Print
Download XMLConvention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation
Parties with reservations, declarations and objections
| Party | Reservations / Declarations | Objections |
|---|---|---|
| Algeria | Yes | No |
| Andorra | Yes | No |
| Bahrain | Yes | No |
| Belarus | Yes | No |
| Brazil | Yes | No |
| Cameroon | Yes | No |
| China | Yes | No |
| Cook Islands | Yes | No |
| Croatia | Yes | No |
| Egypt | Yes | No |
| Ethiopia | Yes | No |
| France | Yes | No |
| Guatemala | Yes | No |
| Honduras | Yes | No |
| India | Yes | No |
| Indonesia | Yes | No |
| Kuwait | Yes | Yes |
| Malawi | Yes | No |
| Mongolia | Yes | No |
| Morocco | Yes | No |
| Mozambique | Yes | No |
| Oman | Yes | Yes |
| Papua New Guinea | Yes | No |
| Qatar | Yes | No |
| Romania | Yes | No |
| Russian Federation | Yes | No |
| Saudi Arabia | Yes | No |
| South Africa | Yes | No |
| Syria | Yes | No |
| Tunisia | Yes | No |
| Ukraine | Yes | No |
| United Arab Emirates | Yes | Yes |
| Venezuela | Yes | Yes |
Algeria
06-10-1995
Algeria acceded to the Convention with a declaration under Article 14, paragraph 2
of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article
14.
Andorra
30-06-2006
At the time of accession to this Convention and the Protocol (of 1988) thereto, Andorra, while possessing heliports and various helisites, does not have any airports or aerodromes within its territory or any aircraft registered in the country.
Bahrain
20-02-1984
Bahrain does not consider itself bound by Article 14(1) of the Convention.
Belarus
31-01-1973
The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions
of paragraph 1 of Article 14 providing for the reference of disputes concerning the
interpretation or application of the Convention to arbitration or to the International
Court at the request of one of the parties.
Brazil
24-07-1972
Subject to reservation provided for in Article 14(2).
Cameroon
11-07-1973
In accordance with the provisions of the Convention of September 23, 1971, for the
Suppression of Unlawful Acts directed against the Security of Civil Aviation, the
Government of the United Republic of Cameroon declares that in view of the fact that
it does not have any relations with South Africa and Portugal, it has no obligation
towards these two countries with regard to the implementation of the stipulations
of the Convention.
06-12-1977
[…] that the Government of the United Republic of Cameroon “having established Diplomatic
relations with Portugal, on the 12th of February, 1977, has decided to withdraw, as
from that date, the declaration it made against Portugal […]” upon deposit of its
instrument of accession to the Convention. The Embassy further states “that the position
of Cameroon against South Africa, in the same context still stands.”
China
10-09-1980
[…] the Chinese Government will not be bound by Paragraph 1, Article 14 of the Montreal
Convention […]. At the same time, the Chinese Government declares illegal and null
and void the signature and ratification of the […][Convention] by the Taiwan authorities
in the name of China.
03-06-1997
The Convention for the Suppression of [Unlawful] Acts Against the Safety of Civil
Aviation done on 23 September 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention”) to
which the Government of the People’s Republic of China deposited its instrument of
accession on 10 September 1980, will apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region with effect from 1 July 1997. The Government of the People’s Republic of China
also makes the following declaration:
The reservation to Paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the said Convention made by the People’s
Republic of China when it deposited its instrument of accession on 10 September 1980
will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
29-11-1999
The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation,
done at Montreal on 23 September 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention”),
to which the Government of the People’s Republic of China deposited the instrument
of accession on 10 September 1980, will apply to the Macao Special Administrative
Region with effect from 20 December 1999. The Government of the People’s Republic
of China also wishes to make the following declaration:
The reservation made by the Government of the People’s Republic of China to Paragraph
1 of Article 14 of the Convention will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative
Region.
Cook Islands
14-04-2005
The Government of New Zealand is responsible for the External Relations of the Cook Islands.
Croatia
08-10-1991
Croatia deposited an instrument of ratification on 8 juni 1993, with a declaration
under Article 1, paragrah 2 of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound
by paragraph 1 of Article 14.
Egypt
20-05-1975
Egypt signed the Convention at London November 24, 1972 and ratified the Convention
at Washington with a declaration under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Convention that
it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 14.
Ethiopia
11-01-1979
Reservation on accession in respect of Article 14(1).
France
30-06-1976
France does not consider itself bound by Article 14, paragraphe 1, of the Convention.
Guatemala
19-10-1978
Guatemala ratified the Convention with a declaration under Article 14, paragraph 2
of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article
14.
