Where a State limits its contractual obligations by reservations, other States Parties have the possibility of accepting, contradicting or contradicting such reservations and opposing them. If the State accepts it (or does not act at all), both the reserving State and the accepting State are exempt from the reserved legal obligation with regard to their legal obligations (acceptance of the reservation does not alter the legal obligations of the reserving State towards the other contracting parties). If the State objects, the parts of the contract concerned by the reservation are totally cancelled and no longer create legal obligations for the reserving and redeeming State, again only with regard to reciprocals. Finally, if the State objects and opposes them, there is no legal obligation between those two States parties. The opposing and opposing State essentially refuses to recognize that the reserving State is a party. [12] The consent of a party to a contract is not valid if it was issued by an agent or body that is not competent under the national laws of that State. States are reluctant to investigate the internal affairs and processes of other States and, therefore, a „manifest violation“ is necessary, so that it is „objectively obvious to any State dealing with the issue“. At the international level, there is a strong suspicion that a head of State has acted within the framework of his power of authority. It appears that no contract has ever been effectively invalidated for this provision. .