But it was also suggested that the word permissibility implied that an organ superior to States decided what was or was not compatible with the treaty.

We were specially concerned that paragraph 2 of article 4 could be interpreted as implying that it was permissible in certain cases for States to attack or subvert the nuclear facilities or installations of another State.

Since other parties to a treaty were entitled to judge whether a reservation was in conformity with the object and purpose of the treaty in question, the word “admissibility” would correctly reflect the situation of supervision or monitoring between equal sovereign States, whereas the word “permissibility” implied that an organ superior to States decided what was or was not compatible.

However, the view was expressed that the term “permissibility” implied the existence of an organ empowered to rule on the compatibility of a reservation with the treaty. It was also said that the term “validity” might prejudge the legal effects of a reservation. Furthermore, the expression “invalid reservation” was viewed as potentially confusing because it implied that the reservation was formulated by an unauthorized representative of the State in question.

This implies that it is permissible to take measures such as criminalizing preparatory acts of terror planned by groups, which in turn implies the need to take measures that interfere with the freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of association.

In the first place, that the term “permissible” (“licite”) implied that the formulation of reservations contrary to the provisions of article 19 of the Vienna Conventions would engage the responsibility of the reserving State or international organization, which was certainly not the case; and In the second place, that the term “permissible” used in the English text of the draft guidelines adopted to date and their commentaries implied that it was exclusively a question of permissibility and not of opposability, which had the disadvantage of unprofitably prejudging the doctrinal dispute discussed above.