State the Convention need not be applied uniformly either between the Federation and its component parts or among the latter. 4. Paragraph (c) is more or less of the same character as Article 33 Article 38 Reservations 1. At the time of signature, ratification or accession, any State may make reservations to articles of the Convention other than to articles 1, 3, 4, 16 (1), 33 to 42, inclusive. 2. Any State making a reservation in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article may at any time withdraw the reservation by a communication to that effect addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 1. There was quite a considerable discussion in the Conference regarding this article. The main opposition came regarding the provision (as contained in the Refugee Convention) to permit 242 no reservations to Article 1. However, it was pointed out that the reason for not permitting reservations to the basic provisions of the Convention (including Article 1) was not to permit the essence to be undermined: if Contracting States were permitted to express reservations to the essential articles they would, in effect, have freedom to veto the Convention. The Austrian proposal to exclude Article 1 from the articles which were not subject to reservations was rejected by a vote of 13 to 3, with 1 abstention. This article was adopted on first reading by 19 votes to 243 none, with 1 abstention. 2. Following the recent United Nations practice, Article 38 divides the articles of the Convention into such parts to which reservations by States are permissible and such which have to be accepted as they stand or no adherence to the Convention by the State may take place at all. This is the result of the contention that several of the provisions of the Convention are so fundamental that, if they are not accepted by a state, the Convention could not fulfil its 244 purpose. The number of substantive provisions to which no reservations are permissible is small. They comprise only the definition of the term “stateless person”, the non-discrimination clause, freedom of religion, and access to courts. The rest of the “blocked” provisions concern procedure, the settlement of disputes, territorial application, etc. Despite the wording of Article 38 reservations to the “blocked” provisions would seem to be possible, viz., if all parties to the Convention should agree, because there is nothing in a convention (even the question of what is indispensable therein) which could not be amended with the consent of all parties involved. The question, however, will arise as to who “all parties” are: those which - at the given time - have become a Contracting State in accordance with Article 39; the Contracting States plus the potential parties, i.e., those which have signed it at that time, or all states which drafted the text. It would seem that states which participated in drafting the text but themselves neither adhered to it nor showed any serious intention of doing so, by official signature, could not prescribe to others what they ought or ought not to accept. As a matter of law, participation in drafting does not mean anything; on the other hand, signature signifies the existence of an agreedupon text. Therefore, agreement on the text exists only among the states which have provincial governments might apply the provisions for a shorter time than the period to which the Federal Government agreed. The point of view of the Israel representative was that there could be no two systems of reservations: one for unitary and another for Federal States; this view seems to have commanded general approval in the Conference. (For the discussion, see SR.30, pp. 23 ff.) 242 See in particular the statement by the Israel representative. 243 For the discussion see SR.12, pp. 11-15 and SR.14, p. 12. 244 See above.