Linguistics has been integrated into the research on international law, however there are still numerous critics which seem to question the value of linguistic analysis for legal texts and legal discourse. Considering that the dimension of language is such a crucial one in the field of law, this attitude is hard to understand. Especially the drafting of international treaties as well as the interpretation of international law provide for linguistic challenges, due to the application of various different languages as well as the concurrence of different cultures, which are carried by language. These aspects can easily lead to the misinterpretation and hence to inconsistency of international law. This thesis aims to point out that an earlier involvement of linguistic skills and the application of linguistic principles during the drafting process of an international treaty, can contribute to avoid inconsistent application of international law. The field of pragmatics has been particularly neglected in the context of analyzing legal texts. However, modern approaches in the field of pragmatics help to trace, understand and communicate the process of treaty interpretation more effectively. Therefore, recent developments in pragmatics will be discussed. Furthermore, the study of pragmatics will be distinguished from semantics, which is used in the context of legal interpretation more frequently. In the practical part of the thesis, the methodology will be applied to three human rights treaties, which were previously misinterpreted. It is a property of human rights agreements to carry a lot of the cultural background and intentions of the treaty drafters, which makes it a suitable matter to be analyzed with principles of socio-linguistics. By applying principles of pragmatics, it is suggested how the respective misinterpretations could have been avoided.