Verdrag voor de vreedzame beslechting van internationale geschillen
Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren
|Partij||Voorbehoud / verklaring||Bezwaren|
|Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der||Ja||Nee|
|Verenigde Staten van Amerika||Ja||Nee|
The Government of the Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic recognises the Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 as ratified by Russia and considers itself a party to them to the extent that they do not conflict with subsequent international agreements to which the Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic is party.
Subject to reservations to Article 53, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.
The accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the Convention for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, adopted at The Hague on 18 October 1907, shall in no way be considered or interpreted as a renouncement or an infringement of the principles of non-use of force and peaceful settlement of international disputes, as they are set forth in contemporary international law.
The Embassy of Canada reiterates Canada's support for the Convention and commitment
to the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the purposes and principles
of the Charter of the United Nations.
The Embassy notes that the communication by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was made in its capacity as Depositary for the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. While the role of the Depositary is only technical and administrative in nature, the Embassy of Canada notes that 'Palestine' does not meet the criteria of a state under international law. is not a member of the United Nations, and is not recognized by Canada as a state. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the Embassy of Canada wishes to note its position that in the context of the purported Palestinian accession to the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, ‘Palestine' is not able to accede to this Convention, and that the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes does not enter into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty relations, with respect to the 'State of Palestine’.
Subject to the Declaration formulated in respect of Article 39 at the Seventh Session
of the first Commission on 7 October:
The Delegation of Chile wishes, in the name of its Government, to make the following declaration in respect of this Article. When our Delegation signed the Convention of 1899 for the pacific settlement of international disputes, it made the reservation that, where Article 17 was concerned, its Government's accession would not extend to disputes or issues pre-dating the celebration of the Convention.
The Delegation of Chile believes it to be its duty to renew today in respect of the same provision the reservation which it made previously, even though such is not strictly necessary in view of the actual character of the provision.
The Republic of Chile wishes to emphasise once again its commitment to the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes and the ban on the use of threats and force, in the sense in which the two principles currently apply. At the same time the Republic of Chile would reconfirm its agreement with the principle of free choice of the means of resolving conflicts in a peaceful manner.
[…] the decision of the Administrative Council of the CPA does not alter Ecuador's position regarding the non-recognition of Kosovo as a State. In this regard, Ecuador would like to refer to the Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) of 10 June 1999 in which it recognizes the respect to the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Resolution which continues to be in force.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands by its notification
of November 18, 2015, informed the Contracting States on the accession of Kosovo to
the above Convention and about the date of its entry into force for Kosovo.
Georgia, as well as many other States, does not recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Furthermore, Kosovo is not a member state of the CN. Hence, Georgia regards that accession of Kosovo to the 1907 Convention has no legal validity and, therefore, does not consider itself in a treaty relationship with Kosovo under this Convention.
Georgia does not recognize that the depositary has the power to undertake actions under the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlements of International Disputes (Article 92), the treaty practice or public international law that may be construed as direct or implied qualification of entities as states. Georgia pursuing its state interests, considers unacceptable and dangerous adoption of such a practice.
Having this premise, Georgia objects to the accession of Kosovo to the 1907 Convention and holds the view that the procedure of Kosovo's accession to the Convention shall be suspended.
Subject to the reservation to paragraph 2 of Article 53.
In adhering to the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes concluded at The Hague on 18 October 1907, Ireland understands that Articles 24 and 76 of the Convention impose an obligation on Ireland to accede to a request for legal assistance only (i) to the extent that the domestic law of Ireland allows and (ii) if, in the view of Ireland, the request is not calculated to impair its sovereign rights or its safety. It furthermore understands that the final paragraph of Article 46 of the Convention refers to privileges and immunities to be enjoyed by the members of a Tribunal in The Netherlands and that it is not intended that members of such Tribunals are generally to enjoy such privileges and immunities in the territories of the States Parties to the Convention.
The accession by the Republic of Iraq to the Hague Conventions for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 1899 and 1907 shall in no way signify recognition of Israel, nor shall it be conducive to entry by the Republic of Iraq into such dealings with her as may be entailed by the said Conventions.
