Uppsatsmall doc

http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/report.pdf
(23 April 2001, at 17.45).

---

36
a binding decision.”
124
Another problem arises from the large number of various
kinds of reservations entered by the contracting states to their acceptance of the
obligations of the Covenant, which tent to undermine its effective implementation.
Therefore, the Human Rights Committee adopted the 
General Comment No
24(52)
,
125
relating to reservations made on ratification or accession to the
ICCPR, on the 2 November 1994.
5.4.2 The General Comment on Reservations
The fact that the Committee has issued a general comment on the topic of
reservations is a clear expression of the Committee’s concerns regarding the
number and scope of reservations made. In its view, these threaten to undermine
the effective implementation of the Covenant, as well as impair the performance of
the Committee in respect of the subject matter to which the reservations apply.
126
Though the Covenant is not as seriously affected by reservations as for instance
the Women’s Convention and the Child’s Convention,
127
the Covenant has
nevertheless been the object of some sweeping reservations to which few
objections have been made. Redgwell shows concern that the integrity of the
Covenant may have been sacrificed to ensure widespread participation, and she
receives support for this fear by Prof. Rosalyn Higgins, member of the Human
Rights Commission, who claims that “[…] one might almost say that there is a
collusion to allow penetrating and disturbing reservations to go unchallenged.”
128
The Human Rights Committee’s G. C. No.24(52) takes a bold step towards the
articulation of a new and separate reservations regime in respect of human rights
treaties, explicitly departing from what has been characterised as the
unsatisfactory operation in relation to such treaties of the classical provisions on
reservations embodied in articles 19 to 23 VCLT. In particular, the General
Comment “supposes very strict limits to the power of states to make
reservations”.
129
This is evident in, 
inter alia
, the discussion of the application of
the compatibility with the object and purpose of the treaty test to different
124
Malanczuk, p. 215.
125
General comment on issues relating to reservations made upon ratifications or
accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to
declarations under article 41 of the Covenant CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6. 
The Comment was
adopted by the Committee under Article 40(4) ICCPR, in 1994.
 
I will call this comment 
G.C.
No. 24(52)
in the forthcoming.
126
Redgwell, pp. 390-391.
127
CEDAW and CRC are pointed out as seriously afflicted by reservations by Redgwell.
Redgwell, p. 391.
128
This is of course a very bold thing to accuse the international community of, and worth a
more thorough investigation, but that will have to be the subject of another paper, as it goes
somewhat beyond the scope of the present essay.
129
Redgwell, p. 392, referring in particular to G.C. No.24(52) para. 8.

---

37
categories of reservations to the Covenant.
130
It is also asserted that it is for the
Committee to determine the compatibility of reservations with the object and
purpose of the Covenant, a responsibility not assumed by other UN human rights
bodies, such as the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against
Women and the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms on Racial
Discrimination.
The Committee expresses their view that they find it appropriate that the
Committee gets to decide whether a reservation is compatible with the object and
purpose of the Covenant, in order to obtain the most objectivity in the assessment
of the admissibility. The Committee sees itself as most suitable for this
assignment.
131