The disagreement was that articles 20 and 21 were unlikely to apply to reservations that could not be invoked under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. [4] However, they are used in practice. 39 See D. W. Bowett, Reservations to Non-Restricted Multilateral Contracts, 48 BYIL (1977), 67-92, p. 86; R.W. Edwards Jr., Reservations to Treaties, 10 Michigan JIL (1989), 362-405, pp. 399-400. 40Multilateral treaties deposited with the Secretary-General, as at 31 December 1994, United Nations. Doctor. ST/LEG./SER. E/13, 890. 41 Ibid.
42 Ibid., 892. 43Ibid., 891-893; see also I. Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd ed.) 1984, 65-68; R. Kiihner, Vorbehalte zu multilateralen volkerrechtliche Ververtragen, 1986, (Beiträgee zum ausländischischen offentlichen Recht; vols. 91), 196-198 and 219; K. Zemanek, Quelques questions unresolved concernant les réserves dans la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités, in: J. Makarczyk (ed.), Essays in International law in Honour of Judge Manfred Lachs, 1984, 223-336, pp. 335-336. 44 In the cases referred to in Article 19(b), the applicability of the compatibility assessment depends on the wording of the reservation clause. If the clause specifies the content of the authorized reservation, the compatibility check does not apply.
If, on the other hand, it provides only for those articles of a contract in respect of which reservations may be made without specifying their content, the compatibility test applies. See D. W. Bowett, Reservations to Non-Restricted Multilateral Contracts, 48 BY1L (1977), 67-92, pp. 71-72. 2. A reservation accepted in respect of a Party shall affect only relations between the reserving State and each of the other Contracting Parties and shall not affect relations between the other Contracting Parties. Fitzmaurice I 115 ff. · A reservation under international law is a reservation against acceptance of a treaty by a State.
A reservation is defined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (CRC) as follows: It is necessarily for the Committee to decide whether a particular reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This is partly because, as noted above, this is an inappropriate task for States parties with regard to human rights instruments, and partly because it is a task from which the Committee cannot escape in the exercise of its functions. Because of the specific nature of a human rights instrument, the compatibility of a reservation with the object and purpose of the Covenant must be determined objectively by reference to legal principles, and the Committee is particularly well placed for this task. Article 40 Reservations (legal effects, if permitted). A reservation must be recorded in writing and then addressed either to the depositary of the treaty in the case of a multilateral treaty or directly to the other contracting States. According to Anthony Aust, “if one or more States parties have objected to the reservation as prohibited, the reserving State must decide whether or not it is prepared to be a party without the reservation; And as long as it has not clearly expressed its position, it cannot be considered a party. [3] The Commission made the following proposals for reservations:[10] A State may withdraw a reservation at any time. This requires a written submission to the other signatory states.
45 A detailed analysis of this subject by K. Zemanek will follow in 2 ARIEL No t(!997). 46 Report of the Commission on its forty-seventh session, GAOR, Fiftieth Session, Suppl. No. 10 (A/50/10), Summary of Debates, 253, paragraphs 457-460. 47 See General Comment No. 24(52) on issues relating to reservations made upon ratification of or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols or declarations made under article 41 of the Covenant, document CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/Add.6, 11 November 1994, paragraph 10. The Human Rights Committee emphasizes that there is no hierarchy among human rights provisions.
In addition, he pointed out that rights other than non-segregated rights could also be excluded from reservations. Certain other provisions that are not covered by non-terminable rights are of the same importance as Articles 9 and 25. The Committee notes that there is no automatic link between reservations to unavoidable provisions and their incompatibility with the object and purpose. However, the non-derogation of a right creates a onerous obligation for the conditional State to prove its compatibility. See also restrictions on the death penalty (articles 4 (2) and 4 (4) of the American Convention on Human Rights), (OC-3/83) Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Opinion of 8 September 1983, 70 ILR (986), 449-477, p. 470, para. 61; Th. Buergenthal, The Advisory Practice of the Inter-Ameriean Human Rights Court, 79 AJIL (1985), 1-27, pp. 24-25; Th. Meron, On A Hierarchy of International Human Rights, 80 AJIL (1986), 1-23, p. 17; L.
Lijnzaad, Reservations on LJN Human Rights Treaties. Ratify and ruin? (T.M.C. Asser Instituut, International Studies in Human Rights, vol. 38), 1995, 82-84 and 125-127. 48 See, for example, reservations that protect national legislation or emphasize the predominance of religious law or tradition. L. Lijnzaad, Reservations to United Nations human rights treaties. Ratify and ruin? (T.M.C. Asser Instituut, International Studies in Human Rights, vol. 38), 1995, pp.
85-86; cf. also Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Belilos case, Judgment of 29 April 1988, Publications of the European Court of Human Rights, Series A, Judgments and Decisions, vol. 132 (1988), 26, para. 55. 49 See general comment No. 24 (52) on questions relating to reservations made upon ratification of or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols or on declarations made under article 41 of the Covenant, LJN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.I/Add.6, 11 November 1994, para. 8. See also the commentary by Mr. Nowak, The Activities of the UN Human Rights: Developments from 1 August 1992 to 31 July 1995, 16 HRLJ (1995), 377-397, p.
380. a unilateral statement, however phrased or titled, made by a State at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession to a treaty, purporting to exclude or modify the legal effects of certain provisions of the treaty as applied to that State.