Print
Download XMLProtocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-international Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)
Parties with reservations, declarations and objections
| Party | Reservations / Declarations | Objections |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | Yes | No |
| Austria | Yes | No |
| Canada | Yes | No |
| China | Yes | No |
| Egypt | Yes | No |
| France | Yes | No |
| Germany | Yes | No |
| Holy See | Yes | No |
| Ireland | Yes | No |
| Liechtenstein | Yes | No |
| Malta | Yes | No |
| Namibia | Yes | No |
| New Zealand | Yes | No |
| Oman | Yes | No |
| Portugal | Yes | No |
| Russian Federation | Yes | No |
| United Arab Emirates | Yes | No |
| United Kingdom | Yes | Yes |
Argentina
26-11-1986
With reference to Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of
12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed
Conflicts (Protocol II), taking its context into account, the Argentine Republic considers
that the term "organized armed groups" which is used in Article 1 of the said Protocol
is not to be understood as equivalent to that used in Article 43, Protocol I, to define
the concept of armed forces, even if the aforementioned groups meet all the requirements
set forth in the said Article 43.
Austria
13-08-1982
Article 6, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (e) of Protocol II will be applied insofar as
it is not incompatible with legislation providing that any defendant, who causes a
disturbance at the trial or whose presence is likely to impede the questioning of
another defendant or the hearing of a witness or expert witness, may be removed from
the courtroom.
Canada
20-11-1990
Statement of understanding
The Government of Canada understands that the undefined terms used in Additional Protocol
II which are defined in Additional Protocol I shall, so far as relevant, be construed
in the same sense as those definitions.
The understandings expressed by the Government of Canada with respect to Additional
Protocol I shall, as far as relevant, be applicable to the comparable terms and provisions
contained in Additional Protocol II.
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".
China
14-04-1999
The Government of the People's Republic of China hereby confirms that the four Geneva
Conventions of 1949 and the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II apply to the Hong Kong
Specials Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (HKSAR) with effect
from 1 July 1997, as they apply to the whole territory of the People's Republic of
China.
31-05-2000
.... a declaration on the applicability of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949
and the Additional Protocols I and II to the Special Administrative Region of Macao.
Pursuant to this declaration, the Conventions and Protocols are applicable to the
Special Administrative Region of Macao from 20 December 1999.
Egypt
09-10-1992
The Arab Republic of Egypt, in ratifying Protocols I and II of 1977 additional to
the Geneva Conventions of 1949, wishes to express its conviction that the provisions
of Additional Protocols I and II represent the minimum level of legal and actual protection
that must be afforded to persons and civilian and cultural objects in armed conflict.
On the basis of its strong conviction of the principles of the great Islamic Sharia,
the Arab Republic of Egypt wishes at the same time to emphasize that it is the duties
of all nations alike to refrain from the involvement of innocent civilians in armed
conflict; furthermore they should make all efforts, to the maximum extent possible,
to that end as this is indispensable for the survival of humanity and the cultural
heritage and civilization of all countries and nations.
The Arab Republic of Egypt, while declaring its commitment to respecting all the provisions
of Additional Protocols I and II, wishes to emphasize, on the basis of reciprocity,
that it upholds the right to react against any violation by any party of the obligations
imposed by Additional Protocols I and II with all means admissible under international
law in order to prevent any further violation. In this context it wishes to assert
that military commanders planning or executing attacks make their decisions on the
basis of their assessment of all kinds of information available to them at the time
of the military operations.
NOTIFICATION
The Arab Republic of Egypt, while welcoming the adoption by the Diplomatic Conference
in June 1977 of Protocols I and II additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 in
six languages, including the Arabic language, notes that all original texts are certified
and equally authentic with no prevalence of one single language over the other.
However, on comparison of the original Arabic text of Additional Protocols I and II
with the other original texts, it became evident that in some respects the Arabic
text does not fully correspond to the other original texts to the extent that it is
at variance in terms of both expression and substance with some of the provisions
of Additional Protocols I and II adopted by States in the field of international law
and human relations.
Hence the Arab Republic of Egypt, on the occasion of the deposit of its instrument
of ratification of Protocols I and II additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949
with the depositary, the Swiss Federal Council, wishes to declare that in that respect
it shall adopt the meaning which best concurs with the original texts of Additional
Protocols I and II.
France
24-02-1984
On depositing France's instrument of accession to Protocol II of 8 June 1977 to the
Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, I have the honour to specify that it is not
the intention of the French Republic to accede to Protocol I of the same date to the
said Conventions. This decision has been taken for the reasons mentioned by the representative
of France during the fourth session of the Geneva Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation
and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts and,
more particularly, in view of the lack of consensus among the States signatory to
Protocol I with regard to the precise extent of the obligations incurred by them in
the matter of deterrence.
