Attachment of Meaning to Interpretation in International Law Texts: The Relationship between Legal Criteria and Cognitive Concepts and Political Reflection

Using examples of strategic language in interpretation of international law instruments, the authors demonstrate the usefulness of cognitive framing- pragmatics in studying legal interpretation. In order to do this, they draw some cognitive scholar studies like Wahlich and Fillmore. In cognitive framing, for instance, there is an ongoing debate on if there is any relationship between cognitive studies and international law texts or not. This paper unpacks this debate and shows how it can be employed to better explain interpretive processes in international law. Cognitive framing or strategic use of language have to do with how to comprehend the real meaning of structures and expressions. For instance, the term “liberalization” stands for “military intervention” or “security wall” is changed by simply “wall” under how languages of international law are used. The strategic use of language shows that one government could play with interlocutors, choosing positive frames but using negative positions and ways. Examples of such situations are too much in international law instruments and here, the authors are to be define and clarify these situations by some practical examples.