General information
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Kingdom part
Netherlands (in Europe)
- Entry into force: 09-05-1985
Netherlands (Bonaire)
- Entry into force: 10-10-2010
Netherlands (Sint Eustatius)
- Entry into force: 10-10-2010
Netherlands (Saba)
- Entry into force: 10-10-2010
Aruba
- Entry into force: 01-01-1986
Curaçao
- Entry into force: 10-10-2010
Sint Maarten
- Entry into force: 10-10-2010
Party
Afghanistan
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
23-05-1969
Afghanistan's understanding of article 62 (fundamental change of circumstances) is
as follows:
Sub-paragraph 2 (a) of this article does not cover unequal and illegal treaties, or
any treaties which were contrary to the principle of self-determination. This view
was also supported by the Expert Consultant in his statement of 11 May 1968 in the
Committee of the Whole and on 14 May 1969 (doc. A/CONF.39/L.40) to the Conference.
Albania
- Ratification: 27-06-2001 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-07-2001
Andorra
- Ratification: 05-04-2004 (A)
- Entry into force: 05-05-2004
Australia
- Ratification: 13-06-1974 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Austria
- Ratification: 30-04-1979 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Azerbaijan
- Ratification: 11-01-2018 (A)
- Entry into force: 10-02-2018
Barbados
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 24-06-1971 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Benin
- Ratification: 02-11-2017 (A)
- Entry into force: 02-12-2017
Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Ratification: 01-09-1993 (Su)
- Entry into force: 06-03-1992
Burkina Faso
- Ratification: 25-05-2006 (A)
- Entry into force: 24-06-2006
Cambodia
Cameroon
- Ratification: 23-10-1991 (A)
- Entry into force: 22-11-1991
Central African Republic
- Ratification: 10-12-1971 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
- Ratification: 12-10-1992 (Su)
- Entry into force: 08-10-1991
Cyprus
- Ratification: 28-12-1976 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Czech Republic
- Ratification: 22-02-1993 (Su)
- Entry into force: 01-01-1993
Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Ratification: 25-07-1977 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Dominican Republic
- Ratification: 01-04-2010 (A)
- Entry into force: 01-05-2010
El Salvador
Estonia
- Ratification: 21-10-1991 (A)
- Entry into force: 20-11-1991
Ethiopia
Gabon
- Ratification: 05-11-2004 (A)
- Entry into force: 05-12-2004
Georgia
- Ratification: 08-06-1995 (A)
- Entry into force: 08-07-1995
Ghana
Greece
- Ratification: 30-10-1974 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Guinea
- Ratification: 16-09-2005 (A)
- Entry into force: 16-10-2005
Guyana
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 15-09-2005 (R)
- Entry into force: 15-10-2005
Haïti
- Ratification: 25-08-1980 (A)
- Entry into force: 24-09-1980
Holy See
- Signature: 30-09-1969
- Ratification: 25-02-1977 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Honduras
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 20-09-1979 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Iran
Ireland
- Ratification: 07-08-2006 (A)
- Entry into force: 06-09-2006
Italy
- Signature: 22-04-1970
- Ratification: 25-07-1974 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Jamaica
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 28-07-1970 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Japan
- Ratification: 02-07-1981 (A)
- Entry into force: 01-08-1981
Kazakhstan
- Ratification: 05-01-1994 (A)
- Entry into force: 04-02-1994
Kenya
Kiribati
- Ratification: 15-09-2005 (A)
- Entry into force: 15-10-2005
Kyrgyzstan
- Ratification: 11-05-1999 (A)
- Entry into force: 10-06-1999
Laos
- Ratification: 31-03-1998 (A)
- Entry into force: 30-04-1998
Latvia
- Ratification: 04-05-1993 (A)
- Entry into force: 03-06-1993
Lesotho
- Ratification: 03-03-1972 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Liberia
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 29-08-1985 (R)
- Entry into force: 28-09-1985
Libya
- Ratification: 22-12-2008 (A)
- Entry into force: 21-01-2009
Liechtenstein
- Ratification: 08-02-1990 (A)
- Entry into force: 10-03-1990
Lithuania
- Ratification: 15-01-1992 (A)
- Entry into force: 14-02-1992
Luxembourg
- Signature: 04-09-1969
- Ratification: 23-05-2003 (R)
- Entry into force: 22-06-2003
Madagascar
Malawi
- Ratification: 23-08-1983 (A)
- Entry into force: 22-09-1983
Malaysia
- Ratification: 27-07-1994 (A)
- Entry into force: 26-08-1994
Maldives
- Ratification: 14-09-2005 (A)
- Entry into force: 14-10-2005
Mali
- Ratification: 31-08-1998 (A)
- Entry into force: 30-09-1998
Malta
- Ratification: 26-09-2012 (A)
- Entry into force: 26-10-2012
Mauritius
- Ratification: 18-01-1973 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Mexico
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 25-09-1974 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Moldova
- Ratification: 26-01-1993 (A)
- Entry into force: 25-02-1993
Montenegro
- Ratification: 23-10-2006 (Su)
- Entry into force: 03-06-2006
Mozambique
- Ratification: 08-05-2001 (A)
- Entry into force: 07-06-2001
Myanmar
- Ratification: 16-09-1998 (A)
- Entry into force: 16-10-1998
Nauru
- Ratification: 05-05-1978 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Nepal
Niger
- Ratification: 27-10-1971 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Nigeria
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 31-07-1969 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
North Macedonia
- Ratification: 08-07-1999 (Su)
- Entry into force: 17-11-1991
Pakistan
Panama
- Ratification: 28-07-1980 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-08-1980
Paraguay
- Ratification: 03-02-1972 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Philippines
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 15-11-1972 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Poland
- Ratification: 02-07-1990 (A)
- Entry into force: 01-08-1990
Republic of Korea, the
- Signature: 27-11-1969
- Ratification: 27-04-1977 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Republic of the Congo
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 12-04-1982 (R)
- Entry into force: 12-05-1982
Rwanda
- Ratification: 03-01-1980 (A)
- Entry into force: 02-02-1980
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- Ratification: 27-04-1999 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-05-1999
Senegal
- Ratification: 11-04-1986 (A)
- Entry into force: 11-05-1986
Serbia
- Ratification: 12-03-2001 (Su)
- Entry into force: 27-04-1992
Slovakia
- Ratification: 28-05-1993 (Su)
- Entry into force: 01-01-1993
Slovenia
- Ratification: 01-07-1992 (Su)
- Entry into force: 25-06-1991
Solomon Islands
- Ratification: 09-08-1989 (A)
- Entry into force: 08-09-1989
Spain
- Ratification: 16-05-1972 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Sudan
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 18-04-1990 (R)
- Entry into force: 18-05-1990
Suriname
- Ratification: 31-01-1991 (A)
- Entry into force: 02-03-1991
Sweden
- Signature: 23-04-1970
- Ratification: 04-02-1975 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Switzerland
- Ratification: 07-05-1990 (A)
- Entry into force: 06-06-1990
Tajikistan
- Ratification: 06-05-1996 (A)
- Entry into force: 05-06-1996
Timor-Leste
- Ratification: 08-01-2013 (A)
- Entry into force: 07-02-2013
Togo
- Ratification: 28-12-1979 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkmenistan
- Ratification: 04-01-1996 (A)
- Entry into force: 03-02-1996
United States of America
Uruguay
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 05-03-1982 (R)
- Entry into force: 04-04-1982
Uzbekistan
- Ratification: 12-07-1995 (A)
- Entry into force: 11-08-1995
Yugoslavia (< 25-06-1991)
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 27-08-1970 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
Zambia
Algeria
- Ratification: 08-11-1988 (A)
- Entry into force: 08-12-1988
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
08-11-1988
The accession of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria to the present Convention
does not in any way mean recognition of Israel.
