Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 21. Legal effects of reservations and of objections to reservations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

  • 6016 Accesses

Abstract

Art 21 does not explicitly state whether it relates to all reservations or only to permissible reservations, ie reservations which have been made in accordance with Arts 19, 20 and 23. In fact, the question of how impermissible reservations should be dealt with is the most difficult issue relating to reservations (→ Art 19 MN 103 et seq). As explained in the commentary to Art 19, impermissible reservations must be considered null and void (→ Art 19 MN 105 et seq). The necessary consequence for the interpretation of Art 21 is that the provision only deals with the legal effects of reservations permissible reservations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Villiger Art 21 MN 1.

  2. 2.

    “Article 40. Reservations (legal effects if admitted).

    If a reservation is admitted in accordance with the preceding articles, its effect is:

    (a) To permit the reserving State to derogate from the provisions of the treaty to the extent, or in the manner, indicated in the reservation, but no more – the terms of the reservation being construed strictly for this purpose;

    (b) To permit a similar derogation on the part of the other parties to the treaty in their relations with the reserving State, which cannot claim from them a greater degree of compliance with the treaty than it undertakes itself.

    2. A reservation admitted for one party to a treaty only affects relations between the reserving State and each of the other parties and has no effect on the relations of the other parties inter se.” Fitzmaurice I 115 et seq.

  3. 3.

    Ibid 127.

  4. 4.

    Waldock I 61 et seq.

  5. 5.

    Waldock I 208 et seq.

  6. 6.

    Ibid 209.

  7. 7.

    Art 19 para 4 lit c of the 1962 Draft, Waldock I 62.

  8. 8.

    Waldock IV 55.

  9. 9.

    Ibid.

  10. 10.

    [1965-I] YbILC, 171 et seq and 271 et seq.

  11. 11.

    Ibid 284.

  12. 12.

    See the detailed description and the references presented by D Müller in Corten/Klein Art 20 MN 10 fn 31.

  13. 13.

    ILC, Report of the ILC on the Work of its Sixty-second Session, UN Doc A/65/10, 114 (2010).

  14. 14.

    Ibid.; as for the formal details, see Art 23 MN 6 et seq.

  15. 15.

    Report of the ILC 2010 (n 13) 113.

  16. 16.

    For all Draft Guidelines mentioned in this commentary → Annex to Art 23; for the commentary to Draft Guideline 4.1, see ILC Report 2010 (n 13) 112–116.

  17. 17.

    D Müller in Corten/Klein Art 21 MN 19.

  18. 18.

    Draft Guideline 4.1.1; for the commentary, see ILC Report 2010 (n 13) 116–121.

  19. 19.

    Draft Guideline 4.1.2; for the commentary, see ibid 121–124.

  20. 20.

    Draft Guideline 4.1.3; for the commentary, see ibid 124 et seq; for the details of the requirements under Art 20 para 3, see Art 20 MN 36 et seq.

  21. 21.

    For the commentary, see the ILC Report 2010 (n 13), 126–130.

  22. 22.

    Draft Guideline 4.2.2; for the commentary, see the ILC Report 2010 (n 13), 130–132.

  23. 23.

    Draft Guideline 4.2.3; for the commentary, see ibid 132 et seq.

  24. 24.

    See the text at n 6; this obvious consequence is also laid down in Draft Guideline 4.2.4; for a commentary of this Draft Guideline, see ILC Report 2010 (n 13) 133–144.

  25. 25.

    See the position taken by SR A Pellet on the matter in 3rd Report on Reservations to Treaties, UN Doc A/CN.4/491, para 154.

  26. 26.

    D Müller in Corten/Klein Art 21 MN 27 et seq.

  27. 27.

    See in that regard the details discussed in the commentary to Art 19 → Art 19 MN 94 et seq.

  28. 28.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 19, 209 para 1.

  29. 29.

    B Simma Das Reziprozitätselement im Zustandekommen völkerrechtlicher Verträge (1972) 61; PH Imbert Les Réserves aux traités multilatéraux (1978) 258.

  30. 30.

    “Nothing in this Convention should in any way, affect any of the rules and regulations promulgated by the Suez Canal Authority. In case of any contradiction between them the latter shall prevail.” (http://www.minbuza.nl/en/Key_Topics/Treaties/Search_the_Treaty_Database?isn=003664#voorbehoud) (last visited 11 January 2011).

  31. 31.

    “Protocol No. 4 is signed with the reservation that Article 3 shall not apply to the provisions of the Law of 3 April 1919, StGBl. No. 209 concerning the banishment of the House of Habsbourg-Lorraine and the confiscation of their property, as set out in the Act of 30 October 1919, StGBl. No. 501, in the Constitutional Law of 30 July 1925, BGBl. No. 292, in the Federal Constitutional Law of 26 January 1928, BGBl. No. 30, and taking account of the Federal Constitutional Law of 4 July 1963, BGBl. No. 172.” (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeDeclarations.asp?NT=046&CM=8&DF=20/09/2010&CL=ENG&VL=1) (last visited 11 January 2011).

  32. 32.

