1306 University of Pennsylvania Law Review [Vol. 164: 1281
power, drafters generally do not seek to take full advantage of that power
when drafting the preamble.
115
Second, tribunals do not always explicitly
provide an account of preambles’ role in the text-and-context analysis of a
treaty term, instead proceeding directly to the object-and-purpose analysis.
116
What legal power, then, do tribunals confer upon treaty preambles when
employing them in object-and-purpose analysis? It must be noted at the
outset that preambles, through their association with object and purpose,
become embroiled in what is generally considered to be a messy, unclear area
of treaty interpretation.
117
Nevertheless, one relatively uncontroversial role
for preambles (and statements of object and purpose in general) is to limit—but
not radically alter—the possible interpretations of a term in question.
118
In this
Convention shall enter into force 12 months after the Governments of 30 States have either signed
[or ratied it] . . . .”); United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods,
U
NITED NATIONS TREATY COLLECTION, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=
TREATY&mtdsg_no=XI-E-1&chapter=11&lang=en [https://perma.cc/4AVJ-R9LF] (last updated
Mar. 19, 2016) (listing the thirteen countries that have signed or ratied the treaty).
115
Some have argued that not all treaty preambles are of equal importance, due to varying
levels of attention and negotiation involved in drafting them. See G
ARDINER, supra note 13, at 186
(“It should not, however, be assumed that all preambles are of equal value. Some are very carefully
negotiated, others cobbled together more or less as an afterthought.”); see also Suy, supra note 14, at
255-56 (noting that preambles in bilateral treaties are generally shorter and use standardized
language, therefore being less helpful in treaty interpretation than preambles in multilateral treaties,
which are longer, more detailed, and subject to more extensive negotiation).
116
For example, the I.C.J.’s decision in Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan,
discussed infra, refers to the preamble of the relevant treaty only in its discussion of object and
purpose, not in its discussion of text and context. See (Indon. v. Malay.), Judgment, 2002 I.C.J. 625,
645-53 ¶¶ 37-52 (Dec. 17) (invoking VCLT article 31 and applying it to the relevant provision of the
treaty). Various factors may help explain this and other similar cases, including the arguments put
forth by the parties and the tribunal’s view of the specic preambles’ content and its eects. See
supra note 111 and accompanying text (noting that despite the mandatory requirement to refer to the
preamble in text-and-context analysis, the results of this exercise will depend on the preamble’s
content). Nevertheless, tribunals in other contexts have similarly invoked preambles only in light of
object and purpose. In CMS Gas, also discussed infra, the ICSID tribunal referred to the preamble
only once in its decision and did so to interpret the “objective of the protection envisaged” by the
relevant treaty, making no reference to text-and-context analysis. CMS Gas Transmission Co. v.
Arg. Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, ¶ 274 (May 12, 2005), 14 ICSID Rep. 152 (2009).
This “preference” for object-and-purpose application of preambles may have historical origins. See
supra notes 99–103 and accompanying text; see also Rights of Nationals of the United States of
America in Morocco (Fr. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1952 I.C.J. Rep. 176, 197-98 (Aug. 27) (citing, decades
before the VCLT was concluded, a preamble to discuss the parties’ “purposes” and “intention[s]”).
117
See GARDINER, supra note 13 at 190 & n.155 (“[T]he precise nature, role, and application of
the concept of ‘object and purpose’ in the law of treaties present some uncertainty and it has been
described . . . as an ‘enigma.’” (citing I. Buard and K. Zemanek, The “Object and Purpose” of a Treaty:
An Enigma?, 3 A
USTRIAN REV. INT’L & EURO. L. 311 (1998))).
118
See GARDINER, supra note 13, at 186 (noting that preambles may “impose interpretive
commitments” that exclude otherwise possible interpretations of a treaty term where those
interpretations would run counter to such commitments); id. at 197-98 (discussing cases in which
statements of object and purpose suggesting broad jurisdiction were held not to “stretch jurisdiction
beyond that specically conferred” by treaty parties).