5cjxburmr

for the purposes of this requirement, although they may be characterized as “treaties” for thepurposes of international law and impose obligations upon the United States. 1171.7.2 Reservations to Treaties. A State may limit the application of provisions of a treatyby reservation upon ratification of the treaty as long as the treaty does not prohibit suchreservations and the reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. 118 Forexample, the United States has taken a reservation to certain provisions of CCW Protocol III onIncendiary Weapons. 119 On the other hand, for example, the Chemical Weapons Conventionexpressly prohibits reservations to the Convention and prohibits reservations to the Convention’sAnnexes that are incompatible with its object and purpose. 1201.7.3 Withdrawal From Treaties. Under certain circumstances, States may withdrawfrom treaties. 121 Some law of war and arms control treaties specify the conditions under whichParties may withdraw from them. 122 Even upon denunciation of a treaty, States remain bound bycustomary international law, including law of war principles. 1231.7.4 Use of Certain Subsequent Practice in Treaty Interpretation. Certain subsequentState practice in the application of a treaty provision may be taken into account wheninterpreting that provision. 124 Subsequent State practice is important as an element of117 See, e.g., Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 29-30 (1982) (“The word ‘treaty’ has more than one meaning.Under principles of international law, the word ordinarily refers to an international agreement concluded betweensovereigns, regardless of the manner in which the agreement is brought into force. Under the United StatesConstitution, of course, the word ‘treaty’ has a far more restrictive meaning. Article II, §2, cl. 2, of that instrumentprovides that the President ‘shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.’”) (internal citation omitted).118 Consider VCLT art. 19 (“A State may, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty,formulate a reservation unless: (a) the reservation is prohibited by the treaty; (b) the treaty provides that onlyspecified reservations, which do not include the reservation in question, may be made; or (c) in cases not failingunder subparagraphs (a) and (b), the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.”). Seealso William P. Rogers, Letter of Submittal, Oct. 18, 1971, MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT TRANSMITTING THEVCLT 2 (“Part 2 of Section II sets forth the rules on reservations to treaties (Articles 19-23). The articles reflectflexible current treaty practice with regard to multilateral treaties as generally followed since World War II. Theearlier traditional rule on reservations had been that in order for a State to become party to a multilateral treaty witha reservation the unanimous consent of the other parties was required. That rule has given way in practice to a moreflexible approach particularly after the International Court of Justice in 1951 handed down its Advisory Opinion onReservations to the Genocide Convention.”).119 Refer to § 6.14.3.2 (U.S. Reservation to CCW Protocol III on Incendiary Weapons).120 Refer to § 19.22 (Chemical Weapons Convention).121 Consider VCLT art. 54 (“The termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place: (a) inconformity with the provisions of the treaty; or (b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation withthe other contracting States.”).122 See, e.g., CCW art. 9(1) (“Any High Contracting Party may denounce this Convention or any of its annexedProtocols by so notifying the Depositary.”); GWS art. 63 (“Each of the High Contracting Parties shall be at liberty todenounce the present Convention.”).123 Refer to § 19.8.3 (Martens Clause).124 Consider VCLT art. 31(3) (“There shall be taken into account, together with the context: (b) Any subsequentpractice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;”).See also I RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES 199 (§325(2)) (1987) (“Any28