This accession shall not be interpreted as involving the establishment of relations
of any kind whatever with Israel.
The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria considers that the competence
of the International Court of Justice cannot be exercised with respect to a dispute
such as that envisaged in article 66 (a) at the request of one of the parties alone.
It declares that, in each case, the prior agreement of all the parties concerned is
necessary for the dispute to be submitted to the said Court.
objection to reservation
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 30-01-1989
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that the provisions regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66 of the Convention, are an important
part of the Convention and that they cannot be separated from the substantive rules
with which they are connected. Consequently, the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers
it necessary to object to any reservation which is made by another State and whose
aim is to exclude the application, wholly or in part, of the provisions regarding
the settlement of disputes. While not objecting to the entry into force of the Convention
between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State, the Kingdom of the Netherlands
considers that their treaty relations will not include the provisions of Part V of
the Convention with regard to which the application of the procedures regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66, wholly or in part is excluded.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the absence of treaty relations between
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State with regard to all or certain provisions
of Part V will not in any way impair the duty of the latter to fulfil any obligation
embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law independently
of the Convention.
For the reasons set out above, the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation
of Algeria, according to which its accession to the Convention shall not include the
Annex, according to which the submission to the International Court of Justice of
a dispute referred to in Article 66 (a) requires the consent of all parties there
to. Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Algeria
will not include the provisions to which the conciliation procedure in the Annex applies.
Objection Germany, 30-01-1989
The Federal Republic of Germany rejects the reservations made by Algeria and with
regard to article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as incompatible
with the object and purpose of the said Convention. In this connection it wishes to
point out that, as stressed on numerous other occasions, the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany considers articles 53 and 64 to be inextricably linked to article
66 (a).
Objection United Kingdom, 11-10-1989
The Government of the United Kingdom wish in this context to recall their declaration
of 5 June 1987 [in respect of the accession of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]
which in accordance with its terms applies to the reservations mentioned above, and
will similarly apply to any like reservations which any other State may formulate.
Argentina
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 05-12-1972 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
05-12-1972
(a) The Argentine Republic does not regard the rule contained in article 45 (b) as
applicable to it inasmuch as the rule in question provides for the renunciation of
rights in advance.
(b) The Argentine Republic does not accept the idea that a fundamental change of circumstances
which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of
a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may be invoked as a ground for
terminating or withdrawing from the treaty; moreover, it objects to the reservations
made by Afghanistan, Morocco and Syria with respect to article 62, paragraph 2 (a),
and to any reservations to the same effect as those of the States referred to which
may be made in the future with respect to article 62.
The application of this Convention to territories whose sovereignty is a subject of
dispute between two or more States, whether or not they are parties to it, cannot
be deemed to imply a modification, renunciation or abandonment of the position heretofore
maintained by each of them.
Armenia
Belarus
- Ratification: 01-05-1986 (A)
- Entry into force: 31-05-1986
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
01-05-1986
Belarus does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 66 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties and declares that, in order for any dispute among
the Contracting Parties concerning the application or the interpretation of articles
53 or 64 to be submitted to the International Court of Justice for a decision or for
any dispute concerning the application or interpretation of any other articles in
Part V of the Convention to be submitted for consideration by the Conciliation Commission,
the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each separate case, and
that the conciliators constituting the Conciliation Commission may only be persons
appointed by the parties to the dispute by common consent.
Belarus will consider that it is not obligated by the provisions of article 20, paragraph
3 or of article 45 (b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, since they
are contrary to established international practice.
Belarus declares that it reserves the right to take any measures to safeguard its
interests in the event of the non-observance by other States of the provisions of
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
objection to reservation
Objection Germany, 21-07-1987
The Federal Republic of Germany rejects the reservations made by Tunisia, the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic and the German Democratic Republic and with regard to article
66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as incompatible with the object
and purpose of the said Convention. In this connection it wishes to point out that,
as stressed on numerous other occasions, the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany considers articles 53 and 64 to be inextricably linked to article 66 (a).
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 25-09-1987
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that the provisions regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66 of the Convention, are an important
part of the Convention and that they cannot be separated from the substantive rules
with which they are connected. Consequently, the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers
it necessary to object to any reservation which is made by another State and whose
aim is to exclude the application, wholly or in part, of the provisions regarding
the settlement of disputes. While not objecting to the entry into force of the Convention
between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State, the Kingdom of the Netherlands
considers that their treaty relations will not include the provisions of Part V of
the Convention with regard to which the application of the procedures regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66, wholly or in part is excluded.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the absence of treaty relations between
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State with regard to all or certain provisions
of Part V will not in any way impair the duty of the latter to fulfil any obligation
embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law independently
of the Convention.
For the reasons set out above, the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation
of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. Accordingly, the treaty relations between
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic will
not include Article 53 and 64 of the Convention.
Belgium
- Ratification: 01-09-1992 (A)
- Entry into force: 01-10-1992
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
21-06-1993
The Belgian State will not be bound by articles 53 and 64 of the Convention with regard
to any party which, in formulating a reservation concerning article 66 (a), objects
to the settlement procedure established by this article.
Bolivia
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
23-05-1969
1. The shortcomings of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are such as to
postpone the realization of the aspirations of mankind.
2. Nevertheless, the rules endorsed by the Convention do represent significant advances,
based on the principles of international justice which Bolivia has traditionally supported.
Brazil
Bulgaria
- Ratification: 21-04-1987 (A)
- Entry into force: 21-05-1987
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
21-04-1987
The People's Republic of Bulgaria considers it necessary to underline that articles
81 and 83 of the Convention, which preclude a number of States from becoming parties
to it, are of an unjustifiably restrictive character. These provisions are incompatible
with the very nature of the Convention, which is of a universal character and should
be open for accession by all States.
The People's Republic of Bulgaria does not consider itself bound by the provision
of article 66, paragraph a) of the Convention, according to which any one of the parties
to a dispute concerning the application or the interpretation of article 53 or 64
may, by a written application, submit it to the International Court of Justice for
a decision unless the parties by common consent agree to submit the dispute to arbitration.
The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria states that for the submission
of such a dispute to the International Court of Justice for a decision, the preliminary
consent of all parties to the dispute is needed.
objection to reservation
Objection Germany, 27-01-1988
The Federal Republic of Germany rejects the reservations made by Bulgaria and with
regard to article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as incompatible
with the object and purpose of the said Convention. In this connection it wishes to
point out that, as stressed on numerous other occasions, the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany considers articles 53 and 64 to be inextricably linked to article
66 (a).
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 14-07-1988
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that the provisions regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66 of the Convention, are an important
part of the Convention and that they cannot be separated from the substantive rules
with which they are connected. Consequently, the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers
it necessary to object to any reservation which is made by another State and whose
aim is to exclude the application, wholly or in part, of the provisions regarding
the settlement of disputes. While not objecting to the entry into force of the Convention
between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State, the Kingdom of the Netherlands
considers that their treaty relations will not include the provisions of Part V of
the Convention with regard to which the application of the procedures regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66, wholly or in part is excluded.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the absence of treaty relations between
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State with regard to all or certain provisions
of Part V will not in any way impair the duty of the latter to fulfil any obligation
embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law independently
of the Convention.
