Print
Download XMLVerdrag inzake de voorkoming en bestraffing van misdrijven tegen internationaal beschermde personen, met inbegrip van diplomaten
Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren
| Partij | Voorbehoud / verklaring | Bezwaren |
|---|---|---|
| Andorra | Ja | Nee |
| Argentinië | Ja | Ja |
| Belarus | Ja | Nee |
| Brazilië | Ja | Nee |
| Burundi | Ja | Ja |
| Canada | Ja | Nee |
| China | Ja | Nee |
| Colombia | Ja | Nee |
| Congo, Democratische Republiek | Ja | Nee |
| Cuba | Ja | Nee |
| El Salvador | Ja | Nee |
| Ethiopië | Ja | Nee |
| Finland | Ja | Nee |
| Frankrijk | Ja | Nee |
| Ghana | Ja | Nee |
| Heilige Stoel | Ja | Nee |
| India | Ja | Nee |
| Irak | Ja | Ja |
| Israël | Ja | Nee |
| Jamaica | Ja | Nee |
| Jemen | Ja | Ja |
| Jordanië | Ja | Ja |
| Koeweit | Ja | Ja |
| Laos | Ja | Nee |
| Liechtenstein | Ja | Nee |
| Litouwen | Ja | Nee |
| Luxemburg | Ja | Nee |
| Malawi | Ja | Nee |
| Maleisië | Ja | Ja |
| Mauritius | Ja | Nee |
| Mongolië | Ja | Nee |
| Mozambique | Ja | Nee |
| Myanmar | Ja | Nee |
| Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der | Ja | Nee |
| Nieuw-Zeeland | Ja | Nee |
| Oekraïne | Ja | Nee |
| Pakistan | Ja | Nee |
| Palestina | Ja | Nee |
| Peru | Ja | Nee |
| Saint Lucia | Ja | Nee |
| Saint Vincent en de Grenadines | Ja | Nee |
| Saudi-Arabië | Ja | Nee |
| Singapore | Ja | Nee |
| Syrië | Ja | Ja |
| Thailand | Ja | Nee |
| Trinidad en Tobago | Ja | Nee |
| Tunesië | Ja | Nee |
| Venezuela | Ja | Nee |
| Verenigd Koninkrijk | Ja | Ja |
| Verenigde Staten van Amerika | Ja | Nee |
| Vietnam | Ja | Nee |
| Zwitserland | Ja | Nee |
Andorra
23-09-2004
In view of article 1, paragraph 1 (a) of this Convention, the Principality of Andorra declares that, in accordance with article 43 of the Constitution of Andorra, and the tradition dating from the Pareatges of 1278, the Heads of State of Andorra are jointly and indivisbly the Coprinceps. These Coprinceps, in their personal and exclusive right, are the Bishop of Urgell and the President of the French Republic.
Argentinië
18-03-1982
In accordance with article 13, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Argentine Republic
declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph
1, of the Convention.
03-10-1983
The Government of Argentina makes a formal objection to the [declaration] of territorial
extension issued by the United Kingdom with regard to the Malvinas Islands (and dependencies),
which that country is illegally occupying and refers to as the "Falkland Islands".
The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void the [said declaration]
of territorial extension.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 28-02-1985
The Government of the Kingdom of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland have no doubt as to their right, by notification to the Depositary under the
relevant provisions of the above-mentioned Convention, to extend the application of
the Convention in question to the Falkland Islands or to the Falkland Islands Dependencies,
as the case may be.
For this reason alone, The Government of the Kingdom of the United Kingdom are unable
to regard the Argentine [communication] under reference as having any legal effect.
Belarus
05-02-1976
The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, 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, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.
Brazilië
07-06-1999
With the reservation provided for in paragraph 2 of article 13.
Burundi
17-12-1980
In respect of cases where the alleged offenders belong to a national liberation movement recognized by Burundi or by an international organization of which Burundi is a member, and their actions are part of their struggle for liberation, the Government of the Republic of Burundi reserves the right not to apply to them the provisions of article 2, paragraph 2, and article 6, paragraph 1.
