|
|
Declarations and Reservations
to the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of GenocideDRAFT
Link to May 28, 1951 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice
A total of thirty of the 132 nations which are party to the Genocide Convention have made reservations, declarations and understandings.
Since 1989, eleven countries have withdrawn reservations to Article IX, concerning submission of disputes to the International Court of Justice. As of October 3, 2000 28 counties continue to have active reservations. Many countries have registered objections to these reservations, some nations objecting to a reservations from a specific nation and some nations refusing to accept any of the reservations. Click here to read objections
II IV VI VII VIII IX XI XII Definition of Genocide Responsible Individuals Tribunal Extradition Prevention and Suppression Submission of disputes to the Int'l Court of Justice Signature, Ratification and Accession Non-self governing territories Number of reservations, declarations and understandings Number withdrawn Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon ratification, accession or succession. The symbol # indicates an "understading". Empty brackets "[ ]" indicates that a reservation was withdrawn, see date on the left.
Reservation Withdrawn II IV VI VII VIII IX XI XII Albania 19 July 1999 [] * Algeria * * * Argentina * * Bahrain * Bangladesh * Belarus 28 April 1989 [ ] * Bulgaria 29 June 1992 [ ] * China * Czech Republic 26 April 1991 [ ] Finland 5 Jan 1998 Hungary 8 Dec 1989 [ ] * India * Malaysia # * Mongolia 19 July 1990 [ ] * * Morocco
* * Myanmar * * Philippines * * * * Poland 16 Oct 1997 [] * Portugal 16 Sept 1999 * Romania 2 April 1997 [ ] * Russian Federation 8 Mar 1989 [ ] * Rwanda * Singapore * Slovakia 26 April 1991 [ ] Spain * * Ukraine 20 April 1989 [ ] * U.S.A. # # # * Venezuela * * * Viet Nam * * * Yemen * Albania
(Reservation to Article IX withdrawn July 19, 1999) As regards article IX: The People's Republic of Albania does not consider as binding upon itself the provisions of article IX which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties with regard to the interpretation, application and implementation of the Convention shall be referred for examination to the International Court at the request of any party to the dispute. The People's Republic of Albania declares that, as regards the International Court's jurisdiction in respect of disputes concerning the interpretation, application and implementation of the Convention, the People's Republic of Albania will, as hitherto, maintain the position that in each particular case the agreement of all parties to the dispute is essential for the submission of any particular dispute to the International Court for decision.
As regards article XII: The People's Republic of Albania declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.
Algeria
The Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by article IX of the Convention, which confers on the International Court of Justice jurisdiction in all disputes relating to the said Convention.
The Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria declares that no provision of article VI of the said Convention shall be interpreted as depriving its tribunals of jurisdiction in cases of genocide or other acts enumerated in article III which have been committed in its territory or as conferring such jurisdiction on foreign tribunals.
International tribunals may, as an exceptional measure, be recognized as having jurisdiction, in cases in which the Algerian Government has given its express approval.
The Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria declares that it does not accept the terms of article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the said Convention should apply to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.
Argentina
Ad article IX: The Argentine Government reserves the right not to submit to the procedure laid down in this article any dispute relating directly or indirectly to the territories referred to in its reservation to article XII.
Ad article XII: If any other Contracting Party extends the application of the Convention to territories under the sovereignty of the Argentine Republic, this extension shall in no way affect the rights of the Republic.
Bahrain
Reservations:
"With reference to article IX of the Convention the Government of the State of Bahrain declares that, for the submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the express consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each case."
"Moreover, the accession by the State of Bahrain to the said Convention shall in no way constitute recognition of Israel or be a cause for the establishment of any relations of any kind therewith."
Bangladesh
Declaration:
"Article IX: For the submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute will be required in each case."
Belarus (Reservation to Article IX withdrawn April 28, 1989)
The Byelorussian SSR declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to non-self-governing territories, including trust territories.
Bulgaria (Reservation to Article IX withdrawn June 29, 1992)
As regards article XII: The People's Republic of Bulgaria declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.