For the reasons set out above, the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation
of Bulgaria. Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands
and Bulgaria will not include Article 53 and 64 of the Convention.
reservation
06-05-1994
The Government of Bulgaria notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw
the reservation made upon accession with regard to article 66 (a).
reservation
24-10-2002
Upon signature of the above Convention by the Republic of Korea, in 1971, the Government
of the People's Republic of Bulgaria[,] in [a] communication addressed to the Secretary-General
with reference to the above-mentioned signature, ... stated that its Government considered
the said signature was illegal inasmuch as the South Korean authorities could not
speak on behalf of Korea.
Now therefore [the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria declares] that the Government
of the Republic of Bulgaria, having reviewed the said declaration, hereby withdraws
the same.
Canada
- Ratification: 14-10-1970 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
14-10-1970
In acceding to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Government of Canada
declares its understanding that nothing in article 66 of the Convention is intended
to exclude the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice where such jurisdiction
exists under the provisions of any treaty in force binding the parties with regard
to the settlement of disputes. In relation to states parties to the Vienna Convention
which accept as compulsory the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice,
the Government of Canada declares that it does not regard the provisions of article
66 of the Vienna Convention as providing `some other method of peaceful settlement'
within the meaning of paragraph 2 (a) of the declaration of the Government of Canada
accepting as compulsory the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice which
was deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on April 7, 1970.
reservation
14-05-2014
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 Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the Secretary-General's communication of 9
April 2014, numbered C.N.188.2014.TREATIES-XXIII.l, 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 Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties. 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 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 'Palestine' is not able to accede to
this convention, and that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not enter
into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty relations, with respect to the 'State
of Palestine'.
Chile
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 09-04-1981 (R)
- Entry into force: 09-05-1981
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
09-04-1981
The Republic of Chile declares its adherence to the general principle of the immutability
of treaties, without prejudice to the right of States to stipulate, in particular,
rules which modify this principle, and for this reason formulates a reservation relating
to the provisions of article 62, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Convention, which it considers
inapplicable to Chile.
The Republic of Chile formulates an objection to the reservations which have been
made or may be made in the future relating to article 62, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
China
Colombia
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 10-04-1985 (R)
- Entry into force: 10-05-1985
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
10-04-1985
With regard to article 25, Colombia formulates the reservation that the Political
Constitution of Colombia does not recognize the provisional application of treaties;
it is the responsibility of the National Congress to approve or disapprove any treaties
and conventions which the Government concludes with other States or with international
legal entities.
Costa Rica
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 22-11-1996 (R)
- Entry into force: 22-12-1996
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
23-05-1969
1. With regard to articles 11 and 12, the delegation of Costa Rica wishes to make
a reservation to the effect that the Costa Rican system of constitutional law does
not authorize any form of consent which is not subject to ratification by the Legislative
Assembly.
2. With regard to article 25, it wishes to make a reservation to the effect that the
Political Constitution of Costa Rica does not permit the provisional application of
treaties, either.
3. With regard to article 27, it interprets this article as refer ring to secondary
law and not to the provisions of the Political Constitution.
4. With regard to article 38, its interpretation is that no customary rule of general
international law shall take precedence over any rule of the Inter-American System
to which, in its view, this Convention is supplementary.
objection to reservation
Objection United Kingdom, 13-10-1998
The Government of the United Kingdom object to the reservation entered by Costa Rica
in respect of article 27 and reiterate their observation in respect of the similar
reservation entered by the Republic of Guatemala.
Cuba
- Ratification: 09-09-1998 (A)
- Entry into force: 09-10-1998
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
09-09-1998
The Government of the Republic of Cuba enters an explicit reservation to the procedure
established under article 66 of the Convention, since it believes that any dispute
should be settled by any means adopted by agreement between the parties to the dispute;
the Republic of Cuba therefore cannot accept solutions which provide means for one
of the parties, without the consent of the other to submit the dispute to procedures
for judicial settlement, arbitration and conciliation.
The Government of the Republic of Cuba declares that the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties essentially codified and systematized the norms that had been established
by custom and other sources of international law concerning negotiation, signature,
ratification, entry into force, termination and other stipulations relating to international
treaties; hence, those provisions, owing to their compulsory character, by virtue
of having been established by universally recognized sources of international law,
particularly those relating to invalidity, termination and suspension of the application
of treaties, are applicable [to] any treaty negotiated by the Republic of Cuba prior
to the aforesaid convention, essentially, treaties, covenants and concessions negotiated
under conditions of inequality or which disregard or diminish its sovereignty and
territorial integrity.
objection to reservation
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 15-11-1999
In conformity with the terms of the objections the Kingdom of the Netherlands must
be deemed to have objected to the reservation, excluding wholly or in part the procedures
for the settlement of disputes, contained in article 66 of the Convention, as formulated
by Cuba. Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands
and Cuba under the Convention do not include any of the provisions contained in Part
V of the Convention. The Kingdom of the Netherlands reiterates that the absence of
treaty relations between itself and Cuba in respect of Part V of the Convention will
not in any way impair the duty of Cuba to fulfil any obligation embodied in those
provisions to which it is subject under international law independent of the Convention.
Objection Sweden, 17-11-1999
The Government of Sweden wishes to recall its statements of the 4th of February 1975,
made in connection with its ratification of the Convention, relating to the accession
of the Syrian Arab Republic and the Republic of Tunisia respectively, which reads
as follows: 'Article 66 of the Convention contains certain provisions regarding procedures
for judicial settlement, arbitration and conciliation. According to these provisions
a dispute concerning the application or the interpretation of articles 53 or 64, which
deal with the so called jus cogens, may be submitted to the International Court of
Justice. If the dispute concerns the application or the interpretation of any of the
other articles in Part V of the Convention, the conciliation procedure specified in
the Annex to the Convention may be set in motion. The Swedish Government considers
that these provisions regarding the settlement of disputes are an important part of
the Convention and that they cannot be separated from the substantive rules with which
they are connected. Consequently, the Swedish Government considers it necessary to
raise objections to any reservation which is made by another State and whose aim is
to exclude the application, wholly or in part, of the provisions regarding the settlement
of disputes. While not objecting to the entry into force of the Convention between
Sweden and such a State, the Swedish Government considers that their treaty relations
will not include either the procedural provision in respect of which a reservation
has been made or the substantive provisions to which that procedural provision relates.'
For the reasons set out above, which also apply to the reservation made by the Republic
of Cuba, the Swedish Government objects to the reservation entered by the Government
of the Republic of Cuba to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Objection United Kingdom, 19-11-1999
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland objects
to the reservation [...]. The Government of the United Kingdom wishes in this context
to recall their declaration of 5 June 1987 (in respect of the accession of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics) which in accordance with its terms applies to the reservation
mentioned above, and will apply similarly to any like reservation which any other
State may formulate. Accordingly the United Kingdom does not consider that the treaty
relations between it and the Republic of Cuba include Part V of the Convention.
Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993)
- Ratification: 29-07-1987 (A)
- Entry into force: 28-08-1987
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
29-07-1987
The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions
of article 66 of the Convention and declares that, in accordance with the principle
of sovereign equality of States, for any dispute to be submitted to the International
Court of Justice or to a conciliation procedure, the consent of all the parties to
the dispute is required in each separate case.
objection to reservation
Objection Germany, 27-01-1988
The Federal Republic of Germany rejects the reservations made by the Czechoslovak
Socialist Republic and with regard to article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties as incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention. In
this connection it wishes to point out that, as stressed on numerous other occasions,
the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers articles 53 and 64 to
be inextricably linked to article 66 (a).