Bezwaar Duitsland, 25-03-1981
The Government of the Republic of Germany considers the reservation made by the Government of Burundi concerning article 2, paragraph 2, and article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, to be incompatible with the objects and purpose of the Convention.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 15-01-1982
The purpose of this Convention was to secure the world-wide repression of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents, and to deny the perpetrators of such crimes a safe haven. Accordingly the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Brain and Northern Ireland regard the reservation entered by the Government of Burundi as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and are unable to consider Burundi as having validly acceded to the Convention until such time as the reservation is withdrawn.
Bezwaar Israël, 28-06-1982
The Government of the State of Israel regards the reservation entered by the Government
of Burundi as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is unable
to consider Burundi as having validly acceded to the Convention until such time as
the reservation is withdrawn.
In the view of the Government of Israel, the purpose of this Convention was to secure
the world-wide repression of crimes against internationally protected persons, including
diplomatic agents, and to deny the perpetrators of such crimes a safe haven.
Bezwaar Italië, 30-08-1985
[...] With regard to the reservation expressed by Burundi on 17 December 1980, [the Italian Government considers that] the purpose of the Convention is to ensure the punishment, world-wide, of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents, and to deny a safe haven to the perpetrators of such crimes. Considering therefore that the reservation expressed by the Government of Burundi is incompatible with the aim and purpose of the Convention, the Italian Government can not consider Burundi's accession to the Convention as valid as long as it does not withdraw that reservation.
Bezwaar Frankrijk, 26-08-2003
France objects to the declaration made by Burundi on 17 December 1980 limiting the application of the provisions of article 2, paragraph 2 and article 6, paragraph 1.
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 Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons,
Including Diplomatic Agents and the Secretary-General's communication of 6 January
2015, C.N.7.2015.TREATIES-XVIII. 7, 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 Prevention and Punishment of Crimes
against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents. 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 Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally
Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, 'Palestine' is not able to accede
to this convention, and that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes
against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents does not enter
into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty relations, with respect to the 'State
of Palestine'.
China
05-08-1987
[The People's Republic of China] declares that, in accordance with paragraph 2 of
article 13 of the Convention, the People's Republic of China has reservations on paragraph
1 of article 13 of the Convention and does not consider itself bound by the provisions
of the said paragraph.
06-06-1999
Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, China notified the Secretary-General
that the Convention with reservation will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region.
13-12-1999
Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Macao, China notified the Secretary-General
that the Convention with reservation will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative
Region.
Colombia
16-01-1996
Colombia enters a reservation to those provisions of the Convention, which are contrary
to the guiding principles of the Colombian Penal Code and to article 29 of the Political
Constitution of Colombia, the fourth paragraph of which states that:
Everyone shall presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. Anyone who
is charged with an offece shall be entitled to defence and the assistance of counsel
of his own choosing, or one appointed by thecourt, during the investigation and trial;
to be tried properly, in public, without undue delay; to present evidence and to refute
evidence brought against him; to contest the sentence; and not to be tried twice for
the same act.
Consequently, the expression "Alleged offender" shall be taken to mean "the accused".
Congo, Democratische Republiek
25-07-1977
[The Democratic Republic of Congo] does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice. In the light of its policy based on respect for the sovereignty of States, [the Democratic Republic of Congo] is opposed of any form of compulsory arbitration and hopes that such disputes may be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice not at the request of the parties but with the consent of the interested parties.
Cuba
10-06-1998
In accordance with article 13, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Republic of Cuba declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of the said paragraph.
El Salvador
08-08-1980
The State of El Salvador does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention.
Ethiopië
16-04-2003
Reservation in relation to paragraph 1 of article 13:
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.
Finland
31-10-1978
Finland reserves the right to apply the provisions of article 8, paragraph 3, in such a way that extradition shall be restricted to offences which, under Finnish Law, are punishable by a penalty more severe than imprisonment for one year and, provided also that other conditions in the Finnish Legislation for extradition are fulfilled.
