Skip to content

Announcements about your neighbourhood

Like permits, building plans and byelaws

Services

Like taxes, benifits and subsidies

To services

Policy & law

official government publications

To policy & law

Contact details governments

Contact details governments

To government organisations

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended by the Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961

Date modified	Regarding
02-05-2025	Party
Toon meer van:Details Party Bolivia modified added reservation 11-01-2013 The Plurinational State of Bolivia reserves the right to allow in its territory: traditional coca leaf chewing; the consumption and use of the coca leaf in its natural state for cultural and medicinal purposes, such as its use in infusions; and also the cultivation, trade and possession of the coca leaf to the extent necessary for these licit purposes. At the same time, the Plurinational State of Bolivia will continue to take all necessary measures to control the cultivation of coca in order to prevent its abuse and the illicit production of the narcotic drugs which may be extracted from the leaf. added objection to reservation Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 08-01-2013 [...] has the honour to refer to the latter’s note verbale of 10 January 2012 (C.N.829.2011.TREATIES-28). The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully considered the intention of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to re-accede with a reservation to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands fully recognizes the efforts of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to reduce the production and trade in illicit coca products. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to underline that States that are Party to the Single Convention undertake an obligation to limit the trade and use of narcotic drugs exclusively for medical and scientific purposes. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is therefore of the opinion that, in proposing reservations, States Parties should be guided by the object and purpose of the Single Convention. The Bolivian approach poses the risk of creating a precedent and may undermine the international anti-narcotics legal framework. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the procedure followed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia of denouncing the Single Convention as amended, followed by a reaccession with a reservation, as contrary to the rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the formulation of reservations after ratification. The procedure followed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia circumvents these well-established rules and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Single Convention, as amended, between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 14-07-2023 [...] The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has reconsidered its objection of 8 January 2013, communicated in depositary notification C.N.102.2013.TREATIES-VI.18 to the reservation of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended, contained in the communication of 10 January 2012 (C.N.829.2011.TREATIES-28). While maintaining its position that the procedure followed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia of denouncing the Single Convention as amended, followed by a re-accession with a reservation, is contrary to the rules of the law of treaties, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has decided to withdraw its objection to the reservation made by the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended. The withdrawal of the objection by the Kingdom of the Netherlands is without prejudice to its position with respect to the potential review of the coca leaf by the World Health Organisation. [...]
01-09-2023	Party
Toon meer van:Details Party Bolivia modified removed reservation 11-01-2013 The Plurinational State of Bolivia reserves the right to allow in its territory: traditional coca leaf chewing; the consumption and use of the coca leaf in its natural state for cultural and medicinal purposes, such as its use in infusions; and also the cultivation, trade and possession of the coca leaf to the extent necessary for these licit purposes. At the same time, the Plurinational State of Bolivia will continue to take all necessary measures to control the cultivation of coca in order to prevent its abuse and the illicit production of the narcotic drugs which may be extracted from the leaf. removed objection to reservation Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 08-01-2013 The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully considered the intention of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to re-accede with a reservation to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands fully recognizes the efforts of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to reduce the production and trade in illicit coca products. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to underline that States that are Party to the Single Convention undertake an obligation to limit the trade and use of narcotic drugs exclusively for medical and scientific purposes. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is therefore of the opinion that, in proposing reservations, States Parties should be guided by the object and purpose of the Single Convention. The Bolivian approach poses the risk of creating a precedent and may undermine the international anti-narcotics legal framework. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the procedure followed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia of denouncing the Single Convention as amended, followed by a re-accession with a reservation, as contrary to the rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the formulation of reservations after ratification. The procedure followed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia circumvents these well-established rules and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Single Convention, as amended, between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Plurinational State of Bolivia.
21-11-2022	Party
Toon meer van:Details Party Vietnam modified Objections: No removed reservation 31-10-2022 [The Government of Viet Nam declares its reservation to] article 48, paragraph 2 on Dispute settlement of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. removed objection to reservation Objection Austria, 16-12-1998 Austria is of the view that the reservation raises doubts as to its compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention concerned, in particular the fundamental principle that perpetrators of drug-related crime should be brought to justice, regardless of their whereabouts. Non-acceptance of this principle would undermine the effectiveness of the above-mentioned Convention. Austria therefore objects to the reservation. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the above-mentioned Convention between Austria and Viet Nam. Objection Finland, 15-01-1999 The Government of Finland is of the view that [this reservation] raise[s] doubts as to [its] compatibility with the object and purpose of the [Convenion] concerned, in particular the [reservation] to article 32, paragraph 2, subparagraph b) 1). According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and well-established customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all Parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Finland therefore objects to [this reservation] made by the Government of Viet Nam to the [Convention]. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the [Convention] between Viet Nam and Finland. The [Convention] will thus become operative between the two States without Viet Nam benefitting from [this reservation]. Objection Sweden, 14-12-1998 The Government of Sweden is of the view that the reservation made by the Government of Viet Nam regarding article 36, paragraph 2 subparagraph (b) may raise doubts as to the commitment of Viet Nam to the object and purpose of the Convention. ... It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. Furthermore, according to the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, and well-established customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid [reservation] by the Government of Viet Nam. [This objection does] not preclude the entry into force of the [Convention] between Viet Nam and Sweden. The [Convention] will thus become operative berween the two States without Viet Nam benefiting from the [reservation]. Objection United Kingdom, 17-12-1998 With regard to the reservation to article 36 (2)(b) made by Viet Nam upon accession: "The United Kingdom is not in a position to accept [the] reservation." The above objection is not however to constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the said [Convention] as between Vietnam and the United Kingdom.