‘Palestine' does not satisfy the criteria for statehood under international law and
lacks the legal capacity to join the aforesaid Convention under general international
law, as well as under the terms of the bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements and
of the Convention, including the threshold conditions established pursuant to Article
The Government of Israel notes that the role of the depositary is a technical one and that the depositary does not have authority to determine the legal validity or effect of instruments of accession. Accordingly, regardless of any action taken by the depositary regarding the purported instrument of accession in this instance, such actions do not in themselves grant any legal validity or effect to such an instrument.
The Government of Israel wishes to place on record, for the sake of clarity, its position that it does not recognize 'Palestine' as a State nor as a party to the Convention, and that it regards the Palestinian request for accession as being without any legal validity or effect.
Subject to reservations to paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 48, paragraph 2 of Article 53 and Article 54.
The accession of the Lebanon to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes in no way implies its recognition of Israel and could not involve it in the accomplishment with that state of the formalities provided for by the two Conventions.
Bezwaar Israël, 23-04-1968
[...] that the Government of Israel has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Lebanon. In the view of the Government of Israel, the declaration in question is inadmissible: the Government of Israel, therefore, formally objects to it and reserves its rights to act vis-à-vis Lebanon on a basis of strict reciprocity in the matters with which the aforesaid Conventions deal.
[...] with the reservation that the arrangement contained in Article 53, number 2, of the Convention is not applicable for the Principality of Liechtenstein.
[...] the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that law, according to which States settle disputes between each other under the procedure laid down in Article 37(1) of the Convention, shall be understood as law respecting principles of protection of universally recognized human rights.
The United Mexican States is a Contracting State to the 1907 Convention, which entered
into force for this State on January 26th, 1910. In the case related to the statehood
of Kosovo, Mexico's foreign policy adheres to the outcome of United Nations Security
Council Resolution No. 1244/1999, which privileges the principle of territorial integrity
of Serbia and, thus, does not recognize Kosovo as an independent State.
Based on the aforementioned Resolution the Government of Mexico hereby states that in accordance with its foreign policy principles, the 1907 Convention will not bind the United Mexican States and Kosovo, until the ongoing dialogue between the parties involved achieves a final and favorable solution to this matter.
Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der
On 1 January 1986 the island of Aruba, which was a part of the Netherlands Antilles,
has obtained internal autonomy as a country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Consequently, the Kingdom consists of three countries, namely the Netherlands (the
European part of the Kingdom), the Netherlands Antilles (without Aruba) and Aruba.
As the changes of 1 January 1986 concern a shift only in the internal constitutional relations within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Kingdom as such will remain the subject of international law with which treaties are concluded, the said changes will have no consequences regarding this Convention, concluded by the Kingdom, which was applicable to the Netherlands Antilles, included Aruba. This Convention remains in force for the Netherlands (European part), the Netherlands Antilles and for Aruba in its new capacity of country within the Kingdom.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands consisted of three parts: the Netherlands, the Netherlands
Antilles and Aruba. The Netherlands Antilles consisted of the islands of Curaçao,
Sint Maarten, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba.
With effect from 10 October 2010, the Netherlands Antilles ceased to exist as a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Since that date, the Kingdom consists of four parts: the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. Curaçao and Sint Maarten enjoy internal self-government within the Kingdom, as Aruba and, up to 10 October 2010, the Netherlands Antilles do.
These changes constitute a modification of the internal constitutional relations within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Kingdom of the Netherlands will accordingly remain the subject of international law with which agreements are concluded. The modification of the structure of the Kingdom will therefore not affect the validity of the international agreements ratified by the Kingdom for the Netherlands Antilles. These agreements, including any reservations made, will continue to apply to Curaçao and Sint Maarten.
The other islands that have formed part of the Netherlands Antilles - Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba - became part of the Netherlands, thus constituting 'the Caribbean part of the Netherlands'. The agreements that applied to the Netherlands Antilles will also continue to apply to these islands; however, the Government of the Netherlands will now be responsible for implementing these agreements.
