Internationale Gezondheidsregeling (2005)

Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren

Partij	Voorbehoud / verklaring	Bezwaren
China	Ja	Nee
India	Ja	Nee
Turkije	Ja	Ja
Verenigde Staten van Amerika	Ja	Ja

China

15-06-2007

2. The Ministry of Health of the People's Republic of China is designated as China's National Focal Point, pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the IHR. The local health administrative authorities are the health authorities responsible for the implementation of the IHR in their respective jurisdictions. The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China and its local offices are the competent authorities of the points of entry referred to in Article 22 of the IHR.
3. To meet the needs of applying the IHR, the Government of the People's Republic of China is revising the Frontier Health and Quarantine Law of the People's Republic of China. It has incorporated the development, enhancement and maintenance of the core capability-building for rapid and effective response to public health hazards and public health emergencies of international concern into its program of establishing a national health emergency response system during the 11th Five-year Plan for National Economic and Social Development. It is formulating the technical standards for the surveillance, reporting, assessment, determination and notification of public health emergencies of international concern. It has established an inter-agency information-sharing and coordination mechanism for implementing the IHR. And it has conducted cooperation and exchanges with relevant states parties on the implementation of the IHR.
4. The Government of the People's Republic of China endorses and will implement the resolution of the 59th World Health Assembly calling upon its member states to comply immediately, on a voluntary basis, with provisions of the IHR considered relevant to the risk posed by the avian influenza and pandemic influenza.

India

08-08-2007

1. The Government of India reserves the right to consider the whole territory of a country as infected with yellow fever whenever yellow fever has been notified under Article 6 and other relevant articles in this regard of IHR (2005). The Government of India reserves the right to continue to regard an area as infected with yellow fever until there is definite evidence that yellow-fever infection has been completely eradicated from that area.
2. Yellow Fever disease will be treated as disease of Public health emergency of international concern and all health measures being applied presently like disinsection of conveyance, vaccination requirements and quarantine of passengers and crew (as may be required) (as per Article 7, 9.2(b), 42 and relevant annexures) will be continued as has been stipulated under Annex-II of IHR-1969 (Revised in 1983).

Turkije

14-12-2006

Turkey will implement the provisions of the International Health Regulations in accordance with the Convention regarding the regime of the Turkish Straits, signed at Montreux on 20 July 1936, as well as by taking into account Turkish 1998 Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits and any future revisions to be made thereto.

Bezwaar Griekenland, 24-01-2007

[…] the correct title of the Montreux Convention regarding the regime of the straights of the Dardanelles, the Marmara sea and the Bosporus is: “The Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straights signed at Montreux on July 20th, 1936”. Furthermore, concerning the reference […] to the maritime traffic regulations unilaterally adopted in Turkey in 1998, […] they are in contravention to the provisions of the International Law of the Sea, the Montreux Convention and the relevant rules and Recommendations of the International Maritime Organization adopted on June 1st, 1994.

01-03-2007

[…] referring to the Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Greece dated 24 January 2007: The Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits have been put into effect taking into account Turkey's obligations and rights arising from the Montreux Convention. The said Regulations do not contain any element that is in contravention of international law or International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Rules and Recommendations and are being implemented accordingly. The measures taken in the Turkish Straits in accordance with the said Regulations are aimed at improving the safety of navigation, human life, cultural and environmental heritage. Moreover, the safety measures are needed vis-à-vis the risks and dangers of passage of the increased number of tanker traffic in the Straits. Turkey has duly informed IMO of the safety measures taken in the Straits. Besides, Traffic Separation Schemes and Reporting System, established within the framework of the Turkish Straits Regulations, were adopted by IMO together with some other rules in 1995. Furthermore, the Maritime Safety Committee of the IMO confirmed at its 71st session on May 1999 that the routing system and the associated IMO Rules and Recommendations relating to the Turkish Straits have proven to be effective and successful and had contributed significantly to an increase in safety and a reduction of the risk of collisions. The Turkish Straits Vessel Traffic Services which have been functioning since 31 December 2003 within the framework of the Montreux Convention, IMO Rules and the Turkish Straits Regulations, provide traffic arrangements successfully with high standard technical equipment and qualified expert personnel. Accordingly, the arguments in the above-mentioned Note of the Permanent Mission of Greece are unfounded and the statement of Turkey registered in our Note dated 14 December 2006 […] remains unchanged and valid.

