Scribd
Upload
13 views6 pages

Genocide Convention Reservations Explained

The document summarizes an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding reservations to the Genocide Convention. It discusses whether reservations are allowed if other signatories object, and considers the effects of reservations and objections in relations between states. It concludes that determining these issues requires considering the purpose and provisions of each convention.

Uploaded by

Chie
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views6 pages

Genocide Convention Reservations Explained

The document summarizes an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding reservations to the Genocide Convention. It discusses whether reservations are allowed if other signatories object, and considers the effects of reservations and objections in relations between states. It concludes that determining these issues requires considering the purpose and provisions of each convention.

Uploaded by

Chie
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

In November 1950, the General Assembly asked the Court a series of


questions as to the position of a State which attached reservations to its
signature of the multilateral Convention on Genocide if other States,
signatories of the same Convention, objected to these reservations. The
Court considered, in its Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, that, even if a
convention contained no article on the subject of reservations, it did not
follow that they were prohibited. 
The character of the convention, its purposes and its provisions must be
taken into account. It was the compatibility of the reservation with the
purpose of the convention which must furnish the criterion of the attitude
of the State making the reservation, and of the State which objected thereto.
The Court did not consider that it was possible to give an absolute answer
to the abstract question put to it.

As regards the effects of the reservation in relations between States, the


Court considered that a State could not be bound by a reservation to
which it had not consented. Every State was therefore free to decide for
itself whether the State which formulated the reservation was or was not
a party to the convention. 
The situation presented real disadvantages, but they could
only be remedied by the insertion in the convention of an
article on the use of reservations. A third question referred
to the effects of an objection by a State which was not yet a
party to the convention, either because it had not signed it or
because it had signed but not ratified it. 
The Court was of the opinion that, as regards the first case, it would
be inconceivable that a State which had not signed the convention
should be able to exclude another State from it. In the second case,
the situation was different : the objection was valid, but it would not
produce an immediate legal effect ; it would merely express and
proclaim the attitude which a signatory State would assume when it
had become a party to the convention. In all the foregoing, the Court
adjudicated only on the specific case referred to it, namely, the
Genocide Convention.
Reference: .[Link]

You might also like