Hubbry Logo
Reservation (law)Reservation (law)Main
Open search
Reservation (law)
Community hub
Reservation (law)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Reservation (law)
Reservation (law)
Reservation (law)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A reservation in international law is a caveat to a state's acceptance of a treaty. A reservation is defined by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) as:

a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State. (Article 2 (1)(d))[1]

In effect, a reservation allows the state to be a party to the treaty, while excluding the legal effect of that specific provision in the treaty to which it objects. States cannot take reservations after they have accepted the treaty; a reservation must be made at the time that the treaty affects the State. The Vienna Convention did not create the concept of reservations but codified existing customary law. Thus even States that have not formally acceded to the Vienna Convention act as if they had. As reservations are defined under the Vienna Convention and interpretative declarations are not, the two are sometimes difficult to discern from each other. Unlike a reservation, a declaration is not meant to affect the State's legal obligations but is attached to State's consent to a treaty to explain or interpret what the State deems unclear.

Procedure

[edit]

The Articles 19–23 of the Vienna Convention details the procedures relating to reservations. To see if a reservation is valid the legality of the reservation test applies as described in article 19 of the Vienna Convention. According to this article a state may not formulate a reservation if:

1: The reservation is prohibited by the treaty. (e.g. the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, Convention against Discrimination in Education and Minamata Convention on Mercury)
2: The treaty provides that only specified reservations, which do not include the reservation in question, may be made.

This is often the case when during negotiations it becomes apparent that a certain provision in a treaty will not be agreed upon by all parties. Therefore, the possibility is given to parties not to agree with that provision but to agree with the treaty in general.

3: In cases not falling under (1) or (2), the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.

Point 3 is called the compatibility test and is difficult to determine. It is not always clear what the object and purpose of the treaty is, especially when treaties are long and complex.

A reservation must be put into writing and then sent to either the depository of the treaty, in the case of a multilateral treaty, or directly to the other States party to the treaty.

A State may withdraw a reservation at any time. This requires written submission to the other signatory States.

Objections

[edit]

When states make an objection to a reservation stating that it failed the legality test, there are three possible results, according to legal commentators:

  1. The state which made the reservation is not bound by the treaty anymore. In other words, the state is no longer a party to this treaty.
  2. The state which made the reservation is bound by the treaty including the parts on which it made the reservation.
  3. The state which made the reservation is bound by the treaty, but not by the part on which it made the reservation.

There are many opponents to the second option who argue that this goes against the principle of state consent. States can only be bound by provisions they have consented to. Since they have made a reservation to a certain provision, they cannot be bound by it.

According to some commentators,[2] what happens in practice in the VCLT regime is the third option. What follows from article 20 paragraph 4(b) and article 21 paragraph 3 VCLT is that the only thing which can happen is, that if an objecting state feels very strongly about a reservation, it will state that the whole treaty is not in effect between the reserving state and itself. This rarely happens, thus the reservation stands, whether it passed the legality test or not.

Others think differently on this. According to Anthony Aust, “if one or more contracting states have objected to the reservation as being prohibited, the reserving state must decide whether or not it is prepared to be a party without the reservation; and until it has made its position clear it cannot be regarded as a party”.[3]

The difference of opinion on this is the fact that it is not likely that the articles 20 and 21 apply to reservations, which cannot to be made according to article 19 of the VCLT.[4] However, they are applied in practice.

Example

[edit]

Perhaps the most famous and controversial reservations are those taken by the United States when it signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1986. The reservations taken were:

(1) That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.
(2) That nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States.

The second reservation may be interpreted as a statement that the national Constitution overrides any treaty obligations — a position mandated by a 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Reid v. Covert. Under reciprocity, the United States cannot submit a legal case to the ICJ unless the other State agrees and does not state that it violates its national constitution.

Several nations expressed dismay and disapproval at the reservations, stating that it essentially made the treaty toothless. The responses included:

The Government of Ireland is unable to accept the second reservation made by the United States of America on the occasion of its ratification of the [said] Convention on the grounds that as a generally accepted rule of international law a party to an international agreement may not, by invoking the terms of its internal law, purport to override the provisions of the Agreement.

As concerns the first reservation, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls its declaration, made on 20 June 1966 on the occasion of the accession of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Convention […] stating that in its opinion the reservations in respect of article IX of the Convention, made at that time by a number of states, were incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and that the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands did not consider states making such reservations parties to the Convention. Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider the United States of America a party to the Convention. […]

As the Convention may come into force between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States of America as a result of the latter withdrawing its reservation in respect of article IX, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands deems it useful to express the following position on the second reservation of the United States of America:

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to this reservation on the ground that it creates uncertainty as to the extent of the obligations the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention. Moreover, any failure by the United States of America to act upon the obligations contained in the Convention on the ground that such action would be prohibited by the constitution of the United States would be contrary to the generally accepted rule of international law, as laid down in article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties (Vienna, 23 May 1969)

The Government of the United Kingdom have consistently stated that they are unable to accept reservations to article IX. Accordingly, in conformity with the attitude adopted by them in previous cases, the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the first reservation entered by the United States of America.
The Government of the United Kingdom object to the second reservation entered by the United States of America. It creates uncertainty as to the extent of the obligations which the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention.

Human rights treaties

[edit]

The problem with inadmissible reservations happens more often with human rights treaties. Many reservations to these treaties have been made. However, not many states have expressed their objection. When states did make objections, not many have taken the position that the treaty is not in force between them and the reserving state, in the hope that they can influence the reserving states into eventually accepting all the provisions in the treaty.

Another source of difficulty is that human rights treaties do not create relations, per-se, between the states but create a system of protecting human rights. It is harder to find an objection to that which does not fail the legality test.

With some human rights treaties there are monitoring bodies like tribunals who can make binding decisions; e.g. the European Court of Human Rights in the 1988 Belilos case.[5] In this case, the court decided that a certain reservation by Switzerland was an invalid one. It could, according to the court, therefore be disregarded but Switzerland remained bound by the treaty.

The court chose here for the option ‘The state which made the reservation is bound by the treaty including the parts on which it made the reservation’. Although Switzerland could have chosen to withdraw from the treaty, it chose not to do so.

Monitoring bodies are generally not allowed to make binding decisions; e.g. the Human Rights Committee which monitors the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However this committee gave the impression in its General Comment no.24[6] that it could. In this case the committee stated that

the normal consequence of an unacceptable reservations is not that the covenant will not be in effect at all for a reserving party. Rather such a reservation will be generally be severable, in the sense that the covenant will be operative for the reserving party without benefit of the reservation.

As in Belilos, the result is that the committee chose the second option.

