Overheid.nl| Search page

The guide to Dutch government information and services

Search Advanced search
Home

Treaty

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Parties with reservations, declarations and objections

Party Reservations / Declarations Objections
Afghanistan Yes No
Algeria Yes No
Andorra Yes Yes
Argentina Yes Yes
Australia Yes No
Austria Yes No
Bahamas Yes No
Bangladesh Yes Yes
Belgium Yes No
Bosnia and Herzegovina Yes No
Botswana Yes Yes
Brunei Yes Yes
Canada Yes No
China Yes No
Colombia Yes No
Cook Islands Yes No
Croatia Yes No
Cuba Yes No
Czech Republic Yes No
Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993) Yes No
Denmark Yes No
Djibouti Yes Yes
Ecuador Yes No
Egypt Yes No
Eswatini Yes No
France Yes No
Germany Yes No
Greece Yes No
Guatemala Yes No
Holy See Yes No
Iceland Yes No
India Yes No
Indonesia Yes Yes
Iran Yes Yes
Iraq Yes No
Ireland Yes No
Israel Yes No
Japan Yes No
Jordan Yes Yes
Kiribati Yes Yes
Kuwait Yes Yes
Liechtenstein Yes Yes
Luxembourg Yes No
Malaysia Yes Yes
Maldives Yes No
Mali Yes No
Malta Yes No
Mauritania Yes No
Mauritius Yes No
Monaco Yes No
Morocco Yes No
Myanmar Yes Yes
Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Yes No
New Zealand Yes No
Oman Yes Yes
Pakistan Yes Yes
Palestine Yes No
Poland Yes No
Qatar Yes Yes
Republic of Korea, the Yes No
Samoa Yes No
Saudi Arabia Yes Yes
Serbia Yes Yes
Singapore Yes Yes
Slovakia Yes No
Slovenia Yes No
Somalia Yes Yes
Spain Yes No
Switzerland Yes No
Syria Yes Yes
Thailand Yes Yes
Tunisia Yes Yes
Turkey Yes Yes
United Arab Emirates Yes Yes
United Kingdom Yes Yes
Uruguay Yes No
Venezuela Yes No
Yugoslavia (< 25-06-1991) Yes No

Afghanistan

27-09-1990

The Government of the Republic of Afghanistan reserves the right to express, upon ratifying the Convention, reservations on all provisions of the Convention that are incompatible with the laws of Islamic Shari'a and the local legislation in effect.

Algeria

16-04-1993

Article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2:
The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 14 shall be interpreted by the Algerian Government in compliance with the basic foundations of the Algerian legal system, in particular:
- With the Constitution, which stipulates in its article 2 that Islam is the State religion and in its article 35 that "there shall be no infringement of the inviolability of the freedom of conviction and the inviolability of the freedom of opinion";
- With Law No. 84-11 of 9 June 1984, comprising the Family Code, which stipulates that a child's education is to take place in accordance with the religion of its father.
Articles 13, 16 and 17:
Articles 13, 16 and 17 shall be applied while taking account of the interest of the child and the need to safeguard its physical and mental integrity. In this framework, the Algerian Government shall interpret the provisions of these articles while taking account of:
- The provisions of the Penal Code, in particular those sections relating to breaches of public order, to public decency and to the incitement of minors to immorality and debauchery;
- The provisions of Law No. 90-07 of 3 April 1990, comprising the Information Code, and particularly its article 24 stipulating that "the director of a publication destined for children must be assisted by an educational advisory body";
- Article 26 of the same Code, which provides that "national and foreign periodicals and specialized publications, whatever their nature or purpose, must not contain any illustration, narrative, information or insertion contrary to Islamic morality, national values or human rights or advocate racism, fanaticism and treason. Further, such publications must contain no publicity or advertising that may promote violence and delinquency.

Andorra

02-01-1996

A. The Principality of Andorra deplores the fact that the [said Convention] does not prohibit the use of children in armed conflicts. It also disagrees with the provisions of article 38, paragraphs 2 and 3, concerning the participation and recruitment of children from the age of 15.

B. The Principality of Andorra will apply the provisions of articles 7 and 8 of the Convention without prejudice to the provisions of part II, article 7 of the Constitution of the Principality of Andorra, concerning Andorran nationality.
Article 7 of the Constitution of Andorra provides that:
A Llei qualificada shall determine the rules pertaining to the acquisition and loss of nationality and the legal consequences thereof.
Acquisition or retention of a nationality other than Andorran nationality shall result in the loss of the latter in accordance with the conditions and limits established by law.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 06-03-1997

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Andorra.

01-03-2006

The Government of Andorra notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the following declaration made upon ratification;

B. The Principality of Andorra will apply the provisions of articles 7 and 8 of the Convention without prejudice to the provisions of part II, article 7 of the Constitution of the Principality of Andorra, concerning Andorran nationality.
Article 7 of the Constitution of Andorra provides that:
A Llei qualificada shall determine the rules pertaining to the acquisition and loss of nationality and the legal consequences thereof.
Acquisition or retention of a nationality other than Andorran nationality shall result in the loss of the latter in accordance with the conditions and limits established by law.


Argentina

29-06-1990

Reservation:
The Argentine Republic enters a reservation to subparagraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and declares that those subparagraphs shall not apply in areas within its jurisdiction because, in its view, before they can be applied a strict mechanism must exist for the legal protection of children in matters of inter-country adoption, in order to prevent trafficking in and the sale of children.
Declarations:
Concerning article 1 of the Convention, the Argentine Republic declares that the article must be interpreted to the effect that a child means every human being from the moment of conception up to the age of eighteen.
Concerning article 38 of the Convention, the Argentine Republic declares that it would have liked the Convention categorically to prohibit the use of children in armed conflicts. Such a prohibition exists in its domestic law which, by virtue of article 41 of the Convention, it shall continue to apply in this regard.

04-12-1990

Concerning subparagraph (f) of article 24 of the Convention, the Argentine Republic considers that questions relating to family planning are the exclusive concern of parents in accordance with ethical and moral principles and understands it to be a State obligation, under this article, to adopt measures providing guidance for parents and education for responsible parenthood.

03-04-1995

The Government of Argentina rejects the extension of the application of the [said Convention] to the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, effected by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 7 September 1994, and reaffirms its sovereignty over those islands, which are an integral part of its national territory.

Objection United Kingdom, 17-01-1996

The Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands and over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and its consequential right to extend the said Convention to these Territories. The United Kingdom Government rejects as unfounded the claims by the Government of Argentina and is unable to regard the Argentine objection as having any legal effect.

05-10-2000

[The Argentine Republic] wishes to refer to the report submitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which contains an addendum entitled "Overseas Dependent Territories and Crown Dependencies of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (CRC/C/41/Add.9).
In that connection, the Argentine Republic wishes to recall that by its note of 3 April 1995 it rejected the extension of the application of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands effected by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 7 September 1994.
The Government of Argentina rejects the designation of the Malvinas Islands as Overseas Dependent Territories of the United Kingdom or any other similar designation.
Consequently, the Argentine Republic does not recognize the section concerning the Malvinas Islands contained in the report which the United Kingdom has submitted to the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC/C/41/Add.9) or any other document or instrument having a similar tenor that may derive from this alleged territorial extension.
The United Nations General Assembly has adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, in which it recognizes that a dispute exists concerning sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands and urges the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to continue negotiations with a view to resolving the dispute peacefully and definitively as soon as possible, assisted by the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who is to report to the General Assembly on the progress made.
The Argentine Republic reaffirms its rights of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces, which are an integral part of its national territory.

Objection United Kingdom, 20-12-2000

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rejects as unfounded the claims made by the Argentine Republic in its communication to the depositary of 5 October 2000. The Government of the United Kingdom recalls that in its declaration received by the depositary on 16 January 1996 it rejected the objection by the Argentine Republic to the extension by the United Kingdom of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to the Falkland Islands and to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands and over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and its consequential rights to apply the Convention with respect to those Territories.

Australia

17-12-1990

Australia accepts the general principles of article 37. In relation to the second sentence of paragraph (c), the obligation to separate children from adults in prison is accepted only to the extent that such imprisonment is considered by the responsible authorities to be feasible and consistent with the obligation that children be able to maintain contact with their families, having regard to the geography and demography of Australia. Australia, therefore, ratifies the Convention to the extent that it is unable to comply with the obligation imposed by article 37 (c).

Austria

06-08-1992

Reservations:
1. Article 13 and article 15 of the Convention will be applied provided that they will not affect legal restrictions in accordance with article 10 and article 11 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950.
2. Article 17 will be applied to the extent that it is compatible with the basic rights of others, in particular with the basic rights of freedom of information and freedom of press.
Declarations:
1. Austria will not make any use of the possibility provided for in article 38, paragraph 2, to determine an age limit of 15 years for taking part in hostilities as this rule is incompatible with article 3, paragraph 1, which determines that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
2. Austria declares, in accordance with its constitutional law, to apply article 38, paragraph 3, provided that only male Austrian citizens are subject to compulsory military service.

28-09-2015

Withdrawal of reservations and declarations.

Bahamas

30-10-1990

The Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas upon signing the Convention reserves the right not to apply the provisions of article 2 of the said Convention insofar as those provisions relate to the conferment of citizenship upon a child having regard to the Provisions of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas.

Bangladesh

03-08-1990

[The Government of Bangladesh] ratifies the Convention with a reservation to article 14, paragraph 1.
Also article 21 would apply subject to the existing laws and practices in Bangladesh.

Objection Portugal, 15-07-1992

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Bangladesh.

Objection Ireland, 28-09-1992

The Government of Ireland consider that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention, by invoking general principles of national law, may create doubts as to the commitment of those States to the object and purpose of the Convention.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and Bangladesh.

Objection Sweden, 20-07-1993

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Sweden a communication upon ratification by Bangladesh concerning article 21.

Belgium

16-12-1991

1. With regard to article 2, paragraph 1, according to the interpretation of the Belgian Government non-discrimination on grounds of national origin does not necessarily imply the obligation for States automatically to guarantee foreigners the same rights as their nationals. This concept should be understood as designed to rule out all arbitrary conduct but not differences in treatment based on objective and reasonable considerations, in accordance with the principles prevailing in democratic societies.
2. Articles 13 and 15 shall be applied by the Belgian Government within the context of the provisions and limitations set forth or authorized by said Convention in articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950.
3. The Belgian Government declares that it interprets article 14, paragraph 1, as meaning that, in accordance with the relevant provisions of article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 19 December 1966 and article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion implies also the freedom to choose his or her religion or belief.
4. With regard to article 40, paragraph 2 (b) (v), the Belgian Government considers that the expression "according to law" at the end of that provision means that:
(a) This provision shall not apply to minors who, under Belgian law, are declared guilty and are sentenced in a higher court following an appeal against their acquittal in a court of the first instance;
(b) This provision shall not apply to minors who, under Belgian law, are referred directly to a higher court such as the Court of Assize.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

01-09-1993

The Republic of Bosnia and Herzergovina reserves the right not to apply paragraph 1 of article 9 of the Convention since the internal legislation of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina provides for the right of competent authorities (guardianship authorities) to determine on separation of a child from his/her parents without a previous judicial review.

16-09-2008

Withdrawal of reservation made upon succession:
"The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina reserves the right not to apply paragraph 1 of article
9 of the Convention since the internal legislation of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina provides
for the right of competent authorities (guardianship authorities) to determine on separation of a child
from his/her parents without a previous judicial review."

Botswana

14-03-1995

The Government of the Republic of Botswana enters a reservation with regard to the provisions of article 1 of the Convention and does not consider itself bound by the same in so far as such may conflict with the Laws and Statutes of Botswana.

Objection Germany, 13-06-1996

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Botswana under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the said reservation.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Botswana.

Objection Italy, 14-06-1996

The Government of the Italian Republic considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Botswana under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties should be respected, as to the objects and the purpose, by all Parties. The Government of the Italian Republic therefore objects to this reservation. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Government of the Italian Republic and Botswana.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 14-06-1996

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Botswana.

Objection Denmark, 03-07-1996

Because of their unlimited scope and undefined character these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Therefore, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations. The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Botswana and Qatar respectively and Denmark.
It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.
The Government of Denmark recommends the Governments of Botwana and Qatar to reconsider their reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Brunei

27-12-1995

[The Government of Brunei Darussalam] expresses its reservations on the provisions of the said Convention which may be contrary to the Constitution of Brunei Darussalam and to the beliefs and principles of Islam, the State religion, and without prejudice to the generality of the said reservations, in particular expresses its reservation on articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention.

Objection Italy, 23-12-1996

The Government of the Italian Republic considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Brunei Darussalam under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Brunei Darussalam to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties should be respected, as to the objects and the purpose, by all Parties. The Government of the Italian Republic therefore objects to this reservation. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Government of the Italian Republic and Brunei Darussalam.

Objection Portugal, 30-01-1997

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Brunei Darussalam.

Objection Denmark, 10-02-1997

The Government of Denmark finds that the general reservation with reference to the Constitution of Brunei Darussalam and to the beliefs and principles of Islamic law is of unlimited scope and undefined character. Consequently, the Government of Denmark considers the said reservation as being incompatible with the object and purposes of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Furthermore, it is a general principle of international law that national law may not be invoked as justification for failure to perform treaty obligations.
The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Brunei Darussalam and Denmark.
It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark, that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.
The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of Brunei Darussalam to reconsider its reservation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Objection Germany, 12-02-1997

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Brunei under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Brunei to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the said reservation.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Brunei.