The Government of New Zealand ... declares that, consistent with the constitutional status of Tokelau and taking into account the commitment of the Government of New Zealand to the development of self-government for Tokelau through an act of self-determination under the Charter of the United Nations, this ratification shall not extend to Tokelau unless and until a Declaration to this effect is lodged by the Government of New Zealand with the Depositary on the basis of appropriate consultation with that territory.
The Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic recognises the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes as ratified by Russia, to the extent that the said Conventions do not conflict with the Charter of the United Nations.
Ukraine does not consider Kosovo to be a sovereign state and does not recognize it
in such capacity.
According to the provisions of the Convention, only a State can become its member. The provisions of the Convention regarding the procedure of its entry into force cannot be applied to the mentioned entity.
In light of the above Ukraine does not view itself bound by the Convention with regard to the said entity.
With the same reservations as were formulated by the Romanian plenipotentiaries at
the signing of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
of 29 July 1899.
The reservations read as follows:
Subject to the reservations formulated with respect to Articles 16, 17 and 19 of the present Convention (15, 16 and 18 of the draft submitted by the Examining Committee) and recorded in the proceedings of the session of the Third Commission held on 20 July 1899:
The Royal Government of Romania, while concurring entirely with the principle of optional arbitration, whose importance in international relations it fully appreciates, does not, however, intend to commit itself, through Article 15, to accepting arbitration in all the cases provided for in that Article, and believes it should formulate express reservations in that respect. It cannot therefore approve this Article, save with the above reservation.
The Royal Government of Romania declares that it is unable to approve Article 16 save with the express reservation, recorded in the proceedings, that it will not accept in any circumstances international arbitration in respect of contestations or disputes arising prior to the conclusion of the present Convention.
The Royal Government of Romania declares that in approving Article 18 of the Convention it does not commit itself in any way to obligatory arbitration.
The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics recognises the Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 as ratified by Russia, to the extent that the said Conventions and Declarations do not conflict with the Charter of the United Nations and provided that they have not been amended or superseded by subsequent international agreements to which the USSR is a party, such as the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Similar Gases and of Bacteriological Means and the 1949 Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War.
The Russian Federation does not consider Kosovo to be a sovereign state and does not
recognize it as such.
According to the provisions of the Convention, only a State can become its member. Thus, the relevant provisions of the Convention, including provisions regarding the procedure of its entry into force, cannot be applied in respect of the «act of accession» to the Convention of the mentioned entity.
In light of the above the Russian Federation does not view itself bound by the Convention with regard to the said entity.
[…] that Spain regrets that the Contracting States of the 1907 Hague Convention for
the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes could not reach a consensus about
the instrument of accession of the territory of Kosovo to the said Convention at the
195 meeting of the Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, held
in The Hague on 13 June 2016. Spain also considers that such a precedent could be
very harmful to the future of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
In its Verbal Notes, 148/15 and 157/15, sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, Spain has made its stance clear. However, taking into account the relevance of the decision adopted on June 13th, Spain wishes to reiterate its position once again.
Spain, as many other Contracting States, does not recognize the unilateral declaration of independence of the territory of Kosovo. Since the territory of Kosovo does not comply with the requirement of statehood established by the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, consequently, the deposit of the instrument of accession has no legal or any other effects. By accepting the instrument of accession, the depositary went far beyond its technical duties by acting simultaneously as a State that has recognized this controversial territory. By such an action, the depositary has behaved contrary to the decisions adopted by other depositary States in similar situations.
The depositary has accepted the application without taking into account that the current international status of that territory is controversial, as its statehood has been recognized neither by the United Nations General Assembly nor by many of its member States. Moreover, it should also be noted that the provisions of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/1999 regarding the principle of territorial integrity, still remain in force, as well as that of the Rule of Law, as the basic principles on which the European Union is founded and guaranteed by the Helsinki Final Act. In accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Security Council 1244/1999, the territory of Kosovo remains under international supervision.
