▾

External sources (not reviewed)

When a newly independent State establishes its status as a party or as a contracting State to a multilateral treaty by a notification of succession, it shall be considered as maintaining any reservation to that treaty which was applicable at the date of the succession of States in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates unless, when making the notification of succession, it expresses a contrary intention or formulates a reservation which relates to the same subject matter as that reservation.

Subject to the provisions of guideline 5.1.3, a successor State which is a party to a treaty as the result of a uniting or separation of States shall be considered as maintaining any reservation to the treaty which was applicable at the date of the succession of States in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates, unless it expresses its intention not to maintain one or more reservations of the predecessor State at the time of the succession.

Such general authorizations do no more than refer to the general regime, of which the Vienna Conventions constitute the expression, and which is based on the fundamental principle that the parties to a treaty have the power to formulate reservations.

In view of the voluntary nature of succession in the cases contemplated by the present guideline, it is not until the successor State establishes its status as a contracting State or a party to a given treaty that it can be expected to inquire into all the reservations that have been formulated to the treaty and to examine them in order to decide whether or not it intends to object.

However, States Parties recognise that others may have the ability to assist in understanding challenges and in developing and monitoring the effectiveness and implementation of plans and programmes.

(b) If the States parties to the dispute fail to reach agreement within three months on all or part of the composition of the Commission, the members of the Commission not agreed upon by the States parties to the dispute [...] [...]

When making a notification of succession establishing its status as a party or as a contracting State to a multilateral treaty, a newly independent State may formulate a reservation unless the reservation is one the formulation of which would be excluded by the provisions of subparagraph (a), (b) or (c) of guideline 3.1 of the Guide to Practice.

As for the possibility that contracting States which are not parties to the armed conflict could resort to the procedure in draft article 8, paragraph 1, his reading of the debate was that such extension of the right in question would not be desirable.

When a successor State formed from a uniting or separation of States makes a notification whereby it establishes its status as a party or as a contracting State to a treaty which, at the date of the succession of States, was not in force for the predecessor State but to which the predecessor State was a contracting State, that State shall be considered as maintaining any reservation to the treaty which was applicable at the date of the succession of States in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates, unless it expresses a contrary intention when making the notification or formulates a reservation which relates to the same subject matter as that reservation.

When making a notification of succession establishing its status as a party or as a contracting State to a treaty, a newly independent State may, in the conditions laid down in the relevant guidelines of the Guide to Practice, object to reservations formulated by a contracting State or State party or by a contracting organization or international organization party to the treaty, even if the predecessor State made no such objection.

These States shall, within [...] [...]

The provision refers to the capacity “of a State party to that conflict” so as to indicate that there may be only one State party to the armed conflict, as in situations of non-international armed conflict.

established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.

[...] [...] instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty” within the meaning of paragraph 2 (b) of the same article.

Nevertheless, in view of the lack of recent information, including from EI and ETA, the Joint Committee considered it necessary to suspend any further consideration of the allegations until such time as one or more of the parties provided relevant information on recent developments.

It is clear that the expelling State is in the best position to assess the existence of a threat to its own security and public order.

A successor State other than a newly independent State shall also have the capacity provided for in paragraph 1 when making a notification establishing its status as a party or as a contracting State to a treaty which, at the date of the succession of States, was not in force for the predecessor State but in respect of which the predecessor State was a contracting State.

Subject to paragraphs 3 and 4, a newly independent State may, by a notification of succession, establish its status as a party to a multilateral treaty which enters into force after the date of the succession of States if at the date of the succession of States the predecessor State was a contracting State in respect of the territory to which that succession of States relates.

[...] [...] among all Member States, in particular [...]

In the case of an objection by a successor State to a prior reservation, the application of the time limit leads to the conclusion that the successor State has a period of 12 months from the date it has established by notification its status as a contracting State or a party to the treaty within which to formulate the objection.

A successor State which is a party to a treaty as the result of a uniting or separation of States may neither formulate a new reservation nor widen the scope of a reservation that is maintained.

Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the negotiating States have otherwise agreed, the provisional application of a treaty or a part of a treaty with respect to a State shall be terminated if that State notifies the other States between which the treaty is being applied provisionally of its intention not to become a party to the treaty.

Since in such cases the unified State became a party to the treaty as the successor to the predecessor State that had itself been a party, there was no reason to maintain the reservations formulated by the predecessor contracting State for which the treaty had not been in force on the date of the succession of States.

[...] [...] State or State authorities which organize, [...] [...]

In the same spirit, reservations that exclude the competence of such a body for acts or omissions that occurred before the entry into force of the relevant legal instrument or the acceptance of the institution’s competence should be interpreted so not to create an obstacle to hold a State responsible for an enforced disappearance that continues after this.

[...] [...] other State if or when the treaty is in [...] [...]

Cognizant that States that are parties to an [...] [...]

However, there are two differences between these two provisions: (i) whereas the Institute’s resolution is concerned only with the fate of treaties in force between the parties to the armed conflict, the Commission’s draft is intended to cover the effect of armed conflicts either between parties to the treaty that are also parties to the armed conflict, or between a single State party to the conflict and a “third” State, that is, a State party to the treaty which is not a party to the conflict; (ii) the Institute’s text uses the term “ipso facto”, whereas, in the Commission’s draft article 3, that term was replaced by “automatically” and, later, “necessarily”.

When making a notification of succession establishing its status as a contracting State or as a party to a treaty which, on the date of the succession of States, was not in force for the predecessor State but to which the predecessor State was a contracting party, a successor State other than a newly independent State shall be considered as maintaining any express acceptance by the predecessor State of a reservation formulated by a contracting State or by a contracting international organization unless it expresses a contrary intention within 12 months of the date of the notification of succession.