Objection Austria, 03-03-1997

Under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which is reflected in article 51 of the [Convention] a reservation, in order to be admissible under international law, has to be compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty concerned. A reservation is incompatible with object and purpose of a treaty if it intends to derogate from provisions the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling its object and purpose.
The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by Brunei to the [Convention]. Given the general character of these reservations a final assessment as to its admissibility under international law cannot be made without further clarification.
Until the scope of the legal effects of this reservation is sufficiently specified by Brunei, the Republic of Austria considers these reservations as not affecting any provision the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling the object and purpose of the [Convention].
Austria, however, objects to the admissibility of the reservations in question if the application of this reservation negatively affects the compliance of Brunei ... with its obligations under the [Convention] essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose.
Austria could not consider the reservation made by Brunei ... as admissible under the regime of article 51 of the [Convention] and article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties unless Brunei ... , by providing additional information or through subsequent practice to ensure [s] that the reservations are compatible with the provisions essential for the implementation of the object and purpose of the [Convention].

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 03-03-1997

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Brunei Darussalam.

Objection Norway, 04-03-1997

The Government of Norway considers that the reservation made by Brunei Darussalam, due to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is inadmissible under international law. For that reason, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation made by Brunei Darussalam.
The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and Brunei Darussalam.

Objection Ireland, 13-03-1997

Ireland considers that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is therefore prohibited by article 51 (2) of the Convention. The Government of Ireland also considers that it contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the said reservation.

Objection Finland, 20-03-1997

The reservations made in paragraphs 2 and 3 by Brunei Darussalam, consisting of a general reference to national law without stating unequivocally the provisions the legal effect of which may be excluded or modified, do not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore create doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the said Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.
The Government of Finland also recalls that these reservations of Brunei Darussalam are subject to the general principle of observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that Parties to international treaties are prepared to take the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty.
The Government of Finland considers that in their present formulation these reservations made by Brunei Darussalam are incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and therefore, inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the said Convention. In view of the above, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations and notes that they are devoid of legal effect.

Objection Sweden, 13-08-1997

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and Brunei Darussalam.

10-08-2015

Withdrawal of its reservations to articles 20 (1), 20 (2) and 21 (a).

Canada

13-12-1991

(i) Article 21
With a view to ensuring full respect for the purposes and intent of article 20 (3) and article 30 of the Convention, the Government of Canada reserves the right not to apply the provisions of article 21 to the extent that they may be inconsistent with customary forms of care among aboriginal peoples in Canada.
(ii) Article 37 (c)
The Government of Canada accepts the general principles of article 37 (c) of the Convention, but reserves the right not to detain children separately from adults where this is not appropriate or feasible.
Statement of understanding:
Article 30:
It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that, in matters relating to aboriginal peoples of Canada, the fulfilment of its responsibilities under article 4 of the Convention must take into account the provisions of article 30. In particular, in assessing what measures are appropriate to implement the rights recognized in the Convention for aboriginal children, due regard must be paid to not denying their right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion and to use their own language.

14-05-2014

The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Secretary-General's communication of 9 April 2014, numbered C.N.185.2014.TREATIES-IV.11, relating to that treaty.
The Permanent Mission of Canada notes that this communication was made pursuant to the Secretary General's capacity as Depositary for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Permanent Mission of Canada notes the technical and administrative role of the Depositary, and that it is for States Parties to a treaty, not the Depositary, to make their own determination with respect to any legal issues raised by instruments circulated by a depositary.
In that context, the Permanent Mission of Canada notes that 'Palestine' does not meet the criteria of a state under international law and is not recognized by Canada as a state. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the Permanent Mission of Canada wishes to note its position that in the context of the purported Palestinian accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 'Palestine' is not able to accede to this convention, and that the Convention on the Rights of the Child does not enter into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty relations, with respect to the 'State of Palestine'.

China

02-03-1992

[T]he People's Republic of China shall fulfil its obligations provided by article 6 of the Convention under the prerequisite that the Convention accords with the provisions of article 25 concerning family planning of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and in conformity with the provisions of article 2 of the Law of Minor Children of the People's Republic of China.

10-06-1997

Reservation:
Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, (...) the Convention with the reservation made by China will also apply to the Hong Kong special Administrative Region.
Declaration:
1. The Government of the People's Republic of China, on behalf of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, interprets the Convention as applicable only following a live birth.
2. The Government of the People's Republic of China reserves, for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the right to apply such legislation, in so far as it relates to the entry into, stay in and departure from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of those who do not have the right under the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to enter and remain in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and to the acquisition and possession of residentship as it may deem necessary from time to time.
3. The Government of the People's Republic of China interprets, on behalf of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the references in the Convention to "parents" to mean only those persons who, under the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, are treated as parents. This includes cases where the laws regard a child as having only one parent, for example where a child has been adopted by one person only and in certain cases where a child is conceived other than as a result of sexual intercourse by the woman who gives birth to it and she is treated as the only parent.
4. The Government of the People's Republic of China reserves, for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the right not to apply article 32 (2) (b) of the Convention in so far as it might require regulation of the hours of employment of young persons who have attained the age of fifteen years in respect of work in non-industrial establishments.
5. ....
6. Where at any time there is a lack of suitable detention facilities, or where the mixing of adults and children is deemed to be mutually beneficial, the Government of the People's Republic of China reserves, for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the right not to apply article 37 (c) of the Convention in so far as those provisions require children who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults.

20-12-1999

Reservation:
Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Macao, (...) the Convention with the reservation made by China will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.

10-04-2003

The Government of the People's Republic of China, on behalf of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, decides to withdraw its declaration relating to article 22 of the Convention. The declaration reads as follows:
The Government of the People's Republic of China, on behalf of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, seeks to apply the Convention to the fullest extent to children seeking asylum in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region except in so far as conditions and resources make full implementation impracticable. In particular, in relation to article 22 of the Convention the Government of the People's Republic of China reserves the right to continue to apply legislation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region governing the detention of children seeking refugee status, the determination of their status and their entry into, stay in and departure from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Colombia

26-01-1990

The Colombian Government considers that, while the minimum age of 15 years for taking part in armed conflicts, set forth in article 38 of the Convention, is the outcome of serious negotiations which reflect various legal, political and cultural systems in the world, it would have been preferable to fix that age at 18 years in accordance with the principles and norms prevailing in various regions and countries, Colombia among them, for which reason the Colombian Government, for the purpose of article 38 of the Convention, shall construe the age in question to be 18 years.

28-01-1991

The Government of Colombia, pursuant to article 2, paragraph 1 (d) of the Convention, declares that for the purposes of article 38, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Convention, the age referred to in said paragraphs shall be understood to be 18 years, given the fact that, under Colombian law, the minimum age for recruitment into the armed forces of personnel called for military service is 18 years.

Cook Islands

06-06-1997

The Government of the Cook Islands reserves the right not to apply the provisions of article 2 in so far as those provisions may relate to the conferment of Cook Islands nationality, citizenship or permanent residency upon a child having regard to the Constitution and other legislation as may from time to time be in force in the Cook Islands.
With respect to article 10, the Government of the Cook Islands reserves the right to apply such legislation, in so far as it relates to the entry into, stay in and departure from the Cook Islands of those who do not have the right under the law of the Cook Islands to enter and remain in the Cook Islands, and to the acquisition and possession of citizenship, as it may deem necessary from time to time.
The Government of the Cook Islands accepts the general principles of article 37. In relation to the second sentence of paragraph (c), the obligation to separate children from adults in prison is accepted only to the extent that such imprisonment is considered by the responsible authorities to be feasible. The Cook Islands reserves the right not to apply article 37 in so far as those provisions require children who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults.
Declarations:
Domestically, the Convention does not apply directly. It establishes State obligations under international law that the Cook Islands fulfils in accordance with its national law.
Article 2 paragraph (1) does not necessarily imply the obligation of States automatically to guarantee foreigners the same rights as their nationals. The concept of non-discrimination on the basis of national origin should be understood as designed to rule out all arbitrary conduct but not differences in treatment based on objective and reasonable considerations, in accordance with the principles prevailing in democratic societies.
The Government of the Cook Islands will take the opportunity afforded by its accession to the Convention to initiate reforms in its domestic legislation relating to adoption that are in keeping with the spirit of the Convention and that it considers appropriate, in line with article 3 (2) of the Convention to ensure the well-being of the child. While all adoptions now permitted under Cook Islands law are based on the principle of the best interest of the child being of paramount consideration and authorised by the High Court in accordance with applicable law and procedures and on the basis of all pertinent and reliable information, the principal aim of the planned measures will be to remove vestigial discrimination provisions governing adoptions found in legislation enacted with respect to the Cook Islands prior to the acquisition of sovereignty by the Cook Islands in order to ensure non-discriminatory adoption arrangements for all Cook Islands nationals.

25-03-2009

The following reservation was withdrawn:

The Government of the Cook Islands accepts the general principles of article 37. In relation to the second sentence of paragraph (c) the obligation to separate children from adults in prison is accepted only to the extent that such imprisonment is considered by the responsible authorities to be feasible. The Cook Islands reserves the right not to apply article 37 in so far as those provisions require children who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults.

Croatia

12-10-1992

The Republic of Croatia reserves the right not to apply paragraph 1 of article 9 of the Convention since the internal legislation of the Republic of Croatia provides for the right of competent authorities (Centres for Social Work) to determine on separation of a child from his/her parents without a previous judicial review.

26-05-1998

The Government of Croatia informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation made upon succession in respect to article 9, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Cuba

21-08-1991

With reference to article 1 of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Cuba declares that in Cuba, under the domestic legislation in force, majority is not attained at 18 years of age for purposes of the full exercise of civic rights.

Czech Republic

22-02-1993

In cases of irrevocable adoptions, which are based on the principle of anonymity of such adoptions, and of artificial fertilization, where the physician charged with the operation is required to ensure that the husband and wife on one hand and the donor on the other hand remain unknown to each other, the non-communication of a natural parent's name or natural parents' names to the child is not in contradiction with this provision.

Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993)

07-01-1991

In cases of irrevocable adoptions, which are based on the principle of anonymity of such adoptions, and of artificial fertilization, where the physician charged with the operation is required to ensure that the husband and wife on one hand and the donor on the other hand remain unknown to each other, the non-communication of a natural parent's name or natural parents' names to the child is not in contradiction with this provision.

Denmark

19-07-1991

Article 40, paragraph 2 (b) (v) shall not be binding on Denmark.
It is a fundamental principle of the Danish Administration of Justice Act that everybody shall be entitled to have any penal measures imposed on him or her by a court of first instance reviewed by a higher court. There are, however, some provisions limiting this right in certain cases, for instance verdicts returned by a jury on the question of guilt, which have not been reversed by the legally trained judges of the court.

Djibouti

06-12-1990

[The Government of Djibouti] shall not consider itself bound by any provisions or articles that are incompatible with its religion and its traditional values.

Objection Norway, 30-12-1991

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may create doubts about the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Norway, therefore, objects to this reservation.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Norway and the Republic of Djibouti.

Objection Portugal, 15-07-1992

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Djibouti.

Objection Ireland, 28-09-1992

The Government of Ireland consider that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention, by invoking general principles of national law, may create doubts as to the commitment of those States to the object and purpose of the Convention.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and Djibouti.

Objection Sweden, 20-07-1993

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Sweden a communication upon ratification by Djibouti concerning the whole Convention

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 06-02-1995

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Djibouti.

Objection Denmark, 16-11-1995

Because of their unlimited scope and undefined character these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Therefore, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations. The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Djibouti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic respectively and Denmark.
It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.
The Government of Denmark recommends the Governments of Djibouti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic to reconsider their reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

07-12-2009

Partial withdrawal of reservation:
Upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Government of the Republic of Djibouti made a declaration [... that the Government of Djibouti shall not consider itself bound by] any provisions or articles that are incompatible with its religion and its traditional values.
We, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, declare that the Government of the Republic of Djibouti, after having examined the declaration withdraws the said declaration with the exception of the reservations made to articles 14 and 21of the said Convention.

Ecuador

26-01-1990

In signing the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Ecuador reaffirms . . . [that it is] especially pleased with the ninth preambular paragraph of the draft Convention, which pointed to the need to protect the unborn child, and believed that that paragraph should be borne in mind in interpreting all the articles of the Convention, particularly article 24. While the minimum age set in article 38 was, in its view, too low, [the Government of Ecuador] did not wish to endanger the chances for the Convention's adoption by consensus and therefore would not propose any amendment to the text.

Egypt

06-07-1990

Since The Islamic Shariah is one of the fundamental sources of legislation in Egyptian positive law and because the Shariah, in enjoining the provision of every means of protection and care for children by numerous ways and means, does not include among those ways and means the system of adoption existing in certain other bodies of positive law.
The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt expresses its reservation with respect to all the clauses and provisions relating to adoption in the said Convention, and in particular with respect to the provisions governing adoption in articles 20 and 21 of the Convention.

31-07-2003

Having examined the reservation of the Arab Republic of Egypt to articles 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 November 1989 and ratified by the Arab Republic of Egypt on 6 July 1990, ...,
Whereas the People's Assembly has given its assent,
Whereas we agree to the withdrawal of the reservation,
Hereby declare that we accept, affirm and ratify withdrawal of the reservation.

Eswatini

07-09-1995

The Convention on the Rights of the Child being a point of departure to guarantee child rights; taking into consideration the progressive character of the implementation of certain social, economic and cultural rights; as recognized in article 4 of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland would undertake the implementation of the right to free primary education to the maximum extent of available resources and expects to obtain the co-operation of the international Community for its full satisfaction as soon as possible.

France

26-01-1990

(1) The Government of the French Republic declares that this Convention, particularly article 6, cannot be interpreted as constituting any obstacle to the implementation of the provisions of French legislation relating to the voluntary interruption of pregnancy.
(2) The Government of the Republic declares that, in the light of article 2 of the Constitution of the French Republic, article 30 is not applicable so far as the Republic is concerned.
(3) The Government of the Republic construes article 40, paragraph 2 (b) (v), as establishing a general principle to which limited exceptions may be made under law. This is particularly the case for certain non-appealable offences tried by the Police Court and for offences of a criminal nature. None the less, the decisions handed down by the final court of jurisdiction may be appealed before the Court of Cassation, which shall rule on the legality of the decision taken.

