Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

On the Meaning of the ’Object and Purpose’ Criterion, in the Context of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 19

Linderfalk, Ulf LU (2003) In Nordic Journal of International Law 72. p.429-440
Abstract
According to the provisions laid down in Article 19 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties a state that consents to be bound by a treaty may not formulate such reservations to the agreement, which are incompatible with its object and purpose. This socalled 'object and purpose criterion' has long been puzzling actors of public international law. What does it mean for a reservation to be incompatible with 'the object and purpose' of a treaty? The answer suggested below is the following: a state may not formulate a reservation, if it means (i) that an application of the treaty as modified would run counter to a telos of the treaty; or (ii) that a remaining part of the treaty would be emptied of practical meaning.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Human rights, Mänskliga rättigheter
in
Nordic Journal of International Law
volume
72
pages
429 - 440
publisher
Brill
ISSN
0902-7351
DOI
10.1163/157181003772759476
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
9935fcb3-84b6-4f2c-a79a-2d1343c7636d (old id 929662)
date added to LUP
2016-04-04 14:17:24
date last changed
2021-12-02 10:34:36
@article{9935fcb3-84b6-4f2c-a79a-2d1343c7636d,
  abstract     = {According to the provisions laid down in Article 19 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties a state that consents to be bound by a treaty may not formulate such reservations to the agreement, which are incompatible with its object and purpose. This socalled 'object and purpose criterion' has long been puzzling actors of public international law. What does it mean for a reservation to be incompatible with 'the object and purpose' of a treaty? The answer suggested below is the following: a state may not formulate a reservation, if it means (i) that an application of the treaty as modified would run counter to a telos of the treaty; or (ii) that a remaining part of the treaty would be emptied of practical meaning.},
  author       = {Linderfalk, Ulf},
  issn         = {0902-7351},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {429--440},
  publisher    = {Brill},
  series       = {Nordic Journal of International Law},
  title        = {On the Meaning of the ’Object and Purpose’ Criterion, in the Context of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 19},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181003772759476},
  doi          = {10.1163/157181003772759476},
  volume       = {72},
  year         = {2003},
}