International Health Regulations (2005)

PartiesTooltipParties with a link have a reservation.

Extensions

China

China

15-06-2007

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

India

08-08-2007

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

Türkiye

14-12-2006

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

01-03-2007

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

18-05-2007

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

United States of America

17-01-2007

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