Internationaal Verdrag tegen het nemen van gijzelaars

Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren

Partij	Voorbehoud / verklaring	Bezwaren
Colombia	Ja	Nee
Ethiopië	Ja	Nee
Iran	Ja	Ja
Laos	Ja	Nee
Maleisië	Ja	Nee
Moldavië	Ja	Nee
Montenegro	Ja	Nee
Mozambique	Ja	Nee
Myanmar	Ja	Nee
Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der	Ja	Nee
Oekraïne	Ja	Nee
Qatar	Ja	Nee
Russische Federatie	Ja	Nee
Saint Lucia	Ja	Nee
Singapore	Ja	Ja
Thailand	Ja	Nee
Vietnam	Ja	Ja

Colombia

14-04-2005

In accordance with article 16 (2) of the Convention, Colombia does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16 (1).

Ethiopië

16-04-2003

Reservation in relation to article paragraph 1 of article 16:
"The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia does not consider itself bound by the aforementioned provision of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention would be submitted to arbitration or to the Court only with the prior consent of all the parties concerned.".

Iran

20-11-2006

Reservation:
"Pursuant to Article 16, paragraph 2 of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention regarding the reference of any dispute concerning the interpretation, or application of this Convention, which is not settled by negotiation to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice."

Interpretative declaration:
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran declares its categorical condemnation of each and every act of terrorism, including taking innocent civilians as hostages, which violates human rights and fundamental freedom of human kind, undermines the stability and security of human communities, and hinders countries from development and progress. The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that elimination of terrorism requires a comprehensive campaign by the international community to identify and eradicate political, economic, social and international root causes of the scourge.

The Islamic Republic of Iran further believes that fighting terrorism should not affect the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in a variety of international documents, including the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and Article 1 paragraph 4 of the Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.

Bezwaar Italië, 27-03-2007

The interpretative declaration made by Iran would limit the scope of application of the Convention to exclude acts that otherwise constitute the offence of "taking of hostages" under article 2, if they meet the test of "legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination". The interpretative declaration does not limit the obligations of Iran under the Convention with regard to article 1.
Italy wishes to make clear that it opposes any and all interpretations of the Convention that would limit its scope of application, and does not consider the declaration made by Iran to have any effect on the Convention. Italy thus regards the Convention as entering into force between Italy and Iran without the interpretative declaration made by Iran.

Bezwaar Letland, 24-10-2007

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservation regarding Article 16, paragraph 1 and the declarations made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the International Convention against the Taking (of) Hostages.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the aim of the said International Convention is to prevent and suppress hostage taking by whomever it is committed, and the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation, as the said rights are recognized by Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 could not be deemed to be penalized under the International Convention against the (Taking of) Hostages.

However, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this explanatory declaration is in fact unilateral act that is deemed to limit the scope of the said International Convention and therefore should be regarded as reservation. Thus, this reservation named as an explanatory declaration contradicts the objectives and purposes of the International Convention against the (Taking of Hostages) to prevent hostage taking wherever and by whomever those might be committed.



Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this reservation named as an interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran contradicts the object and purpose of the International Convention and in particular the obligation all States Parties to penalize the offences set forth within the said International Convention by appropriate penalty.

Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls Part VI, Article 28 of the Convention setting out that reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted.

Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to the aforesaid reservation named as an interpretative declaration regarding non-application of the said International Convention to the legitimate struggle by the peoples under colonial domination or foreign occupation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the International Convention against the Taking (of) Hostages.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thus, the Convention will become operative without the Islamic Republic of Iran benefiting from its reservation.

Bezwaar Frankrijk, 16-11-2007

France has examined the reservation and the two interpretative declarations made by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon its accession on 20 November 2006 to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, done at New York on 17 September 1979.

France considers that the declaration in which the Islamic Republic of Iran states its belief that “fighting terrorism should not affect the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination” has no effect on the provisions of the Convention. Notwithstanding, France wishes to recall that it considers that the act of hostage-taking is prohibited in all circumstances.

