Summaries of Judgments, ANot an official documenters of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
RESERVATIONS TO THECONVENTION ON THEPREVENTION
ANDPUNISHMENT OFTHECRIME OFGENOCIDE
AdvisoryOpinionof 28May1951
The question concerning reservatito the Convention whatis rheeffectof the reservationas between
onthePreventionandPunishmentoftheCrimeofGenocide the reservingStateand:
hadbeenreferredforanadvisory opinion to Courtbythe (a) The parties which object to the reserva-
GeneralAssemblyoftheUnitedNations (G..Aresolutionof tion?
November16,1950)inthefollowingterms: (b) Thosewhichacceptit?
"In sofarasconcernstheConventiononthePrevention "111. What would be the legal effect as regards the
andPunishmentoftheCrimeofGenocideintheeventofa answertoquestionI if anobjectiontoareserva-
Stateratifyingor accedingto the Conventionsubjectto a tionismade:
onsignaturefollowedbyratification:noraccession,or (a) Bya signatorywhich has not yertatified?
(b) which has notyet doneso?"nor accede but
"I. Canthe reserving Statebe regardedas beinga
party tothe Convention whiletillmaintaining Writtenstatementson the matter were submitted tothe
itsreservationifthereservation is objeoyed tCourtbythefollowir~StatesandOrganizations:
notbyothers?hepartiestothe 1Conventionut The Organizationof AmericanStates, the Unionof Soviet
SocialistRepublics,heHashemiteKingdomof Jordan, the
"11. If theanswertoquestionI isinthe affirmative,UnitedStatesofAmerica,theUnitedKingdomofGreat Brit-
Continued on nextpageain and Northern Ireland, the Secretary-Cieneralof the stancesamongwhichmaybenoted the universac lharacterof
UnitedNations, Israel, thehmternationaLl abourOrganisa- the United Nations underwhose auspicesthe Convention
RepublicofRomania, theUluainianSovietStxialistRepub-e's whichthe Convention itself hasenvisaged. Thisparticipa-
lic, the People'sRepublic d Bulgaria, the Byelorussian tion in conventionsof this type has already givenrise to
SovietSocialistRepublic,the 'RepublicfthePhilippines. greaterflexibilityinpractice.Moregeneralresortsto reser-
vations,VerygreatallowancemadetotacitassenttoEServa-
In addition, the Court he;lrdoral statemc:ntssubmitted tions, theadmissionoftheStatewhichhasmadethereserva-
onbehalfoftheSaetary-Gelleral oftheUnit,edNationsand tion as a party to the Conventionin relatiolnto the States
of the Governmentsof Isral:l, the United Kingdom and which haveacceptedit,allthesefactorsaremanifestationosf
France. anewneedforflexibilityintheoperationofmultilateralcon-
votesto theCourt thefollowingansvvertsothe ventions. Moreover, the ConventioonnGenocide,although
questionsreferred to: adopted unanimouslyi,sneverthelessthe resultofa seriesof
OnQuestionI: majority votes-which may make it necessaryfor certain
a State which has madeiandmaintaineda reservation Statestomakereservations.
whichhasbeenObjectedtoby One Ormore of thepartiesto
theConventionbut by can beregarded asbeing a Intheabsenceofanarticleinthe Conventionproviding for
partytotheConventionifthe reservationiscompatiblewith reservations,one cannot infer thattheyareprohibited.Inthe
the Objectand pupse the Convention;t,therwise*that minethe possibilityofrovisionresewationsas wellas their-
Statecannot beregard* asbeing aparty theConvention. effects, one must consider their character, their purpose,
OnQuestion11: theirprovisions,theirmodeofpreparationandadoption.The
(a) if a party to theConv~sntionbjectsto a reservation preparationof the Conventionon Genocideshowsthat an
whichitconsidersto beincompatiblewiththeobjectandpur- undertakingwasreached withintheGeneralAssembo lnthe
poseoftheConvention,itcaninfactconsider lthattheresew- facultyto makereservationsandthatit is permitted tocon-
ingStateisnotapartytotheConvention; cludetherefromthatStates,becomingpartiesto theConven-
tion,gavetheirassentthereto.
