 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Busby v. State2/1/2002
24 does not contain the ambiguity found in the English version.
Interpreting a Treaty Written in Two Languages
Before we examine the wording of the French text, we should address the rules that govern interpretation of a treaty written in two languages.
Article 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that " hen a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language, ... he terms of the treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text." If there is an arguable discrepancy between the two versions, Article 31, Paragraph 1 of the Convention declares that the "treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of [the treaty's] object and purpose." Moreover, Article 32 states that an interpretation should be rejected if it "leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or ... leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable". Finally, "when a comparison of the authentic texts discloses a difference of meaning which the application of rticles 31 and 32 does not remove," Article 33 directs a court to adopt "the meaning which best reconciles the texts, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty".
The United States has not signed the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Moreover, by its own terms, the Vienna Convention does not apply to treaties concluded before January 27, 1980 (the date the Convention went into force). However, as the Fifth Circuit noted in Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A., "Although the United States is not a party to the Vienna Convention, it regards the substantive provisions of the Vienna Convention as codifying the international law of treaties." Or as the Washington Supreme Court stated in State v. Pang, the Vienna Convention "is accepted as the authoritative guide to treaty law and practice and declaratory of customary international law".
In other words, both federal and state courts have acknowledged and employed the principles of interpretation codified in the Vienna Convention. We will too.
The French Text of Article 24, Section 5
In the French text of the Convention on Road Traffic, the first sentence of Article 24, Section 5 parallels the English text: it declares that a signatory state (or one of its subdivisions) "peut retirer" - i.e., can withdraw or retract - a driver's right to use an international driving permit if the driver has committed a driving offense that could entail the loss of driving privileges for a resident of that country:
Un État contractant ou une de ses subdivisions ne peut retirer à un conducteur le droit de faire usage d'un des permis visés ci-dessus que si ce dernier a commis une infraction à la réglementation nationale en matiere de circulation susceptible d'entraéner le retrait du permis de conduire en vertu de la législation dudit État ... .
But the second sentence of the French version does not suffer from the same problem as the English text (the double use of the word "withdraw"). Instead, the second sentence of the French text declares that a country or political subdivision that withdraws a driver's right to use an international driving permit "pourra se faire remettre le permis" - i.e., may require surrender or delivery of the permit - and may retain the permit until the period of suspension has expired or until the driver leaves the country, if that occurs first:
En pareil cas, l'État contractant ou celle de ses subdivisions qui a retiré l'usage du permis pourra se faire remettre le permis et le c
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|