Search

Current doctrine assumes that the "Vienna regime" delinked objections from the criterion of object and purpose (OP) compatibility of reservations. Shifting the focus from reservations to objections, this article finds implicit continuity between the Genocide Advisory Opinion and the Vienna regime: in both cases the OP criterion enables a distinction between objections on the grounds of incompatibility of reservations (OP objections) and all others. Embracing this distinction, a new theoretical interpretation of the Vienna regime safeguards against the adverse effects of objections, namely a "reinforced two-tier test" is suggested, whereby any reservation may be subject to an assessment of opposability (non-op objections) and a double assessment of permissibility. Adopting a functional approach, the article suggests a classification of international obligations based on the applicability of the Vienna regime's various safeguard mechanisms, locating the roles of objections to reservations to human rights treaties in context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to revisit the long saga of the ILC Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties, as the Special Rapporteur has lived it for nearly 18 years and 16 reports. In its first part, the article recounts the elaboration procedure, pointing in particular to the elements of innovation and flexibility introduced in the process. The main one is the very type of instrument adopted, namely a Guide to Practice, and not a set of draft Articles that would eventually become a convention. In the second part, the main issues having retained the attention of the ILC, as well as of the other international bodies and of the academic community, are briefly recalled: the question of the unity or diversity of regimes, the permissibility of reservation and the status of the author of an impermissible reservation were among the most debated issues. Finally, the article explains the structure of the Guide to Practice. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The aim of the Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties is to assist practitioners of international law, who are often faced with sensitive problems concerning, in particular, the validity and effects of reservations to treaties, and interpretative declarations. The chief interest in the Guide will be in the light it shines on the many difficult substantive and procedural issues concerning reservations and declarations left open by the Vienna Conventions. But the institutional aspects are also of considerable practical interest. The present contribution considers some of the institutional or cooperative bodies that may assist practitioners: depositaries; treaty monitoring bodies; the reservations dialogue; and ‘mechanisms of assistance’. The first two are well-established. The third and fourth are innovative, and it remains to be seen whether they will be adopted by states and, if so, how useful they will be. In any event, the Special Rapporteur has shown considerable foresight in proposing what became the annex to the Guide to Practice on the reservations dialogue, as well as the Commission’s resolution on ‘mechanisms of assistance’. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

As of 18 April 2008, 42 of the 158 States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR or the Covenant), constituting about 27 percent of the States parties to the Covenant, had, between them, entered several declarations and reservations of varying significance to their acceptance of the obligations under the Covenant. Yet, unlike most other human rights treaties the Covenant lacks a specific clause on declarations and reservations. This has given rise to several questions examined in this article. Firstly, what reservations to the ICESCR are permissible or impermissible in international human rights law? Secondly, who should decide whether a reservation under the ICESCR is permissible or impermissible? Thirdly, if a reservation under the Covenant is impermissible, what is the legal effect of such an impermissible reservation? And finally, are some of the existing State reservations to the Covenant incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant (i.e. the Covenant's essential rules, rights and obligations) and thus impermissible? If so, how should reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant be treated by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR or the Committee)? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The legitimacy and role of reservations to international human rights treaties is a heavily contested issue. From one perspective, reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) are a legitimate means to account for diversity and are used predominantly by those countries that take human rights seriously. From an alternative perspective, RUDs are regrettable at best and detrimental to the international human rights regime at worst. The first account predicts that liberal democracies set up more RUDs than do other countries, whereas the competing account holds the opposite, possibly after distinguishing among the group of liberal democracies. This article puts these hypotheses to an empirical test with respect to six core international human rights treaties. The results suggest that the revealed RUD behavior of state parties to the treaties examined is strongly in line with the first perspective, since liberal democracies have more, not fewer, RUDs than do other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses treaty reservations and the economics of Article 21(1) of the Vienna convention. Contradictions of the use of reservations in multilateral treaties; History of the treaty reservations; Information on an approach developed in Latin America known as the Pan-American Rule; Methods of dealing with reservations by the international community.

Gives an overall picture of Swedish practice in public international law during 1999. Proceedings of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly; Use of force, including the Kosovo Crisis; Participation in promoting human rights and ending torture worldwide; Participation in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; International humanitarian law; Fundamental standards of humanity; Law on disarmament/nuclear weapons disarmament; Commissions as protecting power; Swedish participation in peace support operations and other international missions; Objections to reservations to treaties, including human rights treaties.

The article reports that the U.S. Senate has adopted a reservation, declaring that the country adheres to the principle of self-determination, and to the resolution of sympathy with the aspirations of the Irish people for a government of their own choice. The move was made a day before the final vote on the Peace Treaty was taken. Those who objected to the reservation pointed out that the treaty makes no reference to Ireland.