beingcompatiblewiththeanobjectand purposeoftheConven-nas
tion, itcaninfact considerthatthe reserving:Stateis aparty What is the characterof the reservationswhich may be
totheConvention; madeand theobjectionswhichmaybe raisedthereto? The
solutionmustbe foundin the special characteristicsof the
OnQuestion111: Convention on Genocide. The principlesunderlying the
(a) an objectionto a reservationmade l,y a signatory States even without any conventionalobligation. It was
state whichhasnotyetratifietjtheConvention havethe intendedthattheConventionwouldbeuniversalinscope.Its
legaleffectindicatedinthererdlyto~~~~~i~~Ionlyuponrat-
ification.Untilthatmomentit merelyservesasanoticetothe ing Statesdo not have any individual advantagesordisad-
otherStateoftheeventualattitudeofthesigna.toryState; vantages norinterestsof theirown, but inerelya common
(b) an toaresewationmade a which js interest.Thisleadstotheconclusionthattheobjectandpur-
entitledto signor accedebut whichhas not yet done so IS poseof theConventionimplythatit wastheintentionofthe
without legaleffect. GeneralAssembly andoftheStateswhichadoptedit, thatas
'ho dissenting opinionsWereappendedtcbthe Opinion: many States as possible should participate. This purpose
one by Vice-PresidentGuerrero and Judges Sir Arnold would & defeated if an objectionto a minor reservation
McNair,Read andHsuMo, theotherbyJudgeAlvarez. shouldproducecomplete exclusionfromtheConvention.On
the other hand, the contracting partiescould not have
r(: intendedto sacrifice the veryobject of the Conventionin
* * favour of a vague desire to secure as many participantsas
possible.It followsthat the compatibiliof the reservation
andtheobject andthe purposeofthe Convention isthecriter-
InitsOpinion,theCourt beginsbyrefutingthearguments iontodeterminetheattitudeoftheStatewhichmakestheres-
putforwardbycertainGoverrtmentsagainstitscolnpetence ervationandoftheStatewhichobjects.Consequently,ques-
toexercise itsadvisoryfunctionsin the presentcase. The tionI, onaccountofits abstractcharacter,nrrotbe givenan
Courtthendealtwiththequestionsreferredtoit, after having absoluteanswer. The appraisaolfareservation1ndtheeffect
notedthatthey wereexpresslylimitedto the Conventionon ofobjectionsdependuponthecircumstancesdeach individ-
Genocide andwerepurelyabstractincharacter. ualcase.
ThefirstquestionreferstowhetheraStatewhichhasmade The Court then examinedquestion I1 by which it was
areservationcan,whilemaintainingit,beregarded ;asaparty requested tosay whatwas the effect of a reservation as
tothe Conventionon Genocitle,whensomeof the parties between thereservingStateand thepartieswhichobjectto it
objecttothereservation. Initstreatyrelations,aStatecannot and thosr!whichacceptit. The sameconsiderationsapply.
be boundwithoutits consent.A reservationcanbe effected No Statecan be boundby a reservation towhichit has not
onlywithitsagreement.Ontht:otherhand,itisarecognised consenteti,andtherefore eachState,ontheba.sisof its indi-
principlethata multilateralCt~nventionis the result of an vidualappraisalsof thereservations,withinthelimitsofthe
agreementfreelyconcluded.Tothisprinciple waslinked the criterionof theobjectandpurpose statedabove,willor will
notionof integrityof the Conventionas adopted,a notion notconsiderthe reservingStatetobe aparty to the Conven-
which, in its traditional concept,involvedhe proposition tion. Intheordinarycourseofevents,assentwillonlyaffect
that no reservationwas valid unlessit wasacceptedby all therelationshipbetweenthe twoStates. Itmightaim. how-
contractingparties. Thisconceptretainsndisputedv.alueas ever,atthecompleteexclusionfromthe Convention inacase
a principle, but as regards the GenocideConvention,its whereit wasexpressedbythe adoptionof a positionon the
applicationis made moreflexibleby a varietyof circum- jurisdictionalplane:certainpartiesmightconsidertheassent
19as incompatible with the purpoof the Convention,and effectofanobjectiomadebyaStateentitledtosignandrat-
mightwishtosettlethedisputeeitherbyec:ilgreementor ify but whichhad nlotyet doneso, orby a Statewhichhas
b- -evrocedurelaiddown intheConventionitself. signedbuthasnot yetratifiIntheformercase,itwouldbe
The disadvantageswhichresult fromthispossiblediver- inconceivable tha;aState possessingno rights under the
genceof viewsarereal.Theycouldhavehen remedied conventioncouldexicludeanothestaten.e caseofthesig-
anarticleonreservations.Theyare thecommon stepsnecessaryfortheexerciseoftherightofbeingaparty.n
dutyoftheconatin$ Statesto beguidedilltheirjudgment Thisprovisionalsmus uponthema rightto formu-
by the compatibilityor incompatibilofythe lateasaprecautionarymeasureobjectionswhichhavethem-
with tbeassumedthattherpose of thStatearedesirousofst selvesa provisionalcharacter.If signatureis followedby
preservingintactatleastwhatisessentialto theobjectoftheatification,theobjectionbecomesfinal.Otherwise,itdisap-
Convention. *, o:bjectiondoenot hiveanimmediak
legaleffectbutexprc:ssesand proclaimsthe attitudeof each
The Courtfinally turnedto question11concerningthe signatoryStateonbecomingaparty.
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951