The committee decided that they were competent to make this decision because:

It necessarily falls to the Committee to determine whether a specific reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. This is in part because, as indicated above, it is an inappropriate task for States parties in relation to human rights treaties, and in part because it is a task that the Committee cannot avoid in the performance of its functions. …Because of its special character of a human rights treaty, the compatibility of a reservation with the object and purpose of the Covenant must be established objectively, by reference to legal principles, and the Committee is particularly well placed to perform this task.

This has been criticized for the reason above-stated regarding option three.

The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action affirms that "all States are encouraged to accede to the international human rights instruments; all States are encouraged to avoid, as far as possible, the resort to reservation.[7]

The International Law Commission

[edit]

Because of a high number of reservations against human rights treaties, the International Law Commission (ILC) has, since 1994, included the topic in its work program. Originally the topic was named as “the law and practise relating to reservations to treaties” but this was later changed into “reservations to treaties”. For this topic a special Rapporteur, Mr. Alain Pellet, was appointed.[8] As of 2009, the handling of this topic is still a work in progress.

The ILC was asked to check if the VCLT would have to be changed 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 with reservations against human rights were the same reasons why there were problems with reservations against other treaties. Therefore, the ILC decided that no special regime for human rights treaties would be required.

Suggestions by the ILC concerning reservations were the following:[10]

  • Making provisions in the treaty itself which limit the opportunity of making reservations.
  • Making clear in the treaty what exactly the object and purpose of the treaty is.

On this suggestion, the ILC stated that this solution could work only if there is political will for such a provision.

  • Help facilitating mediation and negotiations between reserving states and objecting states.
  • Human rights bodies should continue monitoring all the reservations to ensure the compliance of the treaty.
  • States should add a clause in existing treaties to give monitoring bodies the power to determine the admissibility of a treaty.

However, when a monitoring body is established by a human rights treaty, it is allowed only to comment on or make recommendations about reservations. The ILC did not agree with General Comment 24 of the Human Rights Committee. The fact that the monitoring body can comment upon the admissibility of reservations has no effect on the principle of state consent. The Human Rights Committee stated that they themselves can decide what the consequence will be of an inadmissible reservation. The ILC states that only the reserving state can decide what action it will follow. The state can decide to withdraw or change its reservation or decide not to become a party to the treaty in question.

Further, the ILC stated that a guide to practice should be made consisting of guidelines to clarify certain problems in the VCLT concerning reservations. States welcomed this suggestion, although it must be added this guide to practice will have no binding legal force.

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Books and articles

[edit]
  • Aust, A, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, Cambridge University Press 2004
  • Belilos, (1988) EHCR Pubs, Series A, vol. 132
  • Goodman, R, Human Rights Treaties, Invalid Reservations and State Consent, "The American Journal of International Law", Vol. 96, No. 3. (Jul., 2002), pp. 531–560
  • Klabbers, J, Accepting the Unacceptable? A New Nordic Approach to Reservations to Multiltereral Treaties, "Nordic Journal of International Law" 2000, pp. 179–193
  • Korkella, Konstantin, New Challenges to the Regime of Reservations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, EJIL (2002), vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 437–477
  • Parisi, Francesco, and Seveenko, Catherine, Treaty Reservations and the Economics of Article 21 (1) of the Vienna Convention, George Mason School of Law Series of Working Papers in Law and Economics

Cases

[edit]
  • General Comment No. 24 of the Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 15 HRLJ (1994) 464, at 467...
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Reservation (law)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A reservation in is a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a state or when signing, ratifying, formally confirming, accepting, approving, or acceding to a , whereby the state or organization purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the in their application to itself. This mechanism enables states to participate in multilateral treaties while accommodating domestic legal or policy constraints that might otherwise preclude consent to be bound. The modern legal framework for reservations is primarily codified in Articles 19 through 23 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), adopted in 1969 and entered into force in 1980, which shifted from a traditional unanimity requirement—where all parties had to accept a reservation for it to take effect—to a more flexible regime balancing state consent with treaty integrity. Under , a reservation is permissible unless the treaty prohibits them, authorizes only specified ones, or the reservation is incompatible with the treaty's object and purpose; this compatibility test, derived from the of Justice's 1951 Advisory Opinion on Reservations to the , allows for objections by other states but does not automatically invalidate the reserving state's participation unless specified. Reservations must be formulated in writing and formally notified to contracting states and the treaty depositary, with effects limited to the provisions targeted, preserving the reserving state's obligations under unmodified clauses. Reservations are particularly prevalent in and humanitarian treaties, where states frequently enter broad or substantive qualifications to align international commitments with constitutional norms or cultural practices, though this practice has sparked debate over whether extensive reservations undermine the universal application intended by such instruments. For instance, while reservations facilitate wider adherence—evident in the high number of reservations to foundational pacts like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—they can result in differentiated obligations among parties, prompting objections and calls for withdrawal or reform to ensure substantive reciprocity. The International Law Commission's 2011 Guide to Practice on Reservations, supplementing the VCLT, clarifies interpretive ambiguities, such as distinguishing reservations from mere interpretative declarations, and emphasizes that objections do not preclude relations unless explicitly stated.

Definition and Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Scope

A reservation in constitutes a unilateral statement formulated by a state during the process of expressing consent to be bound by a —specifically upon signing, ratifying, accepting, approving, or acceding—whereby the state seeks to exclude or modify the legal effect of designated treaty provisions solely in their application to that state. This , enshrined in Article 2(1)(d) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), encompasses statements irrespective of their phrasing or , provided they intend to alter the treaty's obligatory scope for the reserving state. The mechanism reflects state , enabling participation in multilateral frameworks while accommodating domestic legal or policy incompatibilities, though its validity hinges on compatibility with the treaty's object and purpose as assessed under Article 19. The scope of reservations extends principally to multilateral treaties concluded in written form and governed by international law between states, as delimited by the VCLT's applicability under Article 1. While theoretically possible in bilateral treaties, reservations therein complicate mutual consent and are rare, often recharacterizing the agreement into parallel bilateral engagements rather than a unified . Reservations do not encompass interpretative declarations, which clarify understanding without altering legal effects, nor do they apply to treaties prohibiting reservations outright or specifying permissible ones. In practice, they target specific provisions, preserving the reserving state's treaty membership while potentially prompting objections from other parties, which may sever treaty relations vis-à-vis the reserver on reserved matters. Formulated statements must be appended at the formal act of consent to bind, though modifications or withdrawals can occur subsequently with requisite notice, underscoring the temporal and procedural bounds of the regime. The VCLT framework, entering into force on January 27, 1980, codifies on reservations, influencing over 110 state parties and guiding non-parties through its reflective norms. This scope excludes unilateral declarations outside treaty contexts or those by non-state entities, confining the doctrine to inter-state engagements.

