2021] NATIONALITY LAWS 107 principles of treaty interpretation as set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT).101 IV. ARTICLE 1(3): HISTORY AND CURRENT APPROACHES In this Part, the Article addresses the gaps outlined above by undertaking a thorough review of the drafting history of Article 1(3) and an analysis of its interpretation and implementation by the Committee. Article 31(1) of VCLT sets out the principal scheme of treaty interpretation: “A 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 its object and purpose.”102 It is worth noting as a general matter that human rights treaties should arguably be interpreted in a manner “favorable to the effective protection of individual rights.”103 VCLT permits recourse to preparatory materials (travaux préparatoires) as supplementary tools when other canons of treaty interpretation deliver ambiguous (or absurd) results. Although the intentionalist approach to treaty interpretation remains highly contested, it is generally agreed that preparatory materials can shed light on the literal and contextual meanings of a provision and that the intention of parties, as distilled from the preparatory materials, serves as “a relevant and underlying consideration”—even if they remain in the background.104 Given the ambiguity and confusion surrounding Article 1(3), this Part begins by considering its drafting history. 101 Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [hereinafter VCLT]. 102 Id. art. 31. 103 Kerstin Mechlem, Treaty Bodies and the Interpretation of Human Rights, 42 VAND. J. TRANSNAT’L L. 905, 912 (2009) (citing MATTHEW CRAVEN, THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS: A PERSPECTIVE ON ITS DEVELOPMENT 3 (1995) (“[T]he terms (of a human rights treaty) are to be interpreted in a manner favourable to the individual and that, in particular, limitations and restrictions on rights are to be read narrowly.”)). See also Tobin, supra note 16, at 50 (noting that international human rights treaties should be interpreted dynamically and in a manner that reflects “factors which are considered essential to ensure a constructive approach to interpretation.”); Pushpanathan v. Canada, [1998] S.C.R. 982, ¶ 57 (Can.) (“This overarching and clear human rights object and purpose is the background against which interpretation of individual provisions must take place.”). 104 Tobin, supra note 16, at 23.