Germany
14-02-1991
[...] and Article 6, paragraph 2, subparagraph (e) of Additional Protocol II will
be applied in such manner that it is for the court to decide whether an accused person
held in custody must appear in person at the hearing before the court of review.
[...]
Holy See
21-11-1985
By ratifying the two Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
relating to the Protection of Victims of International (Protocol I) and Non-International
(Protocol II) Armed Conflicts and adopted in Geneva on 8 June 1977, the Holy See wishes,
first of all, to acknowledge the merits and the positive results obtained by the "Diplomatic
Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law
Applicable in Armed Conflicts", in which it played an active part.
The Holy See believes that, from an overall historical and legal point of view, the
two Protocols represent and confirm a significant advance in humanitarian law applicable
in armed conflicts, an advance that deserves approval and support.
At the same time, with regard to the provisions of the above-mentioned legal texts,
the Holy See wishes to remind the Secretariat of the Conference of the considerations
that were made known by its delegation at the end of the session. It is a source of
great pleasure to recognize the value of provisions which, in certain sectors, increase
the scope of humanitarian law, as for example: the protection of the civilian population,
especially of women and children; the protection afforded to cultural objects and
places of worship which are evidence and signs of the spiritual heritage of nations;
the protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population;
the respect and protection of medical and religious personnel; the ban on retaliation.
On the other hand, in the opinion of the Holy See, other provisions are less satisfactory
in substance or are not very well formulated. Furthermore, uncertainties and omissions
were found on important issues in relation to the development of humanitarian standards.
With regard to Protocol II in particular, the Holy See regrets that, after having
been stripped of a large part of its humanitarian substance by the plenary Assembly
of the Conference, the Protocol has become the instrument of a rigorous legal system
both in its text and in its spirit. Although the Holy See signed the Protocol, with
serious reservations, and although it is now ratifying it, it is mainly because it
looks upon the Protocol as an open door to future developments of humanitarian law
in a crucial and, until now, much neglected sector.
The Holy See also announces that it has taken note of the reservations and declarations
formulated by some States that have deposited an instrument of ratification or of
adhesion to the Protocols.
Finally, the Holy See reasserts, on this occasion, its strong conviction as to the
fundamentally inhumane nature of war. The humanization of the effects of armed conflicts,
such as that undertaken by the two Protocols, is received with favour and encouraged
by the Holy See in so far as it aims to alleviate human suffering and strives, amid
unbridled passions and evil forces, to safeguard the basic principles of humanity
and the supreme benefits of civilization. The Holy See expresses, moreover, its firm
belief that the ultimate goal, that which is worthy of the calling of man and of human
civilization, is the abolition of war. One cannot help thinking that the measures
embodied in the Geneva Conventions and more recently by the two Additional Protocols
- measures which are already in themselves frail instruments for the protection of
victims of conventional armed conflicts - would prove to be not only insufficient
but totally inadequate in the face of the ruinous devastation of a nuclear war.
The Holy See, considering itself the spokesman for the fears and the hopes of nations,
hopes that the encouraging start made in Geneva by the codification of humanitarian
law in armed conflicts may not go unheeded or remain a purely formal commitment but
that people may become aware of it, put it into practice and follow it to its final
conclusion: the abolition of war, of any kind whatever.
Ireland
19-05-1999
1. Ireland, in ratifying Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949
adopted at Geneva on 8 June 1977, declares its belief that the provisions of this
Protocol represent the minimum level of legal and actual protection bound to be afforded
to persons and civilian and cultural objects in armed conflicts.
2. Article 6 paragraph 2(e)
Article 6 will be applied in Ireland insofar as paragraph 2(e) is not incompatible
with the power enabling a judge, in exceptional circumstances, to order the removal
of an accused from the court who causes a disturbance at the trial.
Liechtenstein
10-08-1989
Article 6, paragraph 2(e), of Protocol II will be implemented provided that it is
not incompatible with legislation under which any accused who causes a disturbance
in court or whose presence could impede the questioning of another accused or of a
witness or expert may be excluded from the court room.
Malta
17-04-1989
[...]
2. Article 6, paragraph 2(e), of Protocol II will be implemented provided that it
is not incompatible with legislation under which any accused who causes a disturbance
in court or whose presence could impede the questioning of another accused or of a
witness or expert may be excluded from the court room.
Namibia
17-06-1994
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs wishes to inform that the Protocols are binding on
Namibia, in accordance with Article 143 of the Namibian Constitution, which provides
that "All existing international agreements binding upon Namibia shall remain in force,
unless and until the National Assembly acting under Article 63(2)(d) hereof otherwise
decides.
