiple ordinary meanings should be interpreted according to the＂object and purpose＂.The core role of＂Object and Purposes＂may be a confirmer,checker and reviser instead of a decider.The absurdity of interpretation results refers to unworkable provisions and inconsistence with＂object and purpose＂,other provisions or any superior rule.