20-10-2022	General information, Kingdom part, Party
Toon meer van:Details General information Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Kingdom part Netherlands (in Europe) Entry into force: 28-06-1987 Netherlands (Bonaire) Entry into force: 10-10-2010 Netherlands (Sint Eustatius) Entry into force: 10-10-2010 Netherlands (Saba) Entry into force: 10-10-2010 Aruba Entry into force: 28-06-1987 Curaçao Entry into force: 10-10-2010 Sint Maarten Entry into force: 10-10-2010 Party Afghanistan Ratification: 19-02-2015 (A) Entry into force: 21-03-2015 Albania Ratification: 14-08-2001 (A) Entry into force: 13-09-2001 Algeria Ratification: 26-02-2003 (A) Entry into force: 28-03-2003 Angola Ratification: 26-10-2005 (A) Entry into force: 25-11-2005 Antigua and Barbuda Ratification: 05-04-1993 (A) Entry into force: 05-05-1993 Argentina Ratification: 16-11-1973 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Armenia Ratification: 13-09-1993 (A) Entry into force: 13-10-1993 Australia Ratification: 22-11-1972 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Austria Ratification: 01-02-1978 (A) Entry into force: 03-03-1978 Azerbaijan Ratification: 11-01-1999 (A) Entry into force: 10-02-1999 Bahamas Ratification: 23-11-1976 (A) Entry into force: 23-12-1976 Bangladesh Ratification: 09-05-1980 (A) Entry into force: 08-06-1980 Barbados Ratification: 21-06-1976 (A) Entry into force: 21-07-1976 Belarus Ratification: 13-09-2001 (A) Entry into force: 13-10-2001 Belgium Ratification: 13-06-1984 (R) Entry into force: 13-07-1984 Belize Ratification: 18-12-2001 (A) Entry into force: 17-01-2001 Benin Ratification: 06-11-1973 (A) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Bhutan Ratification: 24-08-2005 (A) Entry into force: 23-09-2005 Bosnia and Herzegovina Ratification: 01-09-1993 (Su) Entry into force: 06-03-1992 Botswana Ratification: 27-12-1984 (A) Entry into force: 26-01-1985 Brazil Ratification: 16-05-1973 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Brunei Ratification: 25-11-1987 (A) Entry into force: 25-12-1987 Bulgaria Ratification: 18-07-1996 (A) Entry into force: 17-08-1996 Burkina Faso Ratification: 02-06-1992 (A) Entry into force: 02-07-1992 Burundi Ratification: 18-02-1993 (A) Entry into force: 20-03-1993 Cabo Verde Ratification: 24-05-1990 (A) Entry into force: 23-06-1990 Cambodia Ratification: 07-07-2005 (R) Entry into force: 06-08-2005 Cameroon Ratification: 30-05-1974 (A) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Canada Ratification: 05-08-1976 (A) Entry into force: 04-09-1976 Central African Republic Ratification: 15-10-2001 (A) Entry into force: 14-11-2001 Chile Ratification: 19-12-1975 (R) Entry into force: 18-01-1976 Colombia Ratification: 03-03-1975 (A) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Comoros Ratification: 01-03-2000 (A) Entry into force: 31-03-2000 Costa Rica Ratification: 14-02-1973 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Côte d'Ivoire Ratification: 28-02-1973 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Croatia Ratification: 26-07-1993 (Su) Entry into force: 08-10-1991 Cuba Ratification: 14-12-1989 (A) Entry into force: 13-01-1990 Cyprus Ratification: 30-11-1973 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Czech Republic Ratification: 30-12-1993 (Su) Entry into force: 01-01-1993 Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993) Ratification: 04-06-1991 (A) Entry into force: 04-07-1991 Democratic People's Republic of Korea Ratification: 19-03-2007 (A) Entry into force: 18-04-2007 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ratification: 15-07-1976 (A) Entry into force: 14-08-1976 Denmark Ratification: 18-04-1975 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Djibouti Ratification: 22-02-2001 (A) Entry into force: 24-03-2001 Dominica Ratification: 24-09-1993 (A) Entry into force: 24-10-1993 Dominican Republic Ratification: 21-09-1993 (A) Entry into force: 21-10-1993 Ecuador Ratification: 25-07-1973 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Egypt Ratification: 14-01-1974 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 El Salvador Ratification: 26-02-1998 (R) Entry into force: 28-03-1998 Eritrea Ratification: 30-01-2002 (A) Entry into force: 01-03-2002 Estonia Ratification: 05-07-1996 (A) Entry into force: 04-08-1996 Eswatini Ratification: 18-10-1995 (A) Entry into force: 17-11-1995 Ethiopia Ratification: 11-10-1994 (A) Entry into force: 10-11-1994 Federated States of Micronesia Ratification: 29-04-1991 (A) Entry into force: 29-05-1991 Fiji Ratification: 21-11-1973 (A) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Finland Ratification: 12-01-1973 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 France Ratification: 04-09-1975 (R) Entry into force: 04-10-1975 French Guiana Entry into force: 04-10-1975French Polynesia Entry into force: 04-10-1975French Southern and Antarctic Territories Entry into force: 04-10-1975Guadeloupe Entry into force: 04-10-1975Martinique Entry into force: 04-10-1975Mayotte Entry into force: 04-10-1975New Caledonia Entry into force: 04-10-1975Réunion Entry into force: 04-10-1975Saint Pierre and Miquelon Entry into force: 04-10-1975Wallis and Futuna Entry into force: 04-10-1975 Gabon Ratification: 14-10-1981 (A) Entry into force: 13-11-1981 Gambia, The Ratification: 23-04-1996 (A) Entry into force: 23-05-1996 Georgia Ratification: 27-03-2000 (A) Entry into force: 26-04-2000 Germany Ratification: 20-02-1975 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Ghana Ratification: 10-04-1990 (A) Entry into force: 10-05-1990 Greece Ratification: 12-07-1985 (R) Entry into force: 11-08-1985 Grenada Ratification: 19-08-1998 (A) Entry into force: 18-09-1998 Guatemala Ratification: 09-12-1975 (R) Entry into force: 08-01-1976 Guinea Ratification: 27-12-1990 (A) Entry into force: 26-01-1991 Guinea-Bissau Ratification: 27-10-1995 (A) Entry into force: 26-11-1995 Guyana Ratification: 15-07-2002 (A) Entry into force: 14-08-2002 Haïti Ratification: 29-01-1973 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Holy See Ratification: 07-01-1976 (R) Entry into force: 06-02-1976 Honduras Ratification: 08-08-1979 (A) Entry into force: 07-09-1979 Hungary Ratification: 12-11-1987 (A) Entry into force: 12-12-1987 Iceland Ratification: 18-12-1974 (A) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 India Ratification: 14-12-1978 (A) Entry into force: 13-01-1979 Indonesia Ratification: 03-09-1976 (R) Entry into force: 03-10-1976 Iran Ratification: 18-12-2001 (R) Entry into force: 17-01-2002 Iraq Ratification: 25-09-1978 (A) Entry into force: 25-10-1978 Ireland Ratification: 16-12-1980 (A) Entry into force: 15-01-1981 Israel Ratification: 01-02-1974 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Italy Ratification: 14-04-1975 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Jamaica Ratification: 06-10-1989 (A) Entry into force: 05-11-1989 Japan Ratification: 27-09-1973 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Jordan Ratification: 28-02-1973 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Kazakhstan Ratification: 29-04-1997 (A) Entry into force: 29-05-1997 Kenya Ratification: 09-02-1973 (A) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Kuwait Ratification: 07-11-1973 (A) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Kyrgyzstan Ratification: 07-10-1994 (A) Entry into force: 06-11-1994 Laos Ratification: 16-03-2009 (A) Entry into force: 15-04-2009 Latvia Ratification: 16-07-1993 (A) Entry into force: 15-08-1993 Lebanon Ratification: 05-03-1997 (R) Entry into force: 04-04-1997 Lesotho Ratification: 04-11-1974 (A) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Liberia Ratification: 13-04-1987 (R) Entry into force: 13-05-1987 Libya Ratification: 27-09-1978 (A) Entry into force: 27-10-1978 Liechtenstein Ratification: 24-11-1999 (R) Entry into force: 24-12-1999 Lithuania Ratification: 28-02-1994 (A) Entry into force: 30-03-1994 Luxembourg Ratification: 13-10-1976 (R) Entry into force: 12-11-1976 Madagascar Ratification: 20-06-1974 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Malawi Ratification: 04-10-1973 (A) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Malaysia Ratification: 20-04-1978 (A) Entry into force: 20-05-1978 Maldives Ratification: 07-09-2000 (A) Entry into force: 07-10-2000 Mali Ratification: 31-10-1995 (A) Entry into force: 30-11-1995 Malta Ratification: 22-02-1990 (A) Entry into force: 24-03-1990 Marshall Islands Ratification: 09-08-1991 (A) Entry into force: 08-09-1991 Mauritania Ratification: 24-10-1989 (A) Entry into force: 23-11-1989 Mauritius Ratification: 12-12-1994 (A) Entry into force: 11-01-1995 Mexico Ratification: 27-04-1977 (A) Entry into force: 27-05-1977 Moldova Ratification: 15-02-1995 (A) Entry into force: 17-03-1995 Monaco Ratification: 30-12-1975 (R) Entry into force: 29-01-1976 Mongolia Ratification: 06-05-1991 (A) Entry into force: 05-06-1991 Montenegro Ratification: 23-10-2006 (Su) Entry into force: 03-06-2006 Morocco Ratification: 19-03-2002 (R) Entry into force: 18-04-2002 Mozambique Ratification: 08-06-1998 (A) Entry into force: 08-07-1998 Myanmar Ratification: 22-08-2003 (A) Entry into force: 21-09-2003 Namibia Ratification: 31-03-1998 (A) Entry into force: 30-04-1998 Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Ratification: 29-05-1987 (A) Entry into force: 28-06-1987 New Zealand Ratification: 07-06-1990 (R) Entry into force: 07-07-1990 Niue Entry into force: 07-07-1990Tokelau Islands Entry into force: 07-07-1990 Nicaragua Ratification: 15-02-2005 (R) Entry into force: 17-03-2005 Niger Ratification: 28-12-1973 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Nigeria Ratification: 24-06-1981 (A) Entry into force: 24-07-1981 North Macedonia Ratification: 13-10-1993 (A) Entry into force: 12-11-1993 Norway Ratification: 12-11-1973 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Oman Ratification: 24-07-1987 (A) Entry into force: 23-08-1987 Pakistan Ratification: 02-07-1999 (R) Entry into force: 01-08-1999 Palau Ratification: 19-08-1998 (A) Entry into force: 18-09-1998 Palestine Ratification: 29-12-2017 (A) Entry into force: 28-01-2018 Panama Ratification: 19-10-1972 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Papua New Guinea Ratification: 28-10-1980 (A) Entry into force: 27-11-1980 Paraguay Ratification: 20-06-1973 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Peru Ratification: 12-09-1977 (R) Entry into force: 12-10-1977 Philippines Ratification: 07-06-1974 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Poland Ratification: 09-06-1993 (A) Entry into force: 09-07-1993 Portugal Ratification: 20-04-1979 (A) Entry into force: 20-05-1979 Qatar Ratification: 03-10-1986 (A) Entry into force: 02-11-1986 Republic of Korea, the Ratification: 25-01-1973 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Republic of the Congo Ratification: 03-03-2004 (R) Entry into force: 02-04-2004 Romania Ratification: 14-01-1974 (A) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Russian Federation Ratification: 03-06-1996 (A) Entry into force: 03-07-1996 Rwanda Ratification: 15-07-1981 (A) Entry into force: 14-08-1981 Saint Kitts and Nevis Ratification: 09-05-1994 (A) Entry into force: 08-06-1994 Saint Lucia Ratification: 05-07-1991 (Su) Entry into force: 22-02-1979 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Ratification: 03-12-2001 (Su) Entry into force: 27-10-1979 San Marino Ratification: 10-10-2000 (A) Entry into force: 09-11-2000 São Tomé e Principe Ratification: 20-06-1996 (A) Entry into force: 20-07-1996 Senegal Ratification: 25-03-1974 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Serbia Ratification: 12-03-2001 (Su) Entry into force: 27-04-1992 Seychelles Ratification: 27-02-1992 (A) Entry into force: 28-03-1992 Sierra Leone Ratification: 06-06-1994 (A) Entry into force: 06-07-1994 Singapore Ratification: 09-07-1975 (A) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Slovakia Ratification: 28-05-1993 (Su) Entry into force: 01-01-1993 Slovenia Ratification: 06-07-1992 (Su) Entry into force: 25-06-1991 Solomon Islands Ratification: 17-03-1982 (Su) Entry into force: 07-07-1978 Somalia Ratification: 09-06-1988 (A) Entry into force: 09-07-1988 South Africa Ratification: 16-12-1975 (R) Entry into force: 15-01-1976 Spain Ratification: 04-01-1977 (R) Entry into force: 03-02-1977 Sri Lanka Ratification: 29-06-1981 (A) Entry into force: 29-07-1981 Sudan Ratification: 05-07-1994 (A) Entry into force: 04-08-1994 Suriname Ratification: 29-03-1990 (A) Entry into force: 28-04-1990 Sweden Ratification: 05-12-1972 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Switzerland Ratification: 22-04-1996 (A) Entry into force: 22-05-1996 Syria Ratification: 01-02-1974 (A) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Tajikistan Ratification: 26-03-1997 (A) Entry into force: 25-04-1997 Tanzania Ratification: 25-03-1999 (A) Entry into force: 24-04-1999 Thailand Ratification: 09-01-1975 (A) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Togo Ratification: 10-11-1976 (R) Entry into force: 10-12-1976 Tonga Ratification: 05-09-1973 (A) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Trinidad and Tobago Ratification: 23-07-1979 (A) Entry into force: 22-08-1979 Tunisia Ratification: 29-06-1976 (R) Entry into force: 29-07-1976 Türkiye Ratification: 20-07-2001 (R) Entry into force: 19-08-2001 Turkmenistan Ratification: 21-02-1996 (A) Entry into force: 22-03-1996 Uganda Ratification: 15-04-1988 (A) Entry into force: 15-05-1988 Ukraine Ratification: 27-09-2001 (A) Entry into force: 27-10-2001 United Arab Emirates Ratification: 17-02-1988 (A) Entry into force: 18-03-1988 United Kingdom Ratification: 20-06-1978 (R) Entry into force: 20-07-1978 Anguilla Entry into force: 20-07-1978Antigua and Barbuda (< 01-11-1981) Entry into force: 20-07-1978 Termination: 01-11-1981Belize (< 21-09-1981) Entry into force: 20-07-1978 Termination: 21-09-1981Bermuda Entry into force: 20-06-1978British Virgin Islands Entry into force: 20-07-1978Brunei (< 01-01-1984) Entry into force: 20-07-1978 Termination: 01-01-1984Cayman Islands Entry into force: 20-07-1978Dominica (< 03-11-1978) Entry into force: 20-07-1978 Termination: 03-11-1978Falkland Islands Entry into force: 20-07-1978Gibraltar Entry into force: 20-07-1978Guernsey Entry into force: 20-07-1978Hong Kong (< 01-07-1997) Entry into force: 20-07-1978 Termination: 01-07-1997Jersey Entry into force: 20-07-1978Kiribati (< 12-07-1979) Entry into force: 20-07-1978 Termination: 12-07-1979Man, Isle of Entry into force: 20-07-1978Montserrat Entry into force: 20-07-1978Saint Kitts and Nevis (< 19-11-1983) Entry into force: 20-07-1978 Termination: 19-11-1983Saint Lucia (< 22-02-1979) Entry into force: 20-07-1978 Termination: 22-02-1979Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (<27-10-1979) Entry into force: 20-07-1978 Termination: 27-10-1979Saint-Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Entry into force: 20-07-1978Solomon Islands (< 07-07-1978) Entry into force: 20-07-1978 Termination: 07-07-1978Turks and Caicos Islands Entry into force: 20-07-1978Tuvalu (< 01-10-1978) Entry into force: 20-07-1978 Termination: 01-10-1978 Uruguay Ratification: 31-10-1975 (A) Entry into force: 30-11-1975 Uzbekistan Ratification: 24-08-1995 (A) Entry into force: 23-09-1995 Venezuela Ratification: 04-12-1985 (R) Entry into force: 03-01-1986 Yemen Ratification: 25-03-1996 (A) Entry into force: 24-04-1996 Yugoslavia (< 25-06-1991) Ratification: 23-06-1978 (R) Entry into force: 23-07-1978 Zambia Ratification: 13-05-1998 (A) Entry into force: 12-06-1998 Zimbabwe Ratification: 30-07-1993 (A) Entry into force: 29-08-1993 Andorra Ratification: 13-02-2007 (A) Entry into force: 15-03-2007 Reservations / Declarations: Yes Objections: No reservation 13-02-2007 The Principality of Andorra does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 48 which provide for a mandatory referral to the International Court of Justice of any dispute which cannot be resolved according to the terms of paragraph 1. The Government of Andorra takes the position that for any dispute to be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision the agreement of all the parties to the dispute shall be necessary in each individual case. Bahrain Ratification: 07-02-1990 (A) Entry into force: 09-03-1990 Reservations / Declarations: Yes Objections: Yes reservation 07-02-1990 Reservation: With regard to article 48, paragraph 2: The State of Bahrain does not recognise the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. objection to reservation Objection Israel, 14-05-1990 The Government of the State of Israel has noted that the instruments of accession of Bahrain … contain a declaration in respect of Israel. In view of the Government of the State of Israel such declaration, which is explicitly of a political character, is incompatible with the purposes and objectives [of the 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 the Government of Bahrain an attitude of complete reciprocity. Subsequently, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Israel an objection, identical in essence, mutatis mutandis , with regard to a reservation made by Bahrain. Bolivia Ratification: 11-01-2013 (A) Entry into force: 10-02-2013 Reservations / Declarations: Yes Objections: Yes reservation 11-01-2013 The Plurinational State of Bolivia reserves the right to allow in its territory: traditional coca leaf chewing; the consumption and use of the coca leaf in its natural state for cultural and medicinal purposes, such as its use in infusions; and also the cultivation, trade and possession of the coca leaf to the extent necessary for these licit purposes. At the same time, the Plurinational State of Bolivia will continue to take all necessary measures to control the cultivation of coca in order to prevent its abuse and the illicit production of the narcotic drugs which may be extracted from the leaf. objection to reservation Objection United States of America, 03-07-2012 [...] the United States objects to the proposed reservation. The United States considers the Convention to be one of the cornerstones of international efforts to prevent the illicit production, manufacture, traffic in and abuse of drugs, while ensuring that licit drugs are available for medical and scientific purposes. The United States is concerned that Bolivia's reservation is likely to lead to a greater supply of available coca, and as a result, more cocaine will be available for the global cocaine market, further fueling narcotics trafficking and related criminal activities in Bolivia and the countries along the cocaine trafficking route. The United States welcomes Bolivia's renewed commitment to continue to take all necessary legal measures to control the illicit cultivation of coca in order to prevent its abuse and the illicit production of the narcotic drugs which may be extracted from the leaf. Should Bolivia's reservation be deemed to be permitted in accordance with Article 50, paragraph 3 of the Convention, this objection would not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the United States and Bolivia, but the United States would not assume toward Bolivia any legal obligation under the Convention that is affected by the reservation. Objection United Kingdom, 14-12-2012 The United Kingdom acknowledges and respects the cultural importance of the coca leaf in Bolivia. The United Kingdom also understands that the Bolivian government considers it an integral part of Bolivian heritage and that the use of coca for traditional purposes has been established as a cultural right in the Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. The