Analogical Reasoning in the Interpretation of International Treaties

This study aims to analyze the role of analogical reasoning in the interpretation of international treaties, with a focus on the theoretical foundations underpinning it within the legal framework, its practical manifestations in judicial systems, and the challenges posed by its diverse applications. The study further seeks to elucidate the extent to which the method of reasoning by analogy contributes to enhancing the logical coherence of the international legal system and its capacity to accommodate emerging developments driven by shifts in international relations. Employing a critical analytical methodology, the study examines the provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, particularly Articles 31 and 32 thereof, alongside an in-depth analysis of pertinent judicial precedents. The study concludes that analogical reasoning serves as an essential tool for addressing legislative gaps by applying established legal principles to unregulated cases, contingent upon the existence of a substantive analogy between such cases and those governed by existing legal norms. However, the study also underscores that while analogical reasoning holds significant practical value, it necessitates the establishment of precise methodological controls to strike a balance between the flexibility required for legal interpretation and the imperative of legal stability, provided such controls do not compromise the fundamental principles of international law. The findings of this study carry particular significance in advancing the development of judicial mechanisms for treaty interpretation, ensuring they align with contemporary challenges while safeguarding the integrity of the international legal architecture.