Overeenkomst betreffende de uitvoering van Deel XI van het Verdrag van de Verenigde Naties inzake het recht van de zee van 10 december 1982
Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren
Partij | Voorbehoud / verklaring | Bezwaren |
---|---|---|
België | Ja | Nee |
Canada | Ja | Nee |
Mauritius | Ja | Nee |
Oekraïne | Ja | Nee |
Oostenrijk | Ja | Nee |
Palestina | Ja | Nee |
Russische Federatie | Ja | Nee |
België
29-07-1994
This signature also commits the Flemish region, the Wallone region and the region of the capital Brussels.
Canada
16-01-2015
The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations presents its compliments to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to the Agreement
Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea and the Secretary-General's communication of 6 January 2015, C.N.16.2015
TREATIES-XXI.6.a, relating to that treaty. The Permanent Mission of Canada notes that
this communication was made pursuant to the Secretary-General's capacity as Depositary
for the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Permanent Mission of Canada notes the technical
and administrative role of the Depositary, and that it is for States Parties to a
treaty, not the Depositary, to make their own determination with respect to any legal
issues raised by instruments circulated by a depositary.
In that context, the Permanent Mission of Canada notes that 'Palestine' does not meet
the criteria of a state under international law and is not recognized by Canada as
a state. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the Permanent Mission of Canada wishes
to note its position that in the context of the purported Palestinian accession to
the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea, 'Palestine' is not able to accede to this convention, and that
the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea does not enter into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty
relations, with respect to the 'State of Palestine'.
Mauritius
09-01-2020
(…) has the honour to register its strong objection against the extension by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the socalled ‘British Indian Ocean
Territory’, of the Agreements listed at Annex and in respect of which the Secretary-General
is the depositary.
The Government of the Republic of Mauritius considers that by extending these Agreements
to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, the United Kingdom purported to
exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago - a claim which is untenable under
international law.
The Government of the Republic of Mauritius wishes to reiterate in emphatic terms
that it does not recognize the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’. The fact
that the Chagos Archipelago is, and has always been, part of the territory of the
Republic of Mauritius, and that the United Kingdom has never had sovereignty over
the Chagos Archipelago, has been authoritatively established by the International
Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019, on the Legal Consequences
of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.
In this authoritative legal determination, the Court declared that the decolonization
of the Republic of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed in 1968, since the Chagos
Archipelago had been unlawfully detached in 1965, in violation of the right of self-determination
of peoples and the Charter of the United Nations, as applied and interpreted in accordance
with UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, resolution 2066
(XX) of 16 December 1965, resolution 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and resolution
2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967. Accordingly, it went on to hold that the United Kingdom’s
ongoing administration of the Chagos Archipelago, as the so-called ‘British Indian
Ocean Territory’, was an internationally wrongful act, of a continuing nature, that
engaged the State responsibility of the United Kingdom. It determined that the United
Kingdom is under a legal obligation to terminate its unlawful colonial administration
‘as rapidly as possible’.
The Court further determined that all UN Member States have an obligation to cooperate
with the United Nations in facilitating the completion of the decolonization of the
Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, including an obligation not to support
the continuing wrongful conduct of the United Kingdom in maintaining its colonial
administration in the Chagos Archipelago.
On 22 May 2019, the General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority of 116 votes to
6, adopted resolution 73/295. By this resolution, it endorsed the Court’s Advisory
Opinion, affirmed that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory
of the Republic of Mauritius, and demanded that the United Kingdom terminate its unlawful
colonial administration within a maximum of six months, that is, by no later than
22 November 2019. That deadline has now expired.
Moreover, the General Assembly in its resolution called upon Member States to ‘cooperate
with the United Nations to ensure the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius
as rapidly as possible’ and to refrain from conduct that might impede or delay the
completion of decolonization. It further called upon the United Nations and all its
specialized agencies to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part
of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support the decolonization of the
Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, and to refrain from impeding that process
by recognizing the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’. Lastly, the resolution
also called upon ‘all other international, regional and intergovernmental organizations,
including those established by treaty,’ to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms
an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support its speedy
decolonization, and to ‘refrain from impeding that process’ by recognizing the so-called
‘British Indian Ocean Territory’.
