Treaty interpretation is one of the most crucial roles of international dispute settlement bodies. They can decide the case in the most reasonable way by legally justified interpretation of treaty. In some cases of the WTO and the ICJ, there exist certain types of facts which closely relate to the evolution of the meaning of a term. This research compares the four ICJ cases to the two WTO cases in order to ascertain both similarities and dissimilarities of those cases. Significant is the dissimilarities concerning the related principle on the economic or environmental aspect enshrined in certain agreement. In the context of the WTO dispute settlement, the contemporary meaning could only be adoptable after adequately justifying treaty interpretation by means of the two-step semantic generic-related interpretative approach. Without the second step of principle-related analysis, problems may arise especially from the economic perspective.

I. Introduction
II . Brief Overview: Six Cases Discussing‘Contemporary Meaning’
    A. The ICJ cases
    B. The WTO cases
III. The Four IC J Cases
    A. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey)
    B. Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)
    C. Two Additional Cases
IV . The Two WTO Cases
    A. United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products
    B. China - Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products (WT/DS363)
V. Further Reflections on the Related Differences between the IC J and the WTO
VI . Conclusion
References

• Yang Yu(Shanghai University of International Business and Economics School of WTO Research and Education, Center for Global Trade and Economic Governance.)