Reservations

Traditionally, when a State participating in the negotiations for a multilateral treaty found that some of its clauses were too onerous but nonetheless wished to enter into the treaty, it made reservations, that is, unilateral statements intended to either (a) exclude the application of one or more provisions, or (b) place a certain interpretation on them. However, reservations (attached to the signature or to ratification of the treaty) had to be accepted by all other contracting parties for the reserving State to become bound by the treaty. The principle of unanimity favoured the 'integrity of treaties'. However, in practice it gave a sort of right of veto to all other parties. (The situation is, however, different for bilateral treaties; 'reservations' to such a treaty in fact amount to a proposal for a new text and consequently they may only produce legal effects if accepted, by the other party.) The reservation must be regarded as null and void, at least in those parts that prove to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. If there is conflict between the two requirements (the international community's need for contracting parties to remain bound as far as possible by international standards on human rights, and the intent of one of these parties to eschew the legal impact of such a standard), the former must prevail.