Frankrijk
26-08-2003
France understands that only acts which may be defined as acts of terrorism constitute
crimes within the meaning of article 2 of the Convention.
The application of the Convention shall be without prejudice to the Convention adopted
at New York on 9 December 1994 on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.
Ghana
25-04-1975
[...] Paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention provides that disputes may be submitted to arbitration, failing which any of the parties to the dispute may refer it to the International Court of Justice by request. Since Ghana is opposed to any form of compulsory arbitration, she wishes to exercise her opinion under article 13 (2) to make a reservation on article 13 (1). It is noted that such a reservation can be withdrawn later under article 13 (3).
Heilige Stoel
26-09-2012
By acceding to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally
Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, the Holy See intends to contribute
and to give its moral support to the global prevention, repression and prosecution
of such crimes and to the protection of their victims.
In conformity with its own nature, its Mission, and the particular character of Vatican
City State, the Holy See upholds the values of brotherhood, justice and peace between
persons and peoples, whose protection and strengthening require the primacy of the
rule of law and respect for human rights, and it reaffirms that instruments of criminal
and judicial cooperation constitute effective safeguards in the face of criminal activities
that jeopardize human dignity and peace. [...]
Pursuant to articles 8.2 and 8.3 of the Convention, the Holy See declares that it
takes the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other
Parties to the Convention, subject to the limitations to the extradition of persons
provided for by its domestic law.
With regard to articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the Holy See declares that, in
light of its legal doctrine and the sources of its law (Vatican City State Law LXXI,
1 October 2008), nothing in the Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation
to extradite or provide mutual legal assistance if there are substantial grounds for
believing that the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person
on account of that person's race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political
opinion; that compliance with the request would cause prejudice to that person's position
for any of these reasons; or that the person would be subject to the death penalty
or to torture.
Pursuant to the last sentence of article 2.2(a) of the International Convention for
the Suppression of the financing of Terrorism, of 9 December 1999, the Holy See, acting
also in the name and on behalf of Vatican City State, declares that, from the moment
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally
Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, enters into force for the Holy See,
it shall be deemed to be included within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression
of the Financing of Terrorism pursuant to its article 2.1(a).
Pursuant to article 13.2 of the Convention, the Holy See, acting also in the name
and on behalf of Vatican City State, declares that it does not consider itself bound
by article 13.1 of the Convention. The Holy See, acting also in the name and on behalf
of Vatican City State, specifically reserves the right to agree in a particular case,
on an ad hoc basis, to any convenient means to settle any dispute arising out of this
Convention.
India
11-04-1978
The Government of the Republic of India does not consider itself bound by paragraph
1 of article 13 which establishes compulsory arbitration or adjudication by the International
Court of Justice concerning disputes between two or more States Parties relating to
the interpretation of application of this Convention.
Irak
28-02-1978
(1) The resolution of the United Nations General Assembly with which the above-mentioned
Convention is enclosed shall be considered to be an integral part of the above-mentioned
Convention.
(2) Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (1) of article 1 of the Convention shall cover
the representatives of the national liber- ation movements recognized by the League
of Arab States or the Organization of African Unity.
(3) The Republic of Iraq shall not bind itself by paragraph (1) of article 13 of the
Convention.
(4) The accession of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to the Convention shall
in no way constitute a recognition of Israel or a cause for the establishment of any
relations of any kind therewith.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 02-05-1977
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Brain and Northern Ireland do not regard as valid the reservation made by Iraq in respect of paragraph (1)(b) of article 1 of the said Convention.
Bezwaar Israël, 11-05-1979
[Communcation]
The instrument deposited by the Government of Iraq contains a statement of a political
character in respect to Israël. In de the view of the Government of Israel, this is
not the proper place for making such political pronouncements, which are, moreover,
in flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the Organization.
That pronouncement by the Government of Iraq cannot in any way affect whatever obligations
are binding upon it under general international law or under particular treaties.
The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt
towards the Government of Iraq an attitude of complete reciprocity.
