International Convention for the regulation of whaling

Parties with reservations, declarations and objections

Party	Reservations / Declarations	Objections
Argentina	Yes	Yes
Chile	Yes	No
China	Yes	No
Iceland	Yes	Yes
Norway	Yes	No
Peru	Yes	Yes
United Kingdom	Yes	Yes

Argentina

18-05-1960

Argentina explicitly declares that if, in accordance with the provisions of article I, paragraph 2 and article IX, paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention concerned, article 1 (b) of the Schedule annexed to the Convention or related provisions, another Contracting Party extends the application of the Convention or the Schedule to territories falling under the sovereignty of the Argentine Republic, such as the Malvinas Islands, the South Georgia Islands and the Argentine Antarctic Sector, no such extension will in any way affect its rights.

Objection United Kingdom, 12-08-1960

The [Argentine] instrument contained a statement, designated as a reservation, which refers to the Falkland Islands under the incorrect designation 'Islas Malvinas' and to alleged Argentine sovereignty over these islands and the Falkland Islands Dependencies, including South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
Her Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed to request the United States Government to inform all Contracting Governments that the Falkland Islands and the Falkland Islands Dependencies are, and remain, under the sovereignty of Her Majesty; and that Her Majesty's Government do not admit the claim of the Argentine Government to sovereignty over any part of these territories.

Objection United States of America, 14-09-1960

My Government wishes to point out, as it has on previous occasions, that it does not recognize any of the claims of sovereignty which have been asserted over territory in Antarctica and that it reserves all of the rights of the United States of America with respect to the area.

Chile

06-07-1979

Ratification by Chile includes the reservation that none of the provisions of the Convention could affect or restrict the sovereign rights of Chile in its Maritime Zone of 200 miles.

China

24-09-1980

The Chinese Government declares illegal and null and void the recognition of and application to accede to the above Convention by the Taiwan authorities in the name of China.

Iceland

10-10-2002

Iceland adheres to the aforesaid Convention and Protocol with a reservation with respect to paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule attached to the Convention.
Notwithstanding this [reservation], the Government of Iceland will not authorize whaling for commercial purposes by Icelandic vessels before 2006 and, thereafter, will not authorize such whaling while progress is being made in negotiations within the International Whaling Commission on the Revised Management Scheme. This does not apply, however, in case of the so-called moratorium on whaling for commercial purposes, contained in paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule, not being lifted within reasonable time after the completion of the Revised Management Scheme.
Under no circumstances will whaling for commercial purposes be authorized in Iceland without a sound scientific basis and an effective management and enforcement scheme.

Objection Sweden, 27-11-2002

The Government of Sweden is of the view that the reservation to paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule attached to the Convention may raise serious doubts as to the commitment of the Republic of Iceland to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation by the Government of the Republic of Iceland. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Iceland and Sweden.The Convention enters into force in its entirety without Iceland benefiting from its reservation.

Objection United Kingdom, 16-12-2002

The Government of the United Kingdom objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Iceland with respect to paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule attached to the Convention.

Objection France, 07-01-2003

France notes that the Icelandic instrument of accession includes a reservation concerning paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule attached to the Convention. As it announced at the Special Meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Cambridge on 14 October 2002, France hereby lodges a formal objection to this reservation.

Objection Germany, 03-02-2003

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the moratorium on commercial whaling laid down in Paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule to the Convention is a fundamental and longstanding aspect of the regime for management of whaling. The moratorium therefore is an essential part of the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is thus of the view that the reservation related to the moratorium raises doubts as to the full commitment of the Republic of Iceland to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the reservation made by the Republic of Iceland.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Iceland.

Objection Italy, 05-02-2003

The Government of Italy wishes to formally register its objection to a reservation that is not acceptable to Italy. In this regard, the position of Italy is that Iceland, because of its reservation, may not be regarded as a party to the Convention nor a member of the IWC.

Objection Australia, 05-02-2003

Australia considers that the reservation is prohibited, as it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. This does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Australia and Iceland.
The position of Australia in this regard is without prejudice to any future decision by the International Whaling Commission on Iceland's status with regard to the Convention.

Objection Brazil, 05-02-2003

The Brazilian Embassy would like to state the Brazilian government's opposition to such reservation by the government of Iceland.

Objection Argentina, 06-02-2003

The Government of the Argentine Republic formally objects to the reservation made by the Government of Iceland with respect to paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule attached to the Convention.

Objection Mexico, 14-02-2003

The Government of Mexico wishes to formally register its objection to the reservation formulated by Iceland. In this regard, because of its reservation, Iceland will not be regarded as a party to the Convention, nor as a member of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), insofar as Mexico is concerned.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 26-02-2003

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that paragraph 10 (e) to which Iceland has entered a reservation relates to the moratorium on commercial whaling which the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers to be a fundamental and longstanding aspect of the regime for management of whaling and one which the majority of IWC members supported when the measure was adopted in 1982. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Iceland to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Iceland.