Distinction from Other Instruments

Reservations in treaty law are unilateral statements made by a state or international organization upon signing, ratifying, accepting, approving, or acceding to a treaty, whereby the declaring entity purports to exclude or modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that entity. This distinguishes them from interpretative declarations, which are unilateral statements intended to specify or clarify the meaning or scope that the declarant attributes to the treaty or its provisions, without seeking to alter the legal obligations arising therefrom. Unlike reservations, interpretative declarations do not trigger the same procedural regime under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, such as requirements for formal objections or acceptance by other parties, and they lack the capacity to modify inter-party relations under the treaty. The primary criterion for distinguishing reservations from interpretative declarations or other unilateral statements lies in the legal effect each purports to produce, assessed in through the ordinary meaning of the statement's terms in their and considering the declarant's intent as evidenced by phrasing or designation. For instance, a statement phrased to "exclude" or "not apply" a provision signals a reservation, whereas one expressing "understanding" of a provision's meaning without exclusion typically constitutes an interpretative declaration. Ambiguous cases, such as those where a state labels a modifying statement as a "declaration," are resolved by the substance of the intended effect rather than the label, potentially reclassifying it as a reservation subject to compatibility tests under of the Vienna Convention. Other unilateral statements, like general pronouncements or non-recognition declarations, fall outside this framework as they neither exclude nor modify provisions and thus evade the reservations entirely. Reservations further differ from multilateral instruments such as amendments or protocols, which alter the treaty's text or add new provisions for all consenting parties through negotiated consensus and separate processes, rather than unilaterally qualifying a single party's . Amendments require by a specified number of parties to enter into force and bind only those that , preserving the original for non-consenting states, whereas reservations apply bilaterally or multilaterally based on acceptances or objections without amending the treaty itself. Protocols, often serving as supplementary agreements or amendments to existing treaties, similarly demand multilateral negotiation and do not function as tools for individual states to limit their obligations under the base instrument. This unilateral-multilateral divide underscores reservations' role in enabling partial participation while maintaining treaty integrity for unmodified provisions among other parties.

Historical Evolution

Early Practice and Customary Law

Prior to the codification of rules in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the formulation of reservations to treaties was regulated by , which developed alongside the expansion of multilateral agreements in the . This practice arose as states balanced sovereign consent with domestic parliamentary oversight, allowing reservations to modify or exclude specific provisions while enabling broader participation in treaties. Early instances often involved bilateral understandings or tacit acceptances, but for multilateral instruments, the dominant customary principle required explicit or from all other parties to validate the reservation, preserving the treaty's uniformity. Classical doctrine, as reflected in state practice and scholarly analysis, adhered to a unanimity rule for reservations in multilateral treaties: a reserving state entered into treaty relations only with those parties accepting the reservation, while objections from others could preclude such relations entirely. This approach, emphasized by figures like , prioritized treaty integrity over universal adherence, viewing unaccepted reservations as nullifying the reserving state's participation vis-à-vis objectors. Examples from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, such as reservations to the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions on peaceful settlement of disputes, illustrated this rigidity, where states like the conditioned adherence on compatibility with domestic , prompting varied responses from counterparts. The inflexibility of the rule became evident in mid-20th-century practice, particularly with reservations to humanitarian treaties. In the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of , over 20 states, including the and , submitted reservations to provisions on jurisdiction and dispute settlement, leading to widespread objections. The of Justice's 1951 on Reservations to the Convention on marked a pivotal evolution in , rejecting strict unanimity by a 7-5 majority: it held that reservations are permissible if compatible with the treaty's object and purpose, and that an objecting state retains the option to treat the reserving state as a non-party or to maintain relations notwithstanding the reservation. This flexibility, grounded in observed state practice favoring participation, gradually supplanted the classical rule without requiring universal consent. Subsequent customary developments incorporated tacit acceptance through after reasonable time, absent explicit objection, and distinguished reservations from interpretative declarations to avoid undermining core obligations. Practice under treaties like the 1949 further demonstrated this, where reservations were assessed individually rather than voided outright, reflecting a pragmatic balance between and treaty efficacy. These principles, while not uniformly applied, informed the International Law Commission's early drafts on treaty law in the and .

Codification Efforts Leading to the Vienna Convention

The practice of reservations to multilateral treaties prior to systematic codification generally adhered to the unanimity rule, under which a reservation required the explicit acceptance of all existing parties to become effective, failing which the reserving state could not become a party to the treaty as modified by the reservation. This approach, rooted in 19th-century diplomatic custom and reinforced during the League of Nations era, prioritized treaty integrity but hindered participation in an era of expanding multilateralism. In contrast, regional practices, such as those in the Pan-American system, permitted reservations unless specifically objected to by other states, reflecting a more flexible reciprocity-based mechanism. Tensions over the unanimity rule intensified after with the proliferation of universal treaties, notably the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of , where several states formulated reservations—primarily to Article IX on dispute settlement—and faced objections from others, prompting debate in the UN . On May 28, 1951, the issued an , ruling that a state could become a party despite objections to its reservation if the reservation was compatible with the treaty's object and purpose, thereby departing from strict unanimity in favor of a flexible compatibility test while preserving states' rights to object and sever treaty relations. This opinion, though not unanimous in its reasoning, catalyzed efforts to clarify and codify reservation rules amid customary evolution. The UN General Assembly, via Resolution 294(VI) of November 11, 1952, urged the (ILC), established in 1947, to accelerate codification of , including reservations, as part of its broader mandate on public international . James Brierly, appointed Special Rapporteur in 1949, submitted an initial report on the of treaties in and a focused study on reservations to multilateral conventions in 1951, advocating alignment with the ICJ's compatibility criterion while noting persistent ambiguities in practice. Successive rapporteurs advanced this work: (1953–1954) emphasized reservations' basis in state consent and customary acceptance; Gerald Fitzmaurice (1956–1960) drafted provisional articles incorporating objection mechanisms and effects on non-reserving parties; and Humphrey Waldock (1961–1966) refined these into comprehensive provisions, culminating in Articles 19–23 of the ILC's 1966 draft articles, which enshrined formulation requirements, the object-and-purpose test for validity, and rules on objections and relations. The ILC's 1966 draft, adopted at its eighteenth session, balanced flexibility for state participation with safeguards against incompatible reservations, drawing on state practice, judicial precedents, and doctrinal input to progressive development. Submitted to the General Assembly, it prompted Resolution 2166 (XXI) of December 5, 1966, convening the Conference on the Law of Treaties in from November 1968 to May 1969. Delegates debated reservations extensively, retaining the ILC's core framework with minor clarifications, leading to adoption of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties on May 23, 1969, which codified these rules in Articles 19–23. The Convention entered into force on January 27, 1980, upon by 35 states, marking the culmination of two decades of ILC-led efforts to resolve pre-existing uncertainties.