Germany

26-01-1990

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany reserves the right to make, upon ratification, such declarations as it considers necessary, especially with regard to the interpretation of articles 9, 10, 18 and 22.

06-03-1992

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany declares . . . that it will take the opportunity afforded by the ratification of the Convention to initiate reforms in its domestic legislation that are in keeping with the spirit of the Convention and that it considers appropriate, in line with article 3 (2) of the Convention, to ensure the well-being of the child. The planned measures include, in particular, a revision of the law on parental custody in respect of children whose parents have not married, are permanently living apart while still married, or are divorced. The principal aim will be to improve the conditions for the exercise of parental custody by both parents in such cases as well. The Federal Republic of Germany also declares that domestically the Convention does not apply directly. It establishes state obligations under international law that the Federal Republic of Germany fulfils in accordance with its national law, which conforms with the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that article 18 (1) of the Convention does not imply that by virtue of the entry into force of this provision parental custody, automatically and without taking into account the best interests of the respective child, applies to both parents even in the case of children whose parents have not married, are permanently living apart while still married, or are divorced. Such an interpretation would be incompatible with article 3 (1) of the Convention. The situation must be examined in a case-by-case basis, particularly where the parents cannot agree on the joint exercise of custody.
The Federal Republic of Germany therefore declares that the provisions of the Convention are also without prejudice to the provisions of national law concerning
a) legal representation of minors in the exercise of their rights;
b) rights of custody and access in respect of children born in wedlock;
c) circumstances under family and inheritance law of children born out of wedlock;
This applies irrespective of the planned revision of the law on parental custody, the details of which remain within the discretion of the national legislator.
Reservations:
In accordance with the reservations made by it with respect to the parallel guarantees of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Federal Republic of Germany declares in respect of article 40 (2) (b) (ii) and (v) of the Convention that these provisions shall be applied in such a way that, in the case of minor infringement of the penal law, there shall not in each and every case exist:
a) a right to have "legal or other appropriate assistance" in the preparation and presentation of the defence, and/or
b) an obligation to have a sentence not calling for imprisonment reviewed by a "higher competent authority or judicial body".
Declarations:
Nothing in the Convention may be interpreted as implying that unlawful entry by an alien into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany or his unlawful stay there is permitted; nor may any provision be interpreted to mean that it restricts the right of the Federal Republic of Germany to pass laws and regulations concerning the entry of aliens and the conditions of their stay or to make a distinction between nationals and aliens.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany regrets the fact that under article 38 (2) of the Convention even fifteen-year-olds may take a part in hostilities as soldiers, because this age limit is incompatible with the consideration of a child's best interest (article 3 (1) of the Convention). It declares that it will not make any use of the possibility afforded by the Convention of fixing this age limit at fifteen years.

15-07-2010

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany notified its withdrawal of the (...) reservations [in respect of article 40 (2) (b) (ii) and (v) of the Convention].
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany notified its withdrawal of the (...) declarations concerning articles 9, 10, 18, 22 and 38(2).

01-11-2010

Withdrawal of declaration made upon ratification concerning article 3(2) of the Convention.

Greece

12-04-1994

Succession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 November 1989, does not imply its recognition on behalf of the Hellenic Republic.

Guatemala

26-01-1990

The State of Guatemala is signing this Convention out of a humanitarian desire to strengthen the ideals on which the Convention is based, and because it is an instrument which seeks to institutionalize, at the global level, specific norms for the protection of children, who, not being legally of age, must be under the guardianship of the family, society and the State.
With reference to article 1 of the Convention, and with the aim of giving legal definition to its signing of the Convention, the Government of Guatemala declares that article 3 of its Political Constitution establishes that: "The State guarantees and protects human life from the time of its conception, as well as the integrity and security of the individual.

Holy See

20-04-1990

a) [The Holy See] interprets the phrase `Family planning education and services' in article 24.2, to mean only those methods of family planning which it considers morally acceptable, that is, the natural methods of family planning.
b) [The Holy See] interprets the articles of the Convention in a way which safeguards the primary and inalienable rights of parents, in particular insofar as these rights concern education (articles 13 and 28), religion (article 14), association with others (article 15) and privacy (article 16).
c) [The Holy See declares] that the application of the Convention be compatible in practice with the particular nature of the Vatican City State and of the sources of its objective law (art. 1, Law of 7 June 1929, n. 11) and, in consideration of its limited extent, with its legislation in the matters of citizenship, access and residence.
Declaration:
The Holy See regards the present Convention as a proper and laudable instrument aimed at protecting the rights and interests of children, who are 'that precious treasure given to each generation as a challenge to its wisdom and humanity' (Pope John Paul II, 26 April 1984).
The Holy See recognizes that the Convention represents an enactment of principles previously adopted by the United Nations, and once effective as a ratified instrument, will safeguard the rights of the child before as well as after birth, as expressly affirmed in the `Declaration of the Rights of the Child' [Res. 136 (XIV)] and restated in the ninth preambular paragraph of the Convention. The Holy See remains confident that the ninth preambular paragraph will serve as the perspective through which the rest of the Convention will be interpreted, in conformity with article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969.
By acceding to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Holy See intends to give renewed expression to its constant concern for the well-being of children and families. In consideration of its singular nature and position, the Holy See, in acceding to this Convention, does not intend to prescind in any way from its specific mission which is of a religious and moral character.

Iceland

28-10-1992

1. With respect to article 9, under Icelandic law the administrative authorities can take final decisions in some cases referred to in the article. These decisions are subject to judicial review in the sense that it is a principle of Icelandic law that courts can nullify administrative decisions if they conclude that they are based on unlawful premises. This competence of the courts to review administrative decisions is based on article 60 of the Constitution.
2. With respect to article 37, the separation of juvenile prisoners from adult prisoners is not obligatory under Icelandic law. However, the law relating to prisons and imprisonment provides that when deciding in which penal institution imprisonment is to take place account should be taken of, inter alia, the age of the prisoner. In light of the circumstances prevailing in Iceland it is expected that decisions on the imprisonment of juveniles will always take account of the juvenile's best interest.

24-03-2009

Withdrawal of declaration with regard to article 9.

20-05-2015

Withdrawal of declaration with regard to article 37.

India

11-12-1992

While fully subscribing to the objectives and purposes of the Convention, realising that certain of the rights of child, namely those pertaining to the economic, social and cultural rights can only be progressively implemented in the developing countries, subject to the extent of available resources and within the framework of international co-operation; recognising that the child has to be protected from exploitation of all forms including economic exploitation; noting that for several reasons children of different ages do work in India; having prescribed minimum ages for employment in hazardous occupations and in certain other areas; having made regulatory provisions regarding hours and conditions of employment; and being aware that it is not practical immediately to prescribe minimum ages for admission to each and every area of employment in India - the Government of India undertakes to take measures to progressively implement the provisions of article 32, particularly paragraph 2 (a), in accordance with its national legislation and relevant international instruments to which it is a State Party.

Indonesia

05-09-1990

The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia guarantees the fundamental rights of the child irrespective of their sex, ethnicity or race. The Constitution prescribes those rights to be implemented by national laws and regulations.
The ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by the Republic of Indonesia does not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the Constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligation to introduce any right beyond those prescribed under the Constitution.
With reference to the provisions of articles 1, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 29 of this Convention, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that it will apply these articles in conformity with its constitution.

Objection Finland, 25-07-1991

With regard to the reservation made by Indonesia upon ratification concerning articles 1, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 29:
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. For the above reason the Government of Finland objects to the said reservation. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and the Republic of Indonesia.

Objection Sweden, 20-09-1991

With regard to the reservation made by Indonesia upon ratification concerning articles 1, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 29:
A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and the Republic of Indonesia.

Objection Norway, 30-12-1991

With regard to the reservation made by Indonesia concerning articles. 1, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 29;
A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may create doubts about the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Norway, therefore, objects to this reservation.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Norway and the Republic of Indonesia.

Objection Portugal, 15-07-1992

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Indonesia.

Objection Ireland, 28-09-1992

The Government of Ireland consider that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention, by invoking general principles of national law, may create doubts as to the commitment of those States to the object and purpose of the Convention.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and Indonesia.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 06-02-1995

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Indonesia.

02-02-2005

The Government of Indonesia informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation made upon ratification.

Iran

05-09-1991

The Islamic Republic of Iran is making reservation to the articles and provisions which may be contrary to the Islamic Shariah, and preserves the right to make such particular declaration, upon its ratification.

13-07-1994

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran reserves the right not to apply any provisions or articles of the Convention that are incompatible with Islamic Laws and the international legislation in effect.

Objection Portugal, 13-12-1994

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 06-02-1995

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Objection Germany, 11-08-1995

This reservation, owing to its indefinite nature, does not meet the requirements of international law. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Federal Republic of Germany.

Objection Sweden, 01-09-1995

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Objection Finland, 05-09-1995

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. For the above reason the Government of Finland objects to the said reservation. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Objection Ireland, 05-09-1995

The reservation poses difficulties for the States Parties to the Convention in identifying the provisions of the Convention which the Islamic Government of Iran does not intend to apply and consequently makes it difficult for States Parties to the Convention to determine the extent of their treaty relations with the reserving State.
The Government of Ireland hereby formally makes objection to the reservation by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Objection Norway, 05-09-1995

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may create doubts about the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Norway, therefore, objects to this reservation.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Norway and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Objection Austria, 06-09-1995

Under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which is reflected in article 51 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child - a reservation, in order to be admissible under international law, has to be compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty concerned. A reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty if it intends to derogate provisions the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling its object and purpose.
The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the [said Convention]. Given the general character of this reservation a final assessment as to its admissibility under international law cannot be made without further clarification.
Until the scope of the legal effects of this reservation is sufficiently specified by the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Republic of Austria considers this reservation as not affecting any provision the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling the object and purpose of the [said Convention].
Austria, however, objects to the admissibility of the reservation in question if the application of this reservation negatively affects the compliance by the Islamic Republic of Iran with its obligations under the [said Convention] essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose.
Austria could not consider the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran as admissible under the regime of article 51 of the [said Convention] and article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties unless Iran, by providing additional information or through subsequent practice, ensures that the reservation is compatible with the provisions essential for the implementation of the object and purpose of the [said Convention].

Objection Italy, 25-09-1995

This reservation, owing to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is inadmissible under international law. The Government of the Italian Republic, therefore, objects to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Italian Republic.

Objection Denmark, 16-11-1995

Because of their unlimited scope and undefined character these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Therefore, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations. The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Djibouti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic respectively and Denmark.
It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.
The Government of Denmark recommends the Governments of Djibouti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic to reconsider their reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Iraq

15-06-1994

The Government of Iraq has seen fit to accept [the Convention] ... subject to a reservation in respect to article 14, paragraph 1, concerning the child's freedom of religion, as allowing a child to change his or her religion runs counter to the provisions of the Islamic Shariah.

Ireland

30-09-1990

Ireland reserves the right to make, when ratifying the Convention, such declarations or reservations as it may consider necessary.

Israel

16-05-2014

The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as depositary to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and refers to the communication by the depositary, dated 9 April 2014, regarding the Palestinian request to accede to this Convention (Reference number C.N.185.2014.TREATIES-IV.11).
'Palestine' does not satisfy the criteria for statehood under international law and lacks the legal capacity to join the aforesaid convention both under general international law and the terms of bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
The Government of Israel does not recognize 'Palestine' as a State, and wishes to place on record, for the sake of clarity, its position that it does not consider 'Palestine' a party to the Convention and regards the Palestinian request for accession as being without legal validity and without effect upon Israel's treaty relations under the Convention.

Japan

22-04-1994

Reservation:
In applying paragraph (c) of article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Japan reserves the right not to be bound by the provision in its second sentence, that is, `every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so', considering the fact that in Japan as regards persons deprived of liberty, those who are below twenty years of age are to be generally separated from those who are of twenty years of age and over under its national law.
Declarations:
1. The Government of Japan declares that paragraph 1 of article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child be interpreted not to apply to a case where a child is separated from his or her parents as a result of deportation in accordance with its immigration law.
2. The Government of Japan declares further that the obligation to deal with applications to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family re-unification `in a positive, humane and expeditious manner' provided for in paragraph 1 of article 10 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child be interpreted not to affect the outcome of such applications.

Jordan

24-05-1991

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan expresses its reservation and does not consider itself bound by articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention, which grant the child the right to freedom of choice of religion and concern the question of adoption, since they are at variance with the precepts of the tolerant Islamic Shariah.

Objection Sweden, 26-08-1992

With regards to the reservations concerning articles 14, 20 and 21;
Reservations by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and Jordan.

Objection Ireland, 28-09-1992

The Government of Ireland consider that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention, by invoking general principles of national law, may create doubts as to the commitment of those States to the object and purpose of the Convention.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and Jordan.

Objection Finland, 09-06-1993

The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the reservation made by Jordan [...].
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 general principles of national law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. For the above reason the Government of Finland objects to the said reservations. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and Jordan.

Kiribati

11-12-1995

Reservation:
In respect of article 24 paragraphs (b,c,d,e and f), article 26 and article 28 paragraphs (b,c and d), in accordance with article 51 paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Declaration:
The Republic of Kiribati considers that a child's rights as defined in the Convention, in particular the rights defined in articles 12-16 shall be exercised with respect for parental authority, in accordance with the Kiribati customs and traditions regarding the place of the child within and outside the family.

Objection Portugal, 30-01-1997

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Kiribati.

