Overeenkomst inzake de internationale handel in bedreigde in het wild levende dier- en plantensoorten

Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren

Partij	Voorbehoud / verklaring	Bezwaren
Argentinië	Ja	Ja
Denemarken	Ja	Nee
EU (Europese Unie)	Ja	Nee
IJsland	Ja	Nee
Israël	Ja	Nee
Japan	Ja	Nee
Mauritius	Ja	Ja
Nieuw-Zeeland	Ja	Nee
Syrië	Ja	Ja
Verenigd Koninkrijk	Ja	Nee
Verenigde Staten van Amerika	Ja	Nee

Argentinië

08-01-1981

The Malvinas are part of the territory of the Argentine Republic and, administratively, fall under the National Territory of Tierra del Fuego, the Antarctic and the South Atlantic Islands. The occupation of the islands by the United Kingdom, by means of an act of force never accepted by the Argentine Republic, has led the United Nations Organisation, in resolutions 2065 and 3160, to invite the two parties to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict of sovereignty with regard to the aforementioned islands. Negotiations are ongoing.

Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 05-03-1981

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to United Kingdom sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and their Dependencies. The United Kingdom Government therefore do not accept the declaration of the Argentine Republic claiming that the Falkland Islands are an integral part of the territory of the Argentine Republic and administered by
the National Territory of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and the Islands of the South Atlantic.

03-10-2005

Argentina's declaration of 8 January 1981, rejecting the declaration of territorial application presented by the United Kingdom on 2 August 1976, applies - as is clear from the wording - to all the territories that the country claimed or claims are included under the name 'Malvinas and Dependencies'.

Denemarken

26-07-1977

The ratification concerns the entire Kingdom of Denmark, including [...] and the Faroe Islands. However, the Convention will not be implemented on the Faroe Islands until the Faroe authorities have put in place the necessary legislation, which is expected to occur in the near future. In this regard, it should be noted that legislative powers on matters concerning, among other things, the protection of nature, including the protection of species of wild flora and fauna, were transferred to the Faroe Islands under Danish law no. 137 of 23 March 1948. As very little trade in the endangered species of wild fauna and flora included in the Convention takes place on the Faroe Islands - what trade there is essentially taking place via Denmark - the delayed entry into force of the Convention on the Faroe Islands will have little actual impact on the achievement of the Convention's objectives.

23-07-2004

The question concerning the territorial application of the Convention to the Faroe Islands having been raised, Denmark would like to recall the declaration that it made when it ratified the Convention on 26 July 1977 and clarify its goal and intention, namely: until further notice, the Convention will not apply to the Faroe Islands. This has been the Danish government's position since the ratification of the Convention by Denmark, and will continue to be until further notice.

EU (Europese Unie)

09-04-2015

The European Union declares that, in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1) thereof, it is competent for entering into international agreements, and for implementing the obligations resulting therefrom, which contribute to the pursuit of the following objectives:
- preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment;
- protecting human health;
- prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources;
- promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, including climate change.
The European Union declares that it has already adopted legal instruments, binding on its Member States, covering matters governed by this Convention, in particular but not limited to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ EU L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1) and the implementing Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 of 4 May 2006 (OJ EU L 166, 19.6.2006, p. 1).
Moreover the European Union declares that it is responsible for the performance of those obligations resulting from the Convention which are covered by European Union legislation in force.
The exercise of European Union competence is, by its nature, subject to continuous development.

