Print
Download XMLConvention on the reduction of statelessness
Parties with reservations, declarations and objections
| Party | Reservations / Declarations | Objections |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | Yes | No |
| Austria | Yes | No |
| Belgium | Yes | No |
| Brazil | Yes | No |
| Colombia | Yes | No |
| France | Yes | No |
| Georgia | Yes | No |
| Germany | Yes | No |
| Ireland | Yes | No |
| Jamaica | Yes | No |
| Lithuania | Yes | No |
| New Zealand | Yes | No |
| Niger | Yes | No |
| Philippines | Yes | Yes |
| Spain | Yes | No |
| Togo | Yes | Yes |
| Tunisia | Yes | Yes |
| United Kingdom | Yes | No |
Argentina
13-11-2014
On the occasion of its accession to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness,
adopted in New York on 30 August 1961, the Republic of Argentina objects and rejects
the attempt to extend the territorial application of this instrument to the Malvinas
Islands made by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon ratification.
The Argentine Government recalls that the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia Islands
and SouthSandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas are an integral part
of the Argentine national territory and, being illegally occupied by the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, arethe subject of a sovereignty dispute between
the two countries which is recognized by several international organizations.
In this connection, the General Assembly of the United Nations has adopted resolutions
2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25,
in which the sovereignty dispute referred to as the "Question of the Malvinas Islands"
is recognized and the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are urged to resume negotiations in order to
find as soon as possible a peaceful and lasting solution to the dispute.
Concurrently, the Special Committee on Decolonization of the United Nations has repeatedly
affirmed this view, most recently in its resolution adopted on 26 June 2014. Also,
the General Assembly of the Organization of American States adopted, on 5 June 2014,
a new pronouncement, in similar terms, on the question.
The Argentine Government reaffirms its legitimate sovereign rights over the Malvinas
Islands, South Georgia Islands and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime
areas, as well as over the Argentine Antarctic Sector.
Austria
22-09-1972
Declarations concerning article 8, paragraph 3 (a), (i) and (ii):
Austria declares to retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if such
person enters, on his own free will, the military service of a foreign State.
Austria declares to retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if such
person being in the service of a foreign State, conducts himself in a manner seriously
prejudicial to the interests or to the prestige of the Republic of Austria.
Belgium
01-07-2014
- Declaration concerning article 2 of the Convention:
The Belgian Government declares that, for Belgium, the category of "foundlings" concerns
found children who are believed to be newborn.
- Declaration concerning article 8, paragraph 3 of the Convention:
Belgium reserves the right to deprive of his nationality a person who did not acquire
it by virtue of a Belgian individual on the day of his birth, or who was not granted
it under the Belgian Nationality Code, in the cases currently provided for under Belgian
legislation, namely:
1. If the person acquired Belgian nationality through fraudulent conduct, provision
of false information, forgery and/or the use of false or falsified documents, identity
fraud or fraudulent acquisition of the right of residency;
2. If he seriously violates his duties as a Belgian citizen;
3. If he has been sentenced as perpetrator, co-perpetrator or accomplice, to a nonsuspended
prison sentence of at least five years for one of the following offences:
- Attacks or plots against the King, the Royal Family or the Government;
- Crimes or misdemeanours against the external security of the State;
- Crimes or misdemeanours against the internal security of the State;
- Serious violations of international humanitarian law;
- Terrorist offences;
- Threat of attack against persons or property, and false information regarding serious
attacks;
- Theft or extortion of nuclear materials;
- Offences relating to the physical protection of nuclear materials;
- Human trafficking;
- People smuggling;
4. If he has been sentenced as perpetrator, co-perpetrator or accomplice, to a nonsuspended
prison sentence of at least five years for an offence that was manifestly facilitated
by the possession of Belgian nationality, provided that the offence was committed
within five years of the acquisition of Belgian nationality.
Brazil
10-12-2009
In reference to the instrument of accession relating to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, concluded in New York on 30 August 1961, the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil declares that, in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph "a", item "ii" of the Convention, the Federative Republic of Brazil retains the right to deprive a person of his nationality when he conducts himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the Brazilian State.
18-12-2009
The National Congress of Brazil approved the text of the Convention on the Reduction
of Statelessness by means of Legislative Decree n. 274, of 4 October 2007. In accordance
with Legislative Decree n. 274/2007, the text of the Convention is approved expressly
with the restriction allowed for in article 8 (3) (a) (ii) of the Convention, so that
the Federative Republic of Brazil retains the right to deprive a person of his nationality
when he conducts himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests
of the Brazilian State."
