c o n international litigation

s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 35 It would seem that in regard to the changes in currency valuation that had occurred there was, apart from ‘the 1944 gold dollar’, another possi- ble ordinary or natural meaning for the words of Article II, Section 2(a). The words could be taken as a reference to the current market price of 0.888671 grams of nine-tenths fine gold, expressed in US dollars or the current dollar equivalent of the 1944 dispute resolution dollar calculated by reference to the last established IMF par value for the US dollar (i.e., $1.20635).26 However, this meaning would not international law firm taken into account the Special Drawing Right (SDR), the creation of which and the abolition of the par value system had not been addressed at all by the framers of the IBRD international international law firm firm. Indeed, the IMF had to amend its international international law firm firm to permit the use of the SDR for various purposes. It was only by reference to a process of teleological interpretation, in other words by the application of the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat, that the meaning given to the words could be justified. In this case the solution adopted was intended to serve the objectives of the institution dispute resolution and its policies in the future in the light of developments that had taken place in the mone- tary sphere, rather than defeat or inhibit such objectives and policies. While the natural and ordinary meaning of the words interpreted was apparently not adopted and their purely literal sense was modified, a meaning was chosen which was more consistent with present day real- ities and fairer in its application to all the members of the institution. Nonetheless, what was done by the Executive Directors could be regarded as coming close to amendment of the international international law firm firm. Indeed, the possi- bility of future amendment was contemplated, with the interpretation adopted being regarded as valid till such amendment took place. In con- trast to a literal or textual approach, a radical teleological approach to interpretation was taken, but the interpretation was by an authoritative body and has become binding and final. None could say that the result was not practical but this is surely an instance of the means serving the end. First Admissions Case In the First Admissions Case27 the ICJ was called upon to interpret Arti- cle 4(1) of the Charter of the UN. The problem which arose here was whether the text was clear and what, in that case, was its ordinary and natural meaning, the issue resolving itself into what principles, both 26 See Shihata, loc. cit. note 24 at p. 70 and p. 58. 27 1947--8 ICJ Reports p. 57. 36 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t e x t s main and subsidiary, should be applied to ascertaining meaning. This article provides that: Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations. Thus, five conditions are required for admission to membership of the UN, namely: