Uppsatsmall doc

5.2 Core and Non-Core Rights, the Object and
Purpose of the Human Rights Treaty
As stated in chapter 3.1.1 the object and purpose rule is a test to decide the
admissibility of a reservation to a treaty. One problem is that the object and
purpose of a treaty can be quite hard to extract from the treaty text, in cases
where it has been left unregulated in the treaty text. But even when it has been
explicitly regulated in the treaty text, as in the Women’s Convention
95
, there are
problems with reservations. This convention has more reservations than usual, in
comparison with other UN treaties.
96
Many of the reservations made to this
convention are made specifically against article 2, the so-called “portal
paragraph” of the treaty.
97
The most obvious examples of this are the reservations
made by Muslim countries. When signing and or ratifying the convention, they
agree to the obligations therein as long as they are not in conflict with Islamic law,
Shariah. A clearly defined object and purpose of a treaty is a step in the right
direction, but is far from a guarantee for the integrity of the treaty text, when
reservations are concerned.
”The standards enshrined in the treaties on human rights belong properly to the
domain of 
jus
cogens
and rule out restrictions and derogations of any kind.”
98
He
continues to quote the judgement of ICJ in the Genocide Convention case, which
in 1951 ruled that “the principles underlying the Convention are principles which
are recognised by civilised nations as binding on States, even without any
94
Lijnzaad, p. 112.
95
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, also
referred to as CEDAW, adopted in 1979.
96
Clark, p. 283-284.
97
Article 2 CEDAW lays down the prohibition of discrimination against women in general
terms, also stating that the participating states undertake to take necessary steps, including
legislative measures, in order to achieve the goals put out in the convention.
98
Professor P. H. Imbert made this statement in his Report presented at the Fifth
International Colloquy on the European Convention on Human Rights, in Frankfurt, 9-12
April 1980.

---

32
conventional obligation”
99
, and, in its judgement of the 5 February 1970 in the
case concerning the Barcelona Traction Company, “they are obligations 
erga
omnes
”.
100
Whether Imbert considers all the rights in the human rights treaties as
core norms, and consequently any reservations impacting upon them therefore
would be deemed inadmissible, or not, is a question prompted by the above
quoted statement. As perceived by the present author, this is not what the
professor means at all. He thinks that it would be a mistake to take the
abovementioned ideas and apply them to the whole of the treaties in question,
when they actually are relevant only to certain principles and certain obligations in
the named treaties.
101
This is probably the most plausible conclusion one can
draw; that not all of the rights in a human rights convention are core norms.
102