[In this regard, it is noted that the instrument of accession to the Convention deposited
by Brazil with the Secretary-General on 25 October 2007 did not specify the above
restriction, in accordance with article 8 (3) of the Convention.
As no objections were made by other Contracting Parties the above restriction was
accepted for deposit on 29-12-2010.]
Colombia
15-08-2014
In accordance with the provisions of article 17 (1) of the Convention, the Republic
of Colombia makes a reservation to article 14 to the effect that it does not recognize
the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with regard to the disputes
that may arise between Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application
of the Convention.
France
31-05-1962
At the time of signature of this Convention, the Government of the French Republic
declares that it reserves the right to exercise the power available to it under article
8 (3) on the terms laid down in that paragraph, when it deposits the instrument of
ratification of the Convention.
The Government of the French Republic also declares, in accordance with article 17
of the Convention, that it makes a reservation in respect of article 11, and that
article 11 will not apply so far as the French Republic is concerned.
The Government of the French Republic further declares, with respect to article 14
of the Convention, that in accordance with article 17 it accepts the jurisdiction
of the Court only in relation to States Parties to this Convention which shall also
have accepted its jurisdiction subject to the same reservations; it also declares
that article 14 will not apply when there exists between the French Republic and another
party to this Convention an earlier treaty providing another method for the settlement
of disputes between the two States.
The Convention will apply to the Overseas Departments and the Overseas Territories
of the French Republic.
Georgia
01-07-2014
[...] Georgia formally confirms the accession to the Convention and in accordance
with paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Convention declares:
- Georgia retains the right to deprive the person of his nationality, that results
in a loss of nationality (citizenship), as provided by the Organic Law of Georgia
on the Citizenship of Georgia;
- The entry into force of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 30
August 1961 for Georgia cannot be construed as recognition of citizenship granted
by the Russian Federation in violation of international law and Georgian legislation
to the population residing in the Georgian regions - Abkhazia and Tshkhinvali Region.
Germany
31-08-1977
The Federal Republic of Germany will apply the said Convention:
(a) in respect of elimination of statelessness, to persons who are stateless under
the terms of article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless
Persons of 28 September 1954;
(b) in respect of prevention of statelessness and retention of nationality, to German
nationals within the meaning of the Basic Law (Constitution) for the Federal Republic
of Germany.
Ireland
18-01-1973
In accordance with paragraph 3 of article 8 of the Convention Ireland retains the right to deprive a naturalised Irish citizen of his citizenship pursuant to section 19 (1) (b) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, on grounds specified in the aforesaid paragraph.
Jamaica
09-01-2013
Upon acceding to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the Government
of Jamaica declares, pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention, that it retains the
right under its laws to deprive a person of his or her nationality in the circumstances
outlined in Paragraph 3 of that Article in the Convention.
Lithuania
22-07-2013
[...] In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Convention, [...] the Republic
of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania retains the right to deprive
a person of his nationality on the grounds of the deprivation of nationality of the
Republic of Lithuania, as provided for in paragraphs 4 and 6 of Article 24 of the
Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Citizenship.
New Zealand
20-09-2006
[New Zealand] declares that in accordance with paragraph 3 of article 8 of the Convention
New Zealand retains the right to deprive a person of his New Zealand citizenship on
the following grounds, being grounds existing in New Zealand law at the present time:
the person has, while a New Zealand citizen and while of or over the age of 18 years
and of full capacity,
(a) Acquired the nationality or citizenship of another country by any voluntary and
formal act, and acted in a manner that is contrary to the interests of New Zealand;
or
(b) Voluntarily exercised any of the privileges or performed any of the duties of
another nationality or citizenship possessed by him in a manner that is contrary to
the interests of New Zealand.
Niger
17-06-1985
With reservations in respect of articles 11, 14 and 15.
Philippines
24-03-2022
(a) The Republic of the Philippines maintains the grounds for the acquisition, loss
and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship as provided under Article IV of the 1987
Philippine Constitution and relevant domestic laws;
(b) As to Article 2 of the 1961 Convention, the Republic of the Philippines declares
that a foundling found in the Philippines, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
is presumed born to a Filipino parent, and therefore, a Filipino citizen;
(c) In accordance with paragraph 3, Article 8 of the 1961 Convention, the Republic
of the Philippines retains the grounds for losing Philippine citizenship as provided
for under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63 (s.1936), entitled “An Act Providing
for the Ways in Which Philippine Citizenship May be Lost or Reacquired,” subject,
however, to the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the “Citizenship Retention
and Re-acquisition Act of 2003” and R.A. No. 8171, and other prevailing domestic laws;
and
(d) While Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Convention provides that ‘[t]he provisions
of Article 2 shall apply only to foundlings found in the territory of a Contracting
State after the entry into force of the 1961 Convention for that State,’ the Republic
of the Philippines may apply Article 2 retroactively should it be more beneficial
and conducive to the well-being of the foundling.
