Uppsatsmall doc

3.2 Objections
3.2.1 Reactions on Reservations, article 20 VCLT
Objections are formal disapprovals of reservations and knowledge of them is
essential for acquiring a correct picture of the legal relations between parties to a
treaty. Thus objections are so called subsequent actions. The provisions on
objections are to be found in the same part of the VCLT as the reservations, as
has been said above. Article 20 VCLT lays down the “expected” reactions on a
reservation, giving the other state parties the choice between accepting and
objecting to the reservation made. But this is not the whole truth, since a
reservation expressly authorised by the treaty does not require any subsequent
acceptance by the other contracting states, unless the treaty has acceptance as a
requirement for the approval of the reservation. This means that “inaction” is an
accepted response to the reservation.
3.2.2 The Time Factor and the Legal Effect of the
Objection, articles 20 and 21 VCLT
A related and quite interesting issue is the time factor in article 20.5. If a state has
not raised any objections to a reservation by the end of a period of twelve months
after the reservation was notified, the state is considered to have accepted the
reservation. This gives that states have a year to formulate their objection or else
an acceptance, or approval of the reservation, is assumed.
58
The general rule that a reservation does not preclude the entry into force of the
treaty between the objecting and the reserving states is regulated in article 20.4(b)
VCLT
59
. This is one of many specific features of the VCLT that has given rise to
the debate about how the VCLT is so to speak reservation-friendly. States can
pick and choose what provisions they want to be bound by, sign the treaty and
58
This rule is also referred to as the “Twelve-Month Tacit Consent Rule”, see Clark, p. 312.
59
There will be a discussion of somewhat more depth on this specific topic in chapter 4
below.

---

21
become state parties to a treaty even if they have not agreed to be bound by the
obligations of the “original” treaty.
Consequently, a natural question is if it is worthwhile for the objecting states to
keep objecting to reservations they assess to be inadmissible. Are there any
differences in the legal consequences between accepting and objecting to a
reservation made by another state party? According to many authors, the
distinction between acceptance and objection disappears as far as the legal
effects are concerned.
60
The same authors have even said that objections that
don’t preclude entry into force are an a-typical form of acceptance. Thus, it is
difficult, 
prima facie
, to see the difference, if any, between the legal effects of an
objection to and an acceptance of a reservation. In both cases the reciprocal
treaty relations between the two states concerned are modified “to the extent of
the reservation”.
61
When, as in most cases, the treaty remains in force between
the reserving and the objecting states, it can be argued, that “ultimately, the legal
effects of an objection to and an acceptance of a reservation are identical”.
62