Bezwaar Duitsland, 30-11-1979
The statement by the Republic of Iraq on sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1 of the Convention
does not
Have any legal effects for the Federal Republic of Germany.
Bezwaar Israël, 31-07-1980
The Government of the State of Israel does not regard as valid the reservation made by Iraq in respect of paragraph (1)(b) of article 1 of the said Convention.
Bezwaar Italië, 30-08-1985
[…] The Italian Government does not consider as valid the reservation made by Iraq
on 28 February 1978 with regard to article 1, paragraph 1(b), of the said Convention.
Bezwaar Frankrijk, 26-08-2003
France contests the interpretation made by Iraq on 28 February 1978 that the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly with which the above-mentioned Convention is enclosed should be considered to be an integral part of the Convention, and objects to Iraq's reservation relating to article 1, paragraph 1 (b) of the Convention.
Israël
31-07-1980
The Government of the State of Israel declares that its accession to the Convention
does not constitute acceptance by it as binding of the provisions of any other international
instrument, or acceptance by it of any other international instrument as being an
instrument related to the Convention.
The Government of Israel reaffirms the contents of its communication of 11 May 1979
to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The State of Israel does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 13 of
the Convention.
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 the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected
Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, 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.7.2015.TREATIES-XVIII.7).
'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.
Jamaica
21-09-1978
Jamaica avails itself of the provisions of article 13, paragraph 2, and declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice, and 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.
Jemen
09-02-1987
In acceding to this Convention, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen does not
consider itself bound by article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which states
that disputes between two or more States parties concerning the interpretation or
application of this Convention may, at the request of anyone of the parties to the
dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice. It declares that the competence
of the International Court of Justice with respect to disputes concerning the interpretation
or application of the Convention shall in each case be subject to the express consent
of all parties to the dispute.
The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen declares that its accession to this Convention
shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or serve as grounds for the establishment
of relations of any sort with Israel.
Bezwaar Israël, 21-08-1987
The instrument deposited by the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen contains a statement
of a political character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel,
this is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements, which are,
moreover, in flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the
Organization. That pronouncement by the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen cannot
in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon it under general international
law or under particular treaties.
The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt
towards the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen an attitude of complete reciprocity.
Jordanië
18-12-1984
The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan declares that its accession […] cannot give rise to relations with "Israel".
Bezwaar Israël, 11-03-1985
The instrument deposited by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan contains a statement of
a political character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel,
this is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements, which are,
moreover, in flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the
Organization. That pronouncement by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan cannot in any
way affect whatever obligations are binding upon it under general international law
or under particular treaties.
The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt
towards the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan an attitude of complete
reciprocity.
Koeweit
01-03-1989
[The Government of Kuwait] wishes to reiterate Kuwait's complete reservation on paragraph
1 of article 13 in the Convention, for its accession to it does not mean in any way
a recognition of Israel by the Government of the State of Kuwait and does not engage
them into any treaty relations as a result.
Bezwaar Israël, 17-05-1989
The instrument deposited by the Government of Kuwait contains a statement of a political
character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel, this is not
the proper place for making such political pronouncements, which are, moreover, in
flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the Organization.
That pronouncement by the Governement of Kuwait cannot in any way affect whatever
obligations are binding upon it under general international law or under particular
treaties.
The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt
towards the Government of Kuwait an attitude of complete reciprocity.
Laos
22-08-2002
In accordance with paragraph 2, Article 13 of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic
Agents, the Lao People's Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by paragraph
1, article 13 of the present Convention. The Lao People's Democratic Republic declares
that to refer to 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.
Liechtenstein
28-11-1994
Interpretative declaration:
The Principality of Liechtenstein construes articles 4 and 5, paragraph 1 of the Convention,
to mean that the Principality of Liechtenstein undertakes to fulfil the obligations
contained therein under the conditions laid down in its domestic legislation.
Litouwen
23-10-2002
[...] Whereas it is provided in paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the said Convention, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the said Convention, providing that any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall be referred to the International Court of Justice.