Objection Germany, 22-03-2023
Upon accession to the Convention of August 30, 1961 on the Reduction of Statelessness
(hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”) on March 24th 2022, the Republic of
the Philippines among others declared,
(a) that the Republic of the Philippines maintains the grounds for the acquisition,
loss and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship as provided under Art. IV of the
1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant domestic laws;
(b) [...]
(c) that in accordance with Article 8 para. 3 of the Convention the Republic of the
Philippines retains the grounds for losing Philippine citizenship as provided for
under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63, subject, however, to the provisions of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 and R.A. No. 8171, and other prevailing domestic laws.
(d) [...]
In the view of the Federal Republic of Germany, the declaration under (a) is a general
constitutional reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention
and thus an inadmissible reservation under Art. 17 para. 2 of the Convention.
Moreover, the declaration under (c) does not meet the requirements of Article 8 para.
3 of the Convention. Art. 8 para. 3 grants a Contracting State the right to deprive
a person of his or her nationality even though this renders him or her stateless,
if ‘it specifies its retention of such right on one or more of the following grounds.’
The declaration of the Republic of the Philippines, however, merely contains a general
reference to Philippine laws that are not comprehensively named. The declaration thus
does not provide the necessary specification and clarity necessary under the exceptional
nature of the provision.
The Federal Republic of Germany objects both to the reservation of the Republic of
the Philippines under (a) and to the declaration under (c).
This objection shall not prevent the entry into force of the Agreement between the
Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of the Philippines.
Spain
25-09-2018
Declaration pursuant to article 8
Under article 8 (3) (a), the Government of Spain declares that it reserves the right
to deprive a person of Spanish nationality when he enters voluntarily the service
of the armed forces, or holds political office, in a foreign State against the express
prohibition of the Government.
Declaration on the local nature of the authorities of Gibraltar
Considering the scope of the application of the present Convention, Spain wishes to
formulate the following declaration:
1. Gibraltar is a Non-Self-Governing Territory for whose international relations the
Government of the United Kingdom is responsible and which is subject to a process
of decolonization in accordance with the relevant decisions and resolutions of the
General Assembly.
2. The authorities of Gibraltar are local in character, and exercise competences exclusively
over domestic affairs that originate in and are based on the powers allocated to and
conferred on them by the United Kingdom, in accordance with its domestic legislation
and in its capacity as the sovereign State upon which depends the said Non-Self-Governing
Territory.
3. Consequently, any involvement by the Gibraltarian authorities in the implementation
of this Treaty shall be understood to take place exclusively within the framework
of the domestic jurisdiction of Gibraltar and shall not be considered to affect in
any way the content of the two preceding paragraphs.
4. The procedure envisaged in the Arrangements relating to Gibraltar authorities in
the context of Mixed Agreements (2007), which was agreed by Spain and the United Kingdom
on 19 December 2007 and notified to the Secretary-General of the Council of the European
Union, applies to this Convention.
Togo
14-07-2021
... in accordance with the provisions of Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention,
the Togolese Republic retains the right to deprive a person of the Togolese nationality,
in application of Togolese legislation relating to Togolese nationality, in particular
for the following reasons:
- if the person who has acquired Togolese nationality engages in activities prejudicial
to the interests of Togo;
- if the person who has acquired Togolese nationality has been sentenced, for an act
qualified as a crime under Togolese law, to more than five years of imprisonment without
parole.
Objection Germany, 04-01-2022
[...]
While the Federal Republic of Germany acknowledges that activities directed against
the interests of the Togolese Republic, as referred to in the first indent of the
reservation by Togolese Republic, may be compatible with Article 8(3 (a)(ii) of the
Convention, it holds that the reservation to Article 8(3) of the Convention formulated
in the second indent is not a permissible ground for deprivation of nationality under
the exceptions allowed in the Convention. Therefore, the reservation by the Togolese
Republic is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, which is to
reduce statelessness.
The Federal Republic of Germany objects to the second indent of the reservation by
the Togolese Republic. This objection does not affect the entry into force of the
Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Togolese Republic.
[...]
Objection Finland, 17-06-2022
The Government of Finland was pleased to learn that the Togolese Republic has become
party to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. However, the Government
of Finland has carefully examined the declaration to the Convention made by the Togolese
Republic upon accession and is of the view that it raises certain concerns.