China
Declaration:
1. The ratification to the said Convention by the Taiwan local authorities on 19 July 1951 in the name of China is illegal and therefore null and void.
Reservation:
2. The People's Republic of China does not consider itself bound by article IX of the said Convention.
Czech Republic (Reservation to Article IX withdrawn April 26, 1991)
Finland (Reservation to Article IX withdrawn January 5, 1998)
Hungary (Reservation to Article IX withdrawn December 8, 1989)
The Hungarian People's Republic reserves its rights with regard to the provisions of article XII which do not define the obligations of countries having colonies with regard to questions of colonial exploitation and to acts which might be described as genocide.
India
"With reference to article IX of the Convention, the Government of India declares that, for the submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each case."
Malaysia
Reservation:
"That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which Malaysia is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of Malaysia is required in each case."
Understanding:
"That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state's laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the law of both the requesting and the requested state."
Mongolia (Reservation to Article IX withdrawn July 19, 1990)
The Government of the Mongolian People's Republic declares that it is not in a position to agree with article XII of the Convention and considers that the provisions of the said article should be extended to non-self-governing territories, including trust territories.
The Government of the Mongolian People's Republic deems it appropriate to draw attention to the discriminatory character of article XI of the Convention, under the terms of which a number of States are precluded from acceding to the Convention and declares that the Convention deals with matters which affect the interests of all States and it should, therefore, be open for accession by all States.
Morocco
With reference to article VI, the Government of His Majesty the King considers that Moroccan courts and tribunals alone have jurisdiction with respect to acts of genocide committed within the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco.
The competence of international courts may be admitted exceptionally in cases with respect to which the Moroccan Government has given its specific agreement.
With reference to article IX, the Moroccan Government states that no dispute relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention can be brought before the International Court of Justice, without the prior agreement of the parties to the dispute.
Myanmar
"(1) With reference to article VI, the Union of Burma makes the reservation that nothing contained in the said Article shall be construed as depriving the Courts and Tribunals of the Union of jurisdiction or as giving foreign Courts and tribunals jurisdiction over any cases of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III committed within the Union territory.
"(2) With reference to article VIII, the Union of Burma makes the reservation that the said article shall not apply to the Union."
Philippines
"l. With reference to article IV of the Convention, the Philippine Government cannot sanction any situation which would subject its Head of State, who is not a ruler, to conditions less favorable than those accorded other Heads of State, whether constitutionally responsible rules or not. The Philippine Government does not consider said article, therefore, as overriding the existing immunities from judicial processes guaranteed certain public officials by the Constitution of the Philippines.
"2. With reference to article VII of the Convention, the Philippine Government does not undertake to give effect to said article until the Congress of the Philippines has enacted the necessary legislation defining and punishing the crime of genocide, which legislation, under the Constitution of the Philippines, cannot have any retroactive effect.
"3. With reference to articles VI and IX of the Convention, the Philippine Government takes the position that nothing contained in said articles shall be construed as depriving Philippine courts of jurisdiction over all cases of genocide committed within Philippine territory save only in those cases where the Philippine Government consents to have the decision of the Philippine courts reviewed by either of the international tribunals referred to in said articles. With further reference to article IX of the Convention, the Philippine Government does not consider said article to extend the concept of State responsibility beyond that recognized by the generally accepted principles of international law."
Poland (Reservation to Article IX withdrawn October 16, 1997)
As regards article XII: Poland does not accept the provisions of this article, considering that the Convention should apply to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.
Portugal (Reservation to Article VII withdrawn Stember 16, 1999)
Declaration:
The Portuguese Republic declares that it will interpret article VII of the [said Convention] as recognizing the obligation to grant extradition established therein in cases where such extradition is not prohibited by the Constitution and other domestic legislation of the Portuguese Republic.
Romania(Reservation to Article IX withdrawn April 2, 1997)
As regards article XII: The People's Republic of Romania declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention, and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should apply to the Non-Self-Governing Territories, including the Trust Territories.
Russian Federation(Reservation to Article IX withdrawn March 8,1989)
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.
