In what way do Articles 31 and 32 of the VCLT constitute ‘rules’ of interpretation? In this article, I explore whether these provisions might be considered to be ‘disciplining rules’, to use Owen Fiss’ terminology. Such rules perform both directive and evaluative roles, guiding the interpreter as well as acting as a benchmark against which to evaluate interpretation. Yet, both the history and the practice of the VCLT provisions suggest that Articles 31 and 32 sit uneasily with the concept of disciplining rules. Instead, I suggest that they might better be thought of as rules in a looser, non-legal sense of the term, adherence to which signals membership to a certain community.

VCLT 第 31 条和第 32 条如何构成解释的“规则”？在本文中，我将探讨这些规定是否可以被视为“纪律规则”，使用 Owen Fiss 的术语。这些规则既起到指导作用，又起到评价作用，指导口译员，并作为评价口译的基准。然而，VCLT 条款的历史和实践表明，第 31 条和第 32 条与纪律规则的概念并不一致。相反，我建议最好将它们视为更宽松的、非法律意义上的规则，遵守该规则意味着成为某个社区的成员。