The Government of Finland is of the view that the second indent of the declaration
made by the Togolese Republic seeks to limit the obligation of the Togolese Republic
not to deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him or
her stateless to an extent not covered by the exceptions of Article 8, paragraph 3,
of the Convention. The declaration therefore amounts to a reservation, which restricts
one of the essential obligations under the Convention and is as such contrary to the
object and purpose of the Convention and is accordingly not permitted under Article
19, subparagraph (c), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservation contained in the second
indent of the declaration made by the Togolese Republic. This objection does not preclude
the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Finland and the Togolese
Republic. The Convention will thus continue to operate between the two States without
the Togolese Republic benefiting from the said reservation.
Objection Sweden, 06-07-2022
The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration to the Convention on the Reduction
of Statelessness made by the Togolese Republic, by which the Togolese Republic expresses
that ‘... in accordance with the provisions of Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention,
the Togolese Republic retains the right to deprive a person of the Togolese nationality,
in application of Togolese legislation relating to Togolese nationality, in particular
for the following reasons:
- if the person who has acquired Togolese nationality engages in activities prejudicial
to the interests of Togo;
- if the person who has acquired Togolese nationality has been sentenced, for an act
qualified as a crime under Togolese law, to more than five years of imprisonment without
parole.’
The Government of Sweden is of the view that the second indent of the declaration
seeks to limit the duty of the Togolese Republic not to deprive a person of its nationality
if such deprivation would render him or her stateless to an extent which is not covered
by the exceptions of Article 8 paragraph 3 of the Convention. The declaration therefore
amounts to a reservation which restricts one of the essential obligations of the Convention
and is as such contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made
by the Togolese Republic. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of
the Convention between Sweden and the Togolese Republic. The Convention enters into
force in its entirety between the two States, without the Togolese Republic benefitting
from its reservation.
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 12-07-2022
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration made
by the Togolese Republic upon its accession to the Convention on the reduction of
statelessness on 14 July 2021. Since the declaration limits the legal effect of Article
8 of the Convention, the declaration is considered to be a reservation.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands acknowledges that activities prejudicial
to the interests of the Togolese Republic, as referred to in the first indent of the
reservation of the Togolese Republic, may be a ground for deprivation of nationality
under the Convention. However, the ground for deprivation of nationality as set out
in the second indent of the reservation of the Togolese Republic is not permissible
under the Convention.
The second indent of the reservation would extend the exceptional grounds on which
a person can be deprived of nationality leading to statelessness, thus restricting
one of the essential obligations of the Convention in a way contrary to its object
and purpose. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers this to be
a reservation that is not permitted.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the second indent
of the reservation made by the Togolese Republic.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Togolese Republic.
Objection Belgium, 13-07-2022
The Kingdom of Belgium has carefully examined the declaration made by the Togolese
Republic upon its accession on 14 July 2021 to the Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness, done at New York on 30 August 1961 (hereinafter “the Convention”),
in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 3.
The Kingdom of Belgium considers that the fact of having been sentenced, for an act
qualified as a crime under Togolese law, to more than five years of imprisonment without
parole does not constitute a permissible ground for deprivation of nationality under
the exceptions provided for by Article 8 of the Convention. Consequently, the Kingdom
of Belgium considers that the second indent of the declaration made by the Togolese
Republic constitutes a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.
It recalls that under the terms of Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties, a State may not formulate a reservation incompatible with the object
and purpose of a treaty.
Consequently, the Kingdom of Belgium objects to the second indent of the declaration
made by the Togolese Republic to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of Belgium and the Togolese Republic.
Tunisia
12-05-2000
[The Government of Tunisia] declares that it does not consider itself bound by the
provisions of article 11 concerning the establishment of a body responsible for assisting
in the presentation of claims to obtain nationality to the appropriate authorities,
or of article 14, which provides for the competence of the International Court of
Justice to rule on disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.
The Republic of Tunisia declares that, in accordance with article 8, paragraph 3,
of the [Convention], it retains the right to deprive a person of Tunisian nationality
in the following circumstances as provided for in its existing national law:
1. If he occupies a post in the public service of a foreign State or in foreign armed
forces and retains it for more than one month after being enjoined by the Government
of Tunisia to leave the post, unless it is found that it was impossible for him to
do so.
2. If he is convicted of an act held to be a crime or an offence against the external
or internal security of the State.
3. If he engages, for the benefit of a foreign State, in acts which are incompatible
with his status as a Tunisian national and which are prejudicial to Tunisia's interests.
