With regard to Class (ii), the cases cited by the ICJ include, in addition to the reference already mentioned in the Nuclear Weapons Opinion to the organization`s „own practice“, other opinions in which the ICJ has not made a declaration on the exact interpretative value of institutional practice.  The reports indicate that such a practice is considered „at least“ as „another subsequent practice“ to be put in place under section 32 of the VCLT.  The second point (see section 3) for which the distinction between the two subsequent types of practice has consequences is the categorization of the practice of international organizations. While the ICC remains silent on its exact normative value, the reports group it together „at least as a complementary element“ to the law of an international organization that gains all the more weight as it is clearly supported by member states.  Emphasis is placed on the practice of expert bodies that play a defined role in the implementation of a treaty, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee; as such, their expenditure is regarded as a means of alternative interpretation which may lead to subsequent practice by the parties under Article 31(3) of the VCLT.  There are good reasons for an ILC project to evaluate subsequent agreements and practices. Not only have many important treaties taken time, but have also been considerably developed within the various institutions created by their Member States. In parallel with this process of intensifying the normative framework for international cooperation, methods of interpretation have evolved. The step the ICC has taken, moving from a preference for the initial will of the parties to a more general and objective approach, has been influenced by Article 31 of the VCLT, which established a single interpretative rule composed of different elements of equal weight.
Therefore, the old doctrine described by McNair is that „the relevant conduct of the parties after the conclusion of a contract … has a high probative value of the parties` intent at the time of their conclusion,“ if ever plausible, is no longer in favor.  The practice, an expression of the parties` common understanding, has its own value, which may deviate from their intentions at the time of the comparison of the contract. Subsequent agreement and practice, as well as the evolving method of interpretation, are the vectors for the modification of international law. In theory, they can contribute to the integration of a process of transformation into the treaty when the international order sets in motion, as is the process all the time. Many of the treaties that formed the international order after World War II have been in force for six or seven decades.