THE CONFLICT OF LAW AND POLICY ON RESERVATIONS TO HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES
THE CONFLICT OF LAW AND POLICY ON RESERVATIONS TO HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES
复制标题
对人权条约的保留的法律和政策冲突
DOI:
10.1093/bybil/71.1.181
复制
发表时间:
2001
期刊:
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
Y. Tyagi
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Y. Tyagi
Normative treaties have overtaken customary rules as the main sources of international law in recent decades. This is true in a variety of fields, including human rights. Human rights treaties have contributed to the development of customary rules and general principles of international law. These treaties create obligations not only among parties but also between parties and individuals; they attract the application of special rules of succession; and their denunciation is regarded as, at least, a retrograde act. More important, these treaties have become a source of inspiration to many judges and lawyers in their interpretation of domestic legislation. Because of the intensity of the human rights movement, States may find it di‹ cult to justify their non-ratification of a human rights treaty. Some international organizations grant their membership only to those States which ratify certain human rights treaties. The ratification of a human rights treaty demonstrates the ratifying State’s adherence to civilized standards. As a result, a State’s credentials in international society depend in part at least on the acceptance of and compliance with its obligations under human rights treaties. On the other hand, State bureaucracies generally remain apprehensive of international accountability and maintain their customary caution as to the acceptance of treaty obligations. Determined to avoid isolation in human rights diplomacy, States resort to the practice of ratifying human rights treaties with reservations. 1 Such reservations give rise to a range of