Key Provisions on Formulation and Admissibility

Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties permits a state to formulate a reservation when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving, or acceding to a , subject to specified limitations. A reservation constitutes a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, by which the state seeks to exclude or modify the legal effect of certain provisions as applied to itself. Such formulation is inadmissible if the expressly prohibits reservations, if the establishes an alternative procedure for them, or if the reservation is incompatible with the 's object and purpose. Under Article 23, reservations must be formulated in writing, with the reserving state notifying other contracting states or the treaty's depositary accordingly. The depositary, typically designated by the treaty or by agreement among states, receives and circulates these notifications to facilitate assessment by other parties. Objections to reservations, if any, must also be notified within a reasonable period, or as specified by the treaty, but the formulation itself remains valid pending such responses unless prohibited outright under Article 19. These provisions reflect a balance between state sovereignty in treaty consent and the integrity of multilateral obligations, allowing reservations to multilateral where bilateral ones might preclude participation entirely. The Convention, adopted by the Conference on the Law of Treaties on 22 May 1969 and entering into force on 27 January 1980, applies these rules to concluded by states after its , while influencing for earlier instruments.

Rules on Objections and Acceptance

Under Article 20 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), acceptance of a reservation by another contracting state establishes treaty relations between the reserving state and the accepting state on the basis that the reservation modifies or excludes the specified provision as between them. may be express, through a formal written statement, or tacit, arising when a contracting state does not formulate an objection within a reasonable period after notification of the reservation, often interpreted in state practice as up to 12 months from receipt. For reservations expressly authorized by the , no acceptance is required unless the specifies otherwise, allowing immediate opposability to all parties. Objections to reservations must be formulated in writing and communicated to the contracting states and the treaty's , enabling other states to assess their position. A contracting state may object on grounds such as incompatibility with the treaty's object and purpose under (c), though the VCLT does not mandate objections solely for validity; instead, objections primarily determine effects. The default effect of an objection, per Article 20(4)(b), is that the enters into between the objecting and reserving states, but the reserved provision does not apply as between them, as elaborated in Article 21(3); however, the objecting state may expressly indicate that the objection precludes entirely. Timing for objections is flexible under the VCLT, permitting formulation at any time prior to or after the treaty's for the objecting state, though objections made after 12 months from notification generally do not retroactively alter established treaty relations between the parties. The —typically the UN Secretary-General for multilateral —plays a procedural role by circulating notifications of reservations and objections, verifying formal compliance without assessing substantive validity. Objections may be withdrawn at any time, restoring full relations inclusive of the reservation if the reserving state consents. In cases where a treaty requires acceptance by all parties for a reservation's validity—such as under Article 20(1) for certain specified reservations—failure of any state to accept renders the reservation ineffective for establishing treaty relations with that state. State practice, as reflected in the International Law Commission's Guide to Practice, emphasizes that objections should specify their intended effects to avoid ambiguity, with over 500 objections recorded to human rights treaty reservations by 2011, often citing object-and-purpose incompatibility without severing relations.

Validity and Compatibility Requirements

Object and Purpose Test

The object and purpose test, enshrined in (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of (VCLT) of 1969, renders a reservation impermissible if it proves incompatible with the treaty's core aims and essential provisions, thereby serving as the default criterion for admissibility in treaties lacking specific rules on reservations. This provision reflects a balance between preserving state in treaty participation and safeguarding the treaty's integrity against dilutions that could frustrate its fundamental objectives. The test applies objectively, with compatibility assessed by reference to the treaty's text, context, and , often drawing on Articles 31 and 32 of the VCLT for interpretive guidance to ensure the reservation does not negate the treaty's effet utile. The doctrinal foundation traces to the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) Advisory Opinion of May 28, 1951, on Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, where the Court rejected a unanimity requirement for reservations and instead endorsed a compatibility standard: a reservation is valid if it does not undermine the Genocide Convention's object and purpose, defined as the unconditional prevention and punishment of genocide as a crime under international law. The ICJ emphasized that while states retain discretion to formulate reservations, the treaty's essential character—rooted in erga omnes obligations—imposes limits, allowing objections from other parties without severing relations unless the reservation defeats the treaty's purpose. This approach supplanted earlier practice, such as the 1930 League of Nations practice favoring unanimity, by prioritizing functional treaty effectiveness over absolute consent. Application of the test involves identifying the treaty's object and purpose through a holistic analysis: core provisions, such as those imposing primary obligations, typically form the baseline, while ancillary or procedural elements permit greater reservation flexibility. Reservations excluding liability for fundamental breaches, like genocide's prohibition or non-derogable norms (e.g., bans on under the UN Convention Against ), routinely fail as they hollow out the treaty's . In multilateral settings, treaty monitoring bodies or states perform this evaluation, though inconsistencies arise; for instance, the Committee has invalidated reservations to the International Covenant on that broadly invoke domestic law to override substantive protections, deeming them antithetical to the Covenant's universal enforcement aim. Challenges in implementation stem from interpretive subjectivity: determining "object and purpose" can vary by context, with some reservations (e.g., to dispute settlement clauses) upheld if they do not impair substantive commitments, as in the ICJ's ruling where jurisdictional reservations were tolerated. Empirical patterns show stricter in human rights regimes, where over 20% of reservations to core UN treaties have faced objections on compatibility grounds since , reflecting concerns that pervasive reservations erode normative universality. Invalid reservations trigger nullity under the VCLT framework, potentially rendering the reserving state unbound by the treaty or limiting application to non-reserved provisions, though remains debated absent explicit treaty language. This test thus enforces causal discipline, ensuring reservations advance rather than undermine the treaty's intended legal effects.

