Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 20

Acceptance of and objection to reservations

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

  • 4754 Accesses

Abstract

Art 20 deals with the role of the other parties to a treaty with regard to reservations, ie their acceptance of or objection to reservations. It can indeed be seen as the corollary to the possibility to formulate reservations. Given the fact that the VCLT definitively departs from the unanimity rule (Art 9 para 2), the other parties to a treaty need a legal instrument in order to defend their interests.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The 1962 Commentary of the ILC spoke of the “corresponding power of other States to accept or reject the reservation.” [1962-II] YbILC 62.

  2. 2.

    See Brownlie (2003), p. 585.

  3. 3.

    For all details, see the section on ‘opposability’ or ‘permissibility’ → Art 19 MN 50 et seq.

  4. 4.

    For similar positions, see for instance Villiger (2009), Art 20 MN 1.

  5. 5.

    Giegerich (2010), MN 20.

  6. 6.

    Villiger (2009), Art 20 MN 9.

  7. 7.

    [1962-II] YbILC 61 et seq.

  8. 8.

    [1962-I] YbILC 146, para 8 (Jiménez de Aréchaga); 148, para 29 (Castrén); [1962-II] YbILC 153, para 4 (Pal).

  9. 9.

    [1962-I] YbILC 221 et seq.

  10. 10.

    [1962-I] YbILC 225.

  11. 11.

    See [1962-II] YbILC 176, n 48; for the still ongoing debate in the ILC on the concept of ‘validity’ → Art 19 MN 50 et seq.

  12. 12.

    [1962-I] YbILC 252, para 55.

  13. 13.

    Art 19 para 4 lit c of the 1962 Draft, [1962-II] 62.

  14. 14.

    Art 19 para 4 lit b of the Final Draft read: “An objection by another contracting State to a reservation precludes the entry into force of the treaty as between the objecting and reserving States unless a contrary intention is expressed by the objecting State.”

  15. 15.

    Müller (2011a), Art 20 MN 11.

  16. 16.

    Proposals for reversal of presumption were first defeated in 1968, but during the second Session in 1969, the Soviet Union succeeded with a new attempt. See UNCLOT I 135, para 35 et seq and UNCLOT II 35, para 79.

  17. 17.

    Heintschel von Heinegg (2014), § 11 MN 12.

  18. 18.

    This was the express understanding of the Commission in 1966, see Commentary to Art 18, 207, para 18: “Paragraph 1 of this article covers cases where a reservation is expressly or impliedly authorized by the treaty; in other words, where the consent of the other contracting States has been given in the treaty. No further acceptance of the reservation by them is therefore required.” (emphasis added).

  19. 19.

    Giegerich (2010), MN 14.

  20. 20.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.8.1, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 2, p. 288 (2011); Pellet 12th Report on Reservations to Treaties, 15 May 2007, UN Doc A/CN.4/584, para 186.

  21. 21.

    Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General (2005), UN Doc ST/LEG/SER.E/23 Vol II 581–582 n 4 (ch II.11).

  22. 22.

    Ibid Vol I 595 n 16, 16 and 19 (ch XI.A.6).

  23. 23.

    Greig (1995), p. 120; Horn (1988), pp. 125–126; Müller (2011a), Art 20 MN 35–36.

  24. 24.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.8.1, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 6 et seq, p. 289 (2011).

  25. 25.

    Guideline 2.8.4 states that “The express acceptance of a reservation must be formulated in writing.”

  26. 26.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.8.13, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 4, p. 310 (2011).

  27. 27.

    For all Guidelines mentioned in this commentary → Annex to Art 23.

  28. 28.

    Pellet, 10th Report on Reservations to Treaties, 1 June 2005, UN Doc A/CN.4/558 Add.2, para 187.

  29. 29.

    → Art 19 MN 108 et seq.

  30. 30.

    For the commentary, see ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 3.3.3., UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, p. 409 et seq.

  31. 31.

    According to Draft Guideline 3.3.3, a contracting State or a contracting organization would have been allowed to request the depositary to expressly inform all other parties of an impermissible reservation without objecting to it. If, on the basis of this information, none of the other contracting States objected to the reservation, the reservation was to be “deemed permissible.” See in that regard the commentary ILC Report 62nd Session, UN Doc A/65/10, 83–86.

  32. 32.

    Oral Report by the Chairman of the Working Group on Reservations to Treaties, Vázquez Bermúdez, ILC 63rd Session, 20 May 2011, http://legal.un.org/ilc/sessions/63/pdfs/reservations_to_treaties_report_20may2011.pdf. Accessed 22 November 2017, p. 7.

