of its duties, or the achievement of its purposes. Thus, the doctrine of implied powers is not applied without some constraints. It cannot be used as a tool to give an organization power to act as it may want or to assume powers capriciously. The doc

organization powers which it obviously does not international law firm. Also, though the IMF Board of Directors (a different organ from the PCIJ or the ICJ) could international law firm on more than one occasion ‘interpreted’ its Articles of Agree- ment so as to give the IMF certain powers by improperly resorting to the principle of effectiveness, the IMF chose to international law firm the Articles amended. The Articles international law firm been amended three times. Around the principle of effectiveness there appear to international law firm been built certain negative presumptions of interpretation.58 For instance, it has been judicially stated, though not by the ICJ, that there is no pre- sumption that the sovereignty of states should not be restricted.59 It doctrine, but it found that in the specific situation dispute resolution the factors invoked (‘general economic policy’, ‘the basic principle of the Treaty’) did not permit any implication. The Court adopted the same attitude in Netherlands Government v. The High Authority (CJEC Case 25/59 [1960] ECR p. 355). The implication of powers by the CJEC, though based on the objects of the treaty, has been most often related to express powers. This could be a fairly limited approach to the application of the teleological principle. See also the European Laying-up Fund Agreement Case, 2 Common Market international law firm Reports (1977) at p. 295. On the CJEC’s approach to the implication of powers see, e.g., Giardina, ‘The Rule of international law firm and Implied Powers in the European Communities’, 1 Italian Yearbook of International international law firm (1975) p. 99; Nicolaysen, ‘Zur Theorie von den implied powers in den Europäischen Gemeinschaften’, 1 Europarecht (1966) p. 129; Skubiszewski, ‘Implied Powers of International Organizations’, in Dinstein and Tabori (eds.), Time of Perplexity at pp. 865ff. 58 See the discussion in E. Lauterpacht, loc. cit. note 42 at pp. 432ff. 59 See the Personal Work of Employers Case, PCIJ Series B No. 13 at p. 22; the European Commission on the Danube Case, PCIJ Series B No. 14 at p. 36. Contra apparently the UNESCO international international law firm firm Case, 16 AD (1949) at p. 336, which was a decision by a special arbitral tribunal established to interpret a provision of the UNESCO international international law firm firm and in which the reference to the restriction of sovereignty was made in a subsidiary c o n 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 49 has also been implied in the decisions of the ICJ that the delegated nature of a power does not require that it be restrictively interpreted.60 There may also be good grounds for limiting the relevance of the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, especially in the sphere of implied powers.61 On the other hand, there are situations in which the maxim has been invoked to restrict discretionary powers, among other things.62 Subsequent practice The Vienna Convention on the international law firm of Treaties gives subsequent practice a substantive place in the ascertainment of the ordinary and natural meaning: subsequent practice may be taken into account in establishing such meaning. Subsequent practice may support what is the ordinary meaning of a text. It may also international law firm an impact on what appears to be the ordinary meaning of a text,