Print
Download XMLConvention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects
Parties with reservations, declarations and objections
| Party | Reservations / Declarations | Objections |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | Yes | No |
| Canada | Yes | No |
| China | Yes | No |
| Cyprus | Yes | No |
| France | Yes | No |
| Holy See | Yes | No |
| Israel | Yes | No |
| Italy | Yes | No |
| Netherlands, the Kingdom of the | Yes | No |
| Palestine | Yes | No |
| Romania | Yes | No |
| Singapore | Yes | No |
| Türkiye | Yes | No |
| United Kingdom | Yes | No |
| United States of America | Yes | No |
Argentina
02-10-1995
The Argentine Republic makes the express reservation that any references to the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 that are contained in the [said Convention and its Protocols I, II and III] shall be interpreted in the light of the interpretative declarations in the instrument of accession of the Argentine Republic to the afore-mentioned additional Protocols of 1977.
Canada
24-06-1994
1. It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that:
(a) The compliance of commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon,
or executing attacks to which the Convention and its Protocols apply cannot be judged
on the basis of information which subsequently comes to light but must be assessed
on the basis of the information available to them at the time that such actions were
taken; and
(b) Where terms are not defined in the present Convention and its Protocols they shall,
so far as is relevant, be construed in the same sense as terms contained in additional
Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949.
2. With respect to Protocol I, it is the understanding of the Government of Canada
that the use of plastics or similar materials for detonators or other weapons parts
not designed to cause injury is not prohibited.
3. With respect to Protocol II, it is the understanding of the Government of Canada
that:
(a) Any obligation to record the location of remotely delivered mines pursuant to
sub-paragraph 1 (a) of article 5 refers to the location of mine fields and not to
the location of individual remotely delivered mines;
(b) The term 'pre-planned', as used in sub-paragraph 1 (a) of article 7 means that
the position of the minefield in question should have been determined in advance so
that an accurate record of the location of the minefield, when laid, can be made;
(c) The phrase 'similar functions' used in article 8, includes the concepts of `peace-making,
preventive peace-keeping and peace enforcement' as defined in an agenda for peace
(United Nations document A/47/277 S/2411 of 17 June 1992).
4. With respect to Protocol III, it is the understanding of the Government of Canada
that the expression 'clearly separated' in paragraph 3 of article 2 includes both
spatial separation or separation by means of an effective physical barrier between
the military objective and the concentration of civilians.
16-01-2015
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 Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which
may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with
Protocols I, II and III) and the Secretary-General's communication of 6 January 2015,
C.N.17.2015.TREATIES-XXVI.2, 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 Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of
Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to
have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III). 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 Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional
Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate
Effects (with Protocols I, II and III), 'Palestine' is not able to accede to this
convention, and that the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use
of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or
to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III) does not enter into
force, or have an effect on Canada’s treaty relations, with respect to the 'State
of Palestine'.
China
14-09-1981
1. The Government of the People's Republic of China has decided to sign the Convention
on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May
be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects adopted at
the United Nations Conference held in Geneva on 10 October 1980.
2. The Government of the People's Republic of China deems that the basic spirit of
the Convention reflects the reasonable demand and good intention of numerous countries
and peoples of the world regarding prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain
conventional weapons which are excessively injurious or have indiscriminate effects.
This basic spirit conforms to China's consistent position and serves the interest
of opposing aggression and maintaining peace.
3. However, it should be pointed out that the Convention fails to provide for supervision
or verification of any violation of its clauses, thus weakening its binding force.
The Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and
Other Devices fails to lay down strict restrictions on the use of such weapons by
the aggressor on the territory of his victim and to provide adequately for the right
of a state victim of an aggression to defend itself by all necessary means. The Protocol
on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons does not stipulate
restrictions on the use of such weapons against combat personnel. Furthermore, the
Chinese texts of the Convention and Protocol are not accurate or satisfactory enough.
It is the hope of the Chinese Government that these inadequacies can be remedied in
due course.
Cyprus
12-12-1988
The provisions of article 7 of paragraph (3b) and article 8 of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II) will be interpreted in such a way that neither the status of peace-keeping forces or missions of the United Nations in Cyprus will be affected nor will additional rights be, ipso jure, granted to them.