Rwanda
The Rwandese Republic does not consider itself as bound by article IX of the Convention.
Singapore
Reservation:
"That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which the Republic of Singapore is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the Republic of Singapore is required in each case."
Slovakia (Reservation to Article IX withdrawn April 16, 1991)
Spain
With a reservation in respect of the whole of article IX (jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice).
Ukraine (Reservation to Article IX withdrawn April 20, 1989)
The Ukrainian SSR declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.
United States of America
Reservations:
"(1) That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.
(2) That nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."
Understandings:
"(1) That the term `intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such' appearing in article II means the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such by the acts specified in article II.
(2) That the term `mental harm' in article II (b) means permanent impairment of mental faculties through drugs, torture or similar techniques.
(3) That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state's laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested state and nothing in article VI affects the right of any state to bring to trial before its own tribunals any of its nationals for acts committed outside a state.
(4) That acts in the course of armed conflicts committed without the specific intent required by article II are not sufficient to constitute genocide as defined by this Convention.
(5) That with regard to the reference to an international penal tribunal in article VI of the Convention, the United States declares that it reserves the right to effect its participation in any such tribunal only by a treaty entered into specifically for that purpose with the advice and consent of the Senate."
Venezuela
With reference to article VI, notice is given that any proceedings to which Venezuela may be a party before an international penal tribunal would be invalid without Venezuela's prior express acceptance of the jurisdiction of such international tribunal.
With reference to article VII, notice is given that the laws in force in Venezuela do not permit the extradition of Venezuelan nationals.
With reference to article IX, the reservation is made that the submission of a dispute to the International Court of Justice shall be regarded as valid only when it takes place with Venezuela's approval, signified by the express conclusion of a prior agreement in each case.
Viet Nam
1. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam does not consider itself bound by article IX of the Convention which provides the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in solving disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention at the request of any of the parties to disputes. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam is of the view that, regarding the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in solving disputes referred to in article IX of the Convention, the consent of the parties to the disputes except the criminals is diametrically necessary for the submission of a given dispute to the International Court of Justice for decision.
2. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam does not accept article XII of the Convention and considers that all provisions of the Convention should also extend to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.
3. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam considers that article XI is of a discriminatory nature, depriving a number of States of the opportunity to become parties to the Convention, and holds that the Convention should be open for accession by all States.
Yemen
In acceding to this Convention, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen does not consider itself bound by article IX of the Convention, which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute. It declares that the competence of the International Court of Justice with respect to disputes concerning the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention shall in each case be subject to the express consent of all parties to the dispute.
Objections
(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were made
upon ratification, accession or succession.)Australia
15 November 1950
"The Australian Government does not accept any of the reservations contained in the instrument of accession of the People's Republic of Bulgaria, or in the instrument of ratification of the Republic of the Philippines.
"The Australian Government does not accept any of the reservations made at the time of signature of the Convention by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."
19 January 1951
"The Australian Government does not accept the reservations contained in the instruments of accession of the Governments of Poland and Romania."
Belgium
The Government of Belgium does not accept the reservations made by Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The Government of Brazil objects to the reservations made to the Convention by Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Brazilian Government considers the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The position taken by the Government of Brazil is founded on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 and on the resolution adopted by the sixth session of the General Assembly on 12 January 1952, on reservations to multilateral conventions.
The Brazilian Government reserves the right to draw any such legal consequences as it may deem fit from its formal objection to the above-mentioned reservations.
China23
15 November 1954
"The Government of China . . . objects to all the identical reservations made at the time of signature or ratification or accession to the Convention by Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Chinese Government considers the above-mentioned reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and, therefore, by virtue of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951, would not regard the above-mentioned States as being Parties to the Convention."
13 September 1955
[Same communication, mutatis mutandis, in respect of the reservations made by Albania.]
25 July 1956
[Same communication, mutatis mutandis, in respect of the reservations made by Myanmar.]
Cuba25
Denmark
27 December 1989
With regard to reservation (2) made by the United States of America:
"In the view of the Government of Denmark this reservation is subject to general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty."
