Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982

Parties with reservations, declarations and objections

Party	Reservations / Declarations	Objections
Austria	Yes	No
Belgium	Yes	No
Canada	Yes	No
Mauritius	Yes	No
Palestine	Yes	No
Russian Federation	Yes	No
Ukraine	Yes	No

Austria

29-07-1994

Austria declares that it understands the provisions of its article 7 paragraph 2 to signify with regard to its own position that pending parliamentary approval of the Convention and of the Agreement and their subsequent ratification it will have access to the organs for the International Sea-Bed authority.

Belgium

29-07-1994

This signature also commits the Flemish region, the Wallone region and the region of the capital Brussels.

Canada

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 Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Secretary-General's communication of 6 January 2015, C.N.16.2015 TREATIES-XXI.6.a, 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 Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 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 Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 'Palestine' is not able to accede to this convention, and that the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not enter into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty relations, with respect to the 'State of Palestine'.

Mauritius

09-01-2020

(…) has the honour to register its strong objection against the extension by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the socalled ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, of the Agreements listed at Annex and in respect of which the Secretary-General is the depositary.
The Government of the Republic of Mauritius considers that by extending these Agreements to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, the United Kingdom purported to exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago - a claim which is untenable under international law.
The Government of the Republic of Mauritius wishes to reiterate in emphatic terms that it does not recognize the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’. The fact that the Chagos Archipelago is, and has always been, part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and that the United Kingdom has never had sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, has been authoritatively established by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019, on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.
In this authoritative legal determination, the Court declared that the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed in 1968, since the Chagos Archipelago had been unlawfully detached in 1965, in violation of the right of self-determination of peoples and the Charter of the United Nations, as applied and interpreted in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, resolution 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, resolution 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and resolution 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967. Accordingly, it went on to hold that the United Kingdom’s ongoing administration of the Chagos Archipelago, as the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, was an internationally wrongful act, of a continuing nature, that engaged the State responsibility of the United Kingdom. It determined that the United Kingdom is under a legal obligation to terminate its unlawful colonial administration ‘as rapidly as possible’.
The Court further determined that all UN Member States have an obligation to cooperate with the United Nations in facilitating the completion of the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, including an obligation not to support the continuing wrongful conduct of the United Kingdom in maintaining its colonial administration in the Chagos Archipelago.
On 22 May 2019, the General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority of 116 votes to 6, adopted resolution 73/295. By this resolution, it endorsed the Court’s Advisory Opinion, affirmed that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and demanded that the United Kingdom terminate its unlawful colonial administration within a maximum of six months, that is, by no later than 22 November 2019. That deadline has now expired.
Moreover, the General Assembly in its resolution called upon Member States to ‘cooperate with the United Nations to ensure the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius as rapidly as possible’ and to refrain from conduct that might impede or delay the completion of decolonization. It further called upon the United Nations and all its specialized agencies to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, and to refrain from impeding that process by recognizing the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’. Lastly, the resolution also called upon ‘all other international, regional and intergovernmental organizations, including those established by treaty,’ to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support its speedy decolonization, and to ‘refrain from impeding that process’ by recognizing the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’.
The Republic of Mauritius has, over the years, consistently asserted, and hereby reasserts, its full sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The Government of the Republic of Mauritius therefore unequivocally protests against the extension by the United Kingdom of the Agreements listed at Annex to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’ and against the purported exercise by the United Kingdom of any sovereignty, rights or jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic of Mauritius.
For the above stated reasons, which arise from established principles of international law as authoritatively interpreted and applied by the International Court of Justice and endorsed by the UN General Assembly, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius does not recognize the extension by the United Kingdom of the Agreements listed at Annex to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, reserves all its rights in this regard, and calls upon all States Parties to the Agreements listed at Annex to reject the United Kingdom's extension of these Agreements to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’.
--
See depositairy notification no. C.N.50.2020.TREATIES-XXI.6.a for the Annex (list of Agreements).

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.56.2015.TREATIES-XXI.6.a, dated 23 January 2015, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, dated 28 July 1994.

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 Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, which entered into force on 1 February 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.

Russian Federation

12-03-1997

According to expert opinion, industrial exploitation of deep sea-bed mineral resources will not start earlier than in ten to fifteen years. Therefore, the International body for the sea-bed will not have a subject of real activity for a long time yet, which fact highlights especially the financial aspects of activities of the newly established organization. It is important to avoid non-productive administrative and other expenditures, to abstain from establishing yet unnecessary structures and positions, and to strictly observe the agreements concerning the economy regime reflected in the Agreement.
The efforts aimed at rendering universal the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 can, in the long run, produce a positive result only if all the States act on the basis of the above-mentioned agreements without trying to seek any unilateral advantages, and if they succeed in establishing a cooperation free of discrimination and with a due account of the interests of potential investors in deep sea-bed mining.

Ukraine

26-07-1999

1. Ukraine declares that, in accordance with article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, it chooses as the principal means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII. For the consideration of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention in respect of questions relating to fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping, Ukraine chooses a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII.
Ukraine recognises the competence, as stipulated in article 292 of the Convention, of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in respect of questions relating to the prompt release of detained vessels or their crews.
2. Ukraine declares, in accordance with article 298 of the Convention, that it does not accept, unless otherwise provided by specific international treaties of Ukraine with relevant States, the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions for the consideration of disputes relating to sea boundary delimitations, disputes involving historic bays or titles, and disputes concerning military activities.
3. Ukraine declares, taking into account articles 309 and 310 of the Convention, that it objects to any statements or declarations, irrespective of when such statements or declarations were or may be made, that may result in a failure to interpret the provisions of the Convention in good faith, or are contrary to the ordinary meaning of terms in the context of the Convention or its object and purpose.
4. As a geographically disadvantaged country bordering a sea poor in living resources, Ukraine reaffirms the necessity to develop international cooperation for the exploitation of the living resources of economic zones, on the basis of just and equitable agreements that should ensure the access to fishing resources in the economic zones of other regions and sub-regions.