Uppsatsmall doc

The Government of the
Republic of the Maldives will comply with the provisions of the Convention, except those
which the Government may consider contradictory to the principles of the Islamic Shariah
upon which the laws and traditions of the Maldives is founded. Furthermore, the Republic
of the Maldives does not see itself bound by any provisions of the Convention which
oblige to change its constitution and laws in any manner
.” Source: United Nations Treaty
Collection, As of 19 March 2001, <
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty9_asp.htm
>
(21 May 2001, at 13.45)

---

48
lodged by the Maldives was objected to by Sweden firstly since it was deemed to
free the Maldives from the responsibility to actively take all necessary steps,
including legislative measures, to eliminate discrimination based on gender.
186
The
reservation was based on both Shariah and domestic legislation. Secondly,
Sweden thought the reservation was incompatible with the object and purpose of
CEDAW due to its general and sweeping nature. On the basis of this, Sweden
felt unable to accept the reservation and thought it necessary to preclude the entry
into force of the treaty relations between itself and the reserving state.
187
Sweden
has entered objections to reservations of a general nature lodged by Thailand,
Bangladesh, Iraq, Malawi and Libya to name a few other reserving states.
Furthermore Sweden has reacted upon reservations made by Egypt and the
Cook Islands/ New Zeeland, although these objections have come in after the
twelve-month time limit set out in article 20.5 and therefore cannot be called
objections in a technical sense.
188
Sweden, among other states, is pointed out as a state party that responded to the
tolerant view (described above) by reminding the other state parties that
incompatible reservations undermine the basis of international law because “[…] it
is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to
become parties also are respected as to object and purpose by other parties.”
189
The Swedish representative furthermore stated that there is no reason to apply
less stringent treaty law requirements to a convention against discrimination
against women, than to other international treaties. Referring to Clark, the present
author wants to stress the fact that the convention is based on the public
international law principle that individuals have certain inalienable rights, which
states cannot justify overriding by the imperatives of culture, tradition, expediency,
economic advantage or other such factors.
190
186
Mårsäter & Åkermark, p. 382.
187
Mårsäter & Åkermark, p. 383.
188
This statement presupposes that the time limit rule in article 20.5 also covers
impermissible or inadmissible reservations. Mårsäter & Åkermark have taken the position
that articles 20 and 21 VCLT are applicable only to permissible/admissible reservations,
which would lead to the situation that there is no time limit rule applicable to inadmissible
reservations. Mårsäter & Åkermark mean that their view is supported by the General-
Secretary’s Treaty Collection practice where Sweden’s belated objection was placed under
the heading “objections”. They furthermore state that their view is supported by other
scholars, referring to Horn and Redgwell. Mårsäter & Åkermark, p. 389, note 34 and Aust,
p.127.
189
UN Doc. A/41/608, at 15, in Clark, p. 286, note 36.
190
Clark, p. 286.

---

49