Objection Spain, 06-03-2003

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the reservation is not compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Iceland with respect to paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule attached to the Convention.
The objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Iceland and Spain.

Objection Peru, 11-03-2003

The Embassy of Peru to the United States of America notes that the instrument [of adherence by Iceland] contains a reservation with respect to paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule attached to the Convention, reservation that the Government of Peru objects.

Objection San Marino, 17-03-2003

The Government of the Republic of San Marino formally objects to the reservation made by the Government of Iceland, since it believes that paragraph 10 (e) is a fundamental element to the application of the Convention.

Objection Monaco, 24-03-2003

The Government of the Principality of Monaco considers that paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule is one of the essential elements in applying the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and the Principality accordingly opposes the reservation submitted by Iceland.

Objection New Zealand, 23-04-2003

It is the view of the Government of New Zealand that the reservation is not permitted by the Convention. Further, the Government of New Zealand considers that the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is without legal effect. Accordingly, New Zealand does not accept the Convention as being in force between New Zealand and lceland.

Objection Chile, 23-05-2003

The Government of Chile would like to express its objection with respect to the [...] reservation, declaring that it constitutes an untimely presentation of an amendment to the Schedule or Annex of the Convention approved by the International Whaling Commission in 1986, which is inadmissible.

Objection United States of America, 27-05-2003

The United States of America, in its capacity as a party to the Convention, objects to the reservation contained in the instrument of adherence by Iceland. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the United States and Iceland.

Objection Finland, 30-05-2003

By note dated May 15, 2003, and received on May 30, 2003, the Government of Finland objected to the reservation contained in Iceland's instrument of adherence deposited on October 10, 2002.

Objection Portugal, 16-06-2003

When paragraph 10 (e) of the schedule was adopted (1982), lceland was a party to the Whaling Convention and did not present any objection to it, as it could have done within the 90-day deadline and under the procedures set forth in Art. V. paragraph 3, of the Convention.
Portugal considers that the reservation is not compatible with the object and purpose of the Whaling Convention and therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of lceland with respect to paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule attached to the Convention.
Nevertheless, it is our understanding that the remainder of the Convention may [enter] into force between lceland and Portugal.

04-06-2003

The [...] Note [from the Embassy of Sweden] states that the objection by the Government of Sweden shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Iceland and Sweden. However, the Note also contains the following conclusion: 'The Convention enters into force in its entirety without Iceland benefiting from its reservation.'
This conclusion is without foundation in international law. According to Article 21, paragraph 3, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which reflects customary international law, '[when a State objecting to a reservation has not opposed the entry into force of the treaty between itself and the reserving State, the provisions to which the reservation relates do not apply as between the two States to the extent of the reservation.]'
Accordingly, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is in force between Iceland and Sweden with the exception of paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule attached to the Convention, to which the reservation of Iceland relates.

Norway

26-03-2003

The position of the Norwegian Government is that the competent body of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has already made a decision with regard to Iceland's adherence to the IWC, with binding effect for all IWC Parties, and in accordance with the principle of Art. 20 Para. 3 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The decision of the 5th Special Meeting of the IWC on 14 October 2002 to accept Iceland's adherence obliges all IWC Members to fully recognize Iceland as a Member of the IWC with such reservations as have been made, and Norway will consider any and all objections to this decision to be without legal consequence.
The Government of Norway undertakes to act in accordance with the said decision, and will oppose attempts to question its legitimacy.

Peru

18-06-1979

This [ratification] cannot be interpreted as detrimental to or restrictive of the sovereignty and jurisdiction which Peru exercises up to a limit of two hundred miles off its coast.

Objection Germany, 27-05-1983

By a note dated May 27, 1983, from the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany, a formal objection was placed on record to the statement made by Peru on June 18, 1979, on ratifying the Convention.

Objection United Kingdom, 01-03-1984

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern lreland considers that the claim by the Government of Peru that Peru exercises unrestricted sovereignty and jurisdiction to a limit of two hundred miles off its coasts has no validity under international law.

United Kingdom

12-08-1960

Her Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed to request the United States Government to inform all Contracting Governments that the Falkland Islands and the Falkland Islands Dependencies are, and remain, under the sovereignty of Her Majesty; and that Her Majesty's Government do not admit the claim of the Argentine Government to sovereignty over any part of these territories.

Objection United States of America, 06-10-1960

In as much as it is understood that the Government of the United Kingdom considers the 'Falkland Islands Dependencies' to include a portion of Antarctica, the Secretary of State wishes to point out, as has been done by his Government on previous occasions, that the Government of the United States of America does not recognize any of the claims of sovereignty which have been asserted over territory in Antarctica and that it reserves all of the rights of the United States of America with respect to the area.