Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 138 views

    Case 32 - BD - Reservations To The 1948 Convention On The Prevention and Punishment of The Crime of Genocide - Silva

    Uploaded by

    Merlo Sebasthian Silva
    The General Assembly asked the ICJ for an advisory opinion on reservations to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The ICJ ruled that a state can be considered a party to the Convention if its reservations are compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, even if objected to by some states. If a reservation is incompatible, the reserving state cannot be considered a party. Objections will determine relations between the objecting and reserving states. Objections by non-parties have no legal effect.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case 32 - BD - Reservations To The 1948 Convention On The Prevention and Punishment of The Crime of Genocide - Silva

    Uploaded by

    Merlo Sebasthian Silva
    138 views2 pages
    The General Assembly asked the ICJ for an advisory opinion on reservations to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The ICJ ruled that a state can be considered a party to the Convention if its reservations are compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, even if objected to by some states. If a reservation is incompatible, the reserving state cannot be considered a party. Objections will determine relations between the objecting and reserving states. Objections by non-parties have no legal effect.

    Original Title

    CASE 32_BD_RESERVATIONS TO THE 1948 CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE_SILVA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The General Assembly asked the ICJ for an advisory opinion on reservations to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The ICJ ruled that a state can be considered a party to the Convention if its reservations are compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, even if objected to by some states. If a reservation is incompatible, the reserving state cannot be considered a party. Objections will determine relations between the objecting and reserving states. Objections by non-parties have no legal effect.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    138 views2 pages

    Case 32 - BD - Reservations To The 1948 Convention On The Prevention and Punishment of The Crime of Genocide - Silva

    Uploaded by

    Merlo Sebasthian Silva
    The General Assembly asked the ICJ for an advisory opinion on reservations to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The ICJ ruled that a state can be considered a party to the Convention if its reservations are compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, even if objected to by some states. If a reservation is incompatible, the reserving state cannot be considered a party. Objections will determine relations between the objecting and reserving states. Objections by non-parties have no legal effect.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Reservations to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the

    Crime of Genocide
    Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1951

    Facts:

    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 question concerning reservations to
    the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide had been
    referred for an advisory opinion to the Court by the General Assembly of the United
    Nations

    Written statements on the matter were submitted to the Court by the following
    States and Organizations, the Organization of American States, the Union of Soviet
    Socialist Republics, ,the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the United States of America,
    the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, the Secretary-General of
    the United Nations, Israel, the International Labour Organisation, Poland,
    Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, the People's Republic of Romania, the Ukrainian
    Soviet Socialist Republic, the People's Republic of Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet
    Socialist Republic, the Republic of the Philippines.

    In addition, the Court heard oral statements submitted on behalf of the Secretary-
    General of the United Nations and of the Governments of Israel, the United Kingdom
    and France.

    Issues:

    1. Can the reserving State be regarded as being a party to the Convention while sitill
    maintaining its reservation if the reservation is objected to by one or more of the
    parties to the Convention but not by others?

    2. If the answer to question I is in the affirmative, what is the effect of the reservation
    as between the reserving State and:

    (a) The parties which object to the reservation?


    (b)Those which accept it?

    3. What would be the legal effect as regards the answer to question I if an objection to
    a reservation is made:
    ( a ) By a signatory which has not yet ratified?

    ( b ) By a State entitled to sign or accede but which has not yet done so?
    Ruling

    By 7 votes to 5 the Court gave thefollowing answers to the questions referred


    to:

    On Question 1:

    A State which has made and maintained a reservation which has been objected to
    by one or more of the parties to the Convention but not by others, can be regarded as
    being a party to the Convention if the reservation is compatible with the object and
    purpose of the Convention; otherwise, that State cannot be regarded as being a party
    to the Convention.

    On Question 2:

    (a) If a party to the Convention objects to a reservation which it considers to be


    incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, it can in fact
    consider that the reserving State is not a party to the Convention;

    (b) If, on the other hand, a party accept the reservation as being compatible with
    the object and purpose of the Convention. It can in fact consider that the reserving
    State is a party to the Convention.

    On Question 3:

    (a) An objection to a reservation made by a signatory State which has not yet
    ratified the Convention can have the legal effect indicated in the reply to Question
    1 only upon ratification. Until that moment it merely serves as a notice to the
    other State of the eventual attitude of the signatory State;

    (b) An objection to a reservation made by a State which is entitled to sign or


    accede but which has not yet done so is without legal effect.

    You might also like