Bezwaar Griekenland, 16-04-2007

A. Firstly, it should be noted that there is no substantive link between the content of the Turkish statement [dated 14th December 2006] and the new International Health Regulations. In fact, the Turkish statement seeks to elicit tacit acceptance or recognition of the national regulations, adopted by Turkey, concerning maritime traffic through the Straits. However, these regulations were adopted unilaterally and were not approved by the International Maritime Organization or the parties of the Montreux Convention of 1936 which governs Concerning its precise content, the statement goes on to assert that Turkey rightly points out that as far as the implementation of the new International Health Regulations for maritime traffic in the Straits is concerned, this should be done in accordance with the provisions of the Montreux Convention of 1936 regarding the regime of the Straits. It is, however, self-evident that the new Health Regulations do not influence the existing international regime of navigation through the Straits, neither could they do so, as there is no connection of substance between them. The Turkish statement goes on to assert that the Turkish Maritime Traffic Regulations of 1998 will also be taken into account. This means that the Turkish Authorities will enforce the International Health Regulations subject to certain ill-defined national modifications, which are in fact themselves in contravention of the international obligations Turkey has undertaken under the Montreux Convention. Furthermore, the Turkish Authorities reserve the right to also take into account any further revision of their national traffic regulations, to be adopted in the same unilateral way in the future. In fact, this would seem simply that, in so far as the Straits are concerned, Turkey may implement the new International Heath Regulations as it sees fit. The reference, therefore, to national legislation and to any future revisions of this legislation, while irrelevant to the subject at hand, is nonetheless problematic because it seeks to subject international conventional obligations to national rules and regulations.
B. Furthermore, the Turkish Regulations concerning traffic in the Straits are themselves not in conformity with: The 1936 Montreux Convention: this Convention enshrines full freedom of navigation (articles 1 and 2) through the Straits without any restrictions whatsoever (apart from sanitary control) and without any formalities, irrespective of the kind of cargo or the timing of the transit. Thus, the Turkish Regulations by, amongst other things, imposing a compulsory reporting system (Reg. 6, 25 and al.) and, particularly, by providing for the possibility of the total suspension of traffic (Reg.20) are incompatible with the Montreux Convention. The IMO Rules and Regulations: Paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 foresee that only in the case where a vessel is unable to comply with the Traffic Separation Scheme do the Turkish Authorities have the right to temporarily suspend two-way traffic and to regulate the resulting one way traffic. The IMO Rules and Regulations on no account foresee a total suspension of traffic in the Straits. The Turkish Regulations, on the other hand, provide for the possibility to completely suspend traffic in general for a wide variety of reasons. The international law of the sea regarding navigation through international straits: such law encourages cooperation in order to ensure the safe transit of vessels through the Straits and in order to protect the environment. The Turkish Regulations, however, were adopted unilaterally, in contravention of the law of the sea and the relevant law of treaties.
C. As to the Turkish Note dated 1st March 2007 […], the information contained therein is inaccurate on several points. More specifically, the said Turkish Note states: - that the Turkish Regulations “have been put into effect taking into account Turkey's obligations and rights arising from the Montreux Convention”, whereas the latter contains and rights arising from the Montreux Convention”, whereas the latter contains no provision which authorizes Turkey to unilaterally issue traffic regulations. - that Turkey “informed IMO of the safety measures taken in the Straits”, whereas Turkey has consistently refused to officially submit its national regulations to IMO for discussion and examination, alleging that it is a matter of exclusive Turkish jurisdiction. - that “...Traffic Separation Schemes and Reporting System... were adopted by IMO together with some other rules in 1995”, whereas only Traffic Separation Schemes were adopted by that Organization, together with the relevant IMO Rules and Recommendations. The Reporting System included in the Turkish Regulations was never adopted by IMO. - that “...the maritime Safety Committee of the IMO confirmed at its 71st session that the routing system and the associated IMO Rules and Recommendations… had contributed significantly to an increase in safety ...” in an attempt to create the impression that the IMO is referring to the Turkish Regulations, whereas it is only referring to the measures adopted within the IMO itself. In the light of the above, Greece considers the statement made by Turkey in its Note Verbale […] dated 14th December 2006 as irrelevant to the International Health Regulations, thus having no legal effect as to the latter's implementation. Furthermore, Greece reiterates the point made in her Note Verbale […] dated 24 January 2007 as to the importance of using the correct terminology when referring to international instruments such as the Montreux Convention.

18-05-2007

[…] the statement in this Mission's Note of December 14, 2006 […] was a factual representation of the state of affairs. Furthermore, the Permanent Mission would like to point out that the arguments and assertions raised in the Greek Delegation's above-mentioned Note are unfounded. Turkey's position on the Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits is also acknowledged by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and remains unchanged. In fact, Turkish Straits Vessel Traffic Services (TSVTS) center is effectively providing traffic information, navigational assistance and traffic organization under the existing regulations to all vessels passing through the Straits. As to the terminology used when referring to the Montreux Convention, the Permanent Mission, with all due respect to the wording of the said Convention, would like to emphasize the fact that the Straits subject of the said Convention are the "Turkish Straits", namely, the "Strait of İstanbul" and the "Strait of Çanakkale".