  33. 33.

    → also Art 19 MN 113.

  34. 34.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Guideline 2.6.1, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1 (2011).

  35. 35.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.6.1, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 1, p. 235 (2011).

  36. 36.

    “To the extent that the reservation is intended to […] the Government of X objects to the reservation.”; for similar examples, see ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.6.1, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 15, p. 238 (2011).

  37. 37.

    For examples, see ibid para 20, p. 242.

  38. 38.

    For the commentary, see ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.6.2, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, p. 246 et seq (2011).

  39. 39.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Guideline 2.6.6., UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1 (2011).

  40. 40.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.6.1, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, p. 235 et seq (2011).

  41. 41.

    See the material referred to in ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.6.3, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 6, p. 251 (2011).

  42. 42.

    ICJ Genocide Convention Opinion [1951] ICJ Rep 15, 30.

  43. 43.

    For examples of practice, see ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.6.1, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 29 et seq, p. 244 et seq (2011).

  44. 44.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.6.1, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 34, p. 246 (2011).

  45. 45.

    Ibid para 34, p. 244 et seq.

  46. 46.

    This interpretation is confirmed by the wording of Art 20 para 4, which deals with objections and is expressly limited to “cases not falling under the preceding paragraphs.” See Villiger (2009), Art 20 MN 4.

  47. 47.

    For a commentary, see ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.8.13, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, p. 310 et seq (2011).

  48. 48.

    See [1965-II] YbILC 25.

  49. 49.

    [1962-II] YbILC 176 (Art 20 para 3 of the Draft).

  50. 50.

    [1965-II] YbILC 162 (Art 19 para 2 of the Draft).

  51. 51.

    But see Szafarz (1970), p. 304 who mentions the number 12.

  52. 52.

    Kühner (1986), p. 162.

  53. 53.

    Imbert (1978), p. 115; Kühner (1986), p. 163.

  54. 54.

    Simma (1972), p. 63.

  55. 55.

    UNCLOT II 22, para 16 and 350, para 29.

  56. 56.

    Art 18 para 4 lit a cl i of the 1962 Draft [1962-II] YbILC 61.

  57. 57.

    See the Commentary to Art 18 of the 1962 Draft [1962-II] YbILC 68.

  58. 58.

    Müller (2011a), Art 20 MN 104.

  59. 59.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.8.7, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 5, p. 299 (2011).

  60. 60.

    [1962-II] YbILC 68.

  61. 61.

    Ibid.

  62. 62.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.6.3, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 10, p. 252 (2011).

  63. 63.

    Art 18 para 4 lit c of the 1962 Draft: “In the case of a plurilateral or multilateral treaty which is the constituent instrument of an international organization, the consent of the organization, expressed through a decision of its competent organ, shall be necessary to establish the admissibility of a reservation not specifically authorized by such instrument, and to constitute the reserving State a party to the instrument.” ([1962-II] YbILC 61; see the corresponding commentary ibid 68, para 20).

  64. 64.

    Notably the Soviet Union: “Paragraph 3 of the Commission’s Art 17 should also be deleted, since the sovereign right of States to formulate reservations could not be made dependent on the decisions of international organisations.” UNCLOT I 107.

  65. 65.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.8.8, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 7, p. 302 (2011).

  66. 66.

    Müller (2011a), Art 20 MN 114.

  67. 67.

    Schweisfurth (2006), p. 164, para 53.

  68. 68.

    It was in fact Austria that had presented an amendment which would have solved the problem: “When the reservation is formulated while the treaty is not yet in force, the expression of the consent of the State which has formulated the reservation takes effect only when such competent organ is properly constituted and has accepted the reservation.” A/CONF.39/C.1/L.3, UNCLOT III 135.

  69. 69.

    See the analysis by Mendelson (1971), pp.137 et seq, 154 et seq, 162 et seq.

  70. 70.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.8.11, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 5, p. 307 (2011).

  71. 71.

    It should be noted that for reasons of a sufficiently broad participation in the assessment of the reservation, the ILC referred to the signatories and not to the actual States Parties, ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.8.11, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 6, p. 307 et seq (2011).

  72. 72.

    Guideline 2.8.8 reproduces the text of Art 20 para 3; the ILC suggests that the other rules on acceptance continue to apply which notably means that the 12 months period provided for in Art 20 para 5 is applicable, ibid para 8, p. 308.

  73. 73.