Consequences of Invalid Reservations

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) establishes in (c) that a reservation incompatible with a treaty's object and purpose is impermissible, yet it provides no explicit mechanism for the legal effects of such invalidity, creating interpretive ambiguity. Early doctrinal views, reflected in the Commission's (ILC) 1966 commentary on draft articles, suggested that an incompatible reservation typically prevents the reserving state from becoming a party to the , unless other parties expressly accept it, emphasizing the reservation's role as an integral condition for consent to be bound. This "all-or-nothing" approach aligns with state sovereignty, as a state's ratification is conditioned on the reservation's validity, potentially leading to non-participation if severed. In contrast, the severability doctrine treats invalid reservations as null and void without affecting the state's overall consent to the , binding the state to the unmodified provisions while disregarding the reservation. This view gained traction in practice, particularly for treaties where exclusion of states via invalid reservations could undermine universal application; for instance, the UN Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 24 (1994) asserted that incompatible reservations to the International Covenant on should be severed, holding states accountable to full obligations. Empirical evidence from treaty monitoring bodies shows over 100 reservations to instruments deemed incompatible yet routinely ignored, with states remaining parties and facing compliance scrutiny, as in the case of Saudi Arabia's reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Against Women, objected to by multiple states but not resulting in non-party status. The ILC's 2011 Guide to Practice on Reservations, adopted after extensive state consultations, endorses as the default under Guideline 4.5.1, stipulating that an invalid reservation "does not affect the possibility for the reserving State or of becoming a party to the " and is severable unless the treaty's object, purpose, or evidence of intent indicates otherwise. This position reflects state practice, where objections to reservations (under VCLT Article 20) often specify severability rather than treaty rupture; for example, in responses to U.S. reservations on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, objecting states like the treated them as without effect while maintaining relations. However, severability risks imposing unintended obligations, potentially discouraging participation in treaties with strict object-and-purpose tests, as states may prefer non-ratification over full exposure. Where objections to an invalid reservation explicitly or implicitly preclude treaty relations (per VCLT Article 20(4)(b)), effects may include bilateral non-establishment of obligations between the objecting and reserving states, though multilateral treaties often preserve partial participation. Judicial bodies, such as the International Court of Justice in advisory opinions on reservations to the Genocide Convention (1951), have favored flexible reciprocity over rigid invalidation, prioritizing treaty effectiveness. In non-human-rights contexts, like trade or environmental agreements, invalid reservations more frequently lead to negotiated withdrawals or amendments, as seen in objections to reservations under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, where severability preserved core participation amid disputes over resource provisions. Overall, while severability dominates contemporary practice, its application remains context-dependent, informed by treaty intent and inter-state consent dynamics.

Effects and Implementation

Impact on Treaty Relations

A valid reservation modifies the provisions of the treaty to which it relates for the reserving state in its relations with another party that has accepted the reservation, to the extent of the reservation, while reciprocally modifying those same provisions for the accepting party in its relations with the reserving state. This reciprocal effect, codified in Article 21(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), establishes a bilateral framework within multilateral treaties, allowing the reserving state to participate while tailoring its obligations, but exempting the accepting state from full performance toward it under the reserved terms. Consequently, treaty relations between the reserving state and accepting parties operate under a modified version of the , preserving core commitments elsewhere but introducing asymmetry limited to the bilateral dyad. Where a state objects to a reservation but does not oppose the treaty's between itself and the reserving state, the reserved provisions do not apply as between those two states, per Article 21(3) of the VCLT. This outcome maintains relations overall, albeit severed for the specific provisions, and mirrors the reservation's exclusionary intent without requiring reciprocal modification unless specified. In contrast, an objection that explicitly precludes severs relations entirely between the objecting and reserving states regarding that instrument, preventing any binding obligations from arising bilaterally. Such objections, while preserving the treaty's integrity for non-objecting parties, can fragment participation in multilateral regimes, as seen in cases where multiple states lodge incompatible responses to a single reservation, leading to a patchwork of applicable norms. Reservations exert no direct effect on treaty relations between non-reserving parties inter se, ensuring that the treaty's provisions remain unmodified among them under Article 21(2) of the VCLT. This insulation protects the uniformity of obligations among fully consenting states but can indirectly influence broader treaty dynamics by reducing the reserving state's leverage in enforcement or , as its modified status limits reciprocal claims. In multilateral contexts, widespread reservations or objections may erode the treaty's overall cohesion, as bilateral opt-outs accumulate and complicate uniform application, though empirical analyses indicate that such fragmentation rarely nullifies the regime's core functions absent systemic incompatibility. The VCLT's framework thus balances state with treaty viability, prioritizing individualized consent over universal adherence.

Interpretation in Practice

Reservations to treaties are interpreted in accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which require application in , giving the terms their ordinary meaning in their and in light of the treaty's object and purpose, supplemented by preparatory work and circumstances of conclusion where interpretation leaves ambiguity or leads to absurd results. This approach ensures that reservations, as unilateral statements modifying treaty effects, are not expansively construed to undermine core obligations, though their scope depends on the reserving state's expressed intent as discerned from the text. In state practice, interpretation occurs primarily through decentralized reactions such as objections or acceptances, where other parties assess a reservation's formulation, compatibility with the treaty's object and purpose under (c) of the Vienna Convention, and potential effects on bilateral relations. For instance, objections often invoke a narrow reading of the reservation's language to argue incompatibility, as seen in Nordic states' objections to reservations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that they viewed as diluting non-derogable protections like those in Article 7 against . Tacit acceptance after 12 months without objection presumes permissibility but does not foreclose later interpretive disputes in application. This bilateral dynamic reflects customary flexibility, prioritizing consent over uniform validity determinations. Judicial bodies apply these principles to resolve ambiguities in reservations' scope and effects. In its 1951 on Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of , the (ICJ) interpreted reservations as permissible absent prohibition, provided they align with the convention's humanitarian purpose of eradicating , but held that their binding force on other states requires affirmative consent, with objecting states free to regard the reserving state as non-party to reserved provisions without severing overall relations. The Court emphasized contextual reading of the reservation against the 's provisions, rejecting a universalist approach that would invalidate incompatible reservations outright in favor of state-by-state evaluations. Similarly, in the 2025 v. case under the , the ICJ interpreted a reservation to Article IX's compromissory clause as excluding jurisdiction , underscoring that reservations to dispute settlement mechanisms must be given effect according to their terms unless overridden by obligations, though dissenting opinions contested expansive readings that could evade accountability. Treaty monitoring bodies in human rights regimes often interpret reservations restrictively to preserve integrity, assessing their validity against the treaty's core aims despite lacking binding authority over states' determinations. The UN Human Rights Committee, overseeing the ICCPR, has declared vague or broad reservations—such as those by the to Articles 9 and 10 on detention and juvenile —potentially severable if incompatible, interpreting them narrowly to apply only where explicitly modifying obligations without defeating the Covenant's protective purpose, as elaborated in General Comment No. 24 (1994). The , in Belilos v. (1988), recharacterized a purported "reservation" to Article 6 of the as an interpretative declaration with minimal effect, applying ordinary meaning and good faith to find it ineffective for excluding . Such practices, while influential, reflect institutional incentives toward expansive application, sometimes diverging from states' sovereign appraisals of compatibility. Empirical trends show reservations frequently interpreted to limit their scope in disputes, with withdrawing states occasionally clarifying intent via partial withdrawals, as did in 2010 to its European Convention reservation after periodic review. However, persistent ambiguities arise in across-the-board reservations, like the United Kingdom's to the ICCPR, where practice involves case-by-case application without formal invalidation, balancing universality against integrity. Overall, interpretation prioritizes textual fidelity and consent, mitigating risks of reservations eroding multilateral commitments through assessments rather than centralized adjudication.