4. If he is convicted in Tunisia or abroad for an act held to be a crime under Tunisian
law and carrying a sentence of at least five years' imprisonment.
5. If he is convicted of evading his obligations under the law regarding recruitment
into the armed forces.
6. If it is discovered, subsequent to issuance of the naturalization certificate,
that the person concerned did not fulfil the conditions required by law allowing him
to be naturalized.
7. If the alien has made a false declaration, employed fraudulent means or knowingly
submitted a document containing a false or incorrect statement for the purpose of
obtaining naturalization.
Objection Germany, 15-05-2001
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the declaration to
the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness made by the Government of the Republic
of Tunisia upon its accession to the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany holds the view that such a declaration seeks to limit the duty of a state
not to deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless
in an extent which is not covered by the exceptions of Article 8 paragraph 3 of the
Convention. The declaration therefore restricts one of the essential duties of the
Convention in a way contrary to the essence of the Convention. It is hence incompatible
with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the declaration
made by the Government of the Republic of Tunisia in respect of Article 8 of the Convention
on the Reduction of Statelessness.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Tunisia.
Objection Norway, 23-05-2001
The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservation and declaration
made by the Republic of Tunisia upon accession to the Convention on the Reduction
of Statelessness.
The Convention prohibits the deprivation of nationality if it will render the person
in question stateless. This prohibition is subject to certain limitations. It is the
position of the Government of Norway that paragraph 3 and 4 of the Tunisian declaration
are not justified under the Convention. The said paragraphs of the declaration are
contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, as they aim at limiting the
obligations that States undertake when acceding to it, the core obligation being to
reduce statelessness.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention
between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Tunisia. The Convention thus becomes
operative between Norway and Tunisia without Tunisia benefiting from the said declaration.
Objection Sweden, 23-05-2001
The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration to the Convention on the Reduction
of Statelessness made by the Government of the Republic of Tunisia upon its accession
to the Convention. The Government of Sweden is of the view that this declaration seeks
to limit the duty of Tunisia not to deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation
would render him stateless in an extent which is not covered by the exceptions of
Article 8 paragraph 3 of the Convention. The declaration therefore restricts one of
the essential duties of the Convention and raises serious doubts as to the commitment
of the republic of Tunisia to the object and purpose of the 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. Furthermore, according to the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, and well-established customary international
law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the declaration made by the Government
of the Republic of Tunisia in respect of Article 8 of the Convention on the Reduction
of Statelessness.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Republic of Tunisia and Sweden.
Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 06-06-2001
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the above mentioned
declaration. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands understands the declaration
of Tunisia, in particular with regard to the grounds mentioned in Nos. 4 and 6 of
the declaration, in respect of article 8 to extend the grounds on which a person can
be deprived of Tunisian nationality.
The declaration therefore restricts one of the essential obligations of the Convention
in a way contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid
declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Tunisia.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Tunisia.
Objection Finland, 07-08-2008
The Government of Finland has examined the declaration made by the Government of the
Republic of Tunisia to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The Government
of Finland holds the view that such a declaration seeks to limit the duty of the Republic
of Tunisia not to deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render
him or her stateless to an extent not covered by the exceptions of Article 8 paragraph
3 of the Convention. The declaration therefore amounts to a reservation which restricts
one of the essential duties of the Convention in a way contrary to the object and
purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the declaration made by the Government
of the Republic of Tunisia in respect of Article 8 of the Convention on the Reduction
of Statelessness.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the
Republic of Tunisia and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between
the two States without the Republic of Tunisia benefiting from the said declaration.
Objection Spain, 25-09-2018
The Government of Spain has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Tunisia upon its accession to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The Government of Spain considers that such declaration intends to limit the obligation of a State not to deprive a person of his nationality if such deprivation entails a situation of statelessness in cases not covered by the exceptions of article 8 (3) of the Convention. The declaration therefore restricts one of the essential obligations of the Convention in a way contrary to its essence. It is thus incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Tunisia.
United Kingdom
29-03-1966
[The Government of the United Kingdom declares that], in accordance with paragraph
3 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph
1 of Article 8, the United Kingdom retains the right to deprive a naturalised person
of his nationality on the following grounds, being grounds existing in United Kingdom
law at the present time: that, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to Her Britannic
Majesty, the person
(i) Has, in disregard of an express prohibition of Her Britannic Majesty, rendered
or continued to render services to, or received or continued to receive emoluments
from, another State, or
(ii) Has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests
of Her Britannic Majesty.