The draft guideline read

The draft guideline read

The draft guideline read

See also draft guideline 1.1.2.

See also draft guideline 1.1.1.

It was even suggested that the draft guideline should be combined with draft guideline 3.1.7, given their similarity.

They should be dealt with in a separate draft guideline.

In that context, it might be useful to link draft guideline 3.1.11 with draft guideline 3.1.7 on vague, general reservations.

That was spelled out in draft guideline 3.1.11.

That was the sense of draft guideline 3.1.9.

(23), of the commentary on draft guideline 2.3.1.

(2) of the commentary on draft guideline 2.3.1.

Several members stressed the usefulness of draft guideline 3.1.8.

Draft guideline 3.1.11 needed to be worded more precisely.

Draft guideline 3.1.6 could be merged with draft guideline 3.1.5, or might be considered superfluous, as the discussions in the Commission had seemed to indicate.

Draft guideline 3.1.13 sought to reconcile the two apparently contrasting views.

In draft guideline 3.1.1, the chapeau and the first line immediately following it were a tautology.

His Government therefore sought further clarification as to the distinction between specified reservations , mentioned in draft guideline 3.1.2, and non specified reservations authorized by the treaty , mentioned in draft guideline 3.1.4.

He also thought that the wording of draft guideline 3.1.1 could be improved.

Draft guideline 3.1.5 attempted to define the elusive concept of object and purpose .

As suggested in draft guideline 2.6.1, it might appear useful to include in the Guide to Practice a guideline establishing that it did not matter how an objection was phrased or named.

In addition, the method he had proposed in draft guideline 3.1.15 for determining that object and purpose was a good one.

Draft guideline 2.6.2 on objections to the late formulation or widening of the scope of a reservation also required further analysis.

Draft guideline 3.1.5 seemed to stress the letter of the treaty to the detriment of its spirit.

Moreover, there was a third category of reactions to reservations covered by the definition contained in draft guideline 2.6.1, which consisted of a declaration by one party to a treaty stating that it had doubts regarding the admissibility (or validity) of a reservation owing to the lack of clarity of the reservation, a problem addressed in draft guideline 3.1.7.

He himself was not satisfied with his proposed text for draft guideline 3.1.5 however, he felt that it was a good start.

Draft guideline 3.1.8 sought to enunciate the fundamental principles deriving from case law and practice in that regard.

With regard to draft guideline 3.1, it was noted that the title did not accurately reflect its content.

Several key provisions of draft guideline 3.1.12 were said to relate also to the exercise of protected rights.

Draft guideline 3.1.13 was said to be more restrictive than article 19, subparagraph (c), of the Vienna Convention.

The three cases of prohibitions were covered by article 19, subparagraph (a), and that was exactly what was stated in draft guideline 3.1.1.

With regard to draft guideline 3.1.9, the view was expressed that there might be cases in which a reservation to a provision setting forth a rule of jus cogens was possible and not necessarily incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty for reasons identical to those put forward in the case of customary rules (draft guideline 3.1.8).

guideline daily amount

While draft guideline 3.1.5 represented an attempt at clarification, the term raison d'être in the text provided little clarification.

With regard to draft guideline 3.1, his delegation agreed with the first sentence of paragraph 400 of the Commission's report.

Draft guideline 3.1.1, which spelled out categories of prohibited reservations, was inconsistent with draft guidelines 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 in that it did not refer to implicit prohibition.

See draft guideline 1.2 and the commentary thereon in Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty fourth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A 54 10) (in particular, paras. (14) and (15)), pp. 232 235, and the examples of renaming (ibid., and in the commentary on draft guideline 1.3.2, Phrasing and name , ibid., pp. 266 274).

Guideline 1 National framework

Commentary on Guideline 1

Commentary on Guideline 2

Commentary on Guideline 8

Commentary on Guideline 9

Commentary on Guideline 10

Commentary on Guideline 11

Guideline 12 International cooperation