    T Giegerich Treaties, Multilateral Reservations to MPEPIL (2008) MN 31; B Simma (n 29) 161 et seq.

  33. 33.

    General Comment No 24, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6, para 8.

  34. 34.

    L Lijnzaad Reservations to UN-Human Rights Treaties – Ratify and Ruin? (1995) 66 et seq.

  35. 35.

    B Simma (n 29) 155.

  36. 36.

    F Horn Reservations and Interpretative Declarations to Multilateral Treaties (1988) 164–165.

  37. 37.

    For the commentary see the ILC Report 2010 (n 13) 144–147.

  38. 38.

    JM Ruda Reservations to Treaties (1975) 146 RdC 95, 197.

  39. 39.

    D Müller in Corten/Klein Art 21 MN 39.

  40. 40.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 19, 209 para 1: “A reservation operates reciprocally between the reserving State and any other party, so that it modifies the treaty for both of them in their mutual relations to the extent of the reserved provisions. But it does not modify the provisions of the treaty for the other parties, inter se, since they have not accepted it as a term of the treaty in their mutual relations.” (emphasis added).

  41. 41.

    D Müller in Corten/Klein Art 20 MN 43 et seq.

  42. 42.

    For the commentary see the ILC Report 2010 (n 13) 150 et seq.

  43. 43.

    Draft Guideline 4.3.3; for the commentary, see the ILC Report 2010 (n 13), 151.

  44. 44.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 19, 209 para 2.

  45. 45.

    The problem was already seen during the ILC debates in the 1960s, [1965-I] YbILC, 271 para 5.

  46. 46.

    Imbert (n 27) 157; Ruda (n 38) 199; Horn (n 36) 173; JK Koh Reservations to Multilateral Treaties: How International Legal Doctrine Reflects World Vision (1982) 23 Harvard ILJ 71, 102 et seq; D Müller in Corten/Klein Art 20 MN 57.

  47. 47.

    See notably the Arbitral Award in Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the French Republic (United Kingdom v France) 18 RIAA 3, para 61 (1977).

  48. 48.

    For the commentary, see the ILC Report 2010 (n 13) 155–166.

  49. 49.

    D Müller in Corten/Klein Art 20 MN 60.

  50. 50.

    Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary General (2009) UN Doc ST/LEG/SER.E/26, Vol I 129 (ch III.6).

  51. 51.

    For the commentary, see the ILC Report 2010 (n 13) 171–174.

  52. 52.

    For the commentary, see ibid 174 et seq.

  53. 53.

    For the commentary, see ibid 170 et seq.

  54. 54.

    See for example the objection formulated by the United States to a corresponding Tunesian reservation: “The United States of America objects to the reservation by Tunisia to paragraph (a) of Article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties regarding a dispute as to the interpretation or application of Article 53 or 64. The right of a party to invoke the provisions of Article 53 or 64 is inextricably linked with the provisions of Article 42 regarding impeachment of the validity of a treaty and paragraph (a) of Article 66 regarding the right of any party to submit to the International Court of Justice for decision any dispute concerning the application or the interpretation of Article 53 or 64. Accordingly, the United States Government intends, at such time as it becomes a party to the Convention, to reaffirm its objection to the Tunisian reservation and declare that it will not consider that Article 53 or 64 of the Convention is in force between the United States of America and Tunisia.” ibid Vol III 535 (ch XXIII.1).

  55. 55.

    J Sztucki Some Questions Arising from Reservations to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1977) 20 GYIL 297.

  56. 56.

    D Müller in Corten/Klein Art 20 MN 67.

  57. 57.

    Draft Guideline 4.3.6, para 1; for the commentary, see the ILC Report 2010 (n 13), 166–168.

  58. 58.

    Draft Guideline 4.3.6, para 2; see the ILC Report 2010 (n 13) 168.

  59. 59.

    SR A Pellet 8th Report on Reservations to Treaties, Addendum, UN Doc A/CN.4/535/Add.1, para 96.

  60. 60.

    Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary General (2009) (n 50) Vol I 440 (ch IV.11B).

  61. 61.

    B Simma Reservations to Human Rights Treaties: Some Recent Developments in Hafner et al (eds) Festschrift Seidl-Hohenveldern (1998) 659, 667 et seq; Pellet 8th Report, Addendum (n 55) para 96.

  62. 62.

    For the commentary, see the ILC Report 2010 (n 13) 169 et seq.

Selected Bibliography

  • See the bibliography attached to the commentary on Art 19.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, 49069, Osnabrück, Germany

    Professor Dr. Oliver Dörr LL.M. (Lond.)

  2. Faculty of Law Department of Public Law/International Law, University of Salzburg, 5020, Salzburg, Austria

    Professor Dr. Kirsten Schmalenbach

Authors
  1. Professor Dr. Oliver Dörr LL.M. (Lond.)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Professor Dr. Kirsten Schmalenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Dörr LL.M. (Lond.) .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, 49069, Germany

    Oliver Dörr

  2. , Law Faculty, University of Salzburg, Churfürst Strasse 1, Salzburg, 5020, Austria

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (2012). Article 21. Legal effects of reservations and of objections to reservations. In: Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (eds) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19291-3_23

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation