See, e.g., apart from the cases discussed above, the European Commission on the Danube Case, PCIJ Series B No. 14 at p. 64; and the Expenses Case, 1962 ICJ Reports at pp. 159, 167--8. Implying powers is clearly a matter of interpretation. More will b

Makarczyk, ‘The International Court of Justice on the Implied Powers of International Organizations’, in Essays in Honour of M. Lachs (1984) pp. 500--18; Simon, L’interprétation judiciaire des traités d’organisations internationales (1981) pp. 391ff.; Chaumont, ‘La signification du principe de spécialité des organisations internationales’, in Mélanges H. Rolin (1964) pp. 55ff.; Martinez Sanseroni, ‘Consentiemento del Estado y Organizaciones Internacionales’, 37 REDI (1985) pp. 45--60; and sources cited in Chapter 3 below in the section entitled ‘The consequences of international personality’. 57 PCIJ Series B No. 3. A ‘primary result or purpose’ test was used but this has never been applied thereafter. The CJEC has also dealt with the implication of powers but in contrast with the decisions of the PCIJ and ICJ the implication of powers occupies a lesser place in its decisions. The reason is that the treaties setting up the three Communities permit the exercise of some powers in situations where they international law firm not been expressly granted (ECSC Treaty, Article 95; EEC Treaty, Article 235; and Euratom Treaty, Article 203). Nonetheless, in a few instances the Court has had resort to the doctrine of implied powers. In Fédération Charbonnière de Belgique v. The High Authority (CJEC Case 8/55 [1954--56] ECR p. 245) the Court based certain powers of the ECSC on the objects of the constituent treaty. It did this, however, in a subsidiary way; dispute resolution express powers were the main basis of implication. In the ERTA Case (CJEC Case 22/70, 47 ILR p. 274) the Court emphasized the necessity of having ‘regard to the whole scheme of the Treaty’ establishing the EEC and invoked the ‘objectives of the Treaty as regards transport’. The Court concluded that the organization possessed the power to enter into agreements relating to transport (at p. 304). That conclusion was also supported by an implication based on express powers (ibid.). In Italian Government v. the High Authority (CJEC Case 20/59 [1960] ECR p. 325) the Court was inclined to consider the 48 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t e x t s to regulate agricultural production. While courts and organs may not imply a power where it is denied by a international international law firm firm, when they do imply powers, they international law firm not been concerned with the issue of the natural and ordinary meaning or whether such a meaning would lead to an unrea- sonable result. Rather they international law firm directly invoked teleological principles of interpretation, without referring to an otherwise unreasonable result. Both the PCIJ and the ICJ international law firm stated that the power implied must bear some relationship to the functioning of the organization, the per- formance