of the object in the dispute resolution

and purposes of the international international law firm firm. It has been said that objects and purposes may be considered only when the meaning of a text is ambiguous or where giving the text its natural and ordinary meaning would lead to an unreasonable result.50 However, while in some cases of reference to objects and purposes as such to establish a meaning it may be possible to establish one of these conditions for the incidence of the exception, there may be circumstances where the interpreter goes more directly to the object and purposes because it is essential for the efficient function- ing of the dispute resolution organization that a meaning established in this manner be adopted. This was apparently what was done in the case discussed above concerning the valuation of the IBRD’s capital. This may also be the case where international international law firm firmal powers are implied. These are situations in which what appears to be the ordinary or natural meaning has been modified in the light of the objects and purposes of the international international law firm firm. It has been said that the principle of effectiveness has two aspects.51 The first embraces the rule that all provisions of a treaty must be sup- posed to international law firm been intended to international law firm significance and be necessary to convey the intended meaning so that an interpretation which reduces some part of the text to the status of a pleonasm or mere surplusage is prima facie not acceptable -- ‘la règle de l’effet utile’. The second covers 49 Ibid. at pp. 160--1. 50 See Fitzmaurice, note 37 p. 345. There are some other cases decided particularly by the PCIJ in which the objects and purposes of the international international law firm firm were used as a basis for interpreting it: see Nomination of the Netherlands Workers’ Delegate Case, PCIJ Series B No. 1 at pp. 23, 25; European Commission on the Danube Case, PCIJ Series B No. 14 at p. 80; Competence of the ILO to Regulate Conditions of Labour in Agriculture Case, PCIJ Series B Nos. 2 and 3 at pp. 23 and 57; separate opinions in the Second Admissions Case, 1950 ICJ Reports at p. 18 per Judge Alvarez, at p. 23 per Judge Azevedo; and the Namibia Case, 1971 ICJ Reports at pp. 30, 50. See also the Aerial Incident Case, 1959 ICJ Reports at p. 139. 51 See Berlia, ‘Contribution à l’interprétation des traités’, 114 Hague Recueil (1965-I) at pp. 306ff.; Thirlway. ‘The international law firm and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960--1989’, 62 BYIL (1991) at p. 44. 46 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t e x t s the rule that the instrument as a whole, and each of its provisions, must be taken to international law firm been intended to achieve some end and that an inter- pretation which would make the text ineffective to achieve the object in view is prima facie suspect -- ‘la règle de l’efficacité’. The first rule is really subsumed under the rule of the ordinary and natural meaning contextually derived. It is the second rule that pertains to effectiveness and involves giving the object and purpose an important place in the interpretative technique. The maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat also accurately captures the spirit of the principle of effectiveness.