Austrian Review of International and European Law 20: xxx-xxx, 2015. © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV. Printed in the Netherlands. Uniformity in Model Laws as Subsequent Practice under Article 31 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Ilias Bantekas * I. Introduction The life and quality of life of a treaty is by no means a foregone conclusion. In the past, where treaties were few and apart, member states either strove to fortify them or took every possible action to destroy them. This is no longer the case, as treaties, particularly of a multilateral character, affect far more actors than the foreign offices that participate in their drafting, signature and ratification. There is nowadays a plethora of direct and indirect stakeholders that have an interest in the functioning of a treaty. Specialized NGOs, victim groups, those affected by the measures adopted in a treaty, corporations, academics and other actors may enter into conduct that ultimately greases the wheels of state practice. This may include public interest litigation, scholarly writings, petitions to national parliaments, public protests and many others. Hence, a state may eventually be forced to amend its original stance vis-à-vis certain strands of the treaty in question. In equal measure, sustained transnational judicial dialogue, as well as a pronouncement of an international tribunal, may alter the course of state practice in one way or another. 1 Increasingly, states resort to forms of international agreement other than treaties. 2 This includes memoranda of understanding (MoU), model laws and private agreements and these may encompass only states as parties, as well as * [insert author footnote] 1 See Ronald J Krotoszynski, ‘“I’d like to Teach the World to Sing (In Perfect Harmony)”: International Judicial Dialogue and the Muses – Reflections on the Perils and the Promise of International Judicial Dialogue’ (2006) 104 Michigan Law Review 1321; Philip M Moremen, ‘National Court Decisions as State Practice: A Transnational Judicial Dialogue?’ (2006) 32 North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 259. 2 See Ramses A Wessel, ‘Informal International Law-Making as a New Form of World Legislation?’ (2011) 8 International Organizations Law Review 253.