Bezwaar Verenigde Staten van Amerika, 16-11-2007

The Interpretative Declaration sets forth Iran’s belief that ‘fighting terrorism should not affect the legitimate struggle of people under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination... ‘ The United States views this generalized statement as having no effect on the Convention or on application of the Convention between the United States and Iran.Nothing in the Convention provides for or permits any justification, whether political, philosophical,ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or otherwise for the commission of acts that States parties to the Convention are required to criminalize.

Bezwaar Portugal, 19-11-2007

... The Government of the Portuguese Republic has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages.

Portugal considers that this interpretative declaration cannot limit the scope of the application of the Convention; otherwise it would be a reservation contrary to its object and purpose, if purporting to exclude from the acts prohibited by the Convention acts committed in the struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation.

Therefore, Portugal does not consider the declaration made by Iran to have any legal effect on the Convention.

Bezwaar Canada, 20-11-2007

The Government of Canada has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon acceding to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. The Government of Canada notes that the interpretative declaration has potential to limit the scope of application of the Convention to exclude acts that otherwise constitute the offence of ‘taking of hostages’ under article 2, if they meet the test of ‘legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination’. The Government of Canada notes that this interpretative declaration does not limit the obligations of the Islamic Republic of Iran under the Convention with regard to article 1. The Government of Canada opposes any and all interpretations of the Convention that would limit its scope of application and does not consider the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to have any effect on the convention.

Bezwaar Duitsland, 21-11-2007

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages.

Germany considers that this interpretative declaration cannot limit the scope of the application of the Convention; otherwise it would be a reservation contrary to its object and purpose, if purporting to exclude from the acts prohibited by the Convention acts committed in the struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation.

Therefore, the Federal Republic of Germany does not consider the declaration made by Iran to have any legal effect on the Convention.

Bezwaar Japan, 27-11-2007

The Government of Japan has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the time of its accession to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Convention’) which reads as follows:
‘The Islamic Republic of Iran further believes that fighting terrorism should not affect the legitimate sruggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in a variety of international documents, including the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and Article 1 paragraph 4 of the Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.'

The Government of Japan does not consider that the aforementioned interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the Convention in their application to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Government of Japan thus regards the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran as having no effect on the application of the Convention between the two countries.

The Government of Japan wishes to take this opportunity to declare its unequivocal condemnation of all acts of terrorism, including taking of hostages, as criminal and unjustifiable,regardless of their motives, and to emphasize the importance to ensure that any person committing an act of terrorism does not escape prosecution and punishment.

Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 27-11-2007

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (has) examined the declaration relating to the International Convention Against of Hostages made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the time of its accession to the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom understand (s) that the declaration made by Iran does not purport to exclude or modify the terms of the Convention. The United Kingdom Government condemns in theterms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation whenever and by whomsoever committed and for whatever purposes.

Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 10-12-2007

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that this interpretative declaration cannot limit the scope of the Convention; otherwise it would be a reservation contrary to its object and purpose, if purporting to exclude from the acts prohibited by the Convention acts committed in the struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation.

Therefore, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider the declaration made by Iran to have any legal effect on the Convention.

Bezwaar Spanje, 06-02-2008

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran in respect of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this interpretative declaration cannot limit the scope of the Convention, since, under the Convention itself, acts of hostage-taking, as manifestations of international terrorism, can never be justified, regardless of their cause.

If the objective of the declaration is to exclude acts committed in the struggle of peoples against colonial domination or foreign occupation from the category of acts prohibited by the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain is of the view that the declaration would be a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain believes that the declaration made by
the Islamic Republic of Iran has no legal effect on the Convention.

Bezwaar Oostenrijk, 07-02-2008

The Government of Austria has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages.

The Government of Austria considers the interpretative declaration made by Iran a mere political statement that has no legal effect.

Laos

22-08-2002

"In accordance with paragraph 2, Article 16 of the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, the Lao People's Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1, article 16 of the present Convention. The Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that to refer a dispute relating to interpretation and application of the present Convention to arbitration or International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties concerned in the dispute is necessary."