28-01-2020

With note verbale dated 28 January 2020, and received on the same day, the Federal Council of Switzerland has been requested by the European Union to bring to the attention of the Signatory and Acceding States an Annex on the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, specifying that it has been endorsed by the Member States of the Union, including the United Kingdom, which reads as follows:
1. On 29 March 2017, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the "United Kingdom") notified the European Council of the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the European Union ("Union") and the European Atomic Energy Community ("Euratom") in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. On 22 March 2019, the European Council decided in agreement with the United Kingdom to extend the period provided for in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union until 12 April 2019. On 10 April 2019, the European Council decided in agreement with the United Kingdom to extend the period provided for in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union until 31 October 2019. On 29 October 2019, the European Council decided in agreement with the United Kingdom to extend the period provided for in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union until 31 January 2020. The United Kingdom will therefore cease to be a Member State of the European Union and of Euratom on 1 February 2020.
2. On 24 January 2020, the Union and Euratom, and the United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 50, paragraph 2, of the Treaty on European Union, signed an Agreement setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union and Euratom ("Withdrawal Agreement"). The Withdrawal Agreement will enter into force on 1 February 2020, subject to its prior ratification by the United Kingdom and conclusion by the Union and Euratom.
3. In order to address the specific situation of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union and Euratom, the Withdrawal Agreement provides for a time-limited transition period during which, save certain very limited exceptions, Union law shall be applicable to and in the United Kingdom and that any reference to Member States in Union law, including as implemented and applied by Member States, shall be understood as including the United Kingdom.
4. The Union and Euratom, and the United Kingdom have agreed that Union law within the meaning of the Withdrawal Agreement encompasses international agreements concluded by the Union (or Euratom), or by Member States acting on behalf of the Union (or Euratom), or by the Union (or Euratom) and its Member States jointly.
5. Subject to timely ratification and conclusion of the Withdrawal Agreement, the Union and Euratom notify parties to the international agreements referred to in point 4 above that, during the transition period, the United Kingdom is treated as a Member State of the Union and of Euratom for the purposes of these international agreements.
6. It is understood that the principles set out in this Annex also extend to international instruments and arrangements without legally binding force entered into by the Union or Euratom and to international agreements referred to in point 4 above which are provisionally applied.
7. The provisions relating to the transition period are laid down in Part Four (Articles 126 to 132) of the Withdrawal Agreement, to be read in conjunction with the other relevant provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement, in particular its Part One.
8. The transition period starts on 1 February 2020 and ends on 31 December 2020, but the Withdrawal Agreement foresees the possibility of adopting a single decision extending the transition period for up to 24 months. In the event of an extension, the Union and Euratom will communicate this by a further Note Verbale.
9. At the end of the transition period, the United Kingdom will no longer be covered by the international agreements referred to in points 4 and 6 above. This is without prejudice to the status of the United Kingdom in relation to multilateral agreements to which it is a party in its own right.

IJsland

03-01-2000

In the view of Iceland the inclusion of some species in the appendices of the Convention is inconsistent with Article II of the Convention and the biological criteria agreed on within CITES for such inclusion. A number of the cetaceans which are included in the appendices are a good example of this.
It was decided that, upon acceding to the Convention, Iceland would only enter reservations with regard to the species that occur within its national jurisdiction which are, in the view of Iceland, inappropriately included in the appendices. This should, however, not be interpreted as Iceland's acceptance of the appropriateness of all other inclusions in the appendices.
If new scientific evidence will show that species regarding which Iceland has made reservations are in fact appropriately included in the appendices, Iceland will reassess the relevant reservations.
Iceland considers it to be important in order for CITES to fulfill its purpose that a review of all present inclusions in the appendices will be carried out in an effective and transparant manner and completed as soon as possible. The review should be objective and ensure that all inclusions in the appendices are consistent with Article II of the Convention and the biological criteria agreed on within CITES.

Israël

10-11-2003

The Government of the State of Israel has noted that the instrument of ratification of the Syrian Arab Republic to the abovementioned Convention contains declarations with respect to the State of Israel.
The Government of the State of Israel is of the view that such declarations, which are explicitly of a political nature, are incompatible with the purposes and objectives of this Convention.
The Government of the State of Israel therefore objects to the aforesaid declarations made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, 1973.

Japan

29-05-2013

1. Through regional fisheries management organizations and in cooperation with other countries, Japan will continue to make efforts in conservation and management of the shark species on which it made reservations.
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 3 of Article XV of the CITES, upon exporting the above-mentioned shark species to all countries including those which are not a party to CITES, Japan will voluntarily conduct procedures related to export permits that are required under CITES, in accordance with its relevant laws and regulations.
3. Japan is ready to contribute, from the technical point of view, to the discussions to be held during the 18 months preparatory period with regard to such issues as the guidance to identify regulated shark fin.

Mauritius

10-01-2020

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius [...] has the honour to register its strong objection against the extension by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory".
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 lndian 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”.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius kindly requests that the present objection be duly recorded, circulated and registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations [...].

Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 11-06-2021

[…] The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rejects the claims contained in the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius. The United Kingdom's full position in respect to our continued sovereignty over the British Indian Territory (BIOT) is set out in the United Kingdom's submission to the report of the Secretary-General (A/74/834) dated 18 May 2020. The United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over the territory of BIOT, which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814. Mauritius has never held sovereignty over the islands that now form BIOT and the United Kingdom does not recognise its claim. The Advisory Opinion issued by the ICJ is not legally binding and UN General Assembly Resolution 73/295 does not and cannot create any legally binding obligations for UN Member States.
The United Kingdom is also aware of the judgment delivered on 28 January 2021 by the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) formed to deal with the dispute concerning delimitation of a maritime boundary claimed by Mauritius to exist between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean. The UK is not a party to these proceedings, which can have no effect for the UK or for maritime delimitation between the UK (in respect of BIOT) and the Republic of the Maldives. […]

Nieuw-Zeeland

10-05-1989

Not applicable to Tokelau.

Syrië

30-04-2003

The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to this Convention shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or entail entry into any dealings with Israel in the context of the provisions of the Convention.

Bezwaar Israël, 10-11-2003

The Government of the State of Israel has noted that the instrument of ratification of the Syrian Arab Republic to the abovementioned Convention contains declarations with respect to the State of Israel.
The Government of the State of Israel is of the view that such declarations, which are explicitly of a political nature, are incompatible with the purposes and objectives of this Convention.
The Government of the State of Israel therefore objects to the aforesaid declarations made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the Convention on international Trade in Endangered Species, 1973.

Verenigd Koninkrijk

05-03-1981

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to United Kingdom sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and their Dependencies. The United Kingdom Government therefore do not accept the declaration of the Argentine Republic claiming that the Falkland Islands are an integral part of the territory of the Argentine Republic and administered by the National Territory of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and the Islands of the South Atlantic.

Verenigde Staten van Amerika

28-08-1981

At the recently concluded third meeting of the Conference of the parties in New Delhi, India, Appendix II of CITES was amended by adding to it all but three species of the order Psittaciformes not otherwise listed. This amendment was made largely on the basis of Article II, paragraph 2 (B), often known as the "look-alike" provision. At the meeting, we indicated that we too were concerned about the traffic in Psittacines and had made proposals for listing a number of species. We also indicated, however, that we were greatly concerned with the administrative capability of all parties to issue meaningful permits for the export of these birds, and to enforce the Convention properly in their regard, that we did not believe that the "look-alike" listing was fully justified in many cases, and that we were prepared to provide evidence that only 13 species of these birds presented serious enough identification problems to merit listing. When a vote was taken on the amendment, we voted in opposition to the broad listing.
The United States seriously considered entering a reservation on this listing to demonstrate concern over its appropriateness. We decided not to enter a reservation for a number of reasons, but instead to make known our concern through this communication.
The United States, which hosted the 1973 negotiating conference at which CITES was signed, was the first country to ratify CITES and continues to be a strong supporter of the treaty and its goals. We firmly believe that faith in the integrity of the appendices, both within the United States and in all other countries is essential to assure the success of CITES. This integrity is maintained through the development of principles and procedures for listing and through adherence to those principles and procedures by all the parties.
At New Delhi we joined with Canada in proposing criteria for the addition and deletion of "look-alike" species. This was in keeping with our concern that massive listings of animals and plants either for monitoring purposes (not a proper basis for listing) or for "look-alike" purposes where they are not justified would only weaken the integrity of the appendices and could serve as grounds for an initiative to adopt the so-called reverse listing concept. We strongly support the development and use of identification manuals to reduce problems in controlling trade in "look-alikes". We seriously question the legality, administrative feasibility, or desirability of reverse listing and believe that, at a minimum, it requires a great deal of further study.
We believe that attention must be devoted to enhanced cooperation of authorities in importing countries regarding the interception of shipments of all wildlife species traded in violation of the conservation laws of exporting countries. While the United States has legislation providing authority for the interception of such shipments, most other countries do not. Listing large groups of species in Appendix II helps address this problem, but at the cost of reducing the integrity of the appendices. We suggest greater use of Appendix III to control illegal trade in species that do not fully meet criteria for inclusion in Appendix II.
We chose not to enter a reservation on the amendment to the listing of Psittacines because we believe better ways are available to resolve our different points of view. We also believe that the entering of reservations complicates the administration of the Convention for management authorities and enforcement officers and complicates compliance with CITES by persons involved in legitimate trade. However, we urge you to consider our concerns in the context of both the 10-year review of the appendices called for at the New Delhi meeting and the preparations for the fourth meeting of the Conference of the parties.
We look forward to further discussions of these and other points over the next several years as we work with you to make CITES a meaningful and effective tool for the conservation of wild animals and plants.