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 14-07-1988
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that the provisions regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66 of the Convention, are an important
part of the Convention and that they cannot be separated from the substantive rules
with which they are connected. Consequently, the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers
it necessary to object to any reservation which is made by another State and whose
aim is to exclude the application, wholly or in part, of the provisions regarding
the settlement of disputes. While not objecting to the entry into force of the Convention
between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State, the Kingdom of the Netherlands
considers that their treaty relations will not include the provisions of Part V of
the Convention with regard to which the application of the procedures regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66, wholly or in part is excluded.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the absence of treaty relations between
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State with regard to all or certain provisions
of Part V will not in any way impair the duty of the latter to fulfil any obligation
embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law independently
of the Convention.
For the reasons set out above, the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation
of Czechoslovakia. Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands
and Czechoslovakia will not include Article 53 and 64 of the Convention.
reservation
19-10-1990
The Government of Czechoslovakia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to
withdraw the reservation made upon accession with respect to article 66 of the Convention.
Denmark
- Signature: 18-04-1970
- Ratification: 01-06-1976 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
01-06-1976
As between itself and any State which formulates, wholly or in part, a reservation
relating to the provisions of article 66 of the Convention concerning the compulsory
settlement of certain disputes, Denmark will not consider itself bound by those provisions
of part V of the Convention, according to which the procedures for settlement set
forth in article 66 are not to apply in the event of reservations formulated by other
States.
Ecuador
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 11-02-2005 (R)
- Entry into force: 13-03-2005
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
23-05-1969
In signing this Convention, Ecuador has not considered it necessary to make any reservation
in regard to article 4 of the Convention because it understands that the rules referred
to in the first part of article 4 include the principle of the peaceful settlement
of disputes, which is set forth in Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United
Nations and which, as jus cogens, has universal and mandatory force.
Ecuador also considers that the first part of article 4 is applicable to existing
treaties.
It wishes to place on record, in this form, its view that the said article 4 incorporates
the indisputable principle that, in cases where the Convention codifies rules of lex
lata, these rules, as pre-existing rules, may be invoked and applied to treaties signed
before the entry into force of this Convention, which is the instrument codifying
the rules.
reservation
11-02-2005
In ratifying this Convention, Ecuador wishes to place on record its adherence to the
principles, norms and methods of peaceful settlement of disputes provided for in the
Charter of the United Nations and in other international instruments on the subject,
which have been expressly included in the Ecuadorian legal system in article 4, paragraph
3, of the Political Constitution of the Republic.
Egypt
- Ratification: 11-02-1982 (A)
- Entry into force: 13-03-1982
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
11-02-1982
The Arab Republic of Egypt does not consider itself bound by part V of the Convention
vis-à-vis States which formulate reservations concerning the procedures for judicial
settlement and compulsory arbitration set forth in article 66 and in the annex to
the Convention, and it rejects reservations made to the provisions of part V of the
Convention.
Finland
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 19-08-1977 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
19-08-1977
Finland declares its understanding that nothing in paragraph 2 of article 7 of the
Convention is intended to modify any provisions of internal law in force in any Contracting
State concerning competence to conclude treaties. Under the Constitution of Finland
the competence to conclude treaties is given to the President of the Republic, who
also decides on the issuance of full powers to the Head of Government and the Minister
for Foreign Affairs.
Finland also declares that as to its relation with any State which has made or makes
a reservation to the effect that this State will not be bound by some or all of the
provisions of article 66, Finland will consider itself bound neither by those procedural
provisions nor by the substantive provisions of part V of the Convention to which
the procedures provided for in article 66 do not apply as a result of the said reservation.
objection to reservation
Objection United Kingdom, 07-12-1977
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland note that
the instrument of ratification of the Government of Finland, which was deposited with
the Secretary-General on 19 August 1977, contains a declaration relating to paragraph
2 of article 7 of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom wish to inform
the Secretary-General that they do not regard that declaration as in any way affecting
the interpretation or application of article 7.
reservation
20-04-2001
The Government of Finland informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw
its declaration in respect of article 7 (2) made upon ratification.
Germany
- Signature: 30-04-1970
- Ratification: 21-07-1987 (R)
- Entry into force: 20-08-1987
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
30-04-1970
The Federal Republic of Germany reserves the right, upon ratifying the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties, to state its views on the declarations made by other States
upon signing or ratifying or acceding to that Convention and to make reservations
regarding certain provisions of the said Convention.
reservation
21-07-1987
The Federal Republic of Germany assumes that the jurisdiction of the International
Court of Justice brought about by consent of States outside the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties cannot be excluded by invoking the provisions of article 66
(b) of the Convention.
The Federal Republic of Germany interprets 'measures taken in conformity with the
Charter of the United Nations', as referred to in article 75, to mean future decisions
by the Security Council of the United Nations in conformity with Chapter VII of the
Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security.
objection to reservation
Objection Japan, 03-04-1987
In view of its declaration made upon accession the Government of Japan objects to
the reservations made by the Governments of the German Democratic Republic and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to article 66 and the Annex of the Convention
and reaffirms the position of Japan that it will not be in treaty relations with the
above States in respect of the provisions of Part V of the Convention.
The Government of Japan objects to the declarations made by the Governments of the
German Democratic Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics reserving their
right to take any measures to safeguard their interests in the event of the non-observance
by other States of the provisions of the Convention.
Guatemala
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 21-07-1997 (R)
- Entry into force: 20-08-1997
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
23-05-1969
I. Guatemala cannot accept any provision of this Convention which would prejudice
its rights and its claim to the Territory of Belize.
II. Guatemala will not apply articles 11, 12, 25 and 66 in so far as they are contrary
to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic.
III. Guatemala will apply the provision contained in article 38 only in cases where
it considers that it is in the national interest to do so.
reservation
21-07-1997
(a) The Republic of Guatemala formally confirms reservations I and III which it formulated
upon signing the [said Convention], to the effect, respectively, that Guatemala could
not accept any provision of the Convention which would prejudice its rights and its
claim to the territory of Belize and that it would apply the provision contained in
article 38 of the Convention only in cases where it considered that it was in the
national interest to do so; (b) With respect to reservation II, which was formulated
on the same occasion and which indicated that the Republic of Guatemala would not
apply articles 11,12, 25 and 66 of the [said Convention] insofar as they were contrary
to the Constitution, Guatemala states: (b) (I) That it confirms the reservation with
respect to the non-application of articles 25 and 66 of the Convention, insofar as
both are incompatible with provisions of the Political Constitution currently in force;
(b) (II) That it also confirms the reservation with respect to the non-application
of articles 11 and 12 of the Convention.
Guatemala's consent to be bound by a treaty is subject to compliance with the requirements
and procedures established in its Political Constitution. For Guatemala, the signature
or initialling of a treaty by its representative is always understood to be ad referendum
and subject, in either case, to confirmation by its Government.
(c) A reservation is hereby formulated with respect to article 27 of the Convention,
to the effect that the article is understood to refer to the provisions of the secondary
legislation of Guatemala and not to those of its Political Constitution, which take
precedence over any law or treaty.
objection to reservation
Objection United Kingdom, 20-04-1970
With reference to a reservation in relation to the territory of British Honduras made
by Guatemala on signing the Convention, the United Kingdom does not accept that Guatemala
has any rights or any valid claim with respect to that territory; "The United Kingdom
fully reserves its position in other respects with regard to the declarations made
by various States on signature, to some of which the United Kingdom would object,
if they were to be confirmed on ratification".
Objection Denmark, 21-07-1997
These reservations refer to general rules of [the said Convention], many of which
are solidly based on customary international law. The reservation - if accepted -
could call to question well established and universally accepted norms.
It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that the reservations are not compatible
with the object and purpose of [said Convention].
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to
become Parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all Parties and that
States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with
their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Denmark therefore objects
to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Guatemala to [the said Convention].