France
10-04-1981
After signing the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain
Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate
Effects, the French Government, as it has already had occasion to state
- through its representative to the United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions
on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons in Geneva, during the discussion of the
proposal concerning verification arrangements submitted by the delegation of the Federal
Republic of Germany and of which the French Government became a sponsor, and at the
final meeting on 10 October 1980;
- on 20 November 1980 through the representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf
of the nine States members of the European Community in the First Committee at the
thirty-fifth session of the United Nations General Assembly;
Regrets that thus far it has not been possible for the States which participated in
the negotiation of the Convention to reach agreement on the provisions concerning
the verification of facts which might be alleged and which might constitute violations
of the undertakings subscribed to.
It therefore reserves the right to submit, possibly in association with other States,
proposals aimed at filling that gap at the first conference to be held pursuant to
article 8 of the Convention and to utilize, as appropriate, procedures that would
make it possible to bring before the international community facts and information
which, if verified, could constitute violations of the provisions of the Convention
and the Protocols annexed thereto.
Interpretative statement
The application of this Convention will have no effect on the legal status of the
parties to a conflict.
France, which is not bound by Additional Protocol I of 10 June 1977 to the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949:
Considers that the fourth paragraph of the preamble to the Convention on Prohibitions
or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to
Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, which reproduces the provisions
of article 35, paragraph 3, of Additional Protocol I, applies only to States parties
to that Protocol;
States, with reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention
on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, that it
will apply the provisions of the Convention and its three Protocols to all the armed
conflicts referred to in articles 2 and 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949;
States that as regards the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, the declaration of
acceptance and application provided for in article 7, paragraph 4 (b), of the Convention
on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons will have
no effects other than those provided for in article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions,
in so far as that article is applicable.
Holy See
22-07-1997
The Holy See, as a signatory of the [said Convention and annexed Protocols], in keeping
with its proper nature and with the particular condition of Vatican City State, intends
to renew its encouragement to the International Community to continue on the path
it has taken for the reduction of human suffering caused by armed conflict.
Every step in this direction contributes to increasing awareness that war and the
cruelty of war must be done away with in order to resolve tensions by dialogue and
negotiation, and also by ensuring that international law is respected.
The Holy See, while maintaining that the above-mentioned Convention and Protocols
constitute an important instrument for humanitarian international law, reiterates
the objective hoped for by many parties: an agreement that would totally ban anti-personnel
mines, the effects of which are tragically well-known.
In this regard, the Holy See considers that the modifications made so far in the second
Protocol are insufficient and inadequate. It wishes, by means of its own accession
to the Convention, to offer support to every effort aimed at effectively banning anti-personnel
mines, in the conviction that all possible means must be used in order to build a
safer and more fraternal world.
Israel
22-03-1995
Declarations:
(a) With reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention,
the Government of the State of Israel will apply the provisions of the Convention
and those annexed Protocols to which Israel has agreed become bound to all armed conflicts
involving regular armed forces of States referred to in article 2 common to the General
Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as to all armed conflicts referred to in article
3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.
(b) Article 7, paragraph 4 of the Convention will have no effect.
(c) The application of this Convention will have no effect on the legal status of
the parties to a conflict.
Understandings:
(a) It is the understanding of the Government of the State of Israel that the compliance
of commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing attacks
to which the Convention and its Protocols apply, cannot be judged on the basis of
information which subsequently comes to light, but must be assessed on the basis of
the information available to them at the time that such actions were taken.
(b) With respect to Protocol I, it is the understanding of the Government of Israel
that the use of plastics or similar materials for detonators or other weapon parts
not designed to cause injury is not prohibited.
(c) With respect to Protocol I, it is the understanding of the Government of Israel
that:
(i) Any obligation to record the location of remotely delivered mines pursuant to
sub-paragraph 1 (a) of article 5 refers to the location of mine fields and not to
the location of individual remotely delivered mines;
(ii) The term pre-planned, as used in sub-paragraph 1 (a) of article 7 means that
the position of the minefield in question should have been determined in advance so
that an accurate record of the location of the minefield, when laid, can be made.
16-01-2015
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 Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons
which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects
(with Protocols I, II and III), and refers to the communication by the depositary,
dated 6 January 2015, regarding the Palestinian request to accede to this Convention
(Reference number C.N.17.2015.TREATIES-XXVI.2).
‘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.
Italy
10-04-1981
On 10 October 1980 in Geneva, the representative of Italy at the Conference speaking
at the closing meeting, emphasized that the Conference, in an effort to reach a compromise
between what was desirable and what was possible, had probably achieved the maximum
results feasible in the circumstances prevailing at that time.
However, he observed in his statement that one of the objectives which had not been
achieved at the Conference, to his Government's great regret, was the inclusion in
the text of the Convention, in accordance with a proposal originated by the Federal
Republic of Germany, of an article on the establishment of a consultative committee
of experts competent to verify facts which might be alleged and which might constitute
violations of the undertakings subscribed to.
On the same occasion, the representative of Italy expressed the wish that the proposal,
which was aimed at strengthening the credibility and effectiveness of the Convention,
should be reconsidered at the earliest opportunity within the framework of the mechanisms
for the amendment of the Convention expressly provided for in that instrument.
Subsequently, through the representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of
nine States members of the European Community in the First Committee of the United
Nations General Assembly on 20 November 1980, when it adopted draft resolution A/C.1/31/L.15
(subsequently adopted as General Assembly Resolution 35/153), Italy once again expressed
regret that the States which had participated in the preparation of the texts of the
Convention and its Protocols had been unable to reach agreement on provisions that
would ensure respect for the obligations deriving from those texts.
In the same spirit, Italy - which has just signed the Convention in accordance with
the wishes expressed by the General Assembly in its resolution 35/153 - wishes to
confirm solemnly that it intends to undertake active efforts to ensure that the problem
of the establishment of a mechanism that would make it possible to fill a gap in the
Convention and thus ensure that it achieves maximum effectiveness and maximum credibility
vis-à-vis the international community is taken up again at the earliest opportunity
in every competent forum.
Netherlands, the Kingdom of the
18-06-1987
1. With regard to article 2, paragraph 4, of Protocol II:
It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that a
specific area of land may also be a military objective if, because of its location
or other reasons specified in paragraph 4, its total or partial destruction, capture,
or neutralization in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definitive military
advantage;
2. With regard to article 3, paragraph 3, under c, of Protocol II:
It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that military
advantage refers to the advantage anticipated from the attack considered as a whole
and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack;
3. With regard to article 8, paragraph 1, of Protocol II:
It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the
words 'as far as it is able' mean 'as far as it is technically able'.
4. With regard to article 1, paragraph 3, of Protocol III:
It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that a
specific area of land may also be a military objective if, because of its location
or other reasons specified in paragraph 3, its total or partial destruction, capture,
or neutralization in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definitive military
advantage.
Palestine
06-02-2015
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.58.2015.TREATIES-XXVI.2,
dated 23 January 2015, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession
of the State of Palestine to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the
Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious
or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III) dated 10 October
1980.
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 Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain
Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate
Effects and Protocols I and III, which enter into force on 5 July 2015, 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.
06-02-2015
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.42.2015.TREATIES-XXVI.2,
dated 23 January 2015, conveying a communication of the United States of America regarding
the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention on Prohibition or Restriction
on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious
or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III) dated 10 October
1980.
The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of the United States
of America 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 Prohibition or Restriction on the Use of Certain
Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate
Effects and Protocols I and III), which enters into force on 5 July 2015, 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.
06-02-2015
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.41.2015.TREATIES-XXVI.2,
dated 23 January 2015, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession
of the State of Palestine to the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on
the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious
or to have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III), dated 10 October
1980.
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 Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use
of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or
to have Indiscriminate Effects and Protocols I and III, which enter into force on
5 July 2015, 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.
Romania
08-04-1982
2. Romania considers that the Convention and the three Protocols annexed thereto constitute
a positive step within the framework of the efforts which have been made for the gradual
development of international humanitarian law applicable during armed conflicts and
which aim at providing very broad and reliable protection for the civilian population
and the combatants.