    Mendelson (1971), p. 163.

  74. 74.

    UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.127, UNCLOT III 135.

  75. 75.

    For reference, see ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.8.12, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 3, p. 309 (2011).

  76. 76.

    ILC Guide to Practice (2011), Guideline 2.8.12.

  77. 77.

    Villiger (2009), Art 20 MN 9.

  78. 78.

    Kühner (1986), p. 157.

  79. 79.

    Villiger (2009), Art 20 MN 16; Kühner (1986), p. 159.

  80. 80.

    Summary of Practice, para 184.

  81. 81.

    Müller (2011a), Art 20 MN 48 with further references.

  82. 82.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 4.2.1, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 10, p. 450 (2011).

  83. 83.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Guideline 4.2.1, for the commentary see UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, p. 446 et seq (2011).

  84. 84.

    Art 17 para 4 lit a of the Final Draft read: “An objection by another contracting State to a reservation precludes the entry into force of the treaty as between the objecting and reserving States unless a contrary intention is expressed by the objecting State,” Final Draft 202.

  85. 85.

    ICJ Genocide Convention Opinion [1951] ICJ Rep 15, 26.

  86. 86.

    UNCLOT II 35, para 79.

  87. 87.

    Kühner (1986), p. 182.

  88. 88.

    Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General (2006) UN Doc ST/LEG/SER.E/25, Vol I 132–133 (ch IV.1).

  89. 89.

    Ibid Vol I 899 (ch XI.B.22).

  90. 90.

    Ibid Vol II 416 (ch XXIII.B.1).

  91. 91.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.6.7, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 4, p. 259 (2011).

  92. 92.

    This is spelled out explicitly in Guideline 2.8.2 on “Tacit acceptance of reservations”. For the commentary, see the ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.8.2, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, p. 291 et seq (2011).

  93. 93.

    Villiger (2009), Art 20 MN 17.

  94. 94.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.6.12, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 6, p. 270 et seq (2011); Müller (2011a), Art 20 MN 16.

  95. 95.

    Generally, on the problem of equality of treatment of the two situations, see ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.6.12, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 8 et seq, p. 271 et seq (2011).

  96. 96.

    On this function of “objections”, generally → MN 18.

  97. 97.

    This consequence is spelled out in Guideline 2.6.13 which states that such objections “cannot produce all the legal effects” of an objection formulated in time; for details, see Commentary to Guideline 2.6.13, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, p. 272 et seq.

  98. 98.

    ILC Report 60th Session, UN Doc A/63/10, para 8, p. 224 et seq (2008).

  99. 99.

    ILC Guide to Practice, Commentary to Guideline 2.7.9, UN Doc A/66/10/Add.1, para 4, p. 286 et seq (2011).

  100. 100.

    → Art 19 MN 137; for further details see Müller (2011b), Art 20 VCLT II MN 2–5.

  101. 101.

    For further literature see also the references attached to the commentaries on Arts 19, 21–23.

References

For further literature see also the references attached to the commentaries on Arts 19, 21–23.

  • Brownlie I (2003) Principles of Public International Law, 6th edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Giegerich T (2010) Treaties, Multilateral, Reservations to. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. OUP, Oxford. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1680. Accessed 29 November 2017

  • Greig DW (1995) Reservations: Equity as a Balancing Factor? AYIL 15:21–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Heintschel von Heinegg W (2014) Die völkerrechtlichen Verträge als Hauptrechtsquelle des Völkerrechts – Abschluss und Inkrafttreten. In: Ipsen K Völkerrecht. 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München, pp 395–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn F (1988) Reservations and Interpretative Declarations to Multilateral Treaties. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Imbert PH (1978) Les réserves aux traités multilatéraux. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühner R (1986) Vorbehalte zu multilateralen völkerrechtlichen Verträgen. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson MH (1971) Reservations to the Constitution of International Organizations. BYIL 45:137–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller D (2011a) Article 20. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 538–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller D (2011b) Article 20 VCLT II. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties. OUP, Oxford, pp 565–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweisfurth T (2006) Völkerrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (1972) Das Reziprozitätselement im Zustandekommen völkerrechtlicher Verträge. Duncker&Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Szafarz R (1970) Reservations to Multilateral Treaties. PolYIL 3:293–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Villiger M (2009) Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Public Law, Public International Law and European Law, Law Faculty, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Christian Walter

Authors
  1. Christian Walter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

    Oliver Dörr

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

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Walter, C. (2018). Article 20. In: Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (eds) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55159-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55160-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation