Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation

Parties with reservations, declarations and objections

Party	Reservations / Declarations	Objections
Denmark	Yes	No
Finland	Yes	No
France	Yes	No
Germany	Yes	No
Netherlands, the Kingdom of the	Yes	No
Qatar	Yes	No
Sweden	Yes	No
Switzerland	Yes	No
United States of America	Yes	No

Denmark

14-09-2018

Authorization granted by Danish authorities pursuant to article 8bis denotes only that Denmark will abstain from pleading infringement of Danish sovereignty in connection with the requesting State's boarding of a vessel or a platform. Danish authorities cannot authorize another State to take legal action on behalf of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Denmark also declares that the Protocol will not extend to the Faroe Islands and Greenland until further notice.

Finland

26-05-2020

In accordance with article 21, paragraph 3 of the 2005 Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, Finland declares that it will apply the provisions of article 3ter of the Convention, as amended by the 2005 Protocol, in accordance with the principles of its criminal law concerning family exemptions of liability.

France

09-05-2018

1. Concerning article 4, paragraph 4 of the Protocol replacing article 3, paragraph 2 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, the French Republic understands "threatens"/"threat" to mean a threat [Fr. menace] such as it is defined in the conditions provided for by French criminal legislation.
2. Concerning article 4, paragraph 7 of the Protocol, which inserts an article 3quater in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, the French Republic understands "attempts to commit an offence", "participates as an accomplice in an offence" and "organizes [the commission of] an offence" to mean an attempt [Fr. tentative] and participation as an accomplice [Fr. complicité] such as they are defined in the conditions provided for by French criminal legislation.
3. Concerning article 4, paragraph 6 of the Protocol, which inserts an article 3ter in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, the French Republic reserves the right not to establish as a criminal offence the fact of unlawfully and intentionally transporting another person on board a ship knowing that the person has committed an act that constitutes an offence set forth in article 3, 3bis or 3quater or an offence set forth in any treaty listed in the annex, and intending to assist that person in evading criminal prosecution, where the said person has committed an offence that constitutes a minor offence [Fr. contravention], a misdemeanour [Fr. délit] or an act of terrorism punishable by less than 10 years' imprisonment. In accordance with article 21, paragraph 3 of the Protocol, the French Republic will apply article 3ter of the Convention in accordance with the principles of French criminal law concerning family exemptions of liability.
4. The French Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, as revised by the present Protocol, according to which "Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation within a reasonable time shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If, within six months from the date of the request for arbitration, the parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration any one of those parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.

Germany

29-01-2016

In accordance with Article 21, paragraph 3 of the Protocol, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it will apply the provisions of Article 3ter in accordance with the principles of German criminal law concerning family exemptions of liability.

Netherlands, the Kingdom of the

01-03-2011

The Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it will apply the provisions of article 3ter of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 2005, in accordance with the principles of its criminal law concerning family exemptions of liability.

Qatar

10-01-2013

The State of Qatar does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 16 of this Convention with regards to referrals to the International Court of Justice.

Sweden

22-09-2014

In accordance with article 21.3 of the Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation Sweden will apply article 3ter of the Convention in accordance with the principles of Swedish criminal law concerning family exemptions of liability.

Switzerland

15-10-2008

Switzerland declares that article 2bis of the SUA Convention, as contained in the Protocol of 14 October 2005 must not be interpreted as excusing or rendering lawful any acts in other respects unlawful or as excluding the bringing of an action under other legislation.

United States of America

28-08-2015

Consistent with article 16(2) of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 2005, the United States of America declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 16(1) of the Convention with respect to disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the 2005 SUA Protocol.
Understandings
1) The United States of America understands that the term "armed conflict" in article 3 of the 2005 SUA Protocol (which adds, inter alia, paragraph 2 of article 2bis to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation) does not include internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature.
2) The United States of America understands that the term "international humanitarian law," in article 3 of the 2005 SUA Protocol (which adds, inter alia, paragraph 1 and 2 of article 2bis to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation) has the same substantive meaning as the "law of war."
3) The United States of America understands that, pursuant to article 3 of the 2005 SUA Protocol (which adds, inter alia, paragraph 2 of article 2bis to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation), the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation 2005, does not apply to: (a) the military forces of a State, which are the armed forces of a State organized, trained, and equipped under its internal law for the primary purpose of national defence or security, in the exercise of their official duties; (b) civilians who direct or organize the official activities of military forces of a State; or (c) civilians acting in support of the official activities of the military forces of a State, if the civilians are under the formal command, control, and responsibility of those forces.
4) The United States of America understands that:
A. Article 3 and article 4(5) of the 2005 SUA Protocol (which add, inter alia, article 2bis(3) and article 3bis(2), respectively, to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (together referred to as "the NPT savings clauses")) protect from criminal sanction under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 2005, the transport of source material, special fissionable material, or equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use, or production of special fissionable material:
(i) from the territory of, or otherwise under the control of, a State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons ("NPT") to the territory of, or otherwise under the control of, another NPT State Party or a State that is not an NPT party; and
(ii) from the territory of, or otherwise under the control of, a state that is not an NPT party to the territory of, or otherwise under the control of, an NPT State Party, where the resulting transfer or receipt of such items or materials is not contrary to the NPT obligations of the NPT State Party.
B. The following are illustrative examples of transport of source material, special fissionable material, and equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use, or production of special fissionable material that would not constitute offenses under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 2005, by virtue of the savings clauses:
(i) Transport of source material or special fissionable material (from either an NPT State Party or a State that is not an NPT party) to an NPT nuclear-weapon State Party, as that term is defined in the NPT, regardless of whether the source material or special fissionable material will be under safeguards in the NPT nuclear-weapon State Party, because the resulting receipt of the material is not contrary to the NPT obligations of the nuclear-weapon State Party;
(ii) Transport of source material or special fissionable material to a non-nuclear-weapon State Party, as such term is used in the NPT, for non-nuclear use without safeguards, in accordance with the provisions of the recipient country's IAEA comprehensive safeguards agreement allowing for exemption of the source material or special fissionable material from safeguards or the non-application or termination of safeguards (e.g. for specified de minimis amounts, or for use in a non-proscribed military activity which does not require the application of IAEA safeguards or in a non-nuclear use such as the production of alloys or ceramics);
(iii) Transport of source material or special fissionable material or especially designed or prepared equipment, as described in article 4(5) of the 2005 SUA Protocol (which adds article 3bis(1) (b) (iii) to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation), from an NPT State Party to a State that is not an NPT party, so long as the relevant material is for peaceful purposes and placed under IAEA safeguards, consistent with the NPT State Party's obligations under article III.2 of the NPT. If the source or special fissionable material transferred for peaceful purposes is subject to an IAEA safeguards agreement but is not required by that agreement actually to be under safeguards (e.g. under an exemption for de minimis amounts or a provision permitting safeguards termination for non-nuclear use), the transport would not constitute an offense under article 3bis(1) (b) (iii) of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 2005.
5) The United States of America understands that current United States law with respect to the rights of persons in custody and persons charged with crimes fulfills the requirement in article 9 of the 2005 SUA Protocol and, accordingly, the United States does not intend to enact new legislation to fulfill its obligations under this article.