Search

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Intellectual Property Law / Revista Română de Dreptul Proprietăţii Intelectuale is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose – This paper aims to explore the evolution of the notion of peremptory norms (Jus Cogens) in international law through the work of the International Law Commission on unilateral acts. Design/methodology/approach – The study depended on analyzing the work of the International Law Commission on two topics: Unilateral Acts 2006 and Reservations to treaties 2011 to reveal the relation between jus cogens and unilateral acts. Findings – Jus cogens restrict unilateral acts like treaties due to the recognition of the importance and necessity of the concept of Jus cogens in protecting the fundamental interests of the international community. Practical implications – States must be compatible with jus cogens when making any reservation on a treaty and also when taking any unilateral act. Originality/value – This paper reveals the importance of jus cogens in promoting the values of the international community and the need of such notion to protect the common interest of that community.

Many Muslim states have been accused of undermining the principles and norms of CEDAW by formulating general and undefined reservations. The general and undefined reservations are deemed to be inadmissible on account of contravening the object and purpose of the treaties. Such reservations have enabled the reserving states to lower women's rights standards and have adversely affected the uniform application of CEDAW. This article finds that despite their negative outcomes, general and undefined reservations to treaties are permissible under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The VCLT's approach has promoted the idea of universality of human rights treaties but arguably at the cost of their integrity. On the other hand, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has adopted the severability approach to assess the admissibility of reservations and to determine their legal effects. Under the severability approach, a general and undefined reservation would be considered inadmissible and severed from the ratification of the treaty, and the reserving state is considered bound by treaty provisions as if no reservation was drawn. Although the severability approach has substantially impacted the law on reservations, its recognition has been slow due to its inherent limitations. In the context of different approaches to treaty reservations taken by the VCLT and the ECtHR, this article examines the reservations of Muslim state to CEDAW and analyses the scope of severing those reservations. The article argues that reactions and practices of the state parties to severability approach indicate that application of severability approach would be detrimental to the universality of CEDAW. The article suggests that instead of determining the legal consequences of Muslim states' reservations, due consideration must be given to the fulfilment of their obligations under CEDAW. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International relations scholarship has made significant strides in explaining how states design treaty obligations and why they accept treaty commitments. However, far less attention has been paid to factors that may influence states' modification of their treaty obligations via reservations. We theorize that states will be more likely to enter reservations when treaty obligations increase compliance costs and policy adjustment costs. More specifically, we expect that demanding provisions, i.e. provisions that create strong, precise obligations requiring domestic action, will enhance the likelihood of reservation. To test our theory, we exploit an original dataset that codes reservations at the provision (treaty–article–paragraph) level for the ten core international human rights treaties. Consistent with our expectations, we find that states are more likely to enter reservations on more demanding treaty provisions. In contrast to prior studies, our results indicate that reservations are not driven purely by state-level characteristics such as regime type or the nature of the legal system. Rather, it appears that states weigh individual treaty obligations and calibrate their commitments accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since its founding in 1949, the People's Republic of China has acceded to more than 300 multilateral treaties. Among them, China made reservations to 83 treaties, accounting for nearly 27.7 percent of the total. Evidently, for China, formulating reservations to multilateral treaties is an issue of vital importance in the process of concluding and executing multilateral treaties. This paper examines the three main reasons why China inclines to formulate reservations to the treaties, then argues that the reservations formulated by China, whether in procedure or in substance, are not only in full conformity with the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, but also full of Chinese characteristics. This paper also analyzes several specific reservations that China shall withdraw, and addresses the limitations of China's existing treaty reservation system. Accordingly, this paper concludes that the Chinese government should improve and perfect its treaty reservation system with some suggestions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses Indian Christians and the denial of justice in the form of government reservations and privileges. The birth of a new social consciousness among the depressed castes after their Christian conversion was attributed to the growth of education and occupational mobility where certain basic ideas of equality and upward social mobility worked in a progressive direction. However, upon achieving independence from foreign rule, and in subsequent political calculations, the welfare of Indian Christians has been hindered as they were not extended the same privileges that are enjoyed by depressed caste people from non-Christian faiths (Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist). Therefore, this article details the denial of social justice to Indian Christians from Dalit backgrounds and calls for a redefinition of the concept of social justice to remove all inequalities and provide equal opportunities for all citizens irrespective of which religion that they choose to follow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both the doctrine of the international humanitarian law and the judicial practice has contradictory views on the reserves and the interpretative statements summarized briefly below. Some of them are said to be justified or necessary, others are said to be useless, while those that contradict the purpose of Protocol I to reconcile the military needs with the humanitarian law prescriptions should be withdrawn by the States that have made them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Social & Education History / Historia Social y de la Educación is the property of Social & Education History / Historia Social y de la Educacion and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Human rights hold a common general meaning, as the legal understanding of them, both as regards their principles and their specific wording, may be traced to universal values, including inalienable human dignity. It is regarded as a fundamental human right, and at the same time the source of all of the remaining ones. In such a situation we are dealing with a striving towards their extraterritorial application. Said extraterritoriality has many aspects. National courts regard themselves competent to examine cases connected with violations of human rights beyond the borders of the given country. Human rights treaties are applied outside the territories of the states which are parties thereto. Reservations to treaties dealing with these issues, which are to limit their territorial application, give rise to numerous legal controversies. We are also dealing with competition between the responsibility of the territorial state and the state which exercised effective control in the territory of that state or with joint responsibility. In this context, it would seem that the word "effectiveness" is the appropriate key to alleviating doubts as regards the arising of state responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the disputed qualification of some of the provisions of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) as reservations in the legal sense. It mentions that reservations' general usefulness in the uniform private law context and the significant uncertainty reservations seem to cause in both the eyes of government officials in the cases decided by judges and arbitrators.