New Zealand
08-02-1988
The Government of New Zealand declares that this ratification shall not extend to
the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau.
Oman
29-03-1984
While deposing these instruments, the Government of the Sultanate of Oman declares
that these accessions shall in no way amount to recognition of nor the establishment
of any relations with Israel with respect to the application of the provisions of
the said protocols.
Portugal
22-11-1999
.... the Portuguese Republic ceased to assume the rights and obligations arising from
the Conventions and Protocols for Macao on 20 December 1999.
Russian Federation
29-09-1989
The Soviet Union's ratification of the Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions
for the protection of the victims of war constitutes an unusual event in the recent
diplomatic history of our country.
It reflects the spirit of new political thinking and demonstrates the Soviet State's
commitment to humanizing international affairs and strengthening the system of international
law.
At the same time, it exemplifies the spirit of continuity between Russian and Soviet
diplomacy, extending back to the 1860s, in seeking to ensure that the principles of
humanism and mercy are respected even in the tragic circumstances of war.
The Additional Protocols, in whose drafting the Soviet Union played a universally
recognized role, were among the first international instruments presented for ratification
to the new Soviet Parliament.
It should be pointed out that the Supreme Soviet of the USSR chose to ratify the Protocols
without any reservation whatsoever. At the same time, our State recognized the competence
of the International Fact-Finding Commission in cases where international humanitarian
law is violated.
We in the Soviet Union hope that the ratification of the Additional Protocols will
be duly appreciated by all those involved in the noble cause of humanism and the endeavour
to free mankind from the horrors of war.
United Arab Emirates
09-03-1983
On accepting the said protocol, the Government of the United Arab Emirates takes the
view that its acceptance of the said protocol does not, in any way, imply its recognition
of Israel, nor does it oblige to apply the provisions of the protocol in respect of
the said country.
The Government of the United Arab Emirates wishes further to indicate that its understanding
described above in conformity with general practice existing in the United Arab Emirates
regarding signature, ratification, accession or acceptance of international conventions,
treaties or protocols, of which a country not recognized by the United Arab Emirates
is a party.
United Kingdom
02-07-2002
Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy has the honour to declare, on behalf of the Government
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("the UK Government"),
that its ratification of the Additional Protocols shall be extended to the following
territories for whose international relations it is responsible:
Anguilla; Bermuda; British Antarctic Territory; British Indian Ocean Territory; British
Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; Falkland Islands; Montserrat; Pitcairn, Henderson,
Ducie and Oeno Islands; St Helena and Dependencies; South Georgia and the South Sandwich
Islands; Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia; Turks and Caicos Islands.
Objection Argentina, 11-12-2002
[...] The Argentine Republic rejects the British claim to extend the application
of the indicated Protocols to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich
Islands, [...].
The Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, adopted at Geneva
on 8 June 1977 apply 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 said Protocols by the Argentine government on 26 November
1996 and the acceptance of the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission
announced on 11 October 1966.
In relation to the Falkland Islands, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolutions
2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25,
in which there is a dispute over sovereignty, and asked that the Argentine Republic
and the United Kingdom re-initiate negotiations with a view to find a peaceful and
definite solution to the dispute, with the mediation of the United Nations Secretary-General,
who will inform the General Assembly about any progress.
The Argentine Republic reaffirms its right to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands,
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the surrounding maritime spaces.
[...]
Objection Mauritius, 27-06-2003
The Government of the Republic of Mauritius has the honour to declare that it objects
to the inclusion of the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory" in the list of
territories mentioned in the Declaration deposited by the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland with the Swiss Federal Council on 2 July 2002 concerning
the applicability of the Protocol I and II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of
12 August 1949, adopted at Geneva on 8 June 1977, and therefore rejects the said Declaration
in so far as it purports to extend the ratification by the UK Government of the said
Protocols to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory".
The Government of the Republic of Mauritius does not recognise the competence of the
British Government to adhere to any international instrument on behalf of the Chagos
Archipelago, which forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius.
The Government of the Republic of Mauritius wishes to reassert the unequivocal sovereignty
of Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.
Objection Mauritius, 10-01-2020
[...] has the honour to register its strong objection against the extension by the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the so-called "British Indian
Ocean Territory", of the Agreements listed at Annex and in respect of which the Government
of Switzerland 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 lndian
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".
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.
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 ... II extends to the Bailiwick
of Guernsey and the Isle of Man, in addition to the territories for whose international
relations the United Kingdom is responsible and to which these Protocols were extended
on 2 July 2002.
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.
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.