Application to Specific Treaty Regimes

Reservations in Human Rights Treaties

Reservations to human rights treaties permit states to exclude or modify the legal effect of specific provisions upon ratification or accession, as governed by articles 19–23 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), which define reservations as unilateral statements excluding application of treaty terms incompatible with a state's domestic law or policy. Unlike bilateral treaties, human rights instruments possess an objective character, aimed at protecting individuals collectively rather than reciprocal state obligations, leading to a stricter application of the compatibility requirement under article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention, where reservations must not undermine the treaty's object and purpose. This regime promotes universality by enabling broader participation, yet invites scrutiny over potential dilution of core protections, with empirical data showing over 50% of states parties to treaties like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1979) entering reservations, often to provisions on equality in family law citing incompatibility with Islamic Sharia principles. The foundational precedent emerged from the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) on Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of (1951), which, though addressing a penal , influenced practice by rejecting the unanimity rule for reservations' validity; instead, it established that a reservation is incompatible if it offends the 's object and purpose, with other states empowered to object and assess such incompatibility independently, while relations persist absent explicit termination of consent. Applied to , this flexible approach contrasts with classical law, as the Convention's humanitarian aims parallel those of instruments like the International Covenant on (ICCPR, 1966), where the ICJ's reasoning prioritizes participation over strict uniformity. Subsequent bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee (HRC) overseeing the ICCPR, have built on this in General Comment No. 24 (1994), asserting authority to evaluate reservations' compatibility and deeming certain provisions—like article 2 (non-discrimination) or articles 7 and 18 ( prohibition and religious freedom)—non-reservable due to their centrality to the Covenant's object of universal civil rights protection; invalid reservations are severable, rendering the state bound by the unreserved terms without retroactive effect on status. In practice, reservations to core human rights treaties frequently target politically sensitive areas. For the ICCPR, 30 states, including and , reserved on article 6 ( and death penalty restrictions) or article 9(3) ( within reasonable time), often to preserve domestic penal practices. CEDAW sees extensive reservations to article 16 ( and equality), with 20+ states like and invoking to limit spousal equality or inheritance , prompting objections from 20 states parties citing incompatibility with the Convention's anti-discrimination purpose. The Convention Against Torture (CAT, 1984) attracts fewer but targeted reservations, such as those by on article 20 (inquiry procedures) to safeguard , though these face validity challenges under the object and purpose test, as broad or undefined reservations hinder treaty bodies' monitoring and contradict the treaties' interdependent structure. Objections, while non-binding, signal normative pressure; for instance, Nordic states have consistently objected to CEDAW reservations undermining , reflecting a pattern where compatibility hinges on whether the reservation preserves the treaty's essential protections or effectively nullifies them. The International Law Commission's Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties (2011) reinforces this for regimes, advising that compatibility assessments weigh the treaties' numerous, interrelated obligations, with reservations to non-derogable norms (e.g., freedom from torture under CAT article 2) presumptively invalid, as they erode the universal enforcement mechanism central to the object and purpose. Empirical trends indicate reservations facilitate accession—e.g., enabling ratification by states with theocratic legal systems—yet correlate with weaker compliance, as monitored by treaty bodies; the HRC and CEDAW Committee have invalidated overbroad reservations in views like Rawle Kennedy v. (ICCPR, 1999), severing them to uphold treaty integrity without expelling states. This approach balances with , though critics argue it permits opt-outs, substantiated by data showing persistent reservations despite objections, underscoring tensions between state consent and the treaties' aspirational universality.

Reservations in Other Multilateral Treaties

In multilateral treaties outside the human rights domain, such as those concerning the , , and , reservations are subject to the general regime established by articles 19 to 23 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which permits them unless prohibited by the treaty's object and purpose or an explicit treaty provision. However, many such instruments incorporate clauses expressly forbidding reservations to safeguard their negotiated balance and "package deal" structure, reflecting the reciprocal nature of obligations where universal adherence is prioritized over partial participation. The (ILC) Guide to Practice on Reservations to applies uniformly without special derogations for non-human rights contexts, emphasizing compatibility with the treaty's object and purpose as the admissibility threshold. The Convention on the (UNCLOS), adopted on December 10, 1982, exemplifies this restrictive approach through article 309, which states that "no reservations or exceptions may be made to this Convention unless expressly permitted by other articles." Article 310 permits declarations or statements that do not impair obligations or modify legal effects, allowing states to clarify interpretations or limit exposure to certain provisions, such as compulsory dispute settlement. For instance, upon on November 6, 1996, declared under article 298 that it would not accept procedures in Part XV, section 2, for disputes concerning delimitation or military activities. Similarly, 37 states parties as of 2023 have made article 298 declarations opting out of or for specified sea-related conflicts, effectively functioning as opt-outs without formal reservations. These mechanisms preserve integrity while accommodating concerns in reciprocal domains like resource exploitation and navigation freedoms. In and treaties, reservations are more variably accommodated, often conditioned on compatibility with core prohibitions. The (ATT), opened for signature on June 3, 2013, follows by allowing reservations unless they undermine the treaty's object and purpose of regulating conventional arms transfers to prevent human suffering. Upon , states like the on September 25, 2017, attached understandings clarifying that the treaty does not impose new export controls or affect Second Amendment rights, without formal reservations. Historical precedents include the 1925 for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, where several states upon accession reserved the right to retaliate against non-parties, upholding symmetric deterrence. Such reservations reflect the causal logic of mutual restraint in pacts, where exclusions for non-adherents prevent unilateral disarmament disadvantages, though they have drawn objections from parties prioritizing absolute bans. Environmental treaties, including the adopted on December 12, 2015, typically prohibit reservations to ensure indivisible commitments in addressing transboundary harms like . The contains no provision permitting reservations, aligning with the "all or nothing" negotiation dynamic of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), where partial opt-outs could erode collective emission reduction targets. Declarations are occasionally submitted for interpretive purposes, but none materially alter obligations; for example, as of 2023, no state has attempted a reservation, with adherence framed as nationally determined contributions under article 4 rather than conditional exclusions. This approach contrasts with less integrated pacts but underscores empirical patterns where reservation bans correlate with higher ratification rates in treaties demanding synchronized state action, as fragmented participation risks free-riding and inefficacy. Across these regimes, objections to reservations, when permitted, more frequently lead to severed treaty relations under VCLT article 21(3) due to the reciprocal stakes, unlike the severability tolerated in human rights contexts to maximize participation. The ILC Guide reinforces that validity assessments remain individualized, with no presumption of in non-human rights applications, though practice shows fewer compatibility challenges where treaties emphasize bilateral reciprocity over norms.

Controversies and Debates

Sovereignty Protections Versus Treaty Integrity

The principle of reservations in treaty law embodies a fundamental tension between preserving state and maintaining the structural integrity of multilateral agreements. Reservations enable states to consent to a treaty's core framework while excluding provisions deemed incompatible with their essential interests, thereby facilitating wider participation without compelling full acquiescence to potentially intrusive obligations. This mechanism aligns with the foundational consent-based nature of , as codified in of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which permits reservations unless they are incompatible with the treaty's object and purpose. Proponents argue that such protections are indispensable for sovereign equality, preventing treaties from imposing asymmetric burdens that could deter by major powers or culturally divergent states, as evidenced by historical patterns where restrictive regimes on reservations reduced adherence rates in pre-VCLT instruments like the 1928 General Act for Pacific Settlement of Disputes. Conversely, critics contend that expansive reservations erode treaty integrity by fragmenting reciprocal obligations and undermining the negotiated balance among parties, potentially transforming universal norms into patchwork arrangements susceptible to selective compliance. This view gained prominence in debates surrounding instruments, where reservations—often justified on sovereignty grounds—have proliferated, with over 500 lodged to the International Covenant on (ICCPR) by 2010, many challenging core non-derogable provisions like . The Commission's (ILC) Guide to Practice on Reservations, adopted in 2011 after extensive state consultations, seeks to mediate this by affirming the VCLT's flexibility test while empowering individual states to object based on their assessment of compatibility, rather than deferring to collective or institutional vetoes that might prioritize supranational uniformity over bilateral consent. Empirical analysis of treaty practice reveals that sovereignty-oriented reservations correlate with higher overall ratification numbers, as in the 1951 Refugee Convention, where permissive clauses boosted membership to 146 states by 2020, though at the cost of inconsistent implementation across regions. This dialectic persists in scholarly and diplomatic discourse, with sovereignty advocates emphasizing causal risks of over-rigid integrity standards—such as treaty non-entry into force or exclusion of key actors—while integrity defenders highlight data from objection rates, where states rejected about 10% of reservations to treaties between 1980 and 2000 as fundamentally dilutive. The ILC's framework, by decentralizing validity determinations to affected parties, pragmatically balances these imperatives, reflecting a realist acknowledgment that coerced uniformity often yields ineffective regimes, as seen in failed unanimity-based systems prior to 1969. Yet, institutional biases in bodies like UN human rights committees, which frequently advocate stricter scrutiny, underscore ongoing challenges in neutrally applying the object-and-purpose criterion without encroaching on state autonomy.

Criticisms of Dilution and Empirical Evidence of Effects

Critics contend that reservations dilute the substantive obligations of treaties by enabling states to exempt themselves from provisions incompatible with domestic law or policy preferences, thereby undermining the treaty's intended uniformity and collective enforcement. This selective adherence is particularly problematic in multilateral regimes like human rights treaties, where reservations to core articles—such as those on equality or non-discrimination—allow states to ratify while maintaining discriminatory practices, effectively rendering the treaty's protections patchwork and less credible as a universal standard. For instance, in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), reservations often target Article 16 on marriage and family rights, with approximately 60 states entering such qualifications, prioritizing religious or customary laws over treaty mandates. Empirical analyses support claims of dilution, demonstrating that reservations correlate with higher compliance costs and lower performance on reserved obligations. States entering reservations to treaties exhibit elevated policy adjustment barriers, as leaders opt to limit exposure rather than fully align domestic institutions, resulting in sustained gaps between and . In CEDAW specifically, states with reservations record lower women's equality indices (average 0.4 versus 0.62 for non-reserving states), indicating reservations serve as mechanisms to evade stricter provisions conflicting with national laws. Further evidence reveals reservations' role in reducing treaty effectiveness through legal ambiguity and objection dynamics: about 30% of formal objections to reservations invoke incompatibility with the treaty's object and purpose, highlighting perceived erosions of integrity. While reservations facilitate broader —evident in CEDAW's 108 non-technical reservations across parties—they enable repressive regimes to prioritize domestic , correlating with diminished normative and slower advancements in protected until external scrutiny prompts withdrawals. Peer and institutional pressures, such as periodic reviews, increase withdrawal likelihood by 1% per additional objection and 12% via monitoring, underscoring initial dilutions that delay full compliance.

Recent Developments and International Practice

International Law Commission Guide to Practice

The (ILC) adopted the Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties on August 11, 2011, during its 63rd session in , following over two decades of study initiated in 1993 under Special Rapporteur Alain Pellet. This non-binding instrument consolidates and progressive developments on reservations, defined as unilateral statements by states or international organizations purporting to exclude or modify the legal effect of treaty provisions for the reserving party. The Guide aims to assist practitioners in navigating ambiguities in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), particularly Articles 19–23, by providing practical guidelines rather than rigid codification, addressing gaps such as the competence of treaty monitoring bodies and the effects of objections. Structurally, the Guide comprises 15 parts encompassing 75 guidelines, organized into sections on definition and purpose (Part One), formulation of reservations (Parts Two–Three), acceptance and objection (Parts Four–Five), effects (Parts Six–Seven), withdrawal and invalidity (Parts Eight–Nine), and procedural aspects (Parts Ten–Twelve), with additional parts on interpretation, review, and assistance mechanisms (Parts Thirteen–Fifteen). Key guidelines reaffirm VCLT compatibility requirements while introducing nuances, such as Guideline 2.1.1, which permits reservations unless prohibited by the treaty or incompatible with its object and purpose, and Guideline 4.3.1, clarifying that objections do not preclude treaty entry into force between objecting and reserving states unless specified. It also addresses reservations by international organizations and late formulations, emphasizing written communication and depositary roles. Accompanying commentaries draw from state practice, jurisprudence, and ILC debates, underscoring the Guide's role in promoting uniformity without overriding treaty-specific clauses. The Guide's adoption was accompanied by an Annex containing conclusions on reservations and a recommendation for UN assistance mechanisms, such as a focal point for reservations data, reflecting the ILC's recognition of persistent practical challenges in regimes. While not legally binding, it has influenced state practice and judicial interpretations, including by the , by providing a framework for assessing reservation validity beyond the traditional "" debate, prioritizing integrity while accommodating . Its emphasis on empirical state consent and objection procedures counters overly restrictive interpretations that might undermine participation in treaties, as evidenced in subsequent practices by the UN Secretary-General. The instrument remains a reference as of 2025, with no major revisions, though its application continues to evolve in light of emerging negotiations. In human rights treaty practice, reservations remain prevalent in the 21st century, particularly to instruments like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), where states such as have maintained reservations to Articles 2 and 16 as of 2024, citing incompatibility with Islamic law on matters of personal status and . Similarly, the continues to apply reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) to the International Covenant on (ICCPR), including limitations on provisions, which the Committee has critiqued as incompatible with the treaty's object and purpose but has not severed, preserving U.S. participation on modified terms. These practices reflect states' efforts to reconcile domestic legal systems with treaty obligations, often prioritizing over full compliance. A counter-trend involves withdrawals of reservations amid domestic reforms or international scrutiny. withdrew its reservation to CEDAW Article 15(4) on August 4, 2025, via Presidential Decree No. 25-218, thereby extending equal rights to children of Algerian mothers married to foreigners, aligning with broader CEDAW compliance pressures. Empirical analyses, including the CEDAW Reservations and Objections Compliance System (ROCS) dataset, document increasing withdrawals—such as those by states objecting to provisions on —driven by social and diplomatic pressures rather than formal legal compulsion, with over 100 reservations withdrawn since 1980 but accelerating in the . In emerging regimes, reservations adapt to novel challenges. The endorsed the UN Convention against , adopted in August 2024, but signaled plans for reservations to protect First Amendment rights and limit extraterritorial application, illustrating how states use reservations to mitigate perceived risks in digitally focused treaties. Likewise, the of Justice's June 2025 provisional measures ruling in Sudan v. upheld the UAE's reservation to Article IX of the 1948 , excluding disputes from compulsory jurisdiction and denying prima facie ICJ authority, reinforcing reservations' role in shielding states from adjudication. Objections to reservations have evolved, with some states issuing "Belgrade-style" objections that neither accept nor fully reject the reservation, instead denying the reserving state benefits under unmodified provisions—a practice noted in treaties since the 2000s and aimed at preserving treaty integrity without severing relations. In international humanitarian law (IHL), recent scholarship typifies reservations as potentially contrary to a treaty's object and purpose if they undermine core protections, such as those in the , though empirical data shows most multilateral treaties (over 85%) attract no reservations at all, indicating selective use rather than ubiquity. Overall, while reservations enable wider treaty participation, treaty bodies' growing validity assessments and objection practices signal a shift toward stricter compatibility tests, though state resistance—evident in denunciation-reaccession attempts like Bolivia's to the 1961 —highlights persistent sovereignty concerns.