Luxemburg
10-05-2006
Luxembourg courts are competent to apply the Convention, and Luxembourg criminal law applies to the crimes referred to in article 2 of the Convention when the alleged offender is in Luxembourg territory and has not been extradited to another State, regardless of the nationality of the alleged offender and the place where the crime was perpetrated.
Malawi
14-03-1977
The Government of the Republic of Malawi [declares], in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 13, that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention.
Maleisië
24-09-2003
1. The Government of Malaysia understands the phrase "alleged offender" in Article
1(2) of the Convention to mean the accused.
2. The Government of Malaysia understands the phrase "or other attack" in Article
2(1)(a) of the Convention to mean acts that are recognized as offences under its domestic
laws.
3. The Government of Malaysia understands Article 7 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.
4. (a) Pursuant to Article 13(2) of the Convention, the Government of Malaysia declares
that it does not consider itself bound by Article 13(l) 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 13(l) of the Convention
or any other procedure for arbitration.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 02-11-2004
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration relating
to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally
Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents made by the Government of Malaysia
at the time of its accession to the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that in making the interpretation
and application of Article 7 of the Convention subject to the national legislation
of Malaysia, the Government of Malaysia is formulating a general and indefinite reservation
that makes it impossible to identify the changes to the obligations arising from the
Convention that it is intended to introduce. The Government of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands therefore considers that a reservation formulated in this way is likely
to contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.
For these reasons, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby objects
to this declaration which it considers to be a reservation that is incompatible with
the object and purpose of the Convention.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and Malaysia.
Bezwaar Duitsland, 03-11-2004
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the declaration relating
to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against internationally
protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents made by the Government of Malaysia
at the time of its accession to the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that in making the interpretation
and application of Article 7 of the Convention subject to the national legislation
of Malaysia, the Government of Malaysia introduces a general and indefinite reservation
that makes it impossible to clearly identify in which way the Government of Malaysia
intends to change the obligations arising from the Convention. Therefore the Government
of the Federal Republic of Germany hereby objects to this declaration which is considered
to be a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Federal Republic of Germany and Malaysia.
Mauritius
24-09-2003
In accordance with Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic
Agents, the Republic of Mauritius hereby declares that it does not consider itself
bound by the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and states
that it considers that a dispute may be submitted or referred to the International
Court of Justice only with the consent of all parties to the dispute.
The Republic of Mauritius rejects the extension of the Convention by the Government
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to the Chagos Archipelago (so-called British
Indian Ocean Territory) and reaffirms its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago
which forms part of its national territory.
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.44.2020.TREATIES-XVIII.7 for the Annex (list
of Agreements).
Mongolië
08-08-1975
The Mongolian People's Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of
article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or
more States Parties 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, in each
individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission
of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.
Mozambique
14-01-2003
The Republic of Mozambique does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article
13, 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 Myanmar does not consider itself bound by the Article 13 (1) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents adopted on 14 December 1973.
Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der
06-12-1988
In view of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands article 12 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.
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 3, para. 1, the Kingdom accepts the aforesaid obligation [laid down in
article 7] subject to the condition that it has received and rejected a request for
extradition from another State party to the Convention.
31-01-2012
The Kingdom of the Netherlands withdraws the reservation made upon accession to article 7, only for the European part of the Netherlands and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba).
Nieuw-Zeeland
12-11-1985
The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply the provisions of the Convention to Tokelau pending the enactment of the necessary implementing legislation in Tokelau law.
Oekraïne
20-01-1976
The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, 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, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.
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.
Pakistan
29-03-1976
Pakistan shall not be bound by paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention.
Palestina
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.52.2015.TREATIES-XVIII.7,
dated 23 January 2015, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession
of the State of Palestine to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes
against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, dated 14 December
1973.
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 the Prevention
and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic
Agents, 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.
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.35.2015.TREATIES-XVIII.7,
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 the Prevention and Punishment
of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents,
dated 14 December 1973.
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 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents,
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.
