This view has been expressed in other serious texts on the interpretation of treaties. Dörr, for example, while examining Article 31(3) under the general heading `General Rule`, divides the elements of Article 31 into `general rule` and `interpretation means in addition to the context`, including subsequent agreements and subsequent practices in the latter category, i.e. subject to the `general rule` of Article 31(1) [O Dörr, « Article 31: General Interpretative Rule » in O Dörr and K Schmalenbach (eds.), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (Springer 2012) 521 et seq.). In his view, means of interpretation which follow the context are `necessary to determine the true meaning of the relevant contractual conditions`[p. 553]. It is even clearer that Sorel and Boré Eveno concluded, after analysing the decisions of the International Court of Justice and the regional courts, that Article 31, paragraph 1, provided for the main method of interpretation, while Article 31, paragraph 3, served as a purpose of confirmation [JM Sorel and V Boré Eveno, `1969 Vienna Convention: article 31: general interpretative rule » in O Corten and P Klein (eds.), The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary. Volume I (Oxford 2011), at 817-829]. Any Bidder is deemed to be fully bound by the laws of the State of California to the laws of the State of California by submitting a response to this Proposal and by any subsequent agreement that may arise from this Proposal and has agreed to be bound in all respects to the interpretation, construction, operation, to effect and performance. The CSCD reserves the right to withhold payments from the applicant or to require the applicant to reimburse payments received by the CSCD if the applicant`s benefit does not comply with the provisions of the agreement below or does not comply with the standards, rules or guidelines in force for CSCD, TDCJ-CJAD. `Article 31(1) is the starting point for any interpretation of the contract, in accordance with the general rule of Article 31 as a whole.
This reference is intended to ensure a balance between, on the one hand, the assessment of the Treaty in its context and purpose and, on the other hand, the considerations relating to subsequent agreements and practices set out in this draft conclusion. However, the repetition of Article 31(1) as a separate paragraph should not suggest that that paragraph and the means of interpretation referred to therein are essentially given priority in the context of Article 31 itself`; (Highlighted only here). Once it has been made clear that the change is not allowed by interpretation, the comments perform an easy back-traking. Paragraphs 23 to 31 of the commentaries contain a very complex (and sometimes difficult to follow) description of subsequent agreements and practices. In some places, the line between subsequent agreements and practices as contract modifiers and subsequent agreements and practices as instruments of interpretation is blurring. . . .