The GA asked the following:
In the case of Genocide convention
I. Can a reserving state be regarded as party to the convention, if the reservation is objected by some parties but not by others?
II. What is the effect of reservation between the reserving State
a) parties that object
b) those which accepted
III. legal effect of objection to reservation by
a) signatory not yet ratified
b) state entitled to sign or accede but not yet done
(10) It is well established that in its treaty relations a State cannot be bound without its consent, and that consequently no reservation can be effective against any State without its agreement thereto. It is also a generally recognized principle that a multilateral convention is the result of an agreement freely concluded upon its clauses and that consequently none of the contracting parties is entitled to frustrate or impair, by means of unilateral decisions or particular agreements, the purpose and raison d'être of the convention. To this principle was linked the notion of the integrity of the convention as adopted, a notion which in its traditional concept involved the proposition that no reservation was valid unless it was accepted by al1 the contracting parties without exception, as would have been the case if it had been stated during the negotiations.
(10) This concept, which is directly inspired by the notion of contract, is of undisputed value as a principle. However, as regards the Genocide Convention, it is proper to refer to a variety of circumstances which would lead to a more flexible application of this principle.
(11) It must also be pointed out that although the Genocide Convention was finally approved unanimously, it is nevertheless the result of a series of majority votes. The majority principle, while facilitating the conclusion of multilateral conventions, may also make it necessary for certain States to make reservations. This observation is confirmed by the great number of reservations which have been made of recent years to multilateral conventions.