Ecuador
31 March 1950
The Government of Ecuador is not in agreement with the reservations made to article IX and XII of the Convention by the Governments of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia,the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, therefore, they do not apply to Ecuador which accepted without any modifications the integral text of the Convention.
21 August 1950
[Same communication, mutatis mutandis, in respect of the reservations made by Bulgaria.]
9 January 1951
The Government of Ecuador does not accept the reservations made by the Governments of Poland and Romania to articles IX and XII of the Convention.
Estonia
With regard to reservation (2) made by the United States of America:
"The Estonian Government objects to this reservation on the grounds that it creates uncertainty, as to the extent of the obligations the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention. According to article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, no party may invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for failure to perform a treaty."
Finland
22 December 1989
With respect to reservation (2) made by the United States of America:
"In the view of the Government of Finland this reservation is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty."
Greece
We further declare that we have not accepted and do not accept any reservation which has already been made or which may hereafter be made by the countries signatory to this instrument or by countries which have acceded or may hereafter accede thereto.
26 January 1990
The Government of the Hellenic Republic cannot accept the first reservation entered by the United States of America upon ratifying the Agreement on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, for it considers such a reservation to be incompatible with the Convention.
In respect of the second reservation formulated by the United States of America:
[Same objection mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Denmark.]
Ireland
22 December 1989
"The Government of Ireland is unable to accept the second reservation made by the United States of America on the occasion of its ratification of the [said] Convention on the grounds that as a generally accepted rule of international law a party to an international agreement may not, by invoking the terms of its internal law, purport to override the provisions of the Agreement."
Italy
29 December 1989
The Government of the Republic of Italy objects to the second reservation entered by the United States of America. It creates uncertainty as to the extent of the obligations which the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention."
Mexico
4 June 1990
The Government of Mexico believes that the reservation made by the United States Government to article IX of the aforesaid Convention should be considered invalid because it is not in keeping with the object and purpose of the Convention, nor with the principle governing the interpretation of treaties whereby no State can invoke provisions of its domestic law as a reason for not complying with a treaty.
If the aforementioned reservation were applied, it would give rise to a situation of uncertainty as to the scope of the obligations which the United States Government would assume with respect to the Convention.
Mexico's objection to the reservation in question should not be interpreted as preventing the entry into force of the 1948 Convention between the [Mexican] Government and the United States Government.
Netherlands
"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by Albania, Algeria, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, India, Morocco, Poland, Romania, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December 1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention."
27 December 1989
With regard to the reservations made by the United States of America:
"As concerns the first reservation, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls its declaration, made on 20 June 1966 on the occasion of the accession of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Convention [...] stating that in its opinion the reservations in respect of article IX of the Convention, made at that time by a number of states, were incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and that the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands did not consider states making such reservations parties to the Convention. Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider the United States of America a party to the Convention. Similarly, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider parties to the Convention other states which have made such reservations, i.e., in addition to the states mentioned in the aforementioned declaration, the People's Republic of China, Democratic Yemen, the German Democratic Republic, the Mongolian People's Republic, the Philippines, Rwanda, Spain, Venezuela, and Viet Nam, on the other hand, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does consider parties to the Convention those states that have since withdrawn their reservations, i.e. the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
As the Convention may come into force between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States of America as a result of the latter withdrawing its reservation in respect of article IX, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands deems it useful to express the following position on the second reservation of the United States of America:
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to this reservation on the ground that it creates uncertainty as to the extent of the obligations the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention. Moreover, any failure by the United States of America to act upon the obligations contained in the Convention on the ground that such action would be prohibited by the constitution of the United States would be contrary to the generally accepted rule of international law, as laid down in article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties (Vienna, 23 May 1969)".
23 February 1996
With regard to the reservations made by Malaysia and Singapore made upon accession:
"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls its declaration made on 20 June 1966 on the occasion of the accession [to the said Convention].
