Legal Consequences of Invalid Reservations to Human Rights Treaties

Abstract

Traditionally, if a state party objects upon consideration of a reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty, and expresses clear intention to preclude the applicability of the treaty, the said treaty will not be entered into force between the reserving and objecting state. Otherwise, when the state objecting to a reservation does not oppose the entry into force of the treaty, the provisions to which the reservation relates do not apply between reserving and objecting state. The inapplicability slowly restricts the scope of the treaties, impeding the progressive development of human rights. Consequently, this seminar paper attempts to assess the effect of reservation which has been objected upon incompatibility with the object and purpose of the treaties [hereinafter invalid reservation]. Initially, the paper determines when and how a reservation is considered to be invalid. In pursuance of this query, the writer analyses the issue from different perspectives. The primary concern is whether state objections determine the invalidity of the reservation, or a reservation can be invalidated independently of state objection. Then the paper proceeds to determine the threshold of the object and purpose test the non-fulfillment of which may invalidate a reservation. Finally, this paper justifies the consequences of invalid reservation taking into consideration of the contemporary jurisprudence of human rights organs and concludes that human rights treaties require to be applicable to all irrespective of reserving and objecting states.