3. At the same time, Romania would like to emphasize that the provisions of the Convention
and its Protocols have a restricted character and do not ensure adequate protection
either to the civilian population or to the combatants as the fundamental principles
of international humanitarian law require.
4. The Romanian Government wishes to state on this occasion also that real and effective
protection for each individual and for peoples and assurance of their right to a free
and independent life necessarily presuppose the elimination of all acts of aggression
and the renunciation once and for all of the use of force and the threat of the use
of force, of intervention in the domestic affairs of other States and of the policy
of domination and diktat and strict observation of the sovereignty and independence
of peoples and their legitimate right to self-determination.
In the present circumstances, when a vast quantity of nuclear weapons has been accumulated
in the world, the protection of each individual and of all peoples is closely linked
with the struggle for peace and disarmament and with the adoption of authentic measures
to halt the arms race and ensure the gradual reduction of nuclear weapons until they
are totally eliminated.
5. The Romanian Government states once again its decision to act, together with other
States, to ensure the prohibition or restriction of all conventional weapons which
are excessively injurious or have indiscriminate effects, and the adoption of urgent
and effective measures for nuclear disarmament which would protect peoples from the
nuclear war which seriously threatens their right to life - a fundamental condition
for the protection which international humanitarian law must ensure for the individual,
the civilian population and the combatants.
Singapore
21-09-2023
Singapore is not bound by Additional Protocol I of 10 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions
of 12 August 1949.
Therefore, the Government of Singapore considers that the fourth paragraph of the
preamble to the Convention, which reproduces the substance of provisions of article
35(3) and article 55(1) of Additional Protocol I of 10 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions
of 12 August 1949, applies only to States which are party to that same Additional
Protocol I.
With respect to the scope of application defined in article l of the Convention, the
Government of Singapore will apply the provisions of the Convention and those annexed
Protocols to which Singapore has agreed to be bound to all armed conflicts involving
regular armed forces of States referred to in article 2 common to the Geneva Conventions
of 12 August 1949, as well as to all armed conflicts referred to in article 3 common
to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. The application of this Convention will
have no effect on the legal status of the parties to a conflict.
Article 7(4) of the Convention shall not apply with respect to Singapore.
With respect to Protocol I to the Convention, it is the understanding of the Government
of Singapore that the use of plastics or similar materials for detonators or other
weapons parts not designed to cause injury is not prohibited.
It is the understanding of the Government of Singapore that the compliance of commanders
and others responsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing attacks to which
the Convention and its annexed Protocols apply cannot be judged on the basis of information
which subsequently comes to light, but must be assessed on the basis of the information
available to them at the time that such actions were taken.
Türkiye
02-03-2005
Turkey is not bound by Additional Protocol I of 10 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions
of 12 August 1949:
Therefore, Turkey, with reference to the scope of application defined in article 1
of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional
Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate
Effects, states that it will apply the Convention to all armed conflicts referred
to in articles 2 and 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.
Turkey also states that paragraph 4 of article 7 of this Convention shall not apply
with respect to Turkey.
United Kingdom
10-04-1981
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will give
further consideration to certain provisions of the Convention, particularly in relation
to the provisions of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949, and may wish to make formal declarations in relation to these provisions at
the time of ratification.
13-02-1995
(a) Generally
(i) The term "armed conflict" of itself and in its context denotes a situation of
a kind which is not constituted by the com- mission of ordinary crimes, including
acts of terrorism, whether concerted or in isolation.
(ii) The United Kingdom will not, in relation to any situation in which it is involved,
consider itself bound in consequence of any declaration purporting to be made for
the purposes of article 7 (4), unless the United Kingdom shall have expressly recognised
that it has been made by a body which is genuinely an authority representing a people
engaged in an armed conflict of the type to which that paragraph applies.
(iii) The terms "civilian" and "civilian population" have the same meaning as in article
50 of the 1st Additional Protocol of 1977 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Civilians
shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Convention unless and for such time as
they take a direct part in hostilities.