References

  1. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf
  2. https://legal.un.org/ilc/sessions/62/pdfs/english/guide_to_practice_reservations.pdf
  3. https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/8/issue/11/reservations-treaties-and-united-states-practice
  4. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12208
  5. https://ask.un.org/faq/139887
  6. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/mjil/article/1730/&path_info=uc.pdf
  7. https://treaties.un.org/pages/overview.aspx?path=overview/glossary/page1_en.xml
  8. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3098&context=mlr
  9. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_1_1966.pdf
  10. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1730&context=mjil
  11. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1680
  12. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/12
  13. https://legal.un.org/ilc/guide/annex3.shtml
  14. https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/publications/thb/english.pdf
  15. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1681
  16. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1354&context=vjtl
  17. https://www.law.umich.edu/facultyhome/drwcasebook/Documents/Documents/ICJ%2520Advisory%2520Opinion%2520on%2520Reservations%2520to%2520the%2520Genocide%2520Convention.pdf
  18. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/typology-reservations-contrary-object-purpose-treaty-application-ihl/
  19. https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-UD%282005%29014rep-e
  20. https://brill.com/edcollchap/book/9789004531161/B9789004531161_s028.pdf
  21. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/human-rights/reservations-to-human-rights-treaties.php
  22. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1680427/Moloney.pdf
  23. https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/24/4/1055/606400
  24. https://legal.un.org/ilc/sessions/58/pdfs/english/dc_chairman_reservations.pdf
  25. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3848489
  26. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5945&context=book_chapters
  27. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/GuidetoPracticeReservations_commentaries.pdf
  28. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4908520
  29. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/severing-reservations/AC297435BA5074E28B55159F3C06B0A6
  30. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1784&context=faculty_articles
  31. https://opiniojuris.org/2025/06/04/the-end-of-treaty-reservations-as-we-know-them-not-yet-reflections-on-sudan-v-uae-and-the-normative-weight-of-the-dissent/
  32. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1389&context=vjtl
  33. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/ior510092004en.pdf
  34. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2024/06/26/reservations-of-cedaw-between-universality-and-integrity/
  35. https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/hrc/1994/en/10945
  36. https://ccprcentre.org/files/media/List_of_ICCPR_reservations.pdf
  37. https://www.tjsl.edu/sites/default/files/files/2014-1_Keller_pagination.pdf
  38. https://www.gojil.eu/issues/22/22_article_fournier.pdf
  39. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/1_8_2011.pdf
  40. https://academic.oup.com/isq/article/64/4/785/5908076
  41. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/reservations-to-treaties-and-human-rights-committee-general-comment-no-2452/3583A602F6A1948CD440968CBA334B83
  42. https://legalresponse.org/legaladvice/reservations-and-declarations-to-paris-agreement/
  43. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI-6&chapter=21&clang=_en
  44. https://www.itlos.org/en/main/jurisdiction/declarations-of-states-parties/declarations-made-by-states-parties-under-article-298/
  45. https://academic.oup.com/book/57494/chapter/473287090
  46. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/SIPRIYB21cA.pdf
  47. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382175865_Evaluating_the_Permissibility_of_Reservations_to_Multilateral_Treaties_Balancing_Sovereignty_and_Treaty_Integrity_in_International_Law
  49. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Reserving.pdf
  50. https://swedishgenderequalityagency.se/the-convention-on-the-elimination-of-all-forms-of-discrimination-against-women-cedaw/
  51. https://jpia.princeton.edu/news/ratification-reservations-and-review-exploring-role-cedaw-compliance-mechanisms-womens-rights
  52. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/social-pressure-in-the-international-human-rights-regime-why-states-withdraw-treaty-reservations/FFC0BDC41271FD4CE5EAF0613FBBD2E7
  53. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/1_8.shtml
  54. https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/24/4/1061/606385
  55. https://cil.nus.edu.sg/databasecil/2011-guide-to-practice-on-reservations-to-treaties/
  56. https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-ilc-guide-to-practice-on-reservations-to-treaties-some-general-remarks/
  57. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4666834
  58. https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-8&chapter=4&clang=_en
  59. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=stu_llm
  60. https://eusee.hivos.org/alert/levee-de-la-reserve-algerienne-sur-larticle-154-de-la-cedaw/
  61. https://academic.oup.com/fpa/article/21/1/orae030/7900330
  62. https://indepthnews.net/us-supports-un-cybercrime-treaty-but-with-reservations/
  63. https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lup/publication/1555651
  64. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3430114
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.