{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Case Study - Convention

1 a b treaty will enter into force and its been

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: omes Article 21(3) 2 states - reservation put in by either state is a counteroffer by one state to the other. If state doesn’t accept the counter offer, won’t go into effect. If you have states, clearer process, b/c you won’t get a treaty at the end of the day, just bilateral agreement. State has right to put in reservation. Some treaties say no reservations allowed. Don’t want states taking away purposes and intents. Ex. Rome Statute. This at times makes it more difficult to be bound. Two possible options: 1) objecting state is still a party, but provisions related do not apply between two states. 2) objecting state refuses to be a party to the treaty, not parties to the treaty vis a vis each other. Remember there are other states that can ender in and be bound. Example: State A: Ratifies + puts in Reservations State B: accept Reservations ( of state A) State C: objects (state’s A reservation) but wants to be bound treaty State D: objects to reservation + treaty 4 outcomes – different legal relationships. 1) A + B – treaty will enter into force. And it’s been modified based upon the reservation (for both states). Knd of like a bilateral agreement between these two states. 2) A + C – treaty enters into force , but reservation does apply between A and C to the extent that article changes the treaty. But provisions related to the reservation do not apply. Article 10 taken out, but reservation included. 3) A + D – no treaty. A will not...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online