(iv) Military commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing
attacks necessarily have to reach decisions on the basis of their assessment of the
information from all sources which is reasonably available to them at the relevant
time.
(b) Re: Protocol II, article 2; and Protocol III, article 1
A specific area of land may be a military objective if, because of its location or
other reasons specified in this article, its total or partial destruction, capture
or neutralisation in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military
advantage.
(c) Re: Protocol II, article 3
In the view of the United Kingdom, the military advantage anticipated from an attack
is intended to refer to the advantage anticipated from the attack considered as a
whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack.
(d) Re: Protocol III, article 2
The United Kingdom accepts the provisions of article 2 (2) and (3) on the understanding
that the terms of those paragraphs of that article do not imply that the air-delivery
of incendiary weapons, or of any other weapons, projectiles or munitions, is less
accurate or less capable of being carried out discriminately than all or any other
means of delivery.
United States of America
08-04-1982
The United States Government welcomes the adoption of this Convention, and hopes that
all States will give the most serious consideration to ratification or accession.
We believe that the Convention represents a positive step forward in efforts to minimize
injury or damage to the civilian population in time of armed conflict. Our signature
of this Convention reflects the general willingness of the United States to adopt
practical and reasonable provisions concerning the conduct of military operations,
for the purpose of protecting noncombatants.
At the same time, we want to emphasize that formal adherence by States to agreements
restricting the use of weapons in armed conflict would be of little purpose if the
parties were not firmly committed to taking every appropriate step to ensure compliance
with those restrictions after their entry into force. It would be the firm intention
of the United States and, we trust, all other parties to utilize the procedures and
remedies provided by this Convention, and by the general laws of war, to see to it
that all parties to the Convention meet their obligations under it. The United States
strongly supported proposals by other countries during the Conference to include special
procedures for dealing with compliance matters, and reserves the right to propose
at a later date additional procedures and remedies, should this prove necessary, to
deal with such problems.
In addition, the United States of course reserves the right, at the time of ratification,
to exercise the option provided by article 4 (3) of the Convention, and to make statements
of understanding and/or reservations, to the extent that it may deem that to be necessary
to ensure that the Convention and its Protocols conform to humanitarian and military
requirements. As indicated in the negotiating record of the 1980 Conference, the prohibitions
and restrictions contained in the Convention and its Protocols are of course new contractual
rules (with the exception of certain provisions which restate existing international
law) which will only bind States upon their ratification of, or accession to, the
Convention and their consent to be bound by the Protocols in question.
24-03-1995
Article 7 (4) (b) of the Convention shall not apply with respect to the United States.
The United States declares, with reference to the scope of application defined in
article 1 of the Convention, that the United States will apply the provisions of the
Convention, Protocol I, and Protocol II to all armed conflicts referred to in articles
2 and 3 common to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of August
12, 1949.
The United States understands that article 6 (1) of the Protocol II does not prohibit
the adaptation for use as booby-traps of portable objects created for a purpose other
than as a booby-trap if the adaptation does not violate paragraph (1)(b) of the article.
The United States considers that the fourth paragraph of the preamble to the Convention,
which refers to the substance of provisions of article 35 (3) and article 55 (1) of
additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims
of August 12, 1949, applies only to States which have accepted those provisions.
16-01-2015
The United States Mission to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United
Nations and refers to the U.N. Secretary-General's depositary notification C.N.17.2015.TREATIESXXVI.
2, dated January 6, 2015, regarding the purported accession of the ‘State of Palestine’
to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional
Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate
Effects, done at Geneva October 10, 1980 (the Convention), and to Protocols I and
III thereto.
The Government of the United States of America does not believe the ‘State of Palestine’
qualifies as a sovereign State and does not recognize it as such. Accession to the
Convention, and Protocols I and III thereto, is limited to sovereign States. Therefore,
the Government of the United States of America believes that the ‘State of Palestine’
is not qualified to accede to the Convention and the said Protocols, and affirms that
it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the ‘State of Palestine’
under the Convention and the said Protocols.