General rules regarding interpretation of treaties關于條約一般規則的解釋

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (hereinafter, the“Vienna Convention”) constitutes the main guide to interpret treatiesbased on international law, in particular Articles 31 and 32, whichread as follows:維也納條約法公約“（以下簡稱”維也納公約“）在國際法基礎上構成了主要的的指南性的解釋條約，特別是第31和32條，其內容如下：

Article 31 General rule of interpretation1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith inaccordance with the ordinary meaning to be givento the terms of the treaty in their context and in thelight of its object and purpose.2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation ofa treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text,including its preamble and annexes:(a) any agreement relating to the treaty whichwas made between all the parties inconnection with the conclusion of the treaty;(b) any instrument which was made by one ormore parties in connection with the conclusionof the treaty and accepted by the other partiesas an instrument related to the treaty.條款是由一個或多個當事人締結的條約，該條約有關文書是需要其他各方接受。

. There shall be taken into account, together withthe context:(a) any subsequent agreement between theparties regarding the interpretation of thetreaty or the application of its provisions;(b) any subsequent practice in the application ofthe treaty which establishes the agreement ofthe parties regarding its interpretation;(c) any relevant rules of international lawapplicable in the relations between the parties.http://ukthesis.org/fvxzy

4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it isestablished that the parties so intended.應給予具有特殊意義的一個名詞，它是建立之初的雙方做好打算的一個詞匯。

Article 32. Supplementary means of interpretationRecourse may be had to supplementarymeans of interpretation, including thepreparatory work of the treaty and thecircumstances of its conclusion, in orderto confirm the meaning resulting fromthe application of article 31, or todetermine the meaning when theinterpretation according to article 31:a) leaves the meaning ambiguous orobscure; orb) leads to a result which is manifestlyabsurd or unreasonable.

39. Any objections to jurisdiction and related matters, either explicitor implicit, have been decided by the Tribunal as follows:

IV. Objections to Jurisdiction40. In the Memorial of Objections to Jurisdiction and Admissibility,28 March 2008, Respondent maintained the following objections tothe jurisdiction of ICSID and the competence of the Tribunal:a. Claimant is not an investor under the Peru-China BITb. Claimant did not make an investment before the dispute arose.c. Claimant has not asserted a prima facie claim of expropriation.d. Peru did not give its consent to arbitrate this dispute.41. An outline follows of the main allegations by the Partiesregarding the same, followed by a discussion by the Tribunal。

Claimant is not an investor under the Peru-China BIT42. The Memorial Objecting Jurisdiction and Admissibility filed bythe Respondent contains the following allegations:1 Claimant has not proven having the Chinese nationality under thelaws of the People's Republic of China.2 Even if the Claimant had the Chinese nationality, he may nothave recourse to the Peru-China BIT because he is a resident ofthe Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.即使申請人有中國國籍， 在中國BIT中的規定他可能也是沒有對秘魯的追索權，因為他是香港居民國稅隸屬于香港特別行政區。