对联合国人权条约的保留:主权国家试图逃避其义务?

Q4 Social Sciences
Aistė Augustauskaitė-Keršienė
{"title":"对联合国人权条约的保留:主权国家试图逃避其义务?","authors":"Aistė Augustauskaitė-Keršienė","doi":"10.13165/j.icj.2020.12.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores specific reservations that are being declared to international treaties intended to protect human rights, and also whether the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is sufficient to ensure such rights. The author considers if reservations declared by a state(s) are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty, and what consequences might follow if such a declaration(s) is made. To this end, the article investigates the practice of states that are party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Social and Economic Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the United Nations Convention against torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. These treaties were selected because they lay down significant principles for the protection of specific human rights, and also because they are frequently challenged through reservations which seek to alter fundamental provisions. On a theoretical level the regulation of reservations does not appear to be problematic, however on closer examination various reservations point to the inadequacy of current regulation in the 1969 Vienna Convention in terms of the protection of human rights. Accordingly, this article considers a major group of states that seek to become parties to treaties pertaining to human rights, but then make reservations with the intention of diluting fundamental provisions. Specifically, this applies to Islamic countries whose reservations claim incompatibility with Islamic law and by reference to their own cultural diversity. By objecting to the reservations, state parties must decide whether or not their reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. According to provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty may prohibit reservations for some or all of the treaty’s provisions, which complicates the position of state parties. Indeed, the withdrawal of reservations can be considered more problematic after analysis of practical cases of various states than it is shown in theory. The author’s analysis is intended to ascertain whether or not the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties regime is suitable for the process of making reservations to the human rights treaties, and how the applicable regulation could be improved and thereby offer possible solutions to the problems outlined above.","PeriodicalId":32140,"journal":{"name":"International Comparative Jurisprudence","volume":"6 1","pages":"118-133"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"RESERVATIONS TO UN HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES: SOVEREIGN STATES SEEKING TO AVOID THEIR OBLIGATIONS?\",\"authors\":\"Aistė Augustauskaitė-Keršienė\",\"doi\":\"10.13165/j.icj.2020.12.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explores specific reservations that are being declared to international treaties intended to protect human rights, and also whether the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is sufficient to ensure such rights. The author considers if reservations declared by a state(s) are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty, and what consequences might follow if such a declaration(s) is made. To this end, the article investigates the practice of states that are party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Social and Economic Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the United Nations Convention against torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. These treaties were selected because they lay down significant principles for the protection of specific human rights, and also because they are frequently challenged through reservations which seek to alter fundamental provisions. On a theoretical level the regulation of reservations does not appear to be problematic, however on closer examination various reservations point to the inadequacy of current regulation in the 1969 Vienna Convention in terms of the protection of human rights. Accordingly, this article considers a major group of states that seek to become parties to treaties pertaining to human rights, but then make reservations with the intention of diluting fundamental provisions. Specifically, this applies to Islamic countries whose reservations claim incompatibility with Islamic law and by reference to their own cultural diversity. By objecting to the reservations, state parties must decide whether or not their reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. According to provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty may prohibit reservations for some or all of the treaty’s provisions, which complicates the position of state parties. Indeed, the withdrawal of reservations can be considered more problematic after analysis of practical cases of various states than it is shown in theory. The author’s analysis is intended to ascertain whether or not the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties regime is suitable for the process of making reservations to the human rights treaties, and how the applicable regulation could be improved and thereby offer possible solutions to the problems outlined above.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Comparative Jurisprudence\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"118-133\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Comparative Jurisprudence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13165/j.icj.2020.12.002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Comparative Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13165/j.icj.2020.12.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本条探讨了对旨在保护人权的国际条约所宣布的具体保留,以及1969年《维也纳条约法公约》是否足以确保这些权利。提交人考虑了一国声明的保留是否与条约的目的和宗旨不符,以及如果做出这种声明可能会产生什么后果。为此目的,本条调查了《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》、《社会和经济权利国际盟约》、《联合国残疾人权利公约》和《联合国禁止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇公约》缔约国的做法。之所以选择这些条约,是因为它们为保护特定人权规定了重要原则,也因为它们经常因试图改变基本条款的保留而受到质疑。从理论上讲,对保留的规定似乎没有问题,但经过仔细审查,各种保留表明1969年《维也纳公约》在保护人权方面的现行规定不足。因此,本条考虑了一个主要的国家群体,这些国家寻求成为与人权有关的条约的缔约国,但随后提出保留,意图淡化基本条款。具体而言,这适用于那些声称保留意见不符合伊斯兰法律并提及其自身文化多样性的伊斯兰国家。缔约国必须通过反对保留来决定其保留是否符合条约的目的和宗旨。根据1969年《维也纳条约法公约》的规定,条约可能禁止对条约的部分或全部条款提出保留,这使缔约国的立场复杂化。事实上,在分析了各国的实际情况后,撤回保留可能会被认为比理论上显示的问题更大。提交人的分析旨在确定1969年《维也纳条约法公约》制度是否适合对人权条约提出保留的过程,以及如何改进适用的条例,从而为上述问题提供可能的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
RESERVATIONS TO UN HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES: SOVEREIGN STATES SEEKING TO AVOID THEIR OBLIGATIONS?
This article explores specific reservations that are being declared to international treaties intended to protect human rights, and also whether the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is sufficient to ensure such rights. The author considers if reservations declared by a state(s) are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty, and what consequences might follow if such a declaration(s) is made. To this end, the article investigates the practice of states that are party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Social and Economic Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the United Nations Convention against torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. These treaties were selected because they lay down significant principles for the protection of specific human rights, and also because they are frequently challenged through reservations which seek to alter fundamental provisions. On a theoretical level the regulation of reservations does not appear to be problematic, however on closer examination various reservations point to the inadequacy of current regulation in the 1969 Vienna Convention in terms of the protection of human rights. Accordingly, this article considers a major group of states that seek to become parties to treaties pertaining to human rights, but then make reservations with the intention of diluting fundamental provisions. Specifically, this applies to Islamic countries whose reservations claim incompatibility with Islamic law and by reference to their own cultural diversity. By objecting to the reservations, state parties must decide whether or not their reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. According to provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty may prohibit reservations for some or all of the treaty’s provisions, which complicates the position of state parties. Indeed, the withdrawal of reservations can be considered more problematic after analysis of practical cases of various states than it is shown in theory. The author’s analysis is intended to ascertain whether or not the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties regime is suitable for the process of making reservations to the human rights treaties, and how the applicable regulation could be improved and thereby offer possible solutions to the problems outlined above.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信