The UN often has multiple conventions on the same thing (example). Is there any reason they do this rather than amending a previous convention? e.g. maybe it is harder to make an amendment than a convention, maybe amendments have less power than conventions, tradition, etc.


After the initial round of negotiations, nations sign and ratify a convention one by one. They would have to sign and ratify the amendment again. So there would be non-member states, members of the original convention but not the amendment, and members of both the original convention and the amendment. After a few rounds of amendments it would be difficult to understand which version applies to which country, and the use of precedent for interpretation would be difficult.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .