This type of complementary interpretation “can be regarded as decisive only if the application of the general rule of interpretation leads to a result so absurd or unreasonable in the context in question that it is clear from the outset that it cannot reasonably be what the parties intended. Needless to say, such situations are quite rare and refer mainly to errors in wording or texts that are otherwise materially incorrect.57 Summary. 1. The principle of common interpretation. 2. Interpretation of tax treaties. 3. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 4. Applicability of the LTCC to CTDs. 5. General rule of interpretation. 6.
In good faith. 7. Ordinary meaning. 8. Background. 9. Subsequent Agreement or Conduct. 10. Special Meaning. 11.
Purpose and Purpose. 12. Additional means of interpretation. 13. Interpretation of certified contracts in two or more languages. The impact of globalization on political, cultural, social, commercial and fiscal relations has been very strong and has led to an exponential growth in international transactions, which are easier and faster each time. In addition, it has created competition between countries to attract investment through infrastructure and better working and fiscal conditions. In addition, according to WTC case law, the main purpose of contract interpretation is to determine the common intention of the parties and that the rules contained in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention were developed to objectively assess what the common intentions of the parties to a contract were or could have been.27 The principles of treaty interpretation are set out in Articles 31, 32 and 33 of the VCLT and are, in the words of Seara, rules that “authorized international practice and withdrew the Vienna Convention”, Now we should analyze Articles 31 to 33 of the VCLT: according to Vogel, additional means are only used to confirm the result of an interpretation that we have already found in the application of Article 31, which would otherwise remain in the dark.
or ambiguous. We can also say that the word adds that Article 32 does not provide for other autonomous means of interpretation, but only means of supporting an interpretation that is subject to the principles contained in Article 31. 56 As Sergio Andrã© Rocha puts it, for example: “There is no argument to support the idea that DTCs, like all other international treaties, are excluded from the scope of the rules of interpretation contained in the VCLT. What can be said is that such rules, like all other rules of interpretation, have an extremely limited function in terms of controlling the activity of the interpreter – 28 “Baker says that TDCs are subject to the rules of public international law and in particular to the VCLT of 23 May 1969 and, although they can be considered a special type of contract, VCLT should be applied to them. 29 Garcãa Novoa also states that there is no legal basis for excluding them as treaties, since their specific features cannot obscure their genuine nature as international treaties. 30 Most countries and organisations, such as the OECD and the UN, have developed domestic and international means to combat international double taxation. One of them is the Double Taxation Convention (DTA). To that end, the interpretation of DTAs must be appropriate and consistent in both Contracting States. 11The interpretation of tax treaties tells us what an agreement says, not what it should say. The increase in trade relations has many implications: one of them is that when a person carries out cross-border transactions, he is subject to two or more tax jurisdictions that could exercise tax rights on the same subject, which could lead to international double taxation. 3 The objectives and goals of the dtas cannot be achieved with unilateral interpretations and most authors are therefore in a hurry for a coherent or “uniform” interpretation.
6 Vogel and Prokisch are of the view that both parties should apply the determination of a DTC in the most uniform manner and that it is reasonable to seek the interpretation that is most acceptable to both parties (common principle of interpretation). 7 That is why we are seeking rules of interpretation enabling DTC to achieve its objectives and purposes. If both parties achieve the same results, they have achieved the objectives of the interpretation. In double taxation treaties, their main objective is to avoid international legal double taxation in order to facilitate international transactions in goods, services, capital and technology. In addition, they deal with the exchange of information and assistance in the collection of taxes and, since January 2003, paragraph 7 of the introduction to the OECD Model Convention expressly states that tax treaties are also intended to prevent tax evasion and evasion.51 Uckmar, Corasanti, Capitani, Asorey and Billardi are of the view that the principles of interpretation, which are listed in the EGTCs, are included in the VCLT, and although it contains only general rules, the DTCs should be interpreted in accordance with the VCLT 32 Wouters and Vidal agree with this view and consider that judges, when interpreting a DTC, should be guided by a number of principles of international law, instead of national provisions, and these principles are set out in Articles 31 to 33 of the CDRC. 33 However, its relevance is based on the fact that it establishes a series of rules of interpretation which are intended to strike a balance between the main schools of interpretation. Indeed, as Proposed by Wattel and Marres, the VCLT contains a specific section (3) concerning the interpretation of the Treaty, and its rules are a codification of unwritten international law which was binding before being codified by the VCLT (Art. 4), so that it can be assumed that Article 3 can be considered part of these rules of ius gentium. 24 This is a fundamental principle of international law. If they did not exist, international relations would not be possible. This article provides not only that any applicable contract is binding on the parties, but also that it must be performed by them in good faith.
It is supported by Art. 27, which provides that a party may not rely on the provisions of its national law to justify its failure to perform a contract. 39 That article is based `on the conception that the text must be regarded as the authentic expression of the intentions of the parties` since it is established that the starting point for interpretation is the meaning of the text42. According to Moyano, the International Law Commission had to take this method of interpretation into account — for a number of reasons that all the representatives of the various countries had clearly indicated. For example, the representatives of the USSR made it clear that the text is the main source of the intention of the parties concerned, since this intention is concretized in words. 43 According to Pastor Ridruejo, the text is the authentic expression of the will of the parties to a contract. Brian J. Arnold and Michael J. McIntyre also believes that “the interpretation of tax treaties is subject to customary international law as enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties […].
