Content: introduction. I. Chapter. Legal texts

 1.2.Principle of Equal Authenticity and Presumption of Equal Meaning. 
Concerning this, the 1969 Vienna Convention, assists us with the principle of 
equal authenticity, that we find in article of the section of the convention regarding 
the interpretation of treaties. In case of a treaty being authenticated in two or more 
languages, “each authentic text is deemed independent for the purpose of 
interpretation by the court and no single text (not even the original) should prevail 
in the event of an ambiguity or textual diversity between the various language 
versions”. 
6
The point is, as stated in the article, that each language version is equally 
authoritative, it follows that no language should prevail when applying the treaty, 
especially in the case of discrepancy (or apparent discrepancy) among different texts, 
6
Linguistic aspects of legislative expression, University of British Columbia press, Vancouver CASSESE A. (2006), 

---

18 
unless the parties have agreed differently. What should be underlined here is the use 
of the expression “language version”, and not translation, leaving no space to doubts 
whether a hierarchy among authenticated texts in different languages exists. By 
authenticated, that is by far the most important word of this sentence, we mean a text 
that has been invested of legal force being ‘adopted by the treaty-adopting body 
itself’-
The translation ceases to be a translation, then, becoming law to all intents and 
purposes. Related to the concept of equal authenticity, is of course the presumption 
of equal meaning, codified by the third paragraph of the above mentioned article 33 
of the Convention on Law of Treaties. It goes without saying, that if all language 
versions are considered equal on a legal basis, this means they all should have the 
same meaning, resulting from the same intent and producing the same effects.
Problems arise when ambiguities and discrepancies are at stake. Experts seem to 
agree, in fact, that it is very unlikely for two or more texts to have exactly the same 
meaning, and this is when comparison and interpretation come into play. Lawyers 
and judges may use different language versions in order to extract the real meaning 
from the text; but if this may facilitate their task, it may also make it more difficult, 
increasing doubts and uncertainties.
Given the principle of equal authenticity it seems not clear how should they 
decide whether to stick to one or the other version, but we should not forget that, 
according to the principle of presumption of equal meaning, all version are assumed 
to bear the same sense, aim in the same direction and be born for the same purpose. 
So choosing one or the other actually makes no difference. This is why some lawyers 
affirm the presumption of equal meaning is not a principle that set them free, 
allowing them to make comparisons and work on more texts, but something that 
binds them to one version only, unless discrepancies and ambiguity are found.In this 
case, the work of the judge becomes problematic since he/she has to “compare the 
various language versions and reconcile any discrepancies in meaning that might 
occur” .

---

19 
The thing is, which meaning should be the right one? In other words, how 
should judges interpret the words they are reading, in order to fulfil the aim the 
legislator had in mind when drafting the treaty? Being all texts bearer of the same 
meaning, the meaning the judge has to ascertain is the one common to all texts. 
“Since the art does not specify which methods should be used to reconcile the texts, 
it is left to the court to determine how the parallel text should be best reconciled in 
each case”.
Basing her statement on a decision of the International Court of Justice, 
Sarcevic affirms that “if one or more meaning is broader than the other(s), the 
meaning signifying the lowest common denominator of all the texts should prevail”. 
article was thought as a key to try to solve this issue: in case of discrepancies 
emerging from the comparison of more than one version of the treaty, these should 
be solved making reference to the so called travaux preparatoires of the treaties and 
the circumstances of the treaty’s conclusions.
If this should prove itself not enough, they should take account of the prevailing 
understanding in order to promote uniformity. Should this attempt fail as well, the 
treaty should be interpreted according to its object and purpose. The formulation of 
this article implies a former application of articles and of the Convention, 
respectively establishing the general rules for the interpretation of treaties (according 
to what you should interpret a treaty, what should be taken in account during 
interpretation, i.e. context, previous or following agreements applicable in the 
relations between the parties) and the so called supplementary means of 
interpretation. 
Critiques have been put forward concerning a non-solving nature of art 
complaining it does not specify concrete methods to be used to reconcile the 
meaning of divergent texts. Plus, the practice seems to go in another direction, giving 
more importance to the supposed original text, thing that is not only not envisaged 
but even outlawed by article States (and international organisations) are free to 
contract obligation in the way that best suits them. There are no fixed rules on how 
to draw an international agreement in terms of textual features, but the practice 

---

20 
shows how states tend to conform with a model, giving the treaty a contact-like form. 
The legal instrument ruling international treaties itself, namely the 1969 Vienna 
Convention on the Law of the Treaties, may be taken as a model, showing clearly 
all the components we are about to examine. 
As shown in one of Cao’s works, Translating Law, treaties present the 
following elements: 
• Title 
• Preamble
• Articles covering the substantive provisions 
• Final clauses
• An attestation clause or testimonium, and signature block; and
• Annexes, which may include protocols, exchanges of letters, agreed minutes or 
schedules.
Exchange of notes and letters, when intended to constitute a treaty , As for 
private legal texts, in case it is provisioned that the parties should conform to a 
certain model, form acquires the same value of contents. Let’s analyse briefly the 
components. Leaving aside the title, which is nothing but an immediate mean of 
identification of the text we are reading, the preamble contains the “names of the 
High Contracting Parties, the reasons, the designed plenipotentiaries, the exchange 
and review of powers, the agreement clause”, in other words it expresses 
background, object and purpose of the treaty and may result a very useful instrument 
for judges during the process of interpretation. 
It is usually formulated as a single sentence even if divided graphically in 
separate sentences to make each and every component clearer, and ending with a 
quasi-fixed formula (including or just stating have agreed) introducing the corpus of 
the treaty, i.e. the so called substantive provisions, generally containing definitions, 
rights and obligations of the parties, enforcement and dispute resolution clauses, 
formulated as it happens for national legislation, with a descriptive and a prescriptive