You are here: Home > Allgemein > What Does Reservation Mean in Law

What Does Reservation Mean in Law

The Government of the United Kingdom has always stated that it cannot accept reservations to article IX. Accordingly, in accordance with the position adopted by the United Kingdom in previous cases, the Government of the United Kingdom does not accept the first reservation made by the United States of America. The Government of the United Kingdom opposes the second reservation of the United States of America. This creates uncertainty as to the extent of the obligations that the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with respect to the Convention. Perhaps the most famous and controversial reservations are those that the United States had when it signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1986. However, if a monitoring body is established by a human rights treaty, it can only express reservations or make recommendations on them. The ILC did not agree with the Human Rights Committee`s general comment 24. The fact that the supervisory authority could decide on the admissibility of reservations had no bearing on the principle of State consent. The Human Rights Committee has stated that it can decide for itself the consequences of an inadmissible reservation. The ILC stipulates that only the reserve country can decide on the measures it will take. The State may decide to withdraw or modify its reservation or not to become a party to the treaty in question.

According to some commentators[2], what happens in practice in the VCLT diet is the third option. It follows from Article 20(4)(b) and Article 21(3) of the VCLT that the only thing that can happen is that if a Rejecting State feels very strong in favour of a reservation, it finds that the whole treaty is not in force between the reserving State and itself. This rarely happens, so the reserve is whether he passed the legality test or not. Reservations are formally formulated in Article 2(1)(d) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Articles 19 to 23 lay down the procedures for formulating and withdrawing reservations. In general, the following is described: The ILC has been asked to consider whether the VCLT should be amended with reservations against human rights treaties. In the 1997 report [9], the ILC rejected this idea. According to the ILC, the reasons why there were problems of reservations on human rights were the same reasons why there were problems of reservations on other treaties. Therefore, the ILC decided that no special arrangement for human rights treaties would be necessary. Many opponents of the second option argue that it violates the principle of state consent. States may be bound only by provisions which they have accepted. Since they have made a reservation to a specific provision, they cannot be bound by it.

A reservation under international law is a reservation against the acceptance of a treaty by a State. A reservation is defined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) as follows: The court chose the option „The Reserving State is bound by the contract, including the parties to which it made the reservation“. Switzerland could have chosen to withdraw from the treaty, but it opposed it. Warning: Responses are created by library staff using resources available at the time of writing. This website may contain links and references to databases, websites, books and articles of third parties, which does not imply the endorsement of the United Nations. Articles 19 to 23 of the Vienna Convention describe the procedures relating to reservations. To determine whether a reservation is valid, the legality of the reservation criterion applies as described in article 19 of the Vienna Convention. According to this article, a State may not formulate a reservation if: A reservation must be recorded in writing and then sent either to the depositary of the treaty in the case of a multilateral treaty or directly to the other States parties.

Many reservations have been expressed about these treaties. However, few States expressed their objections. When the states opposed it, few people took the position that the treaty between them and the reserve state is not in force, in the hope that they could get the reservist states to eventually accept all the provisions of the treaty. According to legal commentators, if States oppose a reservation by declaring that it has not passed the test of legality, there are three possible outcomes: 1: The reservation is prohibited by the treaty. (e.g. the Additional Convention on the Abolition of Slavery and the Convention against Discrimination in Education) 2: The treaty provides that only certain reservations which do not contain the reservation in question may be formulated. In addition, the ILC stated that a practical guide should be developed, consisting of guidelines aimed at clarifying certain issues in the VCLT concerning reservations. States welcomed this proposal, although it should be added that this practice guide will not have binding legal value. .

  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

Comments are closed.