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of [the said Convention] between
Guatemala and Denmark and will thus enter into force between Guatemala and Denmark
without Guatemala benefitting from these reservations.
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 14-09-1998
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that the provisions regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66 of the Convention, are an important
part of the Convention and that they cannot be separated from the substantive rules
with which they are connected. Consequently, the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers
it necessary to object to any reservation which is made by another State and whose
aim is to exclude the application, wholly or in part, of the provisions regarding
the settlement of disputes. While not objecting to the entry into force of the Convention
between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State, the Kingdom of the Netherlands
considers that their treaty relations will not include the provisions of Part V of
the Convention with regard to which the application of the procedures regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66, wholly or in part is excluded.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the absence of treaty relations between
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State with regard to all or certain provisions
of Part V will not in any way impair the duty of the latter to fulfil any obligation
embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law independently
of the Convention.
For the reasons set out above, the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation
of Guatemala, according to which its accession to the Convention shall not include
the Annex, according to which the submission to the International Court of Justice
of a dispute referred to in Article 66 (a) requires the consent of all parties there
to. Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Guatemala
will not include the provisions to which the conciliation procedure in the Annex applies.
Objection Austria, 16-09-1998
Austria is of the view that the Guatemalan reservations refer almost exclusively to
general rules of [the said Convention] many of which are solidly based on international
customary law. The reservations could call into question well-established and universally
accepted norms. Austria is of the view that the rservations also raise doubts as to
their compatibility with the object and purpose of the [said Convention]. Austria
therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the [said Convention] between
Austria and Guatemala.
Objection Finland, 16-09-1998
These reservations which consist of general references to national law and which do
not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provisions of the Convention,
may create serious doubts about the Committment of the reserving State as to the object
and purpose of the Convention and may contribute to undermining the basis of international
treaty law. In addition, the Government of Finland considers the reservation to article
27 of the Convention particularly problematic as it is a well-established rule of
customary international law. The Government of Finland would like to recall that according
to article 19 c of the [said] Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object
and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to these reservations made by the Government
of Guatemala to the [said] Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Guatemala
and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without
Guatemala benefitting from these reservations.
Objection Sweden, 16-09-1998
The Government of Sweden is of the view that these reservations raise doubts as to
their compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention. The reservations
refer almost exclusively to general rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
many of which are solidly based on customary international law. The reservaitons could
call into question well established and universally accepted norms.
The Govenrment of Sweden notes in particular that the Government of Guatemala has
entered a reservation that it would apply the provisions contained in article 38 of
the Convention only in cases where it considered that it was in the national interest
to do so; and furthermore a reservation with respect to article 27 of the Convention,
to the effect that the article is understood to refer to the provisions of the secondary
legislation of Guatemala and not to those of its Political Constitution, which take
precedence over any law or treaty.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to
become parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that
States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with
their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the
Government of Guatemala to the [said] Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Guatemala
and Sweden. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without
Guatemala benefiting from this reservation.
Objection Germany, 21-09-1998
These reservations refer almost exclusively to general rules of the Convention many
of which are solidly based on customary international law. The reservations could
call into question well-established and universally-accepted norms of international
law, especially insofar as the reservations concern articles 27 and 38 of the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the view that the reservations
also raise doublts as to their compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to these reservations.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Germany
and Guatemala.
Objection Belgium, 30-09-1998
The reservations entered by Guatemala essentially concern general rules laid down
in the [said Convention], many of which form part of customary international law.
These reservations could call into question firmly established and universally accepted
norms. The Kingdom of Belgium therefore raises an objection to the reservations. This
objection does not prevent the [said Convention] from taking effect between the Kingdom
of Belgium and Guatemala.
Objection United Kingdom, 13-10-1998
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland object
to the reservation entered by the Republic of Guatemala in respect of article 27,
and wish to observe that the customary international law rule set out in that article
applies to constitutional as well as to other internal laws. The Government of the
United Kingdom object also to the reservation entered by the Republic of Guatemala
in respect of article 38, by which the Republic of Guatemala seek subjective application
of the rule of customary international law set out in that article. The Government
of the United Kingdom wish to recall their declaration of 5 June 1987 (in respect
of the accession of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), which, in accordance
with its terms, applies to the reservation entered by the Republic of Guatemala in
respect of article 66 and will similarly apply to any like reservation which any other
State may formulate.
reservation
15-03-2007
Withdraw in their entirety the reservations formulated by the Republic of Guatemala
on 23 May 1969 and confirmed upon 14 May 1997 to Articles 11 and 12 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Hungary
- Ratification: 19-06-1987 (A)
- Entry into force: 19-07-1987
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
19-06-1987
The Hungarian People's Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of
article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and declares that submission
of a dispute concerning the application or the interpretation of article 53 or 64
to the International Court of Justice for a decision or submission of a dispute concerning
the application or the interpretation of any articles in Part V of the Convention
to a conciliation commission for consideration shall be subject to the consent of
all the parties to the dispute and that the conciliators constituting the conciliation
commission shall have been nominated exclusively with the common consent of the parties
to the dispute.
objection to reservation
Objection Germany, 27-01-1988
The Federal Republic of Germany rejects the reservations made by the Hungarian People's
Republic and with regard to article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
as incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention. In this connection
it wishes to point out that, as stressed on numerous other occasions, the Government
of the Federal Republic of Germany considers articles 53 and 64 to be inextricably
linked to article 66 (a).
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 14-07-1988
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that the provisions regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66 of the Convention, are an important
part of the Convention and that they cannot be separated from the substantive rules
with which they are connected. Consequently, the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers
it necessary to object to any reservation which is made by another State and whose
aim is to exclude the application, wholly or in part, of the provisions regarding
the settlement of disputes. While not objecting to the entry into force of the Convention
between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State, the Kingdom of the Netherlands
considers that their treaty relations will not include the provisions of Part V of
the Convention with regard to which the application of the procedures regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66, wholly or in part is excluded.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the absence of treaty relations between
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State with regard to all or certain provisions
of Part V will not in any way impair the duty of the latter to fulfil any obligation
embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law independently
of the Convention.
For the reasons set out above, the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation
of Hungary. Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands
and Hungary will not include Article 53 and 64 of the Convention.
reservation
08-12-1989
The Government of Hungary notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw
its reservation regarding article 66 made upon accession.
Kuwait
Mongolia
- Ratification: 16-05-1988 (A)
- Entry into force: 15-06-1988
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
16-05-1988
1. The Mongolian People's Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions
of article 66 of the Convention.
The Mongolian People's Republic declares that submission of any dispute concerning
the application or the interpretation of articles 53 and 64 to the International Court
of Justice for a decision as well as submission of any dispute concerning the application
or the interpretation of any other articles in Part V of the Convention to a conciliation
commission for consideration shall be subject to the consent of all the parties to
the dispute in each separate case, and that the conciliators constituting the conciliation
commission shall be appointed by the parties to the dispute by common consent.
2. The Mongolian People's Republic is not obligated by the provisions of article 45
(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, since they are contrary to established
international practice.
1. The Mongolian People's Republic declares that it reserves the right to take any
measures to safeguard its interests in the case of the non-observance by other States
of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
2. The Mongolian People's Republic deems it appropriate to draw attention to the discriminatory
nature of article 81 and 83 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and declares
that the Convention should be open for accession by all States.
objection to reservation
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 28-07-1988
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that the provisions regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66 of the Convention, are an important
part of the Convention and that they cannot be separated from the substantive rules
with which they are connected. Consequently, the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers
it necessary to object to any reservation which is made by another State and whose
aim is to exclude the application, wholly or in part, of the provisions regarding
the settlement of disputes. While not objecting to the entry into force of the Convention
between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State, the Kingdom of the Netherlands
considers that their treaty relations will not include the provisions of Part V of
the Convention with regard to which the application of the procedures regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66, wholly or in part is excluded.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the absence of treaty relations between
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State with regard to all or certain provisions
of Part V will not in any way impair the duty of the latter to fulfil any obligation
embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law independently
of the Convention.