Honduras
13-04-1987
Honduras acceded to the Convention with a declaration under Article 14, paragraph
2 of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article
14.
India
12-11-1982
India ratified the Convention with a declaration under Article 14, paragraph 2 of
the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 14.
Indonesia
27-08-1976
Indonesia acceded to the Convention with a declaration under Article 14, paragraph
2 of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article
14.
Kuwait
09-04-1979
It is understood that Accession to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation done at Montreal 1971, does not mean in
any way recognition of Israel by the State of Kuwait. Furthermore, no treaty relation
will arise between the State of Kuwait and
Israel.
Objection Israel, 26-06-1980
The Government of Israel takes note that an instrument of accession to the Convention
for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at
Montreal on 23 September 1971, was deposited with the Secretary of State by the Government
of Kuwait.
The instrument deposited by the Government of Kuwait contains a statement of a political
character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel, this is not
the proper place for making such political pronouncements which are, moreover, in
flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the Convention.
That pronouncement by the Government of Kuwait cannot in any way affect whatever obligations
under particular treaties.
The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt
towards the Government of Kuwait an attitude of complete reciprocity.
Malawi
21-12-1972
Malawi acceded to the Convention with a declaration under Article 14, paragraph 2
of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article
14.
Mongolia
05-09-1972
Mongolia signed and ratified the Convention with a declaration under Article 14, paragraph
2 of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article
14.
Morocco
24-10-1975
In case of a dispute, all recourse must be made to the International Court of Justice
on the basis of the unanimous consent of the parties concerned.
Mozambique
16-01-2003
Mozambique acceded to the Convention with a declaration under Article 14, paragraph
2 of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article
14.
Oman
02-02-1977
1. that the accession of the said Convention by the Government of the Sultanate of
Oman does not mean or imply, and shall not be interpreted as recognition of Israel
generally or in the context of this Convention; and
2. that the Government of the Sultanate of Oman does not consider itself bound by
Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Objection Israel, 11-01-1979
The Government of Israel takes note that an instrument of accession to the Convention
for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at
Montreal on 23 September 1971, was deposited with the Secretary of State by the Government
of the Sultanate of Oman.
The instrument deposited by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman contains a statement
of a political character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel,
this is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements which are, moreover,
in flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the Convention.
That pronouncement by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman cannot in any way affect
whatever obligations are binding upon Oman under general international law or under
particular treaties.
The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt
towards the Government of the Sultanate of Oman an attitude of complete reciprocity.
Papua New Guinea
04-12-1975
In succeeding to this Convention, Papua New Guinea hereby exercises its right under
Article 14(2) of the Convention to declare it does not consider itself bound by Article
14(1).
Qatar
26-08-1981
Qatar acceded to the Convention with a declaration under Article 14, paragraph 2 of
the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 14.
Romania
15-08-1975
[The Socialist Republic of] Romania declares that it does not consider itself bound
by the provisions of Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention for the Suppression
of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. The position of [the Socialist
Republic of] Romania is that any
disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention may be submitted
to the International Court of Justice only with the agreement of all the parties to
the dispute in each individual case.
In addition the Government of [the Socialist Republic of] Romania declared on signature
[red. 23-09-1971] that they considered "null and void the signing at Montreal of the
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation
by the so-called Chiang-Kai-Shek authorities, as the only Government entitled to assume
obligations on behalf of China and to represent it on the international plane is the
Government of the People's Republic of China.
Russian Federation
19-02-1973
The Government of the [Union of Soviet Socialist Republics] does not consider itself
bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 14 providing for disputes concerning
the interpretation or application of the Convention to be referred to arbitration
or to the International Court at the request of one of the parties to the dispute.
Saudi Arabia
14-06-1974
Saudi Arabia acceded to the Convention with a declaration under Article 14, paragraph
2 of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article
14. The instrument of accession by Saudi Arabia contains a statement, an English translation
of which reads as follows: the accession of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the said
Convention does not mean or imply, and shall not be interpreted as, recognition of
Israel generally or in the context of this Convention.
South Africa
30-05-1972
South Africa ratified the Convention with a declaration under Article 14, paragraph
2 of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article
14.
Syria
10-07-1980
Syria acceded to the Convention with a declaration under Article 14, paragraph 2 of
the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 14.
Tunisia
16-11-1981
Tunisia acceded to the Convention with a declaration under Article 14, paragraph 2
of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article
14.
Ukraine
26-01-1973
The former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic signed the Convention with a declaration
under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Convention that it does not consider itself bound
by paragraph 1 of Article 14.
