Rethinking Treaty Interpretation and Crime Interpretation at the ICC

This article examines the application of the interpretative methods set out in Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) in the context of crime interpretation. Its objective is to assess whether the mainstream view supporting their application is justified and to evaluate counterarguments questioning their appropriateness.
Reconsidering the use of VCLT principles is essential because they may conflict with the principle of legality, particularly when they enable broad constructions
of criminal offences. This issue is especially pertinent before the ICC, where legality is operationalised through three strict interpretative principles: strict construction, the prohibition of analogy, and in dubio pro reo. Many scholars warn that applying VCLT methods risks undermining this cornerstone guarantee of criminal law. Accordingly, this article deconstructs six arguments advanced to oppose the use of VCLT methods and, drawing on multiple theoretical perspectives, demonstrates why excluding them from the ICC’s approach to crime interpretation is normatively defensible.