07 Genocide Woohoo

Citation. I.C.J., Advisory Opinion, 1951 I.C.J. 15.
TOPIC = VALIDITY OF RESERVATIONS TO A TREATY

Brief Fact Summary: Reservations to various provisions to the U.N. Conventions on Genocide were
effected by several signatories’ states to it.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A reservation to the U.N. Convention on Genocide may be effected by a state
and still be considered a signatory thereto.
Facts: The convention on Genocide was unanimously adopted by the United Nations in 1951. Several
states made reservations to one or more of its provisions. An opinion as to whether a party could
express reservations and still be considered a signatory was laid before the International Court of
Justice.
Issue: May a reservation to the U.N. Convention on Genocide be made by a state and still be considered
a signatory thereto?
Held: Yes. A reservation to the U.N. Convention on Genocide may be effected by a state and still be
considered a signatory thereto. In a multilateral treaty, as long as the reservation does not defeat the
purpose of the treaty, a reservation is permitted. By virtue of its sovereignty, it has been argued that a
state may effect any reservation. In this case, the validity of each reservation must be examined on a
case-by-case basis since numerous reservations were made by different states. (The court held that the
state objecting to a reservation could if it desired, consider the reserving state not to be a party to the
Convention.
Discussion: Politics was at play in this case as it has also been in other cases. Going by precedence,
international law usually held that reservations to a multilateral treaty had to be accepted by all other
parties. Unanimous acceptance of the Convention would not have made the Convention possible if the
rule was followed. The Court was undoubtedly determined to facilitate such unanimity
ICJ Thing
 It is well established that in its treaty relations a State cannot be bound without its consent, and
that consequently, no reservation can be effective against any State without its agreement
thereto. It is also a generally recognized principle that a multilateral convention is the result of an
agreement freely concluded upon its clauses and that consequently none of the contracting
parties is entitled to frustrate or impair, by means of unilateral decisions or particular
agreements, the purpose and raison d'etre of the convention. To this principle was linked the
notion of the integrity of the convention as adopted, a notion which in its traditional concept
involved the proposition that no reservation was valid unless it was accepted by all the
contracting parties without exception, as would have been the case if it had been stated during
the negotiations.
 However, as regards the Genocide Convention, it is proper to refer to a variety of circumstances
which would lead to a more flexible application of this principle.
 It could certainly not be inferred from the absence of an article providing for reservations in a
multilateral convention that the contracting States are prohibited from making certain
reservations. Each State which is a party to the Convention is entitled to appraise the validity of
the reservation, and it exercises this right individually and from its own standpoint. As no State
can be bound by a reservation to which it has not consented, it necessarily follows that each State
objecting to it will or will not, on the basis of its individual appraisal within the limits of the
criterion of the object and purpose stated above, consider the reserving State to be a party to the
Convention. In the ordinary course of events, such a decision will only affect the relationship
between the State making the reservation and the objecting State; on the other hand, as will be
pointed out later, such a decision might aim at the complete exclusion from the Convention in a
case where it was expressed by the adoption of a position on the jurisdictional plane.
 The Convention on Genocide cannot admit of reservations. In any event, even if they were
allowed, they should produce the minimum of legal effect in favor of the States making the
reservation.

07 Genocide Woohoo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

07 Genocide Woohoo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

07 Genocide Woohoo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Citation. I.C.J., Advisory Opinion, 1951 I.C.J. 15.

TOPIC = VALIDITY OF RESERVATIONS TO A TREATY

You might also like