Overheid.nl| Zoekpagina

De wegwijzer naar informatie en diensten van alle overheden

Zoeken Uitgebreid zoeken
Startpagina

Verdrag

Aanvullend protocol bij de Verdragen van Genève van 12 augustus 1949, betreffende de aanvaarding van een aanvullend onderscheidend embleem (Protocol III)

Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren

Partij Voorbehoud / verklaring Bezwaren
Canada Ja Nee
Israël Ja Nee
Moldavië Ja Nee
Turkije Ja Nee
Verenigd Koninkrijk Ja Ja
Verenigde Staten van Amerika Ja Nee
Zweden Ja Nee
Zwitserland Ja Nee

Canada

26-11-2007

Article 6(2) provides inter alia that the High Contracting Parties may permit prior users of the third Protocol emblem, or of any sign constituting an imitation thereof, to continue such use, provided that "the rights to such use were acquired before the adoption of this Protocol". Given that Canadian legislation enacted to implement Protocol III does not have retroactive application and will enter into force on the date of Canada's ratification of Protocol III, Canada will permit prior users of the third Protocol emblem, or of any sign constituting an imitation thereof, to continue such use, provided that the rights to such use were acquired before the date of Canada's ratification of Protocol III.

21-01-2015

L'Ambassade du Canada [...] a I'honneur de se référer [...] a la communication du Conseil fédéral suisse du 9 janvier 2015 [...] concernant Ie Protocole II et le Protocole III. L'Ambassade du Canada constate que cette communication a été faite par le Conseil fédéral suisse en sa qualité de dépositaire du Protocole II et du Protocole III. L'Ambassade du Canada tient à noter que le dépositaire joue un rôle de nature technique et administrative, et qu'il appartient aux États parties à un traité, et non au dépositaire, de se prononcer sur toute question de droit rattachée aux instruments diffusés par le dépositaire. Dans ce contexte, l'Ambassade du Canada note que la "Palestine" ne remplit pas les critères voulus pour être considérée comme un État en droit international et n'est donc pas reconnue comme tel par le Canada. Par conséquent, pour éviter toute ambigüité, l'Ambassade du Canada tient à énoncer sa position selon laquelle la "Palestine" n'a pas qualité pour adhérer au Protocole II et au Protocole III, de sorte que sa prétendue adhésion à ces Protocoles n'a aucune valeur juridique ni aucune incidence sur les relations conventionnelles du Canada avec l'"État de Palestine".

Israël

22-11-2007

The Government of Israel declares that while respecting the inviolability of the additional distinctive emblem provided for in the "Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III)', it is the understanding of the Government of Israel that the ratification or the implementation of this protocol does not affect any rights acquired pursuant to reservations made by Israel to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

05-11-2008

The Embassy of the State of Israel presents its compliments to the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and has the honour to refer to the declaration made by Israel upon ratification of the Third Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. In response to questions raised in relation to this declaration, the State of Israel wishes to confirm that this declaration is not intended to enable Israel to derogate from any of the provisions of the Protocol. It also recognizes that under the terms of the Protocol, the Red Crystal, when used as a protective emblem, may not incorporate any additional emblems or combine them as part of the protective emblem.

16-01-2015

The Embassy of Israel [...] refers to the communication by the depositary dated 9 January 2015, regarding the Palestinian request to accede to [Protocol III]. '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 Protocol and regards the Palestinian request for accession as being without legal validity and without effect upon Israel's treaty relations under the Protocol.

Moldavië

19-08-2008

Until the full re-establishment of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, the provisions of the Convention will be applied only on the territory controlled effectively by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova.

Turkije

07-12-2006

Regarding the "Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III)" and taking into
consideration the references to the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II thereof, the Republic
of Turkey declares that it is not party to the Additional Protocols I and II.

Verenigd Koninkrijk

15-06-2011

Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy has the honor to declare, on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom, that its ratification of Protocol III extends to the following territories for whose international relations it is responsible: Anguilla; Bailiwick of Guernsey; Bermuda; British Antarctic Territory; British Indian Ocean Territory; Cayman Islands; Falkland Islands; Isle of Man; Montserrat; Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia; Turks and Caicos Islands; Virgin Islands.

Bezwaar Argentinië, 04-08-2011

The Argentine Republic rejects the British claim to extend the application of the Protocol to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
The Protocol applies to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands as being an integral part of the territory of the Argentine Republic, by virtue of the ratification of the Protocol by the Argentine Government on 16 March 2011.
In relation to the question of the Falkland Islands, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, recognizing the existence of a dispute over sovereignty and requesting the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to re-initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the dispute, with the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who will inform the General Assembly on the progress made. The United Nations Special Committee on decolonization has repeatedly expressed the same view, most recently in the resolutions adopted on 24 June 2010 and 21 June 2011. Likewise, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States has adopted, on 8 June 2010 and on 7 June 2011, new declarations on the question in similar terms.
The Argentine Republic reaffirms its right of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime space.

07-01-2013

Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy has the honor to declare, on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom, that its ratification of the above Protocols extends to the Bailiwick of Jersey, in addition to the territories to which they have already been extended.
In this respect, both the statements lodged on 2 July 2002 in respect of the extension of Protocol I and the Government's declaration of 17 May 1999 in respect of recognition of the competence of the International Fact Finding Commission shall also apply.

Verenigde Staten van Amerika

21-01-2015

The Embassy of the United States of America [...] refers to the Federal Department's notification, dated January 9, 2015, regarding the purported accession of the 'State of Palestine' to [Protocol III] for which the Swiss Federal Council is depositary. 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 Protocol III 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 Protocol III and affirms that it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the 'State of Palestine' under Protocol III.

Zweden

26-11-2008

The Government of Sweden has closely examined the declaration made by the Government of Israel on 22 November 2007, when ratifying the Protocol Additional III to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, with subsequent clarification in its declaration on 5 November 2008 as well as the following communication made by [Switzerland] on 7 November 2008. In the light of these communications it is the understanding of Sweden that Israel will adhere to the Protocol in its entirety and solely use the Red Crystal as its distinctive emblem. It is the expectation of Sweden that all states, in accordance with the object and purpose of Protocol III, join in the effort to disseminate the knowledge of the Protocol and to strengthen the respect of the new additional emblem.

Zwitserland

07-11-2008

The Federal Department of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the State of Israel and acknowledges receipt of the Embassy's note verbale dated 3.11.08 by which the Government of the State of Israel clarifies its declaration made at the ratification, on 22 November 2007, of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III). The Federal Department thanks the Embassy for this note which makes it clear that the State of Israel respects the Protocol III in its entirety and will therefore solely use the Additional Emblem (Red Crystal) as the distinctive emblem in accordance with said Protocol.

Acties

De informatie in de Verdragenbank vormt geen bekendmaking in de zin van de Grondwet en de Rijkswet goedkeuring en bekendmaking verdragen. Alleen publicatie in het Tractatenblad heeft een officieel karakter .