In the present master thesis, I am analyzing the judicial practice of the International Court of Justice through the prism of the principle of sovereignty. As all states are
sovereign there is no authority above states, which could unilaterally impose on them legal obligations and consequently encroach on their sovereignty. Therefore, the principle of sovereignty requires that a state is bound only by those legal norms, to which it has consented. In the field of sources of international law, principle sovereignty is most adequately reflected through international treaties, considering that they are based on the consent of contracting states. Due to the fact that a judge, wishing to apply an international treaty to a particular case, has to first determine the meaning of legal
rules in international treaties, a question arises, which meaning is that, which is required by the principle of sovereignty. Taking into account the principle of sovereignty, a judge has to follow the subjective theory of interpretation and give to treaties that meaning, which the contracting states intended to give to a treaty as that is the only meaning, to which states have consented. The analysis of the judicial practice of the International Court of Justice showed that the court does in principle accept the subjective theory of interpretation, however on multiple occasions it took a different stance, which is to a degree a consequence of customary rules of interpretation, codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.