- In considering the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on the Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, what do you think was the rationale for the "traditional" position on acceptance/objection with respect to reservations? What was the reasoning of the Court in articulating a new theory?
- How is that new rationale reflected in the VCLT?
- How should we understand the U.S. reservation to the Genocide Convention in light of this decision? What is the "object and purpose" of the Convention? How are we to assess whether the U.S. reservation defeats that object and purpose?
- Why should reservations to human rights treaties be treated differently from those to other kinds of multi-lateral treaty?
- Which do you think is the better argument on reservations to the ICCPR - the Human Rights Committee, or the U.S. government? Why? What would be the implications for the law of treaties of either argument?
We will also begin examining the fundamental issues of observance, application and interpretation. Be sure to review the relevant VCLT articles as you read the beginning of Section 4.
The extract from the case Bosnia Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, is being used here to illustrate several principles of interpretation. The notes following the case are particularly helpful in understanding what principles of interpretation were used and how they were employed in the case.