United Kingdom also welcomes the recent reductions in coca production in Bolivia, as outlined in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2011 National Coca Monitoring Survey. The United Kingdom is, however, concerned that the reservation could lead to increases in coca production and -crucially- the amount of coca diverted to the cocaine trade. As such, the reservation would weaken international law as it relates to the global effort to tackle the drugs trade and could weaken the international community's response to that trade. Therefore, the United Kingdom objects to the proposed reservation and requests that the Secretary-General inform States Parties to the Single Convention accordingly. Objection Sweden, 21-12-2012 The Government of Sweden fully recognizes the efforts of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to reduce the production and trade in illicit coca products. Sweden also understands the concerns that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has expressed concerning the United Nations' drug control conventions and the traditional coca leaf chewing. The United Nations' drug control conventions are the corner stones of the international legal framework for the fight against drugs. An exemption for coca leaf chewing and the growing of coca plants for this purpose risks to undermine this system and to weaken the control over cocaine production. Furthermore, the ambition expressed in the convention is the successive prohibition also of traditional uses of drugs, the chewing of coca leaves being explicitly mentioned. The Government of Sweden has serious concerns regarding the procedure followed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia with denunciation of the Convention followed by immediate re-accession with a reservation. While article 46 of the Convention provides that any Party may denounce the Convention, the denunciation should in no case be used by a State Party for the sole purpose of formulating reservations to the Convention after re-accession. Such practice would constitute a misuse of the procedure and would undermine the basis of international treaty law and the international legal framework for the fight against drugs. For these reasons the Government of Sweden objects to the proposed reservation by the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Objection Italy, 28-12-2012 Italy praises the efforts by Bolivia to reduce the production and trade of illicit coca products. Italy fully respects the cultural identity and traditions of Indigenous Populations, guaranteed by the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, Italy believes that the dialogue aimed at further promoting the respect of Indigenous traditions should be fully coherent with and preserve the integrity of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. States that are a Party to the Single Convention undertake an obligation to limit the trade and use of narcotic drugs exclusively for medical and scientific purposes. States Parties also recognize that measures against abuse of narcotic drugs require coordinated and universal action. Schedule I to the Single Convention lists coca leaf as a narcotic drug. Italy is therefore of the opinion that, in proposing reservations, States Parties should be guided by the object and purpose of the Single Convention. The Bolivian approach poses the risk of creating a precedent and may undermine the international anti-narcotics legal framework. This would send a negative signal, out of step with the actions undertaken so far in the fight against drug trafficking and drug use. Moreover, the procedure applied by Bolivia - denunciation and rejoin with reservation of the 1961 Convention - is contrary to the principle of "good faith" under article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, since it appears directed to avoid the limits established in article 49 and 50 of the Single Convention. In light of these considerations, the Government of Italy hereby informs the Secretary-General in accordance with Article 50, paragraph 3 of the Single Convention, that it objects to the proposed reservation by Bolivia of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and requests that the Secretary- General inform States Parties to the Single Convention accordingly. Objection Canada, 28-12-2012 [...] Canada objects to the reservation put forward by the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Canada has long held that the Convention forms the cornerstone of international efforts to prevent the illicit production, manufacture, trafficking and abuse of drugs, while ensuring that licit drugs are available for medical and scientific purposes. The Convention, along with the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances are the key instruments in global efforts to address illicit drugs. Canada continues to be concerned that Bolivia's reservation would lead to a greater supply of coca leaf and consequent availability of cocaine. Should Bolivia's reservation be deemed to be permitted in accordance with Article 50, paragraph 3 of the Convention, this objection would not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and the Plurinational State of Bolivia, but Canada would not assume toward Bolivia any legal obligations under the Convention that is affected by this reservation. Objection Russian Federation, 03-01-2013 Pursuant to article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, the Russian Federation objects to the reservation entered by the Plurinational State of Bolivia on 29 December 2011 to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended by the Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (the Convention). The Russian Federation considers the Convention one of the fundamental international legal instruments for the control of narcotics; undermining it, including in matters relating to the coca leaf, could have serious negative consequences in terms of the use of the coca leaf for illicit purposes, including the cultivation of coca bush, the production of cocaine and an increased volume of illicit trafficking of cocaine. This step will also establish a dangerous precedent that might be used by other States in order to establish in their territories more liberal drug control regimes than are provided for by the Convention, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988. The question of what reservations may be made to the provisions of the Convention concerning coca leaf chewing, and on what conditions, is