Tokens: 34
.
Generally
speaking
,
at
least
in
this
type
of
provision
,
an
inference
or
implication
can
only
be
regarded
as
a
"
necessary
"
one
if
the
provision
can
not
operate
,
or
will
not
function
,
without
it
.
As
has
already
been
indicated
(
supra
,
paragraph
25
)
,
in
Article
6.1
(
art
.
6
-
1
)
the
necessary
,
and
the
only
necessary
inferential
element
lies
in
the
assumption
(
without
which
the
provision
makes
no
sense
but
more
than
which
it
does
not
require
in
order
to
make
sense
)
that
legal
proceedings
of
some
kind
have
been
started
and
are
in
progress
.
It
is
in
no
way
necessary
,
either
to
the
operation
of
this
text
,
or
to
give
it
significant
meaning
and
scope
,
that
the
further
and
quite
gratuitous
assumption
should
be
made
that
the
text
implies
not
only
the
existence
of
proceedings
but
an
a
priori
right
to
bring
them
,
-
which
is
to
enter
upon
a
distinct
order
or
category
of
concept
,
for
doing
which
there
is
no
warrant
,
since
the
Article
(
art
.
6
-
1
)
has
ample
scope
without
that
.
To
quote
my
colleague
Judge
Zekia
,
it
"
has
...
its
raison
d’être
...
without
grafting
the
right
of
access
onto
it
"
.
May
I
be
permitted
in
the
general
context
of
the
process
of
implication
to
refer
to
what
I
wrote
more
than
a
dozen
years
ago
in
an
article
on
treaty
interpretation
having
no
specific
connexion
with
any
case
such
as
the
present
one[19
]
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O