[See declaration made under "Netherlands"]
Accordingly, the Government of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by Malaysia and Singapore in respect of article IX of the Convention incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider Malaysia and Singapore Parties to the Convention.
On the other hand, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does consider Parties to the Convention those States that have since withdrawn their reservations in respect of article IX of the Convention, i.e. Hungary, Bulgaria and Mongolia."
Norway
10 April 1952
"The Norwegian Government does not accept the reservations made to the Convention by the Government of the Philippines at the time of ratification."
22 December 1989
With regard to reservation (2) made by the United States of America:
"In the view of the Government of Norway this reservation is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty."
Spain
29 December 1989
With regard to reservation (2) made by the United States of America:
Spain interprets the reservation entered by the United States of America to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948 [...] to mean that legislation or other action by the United States of America will continue to be in accordance with the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Sri Lanka
6 February 1951
"The Government of Ceylon does not accept the reservations made by Romania to the Convention."
Sweden
22 December 1989
With regard to reservation (2) made by the United States of America:
"The Government of Sweden is of the view that a State party to the Convention may not invoke the provisions of its national legislation, including the Constitution, to justify that it does not fulfil its obligations under the Convention and therefore objects to the reservation.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and the United States of America."
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
"The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles IV, VII, VIII, IX or XII of the Convention made by Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bulgaria, Burma, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, India, Mongolia, Morocco, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Spain, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or Venezuela."
21 November 1975
"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have consistently stated that they are unable to accept reservations in respect of article IX of the said Convention; in their view this is not the kind of reservation which intending parties to the Convention have the right to make.
Accordingly, the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservation entered by the Republic of Rwanda against article IX of the Convention. They also wish to place on record that they take the same view of the similar reservation made by the German Democratic Republic as notified by the circular letter [. . .] of 25 April 1973."
26 August 1983
With regard to statements made by Viet Nam concerning articles IX and XII and reservation made by China concerning article IX:
"The Government of the United Kingdom have [...] consistently stated that they are unable to accept reservations to [article IX]. Likewise, in conformity with the attitude adopted by them in previous cases, the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservation entered by Viet Nam relating to article XII."
30 December 1987
With regard to a reservation made by Democratic Yemen concerning article IX:
"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have consistently stated that they are unable to accept reservations in respect of article IX of the said Convention; in their view this is not the kind of reservation which intending parties to the Convention have the right to make.
Accordingly the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland do not accept the reservation entered by the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen against article IX of the Convention."
22 December 1989
"The Government of the United Kingdom have consistently stated that they are unable to accept reservations to article IX. Accordingly, in conformity with the attitude adopted by them in previous cases, the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the first reservation entered by the United States of America.
The Government of the United Kingdom object to the second reservation entered by the United States of America. It creates uncertainty as to the extent of the obligations which the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention."
20 March 1996
With regard to reservations to article IX made by Malaysia and Singapore upon accession:
"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have consistently stated that they are unable to accept reservations to article IX. In their view, these are not the kind of reservations which intending parties to the Convention have the right to make.
Accordingly, the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations entered by the Government of Singapore and Malaysia to article IX of the Convention."
Territorial Application
Participant
Date of receipt of the notification
Territories
Australia
8 Jul 1949
All territories for the conduct of whose foreign relations Australia is responsible
Belgium
13 Mar 1952
Belgian Congo, Trust Territory of Rwanda-Urundi
30 Jan 1970
Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Bahamas, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Falkland Islands and Dependencies, Fiji, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Pitcairn, St. Helena and Dependencies, Seychelles, Turks and Caicos Islands
2 Jun 1970
Kingdom of Tonga
__________________
Notes:
1 For other multilateral treaties concluded in the field of human rights, see chapters V, VII, XVI, XVII and XVIII.
2 Resolution 260 (III), Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Session, Part I (A/810), p. 174.
3 On 15 June 1993, the Secretary-General received form the Government of Yugoslavia the following communication:
"Considering the fact that the replacement of sovereignty on the part of the territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia previously comprising the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was carried out contrary to the rules of international law, the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia herewith states that it does not consider the so-called Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina a party to the [said Convention], but does consider that the so-called Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is bound by the obligation to respect the norms on preventing and punishing the crime of genocide in accordance with general international law irrespective of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."
