For ERC Grants, the ENDORSEMENT must be signed. Please note  Lord McNair, The Law of Treaties 410 (1961).  Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts, 1 Oppenheim`s International Law 1277 (9th edition 1992).  59 I.L.R. 495 (1980).  Id. at 544.  Id. to the 545th  Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, art. 32, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (highlighted here only). Article 31, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which contains the general rule of interpretation, provides that a treaty must be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary importance to be given to the provisions of the Treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.  A professor at Michigan Law School recently argued that the authors of the Vienna Convention were far from assigning a limited role to the Travaux préparatoires, but intended that travaux préparatoires should function as an integral part of interpretative research.
Julian Davis Mortenson, The Travaux of Travaux: Is the Vienna Convention Hostile to Drafting History?, 107 Am. J. Int`l L. 780 (2013). The paradoxical difficulty of this thesis is that it fits head-on into the clear text of Article 32 of the Convention.  Sir Robert Jennings, Sir Arthur Watts, Oppenheim`s International Law 1277 (9th edition 1992).  Patrick Daillier, Allain Pellet, Droit International Public 286 (8th edition 2009) (citing several cases before the International Court of Justice).  This fact has not prevented U.S.
courts from citing the Vienna Convention in a large number of contexts. A WestlawNext search in U.S. federal cases provides 139 cases where the Convention has been cited. Chubb & Son, Inc. v. Asiana Airlines, 214 F.3d 301 (2d Cir. 2000), has a good discussion of the court`s view on the place of the Vienna Convention. The tribunal concluded that “that is why we treat the Vienna Convention as a relevant guide to international treaty law.” See also Maria Frankowska, ” The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties before the United States Courts “, 28 va. J.
Int`l L. 281 (1988); Evan Criddle, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in U.S. Treaty Interpretation, 44 bis. J. Int`l L. 431 (2004).  311 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2002).  Gonzalez at 948 (highlighted here only).  Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.P. 217, 226 (1996) (highlighted here only).
 Of course, I did not develop this example from the original research. On the contrary, I consulted Bossuyt`s insurmountable guide to the preparatory work for Confederation, which is mentioned below.  Lomio, Spang-Hanssen and Wilson believe that it is appropriate to attack my entire project in these terms: “However, only Model III (treaty-specific conference recordings) refers to the fact that legally binding international instruments are always with the help of a conference between States representing international organizations. . . .