Objection Austria, 03-03-1997

Under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which is reflected in article 51 of the [Convention] a reservation, in order to be admissible under international law, has to be compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty concerned. A reservation is incompatible with object and purpose of a treaty if it intends to derogate from provisions the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling its object and purpose.
The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by Kiribati to the [Convention]. Given the general character of these reservations a final assessment as to its admissibility under international law cannot be made without further clarification.
Until the scope of the legal effects of this reservation is sufficiently specified by Kiribati, the Republic of Austria considers these reservations as not affecting any provision the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling the object and purpose of the [Convention].
Austria, however, objects to the admissibility of the reservations in question if the application of this reservation negatively affects the compliance of Kiribati ... with its obligations under the [Convention] essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose.
Austria could not consider the reservation made by Kiribati ... as admissible under the regime of article 51 of the [Convention] and article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties unless Kiribati ... , by providing additional information or through subsequent practice to ensure [s] that the reservations are compatible with the provisions essential for the implementation of the object and purpose of the [Convention].

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 03-03-1997

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Kiribati.

Objection Sweden, 13-08-1997

With regard to the reservation made by Kiribati upon ratification concerning articles 24, 26, 28 and 51:
A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and Kiribati.

16-09-2015

Withdrawal of the reservations made.

Kuwait

07-06-1990

[Kuwait expresses] reservations on all provisions of the Convention that are incompatible with the laws of Islamic Shari'a and the local statutes in effect.

Objection Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993), 07-06-1991

These reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. In the opinion of the Czechoslovak Government the said reservations are in contradiction to the generally recognized principle of international law according to which a state cannot invoke the provisions of its own internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Therefore the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic does not recognize these reservations as valid.

Objection Czech Republic, 22-02-1993

These reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. In the opinion of the Czechoslovak Government the said reservations are in contradiction to the generally recognized principle of international law according to which a state cannot invoke the provisions of its own internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Therefore the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic does not recognize these reservations as valid.

Objection Slovakia, 28-05-1993

These reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. In the opinion of the Czechoslovak Government the said reservations are in contradiction to the generally recognized principle of international law according to which a state cannot invoke the provisions of its own internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Therefore the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic does not recognize these reservations as valid.

21-10-1991

Article 7:
The State of Kuwait understands the concepts of this article to signify the right of the child who was born in Kuwait and whose parents are unknown (parentless) to be granted the Kuwaiti nationality as stipulated by the Kuwaiti Nationality Laws.
Article 21:
The State of Kuwait, as it adheres to the provisions of the Islamic shariah as the main source of legislation, strictly bans abandoning the Islamic religion and does not therefore approve adoption.

Objection Portugal, 15-07-1992

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Kuwait.

Objection Ireland, 28-09-1992

The Government of Ireland consider that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention, by invoking general principles of national law, may create doubts as to the commitment of those States to the object and purpose of the Convention.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and Kuwait.

Liechtenstein

22-12-1995

Declaration concerning article 1:
According to the legislation of the Principality of Liechtenstein children come of age with 20 years. However, the Liechtenstein law provides for the possibility to prolong or to shorten the duration of minority.
Reservation concerning article 7:
The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to apply the Liechtenstein legislation according to which Liechtenstein nationality is granted under certain conditions.
Reservation concerning article 10:
The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to apply the Liechtenstein legislation according to which family re-unification for certain categories of foreigners is not guarantied.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 03-03-1997

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Liechtenstein.

10-12-2003

The Principality of Liechtenstein partially withdraws its reservation concerning article 10 of the Convention as contained in the annex of the instrument of accession of 18 December 1995, namely with regard to paragraph 2 of the article guaranteeing the right of the child to maintain personal relations and direct contacts with both parents.

01-10-2009

Withdrawal of declaration concerning article 1 and withdrawal of reservation concerning article 7.

Luxembourg

07-03-1994

1. The Government of Luxembourg believes that it is in the interest of families and children to maintain the provision of article 334-6 of the Civil Code, which reads as follows:
Article 334-6. If at the time of conception, the father or mother was bound in marriage to another person, the natural child may be raised in the conjugal home only with the consent of the spouse of his parent.
2. The Government of Luxembourg declares that the present Convention does not require modification of the legal status of children born to parents between whom marriage is absolutely prohibited, such status being warranted by the interest of the child, as provided under article 3 of the Convention.
3. The Government of Luxembourg declares that article 6 of the present Convention presents no obstacle to implementation of the provisions of Luxembourg legislation concerning sex information, the prevention of back-street abortion and the regulation of pregnancy termination.
4. The Government of Luxembourg believes that article 7 of the Convention presents no obstacle to the legal process in respect of anonymous births, which is deemed to be in the interest of the child, as provided under article 3 of the Convention.
5. The Government of Luxembourg declares that article 15 of the present Convention does not impede the provisions of Luxembourg legislation concerning the capacity to exercise rights.

Malaysia

17-02-1995

The Government of Malaysia accepts the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child but expresses reservations with respect to articles 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 15, [...], 28, [paragraph 1 (a)] 37, [...] of the Convention and declares that the said provisions shall be applicable only if they are in conformity with the Constitution, national laws and national policies of the Government of Malaysia.

Objection Portugal, 04-12-1995

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Malaysia.

Objection Germany, 20-03-1996

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Malaysia under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Malaysia to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the said reservation.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Malaysia.

Objection Finland, 14-06-1996

The reservation made by Malaysia covers several central provisions of the [said Convention]. The broad nature of the said reservation leaves open to what extent Malaysia commits itself to the Convention and to the fulfilment of its obligations under the Convention. In the view of the Government of Finland reservations of such comprehensive nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.
The Government of Finland also recalls that the said reservation is subject to the general principle of the observance of the treaties according to which a party may not invoke its internal law, much less its national policies, as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of the States that contracting parties to international treaties are prepared to undertake the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty. Moreover, the internal legislation as well as the national policies are also subject to changes which might further expand the unknown effects of the reservation.
In its present formulation the reservation is clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the [said Convention]. Therefore the Government of Finland objects to such reservation. The Government of Finland further notes that the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia is devoid of legal effect.
The Government of Finland recommends the Government of Malaysia to reconsider its reservation to the [said Convention].

Objection Austria, 18-06-1996

Under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which is reflected in article 51 of the [Convention] a reservation, in order to be admissible under international law, has to be compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty concerned. A reservation is incompatible with object and purpose of a treaty if it intends to derogate from provisions the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling its object and purpose.
The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by Malaysia to the [Convention]. Given the general character of these reservations a final assessment as to its admissibility under international law cannot be made without further clarification.
Until the scope of the legal effects of this reservation is sufficiently specified by Malaysia, the Republic of Austria considers these reservations as not affecting any provision the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling the object and purpose of the [Convention].
Austria, however, objects to the admissibility of the reservations in question if the application of this reservation negatively affects the compliance of Malaysia ... with its obligations under the [Convention] essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose.
Austria could not consider the reservation made by Malaysia ... as admissible under the regime of article 51 of the [Convention] and article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties unless Malaysia ... , by providing additional information or through subsequent practice to ensure [s] that the reservations are compatible with the provisions essential for the implementation of the object and purpose of the [Convention].

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 25-06-1996

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Malaysia.

Objection Ireland, 26-06-1996

Ireland considers that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is therefore prohibited by article 51 (2) of the Convention. The Government of Ireland also considers that it contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the said reservation.

Objection Sweden, 26-06-1996

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and Malaysia.

Objection Norway, 27-06-1996

The Government of Norway considers that the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia, due to its very broad scope and undefined character, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus not permitted under article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Moreover, the Government of Norway considers that the monitoring system established under the Convention is not optional and that, accordingly, reservations with respect to articles 44 and 45 of the Convention are not permissible. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia.
The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and Malaysia.

Objection Belgium, 01-07-1996

The Belgian Government believes that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and that, consequently, in accordance with article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention, it is not permitted.
...
Accordingly, Belgium wishes to be bound by the Convention in its entirety as regards [the State of Malaysia] which [has] expressed reservations prohibited by the [said] Convention.
Moreover, as the 12 month period specified in article 20.5 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is not applicable to reservations which are null and void, Belgium's objection to such reservations is not subject to any particular time-limit.

Objection Denmark, 02-07-1996

The reservation is covering multiple provisions, including central provisions of the Convention. Furthermore, it is a general principle of international law that internal law may not be invoked as justification for failure to perform treaty obligations. Consequently, the Government of Denmark considers the said reservation as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Malaysia and Denmark.
It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.
The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of Malaysia to reconsider its reservation to the said Convention.

23-03-1999

With respect to article 28 paragraph 1 (a), the Government of Malaysia wishes to declare that in Malaysia, even though primary education is not compulsory and available free to all, primary education is available to everybody and Malaysia has achieved a high rate of enrolment for primary education i.e. at the rate of 98 percent enrolment.

19-07-2010

... , the Government of Malaysia, hereby withdraws its reservations in respect of articles 1, 13 and 15 of the said Convention ...:
... , following Malaysia’s withdrawal of its reservations to articles 1, 13 and 15 of the said Convention ... , the remaining reservations ... made by Malaysia on the Twenty Third Day of March, in the year Nineteen Ninety Nine shall be modified and shall now read as follows:
Reservation:
The Government of Malaysia accepts the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child but expresses reservations with respect to articles 2, 7, 14, 28 paragraph 1 (a) and 37 of the Convention and declares that the said provisions shall be applicable only if they are in conformity with the Constitution, national laws and national policies of the Government of Malaysia.

19-07-2010

[Modification of declaration]
With respect to article 28 paragraph 1 (a) of the Convention, the Government of Malaysia wishes to declare that with the amendment to the Education Act 1996 in the year 2002, primary education in Malaysia is made compulsory. In addition, the Government of Malaysia provides monetary aids and other forms of assistance to those who are eligible.

Maldives

21-08-1990

1) Since the Islamic Shariah is one of the fundamental sources of Maldivian Law and since Islamic Shariah does not include the system of adoption among the ways and means for the protection and care of children contained in Shariah, the Government of the Republic of Maldives expresses its reservation with respect to all the clauses and provisions relating to adoption in the said Convention on the Rights of the Child.
2) The Government of the Republic of Maldives expresses its reservation to paragraph 1 of article 14 of the said Convention on the Rights of the Child, since the Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Maldives stipulate that all Maldivians should be Muslims.

11-02-1991

Reservations to articles 14 and 21.

Mali

20-09-1990

The Government of the Republic of Mali declares that, in view of the provisions of the Mali Family Code, there is no reason to apply article 16 of the Convention.

Malta

30-09-1990

Article 26 - The Government of Malta is bound by the obligations arising out of this article to the extent of present social security legislation.

20-08-2001

The Government of Malta informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation made upon ratification.

Mauritania

26-01-1990

In signing this important Convention, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania is making reservations to articles or provisions which may be contrary to the beliefs and values of Islam, the religion of the Mauritania People and State.

Mauritius

26-07-1990

[Mauritius] . . . with express reservation with regard to article 22 of the said Convention.

04-06-2008

whereas the Government of the Republic of Mauritius acceded to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1990,
and whereas, upon accession to the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius made a reservation to Article 22 of the Convention,
now therefore I, Dr.the Hon. Navinchandra Ramgoolam, G.C.S.K. Prime Minister, declare that the Government of the Republic of Mauritius, having reviewed the said reservation, hereby withdraws the same.

Monaco

21-06-1993

Declaration:
The Principality of Monaco declares that this Convention, especially article 7, shall not affect the rules laid down in Monegasque legislation regarding nationality.
Reservation:
The Principality of Monaco interprets article 40, paragraph 2 (b)(v) as stating a general principle which has a number of statutory exceptions. Such, for example, is the case with respect to certain criminal offences. In any event, in all matters the Judicial Review Court rules definitively on appeals against all decisions of last resort.

Morocco

21-06-1993

The Kingdom of Morocco, whose Constitution guarantees to all the freedom to pursue his religious affairs, makes a reservation to the provisions of article 14, which accords children freedom of religion, in view of the fact that Islam is the State religion.

The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco interprets the provisions of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the light of the Constitution of 7 October 1996 and the other relevant provisions of its domestic law, as follows:
Article 6 of the Constitution, which provides that Islam, the State religion, shall guarantee freedom of worship for all.
Article 54, paragraph 6, of Act 70-03 (the Family Code), which stipulates that parents owe their children the right to religious guidance and education based on good conduct.
By this declaration, the Kingdom of Morocco reaffirms its attachment to universally recognized human rights and its commitment to the purposes of the aforementioned Convention.

19-10-2006

Withdrawal of reservation in respect of article 14:
The Kingdom of Morocco, whose Constitution guarantees to all the freedom to pursue his religious affairs, makes a reservation to the provisions of article 14, which accords children freedom of religion, in view of the fact that Islam is the State religion.

Myanmar

15-07-1991

Article 15
1. The Union of Myanmar interprets the expression `the law' in article 15, paragraph 2, to mean the Laws, as well as the Decrees and Executive Orders having the force of law, which are for the time being in force in the Union of Myanmar.
2. The Union of Myanmar understands that such restrictions on freedom of association and freedom of peaceful assembly imposed in conformity with the said Laws, Decrees and Executive Orders as are required by the exigencies of the situation obtaining in the Union of Myanmar are permissible under article 15, paragraph 2.
3. The Union of Myanmar interprets the expression `national security' in the same paragraph as encompassing the supreme national interest, namely, the non-disintegration of the Union, the non-disintegration of national solidarity and the perpetuation of national sovereignty, which constitute the paramount national causes of the Union of Myanmar.
Article 37
The Union of Myanmar accepts in principle the provisions of article 37 as they are in consonance with its laws, rules, regulations, procedures and practice as well as with its traditional, cultural and religious values. However, having regard to the exigencies of the situation obtaining in the country at present, the Union of Myanmar states as follows:
1. Nothing contained in Article 37 shall prevent, or be construed as preventing, the Government of the Union of Myanmar from assuming or exercising, in conformity with the laws for the time being in force in the country and the procedures established thereunder, such powers as are required by the exigencies of the situation for the preservation and strengthening of the rule of law, the maintenance of public order (ordre public) and, in particular, the protection of the supreme national interest, namely, the non-disintegration of the Union, the non-disintegration of national solidarity and the perpetuation of national sovereignty, which constitute the paramount national causes of the Union of Myanmar.
2. Such powers shall include the powers of arrest, detention, imprisonment, exclusion, interrogation, enquiry and investigation.