For the reasons set out above, the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation
of Mongolia. Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands
and Mongolia will not include Article 53 and 64 of the Convention.
Objection Germany, 21-09-1988
The Federal Republic of Germany rejects the reservations made by Mongolia and with
regard to article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as incompatible
with the object and purpose of the said Convention. In this connection it wishes to
point out that, as stressed on numerous other occasions, the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany considers articles 53 and 64 to be inextricably linked to article
66 (a).
reservation
19-07-1990
The Government of Mongolia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw
the reservation made upon accession.
Morocco
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 26-09-1972 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
23-05-1969
1. Morocco interprets paragraph 2 (a) of article 62 (Fundamental change of circumstances)
as not applying to unlawful or inequitable treaties, or to any treaty contrary to
the principle of self-determination. Morocco's views on paragraph 2 (a) were supported
by the Expert Consultant in his statements in the Committee of the Whole on 11 May1968
and before the Conference in plenary on 14 May 1969 (see Document A/CONF.39/L.40).
2. It shall be understood that Morocco's signature of this Convention does not in
any way imply that it recognized Israel. Furthermore, no treaty relationships will
be established between Morocco and Israel.
objection to reservation
Objection Algeria, 08-11-1988
The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, dedicated to the principle
of the inviolability of the frontiers inherited on accession to independence, expresses
an objection to the reservation entered by the Kingdom of Morocco with regard to paragraph
2 (a) of article 62 of the Convention.
Netherlands, the Kingdom of the
New Zealand
- Signature: 29-04-1970
- Ratification: 04-08-1971 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
04-08-1971
The Government of New Zealand declares its understanding that nothing in article 66
of the Convention is intended to exclude the jurisdiction of the International Court
of Justice where such jurisdiction exists under the provisions of any treaty in force
binding the parties with regard to the settlement of disputes. In relations to states
parties to the Vienna Convention which accept as compulsory the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice, the Government of New Zealand declares that it will
not regard the provisions of article 66 of the Vienna Convention as providing "some
other method of peaceful settlement" within the meaning of this phrase where it appears
in the declaration of the Government of New Zealand accepting as compulsory the jurisdiction
of the International Court of Justice, which was deposited with the Secretary-General
of the League of Nations on 8 April 1940.
Oman
Palestine
- Ratification: 02-04-2014 (A)
- Entry into force: 02-05-2014
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
06-06-2014
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.283.2014.TREATIES-XXIII.1,
dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of
the State of Palestine to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, dated 23 May
1969.
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 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which entered into
force on 2 May 2014, 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.
Peru
- Signature: 23-05-1969
- Ratification: 14-09-2000 (R)
- Entry into force: 14-10-2000
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
14-09-2000
For the Government of Peru, the application of articles 11, 12 and 25 of the Convention
must be understood in accordance with, and subject to, the process of treaty signature,
approval, ratification, accession and entry into force stipulated by its constitutional
provisions.
objection to reservation
Objection Sweden, 25-07-2001
The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by Peru at the time of
its ratification of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The Government of Sweden notes that articles 11, 12 and 25 of the Convention are being
made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation
in Peru.
The Government of Sweden is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification,
this reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Peru to the object and purpose
of the Convention and would like to recall that, according to customary international
law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible
with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to
become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that
States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with
their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation by the Government
of Peru to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Peru
and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States,
without Peru benefiting from its reservation.
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 11-10-2001
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservation made
by the Government of Peru at the time of its ratification of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that
the articles 11, 12 and 25 of the Convention are being made subject to a general reservation
referring to the contents of existing legislation in Peru.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that, in the absence
of further clarification, this reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Peru
as to the object and purpose of the Convention and would like to recall that, according
to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall
not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to
become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all Parties and that
States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with
their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid
reservation made by the Government of Peru to the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and Peru.
Objection Austria, 14-11-2001
Austria has examined the reservation made by the Government of Peru at the time of
its ratification of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, regarding the application
of articles 11, 12 and 25 of the Convention.
The fact that Peru is making the application of the said articles subject to a general
reservation referring to the contents of existing national legislation, in the absence
of further clarification raises doubts as to the commitment of Peru to the object
and purpose of the Convention. According to customary international law as codified
in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the
object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. In Austria's view the reservation
in question is therefore inadmissible to the extent that its application could negatively
affect the compliance by Peru with its obligations under articles 11, 12 and 25 of
the Convention.
For these reasons, Austria objects to the reservation made by the Government of Peru
to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention in its entirety
between Peru and Austria, without Peru benefiting from its reservation.
reservation
21-01-2002
[The Government of Peru refers to the communication made by the Government of Austria
relating to the reservation made by Peru upon ratification]. In this document, Member
States are informed of a communication from the Government of Austria stating its
objection to the reservation entered in respect of the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties by the Government of Peru on 14 September 2000 when depositing the corresponding
instrument of ratification.
As the [Secretariat] is aware, article 20, paragraph 5, of the Vienna Convention states
that "a reservation is considered to have been accepted by a State if it shall have
raised no objection to the reservation by the end of a period of twelve months after
it was notified of the reservation (...)". The ratification and reservation by Peru
in respect of the Vienna Convention were communicated to Member States on 9 November
2000.
Since the communication from the Austrian Government was received by the Secretariat
on 14 November 2001 and circulated to Member States on 28 November 2001, the Peruvian
Mission is of the view that there is tacit acceptance on the part of the Austrian
Government of the reservation entered by Peru, the 12-month period referred to in
article 20, paragraph 5, of the Vienna Convention having elapsed without any objection
being raised. The Peruvian Government considers the communication from the Austrian
Government as being without legal effect, since it was not submitted in a timely manner.
Portugal
- Ratification: 06-02-2004 (A)
- Entry into force: 07-03-2004
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: No
-
reservation
06-02-2004
Article 66 of the Vienna of the Convention is inextricably linked with the provisions
of Part V to which it relates. Therefore, Portugal declares that as to its relation
with any State which has made or makes a reservation to the effect that this State
will not be bound by some or all of the provisions of article 66, it will consider
itself bound neither by those procedural norms nor by the substantive norms of Part
V of the Convention to which the procedures provided for in Article 66 do not apply
as a result of the said reservation. However, Portugal does not object to the entry
into force of the remaining of the Convention between the Portuguese Republic and
such a State and considers that the absence of treaty relations between itself and
that State with regard to all or certain norms of Part V will not in any way impair
the latter to fulfil any obligation embodied in those provisions to which it is subject
under international law in dependently of the Convention.
Russian Federation
- Ratification: 29-04-1986 (A)
- Entry into force: 29-05-1986
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
29-04-1986
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider itself bound by the provisions
of article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and declares that, in
order for any dispute among the Contracting Parties concerning the application or
the interpretation of articles 53 or 64 to be submitted to the International Court
of Justice for a decision or for any dispute concerning the application or interpretation
of any other articles in Part V of the Convention to be submitted for consideration
by the Conciliation Commission, the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required
in each separate case, and that the conciliators constituting the Conciliation Commission
may only be persons appointed by the parties to the dispute by common consent.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will consider that it is not obligated by
the provisions of article 20, paragraph 3 or of article 45 (b) of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties, since they are contrary to established international practice.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that it reserves the right to take
any measures to safeguard its interests in the event of the non-observance by other
States of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
objection to reservation
Objection Japan, 03-04-1987
1. In view of its declaration made upon accession the Government of Japan objects
to the reservations made by the Governments of the German Democratic Republic and
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to article 66 and the Annex of the Convention
and reaffirms the position of Japan that it will not be in treaty relations with the
above States in respect of the provisions of Part V of the Convention.