Verenigde Staten van Amerika

17-01-2007

The Mission, by means of this note, informs the Acting Director-General of the World Health Organization that the Government of the United States of America accepts the IHRs, subject to the reservation and understandings referred to below.
The Mission, by means of this note, and in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization and Article 59(1) of the IHRs, submits the following reservation on behalf of the Government of the United States of America:
The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to assume obligations under these Regulations in a manner consistent with its fundamental principles of federalism. With respect to obligations concerning the development, strengthening, and maintenance of the core capacity requirements set forth in Annex 1, these Regulations shall be implemented by the Federal Government or the state governments, as appropriate and in accordance with our Constitution, to the extent that the implementation of these obligations comes under the legal jurisdiction of the Federal Government. To the extent that such obligations come under the legal jurisdiction of the state governments, the Federal Government shall bring such obligations with a favorable recommendation to the notice of the appropriate state authorities.
The Mission, by means of this note, also submits three understandings on behalf of the Government of the United States of America. The first understanding relates to the application of the IHRs to incidents involving natural, accidental or deliberate release of chemical, biological or radiological materials:
In view of the definitions of “disease,” “event,” and “public health emergency of international concern” as set forth in Article 1 of these Regulations, the notification requirements of Articles 6 and 7, and the decision instrument and guidelines set forth in Annex 2, the United States understands that States Parties to these Regulations have assumed an obligation to notify to WHO potential public health emergencies of international concern, irrespective of origin or source, whether they involve the natural, accidental or deliberate release of biological, chemical or radionuclear materials.
The second understanding relates to the application of Article 9 of the IHRs:
Article 9 of these Regulations obligates a State Party “as far as practicable” to notify the World Health Organization (WHO) of evidence received by that State of a public health risk occurring outside of its territory that may result in the international spread of disease. Among other notifications that could prove to be impractical under this article, it is the United States' understanding that any notification that would undermine the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to operate effectively in pursuit of U.S. national security interests would not be considered practical for purposes of this Article.
The third understanding relates to the question of whether the IHRs create judicially enforceable private rights. Based on its delegation's participation in the negotiations of the IHRs, the Government of the United States of America does not believe that the IHRs were intended to create judicially enforceable private rights:
The United States understands that the provisions of the Regulations do not create judicially enforceable private rights.

Bezwaar Iran, 15-06-2007

[...] presents its compliments to the World Health Organization and with reference to note verbale No. C.L.2.2007 dated 17 January 2007 concerning the Reservation and Understandings of the Government of the United States of America on the International Health Regulations (IHR), has the honor to convey the official objection of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the same Reservation and Understandings, based on the following:
According to the IHR, while “States may make reservations to these Regulations”, “such reservations shall not be incompatible with the object and purpose of these regulations”. Furthermore, in accordance with the IHR, “the implementation of these Regulations shall be guided by the goal of their universal application for the protection of all people of the world from the international spread of disease”.
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran believes that, by giving more prominence to federalism than its obligations under the IHR, the reserving Government attempts to evade its due responsibilities and obligations. The aforementioned Government, by adopting a selective approach, provides its states with the option of exempting themselves from full compliance with the provisions of the IHR. Since implementation of the IHR largely depends on the development, strengthening and maintenance of the core capacity requirements set forth in Annex 1, reservation of such a general nature leads to undermining the IHR foundations as well as its integrity and universal applicability. Such reservation is considered to be incompatible with the object and purpose of these Regulations and is, therefore, unacceptable.
Moreover, the understandings and interpretations assumed by a government, too, should not affect the obligations to be undertaken by that government and must not be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Regulations.
As regards to the first Understanding of the reserving Government, it must be recalled that the majority of W.H.O. Member States participating in the IHR negotiations, categorically rejected the inclusion of the related interpretation within the provisions of the IHR. Their rejections were prompted to avoid confusion over respective obligations of the State Parties under the IHR and to preempt overlapping of the competencies and duplication of work among the relevant intergovernmental organizations or international bodies. Article 6.1 and 14.2 of the IHR address such concerns.
The second Understanding attempts to dilute the obligations of the U.S. Government under the IHR. It is an attempt to place national interests above the treaty obligations by excluding the U.S. Armed Forces from the IHR bindings. The universal applicability of the IHR for the protection of all peoples of the world from the international spread of diseases leaves no room for exempting the American Armed Forces, in particular those operating abroad. Such an exemption could not be conceded to, taking into account the nature, direction and possible public health consequences of the U.S. Armed Forces operations. It should be recalled that during IHR negotiations, the majority of W.H.O. Member States strongly rejected the above exclusion proposed by the U.S. Government. It is, therefore, in violation of the U.S. obligations under the IHR and is incompatible with the object and purpose of these regulations, to which the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran strongly objects.
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it does not consider the Reservation and the two Understandings stated by the U.S. Government, as legally binding.