Maleisië

29-05-2007

1. The Government of Malaysia understands the phrase 'preliminary inquiry into the facts' in
Article 6 (1) of the Convention to mean a reference to the criminal investigation by the relevant law
enforcement authority before a decision is made whether to institute a prosecution against the alleged
offender for the offences under the Convention.
2. The Government of Malaysia understands Article 8 (1) of the Convention to include the right of the
competent authorities to decide not to submit any particular case for prosecution before the judicial
authorities if the alleged offender is dealt with under national security and preventive detention laws.
3. (a) Pursuant to Article 16 (2) of the Convention, the Government of Malaysia declares that it does
not consider itself bound by article 16 (1) of the Convention; and
(b) The Government of Malaysia reserves the right specifically to agree in a particular case to
follow the arbitration procedure set forth in Article 16 (1) of the Convention or any other procedure for
arbitration.

Moldavië

10-10-2002

"Pursuant to article 16, paragraph 2 of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, the Republic of Moldova declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention."

Montenegro

23-10-2006

The [Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia] herewith states that the provisions of Article 9 of the Convention should be interpreted and applied in practice in the way which would not bring into question the goals of the Convention, i.e. undertaking of efficient measures for the prevention of all acts of the taking of hostages as a phenomenon of international terrorism, as well as the prosecution, punishment and extradition of persons considered to have perpetrated this criminal offence.

Mozambique

14-01-2003

"... with the following declaration in accordance with its article 16, paragraph 2:
"The Republic of Mozambique does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16 paragraph 1 of the Convention.
In this connection, the Republic of Mozambique states that, in each individual case, the consent of all Parties to such a dispute is necessary for the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to [the] International Court of Justice."
Furthermore, the Republic of Mozambique declares that:
"The Republic of Mozambique, in accordance with its Constitution and domestic laws, can not extradite Mozambique citizens.
Therefore, Mozambique citizens will be tried and sentenced in national courts."

Myanmar

04-06-2004

"The Government of the Union of Myanmar does not consider itself bound by the article 16 (1) of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages adopted on 17 December 1979.".

Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der

06-12-1988

Reservation: In cases where the judicial authorities of either the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba cannot exercise jurisdiction pursuant to one of the principles mentioned in article 5, paragraph 1, the Kingdom accepts the aforesaid obligation [laid down in article 8] subject to the condition that it has received and rejected a request for extradition from another State party to the Convention.
Declaration: In the view of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands article 15 of the Convention, and in particular the second sentence of that article, in no way affects the applicability of article 33 of the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees.

Oekraïne

20-10-2015

In February 2014 the Russian Federation launched armed aggression against Ukraine and occupied a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, and today exercises effective control over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine. These actions are in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations and constitute a threat to international peace and security. The Russian Federation, as the Aggressor State and Occupying Power, bears full responsibility for its actions and their consequences under international law.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/68/262 of 27 March 2014 confirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. The United Nations also called upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.
In this regard, Ukraine states that from 20 February 2014 and for the period of temporary occupation by the Russian Federation of a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol – as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation committed against Ukraine and until the complete restoration of the constitutional law and order and effective control by Ukraine over such occupied territory, as well as over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine as a result of the aggression of the Russian Federation, the application and implementation by Ukraine of the obligations under the above [Convention], as applied to the aforementioned occupied and uncontrolled territory of Ukraine, is limited and is not guaranteed.
Documents or requests made or issued by the occupying authorities of the Russian Federation, its officials at any level in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and by the illegal authorities in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine, are null and void and have no legal effect regardless of whether they are presented directly or indirectly through the authorities of the Russian Federation.
The provisions of the [Convention] regarding the possibility of direct communication or interaction do not apply to the territorial organs of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, as well as in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine. The procedure of the relevant communication is determined by the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv.

Qatar

11-09-2012

[...] the State of Qatar accede[s] to the Convention Against the Taking of Hostages of 1979, with reservation [to] paragraph 1 of article 16 of the Convention.