15-10-2015
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine presents its compliments to Governments
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of
America and the Russian Federation, as the Depositaries of the Convention for the
Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft of 16 December 1970 and the Convention
for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation of 23 September
1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Conventions”)and has the honour to inform of
the following.
In February 2014 the Russian Federation launched armed aggression against Ukraine
and occupied a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
and the city of Sevastopol, and today exercises effective control over certain districts
of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine. These actions are in gross violation
of the Charter of the United Nations and constitute a threat to international peace
and security. The Russian Federation, as the Aggressor State and Occupying Power,
bears full responsibility for its actions and their consequences under international
law.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/68/262 of 27 March 2014 confirmed
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized
borders. The United Nations also called upon all States, international organizations
and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.
In this regard, Ukraine states that from 20 February 2014 and for the period of temporary
occupation by the Russian Federation of a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol – as a result of the armed aggression
of the Russian Federation committed against Ukraine and until the complete restoration
of the constitutional law and order and effective control by Ukraine over such occupied
territory, as well as over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of
Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine as a result of the aggression
of the Russian Federation, the application and implementation by Ukraine of the obligations
under the above Conventions, as applied to the aforementioned occupied and uncontrolled
territory of Ukraine, is limited and is not guaranteed.
Documents or requests made or issued by the occupying authorities of the Russian Federation,
its officials at any level in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol
and by the illegal authorities in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts
of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine, are null and void
and have no legal effect regardless of whether they are presented directly or indirectly
through the authorities of the Russian Federation.
The provisions of the Conventions regarding the possibility of direct communication
or interaction do not apply to the territorial organs of Ukraine in the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, as well as in certain districts of
the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control
of Ukraine. The procedure of the relevant communication is determined by the central
authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv.
Therefore, the Ukrainian Side would be grateful if the Governments of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and the Russian
Federation, as the Depositaries of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft of 16 December 1970 and the Convention for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation of 23 September 1971, would circulate
this notification on the specifics of the territorial application and implementation
of the above Conventions in Ukraine among all the Contracting States to those Conventions.
United Arab Emirates
10-04-1981
In accepting the said Convention, the Government of the United Arab Emirates takes
the view that its acceptance of the said Convention does not in any way imply its
recognition of Israel, nor does it oblige it to apply the provisions of the Convention
in respect of the said Country.
Objection Israel, 05-01-1982
The Government of Israel takes note that an instrument of accession to the Convention
for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at
Montreal on 23 September 1971, was received from the Government of the United Arab
Emirates and placed in the archives of Her Majesty’s Government on 14 April 1981.
The instrument deposited by the Government of the United Arab Emirates contains a
statement of a political character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government
of Israel, this is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements which
are, moreover, in flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of
the Convention. This statement by the Government of the United Arab Emirates cannot,
in any way, affect whatever obligations are binding upon the United Arab Emirates
under general international law or under particular conventions.
The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt
towards the Government of the United Arab Emirates an attitude of complete reciprocity.
Venezuela
21-11-1983
Venezuela will take into consideration clearly political motives and the circumstances
under which offenses described in Article 1 of this Convention are committed, in refusing
to extradite or prosecute an offender, unless financial extortion or injury to the
crew, passengers, or other persons has occurred.
Objection United Kingdom, 06-08-1985
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland do not regard as valid the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Venezuela insofar as it purports to limit the obligation under Article 7 of the Convention to submit the case against an offender to the competent authorities of the State for the purpose of prosecution.
Objection Italy, 21-11-1985
The Government of Italy does not consider as valid the reservation formulated by the Government of the Republic of Venezuela due to the fact that it may be considered as aiming to limit the obligation under Article 7 of the Convention to submit the case against an offender to the competent authorities of the State for the purpose of prosecution.
21-11-1985
In reference to the notification made by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland regarding the reservation made by the Government of the
Republic of Venezuela as not valid, the Embassy of Venezuela would like to inform
the following:
“The reserve made by the Government of Venezuela to Articles 4, 7 and 8 of the Convention
is based on the fact that the principle of asylum is contemplated in Article 116 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Venezuela. Article 116 reads:
‘The Republic grants asylum to any person subject to persecution or which finds itself
in danger, for political reasons, within the conditions and requirements established
by the laws and norms of international law’.
“It is for this reason that the Government of Venezuela considers that in order to
protect this right, which would be diminished by the application without limits of
the said articles, it was necessary to request the formulation of the declaration
contemplated in Art. 2 of the Law approving the Convention for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts Against the Security of Civil Aviation.