Objection Portugal, 15-07-1992

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Myanmar.

Objection Sweden, 20-07-1993

Upon accession by Myanmar, the Secretary-General received a communication from the Government of Sweden concerning articles 15 and 37.

19-10-1993

The Government of Myanmar notified the Secretary-General its decision to withdraw the reservations made upon accession with regard to articles 15 and 37.

Netherlands, the Kingdom of the

06-02-1995

Reservations
Article 26:
The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 26 of the Convention with the reservation that these provisions shall not imply an independent entitlement of children to social security, including social insurance.
Article 37:
The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 37 (c) of the Convention with the reservation that these provisions shall not prevent the application of adult penal law to children of sixteen years and older, provided that certain criteria laid down by law have been met.
Article 40:
The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 40 of the Convention with the reservation that cases involving minor offences may be tried without the presence of legal assistance and that with respect to such offences the position remains that no provision is made in all cases for a review of the facts or of any measures imposed as a consequence.
Declarations
Article 14:
It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that article 14 of the Convention is in accordance with the provisions of article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 19 December 1966 and that this article shall include the freedom of a child to have or adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice as soon as the child is capable of making such choice in view of his or her age or maturity.
Article 22:
With regard to article 22 of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares:
a) that it understands the term "refugee" in paragraph 1 of this article as having the same meaning as in article 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951; and
b) that it is of the opinion that the obligation imposed under the terms of this article does not prevent
- the submission of a request for admission from being made subject to certain conditions, failure to meet such conditions resulting in inadmissibility;
- the referral of a request for admission to a third State, in the event that such a State is considered to be primarily responsible for dealing with the request for asylum.
Article 38
With regard to article 38 of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it is of the opinion that States would not be allowed to involve children directly or indirectly in hostilities and that the minimum age for the recruitment or incorporation of children in the armed forces should be above fifteen years.
In times of armed conflict, provisions shall prevail that are most conducive to guaranteeing the protection of children under international law, as referred to in article 41 of the Convention.

17-12-1997

The Government of the Netherlands informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to accept the Convention on behalf of the Netherlands Antilles subject to the following reservations and declarations:
Reservations
Article 26:
The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 26 of the Convention with the reservation that these provisions shall not imply an independent entitlement of children to social security, including insurance.
Article 37:
The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 37(c) of the Convention with the reservation that these provisions shall not prevent :
- the application of adult penal law to children of sixteen years and older, provided that certain criteria laid down by law have been met;
- that a child which has been detained will not always be accommodated separately from adults; if the number of children that has to be detained at a certain time is unexpectedly large, (temporary) accommodations together with adults may be unavoidable.
Article 40:
The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 40 of the Convention with the reservation that cases involving minor offences may be tried without the presence of legal assistance and that with respect to such offences the position remains that no provision is made in all cases for a review of the facts or of any measures imposed as a consequence.
Declarations:
Article 14 :
It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that article 14 of the Convention is in accordance with the provisions of article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 19 December 1966 and that this article shall include the freedom of a child to have or adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice as soon as the child is capable of making such choice in view of his or her age or maturity.
Article 22 :
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that whereas the Netherlands Antilles are not bound by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, article 22 of the present Convention shall be interpreted as containing a reference only to such other international human rights or humanitarian instruments as are binding on the Kingdom of the Netherlands with respect to the Netherlands Antilles.
Article 38 :
With regard to article 38 of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it is of the opinion that States should not be allowed to involve children directly or indirectly in hostilities and that the minimum age for the recruitment or incorporation of children in the armed forces should be above fifteen years.
In times of armed conflict, provisions shall prevail that are most conducive to guaranteeing the protection of children under international law, as referred to in article 41 of the Convention.

18-12-2000

The Government of the Netherlands informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to accept the Convention on behalf of Aruba subject to the following rservations and declarations:
Reservations
Article 26:
The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 26 of the Convention with the reservation that these provisions shall not imply an independent entitlement of children to social security, including social insurance.
Article 37:
The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 37 (c) of the Convention with the reservation that these provisions shall not prevent:
- the application of adult penal law to children of sixteen years and older, provided that certain criteria laid down by law have been met;
- that a child which has been detained will not always be accommodated separately from adults; if the number of children that has to be detained at a certain time is unexpectedly large, (temporary) accommodation together with adults m be unavoidable.
Article 40:
The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 40 of the Convention with the reservation that cases involving minor offences may be tried without the presence of legal assistance and that with respect to such offences the position remains that no provision is made in all cases for a review of the facts or of any measures imposed as a consequence."
Declarations
Article 14:
It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that Article 14 of the Convention is in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 19 December 1966 and that this Article shall include the freedom of a child to have or adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice as soon as the child is capable of making such choice in view of his or her age or maturity.
Article 22:
Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that whereas Aruba is not bound by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 22 of the present Convention shall be interpreted as containing a reference only to such other international human rights or humanitarian instruments as are binding on the Kingdom of the Netherlands with respect to Aruba.
Article 38:
With regard to Article 38 of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it is of the opinion that States should not be allowed to involve children directly or indirectly in hostilities and that the minimum age for the recruitment or incorporation of children in the armed forces should be above fifteen years. In times of armed conflict, provisions shall prevail that are most conducive to guaranteeing the protection of children under international law, as referred to in Article 41 of the Convention.

New Zealand

06-04-1993

Nothing in this Convention shall affect the right of the Government of New Zealand to continue to distinguish as it considers appropriate in its law and practice between persons accord ing to the nature of their authority to be in New Zealand including but not limited to their entitlement to benefits and other protections described in the Convention, and the Government of New Zealand reserves the right to interpret and apply the Convention accordingly.
The Government of New Zealand considers that the rights of the child provided for in article 32 (1) are adequately protected by its existing law. It therefore reserves the right not to legislate further or to take additional measures as may be envisaged in article 32 (2).
The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply article 37 (c) in circumstances where the shortage of suitable facilities makes the mixing of juveniles and adults unavoidable; and further reserves the right not to apply article 37 (c) where the interests of other juveniles in an establishment require the removal of a particular juvenile offender or where mixing is considered to be of benefit to the persons concerned.
(...) ratification shall extend to Tokelau only upon notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations of such extension.

Oman

09-12-1996

1. The words "or to public safety" should be added in article 9 [, paragraph 4,] after the words "unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child.
2. A reservation is entered to all the provisions of the Convention that do not accord with Islamic law or the legislation in force in the Sultanate and, in particular, to the provisions relating to adoption set forth in its article 21.
3. The provisions of the Convention should be applied within the limits imposed by the material resources available.
4. The Sultanate considers that article 7 of the Convention as it relates to the nationality of a child shall be understood to mean that a child born in the Sultanate of unknown parents shall acquire Oman nationality, as stipulated in the Sultanate's Nationality Law.
5. The Sultanate does not consider itself to be bound by those provisions of article 14 of the Convention that accord a child the right to choose his or her religion or those of its article 30 that allow a child belonging to a religious minority to profess his or her own religion.

Objection Germany, 28-01-1998

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Oman under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Oman to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the said reservation.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Oman.

Objection Finland, 06-02-1998

The reservations made in paragraphs 2 and 3 by Oman, consisting of a general reference to national law without stating unequivocally the provisions the legal effect of which may be excluded or modified, do not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore create doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the said Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.
The Government of Finland also recalls that these reservations of Oman are subject to the general principle of observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that Parties to international treaties are prepared to take the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty.
The Government of Finland considers that in their present formulation these reservations made by Oman are incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and therefore, inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the said Convention. In view of the above, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations and notes that they are devoid of legal effect.

Objection Norway, 09-02-1998

The Government of Norway considers that reservation (2) made by Oman, due to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus impermissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention.Therefore, the Government of Norway objects to the said reservations made by the Government of Oman.
The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and Oman.

Objection Sweden, 09-02-1998

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and Oman.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 10-02-1998

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Oman.

14-01-2011

Withdrawal of reservations to Articles 7, 9, 21 and 30 made upon accession.

09-12-2014

Modification of the reservation to Article 14 (effective as of 14 January 2011):
The Sultanate of Oman is not committed to the contents of Article (14) of the Convention, which gives the child the right to freedom of religion until he reaches the age of maturity.

Pakistan

20-09-1990

Provisions of the Convention shall be interpreted in the light of the principles of Islamic laws and values.

Objection Sweden, 20-09-1991

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and Pakistan.

Objection Norway, 30-12-1991

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may create doubts about the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Norway, therefore, objects to this reservation.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Norway and Pakistan.

Objection Portugal, 15-07-1992

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Pakistan.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 06-02-1995

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Pakistan.

Objection Denmark, 16-11-1995

Because of their unlimited scope and undefined character these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Therefore, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations. The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Djibouti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic respectively and Denmark.
It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.
The Government of Denmark recommends the Governments of Djibouti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic to reconsider their reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

23-07-1997

The Government of Pakistan informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification.

Palestine

06-06-2014

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.279.2014.TREATIES-IV.11, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, dated 20 November 1989.
The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of Canada and wishes to recall United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 according Palestine 'non-member observer State status in the United Nations'. In this regard, Palestine is a State recognized by the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the international community.
As a State Party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which entered into force on 2 May 2014, the State of Palestine will exercise its rights and honor its obligations with respect to all States Parties. The State of Palestine trusts that its rights and obligations will be equally respected by its fellow States Parties.

06-06-2014

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.297.2014.TREATIES-IV.11, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, dated 20 November 1989.
The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of Israel, the occupying Power, and wishes to recall United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 according Palestine 'non-member observer State status in the United Nations'. In this regard, Palestine is a State recognized by the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the international community.
As a State Party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which entered into force on 2 May 2014, the State of Palestine will exercise its rights and honor its obligations with respect to all States Parties. The State of Palestine trusts that its rights and obligations will be equally respected by its fellow States Parties.

Poland

07-06-1991

- With respect to article 7 of the Convention, the Republic of Poland stipulates that the right of an adopted child to know its natural parents shall be subject to the limitations imposed by binding legal arrangements that enable adoptive parents to maintain the confidentiality of the child's origin;
- The law of the Republic of Poland shall determine the age from which call-up to military or similar service and participation in military operations are permissible. That age limit may not be lower than the age limit set out in article 38 of the Convention.
- The Republic of Poland considers that a child's rights as defined in the Convention, in particular the rights defined in articles 12 to 16, shall be exercised with respect for parental authority, in accordance with Polish customs and traditions regarding the place of the child within and outside the family;
- With respect to article 24, paragraph 2 (f), of the Convention, the Republic of Poland considers that family planning and education services for parents should be in keeping with the prin ciples of morality.

04-03-2013

Withdrawal of reservations to articles 7 and 38 of the Convention made upon ratification.

Qatar

08-12-1992

[The State of Qatar] enter(s) a general reservation by the State of Qatar concerning provisions incompatible with Islamic Law.

Objection Finland, 09-06-1993

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. For the above reason the Government of Finland objects to the said reservation. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and Qatar.

Objection Slovakia, 09-08-1993

The Slovak Republic regards the general reservation made by the State of Qatar upon signature of the Convention as incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention as well as in contradiction with the well established principle of the Law of Treaties according to which a State cannot invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Therefore, the Slovak Republic objects to the said general reservation.

Objection Sweden, 29-03-1994

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Sweden a communication with regard to the reservation made upon signature by Qatar.

03-04-1995

[The State of Qatar] enter(s) a general reservation by the State of Qatar concerning provisions incompatible with Islamic Law.

Objection Portugal, 11-01-1996

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Qatar.

Objection Germany, 20-03-1996

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Qatar under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the said reservation.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Qatar.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 11-06-1996

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Qatar.

Objection Finland, 14-06-1996

The reservation made by Qatar covers several central provisions of the [said Convention]. The broad nature of the said reservation leaves open to what extent Qatar commits itself to the Convention and to the fulfilment of its obligations under the Convention. In the view of the Government of Finland reservations of such comprehensive nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.
The Government of Finland also recalls that the said reservation is subject to the general principle of the observance of the treaties according to which a party may not invoke its internal law, much less its national policies, as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of the States that contracting parties to international treaties are prepared to undertake the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty. Moreover, the internal legislation as well as the national policies are also subject to changes which might further expand the unknown effects of the reservation.
In its present formulation the reservation is clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the [said Convention]. Therefore the Government of Finland objects to such reservation. The Government of Finland further notes that the reservation made by the Government of Qatar is devoid of legal effect.
The Government of Finland recommends the Government of Qatar to reconsider its reservation to the [said Convention].

Objection Italy, 14-06-1996

The Government of the Italian Republic considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Qatar under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties should be respected, as to the objects and the purpose, by all Parties. The Government of the Italian Republic therefore objects to this reservation. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Government of the Italian Republic and the State of Qatar.

Objection Norway, 14-06-1996

The Government of Norway considers that the reservation made by the State of Qatar, due to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is inadmissible under international law. For that reason, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation made by the State of Qatar.
The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the State of Qatar.

Objection Austria, 18-06-1996

Under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which is reflected in article 51 of the [Convention] a reservation, in order to be admissible under international law, has to be compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty concerned. A reservation is incompatible with object and purpose of a treaty if it intends to derogate from provisions the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling its object and purpose.
The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by Qatar to the [Convention]. Given the general character of these reservations a final assessment as to its admissibility under international law cannot be made without further clarification.
Until the scope of the legal effects of this reservation is sufficiently specified by Qatar, the Republic of Austria considers these reservations as not affecting any provision the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling the object and purpose of the [Convention].
Austria, however, objects to the admissibility of the reservations in question if the application of this reservation negatively affects the compliance of Qatar ... with its obligations under the [Convention] essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose.
Austria could not consider the reservation made by Qatar ... as admissible under the regime of article 51 of the [Convention] and article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties unless Qatar ... , by providing additional information or through subsequent practice to ensure [s] that the reservations are compatible with the provisions essential for the implementation of the object and purpose of the [Convention].

