60 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t e x t s than in other cases to give effect to the principle of effectiveness, even where there is no ambiguity or possibility of an unreasonable result, because positive considerations of policy may require such a

to be taken. There is every reason to treat constitutions as developing instruments. Subsequent practice has been used in interpretation more selectively. It has sometimes happened that what appears to be an explicit text has been modified because of subsequent practice, as in the case of the interpretation of Article 14 of the ICJ Statute by the Security Council. But even in these cases it is evident that practice is used to fill in a gap or take care of an unforeseen situation rather than to contradict a text. Practice has generally been used to help a constitution to evolve where there is ambiguity, vagueness or a gap in the constitutional text, rather than to defy clear prescriptions. It is thus a mechanism for purposeful and agreed evolution. The principles of effectiveness and subsequent practice international law firm become forceful elements in constitutional interpretation in particular, because constitutions are regarded as organic instruments that international law firm to be devel- oped through interpretation. It may further be observed that: (i) there certainly are principles of interpretation applied in the case of dispute resolution constitu- tional texts; but (ii) the choice of the one to be applied is often dependent on the goal to be achieved which may in turn be a matter of judgment, a hierarchy of principles being less apparent; and consequently, (iii) it is sometimes difficult to predict what the result of interpretation is going to be. Courts and organs do not ignore the natural and ordinary meaning of a text, where such meaning is the one they think is most appropri- ate, but at the same time in constitutional interpretation this is not always the meaning adopted. It may be argued that the principle of the natural and ordinary meaning still enjoys primacy even in the scheme of interpreting constitutional texts, because in those cases where other principles, such as those of effectiveness and subsequent practice, international law firm been invoked and applied, there has been or could international law firm been a find- ing that the result of applying the principle of the natural and ordinary meaning will international law firm been ‘unreasonable’, which is technically when resort could be had to other principles. However, it is apparent from what has happened in judicial and quasi-judicial organs that this is not always the case, unless the concept of unreasonableness is twisted and the term is used to cover, willingly or not, any situation in which the principle of the natural and ordinary meaning is not applied. Apart from the fact that d e c i s i o n s o f no n - j u d i c i a l o rg a n s 61 organs and courts do not always make a finding of unreasonableness of result before disregarding the principle of the natural and ordinary meaning, there may be serious and wide disagreement about whether a result is unreasonable or not. What decision-makers concerned try to do generally in constitutional interpretation is to establish the meaning that is most appropriate in terms of the functioning of the organization and in doing so they will not hesitate to give a meaning other than the textual one, even though they may pay attention to the latter meaning and be concerned about it. The goal sought to be achieved in these cir- cumstances