4 Ratified on behalf of the Republic of China on 19 July 1951. See note concerning signatures, ratifications, accessions, etc. on behalf of China (note in chapter I.1).
5 On 6 June 1997, the Government of China notified the Secretary-General of the following:
In accordance with the Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the question of Hong Kong signed on 19 December 1984, the People's Republic of China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997. Hong Kong will, with effect from that date, become a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which are the responsibility of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China.
The [said Convention], which the Government of the People's Republic of China ratified on [18] April 1983, will apply to Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with effect from 1 July 1997. (The notification also contained the following declaration): The reservation to article IX of the said Convention made by the Government of the People's Republic of China will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The Government of the People's Republic of China will assume responsibility for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the Convention to Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Subsequently, on 10 June 1997, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified the Secretary-General of the following:
"In accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong signed on 19 December 1984, the Government of the United Kingdom will restore Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China with effect from 1 July 1997. The Government of the United Kingdom will continue to have international responsibility for Hong Kong until that date. Therefore, from that date the Government of the United Kingdom will cease to be responsible for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the [said Convention] to Hong Kong."
6 On 18 May 1998, the Government of Cyprus notified the Secretary-General of the following:
"The Government of the Republic of Cyprus has taken note of the reservations made by a number of countries when acceding to the [said Convention] and wishes to state that in its view these are not the kind of reservations which intending parties to the Convention have the right to make.
Accordingly, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not accept any reservations entered by any Government with regard to any of the Articles of the Convention."
7 Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified the Convention on 28 December 1949 and 21 December 1950, respectively, with a reservation. Subsequently, by a notification received on 26 April 1991, the Government of Czechoslovakia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation to article IX made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 78, p. 303. See also note in chapter I.2.
8 The German Democratic Republic had acceded to the Convention with reservation and declaration on 27 March 1973. For the text of the reservation and the declarations see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 861, p. 200. See also note under chapter I.2.
9 In a note accompanying the instrument of accession, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that the Convention would also apply to Land Berlin.
With reference to the above-mentioned declaration, a communication from the German Democratic Republic was received by the Secretary-General on 27 December 1973. The text of the communication is identical, mutatis mutandis, to that published in note of chapter III.3, paragraph 4.
In this connection, the Secretary-General received from the Governments of France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America (17 June 1974 and 8 July 1975), the Federal Republic of Germany (15 July 1974 and 19 September 1975), the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (12 September 1974 and 8 December 1975), and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (19 September 1974), communications identical in essence, mutatis mutandis, to the corresponding ones reproduced in note chapter III.3. See also note 4 above.
10 Accession on behalf of the Republic of Viet-Nam on 11 August 1950. (For the text of objections to some of the reservations made upon the said accession, see publication, Multilateral Treaties for which the Secretary-General acts as Depositary (ST/LEG/SER.D/13, p.91); also see note in chapter I.2.
11 The Secretary-General received on 9 November 1981 from the Government of the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea the following objection with regard to the accession by Viet Nam:
The Government of Democratic Kampuchea, as a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, considers that the signing of that Convention by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam has no legal force, because it is no more than a cynical, macabre charade intended to camouflage the foul crimes of genocide committed by the 250,000 soldiers of the Vietnamese invasion army in Kampuchea. It is an odious insult to the memory of the more than 2,500,000 Kampucheans who have been massacred by these same Vietnamese armed forces using conventional weapons, chemical weapons and the weapon of famine, created deliberately by them for the purpose of eliminating all national resistance at its source.
It is also a gross insult to hundreds of thousands of Laotians who have been massacred or compelled to take refuge abroad since the occupation of Laos by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, to the Hmong national minority in Laos, exterminated by Vietnamese conventional and chemical weapons and, finally, to over a million Vietnamese "boat people" who died at sea or sought refuge abroad in their flight to escape the repression carried out in Viet Nam by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.