strictly governed by the special rule set out in article 49. Pursuant to that article, the State's ability to permit temporarily the chewing of the coca leaf in its territory is clearly subject to a number of restrictions and additional obligations, the most important of which is that coca leaf chewing must be abolished within 25 years from the coming into force of the Convention. That period expired for the Plurinational State of Bolivia in 2001. In view of the foregoing, the Russian Federation calls upon the Plurinational State of Bolivia to review its position and withdraw the aforementioned reservation. The Russian Federation welcomes the commitment by the Plurinational State of Bolivia to take all necessary measures to continue to control the cultivation and trade of the coca leaf in order to avoid its diversion to illicit channels and the desire of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to continue being a party to the Convention. Objection France, 03-01-2013 France is aware of the importance Bolivia attaches to the preservation of its ancestral traditions and practices and to the rights of indigenous peoples. It notes that it is within this context that Bolivia, by entering a reservation together with its instrument of accession to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, purports to preserve in its territory the cultivation and chewing of the coca leaf in its natural state. France welcomes the assurance offered by Bolivia that it will continue to take all necessary measures to prevent the illicit production of narcotic drugs. Nevertheless, France objects to the general reservation entered by Bolivia, as it could undermine the overall balance of the Convention and, consequently, the response to global drug trafficking. The reservation creates a risk of increased coca leaf production and of illicit exploitation of such production through drug trafficking. Furthermore, the reservation is vague and in this case disregards the principle of legal certainty, which is essential to the stability of treaty relations. Therefore, France recalls that it will not be bound in relation to Bolivia by the provisions that Bolivia purports to exclude from the scope of obligations imposed on the parties within the meaning of the Convention. It expresses the hope that Bolivia will apply a restrictive interpretation to the scope of the provisions it does not intend to implement. France does not, by means of this objection, purport to oppose Bolivia's becoming a party to the Convention, pursuant to article 50, paragraph 3, of the Convention, and it reaffirms the importance it attaches to Bolivia's continued engagement in action against narcotic drugs. Objection Germany, 04-01-2013 The Federal Republic of Germany expressly welcomes the essential willingness of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to accept the obligations deriving from the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, as amended by the Protocol thereto. The Federal Republic of Germany has thoroughly and carefully reviewed the wording of the reservation submitted in accordance with Article 50, paragraph 3 of the Convention, as contained in the communication from the Plurinational State of Bolivia. The Federal Republic of Germany hereby objects to the reservation. Should the reservation of the Plurinational State of Bolivia be deemed to be permitted in accordance with Article 50, paragraph 3 of the Convention, this objection should not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Plurinational State of Bolivia. The Federal Republic of Germany will not assume towards the Plurinational State of Bolivia any legal obligation under the Convention which is affected by the reservation. Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 08-01-2013 The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully considered the intention of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to re-accede with a reservation to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands fully recognizes the efforts of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to reduce the production and trade in illicit coca products. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to underline that States that are Party to the Single Convention undertake an obligation to limit the trade and use of narcotic drugs exclusively for medical and scientific purposes. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is therefore of the opinion that, in proposing reservations, States Parties should be guided by the object and purpose of the Single Convention. The Bolivian approach poses the risk of creating a precedent and may undermine the international anti-narcotics legal framework. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the procedure followed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia of denouncing the Single Convention as amended, followed by a re-accession with a reservation, as contrary to the rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the formulation of reservations after ratification. The procedure followed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia circumvents these well-established rules and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Single Convention, as amended, between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Objection Finland, 08-01-2013 The Plurinational State of Bolivia deposited its instrument of denunciation of the Convention on 29 June 2011 with effect as of 1 January 2012. On 29 December 2011, Bolivia informed the depositary of its intention to reacceed to the Convention subject to the authorisation of the reservation by the States Parties submitted in accordance with article 50, paragraph 3 of the Convention. The Government of Finland has carefully examined this procedure and the reservation made by the Plurinational State of Bolivia and notes that it is in contradiction with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and well-established customary international law to denounce a treaty and reacceed to it to be able to make it subject to a new reservation. The Government of Finland is, therefore, of the view that the procedure provided in article 50, paragraph 3, cannot be used for this purpose. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all Parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Finland, therefore, objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Plurinational State of Bolivia and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without Bolivia benefitting from this reservation. Objection Portugal, 08-01-2013 The Plurinational State of Bolivia deposited its instrument of denunciation of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended by the Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, New York, 8 August 1975, with effect as of 1 January 2012. On 29 December 2011, Bolivia informed the depositary of its intention to accede once again to the Convention, subject to the authorisation by the States Parties of a reservation, submitted in accordance with Article 50, paragraph 3 of the Convention. The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the United Nations' drug control conventions are the corner stone of the international legal framework for the fight against drugs. The Government of the Portuguese Republic recognizes the efforts of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to reduce the production and trade in illicit coca products and respects the cultural importance of the coca leaf in Bolivia as part of Bolivian heritage. However, the Government of the Portuguese Republic has serious concerns regarding the procedure followed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia of denouncing the Convention followed by an immediate re-accession with a reservation, since the Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that submitting the said reservation is not possible since 13 of December 1989, in accordance with the Articles 49, paragraph 2 and 41, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the proposed aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Should the reservation of the Plurinational State of Bolivia be deemed to be permitted in accordance with Article 50, paragraph 3 of the Convention, this objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Portuguese Republic and the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Objection Israel, 08-01-2013 Israel objects to the proposed reservation. There is a substantial danger that the reservation might lead to a greater supply of available coca and an increase of coca production and sales. As a result, the reservation might weaken the international efforts to prevent illicit production, traffic and abuse of drugs which constitute the cornerstone of the Convention. Objection Ireland, 09-01-2013 The Government of Ireland has examined the proposed reservation contained in the instrument of accession to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, as amended by the Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, made by the Plurinational State of Bolivia on 28 December 2011. The Government of Ireland welcomes Bolivia's renewed commitment to continue to take all necessary legal measures to control the illicit cultivation of coca in order to prevent its abuse and the illicit production of the narcotic drugs which may be extracted from the leaf. The Government of Ireland is of the view, however, that this proposed reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Bolivia to the object and purpose of the Single Convention, as amended, which is to limit the production, trade and use of narcotic drugs to medical and scientific use and which provides for international cooperation and control for the achievement of this object. The proposed reservation, on the contrary, seeks to limit the international obligations of Bolivia by reserving its right to allow for the continued cultivation, trade and possession of the coca leaf. The Government of Ireland is concerned with regard to the procedure followed by the Government of Bolivia in that the denunciation of the Single Convention, succeeded by re-accession with a reservation, compromises the rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the formulation of reservations after a state has become party to a treaty and undermines international efforts to limit the production, trade and use of narcotic drugs. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Bolivia to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Single Convention, as amended, between Ireland and Bolivia. Objection Mexico, 09-01-2013 The Government of Mexico, pursuant to the applicable domestic and international legislation and to the procedure indicated in article 50, paragraph 3 of the Convention, submits through the present note its objection to the reservation for the following reasons: 1. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, is an instrument of universal scope, one of whose objectives is the protection of human health. Mexico is convinced that only by maintaining the integrity of the Convention will its objectives be met. 2. In the terms of the General Health Act of Mexico, coca leaf is considered a narcotic drug and its production is punishable under the Federal Criminal Code. Therefore, accepting the reservation would be contrary to Mexican law. 3. The Government of Mexico has harmonized its legislation and implemented public policies to tackle the drug problem, pursuant to the provisions of the three relevant international instruments on this matter. However, despite its objection to the reservation in question, the Government of Mexico wishes to reiterate its respect for the human rights of indigenous peoples and for their customs and practices, a commitment it fully shares with the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Objection Japan, 10-01-2013 The Government of Japan has examined the reservation made by the Plurinational State of Bolivia and understands that Bolivia's contention is based on its custom and tradition. However the Government of Japan is of the view that the reservation seems to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention to prevent the illicit production, manufacture and trafficking of cocaine. Therefore, the Government of Japan objects to the aforesaid reservation. Should the aforesaid reservation be deemed to be permitted as provided under Article 50, paragraph 3 of the Convention, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Japan and the Plurinational State of Bolivia. However, as also stipulated in the last sentence of the said paragraph, Japan would not assume towards the Plurinational State of Bolivia any legal obligation under the Convention which is affected by the reservation. Be that as it may, the Government of Japan welcomes Bolivia's renewed commitment to continue to take all necessary legal measures to control the illicit cultivation of coca in order to prevent its abuse and the illicit production of the narcotic drugs which may be