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.36.2015.TREATIES-XVIII.7, dated 23 January
2015, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession of the State of
Palestine to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally
Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, dated 14 December 1973.
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 Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against
Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, 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.
Peru
25-04-1978
Peru does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
16-10-1997
Withdrawal of the reservation made upon ratification.
Saint Lucia
12-11-2012
1. In accordance with Article 13 paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Government of
Saint Lucia does not consider itself bound by the arbitration procedures established
under Article 13 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 o[r] to the International Court of
Justice.
Saint Vincent en de Grenadines
12-09-2000
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines avails itself of the provisions of article 13, paragraph 2 of the aforesaid Convention and declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of that article under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice, and 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.
Saudi-Arabië
01-03-2004
[...] the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not consider itself obligated to observe paragraph 1 of Article 13 with deals with resolving any dispute arising from interpretation of the Convention.
Singapore
02-05-2008
The Republic of Singapore understands Article 7, paragraph 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.
Pursuant to Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Republic of Singapore
declares that it will no be bound by the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 1 of
the Convention.
Syrië
25-04-1988
1. The Syrian Arab Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article
13, paragraph 2, of the Convention, concerning arbitration and the results thereof.
2. Accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to this Convention in no way implies recognition
of Israel or entry into any relations with Israel concerning any question regulated
by this Convention.
Bezwaar Israël, 26-07-1988
The instrument deposited by theSyrian Arab Republic contains a statement of a political
character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel, this is not
the proper place for making such political pronouncements, which are, moreover, in
flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the Organization.
That pronouncement by the Syrian Arab Republic cannot in any way affect whatever obligations
are binding upon it under general international law or under particular treaties.
The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt
towards the Syrian Arab Republic attitude of complete reciprocity.
Thailand
23-02-2007
1. In applying the provision of article 8, paragraph 3 of the Convention, extraditable
offences shall be restricted to offences which, under Thai law, are punishable with
imprisonment of not less than one year and are subject to the procedural provisions
and other conditions of the Thai legislation for extradition.
2. The Kingdom of Thailand does not consider itself bound by article 13, paragraph
1 of the Convention.
Trinidad en Tobago
15-06-1979
The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago avails itself of the provisions of article 13, paragraph 2, and declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of that article under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice, and 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.
Tunesië
21-01-1977
No dispute may be brought before the International Court of Justice unless by agreement between all parties to the dispute.
Venezuela
19-04-2005
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in accordance with the provision of article 13 (2) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents formulates a reservation with respect to the provision established under paragraph 1 of the said article. Consequently, it does not consider itself obligated to refer to arbitration as a means of settlement of disputes, nor does it recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Verenigd Koninkrijk
28-02-1985
2 mei 1979 en 28 februari 1985
The Government of the Kingdom of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland have no doubt as to their right, by notification to the Depositary under the
relevant provisions of the above-mentioned Convention, to extend the application of
the Convention in question to the Falkland Islands or to the Falkland Islands Dependencies,
as the case may be.
For this reason alone, The Government of the Kingdom of the United Kingdom are unable
to regard the Argentine [communication] under reference as having any legal effect.
Bezwaar Argentinië, 03-10-1983
The Government of Argentina makes a formal objection to the [declaration] of territorial
extension issued by the United Kingdom with regard to the Malvinas Islands (and dependencies),
which that country is illegally occupying and refers to as the "Falkland Islands".
The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void the [said declaration]
of territorial extension.
Verenigde Staten van Amerika
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.7.2015.TREATIES-XVIII.
7, dated January 6, 2015, regarding the purported accession of the 'State of Palestine'
to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally
Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, done at New York December 14, 1973
(the Convention).
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 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 affirms that it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship
with the 'State of Palestine' under the Convention.
Vietnam
02-05-2002
Acceding to this Convention, the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam makes its reservation to paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Convention.
Zwitserland
05-03-1985
The Swiss Federal Council interprets article 4 and article 5, paragraph 1 of the Convention to mean that Switzerland undertakes to fulfil the obligations contained therein in the conditions specified by its domestic legislation.