Objection Belgium, 01-07-1996

The Belgian Government believes that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and that, consequently, in accordance with article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention, it is not permitted.
Accordingly, Belgium wishes to be bound by the Convention in its entirety as regards the [State of Qatar] which [has] expressed reservations prohibited by the [said] Convention.
Moreover, as the 12 month period specified in article 20.5 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is not applicable to reservations which are null and void, Belgium's objection to such reservations is not subject to any particular time-limit.

Objection Denmark, 03-07-1996

Because of their unlimited scope and undefined character these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Therefore, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations. The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Botswana and Qatar respectively and Denmark.
It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.
The Government of Denmark recommends the Governments of Botwana and Qatar to reconsider their reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

29-04-2009

Partial withdrawal of reservation:
Whereas the Government of the State of Qatar ratified the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child on 3 April 1995, and entered a general reservation concerning any of its provisions that are inconsistent with the Islamic sharia;
Whereas the Council of Ministers decided at its fourth ordinary meeting of 2009, held on 28 January 2009, to approve the partial withdrawal by the State of Qatar of its general reservation, which shall continue to apply in respect of the provisions of articles 2 and 14 of the Convention;
Now therefore We declare, by means of the present instrument, the partial withdrawal by the State of Qatar of its general reservation, which shall continue to apply in respect of the provisions of articles 2 and 14 of the Convention.

Republic of Korea, the

20-11-1991

The Republic of Korea considers itself not bound by the provisions of paragraph 3 of article 9, paragraph (a) of article 21 and sub-paragraph (b) (v) of paragraph 2 of article 40.

16-10-2008

On 16 October 2008, the Government of the Republic of Korea informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation in respect of article 9, paragraph 3 made upon ratification.

11-08-2017

On 11 August 2017, the Government of the Republic of Korea informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation in respect of article 21, paragraph (a), made upon ratification.

Samoa

29-11-1994

The Government of Western Samoa whilst recognising the importance of providing free primary education as specified under article 28 (1)(a) of the Convention on the rights of the child
And being mindful of the fact that the greater portion of schools within Western Samoa that provide primary education are controlled by bodies outside the control of the government
Pursuant then to article 51, the Government of Western Samoa thus reserves the right to allocate resources to the primary level sector of education in Western Samoa in contrast to the requirement of article 28 (1)(a) to provide free primary education.

Saudi Arabia

26-01-1996

[The Government of Saudi Arabia enters] reservations with respect to all such articles as are in conflict with the provisions of Islamic law.

Objection Portugal, 30-01-1997

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Saudi Arabia.

Objection Denmark, 10-02-1997

The Government of Denmark finds that the general reservation with reference to the Constitution of Saudi Arabia and to the beliefs and principles of Islamic law is of unlimited scope and undefined character. Consequently, the Government of Denmark considers the said reservation as being incompatible with the object and purposes of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Furthermore, it is a general principle of international law that national law may not be invoked as justification for failure to perform treaty obligations.
The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Saudi Arabia and Denmark.
It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark, that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.
The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of Saudi Arabia to reconsider its reservation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Objection Germany, 12-02-1997

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Saudi Arabia under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the said reservation.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Saudi Arabia.

Objection Austria, 03-03-1997

Under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which is reflected in article 51 of the [Convention] a reservation, in order to be admissible under international law, has to be compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty concerned. A reservation is incompatible with object and purpose of a treaty if it intends to derogate from provisions the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling its object and purpose.
The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by Saudi Arabia to the [Convention]. Given the general character of these reservations a final assessment as to its admissibility under international law cannot be made without further clarification.
Until the scope of the legal effects of this reservation is sufficiently specified by Saudi Arabia, the Republic of Austria considers these reservations as not affecting any provision the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling the object and purpose of the [Convention].
Austria, however, objects to the admissibility of the reservations in question if the application of this reservation negatively affects the compliance of Saudi Arabia ... with its obligations under the [Convention] essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose.
Austria could not consider the reservation made by Saudi Arabia ... as admissible under the regime of article 51 of the [Convention] and article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties unless Malaysia ... , by providing additional information or through subsequent practice to ensure [s] that the reservations are compatible with the provisions essential for the implementation of the object and purpose of the [Convention]"

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 03-03-1997

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia.

Objection Ireland, 13-03-1997

Ireland considers that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is therefore prohibited by article 51 (2) of the Convention. The Government of Ireland also considers that it contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the said reservation.

Objection Norway, 13-03-1997

The Government of Norway considers that the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia, due to its very broad scope and undefined character, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus not permitted under article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Moreover, the Government of Norway considers that the monitoring system established under the Convention is not optional and that, accordingly, reservations with respect to articles 44 and 45 of the Convention are not permissible. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia.
The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and Saudi Arabia.

Objection Sweden, 18-03-1997

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and Saudi Arabia.

Objection Finland, 20-03-1997

The reservations made in paragraphs 2 and 3 by Saudi Arabia, consisting of a general reference to national law without stating unequivocally the provisions the legal effect of which may be excluded or modified, do not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore create doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the said Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.
The Government of Finland also recalls that these reservations of Saudi Arabia are subject to the general principle of observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that Parties to international treaties are prepared to take the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty.
The Government of Finland considers that in their present formulation these reservations made by Saudi Arabia are incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and therefore, inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the said Convention. In view of the above, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations and notes that they are devoid of legal effect.

Serbia

28-01-1997

The Government of Yugoslavia informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation made by the former Yugoslavia upon ratification of the Convention the text of which reads as follows:
Reservation:
"The competent authorities (ward authorities) of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia may, under article 9, paragraph 1 of the Convention, make decisions to deprive parents of their right to raise their children and give them an upbringing without prior judicial determination in accordance with the internal legislation of the SFR of Yugoslavia."

Objection Slovenia, 28-05-1997

[The Government of Slovenia] would like to express its disagreement with the content of the [notification by the depositary concerning the withdrawal of the reservation]. The State which in 1991 notified its ratification of the [said Convention] and made the reservation was the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) but the State which on 28 January 1997 notified the withdrawal of its reservation was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). In that connection the [Government of Slovenia] would like to draw attention to the resolutions of the Security Council (757, 777) and the General Assembly (47/1), all from 1992, which stated that `the state formerly known as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has ceased to exist"and to the opinion of the Arbitration Commission of the UN/EC Conference on the former Yugoslavia that "the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) is a new State which cannot be considered the sole successor to the SFRY.
The [said] notification is therefore incorrect and misleading since it is erroneously suggesting that the State which would like to withdraw the reservation is the same person under international law as the State which made the reservation. It is believed that the Secretary-General should be precise in making references to States Parties to international agreements in respect of which he performs depositary functions. Therefore it is the opinion of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia that the withdrawal of the reservation made by the Government of the FRY cannot be considered valid, since it was made by a State that did not make the reservation. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should, as one of the successor States of the former SFRY, notify its succession if it wishes to be considered a Party to the Convention.

Objection Croatia, 03-06-1997

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Croatia a communication, identical in essence, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Slovenia.

Objection Bosnia and Herzegovina, 04-06-1997

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina a communication, identical in essence, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Slovenia.

Objection North Macedonia, 10-10-1997

The Secretary-General received from the Government of FYROM a communication, identical in essence, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Slovenia.

12-03-2001

The Government of Yugoslavia notified the Secretary-General of its intent to succeed to the Convention and confirmed that it does not maintain the reservation made by the former Yugoslavia upon ratification.

Singapore

05-10-1995

Declarations:
(1) The Republic of Singapore considers that a child's rights as defined in the Convention, in particular the rights defined in article 12 to 17, shall in accordance with articles 3 and 5 be exercised with respect for the authority of parents, schools and other persons who are entrusted with the care of the child and in the best interests of the child and in accordance with the customs, values and religions of Singapore's multi-racial and multi-religious society regarding the place of the child within and outside the family.
(2) The Republic of Singapore considers that articles 19 and 37 of the Convention do not prohibit -
(a) the application of any prevailing measures prescribed by law for maintaining law and order in the Republic of Singapore;
(b) measures and restrictions which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, public order, the protection of public health or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others; or
(c) the judicious application of corporal punishment in the best interest of the child.
Reservations:
(3) The Constitution and the laws of the Republic of Singapore provide adequate protection and fundamental rights and liberties in the best interests of the child. The accession to the Convention by the Republic of Singapore does not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the limits prescribed by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore nor the acceptance of any obligation to introduce any right beyond those prescribed under the Constitution.
(4) Singapore is geographically one of the smallest independent countries in the world and one of the most densely populated. The Republic of Singapore accordingly reserves the right to apply such legislation and conditions concerning the entry into, stay in and departure from the Republic of Singapore of those who do not or who no longer have the right under the laws of the Republic of Singapore, to enter and remain in the Republic of Singapore, and to the acquisition and possession of citizenship, as it may deem necessary from time to time and in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Singapore.
(5) The employment legislation of the Republic of Singapore prohibits the employment of children below 12 years old and gives special protection to working children between the ages of 12 years and below the age of 16 years. The Republic of Singapore reserves the right to apply article 32 subject to such employment legislation.
(6) With respect to article 28.1(a), the Republic of Singapore-
(a) does not consider itself bound by the requirement to make primary education compulsory because such a measure is unnecessary in our social context where in practice virtually all children attend primary school; and
(b) reserves the right to provide primary education free only to children who are citizens of Singapore.

Objection Germany, 04-09-1996

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Singapore under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Singapore to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the said reservation.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Singapore.

Objection Belgium, 26-09-1996

The Government considers that paragraph 2 of the declarations, concerning articles 19 and 37 of the Convention and paragraph 3 of the reservations, concerning the constitutional limits upon the acceptance of the obligations contained in the Convention, are contrary to the purposes of the Convention and are consequently without effect under international law.

Objection Italy, 04-10-1996

The Government of the Italian Republic considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Singapore under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Singapore to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties should be respected, as to the objects and the purpose, by all Parties. The Government of the Italian Republic therefore objects to this reservation. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Government of the Italian Republic and Singapore.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 06-11-1996

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Singapore.

Objection Finland, 26-11-1996

The reservations made in paragraphs 2 and 3 by the Republic of Singapore, consisting of a general reference to national law without stating unequivocally the provisions the legal effect of which may be excluded or modified, do not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore create doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the said Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.
The Government of Finland also recalls that these reservations of the Republic of Singapore are subject to the general principle of observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that Parties to international treaties are prepared to take the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty.
The Government of Finland considers that in their present formulation these reservations made by the Republic of Singapore are incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and therefore, inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the said Convention. In view of the above, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations and notes that they are devoid of legal effect.

Objection Norway, 29-11-1996

The Government of Norway considers that reservation (3) made by the Republic of Singapore, due to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus impermissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
Furthermore, the Government of Norway considers that declaration (2) made by the Republic of Singapore, in so far as it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of articles 19 and 37 of the Convention, also constitutes a reservation impermissible under the Convention, due to the fundamental nature of the rights concerned and the unspecified reference to domestic law.
For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the said reservations made by the Government of Singapore.
The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Singapore.

Objection Portugal, 03-12-1996

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Singapore.

Objection Sweden, 13-08-1997

With regard to the reservation made by Singapore upon ratification concerning articles 28 (1) a and 32:
A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and Singapore.

Slovakia

28-05-1993

In cases of irrevocable adoptions, which are based on the principle of anonymity of such adoptions, and of artificial fertilization, where the physician charged with the operation is required to ensure that the husband and wife on one hand and the donor on the other hand remain unknown to each other, the non-communication of a natural parent's name or natural parents' names to the child is not in contradiction with this provision.

Slovenia

06-07-1992

The Republic of Slovenia reserves the right not to apply paragraph 1 of article 9 of the Convention since the internal legislation of the Republic of Slovenia provides for the right of competent authorities (centres for social work) to determine on separation of a child from his/her parents without a previous judicial review.

19-01-2004

The Government of Slovenia informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation made upon succession.

Somalia

01-10-2015

The Federal Republic of Somalia does not consider itself bound by Articles 14, 20, 21 of the above stated Convention and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia.

Objection Germany, 11-12-2015

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia on October 1, 2015 to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Federal Republic of Germany considers that the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia regarding articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore objects to them.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Federal Republic of Germany.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 08-03-2016

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservations made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia with respect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations regarding articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
Furthermore, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the Federal Republic of Somalia subjects application of the Convention to the beliefs and principles of Islam.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by general reference to religious laws, raises doubts as to the commitment of that State to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that according to Article 51, paragraph 2 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

Objection Latvia, 23-03-2016

… The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Republic of Latvia considers that Article 14 of the Convention forms the very basis of the Convention and thereof International Human Rights Law, thus no derogations from those obligations can be made. Moreover, the Republic of Latvia emphasises that para 3 of Article 14 contains the particular provisions related to the possible limitations of the right to manifest child's religious beliefs.Therefore, the Republic of Latvia considers that general reservation to Article 14 of the Convention cannot be considered in line with object and purpose of the Convention.
Regarding the reservation to Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention that address the issues of the removal of child from family environment and matters of adoption, the Government of Latvia draws attention that Articles provide only general principles, leaving the issues of practical implementation up to the State Parties. Consequently, the reservation stipulating that the State Party to the Convention is not bound by Articles establishing the principle that the child can be removed from family environment and that the adoption shall be performed in the best interests of child, cannot be considered in line with aim and purpose of the Convention.
Moreover, the reservation subjecting any of provision of the Convention to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia does not allow evaluate to what extent the Federal Republic of Somalia considers itself bound by the provisions of the Convention.
Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia referring to para 2 of Article 51 of the Convention setting out that reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Federal Republic of Somalia. Thus, the Convention will become operative without the Federal Republic of Somalia benefiting from its reservation…

Objection Austria, 31-03-2016

The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Austria considers that by referring to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia Somalia has made a reservation of a general and indeterminate scope. This reservation does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention.
Austria therefore considers the reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and objects to it.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Austria and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

Objection Sweden, 18-04-2016

The Government of Sweden has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia, by which the Federal Republic of Somalia expresses that ‘The Federal Republic of Somalia does not consider itself bound by Articles 14, 20, 21 of the above stated Convention and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia.’
As regards to the reservations to Articles 14, 20 and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia, Sweden would like to state the following.
Reservations by which a State Party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by not considering itself bound by certain articles and by invoking general references to national or religious law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.
It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforementioned reservations.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and the Federal Republic of Somalia, without the Federal Republic of Somalia benefitting from its aforementioned reservations.

Objection Finland, 27-04-2016

The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia concerning the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Government of Finland notes that a general reference to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia raises doubts as to the commitment of the Federal Republic of Somalia to fulfill its obligations under the Convention. Such reservations are also subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.
In [the] view of the Government of Finland, the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. According to Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, such reservations shall not be permitted.
Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and the Federal Republic of Somalia. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without the Federal Republic of Somalia benefitting from its reservations.

Objection Romania, 03-05-2016

The Government of Romania has carefully examined the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and considers that they are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Moreover, having an undefined character and invoking general principles of its internal law, these reservations are contrary to the rules of the international law.
Therefore, the Government of Romania objects to the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention in its entirety between the Romania and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

Objection Belgium, 09-05-2016

The Kingdom of Belgium has carefully examined the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia upon ratification on 1 October 2015 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Kingdom of Belgium considers that the reservations concerning in particular articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are incompatible with the object and purpose of that Convention.
These reservations effectively subordinate the application of all the provisions of the Convention to their compatibility with Islamic Sharia. The Kingdom of Belgium considers that such reservations seek to limit the responsibilities of the Federal Republic of Somalia under the Convention through a general reference to Islamic Sharia.
The result is some uncertainty about the extent of the commitment of the Federal Republic of Somalia to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Kingdom of Belgium notes that, under article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. Consequently, the Kingdom of Belgium registers an objection to the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia concerning articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and concerning any other provision of the Convention contrary to the general principles of Islamic Sharia.
Belgium specifies that this objection does not constitute an impediment to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

Objection Czech Republic, 17-05-2016

The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia on October 1, 2015 upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to which [t]he Federal Republic of Somalia does not consider itself bound by Articles 14, 20, 21 and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia.
The Government of the Czech Republic considers the reservation to Articles 14, 20 and 21 to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, since, in the opinion of the Government of the Czech Republic, these Articles form an essential element of the Convention and the general derogation from them impairs the raison d'être of the Convention.
Moreover, the Government of the Czech Republic is of the view, that the reservation to any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia has a general and indeterminate scope, since it does not sufficiently specify to what extent the Federal Republic of Somalia considers itself bound by the provisions of the Convention. Thus, this general reservation referring to religious laws also raises concern to which extent the Federal Republic of Somalia is committed to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Czech Republic wishes to recall that, according to article 51 paragraph 2 of the Convention, as well as according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted and that such a reservation is null and void, and therefore devoid of any legal effect.
Therefore, the Government of the Czech Republic objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Czech Republic and the Federal Republic of Somalia. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the Czech Republic and the Federal Republic of Somalia, without the Federal Republic of Somalia benefiting from its reservation.

Objection Switzerland, 06-07-2016

The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia in ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The reservation subordinating all provisions of the Convention to the general principles of Islamic sharia makes it impossible to determine the extent to which the Federal Republic of Somalia accepts the obligations deriving from the Convention. The Federal Council therefore considers the reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
It also considers the reservation to articles 14 and 20, whereby the Federal Republic of Somalia generally seeks to avoid being bound by the important obligations contained therein, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Federal Council recalls that, pursuant to article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention, as well as article 19, paragraph (c), of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
Accordingly, the Swiss Federal Council objects to the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention, in its entirety, between the Federal Republic of Somalia and Switzerland.

Objection Hungary, 26-08-2016

The Government of Hungary has examined the reservation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child made by the Federal Republic of Somalia at the time of its ratification of the Convention.
The reservation states that the Federal Republic of Somalia does not consider itself bound by the provisions of the Convention that are not in accordance with the General Principles of Islamic Sharia, and also states that it is not bound by Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention.
The Government of Hungary is of the opinion that by giving precedence to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia over the application of the provisions of the Convention, the Federal Republic of Somalia has made a reservation which leaves it unclear to what extent it feels bound by the obligations of the Convention and which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Articles 14, 20 and 21 address fundamental rights, and form an essential part of the Convention. Therefore, any reservation to these Articles is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Hungary recalls that according Article 51 (2) of the Convention and to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of Hungary therefore objects to the aforesaid Reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Hungary and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

Objection Italy, 23-09-2016

The Government of the Italian Republic has carefully examined the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia on October 1, 2015 to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Italian Republic considers that the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia regarding articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore objects to them.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Italian Republic.

Objection Bulgaria, 27-09-2016

The Republic of Bulgaria welcomes the ratification by the Federal Republic of Somalia of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on 1 October 2015.
The Republic of Bulgaria has carefully examined the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia upon ratification of the Convention, which states that it does not consider itself bound by Articles 14, 20, 21 of the [...] Convention and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia.
The Republic of Bulgaria considers the reservation to articles 14, 20 and 21 incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, as it affects an essential element of the treaty. Furthermore, the Republic of Bulgaria notes that the aforementioned reservation subordinates the application of all the provisions of the Convention to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia, thus failing to define the extent to which the Federal Republic of Somalia considers itself bound by the provisions of the Convention.
The Republic of Bulgaria notes that according to article 51, paragraph 2 of the Convention a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
Therefore, the Republic of Bulgaria objects to the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia concerning articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and concerning any other provision of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia.
However, the Republic of Bulgaria specifies that this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

Objection Poland, 28-09-2016

The Government of the Republic of Poland has carefully examined the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th of November 1989, […] upon its ratification on October 1, 2015.
The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia regarding articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia Law are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore objects to them.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Republic of Poland.

Objection Portugal, 28-09-2016

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservations made upon ratification regarding Articles 14, 20, and 21, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
In addition, the reservation related to the Principles of the Islamic Sharia has a general and indeterminate scope and therefore does not allow States to assess to what extent Somalia has accepted the existing commitments to the Convention.·Furthermore, such general reservation contributes to undermining the basis of International Treaty Law.
Moreover, the Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention on the Rights of the Child by invoking the domestic law or/and the Sharia Law raise doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention, as the reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Convention of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls that according to Article 51, paragraph 2 of the Convention, as well as according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of the Portuguese Republic thus objects to this reservation.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Portuguese Republic and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

Objection France, 29-09-2016

The Government of the French Republic has examined the reservation made on 1 October 2015 by the Federal Republic of Somalia on the occasion of the deposit of its instrument of ratification to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to which the Federal Republic of Somalia does not consider itself bound by articles 14, 20 and 21 of the above-stated Convention and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia.
The French Republic considers that the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia concerning articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government of the French Republic objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the French Republic and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

Objection Norway, 29-09-2016

The Government of Norway welcomes the ratification by the Federal Republic of Somalia of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Government of Norway has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia upon ratification of the Convention, according to which the Federal Republic of Somalia ‘does not consider itself bound by Articles 14, 20, 21 of the above stated Convention and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia’.
The Government of Norway notes that the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia has made a general reservation in respect of the provisions of the Convention which may be contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia. The reservation is limiting the scope of the Convention, without identifying all the provisions in question, nor the extent of the derogation therefrom. The Government of Norway accordingly considers that the reservation raises serious doubts as to the full commitment of the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia to the object and purpose of the Convention, and undermines the basis of international treaty law. Moreover, insofar as the reservation relates to Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention, the Government of Norway considers that, in addition to being too vague, it affects essential elements of the treaty.
The Government of Norway therefore considers the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia to be incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Norway recalls that according to Article 51 paragraph 2 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of Norway therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Federal Republic of Somalia. The Convention thus becomes operative between the Kingdom of Norway and the Federal Republic of Somalia without the Federal Republic of Somalia benefiting from the aforesaid reservation.

Objection Moldova, 30-09-2016

The Republic of Moldova has carefully examined the reservations made by the Federal Government of Somalia on October 1, 2015 upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Republic of Moldova considers that the reservations regarding articles 14, 20 and 21 of the mentioned Convention are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention since these articles form an essential element of the Convention.
The Republic of Moldova recalls, that according to article 51, paragraph 2 of the Convention, as well as article 19, paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
Therefore, the Republic of Moldova objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia.
The objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Moldova and the Federal Republic of Somalia. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the Republic of Moldova and the Federal Republic of Somalia, without the Federal Republic of Somalia benefiting from its reservation.

Objection United Kingdom, 30-09-2016

Somalia has made the following reservation: The Federal Republic of Somalia does not consider itself bound by Articles 14, 20, 21 of the above stated Convention and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia.
The UK Government notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to a system of law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention.
The UK Government therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation.

Spain

06-12-1990

1. Spain understands that article 21, paragraph (d), of the Convention may never be construed to permit financial benefits other than those needed to cover strictly necessary expenditure which may have arisen from the adoption of children residing in another country.
2. Spain, wishing to make common cause with those States and humanitarian organizations which have manifested their disagreement with the contents of article 38, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Convention, also wishes to express its disagreement with the age limit fixed therein and to declare that the said limit appears insufficient, by permitting the recruitment and participation in armed conflict of children having attained the age of fifteen years.

Switzerland

24-02-1997

Declaration:
Switzerland refers expressly to the obligations of all States to apply the rules of international humanitarian law and national law to the extent that they ensure better protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict.
(b) Reservation concerning article 7:
The Swiss legislation on nationality, which does not grant the right to acquire Swiss nationality, is unaffected.
(c) Reservation concerning article 10, paragraph 1:
Swiss legislation, which does not guarantee family reunification to certain categories of aliens, is unaffected.
(d) Reservation concerning article 37(c):
The separation of children deprived of liberty from adults is not unconditionally guarantied.
(e) Reservation concerning article 40:
The Swiss penal procedure applicable to children, which does not guarantee either the unconditional right to assistance or separation, where personnel or organization is concerned, between the examining authority and the sentencing authority, is unaffected.
The federal legislation concerning the organization of criminal justice, which establishes an exception to the right to a conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal where the person concerned was tried by the highest tribunal at first instance, is unaffected.

12-01-2004

The Government of Switzerland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation in respect of article 40, paragraph 2, subparagraph b (vi) made upon ratification which reads as follows:
The guarantee of having the free assistance of an interpreter does not exempt the beneficiary from the payment of any resulting costs.

08-04-2004

The Government of Switzerland informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation in respect of article 5 made upon ratification, which reads as follows:
The Swiss legislation concerning parental authority is unaffected.

01-05-2007

Withdrawal of reservations in respect of Article 7(2) and Article 40, paragraph 2 made upon ratification
Article 7:
The Swiss legislation on nationality, which does not grant the right to acquire Swiss nationality, is unaffected.
Article 40, paragraph 2
The federal legislation concerning the organization of criminal justice, which establishes an exception to the right to a conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal where the person concerned was tried by the highest tribunal at first instance, is unaffected.

Syria

15-07-1993

The Syrian Arab Republic has reservations on the Convention's provisions which are not in conformity with the Syrian Arab legislations and with the Islamic Shariah's principles, in particular the content of article (14) related to the Right of the Child to the freedom of religion, and articles 20 and 21 concerning the adoption.

Objection Sweden, 29-03-1994

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and the Syrian Arab Republic.

Objection Finland, 24-06-1994

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. For the above reason the Government of Finland objects to the said reservation. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and the Syrian Arab Republic.

Objection Italy, 18-07-1994

This reservation is too comprehensive and too general as to be compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Italy therefore objects to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Syrian Arab Republic and Italy.

Objection Germany, 21-09-1994

This reservation, owing to its indefinite nature, does not meet the requirements of international law. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Syrian Arab Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany.

Objection Norway, 25-10-1994

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may create doubts about the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Norway, therefore, objects to this reservation.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Norway and the Syrian Arab Republic.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 06-02-1995

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Syrian Arab Republic.

Objection Denmark, 16-11-1995

Because of their unlimited scope and undefined character these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Therefore, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations. The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Djibouti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic respectively and Denmark.
It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.
The Government of Denmark recommends the Governments of Djibouti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic to reconsider their reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

06-05-1996

The Secretary-General received the following communication from the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic with regard to the objection by the Government of Germany to its reservations made upon ratification:
The laws in effect in the Syrian Arab Republic do not recognize the system of adoption, although they do require that protection and assistance should be provided to those for whatever reason permanently or temporarily deprived of their family environment and that alternative care should be assured them through foster placement and kafalah, in care centres and special institutions and, without assimilation to their blood lineage (nasab), by foster families, in accordance with the legislation in force based on the principles of the Islamic Shariah.
The reservations of the Syrian Arab Republic to articles 20 and 21 mean that approval of the Convention should not in any way be interpreted as recognizing or permitting the system of adoption to which reference is made in these two articles and are subject to these limitations only.
The reservations of the Syrian Arab Republic to article 14 of the Convention are restricted only to its provisions relating to religion and do not concern those relating to thought or conscience. They concern: the extent to which the right in question might conflict with the right of parents and guardians to ensure the religious education of their children, as recognized by the United Nations and set forth in article 18, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the extent to which it might conflict with the right, established by the laws in force, of a child to choose a religion at an appointed time or in accordance with designated procedures or at a particular age in the case where he clearly has the mental and legal capacity to do so; and the extent to which it might conflict with public order and principles of the Islamic Shariah on this matter that are in effect in the Syrian Arab Republic with respect to each case.

