Примеры использования Reservation was invalid на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The negative presumption was that a contracting State would not become a party if the reservation was invalid.
Subsequently, in the light of the Committee's majority decision that such a reservation was invalid, the Government had decided to denounce the Optional Protocol as a whole.
If some contracting parties chose to accept and others to object to a reservation, it was difficult to conclude that the reservation was invalid from the outset.
The European Court of Human Rights took the view that if a reservation was invalid, the State remained a party to the treaty without the benefit of the reservation. .
It was unlikely that another State would ask the depositary to bring attention to the fact that a reservation was invalid, but not object to it.
It meant that, where a reservation was invalid under article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention, it was automatically null and void even if there had been no objections by other States.
It nonetheless recommended that a State orinternational organization which considered that the reservation was invalid should formulate a reasoned objection as soon as possible.
Having concluded that Switzerland's reservation was invalid, particularly in relation to the conditions set out in article 64 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms(European Convention on Human Rights), the Court added.
If some contracting parties chose to accept and others to object to a reservation, it was difficult to conclude that the reservation was invalid from the outset.
While the Commission did not go so far as to state that such a reservation was invalid, it took a reservation's incompatibility with a treaty provision that reflected customary law into account in assessing its admissibility, thereby suggesting that the reservation might be considered inadmissible.
Furthermore, States that have objected to particular reservations to human rights treaties have never suggested that the reservation was invalid unless accepted by all the other Parties.
Paragraph 4 recommended that if a treaty monitoring body expressed the view that a reservation was invalid and the author of the reservation intended not to be bound by the treaty without the benefit of the reservation, it should express its intention within a period of twelve months from the date on which the treaty monitoring body made its assessment.
While States should have the right to express their intention not to be bound by a treaty without the benefit of a reservation that was compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty,they should not have that right if the reservation was invalid.
In the latter, however, the phrase"does not meet the conditions of formal validity andpermissibility" suggested that a reservation was invalid only if it did not meet the conditions of both formal validity and permissibility.
They did not, however, agree with the content of guideline 4.5.3, particularly the provision that a State that had made an invalid reservation could express at any time its intention not to be bound by the treaty without the benefit of the reservation andthat such an intention might also be expressed if a treaty body concluded that a reservation was invalid.
Section 4.5(Consequences of an invalid reservation) raised the question as to whether the reserving State would become a party to the treaty if its reservation was invalid, especially since the Vienna Conventions did not address the issue explicitly.
With regard to draft guideline 3.3.1, he was convinced that an invalid reservation did not violate the treaty to which it referred anddid not engage the responsibility of its author; if the reservation was invalid, it was null and void.
States had the sovereign right freely to enter into treaties andto make reservations that were consistent with them; if a reservation was invalid, however, and that invalidity had been brought to the State's attention, then it could not rely upon the reservation in its conduct.
With regard to guideline 3.3.3(Absence of effect of individual acceptance of a reservation on the permissibility of the reservation), his delegation was of the view that an impermissible reservation was invalid and therefore null and void.
It agreed with the Commission that the key to the problem was the will of the author of the reservation: whether its intention was to be bound by the treaty even if its reservation was invalid-- without benefit of the reservation-- or whether it considered its reservation a sine qua non for its commitment to be bound by the treaty.
The reservation is invalid without the confirmation sent by the hotel.
The authors conclude that the reservation being invalid, the Committee is not precluded from examining their claim under article 26.
The paper also considers the problems in determining whether a reservation is invalid and the consequences of such a determination.
The"Strasbourg approach" thus consists of acting on the reserving State's will to be bound by the treaty even if its reservation is invalid.
The text of the reservation itself may well contain elements that provide information about its author's intention in the event that the reservation is invalid.
Although such reservations were invalid under international law, thus requiring no objection, experience showed that hardly any State refrained from an objection on those grounds.
It follows that if we had accepted the Committee's view that the reservation is invalid we would have had to hold that Trinidad and Tobago is not a party to the Optional Protocol.
For these reasons, we propose to the Commission that it consider the feasibility of refining the definition in draft guideline 2.6.1 so that it expressly includes both types of objections,perhaps by adding to it the phrase"or whereby the objecting State or international organization expresses its view that the reservation is invalid and without legal effect.
If a treaty monitoring body expresses the view that a reservation is invalid and the reserving State or international organization intends not to be bound by the treaty without the benefit of the reservation, it should express its intention to that effect within a period of twelve months from the date at which the treaty monitoring body made its assessment.
Second, and more importantly, if a subsequent agreement can be made among the parties through a tacit acceptance of the invalid reservation in order to"deem" the reservation permissible,it appears as though this should be true regardless of whether the depositary had separately circulated a second notice at the request of a contracting State indicating that the reservation is invalid.