2. The Government of Japan objects to the reservation made by the Government of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to article 20, paragraph 3.
3. The Government of Japan objects to the declarations made by the Governments of
the German Democratic Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics reserving
their right to take any measures to safeguard their interests in the event of the
non-observance by other States of the provisions of the Convention.
Objection United Kingdom, 05-06-1987
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland object
to the reservation entered by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
by which it rejects the application of article 66 of the Convention. Article 66 provides
in certain circumstances for the compulsory settlement of disputes by the International
Court of Justice (in the case of disputes concerning the application or interpretation
of articles 53 or 64) or by a conciliation procedure (in the case of the rest of Part
V of the Convention). These provisions are inextricably linked with the provisions
of Part V to which they relate. Their inclusion was the basis on which those parts
of Part V which represent progressive development of international law were accepted
by the Vienna Conference. Accordingly the United Kingdom does not consider that the
treaty relations between it and the Soviet Union include Part V of the Convention.
With respect to any other reservation the intention of which is to exclude the application,
in whole or in part, of the provisions of article 66, to which the United Kingdom
has already objected or which is made after the reservation by the Government of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom will not consider its treaty
relations with the State which has formulated or will formulate such a reservation
as including those provisions of Part V of the Convention with regard to which the
application of article 66 is rejected by the reservation.
The instrument of accession deposited by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics included
also a declaration that it reserves the right to take "any measures" to safeguard
its interests in the event of the non-observance by other States of the provisions
of the Convention. The purpose and scope of this statement is unclear; but, given
that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has rejected the application of article
66 of the Convention, it would seem to apply rather to acts by Parties to the Convention
in respect of treaties where such acts are in breach of the Convention. In such circumstances
a State would not be limited in its response to the measures in article 60: under
customary international law it would be entitled to take other measures, provided
always that they are reasonable and in proportion to the breach.
Objection Germany, 21-07-1987
The Federal Republic of Germany rejects the reservations made by Tunisia, the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic and the German Democratic Republic and with regard to article
66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as incompatible with the object
and purpose of the said Convention. In this connection it wishes to point out that,
as stressed on numerous other occasions, the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany considers articles 53 and 64 to be inextricably linked to article 66 (a).
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 25-09-1987
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that the provisions regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66 of the Convention, are an important
part of the Convention and that they cannot be separated from the substantive rules
with which they are connected. Consequently, the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers
it necessary to object to any reservation which is made by another State and whose
aim is to exclude the application, wholly or in part, of the provisions regarding
the settlement of disputes. While not objecting to the entry into force of the Convention
between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State, the Kingdom of the Netherlands
considers that their treaty relations will not include the provisions of Part V of
the Convention with regard to which the application of the procedures regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66, wholly or in part is excluded.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the absence of treaty relations between
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State with regard to all or certain provisions
of Part V will not in any way impair the duty of the latter to fulfil any obligation
embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law independently
of the Convention.
For the reasons set out above, the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Accordingly, the treaty relations between
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not
include Article 53 and 64 of the Convention.
Saudi Arabia
Syria
- Ratification: 02-10-1970 (A)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
02-10-1970
A-Acceptance of this Convention by the Syrian Arab Republic and ratification of it
by its Government shall in no way signify recognition of Israel and cannot have as
a result the establishment with the latter of any contact governed by the provisions
of this Convention.
B-The Syrian Arab Republic considers that article 81 is not in conformity with the
aims and purposes of the Convention in that it does not allow all States, without
distinction or discrimination, to become parties to it.
C-The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic does not in any case accept the non-applicability
of the principle of a fundamental change of circumstances with regard to treaties
establishing boundaries, referred to in article 62, paragraph 2 (a), inasmuch as it
regards this as a flagrant violation of an obligatory norm which forms part of general
international law and which recognizes the right of peoples to self-determination.
D-The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic interprets the provisions in article
52 as follows:
The expression "the threat or use of force" used in this article extends also to the
employment of economic, political, military and psychological coercion and to all
types of coercion constraining a State to conclude a treaty against its wishes or
its interests.
E-The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to this Convention and the ratification
of it by its Government shall not apply to the Annex to the Convention, which concerns
obligatory conciliation.
objection to reservation
Objection United Kingdom, 20-04-1970
The United Kingdom does not accept that the interpretation of Article 52 put forward
by the Government of Syria correctly reflects the conclusions reached at the Conference
of Vienna on the subject of coercion; the Conference dealt with this matter by adopting
a Declaration on this subject which forms part of the Final Act;
The United Kingdom objects to the reservation entered by the Government of Syria in
respect of the Annex to the Convention and does not accept the entry into force of
the Convention as between the United Kingdom and Syria.
Objection United States of America, 26-05-1971
The Government of the United States of America objects to reservation E of the Syrian
instrument of accession:
In the view of the United States Government that reservation is incompatible with
the object and purpose of the Convention and undermines the principle of impartial
settlement of disputes concerning the invalidity, termination, and suspension of the
operation of treaties, which was the subject of extensive negotiation at the Vienna
Conference.
The United States Government intends, at such time as it may become a party to the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to reaffirm its objection to the foregoing
reservation and to reject treaty relations with the Syrian Arab Republic under all
provisions in Part V of the Convention with regard to which the Syrian Arab Republic
has rejected the obligatory conciliation procedures set forth in the Annex to the
Convention.
The United States Government is also concerned about Syrian reservation C declaring
that the Syrian Arab Republic does not accept the non-applicability of the principle
of a fundamental change of circumstances with regard to treaties establishing boundaries,
as stated in Article 62, 2 (a), and Syrian reservation D concerning its interpretation
of the expression `the threat or use of force' in Article 52. However, in view of
the United States Government's intention to reject treaty relations with the Syrian
Arab Republic under all provisions in Part V to which reservations C and D relate,
we do not consider it necessary at this time to object formally to those reservations.
The United States Government will consider that the absence of treaty relations between
the United States of America and the Syrian Arab Republic with regard to certain provisions
in Part V will not in any way impair the duty of the latter to fulfil any obligation
embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law independently
of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Objection New Zealand, 14-10-1971
The New Zealand Government objects to the reservation entered by the Government of
Syria to the obligatory conciliation procedures contained in the Annex to the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties and does not accept the entry into force of the
Convention as between New Zealand and Syria.
Objection Canada, 22-10-1971
Canada does not consider itself in treaty relations with the Syrian Arab Republic
in respect of those provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to
which the compulsory conciliation procedures set out in the annex to that Convention
are applicable.
Objection Sweden, 04-02-1975
Article 66 of the Convention contains certain provisions regarding procedures for
judicial settlement, arbitration and conciliation. According to these provisions a
dispute concerning the application or the interpretation of articles 53 or 64, which
deal with the so called jus cogens, may be submitted to the International Court of
Justice. If the dispute concerns the application or the interpretation of any of the
other articles in Part V of the Convention, the conciliation procedure specified in
the Annex to the Convention may be set in motion.
