Uppsatsmall doc

parties, who will have to recognise it as valid, legally binding on them.
33
Every
contracting state that is confronted with an admissible reservation has the
discretion to chose between accepting or objecting to the reservation,
34
thus, the
issue of opposability presupposes that the reservation is permissible.
29
Horn, pp. 205-206.
30
Lijnzaad, p. 405.
31
More on the specific features of the Human Rights Treaties, see chapter 5.
32
The Dutch author Vierdag for instance, has taken this position, when talking about the
ICESCR. He is, though, not accompanied by many others. Source: lecture with Prof. Zwaak,
SIM/ Utrecht University, 11 February 2000.
33
Horn, p. 215.
34
More on objections in chapter 3.2 below.

---

16
3.1.3 The Legal Effect of Reservations, article 21
VCLT
The legal effects of reservations (and objections) are dealt with in article 21
VCLT, which gives detailed account of the treaty relations established on the
basis of accepted reservations and reservations objected to. As a basic notion of
the law of treaties, the article underlines the concept of reciprocity. States
intending to modify
35
their treaty relations will face the same modification by other
states against them.
36
The reservation thus is a new clause, which modifies the
scope of certain provisions of the treaty.
37
The modification thus established will only be valid between the states concerned,
as article 21.2 VCLT provides for. As said above, article 21 VCLT deals with
both acceptance of and objection to a specific reservation. Article 21.1 VCLT
deals with modifications on the basis of an accepted reservation, while article
21.3 VCLT applies to reservations objected to, but which do not preclude entry
into force of the treaty.
The great similarity between the two provisions should be noted, and
consequently one has to ask if there is a difference between accepting and
objecting to reservations, as far as the legal effects are concerned. As there seem
to be no distinction between the two responses it has been suggested that
objections not precluding entry into force of the treaty are merely an a-typical
form of acceptance.
38
Seen in a practical sense, this seems to be true. Authors and scholars are not
certain about the reasons why objections should be made when these will have
the same effects as acceptance. Objections no longer preclude entry into force,
unless this intention is explicitly expressed along with the objection. According to
Lijnzaad, this does not mean, however, that objections not precluding entry into
force are without significance. The objections are used by states to express their
disagreement with a reservation, while still not precluding treaty relations to be
established. These objections might be political declarations, but it is conceivable
that they also serve the purpose of preventing the possible formation of customary
law opposable to them, on the basis of the reservation.
35
In this case the word used by me; modify, includes both modifications and entire
exclusion of legal effects of a certain treaty provision.
36
Cf. articles 21.1(a) and 21.1(b), as well as article 21.3 final phrase, Lijnzaad, p. 47
.
37
Clark, p.304 and Ruda, J.M., 
Reservations to Treaties
, 146 RdC 1975 III, p. 190.
38
Lijnzaad, p. 48 and Clark, p. 310.

---

17
3.1.4 Withdrawal of Reservations and Objections,
article 22 VCLT
According to article 22 VCLT, the general rule is that a reservation or an
objection may be withdrawn at any time, and without the consent of other states
that have accepted the reservation earlier, if this was not agreed upon. The VCLT
attaches no conditions to withdrawals, which is to stress the view that there is a
general wish to see as many reservations as possible withdrawn.
39
This is a
practical and pragmatic approach, but still leaves the legal situation rather
unsystematic since the reservations are considered additional bilateral agreements.
Would not then logic give that a withdrawal of the very same reservation, which
required consent when lodged, necessitate consent or acceptance by the other
state parties.
40
There is thus nothing preventing states from withdrawing their
objections, and still withdrawals are extremely rare, if not non-existent. When
withdrawing a reservation (or an objection), the state leaves a written notice with
the Secretary-General.
41
Withdrawals need no subsequent approval by the other
state parties, as stated earlier and enter into force the moment the other state