13-06-2012

Withdrawal of reservations to articles 20 and 21 of the Convention made upon ratification.

Thailand

27-03-1992

The application of articles 7, 22 .... of the Convention on the Rights of the Child shall be subject to the national laws, regulations and prevailing practices in Thailand.

Objection Ireland, 28-09-1992

The Government of Ireland consider that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention, by invoking general principles of national law, may create doubts as to the commitment of those States to the object and purpose of the Convention.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and Thailand.

Objection Sweden, 20-07-1993

The Secretary-General received from the Government of Sweden a communication with regard to the reservations made upon accession by Thailand concerning articles 7, 22 and 29.

11-04-1997

The Government of Thailand notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation with regard to article 29.

13-12-2010

Withdrawal of reservation to article 7 of the Convention.
The remaining reservation will now read as follows:
The application of article 22 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child shall be subject to the national laws, regulations and prevailing practices in Thailand.

Tunisia

30-01-1992

Declarations:
1. The Government of the Republic of Tunisia declares that it shall not, in implementation of this Convention, adopt any legislative or statutory decision that conflicts with the Tunisian Constitution.
...
3. The Government of the Republic of Tunisia declares that the Preamble to and the provisions of the Convention, in particular article 6, shall not be interpreted in such a way as to impede the application of Tunisian legislation concerning voluntary termination of pregnancy.
Reservations:
1. The Government of the Republic of Tunisia enters a reservation with regard to the provisions of article 2 of the convention, which may not impede implementation of the provisions of its national legislation concerning personal status, particularly in relation to marriage and inheritance rights.
...
3. The Government of the Republic of Tunisia considers that article 7 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as prohibiting implementation of the provisions of national legislation relating to nationality and, in particular, to cases in which it is forfeited.

Objection Ireland, 28-09-1992

The Government of Ireland consider that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention, by invoking general principles of national law, may create doubts as to the commitment of those States to the object and purpose of the Convention.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and Tunesia.

Objection Germany, 17-03-1993

The Federal Republic of Germany considers the first of the declarations deposited by the Republic of Tunisia to be a reservation. It restricts the application of the first sentence of article 4 to the effect that any national legislative or statutory decisions adopted to implement the Convention may not conflict with the Tunisian Constitution. Owing to the very general wording of this passage the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is unable to perceive which provisions of the Convention are covered, or may be covered at some time in the future, by the reservation and in what manner. There is a similar lack of clarity with regard to the reservation relating to article 2.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to both these reservations. This objection does not prevent the Convention from entering into force as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Tunisia.

01-03-2002

The Government of Tunisia informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the following declaration and reservation made upon ratification:
Declaration:
2. The Government of the Republic of Tunisia declares that its undertaking to implement the provisions of this Convention shall be limited by the means at its disposal.
Reservation:
2. The Government of the Republic of Tunisia regards the provisions of article 40, paragraph 2 (b) (v), as representing a general principle to which exceptions may be made under national legislation, as is the case for some offences on which final judgement is rendered by cantonal or criminal courts without prejudice to the right of appeal in their regard to the Court of Cassation entrusted with ensuring the implementation of the law.

23-09-2008

The following declaration and reservations were withdrawn:
Declaration:
1. The Government of the Republic of Tunisia declares that it shall not, in implementation of this
Convention, adopt any legislative or statutory decision that conflicts with the Tunisian Constitution.
Reservations:
1. The Government of the Republic of Tunisia enters a reservation with regard to the provisions of
article 2 of the convention, which may not impede implementation of the provisions of its national
legislation concerning personal status, particularly in relation to marriage and inheritance rights.
3. The Government of the Republic of Tunisia considers that article 7 of the Convention cannot be
interpreted as prohibiting implementation of the provisions of national legislation relating to nationality
and, in particular, to cases in which it is forfeited.

Turkey

14-09-1990

Reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification
The Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of articles 17, 29 and 30 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child according to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and those of the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923.

Objection Portugal, 15-07-1992

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the reservations.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Turkey.

Objection Ireland, 28-09-1992

The Government of Ireland consider that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention, by invoking general principles of national law, may create doubts as to the commitment of those States to the object and purpose of the Convention.
This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and Turkey.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 14-06-1996

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Turkey.

United Arab Emirates

03-01-1997

Article 7:
The United Arab Emirates is of the view that the acquisition of nationality is an internal matter and one that is regulated and whose terms and conditions are established by national legislation.
Article 14:
The United Arab Emirates shall be bound by the tenor of this article to the extent that it does not conflict with the principles and provisions of Islamic law.
Article 17:
While the United Arab Emirates appreciates and respects the functions assigned to the mass media by the article, it shall be bound by its provisions in the light of the requirements of domestic statues and laws and, in accordance with the recognition accorded them in the preamble to the Convention, such a manner that the country's traditions and cultural values are not violated.
Article 21:
Since, given its commitment to the principles of Islamic law, the United Arab Emirates does not permit the system of adoption, it has reservations with respect to this article and does not deem it necesary to be bound by its provisions.

Objection Italy, 02-04-1998

The Government of the Italian Republic considers that the reservations to articles 14, 17 and 21 seek to limit the responsibilities of the United Arab Emirates under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of the United Arab Emirates to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties should be respected, as to the objects and the purpose, by all Parties. The Government of the Italian Republic therefore objects to this reservation. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Government of the Italian Republic and the United Arab Emirates.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 06-04-1998

With regard to the reservation made to article 14 by the United Arab Emirates upon accession the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States to the object and purpose of the Convention and moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Arab Emirates.
Moreover, the Government of the Netherlands made the following declaration with regard to the reservation made by the Government of the United Arab Emirates with respect to article 7: The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlans assumes that the United Arab Emirates shall ensure the implementation of the rights mentioned in article 7, first paragraph, of [the Convention] not only in accordance with its national law but also with its obligations under the relevant international instrument in this field.

Objection Austria, 16-11-1998

Under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which is reflected in article 51 of the [Convention] a reservation, in order to be admissible under international law, has to be compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty concerned. A reservation is incompatible with object and purpose of a treaty if it intends to derogate from provisions the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling its object and purpose.
The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the United Arab Emirates to the [Convention]. Given the general character of these reservations a final assessment as to its admissibility under international law cannot be made without further clarification.
Until the scope of the legal effects of this reservation is sufficiently specified by the United Arab Emirates, the Republic of Austria considers these reservations as not affecting any provision the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling the object and purpose of the [Convention].
Austria, however, objects to the admissibility of the reservations in question if the application of this reservation negatively affects the compliance of the United Arab Emirates ... with its obligations under the [Convention] essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose.
Austria could not consider the reservation made by the United Arab Emirates ... as admissible under the regime of article 51 of the [Convention] and article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties unless the United Arab Emirates ... , by providing additional information or through subsequent practice to ensure [s] that the reservations are compatible with the provisions essential for the implementation of the object and purpose of the [Convention].

United Kingdom

19-04-1990

The United Kingdom reserves the right to formulate, upon ratifying the Convention, any reservations or interpretative declarations which it might consider necessary.

16-12-1991

Declarations:
(a) The United Kingdom interprets the Convention as applicable only following a live birth.
(b) The United Kingdom interprets the references in the Convention to `parents' to mean only those persons who, as a matter of national law, are treated as parents. This includes cases where the law regards a child as having only one parent, for example where a child has been adopted by one person only and in certain cases where a child is conceived other than as a result of sexual intercourse by the woman who gives birth to it and she is treated as the only parent.
Reservations:
(c) The United Kingdom reserves the right to apply such legislation, in so far as it relates to the entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom of those who do not have the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in the United Kingdom, and to the acquisition and possession of citizenship, as it may deem necessary from time to time
...
(e) Where at any time there is a lack of suitable accommodation or adequate facilities for a particular individual in any institution in which young offenders are detained, or where the mixing of adults and children is deemed to be mutually beneficial, the United Kingdom reserves the right not to apply article 37 (c) in so far as those provisions require children who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults.
Declaration:
The United Kingdom reserves the right to extend the Convention at a later date to any territory for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom is responsible.

07-09-1994

... the Convention will apply to the Isle of Man, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Hong Kong, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St. Helena, St. Helena Dependencies, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands.
The United Kingdom refers to the reservation and declarations (a), (b) and (c) which accompanied its instrument of ratification and makes a similar reservation and declarations in respect to each of its dependent territories.
The United Kingdom, in respect of each of its dependent territories except Hong Kong and Pitcairn, reserves the right to apply article 32 subject to the laws of those territories which treat certain persons under 18 not as children but as `young people'. In respect of Hong Kong, the United Kingdom reserves the right not to apply article 32 (b) in so far as it might require regulation of the hours of employment of young persons who have attained the age of fifteen years in respect of work in non-industrial establishments.
Where at any time there is a lack of suitable detention facilities or where the mixing of adults and children is deemed to be mutually beneficial, the United Kingdom, in respect of each of its dependent territories, reserves the right not to apply article 37 (c) in so far as those provisions require children who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults.
The United Kingdom, in respect of Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands, will seek to apply the Convention to the fullest extent to children seeking asylum in those territories except in so far as conditions and resources make full implementation impracticable. In particular, in relation to article 22, the United Kingdom reserves the right to continue to apply any legislation in those territories governing the detention of children seeking refugee status, the determination of their status and their entry into, stay in and departure from those territories.
The Government of the United Kingdom reserves the right to extend the Convention at a later date to any other territories for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom is responsible.

Objection Argentina, 03-04-1995

The Government of Argentina rejects the extension of the application of the [said Convention] to the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, effected by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 7 September 1994, and reaffirms its sovereignty over those islands, which are an integral part of its national territory.

17-01-1996

... The Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands and over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and its consequential right to extend the said Convention to these Territories. The United Kingdom Government rejects as unfounded the claims by the Government of Argentina and is unable to regard the Argentine objection as having any legal effect.

18-04-1997

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the following reservation made upon ratification:
(f) In Scotland there are tribunals (known as `children's hearing') which consider the welfare of the child and deal with the majority of offences which a child is alleged to have committed. In some cases, mainly of welfare nature, the child is temporarily deprived of its liberty for up to seven days prior to attending the hearing. The child and its family are, however, allowed access to a lawyer during this period. Although the decisions of the hearings are subject to appeal to the courts, legal representation is not permitted at the proceedings of the children's hearings themselves. Children's hearings have proved over the years to be a very effective way of dealing with the problems of children in a less formal, non-adversarial manner. Accordingly, the United Kingdom, in respect of article 37 (d), reserves its right to continue the present operation of children's hearings.

03-08-1999

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland informed the Secretary-General of the following:
[...] the following reservation entered upon ratification in respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is hereby withdrawn:
[(d)] Employment legislation in the United Kingdom does not treat persons under 18, but over the school-leaving age as children, but as `young people'. Accordingly the United Kingdom reserves the right to continue to apply article 32 subject to such employment legislation.
The United Kingdom's reservations to article 32 in respect of its overseas territories, formerly referred to as `dependent territories', set out in the Declarations dated 7 September 1994, are unaffected.

18-11-2008

...the Government of the United Kingdom withdraws the following reservations, made at the
time of ratification of the Convention:
The United Kingdom reserves the right to apply such legislation, in so far as it relates to the entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom of those who do not have the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in the United Kingdom, and to the acquisition and possession of citizenship, as it may deem necessary from time to time.
and
Where at any time there is a lack of suitable accommodation or adequate facilities for a particular individual in any institution in which young offenders are detained or where the mixing of adults and children is deemed to be mutually beneficial, the United Kingdom reserves the right not to apply article 37 (c) in so far as those provisions require children who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults.
The withdrawal of these reservations in respect of the territory of the United Kingdom is without prejudice to the continued applicability of the reservation and declarations made by the United Kingdom in respect of its dependent territories.

Uruguay

26-01-1990

On signing this Convention, Uruguay reaffirms the right to make reservations upon ratification, if it considers it appropriate.

20-11-1990

The Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay affirms, in regard to the provisions of article 38, paragraphs 2 and 3, that in accordance with Uruguayan law it would have been desirable for the lower age limit for taking a direct part in hostilities in the event of an armed conflict to be set at 18 years instead of 15 years as provided in the Convention.
Furthermore, the Government of Uruguay declares that, in the exercise of its sovereign will, it will not authorize any persons under its jurisdiction who have not attained the age of 18 years to take a direct part in hostilities and will not under any circumstances recruit persons who have not attained the age of 18 years.

Venezuela

13-09-1990

1. Article 21 (b):
The Government of Venezuela understands this provision as referring to international adoption and in no circumstances to placement in a foster home outside the country. It is also its view that the provision cannot be interpreted to the detriment of the State's obligation to ensure due protection of the child.
2. Article 21 (d):
The Government of Venezuela takes the position that neither the adoption nor the placement of children should in any circumstances result in financial gain for those in any way involved in it.
3. Article 30:
The Government of Venezuela takes the position that this article must be interpreted as a case in which article 2 of the Convention applies.

Yugoslavia (< 25-06-1991)

03-01-1991

The competent authorities (ward authorities) of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia may, under article 9, paragraph 1 of the Convention, make decisions to deprive parents of their right to raise their children and give them an upbringing without prior judicial determination in accordance with the internal legislation of the SFR of Yugoslavia.

Actions

With the exception of the depositary notifications, the information in the Treaty Database is offered as a public service and has no official status. For official publications, please consult the Treaty Series (“Tractatenblad”) on www.officielebekendmakingen.nl.