@article{Burek2022,
  author    = {Burek, Wojciech},
  title     = {Reservations to the Istanbul Convention and the role of GREVIO: A call for new approach},
  series = {Human rights law review},
  volume    = {22},
  journal   = {Human rights law review},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {1461-7781},
  doi       = {10.1093/hrlr/ngac030},
  pages     = {1 -- 18},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {The question of whether the monitoring bodies have competence concerning reservations is at the centre of the discussion of reservations to human rights treaties that has occupied many international legal scholars over the last few decades. The Istanbul Convention's treaty monitoring body, GREVIO, is the only human rights treaty monitoring body with a direct competence concerning reservations. However, as practice to date shows, it does not make much use of this power. This is a big disappointment considering all the efforts of other bodies in the past and the doctrinal positions of various scholars. The main aims of this article are threefold to: present GREVIO's practice to date concerning reservations, provide a brief historical overview of how other human rights treaty bodies have approached their role concerning reservations, and finally, attempt to explain why GREVIO has abandoned a more proactive position on reservations.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Burek2023,
  author    = {Burek, Wojciech},
  title     = {Treaty flexibility unilaterally boosted},
  series = {Netherlands quarterly of human rights},
  volume    = {41},
  journal   = {Netherlands quarterly of human rights},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Sage Publications Ltd},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0924-0519},
  doi       = {10.1177/09240519231151950},
  pages     = {35 -- 52},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Thus far, research into reservations to treaties has often overlooked reservations formulated to both European Social Charters (and its Protocols) and the relevant European Committee of Social Rights practices. There are several pressing reasons to further explore this gap in existing literature. First, an analysis of practices within the European Social Charters (and Protocols) will provide a fuller picture of the reservations and responses of treaty bodies. Second, in the context of previous landmark events it is worth noting the practices of another human rights treaty monitoring body that is often omitted from analyses. Third, the very fact that the formulation of reservations to treaties gives parties such far-reaching flexibility to shape their contractual obligations ({\`a} la carte) is surprising. An important outcome of the research is the finding that, despite the far-reaching flexibility present in the treaties analysed, both the States Parties and the European Committee of Social Rights generally treat them as conventional treaties to which the general rules on reservations apply. Consequently, there is no basis for assuming that the mere fact of adopting the {\`a} la carte system in a treaty with no reservation clause implies a formal prohibition of reservations or otherwise discourages their formulation.},
  language  = {en}
}