There were some interesting treaty interpretation moves in today’s #ICJ judgment in #EquatorialGuinea v #France, which is here: https://bit.ly/2LsyPiS . France prevailed on the ground that 42 Ave Foch never acquired ‘premises of the mission’ status to trigger VCDR protection. 1/7

First, the #ICJ relied on state practice as an interpretive device to conclude that receiving states may reject a sending state’s designation of diplomatic premises. Practice weighed against a right to designate unilaterally (it wasn't subsequent agmt per VCLT art 31(3)(b)). 2/7

Second, the #ICJ crafted a reasonableness test to limit the receiving state’s right to object to a sending state’s designation: objections must be timely, non-arbitrary & non-discriminatory (para 73). In the Court’s view, France’s objection to EG’s designation met this test. 3/7

It will be interesting to see how well the Court’s approach to non-arbitrariness holds up going forward. There is room for interpretation (and therefore abuse). Also, will the Court’s test have any relevance to similar controversies involving diplomatic appointments? 4/7

On the question of how far domestic courts can look into whether someone is actually acting as a diplomat and thus entitled to immunity, see this excellent 2016 @ejiltalk piece by Philippa Webb ( https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-diplomat-in-name-only-judicial-scrutiny-of-diplomatic-appointments/). 5/7

There is more to unpack from today's decision (several dissenting opinions). But at a minimum, France's win seems like a (small?) victory for those who see immunity as tantamount to impunity, and perhaps for those who viewed EG’s actions as an abuse of rights from the start. 6/7

But I can only wonder whether the #ICJ decision might have unintended consequences for diplomacy. The very specific facts of this case might mitigate that risk. I'm sure others will have more to say about the judgment and the Court's latest foray into treaty interpretation. END