Russische Federatie

01-05-2007

Withdrawal of reservation to Article 16 (1)
... does not consider itself bound by article 16, paragraph 1, of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and declares that, in order for any dispute between parties to the Convention concerning the interpretation or application thereof to be referred to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute must be secured in each individual case.

Saint Lucia

17-10-2012

1. In accordance with Article 16 of paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Government of Saint Lucia does not consider itself bound by the arbitration procedures established under Article 16 paragraph 1, of the Convention.
2. That the explicit expressed consent of the Government of Saint Lucia would be necessary for any submission of any dispute to arbitration [or] to the International Court of Justice.

Singapore

22-10-2010

Pursuant to Article 16, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Republic of Singapore declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
The Republic of Singapore understands Article 8(1) of the Convention to include the right of competent authorities to decide not to submit any particular case for prosecution before the judicial authorities if the alleged offender is dealt with under national security and preventive detention laws.

Bezwaar Spanje, 21-10-2011

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the unilateral declaration with respect
to article 8, paragraph 1, made by Singapore upon acceding to the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages of 17 December 1979. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the said declaration constitutes a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the 1979 Convention, insofar as it is difficult to determine precisely the extent to which Singapore accepts the obligations set out in article 8, paragraph 1. The said reservation affects fundamental obligations
resulting from the Convention, the performance of which is necessary for the realization of the object of the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain therefore objects to the reservation formulated by
Singapore to article 8, paragraph 1, of the 1979 Convention. This objection shall not prevent the entry
into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and Singapore.

Bezwaar Portugal, 09-11-2011

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the declaration made by the
Government of the Republic of Singapore to Article 8 (1) is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the
scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose.
The reservation furthermore is not compatible with the terms of Article 6 of the Convention
according to which State Parties commit themselves to 'in accordance with its laws [...] take other
measures to ensure [the alleged offender's] presence for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.'
The Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls that, according to Article 19 (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.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Singapore to Article 8 (1) of the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, New York, 17 December 1979.
However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Singapore.

Thailand

02-10-2007

The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not consider itself bound by Article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Vietnam

09-01-2014

[T]he Socialist Republic of Viet Nam does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 16 of this Convention.
1. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam declares that the provisions of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages are non-self-executing in Viet Nam. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam shall duly implement the provisions of the Convention through multilateral and bilateral mechanisms, specific provisions in its domestic laws and regulations and on the basis of the principle of reciprocity.
2. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, pursuant to Article 10 of this Convention, declares that it shaII not take this Convention as the direct legal basis for extradition. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam shalI carry out extradition in accordance with the provisions of its domestic laws and regulations, on the basis of treaties on extradition and the principle of reciprocity.

Bezwaar Frankrijk, 09-01-2015

The Government of the French Republic has examined the declaration formulated by Viet Nam upon accession to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. In this declaration, Viet Nam states, inter alia, that "the provisions of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages are non-self-executing in Viet Nam," and that "the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam shall duly implement the provisions of the Convention through multilateral and bilateral mechanisms, specific provisions in its domestic laws and regulations and on the basis of the principle of reciprocity".
The French Government notes that the declaration formulated by Viet Nam has the legal effect of restricting the scope of certain stipulations of the Convention and must therefore be considered as a reservation.
The French Government notes that Viet Nam intends, by means of this declaration, to prevent the direct application of the provisions of the Convention. As a contracting party to the Convention, Viet Nam is required to take the necessary measures to incorporate the obligations contained in the Convention into its domestic legal order. In this connection, the reservation formulated by Viet Nam is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The French Government also notes that Viet Nam intends, by means of this declaration, to make the application of the provisions of the Convention subordinate to the principle of reciprocity. However, the object and purpose of the Convention is to develop international cooperation between States so as to ensure that any person who commits the act of hostage-taking is prosecuted or extradited, even if the State of which the hostage-taker is a national does not apply the provisions of the Convention or is not a party thereto. In this regard, the French Government considers that the Government of Viet Nam has formulated a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, which is to ensure that any person who commits an act of hostage-taking is prosecuted or extradited.
The Government of the French Republic therefore objects to the declaration formulated by Viet Nam. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between France and Viet Nam.