extracted from the leaf. Objection Romania, 14-01-2013 The Government of Romania, while not filing a formal objection to the reservation made by Bolivia to article 49 of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, presents the following declaration: The Government of Romania notes that Bolivia withdraw from the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (to which it did not have any reservations) followed within a very short period of time by a re-accession with a reservation. The Government of Romania considers that the practice of withdrawing and re-acceding to a Convention with the sole purpose of presenting a reservation is inconsistent with the customary rule of international law according to which late reservations may not be allowed. At the same time, such actions may raise questions with respect to the stability of legal relations, as well as to the principle of pacta sunt servanda. Objection Mexico, 30-11-2018 […] the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations wishes to inform, for any relevant purposes, that, having made a comprehensive assessment of the recent developments in multilateral discussions on the subject of drugs, the Government of Mexico has decided to withdraw the objection to the reservation made by the Plurinational State of Bolivia upon accession to the Convention, submitted by Mexico on 9 January 2013 and communicated in depositary notification C.N.85.2013.TREATIESVI.18 […] China Ratification: 23-08-1985 (A) Entry into force: 22-09-1985 Reservations / Declarations: Yes Objections: No Hong Kong SAR Entry into force: 01-07-1997Macao SAR Entry into force: 20-12-1999 reservation 23-08-1985 The Chinese Government has reservation on paragraph 2, article 48 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 [as amended]. Nepal Ratification: 29-06-1987 (A) Entry into force: 29-07-1987 Reservations / Declarations: Yes Objections: No reservation 29-06-1987 His Majesty's Government of Nepal in accordance with article 49 paragraph 1 of the said Convention hereby reserves the right to permit temporarily in its territory: i. the quasi-medical use of opium; ii. The use of cannabis, cannabis resin, extracts and tinctures of cannabis for non-medical purposes; and iii. The production and manufacture of and trade in the drugs referred to under (i) and (ii) above. Saudi Arabia Ratification: 07-11-1997 (A) Entry into force: 07-12-1997 Reservations / Declarations: Yes Objections: No reservation 07-11-1997 The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will not be bound by article 48, paragraph 2, of the Convention. United States of America Ratification: 01-11-1972 (R) Entry into force: 08-08-1975 Reservations / Declarations: Yes Objections: No reservation 29-03-2018 The United States Mission to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and refers to the U.N. Secretary-General’s depositary notification C.N.812.2017.TREATIES-VI.18, dated January 3, 2018, regarding the purported accession of the ‘State of Palestine’ to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended by the Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, done at New York August 8, 1975 (the Convention), for which the Secretary-General of the United Nations is the depositary. The Government of the United States of America does not believe the ‘State of Palestine’ qualifies as a sovereign State and does not recognize it as such. Accession to the Convention is limited to sovereign States. Therefore, the Government of the United States of America believes that the ‘State of Palestine’ is not qualified to accede to the Convention and affirms that it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the ‘State of Palestine’ under the Convention. Vietnam Ratification: 04-11-1997 (A) Entry into force: 04-12-1997 Reservations / Declarations: Yes Objections: Yes reservation 04-11-1997 (The Government of Viet Nam declares its reservation to] article 36, paragraph 2, point b on Extradition and article 48, paragraph 2 on Dispute settlement. objection to reservation Objection Sweden, 14-12-1998 The Government of Sweden is of the view that the reservation made by the Government of Viet Nam regarding article 36, paragraph 2 subparagraph (b) may raise doubts as to the commitment of Viet Nam to the object and purpose of the Convention. ... It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. Furthermore, according to the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, and well-established customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid [reservation] by the Government of Viet Nam. [This objection does] not preclude the entry into force of the [Convention] between Viet Nam and Sweden. The [Convention] will thus become operative berween the two States without Viet Nam benefiting from the [reservation]. Objection Austria, 16-12-1998 Austria is of the view that the reservation raises doubts as to its compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention concerned, in particular the fundamental principle that perpetrators of drug-related crime should be brought to justice, regardless of their whereabouts. Non-acceptance of this principle would undermine the effectiveness of the above-mentioned Convention. Austria therefore objects to the reservation. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the above-mentioned Convention between Austria and Viet Nam. Objection United Kingdom, 17-12-1998 With regard to the reservation to article 36 (2)(b) made by Viet Nam upon accession: "The United Kingdom is not in a position to accept [the] reservation." The above objection is not however to constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the said [Convention] as between Vietnam and the United Kingdom. Objection Finland, 15-01-1999 The Government of Finland is of the view that [this reservation] raise[s] doubts as to [its] compatibility with the object and purpose of the [Convenion] concerned, in particular the [reservation] to article 32, paragraph 2, subparagraph b) 1). According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and well-established customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all Parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Finland therefore objects to [this reservation] made by the Government of Viet Nam to the [Convention]. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the [Convention] between Viet Nam and Finland. The [Convention] will thus become operative between the two States without Viet Nam benefitting from [this reservation].

Pagina: 1