Taking all this into account, the Kingdom of Spain does not consider itself bound, directly or implicitly, by the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes with regard to the said territory.
Subject to the declarations contained in the proceedings of the 9th plenary session
of the Conference on 16 October 1907.
The Ottoman Delegation made reservations in respect of Article 48 and the second paragraph of Article 53. It also formulated the following declaration:
On behalf of its government, the Ottoman Delegation declares that it is not unaware of the favourable effect which good offices, mediation, commissions of inquiry and arbitration may have on the maintenance of peaceful relations between states; however, while giving its adhesion to the draft as a whole, it wishes to state that it believes these means should remain purely optional; at all events it would be unable to attribute to them an obligatory character whereby they might lead directly or indirectly to intervention.
The Imperial government intends to remain the sole judge of whether in specific cases it is necessary to have recourse to these various procedures or to accept them, nor should its decision on this point be susceptible of being regarded by the signatory states as an unfriendly act.
It goes without saying that the means in question could never be applied to questions of a domestic nature.
Verenigde Staten van Amerika
Subject to the Declaration made at the plenary session of the Conference on 16 October
Nothing contained in this Convention may be interpreted as obliging the United States of America to deviate from its traditional policy of abstaining from intervention, interference and intrusion in the political questions or in the policy or in the domestic administration of any foreign state. It is likewise understood that nothing in the Convention shall be interpreted as implying the abandonment by the United States of America of its traditional attitude in respect of purely American questions.
While maintaining the reservation made at the time of the signature; amongst others the reservation was made "... that the United States approves this Convention with the understanding that recourse to the permanent court for the settlement of differences can be had only by agreement thereto through general or special treaties of arbitration heretofore or hereafter concluded between the parties in dispute; and the United States now exercises the option contained in Article fifty-three of said Convention, to exclude the formulation of the 'compromis' by the permanent court, and hereby excludes from the competence of the permanent court the power to frame the 'compromis' required by general or special treaties of arbitration concluded or hereafter to be concluded by the United States and further expressly declares that the 'compromis' required by any treaty of arbitration to which the United States may be a party shall be settled only by agreement between the contracting parties, unless such treaty shall expressly provide otherwise".
The Government of the United States of America does not believe the "State of Palestine"
is qualified to accede to the Convention.
Consistent with Article 93 of the Convention, accession to the Convention was initially limited to "powers invited to the Second Peace Conference," convened in The Hague in 1907. Article 94 of the Convention further provides that "The conditions on which the powers which have not been invited to the Second Peace Conference may adhere to the present convention shall form the subject of a subsequent agreement between the Contracting Powers."
At a March 3, 1960 meeting, the Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, having consulted all parties to the two Hague conventions on the pacific settlement of disputes, decided that after March 15, 1960, the Government of the Netherlands would invite members of the United Nations which did not participate in the activities of the Permanent Court of Arbitration to declare (1) whether they considered themselves parties to the 1899 or 1907 Hague conventions on pacific settlement of disputes, or, if this were not the case, (2) whether they were willing to adhere to these conventions or to one of them. On the basis of this subsequent agreement of the parties to the Convention, eligibility to accede to the Convention has been extended to UN member states.
The Government of the United States is not aware of any subsequent decision of the parties to the Convention to extend eligibility to accede to the Convention to entities that are not members of the United Nations. The "State of Palestine" is not a member of the United Nations. Further, the Government of the United States does not believe the "State of Palestine" qualifies as a sovereign State and does not recognize it as such. Because the "State of Palestine" is neither a "power invited to the Second Peace Conference" nor a member of the United Nations, it is not eligible to accede to the Convention.
The Government of the United States believes that the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in its capacity as depositary of the Convention, should not list the "State of Palestine" as a party to the Convention. Accordingly, the Government of the United States affirms that it would not consider the "State of Palestine" to be a party to the Convention and would not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the "State of Palestine" under the Convention.
Subject to a reservation to Article 53, No. 2.