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]

Time is an important element in the process of reservations to treaties and, consequently, in the legal regime established by the Vienna Conventions for reservations and reactions thereto. The very definition of reservations, embodied in Article 2(1)(d) of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions, as well as in Article 2(1)(j) of the 1978 Vienna Convention, and incorporated in the definition adopted by the International Law Commission in its Guide to Practice, includes precise indications and limits concerning the moment in time for a reservation to be formulated. In practice, however, reservations have been made before and after this peculiar moment. The work of the International Law Commission has shown that these are still reservations, even if they are not contemplated by the Vienna regime. But they can nevertheless deploy their purported effects under some additional conditions. The same holds true with regard to objections to reservations which can be formulated prematurely or late. They are still objections even if their concrete legal effects may be affected. Whereas time is important for the legal consequences attached to reservations and reactions thereto, it plays a less important role in the overall process of reservations dialogue. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article addresses the issue of reservations to human rights treaties in the light of the work done by the International Law Commission and its Special Rapporteur, Mr Alain Pellet. Section 1 gives a short historical background for the topic. Section 2 provides a concise overview of the variety of arguments that have been raised in the debate on the character of human rights treaties and the permissibility of reservations to those treaties, as well as their relationship with the reservations regime established under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Section 3 gives a number of specific examples of reservations permitted under the human rights treaties and describes the approach taken by some human rights treaty bodies in that respect. It also depicts the manner in which some of these bodies have dealt with the intricate issue of the consequences of impermissible reservations. Section 4 analyses the guidelines adopted by the ILC and offers some reflection on their contribution to the development of international treaty law on this topic. Section 5 concludes by praising the comprehensive work of the ILC on the subject. [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]

Copyright of Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi is the property of Justice Academy of Turkey and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Nearly 30 years after it was adopted, the U.S. has never ratified the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. The essay reviews the historic relationship between the U.S. government and the treaty, past attempts at, and increasingly urgent calls for ratification. Although the treaty is highly favorable to the U.S., Senate opponents have thus far been successful in blocking its ratification. We examine why this has been the case and evaluate the future chances of U.S. accession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the Human Rights Treaty Law regarded as the Supreme Law of the Land. It states that this law is unenforceable because the human rights treaties that the U.S. has ratified are beholded with reservations, understandings and declarations (RUD). Finally, it argues for the universal enabling implementing legislation that would make all human rights treaties actionable in the U.S. courts.

Copyright of Romanian Review of Private Law / Revista Română de Drept Privat is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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]

In recent years, American treaty behavior has produced growing concern among both allies and less friendly nations. On such fundamental issues as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, human rights, civil liberties, environmental disasters, and commerce, the United States has generated confusion and anger abroad. Such a climate is not conducive to needed cooperation in the conduct of foreign and security policy. Among U.S. actions that have caused concern are the failure to ratify several treaties; the attachment of reservations, understandings, and declarations before ratification; the failure to support a treaty regime once ratified; and treaty withdrawal. The structural and historical reasons for American treaty behavior are deeply rooted in the United States' system of government and do not merely reflect superpower arrogance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several Native Nations in the United States have cultural resources and reserved treaty rights on federal lands. This article examines two approaches that can be used to protect such values and rights: the use of cooperative management models and protected land-use designations made by Congress or federal land agencies. Background on both subjects is provided, and the case of the Badger-Two Medicine area in Montana is used for illustration. Though most pronounced in the context offish and wildlife management, tribes are playing several roles in cooperatively managing federal lands and resources. Some of the most substantive cooperative arrangements on federal land are the result of laws and policies mandating their use. Protected land-use designations, including place-based legislation, have also been used to protect sacred lands and reserved treaty rights. This article describes several cases where such strategies have been used in the past and analyzes what they might offer in contrast to more reactive and procedural-based protections. [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]

The article discusses the Stevens treaties which were executed by the United States in 1854 and 1855 with Indian tribes and bands in northwestern Washington. Under the treaties, the Indians ceded approximately 64 million acres of land to the United States, and in consideration for the concessions, were granted the right to take fish from the streams and rivers flowing through their reservations on the ceded lands.