This shameless accession by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam violates and discredits the noble principles and ideals of the United Nations and jeopardizes the prestige and moral authority of our world Organization. It represents an arrogant challenge to the international community, which is well aware of these crimes of genocide committed by the Vietnamese army in Kampuchea, has constantly denounced and condemned them since 25 December 1978, the date on which the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea began, and demands that these Vietnamese crimes of genocide be brought to an end by the total withdrawal of the Vietnamese forces from Kampuchea and the restoration of the inalienable right of the people of Kampuchea to decide its own destiny without any foreign interference, as provided in United Nations resolutions 34/22, 35/6 and 36/5.
12 The Yemen Arab Republic had acceded to the Convention on 6 April 1989. See also note in chapter I.2.
13 On on 25 June 1990, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Israel the following objection:
"The Government of the State of Israel has noted that the instrument of accession of Bahrain to the [said] Convention contains a declaration in respect of Israel.
In the view of the Government of the State of Israel, such declaration, which is explicitly of a political character, is incompatible with the purpose and objectives of this Convention and cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon Bahrain under general International Law or under particular Conventions.
The Government of the State of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards Bahrain an attitude of complete reciprocity".
14 In communications received on 8 March, 19 and 20 April 1989, respectively, the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic notified the Secretary-General that they had decided to withdraw the reservation relating to article IX. For the texts of the reservations, see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 190, p. 381, vol.196, p. 345 and vol. 201, p. 368, respectively.
15 On 24 June 1992, the Government of Bulgaria notified the Secretary-General its decision to withdraw the reservation to article IX of the Convention, made upon accession. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 78, p. 318.
16 On 5 January 1998, the Government of Finland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation made upon accession to the Convention. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 346, p. 324.
17 In a communication received on 8 December 1989, the Government of Hungary notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation relating to article IX made upon accession. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 118, p. 306.
18 In this regard, on 14 October 1996, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Norway, the following communication:
"... In [the view of the Government of Norway], reservations in respect of article IX of the Convention are incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention. Accordingly, the Government of Norway does not accept the reservations entered by the Governments of Singapore and Malaysia to article IX of the Convention."
19 In a communication received on 19 July 1990, the Government of Mongolia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation relating to article IX made upon accession. For the text of the reservation see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 587, p. 326.
20 On 16 October 1997, the Government of Poland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation with regard to article IX of the Convention made upon accession. For the text of the reservation see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 78, p. 277.
21 On 2 April 1997, the Government of Romania informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation with regard to article IX of the Convention. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 78, p. 314.
22 On 11 January 1990, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany the following declaration:
"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has taken note of the declarations made under the heading "Reservations" by the Government of the United States of America upon ratification of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany interprets paragraph (2) of the said declarations as a reference to article V of the Convention and therefore as not in any way affecting the obligations of the United States of America as a State Party to the Convention."
23 For the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951, see I.C.J., Report 1951, p. 15.
24 For the resolution adopted on 12 January 1952 by the sixth session of the General Assembly concerning reservations to multilateral conventions, see Resolution 598 (VI); Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixth Session, Supplement No. 20 (A/2119), p. 84.
25 By a notification received by the Secretary-General on 29 January 1982, the Government of Cuba withdrew the declaration made on its behalf upon ratification of the said Convention with respect to the reservations to articles IX and XII by Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
26 On 3 October 1983, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Argentina the following objection:
[The Government of Argentina makes a] formal objection to the declaration] of territorial extension issued by the United Kingdom with regard to the Malvinas Islands (and dependencies), which that country is illegally occupying and refers to as the "Falkland Islands". The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void the [said declaration] of territorial extension.
With reference to the above-mentioned objection the Secretary-General received, on 28 February 1985, from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the following declaration:
"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to their right, by notification to the Depositary under the relevant provisions of the above-mentioned Convention, to extend the application of the Convention in question to the Falkland Islands or to the Falkland Islands Dependencies, as the case may be.
For this reason alone, the Government of the United Kingdom are unable to regard the Argentine [communication] under reference as having any legal effect."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|