The Swedish Government considers that these provisions regarding the settlement of
disputes are an important part of the Convention and that they cannot be separated
from the substantive rules with which they are connected. Consequently, the Swedish
Government considers it necessary to raise objections to any reservation which is
made by another State and whose aim is to exclude the application, wholly or in part,
of the provisions regarding the settlement of disputes. While not objecting to the
entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and such a State, the Swedish Government
considers that their treaty relations will not include either the procedural provision
in respect of which a reservation has been made or the substantive provisions to which
that procedural provision relates.
For the reasons set out above, the Swedish Government objects to the reservation of
the Syrian Arab Republic, according to which its accession to the Convention shall
not include the Annex, and to the reservation of Tunisia, according to which the dispute
referred to in article 66 (a) requires the consent of all parties thereto in order
to be submitted to the International Court of Justice for a decision. In view of these
reservations, the Swedish Government considers, firstly, that the treaty relations
between Sweden and the Syrian Arab Republic will not include those provisions of Part
V of the Convention to which the conciliation procedure in the Annex applies and,
secondly, that the treaty relations between Sweden and Tunisia will not include articles
53 and 64 of the Convention.
The Swedish Government has also taken note of the declaration of the Syrian Arab Republic,
according to which it interprets the expression "the threat or use of force" as used
in article 52 of the Convention so as to extend also to the employment of economic,
political, military and psychological coercion and to all types of coercion constraining
a State to conclude a treaty against its wishes or its interests. On this point, the
Swedish Government observes that since article 52 refers to threat or use of force
in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the
United Nations, it should be interpreted in the light of the practice which has developed
or will develop on the basis of the Charter.
Objection Japan, 02-07-1981
1. The Government of Japan objects to any reservation intended to exclude the application,
wholly or in part, of the provisions of article 66 and the Annex concerning the obligatory
procedures for settlement of disputes and does not consider Japan to be in treaty
relations with any State which has formulated or will formulate such reservation,
in respect of those provisions of Part V of the Convention regarding which the application
of the obligatory procedures mentioned above are to be excluded as a result of the
said reservation. Accordingly, the treaty relations between Japan and the Syrian Arab
Republic will not include those provisions of Part V of the Convention to which the
conciliation procedure in the Annex applies and the treaty relations between Japan
and Tunisia will not include articles 53 and 64 of the Convention.
2. The Government of Japan does not accept the interpretation of article 52 put forward
by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, since that interpretation does not
correctly reflect the conclusions reached at the Conference of Vienna on the subject
of coercion.
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 09-04-1985
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that the provisions regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66 of the Convention, are an important
part of the Convention and that they cannot be separated from the substantive rules
with which they are connected. Consequently, the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers
it necessary to object to any reservation which is made by another State and whose
aim is to exclude the application, wholly or in part, of the provisions regarding
the settlement of disputes. While not objecting to the entry into force of the Convention
between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State, the Kingdom of the Netherlands
considers that their treaty relations will not include the provisions of Part V of
the Convention with regard to which the application of the procedures regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66, wholly or in part is excluded.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the absence of treaty relations between
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State with regard to all or certain provisions
of Part V will not in any way impair the duty of the latter to fulfil any obligation
embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law independently
of the Convention.
For the reasons set out above, the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation
of the Syrian Arab Republic, according to which its accession to the Convention shall
not include the Annex, and to the reservation of Tunisia, according to which the submission
to the International Court of Justice of a dispute referred to in Article 66 (a) requires
the consent of all parties there to. Accordingly, the treaty relations between the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Syrian Arab Republic will not include the provisions
to which the conciliation procedure in the Annex applies and the treaty relations
between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Tunisia will not include Article 53 and
64 of the Convention.
Tanzania
Tunisia
Ukraine
- Ratification: 14-05-1986 (A)
- Entry into force: 13-06-1986
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
14-05-1986
Ukraine does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 66 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties and declares that, in order for any dispute among
the Contracting Parties concerning the application or the interpretation of articles
53 or 64 to be submitted to the International Court of Justice for a decision or for
any dispute concerning the application or interpretation of any other articles in
Part V of the Convention to be submitted for consideration by the Conciliation Commission,
the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each separate case, and
that the conciliators constituting the Conciliation Commission may only be persons
appointed by the parties to the dispute by common consent.
Ukraine will consider that it is not obligated by the provisions of article 20, paragraph
3 or of article 45 (b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, since they
are contrary to established international practice.
Ukraine declares that it reserves the right to take any measures to safeguard its
interests in the event of the non-observance by other States of the provisions of
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
objection to reservation
Objection Germany, 21-07-1987
The Federal Republic of Germany rejects the reservations made by Tunisia, the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic and the German Democratic Republic and with regard to article
66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as incompatible with the object
and purpose of the said Convention. In this connection it wishes to point out that,
as stressed on numerous other occasions, the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany considers articles 53 and 64 to be inextricably linked to article 66 (a).
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 25-09-1987
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that the provisions regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66 of the Convention, are an important
part of the Convention and that they cannot be separated from the substantive rules
with which they are connected. Consequently, the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers
it necessary to object to any reservation which is made by another State and whose
aim is to exclude the application, wholly or in part, of the provisions regarding
the settlement of disputes. While not objecting to the entry into force of the Convention
between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State, the Kingdom of the Netherlands
considers that their treaty relations will not include the provisions of Part V of
the Convention with regard to which the application of the procedures regarding the
settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66, wholly or in part is excluded.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the absence of treaty relations between
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State with regard to all or certain provisions
of Part V will not in any way impair the duty of the latter to fulfil any obligation
embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law independently
of the Convention.
For the reasons set out above, the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation
of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Accordingly, the treaty relations between
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic will not
include Article 53 and 64 of the Convention.
United Kingdom
- Signature: 20-04-1970
- Ratification: 25-06-1971 (R)
- Entry into force: 27-01-1980
- Reservations / Declarations: Yes
- Objections: Yes
-
reservation
20-04-1970
In signing the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Government of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland declare their understanding that nothing
in article 66 of the Convention is intended to oust the jurisdiction of the International
Court of Justice where such jurisdiction exists under any provisions in force binding
the parties with regard to the settlement of disputes. In particular, and in relation
to States parties to the Vienna Convention which accept as compulsory the jurisdiction
of the International Court of Justice, the Government of the United Kingdom declare
that they will not regard the provisions of sub-paragraph (b) of article 66 of the
Vienna Convention as providing `some other method of peaceful settlement' within the
meaning of sub-paragraph (i) (a) of the Declaration of the Government of the United
Kingdom accepting as compulsory the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
which was deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the 1st of
January 1969.
The Government of the United Kingdom, while reserving their position for the time
being with regard to other declarations and reservations made by various States on
signing the Convention, consider it necessary to state that the United Kingdom does
not accept that Guatemala has any rights or any valid claim in respect of the territory
of British Honduras.
objection to reservation
Objection Guatemala, 24-02-1998
Guatemala maintains a territorial dispute over the illegal occupation of part of its
territory by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
succeeded by the Government of Belize, and Guatemala therefore continues to assert
a valid claim based on international law which must be settled by restoring to it
the territory which historically and legally belongs to it.
reservation
25-06-1971
It is [the United Kingdom's] understanding that nothing in Article 66 of the Convention
is intended to oust the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice where such
jurisdiction exists under any provisions in force binding the parties with regard
to the settlement of disputes. In particular, and in relation to States parties to
the Vienna Convention which accept as compulsory the jurisdiction of the International
Court, the United Kingdom will not regard the provisions of sub-paragraph (b) of Article
66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as providing 'some other method
of peaceful settlement' within the meaning of sub-paragraph (i) (a) of the Declaration
of the Government of the United Kingdom which was deposited with the Secretary-General
of the United Nations on the 1st of January 1969.
Vietnam
|
Print
Download XML