Mai Kaneko-Iwase, Ph.D. (Law) E. Reference to Soft Law Standards This article will also refer to so called soft law standards, mainly General Comments of the CRC Committee and the UNHCR Guidelines No.4. While ILC considers that the views of treaty bodies or international organizations are, in themselves, neither legally binding or constitute ‘subsequent practice’ under Article 31(3)(b) (or under Article 32) of VCLT, they are given considerable weight by ILC, States and courts in interpreting the relevant treaties. With regard to the views of expert treaty bodies, Conclusion 13 (3) of the ILC 2018 Draft Conclusions on subsequent practice states that: ‘[a] pronouncement of an expert treaty body may give rise to, or refer to, a subsequent agreement or subsequent practice by parties under Article 31, paragraph 3, or subsequent practice under Article 32 (Note: of VCLT; emphasis added).’ Further, treaty bodies’ pronouncements in themselves are often considered by courts as at least ‘supplementary means of interpretation’ under Article 32 of VCLT, and they also contribute to the determination of the ordinary meaning of the terms in their context and in light of the object and purpose of the treaty (as per Article 31[1]).62 Furthermore, the legal significance of the pronouncements of treaty bodies has also been characterised as ‘subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law’ under Article 38(1)(d) of the ICJ Statute.63 On the other hand, UNHCR does not have an institutional role equivalent to that of a ‘treaty supervisory body’ for either of the 1951 Convention (despite its Article 35) and its 1967 Protocol, the 1954 Convention and 1961 Convention. Nevertheless, as Dunlop states, whilst in the context of the 1951 Convention, the acceptance of the handbook (and guidelines) as evidence of State practice is significant: UNHCR has effectively positioned itself as a potential source of agreed interpretations that reflect the general position of Contracting States. This is a more robust authority than UNHCR would have if its statements were considered merely on par with State practice. Rather than being viewed as one voice amongst 149, UNHCR is considered capable of synthesising and compiling the practice of multiple parties.64 The UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No.1 to No.5 were issued between 2012 and 2020 (the first three having been combined into the Handbook on the Protection of Stateless Persons in 2014) pursuant to UNHCR’s mandate responsibilities to address statelessness given by the General Assembly.65 The ILC Draft Conclusion 5(2) states that while the conduct of non-state actors, like those of international organisations such as UNHCR, do not constitute ‘subsequent practice’ per se under Articles 31 and 32 of the VCLT; [s]uch conduct may, however, be relevant when assessing the subsequent practice of parties to a treaty (emphasis added). 62 Para 24 of the Commentary to the ILC Draft Conclusion 13; see Yuji Iwasawa (the then Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee (the President of ICJ as of March 2025), Jiyukenkiyaku iinkai no kiyaku kaishaku no hoteki igi (the legal significance of the ICCPR interpretation by the Human Rights Committee [HRC]) Sekai-ho-nenpo No.29 (2010) 50-85. 63 Ibid, para 24. 64 Dunlop, ‘Applying the Rule of Treaty Interpretation’ (n 16) 61. 65 See the preface parts of each guideline. Article 11 and 20 of the 1961 Convention envisages the establishment within the framework of the United Nations a body to which a person claiming the benefit of the 1961 Convention may apply for the examination of his claim and for assistance in presenting it to the appropriate authority. The UN General Assembly assigned the mandate to UNHCR as per Article 11 and 20 of the 1961 Convention by Resolutions 3274 (XXIV) of 1974 and 31/36 of 1976. The UNHCR’s mandate to address statelessness has been expanded through subsequent GA Resolutions 49/169 of 1994 and 50/152 of 1995 and now covers not only state parties to the two statelessness Conventions but the entire world. Subsequently, in Resolution 61/137 of 2006, the General Assembly endorsed Executive Committee Conclusion 106 which sets out four broad areas of responsibility for UNHCR: the identification, prevention and reduction of statelessness and the protection of stateless persons. See also Mark Manly, ‘UNHCR’s Mandate and Activities to Address Statelessness’ in Alice Edwards and Laura van Waas (eds), Nationality and Statelessness under International Law (Cambridge University Press 2014) 95-97. 17 Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies