Other Rules of International Law. The extent to which non-conventional international rules might be relevant for the handling of domestic safeguard matters seems to be limited. Customary rules on treaty interpretation – such as those reflected in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – are applicable for the clarification of international agreements. Similarly, some general customary principles on state responsibility may inform the interpretation of safeguard- related treaty obligations.16 However, the extent to which international custom might be applicable by safeguard operators at the national level (i.e. investi- gating authorities, authorities responsible for the application of safeguard measures, interested parties, practitioners or judicial authorities if applicable) seems to be atypical and might be linked to the role that international law plays within the legal system of the Member seeking the imposition of a safeguard measure, as discussed in the next section. Concerning the role of jurisprudence, such as dispute settlement reports of WTO panels and the Appellate Body, its relevance is limited to providing guiding reasoning in situations that have been addressed in similar disputes. As noted in the trade remedy field, decisions taken by the WTO Appellate Body with respect to specific cases are expected to create expectations on the manner in which similar situations should be addressed in the future. This approach is considered to provide security and predictability in the rules of the system.17 13 See, for instance, Article 44 of the EU-Colombia-Peru Trade Association Agreement: ‘a Party initiating an investigation or intending to adopt safeguard measures shall provide immediately ad hoc written notification of all pertinent information, including where relevant, regarding the initiation of a safeguard investigation, the preliminary determination and the final determination of the investigation.’