The Republic of Mauritius has, over the years, consistently asserted, and hereby reasserts,
its full sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The Government of the Republic of
Mauritius therefore unequivocally protests against the extension by the United Kingdom
of the Agreements listed at Annex to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’
and against the purported exercise by the United Kingdom of any sovereignty, rights
or jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic of Mauritius.
For the above stated reasons, which arise from established principles of international
law as authoritatively interpreted and applied by the International Court of Justice
and endorsed by the UN General Assembly, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius
does not recognize the extension by the United Kingdom of the Agreements listed at
Annex to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, reserves all its rights in
this regard, and calls upon all States Parties to the Agreements listed at Annex to
reject the United Kingdom's extension of these Agreements to the so-called ‘British
Indian Ocean Territory’.
--
See depositairy notification no. C.N.50.2020.TREATIES-XXI.6.a for the Annex (list
of Agreements).
Oekraïne
26-07-1999
1. Ukraine declares that, in accordance with article 287 of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea of 1982, it chooses as the principal means for the settlement
of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention an arbitral
tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII. For the consideration of disputes
concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention in respect of questions
relating to fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine
scientific research and navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping,
Ukraine chooses a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII.
Ukraine recognises the competence, as stipulated in article 292 of the Convention,
of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in respect of questions relating
to the prompt release of detained vessels or their crews.
2. Ukraine declares, in accordance with article 298 of the Convention, that it does
not accept, unless otherwise provided by specific international treaties of Ukraine
with relevant States, the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions for the
consideration of disputes relating to sea boundary delimitations, disputes involving
historic bays or titles, and disputes concerning military activities.
3. Ukraine declares, taking into account articles 309 and 310 of the Convention, that
it objects to any statements or declarations, irrespective of when such statements
or declarations were or may be made, that may result in a failure to interpret the
provisions of the Convention in good faith, or are contrary to the ordinary meaning
of terms in the context of the Convention or its object and purpose.
4. As a geographically disadvantaged country bordering a sea poor in living resources,
Ukraine reaffirms the necessity to develop international cooperation for the exploitation
of the living resources of economic zones, on the basis of just and equitable agreements
that should ensure the access to fishing resources in the economic zones of other
regions and sub-regions.
Oostenrijk
29-07-1994
Austria declares that it understands the provisions of its article 7 paragraph 2 to signify with regard to its own position that pending parliamentary approval of the Convention and of the Agreement and their subsequent ratification it will have access to the organs for the International Sea-Bed authority.
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.56.2015.TREATIES-XXI.6.a,
dated 23 January 2015, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession
of the State of Palestine to the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part
XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, dated
28 July 1994.
The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of Canada and wishes
to recall United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 according
Palestine ‘non-member observer State status in the United Nations’. In this regard,
Palestine is a State recognized by the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of
the international community.
As a State Party to the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, which entered
into force on 1 February 2015, the State of Palestine will exercise its rights and
honor its obligations with respect to all States Parties. The State of Palestine trusts
that its rights and obligations will be equally respected by its fellow States Parties.
Russische Federatie
12-03-1997
According to expert opinion, industrial exploitation of deep sea-bed mineral resources
will not start earlier than in ten to fifteen years. Therefore, the International
body for the sea-bed will not have a subject of real activity for a long time yet,
which fact highlights especially the financial aspects of activities of the newly
established organization. It is important to avoid non-productive administrative and
other expenditures, to abstain from establishing yet unnecessary structures and positions,
and to strictly observe the agreements concerning the economy regime reflected in
the Agreement.
The efforts aimed at rendering universal the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of
1982 can, in the long run, produce a positive result only if all the States act on
the basis of the above-mentioned agreements without trying to seek any unilateral
advantages, and if they succeed in establishing a cooperation free of discrimination
and with a due account of the interests of potential investors in deep sea-bed mining.