Offers a look at a variety of issues concerning the practice of public international law in China. Views of China on providing assistance to third State affected by sanctions; Responsibility of states and international organizations; Position of the country on the topic of reservations to treaties.

Focuses on the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to consider the merits of disputes. Effect of ministerial statements at international law; Effects of reservations to treaties; Assessment of international sanctions on the case of genocide in Rwanda.

This essay will deal with the issues unresolved by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), reservations and declarations to human rights treaties. In fact, declarations to treaties were left out entirely from the scope of the VCLT. This article will also analyse in depth the general development of the institution of the reservations to treaties including the current work on this topic by the International Law Commission and the recent jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. The essay takes into account the relevant jurisprudence of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights and provides an extensive analysis of the legal character of declarations attached to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Singapore is a party to the CISG, while entering an "Article 95" reservation to Article 1(1)(b). For Singapore then, the CISG applies only when both parties have their places of business in CISG Contracting States. Following a survey of the legislative history of the CISG, the author argues that Singapore's reservation leads to confusion, complicated conflict of laws problems, and forum shopping. He argues that for these and other policy reasons, Singapore should therefore withdraw its reservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses several developments in the laws and practices relating to reservations as of 2005. Definition of a reservation; Role of the United Nations Secretary General in reservations; Types of reservations; Information on formulating objections to reservations.

Reservations to international treaties represent one of the most difficult areas to negotiate through in international law. The difficulties with reservations lie in their legal applicability and the political implications that reservations create for the subsequent utilization of the treaty and its members. The full extent of these difficulties has recently been displayed in the International Whaling Commission. In this instance, although the reservation was ultimately successful, a certain amount of integrity was retained by the Commission as it ultimately controlled the process and the overall decision was not dictated to the Commission on a bilateral basis. [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.

The International Law Commission held its fifty-third session in Geneva, Switzerland, from April 23, 2001 to June 1, 2001 and July 2, 2001 to August 10, 2001. Under the chairmanship of Mr. Peter C.R. Kabatsi from Uganda, the Commission addressed five topics: state responsibility, prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities, reservations to treaties, diplomatic protection and unilateral acts of states. The Commission completed its work on two long-standing topics: state responsibility and prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities.

The article explores the reasons for the reluctance of the U.S. to permit the international human rights system to improve the rights of U.S. citizens. It is argued by the author that such an approach reflects an attitude toward international human rights law of fear and arrogance. The U.S. government's approach to the ratification of international human rights treaties, which involves the attachment of reservations, is described. The article also cites ways to give meaning to the ratification of human rights treaties.

The essay examines the U.S. practice of attaching a package of reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUD) to its ratification of international human rights conventions. It argues that RUD play an important role in fostering the advancement of human rights based on the goal of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The essay examines the relationship of the U.S. to the ICCPR, citing their similarities and differences. Attaining compliance on core issues while providing flexibility on some issues is suggested.

Describes the practice of international law related to Denmark in 1999. Denmark?s participation in the NATO campaign in Kosovo; Reservations by Trinidad and Tobago to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Delimitation agreement between Denmark/Faroe Islands and the United Kingdom; State immunity.

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.

An unsatisfactory characteristic of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties regime relating to reservations is that objections to reservations do not normally prevent the reserving state from getting what it wants, no matter how outrageous the reservation may be. The Nordic states in particular, disgruntled with this state of affairs, have in recent years formulated objections to reservations in such as manner as to aim to prevent reserving states from benefitting from their reservations. The present paper records this Nordic practice, traces some antecedents, and analyzes its legal consequences, arguing that the Nordic practice may not prevent states from benefitting from their reservations but is best seen as an attempt to influence the work of the ILC's Special Rapporteur on reservations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides an overview of the work of the International Law Commission at its fifty-first session (1999). The topics covered are Nationality in relation to the succession of States; State responsibility; Reservations to treaties; Jurisdictional immunities of States and their property; Unilateral acts of States; International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities); and Diplomatic protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents selected parts of Finnish state practice in international law in 1998. Selected Pieces of Finnish legislation concerning matters of international law enacted during 1998, including sanctions legislation, anti-boycott legislation and penal code; Treaties, declarations and reservations of Finland; Objections to reservations; Selected statements by representatives of Finland at such events as the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court in Rome, Italy; Agreements entered into force with regard to Finland in 1998.

Discusses joint Nordic coordination and collaboration in the field of international law for 1998. Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law; Diplomatic protection; International liability; Reservations to treaties; State responsibility; Protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives; Nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession of states.